Mini 737 - Hack Poetry Mafia (Game Over)

[don_johnson]

Don_Johnson: You FoS RedCoyote, but aren't voting anyone right now. Why a FoS? Where's your vote? Looking back I see you FoS Jebus earlier but no vote as well there. Are you afraid to vote?

no. not afraid. hadn't seen a vote count recently. i am in several games and thought i had a vote laid down here. also, i don't think it would be wise to lynch someone who disagrees with me on day 1 policy, i just found it suspicious that RC again brought up the point. i thought we had already discussed it.

Bizarre non sequiture in there. I wonder what made your mind jump from your first paragraph to Red Coyote then back to me again.

sorry? let me know how you would like me to organize my thoughts in the future.

On the subject of replacement, I will make it clear that I will not do so.

Now please tell me what do you propose to gain from my being replaced

.

my request contained an "if" clause. it should be obvious what we stand to gain. someone who is willing to play, not say "well, i'll let my thoughts be known before deadline.

your analysis seems ripe with misrepresentations(not just of me).

vote: SpringLullaby

i won't lynch you for lurking, but i am willing if all you plan on doing is posting illogical analysis and casting suspicions without evidence. your bolded statement above seems pretty smug, too.

[springlullaby]

1.Saying you're suspicious of multiple people is fine. What I can pose to you now is who do you find the the most suspicious out of the three? Usually indicative of the vote you cast, but seeing as you didn't place your vote I'd like to know who you believe is the optimal lynch out of the three and why.

2. Calling out people for not posting and people who are clearly here and not posting are two completely different things. I don't know why the others were inactive or most people I consider it a null tell when it happens. When you deliberately chose to be quiet it was suspicious to me.

3. It's evident I already have.

1. Budja, don or gads are all three good lynch to me.

2, 3. You know, this is very interesting. I have read you as wanting to pressure me with your vote untill now. But here you seem to be saying that you take my stating clearly that I was lurking as a definite sign of scumminess and that would change a lot of things.

If that is the case, please demonstrate how it is so.

Please also state who do you think is scummy beside me.

[springlullaby]

Don_Johnson: You FoS RedCoyote, but aren't voting anyone right now. Why a FoS? Where's your vote? Looking back I see you FoS Jebus earlier but no vote as well there. Are you afraid to vote?

no. not afraid. hadn't seen a vote count recently. i am in several games and thought i had a vote laid down here. also, i don't think it would be wise to lynch someone who disagrees with me on day 1 policy, i just found it suspicious that RC again brought up the point. i thought we had already discussed it.

Bizarre non sequiture in there. I wonder what made your mind jump from your first paragraph to Red Coyote then back to me again.

sorry? let me know how you would like me to organize my thoughts in the future.

On the subject of replacement, I will make it clear that I will not do so.

Now please tell me what do you propose to gain from my being replaced

.

my request contained an "if" clause. it should be obvious what we stand to gain. someone who is willing to play, not say "well, i'll let my thoughts be known before deadline.

your analysis seems ripe with misrepresentations(not just of me).

vote: SpringLullaby

i won't lynch you for lurking, but i am willing if all you plan on doing is posting illogical analysis and casting suspicions without evidence. your bolded statement above seems pretty smug, too.

Do you plan on supporting your arguments at all?

Where is my analysis 'ripe with misrepresentations'?
Where is it illogical?
Where am I casting suspicions without evidence?
What does smug has to do with anything?


Here you looks as if you are trying to get me lynched for being annoying.

[springlullaby]

Same question to you don, who do you suspect beside me.

[Lynx The Antithesis]

I've stated how making such a move clears you of any early player interactions along with the fact that coming in with a big player analysis comes off trying to look pro-town to me. The big problem I have is that a move like yours allows you to avoid getting a read on you.

Besides you FHQ and I wasn't liking Ice's play before he went inactive.

[springlullaby]

I've stated how making such a move clears you of any early player interactions along with the fact that coming in with a big player analysis comes off trying to look pro-town to me. The big problem I have is that a move like yours allows you to avoid getting a read on you.

Besides you FHQ and I wasn't liking Ice's play before he went inactive.

So in your book, not participating for the first 8 pages is definite and irrecoverable offence? Why? Am I not allowing you to read me now?

Why are you linking your name to gads in stating your suspicions of Ice?

[don_johnson]

don:

5. RV WOLF
18. normal response to spolium's vote
20. ok smiley
25. a response to gads - I don't get this post, what the accusation was in the first place, scumlink don+gads

perhaps if you were paying attention you would have seen fgqhdads question to me, and subsequent accusation of "distraction". what exactly is the "scumlink"?

34. ok answer to spolium
37. VOTE BUDJA for posting twice with little input and criticism of 'budja's tactic to get scum to appear' - can't read
49. express regret at rhyme; further question budja ok - TR overall
62. general pov, UNVOTE -

hard to tell why the unvote here

but not scummy, more soft play

hard to tell why the unvote? interesting as i gave two solid reasons. >>

the problem is that you were trying to take us out of the random stage with a vote that was "no worse than a random vote" and "meaningless". this is counterproductive. i have employed similar tactics as town before, so this is not necessarily a scum tell.
>>> as for the vote and its "self defeating" explanation, i am not sure i agree with spolium and goat. a vote carries with it an inherent "ability to lynch". saying a vote is a "pressure" vote does not defeat the purpose. the vote carries pressure until said player unvotes, as we have no way of knowing if it is scum or town placing the initial vote.

75. VOTE ME for active lurking
92. ok reply to Ice, UNVOTE ME - "uncomplete meta is a terrible reason to vote someone" - queer, why didn't you think that before voting me? - milding vibe

i didn't vote you for meta, i voted you for "active lurking". a vote on a lurker is generally for pressure. i believe someone else pointed to your meta, and i agreed. i was not going to carry the vote based solely on that, however.

95. reply to Ice, says he is rereading basically - neutral
99. "no. escpecially considering he came out of the gates guns blazing and then shut down the attack after a well explained response and an FoS from spolium. no comfort at all. " - pinging some Ice reads town

how does ice "read town"? in my experience, aggressive play is dangerous and should be reserved for experienced players. causing a commotion and getting people riled up can be productive, but an aggressive, inexperienced townie can have the same effect as aggressive scum. i.e. if i jump into a car parked on a steep hill and take it out of gear, i will be the cause of what happens next, but it may not be beneficial for the town. my suspicion of aggression is waranted to say the least.

106. ask a meta question to budja concerning Ice - bad, where did that come from?

again, please pay attention. i was clarifying information.

123. answer to spolium - ok
127. more reply to spolium - waste of time bit shifty, no like; promise of reread
129. reply to lynx over ice meta - slight TR
135. suspicion on my sex, why, am I calling your penis into question? a little jokey with RC; ask if RC think made a good case against budja - null though not like much question as it looks throwaway

correcting someone as to your sex. the suspicion comment was a joke. we have no way of knowing who is male or female. but thanks for thinking of my penis. again, my main question to clarify information as is shown in the very next post >> p. 149

149. some replies to RC ; press Jebus - the fact that don mainly does echoes is starting to grate on my nerves
162. three pointed question to gads
165. FOS JEB for lurker L-1 - dunno, true caution or know i'm town?

doesn't matter if you're town, i explained this fully.

176. a spirited post which sounds genuine, but would be easy to fake as it is mostly general consideration

"sounds genuine, but would be easy to fake." so? basically you are willing to lynch me based on "gut" feeling?

Milding, nothing to make waves no drive as it seems. Kinda hypocrite on my lurking: was one of the first to jump, but since criticisms appear to be my biggest champion. Willing to lynch.

explain the hypocrisy. at the time of your "statement" i had 21 posts in this game(20 without /confirm.) you had... 9. of those nine, most were responses to accusations of lurking and contained no game related material, you completely skipped the poetry/rvs, and the ninth one was your wall of text stating your desire to lynch one of three players. so please, explain the hypocrisy.

i am out of time, but you get the idea, i suggest people double check Spring's analysis of themselves.

[Lynx The Antithesis]

Who said anything about a definite and irreovcable offence? Any suspicion of mine can be retracted or changed based upon how the player acts throughout the game. The fact that you attempted such a move can easily be attempted by scum or town. Considering that I've never played with you I have no way of knowing what type of player you are(Daring, inventive, concise, etc.). So that move came off suspicious to me. That certainly doesn't mean it's set in stone and I will never change my sights. You're just most suspicious to me now. Hence, my vote.

You are letting me read you now which may give me greater inside into your alignment. Which is a plus.

I'm not getting your last question. Care to clarify?

Don's vote seems more like OMGUS to me and not for scumminess. The sumg part doesn't add anything to your case either. You're quick to turn on her once she's thrown some suspcion your way. Who else did spring misrepresent?

[Lynx The Antithesis]

I take back the OMGUS part on Don since he's added more to his case... simulpost. Still like to know who else you think she misrepresented in the analysis though.

[don_johnson]

i am out of time, but you get the idea, i suggest people double check Spring's analysis of themselves.

when i get back on tomorrow, if noone has done so, i will continue, but i have to get ready for school.

[springlullaby]

perhaps if you were paying attention you would have seen fgqhdads question to me, and subsequent accusation of "distraction". what exactly is the "scumlink"?

A scumlink is a possible connection between you and gads. At the time I made that note I didn't see what you were answering to.

hard to tell why the unvote? interesting as i gave two solid reasons. >>

the problem is that you were trying to take us out of the random stage with a vote that was "no worse than a random vote" and "meaningless". this is counterproductive. i have employed similar tactics as town before, so this is not necessarily a scum tell.
>>> as for the vote and its "self defeating" explanation, i am not sure i agree with spolium and goat. a vote carries with it an inherent "ability to lynch". saying a vote is a "pressure" vote does not defeat the purpose. the vote carries pressure until said player unvotes, as we have no way of knowing if it is scum or town placing the initial vote.

You are right. I misread that. Your unvote is justified.

i didn't vote you for meta, i voted you for "active lurking". a vote on a lurker is generally for pressure. i believe someone else pointed to your meta, and i agreed. i was not going to carry the vote based solely on that, however.

That is an alright explanation. But if you voted me for active lurking; why did you unvote me in that particular post in which you mention my meta?

how does ice "read town"? in my experience, aggressive play is dangerous and should be reserved for experienced players. causing a commotion and getting people riled up can be productive, but an aggressive, inexperienced townie can have the same effect as aggressive scum. i.e. if i jump into a car parked on a steep hill and take it out of gear, i will be the cause of what happens next, but it may not be beneficial for the town. my suspicion of aggression is waranted to say the least.

Dangerous play doesn't mean scum. Ice reads town because his post has the boisterous nature of town post. I think the way he unceremoniously dropped the whole Spolium thing is the biggest towntell in his book.

Also, IMO perfect town play is not colouring inside the dot, it is being able to make the correct calls.

On a side note, I very much doubt Ice9 is inexperienced, his post doesn't read like it.

106. ask a meta question to budja concerning Ice - bad, where did that come from?

again, please pay attention. i was clarifying information.

Yes, I have gathered that, but it seemed to me that your question was out of the blue. Random questions is easy scum fare.

correcting someone as to your sex. the suspicion comment was a joke. we have no way of knowing who is male or female. but thanks for thinking of my penis. again, my main question to clarify information as is shown in the very next post >> p. 149

I'd say this is quite the overreaction to the mention of your penis. Shifty.




Sorry, couldn't resist. Because obviously you are the only one allowed a sense of humour. Are you seriously being offended by this?

As for the question, when I read it, it seemed out of the blue, but upon further examination of your exchange with RC, I think you have sufficient motive in asking it.

doesn't matter if you're town, i explained this fully.

Yes you explained. My remark suggest that you may be took that stand at that point, despite never being very concern by my wagon till then, because you may know my alignment.

"sounds genuine, but would be easy to fake." so? basically you are willing to lynch me based on "gut" feeling?

No. My assessment of your 176 is that it reads very town, but town read is easiest to fake when it comes to generic discussion.

explain the hypocrisy. at the time of your "statement" i had 21 posts in this game(20 without /confirm.) you had... 9. of those nine, most were responses to accusations of lurking and contained no game related material, you completely skipped the poetry/rvs, and the ninth one was your wall of text stating your desire to lynch one of three players. so please, explain the hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy is in the fact that you were one of the first to jump on my wagon but has seemingly totally changed your stance.

As for what I perceive as 'who posted most and better' contest, well, luckily for me, the count is not set in stone.


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

Now, that said. I will say that your reply here actually looks quite good.

Please tell me, can you discern how much of your vote is distaste for my attitude?

[springlullaby]

I'm not getting your last question. Care to clarify?

Besides you FHQ and I wasn't liking Ice's play before he went inactive.

You linking yourself to FHQ here is strange. Why did you feel the need to bring up his name?

[Lynx The Antithesis]

You asked me who else I find suspicious and I said who else I find suspicious...

[springlullaby]

Ok, let hit the slow recap because this may be ground for misunderstanding.

Besides you FHQ and I wasn't liking Ice's play before he went inactive.

I take this sentence to signify:

" Beside from being suspicious of you (spring), FHQ and I (lynx) weren't liking Ice's play."

Is that correct?

[Jebus]

Very good, spring. A wall of text I don't have time to read at the moment, though >.<

unvote

, reading up...

[Lynx The Antithesis]

Ok, let hit the slow recap because this may be ground for misunderstanding.

Besides you FHQ and I wasn't liking Ice's play before he went inactive.

I take this sentence to signify:

" Beside from being suspicious of you (spring), FHQ and I (lynx) weren't liking Ice's play."

Is that correct?

Haha no definitely definitely my fault for the misunderstanding. This is how it should have gone. "Besides you FHQ. And I wasn't like Ice's play before he went inactive." Sorry about that.

[Plonky]

hola. i am around, yet a bit busy. please excuse and allow me to post something tomorrow.

[Budja]

Budja: You're voting WolfBlitzer. Why?

That was my random vote initially. I will remove it now as it serves no purpose and I don't believe Jebus worthy of a vote.

unvote

Hypocrite play at its best

This seems to be a little bit of an exaggeration to me. The only action I have done that could be seen as hypocritical was my comment on you no contributing when I had done little contributing myself.

have contributed exactly nada since that third vote and some defending of self.

I have added little to discussions but "nada" seems to be pushing it. I have stated my view of several cases albeit briefly.

Budja:
10. RV AZHREI
32. Wagon hop Wolf - neutral
41. says rhymes were confusing, says third vote to provoke discussion - hard to tell, have to see more
53. says not trying to piggyback sus, rhyme as excuse - am acutally ok with this
60. posed answer to goat - like it despite being appeasing
80. ask me to look back - ok
105. budja says everything is flowers and sunshine - no liky
107. quick reply to don
111. feels goat is pressing hard on gads
153. agree with lynx on jebus and also ask for clarification
167. Interpret as you will

Post 105 was my opinion of the major cases going around. Just because I was not convinced by any of them does not mean "everything is flowers and sunshine".

Beyond this post, you appear to have no real negative reads on me. Your final conclusion does not appear to refect this in any way.

On a first glance yesterday, your post appeared to be fairly insightful to me but when I read it more closely it simply appears to be a summary of the actions so far, impressive but with little actual argument over any of your claims.

I've stated how making such a move clears you of any early player interactions along with the fact that coming in with a big player analysis comes off trying to look pro-town to me. The big problem I have is that a move like yours allows you to avoid getting a read on you.

Well said, I hadn't noticed that.

[don_johnson]

perhaps if you were paying attention you would have seen fgqhdads question to me, and subsequent accusation of "distraction". what exactly is the "scumlink"?

A scumlink is a possible connection between you and gads. At the time I made that note I didn't see what you were answering to.

i didn't ask "what is

a

scumlink"? i asked "what is

the

scumlink"? apparently there is not one.

You are right. I misread that. Your unvote is justified.

thank you and strike two.

i didn't vote you for meta, i voted you for "active lurking". a vote on a lurker is generally for pressure. i believe someone else pointed to your meta, and i agreed. i was not going to carry the vote based solely on that, however.

That is an alright explanation. But if you voted me for active lurking; why did you unvote me in that particular post in which you mention my meta?

i unvote you because you responded to the vote, which was a pressure vote asking you to participate. i mention meta as a bad reason for keeping the vote. i clarify my stance on meta in a later post.

so i dislike people referring to meta in most cases, and when they do i prefer to question them on it and find out where they are getting it(unless i agree with them). generally, i find that when people refer to meta that they are talking bullshit and when called on it can usually produce little to no evidence.

in my only previous game with you, you lurked and were scum, so i agreed to a certain degree with someone else calling you on that meta, however, it was only one game(for me) that i had to base that opinion on and that was not enough to keep my vote on you. it is unfair to pressure vote someone without giving them an oppurtunity to relieve said pressure. no?

]how does ice "read town"? in my experience, aggressive play is dangerous and should be reserved for experienced players. causing a commotion and getting people riled up can be productive, but an aggressive, inexperienced townie can have the same effect as aggressive scum. i.e. if i jump into a car parked on a steep hill and take it out of gear, i will be the cause of what happens next, but it may not be beneficial for the town. my suspicion of aggression is waranted to say the least.

Dangerous play doesn't mean scum.

Ice reads town because his post has the boisterous nature of town post.

I think the way he unceremoniously dropped the whole Spolium thing is the biggest towntell in his book

.

i didn't say or imply the bolded statement. dangerous play doesn't necessarioly mean scum, but it does warrant suspicion. the second(underlined) statement is your opinion of what is really a null tell.

106. ask a meta question to budja concerning Ice - bad, where did that come from?

again, please pay attention. i was clarifying information.

Yes, I have gathered that, but it seemed to me that your question was out of the blue. Random questions is easy scum fare.

swing and a miss. is that strike three or four? depends on how you look at this one. the question was in response to a post in which there was a significant prepositional discrepancy. in a game where all we have is our written word, clarity can mean all the difference.

As for the question, when I read it, it seemed out of the blue, but upon further examination of your exchange with RC, I think you have sufficient motive in asking it.

strike five?

doesn't matter if you're town, i explained this fully.

Yes you explained. My remark suggest that you may be took that stand at that point, despite never being very concern by my wagon till then, because you may know my alignment.

this is wifomic. whether or not you are town was irrelevant to my reasoning. you seem to be simply speculating about scumdj based on null tell behavior.

"sounds genuine, but would be easy to fake." so? basically you are willing to lynch me based on "gut" feeling?

No. My assessment of your 176 is that it reads very town, but town read is easiest to fake when it comes to generic discussion.

if you think i can fake it, why can't Ice9? again you speculate about scumdj based on null tell behavior.

Now, that said. I will say that your reply here actually looks quite good.

Please tell me, can you discern how much of your vote is distaste for my attitude?

none. you basically posted a game summary and agreed with suspicions that were already placed on the table. the only "original" information you seem to have posted has been shown to be in the form of misrepresentations of people you are okay with lynching. i can't see why townSL would do this.

[RedCoyote]

spring, I take it all back, do not talk anymore.

XD

Give me a couple of minutes.

[RedCoyote]

[Budja:]

Hypocrite play at its best, have contributed exactly nada since that third vote and some defending of self.

spring has indeed been paying attention to the game, and I'm sorry for ever having doubted her. Her conclusions are generally refreshing, notably this one on Budja.

Back in time for a moment:

My fault was not my action but the fact I openly displayed my reason. Saying a vote is for pressure reduces the pressure and makes the vote meaningless,

that was poor playing I did there

, I will admit that.

Firstly, I didn't and still don't agree that his vote was grounded on the intentions of pressuring Wolf. I think Ice9 (I still haven't received his response to my question, so this is my own take on the situation) voted Wolf as a real, honest-to-goodness vote. Granted, it was on page 2, it wasn't based on much, but the reasons he gave were because he thought Wolf seemed overly defensive of me for no reason.

It could be easily read as not a random vote.

Budja disagrees with this, saying that he wanted to both "randomly" vote Wolf with Ice9 (after Ice9 had proclaimed, "Off with Wolf's head!"), and "pressure" Wolf at the same time.

I don't know how a vote can be all of these things, but that's how he spun it. My own personal interpretation was that he used the idea that his vote was still random as an excuse to be the third vote on Wolf without having to explain why.

Secondly, and more importantly, while it's good, as a townie, to admit if you've done something you think is wrong, apologizing isn't the only thing you have to do in this game as a townie. Townies also have to hunt mafia, ask questions of other players and decide who has good/true intentions based on the answers you get.

The real apology Budja could make is to pretend like he cares who is lynched today.

My suspicions of Budja have only been compounded over the course of this game because the only contributions I remember him really making are defending himself and getting upset with spring's absence.

Every other player (with the exception of Plonky and arguably fhq) has been hunting.

spring, what does the abbreviation TR mean? Town read?

In any case, I think your read on me is fair enough, it sounds genuine. I now know you have been following this game.

I think your read on don is off-base, but other than that I can say we have a lot of similar views about the game so far.

---

Well I guess no-one can criticize you for lack of content anymore. That post was very insightful.

You do make a good point that I haven't said much lately. I have let this game fall down my priorities a bit. I'll fix this soon.

What can I say? Another perfect opportunity to fight for this town plundered away. Budja, either this game hasn't ever been a priority, or this is another fluff post.

---

FoS: RedCoyote

for suggesting a policy lynch, which i have already stated my distaste for.

Ignoring the recent activity of spring, is a policy lynch better than no lynch?

---

Though it comes off as pro-town posting a huge analysis like you've done, you've evaded any read on interactions with other players. By using this stunt, you've avoided participating in the random stage and chyming in with your thoughts on other player's arguments. Which kinda makes you the most "milky" person playing right now. You're lurking move doesn't clear you of that.

I want to make it clear that while I think spring is town at the moment, I also agree with this comment 100%.

Interaction is the single most important contribution a townie can make. spring kept up with the game, which is great, but, for instance, the questions she had for don in post 185 might/might not have provoked her or anyone else to see either player in a different light.

Then again, she's right to say this,

I think your complaint is pointless and rather after the fact. I made a choice in how I wanted to play this game, you make up your own mind on whether you think it's scummy or not.

Complaining about it, at least from my point of view, is indeed pointless. Goat, on the other hand, implies that spring's post doesn't necessarily change his stance on her. I want to see what develops here.

---

Don's vote seems more like OMGUS to me and not for scumminess. The sumg part doesn't add anything to your case either. You're quick to turn on her once she's thrown some suspcion your way. Who else did spring misrepresent?

I'm using this comment as a springboard. don, aside from spring's analysis of you which you think is misrepresentative, what about spring's play now specifically rubs you the wrong way? What do you think she should be doing to appear town in your eyes?

The don v.s. spring situation seems heavily entrenched in what don said or didn't say, if either of them wants to make the other one the lynch today, I suggest they take a few minutes to explain their suspicions better.

---

I have added little to discussions

I agree.

On a first glance yesterday, your post appeared to be fairly insightful to me but when I read it more closely it simply appears to be a summary of the actions so far, impressive but with little actual argument over any of your claims.

Then is she scummy? Are you going to vote her? Are you going to ask anyone else anything at all???

The suspense is killing

you

me.

To be more direct, I love how you unvoted Wolf here and didn't vote anyone else. You've had the same "random vote" up for half a month, no one has been worthy of your vote in the meantime?

[Goatrevolt]

Do you seriously want to argue this point?

I may not be voting, but I'm also not committing anykind of vague vote which can be retracted to be 'pressure' or 'reaction' or whatever later on. What I give you is written words stating clearly that at this point in the game, I find gad, don, and budja scummy enough to lynch either.

What are you talking about? You listed 3 players that you are fine lynching. Why would you be placing a vote for pressure or reactions at this point in time? I'm not calling you out for failure to place a pressure vote, I'm calling you out for failure to follow through by placing a vote

to lynch

.

I also understand that you have given us written word that you would be willing to lynch any of those 3. However, there is a large difference in willingness to lynch, and actually voting someone to move towards a lynch. Saying you're willing to lynch people is pretty meaningless without actually making any effort to do so.

i just found it suspicious that RC again brought up the point. i thought we had already discussed it.

I don't understand. You express distaste of policy lynching so it's somehow scummy for RC to bring it up?

i suggest people double check Spring's analysis of themselves.

Most of the analysis on me is "ok." That's her reply to most of my posts, and that's similarly my feeling about her analysis on me. Couple things:

114. reply spolium; the first part is ok; good comeback; a little prod to me - hmm wanna shift suss on me that you feel a little heat? overall TR though

Am I forbidden from attacking players while someone is suspicious of me?

119. very nice and civil conclusion to headbutt with spolium it seems - scumlink to watch

Originally I thought he was really reaching in his defense of Fhq. In that post I finally realized that we were clashing heads because he misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I doubt it was intentional, so it nullified a large part of my suspicion.

120. tidy reply to spolium. well this kinda post raise my hackles, very undergoggy

I have no idea what you're talking about.

where did i say that i had no intention of playing?

Nowhere, and I never said you did. I said

if

you have no intentions of playing--as in, if you were lurking but didn't intend on actually contributing at any relevant point--then you should just replace.

168. seems to find putting lurker at L1 acceptable; would it means you'd go along with a lurker lynch

Lurking is a viable strategy for scum if you allow people to lurk and are timid about pressuring them. I was mainly asking that question to gauge don-johnson's reaction, but yeah, I don't have a problem with lynching lurkers, although I'd rather lynch a good suspect.

Budja: You're voting WolfBlitzer. Why?

That was my random vote initially. I will remove it now as it serves no purpose and I don't believe Jebus worthy of a vote.

unvote

So who is worthy of a vote?

On a first glance yesterday, your post appeared to be fairly insightful to me but when I read it more closely it simply appears to be a summary of the actions so far, impressive but with little actual argument over any of your claims.

I'm highly suspicious of this backtrack. The flow of events goes something like this: You say her analysis was insightful. Other people express suspicion of her analysis post. Now, her analysis is somehow no longer insightful, and instead was rather uninspired (just a summary).

My interpretation: Spring made a long, pro-town seeming post. You expressed how pro-town and insightful it was, assuming others would agree. Other people expressed how they were not necessarily impressed. You realized that it was now possible to place suspicion on spring for that "pro-town seeming post." You edit your stance accordingly. Fair interpretation?

spring has indeed been paying attention to the game, and I'm sorry for ever having doubted her. Her conclusions are generally refreshing, notably this one on Budja.

Eh? I'm suspicious of the sucking up to spring done in this post. One lengthy analysis is somehow enough to make up for her lurking? What was refreshing about her calling a large portion of the game "milky?" Why are you apologizing for doubting her?

spring kept up with the game, which is great

Based on the way you repeat this, I'm guessing you're working under the assumption that spring was following the game and collecting evidence all along, and just chose to drop it all on us now.

Why do you assume this is the case rather than the also plausible (and I would argue more likely) assumption that she just went back and read the game?

Why would keeping up with the game but not contributing to it while doing so be pro-town? Especially in regards to the looming deadline?

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

I'm not sure whether or not I'd rather lynch Budja or Fhq at this point. Both have pretty much avoided taking definitive stances on anything. I'm not interested in lynching don_johnson after his posts on this page. I'll vote SL to avoid a no lynch, but would rather see Budja/Fhq hang.

[Spolium]

Hi guys, sorry about the recent lack of activity on my part.

Addressing Spring's points seems to be the style at the moment, and lest it ever be said that I am lacking in style...

Spolium:

16. RV GADS
17. another joke on the RV - trying to hard to make it look random?
19. bizarre jumpiness, bait for banter, yet very quick to say 'only jest'
21, 22. clearing confusion, reafirm only joke - looks nervy

Dodgy assessment, since (a) it was the jokevote stage, and (b) haiku are somewhat limiting. I do recall that you requested that people clarify whether they were being serious or not so I'm not overly concerned about this.

33. response to don, a little dramatic maybe, the friend acusation seems a litte too obvious - hard to tell if it's the style or what
36. general warning about word use - do not like

These two are somewhat related. I had become aware that people may try to explain away terms and phrases perceived to be scummy by claiming poetic license. #36 was meant to address this potential problem and improve clarity, so I'm not sure why you didn't like it given that you were one of the first to call for this.

74. write post in draft - serious business is serious, may be scummy

I was actually expecting someone to point this out a lot sooner.

The way I see it, careless use of language by townies gives scum more to exploit so it makes sense to take a bit of care. That aside, I've notepad-drafted everything out of habit ever since I lost a ridiculously long megapost to the dread login page.

90. reply to Ice, nice and tidy. "as I haven't come across many townies who risk this sort of play" - scumslip? - interesting sophisticate looking case on goat, the contradiction is there but it is kinda nitpicking,

townies are very hypocrite creatures too

I'm not sure what point you're making (bold) - is it that townies are often hypocritical and thus arguments based on hypocritical behaviour are less valid?

96. something about urgency of drawing people's attention away on Az' part - a little convoluted maybe, I don't like this kind of open ended accusation,

seems to be suggesting Ice/Az

I don't really understand this either. What do you think I was suggesting about Ice/Az, and why?

117. UNVOTE - wait did you ever vote goat in the first place? I don't think so.

Actually, I was voting Ice9 at the time - that vote was placed in #73.

173. fraid of jester it seems, beginning to lean toward a me vote

For the record, my suspicion of you has lessened considerably since you started participating more actively, and in light of this:

175. same to you as to jebus - do not presume to know how other people should play.

As I said before, I don't think I've played with anyone who engaged in such... aggressive lurking? This seems a suitable phrase.

Generally I consider lurking to be frustratingly anti-town. Lynx's post (#204) scums up my own feelings on you at the moment, though in itself your slightly bizarre approach is a null tell.

[Budja]

My interpretation: Spring made a long, pro-town seeming post. You expressed how pro-town and insightful it was, assuming others would agree. Other people expressed how they were not necessarily impressed. You realized that it was now possible to place suspicion on spring for that "pro-town seeming post." You edit your stance accordingly. Fair interpretation?

Or as the case was I had limited time at that moment so I skimmed the thread and make a quick post. I later reread more clearly and change my initial position.

[Goatrevolt]

Generally I consider lurking to be frustratingly anti-town. Lynx's post (#204)

scums

up my own feelings on you at the moment, though in itself your slightly bizarre approach is a null tell.

Hahahaha. Freudian slip?

My interpretation: Spring made a long, pro-town seeming post. You expressed how pro-town and insightful it was, assuming others would agree. Other people expressed how they were not necessarily impressed. You realized that it was now possible to place suspicion on spring for that "pro-town seeming post." You edit your stance accordingly. Fair interpretation?

Or as the case was I had limited time at that moment so I skimmed the thread and make a quick post. I later reread more clearly and change my initial position.

Why call it insightful if you merely skimmed it?