Mini 720 - SPQR Mafia {Game Over}

[Erratus Apathos]

Vote: xtoxm

[Erratus Apathos]

FoS: Glork

How do you know Yos isn't tricking scum?

[Erratus Apathos]

Trust me, an octopus would be FoSing Yos, too.

Octopuses don't have fingers. Lynch the liar!

Unvote
Vote: Glork

[Erratus Apathos]

No. Just seeing if Ass's idea has any effect...

I'm just mucking about, it's the random phase.

Which is it?

Not liking Yos2's "contributions" so far.

Unvote
Vote: Yosarian2

[Erratus Apathos]

Not liking Yos2's "contributions" so far.

Unvote
Vote: Yosarian2

unvote
vote: Erratus Apathos

EA votes Yosarian for "not liking his 'contributions' ", but doesn't back it up. It just looks like some random activity to me until he finds a better target.

I cast a one line vote based on a very early feel, and you predict that I'm probably not going to keep it for the rest of the game? Bold prophecy there, Miss Cleo!

I don't see anything wrong with Yosarian so far. Testing the waters with the alt question was also of interest for me. I'm curious in which way Coriolanus will react to a different subject in the future.

You could end this paragraph with "I'm chainsaw-defending Yos2!" in bold red using the largest font and it wouldn't be much more obvious than it already is.

Not liking Yos2's "contributions" so far.

Unvote
Vote: Yosarian2

This is the sum total of your "contributions" so far.

Vote: xtoxm

FoS: Glork

How do you know Yos isn't tricking scum?

Trust me, an octopus would be FoSing Yos, too.

Octopuses don't have fingers. Lynch the liar!

Unvote
Vote: Glork

Random vote, pointless questions, joke vote.

I'm doing my best to discuss an actual game relevent issue here, and to use pressure to try to get moving. You have done nothing.

Why it's almost as if those posts came during the random voting stage! What actual game relevant issue are you talking about here by the way, that Coriolanus alt bullshit that it seems nobody even mention anymore without saying something like "but I don't think it's a tell, it's just really really interesting"?

What, exactally, do you have against my "contributions"?

I can't see how they lead to finding scum.

Interesting point Yos makes against Erratus.

What's interesting about it?

RV's opportunistic chainsaw vote is the scummiest thing yet.

Unvote
Vote: Rally Vincent

[Erratus Apathos]

has the "chainsaw defense" actually been ever proven to be a reasonable meta?

Has anything?

It's a Pot/Kettle thing. FWIW, I had gotten the impression that Yos2 has been involved in the game, so I'm curious to know how you can justify attacking somebody based on "lack of contribution" when you yourself hadn't done anything but a couple of random-votes up until that point.

I never said anything about "lack of contribution". I said I didn't like his contributions, that

should

make it clear that I'm not attacking him for a lack thereof.

You gave a vote for a bad reason. He voted you for it. "Oh, he's just doing a chainsaw defense of Yos2" is a really weak defense on your part, especally considering that I was in absolutly zero danger since no one else even thought me suspicious.

No, it wasn't a defense at all, it was an attack on RV. And whether you were actually in danger or not isn't important here, it's whether RV thought you were. And considering how quick he was to defend you from me, I'd say he did.

And your "that was just the random phase" defense is bad as well. Yes, it's ok to joke and fool around early in the game, I've got no problem with that. But if all you've done so far is joking and fooling around, and I've actually discussing game-relevent issues, you really don't have any grounds to attack my "contrabutions" as "unhelpful in finding scum" or whatever.

1: I don't need "grounds to attack". If I'm town and have committed scumtell X, that doesn't invalidate the tell. I would still be justified in bringing it up if someone else commits the same tell. Your argument here is pure ad hominem.

2: And even if it wasn't, the comparison you're trying to make between the sum of your first twelve posts and the sum of my first three is just silly anyways.

Obviously

if you apply post-RVS standards to my RVS posts, they're not going to stand up. Where does your "oh yeah well you haven't discussed game relevant issues" argument go now that I have discussed game relevant issues?

If someone does something that looks like an over-reaction to me, my natural reaction is to put more pressure on that nerve and see what happens, especally early in the game when I'm just trying to get something going. You really don't see how that can lead to finding scum?

No. I mean, I understand meta enough to at least understand why you'd ask Coriolanus if he was an alt, but once he said no, I can't see what there is to be gained from continuing down that path.

Yeah, the whole "chainsaw defense" thing is way overused. If you use it at all, you should use it when you already have caught and lynched one scum, then it might be worthwhile going back and seeing who tried to prevent the lynch, using several different possible methods, including the "chainsaw defense". But many attacks in mafia are always going to be based off someone else thinking your vote was scummy; you can't always just say "You're trying to chainsaw defense!!!"

Which is why I don't always just say that. Chainsaw defense is different from "attacking the attacker". By definition, chainsaw defense is only applicable to cases where X is attacking Y

with intent to protect Z

. RV said he thought Yos was town when he voted me. That's intent to protect.

Talking about opportunistic... and are you really trying to say that your post - that was nothing but a vote - was an attack that called for any kind of "defense"? Seriously?

If my Yos vote didn't call for any kind of defense, why did you defend Yos in response to my vote?

[Erratus Apathos]

Has anything?

i agree. so why use them?

Why use anything? Well, it beats using nothing.

Regarding Erratus: Now I understand the subtle difference that he (and Patrick) are trying to make here. Nowever, I do not agree with it

at all

. "Can't say anything wrong if I don't say anything at all" is what I'm getting out of that, and that really irritates me.

I don't even understand why this argument is still in play, considering I've no longer said nothing.

But since it is still in play, think of it this way: Would my Yos vote have been more valid if I'd participated in a completely unrelated discussion before posting it? Because that's pretty much the bottom line of saying that an inactive player doesn't have room to criticize an active player's posting.

[Erratus Apathos]

What are your opinions on Xtoxm, Coriolanus and Dahill?

I don't feel like the cases against any of them are substantial. Maybe it's just me, but I can't really read xtoxm the way he's been playing, in the same way that I can't really read natirasha ever. I don't think that Coriolanus's "i'm in the business of scumhunting" post implies that he can't talk about anything else. And that idea that dahill is scummy for agreeing with Yos and Glork on Coriolanus's alt defense being strange is just beyond stupid.

If it comes down to one of those three, I'd prefer xtoxm lynch over Coriolanus or dahill, since it's no-read versus two town-leans.

i think that there are other tactics that can be used outside of scumtells. i read an article on MTGS by a player named azrael that can explain my philosophy pretty well, but since this conversation is hopelessly vague and isn't going anywhere i don't think it would be of much use.

I've read that, and didn't understand it at all.

I didn't reply because I wanted to see if he would insist on an answer or not. Up until now, it didn't seem to bother him. He is convinced enough to vote and pressure me, but then he doesn’t follow it up. Makes me wonder, why.

I thought you just didn't have access since you weren't posting at all. Was I supposed to infer you were lurking?

But since you now mentioned it, I might as well. EA considered it a defense of Yosarian, while it was a mere reaction to him "not liking Yosarians contributions", which in fact I didn't see as something not to like.

What's the difference?

My guess right now is that Coriolanus is scum. I wouldn't have a problem with lynching someone else then Xtoxm if that player is a more promising lynch - yet, if we don't find some, an Xtoxm lynch will at least prevent that we'd have to deal with his self-vote etc. again on Day 2. But Coriolanus is so reluctant to lynch Xtoxm today

at all

. I'm beginning to think he'd like to Xtoxm around on Day 2 as a bait.

That last bit implies you know xtoxm is town.

[Erratus Apathos]

A question to Incognito, Glork, Yosarian2, Erratus Apathos, Rally Vincent, probably some other people I'm forgetting:
Are you in fact aware of the full case against Dahill? What do you think of the contrast between this and this?

No, I wasn't aware of dahill's post in the 5 things I hate thread. I don't read bitch threads.

While I don't agree that those points are necessarily contradictory, if dahill is town I'd expect him to have pointed out why they weren't contradictory as soon as it was brought up. Instead, he distanced himself from the MD post by effectively claiming that he was only quoting Glork as a devil's advocate. I don't buy it. "take it away, glrok!" sounds much more like someone who knows he's soundly owning animorpher than someone who's trying to start an argument.

Do you typically skim over large parts of the game? Genuine question, because this quote really gives me that impression. Your sum up of the dahill case in particular is clearly wrong.

Yes I skim a lot, but prior to making that post I scoured through dahill's voters' posts looking specifically for the case against him (as well as skimming over his posts myself. Same goes for xtoxm and coriolanus). There's no way I would have missed a clear argument against him - the 5 things I hate contradiction most definitely not being clear.

Unvote
Vote: dahill1

[Erratus Apathos]

(For the record, yes, I still firmly believe that dahill is protown.)

When did you firmly believe he was protown prior to this?

Vote: Glork

[Erratus Apathos]

(For the record, yes, I still firmly believe that dahill is protown.)

When did you firmly believe he was protown prior to this?

Vote: Glork

If I gave off any other impression, please point that out.

EBWOP: I'm still not really sure why there's a wagon on dahill -- it seems like the four votes currently on him are for things that I haven't thought to be a particularly big deal, though maybe I've just been tunnel-visioned on the two likely scumbaggoes. I'll check out dahill soon (as in, over N1 probably) and get back to you with a verdict.

[Erratus Apathos]

Erratus Apathos:

What are your current feelings about Rally Vincent (El Destructo) and dahill1? How serious is your current Glork-vote?

What do you mean "serious", like I'd cast a joke vote at this stage for no fucking reason?

After giving it some thought, I think I see what Glork sees on dahill. I'm not at all convinced, but if I'm wrong it'll probably be apparent sooner than later. Until then, I'm leaning town on both Glork and dahill1.

I haven't changed my mind on RV since unvoting him.

I never said anything about "lack of contribution". I said I didn't like his contributions, that should make it clear that I'm not attacking him for a lack thereof.

why did you put the word contributions in quotation marks?

Scare quotes. I wanted to mock his contributions, but didn't feel like typing more than two punctuation marks to do so.

After Yos's latest post, I'm down for his lynch. He says he's still adjusting for the revelation that xtoxm was town. Thing is, he's had since

December 29th

to do so. Two weeks later, he still has nothing. It's pretty clear to me that he's not interested in scum hunting.

Unvote
Vote: Yosarian2

[Erratus Apathos]

It's pretty clear to me that he's not interested in scum hunting.

Hah. You wish I wasn't interested in scum hunting.

I'd like you to make a list of people who have done more scum hunting this game then I have. (Hint: you're not on the list.)

Yeah, and? Am I supposed to infer that you can't be scum because you post more than I do? The fact that you were involved in the scum hunt yesterday doesn't change the fact that you weren't today.

Also, it's scummy as hell that, when the only attack you've made at all today was a vote on Glork, you suddenly turn around and take advantage of Glork's logic-less vote on me without questioning it. Especally considering how insistent you've been on voting for Glork, compared to the general shittyness of your case against him.

"take advantage of Glork's logic-less vote"? What in the hell does that mean?

You're doing the same bullshit you tried day 1, again, when you complained about my contributions while you hadn't done anything yet. I'm posting and actually doing stuff, and you're really not; this is only your third post of the month, and the first two were complete garbage, as I pointed out about your Glork case at the time; and yet you again act like I'm the one who's not scumhunting, just because I haven't voted yet today?

And you're doing the same bullshit you tried day 1, what with your defense

still

being pure ad hominem.

also, erratus, what exactly were you trying to convey with those scare quotes? usually, I associate it with sarcasm, but that makes no sense, because you later say that you think yosarian was contributing something. so what was the point?

I don't really recall; I sure as hell don't commit grammatical decision processes to memory. Best I can guess is that I thought just calling them contributions straight up was an unfair implicit comparison to other contributions.

I do think Yosarian2 makes a valid point about Erratus Apathos -- it doesn't seem natural to me for Erratus Apathos to start off D2 with a vote on Glork, end D1 with a vote on dahill1, conclude in his 468 that he's leaning town on both of them, and then vote Yosarian2 shortly after Glork had reasonless voted for him. I'd think if Erratus Apathos was truly suspicious of Glork, he might have questioned his Yos2-vote rather than just following Glork's suit after this stretch of time since EA's second to last post. I don't even remember EA acknowledging Yos2's 447 or Tuberkulos's 448 where they both comment on the Glork-posts EA brought forward.

Erratus Apathos, can you explain your thought process as to how you suddenly arrived at town reads on Glork and dahill1?

I'm not going to right now.

[Erratus Apathos]

Erratus Apathos, can you explain your thought process as to how you suddenly arrived at town reads on Glork and dahill1?

I'm not going to right now.

Any reason why?

Explaining why would be self-defeating.

Yeah, and? Am I supposed to infer that you can't be scum because you post more than I do? The fact that you were involved in the scum hunt yesterday doesn't change the fact that you weren't today.

Again, where the hell do you get the idea I wasn't looking for scum today?

From the horse's mouth:

Yos, why haven't you posted any scumhunting/votes recently?

Meh. I'm trying to figure stuff out, but I'll admit, Xtoxm flipping town really threw me for a loop. Nearly everything I had thought I had figured out on day 1 is gone, and I feel like I'm totally starting from scatch again.

When Coriolanus asked you why you hadn't scumhunted, you explained why you didn't. You wouldn't be explaining why you didn't scumhunt if you did.

And, no, I'm not suggesting that, although it certanly is a point in my favor.

Yeah, you are suggesting that. Your vote for me was pretty much just "I posted more than you, so you're scum".

And why would it be a point in your favor? Unless OGML weighted town roles towards frequent posters, post rate means dick.

"take advantage of Glork's logic-less vote"? What in the hell does that mean?

I mean that you know that if Glork is attacking someone, even if he's not using logic yet, their odds of survival tend to go way down, and you tried to take advantage of that.

So Glork can single-handedly get you lynched without ever explaining why you're a good lynch. That's amazing, does he also win Connect Four in three moves and stare down books until they give him the information he wants? Either way, my reason for voting you is different from Glork's (by virtue of the fact that I've actually provided a reason) and I'm still voting you even after Glork switched to Destructo. There is precisely zero basis to assume that I'm voting you because Glork voted you. You're clearly just making shit up here. Die scum.

As Incog pointed out, if you were really suspicious of Glork, and he voted someone using zero logic, it dosn't make sense for you to go ahead and vote that same person without questoning his vote at all.

Except I voted for you

after

I stopped being suspicious of Glork.

Um, no. Ad hominem would be "You are wrong because you're stupid'. What I did was say "You're not making any sense. Also, you haven't made any sense at all this game, so you're probably scum." That's not what "ad hom" means.

And no, my defense against your day 1 craplogic attack wasn't ad hom, at all.

Ad hominem means

all

attacks against the arguer rather than the argument, not just the inflammatory kind. Wiki ftw. Your defense against me has

always

rested on me having no grounds to attack you, rather than on actually disputing the claims made in the attack.

More to the point, why aren't more people voting Erratus Apathos? He is so obv scum if you just read his posts, that I can't understand why more people aren't voting him.

When you say "More to the point" you're supposed to follow it up with an actual point.

[Erratus Apathos]

When Coriolanus asked you why you hadn't scumhunted, you explained why you didn't. You wouldn't be explaining why you didn't scumhunt if you did.

No, I was explaining why I hadn't voted yet on day 2. I certanly had been scumhunting. In fact, I've found at least one scum, you, so I think I'm doing pretty good.

Okay, so Coriolanus asked you why you hadn't scumhunted, and rather than correct him, you just ignored that part of the question. That makes it apparent that you didn't give a rat's ass about Coriolanus saying you didn't scumhunt, since he wasn't attacking you for it. Of course, now that I'm attacking you for it, you do care.

Also, nice false chronology there - you "found" me

after

Coriolanus and I said you hadn't been scumhunting, so using it to show that you had been is just bullshit.

No, I never said that. I wasn't voting for you because of how much you were posting, I was voting for you because of the quality of your posts.

Really? I couldn't tell:

It's pretty clear to me that he's not interested in scum hunting.

Hah. You wish I wasn't interested in scum hunting.

I'd like you to make a list of people who have done more scum hunting this game then I have. (Hint: you're not on the list.)

Also, it's scummy as hell that, when the only attack you've made at all today was a vote on Glork, you suddenly turn around and take advantage of Glork's logic-less vote on me without questioning it. Especally considering how insistent you've been on voting for Glork, compared to the general shittyness of your case against him.

You're doing the same bullshit you tried day 1, again, when you complained about my contributions while you hadn't done anything yet. I'm posting and actually doing stuff, and you're really not; this is only your third post of the month, and the first two were complete garbage, as I pointed out about your Glork case at the time; and yet you again act like I'm the one who's not scumhunting, just because I haven't voted yet today?

Vote: Erratus Apathos

The only thing here that even sounds like you're voting me for the quality of my posts is when you called two of my posts garbage. And that was just an aside to the fact that I hadn't posted much.

Because scum tend to lurk more, and say less, then town. Because it's more dangerous for them to post, while town have more motivation to post since it's the only way they can win. Duh. It's not a strong tell or anything, of course.

Well of course it's a tell if someone tactically lurks, that wasn't what I was talking about. We're both posting at about our normal rates (well, I'm assuming you are anyways) so how is it a tell that your normal rate is higher than mine?

The answer is, of course, that it's not.

No, I didn't say "without explaining himself", because I'm sure he will. I was just pointing out that Glork is one of the best people in the game in the skill of getting the person he's attacking lynched, and I'm sure you knew that and were taking advantage of the fact.

What makes you so sure I knew that? Because, well, I didn't.

Bullshit. The reason for you vote was completle bullshit, and I'm sure you know that. You were just looking for an excuse to join the wagon when it looked good (IE: after Glork voted me), and now you can't get off it without looking worse.

Like hell I can't. I spent the better part of yesterday attacking Rally Vincent, and I said earlier today that I'm still suspicious of him. I could easily have joined Glork in voting El Destructo. But I didn't, nor did I join him on Pathetric, Xtoxm, nor Coriolanus. I only joined him on you, and even that is obviously just a coincidence. Your attempt to paint me as a sheep who just mindlessly follows Glork around is poorly-thatched scum-brand bullshit.

Right. Of course, you never mentioned that until you were called on it.

No, it's right there in 468. I changed my mind on Glork in the first half, and voted you in the second.

Um...no.

My defense against you is that your attack on me is complete and utter bullshit. I certanly been scumhunting, and have been doing a much better job of it then you have this game, so your attack against me is just false.

You did a much better job scumhunting than me? I guess you're right, if I was honestly scumhunting I probably would have caught Xtoxm like you did.

My attack agaist you is that your attacks on everyone is complete and utter bullshit, and that I'm sure you already know that, since you're clearly scum who's just trying to find excuses to attack people so it looks like you're scumhunting.

Could you translate that into something that makes sense? Or is it

supposed

to just be a jumbled mess of "You are obvscum because you're trying to look town since everything you say is scummy whereas you know that you're scum seeing as how you're taking advantage of Glork's vote due to your attack on me being bad in light of the fact that you are obvscum"?

More to the point, why aren't more people voting Erratus Apathos? He is so obv scum if you just read his posts, that I can't understand why more people aren't voting him.

When you say "More to the point" you're supposed to follow it up with an actual point.

I did. The point is, I want to know why you haven't been lynched yet. Are people just not reading this guy's posts, or what?

That's right, Yos. People aren't reading my posts.

[Erratus Apathos]

Also I feel compelled to remind everyone that deadline is the 21st.

[Erratus Apathos]

Yos looks more like he's just getting ready to roll over and die while dropping the least number of tells on his buddies, or, in the case that he isn't lynched today, giving himself the room to continue attacking EA tomorrow.

Or else it means that if the rest of the town would rather lynch me then take 5 minutes to read EA's posts for themselves and for their own opinion, and I haven't seen any sign yet that anyone has, then there's nothing else I can do for the town.

Yeah there is, you could post an

actual case

instead of constantly throwing around ridiculous baseless insults to everyone for not reaching the same conclusion as you. Not only are you not doing anything to actually convince others to vote me, but you're acting like it's unheard of for people to disagree with you. You know damn well that people aren't avoiding my wagon because they won't read/are blindly trusting me/whatever stupid shit you're spouting this time. That'd be a spit in the face to most newbies, much less a game that's like half Invitational players.

It's clear to me at least, that your fit of aspie rage is because something I did made you feel like you're entitled to my lynch. This is distinct from feeling like my lynch is best for the town, in that you would try to convince everyone to lynch me rather than angrily demand that they do. Yos2 is scum, end of story.

I thought I posted this, but i must have deleted it or something, but Yos' push on EA is similar to his on Xtox yesterday in that he's not showing us any evidence that he's seriously considering EA as part of a scum-team.

Uh, I never do that, because it's stupid. First you find one scum, you lynch him, and then you look for his scumbuddies. Vauge speculation built on an assumption on an early part of the game is just bad play. Now, endgame when there's a very limited number of suspects left, sure, try and figure out the whole scumgroup by connections and process of eliminitation; but on day 1 or day 2? Pfft.

Also, this is hilarious now that you've suddenly decided the whole scumgroup is me, Destructo, and Glork.

Please, someone hammer before deadline.

[Erratus Apathos]

I support massclaim.

[Erratus Apathos]

conspirator

[Erratus Apathos]

After the massclaim, I'm no longer certain that Glork and Dahill are town - I jumped away from them the way I did because I thought they were masons. I'll reread them, and probably everyone else too, but it'd take one hell of a tell for me to prefer any lynch other than charter. Bolding for emphasis:

charter, you've been pushing for a dahill1 lynch since like Day 1. If you feel like this is some kind of inverted AitP, why did you never choose to investigate dahill1?

Night 1 I didn't because I assumed that after the idiocy of Xtoxm we could just lynch dahill. Night 2 I didn't because (largely the same reason) I wanted to see if Yos was on to anything.
I really have no idea as to the setup, that was just an idea I threw out.

i also don't get why charter wouldn't have investigated me since it seemed like i was/is his number one suspect
also, assuming we have 3 scum, i find it really unlikely that it's 3:1:8, with the neutral being a survivor and only 1 town power role that only serves the purpose of finding just 1 scum.
i'm starting to think that with this number of vanillas it could be more than one scum group

How can you say there's more than one scum group?

Look at the conspirator role pm!

Look at the one kill per night we're having! Neither makes any sense whatsoever with more than one scum group.

Oh. I didn't get one of those so

I never really looked at it

. Chill.

...yeah.

Vote: charter

[Erratus Apathos]

Oh, well I checked it when I wrote that. Forgot it when I made the second post like a day later.

The fact that that's all EA has to contribute to this game I think is suspect.

It's not that you forgot the conspirator role PM. It's that you excused yourself from Glork's line of inquisition by saying you never looked at it in the first place. Which isn't something you'd say a day after having looked at it, unless you were just looking for a convenient excuse to get out of being questioned.

Of course it's not enough of a contribution to catch only one scum, I'll try and be sure to post only when I've caught two or more scum from now on. Or is that even enough? How many scum must I catch before it's okay to post?

ass, incog: Make a point, or just

shut the fuck up

. I put up with more than enough unwarranted condescending douchebaggery coming from Yos2 yesterday, I'll be god damned if I'm going to put up with any more.

[Erratus Apathos]

unvote, vote EA

What line of questioning of Glork's was I excusing myself of? That seems to be what you find wrong with it, but I was the one questioning Glork.

Yeah I guess you have a point. I still don't see why you'd turn around and deny having looked at it, but I don't see any scum motive for it anymore.

Unvote

ass, incog: Make a point, or just

shut the fuck up

. I put up with more than enough unwarranted condescending douchebaggery coming from Yos2 yesterday, I'll be god damned if I'm going to put up with any more.

I am making a fucking point.

So I was supposed to infer your argument against me here from "go jump off a bridge"? Man I feel stupid for missing that

After your post 715, I'm really beginning to think you're scum, hence my vote is on you. I dislike how you've now repeatedly voted for people you've previously had no suspicions of over such ridiculously minor offenses and have

inflated

your reasoning to make it seem like the offense you're calling out is something major.

Oh shit I forgot that townies have to mention their suspicions before voting someone because townies always do things in an arbitrary preset order and then here I go and get the order wrong. I must be the worst simon player ever. Speaking of arbitrary, "ridiculously minor offenses"? I don't know how to distinguish those from not ridiculously minor offenses, nor could I even potentially care. I'm never going to decline to use a scumtell just because it doesn't meet some arbitrary threshold of significance. If it's really insignificant, odds are the accused can show it to be so. And what the SHIT is "inflated your reasoning" supposed to mean? I get a strong feeling that you're just pulling all this stuff out of your ass here.

In your 715, you pointed out what seems to be a minor contradiction in what charter had mentioned in the wording of his 683 and his 710 and you've used that contradiction to justify the vote mentioning the following:

I'll reread them, and probably everyone else too,

but it'd take one hell of a tell for me to prefer any lynch other than charter.

Do you honestly feel like that contradiction you've pointed out is enough to ring charter up for? What do you think about the rest of charter's play in general?

Not anymore, but yes, fallacious evasiveness is a reliable enough tell that one count warrants lynching. Having overlooked that he wasn't actually evading anything, I was willing to lynch.

I still haven't finished rereading, so I'll have to get back to you on a general opinion.

I don't even recall you mentioning a word about the set-up speculation that has been going on as of recent.

Hell I've barely even been reading it. It doesn't matter one bit what everyone playing this game thinks about setup balance, because everyone playing this game didn't balance this setup. I skimmed past pretty much every post that even looked like outguessing the mod.

Do you seriously think charter is fake-claiming a Brutus power role given the probable 2 scum set-up and what seems like a lack of protective roles? To me, your contributions in this game look like pseudo-scum-hunting; you haven't seemed to make an effort to analyze the thread and question people about their motivations -- you seem to just point out minor inconsistencies in people's play and vote them for it only to drop them at a later time for completely unexplained reasons. I even mentioned something about this during Day 2 after you ended up voting Glork and then out of nowhere shifting your vote to Yosarian2 without even commenting on what it was about Glork's play then that made you suddenly feel like he was town. That particular instance just didn't feel natural to me.

I already said that was because I thought Glork and dahill were masons. Can you not see why I would keep that to myself?

A similar thing happened during Day 1 when you had your back and forth with Rally Vincent for pretty much the entirety of the day, which again, you seemed to drop out of nowhere during Day 2 in favor of your sudden Glork-vote. I questioned you about this to which you replied with the following:

I haven't changed my mind on RV since unvoting him.

Why exactly haven't you bothered to comment on El Destructo since they replaced into the game? What are your current thoughts about them?

I was sidetracked with Yos.

EA, who is Caesar?

How should I know?

Incog, I found EA's play to be pretty similar to what I remembered from him in your game, Cog City. I saw him play scum in Lovers Multiball for a bit before he replaced out and don't have a great memory of that (it was a big game). Besides this, I've never seen him play scum. Do you think EA's meta is relevant in this game?

Also, I went back and filtered EA's posts from Lovers, this is a near clone. It certainly isn't a point in his favor.

With regards to this meta you're citing, I don't think Erratus Apathos's play looks anything like his play in my game, Mini 601, at all. If I remember correctly, EA was Vanilla in that game, pinned avinashv/Oman-scum on like Day 1, and pretty much tunneled on him for the remainder of the game until Oman got lynched on like Day 4. Comparing that to his play here, I've noticed a pattern where he seems to just vote, stick with it for awhile, and then drop it without further comment. If anything, I'd argue that his play here looks much closer to his play in Mini 577 where he was scum and had a tendency to distance/bus his buddies in that game making his voting pattern much more flippant than it was in 601, similar to how he's played in this current game.

Comparing my play in this game to my play in the one or two games you've seen me in isn't meta, it's statistically insignificant horse shit. If you're not aware of my tendency towards frequent vote switches, you definitely don't have enough to make a reasonable comparison.

[Erratus Apathos]

I denied looking at it? When?

Oh. I didn't get one of those so I never really looked at it. Chill.

[Erratus Apathos]

Done rereading. Charter's reaction to my pointing out his "slip" is genuine, so I feel he's town. (Insert word eating here.) Assmaster gives me a strong town vibe as well; his posts 33 and 59 in particular come off as honest. The other town feel I got was El Des, who I noticed seemed conflicted on more than a fair share of points. I know, "since when is being noncommittal a town tell?" but they never used their lack of conviction to later jump on one side, which tells me it's genuine and not malicious.

On the other side of the coin, Incog is scum. His attack on me doesn't at all look like he's thought it out the way a townie would - he pointed out a bunch of supposedly strange things I've done (like voting people without indicating suspicion of them beforehand) without showing why these things are anything more than strange. That's how scum score mislynches: "oh look, (townie)'s acting weird, lynch him!" I would hope he puts more thought into his decisions than this when he's town.

Moreover, I challenged him to explain his processes on Friday. He's taken a couple moments to say "Oh hi, still here, still think EA is scum" while making excuses to not answer me. He's just stalling. Look at that last post: he puts off his response to me yet again, but then reminds everyone it's two days to deadline so hurry up and end day already. If he honestly believed it was time to stop procrastinating, he would have finally answered me already. No sincerity whatsoever.

Vote: Incognito

[Erratus Apathos]

GG. Incog/Glork/Tuber, I assume?