Mini 773- Welcome to Lynchville! Perfection! (Over)

[Light-kun]

I've got an exam on Wednesday, so Tuesday night will be last chance to change my vote.

@Lightkun, focused quotes are how you build a case. If you think he's taken you out of context, explain, but it's perfectly reasonable to address only some points of a post.

I'm fine with it for now. I don't really feel any pressure for it, and so I will react when I find it necessary to do so.

I play this way to keep players active and to nullify every usual scum tell. If I were mafia, to beat me, you'd have to follow my meta enough to find scum tells specifically for me. (Or, you'd have to lynch me every game. Whatever works for you.) My game play hasn't changed much, no.

I REALLY don't like this quote. LK is basically saying that town should ignore "every usual scum tell" he makes.

After a brief glance through his meta, what really sticks out is LK's lack of a post with his thoughts on everyone. He's had them in most of his games as both town and scum but not here. So, LK, how about a post summarizing what you think about the rest of the players? - there's no better time.

Not really, I am completely up for someone voting me on a usual tell, and I won't persecute them for it. I am just describing my play style. (Master plan?)

I will cede to your request for a large analysis post soon. (Before Tuesday)

...

...
Now registering the fact I'm at L-1, I'm going to make a grand case against all players. Expect super long post in approx. 3 hours.

[hohum]

qwints: You seem to be treating my attack on you and my dislike of the LK wagon as the same thing. It's two separate issues, though you posting weak justification for your LK vote certainly was one of driving factors of my questioning you.

LK: A claim would have been helpful.

[alexhans]

Great LK... remember to be as clear as possible and probably claiming is a good idea too.

@everyone: Deadline May 6th at 2:30 P.M. (don't know exactly wich GMT...)

Don't let it catch you asleep.

[qwints]

qwints: You seem to be treating my attack on you and my dislike of the LK wagon as the same thing. It's two separate issues, though you posting weak justification for your LK vote certainly was one of driving factors of my questioning you.

No, the fact that it is two separate issues is exactly my point. You're the one who said

I stated my intentions clearly from the beginning: I don't like the LK wagon. Anything I've been doing since has been secondary to that.

My point is that this statement is completely false. Your primary intention was to attack me for changing my vote, not to express your dislike of the LK wagon.

[afatchic]

@Mod: Will LK be lynched at deadline if nobody hammers or will we end up in No-Lynch?

The leader at deadline

WILL

be lynched. That means if only one person is voting, then that vote will result in a lynch.

[hohum]

Sure, because you know enough about my state of mind to know what my intentions are.

[afatchic]

@everyone: Deadline May 6th at 2:30 P.M. (don't know exactly wich GMT...)

Yeah i don't know either, thats why i put the number of hours until deadline in the last votecount. Everyone can figure out from that when the deadline will be local time. I will put that in every votecount until deadline.

[qwints]

I can read what you wrote, Hohum. You're not going to get away without explaining this statement or admitting it is a misrepresentation. You clearly started out attacking me and not the wagon.

I stated my intentions clearly from the beginning: I don't like the LK wagon. Anything I've been doing since has been secondary to that.

[hohum]

You're nit picking. I've been doing BOTH all along, I lead with my questions to you. How does that minimize my position on the LK wagon or vice versa?

[hohum]

I won't concede anything because it simply isn't true. You're grasping at straws. You're trying to twist and distort my position because you know I'm right.

[qwints]

Because you NEVER addressed the cases put forth by Red Canyon or Luther who were on the wagon before me.

[hohum]

Because you NEVER addressed the cases put forth by Red Canyon or Luther who were on the wagon before me.

Because THEY didn't hop onto the LK wagon from a pretty strong position on the KK wagon sighting some of the weakest justification I've ever seen out of a supposedly experienced player.

[hohum]

My position on your actions are clear. Obviously we disagree. This back-and-fourth isn't adding anything at all to the discussion. I shall begin to ignore you now.

[qwints]

In fact, post 367 is the ONLY post where you addressed anyone else's case against LK.

Your case against LK is weak, but so is everyone else's.

You've made ABSOLUTELY no substantial attack on the LK wagon except for my case. Clearly, your primary intent was to attack me.

Let's look at RC and Lester's cases:

I'll give us one more thing to talk about with my

vote: Light-kun

.

1)

Archaist brought up that he was concerned about you ignoring him.

Or, you could repost your question... if it was in a block of text, I've become lazy lately and don't read them that closely.

I said earlier that I didn't find this particularly scummy, but as I'm rereading I may be flip-flopping on that. The fact of the matter is, you were the one to bring up your "percentage" system. I'm not criticizing it, but I will criticize the fact that you're getting defensive about addressing inquiries over it. Maybe you did miss his questions, maybe not, but you were having a small discussion with him at that moment, which leads me to believe you wouldn't have forgotten about him so easily.

2)

You've been having some trouble keeping track of names and identities.

Hm, it appears I miscued. At post 84, after rereading 81, I should have proceeded to attack Pie, who was very defensive when I doubly attacked Pie and KK. Also, KK shows superior logic and makes sense.

I understand this could happen once, but now I can come up with two serious occasions of this happening, post 169 and post 80. Post 169, above, I

think

you're saying that, since post 81, you've been meaning to attack Pie. Pie is, by your own admission, the polar opposite of KK in an argument, and you've been railing against KK in numerous posts (see my next point). Post 80, below, happened earlier when you went on for several posts with a vote on Brian, calling him scummy, when you actually meant to have been calling KK the scummy one.

Wow, honestly, I thought I did this already.

Unvote; Vote Kublai Kahn

When I said opportunistic [post 62], I thought I had switched votes to Kublai Kahn for some reason. I suppose that, maybe, I read someone else's unvote/vote KK as my own. Oh well, that's solved.

This could potentially mean that you aren't too concerned with who it is you are voting or suspecting, or it could mean an easy excuse to keep you looking good to everyone. Either way, I don't like it.

3)

The constant pushing of KK.

My point is that [pushing KK] is at least significantly better than the policy lynch discussion. [...] I just think we shouldn't waste time with a stupid policy lynch discussion.

[In a later post]
So if my fourth point (4) against Light-kun is based on his voting of me without reason, my fifth point (5) would be his position on Pie/Archon.

Light-kun 169 wrote:
Hm, it appears I miscued. At post 84, after rereading 81, I should have proceeded to attack Pie, who was very defensive when I doubly attacked Pie and KK. Also, KK shows superior logic and makes sense.
Light-kun 207 wrote:
Now, I would be more interested in Pie, who has disappeared, which allowed Archon to come in, so I have yet to decide on my next move.

(empahsis added to both)

If Pie was worse than KK, if he thought he should have proceeded to attack Pie, if he was more interested in Pie... then why hasn't he been drilling Archon at all? I've held off on bringing this up, waiting for him to ask Archon anything or press him on anything. I can only find one instance of Light-kun even speaking to him, and it's not even a question.

If Pie was the person Light-kun was "more interested" in and more convinced was scummy than KK,

Light-kun 270 wrote:
Scum: KK, Archaist (not together)

???: Everyone else.


why is he not listed under scum in this post instead of, or in addition to, KK? Why did Light-kun end up voting KK? No more "Pie was replaced" excuses anymore, Archon's had the role for over a week now.

I'm happy leaving my vote where it is for now, but:

Can we move off the novice discussion and move more on the KK versus Pie discussion?

I agree that moving off of bickering over experience is a good idea, but narrowing it down to two choices that early? It just seemed like you were trying to get people on either side instead of exploring more options.

On PPP: Policy lynches can be good assuming people, in the time of discussing whether it should be followed through with or not because those who were going out of their way to defend him might be scum. This has happened though, so

I wouldn't really suggest policy lynching ppp at the moment

.

Secondly: Hm... excuse randomness:

People not voting Kublai Kahn: Do you think he's scummy, yes or no?

Why are we letting ppp distract us so much that Kublai's accusations are no longer being pursued?

Bolding is mine. The first part sounds too convenient... buttering up the idea that a policy lynch is reasonable, maybe in case you need to push one later? Especially the last bit where you seem to say that we shouldn't now, but we should put it on the back-burner. Weird.

The second bolded part: no, I don't really. Aggressive maybe, but no more so than you. This whole post feels like you really want a KK lynch, but if it falls apart you'll settle for a ppp one instead.

-your percentage explanation seems weird and a bit of a cop-out
-your defensiveness at being called scum was also odd

I also want a replacement for Pie, as earlier actions were questionable and I want to see how the replacement plays.

I count 6 points against LK which you have NEVER addressed. You said that you didn't address them because "THEY didn't hop onto the LK wagon from a pretty strong position on the KK wagon." But if this

I stated my intentions clearly from the beginning: I don't like the LK wagon. Anything I've been doing since has been secondary to that.

were true, you would have addressed more of the case against LK than my actions.

Let me be perfectly clear, there was nothing scummy about your initial attack on me. I changed my vote and you thought it was opportunistic/scummy. That's fine. But you can't now turn around and say that your attack on me was secondary to not liking the LK wagon. You've made a demonstrably false statement and I'm not letting you walk it back.

My position on your actions are clear. Obviously we disagree. This back-and-fourth isn't adding anything at all to the discussion. I shall begin to ignore you now.

Your posts are inconsistent and some are demonstrably false. Of course you want to ignore it. No one's questioning the fact that you've attacked me for changing my vote. That's not the point I'm making. I'm saying you said that your intentions were clearly based on not liking the Light kun wagon when they were ACTUALLY based on my changing my vote. Your reasoning would have held regardless of who I changed my vote to. That's the inconsistency and I leave it to others to determine if it's significant or not.

[Light-kun]

RVS. NONE

RVS and start off discussion. Cateraction calls out PieisPopcorn for opportunistic voting. Pie defends his vote because Chief violated what he considers to be "warranteed pressure." Pie also claims that the first two votes were legitimate scum hunting. (This is a stretch.) He does point out Chief's was entirely a joke. (This seems to defeat itself really, but Pie does appear to be trying.)

Kublai claims voting ppp (off) day 1 is best play. *Seems like a joke*

Pie calls out KK's lack of a vote, uses meta to admit seeing KK's point. (On a joke?)

ppp sees KK's "point" as well. He proceeds to vote a mafiaoso. (...this is annoying.)

Alex agrees with cat. (I do too, side note). Calls out Lester for not wanting to vote someone just because they already has a vote. Lester defends.

KK attacks Pie for his hyper agressive questioning this early in the rvs while simutaneously defending his lack of a vote. I agree with his defense, but not his attack on Pie's play style.

Lester defends pie. KK suggests Pie's questioning ensues chaos. (At this point, I highly disagree. Pie's qustion could lead to a quicker end to the rvs. While KK has claimed to have not supported policy lynches, he seems almost awkwardly clingy to the RVS, which is a scum point in my book.)

Lester backs down on KK, but I disagree I still see no scum motive for wanting the RVS to end quickly. The agression that Pie used would lean to a town favorable exeunt of the RVS, yet KK finds that (all?) leaving of the RVS early is scummy? Otherwise, I see no point in KK's idea. Lester edits his above statement BWOP

Brian enters and find people voting PPP for voting a mafiaoso to be a bad idea. This ...is highly irrelevant. He does vote KK, and makes since while doing it. Pro town point.

Cream also defends Pie's point. Claims there is no break in tradition since, as I mentioned above, the method of leaving the RVS is pro town. Pro town point. He decides to watch Chiefsky. I dunno why, since I saw nothing wrong with Chief sky's play, but whatever.

Sky: Admits that he was just "scanning" the page. He generally adds nothing and throw off IGMEOU from Cream as nothing. Seems too passive... +1 scum point.

ppp is an idiot in this post. Fantastic.

Light-kun makes a really stupid post. He defends KK and votes Brian for an opportunistic vote. He also decides to give Pie a bye since he was clearly making a joke. While most of this post is strange, I think that the Brian attack was based on the "pushing without being on" the ppp wagon. I do disagree with this thought

Red votes KK too. Same reason and really well thought out. Calls out my thoughts on Brian's opportunistic vote. (I have no idea Red. I really don't.)

Pie votes Sky... (WTF!? THE KK case should be pursued!)

KK calls out PIe for not voting him but "pushing him. (Sounds similar to the KK on the PPP. Pie commits hypocrisy.)

Alex downplays current events claiming rvs. (This is scummy.)

Archaist picks bones with ppp over who is more concerned about a lycnh. (I see both their points to an extent.)

Brian agrees with KK on Pie, but maintains his vote. Slightly off, but not scummy.

LK (though failing to explain it?) Find Brian less scummy. (This is the post in which LK thought he moved his vote to KK) He thinks Pie's last action was scummy but any scumminess Pie has is not (at this time) contrary to KK.

Pie condemns the RVS. PP explains his early agression. (I don't think Pie understands why some people are suspicious of him. I don't understand why he's defending his agression since only the person he attacked, KK, has an issue with it.) He strongly attacks KK is this post (KK's worry about voting for ppp, KK's criticism of Pie's own "overaggresion" and KK throwing off the accusation that he was "snappy and defensive.") He also attacks me (I withdraw all my statements which were bluntly proven wrong), and he attacks PP and Cream for his bullshit case on Chief. I can honeslty say that this is the most protown post in the entire game. Why...why was he replaced by Archon?
Pie correctly FoS me, though I disagree with his assumption that my thoughts KK was as crappy as my thoughts on him, but my play at the time (and most of the time now) has been shitty, so I don't blame him. Hell, including this, still an exceptionally protown and strong post.

Cateraction has a problem with my initial town read of Brian. Well again, I guess I wasn't in the market for explaining, but the above should cover it.

Brian accurately read my play (from the given data.) From his post 73, it is painfully obvious he has a knack for reading people and he looks fairly town. My only real problem is his low post frequency. Hm... I'm not a hundred percent on what to think of that.

Pie wishes for me to answer questions from Red and himself.

Red votes LK. LK doesn't know what Pie is talking about and answeres Red.


KK makes a counter attack on Pie. Now...this seems fine at first glance, but it really doesn't respond to accusations at all. In fact, it very deflects back at Pie and seems to be a well designed OMGUS vote where he says "Well, Pie's done similar things. Hypocrite. VOTE!" I don't actually like this case, though I see an occaisional point, there isn't enough and doesn't excuse KK's lack of answering Pie's case. I also don't think KK has been very "brazen" when contrasted to Pie's agressiveness, and I don't think Pie's points root entirely in a "he's rude, ergo scum." reasoning. This is flawed to me.

Archaist raises a legitimate point against Alex because Alex seems concerned about the game's agression level. Protown point Archaist and -1 point Alex, since I missed it the first time I looked at the post.

LK uses KK's counter attack to show why Pie's been scummy in LK's eyes. (Okay...but I am being really vague in these posts... I apologize. As I said in the above paragraph, there are a few legitimate points in KK's post which show mild signs of scumminess. HOWEVER! the reason my vote doesn't move is KK is still my top suspect. I dunno why I didn't explain this. The issue with Pie, is of course, clarity. He does clear it up by KK's above post, so I can really see how this post can make little sense.)

KK calls out my lack of sense. *Chief rereads, accurately FoS KK and Alex, but could have been done by a cursory glance of the last page. Did he really reread?

LK fails to really clarify his point, but it makes slightly more sense. He thinks that the Alex case is overrated. In hindsight, LK is wrong, and the Alex point does show a scummy motive. I could see Alex-scum making that error.

ppp votes nolynch. ? (Blunder)

Chief and LK both criticize the idea of a no lynch and ppp's policy on lynching players. Brian calmly explains why.

KK accuses Chief of blinders.* (While I think that Chief may not have reread, I do think his vote is justified. This vote also has a certain air of paranoia.) +1 sucm point KK

Alex deflects to....a statement of his own he found more significantly scummy than the one which was scrutinized...wtf? Blames ...game untidiness for lack of scum hunting. This is almost as good as my crap posting.

LK feels the talk about ppp is irrelevant and bland.

RC UNDERSTANDS WHERE I'M COMING FROM. This is good, I suppose. Still, it is also the reason I was mildly surprised he voted me. Hopefully, we'll find that reason.
Votes Cream. Makes sense, Cream has been hitting my scumdar...popping in...making broad generalities, and near abandonment...until of course, Cream was replaced.

Cat correctly criticizes RC's vote due to lack of reason, but based on RC's vote on me, seems just to be attacking players who are not making sense or seem scummy from lack of participation. LK says something similar.

Brian suggests lurker hunt.

Alex looks really antzy about moving forward and having "buttons pressed." I think Alex is scared of pressure and too concerned about voting. +1 scummy point. The rest of his hunting really doesn't conclude anything or press that hard except on ppp, who looks like policy target. I'm getting a wicked Alex scum vibe.

Cat says LKs the only scum vibe he's getting but doesn't vote. +1 scum point.

Brian proves suspicion against KK by Pie. +1 town point

Archaist attacks percent system of mine. also questions my thoughts of Alex case being over rated. (I would also like to withdraw this argument. The Alex case has significant merit.)

LK admits he has no legitimate proof to defend his wagon hopping.

Archaist votes LK for insinuating he said something that he didn't. (I did what now? I might have, I just don't follow.) Also, he attacks percents again.

KK attacks Brian for twisting facts (on my posts, actually). I see KK's point, but it does appear to be genuine misconception on Brian's part. KK still ignores the majority of Brian's case against him.

....This analysis is taking longer than I thought. I'll skim the rest of this and post an analysis early tomorrow. I apologize for the time this has taken. But, the above read lets me conclude the followin:

KK hasn't answered enough. A majority of his posts are deflection, and he heavily berates others without really answering, fully, the cases of others.

Alexhans slipped under the radar and didn't seem that suspicious, but in my reread, I don't really much care for Alex's posting and what Alex has decided to pick as its priorities.

Cream: This guy did nothing all game. And Qwints' recent play hasn't helped either.

Cat after cream only cause his "scum point" was more minor to the above's really convenient lurking and play.

Most Town?:
I really like Pie, but I hate to say that about Archon... *Sighs*
Brian: Pressed well. I get a town read here too for similar reasons to Pie. I felt his play was strong and justified.
Archaist is tough, but I am getting a slightly town read.

*Notes will be finished asap tomorrow. The rest will be a skim read since I was mostly more clear at this point on. Covers page 1-6

[RedCoyote]

unvote

I don't feel comfortable voting for LK, because I can't convince myself that his play has been scummy. It's so frantic and confusing that I don't know what to think of him.

Did you just dodge our (Me + KK at least, maybe someone else asked) question? Why didn't you unvote Archaist earlier, after he claimed? I'm not asking you why you didn't unvote him as a way of getting your vote somewhere else if that's what you think. I actually want the answer to the question.

---

And just because I was not voting for anyone, you shouldn't say that I need to be serious about my vote. I have believed in every vote I have made (except the first random one, of course).

I'm assuming this is directed at me. I didn't mean to imply that you weren't taking your vote seriously, but rather that I have a vested interest in, one, getting a lynch to go through, and two, getting everyone to place down a vote today in order to see who they are siding with/against.

---

Do you really think there wasn't a doubt in his mind? Do you think just because he voted LK it means that he abandons KK's case altogether?

Did I say that? I think you may have mixed my name up with someone else.

I don't have to follow your timing. I choose when I think it's wise to put my vote and especially since I'm intending to vote the player with more votes. I don't want to let others I find scummy off the leash just because I vote for another person.

You too, alex?

Look, I'm not suggesting anyone has been unserious with their votes (except Light-kun, but that's a different case). That wasn't the underlying intent of that comment. KK picked up the meaning I was driving at. I could've just as easily wrote "Archon, cater, alex, Chief, KK, Archaist, and Brian shouldn't forget the deadline", or "I want Archon, cater, alex, Chief, KK, Archaist, and Brian to make it clear where they stand before this day ends so the town can use that information later in the game".

---

I will not go along with an LK lynch. Not today.

This is a bit too far for Day 1.

an LK lynch is better than a no lynch

Make up your mind.

---

@everyone: Deadline May 6th at 2:30 P.M. (don't know exactly wich GMT...)

I believe Mod uses EST, meaning that 2:30 PM for him would be 6:30 PM (18:30) would be the deadline under GMT.

---

Red Canyon

XD

---

Why...why was [Pie] replaced by Archon?

See, I got the opposite impression. It seemed to me like you Pie was your most scummy through the first half of the game.

Once Archon replaced I figured you liked Archon much more, but I couldn't ever find you talking about him again.

Pie wishes for me to answer questions from Red and himself.

Red votes LK. LK doesn't know what Pie is talking about and answeres Red.


KK makes a counter attack on Pie.

I tried very hard to follow you Light-kun, honestly I did.

I can't make sense of this. Pie was gone by the time I had voted you. KK certainly wasn't still attacking Pie at that time.

I thought that maybe you meant Archon here, but Archon, so far as I can tell, never asked you to answer any questions about me. I'm completely lost at this point.

ppp votes nolynch. ? (Blunder)

Ok, you've got to be going back and forth. Surely this summary isn't in any sort of chronological order.

I assume your claim will be coming tomorrow as well? I'll be disappointed if it's anything but a 'nilla townie.

---

I'd still really like to hear from Archon and Chief before the day ends.

[afatchic]

ChiefSkye4 has just been prodded, and Archiast will get his second if he hasn't posted by tomorrow afternoon. Normally i wouldn't be this strick, but with deadline too days away I would like to nudge him back down here.

Deadline in 34 hours 10 minutes.

[alexhans]

First of all...
It would be DAMN useful to write the post number near the comment so it's easier to analyze what you're saying.

Now... I'm gonna proceed with a ISO read on you to better explain my answers:
-----------------
ISO 1: Randomvote on Brian.

@ Kublai: PieisPopcorn has a point. I get the feeling you were trying to push that bandwagon without being on it. It's pretty minor as far as scumtells go, but combined with how snappy and defensive you're acting towards Pie in response, I think it's worth a vote switch.

And I find this opportunistic, vote stays.

Could you explain this a little more?

Looks like opportunistic wagoning for a weak reason, like a tack on bill. Reads scummy. See post I quote from Kublai.

I also think Pie is possible scum, but this is not contrary to Kublai's scumminess. Nothing more to say really...

Brian has a low percentage.[/quote]
Next post you make KK and Pie are scummy and Brian less so but keep voting him.

ISO 5: When called upon by brian he "remembers" to vote KK.
----------
And this is the funny part (bolded mine):

The Alexhans' case is over rated.

At Kublai Kahn: Wow, that post is really convoluted. Fixed.

*This is at PIE using Kublai's post 81 as a reference:

@Pie: These points are why I see both of you as scummy. You done some scummy actions, but you also made a case against Kublai (first); therefore, I voted Kublai over you. He is scummier;although you are also at a high percentage. (100%=proven scum)

---
I told you already what I think about this statement:

Can we move off the novice discussion and move more on the KK versus Pie discussion?

Totally uncool
When asked about his system:
ISO: 14 explains a bit and then:

EBWOP: Just to clarify, I don't see how any of those questions are relevant to my scumminess.

This paranoia about being attacked is weird.
ISO 16:
When asked about the 33 % he said:

...What? Arbitrary number maybe.

(later explained why he really thought about it)

People not voting Kublai Kahn: Do you think he's scummy, yes or no? Why are we letting ppp distract us so much that Kublai's accusations are no longer being pursued?

Again pushing for a KK lynch.
Later on KK says:

Uh, don't you need to actually present a case against me first? All you've said is "Kublai is scummy" a bunch of times.

and LK's response is:

@Kublai: Nervous? I never said I made a case and I don't need to make one to ask people's opinions.

Not satisfying.

Hm, it appears I miscued. At post 84, after rereading 81, I should have proceeded to attack Pie, who was very defensive when I doubly attacked Pie and KK. Also, KK shows superior logic and makes sense.

!!! But you don't think that now do you? You change your mind far too often in very little time to be helpful.

Hm, it appears I miscued. At post 84, after rereading 81, I should have proceeded to attack Pie, who was very defensive when I doubly attacked Pie and KK. Also, KK shows superior logic and makes sense.

Okay, I find this a really suspicious backtrack ... if I'm making a case -- especially one as vehement as yours against KK -- I usually make sure I'm talking about the right person.

Unvote

Vote: Light-kun

I was talking about the right person. I failed to realize the points were already addressed. Also, are you making a case?

Votes Archaist (L-2) with this reasoning:

And hey, because we need more humongous-sized posts addressing the Kublai Khan vs Archaist situation:

While I wasn't a fan of KK's joke of a policy lynch towards Archon, I think Archaist overreacted in post 186. KK, though, in typical fashion, jumps down the throat of a person bringing accusations against him, in post 192. It gets really interesting in post 197:

That's not the two options you presented. You said that I was either (1) serious or (2) pretending to be joking. Then you voted saying that either way I was anti-town.

I agree with this. As I said above, I think Archaist took this comment a little too far, and KK being "scummy" or "pretending to be joking" is looking at it in a black-or-white sense (or is it black-or-black), and blindly ignored other possibilities. However, in that same post:

I'm inclined to agree. Scum are notorious for creating situations where either choice paints others in a negative light, assumes others=town aligned. Further, I don't think that archaist was trying to "throw votes around until it sticks," I think Archaist is attempting to mislead people by creating a blind-spot decision for observers of the situation. I also agree with the rest of Brian's argument.

Vote Archaist

Side note: Archon came into the game realizing it was a joke. Therefore, you should know it is a joke or meant to be one. Given that the target admits something, it is scummy to continue to defend the target (or attack that aggressor, as the case maybe.)

Archon: You could be more useful and give an opinion on the derived situation.

The following post Lester votes Archaist Putting him at L-1:

I am convinced that Archaist is anti-town. The post by KK I myself was suspicious with, but it seemed to be confirmed by both Archon and KK as a joke, yet Archaist seemed to use it as fuel to ignite this lynch. Am I 100 per cent convinced that KK isn't scum? Maybe not, but these baseless attacks sure are putting me in his favour.

Unvote

Vote: Archaist

I, for one, would also like to know.Putting someone at -1 is not good unless you are absolutely sure.

Neither are short posts.

I find Lester's action neutral.

Red Coyote makes a big case on LK and this is his whole response:

Post 231, parts directed at me

So, you admit to voting me when nothing I've done is scummy? You go on to note that I do want to ignore discussion except concerning "A or B," but were you really thinking that the "ppp is/isn't an amateur" discussion would lead somewhere? Even AFTER we concluded scum want a lynch (mislynch preferred) as much as town to facilitate their eradication of townies?

Unvote; Vote RedCoyote

For voting someone you don't think is scummy.

BLATANT OMGUS.

*Shrugs*
I'm having a lazy game due to the timing of it. I really miscalculated real life. Oh well, I'll try my best anyway.

Scum: KK, Archaist (not together)

???: Everyone else.

Unvote: Vote archaist

I feel that KK has been answered enough today, though I admit to generally agreeing with Qwints post.

No follow up in his RedCoyote's vote... He completely forgets. Apparently.

This doesn't feel right, Archaist, to me, feels as though he's just a townie digging himself into a hole about the whole policy lynch comment.

You're exactly right.

Unvote.

This has gone too far and the defense of my comment being logically correct doesn't seem to be helping me. quints brings up some interesting points, but I think that KK responds well to them.

I will claim, because the deadline is approaching and my lynch will not help the town; I am a tracker.

...okay. Looks like KK hasn't answered enough today.

Unvote; Vote Kublai Kahn

This is a crap shoot for me. I know I'll look pretty good if KK is scum. But...I am gonna look suckish is KK is town. Still, I can see the scum...and qwints, more or less, reaffirms that earlier thought.

Continuing with the vote frenzy. Remember that he didn't ask him questions? Remember that he thought KK showed superior logic and made sense? What happened to that? Suddenly because qwints is in game attacking KK he changes his thoughts or what?
ISO 29: This is a long post. Qwints doesn't like the way he votes KK without explaining and LK votes him for it. ANOTHER BLATANT OMGUS!!

Now, Pay attention here... Ligth Kun never said he was suspicious of me, in fact, he dismissed a case against me and later on said he didn't suspect me.
UNTIL I STARTED QUESTIONING HIM!!!
Then he said I was scum with qwints...
LK's superpost

Alex downplays current events claiming rvs. (This is scummy.)

He said this point (Wich was the whole case Archaist had against me) is scummy when he previously stated the my case was over rated.

Archaist raises a legitimate point against Alex because Alex seems concerned about the game's agression level. Protown point Archaist and -1 point Alex, since I missed it the first time I looked at the post.

Now, reading the game, he realizes what his position was and now states that he missed the part and that it gives me scum points... How many f%&$/ times have you changed your mind in so little time in this game? Especially to attack your attacker...

KK calls out my lack of sense. *Chief rereads,

accurately

FoS KK and Alex, but could have been done by a cursory glance of the last page. Did he really reread?

Bolded mine. Notice how everything that goes against me he is trying to agree with when he previously wasn't...

LK fails to really clarify his point, but it makes slightly more sense. He thinks that the Alex case is overrated. In hindsight, LK is wrong, and the Alex point does show a scummy motive. I could see Alex-scum making that error.

"Oh, wait, no guys! I was wrong! he is scummy now that he is attacking me. All that I said to defend him I will use now to attack him."

Laaaame.
Why do you see Alex-scum making that error? meta or something?

Alex deflects to....a statement of his own he found more significantly scummy than the one which was scrutinized...wtf? Blames ...game untidiness for lack of scum hunting. This is almost as good as my crap posting.

Did it bother you then? I think I've been far better at scumhunting than you. And far clearer.

Alex looks really antzy about moving forward and having "buttons pressed." I think Alex is scared of pressure and too concerned about voting. +1 scummy point. The rest of his hunting really doesn't conclude anything or press that hard except on ppp, who looks like policy target. I'm getting a wicked Alex scum vibe.

You're talking about 105 because it's just below the Brian lurker hunt right? Why my being more cautious than you when voting is scummy? You're just reckless. I don't conclude anything? Is that mandatory for a post? and when did I suggest a policy lynch??!! You were the one that said it might be good but you didn't wanna. I NEVER suggested policy lynches.
In fact:

Anyone want to discuss the idea of a ppp policy lynch (a p-p-p-policy lynch if you will, lol)?

I'm being serious.

No. I don't do policy lynches. I may go on little cases and gut. But not just policy.

Alexhans slipped under the radar and didn't seem that suspicious, but in my reread, I don't really much care for Alex's posting and what Alex has decided to pick as its priorities.

So? You completely changed your view about me since I attacked you. It's a pretty common thing. You read someone thinking they're scum (or trying to make them look scum) and you'll probably find a way in wich you could say they're scummy. But in this case you fail to make a single good, or explained, point as to why I am scummy.

You've changed too much, explained too little, OMGUSed too much, your thought processes are just chaos.
-------------------

@everyone: Deadline May 6th at 2:30 P.M. (don't know exactly wich GMT...)

Yeah i don't know either, thats why i put the number of hours until deadline in the last votecount. Everyone can figure out from that when the deadline will be local time. I will put that in every votecount until deadline.

Thanks AFC, good idea.

My position on your actions are clear. Obviously we disagree. This back-and-fourth isn't adding anything at all to the discussion. I shall begin to ignore you now.

typycal Hohum. When caught in an inconsistency he will shut like a clam... :/ Nulltell, of course. Still unhelpful.

RC UNDERSTANDS WHERE I'M COMING FROM. This is good, I suppose. Still, it is also the reason I was mildly surprised he voted me. Hopefully, we'll find that reason.

You were mildly surprised, therefore you voted him? I don't follow. Seems like you attack who is suspicious of you at the moment and try to befriend who isn't.

Did you just dodge our (Me + KK at least, maybe someone else asked) question? Why didn't you unvote Archaist earlier, after he claimed? I'm not asking you why you didn't unvote him as a way of getting your vote somewhere else if that's what you think. I actually want the answer to the question.

^^This.

Did I say that? I think you may have mixed my name up with someone else.

That was for hohum.

You too, alex?

Look, I'm not suggesting anyone has been unserious with their votes (except Light-kun, but that's a different case). That wasn't the underlying intent of that comment. KK picked up the meaning I was driving at. I could've just as easily wrote "Archon, cater, alex, Chief, KK, Archaist, and Brian shouldn't forget the deadline", or "I want Archon, cater, alex, Chief, KK, Archaist, and Brian to make it clear where they stand before this day ends so the town can use that information later in the game".

Don't worry. I know what you meant. I just don't like someone telling me how to play. It's better if you just warn about deadline instead of telling us to vote. It looks like you were forcing us to vote NOW.

[Kublai Khan]

1) You completely misrepresent my feelings on the Archaist case. I always saw it as valid (see my initial PBPA). I just thought that you had only brought it up because he attacked you and that you emphasized the wrong reasons in your case on archaist.

2) You STILL have not done any active scum hunting. You're just voting for someone who attacked you.

3) I PICKED a side, but a deadline was approaching. I saw that the case against archaist was approaching and I realized that we needed A lynch at deadline even if it wasn't the best lynch.

1) I don't mean to misrepresent your feelings towards the Archaist bandwagon, but I am suspicions of the motivations behind your actions. You are a player in a mafia game. I'm not taking your word at face value.

Your opening tirade against me went from twisting everything I said into scummy malfeasance to agreeing that my case against Archaist was prefectly valid and well-reasoned. In the midst of that transition I called you out on your misrepresentation of my every word. I retain the possibility that you adjusted your "case" accordingly and pursued the case with a little less luster before ultimately abandoning it in favor of Light-kun. It's a possibility, albeit not a very strong one at this juncture.

2) I'm tired of this accusation. Your way of "active scum-hunting" is not the only way of scum-hunting and it can be predicatable to scum. I'm using another way where I make inflamatory ("baiting") remarks and then judge (and/or follow-up on) responses I think are scummy.

I made a case on Archaist not because he attacked me, but because of the specific way that he attacked me. I have to back off him because of the power-role claim, but time will tell.

3) So you think that I'm total scum, yet you're totally comfortable with the lynch that kk-scum was pushing? I interpret this as a total lack of conviction in your case against me.

Why don't you try posing your questions to me in an intelligible way instead of expecting me to pick out every single minute detail in your ridiculous walls of text. You're being purposefully vague in order to paint me in a negative light.

Didn't you read and interpret my meta in 45 minutes? How is it you have time to multi-post nonsense, but not have time to read a single post?

I'm really getting sick of you calling my case against LK "weak" when you admitted:

1) LK's play was wishy-washy and anti-town (318)
2) That you didn't like his voting behavior (311)
3) That you couldn't "competely discount the case against" LK (308)
4) That his spastic voting was "a tell" (302)
5) That there were "legitimate points" on LK (299)

You have hedged these admissions by the claim that anti-town isn't necessarily scummy and through references to LK's meta, BUT even LK has admitted that he usually has more justification for his votes (336).
You seem to be determined to keep a player around who you've acknowledged is anti-town and who has admitted that his play doesn't entirely match the meta.

God-damn this is right on the money. Hohum's play the past few pages has been really scummy.

*Notes will be finished asap tomorrow. The rest will be a skim read since I was mostly more clear at this point on. Covers page 1-6

Uh, "large analysis post" should not equal "director's commentary". Couldn't you just do a player-by-player analysis summaries?

[Archaist]

I'm here. I wanted to wait until Light-Kun posted his full analysis to comment, as I didn't get much out of the whole hohum/qwints back-and-forth multi-posting.

In the same post:

I'm fine with it for now. I don't really feel any pressure for it, and so I will react when I find it necessary to do so.

Now registering the fact I'm at L-1, I'm going to make a grand case against all players. Expect super long post in approx. 3 hours.

So you don't feel any pressure, yet in the same post you decide to make a huge analysis of the entire game?

While KK has claimed to have not supported policy lynches, he seems almost awkwardly clingy to the RVS, which is a scum point in my book.)

Lester backs down on KK, but I disagree I still see no scum motive for wanting the RVS to end quickly.

You contradict yourself. Being clingy to RVS is a scum point, but you see no scum motive for wanting to do so?

You also ignore several requests for you to claim. With the level of detail you put into your recent post, I would be surprised if you actually missed those posts when you get to the second half of your analysis.

alexhans also makes a nice post summarizing the scummy points of Light-kun.

[hohum]

Less than an hour until deadline.

[hohum]

maybe two.

[qwints]

Today's the 5th...

[hohum]

Good call, thanks

[afatchic]

Less than

an hour

24 hours

until deadline.

. Now you got about 21 hours and 35 minutes.