Mini 737 - Hack Poetry Mafia (Game Over)

[sekinj]

You think there are multiple scum roleblockers, but you think Spring is a paranoid doc? Where is the information leading you to believe a 2nd roleblocker is coming from in that case, if you don't necessarily think it's Spring? Nobody else has claimed to have been blocked, so there's no physical evidence of another non-Spring roleblocker. Explain?

already did. look at my conversation with don.

[Goatrevolt]

What's the difference in distinction between Spolium tried to make a kill and had it fail by either protect/roleblock and Spolium was informed he was blocked when the conclusion is the same? - Spolium: Scum. Failed at killing someone night 1.

This does not address my point in any way whatsoever. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Let's put it this way; your hypothesis relies on the idea that scum-Spolium realised that he was being roleblocked. Therein lies the problem - you do not adequately explain why scum-Spolium would be inclined to believe that he was being roleblocked over his target being protected (instead of just targeting someone else, which would've resulted in no kill N2).

I don't know why you didn't just come out and say this right away. It would have saved a lot of pointless back and forth and confusion. I had absolutely no clue what point you were trying to make.

Scum are typically not informed when they try to kill someone and it fails due to doc save. People are generally told when they try to perform an action and it fails due to a roleblock. One is a successful action that produces no result, and the other is an unsuccessful attempt to perform an action. I don't think I've ever played in a game where I was roleblocked and not informed of it.

That's all well and good, but you still haven't answered my question.

Why

did you think sekinj was informed that she was blocked, when she did not confirm this? Why did you attack me instead of clarifying the facts with sekinj first? It seems more like you were looking for an excuse to push for votes on me than to sincerely consider the consequences of sekinj being roleblocked by Spring.

I've answered that question at least 3 times. When she said "I was blocked" I took it to mean "I was roleblocked." When someone says they were roleblocked, it's natural to assume they are claiming to be roleblocked because the mod said "Hey, you were roleblocked." If that is not the question you want answered, then be a little more clear.

The obvious conclusion to draw when someone claims "I was blocked" is that they are claiming to have been roleblocked. I didn't first check the facts because I didn't even consider the possibility that I was wrong. It seemed pretty cut and dry to me.

I don't how you can claim that I'm using this as a means to push votes on you (spring claimed the same thing) when I haven't done that at all. Point out where I've tried to make the argument that you are scum as a result of this possibility? All I've done is point out the

possibility

and then repeatedly try to defend that stance (the stance that Spolium getting targeted N1 is a possible reason for the lack of kill). Nowhere is me saying "This is what happened" yet I'm getting misrepped into that stance.

[don_johnson]

You think there are multiple scum roleblockers, but you think Spring is a paranoid doc? Where is the information leading you to believe a 2nd roleblocker is coming from in that case, if you don't necessarily think it's Spring? Nobody else has claimed to have been blocked, so there's no physical evidence of another non-Spring roleblocker. Explain?

already did. look at my conversation with don.

you have not explained this. you merely acknowledged the discrepancy and posted "lol". i am glad you find it humorous. anytime you want to clarify your suspicions will be great.

On sekinj and jailkeeping: my being a jailkeeper/rb is merely a possibility amongst other possibility. I feel that people latching/not latching on this tidbit may possibility interesting to explore, I'm to lazy to do it now, because other equal possibles are a) sekinj lying b) my targeting her having nothing to do in the reported result.

i think sekinj is lying. i think the claiming of "blocked" and its subsequent backtracking was a feeble attempt to keep suspicion on spring. you see, sekinj is playing both sides of the fence. if there is a scum roleblocker and sekinj is town, then spring

has

to be a leading candidate, yet sekinj is content to call spring "paranoid doc". yet sekinj believes there to be a scum roleblocker even though she claims she doesn't "know" whether or not she herself was roleblocked, and no other claimed power role has claimed to be roleblocked.

i am trying not to intervene in the goat/spolium debate here as i thought it was going somewhere, but it seems like you guys are arguing in circles. goat, what makes you think scumspolium is going to admit to being roleblocked when/if he committed the night1 kill?

spolium, sekinj said she was blocked. you say goat is scummy for assuming she was informed of being roleblocked, because he didn't seek to clarify this information. is this correct? if so, do you find it suspicious that noone else tried to clarify this infromation as well? i think both rhinox and myself agreed that we thought sekinj meant what she said. what did you think she meant when she said "i was blocked"?

[sekinj]

Don - Yes I did! As I said, I was only speculating about another rb because of all the power roles. I didn't understand your point, or how it narrowed down the rb to being spring ior no one. I now do and can see that the only options are
1) there is no additional mafia rb
2) the rb targeted a vanilla (unlikely)
3) spring is not a doc but a mafia rb

This is what I already said. and yes, I did find it humorous that it took me that long to understand what you were saying.

[sekinj]

People are getting too tied up in semantics.

[Goatrevolt]

i am trying not to intervene in the goat/spolium debate here as i thought it was going somewhere, but it seems like you guys are arguing in circles. goat, what makes you think scumspolium is going to admit to being roleblocked when/if he committed the night1 kill?

He wouldn't. That's not why I asked him. I asked him specifically to get as much information on the table as possible, which could possibly be useful later.

I think people are attributing me asking Spolium if he was told of a roleblock to mean that I am accusing Spolium of being roleblocked and lying about it. I'm not. There's no evidence for me to argue that being fact.

With that being said, I'm bothered by Spolium's behavioral reaction. He instantly attacked me for jumping to the conclusion that "I was blocked" implied confirmation of being roleblocked. I get the distinct feeling he knew sekinj wasn't actually directly informed of a block because he was blocked himself and wasn't directly informed.

To everyone else: When you saw "I was blocked" did you jump to the same conclusion I did. To me that was the natural conclusion, yet Spolium didn't agree and gave me serious grief over it. Inside knowledge?

[Spolium]

I don't know why you didn't just come out and say this right away. It would have saved a lot of pointless back and forth and confusion. I had absolutely no clue what point you were trying to make.

First I asked why you thought scum-Spolium would assume being roleblocked over targeting someone who was protected. Your response was "

sekinj was informed of a roleblock, therefore Spolium would have been informed of a roleblock

". I wanted to know why you thought sekinj was informed of a roleblock instead of deducing a roleblock from a lack of information, because you seemed to disregard the possibility that sekinj was not explicitly informed (meaning that I would not have been informed, which took us back to "

why would scum-Spolium assume a roleblock over a protect

").

If you had a

good

reason to think sekinj was explicitly informed of being roleblocked then I might've approached it a different way, but what really bothered me was how you failed to address a simple question over and over:

What makes you say this? Sekinj never said that she was informed of being roleblocked.

Weak semantics argument? Or did you miss [..]

I didn't miss it - I was wondering how you derived that sekinj was "informed" of being roleblocked, when she could have assumed a roleblock based on a lack of investigation result.

I derived that sekinj was informed of being roleblocked when she explicitly said: "I was blocked," as crazy as that may sound [..] You're reaching pretty far here.

[..] given that sekinj did not clarify whether she was (a) explicity told or (b) just received no result, it is interesting that you asked me a question based on the assumption that (a) was true, particularly when I am more likely to be scum in that scenario than in the other.

Do you actually have any basis for making the assumption?

She claimed she was blocked. To me that fairly clearly means she was targeted by a roleblocking action. I don't see how it could be interpreted differently.

I'm asking you why you assumed that "sekinj was informed" about the roleblock (i.e. was told "you were roleblocked", as opposed to assuming a roleblock due to a lack of result). I want to know this because it is directly relevant to your Spolium's NK was blocked by Spring hypothesis.

What's the difference in distinction between Spolium tried to make a kill and had it fail by either protect/roleblock and Spolium was informed he was blocked when the conclusion is the same? - Spolium: Scum. Failed at killing someone night 1.

I pressed the point because it seemed that you were avoiding the question, and I'm not entirely convinced by the eventual "answer" of

oh, I just came to that conclusion, didn't everyone else?

What also bothers me is this:

To everyone else: When you saw "I was blocked" did you jump to the same conclusion I did. To me that was the natural conclusion, yet Spolium didn't agree and gave me serious grief over it. Inside knowledge?

It's funny you should say that. One reason for which I found it noteworthy was that I thought it could suggest that

you

had inside knowledge. After all,

you're

the one who jumped to a conclusion about sekinj's information and used it as a basis to push your case on me - I have only been asking why you jumped to that conclusion.

I would also note that Rhinox understood what I was getting at, and so did sekinj. I will be interested to see other responses.
______________________

goat, what makes you think scumspolium is going to admit to being roleblocked when/if he committed the night1 kill?

QFT. Goat claims to have tried to "get as much information on the table as possible", but the answer was never going to be "yes" because that would suggest that I was trying to perform a night action and was therefore lying about being VT.

However, if the motivation behind the question was

not

that he thought I was lying about being roleblocked (again, as Goat claims), what information did he think he could derive from it? It's an empty question with zero useful return, short of scum-Spolium screwing up and admitting to receiving a roleblock confirmation. Goat's stated rationale for asking the question is therefore vague and dissatisfactory, and it strikes me as a question asked only to give the

impression

of scumhunting.

FOS Goat

, in case it wasn't obvious.

[springlullaby]

@Goat, ok. For some reason I thought you were using it as an argument. I would need to look at that conversation closer.

Now, Goat, what do you think of sekinj?

Ice, you too. As well as Spolium.

Vote: sekinj

I've decided that I'm not going through the drivel. 100% of my yesterday reasons for voting her stands true. + today I see no effort at all at scumhunting.

+ D2 sekinj suggested massclaim: what kind of cop suggest massclaim when they haven't even gotten 1 result in?

+ Yesterday, her asking lynx whom she should target: that whole thing was fail in hell - what reason had she to want to plan investigation since the cop sanities were under suspicion?

-> Nothing add up. And that's a lot of nothing.

[Goatrevolt]

I don't know why you didn't just come out and say this right away. It would have saved a lot of pointless back and forth and confusion. I had absolutely no clue what point you were trying to make.

First I asked why you thought scum-Spolium would assume being roleblocked over targeting someone who was protected. Your response was "

sekinj was informed of a roleblock, therefore Spolium would have been informed of a roleblock

". I wanted to know why you thought sekinj was informed of a roleblock instead of deducing a roleblock from a lack of information, because you seemed to disregard the possibility that sekinj was not explicitly informed (meaning that I would not have been informed, which took us back to "

why would scum-Spolium assume a roleblock over a protect

").

If you had a

good

reason to think sekinj was explicitly informed of being roleblocked then I might've approached it a different way, but what really bothered me was how you failed to address a simple question over and over:

Are you serious? I answered that question every time you asked it. In fact, 4 times to be exact. Are you deliberately ignoring my answer? Maybe it wasn't the answer you wanted so you just assumed your question remained unanswered? What is it?

Here are the 4 times I answer it:

1.

Question for you: if I was scum attempting a NK on N1, what reason would I have to think I was being roleblocked, as opposed to the target being protected?

Sekinj was informed about being roleblocked or is lying (doubtful).

Hence, I'm wondering if you were informed about anything at all related to that

You ask me why I assume roleblock over protection. My answer is because I assume sekinj was informed.

2.

What makes you say this? Sekinj never said that she was informed of being roleblocked.

Weak semantics argument? Or did you miss this post:

And I was blocked. So we have nothing new on the cops. I tried to look at ice.

Don - did yu get anything?
Spring - who did you protect?

You ask me why I say she was informed of being roleblocked. I point to the post where she says "And I was blocked." My inference is obvious here, that I'm taking "I was blocked" to mean "I was targeted with a roleblock."

3.

I didn't miss it - I was wondering how you derived that sekinj was "informed" of being roleblocked, when she could have assumed a roleblock based on a lack of investigation result.

I derived that sekinj was informed of being roleblocked when she explicitly said: "I was blocked,"

Again. I give the same exact answer, after you ask the same question.

4.

She claimed she was blocked. To me that fairly clearly means she was targeted by a roleblocking action.

Again. Same answer.

So you're accusing me of dodging a simple question, when in reality I answered it every single time you asked it.

It's funny you should say that. One reason for which I found it noteworthy was that I thought it could suggest that

you

had inside knowledge. After all,

you're

the one who jumped to a conclusion about sekinj's information and used it as a basis to push your case on me - I have only been asking why you jumped to that conclusion.

I asked you to point out where I've pushed this as a case against you. You haven't done that. If you're going to accuse me of pushing this as a case against you, why haven't you actually pointed out where I've done it? Right now you're just straight misrepresenting me.

Explain how I could possibly have inside knowledge? I was never targeted by Spring. The only way I could possibly know about the flavor is if I'm your scum buddy. Also, it turns out I was wrong. My inside sources feeding me this information need to be taken out back and shot, cause they gave me incorrect inside information.

I would also note that Rhinox understood what I was getting at, and so did sekinj. I will be interested to see other responses.

Rhinox's post is ambiguous as to what he meant, although I'd guess you're probably right about that. Sekinj would obviously understand what you meant, considering she's the one who has the information in the first place, and didn't actually have to draw a conclusion.

goat, what makes you think scumspolium is going to admit to being roleblocked when/if he committed the night1 kill?

QFT. Goat claims to have tried to "get as much information on the table as possible", but the answer was never going to be "yes" because that would suggest that I was trying to perform a night action and was therefore lying about being VT.

However, if the motivation behind the question was

not

that he thought I was lying about being roleblocked (again, as Goat claims), what information did he think he could derive from it? It's an empty question with zero useful return, short of scum-Spolium screwing up and admitting to receiving a roleblock confirmation. Goat's stated rationale for asking the question is therefore vague and dissatisfactory, and it strikes me as a question asked only to give the

impression

of scumhunting.

The point of the question was actually to attempt to determine the validity of sekinj's claim, not your own. If player B claims to be blocked, and player A has been previously blocked, you ask A if the story matches. I really don't see how you can possibly attempt to construe this as scummy, and the "appearance of scumhunting" accusation is weak as all hell. You're pulling 1/8th of a post out, saying the information generated from that question wasn't immediately applicable, and then saying I'm just trying to give off the impression of scumhunting. Meanwhile you ignore the rest of my post, and subsequent posts today entirely. Taken out of context much? Strawman?

FOS Goat

, in case it wasn't obvious.

Why only a FoS and not a vote?

What are your thoughts on the rest of the game?

[Goatrevolt]

@Goat, ok. For some reason I thought you were using it as an argument. I would need to look at that conversation closer.

Nah. Both you and Spolium have accused me of using it as an argument, which I haven't done. Granted, I do think Spolium's reaction to all of this is telling, though. So, it has kind of turned into a reason for me thinking Spolium is scum based on the discussion of it not being a reason for finding him scum. If you can follow that.

Now, Goat, what do you think of sekinj?

Mixed reviews, but overall scummy.

There are some things that would suggest she is a cop, such as voting for a no lynch day 2 under the guise of getting more information, or her claim that Lynx was town early day 3 fits the claim. She would have had to plan her claim out ahead of time if she's lying scum.

However, there has been a complete lack of any real scumhunting, and the whole RB discussion between her and don is pretty scummy. I don't understand how she could instantly jump to the conclusion of 2 scum RBs, but yet still consider you town.

I don't know how much stock to put in the differences between Rhinox's claim and her own. It's possible Tony mixes it up, as well as being entirely possible that Sekinj is simply lying to cover up a lack of real investigations. I haven't seen enough information to make an informed statement about which is more likely.

I agree with your point about the pushing for a massclaim. It doesn't make sense from the perspective of a cop with no results. I remember calling EA out for that same thing in mini 696 when he claimed to be a tracker, yet supported the early mass claim.

I don't see the planning with Lynx as a very meaningful tell either way.

Overall: More like to be scum than town. My 2nd pick for a lynch.

[sekinj]

I think I agree with don.... looking back at the claim/counterclaim, it really seems like budja and spring could be talking to each other.

spring - "counterclaim, I'm the doc, don't hammer"
spring - "okay, go ahead and hammer"
budja - "hammer, good luck scum buddy."

And then spring points out the "scumbuddy" reference herself.

Also, how many times has spring told others that they need to do in depth analysis and not speculate, and then she says she will/should/would do something in depth herself. Then she comes back and says, "screw it", "I'm too lazy", "I don't have time." I think this is just making it appear that she has big reasoning behind her actions when really she has nothing. She has only done the one big "analysis" in order to save herself from a lynch, and even that was not the "notes during the game" that she claimed it to be.

vote: spring

[Spolium]

Now, Goat, what do you think of sekinj?

Ice, you too. As well as Spolium.

My biggest problem with sekinj is that some of her posts strike me as hand-wavy and insincere (for example, her nonchalant reply to Rhinox's vote justification, and her recent debate with don in which she doesn't really seem to care about pushing her point with conviction). I have also picked up on her lack of scumhunting before, though this has slipped my mind until recently.

Also, having re-read some of D3, I find it odd that despite voting me over Ice (not to mention RC turning up town after I pushed for his lynch) she opted to investigate Ice N3. That doesn't make any sense.

So yeah, I'll vote sekinj:

vote: sekinj

I believe that's L-1.

____________________

Are you serious? I answered that question every time you asked it. In fact, 4 times to be exact. Are you deliberately ignoring my answer? Maybe it wasn't the answer you wanted so you just assumed your question remained unanswered? What is it?

Yes, I'm serious.

Here are the 4 times I answer it:
<snip>
So you're accusing me of dodging a simple question, when in reality I answered it every single time you asked it.

No, you did not. I asked - repeatedly - why you assumed that sekinj was directly informed of a roleblock

as opposed to assuming it based on a lack of information

, and all of your answers amounted to "

Spring said she was roleblocked, therefore I assumed she was roleblocked

". This does not address the question which I was asking.

I asked you to point out where I've pushed this as a case against you. You haven't done that. If you're going to accuse me of pushing this as a case against you, why haven't you actually pointed out where I've done it?

I missed your request for that information - trying to establish my stance here is particularly frustrating as I can't fathom how you keep missing the point.

You've been pushing for my lynch since D3. At the start of D4, when sekinj reported being blocked and Spring speculated that she could therefore be a roleblocker, the

first thing you did

was make a speculation based on the assumption that I am scum: "

That adds another possible reason for the lack of kill night 1. Spolium tried to make the kill and was blocked

". This is one sign of an attempt to drum up further suspicion against me.

Further, as Spring has pointed out, you posited only one out of any number of possible scenarios (one example would be, what if sekinj lied about the roleblock and Spring's choice to target her was coincidental?); why pick out this single one? Your stated suspicion of me suggests that you were inclined to point it out because it supported your case against me, not because it is the most likely scenario.

Further, as I have pointed out, you did not explain why scum-Spolium would assume this was the result of a roleblock. You have argued at length that if sekinj received explicit confirmation of a roleblock then so would scum-Spolium attempting a NK, yet you fail to acknowledge the possibility that explict confirmation of roleblocking did NOT occur. Why? It seems fair to suspect that you are more interested in pushing suspicion on me than considering all the possibilities.

Explain how I could possibly have inside knowledge?

One example could be that Jebus was also a paranoid doc, and his N2 targeting of you would've resulted in roleblock confirmation if you were a scum power role. That's just one possibility though - as I've said already my basis for this observation is the fact that you jumped to a conclusion about the nature of RB confirmation, and I can only speculate about how you would gain this information as scum.

Rhinox's post is ambiguous as to what he meant, although I'd guess you're probably right about that. Sekinj would obviously understand what you meant, considering she's the one who has the information in the first place, and didn't actually have to draw a conclusion.

Fair enough.

The point of the question was actually to attempt to determine the validity of sekinj's claim, not your own. If player B claims to be blocked, and player A has been previously blocked, you ask A if the story matches. I really don't see how you can possibly attempt to construe this as scummy, and the "appearance of scumhunting" accusation is weak as all hell. You're pulling 1/8th of a post out, saying the information generated from that question wasn't immediately applicable, and then saying I'm just trying to give off the impression of scumhunting. Meanwhile you ignore the rest of my post, and subsequent posts today entirely. Taken out of context much? Strawman?

I construe it as suspicious because the question is fundamentally flawed. I have pointed out this flaw, yet you have not addressed it directly. Scum ask questions to present an illusion of scumhunting, so this stands out to me. Perhaps I should explain once more?

You ask me whether I received roleblock confirmation when I was a claimed VT. Why would a VT receive confirmation of a roleblock? Why assume that

anyone

would receive explicit confirmation of a roleblock in this game? The foundation of your roleblock confirmation question is not sound, yet you expect to get meangingful information from it.

Here are the possible scenarios/answers to your question,

Spolium: Were you informed at all about being roleblocked night 1 or 2?

:

1. townSpolium answers "no"
2. townSpolium answers "yes"
3. scumSpolium answers "no"
4. scumSpolium answers "yes"

2 and 4 are unthinkable, because a VT would not typically receive any confirmation of a roleblock due to a lack of role - I can think of no reason to assume this, and you have provided no explanation for assuming so. The remaining options are therefore 1 and 3, which tell us nothing because even if sekinj DID receive explicit confirmation of her role there is no reason to think that a VT would receive such confirmation (or that a goon would admit to doing so). I see literally no use for your question.

Why only a FoS and not a vote?

Because my D3 vote for RC was based on what I perceived to be a slip, and I was very wrong. I also have no desire for my vote to be misinterpreted as OMGUS. Lynx's result on you strongly suggests you are town, and I am currently weighing this against the possibilities that he was naive, or that you are a godfather. Oh, and because I think sekinj currently deserves a vote more than you do.

In short, I'll vote you when I'm sure enough that you're scum. Have some patience, eh?

What are your thoughts on the rest of the game?

I'm currently working under the assumption that Spring is town. Ice9 is still giving me town vibes, and his cross-confirmation as watcher seems valid. I'm still unsure about don, though his recent exchange with sekinj seems town driven (though this may be the result of sekinj coming off as scummier for it). I see no reason to disbelieve Rhinox's claim. I shared my thoughts on sekinj at the beginning of this post.

____

@Goat:

you've expressed suspicion of sekinj for a while now, and she has in fact been your second choice for a lynch consistently since the beginning of D3. However, I cannot find a single point where you ask her questions, push her for information or otherwise do anything other than state that you find her scummy (except for when Spring directly asked). Can you explain?

[Spolium]

EBWOFP:

No, you did not. I asked - repeatedly - why you assumed that sekinj was directly informed of a roleblock as opposed to assuming it based on a lack of information, and all of your answers amounted to "

Sekinj

said she was roleblocked, therefore I assumed she was roleblocked". This does not address the question which I was asking.

Correction emboldened.

[springlullaby]

I think I agree with don.... looking back at the claim/counterclaim, it really seems like budja and spring could be talking to each other.

spring - "counterclaim, I'm the doc, don't hammer"
spring - "okay, go ahead and hammer"
budja - "hammer, good luck scum buddy."

And then spring points out the "scumbuddy" reference herself.

Also, how many times has spring told others that they need to do in depth analysis and not speculate, and then she says she will/should/would do something in depth herself. Then she comes back and says, "screw it", "I'm too lazy", "I don't have time." I think this is just making it appear that she has big reasoning behind her actions when really she has nothing. She has only done the one big "analysis" in order to save herself from a lynch, and even that was not the "notes during the game" that she claimed it to be.

vote: spring

1.The amount of scumhunting I've done this game is positively more than any of the other players, to the possible exclusion of RedCoyote. And it is 100% more than you.

2. My reasoning to vote you is clear, and is separate from the setup analysis that I'm too lazy to do, which I also made clear.

3. Your reasons to vote me are crappy:
- The slant you put on your interpretation of D1 is just that, a slant, it hold no ground because you fail to demonstrate why you think it is more likely than say my counterclaiming scum because I'm the doc: this lack of rigour shows opportunism.
- And the 'scumbuddy' reference part is just plain nonsensical. Explain why my pointing it out is scummy?

4. Refusal to address properly cases directed at you.

5. Senseless OMGUS x2.

Sekinj need to be gone, now. She has been burning on emotional glamour since her entry in this game whereas there is absolutely zero substance in her play and plenty of scumtell.

@Goat, why is voting for nolynch a towntell?

[Rhinox]

@goat/Spolium: When I read sekinj saying "I was blocked", I assumed she meant "I got no result", because I believe it is the convention to be told you got no result rather than being told you were specifically roleblocked. However, were I to receive no result, I would assume I was blocked. Thus, I don't fault sekinj for saying she was blocked, although the way I would have worded it would have been something akin to "I got no result, so I assume I was blocked", rather than the certainty and vagueness the phrase "I was blocked" implies.

However, I feel the entire conversation is irrelevant, because I believe sekinj is lying. I think don makes good points in 1202, and I think spring makes even better points in 1207, specifically the one where sekinj suggested a massclaim as cop on D2 without any result.

Took the liberty of removing the doubleness

[springlullaby]

Ebwop:

Replace with "200% more than you"

[Spolium]

@Rhinox - I agree there is a possibility that sekinj is lying about being blocked and that Spring targeting her was coincidental, though there is the other possibility that she is a scum power role and was actually blocked. The possibility that Spring is a paranoid doc is therefore still valid.

[springlullaby]

No one dare hammer before there is a response.

[Rhinox]

No one dare hammer before there is a response.

Is there anyone in particular you're looking for a response from?

Spoliums post is interesting, but only speculation unless sekinj flips scum power role upon her death. Even then, its still just guessing.

[Ice9]

I strongly disagree with lynching sekinj

I think we should be lynching one of Spring/Spolium

I also think that Rhinox's claim is a little bit too unbelievable and worry about him coming up with a magic guilty in lylo

[sekinj]

1. Scum can "scumhunt" too, expecially in a game like this that is ripe for calling someone else a lier. I think you say you are going to do analysis, but then never do because you don't actually have anything to say. This creates the illusion that you have a ton of in depth reasoning behind your actions.

2. I never addressed your vote on me. I don't care how clear it is, or how seperate it is from your anaylsis. I think you say you are going to do analysis, but then never do because you don't actually have anything to say. This creates the illusion that you have a ton of in depth reasoning behind your actions.

3. I disagree. I think it is very plausible.

4. I cannot address your cases because there is too much shit to wade through. Your attack on me is completely emotional and driven by your hatred of my critism of your play style. You are not even considering ANY other possibilities at this point. If I am scum, who is my scumpartner? (assuming 2 left)

5. Incorrect. Notice how my post didn't contain any reference to your vote, or anyone else's vote on me. I had been thinking about don's point and it made sense. I can see you trying to pull off something like that.


Why in the world did you want a response? it's not like you have listened to me this entire game.

IF

you are town, you need to learn how to take criticism.

and... what in the world is emotional glamour? and is it really flamable?

[Spolium]

I strongly disagree with lynching sekinj

Why?

I think we should be lynching one of Spring/Spolium

Why?

I also think that Rhinox's claim is a little bit too unbelievable

Why?

[Rhinox]

unvote

for a moment...

update coming shortly.

[Rhinox]

ok...

revote: sekinj

Sorry for that. i had a bit of a fit of paranoia about the wording in part of my new deputy role... I got it cleared up with the mod, turns out it was just a flavor issue in the poetry, nothing important. I'd have to quote the PM to show you what I mean.

Continue on, nothing to see here

[springlullaby]

1. Scum can "scumhunt" too, expecially in a game like this that is ripe for calling someone else a lier. I think you say you are going to do analysis, but then never do because you don't actually have anything to say. This creates the illusion that you have a ton of in depth reasoning behind your actions.

2. I never addressed your vote on me. I don't care how clear it is, or how seperate it is from your anaylsis. I think you say you are going to do analysis, but then never do because you don't actually have anything to say. This creates the illusion that you have a ton of in depth reasoning behind your actions.

3. I disagree. I think it is very plausible.

4. I cannot address your cases because there is too much shit to wade through. Your attack on me is completely emotional and driven by your hatred of my critism of your play style. You are not even considering ANY other possibilities at this point. If I am scum, who is my scumpartner? (assuming 2 left)

5. Incorrect. Notice how my post didn't contain any reference to your vote, or anyone else's vote on me. I had been thinking about don's point and it made sense. I can see you trying to pull off something like that.


Why in the world did you want a response? it's not like you have listened to me this entire game.

IF

you are town, you need to learn how to take criticism.

and... what in the world is emotional glamour? and is it really flamable?

1. "Scum can scumhunt too." Sure. What's your point? Town can also act as erratically as you have been, but it is the town job to prove that there is a town motivation behind what they are doing.

2. Again, this is untrue. What action of mine did I not justify? What have I not addressed? I've addressed everything to the best of my ability, if there are omissions, I can address them now.

3. Here again. I level two specific points at you and the only responses you give is nothing.

4. This is false, you have been repeating this but to no evidence. Where exactly did I not listen to you? This is also I think also a scumslip: either you think I'm scum, or you think I'm emotional town. Which is it? And to your question, as I have said yesterday I read Goat as scum. But I think Spolium is a possibility too. No same question back at you: whom do you think is my scumpartner since you think I'm scum?

5. And the timing is pure coincidence I suppose? Do you mean to say that you didn't read my post before voting me?

I mean by emotional glamour a mask of emotion to which town can relate to, but behind which there is neither rhymes nor reason. And yes, in the land of metaphorical speaking, it is volatile.

Sekinj, you have been repeatedly saying that my vote is emotionally driven. But each time I confront you with facts, you slid away and did not answer.

So here is one for you, hypothetically, what would have persuaded you that my vote is not emotional?

-----------

Ice why?