Mini 735 - Bad Times In Kuribonia- Game over!

[Ythill]

I trust your analysis (you havent put a foot wrong in my eyes Ythill)

This doesn't make sense. Even if you have me pegged as town, why should you trust my analysis? Three of my four past suspects are now dead and flipped town. Why would you expect me to be right about Ting? That's the kind of play that leads to mislynches.

Do you actually care who we lynch?

[Kieraen]

yes. just making a lighthearted statement. i suppose i should trust a little less easily considering your track record.

[ting =)]

Also, reecer - how is 12 using logic to cover up being mafia?

Ree dodged this question and you mentioned the comment again when you voted him but you never pressured him to answer the question. Why?

You'll note that that's not the only question I asked reecer which he dodged. In fact, a lot of people asked reecer questions, and he ignored them. It was clear that reecer was not going to bother answering anything. I saw him as not answering because he

couldn't

answer. Turns out he was just playing badly.

Also,

Unvote. Vote:Reecer. That's L-2, I think. My vote is for the weird comment about 12, and this whole page especially the qanqan vote.

How is this

not

pressuring reecer to give an explanation?

Another post supporting the fact that I felt:
1. Reecer wasn't answering questions.
2. I was pressuring reecer for some sort of defense or explanation of his actions.

Reecer, you're at L-2. You should claim. There's no good reason you shouldn't. If you're town, your death would hurt us, a claim would be your best bet to stay alive

since you're obviously not defending yourself.

But all that is irrelevant, really, since you're obviously being either sloppy or scummy - reecer

did

answer:

Also, reecer - how is 12 using logic to cover up being mafia?

Well I admit, (S)he may not, but maybe she's using logic to say that (s)he can definitely NOT be mafia, or to be for the good for the inncoents, making it seem like 12's innocent.

I admit it's bad logic.

So - which is it; sloppy or scummy? For clarification, I did the first part to show that even if ythill whether ythill was being sloppy or scummy, his argument was still flawed.

I could think of a couple of elaborate scenarios where all three of you are town, but the simplest explanation is that he just plain screwed up.

You were talking about Ree, MM, and Kier. Please describe these scenarios in detail.

How would this be relevant? If you were making a case about me using the reecer lynch to chain lynch kier and MM I'd understand, but reecer obviously flipped town.

Since you ask though, I'll explain. My views of kier and MM were colored by these posts:

Ummm...'
UNVOTE
Also Kirean, I RWALLy think you are innocent now, so, can we Pm other people during the day part?

I'm thinking that MonkeyMan is innocent, Not going to tell you why though. (Role Revealing.)
And I forgot if I have a current vote, so if I do, unvote.

Well actually, I thought MM was Day Cop.

First off, it's easy to see why I concluded Kier, MM and reecer was scum. Reecer was asking Kier if they could PM each other during the day, and Reecer called MM day cop without any reasoning explaining why, especially since it was day start and he shouldn't have been able to investigate MM (third quote was after reecer claimed cop) to know his role.

The only other explanations I could think of which would have all 3 as town given all this are:

1. They're masons. All three of them.
2. Reecer was mason with MM. Kier was a cult leader who culted reecer.
3. Reecer was mason with kier. MM is a cult leader who culted reecer.

You can see that all these try to explain the PM thing (mason, cult) and why reecer would be so sure MM is innocent (mason, cop). You can also see why I didn't believe any of them and concluded that reecer must be scum who ended up outing both his buddies. So, was this at all relevant since it's already been shown that my base assumption (reecer-scum) is wrong?

In post #161, Tov warned off the hammer. In #180, MM suggested it was time to hammer and you concurred (adding your vote) in #181. This leads me to two questions. Why the contradiction? You clearly supported a hammer with Tov dissenting.

And second, why would Tov’s singular objection have mattered anyway; did you somehow know he was town?

Reecer cemented himself as scum in my mind between posts 161 and 181 by:

1. not defending himself, which led me to conclude he couldn't, because he'd dug himself into a hole.
2. Between those two posts, he made this post:

Well actually, I thought MM was Day Cop.

which I've already mentioned why I think it was particularly damning against him.
3. None of his other two posts during that interval did anything to make me think he might be town.

Also, there's no contradiction. For context:

But I wouldn't have hammered given that at least one player didn't want a lynch yet.

Context. Look at the timing. I concured before tovarish mentioned he was against ending the day yet. After he did, I was still questioning Reecer and waiting for answers, not calling for someone to hammer. I'm more than willing to quote if you want.

In the post where I clarify my point to kier, it's clear I'm talking about tov's post 184, not his 161 like you're trying to make it look like. Me asking questions was post 187. Post 187 rather obviously implies that I intend to carry on discussion with reecer - not hammer him.

Context.

But I wouldn't have hammered given that at least one player didn't want a lynch yet.

but I wouldn't have hammered seeing as how some people mentioned they didn't want the day to end yet.

Like I've said, my 'okay, let's lynch Reece' was before tov's post. I wouldn't have disagreed with waiting at all given that one person was against a lynch at that point.

It's rather clear from these posts that

anyone

objecting would have made me fine with waiting. You're question is leading and implies I had emphasis on Tov - clearly not the case given how often I've said 'one player,' 'some people,' and 'one person.'

Prepare for an argument, Ting, and if you are mafia, as I suspect, prepare to lose it.

If the rest of your argument is just more leading questions and subtle misrepresentations, I think I'll be fine.

However I don't like his changing theories on my alegiance especialy early game. Townie/mafia/townie, and then later claiming he had always thought me townie. If he were mafia, I would suspect this would be pushing for a lynch when I look townie and calling me townie when Im likely to flip. I'll post quotes tomorrow.

You're clearly not reading my posts at all.

@kier.
I've honestly had you pegged as town since the day started. From my point of view though, how many likely interpretations can you think of for Reecer's post 108?

Obviously, I take back my accusations if Reecer flips town,

but I'm really doubtful of that happening.

And then after reecer flipped town:

Since reecer has somehow flipped town though, and you and kier are no longer implicated, I'm obviously back to square zero. I honestly didn't expect reecer to flip town. I doubt anyone did.

I've stated my opinions on Kier before already. I thought he was very pro-town early game.

Reecer made posts that incriminated him, which made me think he was scum. Since reecer's not scum, I'm back to thinking he's town.

I've been very transparent with my thought processes. I thought you were town. Reece said stuff which made me think that if he was scum, you would be scum too. I thought Reece was scum, and ergo, you were too. Reece flipped town, so I had no reason to suspect you anymore. I'm back to thinking you're town.

I've made it pretty clear since day one that my suspicion of you was purely by connection to reecer. If he's not scum, then I have no reason to think you are. Where's your problem with me then?

Cleared to some extent by 12's actions.

Could you elaborate? 12 practically lurked through the game. He mentions HoC once, and that post doesn't do anything that might clear HoC in any way conclusively.

----

Give me a few hours to finish some work I have to do, then I'll start looking at the sk thing I mentioned a while back.

[Kieraen]

kier wrote:
However I don't like his changing theories on my alegiance especialy early game. Townie/mafia/townie, and then later claiming he had always thought me townie. If he were mafia, I would suspect this would be pushing for a lynch when I look townie and calling me townie when Im likely to flip. I'll post quotes tomorrow.

You're clearly not reading my posts at all.

ting - all the way in day one wrote:
@kier.
I've honestly had you pegged as town since the day started. From my point of view though, how many likely interpretations can you think of for Reecer's post 108?

Obviously, I take back my accusations if Reecer flips town, but I'm really doubtful of that happening.

And then after reecer flipped town:
ting - to MM wrote:
Since reecer has somehow flipped town though, and you and kier are no longer implicated, I'm obviously back to square zero. I honestly didn't expect reecer to flip town. I doubt anyone did.

ting wrote:
I've stated my opinions on Kier before already. I thought he was very pro-town early game. Reecer made posts that incriminated him, which made me think he was scum. Since reecer's not scum, I'm back to thinking he's town.

These are the quotes that led me thinking you changed your minds on me. Bolded is the point I had missed.

I'm still looking at HoC as the least useful of townies.

[Kieraen]

Can you fix my quote mod?

[ting =)]

Okay, easy way of clearing anyone from being SK - the SK has to have been active for both night phases. Anyone who wasn't can't be the SK.

kier, polymorph(d2)-ythill, qwints, QoH(n2)-q21, HoC, ting.

Night 1: feb 2 - feb 5.
Night 2: feb 19 - feb 23.

ting - I was blocked by MM night 1.
kier - Active on both.
polymorph(n1), ythill(n2) - Polymorph went inactive on Feb 3. I can't clear anything since the timing falls exactly on night 1.
qwints - Active on both.
QoH - Vanished on jan 29. I think we can assume q21 is not SK.
HoC -

srry ive no been posting, ive been really sick the past week couldnt even stand up

Assuming this is true (HoC had no posts from feb2 till this one), then that would rule out HoC being available night 1. This lends some credibility to it being true.

no!, i was just really sick my fever was 103.7 i couldnt even stand up, o well that sucks

HoC next vanishes from feb 15 till feb 24 - which rules out HoC being around for night 2.

Okay. Based on this, I'm assuming that HoC and q21 are not sk. The only people who could be SK then are among (kier, ythill, qwints). I think kier is town, and between ythill and qwints I'm more inclined to believe qwints is town. Which leads me to conclude that ythill is SK.

So, this makes the possible sk pool (

ythill

, qwints) and the possible scum pool (ythill, qwints, q21, HoC). We want to make sure we lynch scum and not SK today, or else the scum wins on night 3. So, this to me means that the people I'm willing to lynch today are: (q21, HoC).

This leads me to conclude that both of those two are scum, but... the pieces don't fit. Given that HoC was unavailable to submit an nk both nights and QoH wasn't around on night 1, there would have been no one around to submit a kill on night 1. Even if q21 submitted the maf nk for night 2, there was no one around for night 1. Which means I'm wrong about either qwints or kier.

[ting =)]

Oh, wait. Disregard the last paragraph of that post.

I forgot that 12 would still have been alive night 1. Even if the other two weren't around, he could still have submitted the kill. Which means the remaining mafia could still be q21 and HoC.

Obviously, this argument doesn't work unless you're willing to assume that (ting, kier, qwints) are all town. Even if you're not willing to do that though, we can still eliminate q21 and HoC from the possible sk pool. So for someone working with no assumptions, the possible sk are still (kier, qwints, ythill) [I was blocked by MM. Even if you don't assume I'm town, I still can't be sk]. So, for any of those three, after you eliminate yourself as a possibility, you only have two people to choose from for sk. (e.g. for kier, the only possible sk would be either qwints or ythill).

The possible scum pool for any of us working without assumptions would still be (everyone except for yourself). No one can be eliminated from that list.

[Kieraen]

I think the only one we can truely eliminate is Q21 and ting.
I don't believe HoC's abcenses. He is here less often than he is here, claiming computer repairs to illness. I think he's lurking. I'm gonna check his activity.
However, a benefit of the doubt might be advisable, as he could be that unlucky. I would like to hear from him soon though.

Where are the other players?

[q21]

As I've mentioned earlier I feel that Ythill is the SK, nothing has dissuaded me from that yet and that ting =) and Kier are town, though if Ythill does in fact have more evidence on ting (as he claimed) then I'm all ears.

For me that leaves qwints and HoC as the lynches I'd accept for today with HoC>>qwints.

[qwints]

I'm just posting to note that I was gone for the last three days - the hotel I was at didn't have free internet. I'll re-read as soon as I get the chance and post.

[Ythill]

@Ting: Thanks for your direct, thoughtful answers.

You'll note that that's not the only question I asked reecer which he dodged.

I couldn't find another. Cite please.

I saw him as not answering because he

couldn't

answer.

It is my suspicion that you knew he couldn’t answer and that’s why you asked. It seems like a really nice hands-off approach to defending a buddy. Clever. And I know you’re clever.

How is this not pressuring reecer to give an explanation?

That’s where I admitted you mentioned it, but you didn’t seem interested in an answer, just used it to justify your vote on him.

So, was this at all relevant since it's already been shown that my base assumption (reecer-scum) is wrong?

Simply put, it bothers me that you made such a black and white distinction: all three buddies or all three town. Your vague cite of elaborate scenarios sounded a little dishonest and I wanted to see how much thought you had put in to the situation. Your answer sounds legitimate, but I will wait to pass judgment until after I post a full case and you reply to it.

In the post where I clarify my point to kier, it's clear I'm talking about tov's post 184, not his 161 like you're trying to make it look like.

What difference does it make? You put forth a premise: that you wouldn’t approve of hammering Ree so long as another player objected. Yet, at one point, against the objections of another player, you voted for Ree and explicitly called for the hammer. The premise does not match your actions. Why?

It's rather clear from these posts that anyone objecting would have made me fine with waiting.

No. It is rather clear that you have

said as much

. On the contrary, it is clear from posts #161 and #181 that objection did not actually dissuade you from voting and calling for a hammer. So, again, I am wondering why what you have said does not agree with what you actually did. There’s nothing “leading” about it.

As I've mentioned earlier I feel that Ythill is the SK, nothing has dissuaded me from that yet...

Well, at least you're not going to try to hang me today. If we hit scum tonight, I bet we'll both be alive in the endgame. Just watch your assumptions carefully.

...if Ythill does in fact have more evidence on ting (as he claimed) then I'm all ears.

I do, but I'm not quite ready to post it. Two reasons: I want Ting to reply to my follow-up first, and I'm hopefully going to get an early night in bed tonight. I'm probably going to be caught up in making a determination about Ting over the next few days, which will include the presentation of my case. However, I'd rather not make the argument if I am mistaken, for the obvious reasons.

[qwints]

I had thought that Ting being roleblocked made him more likely to be town, but I'm starting to rethink that. In fact, Ting being roleblocked makes him a better lynch candidate than most. He's the only player guaranteed not to be the sk. Furthermore, his vote was fairly scummy on day 1 giving the mafia a good reason to send in the kill with someone else. (Question: would 12's kill have gone through even if he was nk'd.) I need to take a closer look at Ythill's case but I have definitely changed my mind about the rb increasing his chance of being town.

On another note, while I am wary of just lynching a lurker today, HOC's brand of lurking has been fairly scummy. He needs to post or he will become the default lynch. More posts will clarify his status and avoid the risk of scum finding a lazy townie as an easy target.

Lastly, kieran's slips and misstatements are approaching a suspicious number. I'm also curious about how schizophrenic his play was leading up to MM's lynch. Take a look at his iso posts 40-50 and see him go back and forth wildly on MM's guilt. (Declaring him to so guilty that he was Kieran's top two suspects* followed by declaring that he was proven to be innocent.)

*

This is poor. I have voted an put my thoughts, as have TING, and MONKEYMAN and to a lesser degree MONKEYMAN. Where are the other players?

oh i see, oops yes i meant to put prof guppy instead of the second monkeyman. lol i was thiniing about how guilty hé is.

[Kieraen]

nope Im just a poor typer. I try to check my posts but Im far to impatient. Hence the spelling mistake in the second quote.
Ill try harder to make my thoughts clear.

[qwints]

Perhaps, but several significant typos warrants a closer look.

[Ythill]

I'm going to post some of the stuff from my reread. It is relevant to both the situation with Ting and qwints' latest posts about Kier. Upfront, I'll reiterate that Kier seems to be a good candidate for SK, but I seriuously doubt he is mafia.

Qwints, I ask that you consider and reply to the Kier-relevant part of what follows if you plan to continue pursuing him today.

PbPA of 12 (narrative)

Whether intentionally or not, 12 had some patterns in the way that he interacted with other players. He gave us two “buddies,” two subtle targets, and a lone lurker hunt. There were three players he interacted with in unique ways, and three he didn’t mention at all.

Kier and MM-town were 12’s “buddies”. The former was defended and buddied up to so extensively that it was obviously intentional. MM was treated similarly but far less prolifically. The manner in which 12 acted towards Kier means that 12 was probably setting him up as a fake buddy. There is a WIFOM angle to consider, but I’m not sure 12 was clever enough to fake a fake-buddy and, even if he was, it would have been a risky move.

Ree and HoC were 12’s subtle targets. In each case, he made one subtle attack after the player had demonstrated that he was an easy target. In Ree’s case, 12 was obviously nudging the town toward a mislynch. It seems likely to me that HoC was being treated similarly for the same reason.

The lone lurker hunt was very telling. Qwints was targeted aggressively for lurking. QoH, who was just as low-activity as qwints, was ignored completely. A sloppy scumbuddy might have done that if QoH was scum and qwints was town, but I cannot see any reason that 12 would have done that if qwints was scum. Most likely scenario is that they are both non-mafia.

Three players received unique treatment from qwints: he argued with Tov but never attacked him, agreed with Qan, and random voted my predecessor but otherwise ignored him. The first two were town and I’ll leave the interpretation of his actions towards my role up to others.

The three players he completely ignored were QoH (now q21), Ting, and Guppy. IME, this group is a very good place to find a buddy. Guppy was town. QoH was included in the lurker dichotomy and so is somewhat more likely to be town, but there is room for q21 to be considered. Thing is, QoH was mostly null (except that one scumtell I mentioned earlier) and q21 has been playing pretty clean. That leaves Ting, who looks dirty on his own (which I’ll get into in more detail as this situation progresses).

PbPA of 12 (evidence)

(post #s iso)
0 ~ Confirm.
1 ~ Random vote Poly.
2 ~ Unvote random.
3 ~ Vaguely backs Qan-town’s suspicion of Ree-town.
4 ~ Jabs at Ree-town once he’s shown that he’s an easy target (Ree had just attacked Kier).
5 ~ Very similar attack against HoC, seemingly in defense of Kier.
6 ~ Dares MM-town to scumhunt, agrees with Kier, defends Kier from Tov-town, points out qwints’ lurking.
7 ~ After MM-town has responded to 12-scum’s defense of Kier, 12 argues theory with him, then offers to drop the “irrelevant” debate.
8 ~ Calls qwints out for lurking again; pre-emptive defense of Kier.
9 ~ Attacks qwints for posting a weak argument and mentions the lurking again.

Living
HoC: single subtle attack, easy target.
Kier: extensive defense and buddying.
Yth: random vote only.
q21: no mention.
Qwints: multiple attacks, mainly for lurking.
ting: no mention.

Dead
Ree: single subtle attack, easy target.
Tov: argued with but did not attack.
MM: buddying.
Guppy: no mention.
Qan: agreement.

So that's the first part of my reread. Discussion is welcome.

[ting =)]

@ythill.
You're just playing semantics now. I've answered your main points, and you've given no reply, here:

But all that is irrelevant, really, since you're obviously being either sloppy or scummy - reecer did answer:

[snip - post by reecer that makes ythill's point void.]

So - which is it; sloppy or scummy? For clarification, I did the first part to show that even if ythill whether ythill was being sloppy or scummy, his argument was still flawed.

Still, I'll humour you.
--

You'll note that that's not the only question I asked reecer which he dodged.

I couldn't find another. Cite please.

I saw him as not answering because he couldn't answer.

It is my suspicion that you knew he couldn’t answer and that’s why you asked. It seems like a really nice hands-off approach to defending a buddy. Clever. And I know you’re clever.

--
First - you're taking individual sentences and taking them out of the context in which they were said, either to distract from the main point, or for a strawman where you imply you've answered the main point despite only answering one part of it.

Specifics:

You'll note that that's not the only question I asked reecer which he dodged.

I couldn't find another. Cite please.

For context: My main point - that reecer was not bothering to defend himself. I've made this clear. You haven't disputed this. Anyway, if you really want

questions,

I can point you to two, but MM hammered reecer. I could also point you to questions from

others

which reece didn't bother to answer. I could also point you to

accusations

from me, and others, which reecer didn't bother to answer. Both of those two categories would illustrate my main point that reecer was not bothering to defend himself - and you're avoiding that main point.

I saw him as not answering because he couldn't answer.

It is my suspicion that you knew he couldn’t answer and that’s why you asked. It seems like a really nice hands-off approach to defending a buddy. Clever. And I know you’re clever.

You're pretty clever yourself actually.

Reason 1:

reecer: unbacked case on 12.
ting: Could you explain your unbacked case on 12?
ythill: Ahah! You knew his case was unbacked, and thus unjustifiable. So, you asking someone to justify their case is actually rather scummy, since you knew it was unbacked to begin with.

Nice twist. Asking anyone to support an unbacked case is obviously defending.

Reason 2:

Also, reecer - how is 12 using logic to cover up being mafia?

While I may want to ask you to explain yourself again, I feel doing so will violate the Law of DNFTT.

At Reecer: Now you vote for 12 saying he might be using logic, where is your reason for this? I don't believe it is the town's position to prove your theory correct. You need to validate your own vote which you failed to do.

hmm, after re-reading the thread, Reecer seem a little liberal with the unbacked suspicion throwing.

To me, it sounds like inexperience as a scum, since in my first game I ever played, I acted basically the same way, and just so happened to be a werewolf, so... unvote: MonkeyMan576; vote: Reecer6 .

It should be pretty obvious from this post, but just in case it isn't clear: your accusation would apply to everyone who asked reecer the exact same thing I did. Namely - tov, QoH, and qanqan. My question was asking reecer the same thing theirs were. Notice how tov and qanqan are both dead townies? That shows that your point is nowhere near concrete. Notice how q21 is still alive? You should be making the same point against him. QoH asked the same thing I did.

Also, this is still not answering my main point. Just unbacked doubt throwing on one particular statement that's not even my main point.
--

[snip]you never pressured him to answer the question.

How is this not pressuring reecer to give an explanation?[post where I voted reecer]

That’s where I admitted you mentioned it, but you didn’t seem interested in an answer, just used it to justify your vote on him.

Not at all the point I was making, you're deflecting. My point is that me voting reecer is me obviously applying pressure on him to answer standing accusations on him and defend himself.

--

In the post where I clarify my point to kier, it's clear I'm talking about tov's post 184, not his 161 like you're trying to make it look like.

What difference does it make?

You put forth a premise: that you wouldn’t approve of hammering Ree so long as another player objected. Yet, at one point, against the objections of another player, you voted for Ree and explicitly called for the hammer. The premise does not match your actions. Why?

A lot.

You're taking a post where I was talking about a particular post, and then applying it to a different post from what I was talking about. My premise matches perfectly at the point when I applied it to. You're taking it and applying it to a point where I was not talking about.

For clarity:

161 - tov : No one hammer plz.
162-180 - reecer: Lots of scummy sounding things.
181 - Okay, I now want to lynch reecer. vote.

184 - tov: No one hammer plz.
187 - ting: Alright. I'll have more discussion with reecer then. [bunch of questions.]

MM hammers.

Bolded is what I was talking about (184,187). You're applying my statement to (161,181), which was not what I was talking about.

--

It's rather clear from these posts that anyone objecting would have made me fine with waiting.

No. It is rather clear that you have

said as much.

Hold on, so anything I say obviously doesn't apply if it doesn't fit your viewpoint? Nevermind that I said those stuff long before you even questioned me on them - they don't fit your interpretation of things, so they're obviously me saying stuff I don't believe. Nope, nothing wrong with this picture at all.

On the contrary, it is clear from posts #161 and #181 that objection did not actually dissuade you from voting and calling for a hammer. So, again, I am wondering why what you have said does not agree with what you actually did. There’s nothing “leading” about it.

Except that it doesn't take into account that 161 and 181 were completely different times. Your argument is that timing is irrelevant and that my statement should still apply. I've said in the above segment why timing is indeed relevant.

--

I had thought that Ting being roleblocked made him more likely to be town, but I'm starting to rethink that. In fact, Ting being roleblocked makes him a better lynch candidate than most. He's the only player guaranteed not to be the sk. Furthermore, his vote was fairly scummy on day 1 giving the mafia a good reason to send in the kill with someone else. (Question: would 12's kill have gone through even if he was nk'd.)

Er, hold up - I can't be sk, so I'm a better lynch candidate? Nevermind that out of the possible (not sk) roles (

townie

, scum), lynching a townie would also be bad for town.

If you're going to try to get me lynched - do it because you think I'm scum, not because I'm not sk. And yes, I read the bit about maf sending in kill with someone else. It's not a case on me being scum, it's just you pointing out (correctly), that I could be scum. Also, yes, his kill (if he made it, which I think he did), would have gone through.

[Ythill]

You're just playing semantics now. I've answered your main points, and you've given no reply...

You need to look up what semantic means. Anyway, I'm sorry I missed that point in my reply. It was an oversight.

Ree

didn't

answer the question, which was "

how

is 12 using logic to cover up being mafia?" He said that maybe he wasn't, suggests a motive, and admits that his own argument is flimsy, but he doesn't explain

how

, which is what you asked. You quoted Ree

dodging

the question, which is exactly what I said he did at the begining of this point.

Thing is, it doesn't fit your character to let something like that slide. Like with the point I overlooked and you brought up again. I'm trying to figure out why you didn't continue to demand an answer from Ree.

First - you're taking individual sentences and taking them out of the context in which they were said

I'm quoting what's relevant to my reply. The context is available in the record and I don't think my arguments have deviated from it.

For context: My main point - that reecer was not bothering to defend himself. I've made this clear. You haven't disputed this.

Precisely. I didn’t have a problem with it, so why are you even discussing it? You seem to be under the impression that I am saying that your reasons for voting Ree were faulty, but I have made no such claim. The problem I have with the question you asked of Ree has nothing to do with the relationship between yourself and Ree. It has everything to do with the relationship between yourself and 12. Ergo, whether or not you thought Ree would defend himself is irrelevant.

If the point of your question was getting an answer, then Ree dodging it left your goal unfulfilled. However, if the point was to demonstrate that Ree had nothing on 12, then it was mission accomplished and there was no reason to ask again.

Anyway, if you really want questions, I can point you to two, but MM hammered reecer. I could also point you to questions from others which reece didn't bother to answer.

I don't care about others' questions.

You have claimed that you voted and refrained from repeating your question about 12 because Ree had demonstrated he wouldn't answer questions. You backed this up by saying you had asked other questions. Questions you asked one post before the hammer could not possibly help you form an opinion that you supposedly held days before you asked them.

Clearly, you've been caught in a lie. Don't draw it out, it'll only get worse. Why did you say claim that other questions you asked had caused you to form an opinion when you had asked no other questions at that time?

It should be pretty obvious from this post, but just in case it isn't clear: your accusation would apply to everyone who asked reecer the exact same thing I did. Namely - tov, QoH, and qanqan.

This does nothing whatsoever to clear you, but I appreciate you mentioning it. I’ll keep it in mind when q21 is in the hot-seat.

My point is that me voting reecer is me obviously applying pressure on him to answer standing accusations on him and defend himself.

Yet you didn’t ask him again, not even when you posted other questions to him. It seems out of character for you.

A lot. You're taking a post where I was talking about a particular post, and then applying it to a different post from what I was talking about. My premise matches perfectly at the point when I applied it to.

Stop being dense. You defended yourself from a particular point by making a claim about your play: you will not support a quick hammer if another player protests. That statement is clearly not true. The only thing that changed between the two examples was that your suspicions of Ree

increased

, which should make you less patient, not more.

I think what happened here is that you forgot about Tov’s first protest to the hammer, so when you gained suspicion for supporting the lynch, claiming that you were willing to wait seemed like a good defense. Except it wasn’t true. Ooooops.

161 - tov : No one hammer plz.
162-180 - reecer: Lots of scummy sounding things.
181 - Okay, I now want to lynch reecer. vote.

184 - tov: No one hammer plz.
187 - ting: Alright. I'll have more discussion with reecer then. [bunch of questions.]

MM hammers.

In #187, you asked two questions, the answer to either would be desired by scum who knew Ree was town. You also offered to remove your vote if Ree answered, a nice subtle way to put pressure on MM, who you knew wanted to drop the hammer.

Hold on, so anything I say obviously doesn't apply if it doesn't fit your viewpoint?

You’re smarter than this. If I was your top suspect and, while you were questioning me, I told you I was town, would you believe me? I am reading and considering every word that you say. That doesn’t mean I believe you. I asked you three questions. Your answers to the second question do give you some credibility. Parts of your other answers make sense. However, some of your statements like the misguided OMGUS, the claim that I am manipulating context or arguing semantics, your misrepresentation of 12’s “answer” to your question, your flawed insistence that the 161/184 timing is relevant, and etcetera make it seem like you’re just trying to avoid the noose with no qualms about honesty.

I’ll post the full case against you soon, probably sometime tonight. You are welcome to reply to the above if you like, but I don’t see much point in going around in circles about it, so don’t bother repeating yourself needlessly. I’ll appreciate reading your side of the story once the case is posted.

[qwints]

Ythill, I'll review 12's interactions with kieran and see what I think. I do not like treating someone as cleared because of scum play, but it certainly should affect the relative probabilities.

Ting, I think YThill makes a valid point about your ignoring the first request not to hammer. I need to go back through and get a sense of what happened between 161 and 181.

[Ythill]

Here is the second part of my reread. I looked it over again before posting and have seen that much of the case against Ting has already been discussed. Realize that I wrote this before questioning Ting. I'm not trying to bulldoze over his points, just posting this in it's unedited entirety.

The Reecer Mislynch (narrative)

In posts 21, 48, and 55 Ree managed to make himself look suspicious by continuously throwing around baseless accusations. By post 58, two confirmed townies (Tov and Qan) had accused Ree. Poly agreed with them, and 12-scum was also making jabs at Ree. Kier got in on the action a little later, his attack was both overt and sensible; he followed it with demands, a vote, and an EBWOP.

Ree dropped his first breadcrumb in 86, after which Ting asked him a question about why he’d called 12 scum. Ree dodged the question, dropping another breadcrumb, and Ting didn’t ask again. QoH then made her only long post, dropping a vote on Ree, who also drew a vote from Qan-town.

Ting asking for reasons to suspect 12 when he knew there could be none is just the type of defense one would expect from a buddy: vague, forgettable, and effective. Letting a dodged question slide is also out of character for Ting.

When Ree hinted at an early claim, townies were on both sides of the argument. Qwints was vaguely anti-claim. Kier made an odd post in the argument: advising against the claim while presupposing disbelief in it. He seemed to believe that Ree would claim a power role. Ree then asked his infamous question about the day PM, causing a burst of tense activity from Kier during which he voted for Ree, got upset about a fudged vote count, and generally seemed to overreact. The whole situation looked odd to MM-town, who voted Ree and accused Kier of being his buddy, adding fuel to the fire.

I agree with MM, Kier was acting very squirrelly. We know that it is in character for him to flurry-post when he gets excited, but the worry about catching heat doesn’t seem to make sense from a guy who was happy to be in the hot seat as long as it started conversation.

Ree just kept up the VI act, swapping his vote to Qan with no reason. Kier called him on it and he dropped another cop hint. By that point, I’m guessing at least one scum had caught on to the breadcrumbs. Two votes came quickly from Ting and my predecessor, bringing Ree to L-1, which inspired Ting to unvote just as quickly.

Why was Ting so jumpy?

Reaching the lynch-line brought a flurry of arguments, most of them for extending the day. The two confirmed townies who argued in favor of a longer day (Tov and MM) back their statements up with votes (Tov by withholding his, MM by unvoting). Qwints’ and Ting’s input is similar. Kier and QoH both argue for a longer day while leaving their votes in place (Kier says L-2 is okay but not L-1).

Towntell on Ting, or did I catch him blending in?

Guppy started defending Ree in #135, igniting a little town vs. town spat with MM, which Qan got sucked into briefly later. In the background, Ree dropped another crumb which qwints took as a mason-hint and began fishing for a claim. Ting demanded the claim explicitly, saying that it was Ree’s best chance to stay alive. Kier continued to demand answers and, again, seemed too concerned about suspicions shifting to himself.

Ting put his foot in his mouth, massaging a claim out of Ree by telling him that it would be likely to save him. By doing this, Ting is eluding that he is likely to let a power-role claim forestall the lynch but, later, he does exactly the opposite.

Struggling with the VI had taken over the thread by #155 and most of the town had tunnel vision, so it was very odd when HoC made a post directing suspicions at others without even mentioning Ree. It was also an interesting time for Ting to pressure Guppy for not voting. Guppy, of course, conformed and placed a vote on Ree, who then claimed cop.

Even though the reread of 12 clears him somewhat, I really don’t like the way HoC ignored the Ree situation entirely. It stood out because the situation was so game-consuming, which also begs the question, who was Guppy to vote for when pressured by Ting? Again, we have a suspicious move from Ting that is vague, forgettable, and effective.

Tov-town warned off the hammer immediately, he seemed to be considering Ree’s claim, as did another townie (MM). Ting, meanwhile, kept repeating that Ree was scum. He went on to name two buddies (Kier and MM) with a bit of conspiracy evidence that MM called him on. Kier continued to seem overly defensive and removed his vote while stating that he disbelieved Ree’s claim. Ting made a very suspicious statement in #172, both insisting that Ree was scum and admitting that he can see a far-fetched scenario where all three buddies are town. In the very next post, he said that he’d pegged Kier as town the whole game.

Note Tov’s call to forestall the hammer, because it’s important below. Kier’s tone is starting to remind me of a game I was in where I was the SK and people were accusing me of being mafia: righteous but nervous. The last two posts contain an inherent contradiction in Ting’s supposed beliefs. Ting made a similar error in another game where we were scum together and I used it to bus him.

Tov and MM continued to question Ree, but he kept up the VI act, offering to share his investigations, which Kier rightfully called null. MM started becoming suspicious again and eventually said it was time to lynch Ree. Ting concurred and voted him to L-1 (calling it L-2). Ree begged for his life to no avail, MM asked for objections, inspiring Tov to call for a stay of execution, after which MM grumbled but didn’t vote. Then Ting asked Ree some questions about the role-related information he’d mentioned (MM as a day cop and the ability to day PM), offering to remove his vote if answered. MM quick-hammered in response and the deed was done.

Here we have the infamous L-lie, which even Ting admits is fishy. More importantly, that same post contains a vote and agreement that it is time to lynch Ree. This is very odd because on D2, Ting disagreed with MM for hammering in spite of Tov’s

second

call to forestall the lynch, even though he called for a hammer and voted after Tov’s

first

, almost identical call for cooler heads to prevail. Also, Ting’s final questions seem an awful lot like the types of things a mafioso would want to know from the cop who had previously fingered his buddy, and the offer to remove his vote might very well have been designed to inspire a quick hammer before the wagon died.

The final vote count included three confirmed townies (Qan, Guppy, & MM) and four of us who are currently living (QoH, Poly, qwints, and Ting). The only two living people not involved were Kier (who had withdrawn his vote after the claim) and HoC (who seemed to be pretending the lynch wasn’t happening).

The Reecer Mislynch (evidence)

021 ~ Ree-town says Ting is suspicious.
025 ~ Tov-town asks him to elaborate.
027 ~ Qan-town calls Ree suspicious.
028 ~ Poly agrees with Tov & Qan about suspicions against Ree.
030 ~ 12-scum agrees vaguely.
038 ~ Tov-town unvotes to pressure Kier.
048 ~ Ree-town marks himself as the easy lynch by following onto Kier.
050 ~ 12-scum jabs @ Ree.
055 ~ Ree-town now says Kier or Tov but still not voting.
058 ~ Qan-town FoS Ree-town for BW on Kier.
070 ~ Kier FoS Ree-town, attack is overt and reasonable.
073 ~ Kier demands new material, less following from Ree.
081 ~ Kier votes Ree-town for unqualified voting.
082 ~ EBWOP by Kier, Ree hasn’t voted… unqualified suspicions.
086 ~ Ree drops his first breadcrumb, votes 12.
087 ~ Tov-town calls Ree a troll.
091 ~ Ting questions Ree.
098 ~ Ree continues dropping crumbs.
100 ~ QoH attacks and votes Ree.
102 ~ Qan-town votes Ree for unbacked suspicions.
102 ~ Ree hints that he should claim.
104 ~ qwints wonders why Ree has to claim.
105 ~ Qan-town pushes for claim.
106 ~ Guppy tells Ree not to claim.
107 ~ Odd post from Kier. He tells Ree not to claim but sets up disbelief of the claim and subtly encourages counter-claims. Seems to think Ree is a PR.
108 ~ Ree unvotes and asks a question about day PMing.
109 ~ Kier overreacts to Ree’s question, votes Ree.
111 ~ Ninety minutes later… Kier is upset about the vote count on Ree. All caps.
112 ~ MM votes Ree, accuses he and Kier of being buddies.
113 ~ Kier still upset about vote count.
114 ~ Kier still upset about vote count.
116 ~ Kier gives Ree demands for his unvote (logical explanation of actions and #108).
117 ~ Ree votes Qan (no reason).
118 ~ Kier demands an explanation.
119 ~ Ree makes major cop hint.
120 ~ Ting votes Ree to L-2.
121 ~ Poly-me votes Ree for baseless assertions.
122 ~ Poly EBWOP to say L-1 was due to cross-post.
123 ~ Ting unvotes (too early for L-1).
124 ~ Tov-town argues against taking our time, sets midnight deadline on his L-1 vote.
125 ~ Kier makes a speech against L-1 but thinks L-2 is fine.
126 ~ Ting thinks Ree looks scummy but wants a longer D1.
131 ~ qwints FoS Ree as evasive and scummy but doesn’t want a lynch yet.
132 ~ MM unvotes Ree, votes Guppy.
133 ~ QoH doesn’t want a quick-lynch but her vote stands.
135 ~ Guppy: Ree isn’t scummy, just stupid.
136 ~ MM accuses Guppy of defending Ree.
137 ~ Guppy doesn’t defend, reiterates that townies can be scummy.
140 ~ Another obvious cop-crumb from Ree.
141 ~ Mason-fishes Ree, votes to L-2.
142 ~ Ree refuses to claim.
144 ~ Ting demands a claim, says it is Ree’s best chance to stay alive.
145 ~ Poly-me asks about Ree’s self-contradiction.
146 ~ EBWOP, Poly-me realizes he misread, there is no contradiction.
147 ~ Guppy accuses Tov of picking on people, including Ree.
148 ~ Qan says MM is indirectly defending Ree.
150 ~ MM says he isn’t defending Ree, it’s a good lynch, just too early.
151 ~ Qwints reiterates Ree as mason possibility.
153 ~ Kier is still demanding answers from Ree and seems too concerned that others will find him suspicious.
155 ~ HoC expresses suspicions of Tov and Kier, cites agreement with qwints.
157 ~ VC = Reecer- 5 (Kierean, QueenofHearts, Qanqan, Polymorph, qwints)
159 ~ Guppy votes Ree as if Ting dared him to, calls for a claim.
160 ~ Ree claims cop.
161 ~ Tov warns off the hammer but says he doesn’t believe the claim.
163 ~ Ting doesn’t believe claim.
165 ~ Ree says he thought MM was a day cop.
166 ~ Tov asks Ree if he’s a jester.
167 ~ MM asks Ree for his suspicions.
168 ~ Ting reiterates that Ree is scum.
169 ~ MM points out Ting’s conspiracy evidence concerning Ree’s buddies.
170 ~ Kier unvotes, still disbelieves claim.
171 ~ Kier seems too defensive again, makes demands on Ree to avoid the noose.
172 ~ Ting insists that Ree is scum. He makes an odd statement about how he can imagine a scenario where MM-town, Ree-cop, and Kier are all town but it seems unlikely.
173 ~ Ting says he’s had Kier pegged as town all game. Says he’ll take back his suspicions if Ree flips town.
174 ~ Guppy disbelieves the claim and leaves his vote in place.
175 ~ Ree offers to share his investigation results if allowed to live.
176 ~ Kier says it will prove nothing.
177 ~ Tov asks Ree how many games he’s played.
178 ~ MM suggests that Ree is not stating suspicions to protect his buddies.
179 ~ Ree claims three games of experience, including one cop.
180 ~ MM says hammer Ree.
181 ~ Ting concurs, votes Ree, makes false L-2 claim.
182 ~ Ree pleads for his life.
183 ~ MM asks for hammer objections.
184 ~ Tov wants the day to last longer.
185 ~ MM doesn’t agree but is willing to wait.
187 ~ Ting asks Ree questions about daytalk and daycop; offers to believe Ree if answered.
188 ~ MM hammers.
190 ~ VC = Reecer- 7 (QueenofHearts, Qanqan, Polymorph, qwints, Prof Guppy, Ting=), MonkeyMan576)

[qwints]

YThill, could we have a tldr summary? I've read your posts but I'm not sure I'm getting what points you are trying to make.

You've made a point that Ting's vote in 181 after Tov's request in 161 is inconsistent with principles that he's expressed elsewhere. Ting has responded that the especially scummy play of reeser caused this behavior. I'm sure that there was way more than that in those huge posts, but I didn't see anything else particularly significant.

[Ythill]

YThill, could we have a tldr summary?

Sure. From the context, I'm assuming you mean a summary of the points that I found against Ting. Please note that my #468 dealt with other players as well. In that reread I saw one bit of strong evidence that QoH is scum and some things that make me think Kier is the SK. I'd suggest reading the

(narrative)

section of #468; the

(evidence)

section is only there for reference.

Summarized Case Against Ting

1. Ting was wholly ignored by 12, and seems to be the most suspicious of those who were treated this way.
   
2. Ting asked a question of Ree and didn't seem to care about the answer, which suggests it was intended to subtly defend 12. Ting has responded to this answer, claiming that he didn't push the issue because he didn't feel Ree would answer, but he made an untrue statement to back up his defense.
   
3. Ting seemed jumpy when he removed his first vote on Ree.
   
4. At one point, Ting made a townie-seeming argument: withholding his vote and arguing for a longer day. But he did this when a lot of other people were doing it and, later, acted in a manner that suggested he actually felt otherwise.
   
5. Ting talked Ree into claiming by saying it was his best chance to survive but, after the claim, stated that only a mason claim would have had a slim chance of clearing Ree. It looks like Ting lied about his outlook to entice a claim out of Ree.
   
6. Ting made two consecutive posts. In one he said that since he believed Ree was scum, then he was certain that Kier and MM were also scum, barring some far-fetched scenarios where they would all be town. In the next post he said that he's found Kier townie all game. This contradiction suggests that one of the two viewpoints was untrue and I've seen Ting make a similar mistake as scum before. Ting later explained the far-fetched scenarios mentioned in the first post in a way that sounded valid.
   
7. Ting's vote is 181 is inconsistant with principals expressed in defense elsewhere. Ting has stated that the timing is relevant but I do not agree.
8. Ting's final questions to Ree are asking for details that a mafioso would want to know from the claimed cop.
   
9. Ting's offer to remove his vote from Ree at the last minute put pressure on MM to drop a hammer he obviously wanted to drop.

[q21]

Right, my comments.

On the points against ting:
I think the post 161 to 181 timing is relevant. Tov asked for a stay of execution for Reecer. Two days of relatively quick discussion is, I think, acceptable time to decide that that stay of execution is over. Maybe if ting were completely genuine about his willingness to wait he would have unvoted after Tov reiterated his desire for the day to continue. Loses a few town points, but not a huge amount.

In 144 he never said that claiming would give Reecer a good chance of avoiding the noose, just that it was his best chance. Given the game state this statement was probably true. It is still a little misleading, loses a few more town points.

His questions in 187 are a little suspect, but possibly warranted, given Reecer's play. Possibly not. Loses yet more town points.

All in all I think my solid town read on ting is downgraded to neutral/town.

One thing I don't like about Ythill is his method of attack. Using one set of evidence while hinting that there is more to come. I find his running of attacks in stages to be a little suspect. Its like he doesn't want to say everything until he's sure he won't receive negative attention for what he says.

I had thought that Ting being roleblocked made him more likely to be town, but I'm starting to rethink that. In fact, Ting being roleblocked makes him a better lynch candidate than most. He's the only player guaranteed not to be the sk. Furthermore, his vote was fairly scummy on day 1 giving the mafia a good reason to send in the kill with someone else. (Question: would 12's kill have gone through even if he was nk'd.) I need to take a closer look at Ythill's case but I have definitely changed my mind about the rb increasing his chance of being town.

Really don't like how this paragraph starts. Just because Ting isn't the SK doesn't mean he's a good lynch target. It means that he's a target we can consider, but not that he's in any way a better target than anyone else.

I find suggesting that his not being the SK makes him a good lynch candidate a bit scummy.

With regards to 12's actions:

He has interactions with the five dead townies that range from nothing at all to subtle attacks. Of the six players still alive he has very similar interactions with five of us.

The only one that's truly unique is his interaction with qwints, the only person he every really attacked. If anything this points at qwints as scum more than it says anything about anyone else.

MOD: I have a rapidly approaching project deadline and its unlikely that I will post much, if at all, over the next 72 hours.

[Ythill]

One thing I don't like about Ythill is his method of attack. Using one set of evidence while hinting that there is more to come. I find his running of attacks in stages to be a little suspect. Its like he doesn't want to say everything until he's sure he won't receive negative attention for what he says.

A reasonable guess, but incorrect. I wanted to give Ting the chance to answer some questions and convince me that I was wrong before I posted a larger case against him. Look at my win/loss record and you'll see that I am more effective as scum. It's because my talent for convincing others to hang someone is stronger than my talent for actually finding scum. I was trying to minimize that.

I find suggesting that his not being the SK makes him a good lynch candidate a bit scummy

Maybe scummy. Certainly not correct.

The only one that's truly unique is his interaction with qwints, the only person he every really attacked. If anything this points at qwints as scum more than it says anything about anyone else.

Except that he attacked him for lurking while your predecessor was also lurking. If qwints is scum, this will be the first time I've seen someone attack his buddy for something when another player is guilty of the exact same thing. There is no benefit to such an action.

[kuribo]

houseofcards is being prodded. I know he said he was going to be VLA for 3 or 4 days but that was almost a week and a half ago.

[ting =)]

You need to look up what semantic means. Anyway, I'm sorry I missed that point in my reply. It was an oversight.

Ree didn't answer the question, which was "how is 12 using logic to cover up being mafia?" He said that maybe he wasn't, suggests a motive, and admits that his own argument is flimsy, but he doesn't explain how, which is what you asked. You quoted Ree dodging the question, which is exactly what I said he did at the begining of this point.

Thing is, it doesn't fit your character to let something like that slide. Like with the point I overlooked and you brought up again. I'm trying to figure out why you didn't continue to demand an answer from Ree.

We're arguing over minutae from possible interpretations on particular words or phrases, instead of over whole points. Case in point:

Are you seriously going to argue that reecer didn't answer my question because his answer was not an answer? His post

was

an answer to my question. You arguing over the word 'how' is turning this into a semantics argument. I didn't continue to demand an answer from reece because he answered. You're using the word 'how' to argue that his answer was not an answer. That's pointless argument over minuitae. In the end of this argument you're intent on having, we'll only be able to determine

whether or not reecer answered a question.

To settle this, yes - he did.

This is me pointing out to Reecer that he had no case.

Also, reecer - how is 12 using logic to cover up being mafia?

This is Reecer admitting that he had no case.

Well I admit, (S)he may not, but maybe she's using logic to say that (s)he can definitely NOT be mafia, or to be for the good for the inncoents, making it seem like 12's innocent.

I admit it's bad logic.

What else would you have me demand, seeing that I've done what I set out to do? You're stretching the definition of 'Reecer didn't answer your question.'

--

For context: My main point - that reecer was not bothering to defend himself. I've made this clear. You haven't disputed this.

Precisely. I didn’t have a problem with it, so why are you even discussing it? You seem to be under the impression that I am saying that your reasons for voting Ree were faulty, but I have made no such claim. The problem I have with the question you asked of Ree has nothing to do with the relationship between yourself and Ree. It has everything to do with the relationship between yourself and 12. Ergo, whether or not you thought Ree would defend himself is irrelevant.

If the point of your question was getting an answer, then Ree dodging it left your goal unfulfilled. However, if the point was to demonstrate that Ree had nothing on 12, then it was mission accomplished and there was no reason to ask again.

This is an example of you taking things out of context. All the stuff you've just said is hardly relevant to the main argument we were having. You've taken us on a tangent.

---

Anyway, if you really want questions, I can point you to two, but MM hammered reecer. I could also point you to questions from others which reece didn't bother to answer.

I don't care about others' questions.

You have claimed that you voted and refrained from repeating your question about 12 because Ree had demonstrated he wouldn't answer questions. You backed this up by saying you had asked other questions. Questions you asked one post before the hammer could not possibly help you form an opinion that you supposedly held days before you asked them.

Clearly, you've been caught in a lie. Don't draw it out, it'll only get worse. Why did you say claim that other questions you asked had caused you to form an opinion when you had asked no other questions at that time?

This is an example of you taking things out of context. You separated it from the previous post precisely so you could make this accusation. I'll repeat it for you:

1. Reecer was not defending himself.
2. I mentioned Reecer not answering questions as an indication of him not defending himself.

For context: My main point - that reecer was not bothering to defend himself. I've made this clear. You haven't disputed this.

Anyway, if you really want questions, I can point you to two, but MM hammered reecer. I could also point you to questions from others which reece didn't bother to answer.

I could also point you to accusations from me, and others, which reecer didn't bother to answer.

Both of those two categories would illustrate my main point that reecer was not bothering to defend himself - and you're avoiding that main point.

The point of this paragraph was to illustrate that reecer was not defending himself, and that I could point this out to you rather well. What you did was:

1. You took away the italicized bit. This allows you to make the question argument without having to argue about the main post.
2. You took away the underlined, because it would also back the main point.
3. You're still doing the bold. The point I was making was that Reecer was not defending himself. If you agree, then why all this back and forth? You're arguing over little pieces.

Also:

Why did you say claim that other questions you asked had caused you to form an opinion when you had asked no other questions at that time?

WHOA. Where exactly, do I make this claim? I'll cut to the chase.

You're going to take this quote of mine:

You'll note that that's not the only question I asked reecer which he dodged.

And then you'll argue that I can't quote any other questions.

I'll point out that:
1. Nowhere did I do what you said:

Why did you say claim that other questions you asked had caused you to form an opinion when you had asked no other questions at that time?

2. You're still ignoring my main point - that reecer was not defending himself. The whole original paragraph illustrates this point:

You'll note that that's not the only question I asked reecer which he dodged. In fact, a lot of people asked reecer questions, and he ignored them. It was clear that reecer was not going to bother answering anything. I saw him as not answering because he couldn't answer.

In fact, my whole first post in response to your original question makes that main point:

You'll note that that's not the only question I asked reecer which he dodged.

In fact, a lot of people asked reecer questions, and he ignored them. It was clear that reecer was not going to bother answering anything.

I saw him as not answering because he couldn't answer. Turns out he was just playing badly.

Also,

Unvote. Vote:Reecer. That's L-2, I think. My vote is for the weird comment about 12, and this whole page especially the qanqan vote.

How is this not pressuring reecer to give an explanation?

Another post supporting the fact that I felt:

1. Reecer wasn't answering questions.
2. I was pressuring reecer for some sort of defense or explanation of his actions.

Reecer, you're at L-2. You should claim. There's no good reason you shouldn't. If you're town, your death would hurt us, a claim would be your best bet to stay alive since

you're obviously not defending yourself.

It's pretty clear what my main point was - Reecer was not defending himself. ALL the bolded bits make this clear what my point was. If we're in agreement as you claim, I really can't see why you're taking bits and pieces of it and arguing minuitae.

Reason 2: [stuff]It should be pretty obvious from this post, but just in case it isn't clear: your accusation would apply to everyone who asked reecer the exact same thing I did. Namely - tov, QoH, and qanqan.

This does nothing whatsoever to clear you, but I appreciate you mentioning it. I’ll keep it in mind when q21 is in the hot-seat.

Reason 1, which you ignored - did. Reason 2 points out that you're making a generic argument applicable to multiple people, making it inconclusive. Also, yes, it does clear me from this argument. The fact that one of those people whom your argument applies to is Tov, who's been shown to be town, shows that your argument is faulty. If your argument held any water at all, then all three of the people it applied to, (me, tov, QoH) would be scum.

---

My point is that me voting reecer is me obviously applying pressure on him to answer standing accusations on him and defend himself.

Yet you didn’t ask him again, not even when you posted other questions to him. It seems out of character for you.

Seriously, are you not seeing that Reecer ALREADY did answer me?

You're either:

1. Blatantly ignoring this so your point can stand.
2. Really do believe that reecer didn't answer me.

Also, way to go deflecting. My point was that my vote was pressure on Reecer to answer questions and defend himself. Quote:

My point is that me voting reecer is me obviously applying pressure on him to answer standing accusations on him and defend himself.

Your point: Ah, but you didn't ask him again.

For clarity:

ting: Me voting him means I want him to answer stuff.
ythill: Ah, but if you did, you'd have asked him again!

I'm repeating myself, but

Yet you didn’t ask him again,

Yes.

1. He already did answer me. You're either ignoring this, or deliberately dragging this down to a semantic argument that his answer was in fact, not an answer to my question.
2. My vote is obviously pressure on him to answer.

---

In #187, you asked two questions, the answer to either would be desired by scum who knew Ree was town.

You also offered to remove your vote if Ree answered, a nice subtle way to put pressure on MM, who you knew wanted to drop the hammer.

Wow. So - reecer first asks Kier if they can PM each other during the day. Next, he mentions thinking MM is a day cop. And no one is supposed to be suspicious about all this? Especially when it implicates both Kier and MM? Nice twisting ythill. Also, do you really want me to quote all the other people who asked the same questions? I could, if you really want me to.

Post for context:

@reecer.
I'll believe you if you can answer these two questions:

1. Why did you think there'd be daytalk, and why'd you think you could do it with Kier?

2. What made you think MM's a daycop?

If you're talking about the beginning sentence, it obviously has no connection to this:

Is there anyone who believes me?

Yes, I was obviously not talking to reecer, especially since that was his last post before I asked my questions. My post where I look like I'm replying to reecer is not really me replying to reecer.

This whole paragraph of yours is a stretch.

---

I've just realized that ythill made a post just before my previous one. I'll address it tomorrow, along with his latest one. This whole back and forth is over minuitae and pointless.