Some of this stuff is old and somewhat repetitive but I decided page 15 seemed to be a good place to start rereading and catching up from.
Page 15
It's funny and hypocritical and somewhat scummy when Idiotking accuses Hero slightly about being defensive. He's basically admitted that he's totally overdramatically jumpy himself and it's in fact his way of gauging other's reactions to him, there's some really serious double standards going on here.
(Later add: post 532 by IK again displaying knowledge, almost embracement of own overreacting tendency)
Hero's sustained vote on inactive cubarey: so IK thinks we should allow flaking out of the game to be an easy way to shake off all suspicions?
If someone has done stuff others find sufficiently scummy then I don't think the replacer should be able just start from scratch - I think it's quite ok that they would need to try to shake off suspicion by acting pro-townish.
I'm not sure what to think of Hero's giving up quite easily and agreeing with Idiotking, could be scum conflict-dodging. Or then I'm just wrong about this whole replacement business.
page 16
Wall-E post 379 to Hero
I'm not going to push this, because I don't want to make you angry with me on a personal level. Just know that it happens to a lot of newbies and there will be other games for you to perfect your scumplays in.
Huh? Wall-E's hinting the "I know you're scum, scum" card here (although the scumtells he stated were minor), and simultaneously states not gonna push the case? Not interested in lynching who he thinks is scum or playing only half-assed psychological games here?
Wall-E's reply to my questions post 390
Repeating the sequence:
I asked what was the thought process on the unvote part, what was "interesting".
Wall-E:
X's reaction was interesting. He's been tunneling on me the whole game, and here I noted a connection between him and IK.
Ojanen:
Major question: why did you unvote when you "noted a connection"?
Wall-E:
Because I wasn't cognizant of the implications of said connection yet.
That is totally not a satisfactory answer. You state a reason for your unvote and then make the reason empty by saying you weren't cognizant of implications. Unvotes are supposed to have some reasoning behind them, unless the vote itself never had any reasoning behind it. It's old, but please comment on this, Wall-E.
From same Wall-E post:
Is any of this relevant to the points I've made?
This question comes across as simply wanting to brush away the matter.
It was relevant to the fact that you hadn't made understandable points regards to your voting. And at that point you were attacking X which was another matter altogether.
Wall-E post 396:
He's now accusing YB of tunneling him, already accused X of tunneling him before, when actually both players had clearly pursued quite actively also other targets during game.
Page 19 Sajin
Also you obviously don't believe in lynch all liars as I do, so its clear our philosophies are different. Right now we have a decent day 1 lynch. Further digging deep for scum after we have a decent D1 lynch only results in more information for scum for night actions and the next day.
I think town is the more information-challenged party and almost universally benefits more from interaction than scum if the townies play sound. I don't agree with this.
Post 462 Hero asks if people think it's a good time to hammer and maybe to end day 1.
Wall-E answers NO and questions Hero. Doesn't go after Sajin.
Addition: later, post 493 X FoSses Hero for this reason. Again, ignores Sajin.
IK 532
It's like he hasn't heard or remembered the logical fallacies pointed out to him before and brought up again: suspicious behaviour history does not get old, townie getting discussion going by deliberately acting a little suspicious is not hurting town in only rare exceptional cases.
Sajin 574
I will be happy to post more content if people ask me questions or on day 2 whichever happens first.
I still think we should lynch walle because he claimed and he claimed a non verifiable role. Do some math, it makes sense.
To want to lynch someone with reasoning
only
based on target claiming vanilla is a fishy.
And a passive attitude and again implication of desire to end day.
YB notices this ad FoSses Sajin for it, but otherwise same pattern as last time. Hero is accused of wanting to cut the day short and actually said nothing of the sort this time, isn't even voting. Accuser Jase digs up an old quote from Hero, ignores Sajin's recent implication of no further discussion needed.
qwints 628 Cool catch up post and PBPA.
Sajin 646
Alright I am just gonna clarify several posts into one here.
I never said information was bad. At all.
Several have agreed with the following statement, if we have a good lynch today, then we should not give insight into who we see as townie
. The reason being, scum would use these factions against us. (If you disagree with the "if" part fine, the "then" part is statistical. If you don't like statistics and your more of a "feel/gutfeeling" player fine.)
I am still posting on what I think are scum tells, individually. As well as questioning certain votes. This comes off negative because I don't confirm anyone as town, not yet. I am still pointing out flaws and will continue to do so.
Further scumhunting does not equal people stating who they find especially townish and I don't think anyone argued so.
Gaaaaaah.
My attention definitely started to slip majorly somewhere in the midtwenties of pages in my catching up. I'll reread that stuff again tomorrow.
Atm I'm actually leaning on voting Sajin, but I'll come back tomorrow with a fresh mind.
