Going through the last few pages in depth instead of my skim.
INCOMING WALL OF TEXT
Sorry Nicolios, I see you're female now <.<
Sironigous wrote:Now you say you want to get Zwet, without retracting anything said against Nicolios. You just jumped on that mini bandwagon that just turned larger with your vote.
More than one person can be suspicious. Also, the nicolios thing was a SMALL THING compared to this. After some more content, I may incorporate it into a better case to support something stronger, but by itself it's a "not a random vote". Also, why would I "retract" anything?
zwet wrote:
OMG! Sironigous doesn't even recognize IH has a case on me, and says that voting someone at all is bad? Obvscum. Confirm Vote: Sironigous
IH, I did find that third vote opportunistic. And I don't like that Rok hasn't unvoted for absolutely no reason.
As I said this looks like he's trying to distract away from his own case. Possible bussing to save himself. Unsure though.
Zwet wrote:My sir vote was serious. I already explained three times why your vote was scummy. It was the third vote on me, and it was opportunistic. And now you conveniently got me on a platter waiting for three others to hop on my wagon and kill me, as it's likely that as long as you get at least one townie, the other two of you scum can jump on and slice and dice me. Did you not remember we have three scum alive?
Do you believe that you're THAT important that the entire scum group would put a risk to get you killed? No offense but.... that's a little presumptious of you. Not only that, but are you saying that you already knew that everyone else was town on you? Did you know who was town on you at that point to do something about it? The last two sentences strike me as a little off. I don't know if you just didn't think those statements through, or if you were just trying to keep yourself alive.
Zwet wrote:
Uh, huh. You say voting is bad, and then contradict it. Your last post makes no sense, and you pretend you didn't realize that IH had a case on me. It's called pressure, Sironigous, something that you need more off to squeeze some truth out of you.
Completely skewed and misconstrued. He never said voting was bad. He was calling out your contradiction that lynch minus 3 vote is scummy, but lynch minus 2 is not. Also, at the moment, my vote has some killing intent.
At the moment... I'd say I have Sironigous leaning to the townish side after post 85.
Zwet, on the other hand, is forcefully skewing facts (such as the voting issue) and the worst one is post 89.
Zwet wrote:Freudian slip. He's saying goodbye to his scum partner.
Also this doesn't sit right with me.
Siron wrote: Not right?
Then I used hohum in the wrong context.
.. What should hohum mean then?
Zwet wrote:
OMG!!! Then he pretends he doesn't know what we're talking about. LYNCH THIS SCUM NOW!!! BTW, all you scum out there, if you kill me now, you'll be incriminating your buddy Sironigous. I don't suggest even attempting to suicide yourselves on my townie hide, if you want Sir alive.
Even though Siron was clearly referring to the fact about that being called a freudian slip... Not to mention effectively discouraging any more votes onto him.
Dejkha wrote:It should mean "scum". "Ho-hum" is a different story though. I would not be surprised if you tried to pass it off as nothing, while instead secretly acknowledging a scum buddy for whatever reason.
And what reason would he possibly have to acknowledge a dead scumbuddy? This confuses me, and seems more like support of Zwet. Trying to get a counterbandwagon going.
Also, why did it take you... posts 88-96 to vote him? Why did you go through all that instead of voting him in your second or third post? Why did you wait for Zwet to support you?
zwet wrote:Siron wrote:Zwet wrote:LYNCH THIS SCUM NOW!!!
I think he wants the other people to lynch me and get off his bandwagon. *shrug*
He ignores what I said about IH's case being valid and instead of defending himself goes off in another direction intending to incriminate me
Th
Big problem here. As you can see, LYNCH THIS SCUM NOW!! had nothing to do with me or my case. Siron responds to this sentence and points out him trying to be a distraction. Somehow Zwet tries to incriminate him to make his point invalid?
This catty not quoting each other shit is getting stupid. Stoppit. Except for that ONE STATEMENT, it's pretty been pretty useless to me, and just a big giant wallof text. It's pretty much Siron trying to pick apart Zwet, and Zwet point a finger at everything Siron does. Even if it's not scummy.
Zwet wrote:
I'm the one presenting the anti-Sir evidence. Dej is merely backing it up with a vote.
....So glad I'm not the only one who sees it.
I'm gonna take this ooooone more step.
IH'S CURRENT PREDICTION OF REMAINING SCUM wrote:
Zwetschenwasser
Dejkha
????
PROFIT
Which means my vote on Zwet is there to stay.
Thacoolness wrote:
The only reason why I may not vote Sir just yet is because he played just like this in the last game I played with him... and he was town.
Convince me a little more to vote Sir and I will.
....
FoS
Noted for later.
Nicolios wrote:
I'm sure crazy isn't stupid enough to kill someone they are voting for... So I don't think crazy did this.
This is incredibly unhelpful. You can in no way prove this, and I can see no reason why someone would actually target Mega, other than he has been silent. This strikes me as curious.
Zwet wrote:
Sironigous is trying to distract attention away from himself using his Mafia daykill. Please define "selective quoting" and how I'm doing it.
Actually I thought you would be the one to do that, since you felt enough pressure to take a shot in the dark or suicide. No scum (other than hohum apparently) would have the need to take that risk. No other person has a thing to go after anyone and put their life on the line but you. As far as I can tell, that was a shot in the dark, since Mega hadn't posted much at all.
Dejkha wrote:There was no reason to post "hohum" (name of the deceased scum) whatsoever. What if Megatheory was scum and died trying to kill a townie and I randomly put "Megatheory" at the end of one of my posts? That would seem completely innocent to you? Well, not to me.
Why vote me instead of Zwet who also thought saying "hohum" made Sir incredibly likely to be scum?
I can't see a possible scummy reason for him to post hohum. I can't see a possible scummy reason for him to have hohum in his notes either (since that would be what would probably get accidentally posted. Notes at the bottom of his post). So how did the word hohum get in there?
Reasons (that have been proposed by someone else and thought up by me)
1."He's communicating with his scum buddy" (How so? How would this be helpful in anyway since Hohum can't communicate with him outside of the thread without going against the rules? If so, why wouldn't he just BREAK THE RULES NORMALLY, instead of put himself at risk?)
2."Freudian Slip" (How so? What was he trying to say then? Are you saying that hohum being a buddy would eat his subconcious enough to manipulate his fingers?)
3.Simple Typo (mine)
4.Had him in notes in the same text file he was typing his post in. Ctrl+A syndrome, or accidentally copied to much? (Unproveable, and if it was from Ctrl+A, why wasn't there anything else?)
5.Some other reason for having Hohum with his post?
I'm finding it hard to even IMAGINE how he would be scum.
Siron wrote:Zwet seems way too accusatory, if you get what I mean. I think he's just trying to find scum with a big stick.
Sure his posts don't make too much sense to me, but he's just trying to get me lynched (with him).
Besides, if I hammer him, mafia and masons get 24 hours to discuss whatever they know.
How much can mason talk actually do compared to mafia talk? I'll agree with you on that: Not much.
Yet, if Mr. Zwet convinces me with self-incrimination... Then I might have to. ;/
So your second sentence... you don't believe that that's scummy behavior?
Sorry for the wall of text. If you guys won't read it I can attempt a tldr; version.
