Mini 703 - A Roccisi Autumn - Over

[Rage]

Vote: Rage

. Rage is a dangerous emotion.

So is

lock

ing the

ma

ximum of

cavit

ies!

OMGUS Vote: MacavityLock

Also, this:

Good evening, boys and girls, how are we all today? Glad to see we all survived the night.

Coupled with:

As we started with a night phase, did anybody get any useful information last night?

= Scum

At least, that's what I think of it.

FoS: Brain of Wombat

vote MassClaim

T'ain't no man named Massclaim here.

[Rage]

So is locking the maximum of cavities!

I forgot to mention that that isn't an emotion, but this is a good excuse for OMGUSing!

[Rage]

Woah! Let's all calm down a second. That's exactly the kind of bandwagoning I was talking about.

Cute. Tell me, how did you not foretell this type of reaction?

What exacly was my crime there, Rage? I've never seen a game starton a night phase before and I was afraid the scum might pick off a townie before we even got started. I was glad to see that didn't happen, that's all.

Whenever I see a player point out something that either

shouldn't

have happened during the night (something bad) or something obvious, like something to the effect of "Oh dang, our doctor died!", I assume they are scum. It's a pretty easy assumption to make because why would any townie take it upon their self to point out the obvious to the rest of the town, which includes the scum that killed said doctor? At this point of the game, there is no pro-town reason for asking for a cop claim, let alone asking not to lynch anyone, too. And based on the 'bandwagon' that has formed on you, I'm sure many others see it this way, too.

Right now, you sound a lot like one of those ambiguous-alignment roles listed in one of the first posts by the mod. What I'm trying to say is, you sound like a scum version of one of those roles acting Too Townie.

I'm just saying that, lacking any information, we should hold off on lynching anyone today, there's too much chance of us helping out the scum by lynching an innocent townie.

That's assuming we lynch townie today, which you propose we shouldn't do, which, by the way, is genuine scumtalk. Anyways, without lynching anybody, you also propose outing investigative town power roles. Huh. Well, how can we possibly go wrong with that course of action?

Also, I agree with darkdude.

Unvote: MacavityLock
Real Vote: Brain of Wombat

I want a role claim.

[Rage]

I say it ever more earnestly now, because if this wagon keeps on rolling you actually will lynch a townie.

How do you expect us to believe you are town if townies usually are the only ones who know who they are?

And, the fact that you say this, taken out of context:

I'm saying we should be careful not to lynch town

Means to me that you are trying to say you know who town is but don't want to give away that you do.. but I don't think any scum is dumb enough to say that, which leaves me confused. If, in fact, you do not want to lynch a townie, why aren't you providing who you think is most likely to be scum?

[Rage]

If the random voting stage is indeed over, which I firmly believe it is, then why can't I push for a role claim? Votes should no longer be useless pressure, and I am the only one pointing out what I am trying to achieve with my vote. I really don't think that warrants four quick votes on me, but I'll defend your accusations nonetheless.

Right now, you sound a lot like one of those ambiguous-alignment roles listed in one of the first posts by the mod. What I'm trying to say is, you sound like a scum version of one of those roles acting Too Townie.

What? You think you have a read on his role rather than alignment?

Yes. I don't see a strong enough reason to make me thing otherwise about why he is trying to:
a) get a cop/investigative role to claim
b) ask for a No Lynch

Asking for one, I can see proper reason for, but for both? You're outing power roles on Day 1 and not giving the chance for a scum to be lynched, albeit the

possible

information gained from an investigative role claim may lead to a scum death, but you must realize that since Town knows of the aforementioned claimed role, so does scum. And I don't think it would be a good idea to speculate about what happened on Night 0.

I want a role claim.

I don't want one. Not yet.

That's up to you to decide, but that's what my vote is there for.

Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: 23
Rage wrote:
Brain of Wombat wrote:
I say it ever more earnestly now, because if this wagon keeps on rolling you actually will lynch a townie.
How do you expect us to believe you are town if townies usually are the only ones who know who they are?

And, the fact that you say this, taken out of context:
Brain of Wombat wrote:
I'm saying we should be careful not to lynch town
Means to me that you are trying to say you know who town is but don't want to give away that you do.. but I don't think any scum is dumb enough to say that, which leaves me confused. If, in fact, you do not want to lynch a townie, why aren't you providing who you think is most likely to be scum?

When he's just stating the obvious, it is not necessary to attack him quote for quote...

And you admit to taking his words out of context?

Unvote: Brain of Wombat
Vote: Rage

Why would you focus on me taking the words out of context? You yourself read them, and I was reminding viewers of what happened. This amounts up to a very weak reason for a vote.

And... I'm back with an unvote, vote: Rage. You did take Wombat way out of context, and pretty unfairly. And you asked for a role claim on page 1.

Fair enough, but you don't say why you think anything I've done is wrong here. Also, you might want to explain what's unfair about it, or I will be calling you out on weak reasoning.

Wombat seems earnest in his newbness.

How?

Rage, however, acted very aggressively opportunistic.

Again, how?

I may venture as far as stating that his call for a roleclaim was a bigger fish than Wombat's call for massclaim.

1) You're giving Wombat wiggle room by handing him the Newbie Card
2) Your venture is opinion, so there's nothing I can effectively rebuttal here

I don't like BoW's first post at all. Reeks really scummy, especially for the parts that Rage already highlighted. Second post isn't much better either, as he's basically suggesting a No lynch, which is always a bad idea on day one. However, all of these "mistakes" are pretty common for newbies, so I'm not that convinced that BoW is scum. Might be, but I wouldn't take that chance at this point.

Like I asked Korts, how do know BoW is a newbie?

Rage, on the other hand, demanded BoW to role claim on page one and has been very aggressive towards him since... well, the beginning. Not a very warm way to welcome a new player. Rage is either a townie who believes that BoW is scum and is trying to push BoW as much as he can to see if BoW cracks under pressure - or a scum that sees BoW as an easy target to be lynched quickly.

It being on page one should have no effect on what was said. At some point in the game we go back and review random votes, and they are on page one. Problem?

I don't see how it matters if I asked for a role claim

on page one

. Doesn't it matter that I have asked for one in the first place? You are also emphasizing how much I want a role claim, when, in fact, I do not "demand" anything. As I've said before, I mentioned why I was voting for him. That's more reason than we got from darkdude's "end the random voting stage" reason or

I think people are focusing too much on rage's assertion that he took BoW's words "out of context", which is admittedly a bad choice of phrase, but isn't necessarily what he did. A better description of what he did would be "focusing on this particular sentence from his post" or something.

The sole purpose of me stating that I took his words out of context was for people to realize that I was focusing on a certain phrase he wrote. The fact that I used the words "out of context" was to assert that, yes, I was indeed taking it out of context. I realized what I was doing by saying so, which is what the phrase "out of context" usually amounts to.

I would like to hear from Brain of Wombat about this before I try to "correct my ways". If he/she has no problem with what I've done I see no reason why I should explain further, unless anyone would like to actually explain themselves why they think me taking something out of context on purpose is scummy, instead of just bandwagonning with darkdude who said just that.

[Rage]

Huh. I didn't notice he joined 8 days ago. Still, he should be accountable for his actions, and I think we actually have a better read on him now than if he were "experienced" and have the potential to fool us, but who's to say he isn't doing that now?

Macavity, what do you have against role-fishing so early in the day? Also, why are you so forgiving to Brain of Wombat's role-fishing (asking for a cop claim), yet so quick to switch to me?

[Rage]

One more thing, MacavityLock. According to Tarballs, he has brought me to L-3 on page two. How is that much different?

Oh, he only had 3? Well then, Vote: Rage. That's L-3, so were not in the danger zone just yet.

[Rage]

Macavity, what do you have against role-fishing so early in the day? Also, why are you so forgiving to Brain of Wombat's role-fishing (asking for a cop claim), yet so quick to switch to me?

I think Wombat's first post is certainly something to keep in mind, but it definitely felt like more of a newbie move (who's got info for us so that we can be lazy today?).

Well, you may see it as a newbie move, but I've never seen that play before. So as far as I know, I'm reacting properly.

Role-fishing early is bad because it gives scum better targets.

Let's think this through. Brain of Wombat asks cops to claim, on day one, as his first post of the game. I then put my vote on him and ask him to claim instead.

Also, I don't think the number of votes should matter yet, since it's only day one and we're just beginning to discuss. I think that right now, they represent who stands for what, and that's why I addressed everyone who has a vote on me in my post after theirs.

You've been here longer than I have, do I really need to tell you that?

True, I have been here longer, but does that mean I should be looked at harder than Brain of Wombat? Hell, in a finished game, I was scum and outed my partner when he started bussing me. That doesn't sound like a smart thing to do for a player who's been here longer, does it? By the way, I'm moving on from that.

One more thing, MacavityLock. According to Tarballs, he has brought me to L-3 on page two. How is that much different?

He didn't ask for a claim from you on his L-3 vote.

Aye, he didn't. I should clear this up early.

@

Darkdude

,

MacavityLock

,

Tarballs

,

Korts

, do you have a purpose for your votes? If so, what is it? If not, please say so.

[Rage]

So I see no relation between his behaviour and his specific role.

I'm not talking about any roles just yet, but I am trying to relate his behavior to a section of the roles given. Others call him a "newb" so I'm assuming that I'm on the right track because the signs would be easier to spot, but I can't make any assumptions about his specific role like a cop, doctor, tracker, etc.

What is also interesting about your attack on Wombat is that you did not even acknowledge this WIFOM element; simply jumping to the conclusion that it cannot be newbiness and must be scum.

I didn't know he was new to the site, and even then that still doesn't necessarily make him a newb.

So your sentence which basically says "why are you asking me what I mean when I was talking about someone else" is very odd.

No, what I meant was "why are you voting for me with your only reason given as taking something out of context?" but you've answered that since.

1. You are misusing the term "out of context"

This is more likely than the second option.

I, too, find it odd that Tarballs would exaggerate about how many votes are on me, withhold his vote, and then put me closer to this "danger zone" in his very next post. I am awaiting his response.

[Rage]

Hey! Where's

tubby216

,

Puta Puta

and

gorckat

?

[Rage]

I am trying to relate his behavior to a section of the roles given

Please explain how it is possible to do this. As aforementioned, it seems to me his behaviour could be attributed to any type of role, vanilla or power. And even if you could, I see no reason to put this above alignment in priority, because you don't need to figure out what the scum's powers are to lynch the scum himself.

I agree with you for the most part, but I think it would be important to know a scum's role before we're forced to lynch them. It gives us time to decide how much of a threat they are and what other scum roles could exist in this game, because I'm doubting they're random.

This is more likely than the second option.

Uh, so which one is it?

I think I'm misusing the phrase "out of context".

[Rage]

Wombat seems earnest in his newbness.

How?

Massclaim may be considered a valid strategy for beginners. I've seen RL mafia played so, although it usually ends up being a game of "follow the cop". Considering his join date, it's more than reasonable to assume that Wombat doesn't know the MS meta.

I play RL every day with darkdude, and, yes, we generally end up massclaiming when we know it's lynch or lose. However, usually anyone who asks for massclaim "too early" gets a heck of a lot of suspicion on them and then ends up being the lynch for the day. I'm not saying Brain of Wombat should be today's lynch, I'm saying I'm suspicious of him because it's behavior that I've seen scum try to pull. Along with the inclusion of roles that have an ambiguous alignment, I think Wombat's behavior, as I mentioned earlier, matches what I presume a scum's version of one of them to be. I want to hear from him to be certain of his intentions, instead of other players jetting in to say that he's just a newb and not to take his actions seriously, as though they want to defend him merely to put suspicion on me. Which is precisely what you are doing.

Now, what I mean by him being a newb not being too much of a factor about his actions so far is that would it not be easier to tell if he's a newbie scum than a newbie townie if he's asking for things a townie shouldn't be, first thing in the game? You can blame it on newbiness and say that he might have heard it done somewhere before and, thus, tried it out here, but how can you be so sure about this if 1) he hasn't said a word about it himself, and 2) He's town, and therefore has less of a chance of players sticking up for him (and if he's a mason setting up someone for starting a case on him, there's the possibility of a scum Neighbour).

In short, I'm saying we can't take anything anyone says to heart unless it can be backed up by logical proof, like darkdude's suggestion of No Lynch to make the numbers better for town.

1) You're giving Wombat wiggle room by handing him the Newbie Card

Considering meta outside MS, it's justified.

I understand. I have a meta with darkdude outside of MS, too, but he's not a newb.

2) Your venture is opinion, so there's nothing I can effectively rebuttal here

Let me put it this way. Your request of a claim was way bigger a rolefish than Wombat's proposal of massclaim.

Yup, I understood what your view on these events were, but now that you've said that, how is asking one player to claim scummier than asking investigative roles or for a mass claim?

Macavity, what do you have against role-fishing so early in the day?

What? Let me ask you, do you think it is actually pro-town to be rolefishing?

In this stage of the game, I think we have the best opportunity to see how much players' are opposed, or for, fishing for a roleclaim, and for whom. Right now I can see that darkdude, yourself (Korts) and Tarballs are opposed. I don't get a good read on who exactly is not opposed, but I'm sure that the people who haven't voted for me fill those spots up pretty nicely.

@Darkdude, MacavityLock, Tarballs, Korts, do you have a purpose for your votes? If so, what is it? If not, please say so.

Definitely have a purpose for it. I think you are, after so much discussion, the most likely to be scum.

Well, if asking for one role claim trumps asking cops to role claim, then so be it.

BTW, IGMEOY on everyone who jumped on Rage solely for using a quote from Wombat "out of context", since it was obvious he was misusing the phrase. I will look it up later to see who exactly those people are.

I think I will have something to say about this quote when Korts answers my "you think this is scummier than this" question above. For now, though, it seems like you're setting yourself up for a good attack on one of the player's voting for me if I flip Town, but I don't think anything for certain just yet.

[Rage]

Don't expect too much from me today, I'm very busy!

@Korts, I'll respond when I have time.

[Rage]

First, I'm sick, so I have to keep this short. I'm going to clear my stand on Brain of Wombat up.

Yup, I understood what your view on these events were, but now that you've said that, how is asking one player to claim scummier than asking investigative roles or for a mass claim?

In theory, massclaim is worse. In context, though, considering my point about BoW's possible meta knowledge, and your fairly well-established presence on-site, your action was scummier, because you were trying to force a player to claim with virtually no discussion having happened up until that point.

In context, I asked him to role claim because he asked others to role claim, others which a regular townie could not know exist. He claims regular townie yet he asked investigative roles to claim if they learned anything. This means one of two things.

1) He's a newb and doesn't know the consequences of what he is asking for
2) He's scum trying to out power roles early in the game

I pressured him because not only was it asked in his first post of the game, but because it was asked. I didn't account for how new he was to the site because I've never seen that ploy done before, by anyone, ever, and even then, if he's new, why would he want to attract so much attention to himself? However, now I understand that option-the-first is more likely because he backed down even when others started to stand up for him, but the problem I see with this is that he should still be accountable for his actions. Therefore, I want him to speak up for himself, and not Korts.


Also,

BTW, IGMEOY on everyone who jumped on Rage solely for using a quote from Wombat "out of context", since it was obvious he was misusing the phrase. I will look it up later to see who exactly those people are.

I think I will have something to say about this quote when Korts answers my "you think this is scummier than this" question above. For now, though, it seems like you're setting yourself up for a good attack on one of the player's voting for me if I flip Town, but I don't think anything for certain just yet.

Okay, I've answered. Now you answer, how is that not justification for attacking those who voted you solely for that BS reason?

It's entirely justified to me. It just seemed to me that you were setting yourself for attacking whoever was attacking me if I was to be lynched and turn up a certain way. In my position (first most likely candidate to be lynched when this was said) I have to look out for things like this, where I think I see players hinting at what they're going to do if they successfully contribute to my lynch. I point them out now, and then people are less likely to be lead by the players on my lynch afterwards.

@

Anyone

, is there anything else you'd like me to respond to?

[Rage]

I definitely think it is suspicious that Rage attacked a newbie and then later backtracked saying he didn't know Wombat was new.

It's what I attacked him for, not that he may be a newb.

I don't specifically attack new players to see how they might react and then build cases off of it. Even in this situation, I thought I saw Brain of Wombat make a scummy slip and I called him out on it.

[Rage]

In my opinion, I'd prefer Tarball's lynch than Puta Puta's. It doesn't make any sense to me why anyone would want to breadcrumb as a killer if they were scum, quite the opposite I'd think, and Puta Puta is likely to get targeted during the night anyways if he lives today. I mean, that's just WIFOM at this point, but if Town thinks he's scummy, either way (pro or anti-town) he's not much of a threat today. It also gives any potential investigators purpose during the night, but let's not talk too much about that touchy subject, eh?

Now, I'm not saying I believe the "oh, that? That was meant for another game!" excuse he's got going on right now, but I don't think there's enough evidence for me to believe he's scum and I think there's more enough reason to believe Tarballs is instead.

Unvote

Vote: Tarballs

[Rage]

How do you know what's going on in this game?

[Rage]

Oooh.

Now, I'm not saying I believe the "oh, that? That was meant for another game!" excuse he's got going on right now, but I don't think there's enough evidence for me to believe he's scum

If he did lie then it is likely he is scum... why would town do this and then lie about it?

Real question to me or are you expressing dissatisfaction?

Why ThAdmiral? I'd have to say you

(Puta Puta)

should address his comment that your hints all lead to killers.

Seconded.

You know, there is a write up in the Wiki called "Lynch a Liar." I can't find fault in it's logic.

I don't get your reference. How is he lying, and about what?

[Rage]

Oooh.

Now, I'm not saying I believe the "oh, that? That was meant for another game!" excuse he's got going on right now, but I don't think there's enough evidence for me to believe he's scum

If he did lie then it is likely he is scum... why would town do this and then lie about it?

If he's lying, he's got an incredibly weak and bad defense, and if he's town he's playing stupidly. I was trying to say that he might have thought he was getting away with quoting Shakespeare until he was called out on it, and even though he was continuing not to be much help, I'm not 100% positive that he's scum. More like 70%-80% sure.

Now, that doesn't mean I won't put my vote on him if Town reaches (or mostly) a consensus, that just means I won't vote on him right now.

To be honest, I'm not sure who is suspicious to me anymore, because everyone that I thought was scum seems to have some sort of an excuse.

[Rage]

Uh, I think we learn much more if he gets replaced.

[Rage]

@Puta Puta, I assume you mean the numbers of the posts on this page?

[Rage]

Ugh. You are correct.

Anyways, at this point we are still just guessing about Puta's role and we still don't know for sure. We can assume all we want, but that doesn't make anything correct.

[Rage]

Awww man, we lost a gun inventer, that sucks. That could have come in useful later.

Still got no clue how we were supposed to guess Puta was a cop, been over every word and it still doesn't make sense.

Speaking of which, do we have any other investigators who could have found stuff last night?

Did you learn nothing from yesterday, or are you still trying to out investigative roles?

So, why are you:

1) Eager to know what investigative roles have discovered
2) Eager to know who the investigative roles are
3) Pointing out how sucky it is that a Gun Inventor died
4) Mentioning a dead player and how it seems impossible/confusing to have discovered his role before lynching him

I've said how suspicious I think #1 and #2 are, #3 is classic scum behavior after a successful/scum-benefiting kill and #4 is pretty okay if you're a townie.

Anyways, here's a non-rhetorical question for you. Why was Puta Puta lynched and not you? I think scum has to have started Puta's wagon, deflecting from you, and I'm going to reread for proofs. I'd still like to hear your answer, though.

I'm also going to do a reread of all of Puta's posts to see if he left any hints/clues as to who he investigated and it's result.

[Rage]

i still claim VI

Sorry, what's this?

The quick vote from Tubby216 is pretty suspicious looking, since he (or she?) did say that was going to read through the thread, and then this vote comes up.

@

Tubby216

, what's the status on your reread?

So we could have two 1 shot guns out there, or scum got blocked and the n0 one got used.

Methinks speculation about who or what did the night-kill is futile right now, seeing as how we have an unaccounted scum night-kill, which could either be explained by a scum player receiving the Gun from MacavityLock and thus choosing not to night kill or a roleblock/doctor protection.

[Rage]

Wait, so Puta would get No Results rather than anything of substance to go on? And whoever he chooses would get his investigation?

I don't get how you could "forget" what the investigation was in any game whatsoever. Sure, the message could be deleted, but what happens when he writes it down as soon as he sees the message.. or would there have to be an element of trust between him and the mod? Let alone the unsolvable problem of how to convince his brain's hippocampus (memory center) to 'forget' the investigation he saw?

[Rage]

Vote: Brain of Wombat

Start talking.

[Rage]

Vote: Brain of Wombat

Start talking.

Jeez, can nobody take a joke around here?

Vote: Rage

It's scummy the way you want to take every opportunity to wagon a valuable townie like me.

Oh, how peculiar. You have failed to mention the players before me who were more than happy to put their votes on you when I, on the other hand, asked you to explain yourself. In fact, you've only mentioned me! Aren't there like 8 other players in this game? Perhaps you are intentionally leaving Korts and chuckrock out of the question while you tried to put considerably weak pressure on me with this vote, and provide illogical reasoning.

In short, your vote is weak and it looks like you're just trying to divert attention away from your scummy mistake by saying as little as you can, and to the wrong person. My intention from as soon as I read what you posted in #244 was to understand what you were trying to say, albeit rather harshly. However, that's how you get someone to say what they really have to say and not to make stuff up. It isn't a confirmed theory, but I've found that it works.

Also, please note that as soon as I voted for you to start speaking, you did and you put your vote on me. Way to go.

So, anyways, other than singling me out from the two players who commited the action of which you spoke of, which is being eager to vote for.. Oh, wait, here we go! You say you're a valuable townie, eh? Well, so am I! Care to prove me wrong?

At this point, I'd like to add to my list of questions for you.

1. Why is asking a few questions to someone and then pestering the player for a response with a vote more suspicious than players hoping on the "bandwagon"?
   
2. How am I eager to take advantage of a bandwagon on you?
   
3. How do you expect everyone else to react after you have brought up a point from yesterday that you KNOW was a mistake? I mean, you've even said it was a mistake by using it as the reason why you slunk into a lower post activity!
   
4. Why didn't you mention this was a joke when you first made your post? How do you expect everyone to laugh it off and completely understand what you were doing, when on our end we see a player who asked for investigative roles to claim, got massively rejected, and then asked for it once again, the very next day? Did you honestly think you could get away with repeating what you took so much flak for yesterday?
   
5. Regarding your "valuable townie" claim, what do you think the Town could possibly lose by lynching you?
   
6. Define "valuable townie", please. Feel free to ask why, I won't find you suspicious for something as silly as that.

Moving on, I hope someone has noticed this already, but I "tested the waters" by voting for you, Brain of Wombat, so abruptly. That's not the same as being eager to take advantage of opportunities to get you lynched, that's me bugging you to defend yourself, which you still haven't done.

@

Brain of Wombat

, Please address the questions I made to you in this post as well as the previous questions in my Post #246, or I will start encouraging your lynch, which, regarding your latest post, you don't seem too fond of.

For reference:

Speaking of which, do we have any other investigators who could have found stuff last night?

Did you learn nothing from yesterday, or are you still trying to out investigative roles?

So, why are you:

1) Eager to know what investigative roles have discovered
2) Eager to know who the investigative roles are
3) Pointing out how sucky it is that a Gun Inventor died
4) Mentioning a dead player and how it seems impossible/confusing to have discovered his role before lynching him

[..]

Anyways, here's a non-rhetorical question for you. Why was Puta Puta lynched and not you? I think scum has to have started Puta's wagon, deflecting from you, and I'm going to reread for proofs. I'd still like to hear your answer, though.

@

Darkdude

and

ThAdmiral

, what do you guys think? I've noticed neither of you have said anything about this and chose to discuss, about not discussing, the "vig kill". 'Sup with that?

Regarding darkdude, you said you would post your thoughts later. Have you had time to gather 'em up?

@

IH

, hello?

[Rage]

I'm sorry, I got this part wrong (Don't worry, Brain of Wombat, this isn't about you):

@

Darkdude

and

ThAdmiral

, what do you guys think? I've noticed neither of you have said anything about this and chose to discuss, about not discussing, the "vig kill". 'Sup with that?

Although Darkdude hasn't said anything about this, ThAdmiral has.

Thus, I rephrase the question into:

@

Darkdude

, what do you think? I've noticed you haven't said much about this and instead chose to discuss, about not discussing, the "vig kill". 'Sup with that?

@

ThAdmiral

, now that there has been more evidence and reasoning added to both sides of Whether or Not to Vote For Brain of Wombat, what is your current position on this issue?

[Rage]

Rage, show me where I voted BoW, or retract that statement.

Oops, Korts didn't vote for Brain of Wombat, only chuckrock did. My mistake. Still, Brain of Wombat didn't mention either of you at all.

note: I'm suspecting that by now any mafia that wants to quicklynch BOW is already on the wagon. I don't have the time to go back and check, but I think BoW's at around four votes. Don't put any more on him for a while.

Okay, I didn't realize that would be an L1. I'm not that confident in my vote.

unvote

I still have an FOS BOW

I don't have enough to make it an L1

@

Korts

, pretty soon after you said you thought that mafia that wanted to quicklynch was already on BOW's wagon, chuckrock took his vote off. What do you think of this?

Also, what did Wombat claim other than "valuable townie"? That isn't a full roleclaim necessarily, and I don't want him to, either, at this point. Rage was trying to delve deeper into BoW's role, and I do not approve.

He claimed Vanilla Townie in post #61 and #80, as shown below:

I don't want to condemn Rage for his reaction, he could have the towns best interests at heart. You were talking about me being scum, or a mason, or a scum neighbour (?) or whatever. Quite simply, I have no interaction or connection with any other players. I'm just an average townie, that's it.

Rage was accusing me of being scum, or a scum neighbour (whatever that is), or a mason or whatever. I was answering that by attempting to reassure him (and the rest of you) that I'm town by declaring myself both town and not a mason. I would consider a mason to be an irregular townie, whereas I'm a regular townie, that's all I meant.

Also, what did Wombat claim other than "valuable townie"? That isn't a full roleclaim necessarily, and I don't want him to, either, at this point. Rage was trying to delve deeper into BoW's role, and I do not approve.

Why don't you approve? I find it kind of strange that Brain of Wombat claims to be a Vanilla/Valuable townie, but I find it even stranger that Korts disapproves of fishing for more information. Brain of Wombat has made scummy slips which I think need to be justified.

Your case is weak next to mine Rage. Vote Darkdude. He is scum. He attempts to blatantly manipulate the conversation to only include the part he finds relevant. Tries to portray the gun inventor discussion as revealing player intentions, yet asks for a breadcrumb from the recipient of the cop investigation.

My case is weak compared to yours, eh?

Against Darkdude

: He's suggested the player that received the amnesiac cop results, and not to pay much attention to the kill (and whoever made it) last night.

Against Brain of Wombat

(hold onto your horses):
- Day 1, first post of the game, he suggests investigative roles to claim and this idea gets shot down
- Day 2, first post of the day, he suggests investigative roles to claim
- Then, Rage, Korts and chuckrock express distaste in this idea. Rage asks Brain of Wombat lots of questions and eventually votes Brain of Wombat to get him to talk
- It works, and Brain of Wombat says it's all a joke and puts his vote on Rage for 'taking advantage of hoping on a bandwagon on a valuable townie'. He does not answer any of the questions Rage presented, unless if you want to call "it's all a joke" an answer
- Rage asks more questions, Brain of Wombat is now silent

Is there anything else anyone would like to add to either case?

Also, I'd like to hear Ectomancer's response to Darkdude's latest post before I get further involved in this case.

@

Mod

, a vote count would be nice!

@

Brain of Wombat

, do you have any real-life reason not to be posting now/soon?

[Rage]

Rage - I've got scummy actions and motivations, you've crawled up newbie butt and have remained wedged there all game. You've got 3 people on the wagon, including yourself, and one of the others cant figure out whether he's supposed to be on the wagon or not.

Yeah, and if we lynch Brain of Wombat and he flips scum, the "undecided factor" is almost guaranteed to be scum with him. You even FoSed him, so you see what I'm seeing too.

My position before I continue is that there's much more to be learned from a Brain of Wombat lynch than a Darkdude lynch.

Anyways,

As for Darkdude:

Yeah, you did. See bolded below.

See bolded below.

It seems like we should have someone here with his Night 0 result, unless it was Macavity. Needless to say, if it is scum, the person should come out immediately.

But what is optimal move if result is town?

I was just about to write "don't say anything unless that player is about to be lynched", but then remembered that this information may get lost if the player dies before saying it... so maybe breadcrumb first, and then reveal it when player number in the game lowers to have a large enough impact?

Clearly the "maybe breadcrumb" part is my thoughts on what may be best. I was looking for what other players thought. I merely suggested that breadcrumbing could be a way to deal with this. You claimed that I ASKED for the person to breadcrumb, which is not the case here.

Right, it's ok to ask about a breadcrumb here, but not ok to talk about the gun inventor?
You are really trying hard to squirm out of this. You said:

But what is optimal move if result is town?

Although I don't see where Darkdude has asked for the player that might have received an investigation result from Puta's investigation, I can understand how someone could make that assumption. However, it's all in the wording. I mean, look:

It seems like we should have someone here with his Night 0 result, unless it was Macavity.

This part makes sense.

Needless to say, if it is scum, the person should come out immediately.

Saying this means we won't get anyone to come forward with the result.

Now here's some meta for you. In another game, when there was an obvious vig kill (I was modding and gave it away) and darkdude was the Vigilante, he asked for the Vigilante to come forward. He was setting himself up for a counter-claim. However, as likely as it may be that he is the player with the investigation result, I doubt it because he said the above statement: "if it is scum, the person should come out immediately". So my point here is, either darkdude is scum and withholding the result, or he's town and doesn't think it's a good idea to reveal the result so soon after Puta has died. I think the latter is more likely.

But what is optimal move if result is town?

This furthers my assumption that he has the result, because this sets himself up for the proper way to say the investigation result. However, this is WIFOM because scum could just as easily do the same.

I was just about to write "don't say anything unless that player is about to be lynched", but then remembered that this information may get lost if the player dies before saying it... so maybe breadcrumb first, and then reveal it when player number in the game lowers to have a large enough impact?

There are a couple meanings for this quote. Let's see if I'm getting this correct so far:

If the Investigation Result was given to Scum or Town and Darkdude is Town:
1) Nobody will claim the information today because Darkdude said that scum would claim it immediately, and nobody has argued this.

If the Investigation Result was given to Scum or Town and Darkdude is Scum:
1) Darkdude appearing pro-town, but may be fairly confident that Puta Puta received a guilty result if none of his scumbuddies have received the result, so he's playing it safe and backing himself up for calling whoever has received the result scum.

@

Ectomancer

, what do you think the chances of Darkdude having the Investigation Result, and if you think he does, what do you think of his alignment based on his play so far?

Now, you dissect his post:

and then go on to tell us what you thought the optimal move was at first:

I was just about to write "don't say anything unless that player is about to be lynched"

By itself, I don't think this is scummy.

followed by the "but....

but then remembered that this information may get lost if the player dies before saying it

tells us why that isn't optimal, and so then gives his idea of what would be optimal:

so maybe breadcrumb first, and then reveal it when player number in the game lowers to have a large enough impact?

We get to our request for breadcrumb, phrased with hope for town's approval.

This doesn't mean he's scum. Like I said before, but rephrased, I think the likliest options are:

1) Darkdude is Town and knows he wants to withhold the investigation result until it can be of some use, so he asks others to claim and see if scum is stupid enough to take advantage of this opportunity, which then he can counter-claim and get the scum lynched.

2) Darkdude is scum and we'll never hear the investigation result, unless Amnesiac Deputies get previous investigation results, and an Amnesiac Deputy exists in the game, or Darkdude will claim it later in the game when there are less players so that it's more likely the player he claims it against will be lynched and it won't be too much of an impact on his faction when he is lynched if he outs a Townie (by saying that the investigation result is Guilty on a Townie, then the Townie flips and Darkdude is lynched because he lied and got the Townie lynched).

So, in short, either he's looking for a non-scummy way to give out the investigation result, or he's trying to trap a Townie/Scum player into revealing the information so he can counter-claim and get them lynched. In the end, it's WIFOM. Therefore, a null tell.

When player numbers lower? Like when the guy who breadcrumbed is dead?

This is just being nonsensical...

A Pshaw argument. As scum you get a guy to breadcrumb that he has information so you can kill him for it! In your request for the breadcrumb, you specifically asked that the player

give

the breadcrumb and then

wait

until we have lower player numbers to reveal it!

I do think that the action of asking for someone (no matter who it is) to breadcrumb in the game thread is scummy. However, I agree with Darkdude that I do not think that he was asking, more like. You changed your argument that instead of asking, he was requesting. Thus, I can see why he thinks you're caught up in Tunnel-Vision. I can't take a guess at your alignment because of it because either you're Tunnel-Visioning-Townie or you are pushing a case that changes however you see fit/scum pushing really hard for a mislynch. However, I may and will think this over as the game progresses, but so far that's what I think.

Coupled with this,

Your case is weak next to mine Rage. Vote Darkdude. He is scum. He attempts to blatantly manipulate the conversation to only include the part he finds relevant. Tries to portray the gun inventor discussion as revealing player intentions, yet asks for a breadcrumb from the recipient of the cop investigation.

Makes it look exactly like a case of tunnel vision.

Really cant refute the case, so tries an ad hominem attack against me, suggesting that I have a personality flaw that causes me to overly fixate on my own case.

Anyone see it any differently?

I think it's quite obvious that Darkdude thinks you have Tunnel-Vision on hiim because you are so hard-pressed at getting him lynched, but to me that adds more to the option that he's town because he isn't actively trying to get you lynched instead. I don't like that you're trying to manipulating me specifically to vote for him, like I could have much of a say what the Town needs to reach a consensus on. Hell, for all I know you'll flip scum and I'll be lynched for this. Me saying that is WIFOM, but I just wanted to throw that option out there.

@

Ectomancer

, do I have a pretty accurate read of what's going on?

@

Mod

, is Brain of Wombat due to be prodded?

[Rage]

Oops. Well, at least everyone knows where I stand. I'll revise my misreading later.

[Rage]

It's a nice read Rage, some parts make sense, others I have serious doubt of. You also left off half of the entire case in your response. It isn't just about his investigation result hunt.

Okay, but that spurred all this discussion. I thought I could find something if I went back to when this all started, but I got it wrong and apparently didn't find much of value.

Moving on, let's state this plain and clear. I think discussion about the possibility of a vig was useless and is now useless, and I agree with darkdude that it was plausible that someone was setting up a claim. That isn't the case, so I do not understand why there was vig-kill discussion in the first place.

Secondly, I don't see exactly what you guys are seeing in his post. I'm going to through out a theory, though, because I stumbled upon this possible connection. I'm starting to see a Darkdude/Brain of Wombat scumpair:

If they are scum together, the following has occurred:
1) Brain of Wombat makes the mistake of expressing disappointment
2) Darkdude 'covers it up' by saying we shouldn't talk about the Gun Inventor and instead focus on the most pro-town way for the player that received the investigation result from Puta (if it exists) to release it. He suggests something that doesn't make much sense to be suggesting if he isn't going to do it, breadcrumbing and waiting until there are less players to blurt it

all

out.

Without that [an investigation result], you are left with DarkDude being pro-town and no information trying to push conversation in one direction, while stifling it in another direction? I'm not buying that. The pro-town part I mean.

Wait, what? Without an investigation result, I'm left with Darkdude being scum and trying to push conversation in one direction (and in this post I looked for reasons why), while stifling it in another direction (and in this post I looked for reasons why, too). I'm not going to vote for him now because I think there's much more to learn from a Brain of Wombat lynch, at least until everyone sees his response.

My guess (99%) is that there is no investigation result. Puta made no effort to play this game or any other that I know of. You can meta that. So, no, I dont think DarkDude or anyone else has a result to reveal (not a real one anyhow)

I'm 90% sure there is a result. Puta is a bad player in terms of getting his points across and working for town during the day, but he is not inactive. I do not think he would skip his Night 0 action.

I don't understand what anyone's trying to prove here. It's suspicion without evidence. Plus, I don't understand why Puta Puta is even on the site if he isn't going to dedicate himself to a game.

Your theory is that he has the result, so would want to talk about that, but not about the Inventor?

No, my theory is that if he has the result he wants to talk about it in the day as soon as he can and then put it behind him for later. I'm suggesting that the act of asking others to breadcrumb it, if darkdude is the one that as it instead, is setting up his own claim later. This is now not the case, and I don't understand why Darkdude thinks there is an investigation while you don't.

The reasons I see FOR the possibility of the investigation result are he wasn't inactive and darkdude doesn't think he would've skipped his investigation. The reasons AGAINST the possibility of the investigation result are that Puta made no effort to play this game (but we don't know that he immediately had that attitude when he got his role) or other games he's playing/played.

Phew, there's a lot of confusion.

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

Anyways, not to deflect from this really heavy argument, but I just had a look at this one more time, something that nobody's really put forward a case on:

Vote: Brain of Wombat

Start talking.

Jeez, can nobody take a joke around here?

Vote: Rage

It's scummy the way you want to take every opportunity to wagon a valuable townie like me.

still not an explination,,,, leaving my vote where it is

I'm kind of agreeing with you. That's lurking or avoiding. Added with his last fishing for roles post and his history, I've got to move my FOS to a vote.

Vote BOW

note: I'm suspecting that by now any mafia that wants to quicklynch BOW is already on the wagon. I don't have the time to go back and check, but I think BoW's at around four votes. Don't put any more on him for a while.

Okay, I didn't realize that would be an L1. I'm not that confident in my vote.

unvote

I still have an FOS BOW

I don't have enough to make it an L1

Which raises a couple of questions.

1) Why did Korts suspect that scum was already on the wagon? What's he basing this on?
2) Why did Chuckrock so hastily unvote, and with an inaccurate reason? Number 1 is now unimportant for the time being.

Of course, number 2 won't get any answers because it happened so long ago and he might have honestly thought keeping his vote on was putting Brain of Wombat at L-1. But, then again, why didn't Chuckrock talk about anyone else who was on the wagon? He wasn't confident in his vote and was the only one to talk it off, so what does that say about everyone else on the wagon (myself included)?

Then comes this, his next post in the game:

Okay, I didn't realize that would be an L1. I'm not that confident in my vote.

unvote

I still have an FOS BOW

I don't have enough to make it an L1

Scummy unvote after a new wagon begins gaining positive feedback while admitting he wasn't confident in his vote in the first place.

fos ChuckRock

Korts thought that any scum was already on the BoW wagon. That was a pretty weak manner of slipping off of it.

Hey, if you are that prepared to get him lynched, i'll change my vote up again. In fact, I'll throw in the L1 intentionally just to make you happy.

VOTE BOW L1

I had my doubts, but you've thrown the guantlet and I'm forced to make this move to aleve that suspicion. I'll remember it if he comes out town-which, I wasn't totally convinced on-but obviously, I have no choice at this point. You've got the bandwagon started again-remember that one.

This is a really confusing post. From a scum's perspective, he's just come up with a reason he thinks he can stand behind for putting himself back on a wagon he was called out on for leaving. But, he makes no mention of how many votes Brain of Wombat is, now that he's put his vote back on.

From a town's perspective, he's really mad at Ectomancer.

@

Chuckrock

, you agreed with Tubby216 enough so that Brain of Wombat earned your vote. However, you later state that you aren't confident enough in this vote and retract it. My question to you is, what do you truly think of Tubby216's reasoning to vote for Brain of Wombat?

This next post alleviates my thought that he's throwing around his vote. I like that he doesn't add any pressure here to persuade others to join him, so that earns him some townie points.

It isn't L-1, chuckrock. Sorry, but no cigar.

Well, I can't seem to get that kind of stuff. Thanks for the correction. Either way he's got three.

So, let's review.

Chuckrock found himself agreeing with tubby216 because Brain of Wombat did not give a response, made a conclusion that he was lurking or avoiding, and voted for him. That seems like one of the strongest reasons to vote for Brain of Wombat right now, so I don't understand why he took his vote off, but I do think it's worth looking into since only moments before, Korts suspected there was scum on the wagon.

Alas, I STILL want to hear from Brain of Wombat. Or at least an update on his current activity. I don't think we can learn more from anything other than his response to the questions presented to him. And I'm not going to get off his back until he responds!

[Rage]

Argh, this is getting weird! Give me some time to restate my opinions!

[Rage]

@

Mod/TDC

, do you have any idea what's up with Brain of Wombat, or are you planning to prod him soon?

[Rage]

1) This question is aimed at Ectomancer and Korts. Why did you discuss the possibility of a vig-kill if neither of you wanted to set up a claim or out the killer? What did both of you wish to achieve by talking about it?

- I agree with darkdude that discussion of the possible vig-kill makes sense if it leads to something of the Town's interest (possibly a claim or outing the killer, if it made the most sense to believe it was scum) and although the opinions heard are noteworthy, they aren't going to be discussed by everyone, and therefore there isn't an easy way of finding out if the killer (again, if it exists) is scum or town aligned, let alone who it is.

2) I don't think darkdude was asked or requesting for someone to breadcrumb, and I do believe that the act of asking for someone to breadcrumb is anti-town because it defeats the purpose of doing it in the first place. Breadcrumbing, as I understand it, is hinting at something before you plan on releasing it all or "playing all your cards at once". If someone, who has admitted not to have what he is asking someone to breadcrumb,

3)

Darkdude

, how can you be 90% sure that an investigation result exists in the game? How does Ectomancer saying he's 99% sure you are wrong influence your thinking of the possibility of an investigation result?

4)

Ectomancer

, how can you be 99% sure that an investigation result does not exist in the game? How does darkdude saying he's 90% sure you are wrong, in a rebuttal to you saying you are 99% sure, influence your thinking?

- I personally think that it's more plausible if the investigation result doesn't exist, and not just because Ectomancer is 9% more sure than darkdude. I don't believe either of their percentages because it doesn't make much sense to me for either to believe in something so hard without being 100% sure, unless one is hiding something, and the fact that both have come out and said opposing thoughts about this confuses me.

I thought that darkdude might have been hiding the investigation himself for reasons already stated, and this post, right after Ectomancer's 99% post:

My guess (99%) is that there is no investigation result. Puta made no effort to play this game or any other that I know of. You can meta that. So, no, I dont think DarkDude or anyone else has a result to reveal (not a real one anyhow)

I'm 90% sure there is a result. Puta is a bad player in terms of getting his points across and working for town during the day, but he is not inactive. I do not think he would skip his Night 0 action.

However, my theory has been denied by darkdude.

Therefore, I don't see any pro-town reason for bringing up discussion about breadcrumbing, because no matter what the outcome (to do it or to not to) everyone is going to be on the look out for something. And, I think that defeats the purpose of breadcrumbing entirely, and do not approve of breadcrumbing discussion in-game. I find myself agreeing with the following quote.

Also, a couple of other things:

I'm also going to do a reread of all of Puta's posts to see if he left any hints/clues as to who he investigated and it's result.

No use. He was amnesiac cop. Which reminds me...

It seems like we should have someone here with his Night 0 result, unless it was Macavity. Needless to say, if it is scum, the person should come out immediately. But what is optimal move if result is town? I was just about to write "don't say anything unless that player is about to be lynched", but then remembered that this information may get lost if the player dies before saying it... so maybe breadcrumb first, and then reveal it when player number in the game lowers to have a large enough impact?

Unfortunately, there's two problems with this. One, now that you suggested breadcrumbing, it won't work most likely, due to multiple factors (scum breadcrumbing, scum searching for other breadcrumbs etc.). Two, we don't know when the player with the investigation result dies, because their revealed role wouldn't devulge that information. Thus it would be a pretty safe claim for scum to claim the investigation results. I'd treat such a breadcrumb/result with extreme scepticism.

5) Shouldn't we have more than half of the Town's input on the case on darkdude and my case on Brain of Wombat soon?

@

Chuckrock

, I'm waiting for your response to post #313.
@

Tubby216

, has anything changed how strong you think your vote on Brain of Wombat is, and what is your opinion of the case on Darkdude now? You said that Brain of Wombat seems scummier than darkdude, why is that?
@

Lionhart

, are you here?

IH needs to catch up, Brain of Wombat needs to respond and Lionhart is unaccounted for. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if anything perks their interests.

6) @

Korts

I agree with Ecto here on darkdude. darkdude has shown scum motivation in his inquiries, and Rage jumped to his defense with a dissection of the "likeliest" possibilities, and going into a contradiction in his expressed stance on a particular point. In the event of darkdude turning scum, Rage deserves considerable pressure.

First, I deserve pressure either way. If he flips Town I should be pressured for defending him, as you say, and if he flips Scum I should be pressured for 'standing up for him'. I know the risk I took putting my opinion out there, and if anything I should be pressured now before darkdude is lynched to eliminate some bias. That's assuming he will be lynched today and no other information comes up in between.

Secondly, I don't think I've jumped up to darkdude's aid. In the following quote Ectomancer, who started this, expressed that I should switch my vote to his case, which at its roots is an invitation to get involved with the case.

Your case is weak next to mine Rage. Vote Darkdude. He is scum. He attempts to blatantly manipulate the conversation to only include the part he finds relevant. Tries to portray the gun inventor discussion as revealing player intentions, yet asks for a breadcrumb from the recipient of the cop investigation.

Also, defending implies that I'm trying to protect him from being lynched. I am not trying to defend him, I'm trying to sort out the discrepancies I think I see in and against the case. I'm not doing a very good job, but at least I'm willing to let others to correct me.

I have prodded him three posts ago.
I also had a vote count two posts before you requested it.

You really should start reading my posts

I feel so silly. The vote count should've been obvious, and I misread who you were prodding, thinking it was Tarballs.

[Rage]

@

Ectomancer

, for that last part in your post I only quoted you. The text under it was addressed to Korts.

[Rage]

Lionheart has the benefit of the doubt for now.

Does that mean he responded to a prod or something?

He has posted. He doesn't have an avatar so it's easier to skip.

[Rage]

How does one help a lurker?

[Rage]

Post.

I'd like to hear from Sweenytodd. More than one fresh outlook on this game might be of some use.

[Rage]

So your demise isn't eminent.. and you want Ecto lynched tomorrow if Darkdude flips scum. What if he flips town?

[Rage]

The more quickly you answer and the more information you provide,

the less scummy you will appear

, and the less likely you will to be lynched today.

Posting further from the deadline is a towntell?

[Rage]

@Darkdude, when do you plan on roleclaiming?

Unvote: Brain of Wombat/Adel

I'm going to reconsider where my vote should be.

[Rage]

I am watcher.

Night 0 no one targeted ThAdmiral
Night 1 no one targeted Korts

I know you did nothing on Night 0.

Vote: Darkdude

[Rage]

I'm out decorating a tree, so I'll see if I can find some time to post later today. If not, expect one mid-day (EST) tomorrow.

[Rage]

Currently writing my response. It make take a while because I've got a lot to say.

[Rage]

Things might be a little hard to read, so I've separated this post into sections with a little summary at the end.

--------
I think the best possible thing for me to do right now is to claim. I'll answer the questions directed at me below.

I claim Tracker.

Night 0 = Investigated darkdude, received No Result
Night 1 = Investigated Korts, received No Result
Night 2 = Investigated insanepenguin02, received No Result

I chose darkdude on Night 0 because he's the only one I knew in the game (like I've done in other games, it just seems to work out most of the time), I investigated Korts Night 1 because I was mildly suspicious of him at the time and Night 2 I investigated insanepenguin02 because I found his voting-hopping to a hammer on darkdude's lynch to be incredibly suspicious. Especially without any input to back his vote up.

Wait, so Puta would get

No Results

rather than anything of substance to go on? And whoever he chooses would get his investigation?

I don't get how you could "forget" what the investigation was in any game whatsoever. Sure, the message could be deleted, but what happens when he writes it down as soon as he sees the message.. or would there have to be an element of trust between him and the mod? Let alone the unsolvable problem of how to convince his brain's hippocampus (memory center) to 'forget' the investigation he saw?

I hinted at my role in this post (#257). Breadcrumbing the investigation was suggested, so I figured people would be too busy looking closely for that and not realize that I would have no idea what kind of message Puta Puta would get. I have only ever received No Results from my investigations.

And away we go...

I think a fakeclaim gambit to buss a scumbuddy is something they have developed in their daily play. It would take coordination to pull off.

Sigh..

Surely you realize that the only way I can respond to this is by way of reaction, or calling upon a dead player?

Just so you know, we haven't been scum together for weeks.

Besides, haven't I drawn too much attention to myself (the long posts made unsuccessfully trying to understand the case against darkdude) for your assumption to be valid, or for me to even appear the slightest bit pro-town now because of it? I ask you, what could I achieve by purposely misunderstanding the case against him, giving him ample opportunity to claim something he just doesn't have, and then claiming against his roleclaim?

You think you've discovered something that just isn't there, I mean, if this is indeed our daily play, wouldn't we have sorted all the flaws you guys are seeing in the "plan"? I'm not saying we would've already won the game by now, nor that it would be perfect, but these flaws are just way too obvious to be scum slips from people working together.

I think that how we didn't immediately accept darkdude's claim definitely placed more pressure on darkdude's scum buddies... and a rash move (or a planned move deployed prematurely) also seems pretty likely to me since scum generally think that their buddies seem more scummy to the rest of the town then their buddies actually are.

... what? You didn't say a word after darkdude claimed, and even if you wanted to I shouldn't be the one at blame. Insanepenguin02 came out of nowhere, not soon after taking his vote off of darkdude immediately after he claimed, and put his vote right back on only accompanied by a "Whatever...". How is my counter-claim of evidence more suspicious than the act of denying you your voice about darkdude's claim?

One other thing. Why do you say "we didn't immediately accept darkdude's claim" even though you hadn't said a word? Sounds too much like trying to fit in with Town to me.
----------

@

Kison

,

Rage, would you mind explaining in a bit more detail why you were so sure of your meta on darkdude that you were willing to assume with seemingly meager evidence that he was crumbing having received the amnesiac cop result?

At that point, I wasn't sure what to believe. My case was waiting on Brain of Wombat to answer my hard-pushed questions and, yes, I even became Tunnel-Visioned on it, and I couldn't see more than opinion-quarreling on the darkdude case which I do not like to back up with anything strong ("strong" being the evidence like what contributed to my vote on him late Day 2), so I pulled out some meta that I had with him in a game between friends, where I thought anyone would have been most comfortable and show truer intentions about their actions. I know for sure that I haven't played enough online mafia with him to notice any subtleties well enough, and I probably won't soon, but I do think I have a good understanding of what he likes to do to set things up for himself and that's why I was under the impression that he was trying to set up his own claim of information. I was wrong. I didn't have anything strong to say about that case, since my "strong evidence" didn't mean one thing or another point, so I thought I'd input something that might actually influence what darkdude would say in regards to something not based on whether his wording meant one thing or another. He claimed not to have what I thought he did and I found myself confused, so I backed off and reconsidered my options. Upon his eventual claim, it was apparent that he was scum and I didn't need to say any more.

I can understand why people are suspicious of me for not divulging much information late yesterday, but to assume that darkdude and I had planned something all along is stupid. There may be things that someone may think mean a certain thing, but they're only going to be found if that's precisely what you're looking for.

Also, why, if you believed this to be the case, did you decide to broadcast this to everyone? I don't recall him being in immediate lynch danger at that point(though granted he had a few people pushing for him).

I noticed that he had the most active members of the game on him, and although I'd really like to think that the more inactive players of any game would make good, thoughtful contributions to the game when they find the time to post, that isn't the case more often than not. I figured since the case was starting to build up that it wouldn't be long until it would be too late to input any one thing that could influence how strong exactly the case was, so in my long posts I focused on, as Ectomancer puts it, one half of what the case was about.

------

@

Ectomancer

, either you misread or took this out of context, but either way you're wrong:

You think it goes like:

Your case is weak next to mine Rage. Vote Darkdude. He is scum. He attempts to blatantly manipulate the conversation to only include the part he finds relevant. Tries to portray the gun inventor discussion as revealing player intentions, yet asks for a breadcrumb from the recipient of the cop investigation.

Also, defending implies that I'm trying to protect him from being lynched. I am not trying to defend him, I'm trying to sort out the discrepancies I think I see in and against the case. I'm not doing a very good job, but at least I'm willing to let others to correct me.

But, in actuality, it was written like (in post #328):

I don't think I've jumped to darkdude's aid. In the following quote Ectomancer, who started this, expressed that I should switch my vote to his case, which at its roots is an invitation to get involved with the case.

Your case is weak next to mine Rage. Vote Darkdude. He is scum. He attempts to blatantly manipulate the conversation to only include the part he finds relevant. Tries to portray the gun inventor discussion as revealing player intentions, yet asks for a breadcrumb from the recipient of the cop investigation.

Also, defending implies that I'm trying to protect him from being lynched. I am not trying to defend him, I'm trying to sort out the discrepancies I think I see in and against thecase. I'm not doing a very good job, but at least I'm willing to let others to correct me.

I have said this before.

@

Ectomancer

, for that last part in your post I only quoted you. The text under it was addressed to Korts.

Anyways,

*Speculation - Rage got frustrated with Darkdude for claiming watcher instead of just the recipient of an investigation result. Finally decided to cut him loose with a bus, especially after I was unshaken by the claim and Adel led off with more questioning. In light of the revealed roles (2 town power roles, 1 goon), I would not be surprised to know that Rage really is a Tracker.

What are you trying to say here? That I'm scum because darkdude didn't do what I wanted him to do, but I'm town because of the revealed roles?

Also, I like that you assume here that I'm a Tracker before I say so myself.

Regarding your 3 parts to the case on me:

1st part, show me where any discussion was repressed by me and how it's similar to what darkdude was lynched for, please. I think that it's obvious that since I asked about specifically two possibilities it's a stretch for you to assume now that I tried to repress discussion.

2nd part, that was one half of what I addressed to you and darkdude when that was posted. In essence, I asked darkdude the same thing. Refer to my post #328 on page 14. How am I inviting darkdude to claim?

3rd part should be non-existant due to what I've posted above. I don't get how both Ectomancer and Adel read it the same way, but what can I do?
------

Speculation about what has occurred:

Scum decides or is unable to kill the guy who hints at his role and has outed one of their members, and decides to get him lynched tomorrow. Why has this only come up suddenly then? Surely something must have been noticed or at least hinted at by the creators of this case when it was actually going on?

This theory is that scum has now decided to mislynch one of the last possible town power roles.
------

And now I'd like to call Ectomancer and darkdude scum together, and hear Korts' (and others, but especially you because you expressed a gut feeling about this) thoughts about this.

Throughout the argument between Ectomancer and darkdude early in the darkdude case, I've noticed many manipulations of what the other has actually said. The ones that stand out the most are:

1) Ectomancer believing that darkdude had asked/requested for the breadcrumb
2) Ectomancer's thought that darkdude had much more affect on manipulating discussion, and being certain that he's scum throughout the case. For example, posts 291 and the beginning of 297, accompanied with 303 and 304, contradict each other. It's a matter of who-sees-what-in-what, which adds up to opinion about what someone writes and is not justifiable for a lynch.

In the next couple of posts, Ectomancer does not address the request again, albeit for a stronger part of the case. Oh, and then I make tons of mistakes trying to dissect darkdude's original post.

Secondly, not all points are addressed from post to post, and they happen to be some of the strongest against or for the case. Such as,

1) Ectomancer's read/misread that darkdude was requesting for the breadcrumber to breadcrumb
2) Darkdude not giving a straight answer about why he wished to discuss the Cop rather than the Gun Inventor
3) Darkdude's post #449 sums this up well with:

WHY [ecto = tunnelvisioned town]?

I've explained it before. What he considers to be scummy posts from me are all perfectly normal plays by me, and I have explained this well, I think. I cannot comprehend why he is still on me if not for tunnelvision.

So, in short, my reasoning to think that Ectomancer and darkdude are scum together is that there was too much manipulation of what was said that supported the darkdude case, and evasion of points that could lean Town too much over the edge resulting in either's lynch.

------
Either that, or ThAdmiral is scum with darkdude because he quickly found his spot on the darkdude bandwagon when it was forming, and upon darkdude's questioning he simply said he found the case to be the strongest he had seen. He unvoted later after finding the argument on darkdude unappealing. After darkdude's claim, he ends up asking if he can be the hammer vote without any input about his thoughts on darkdude's claim. I'm keeping my eye on this.

------

So, I'm still deciding who at this point would be the safest lynch today, but, to sum things up:

1) I think insanepenguin02 could be scum with anyone, but I haven't heard enough from him to think any which way
2) I think Adel or Ectomancer are the likeliest scumbuddies of darkdude, and find it peculiar how Ectomancer took to Adel's case on me almost instantaneously.
3) I think ThAdmiral needs to contribute more.

[Rage]

Oo, I left off some things I wanted to say about Adel's play, so I'll post that soon.

[Rage]

Focusing on the build-up to darkdude's demise, Adel has just interrogated darkdude to her heart's content, and I have asked Adel if she wishes to reconsider because it seemed to me that Adel did not share the same light that Ectomancer did (Adel wasn't sure that darkdude was scum).

Now, didn't someone mention that scum had reservations about lynching one of their own? So what about the possibility of an Adel-Darkdude pairing? Adel ended the day with: saying she wasn't sure about darkdude's lynch and thinking it wasn't the best lynched, said in post #462/463, but pressuring him to claim and contributing to his lynch before and after those posts.

The reservation I have against lynching darkdude is partially because he is one of the more active players (bothering to post is pro-town, and a game without posting is pretty much a scum auto-win) and his activity level in this game is about the same has activity level in the one other game he is currently playing. If this game had more active players I would be more willing to lynch him.

.

This was said at around the same time that Adel begaon pressuring Tubby. Korts has just inputed some discussion about why darkdude would be a better lynch. Adel's post following the one above flips her current suspicion of Tubby around, in fact, she ignores him altogether and adds pressure for darkdude to claim. And I'm not sure what precisely happened next, but not everyone got the chance to respond to darkdude's claim, so there's not much to be learned from the end result of this.

Finally, I'd like to add, and I'm pretty sure that everyone agrees with me, that it's really hard for someone to control their timing in an online mafia, let alone track who specifically has what opinion at what time someone does something. I'm talking about darkdude's claim here. I had made no post in between his claim and my soft one, and I didn't even deal with what others had said (nobody had), so I think accusing me of conforming to the Town with my softclaim is ridiculous.

[Rage]

I think that how we didn't immediately accept darkdude's claim definitely placed more pressure on darkdude's scum buddies... and a rash move (or a planned move deployed prematurely) also seems pretty likely to me since scum generally think that their buddies seem more scummy to the rest of the town then their buddies actually are.

... what?

You didn't say a word after darkdude claimed, and even if you wanted to I shouldn't be the one at blame.

Insanepenguin02 came out of nowhere, not soon after taking his vote off of darkdude immediately after he claimed, and put his vote right back on only accompanied by a "Whatever...". How is my counter-claim of evidence more suspicious than the act of denying you your voice about darkdude's claim?

One other thing. Why do you say "we didn't immediately accept darkdude's claim" even though you hadn't said a word? Sounds too much like trying to fit in with Town to me.

did you really not review the end of the day before hammering off this long post? ... or are you just trying to fast talk us?

vote:Rage

In context, your first quote is about trying to make sense of why I, as scum, might have wanted darkdude lynched.

Anyways, I don't understand. Could you direct me to where you speak of darkdude's claim before Day 1 ends? Could you also explain why you are voting for me?

Currently writing my response. It make take a while because I've got a lot to say.

it took you almost 4 hours to type out your post at 520, but only 15 min (at most) to type out your post at 522?

Nope, I just accidentally left that portion out and then realized I left it out because I had to revise it.

1) I think insanepenguin02 could be scum with anyone, but I haven't heard enough from him to think any which way

why do you think insanepenguin02 could be scum?

I should have worded that better. What I meant to say was that I think he could be scum with anyone now that darkdude has been lynched, meaning I think he's part of darkdude's scumgroup. This is because of his vote-hopping that resulted in the hammer vote for darkdude's lynch.

Either that, or ThAdmiral is scum with darkdude because he quickly found his spot on the darkdude bandwagon when it was forming, and upon darkdude's questioning he simply said he found the case to be the strongest he had seen. He unvoted later after finding the argument on darkdude unappealing.

After darkdude's claim

, he ends up asking if he can be the hammer vote without any input about his thoughts on darkdude's claim. I'm keeping my eye on this.

he asked that following darkdude's claim of "scum" not "watcher".

Indeed, I did miss that. However, he didn't input much for or against darkdude's claim, or speak up much other than 'my guess is he won't be back' and had to ask others if he should hammer.

And, yes, I do make very long posts similar to the latest one.

Mini 630 - I played really crappy, and replaced back in and played even crappier. I lost the game for the Town by hammering another townie in LyLo.

Mini 665 - nobody really knows what role anyone else is except the absent mod. The game's over, so I can say that I was truly a Doctor.

Mini 634 - The Scribe was actually a really powerful role, depending on how powerful you wanted it to be, and the only reason why Town lost was because Mafia had a vote-stealing role, and ended up controlling the majority of votes with one player less than majority. There were a lot of surprises in this game, because each player had some sort of knowledge that could sometimes send someone to the gallows.

Mini 602 - I don't really have anything to say about this game except it was probably one of the smoothest games I've played on the site. Except for the being NKed part.

I'm not proud of Mini 632.

I replaced out of Mini 664 - AoaDA and Mini 640 because I didn't have time for them and was already in too many games at the time. I didn't realize how much I had signed up for.

And, finally, you have Mini 640 listed twice.

So, in conclusion, the closest Town win I've participated in is Mini 634, and we were only stopped because of a vote-stealer. Great record, eh?

[Rage]

You know what? I'm not going to spend another 3 or 4 hours trying to come up with more of a defense. It's just better if I'm lynched. And, no, this isn't where anyone should take pity on me and take their vote off, this is me saying "just do it already". I owe it to the game to be lynched, and I've played horribly.

Top Suspects:
- Adel
- Korts
- insanepenguin02
- ThAdmiral

[Rage]

Fine. I'll come up with something.

[Rage]

Ugh, I'm getting really busy so expect something by tomorrow.

[Rage]

I'm supposed to be in many places in the next couple of days so I've got lots of preparation to do, but I want to let you all know that there is a post coming. Should I post what I have so far? I've nearly completed everything I want to say, and if I do post what I have it would be very nice to inform me of what I've missed or something else anyone wants me to respond to.

[Rage]

Don't expect much activity from me tomorrow (25th) or the day after (26th). I'm out for both of those days.

[Rage]

I'm still trying to find time to work on my response, but I think I should answer this.

questions for everyone:
Which wagons were offered as alternatives to the darkdude wagon on day 2?

The only one that I think really stood out was a wagon on Brain of Wombat at the beginning of Day 1 because he made the mistake of wanting to out investigative roles again.

Who advocated those wagons?

I began the initial questioning (Post #246), Korts (Post #247), Tubby (Post #248) and Gorckat (Post#) expressed interest in the case (Tubby voted, Korts and myself did not, and Gorckat put down an FoS) and Brain of Wombat just plainly did not answer. I continued to press when the others backed off, and then later I got involved with the darkdude case.

However, something that bothered me was something Brain of Wombat did soon after I voted him to start talking (Post #269). He voted me in retaliation two posts, and 26 hours, later (in Post #271) for ridiculous reasons. I didn't like that much.

[Rage]

Mine came first?

[Rage]

In no particular order:

I haven't done much of a reread yet. i replaced into multiple games near the same time because i usually have sympathy for games needing replacements since i hate games i play in when people bail and no one is willing to replace. but now i have finally caught up in the others, so this one is next. but can someone explain to me why we are all voting a claimed tracker?

Some people think that the scum we lynched and I had a plan all along, so they disbelieve my claim. But that started even before I claimed. Others have taken to the case quickly, so it's built up.

Day 1 I wasn't even in the game.

Ugh, I keep thinking today is D2, not D3. I meant Day 2 in this quote:

In context, your first quote is about trying to make sense of why I, as scum, might have wanted darkdude lynched.

Anyways, I don't understand. Could you direct me to where you speak of darkdude's claim before Day

1

2

ends?

what do y'all think of these?

2.

My bad, forgot to respond to Rage.

In the case of Rage vs Wombat, I definitely think it is suspicious that Rage attacked a newbie and then later backtracked saying he didn't know Wombat was new. Learning to find people's joining dates isn't hard - it's right under the avatar, and it's one of the first metas I started using when I started playing here. Lots of other players do it too, so I doubt you have not heard of this before.

Even with this though, I think from what I know of Rage's meta, he is likely to be town. Rage does not pursue his cases so aggressively when he is scum, but does this all the time as town.

Want some meta to back what's bolded up? I can show you three games on darkdude's website in which I have aggressively pushed cases on people. I was a Vanilla Townie in Ultimate Mafia 1, a Vigilante in Mini Themed Mafia 1, and a Mafia Goon in Ultimate Mafia 3.

I'm pointing all three of these games out for two reasons:
1) To back up that I make large posts sometimes
2) To back up the fact that, when Town, I push cases aggressively

At darkdude's site I go by Aidsterramma. Linkies:
Ultimate Mafia 1 (hosted by Darkdude, I was recruited into a Mason Group and ended up claiming as the Recruiter in order for scum to kill me instead of risking the Recruiter's death, but for that day's lynch I managed to out a scum)
Ultimate Mafia 3 (hosted by a friend of ours, I was a very aggressive Vigilante who got caught up in Tunnel-Visioning two pro-town power roles)
Mini Themed Mafia 1 (in which I was scum and fake-claimed Doc to win in LyLo)

Right after he claimed "watcher" I questioned his claim, without unvoting, and right after he had scored a point by pointing out Ecto's lack of attention to detail (which is totally woth noting).

Rightio, I missed that. My bad.

I don't remember you pressuring me; can you point to the posts where you expressed this suspicion Day 1?

I didn't pressure you, but I did find your avid defense against rolefishing suspicious. I kept it to myself so that if I did discover you as doing-something-you-shouldn't-have-been-doing that night I could have come out with it, but I didn't, and I also realized that the only rolefishing that was being done was on Brain of Wombat, so it wouldn't have been a strong case.

I don't have any specific posts expressing my suspicion of you on Day 1, but overall I felt that your posts were more aggressive on different topics, like they meant more to you. Take, for instance, your stand against role-fishing. You made it known at many instances (albeit, different people most of the time) that you were against any hint towards role-fishing, and at one point Brain of Wombat had already claimed when you stood up against it.

I don't understand your logic. Simply because of the fact that you misinterpreted the case on him, basically passively defending him in a harsh interpretation, you say you couldn't later have decided that you should bus him?

I've saying the odds are against me having done so. It'd be blatantly obvious, and if we indeed had a plan all along it would give it all away. Other than it being totally wrong, that's why I'm against the thought of a plan even existing.

It's not necessarily something that you had to plan particularly for this game, considering your RL experience with each other. This may have been a plan to fall back on if circumstances demand it; with you or darkdude giving some kind of signal in-thread to start this, it's fairly plausible that this is a gambit with you being his scumbuddy.

Is the possibility of us having planned out a claim is more likely if a mafia group knows each other? I would think it makes more sense for a mafia group to accuse someone who had ties to one of their dead members to force a mislynch in their favour. Of course, I'm on the receiving end, so you can't take me saying this seriously until my alignment/role is proven.

So, the question is, why force a mislynch? Because of a failed night-kill attempt, of which is not necessarily on me? Perhaps I'm not the one who "panicked and decided to buss my partner" but instead it is someone else who "panicked and started a case on a person who stood up for scum"?

Regarding the latter, the person who comes to my mind presented hesitancy to lynch darkdude yesterday and momentarily switched pressure to Tubby, returning to pressure darkdude to claim. I'm talking about Adel.

That's a good point indeed. Especially because he chose to track me instead of Wombat N1 even though him pushing the case on Wombat from the start of D2 suggests that he was more suspicious of him than me.

I chose you instead of Brain of Wombat

because

he had so much pressure on him, and we already lost a cop. I assumed that it wasn't likely that he would do anything and looked elsewhere for suspects.

Also, the case against Wombat on Day 2 was pushed on Day 2

because

he started it up again after being shot down. You agreed with me.

You know what? I'm not going to spend another 3 or 4 hours trying to come up with more of a defense. It's just better if I'm lynched. And, no, this isn't where anyone should take pity on me and take their vote off, this is me saying "just do it already". I owe it to the game to be lynched, and I've played horribly.

Top Suspects:
- Adel
- Korts
- insanepenguin02
- ThAdmiral

Wait, I thought you said I was Darkdude's partner, but I don't even rate your list? Clarification?

You haven't posted in retaliation yet. These guys have and although ThAdmiral and insanepenguin02 hadn't yet either, I thought their actions before spoke for them already. I am also reviewing who seems more likely to be Adel's partner. You or Kison.

Ectomancer, because of your actions earlier in the game.

Kison, because of the way you've managed to follow Adel's cases today on both myself and now Tubby.

------

2) Adel: I know that you are just very active but it almost seems as if you are bullying the rest of us around with your questions and views. You are really trying to build cases against many and it seems that you just want all suspicion off of you and onto others. I have a feeling, just a gut feeling, that you are in fact scum....

You haven't seen someone bullying yet.

I think the closest thing this game has seen to bullying was your certainty that darkdude was scum throughout Day 1. But even that wasn't too harsh.

------

I voted for darkdude at first because he seemed the most suspicious from the second that I started in on this game.

Was there any particular thing or two that he said to make you believe he was scum?

Many people were developing a case against him and he wasn't defending himself that well, which made him suspicious.

Is this why you found him suspicious from the beginning of the game?

Then he all of a sudden claimed to be tracker, from what I am trying to remember. Immediately after, I unvoted because I didn't want to lynch him if he WAS pro-town.

He claimed

Watcher

. I claimed

Tracker

. A Watcher gets to see who targets a person each night, a Tracker gets to see who a person targets.

I then returned to the game and saw that many people read through his lie, built more cases against him, only for him to not defend too well yet again. He was L-1 with everyone against him, so I decided to vote for him and brought the hammer down.

So, you let others read through his lie and build cases against him, and then saw him not defend too well against them. You then decided to bring down the hammer on him.

"Yet again", where has darkdude not defended himself well before?

Then look - HE WAS SCUM!

How does this prove your innocence?

Now I understand that I looked suspicious there for just posting my vote and "Whatever...". I should have provided some more reasoning there but didn't. That is my bad. But how does it make me look suspicious after we found out that he was mafia??

It makes you suspicious because you didn't provide anything to the case and he turned up scum. To me, it means you knew he was scum all along and took advantage of the opportunity to hammer him. The odds are against you being an investigative role, since Puta was our Cop and I know my own role, so I tracked you last night.

I should have provided some more reasoning there but didn't.

What could you have provided?

1) I think insanepenguin02 could be scum with anyone, but I haven't heard enough from him to think any which way

why do you think insanepenguin02 could be scum?

I would like to know as well. Thanks![/quote]I've answered the question in post #526.

My case against you is solely based on the fact that you provided nothing to the case you appeared eager to jump on and did so at interesting times. Most notably, as soon as darkdude presented his Watcher claim, you unvoted without mentioning what caused you to do so, and only now are coming up with reasons why you unvoted and voted for him again.

You know what? I'm not going to spend another 3 or 4 hours trying to come up with more of a defense. It's just better if I'm lynched. And, no, this isn't where anyone should take pity on me and take their vote off, this is me saying "just do it already".

I owe it to the game to be lynched, and I've played horribly.

Top Suspects:
- Adel
- Korts
- insanepenguin02
- ThAdmiral

What a cop-out. I have been following your case defending yourself and you have me thinking. I really just want to see more out of some other people before I cast a vote at all.

1) What's a cop-out and how is what I've said one? You can't just say "this is this" and expect everyone to understand what you mean.
2) Most of what you've been doing is seeing what other people think and voting/unvoting accordingly.

1) Rage:

Things just aren't looking up for you.

People have built up cases against you and I am balancing between your defenses and their attacks.

What do you think of my defenses and their attacks?

Since town has no idea who scum is, investigating different players is a good idea. Not all questions result in a scummy analysis. Some answers will convince you that someone might be town. (Equally important in mafia)

Either I've roleblocked a few or all times, or they're all actually No Results, but even then I don't know what to make of them because one of them lead to scum.

3) Tubby: In the following quote and "claim", I take it as you are trying to lead us heavily into thinking that you are powerless.

so i will consider this my one and only defense post and so that we can move on i fell the need to go ahead and claim, i know there is no real vote pressure but i am a townie plain and simple,, if you have read my meta you will note

when i have a role i am far more active and care a lil more about the game and try to have a bigger input

.

Since you had to bring this up, it makes me think that perhaps you are just trying to pull the wool over our eyes. This is not a WIFOM moment but again, just a gut feeling.

... how in the hell did I miss that he claimed vanilla townie in that post?

Where did he claim Vanilla Townie? Isn't he claiming he thinks his role doesn't have much power?


@Tubby, I disagree with you thinking that powers with a lack of power don't have much influence in the game. You don't realize the potential nor the influence that a Vanilla Townie, for instance, has on a game. First, you have way less to lose when dying than anyone else, so if anything you should be the most active in the game because of it. Secondly, by claiming Vanilla, scum isn't going to want to target you.. but you should 'want' (I use this term lightly) scum to target you, because chances are someone's got a better pro-town power than you and you don't want them to get killed instead.

Either that, or ThAdmiral is scum with darkdude because he quickly found his spot on the darkdude bandwagon when it was forming, and upon darkdude's questioning he simply said he found the case to be the strongest he had seen. He unvoted later after finding the argument on darkdude unappealing.

After darkdude's claim, he ends up asking if he can be the hammer vote without any input about his thoughts on darkdude's claim.

I'm keeping my eye on this.

I was sure darkdude was scum.

I just wanted to see if we could get anymore out of him before he died.

Why? If you were sure and others weren't (since he wasn't immediately hammered) why did you think we could get any more out of him? I find it scummy how you can say you were sure he was scum, but at the time you said nothing about his claim. You just seemed focused on getting him lynched.

@

ThAdmiral

, what do you think of my case on insanepenguin02?

------

In conclusion, I am for an insanepenguin02 lynch and am very suspicious of Adel.

Vote: insanepenguin02

[Rage]

OP = insanepenguin02?

I knew he was scum, because he claimed I didn't get targeted on night 0, which was a lie.

You knew you were targeted on Night 0? Elaborate, please. And, no, I don't consider this fishing because he has said it so blatantly.

I voted for darkdude at first because he seemed the most suspicious from the second that I started in on this game.

Was there any particular thing or two that he said to make you believe he was scum?

Sorry, I am not going to spend the time searching through each and every one of DD's posts but if I had to say, it was a general feeling. Based on what I read, when I read it, and what others were saying/interpreting, he was by far the best choice. And he ended up being a VERY good choice.

Why are you flaunting how much of a

good thing

you voting for darkdude was? And right here, you aren't saying WHAT you agree with, because you aren't providing any evidence to back up your argument. I hope you can see why it can be interpreted as just going along with the crowd.

Many people were developing a case against him and he wasn't defending himself that well, which made him suspicious.

Is this why you found him suspicious from the beginning of the game?

From the time that I started, yes, this was part of the general feeling. Keep in mind that I am really only focusing on Day 2 and on as I was not here Day 1.

I meant from the beginning of 'your' game, when you entered. And just because you entered on Day 2 doesn't mean you should limit yourself to focusing on what was happening then. Take, for instance, Kison. He has proved that he's read through the thread and he has linked actual evidence to his votes. You, on the other hand, say that you agree with something but don't specify what exactly you are agreeing with.

Then he all of a sudden claimed to be tracker, from what I am trying to remember. Immediately after, I unvoted because I didn't want to lynch him if he WAS pro-town.

He claimed

Watcher

. I claimed

Tracker

. A Watcher gets to see who targets a person each night, a Tracker gets to see who a person targets.

Yes, sorry. I remember that he claimed something that was pro-town. Me not wanting to kill a townie, I unvoted so as to get more information from him. If he WAS a townie, I definitely wanted him to get that info out there. But the claim went nowhere, and I revoted.

You unvoted, but didn't ask any questions or provide anything that would make me believe you wanted to get more information out of darkdude. How can I take your word for this behavior?

I then returned to the game and saw that many people read through his lie, built more cases against him, only for him to not defend too well yet again. He was L-1 with everyone against him, so I decided to vote for him and brought the hammer down.

So, you let others read through his lie and build cases against him, and then saw him not defend too well against them. You then decided to bring down the hammer on him.

Why wouldn't I let others build up cases (to save a LOT of time), put my analysis towards those cases and come to my own final decision? I guess that is how I play. Check out my other games if needed.

You haven't developed on anything you've analyzed. Notice how fast you are to defend yourself, but not to provide input about others' cases? You are simply "going along for the ride". That's scummy behavior. Sure, you can say as much as you want, but unless you've got evidence to back yourself or your cases up, you're just taking what others have said for granted.

Then look - HE WAS SCUM!

How does this prove your innocence?

Because he was scum. What more do you want there?

How does him being Scum prove you are Town? Here's a hint: It doesn't. In fact, it does the opposite.

You see, you've pointed out that my result on you was No Result. That is true. However, I voted darkdude based on that same result. He flipped scum. Remember that "No Result" on you? Yeah, how are you

not

scum?

Now I understand that I looked suspicious there for just posting my vote and "Whatever...". I should have provided some more reasoning there but didn't. That is my bad. But how does it make me look suspicious after we found out that he was mafia??

It makes you suspicious because you didn't provide anything to the case and he turned up scum. To me, it means you knew he was scum all along and took advantage of the opportunity to hammer him. The odds are against you being an investigative role, since Puta was our Cop and I know my own role, so I tracked you last night.

And so you investigate me and I guarantee you find nothing. Only to prove my innocence some more. Again though,

I cast the final vote due to the lack of a case that he was town

. And also again, I apologize for not providing more info at that time. For me, that was stupid.

What have I been saying about my tracking results? I can't trust them. They're all No Results, and that doesn't prove anyone's innocence since yesterday I voted darkdude because of it.

Regarding the underlined, you say you saw the cases. That's good. But then you say that the only case out there was one proving he was scum. The fact that you saw that was good. However, the lack of a case proving he was Town does not mean he wasn't Town, nor should that excuse you from providing nothing.

My case against you is solely based on the fact that you provided nothing to the case you appeared eager to jump on and did so at interesting times. Most notably, as soon as darkdude presented his Watcher claim, you unvoted without mentioning what caused you to do so, and only now are coming up with reasons why you unvoted and voted for him again.

Giving the reasons now because I failed to do so at the time. Again, that is completely my mistake. Have I said this before?

That certainly doesn't excuse you from not mentioning why you did things before. But, yeah, I do understand why you are providing reasoning now. Problem is, you didn't do so until it was asked of you.

You know what? I'm not going to spend another 3 or 4 hours trying to come up with more of a defense. It's just better if I'm lynched. And, no, this isn't where anyone should take pity on me and take their vote off, this is me saying "just do it already".

I owe it to the game to be lynched, and I've played horribly.

Top Suspects:
- Adel
- Korts
- insanepenguin02
- ThAdmiral

What a cop-out. I have been following your case defending yourself and you have me thinking. I really just want to see more out of some other people before I cast a vote at all.

1) What's a cop-out and how is what I've said one? You can't just say "this is this" and expect everyone to understand what you mean.

Cop out because that was a very childish thing to say. "I have played a horrible game so just lynch me"?! Whaaaaa....

How has a Cop been outed? Are you saying you believe my claim but it was a stupid thing for me to complain about the way I've played? Sure, if one is to believe my claim then they are to believe that I am one of the last possible investigative roles that the Town has left. Could you be more clear about this, and why you are voting me?

2) Most of what you've been doing is seeing what other people think and voting/unvoting accordingly.

Again, why wouldn't I if I agree and come to my own final decision???

Because that's most of what you've been doing! You don't even say why or how you came to these "final decisions" when you vote or unvote. That makes you scummy!

In conclusion, I am for an insanepenguin02 lynch and am very suspicious of Adel.

Vote: insanepenguin02

I agree with your suspicion of Adel but can't put my finger on it

. However, you building up such a case on me is very interesting as it looks as if you are just trying to focus attention elsewhere since you have a few votes on you. For one, you say that you have investigated me and found no results, yet you still want to vote for me. Ok, that makes sense! (sarcasm) If you want to spend so much time on me, that is fine but to me, that almost proves scum as I know that I am nothing, as you probably do as well being scum yourself.

Keep hunting but you might want to focus elsewhere is all I'm saying.

1) Underlined. This is another example of you following a case around. Explain why you agree with my suspicion of Adel, please.

2) I'm trying to deflect suspicion from me onto you? I've got a couple things to say about this. Firstly, another case has been made by Adel, who started the case on me. She even unvoted when I was at L-1. Is that not suspicious?

(Yeah, that's deflecting, but I want to hear why insanepenguin02 agrees with my suspicion of Adel)

And secondly, you're being contradictory. Your reason to vote me is because I'm focused on you (which is false) but you've given me advice to back off? That, sir, is craplogic. It's also what makes you scum.

3) Again, I'm a Tracker. I've received NO RESULTS on every single person I've tracked! How much clearer do I have to be? The first person I tracked I received a No Result on and he flipped scum!

Finally, you're voting me because I'm so focused on you? That is OMGUS and you are wrong. I have a case on Adel, Ectomancer and Kison and ThAdmiral, and now you. Your vote makes no sense. Let's pick it apart anyways:

Vote: Rage

Reasoning: You focusing so much on me even though you resulted nothing is enough for me to be suspicious of your actions. And the other votes on you seem to be justified in my eyes as there have been some cases brought against you that I could agree with.

Here's why your vote sucks and is scummy:

1) You're being too careful with your words. That's scummy behavior. For example, you say the other votes on me

seem

to be justified as there have been

some

cases brought against me that you

could

agree with.

What you are actually saying here is that you are getting on a bandwagon because you could agree with what others have brought up against it. You aren't saying what you agree with, you are only saying that you agree with something. That's scummy.

2) The only result I have on anyone from my tracking is No Result. I have said this before in this post, but I'd like to bring it up once again:

- I tracked darkdude on Night 0 and received No Result
- darkdude said he did something on Night 0
- I voted darkdude and said he didn't do anything on Night 0
- darkdude was lynched and flipped scum

3) You're defending everyone else on the wagon, and even then you don't specify how or why they are "justified". You're being oh-so-vague with your vote, and that makes you scum.

[Rage]

@Adel, why did you want to know Tubby's age?

[Rage]

@

Kison

, I don't think your votes so far are unwarranted, I just think that you have joined both wagons (as it happens, after Adel has posted something about it) is something to keep my eye on.

Look at the end of my post 632 and then 633. I was trying to get a rise out of Rage and see why exactly he was voting for me and coming up with a "case" against me. All it ended up doing was getting Rage confused about what a cop out is (not that the cop should claim or anything - a COP OUT!), talking more about my reasoning behind the actions on darkdude, and really nothing that was worth my time to continue talking about. If that was all I was going to get out of the vote for him, I wasn't going to continue on it.

Do you mean to say that:

1) A Cop Out is when a Cop gives up
2) The reasoning given when your vote was made is actually false, and instead you say you wanted to get a rise out of me and see why I was voting for you
3) You gave up on your vote because you didn't want to talk about your actions against darkdude

If #2 is true, why did you state "Reasoning" at all when you posted your vote if it wasn't actually your reasoning?

1) Rage: Things just aren't looking up for you. People have built up cases against you and I am balancing between your defenses and their attacks.

That's awfully vague. What do you think of both the attacks and his defense?

And me with darkdude? Apart from me not being scum in the first place, why would I have voted for dd if I was aligned with him? Please explain before you start to sling "what-ifs".

You voted for Rage earlier. Why would Rage have contradicted darkdude's claim and voted for him if he was aligned with him? Is it your belief that you 'cannot' be scum with darkdude simply because you voted for him?

@

Insanepenguin02

, your response to these two quotes?

here is an interesting idea: can anyone name any reasons why afatchic and insanepenguin can't be scum with darkdude?

Posts 575 and 532 - the last two posts by afathchic. I have NOTHING on him and even had to doublecheck that there was somebody with that name in the game. So I don't have anymore to even say there.

How is that an answer to Adel's question?

And me with darkdude? Apart from me not being scum in the first place, why would I have voted for dd if I was aligned with him?

1) How do we know you aren't scum?
2) You may have voted for darkdude to distance from him, because he was the most likely candidate to be lynched

To be perfectly honest, more people better start interjecting because for some reason, Adel is really starting to annoy me.

How is Adel starting to annoy you?

[Rage]

@

Kison

, when you say Korts quoted two of your posts, do you mean my post #679?

[Rage]

@Insanepenguin02, got anything to say about my Tracker claim?

[Rage]

So you won't do a complete background check on the person you have a "No Sway" for? My claim is in post #520 on page 21.


By the way, at the bottom of each page in a thread, above the New Topic and Post Reply buttons, there's this little bar that says:

"Display posts from previous: 'All Posts' by 'All users' 'Oldest/Newest First' GO"

You can view what only one player has written in a thread that way, and it's a much easier way of finding a specific post. You can also go to the end of any page's URL and type in the post that you're looking for after the 'start=' part.

[Rage]

First- i would be fine with either a tubby of IP lynch today, as i think we will find one of the scum between the two of them. I didn't really like IP's evaluation post of everyone, he kept a lot of people in the middle, which is a common scum tactic to allow you to hop wagons easily without contradiction. i believe that after 28+ pages, you should already have fairly decent ideas about everyone.

Why are you fine with a Tubby lynch?

Rage- So you recieved a PM saying "No Results" at the end of each night, or just never recieved a PM with any night results in them? Either way getting No Result would seem to imply that you was RoleBlocked, or maybe jailed. But either way i don't see how you would counterclaim DD, when you had no results to back it up with. i highly doubt No Results means they visited no one.

What makes you think that I've been roleblocked every night? What do you think of my Tracker claim?

I counterclaimed DD because he claimed to have done something on N0. I didn't think I was roleblocked two nights in a row (at that time I had two investigations) or even for the first night, so I was certain that he was fakeclaiming. I know you think there's a possibility of a roleblocker, but if you're a Tracker with an investigation from the beginning of the game and someone claims something that doesn't match up with what you've got, wouldn't that mean that they're lying? Darkdude said it himself in Post #145, why would Town lie?

[Rage]

Adel- BoW may have been the scummiest play i have ever read through. he def. ranks up in the top 3 or 5. and reading through i was astounded he wasn't lynched a few pages into day 1. however if you look at it assuming he is town, i believe there is a very logical explanation, which i expect to hear from Adel later in the game. If i don't hear the explanation i am waiting for, i may be inclined to vote him based on how badly BoW played, but right now i think he is a townie.

This paragraph seems particularly wishy-washy,

even for you, afatchic. You first state that Adel's predecessor is definitely scummy, then you assume he's town, then you demand an explanation from Adel; and finally you conclude that right now she's probably a townie. I sense a connection; such uncertainty makes me think of a partnership where you can't decide whether to bus, distance or defend.

QFT

So you agree that the paragraph seems particularly wishy-wasy, correct? What makes you think this way?

------

What makes you think that I've been roleblocked every night? What do you think of my Tracker claim?

I counterclaimed DD because he claimed to have done something on N0. I didn't think I was roleblocked two nights in a row (at that time I had two investigations) or even for the first night, so I was certain that he was fakeclaiming.

Im believing it less as less. so how else do you explain the you never recieved a result for your investigations.

"Never Received a Result" is not the same as "No Result". That's the confusion here.

and yes i would believe if you had been RB'd every night.

How do you know there's a roleblocker, and how do you know that he/she's been targeting me? Even if there is a roleblocker, it will not disprove NOR prove my claim.

Are you saying that if a Roleblocker claims now, that you will believe his/her claim, even if they have only blocked me?

Normally, if you "track" someone you will either get a Pm back saying they visited ___ or they didn't visit anyone.

I have confirmation that "they didn't visit anyone" is the equivalent of "No Result". Explained a couple quotes below.

by getting no result would imply something happened to you at night(roleblocked, jailed)

Not in this game, it doesn't.

which is why you didn't get your result.

How do you know I didn't get results? This question is asking about you knowing I'm not getting accurate results, not a contradiction of me getting No Results all the time.

So you countering a Claimed Watcher on false information seems really suspicious to me.

It's not false information. I know 100%, with confirmation from the mod (I can't prove that now, though) that I will receive a No Result if the player doesn't target anyone OR if I am roleblocked. To the extent of my knowledge, getting a No Result implies in NO way that something has happened to me that night.

I know you think there's a possibility of a roleblocker, but if you're a Tracker with an investigation from the beginning of the game and someone claims something that doesn't match up with what you've got, wouldn't that mean that they're lying? Darkdude said it himself in Post #145, why would Town lie?

But you just said you didn't have a result from the investigations, so how can you prove he was lying?

I've had three results from investigations. They're identical, as far as I know. One of them has lead to scum.

I couldn't prove anything. I just figured that the odds of me being roleblocked on Night 0 were slimmer than on Night 1. I have no way to prove that any investigation is accurate, I mean, one of them did lead to a scum's death. I can't prove that my investigations happened, and I can't prove if they're accurate. I shouldn't be expected to. You saying there might be a roleblocker complicates things further, and I

have

taken that possibility into consideration. However, nothing can be proven now.

Taking into consideration your implication that you and Adel are going to live until LyLo (below) that shouldn't be a reason to doubt my claim.

This paragraph seems particularly wishy-washy, even for you, afatchic. You first state that Adel's predecessor is definitely scummy, then you assume he's town, then you demand an explanation from Adel; and finally you conclude that right now she's probably a townie. I sense a connection; such uncertainty makes me think of a partnership where you can't decide whether to bus, distance or defend.

I said his play was extremely terrible, with all the rolefishing and everything... but then i thought about it and came to a logical conclusion why town-BoW would do that. im not asking Adel to explain why he did it. I just think my conclusion will be proven one way or the other in a lylo mass claim. if it goes the way i think it will, their would be no reason to suspect him, if it goes the other, i would be highly suspicious of him.

I'm confused. Are you expecting Adel's claim to satisfy your suspicion? How else can you expect Adel to explain something that the person he replaced said, when Brain of Wombat has already claimed Vanilla Townie?

[Rage]

Is it an 'either or*' situation?

*Either it is or it isn't.

[Rage]

I am no longer under the impression that Ectomancer is scum with Darkdude, but I am not dismissing it altogether and am keeping my eye on it. Ectomancer gets a 7.

ThAdmiral is fairly neutral between 5/6, leaning towards 6. The factors that make him this are:

• - Not releasing the investigation result as soon as possible (Nulltell as there are both logical pro and anti-town reasons for doing this, and to me, they cancel each other out. I can provide hypothetical situations for this if need be)
  - Not taking part in the conversation about whether the investigation result exists (I see more intention for Scum to do this than Town)
  - It makes sense that he has the result (breadcrumb from Puta)
  - His response to Puta's question (Nulltell because Puta was still alive)
  - Town is more likely to reveal Pro-Town investigations than Scum (nothing to back this up, just personal experience)

I think the second and fifth points cancel each other out in this circumstance. ThAdmiral isn't a huge factor in this game (if he ends up dead, his alignment isn't as game-changing as others) so I can understand the hesitancy to release the information. I can't understand why it wasn't released earlier, but can I live with what we've got for now.

But, there is always the possibility that scum-ThAdmiral and scum-Ectomancer decided to throw this out there (most likely when suspicions where being cast elsewhere, like now) in the hopes of protecting one of them so soon after losing one of their own and maybe failing a nightkill.

The nightkill fail would mean that ThAdmiral thought of this on his own, since I doubt the scum get to know if they've been roleblocked or have failed until Day begins. My assumption is that this hypothetical scumgroup has received a result at one point in the game and they knew that nobody was going to counterclaim them if they lied about it, so they can use it to their advantage. And the easiest way to lie about something like this is if they tie each other to it. However, this is purely gut-feeling and I actually think that this is not the case, but I thought it might as well be said now since if I'm telling the truth about my role I am more likely to die eventually, since scum will probably keep me around long enough to get a mislynch, as I suggested earlier.

Again, this theory is purely hypothetical.

Finally, I ended this post thinking that a ThAdmiral lynch would be better than Ectomancer's (but not wanting either of them lynched today) but it seems as though they kind of balance each other out:

• ThAdmiral = Town, then Ectomancer = Town
  ThAdmiral = Scum, then Ectomancer = ???
  
  Ectomancer = Town, then ThAdmiral = ???
  Ectomancer = Scum, then ThAdmiral = Scum

Firstly, I'd like someone to review this to make sure it's accurate.


Secondly:

• - if ThAdmiral is Town then we can be certain that Ectomancer is as well
  - if ThAdmiral is Scum then we don't learn anything about Ectomancer
  
  - if Ectomancer is Scum then we can be certain that ThAdmiral is as well
  - if Ectomancer is Town then we don't learn anything about ThAdmiral

Thirdly, does this make any sense?

[Rage]

that was unexpectedly clear and concise. Thanks!

Can you restate your case against insanepenguin with similar clarity?

I'll see what I can do. I have school starting up again in a couple days after a long break so I've got catching up to do, and I had a lot of time on my hands to make that last post. I don't know what the next couple days will bring, but I guarantee that you'll have your response by the end of the upcoming weekend.

@

afatchic

, there's more to the post that you quote than what you've quoted. Doesn't this suffice?

What makes you think that I've been roleblocked every night? What do you think of my Tracker claim?

I counterclaimed DD because he claimed to have done something on N0. I didn't think I was roleblocked two nights in a row (at that time I had two investigations) or even for the first night, so I was certain that he was fakeclaiming.

Im believing it less as less. so how else do you explain the you never recieved a result for your investigations.

"Never Received a Result" is not the same as "No Result". That's the confusion here.

I'm a standard Tracker. No amnesia. Yes, the mod has told me that if the person I track doesn't visit anyone then I receive a "No Result" result, which is the same result as if I am RB'd. However, you shouldn't take me saying that seriously (WIFOM), and I've told you that.

Anyways, afatchic, the problem here is that you are under the impression that I've been roleblocked, it doesn't matter when or how many times. There has to be some outside information to lead you to think this way, or you're taking Post Two too seriously (see below, in this post). I have no idea if there's a roleblocker, and I don't see the purpose of discussing it unless you would like to set up some sort of claim for the person with that role. And since I don't know of the existance, I have to use my investigations to the best of my abilities until it can be proven that they are useless, like you suggest, or rather imply. I'm not sure which. Or until they do their job and out scum.

However, one thing is for sure, and it's that that is the reason why I counterclaimed darkdude's Watcher claim.

I'll go a little more in depth about this in my follow-up post for Adel later on.

What gets me is that you have tracked 3 people, and apparently have not gotten a single person going anywhere.

That's true, I haven't gotten a single person going anywhere, but what I have got is that 3 people didn't do anything at all on those nights. Sure, I might've been roleblocked, but there's no way to know that unless you're the roleblocker, or the roleblocker is scum-aligned and teams up with his/her buddies to strength a mislynch. There's no way to know that even if I'm lynched, so there's no purpose in discussing it. I don't see a pro-town reason for roleblocking the same person three times in a row, especially after a successful nightkill.

Post two says trackers may be scum alligned town aligned or a mafia group ability.

Post two also says that Vanilla Townies can be mafia (Mafia Goons). You see, no matter if someone claims a Vanilla Townie relying on their posts or a Tracker with (as you put it) no investigations, it still takes an investigation to confirm the role, which is unlikely, if not impossible, under these circumstances (dead Cop). Or there's always evidence, of which I have none. That's half of why I didn't claim Tracker as soon as I counterclaimed darkdude. The other half is that as either alignment, I'm not stupid enough/going to roleclaim unless I feel I have to. Darkdude was confirmed scum to me, and with an expectation of a nightkill coming up I didn't need to disclose more.

I know I say this a lot (pass me a thesaurus, would you?) but the question now (and before, but you weren't here) is, does an Amnesiac Cop/Gun Inventor/Tracker setup make sense, and how was there no nightkill last night? I'll explain what I think about the lack of kills in my next post, as it would be too much to get into right now. It's about 2:00 AM where I am, so it probably wouldn't be a good idea.

@

afatchic

, is there anything else

you

would like to respond to in my post #745? If not, then I think we're going to be covering the same ground over and over again. Also, I think you should really answer my question about the setup above, and why it explains your interest about a roleblocker, which is nothing more than a possibility.

[Rage]

I've just completed a lot of big projects and I've got a lot coming up, so I'll keep this post short and precise. Are there any specific points anyone would like me to respond to before we make a lynch? I know I've got to post my case on insanepenguin02 better, but I just don't have the time for that right now. I will work on it throughout today and tomorrow and I expect it to be posted tomorrow, like promised.

[Rage]

I'm sorry this was put off for so long, but exams are coming up and my teachers have been shoveling as much as they can on me as they can, but I have had time to review the case I had on insanepenguin02.

Most relevant points against insanepenguin02:

1. His first vote in the game was on darkdude because the points on him
   seemed
   , as he put it, to be pointing in the direction of scum. No explanation of how.
   
2. He unvotes darkdude when he claims and revotes him at the time where darkdude claims scum.. except insanepenguin02 says he didn't see that claim at all. Yes, the claim was followed up by his unvote, additional analysis against darkdude by players other than insanepenguin02, because we have no proof of that. Anyways, there isn't any backing for either vote/unvote and explaining it now doesn't mean as much as it would have when he 'committed' those actions. His explanations now are also contradictory: first, he says that his vote on darkdude was because he found darkdude scummy immediately upon entering the game; second, his explanation of his unvote was that he didn't want to kill a townie but this contradicts his earlier explanation of why he voted for darkdude, finding him suspicious immediately into the game. As far as I know, the only way to prove that someone's scum as soon as you enter the game is with role-related information, which I figure in this game game can only be a cop investigation or a mafia bussing their partner. The cop was dead at this point.
   
3. He has explained that because Darkdude was scum, him being on the wagon means he's town. This is never a good way to clear who is and isn't scum, because scum could just as easily vote for each other as town could vote for them, and if this was a way to clear people then the people not voting for the lynched scum would be scum themselves, which insanepenguin02 has not used against anyone. There's a higher chance of scum thwarting a theory as easy to thwart as this.
   
4. He provided reasoning to accompany his vote on me that was different than what he explains his reasons to be later. Then, he said that he thought I had resulted nothing from him during night (which is true, but the way that he puts it is that I shouldn't be voting for him if I have no result on him, which is just silly) and that the other votes on me
   seemed
   to be justified and that
   some
   cases against me he
   could
   agree with. This reasoning is so weak I can see why he changed it to voting for me to "test the waters" which, again, is just plain silly. He's provided no pro-town reason for his vote on me.

Before a lynch, I'd like to see tubby216's and Korts' analysis of everyone. I agree with insanepenguin02 that tubby216 looks as though he's been lurking throughout the game, and between his and insanepenguin's lynch, this would be a perfect opportunity for him to speak his mind about the players.

I'm happy with insanepenguin02's lynch.

------
I'm going to be really busy for the next couple of days, as major projects are scheduled to be presented/handed in for those days, and I can't foretell anything about the days after that. If I'm alive before January 25, know that I'll be studying like crazy for exams, and if I'm alive after January 29, know that I'll have a lot more time on my hands.

[Rage]

Well, I'm glad that you can speak up at a perfect time to show how you have suspected me all along, Rage. Your timing with your further analysis is questionable. But again, as I stated, speaking from a townie's point of view, I see tubby as the most scummy player in the game - which I have been suggesting for a while now.

I would rather get some info from afatchic and Admiral since they will be likely choosing what wagon to jump on: tubby or mine.

Could it be that I've suspected you 'all along'? Could that be why my vote hasn't changed?

What do you mean perfectly timed? I said I'd post it when I did, so how is that "perfect"?

[Rage]

Could it be that I've suspected you 'all along'?

To understand this rhetorical question better, it's supposed to be read as:

Could it be that I

have indeed

suspected you 'all along'?

'just noticed an irregularity some fellas might not understand.