Mini 761 - Game Over

[Amished]

Going in order down the line:

@Ash: It's extremely hard for me to think that a town player would really try that hard to find scum by saying people are trying to blend in? First off, if either of the later two to say plenty are townies, they would have no idea the alignment of those before them. Therefore it seemed like an underhanded and stupid jab at Wall-E, instead of finding something more significant/relevant.

@Steph: There are always reasons for questions. I don't care if the question is how old are you, or why did you step on that cat's tail, but there's always a reason.

I would've rather taken option 3, actually looking for some valid points to go after somebody. As to your take on Wall-E, the way I see it is that you wanted to vote for him, so asking him a question is trying to (like you said) help or hurt his case as a scum/town player. Even that is an underlying reason to ask somebody about their playstyle. Heck, I probably would've ignored your question like Wall-E did until you brought it up that it was so important to you, and still probably wouldn't have given you a non-sarcastic answer.

Who really knows who's 100% innocent other than a sane cop (or insane with counterproof) and the mafia? As town we have to take some chances from time to time and voting who we think is most likely scum, not just people who are 100% scum.

@ryan: I'm glad that you've finally got your 3rd and 4th post in this game, but I don't think I agree with your opportunism rationale. Especially if it was only a FoS, it's not a vote so it's not really hopping on a wagon because of one other person. In fact, he was the first one to vote for LZ, and remains the only one so it's not a well populated wagon at all.

@LZoner: Basically nailed it right on (and in a nicer tone!) Except for your last part, being cautious is all fine and dandy, but explicitly saying that you're most likely going to vote for somebody, then going back and saying you were just asking questions to see their response does seem to me like that person is worried about being under the spotlight, so to speak.

Mod: Happy Birthday!

X:

Danke.

[alexhans]

Sorry for the Double Post. I feel as though Stephoscope isn't scummy for anything except for one thing. I feel his questioning and such isn't scummy, he is trying to scum hunt, more than a lot of other people in this game can say.

The one thing I find scummy is his fencesitting on Wall-E. Saying you are going to possibly vote for him and not voting is scummy.

He's scummy, as is Wall-E, but I feel as though Steph's active scumhunting (however wrong he may be going after it) is better than what Wall-E has been poasting.

Alex hans, anything?

Glad you asked... look at the bolded part... So you want him to vote for Wall-e just because he is suspicious? haven't you heard of reasoning? We can say we might do something and wait for events to develop... Wall-E was close to a lynch so if he thought like me, he wouldn't vote for him to avoid a quick lynch.

And I believe the "plenty" thing in various posts is a very common thing... repeating the style of previous posts.

Specifically, I was wondering why Wall-E insisted that Zach was "anti-town" and not "scummy"...and I like to think I and everyone else understands that there is a difference between those two terms...

There is a slight difference, but we're trying to eliminate both, so that point is moot.

@everyone:

clarify me what you think the difference is between anti-town and mafia?
Well... I re-read the game looking for interesting things...
What angries me a bit is that all posts seem to be 2 sentences long and with one hollow sentence...

If you wanted to say that, say that. I see nothing here to indicate that you meant it to be a joke or not serious.

This was the super "grudgy" vote...

No, it's actually because I am married to one of the people you killed in newbie 727.

Notice something? There's a smiley at the end... This is a clear sign that it isn't a serious vote.
I'm not liking the bandwaggon against stethoscope from whom I'm getting the biggest town read. I don't see he acted scummy at all...

I'd hop on Stephoscope's wagon just for post 103. But it's still an early day, so let's see what Stephoscope says about it.

This is post 103

Is there anything to the fact that each of the three people who answered my question about mafia experience answered with, "plenty"?

I mean, each answer seemed to make sense, but all three people answering with that exact word? Is someone trying too hard to blend in?

Seriously people... do you think this merits a lynch? Even

HFoS Wally

... I was willing to give you the benefit of doubt believing that you played in a very unique style but you just keep dropping scum tells. But saying you'd hop on a waggon for this after jumping votes from one place to the other... you just wan't a lynch that's not you. Try harder and look for reasons to vote and explain them.

It's extremely hard for me to think that a town player would really try that hard to find scum by saying people are trying to blend in?

So we are moving in to the world of scum hunting to hard is scummy... we should lynch them!... come on... there's nothing wrong with that.

There are always reasons for questions. I don't care if the question is how old are you, or why did you step on that cat's tail, but there's always a reason.

Yes.... wanting an answer maybe? :wink

[alexhans]

I would also like to ask everyone a question:

@everyone:

What is your stance on having people at L-2? you think it's dangerous? what do you think is the limit?
I'd like too hear what are the views on what's been happening up till now from this guys specially:
AshKetchummm, Conspicuous_other, Debonair Danny DiPietro, ryan2754.
like Wall-e's attack on Zachrulez. Stethoscope's plenty issue. or anything else...

lordzoner: you were one of the first to post in this thread when it opened, yet we've heard nothing from you since. Can you tell us a bit about your usual schedule, and how often you think you'll post?

AshKetchummm, Conspicuous_other, Gateway, lordzoner, Pitstop, ryan2754, had'nt posted either at the time…. Why single Lord out?

POST 72: While his account was just created on March the 10th, I'm not getting the vibe of a newbie from him. And this isn't a newbie game.

Why don't you get that vibe?

@Wall-e: are you satisfied with lordzoners answer in 80 ?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

@everyone:

clarify me what you think the difference is between anti-town and mafia?

Anti-town behavior is just that, actions which are detrimental to the town. Examples, almost always fake claiming by a townie is anti-town, heavy lurking, and an unwillingness to hunt for scum are anti-town actions.

However, while these activities do not help the town they are not invariably the actions of scum who usually want to blend into the town and sometimes/often are the actions of newer and inferior players.

I disagree with lordzoner's line about elminating both anti-town actions and scum. We need to eliminate scum, we need to cut through the fog of any non-scum anti-town actions, but eliminating townies who behave in anti-town fashion is not terribly helpful to the town either.

[Stephoscope]

ryan2754:

You have the right to your opinion, but I don’t agree that my not voting for Wall-E has been scummy. I have tried to be as clear as possible regarding my thoughts about Wall-E. Let’s say (for the sake of argument, I haven’t figured out any exact percentages) that I think Wall-E is 50% likely to be scum. If a deadline is approaching, I’m going to make sure I vote for him; I think it’s in the town’s best interests to take out a player who very well may be scum, instead of having a no-lynch we’d probably regret later, or a lynch of someone else I don’t think is scummy. But until that deadline, I may want to see what develops; something may happen that will allow myself and others to vote with confidence, whether for Wall-E or someone else. Is there really a problem with this reasoning...or my having used it to explain my thoughts at a given moment?

lordzoner:

It’s not like I went into today focused on overanalysis of semantics. I don’t believe I have ever done so in a game before. I simply happened to notice three “plenty” responses to my question, and I just brought it up as soon as I noticed it.

Amished:

I have been clear about my reasoning. While I think Wall-E has been acting suspiciously, I was by no means convinced he was scum, and I decided to ask him a question and give him the opportunity to redeem himself, dig himself deeper...or who knows what would happen? I insist that more conversation is almost always a good thing.

alexhans:

Only because lordzoner was amongst the very first to post, so I would have expected him to be the type of player who is often available...therefore I was a bit surprised when he was gone for a while afterward. I was just trying to bring another player into the conversation (although my alarm bells did go off a bit when he missed my question when he did finally post). But I’m sure I could have asked similar questions to the other players you mentioned...

but so could have anyone else in this game.

I didn’t get a newbie vibe from lordzoner because of his quickness to jump in, and his familiarity with voting and unvoting, serious and non-serious votes. And I guess I was right

And as for “anti-town” vs. “scummy”, I was interpreting them as:

anti-town:

any player, regardless of role, who doesn't appear to be working toward the best interests of the town

scummy:

someone who is playing as if they are mafia and want to lynch and kill townies

I disagree with lordzoner’s assertion that “we want to eliminate them both”. I for one absolutely do not want to eliminate a townie today (and almost definitely not ever), no matter how “anti-town” he or she may be playing. I want to eliminate a scum. However, it is true that there may be other player(s) in the game whose role demands they do very very “anti-town” things, and yes, we should want to eliminate them as well.

I don't think I have any "stance" on L-2 in particular. If I place my vote on someone, it is because I want them to be lynched (other than silly random votes and somesuch). I try to get all the information I need before my vote...and that should have been clear.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

@everyone:

What is your stance on having people at L-2? you think it's dangerous? what do you think is the limit?

People should be put at L-X for whatever X is appropriate, there isn't a limit to that. In fact putting the heat on to L-2 and L-1 is often extremely useful to see how not only the individual under pressure reacts, but how the rest of the town reacts.

[Zachrulez]

I would also like to ask everyone a question:

@everyone:

What is your stance on having people at L-2? you think it's dangerous? what do you think is the limit?

If the players actions are scummy enough to enough people that the town feels they warrant lynch -2 pressure, then I see no problem with it.

I think people overreact to lynch -2 in general.

If someone were to have a bandwagon built on them like say... in the middle of the day for little or no reason... then one might wonder why someone has been run up that quickly.

A lot of it has to do with analysis, the situation it happens in, and the people voting for the person on L-2 and their reasoning.

Most certainly you should be reading the game yourself, and applying your own reasoning to whether or not you think someone is scummy if they've been run up to that point. Following someone else's reasoning to a lynch can be a very foolish thing, especially if you are following the reasoning of scum who want to lynch a townie.

[ryan2754]

Anti-town: Any action or non-action that is detrimental to the citizenry. E.G. Active lurking, not scum-hunting, etc.
Scummy/Scum: Any action or non-action that is shown to have the intent to mislead and wrongfully lynch cits, or shows some inside knowledge that normal town does not have (e.g. knowing someone is town, etc., and eluding to it in a post).

Personally, the more I have played these games, the more I don't realize the stigma of L-2 or, even at times, L-1. People apparently put weight on these arbitrary points, and each case is different. A set L-2 point can't be used with every case or scenario, nor can L-1. There are different appropriate courses of action for different.

All I was saying Stephoscope was that fencesitting by claiming a vote and not doing it is an action that in my experiences is scummy. None of you have played in previous games with me, so I'll do a bit of explaining now. In the later rounds, a big indicator of scum that I have used is voting/unvoting patterns. It is actually one of the more resourceful means of finding scum late in the game when the line between winning or losing is lynching one town. It has worked to perfection in some of my recent games, including finding the last two scum in one game and the last scum in another. Albeit, we lost, because no one listened to me, but you get the point. It works. Thus, something that I have used before is fencesitting. Later in the game, it is something that has been used with accuracy to find scum. I'm just saying that early round fencesitting is, from my experience, a scummy behavior. I understand that you don't want to make any brash decisions on getting Wall-E lynched too soon before the deadline, but again, I already expressed how I feel about L-2 and L-1.

I do find Stephoscope's actions, outside of the fencesitting, to be fairly pro-town. Although he.she may not be using normal scumhunting means, he/she has aroused a fair deal of discussion.

I really don't like Amished overexaggeration of Stephoscope in Post 110. However, I do agree with many of your assessments in Post 125. The only thing I'd like to say is that, if he started the wagon, it doesn't look nearly as bad as hopping on. On the same train of thought, if no one jumps aboard, like no one has, he can easily unvote and it will most likely be cast in the shadows for the rest of the game. Thus, if Wall_E were scum, it would be a safe risk to take.

@Amished. Usually, when someone expresses an open suspicion of someone (Like steph on Wall-E), there is usually reasoning to back it up. We all assumably read the argument between Wall-E and Zach. I beleive a lot of individuals found that exchange to be reason enough to find Wall-E even somewhat scummy enough to be suspicious. There are people that try too hard to blend-in, and this also can be used to find the baddies. However, I don't think word choice to be the best medium.

@DDD. I agree with Post 128. And Post 130 for that matter.

[Amished]

Anti-town for me is acting in a selfish manner (this includes neutral/solo roles like SK, miller, etc.) while scummy is .. well.. acting like scum. Bogus cases, wishy-washiness, (sometimes) lurking, and the like. If there were a set number or specific things that were always scummy, either we'd find them everytime and the game is broken, or the scum know exactly what to look for and it's a major crapshoot, probably resulting in more scum wins.

@alex: If people had or or after everything they said, even if it was a serious case but they didn't want the general population to know it was would be construed as exactly what the poster wanted you to think. I read somewhere before that the #1 rule of mafia is that everyone lies or at the very least has the potential to lie. So I definitely am generally a little more skeptical of things people have to say.

I also don't get what you mean with your reference to 103. It looks like you're completely agreeing with steph by talking about a different point, and FoS'ing Wall-e in the same breath. Would you care to try to clarify yourself? Or at least try to talk about the subject of the "plenty" pointing out that occurred in 103.

Also, I'm definitely not saying that scum-hunting is scummy, but in this case trying to point out people saying "plenty" is scummy is trying way too hard to make a case out of nothing, imo. Even mentioning something that many people agreed is a rather weak point just reeks of trying to add to his case with nothing, which is scummy in my eyes. And then you agree with me that there's always reasons for a question, not like steph had originally stated.

@Steph: I don't really know where I disagreed with you that discussion is a bad thing... I can see people being suspicious of others, but then after you point out the "plenty" thing and the fence-sitting (from my point of view at least) I viewed your actions to be scummier than Wall-E's. (As a matter of fact, I see where Wall-E was coming from especially early on, so I might disagree with most of you about him).

[AshKetchummm]

@everyone:

clarify me what you think the difference is between anti-town and mafia?

Well anti-town too me is not contributing to the game, or just contributing nonsense that dosn't really help out the town. (Joke post and good humor is great every now and than, but you have to contribute at some point) or just making the game unenjoyable.

Scum on the other hand, (IMHO of course) would be more like the type that appear to try and turn the town in on itself and turn people against one another, things of that nature.

I would also like to ask everyone a question:

@everyone:

What is your stance on having people at L-2? you think it's dangerous? what do you think is the limit?

I don't thing L-2 is particuliary dangerous, because unless very organized the chance of a quick lynch isn't very likely, and usually one of the scum already have the vote on them, so the two needed are more difficult to come by. But it does make the recipent have to tighten their game up and give valid reasoning.

I'd like too hear what are the views on what's been happening up till now from this guys specially:
AshKetchummm, Conspicuous_other, Debonair Danny DiPietro, ryan2754.
like Wall-e's attack on Zachrulez. Stethoscope's plenty issue. or anything else...

I said previously that the Wall-E Zach was just kind of pointless bickering, I do think that Wall-E taking the joke vote he received so harshly to be odd, and than what followed it was kind of ridiculous, sense it was of course a joke vote.

And i've already gave my views on stethoscope's case.

@ Amish

Is scumhunting "to hard" a bad thing in your opinion? And also do you think the jabs Wall-E took at Zach, are the same as the kind Scope took on Wall-E? If so are the ones Wall-E took at Zach more substantial in your opinion?

[lordzoner]

I had been interpreting "anti-town" as referring to a player's role, as the wiki does. I do agree that it would be imprudent to lynch a townie merely for anti-town

behavior

, (e.g. lack of contribution) but wasn't thinking about the term that way.

As for a lynch -2 vote count, it depends on the situation. In my opinion, it is neither inherently wise nor unwise to withdraw a vote at that point. It depends on your feeling about the player being voted for, and how convinced you are that the player is scum. However, other players' reactions to this situation are worth analysis.

People should be put at L-X for whatever X is appropriate, there isn't a limit to that.

Lynch minus the mod?

Happy birthday, X!

X:

Gracias.

[Conspicuous_other]

I'm sorry I haven't been able to get a post up, guys. I'll try to throw in a post with content tomorrow or the next day, school and track have been eating my time...

Happy B-Day, X!

X:

Thanks. Sorry that I ran out of languages.

[Amished]

Yes, scumhunting "too hard" is a very bad thing. I believe it leads to weak cases and often tunnel-visioning rather than looking at the entirety of the population and being stuck if your "candidate" is night-killed or mis-lynched. I think that the "plenty" point is a perfect example of trying too hard, and not really leading anywhere.

Which posts by Wall-E/Scope are you talking about? Like I said I see Wall-E's point of view rather than Zach's moreso early on and didn't see much in the way of Wall-E insulting Zach either.

[Stephoscope]

Yes, scumhunting "too hard" is a very bad thing. I believe it leads to weak cases and often tunnel-visioning rather than looking at the entirety of the population and being stuck if your "candidate" is night-killed or mis-lynched. I think that the "plenty" point is a perfect example of trying too hard, and not really leading anywhere.

This is surreal. I have been playing all game specifically trying for myself and all of us to avoid tunnel-visioning. How could I possibly have been more clear about that? I have wanted since the beginning of this game to look at the entirety of the population. Please note that my question that all this came from was *absolutely not* directed at Wall-E. And the "plenty" thing just struck me as peculiar, and I refuse to be afraid to say such a thing, no matter who may or may not be involved. Who knows what can happen when the conversation goes in a different direction?

[Zachrulez]

Yes, scumhunting "too hard" is a very bad thing. I believe it leads to weak cases and often tunnel-visioning rather than looking at the entirety of the population and being stuck if your "candidate" is night-killed or mis-lynched. I think that the "plenty" point is a perfect example of trying too hard, and not really leading anywhere.

Which posts by Wall-E/Scope are you talking about? Like I said I see Wall-E's point of view rather than Zach's moreso early on and didn't see much in the way of Wall-E insulting Zach either.

Are you kidding me? So Stephoscope is scummy for trying to scumhunt?

Vote: Amished

Feeling persecuted yet Stephoscope? Personally I think the attacks on you have been unfair.

I would like to hear your thoughts on myself and Wall-E though.

[AshKetchummm]

I have to agree with Zach. I don't see how "too much" scumhunting is a bad thing, I mean even if the cases are weak, it still sparks discussion and reactions, which are crucial for finding scum.

I think Amish has pounced way to hard on Scope's attempt at trying to be beneficial to the town.

Amish I need you to explain why Scope getting on Wall-E's case on "weak reasoning" is any different than Wall-E jumping on Zach's case for something that was also unsubstantial.

until then

Vote: Amish

[Wall-E]

Yes, scumhunting "too hard" is a very bad thing. I believe it leads to weak cases and often tunnel-visioning rather than looking at the entirety of the population and being stuck if your "candidate" is night-killed or mis-lynched. I think that the "plenty" point is a perfect example of trying too hard, and not really leading anywhere.

Which posts by Wall-E/Scope are you talking about? Like I said I see Wall-E's point of view rather than Zach's moreso early on and didn't see much in the way of Wall-E insulting Zach either.

Are you kidding me? So Stephoscope is scummy for trying to scumhunt?

Vote: Amished

Feeling persecuted yet Stephoscope?

Personally I think the attacks on you have been unfair.

I would like to hear your thoughts on myself and Wall-E though.

Buddying to Stephoscope? Can you explain how the sentence in red is helpful in finding scum? What about the sentence in blue?

[Wall-E]

alexhans: I think it's convenient but insignificant in light of the fact that he's been posting more than many. If he returned to lurking I'd be suspicious, but his story checks out.

[alexhans]

What I don't like with L-2 is that it is close to L-1 and in L-1 anyone can hammer and end quickly a day that could've given us a lot of info. And I've seen my share of townies hammering at L-1 prematurely so hammering it's not always an indicative of scum... In my experience I've seen scum in all positions of a bandwaggon... beginning middle hammer... I'm a bit paranoid but I don't want quick lynches that if erroneous won't give us any info on what to do next day and we solely depend on the night kill and future talk.

@alex: If people had or or after everything they said, even if it was a serious case but they didn't want the general population to know it was would be construed as exactly what the poster wanted you to think. I read somewhere before that the #1 rule of mafia is that everyone lies or at the very least has the potential to lie. So I definitely am generally a little more skeptical of things people have to say.

OK but look at the post! Do you see a serious grudge there? and... if you were scum... would you vote on a grudge? Come on... we all find original ways to joke in random vote stage.

I also don't get what you mean with your reference to 103. It looks like you're completely agreeing with steph by talking about a different point, and FoS'ing Wall-e in the same breath. Would you care to try to clarify yourself? Or at least try to talk about the subject of the "plenty" pointing out that occurred in 103.

I just think that steph was trying to look for conversation and get people talking (as I finally, and gladly, did with my last two posts) and wall-e just used it to make him look scummy following others... it looks like wall-e is happy with following just any lynch as long as it's not him. Therefore my suspicion.

I had been interpreting "anti-town" as referring to a player's role, as the wiki does. I do agree that it would be imprudent to lynch a townie merely for anti-town

behavior

, (e.g. lack of contribution) but wasn't thinking about the term that way.

Great! this is were I was trying to get... we are speaking same words but interpreting them differently. We have to be careful with that. I also thought anti-town as bad play but apparently it's not.

Yes, scumhunting "too hard" is a very bad thing. I believe it leads to weak cases and often tunnel-visioning rather than looking at the entirety of the population and being stuck if your "candidate" is night-killed or mis-lynched. I think that the "plenty" point is a perfect example of trying too hard, and not really leading anywhere.

define too hard... but then... do you think it's a townie mistake or a scummy mistake in trying to disguise himself?

Buddying to Stephoscope? Can you explain how the sentence in red is helpful in finding scum? What about the sentence in blue?

Do you think scum would buddy like that to his partner in day one when he is in no significant danger? I still don't like your play Wall-e. I'm sorry.

@Wall-e: are you satisfied with lordzoners answer in 80 ?

alexhans: I think it's convenient but insignificant in light of the fact that he's been posting more than many. If he returned to lurking I'd be suspicious, but his story checks out.

So why are you still voting for him?

[Amished]

*Sigh*

Ok.

@Steph: If you read my post, I said it can lead to tunnelvisioning. As it appeared to me, Ash's question about "too hard" was more general, so I gave reasons overall why I feel it's bad. I had never accused you of tunnel vision, and nor would I as I haven't seen it out of you. I have seen, on the other hand, several people that ended up trying way too hard, got their townie lynched, and then had a whole hell of a lot of nothing to go on the next day. This also caused them to be under great suspicion, and when they were townies too, this was also bad. That is the point I was trying to get across by my "tunnel vision" statement. In your case, I felt it was the former as I thought you were trying to add to Wall-E's suspicion over "plenty", (which is only part of my suspicion against you, the soft-vote that I mentioned in 110 is still the bulk of why my vote is on you.

^ paragraph also applies to Ash. Trying too hard is anti-town at best, and scummy at worst in my eyes. The "plenty" that this was all started from was the trying to hard that I'm referring to, and what I've always referred to with that.

WRT Wall-E/Zach, while the initial reason (carrying the grudge) was rather insignificant, Zach's defense didn't exactly dazzle me. My feeling of the back and forth was that Wall-E saw something (anything could've kicked it off) and pressed a button with the person. Especially early on, I think this was a rather good play as I don't think a lot of people are comfortable lynching somebody based on 2-4 pages. In return, you get a feeling for how the other person defends and tries to reason with you. Zach's feeling like he's always right no matter what is what didn't sit well with me (argument "dissecting"/"destroying", and Wall-E never really backpedaled in the first two pages in my eyes so that point of Zach's wasn't that viable to me either). That's why, even though it started off badly, I like it overall as it gave a) everybody something to talk about and b) an insight on how two different players that I know I haven't played with before play.

@alex: there's a thing called "too scummy" where scum have intentionally acted like what they are, and the town has said that no scum in their right mind would do that, and they get cleared of something that was scummy, as well as getting a free pass for a while even though they're scum. If I have time, I always try to look at a post from scum perspective and a town perspective, and try to figure out which makes more sense. Oftentimes I can't tell, but it works at other times.

The few times that I've seen it, it was a townie trying too hard. It could be this time too, but I haven't seen enough mafia to make a broad generalization like that yet. Even so, that's not my main reason for voting him.

[Zachrulez]

Amished what is your main reason for voting for Stephoscope?

[ryan2754]

Quoted from Post 144:
which is only part of my suspicion against you, the soft-vote that I mentioned in 110 is still the bulk of why my vote is on you.

[Zachrulez]

Yeah, I guess I want to focus the conversation on his main reason.

Mainly that I want a more detailed explanation of this alleged soft vote.

Right now, I'm seeing people jump from point A to point B, before Stephoscope himself actually gets a chance to reveal whether or not he's actually going to point B with his points.

This all ignores Amished's confusing defense of the trying too hard comment for the moment.

[Gateway]

Just posting to prevent thoughts of lurking I don't feel strongly enough to argue against any of the points I've seen... Add to that I'm still loopy from my hospital trip so it may be another day or two before I am back to a 100%

[Stephoscope]

Feeling persecuted yet Stephoscope? Personally I think the attacks on you have been unfair.

I would like to hear your thoughts on myself and Wall-E though.

I'm not sure how much else I have to say about that exchange. I felt Wall-E's behavior has been peculiar throughout much of this game. I didn't like him placing a vote on you so quickly...given that his rationale was flimsy, he refused to label you as "scummy" even though his vote would seem to indicate that, and he actually shifted his vote to someone else a bit later at the drop of the hat. I think there was something to alexhans's statement to Wall-E in 126 that "you (Wall-E) just wan't a lynch that's not you."

I don't think I see any problem in how you defended yourself.