Mini 698 - Georgetown Mafia - Game over

[Huntress]

Vote Count

Apothecary 2 - (StrangerCoug, MacavityLock)
Ythill 1 - (LLamaFluff)
Cephrir 1 - (MiteyMouse)
LLamaFluff 1 - (Ythill)

Not voting 6 - (Apothecary, Atlas, Cephrir, Corvuus, Elmo, Jazzmyn)


With eleven players alive, it takes six votes to lynch.

Mod: I will have no access from tonight until December 7 or 8.

Understood. I'm sorry to hear about your loss.

[StrangerCoug]

@SC - You do realize that was what I said that Ythills case on Atlas was right? Either you misinterpreted something, or you need to explain more.

You're right—it was the former

Un-HoS: LlamaFluff

[MacavityLock]

OK, well, looks like I missed a bit on my travel day.

You know what I'm really surprised about? I'm still only on L-3. This probably means that both the scum have decided to vote me, and one overly exurberant townie is joining the party. Does that seem difficult to believe? Why don't we go one for five pages of needless crap debating if this is newb townie or a frakking scumtell? Sounds like one hell of a game to me!

SC already pointed out the "two scum" assumption possible scum-tell. I'm more interested why you think that scum are already on your wagon. Do you think that scum would automatically jump to a wagon if the opportunity arose? Would that wagon be yours in particular? Why?

I'm having a really hard time understanding the Ythill-Llama argument to be honest. I'm trying to boil this down as well as I can, and I'm getting the following:
1) Ythill thinks that Llama's case against him is framed just like Ythill's case against Atlas.
2) Llama really doesn't like the way Ythill moved off of his Atlas-wagon.
Am I right? Am I missing something? I'd like to have a more simplified summary before I comment.

I will say that I don't particularly like Ythills' posts against Elmo. This in particular rubs me the wrong way:

In what dialect is "we should probably lynch one of these two people today" wishy-washy?

The dialect where you say it by naming MM and SC as buddies, and weighing the identity of the third between me and Rx, and decide Rx

based on LF being either wrong or scummy (you were vague)

, and then concluding that we should hang MM or Rx.

Maybe you're just paranoid.

When I read Elmo's post, my interpretation was that his read of Llama was

incomplete

, and that he was neither wrong nor scummy.

#3 is liable to be.. Apoth or Ythill? I am not really too hot on LF's thing, but then I haven't really read it properly.

I have an unholy number of town reads at this point. Irritatingly. We should probably be lynching one of Apothecary or MiteyMouse, based on how Apoth responds and if MM ever starts doing stuff.

Ythill's putting words in Elmo's mouth, in addition to attempting to kick additional dirt against his current target, feels rather scummy to me.

Hey MM, mind commenting on anything more currently relevant?

Jazz, sorry to hear about that. Condolences.

[Apothecary]

Why did I think the scum were the ones voting me?
I thought others would see it as an easy lynch, and so just follow it up.
Hell, I thought I was an easy lynch!

[Ythill]

Wow, you seriously are missing my point this much? Multiple times you have dismissed parts of my case because of my word choice, not because of what I am agruing.

How can I argue with your take on what your feelings are?

You are saying my case is bad because I am using emotion words.

Fail. I have said your case was incorrect for several reasons. One of those is that you are basing it heavily on your

preconceptions

and therefore

projecting

your own

assumptions

onto my actions. This is

made obvious

by your use of what you call "emotion words" but it would be true even if you avoided them.

You say a certain thing "seems" scummy, I explain why I did it as town, you say that you don't play like that and so it still "feels" scummy. That's fine, but you are not making a new argument, just repeating yourself. When you have stated facts or theories, I have posted counterpoints.

The main difference between, for example, me saying that Atlas was scummy for his timing on Primate and you saying I was scummy for my timing on Rx is clear.

Prima facie

they are similar, but Atlas couldn't explain how the evidence (what was common knowledge in the game at that time) lead to his move, while I did explain that a lack of pressure on Atlas combined with a new scumtell from Rx (my #2) prompted my move. The fact that you still "feel" my move was conveniently timed does not, in any way, challenge my explanation. If Atlas had made a similarly reasonable explanation, I would have conceded the point.

Still dont get how I "slipped" at all. You are saying my case is bad because I am using emotion words. I turn around and say that this is a poor point since I could pull up your Atlas case, add emotions and then it makes it "bad" to you.

That's not at all what you said. You said that if you removed "seems" and "feel" from your case, it would be similar to my case on Atlas, which you previously touted as crap logic as a major reason for voting me. So my case is a model for validity? Or it is a reach that marks me as scum? It can't be both in your opinion.

I'm having a really hard time understanding the Ythill-Llama argument to be honest. I'm trying to boil this down as well as I can, and I'm getting the following:
1) Ythill thinks that Llama's case against him is framed just like Ythill's case against Atlas.
2) Llama really doesn't like the way Ythill moved off of his Atlas-wagon.
Am I right? Am I missing something? I'd like to have a more simplified summary before I comment.

You're missing plenty, which is understandable.

1) I beleive that certain points against Atlas still stand, but he has defended himself well against others. The comparison between Llama's case and mine has nothing to do with my beliefs and everything to do with his. He has said, explicitly, twice, that removing certain semantic points reveals our cases to be similar. But, earlier, he decried my case as crap-logic, which was one of his reasons for initially voting me.

2) I think Llama's points are a little more complicated than you put forth, but your assumption is true, if not complete.

Simplified summary: Llama has claimed that (1) my Atlas case was weak and therefore scummy (2) my Atlas case is a model for validity. The difference was tactical, meaning that he is saying whatever serves him best at the time, rather than what he truly believes. That's a pretty serious scumtell.

When I read Elmo's post, my interpretation was that his read of Llama was incomplete, and that he was neither wrong nor scummy.

I see the "incomplete" part as well, but I took it more as a justification than an opinion. He did say, "I am not really too hot on LF's thing," which says that Llama is either wrong or scummy. He added, "but then I haven't really read it properly," which I took as him saying something like,

I could be mistaken though, because my read was incomplete

. Which, in all fairness to the original point, makes him sound even more wishy-washy.

I'm not anywhere near convinced Elmo is scum, I just wanted to throw some dirt his way for reactions, because he's been allowed to fly under the radar. The most damning thing against him, IMO, is the part where he flip-flopped, but I do understand that it might have been townie-OMGUS.

[StrangerCoug]

Simplified summary: Llama has claimed that (1) my Atlas case was weak and therefore scummy (2) my Atlas case is a model for validity. The difference was tactical, meaning that he is saying whatever serves him best at the time, rather than what he truly believes. That's a pretty serious scumtell.

I'm pretty convinced given just this that LlamaFluff has contradicted himself, but I'm wary of FoS'ing LlamaFluff again because of a misinterpretation, so I'll ask Ythill one question about this before acting further on this case: Is LlamaFluff saying that your Atlas case is a model for validity in the sense that it is logical and backed up with evidence, or is he saying that it is a model for validity so he can prove that your case is invalid?

[Cephrir]

Cephrir, you FoS'd MiteyMouse specifically for being my scumbuddy. How can you accuse player X of being player Y's scumbuddy when player Y's alignment is not confirmed?

I was just saying that I think you're both scum, but I'm fairly confident about your alignment so I think I can pretty reasonably call anyone else I think may be scum your scumbuddy. There's also the part where MM's post seemed to show that she considers you a beacon of protownness, which I find slightly suspect and possibly indicative of a connection. But mostly, the answer to your question is 'hyperbole'.

Which fallacy is it, and why?

It has to be a specific one? Maybe I don't know what 'fallacy' means, then. Let's call it a logical error then, although Llama seems to be saying that my theory was wrong anyhow:

Multiple times you have dismissed parts of my case because of my word choice, not because of what I am agruing. This really pisses me off because I get the feeling that you are trying to take down my case by refuting how I am presenting it instead of what I am saying.

This is true, by the way.

You're both just getting into semantics about the way Llama's wording his posts. What SC just quoted may be a contradiction, but I also think Ythill is being intentionally dense. He also hasn't made any attempt to deal with what Llama just pointed out, that he's been dismissing some of Llama's case based on its wording when it's pretty obvious that he didn't mean what it's being taken to mean.

In other words, you're both ridiculous.

[StrangerCoug]

Cephrir, you FoS'd MiteyMouse specifically for being my scumbuddy. How can you accuse player X of being player Y's scumbuddy when player Y's alignment is not confirmed?

I was just saying that I think you're both scum, but I'm fairly confident about your alignment so I think I can pretty reasonably call anyone else I think may be scum your scumbuddy. There's also the part where MM's post seemed to show that she considers you a beacon of protownness, which I find slightly suspect and possibly indicative of a connection. But mostly, the answer to your question is 'hyperbole'.

Very well then, point dismissed since you're allowed to have more than one suspect. (I do myself: My top ones are Apothecary and LlamaFluff, but I haven't forgotten about you.)

[Ythill]

Is LlamaFluff saying that your Atlas case is a model for validity in the sense that it is logical and backed up with evidence, or is he saying that it is a model for validity so he can prove that your case is invalid?

I think the correct answer here is: neither. His intention was to say that my case was a model for validity in order to validate his own case. However, his intention doesn't matter in this instance (see below).

Which fallacy is it, and why?

It has to be a specific one? Maybe I don't know what 'fallacy' means, then.

Here's a list to help you. Changing "fallacy" to "error" doesn't take away the fact that I've already shot down your initial reasons.

Multiple times you have dismissed parts of my case because of my word choice, not because of what I am agruing. This really pisses me off because I get the feeling that you are trying to take down my case by refuting how I am presenting it instead of what I am saying.

This is true, by the way.

You're both just getting into semantics about the way Llama's wording his posts. What SC just quoted may be a contradiction, but I also think Ythill is being intentionally dense. He also hasn't made any attempt to deal with what Llama just pointed out, that he's been dismissing some of Llama's case based on its wording...

I addressed this very point, at length, in #504. So pooh-pooh on your, "He also hasn't made any attempt to deal with what Llama just pointed out..." Llama has morphed his argument to appear semantic, you believing him is "dense."

...it's pretty obvious that he didn't mean what it's being taken to mean.

You are confounding two conecpts here, "meaning" and

intention

.

If someone were to say, "Ythill is scum because he did X," and I were to defend myself by saying, "I can prove X isn't scummy because I am scum and still didn't do X," my

intention

would be to prove that X was not a scumtell. Saying "I am scum" would be unintentional, but it's "meaning" would be clear.

Back to the real world... Llama

intended

to say,

you can't decry my case for semantics because it is as valid as your own.

Which means

Yth's case is a model for validity

whether he intended it or not.

[StrangerCoug]

Is LlamaFluff saying that your Atlas case is a model for validity in the sense that it is logical and backed up with evidence, or is he saying that it is a model for validity so he can prove that your case is invalid?

I think the correct answer here is: neither. His intention was to say that my case was a model for validity in order to validate his own case. However, his intention doesn't matter in this instance (see below).

And why does he need

YOUR

case to validate

HIS?

[Ythill]

That's like asking me, "Why does SC ask ridiculous questions?"

I have no idea why Llama had done what he's done. I only know what he has written and what I can glean from it.

[StrangerCoug]

Well, I think another

FoS: LlamaFluff

is warranted anyway.

[Elmo]

As per sig, my computer is screwed up for a while. Sorry. Off the top of my head:
* I have no idea why having multiple suspects is supposed to be "wishy-washy". We are looking for more than one scumbag, obviously? If one played perfectly, you'd just say "these x people are scum".
* I haven't contradicted myself. "Yhill's stance is daft" does not contradict "I'm not too hot on LF's case against Yhill , but then I haven't read it fully".

I am arbitrarily going to make a list, since Yhill called me wishy-washy.

MacavityLock - town
Corvuus - town
Jazzmyn - town
Atlas - town
LLamaFluff - townish (probably higher if he wasn't good scum)
Cephrir - somewhat townish
~~~ WAGON BELOW HERE ~~~
Ythill - at least somewhat scummy, needs more readin'
Apothecary - scummy or just odd depending on response
~~~ DAYVIG BELOW HERE ~~~
MiteyMouse - scummy
StrangerCoug - scum

The way SC+Yhill appear to be flocking together against LF reinforces my belief. LF is probably town independently. I disagree with what Yhill said about LF to the extent I have read it; Yhill is somewhere between daft and scummy based on that alone. I am not 110% convinced by what LF wrote in response off-hand, there may be something in it, but again I haven't read it enough to be all DIESCUMDIE to Yhill if there is.

Sidenote that comes to mind. LF, I know exactly the feeling that no-one is listening, and it sucks. Which is why I felt guilty and planned to reread soon. But then shit happened, so it'll be a little longer. Erp.

I am actually going to

vote

:

MiteyMouse

again, as encouragment for her to comment on the meat of the game. She seems to keep sniping at side issues (like Cephrir not reading fully) rather than actually get her hands dirty with something relevant like Apothecary or LF-Yhill. That behaviour tends to be a favourite of scum trying to stay out of the way. We should wagon her until at least she shows some sign of getting into the thick of it. No, this does not mean I have forgotten about Apothecary, merely that I am capable of doing more than one thing at a time.

Also, condolances, Jazz.

[Huntress]

Atlas picked up his prod but has failed to post in the required time (see rule 11) so he will be replaced unless he posts before I can find a replacement.

[MacavityLock]

Still waiting for Llama's simplified summary before I comment.

Also:

@everybody including Mod

, please note my sig. I will be LA for what I hope is a very short amount of time.

Noted.

[Ythill]

* I have no idea why having multiple suspects is supposed to be "wishy-washy". We are looking for more than one scumbag, obviously? If one played perfectly, you'd just say "these x people are scum".

It was more about the tone of your post than the number of suspects but, like I said, the main purpose of my comment was to draw some reactions out of you and I don't see anything overtly scummy in those reactions, so I don't feel the need to argue this point.

* I haven't contradicted myself. "Yhill's stance is daft" does not contradict "I'm not too hot on LF's case against Yhill , but then I haven't read it fully".

I was talking about the way you decried both sides of a serious argument but, looking at your current suspicion list, I can see how these two comments do not contradict one another.

The way SC+Yhill appear to be flocking together against LF reinforces my belief.

Please note that, other than me not agreeing with the wagon on SC, all of the the "flocking" has been his. I'm still not sure whether I find him scummy or just VI but, if he is scum, he's adopted me as a fake buddy.

I disagree with what Yhill said about LF to the extent I have read it; Yhill is somewhere between daft and scummy based on that alone.

Would you mind explaining why you disagree with it? In your opinion, what caused Llama to change his opinion of my Atlas case so drastically?

[Corvuus]

Hi Everyone,

I have presentation this week, final next, and conference the week after (ASCB) coming up so my time is going to be extremely limited.

I think I may actually replace out of this game since I may not be able to contribute much and I don't want to drag things down.

I read through the posts but still, notes are fairly a jumble, so my current position/take is:

In terms of Ythill/Llama and such, I understand and get the whole 'wall of text' and polarizing issue pretty well now..

I view Ythill as town (based on actions/defense/response) while I don't see Llama being that scummy. So I can imagine it being two town biting each other's heads off and I don't think Ythill or Llama are going to be lynched today (at least, based on what I see) just like SC isn't going to be lynched today either.

So, I vote to move on and go after one of the 'less town/more scum' looking players.

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

I'm not fully satisfied with Apoth's answer but I don't think jumping up and down on it alone is going to help. Instead, I will ask Apoth for his top 2 scum (1 may be SC still) and try to do a PBPA of Apoth.

It just strikes me as fairly strange what you said and did.

In your first few posts, you ask if we are out of the random voting stage on onto tangible evidence.

I made my first comment on Primate's picture posts and then you made the following post.

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

It kinda sucks that we're arguing over whether or not we should be allowed to post in pictures rather than words. When we're playing mafia!

just to get discussion moving

Vote: Corvuus

I think your interpretation of what was going on is fairly suspect. and I also don't see how voting me to get discussion moving made sense to you.

I was already giving my reasons and taking a 'stand' and for your arguments about 'bandwagoning' a person for speaking in pictures, it seems funny that you may be attempting to bandwagon a person for offering the alternative viewpoint that primate is faking and Primate has to explain why he is posting in pictures. I also stated that I viewed it as anti-town and I was voting primate to get him to respond, not to lynch him, so I don't like how you interpret that differently.

I simply chose Corvuus because it was a random vote. There was no malicious intent intended. But I'm a little confused about Primate's Vendiagram. Does the fact I'm in a seperate bubble mean my allegiance is undecided?

I don't see why you say you choose me as a random vote. Your first few posts specifically asked if we were out of the random voting stage, and you voted me for discussion. So why is it a random vote? I was making a case on Primate's "PR" so it is already out of the random voting stage and such.

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

I did find it kind of odd SC didn't try to defend himself from Primate's accusations. But I don't know if that's a sign of a passive scum or a passive townie.

I don't get this statement or your conclusion at all. You state that you found it odd, so you have been reading and seeing everything, correct?

you then state, "I don't know if it is a sign of (SC being) a passive scum or a passive town".

This statement doesn't make sense and is one of the things I was going after SC for. SC was not being passive but was being active in Fosing and going after people for 'slips' and such and "scumhunting". My point on SC was why was he active in regards to some, but then he completely ignored Primate's accusation against him without Primate supplying any evidence, etc.

So what do you mean by SC is being a passive town or a passive scum?

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

In your post 6 and 7, I think your reasoning is fairly interesting and I have my own interpretation of it.

Perhaps the reason why I became very hostile towards 'everyone' is because from my point of view, I was asking and voting something "reasonable" and not trying to lynch primate at all and then people seemed to be 'willfully' misinterpreting me in a completely different way. (although I did not present it very clearly and such)

I never said I wanted to lynch Primate, I said I wanted him to respond and that I didn't believe his PR and such. I gave the example of the end game scenario as to why we should discuss it "now" and not for why we should "lynch" him now. I never liked how everyone assumed I was trying to lynch him but since pretty much everyone assumed it/was against me, I don't claim any tells from it but I do think your comments in particular are fairly bad.

In your post #6, you state you can interpret Primate (which we started asking if anyone could and most had to admit that they couldn't, in particular SC made the same claim but he couldn't say why Primate thought he was scum) and you also present that I am either extremist townie or I am scum going after people who don't post.

At this time, there were you and others who don't "post alot" and I didn't go after them at all, so I think your suggestion here is fairly scummy. I went after Primate specifically because of the picture PR and I wanted him to post more to understand him better. So that is a gross misrepresentation by presenting it as an either case.

Your post #7 is also a fairly large misrepresentation and post #9 is just amusing to me. You never called me out and I don't see how you can claim that. Even when I was being "extremist" you didn't vote for me, oh wait, you did, with your "random" vote.

But you specifically state that you called me out, so that must mean your initial random vote was calling me out? even tho you state that it was random with no malicious intent behind it? That also doesn't make sense.

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

In post #11, you state two interesting things.

First, that you see SC as being scum and then second is that you "still" think Cephrir is scum. I will leave the SC part alone but why do you state "still think" Cephrir is scum when you haven't posted anything on Cephrir at all? When did that occur? You later mention page #3 as for why you voted and how we were past the random voting stage already and that voting without explanation is bad... and yet... you voted for me in the exact same way and then claimed it was a random vote and your vote and explanation was done on page #7-8.

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

The posts that follow are mainly about SC's doc claim and now that I re-read them, it strikes me that you are insanely hypocritical.

You state in post #22
"I simply offered an alternate viewpoint. I don't see why this is arousing this much angst and suspicion. If we all jumped on someone when they offered an alternate view, we'd never get past day 1. I just passed a comment that may or may not have shown others that there isn't a rigid set of scumtells. I thought that was part of the game, to suggest things."

Yet you didn't treat me like this at all. I offered an alternate viewpoint (Primate was faking a PR) and many people did jump on me. Your response, answers and the fact that almost everything you said or did is hypocritical because you did the exact same thing strikes me as funny and also scummy.

You vote Cephrir for not explaining his vote after random voting is over, yet you do the same. You claim random voting when it clearly isn't. You make conclusions on 'passiveness' and such which also don't make sense as well. I still don't get the leap you make in going from "SC is scum" to SC is fake claiming and such.

Maybe I am crazy, but Apoth and SC just don't make much sense to me as players.

Voth Apoth

Corvuus
P.S. sorry for lack of editing and such, time is not infinite

[LlamaFluff]

Still waiting for Llama's simplified summary before I comment.

I think Ythill is scum due to (very simplified due to lack of time)

- Weak case on Atlas
-- Addition of null tells
-- Abandonment of case
- The timing of the move to Apoc
-- SC wagon had just died freeing votes
-- Apoc had stronger lynch following earlier
- Dismissal/downplay of parts of my case due to wording

[Ythill]

I'll just snip Llama's list, add numbers for reference, and extrapolate. The following is not meant to be a representation of what Llama was saying but, rather, of the truth...

1 -- Weak case on Atlas (which he cites as a model of validity later)

2 -- Addition of (one point which could be a scumtell or a) null tell

s

3 -- Abandonment of case (a.k.a. accepting some of Atlas' defenses and moving on)

4 -- The timing of the move to Apoc (which I explained; Llama has ignored my explanation, citing only his opinion as the reason)

5 -- SC wagon had just died freeing votes (this is just a detail about #4, so Llama is trying to fluff-up his case)

6 -- Apoc had stronger lynch following earlier (see #5, same thing)

7 -- Dismissal/downplay of parts of my case due to wording (this point is wholly a fabrication of Llama's; what I did was cite his use of the qualifiers "seems" and "feel" to show how he was projecting assumptions rather than arguing facts)

[Apothecary]

Looks like the wagon on me is still rolling after all.

Corvuus, I didn't vote you for being extremist against Primate. I was voting because I thought we needed to move the game on. You're making look like I was calling you out on it. And if I recall, I said it was difficult but not impossible to interpret primate's posting. I can see what you mean by it, as I said I was trying to get a reaction from you. But most votes are used to get reactions. I never attacked you for offering an alternate viewpoint. I offered my views on you in post 227. I also said it was "silly to lynch" you over such a trivial thing.
Also, that particular suspicion was already noted by LlamaFluff in 275. I later came to the conclusion that you were a townie.

I'll post my two suspects when I get back.

[Cephrir]

Is it that difficult to list two names?

I think Ythill is more likely scum than Llama FTR, but it's also very possible that they're bboth town.

[Corvuus]

Looks like the wagon on me is still rolling after all.

Corvuus, I didn't vote you for being extremist against Primate. I was voting because I thought we needed to move the game on. You're making look like I was calling you out on it. And if I recall, I said it was difficult but not impossible to interpret primate's posting. I can see what you mean by it, as I said I was trying to get a reaction from you. But most votes are used to get reactions. I never attacked you for offering an alternate viewpoint. I offered my views on you in post 227. I also said it was "silly to lynch" you over such a trivial thing.
Also, that particular suspicion was already noted by LlamaFluff in 275. I later came to the conclusion that you were a townie.

I'll post my two suspects when I get back.

That doesn't make sense and it seems like a blatant lie since you aren't consistent with yourself.

Your post #3, you vote for me. You asked in the previous two posts if we were out of random voting and you vote me to get discussion going.

You get asked why voting for Corvuus instead of say ANYONE else and you say it is a random vote.

Later on, you vote for Cephrir for 'being out of random voting stage' when your vote for me is after Cephrir's 'random baseless' vote. You then state yourself (not me) that you called me out and you had your vote on me... from your 'random' vote.

This is chronological order right? So don't say I am twisting your words when it is what you posted.

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

I don't want a long post, so here is short points.

1. Your vote for me was to get a reaction out of me or was it a random vote? You state it was random before, but later you state it was for a reaction/calling me out. Which is it?

Sidenote: If it was for a reaction, what kind of reaction were you expecting?

2. You are using 'later' posts to redefine your earlier position. I don't care about what you are saying in post 227, since that is your view later, not earlier. I don't see how you can claim voting for me when I was going after Primate's PR is moving discussion forward; voting for me to "call me out" (in your own words) is voting for me based on my alternative viewpoint, otherwise how did you call me out?

3. You stated that scum is on your bandwagon earlier, so how hard is it to list top 2 scum?

Corvuus

[Apothecary]

So you're saying that a random vote can't also be a vote that gets a reaction? I chose someone that I wanted to get a a response out of. It wouldn't have been any different if I had chosen others like Macavity.
What kind of reaction did I want? I wanted to see if you would react with an OMGUS countervote, or if you would calmly dismiss it.

I never said it was hard for me to choose my top 2 scum. I just said I'd do it when I got back, as I had to leave at that minute. But now I'm really going to look through my suspects, and carefully choose.

Personally I suspect:
Ythill: There's definitly something odd in the way he's dragged out the discussion between him and LF. He
And Stranger Coug. He wanted people to believe that I was accusing him of Strawman arguments. And he claimed a power role on Day one. I'm not buying that. He also brought up Kokusho's gambit, which is a load of crap in a situation like this.

[Huntress]

Qwints replaces Atlas

[Cephrir]

So you're saying that a random vote can't also be a vote that gets a reaction? I chose someone that I wanted to get a a response out of. It wouldn't have been any different if I had chosen others like Macavity.

just to get discussion moving Vote: Corvuus

I believe (when you're pas the random voting stage) that you have to give your reasons to vote on someone. Keeping them concealed and not telling pretty much leaves most others (like me) thinking there is no reasoning behind it, or it might be a scum at work, trying to scrape a quick kill.
He then backs behind a shield of "I did it to get reactions" and "to get us out of the random voting stage".
That's just a little suspect for me. Or maybe I'm just overly paranoid.

So why is this not OK when I do it?