Open 144 - Near-Vanilla - GAME OVER!

[AndyTony]

/confirm

[AndyTony]

Do we have to wait for the mod to announce day1 beginning or anything?

[AndyTony]

Vote hohun

lol Alright Pooh Bear, let's see who can get out of the honey jar faster... lmao

[AndyTony]

I don't think it's truly a raw show about survival of the fittest until the network allows people to die/be killed....

And at least one camera man must be eaten.

Then it's got my attention when I pick up the remote. And only then. lol

[AndyTony]

RVS stages have been coming into a lot of question lately - - it's becoming rather trendy for peopl not to be too big fans of it.

I don't think I'm quite there yet - I agree with Dej - always entertaining to see how we end up getting out of it.

[AndyTony]

Then again, your multi posting could be compensation to appear as an active town member - which is arguably equally scummy.

In addition to you being all for policy lynching - - very anti town. Policy lynches are seldom beneficial.

[AndyTony]

not jumping down your throat, hohum lol

but utility lynching is indeed the lynching of a player without regard for their status, correct? Bluntly, not lynching scum.

Those who utility lynch always try to argue "They aren't helping the town" and are seldom smart enough to remember that in a game of numbers, they indeed are - it's the narrow mindedness of other players who aren't helping the town.

The players I speak of are those who go into these games all wrong - - I myself have been guilty of it - - going into games wrong, and by wrong I mean:

looking for clever ways to lynch a player by twisting what they say and manufacturing scum out of them - - it seems the mentality of a utility lyncher is one who looks to work very hard at lynching people rather than lynching scum - - - the wrong approach I refer to is the forgetting of a difference in those two things.

So outside of a policy lynch debate - - I'd prefer it if you'd make an effort to lynch scum for us, rather than hunt a lynch....lol

[AndyTony]

Just as a homicide detective doesn't see the forest from the trees and looks at a crime scene as "how can this be homicide",

I'm suggesting that in the process of sifting - one might fall into the (more than understandable) trappings of:

"How can this be scumm"

rather than

"This is scummy more so than innocent"

That's where the difference between hunting scum, and hunting lynches fall.

And I feel the mind of someone who utility lynches relies heavily on those trappings. It's unsafe for town (and a rather unfortunate thing none of us can help at time! Doesn't mean we don't try)

[AndyTony]

hohum, that's the second time you've told me to chill in one fashion or another - - Enough.

I'm fine and dandy on my end. I'm not suggesting you're revving for a utility lynch - there is nobody being accused right now - your logic makes no sense.

I'm stating a game threory opinion - and a valid one

[AndyTony]

sure, why not.

[AndyTony]

Hush up, theory boy.

I was discussing theory in huhums direction, expressing my concern for what I believed to be a negative mentality - - a mentality that would result in him "Lynch hunting" - - not lynching scum, but lynching easy...

Hurting the town

He seemed to be very against the theory talk when it was pointed at that.

Then, in all seperate posts:

ODDin's approach to this game strikes me as particularly strange.

Theory

how do YOU usually go about the task of hunting scum then?

Theory

I find not liking things to be an effective scum hunting technique.

Theory
--------------------------------
He then puts a vote on someone - - -

based

on theory

How is voting someone into dropping scum tells not pressure again?

Vote: ODDin

I think you're just making up excuses now so you don't have to explain why you're not contributing later.

The vote didn't count, so not only was it hypocriticaly based on theory, he rushed into it before checking the status of his RVS - - what bother's me most is that this is his response to another player not falling into line and planning a lynch of someone who has

barely spoken to us

. It's pretty scummy to say

"If you don't plan this policy lynch with me now, if you don't agree with my game theory of pressuring someone with votes, you can just have one yourself!"

Re-read the post - - it's not striking me as a rational towny.


When his vote is questioned:

I'm trying to move us along. Seriously though, if he wants to get all emotional and claim, or do something else equally as stupid then let him so I can add to my list of reasons to lynch him.

Above is the very thing I was worried about.

Hohum is practically planning the lynch of a player we have barely spoken to. He said his conditions for suicide rested on poor logic - we all know what that means because we've all had at least one game where everyone seemed insane lol

Let's cross that bridge when we come to it and not plan a lynch as fast as hohum is chsing it - - I'd rather chase scum and this person we're discussing hasn't done anything in this game that is scummy yet.

And hohum - - it seems like you voted ODDin because he wasn't chasing the lynch with you - pretty scummy (especially since you rushed into it without unvoting)

And lets not forget the hypocrisy of all the energy you're putting into a player's

meta

- - one of the most common

theory

references of the game.
------------------------------------

Unvote: hohum
FoS: hohum

I'd like to base the opinion on Zero within the parameters of this game. I'm not saying we let any claims slide, I'm saying all circumstances are different, and I'd rather be present in the situation when it comes rather than tightening a rope mindlessly.

Anyone trying to exploit his meta is after an easy lynch (we all frakin know it too - you guys are smarter than that) - - if we keep logical and fair, I'm sure he'll participate - if he doesn't, we handle it rationally and within the circumstances so we don't hurt ourselves and rush into easy lynches

[AndyTony]

A) "Making a list of reasons to list people" is planning - - you don't make a grocery list of what not to get. For simplicity, let's not call it the planning of a lynch so much as "The wagoning of negative logic" - - We're judging this man on meta and he's barely spoken - -

B) A lot, yes, can be theory conversation - but for someone who advocated they wanted to get conversation rolling, you seemed to have a problem with both rolling conversation, and theory, when it was pointed to you, yet have no problem voting another player because they didn't see eye to eye with you

C) Because it would be unfair to vote you, it's not a case, it's an observation.

[AndyTony]

EBWOP "Making a list of reasons to lynch people"

[AndyTony]

I'm not saying a lynch is taking place, I'm saying a wagon of poor logic is - -

We're discussing what to do with a player in a "what if" stage based on his meta for scum claiming, no?

Circumstances are always different, and I feel that if he claims such a thing, we should cross that bridge when it comes rather than all try to agree before hand that he would deserve to be lynched with no hesitation

[AndyTony]

you guys are continuously missing my point - - I'm not defending a lynching wagon, or any votes on him - - wagon of logic doesn't mean there are votes - - I'm saying I have a problem with planning what to do to someone based on their meta -

"If he claims scum we lynch him" doesn't jive with me - - circumstances will always be different, and I'm just voicing an opinion because I've seen it happen in the past and the town goes belly up for it - -

And I find hohum a little hypocritical - - he can't tell people to shut up about conversation topics and sing a different tune about wanting one later - - he can't be aggrevated by theory talk and then soley base our town conversation on another player's meta.

And now hohum, you're prosecuting him for not participating or contributing? I bet that's why you insist on posting so frequently (yet saying less) - - just because a lot of activity takes place in two real time days doesn't mean a lot has happened.

If Joe Somebody checks his mafiascum one every day at 10 pm, and shitloads happen in between, are you going to hold it against him?
----------------------

I'm not defending anyone, I'm not persecuting anyone - - what I am doing right now is saying we should have a clean fair game here - -

For example - What is everyone's opinion of Zero right now?

And don't say you haven't developed any because between preconceiving how to vote him in the future based on his meta, and suggesting he's not participating because activity occasionally picks up more than usual in a real time day.
-----------------------------

Here's a thought that doesn't instill biases:

@Zero - - Why did you claim scum in previous games? You said something to the effect of poor logic, can you elaborate?

----------------------------
Zero has claimed scum as scum, he's claimed scum as towny - - the result is inconclusive

Now if what was

behind

the claim has no inconsistency, there's something there, no?
------------------------------

I can relate 100% to the poor logic he talks about. I pretty much use this account to exercise and experiment sharing new ways of thinking and approaching.

[AndyTony]

Everyone, I have an alt I use for personal reasons and occasionally forget to sign out of it - I'll keep on top of it.

[AndyTony]

true - and honestly, my entire observation and mass posting was based on this

hohum: the point of the game is to annoy

scum

until they start dropping tells......
.....and, as AndyTony has (quite correctly) said, the point is not to lynch

people

, it's to lynch

scum

. Statistically, the chances of him being scum are lower than the chances of him being town. Thus, there's no reason I should want him lynched per se.

And the fact that I actually needed to explain this (especially after what AndyTony said) earns you a FoS.

FoS: hohum

I felt that right after I expressed the distinction between hunting scum and hunting lynches - - hohum understood that we now have a person (zero) that will crack under pressure whether he's scum or not - -

hohum actually states that if zero gets emotional, he will lynch him for it - - - we don't lynch for people being emotional (because townies can be so as well) we lynch for being scum - -

My observation is to stress that we should be careful about applying the pressure willy nilly. Hohum is aggressive, which in all fairness is just as emotional as Zero.

Calculation - - Intelligence - - Prosperity for town

It can totally happen

[AndyTony]

Looks like we're moving out of the RVS, so I will

Unvote

for now.

What made you feel we were officially out? (I'm not being sarcastic)

Well, people are posting (I think) serious reasons behind their votes, as opposed to "he doesn't like Survivor" or similar reasons typical of a RVS.

What would you say was the vote that brought us out of it, and what was the reasoning behind it? (also not sarcastic!)

A player getting emotional is not a good reason to lynch them, but when they get emotional, they may be more likely to, as scum, inadvertently say things that will give them away and that we

can

lynch them for.

Understandable - - We know that pushing this particular player will make them do something nonsensible (since it's happened as both scum and town) hence I'm pointing out that there are otherways to discover scumtells.

Scumtells can be in general actions, and yes, they can slip under pressure -- scum indeed slip under pressure - - however, this player tends to false claim under pressure - -

So we ask ourselves, do we want to approach him for a false claim, or a scumtell - - and we now know how best to get it. Scum will use his emotions against him for a potential mislynch, no? - - I'm suggesting we appreciate there are otherways to catch scum (part of that new thinking I was trying to spread - that I mentioned earlier) - world of possibilities, guys.
---------------------------
@Zero - if you read the rest of that very sentence I was telling you I could relate and want to be understanding to what now seems like variable temper, no need to get defensive

@Pitstop - - No worries about the tight schedule lol - - Is your handle based on your activity, though? If yes, I like it

[AndyTony]

lol please read my posts in full - that's literally what I've been saying.

I said we shouldn't plan to condemn him if he lives up to his meta because "Every circumstance is different"

Anything else said has related to scumhunting, not lynching.

In looking at the profile on wiki, it seems like claiming to be scum has become his shtick....IMO, it makes it kind of a null tell.

I'm agreeing it's a null tell, and that it would be harmful to the town to chase and lynch a null tell let alone make statements to suggest we should lynch immediately if he gives us the suicide claim.

All circumstances are different

[AndyTony]

--I haven't said anyone has chased a tell
--The only thing I've dwelled on is that every circumstance is different and we should play it out

*hohum's remark about exploiting Zero's emotions suggested it needed mentioning at how that could hurt the town.

[AndyTony]

At that point in the game, Zero's meta had been discussed so much, and he had written so little in

this

game, that I was illustrating how everyone was risking casting him in an unfair and negative light - all based on his meta, no less.

There's no hidden layer to that - if anything, I feel as though you are indeed going deeper than necessary.

The post says what it says - the want for a fair game with no biases.

[AndyTony]

Although hohum illustrates agressive nature and as pitstop put it: chicken with his head cut off, I wasn't sure is it was appropriate for me to regard the vote hohum placed as serious or not - - If it is indeed serious, it's a rash, weak vote - - he's attacking someone for not agreeing with him.

To be fair, I wanted another person's opinion before I regarded it as such. I just wanted to make note of it.

[AndyTony]

Dude, who's challenging you?

[AndyTony]

So we have a player that is admittedly emotional , a player that is admittedly lazy, and a player that doesn't mind making redundant statements that only reflect poorly on himself. lol

I smell a sitcom.

GUYS - - be you lazy, redundant, or emotional, we can have a fair game with no biases - we just have to meet each other half way! lol

Mutual respect will keep things from getting too crazy-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Pitstop - - It's now been a few times you've dropped in to say you'll just come later ----- I can only hope with gems. I understand your schedule is your own and I respect that, but if you could reserve the time you find to post here on actually posting and not promising to (they cancel eachother out) I would find it less suspicious. Thanks!

@Ceph - - Next time catch up. If you're going to be redundant and not contribute, don't drag my name into it.

Seriously though, if he wants to get all

emotional

and claim, or do something else equally as

stupid

then let him so I can add to my list of reasons to

lynch him

.

The above statement doesn't talk about scum much, does it?

Looks to me like a player that told us he believed in utility lynches was happy to lynch a player for being his definition of stupid and emotional.

We lynch people for being scum. Not emotional. That's my point Ceph.
--------------------------------------------------------------
That was your first post since the RVS - let's hope they don't get any worse. Happy reading.

[AndyTony]

You're "pretty sure" and "could have been more redundant"?
With that and the smiley faces, are you trying to be cute about this?

Just do the readings, man - it never hurts to know what you're talking about

[AndyTony]

Critical? I apologize if you feel likeI'm coming down on you, but you have to understand my position - - you just played catch up, and in your most recent posts, tried to do so while pointing an incredulous finger at me.

I haven't made any solid decision on anyone yet, nor have I voted seriously - - which means everything is an opinion/thought of mine, yes? I feel like you're interested in having a head a tete over difference of opinions.

If something is unclear - just ask - don't tell me youre pretty sure it's wrong - I'm more than happy to discuss with you.

A tad bit of lurking going on from at least four players - how's everyone doing? lol

[AndyTony]

Btw, I tend to get lazy and not make a lot of posts so I wouldn't look into that too much for those of you who were stating that I should be doing things ASAP.

I'm just never interested in games on this site because everybody is too damn serious, yet I still sign up and treck my way through the best I can.

But yeh, I might post some stuff later

@Dejkha - Pitstop's meta shows that when he gets active, he never misses more than a day for the most part.

Do you feel the above quote is an honest statement about the player's schedule, or an attempt to diffuse suspicion of lurking - to get away with it.

For the sake of variety in conversation

[AndyTony]

glad to hear it lol - - now I'm not familiar with it too much, but my friend is a fan - is your DP from Calvin and Hobbs?

[AndyTony]

I'm also looking at you as scum due to Post 166 where you actually considered me lying about being busy and lazy and lurking.

Personally, I think that would be an absolutely pathetic scum tactic to attempt, and considering it is even funnier.

I offered some food for thought to change the subject we were on - -

You just said you want to consider me scum for innocently questioning you. That's dangerously close to omgus - - "I suspect you for thinking I'm suspicious" - are you serious?

Also - sharing my thoughts and observations can lead to others helping to contribute and point things out and help me past mental blocks - it's teamwork and a safer method than "forget sharing thoughts and ideas, lets toss a vote and see if it sticks"

I'm very unsettled at your omgus reaction to an innocent question - I made no statements that you were a liar, I asked for someone's opinion.

[AndyTony]

I only mentioned it because it was worth conversation - - I typed such at the bottome of my post - - and though Pitstop says the omgus attitude is actually a build up, I can only hope it gets pointed elsewhere next time around, because I'm usually apt to respecting someone's schedule!! lol

The fact is, with you simply stating your opinions, you may be feeding info into our heads that we don't need. Doing this without actually voting is a lot safer for scum because stating different opinions is nowhere near as scummy as changing votes and jumping on bandwagons.

the point of the opinions are to be regarded and you yourself choose whether to disregard or not - - it's healthy.

as I tried to illustrate when I unvoted earlier (to get out of RVS) - this is not the time to vote, not enough has happened - so of course thoughts and discussion will occur.
---------------------------------

I'm not liking this AndyTony guy.

And I just got a hair cut... lol

It's like he thinks he's all knowing. Like Allah or Entertainment Weekly.

Entertainment weekly always has the scoop on the

real

situation with Brad and Angelina.

And you're not qualified to suggest what I'm thinking - - furthermore, to suggest that what I am thinking is all knowing, it is an opinion you yourself hold - - furthermore. Thank you. You think I know what I'm talking about - - I will happilly throw in a couple of "yall's" "boo ya's" and "L33t spelling" as often as possible if it makes you feel better.

He's very serious and acts like he is the boss. And if you're going to ask me why, it's your posts. Read them and you'll know.

Bosses tell people what to do - - I'm a guy sharing all of his thoughts and advocating diplomacy - - they're quite different than what you suggest.

And if we're going to assign rolls based on number/quality of posts, are you the guy grumbling in the corner about elections he didn't vote for? (to branch off your analogy)
-----------------------------------------------
That entire post is opinionated and baseless - and to be honest, rather unfair.

If you want to judge my game play or me as a person, keep it to yourself unless it's relevent because it sort of offends me - I'd appreciate it if you'd respect that. It's a two way street, and I'm more than willing to be jsut as kind back, chief!

[AndyTony]

Someone saying they don't like me and then comically comparing me to Allah offends me, Ceph.

[AndyTony]

@Ceph

I might have misread - - but did you vote Pitstop for having the same opinion of me as you had? And you only changed it because things seemed to turn his way?

It seems hypocritical and opportunistic - but it's late - - if I misread, someone correct me if I'm wrong

[AndyTony]

@Ceph

I might have misread - - but did you vote Pitstop for having the same opinion of me as you had? And you only changed it because things seemed to turn his way?

It seems hypocritical and opportunistic - but it's late - - if I misread, someone correct me if I'm wrong

No. I have not thought at any point in this game that you are scum, maybe it appears that I did but that's not the case.

It seemed like the case to me because you identified me primarily as an "Easy D1 lynch" - I'm still trying to read through to see if it was an opinion - - or an observation

[AndyTony]

And btw, do you want me to claim scum, because you seem to want me to with the assured thought that I will.

Watch out for using that as a line of defense - "Don't scum hunt in my direction or else" - you don't know his motivation/if that's what he wants from you, and he was hardly trying to get a rise out of you

[AndyTony]

You really like asking questions, don't you? =P

Okay, to be fair, there was a point at which I wasn't as certain as I am now. Nothing actually changed... I don't really want to finish explaining for reasons I don't want to discuss yet.

If this is true - - I haven't typed anything from beginning to end of you being unsure, to you being certain - - meaning it was other people hounding on you and Pitstop that made you "certain" - - was it to appease them?

And the "reasons I don't want to discuss" - - I might have missed it in the re-read, but this in addition to what you said you wrote to reind yourself of something to bring up later - - what was it? I'm just as curious, and secrets so early seem sketchy to me.

Please explain!

[AndyTony]

If it were a role, that would constitute a big deal, so I definitely want to know.

Ceph, what's the big idea/secret?

[AndyTony]

In all fairness - its not something tiny - you're dangling something over our heads that you didn't have to mention in the first place, and now that expectation builds, it sounds like you're insecure that it'll pay off as something worth hearing.

So what's the secret exactly?

And why are you being manipulative so early? You say it will change how a player acts, are you trying to mislead the town so the player acts a certain way right in to a lynch, and then when they do, you can point and say "I suspected early, see!"

So if you could just come out with it, that would be appreciated

[AndyTony]

It's not a matter of it not being secretive, it just would have helped me understand where your mind set was when it came to agreeing with any other player on my status/that whole pitstop debacle.

[AndyTony]

That last thought is kind of interesting - I'm not trying to push in on you, but could you supply a few quotes that struck you as appealing to emotion?

[AndyTony]

I would call that defending yourself, but not too much.

And you should be sorry. Apology accepted. You'd be right to be suspicious of me too, seeing as how the only time I made it passed day one, I was scum.

Could you be any more antagonizing/hypocritical/instigating with that post? You're responding to him with the very style you yourself tell us you get emotional about - - why demand a defence from someone who isn't on trial for anything? He's been accused of suspicious behavior, but nobody has raised scum evidence that has stuck - - are you honestly going to say his lack of a needless defense is scummy?

If anything, your hypocrisy, and ability to point out your own meta would suggest you're scum is more tangable than anything pointed at Ceph.

Can you elaborate on your own suspicions and thoughts? Because you've admitted that you're actively lurking, told us that your meta (connected to

this

game) suggests you're scum, and have hypocritically shielded yourself from emotional pain due to other player's sarcasm and instigations, yet don't hesitate to throw them in another player's face (Ceph - with the above post).

I second the motion for prods.

What case do you see on Ceph at present, Zero? You seem to think a defense is necessary, it would be nice to see what he needs it for.

[AndyTony]

And it's also nobody's place to say what his state of mind was - - you don't know what he was thinking, and I'll have to look back to see if anyone actually said "I don't want Zero in this game" or if it's another inference.

Your active lurking doesn't seem to have brought you anything useful, Zero

ps - your like/dislike explanations : I can only hope you elaborate/have better reasoning in your actual cases to come

[AndyTony]

Reason: Because I don't lie.

Technically you lie a lot - but only when you feel there is a reason (ie. lying about being scum because you don't like the town)

Which indeed makes one wonder if what you have observed is the need to actively lurk and lie.

[AndyTony]

Confusion hurts town, and people who say they are liars but AREN'T lying doesn't help.

[AndyTony]

Perhaps the danger wasn't in the number of votes so much as theoretical things like behavior/gameplay&views/Remarks etc.

[AndyTony]

I would say the unmotivated townies (most understandably) are the people holding off on posting until somethin substantial comes up.

It's fair for you to say that Zero hasn't done anythin summy - but a I wouldn't throw the "towny" word around in any form - subconscious from hearing or not, accidental immunity is a killer

[AndyTony]

god damn "G" key...

[AndyTony]

@kdub - Yes indeed lol I've fallen victim to letting early, passive comments with little intent on meaning (that suggest someone is a misunderstood towny) to get into the back of my head and influence how I look at them

@ODDin - I concur - prods indeed

[AndyTony]

Vote: Zero

What are you playing at? Did you not read?

Stop trying to confuse the game - - and considering we're past random and in a lull, I would suggest having more reasoning behind your voting.

[AndyTony]

That happens in games - - your scumpartner bails, so you try to lynch him/the replacement in an attempt to gain immunity and say "hey! I got scum, lay off!"

And Dej as well as others haven't necessarily lurked - we had hit an understandable lull in the game

[AndyTony]

Confirm Vote: Zero

Your "meh, this is boring lets just lynch someone" mentality is the very stupidity you pout about and get angry at before fake claiming - - that's incredibly hypocritical of you and I'm disappointed that you'd resort to that.

Also - Dej was no different than hohum are MANY others on this board that weren't posting, your reason doesn't single him out as scum, it just fits him - - you can't single him out because everyone is doing it, and you can't call it scummy because - - it isn't - - the game wasn't going anywhere.

[AndyTony]

I see where it can look a little one sided to you, but that's just the thing - - I gave Zero plenty of open mindedness and opportunity, and I feel like his carelessness and hypocrisy is almost a slap in the face for trying to be understanding, you know?

The moment he got hypocritical and redundant, any form of understanding or open mindedness offered would be nothing short of favortism and a bias based on meta.

His vote on Dej (including the weak reasoning), his impatient, hypocritical logic toward "just wanting a lynch already", and his dare of "Here's my bad logic, what are you going to do about it" puts me RIGHT off.

Understanding and open mindedness is a two way street, otherwise I'm giving an unfair bias and buddy nature that shouldn't be there.

I saw Zero demonstrate hypocrisy, narrow mindedness, and a hunt for a lynch over scum - - that merits my vote

[AndyTony]

Nay - - My vote is for his vote on Dej - - completely illogical. He even stated in an early post that multiple people were "quiet and keeping to themselves" - - Why vote someone who's switching out?

**It's at that time I felt the illogical vote was hypocritical

**I also strongly agree with Ceph's point on the possibility that it could be a case of "My scumpartner is leaving - I should vote him and hope he goes down so I can get immunity"

------------
The confirm vote is for the "There's my illogical vote - do what you want" and the idea of "let's lynch already" instead of "let's get scum already" - - and the singling out of Dej for not posting when he hypocritically stated an acknowledgement that MULTIPLE people were doing it and not just Dej.
------------


But yeah. That's my line of thought lol

[AndyTony]

You don't have to call it the "perfect" reason to vote you, you can just agree that it's valid - - and if that's the case, you know my policy on fair trial, why haven't you defended yourself at all?

Before your Dej vote, you welcomed votes on you and almost dared people to do it - then you voted Dej with no good reason, and instead of clarifying or providing the questioned reason, you shoved it in our faces and ignorantly told us to "deal with it" - - and now you're pretty much telling us:

That Dej, who requested to leave, and you voted for not posting (after stating that not just him but MULTIPLE people were doing it), is scum, in addition to EVERYONE that is voting you.

So Dej is scum for not posting. And everyone else is scum for voting you.

Can you please just make a defense? I'm not unreasonable - - I've maintained that we'll be sensitive to your emotional tendencies with poor logic, did I not? - - did that give you a green light to take advantage of my open mindedness and make a vote wiht NO logic behind it?

Honestly now - you hypocritically demonstrated poor logic, told us to "deal with it", welcomed votes more than once, and have in essence made 4 scum claims with no evidence.

How is that NOT taking advantage of my kindness and understanding? If I did nothing, it would be bias of me, and I would be going easy on you as though you had immunity or a handicap.

Make your defense, I'm not being unreasonable.

[AndyTony]

ZERO -

I'm saying that YOU have stated that myself, Dej, and anyone else on your wagon is scum - - I'm asking you to give us the proof/case

Just defend yourself/give the case you had on Dej, it's all I need to take the vote off, otherwise I'm sorry, I can't logically let it slide that you put a vote on somebody for "not posting" - - you've made it clear that you understand that almost EVERYONE is posting very little - -

So what's the case on any of the people you think are scum? It's a simple question/answer thing here, man, just tell me, and if it makes sense, I can unvote

[AndyTony]

I've twice before voted myself on Mafiascum - - I worry that he's read it and is manipulating my opinion seeing as both times I did it, I was frustrated towny.

Unvote

Zero - This is not immunity by a long shot

*Ceph - Emp and Zwet play the "Slayer's Gambit" - - they intentionally make themselves appealing for a lynch in an effort to lure scum on the wagon and signal such to the town

Zero hasn't demonstrated that thusfar - -

**Zero - unvote already and stop hurting the town

[AndyTony]

@MadCrawdad - Considering he would only have to look at the very game before this? Yeah, completely possible, it's my most recent - - but regardless, I have personal experience of that scenario as a towny

What exactly have I dont wrong that isn't fair or justified? It's pretty straight forward

[AndyTony]

Ps.

@All - - nothing good comes from utility lynches - - lynching town is anti-town

There's no reason you can't keep him alive and be weary - if he does something scummy, have a hay day, you know?

[AndyTony]

My definition of utility lynch is lynching when likely town and not certainly scum - this is a numbers game, and a silly towny is better than a dead one - however.

While I'm not voting, I made it clear un my unvote that it was in NO WAY immunity.

He is free from my vote and a risk of death, but not free from my suspicions.

I want to know why Dej.

From a scum stance - it can VERY WELL look like he's distancing from a scumbuddy in a blind and poor played effort for immunity

However, the voting for himself has a soft spot for me in my books because I've known it to be a more towny move.

**ODDin - A towny move may not be pro town, and I understand that

So once again, I extend to Zero my request for an explanation - Why Dej?

I believe it was

suggested

that it had to do with his activity - however, that can apply to almost everyone - - so out of a group to choose from, why choose the guy on his way out?

*Note three people in total were on their way out - - why narrow it further and out of the three, pick Dej?

Once that suspicion is cleared up, I think we can make more of it

[AndyTony]

Hence it would be illogical, would it not? Why would I be so calculated and then do something to draw attention to myself, Mad?

Your points are clear and understandable, however you've forgotten that what I preached was contigient on it being a two way street.

All of the fair, careful, calculated approaches I preached about, go for the whole town and not just in regards to Zero - - the moment he betrayed the sanctity of that with poor logic, ignorant statements, and appeals to emotion, I was left with no choice.

It was a two - way -street.

He didn't co-operate on his end, and why not? Surely he has the memory to, hell we discussed it thoroughly in the game, this is classic "Don't touch the hot plate" scenario - - he touched the hot plate after promising not to, being told we would be otherwise fair, and saying he would play with the very logic and calculation I promised him

He has conducted himself with the very parameters that he described in the people he hated and felt the need to false claim for - - it's hypocritical, illogical, against what I preached, and a slap in the face.

Had I let it slide, Mad - I would have been babysitting him and seemingly buddying up to him.

I've called it as I've seen it, justified 100% of the way my actions, and have only made demands for Zero's answers and logic - - not his emotions.

The logic I preach is a two way street -

[AndyTony]

**In addition to that - I strongly preached not throwing meaningless votes on Zero in an effort to play his emotions to a lynch - - my vote had reasoning and logic behind it, and all actions leading to it, and following the unvote, have been explained.

[AndyTony]

If you believe a word of what you just said, can you finally explain the Dej vote?

[AndyTony]

I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment regarding Ceph's "Note to self"

Perhaps he indeed had special knowledge that I would be alive in days to come - the same knowledge scum would have if he chose to keep me alive until he could later point at me and say "meta!"

That's not as weak as what I feel he did most recently, though.

He asked Zero to claim - - Zero had a bit of pressure against him, he was in the spotlight, he even got a little snappy at us - - asking him to claim was fishing for one of those "meta scum claims" - and that earns:

FoS: Ceph

For asking Zero to claim

[AndyTony]

EBWOP
What's not as weak*

[AndyTony]

I stress again - -

-I think a stronger point was the notion of Ceph asking for a role claim from Zero when things built up -


What are thoughts on that?

[AndyTony]

I don't see how Zero claiming anything would benefit anyone but the Mafia.

That's all I'm raising an eyebrow to, I suppose

[AndyTony]

** Not to say your points are empty, they just don't land on me very well as of yet

[AndyTony]

Post 378

Not only is Zero worthless, it's not like we know for certain that he's town......

I'd like to see a claim at least, personally.

Post 394

Well I didn't mean I wanted him to claim immediately. As in, I'd like to see him run up to L-1 so that he'll have to claim.

This goes hand in hand with that "note to self" business - - You're bringing things up uneccessarily and saying that you only brought them up because they rely on things to happen

later

.

I'm afraid I can't count what you say in the above as anything less than backtracking. You mentioned a claim because you wanted him to claim - simple as that - - and the time you chose, was rushed and could only benefit scum given Zero's meta

I agree with AndyTony, mainly because I have already claimed to be town.

Right, because obviously when I said I wanted you to claim it was because I expected you to claim mafia.

You don't make it easy to trust you when you bounce between wanting something, not wanting something, meaning something seriously, not meaning it seriously - - I cna't see any other way to look at this event other than you were indeed looking for a claim.

Post 396

I said that wrong given the context of you actually claiming scum on occasion. It was sarcastic.

Backtracking again, and on this account, you're saying he claims scum "on occasion" when in reality, you know perfectly well that he claims scum when he's pushed, backed into a wall, facing ignorance, etc. - - it's not something he does "on occasion" for the good of his health.

Post 406

I don't get how this is scummy. Honestly I'd still like to see him run up to a claim.

make up your mind - you can't want a claim and then try to shrug of the responsibility of asking for it - -

-You try to backtrack by saying that you don't want a claim, you want him to be put at L-1 so that he CAN claim
-There is evidence that can be at best used to

suspect

Zero
-That being said, can you please list the evidence you feel warrents putting him a vote away from dying AND wanting him to therein claim his role?

Take responsibility for the things you ask for - you either want the claim, or you don't - - you either want him at L-1 and have to explain why the case is good enough for that - or you don't

But playing both sides of the fence just won't work in the big picture, is all I'm saying

[AndyTony]

Aside from 409 being backtracking again, asking for a claim and wanting someone at L-1 is not the same thing, especially when you know someone has a distinct connection to one of those things that only scum can exploit

[AndyTony]

Zero claiming scum is not a tell honestly, it's just him giving up.

I'm not backtracking, you're just interpreting what I say in a way that allows you to call it backtracking even though I haven't really changed my opinion.

So what were you asking for then??

You stated that you wanted a claim - - Are you saying you wanted him to give a null tell? That if he said he were scum, you would have figured he was town giving up? - - please clarify

[AndyTony]

I concur - and furthermore, how on earth would it help the town? Why ask for a null tell? Isn't that hypocritically the very thing you persecute Zero for?

I don't buy it.

It's very suspicious.

[AndyTony]

Yeah, I'm here

[AndyTony]

Sorry, guys, I had limited access when I came to the site and saw a prod was sent - I quickly posted that I was in the game still but only had a chance to sit and read now.

- - I feel that Ceph's gameplay has been questionable, ansy, and scummy (all in that order).

Questionable ........
He displayed willingness to please the town when it came to being for or against me out of the RVS - - there were grr's and Arg's going my way, and he joined in (yet remindedhimself infront of us to later point out I might be town?) seems like he commited to being for or against me based on majority opinions - - - People pleasing always strikes me as suspicious, and planting reminders like that seems like a attempt to suggest to the town that you're a hard at work towny playing his cards close to his chest

These things were only enough to raise an eyebrow and are interpretive - it's unfair to vote for that, so I remained suspicious.

Ansy............
His defence was very full throttle and was at a level of desparation that I've only seen in L-1 suspects later in the days (I don't mean desperate in a negative way, I mean "heated, more so). It seemed suspicious, like nervous scum REALLY not wanting negative attention so early

Who would, though? - only enough to be a tad more suspicious.

Scummy..........
fishing for the role. No matter how it gets spun, he knew which words to throw out there to coax Zero to claim and it was scummy and manipulative. There is no doubt in my mind that he hoped a claim would come - - the moment he knew the consequences of fishing for it when I brought it up, he got ansy again.

Vote: Ceph

I feel the suspicions are valid, and my opinion on his scum action is more so concrete than something weak and interpretive - - my vote will stay for now.

[AndyTony]

He's the one replacing Dej - - he's not saying he's scum and knows who isn't he's subversively claiming town.

[AndyTony]

See, the difference is, you're

not trying

. You're actively

trying to not try

, actually.

Zero claiming scum is not a tell honestly, it's just him

giving up.

I could try to respond and defend myself and then get lynched, or I could just not put in any effort and still get lynched.

Stop being hypocritical - throwing in the towel doesn't bode well.

And your scum hunting has been this so far:

I think his dejkha vote is frustration at a scumbuddy for quitting.

The scum are Corporation, Replacement, and Zero or some random lurker.

Aldus is still scum by the way.

Dej, Zero, Replacement, Aldus, (me, when it seemed like a favorable idea), and a random lurker who I guess you didn't pick out of the lot as of yet?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ceph is at L-2, I think. In the event he decides to claim another person is scum, or fill the void he set for "some random lurker" - - if everyone else can pop by and give thoughts of the days events as of yet, it would be appreciated.

[AndyTony]

EBWOP - - Dej, Zero, Replacement, Aldus, me, and Corporation* and some random lurkers.

[AndyTony]

I find it hard to tell whether or not he is

fishing

or asking for clarification. At the time that was posted, Ceph was a suspect, so asking for clarification in the sense of "Did you just claim?" (which would aid the suspicion on Ceph) is more so understandable as opposed to "so you're....?".

I feel it would be far too early to pull a stunt like that and a major slip up. We could only really know later (Day 2 later) with more substantial activity and post lynch/nk clarity.

You see, where:

OccamR's post suggests a variable, a 50/50 of "Is he fishing, or is he asking for clarification?"

Ceph has a post where he tries to provoke the very

idea

of claiming to someone who at a time, based on meta, would potentially screw himself over with a scum claim (far more valuable a scum tactic than what OccamR did).

So I would stick with Ceph, "the devil I know" (as in the one with what I feel was a scummier action) and maintain that OccamR's was suspicious. (this is just in my opinion though)

so

Confirm Vote: Ceph
FoS: OccamR

[AndyTony]

I've been in a game where someone confirm voted and I remember thinking it was totally bad ass and made a bold point.

Is it more formal than I think it is?

I only ever use it when I want to make a bold statement of "I feel confident my vote is here to stay at this time"

The wagon is building on Ceph, and someone would have to do something rather extreme to seem more appropriate in the scumhunt

[AndyTony]

MadCrawdad - You'll have to re-word your question for me, mate - not sure what you mean (thanks!)

Sorry if I don't get back too hasty - out and about today

[AndyTony]

@MCD -
You presented me with post 255 did you not?

*****In that post, I expressed the interpretation/impression I was left with. It could have been asking for clarification just as much as it could have been asking about roles - - it's a variable, and the circumstances (because of how early it happened) suggest it would be more than irresponsible and risky - - - it's far too reliant on interpretation.*****

Then there was Ceph's situation.

Circumstance is what made his scenario all the more substantial.

The circumstance was this:

A player with a meta of claiming scum under pressure (whether true or not) had pressure on him.

This is valuable to scum. The ingrediants to this valuable occurance is three things:

1. Pressure
2. Votes
3. Claim

Zero had 1 and 2 on him - - and in that circumstance,

mentioning

a role claim is asking for trouble.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember, it's just my opinion (and asked for, at that)

Is your question leading, or do you just disagree with the opinion?

[AndyTony]

Khamisa -

I agree that your reaction is far more irregular and suspicious than what you are making note of in Zero's actions.

It seems like you're accepting the Ceph lynch as innevitable right now and are hoping to line up Zero as a quick mislynch tomorrow (theoretically).

[AndyTony]

I second that -

You analogy was weak and inconsistent with your point, Khamisa.

The note he left in the open wasn't to remind himself of something someone said - - it was him being obscure about a read on another player (do you think that's something you dangle in front of other players out of the RVS?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Zero? Yeah, at this time I think it would be a mislynch, I personally have a town read off of him at this point. You're free to disagree with me, but if you're intend press a contrary opinion I certainly hope you'll come baring scum evidence to back it up.

He suspected Dej of being scum because he felt Dej opted out of the game unhappy with a scum role - - - - why is it inconsistent for him to be suspicious of the player? Makes no sense to be suspicious of him for that.

[AndyTony]

@MCD

It's exactly that - - This game had been moving rather slow and I hadn't given earlier posts proper attention until you pointed that out to me. I didn't miss the post/not read it and then make an opinion on it like Khamisa, but I certainly had an opinion (with the FOS) when you brought it to my attention parallel to Ceph's situation.

But yeah, in light of both, those are my feelings.

[AndyTony]

If Ceph were (this is hypothetical) calling out for help when he made a comment about not being defended:

Was Khamisa defending him well enough before that or after?

I'll give it a look.

[AndyTony]

Ceph, stating that "Rolefishing is stretching it and we know it" isn't going to erase any opinions.

I think everyone is primarily voting you over the note to self. I know my reason is for the circumstance by which you tried to coax Zero into digging his own grave with a role claim.

Your defenses can't be limited to "It's not that way and you know it", emotional appeals, ignorance, or throwing in the towel.

I'm more than happy to hear anything that will broaden all our scopes on the situation - - I only express wanting them to be more substantial

[AndyTony]

It would be easier to care about a single thing you say when you actually give a damn.

Have you thrown in the towel?

Stop sitting on the fence and commit.

[AndyTony]

Can you elaborate on what information was held in Mini 698? In detail?

[AndyTony]

Hm. As though it's either a scumbuddy answering the calls for help, or a scum trying to secure a towny image as the person that "defended a wrongfully accused towny".

Possible.

[AndyTony]

@Ceph -
They were wrong to lynch you for that - - what you did was a Wiki recognized tactic that attempts to lure scum out to an obviously easy wagon - - it's like a third party "Slayers Gambit" by turning someone into bait.

I feel the two instances (that one and this one) are different.

As you know, my only issue is with mentioning the claim at an extremely sensitive time in the game within circumstances that would have hurt the town.

The "Note to self"? - - I'm gonna make my final statement on that after some thought until this moment and say that: No. It was not scummy.

It's only scummy for you to have held out on an opinion on a player being SCUM.

You held off on stating that you felt someone was TOWN - - that would only be scummy if the person was near lynch which was not the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**I have to agree in general that we should wait for the replacements**

I'm trying to remain active as much as anyone else, but there's a lot we can learn from the people being replaced in, and one of the beauties of this game is that it doesn't press us for time

I'm happy to keep waiting, but my vote stays on Ceph.

[AndyTony]

When did I make that complicated or a mystery?

[AndyTony]

I'm gonna be V/LA a couple of days - -

apologies.

hopefully more replacements will be back.

bye for now

[AndyTony]

At the time of Dej's backing out, the game was in a lull.

That being said, Zero's suspicions were valid, though upon a re-read, I'm curious.

Fine. REASON: I know dejkha wanted out of the game and since he likes being town more. Therefore, I'm assuming he was scum.

I'm unimpressed with Ceph's loose and careless play. However, did I miss something about meta to prove this thought on Dej?

It took a lot of coaxing before Zero told us the above reason - - My re-read was to about page 14/15 and I'm really busy - - can someone fill me in? Have we callled him out on proving his supicion on Dej with meta? Does it exist?

[AndyTony]

Regardless - it's speculation. This is text based.

I think a better road to persue aside from guessing his state of mind when writing is the credibility of his meta claim on Dej. It was irresponsible for me to not persue it myself sooner but I've been tied up

[AndyTony]

I second the request for evidence on the meta

[AndyTony]

Trowing it away, or throwing it anywere?

You CAN choose to not vote until you actually have a thought.

Zero - answer the questions reiterated in post 609, please

[AndyTony]

Woah - some developments on wagons and not a whole lot of evidence.

Are we not waiting for the last of the replacements?
------------------------

Zero - Are you the older of the Waters, or the younger brother?

*That's an okay enough reason by the by - for your basis on suspecting why he left the game - - just make sure future evidence in games are things more substantial that we can work with and always confirm

[AndyTony]

No way - I'm older than my brother by 7

[AndyTony]

I'm finding a Zero lynch to be pretty opportunistic.

[AndyTony]

We can't speculate on the state of Zero's mind - it's unfair to say he's scum, and THEN work the evidence (try to speculate and fit how it could be etc) there's no actual EVIDENCE of such behavior, making statements like Kham's observation rather null.

Ceph and Khamisa are on my list of priorities

[AndyTony]

The Ceph and Khamisa wagons seem most prodominant.

Can we get an officil recp from everyone on the wagons on their views to each case?

I will have access tomorrow and will be sure to post my end!

Cheers

[AndyTony]

Your fear mongering is noted. You need to realize there's more than one strategy for this game. It's theory, not play-it-my-way-or-get-the-fuck-out.

You basically just threatened to lynch me over a theory disagreement.

Slightly hypocritical.

@ All

In regards to Zero's claim: I would be lying if I said I hadn't been comfortable/settled on the notion that he was town before he claimed. I regarded the claim not as informative, but as exclamatory. He had been suggesting as much, and defending as much long before he filtered it down into a claim sentence.

That having been said, I don't think the town was truly hurt by it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Kbub - I think you have a solid idea on a sound vote for Khamisa (while maintaining an understandable suspicion on Ceph). I personally vote toward my direct suspicions, whereas you're leaning toward proxy (the way someone has slipped under radar/

reacted

to the main thread case), which is totally cool!

I think for now, my suspicions will remain on Ceph, but I feel more confident that the Khamisa case isn't hot air.

[AndyTony]

Did I miss something?

Why is sexuality randomly presented?

[AndyTony]

Kise, there are a number of posts outlining why I'm voting Ceph

- - I feel that Ceph's gameplay has been questionable, ansy, and scummy (all in that order).

Questionable ........
He displayed willingness to please the town when it came to being for or against me out of the RVS - - there were grr's and Arg's going my way, and he joined in (yet remindedhimself infront of us to later point out I might be town?) seems like he commited to being for or against me based on majority opinions - - - People pleasing always strikes me as suspicious, and planting reminders like that seems like a attempt to suggest to the town that you're a hard at work towny playing his cards close to his chest

These things were only enough to raise an eyebrow and are interpretive - it's unfair to vote for that, so I remained suspicious.

Ansy............
His defence was very full throttle and was at a level of desparation that I've only seen in L-1 suspects later in the days (I don't mean desperate in a negative way, I mean "heated, more so). It seemed suspicious, like nervous scum REALLY not wanting negative attention so early

Who would, though? - only enough to be a tad more suspicious.

Scummy..........
fishing for the role. No matter how it gets spun, he knew which words to throw out there to coax Zero to claim and it was scummy and manipulative. There is no doubt in my mind that he hoped a claim would come - - the moment he knew the consequences of fishing for it when I brought it up, he got ansy again.

Vote: Ceph

I feel the suspicions are valid, and my opinion on his scum action is more so concrete than something weak and interpretive - - my vote will stay for now.

I find it hard to tell whether or not he is

fishing

or asking for clarification. At the time that was posted, Ceph was a suspect, so asking for clarification in the sense of "Did you just claim?" (which would aid the suspicion on Ceph) is more so understandable as opposed to "so you're....?".

I feel it would be far too early to pull a stunt like that and a major slip up. We could only really know later (Day 2 later) with more substantial activity and post lynch/nk clarity.

You see, where:

OccamR's post suggests a variable, a 50/50 of "Is he fishing, or is he asking for clarification?"

Ceph has a post where he tries to provoke the very

idea

of claiming to someone who at a time, based on meta, would potentially screw himself over with a scum claim (far more valuable a scum tactic than what OccamR did).

So I would stick with Ceph, "the devil I know" (as in the one with what I feel was a scummier action) and maintain that OccamR's was suspicious. (this is just in my opinion though)

so

Confirm Vote: Ceph
FoS: OccamR

@MCD -
You presented me with post 255 did you not?

*****In that post, I expressed the interpretation/impression I was left with. It could have been asking for clarification just as much as it could have been asking about roles - - it's a variable, and the circumstances (because of how early it happened) suggest it would be more than irresponsible and risky - - - it's far too reliant on interpretation.*****

Then there was Ceph's situation.

Circumstance is what made his scenario all the more substantial.

The circumstance was this:

A player with a meta of claiming scum under pressure (whether true or not) had pressure on him.

This is valuable to scum. The ingrediants to this valuable occurance is three things:

1. Pressure
2. Votes
3. Claim

Zero had 1 and 2 on him - - and in that circumstance,

mentioning

a role claim is asking for trouble.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember, it's just my opinion (and asked for, at that)

Is your question leading, or do you just disagree with the opinion?

When you get a chance, try to do a more thorough read through and answer some of the questions you yourself are asking/give opinions. It would be the difference between me seeing you as a new comer trying to contribute and calibrate to us/ and a new coming scum trying to appear town and establish an instructor/leadership role.

Be sure to give a thorough read and ask us anything that needs clarification when you let us know your thoughts on the cases/presented suspicions. Happy to help.

Welcome to the party!

[AndyTony]

Could it be a week?

I think a little fire under our asses will help jump start things a bit better.

[AndyTony]

MCD - - I don't regard it as instructing someone to avoid my scumdar at all, I regard it as keeping them away from a mislynch at my hand. In my last game, there were multiple incidents of people not considering their actions fully, and rightfully striking me as scum - - My weakness on this site is "tunnel vision" and I don't want to risk it in this game.

hohum - - While your comment about time related to being friend or foe to scum and town is sensible, it is still an opinion. At this point in time, my real life schedule is very free and open. In two weeks, I'm going to be pulled in several directions and want to be able to commit to any of the 4 games I'm playing.

In addition to that. This day has gone on far too long and if there were

activity

then yes, I would absolutely agree with you (and I mean that) - - however, more time in a game where people trail off, need replacing, have trouble contributing etc. - - that's

very dangerous

because the extension in time willn ot result in us learning more information, it will result in momentum being lost on any existing leads, and it will result in people making stupid mistakes by

manufacturing

cases instead of DISCOVERING them.

That's my mentality for wanting a week. This day has gone on for quite some time, no? Since May.

So I agree with your statement, however it does not relate to this game. It relates to a game with activity and substantial topics.

In

this

game, more time may result in manufacturing cases, more replacements (leading to more of our time), and ultimately, a mislynch.
----------------------------------

[AndyTony]

@hohum - It seems you understand where I'm coming from but maintain a difference of opinion. I'll opt out of a game when it's neccessary. And I'll decide which of my 4 to drop on my own.

I think there's a plateu ahead. Whether it's a week or three weeks, the topic for discussion is Ceph and Khamisa.

There will be even fewer chances to catch scumtells at this point and it will come down to a deadline lynch or something. It's disappointing to me, if anything.

[AndyTony]

@hohum- You're manufacturing conclusions based on an attempt to judge my state of mind (poorly). I said there would be a plateu, not a stalemate. There will be no rising action or development - - only a group of people, with the same topics at hand. "Zero, Ceph, Khamisa".


I see no new evidence, and the same suspects are being talked about -- find another angle or don't waste my time.



@Lobstermania - you've posted your observations, what does that do for your vote?

[AndyTony]

@hohum.

Once again, I'm seeing you being hypocritical, and aggressive like a little child.

Please refrain from that, people are more than happy to be civil.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you. You're an idiot.

I'm going to sit here and wait for an answer from andytony. Take it for what you will, but I'm not going to remove my vote, and I'm not going to indulge your pestilence any longer.

You seem to indeed, want to lynch him based on policy (seeing as you refuse to post any evidence suggesting he is scum, and are quoted as agreeing your vote is on him based on gameplay...)

He has valid points being raised with you and you are being ignorant to that.

Your reason for this is to wait for me to answer a question.

Your question was whether I have a problem with you asking questions. (I wouldn't throw around the word "idiot" so loosely after that, hohum).

Doesn't seem like an important question, does it? Is it worth ignoring other people?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't respond well to people calling out your poor gameplay. You have a vote on a player and are incapable of providing evidence of them being scum. That's your JOB in this game. Are you having difficulties with that hohum? Are there other games you would be more interested in playing? Twister is all kinds of fun.

Since you can't answer valid questions from other people while you are waiting for an answer from another player - - are you trying to say you are only capable of doing one thing at a time in this game? You can't multi task like the rest of us or hold more than one conversation? Perhaps Twister is a poor choice. Maybe a game with less responsibility will do...

I'll camp my vote where ever I want. That's why.

Why don't YOU answer MINE? It wasn't rhetorical.

So you're camping a vote and are further ignorant.

And it seems one sided.

@All
In your opinion. When a player refuses to answer questions, co-operate, or meet other players on even ground in civility - - and they demand you answer their questions in light of this - - - is that very town?

Hm. A player that demands everyone tends to his every useless question, yet ignores what is substantially asked of him, and gets violent when challeneged.....do you have something to hide hohum? You know who else have things to hide? Scum....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your defensiveness-which-borders-on-narcissism is noted. Keep pushing a case on me. It isn't going to go well for you

when I flip and it's your fault because you got me lynched.

Are you trying to suggest your allignment here?

Do you have a problem with a player defending himself when there is a vote on his life and no evidence to back it up?

lol you're entertaining (not a compliment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're ignorant
You have a vote with no case/evidence
You have more than once displayed a desire to policy lynch
You have tried to suggest allignment
You are aggressive when against the wall and buckle under pressure
You want to waste our time (as you say)

Well. Along with seeming scummy, hohum, you're indeed wasting out time lol

[AndyTony]

And your defense is weak.

My vote is on Ceph right now because I believe he is scum.

My post is an observation on your actions.

Do look up the details on "OMGUS" hohum, I was going to suggest "Scrabble" to you in lue of "Twister" but now it seems your just as irresponsible with letters and words.

@All
Do take note of this

[AndyTony]

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... 1_You_Suck

I believe my conclusion is that your actions are scummy.

Your vote on me, in reaction to an observation on you, is in fact "OMGUSy" as you put it.

I see you're getting more aggressive lol

Easy, Pooh Bear

[AndyTony]

lol So you refusing to answer Alduskel's questions make you scummy as well? lmao

+scum points it is!

I'll add that to your list, which I will happily copy and paste so people can keep it fresh in their minds.

You're ignorant
You have a vote with no case/evidence
You have more than once displayed a desire to policy lynch
You have tried to suggest allignment
You are aggressive when against the wall and buckle under pressure
You want to waste our time (as you say)

You refuse to answer questions

@All
Hohum has done a poor read of this game and has missed where I illustrate my desire to clarify and answer questions (thus making his initial question empty and seemingly rhetorical) - - he seems lost in this line of thought lol

[AndyTony]

You're ignorant
You have a vote with no case/evidence
You have more than once displayed a desire to policy lynch
You have tried to suggest allignment
You are aggressive when against the wall and buckle under pressure
You want to waste our time (as you say)
You refuse to answer questions

Hypocritical

@Hohum-
- Please outline your case and evidence supporting your vote
- Please show what evidence indicates scum

*If the reasons for the vote are based on gut feelings for gameplay, and you are once again falling into utility lynching mode -- I agree - - the town will definately decide lol*

[AndyTony]

Please outline your case and evidence supporting your vote
- Please show what evidence indicates scum [/quote]

You're clearly the one not paying attention. WTF have I been talking about for the last 2 pages now?

• Your desire to push up the deadline, scummy
  
• Your accusations of hypocrisy, and your inability to recognize your own hypocrisy
  
• Your refusal to answer simple questions, no matter how stupid they may seem
  
• Your desire to be out of the spotlight

[/quote]

Ladies and Gentlemen, an example of a hohum case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hohum - I've made obdervations on you, not a case. I've called Ceph scum and he has my vote.

and it looks like you didn't clear thins up for Alduskel after all....

[AndyTony]

I think I've made sound observations. I don't find it useless "arguing"

[AndyTony]

MCD - - I don't regard it as instructing someone to avoid my scumdar at all, I regard it as keeping them away from a mislynch at my hand. In my last game, there were multiple incidents of people not considering their actions fully, and rightfully striking me as scum - - My weakness on this site is "tunnel vision" and I don't want to risk it in this game.

So then obviously you would consider Kise scummy if he were to conduct a crappy review of the game, right?

ANY scumtell can lead to a mislynch. Personally, thought, I'd still prefer that players throw those tells, and then let me sort through the information myself. Mislynches are bad, but scumtells can be good.

Telling someone 'Hey, don't do that, or I may think you're scummy...' is kind of an odd way to go about catching scum, isn't it?


Additionally, I'm still comfortable with my vote on Ceph...

In his case, he was a new-comer establishing himself. From experience, there is pressure to make an impression/make up for lost time (so to speak) and I have seen first hand, that lead to empty "scumtells".

I simply value scumtells in the form of consistent gameplay rather than anxious introductions - - tried to put out a fire before it started (I have a tunnelling issue).

I too am still comfortable with my Ceph vote.

[AndyTony]

I'm not a fan of lynches on policy, hohum - that mentality can still be harmful to the town.

[AndyTony]

Sounds reasonable.

the cases have been considered and discussed and Ceph has been given fair time (too much time in his opinion).

[AndyTony]

Ceph's innocence doesn't dictate Khamisa's guilt.

Let's see what the re-read shows for Ceph's run. Relationships and any red flags

[AndyTony]

I can only stress that Ceph's innocencence doesn't condemn Khamisa in any way.

There was enough suspicion and reasoning to merit his lynch, and his throwing in the towel didn't help.

I can't fully agree with "Active lurking" as a solid reason to lynch someone.

There has been a LOT of activity issues on this board that I myself regard it as a null tell. There has yet to be a pressing issue or heated wave of intellectual scumhunting for anyone TO actively lurk with, you know?

[AndyTony]

EBWOP - third line

In this game* - - can't see it being a solid reason in this game

[AndyTony]

I'd like to hear from MadCrawDad - - he often has something useful to say, I don't think he's had a single post that's failed to provoke thought.

I would very much like to contribute more at this time but I've been moving into a new house these last few days (for school). Have a couple of concerts to hit up as well. I will hopefully be able to give this my full attention before the week is out

[AndyTony]

MCD -

The restating of my case was to keep it fresh in mind.
I repeated that having a case based on the note to self was poor/weaker choice (and it wasn't out of the blue - in between where you quoted me, people were talking as well, and suggested they felt the Ceph case was the note to self.

If you found it odd, why say nothing then? Why save it for the next day when it's way after, and people are looking for a new suspect?

Inconsistent? There have been different circumstances when waiting was more appropriate, and other times when it was best to get moving/active.

I always explained my reasoning/it was suggested in the topics discussed around each quote.

Why not point things like that out when they happen? Cricumstances changed as often as my statements to wait/get active? It surely happened ealier than the top of the new day

I'm 100% for diplomacy and civility. It is, however, a two way street. hohum's rationalization, attitude, and gameplay is potentially harmful to this town. He was being ignorant, and I acknowledged that.

Me "jumping on Zero" first?

This is something irrelevent for today unless you've forgotten that you not only asked it already when it happened, but I explained that I did NOT show malice of "jump down his throat" - my actions were explained.

[AndyTony]

MCD

You admit you intentionally held off on mentioning any concerns until after Ceph's allignment was revealed to all of us.

Is there a reason you wanted to wait opportunistically? Did you have information the rest of us did not, that made you know for certain he was innocent? (otherwise, all your points would have been useless had he flipped scum, no?)

I am always confident in my choices. There is always room for doubt, and often different ways to regard every circumstance.

My confidence in my case was just and reasonable. If there was indeed a better case than Ceph's, or a more reasonable/stronger one - can you please enlighten us as to what that case was?

And my position on theory within gameplay hasn't changed at all during this game. You once again poke at the "quickvote" on Zero.

Please do another re-read where I more than once explain my vote on him, and illustrate the logic behind it - - - I'll not do your job for you

Misrepresenting that old and null scenario once after being told about it's nature is one thing, but needing clarification three times is unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fos - MCD

I'm truly taken aback and disappointed. I had been genuinely looking forward to your input, only to see it unfold as seemingly scummy, opportunistic implications.

1. It seems scummy to have held back issues to be brought up, and questions to be asked until AFTER Ceph flipped. All of your points would have been worthless had he been scum - - - this suggests you had special knowledge of his allingment at the time you decided to withold content, queries, etc. Scum would have known for certain he was innocent, no?

2. It seems rather opportunistic to be defending Ceph the day after his lynch. Why did this defense not come sooner? Would it have made today's offense weaker for you?

3. I find the whole event rather opportunistic on your part. I was confident in my vote, I was clear on my reasons, and I've maintained a willingness to explain my actions upon request. In other words, I haven't made it hard for people to know where I'm coming from/what I'm doing.

[AndyTony]

I think your approach was a little more than "hm", MCD - but I understand the frustration of establishing a new day's lead.

As far as an approach is concerned:

I'd like to re-examine the people who contributed nothing to the wagon except a vote. The people who hid under the safety of just agreeing with the active player's.

I'd like to take a closer look at people who had my confidence, with no process. I want to see who hunted a lynch and not scum.

And I would also like to hear from everyone else.

That's how my D2 would go.

[AndyTony]

I think it's a tad narrow minded.

Even MCD hasn't called it a case or voted (meaning there's no case to agree with, and there's no vote on me to be OMGUS).

All of his points on me were questions (that were delayed, and in a scummy way no less) - - and all the questions are easily answered.

I've done nothing scummy.

@Alduskkel
- Can you explain what evidence you see suggesting I am scummy?
- MCD described his query as a "hmm". Not a case and no vote. Are you trying to seem like you're following a wagon when in reality you are attempting to start it?

[AndyTony]

Hey then carry on with this all you want - however, I've seen no evidence of scum on me - only three questions that I've answered.

I was confident in my case (there were no stronger ones existing)
I didn't want my case to be for a weak reason like the "note to self" - that was ultimately not something I found scummy and I made it clear
And my game mentality hasn't changed - You've more than once misrepresented the Zero event - - I was more than fair to him, and any attention he got from me was

logical

and explained.

[AndyTony]

1. There is

no

OMGUS. OMGUS is person A votes person B, to which person B responds with an assault on the other person wiht

no other means or evidence other than the retaliation to being voted

. - I've had no OMGUS actions, and made nothing but

valid

poins in my observations toward hohum.

2. I explained why I wanted a sooner deadline. There were inquiries about it, and I explained myself fully.

Four topics are being questioned toward me:

1.Me voting Zero and seeming hypocritical in my gameplay mentality
2. "OMGUS" (the weakest of them all - really, now...)
3.Wanting the deadline shorter
4. My Ceph case.


MCD
- The guy ALREADY ASKED me about the Zero event. And I fully explained myself more than once. Why bring it up again? Here is what I immediately responded to when he asked the

first

time.

I see where it can look a little one sided to you, but that's just the thing - - I gave Zero plenty of open mindedness and opportunity, and I feel like his carelessness and hypocrisy is almost a slap in the face for trying to be understanding, you know?

The moment he got hypocritical and redundant, any form of understanding or open mindedness offered would be nothing short of favortism and a bias based on meta.

His vote on Dej (including the weak reasoning), his impatient, hypocritical logic toward "just wanting a lynch already", and his dare of "Here's my bad logic, what are you going to do about it" puts me RIGHT off.

Understanding and open mindedness is a

two way street

, otherwise I'm giving an unfair bias and buddy nature that shouldn't be there.

I saw Zero demonstrate hypocrisy, narrow mindedness, and a hunt for a lynch over scum - - that merits my vote

MCD - Surely this response didn't slip your mind. Did it?

Or did you bring it up again because you were running on such little steam for having issues against me...
-------------------------
And my case on Ceph?

I've outlined it multiple times and expressed why certain evidence was more concrete than others IMO

Kise, there are a number of posts outlining why I'm voting Ceph

- - I feel that Ceph's gameplay has been questionable, ansy, and scummy (all in that order).

Questionable ........
He displayed willingness to please the town when it came to being for or against me out of the RVS - - there were grr's and Arg's going my way, and he joined in (yet remindedhimself infront of us to later point out I might be town?) seems like he commited to being for or against me based on majority opinions - - - People pleasing always strikes me as suspicious, and planting reminders like that seems like a attempt to suggest to the town that you're a hard at work towny playing his cards close to his chest

These things were only enough to raise an eyebrow and are interpretive - it's unfair to vote for that, so I remained suspicious.

Ansy............
His defence was very full throttle and was at a level of desparation that I've only seen in L-1 suspects later in the days (I don't mean desperate in a negative way, I mean "heated, more so). It seemed suspicious, like nervous scum REALLY not wanting negative attention so early

Who would, though? - only enough to be a tad more suspicious.

Scummy..........
fishing for the role. No matter how it gets spun, he knew which words to throw out there to coax Zero to claim and it was scummy and manipulative. There is no doubt in my mind that he hoped a claim would come - - the moment he knew the consequences of fishing for it when I brought it up, he got ansy again.

Vote: Ceph

I feel the suspicions are valid, and my opinion on his scum action is more so concrete than something weak and interpretive - - my vote will stay for now.

I find it hard to tell whether or not he is

fishing

or asking for clarification. At the time that was posted, Ceph was a suspect, so asking for clarification in the sense of "Did you just claim?" (which would aid the suspicion on Ceph) is more so understandable as opposed to "so you're....?".

I feel it would be far too early to pull a stunt like that and a major slip up. We could only really know later (Day 2 later) with more substantial activity and post lynch/nk clarity.

You see, where:

OccamR's post suggests a variable, a 50/50 of "Is he fishing, or is he asking for clarification?"

Ceph has a post where he tries to provoke the very

idea

of claiming to someone who at a time, based on meta, would potentially screw himself over with a scum claim (far more valuable a scum tactic than what OccamR did).

So I would stick with Ceph, "the devil I know" (as in the one with what I feel was a scummier action) and maintain that OccamR's was suspicious. (this is just in my opinion though)

so

Confirm Vote: Ceph
FoS: OccamR

@MCD -
You presented me with post 255 did you not?

*****In that post, I expressed the interpretation/impression I was left with. It could have been asking for clarification just as much as it could have been asking about roles - - it's a variable, and the circumstances (because of how early it happened) suggest it would be more than irresponsible and risky - - - it's far too reliant on interpretation.*****

Then there was Ceph's situation.

Circumstance is what made his scenario all the more substantial.

The circumstance was this:

A player with a meta of claiming scum under pressure (whether true or not) had pressure on him.

This is valuable to scum. The ingrediants to this valuable occurance is three things:

1. Pressure
2. Votes
3. Claim

Zero had 1 and 2 on him - - and in that circumstance,

mentioning

a role claim is asking for trouble.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember, it's just my opinion (and asked for, at that)

Is your question leading, or do you just disagree with the opinion?

When you get a chance, try to do a more thorough read through and answer some of the questions you yourself are asking/give opinions. It would be the difference between me seeing you as a new comer trying to contribute and calibrate to us/ and a new coming scum trying to appear town and establish an instructor/leadership role.

Be sure to give a thorough read and ask us anything that needs clarification when you let us know your thoughts on the cases/presented suspicions. Happy to help.

Welcome to the party!

The above post didn't jog your thoughts to ask any of the things you've asked me today?

I was a guy with a sound case. I answered what was asked of me - -

It seems like you're manufacturing a case rather than truly investigating.
-------------------------------------------------

So with MCD raising pretty weak suspicions against me,

And with hohum already hot headed in my direction, hungry for someone to make anything resembling a case - - Alduskkel figures three is a charm?

After I posted my Ceph case - - It was his turn to share why HE was voting Ceph.

Pretty much what AndyTony said.

Alduskkel had been a nodding head for a good chunk of the day.

Even when I commented on the deadline

Could it be a week?

I think a little fire under our asses will help jump start things a bit better.

His response wasn't that I was scummy (why would it be, he'd have to lead and not follow) - - his response was

What benefit do you see in the day going

three weeks

more?

Also, happy scumday!

----------------------------------

And then I was asked to explain it - and I did - AS USUAL.

MCD - - I don't regard it as instructing someone to avoid my scumdar at all, I regard it as keeping them away from a mislynch at my hand. In my last game, there were multiple incidents of people not considering their actions fully, and rightfully striking me as scum - - My weakness on this site is "tunnel vision" and I don't want to risk it in this game.

hohum - - While your comment about time related to being friend or foe to scum and town is sensible, it is still an opinion. At this point in time, my real life schedule is very free and open. In two weeks, I'm going to be pulled in several directions and want to be able to commit to any of the 4 games I'm playing.

In addition to that. This day has gone on far too long and if there were

activity

then yes, I would absolutely agree with you (and I mean that) - - however, more time in a game where people trail off, need replacing, have trouble contributing etc. - - that's

very dangerous

because the extension in time willn ot result in us learning more information, it will result in momentum being lost on any existing leads, and it will result in people making stupid mistakes by

manufacturing

cases instead of DISCOVERING them.

That's my mentality for wanting a week. This day has gone on for quite some time, no? Since May.

So I agree with your statement, however it does not relate to this game. It relates to a game with activity and substantial topics.

In

this

game, more time may result in manufacturing cases, more replacements (leading to more of our time), and ultimately, a mislynch.
----------------------------------

The Zero issue? empty and bogus. asked to me AGAIN today by the person I answered to on the matter ALL READY. Why bring it up again?

My Ceph case? I outlined it multiple times, I've displayed a willingness to explain my actions and play fair - - why accuse point a finger at my case only a day later?

The deadline? - Explained that one too. Other people felt the same whether their own reasons or sharing mine. Why is it only scumy today?

Because you need it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Go ahead and keep your weak case on me. It's telling me all I need to know about you.

MCD having empty pockets when it comes to pulling scum evidence on me - -
hohum (who more than once admits he'll lynch on policy) is hungry to lynch me for anything already (so you've got one follower easy), and
Alduskkel ( a nodding head last day for the player most active and vocal on what to him is the most promising wagon - and now since MCD and hohum are the only people building on this weak wagon on me - - he's nodding for MCD now - - agreeing with points he hypocritically shared views with me on, and having issues with things that never crossed his mind earlier)

GREAT case.

Guys. I told you. The game goes to hell when cases are manufactured.

If I do something SCUMMY, that makes sense. But this is lynch hunting, not scumhunting.

Fos : Alduskkel

Hohum

- is hungry for a lynch and was gearing for me before any case was cooked up (I still haven't seen an outlined case/evidence....wow) and he's a policy lyncher, aggressive, and has waves of ignorance - - that could be his playstyle and not necessarily scumminess

MCD

- Played a clean day (then again, in a day with troublesome activity) and could very well be eager for a solid case so's not to repeat the frustration and tedious day we just have - could be scum, I'm not convinced

Alduskkel

- - Follower. Nodding head and very agreeable with me previous day (including my Ceph case, and attitude toward a three week deadline) and magically has issues with these thigns the next day? I think not - - I suspect he's scum, nodding his head with the leader of the most promising case of the day.

And this case? Not promising. Pretty disappointing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, outlining my line of thought and fully explaining my actions. So, Alduskkel - if you need me to repost a clear suspicion toward you with direct questions, let me know and I'll do so.

Otherwise, I hope the above isn't to hard to read through - - Do give the quotations the attention they deserve - and if there's anything anyone wants to clear up - be my guest.

[AndyTony]

hohum - I haven't even seen a case formally laid out in a clear way with evidence. I've seen one person (MCD) ask me questions I've answered already - - and two people try to lynch me for it! lol

And your behavior is to rush a lynch on me as soon as possible. Is this

your

attempt to confuse the town into rushing a mislynch? How is your urgency any different than what you accused me of when I wanted a shorter deadline, hypocrite?
---------------

Alduskkel - Follower tendencies in gameplay along with people pleasing and making official actions like voting without thinking for yourself in addition to your behavior is a scumtell - - it's a tad less elementary than the way you put it. Also, "changing your mind"? - - - do try a better defense for

hypocrisy

(the actual term)
---------------

[AndyTony]

Then enlighten me - -
What's the case and what are my crimes?
What evidence is there?
Can you explain your comment about the deadline after my own comment, and how you only today regard it scummy?

[AndyTony]

Changed your mind on me over night?

When you and your buddies talked about me?

If it was over night, AND MCD's comments - please - what were your over night thoughts (if you truly aren't a follower)

[AndyTony]

Did you actually have your own thoughts?

Were they magically and coincidentally the SAME as MCD's?? :O

If so - what took you so long to pipe up?

See why I'm a little suspicious?

[AndyTony]

What's the case and what are my crimes?

-OMGUS (you seem to suspect anyone who comes even remotely close to attacking you)
-What MCD said about you constantly reminding us that your case on Cephrir is the best case.
-Trying to shorten the deadline.

1.

- OMGUS - - please show me being voted, and retaliating to that person with NO logic, quotation, or valid suspision, or stop using the phrase all together. Are you suggesting I'm interrogating, and challenging people for NO reason, or do you truly ignore my posts?

When it is for NO reason other than THEIR act against me, and I DON'T spell out for you all WHY I suspect people - then say OMGUS - - - -

So try again.

2.

Saying my case on Ceph was strong is a reason you're voting me? - -
are you aware you were on that wagon?
are you aware that when I outined it in that massive post, you responded with "What AT said"?

That's a MENTAL reason to be voting me - I'm truly disappointed

3.

Trying to shorten the deadline?
You didn't want three weeks either!
Did you also miss the mass post where I explain my mentality on shortening it and why it would be inaccurate to label it scummy?

That post is there - - maybe you missed it when you were "Reviewing the thread"
---------------------------------

So you've reviewed the thread.

1. Omgus (

False

. I've given

valid reasons and explanations

for my suspicions at all times)

2. My Ceph case (

False

.

You supported it, was on the wagon, and even "What AT said" when I mass posted about the case

. You supported it and was on the same page, hypocrite - - - and please, enlighten me - - even though you're now against it, and were on the wagon,

WAS there a stronger case?

)

3. Deadline shorter? (

False

. if you really did "Review the thread" - you would have seen my

explanation and fair mentality

(somewhere after you were also on the same page about not wanting a longer day. Re-read it and see how I felt more time could

also benefit not only scum, but misguided townies

looking to end the tedious day with ANY lynch - - that's irresponsible to me)

Really a hell of a case Alduskkel.


------------------------------------------

And for everyone's benefit.

OMGUS :

A

: Vote: "B", you were very scummy for these three points (

1,2,3,

)

B

: Vote "A" - - Oh my God, you suck! You're going down, scum.

Not OMGUS (what I'm doing):

A

: I suspect/Vote: "B".

B

: Well you yourself don't look any better in light of these three poins (listed)

I'm not even VOTING!

All my suspicions and queries are SUPPORTED and not out of thin air.

[AndyTony]

MCD -

In your quotations on OMGUS, in your large post, you'll notice the first time it's even

mentioned

that I don't flat out call it such.

I introduce it into the conversation, first, as

"Dangerously close to OMGUS "I suspect you for suspecting me" are you serious?"

The entire event was a discussion of behavior and

not evidence for a case

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@MCD
- Please show me where I Fos/Vote someone for "OMGUS"
- Can you elaborate on what your

point

is? I'm having trouble seeing what was accomplished by going that far back and having nothing to show for it. Were you leading somewhere?
- Post 892 proves that my personal definition (in relation to the wiki) of OMGUS holds true. I was not voted or voting.

That being said.

Do you

really

care about this topic, or are you scratching at the bottom of the barrel? Because after a fruitless large post like that about justice to OMGUS, what are your thoughts on Alduskkel and hohum (the few people who tried to use it in a case as evidence).
-------------------------

@Khamisa - I was the one that mentioned Ceph relationships. Him being town tells us something potentially, anyhow. Find the people who tunnelled and wanted him dead without evidence, find the people he got along with the least, suspected, etc. (that's in general - I'm not sure how well it will apply to this particular game, but I thought it would be worth a try)

[AndyTony]

MCD & Alduskkel

- My definition is OMGUS, different or not, corresponds with my actions, and my opinion on all of your uses and accusations of it.

*****I have had

reasoning

behind voicing suspicions to other people. I have NOT said someone is suspicious because they find ME suspicious (omgus).********


@MCD - I will find time to answer your questions regarding clarification with Pitstop - - you're asking me what put me off about her?

I will find time to answer tomorrow night or later - - but I do not want to find out this is yet another thing you're having me repeat. I'm sure I've already explained this once before.

[AndyTony]

You just said

you want to consider me scum

for innocently questioning you

. That's

dangerously close to omgus

- -

"I suspect you for thinking I'm suspicious" - are you serious?

..............

I'm very unsettled at your [/u]omgus reaction to an innocent question[/u]

- I made no statements that you were a liar, I asked for someone's opinion.

MCD - -

In the very post in quesiton, I indeed answer the question you're asking me, so either you didn't see it (unlikely), you're playing a game (scummy), or you're wasting our time.

We all know what omgus behavior is - - I've displayed none of it.

I've been accused by hohum and Alduskkel of genuine acts of omgus - - I've displayed none of that either (with no votes)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing I have done is omgus.

It can only be omgus if I say I suspect someone simply because they suspect me.

I've done nothing of the sort. I've asked valid questions and have supported all suspicions.

Anything further is reaching, fruitless, and what I find desperate and suspicious in trying to continue to say I've exercise omgus behavior/acts.

Try again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the meantime, have we really no other leads, or has the attempt to use me as a distraction been successful? (unless of course there's finally evidence on me, and not empty suspicions, invalid accusations of omgus, and suspicious fingers pointed at me by followers).

My week is freeing up more and more every day. With calculation, intellect, and unbias/objective regard (that one has been void today) - - I'll have more to offer than this sad excuse for a case on me.

*And to answer the other question - - absolutely. I did value MCD's opinion. Until he and others degraded the sanctity of what I thought was an understanding about hunting scum vs. manufacturin cases. I'm truly disappointed, I was excited when I thought we were all on the same page.

At this point, it's a desperate attempt to make me fit the bill, and try to look at things in whichever scope one can to TRY and see me as scummy.

Scum evidence sticks a lot better than thin manufactured accusations.

Manufacturing cases like this only lead to mislynches. Hunting and tangable discoveries are more valuable. *

[AndyTony]

Since you're apparently not getting the gist of the question, let's try it this way...

MCD

Nice tone...

And your question? Take another look at it.

You claim that you didn't really accuse Pitstop of OMGUS,

and that in your interaction you were

just discussing his behavior and not really building a case

, right? So when you said this to Pitstop, below,

what made you so

very unsettled

?

For something that you say you didn't really consider an OMGUS, and were just discussing, it apparently left you a little shaken. Why?

I'm very unsettled

at your omgus

reaction

to an innocent question

- I made no statements that you were a liar, I asked for someone's opinion.

1. I did not build a case on Pitstop.
2. Having no vote on him. Having no case on her. I also NEVER stated she had exercised "OMGUS"
3. I had a disussion about her being dangerously close to omgus behavior.

I not only introduced it in that post as not omgus, but omgus behavior - - I also continue to call it such throughout the game (check post 179 for instance)

I only mentioned it because it was worth conversation - - I typed such at the bottom of my post - - and though

Pitstop says the

omgus attitude

is actually a build up, I can only hope it gets pointed elsewhere next time around, because I'm usually apt to respecting someone's schedule!! lol

You asked why I was unsettled
I had already stated why I was unsettled
You suggest I had a case on Pitstop?
I had not such case on Pitstop.

My definition of omgus hasn't changed. I know what omgus is, and make it very clear that I have done no such thing. hohum and alduskkel had wanted to connect me to it.

I have also in this game, early, with pitstop, made mention of omgus behavior - - I haven't been accused of that either.

In fact, nothing I've done has been omgus. I've had a reason applied to all of my suspicions.

Can you explaine why in light of that, you're still obsessed with that topic?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ MCD

There seems to be a lot of tunnelling coming my way from you, with very little evidence. Can you explain that?

Tunnelling is "case manufacturing"'s best friend.

[AndyTony]

Suspects:

Alduskkel

- For his hypocritical behavior and subsequent lurking after being called out (could be him building other leads/availability!)
- His attitude, when regarded objectively from D1 and D2, seems to suggest he buddies to the strongest player of the day/case leader (so to speak). Almost like PR for whichever case seems most promising, no matter what the case is.

Anyone willing to flip flop on their convictions to better fit or apply suspicions on a player isn't scumhunting, they are changing themselves/trying to manufacture/better fit to a case and lynch. That isn't hunting scum, it's trying to get someone lynched and I find that scum behavior.

Always room to hear someone out though. His activity hasn't been what it was since steam was lost on the offense toward me and I'd like to see what he comes back with. Could be something really interesting, could be nothing. It only earns my suspicion at best with the benefit of the doubt till he gets back.

Hohum

- Hohum has constantly expressed aggression and a willingness to lynch with a "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude. He is all for policy lynching, and will allow personal grudges to be the foundation for suspicions that he will harbor with statements of "lynch! until someone builds a case for him (to which he will

opportunistically

join in on)

I would also like to see what happens with his activity since the earlier day railroading my way didn't pan out (for obvious reasons - - do we still like actual evidence? lol)

I still want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but

regardless

, his attitude and gameplay will hurt this town* it should be something we're cognizant of, but not condemn him for.

MCD

-D1 he seemed to always make efforts to be present and logical, today, he seems to have flip flopped to

illogical

.

There's a lot of tunnelling my way. I think it will take more than just me to tell him though, for him to believe it.

I mean really. I have no problem ever explaining why I do anything. People who conduct OMGUS do what they do ONLY because of other people.

I have reasons connected to gameplay, attitude, and fair objective reasoning. C'est la vie if that makes someone scum or town, but I can promise that same fairness to everyone in the game.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That being said. If someone taps me on the shoulder in the street, I turn around and look at them.

When I look at them, I see them.

Yes, these are three people who geared at me with an empty case, but OMGUS (in my curret analogy) would be me turning around and tapping them on

their

shoulder because they tapped me lol

Which is not the case. I've been tapped, I've turned, and I've said what I saw within the rules of the game.

It's very unfair and cheap to lessen or belittle what I feel are valuable opinion and things I took time to observe on people in that way - - - They're my observations and I try to be fair
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THAT being said.

I'm still cognizant of those with very little activity and therein "case following". However it would be unfair for me to condemn on just that in any way. There's been a lot of replacing, and a lot of headache in activity on this game.

Which is why on the dynamic flipside of this scale, what I find more interesting are those desperate for a lynch the same way scum would be....the people who try to work things around and try hard to see someone as scum to get that easy lynch.

Like MCD tunnelling me.

[AndyTony]

@ MCD -

- Do expalin your tunnelling (please)

- And to refresh this in our midns so I better know where you're coming from:

Can you list once again any evidence or valid suspicions on me from you?

[AndyTony]

Not OMGUS, no.

And not coincidence. Alduskkel, for the last time, I've just finished making this clear. I am not suspecting you becuase you suspect me. That is omgus.

I've made a full post outlining why I suspect you. To keep calling it omgus is cheap and only shows me a lack of explanation and defense on your part.

You see something you like and "go with it" ?

I'm saying that you "go with it" even if it means being a hypocrite. That's my point. You "went with things" in a hypocritical way. Why?

And can you elaborate on what you "liked" about anything MCD said? Or is that an empty statement?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**And no. There is no pressure on me. There would have to be valid points and evidence for their to be pressure on me.**

You know the slayer's gambit? Where someone sets themselves up to be an easy target and thus fishes out scum because they tunnel and flock to them?

I'm not doing that, but the same result is happening. The idea is that you can catch scum flocking and slipping on their way to what they see as an easy/convenient lynch. I feel your actions have seemed that way thus far.

I'm online right now for a bit and you just posted - - answer the questions above please - I'll be around as well

[AndyTony]

That's a very blunt and ignorant approach to answering me. You're better than that.

That's a silly question. Of course you should support good cases.

I'm saying that in order for you to support MCD's case? You had to be a hypocrite, switch your convictions, and buddy to the leader.

I'm asking you why you had to do that? Is a lynch that much more important than finding scum?

[AndyTony]

What did you agree with?
Still?
Why?
Why did you have to "change your mind" on topics in ORDER to believe them? (that's hypocritical, that's my point)

These should be easy to answer, Al....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And better said (than lurking) is a definate lack of steam.

It's like you have less to say when MCD isn't saying it for you.

[AndyTony]

Al, this shouldn't be hard, help clear this up:

List what you agreed with
Why did you agree with it?
Do you understand why this is hypocrisy and not simply "mind changing"? You conveniently changed your mind on things you supported in posts yourself the moment MCD made mention

Be specific.
-----------------------------------------------

How so?

Well. If you agree with "everything" (that you seem incapable of listing).

Where is your investigation? Have you no questions for me? lol

Do you have ANYTHING to ask? Anyone ELSE to ask? Anything unanswered, anything influencing your vote, anything I've said etc.

I mean it like I said it.

You have less to say when it's not being said for you.

Please answer the questions

[AndyTony]

If you're going to sit there and only post when you have something to "change your mind on" (hypocrite) or "agree with" (buddy buddy/follower)

then yeah, I'll think you're scum.

[AndyTony]

That's the answer you your lurk question - I feel there's less steam or anything for you to say when it's not being done for you (better said) which yes - - I did answer.
-------------------------------------------------

Take too long?

Is that your final response?
------------------------------------------------

You're not against the clock, are you? deadline is the 27th lol

[AndyTony]

Al, what do you mean anything else? You've decided NOT to answer me because it will "take too long".

[AndyTony]

******
To finalize. Better said than lurking - I feel you have less to say, and no steam or drive to investigate or do anything when you are not agreeing with people (buddy buddy) or changing your mind (hypocritical, as we've now come to the same understanding).
******

Vote: Aldukkel
Fos:MCD

Whether you only realized it was hypocritical because "it needed to be pointed out to you" as you say or not, I feel that voting you is the best choice right now.

I'm happy to hear you out, I'm happy to better undertand. That's the fairness that should be given in the game, but surely you can see my hands being tied when you won't even make the effort (too much time??).

When you HAVE the time, please clear up what you can.

I feel the vote on you will inspire you to TAKE the time you feel isn't here to participate, think for yourself, and defend these scumtells. I want you to know I'm serious about this Al.

I hope you hustle. I am feeling more confident that MCD is scum for his tunnelling. though, you could be his partner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Hypocrisy
-Buddying
-Anti-town ignorance

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please do more than point and go "what he said".

*You've been asked to in detail/point form list what you agreed with (and ideally what you had to bring to the table) in the "case" against me.*

Please list what you agreed with. Why. And whether you still agree.

I don't think you truly know what's going on lol - - I'm sorry if that comes across as a slur, it's not, but I feel there are no points or evidence on me, and your inability to list them and simply point to the leader that's investigating me only proves it further.

It seems scummy you would agree with thins you can't name.

[AndyTony]

I have some business out and about right now - I'll be online later on to hear you out.

Please take the time explaining and I can promise to take the time trying to understad, okay? But as of yet, this is NOT the way to go about it, Al, it looks too scummy and I'm trying to be open minded

[AndyTony]

@Kbub -
I appreciate that my efforts to be clear aren't falling on deaf ears. It

seems

like the only thing MCD is refusing to see reason on is the OMGUS issue.

I have encountered:

1. omgus behavior (with Pitstop briefly. I didn't vote or FoS her for it, I made note of it)

2. OMGUS (the act of omgus - which I've defined more than once and have been wrongfully accused of)

MCD seems to be confusing them with eachother and calling it a discrepency.

---
I introduced the Pitstop "omgus behavior" as just that.

I later referred to it as "omgus behavior".

When MCD asked about it, I also called it "omgus behavior".
---

He seems to be picking at it with a fine tooth comb because I didn't constantly refer to it as such back there.

Had I known he was intending to tunnel me, I would have been on my toes on page 5 where most of it happened (yes. sarcasm).
-------------------------

***There is no discrepency. My definition of OMGUS remains the same, and yes, I have encountered omgus behavior! They are two different things***
============================================

@ Kise - - I have no way to answer that. Whether someone flips town/scum, it ALWAYS changes things no matter what - - in fact, it should never NOT change something for me, you know? However one being guilty will not dictate that the other one is. It would be irresponsible to say that, we could risk mislynching the other person of the two.

@ MCD - - Is anything left unclear on this omgus business for you? Because until I see that list of evidence or tangable queries I think you're wasting a lot of time.

** You know, if you stop tunnelling me with no evidence, I'm sure we'll move along swimmingly **

I think you're hurting the town by distracting them with such a tiny and silly thing as my definition for "omgus behavior" and "OMGUS".
=============================================

Why is Khamisa V/LA?

[AndyTony]

@MCD - To answer your question

My vote is on Al because he hasn't been thinking for himself and is following a case he doesn't believe, gets emotional and angry about having to MENTION, and has nothing to say when you're not saying it. Scum LOVE when other people do the work FOR them.

He's following the lynch - - he is doing NO scumhunting and was ignorant when I asked him to simply list his reasons.

I try to be as understanding and reasonable as I can because people respond to things ore sensibly and honestly when you're not umping at their throats or making them feel stupid. That approach, my approach, is what saves misguided townies from looking like scum when they feel pressed against a wall.

That being said - if someone still comes across as scum even WITHOUT being abused, belittled, or pressured? That's quality.

He's priority out of my two top suspicions.

[AndyTony]

Plus, he has a vote on me and you don't.

The man believes in your "case" with more passion than you, and he didn't make it, conduct it, or persue it? lol yeah right.

[AndyTony]

While that's a sound theory, it's also a risky one on her part.

Zero hadn't seemed the most scummy, and it would have been dangerous to continue pushing the lynch of (lack of better phrase) the "easy target" at the time. She could have painted herself as scummy.

hm. Unless it was an attempt to seem active ENOUGH. That way you're under the radar but not making waves.

Not too shabby.

[AndyTony]

My vote is on Al because he hasn't been thinking for himself

Wrong.

To elaborate on what I call "thinking for yourself"

-Having more to go off of than "Whatever he said" *points*
-Doing scumhunting of your own and not having little/nothing to say when MCD isn't doing it for you
-Being incapable of making a list (just like this one) as to why you suspect me to be scum.

and is following a case he doesn't believe

Wrong.

So you believe in the case, but can't tell me what the case IS? lol

gets emotional and angry

Wrong.

You early asked where I got that you were ignorant from.

Please read your own post where you feel a form of communicating is NOT telling me what your case is, what the points are, and responding to me with multiple "wrong. wrong. wrong"

Yeah. You're in a real cheery mood lol

about having to MENTION, and has nothing to say when you're not saying it.

Wrong.

Apologies.

When MCD isn't doing all the work for Al, he is able to say things.

One thing. "Wrong". lol (and "what he said")

He's following the lynch - - he is doing NO scumhunting and was ignorant when I asked him to simply list his reasons.

Wrong. (Seeing a pattern here?) I HAVE listed them. Check post 60 in an isolation read of me.

Okee Dokee....

you made a typo on the post number so I checked 960, 860, 760

I see no list.

Plus, he has a vote on me and you don't.

Excuse me? You're voting me over MCD partly because I'm voting for you and he isn't? That sounds like OMGUS behavior (happy now?).

SCUMMY MISREPRESENTATION

Al - - If we go back and quote fully where you got that text, will it be me telling MCD why I think you have more invested in the "case" than he does, or will it be a reason I voted you?

You've INTENTIONALLY taken that statement and lied.

You've misrepresented me on purpose to make a statement sound like a listed reason I'm voting you. That's scummy.

You even quoted the context in which I said it below!!! lmao

The man believes in your "case" with more passion than you, and he didn't make it, conduct it, or persue it?

I did not make it, but I do pursue it. I don't know how you conduct a case though, what's that supposed to mean?

You didn't build it, and you have NOT persued it. You haven't investigated a single point.

You haven't LISTED a single point since I've asked for them
You haven't INVESTIGATED a single point (becasue they seem to not exist)

hohum: RESPOND TO 843!

That said I have an absolutely horrible habit of tunneling and I'm going to skim through a game and try and second guess myself as much as possible.

If you think

I'm backing off because it's attracting suspicion, fine, I don't care, and I'm fully expecting to get a lot of flak (especially from AT) for flip flopping or wishy washiness

or what have you.

Not going to unvote yet though.

So.

Al,
You refused to give me a quick point list form of the points on me (I wanted to address them all. Only fair, right?)

Your reason for not giving me the points on a "case" for me was....if memory serves...."it would take too much time".

Don't you feel all your posting since then has been hypocritical? Taking so much

time

to have a head to head with me over something as innocent as me wanting to address any points/reasons you're voting me?

You said there was no time (to do something I find reasonable), yet there was time for all this. Hypocritical.

You have decided to flip your attention elsewhere yet won't take a vote off of me?

I'd ask you to explain, but I don't think you have the time.
===============================================
@Al
**
Only Scum vote for people and have NO reasons.
All Townies deserve an opportunity to explain, clarify, and defend.
I am entitled to see a point form/list of all points and evidence against me so that I can address them.

If there is no list - there is no case. Not complicated.
==============================================

@Kise -
Read the game and then give an opinion. This is a text based game.

@Alduskkel -
I was more than fair and reasonable with you, even in my voting post. All I want is to address poins and EVIDENCE on me.

If you have none - that is an issue.

And you cannot just willy nilly say "I already listed them" because you must understand that since you listed MCD's points, I've had discussions and have addressed/clarified things - -

So at THIS TIME - what are your reasons, what is your evidence, what indescrepencies are there, what would you like to investigate with me, where is the list?

These should be easy to answer if you're not scum, Al - - shouldn't people know why they're voting someone?

And THAT is another reason I repeat my cases and let people know where I'm coming from

*thoroughly unimpressed with your manipulation up above with that scummy misleading - -- that was NOT a reason I was voting you, I was telling MCD that it was sad that you had more passion invested in HIS case.
===============================================

MOD

Was there a specific reason for Khamisa to be gone this long? Something msg'd to you?

[AndyTony]

Alright - - well in post 894, she seems to acknowledge V/LA being unfair if too often and states she'll be gone until this Friday - - I can reserve judgement until then - she could be back.

[AndyTony]

@ Alduskkel -

I don't know why you're fighting something fair and simple.

A lot of discussion has occured this day, and between myself and MCD.

In light of this, I would like to know what your present case is - what the points are, what the evdience is, what isn't clear for you.

I'm asking for a list please, so I may fairly clear things up. Surely you'd like to be fair.

I'm assuming that your frantic pointing, and fuss making is an attempt to buy time. I don't think you have a case, sir!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ MCD
Can you please post the numbers of the posts you put together.

I would like to read how they flow, what happened in between, etc. - - that way I can have a better scope on the event and give more concise and clear responses.

In the meantime - your questions (listed. *cough* Al)

1. If it actually were a role that Ceph were talking about, why would you want to know? He probably wouldn't be claiming Scum or VT.
2. Obviously, in hindsight, you thought OccamR's post was possibly scummy. What about your response?
3. How is your interest in Ceph's role different than his in Zero's?

1. My first impression, without having the post numbers and knowing the full context - - is that it was D1.
Someone suggesting that they have special knowledge on D1 as a result of a power role is suspicious and nothing but scummy (seeing as it would take one night for them to gain intel as a pro town power role). Hence, I would want to "know" as in I would want concrete clarification that it was NOT the situation we were dealing with.

Which is what it proved to be. The "note to self" was in my eyes, a null tell and I believe that sentiment was shared by more than just myself.

That being said - - the event with Ceph/Zero was seemingly a scum tactic (you can refer to my take on the event in the very post you quoted).
=======================================
2. I'll need the post numbers, as well as a quote where I say Occamr is probably scummy - - I'm not flat out telling you you're putting words in my mouth, but I remember finding the event "interesting" and worth observing etc. - - - it was worth my attention, hence he earned an FoS.
=======================================
3. I didn't have an interest in Ceph's role. I had an interest in whether he was trying to suggest he HAD a role. It would have been a very foolish scumplay for D1 and I wanted clarification.

Once again, had I known you'd tunnel me, I would have worded it better to save you from more fruitless inference.
========================================

I'll need those post numbers as well as the quote where I say Occamr is scum! Just to be sure you're not putting words in my mouth/lying/manipulating!

After all, a lot of that was said over a span of multiple posts where circumstances change

Cheers! Hope that helped!
......................................................................................................

One last thing!

Occamr had that one time occurance that raised an eyebrow, to which I said

I find it hard to tell whether or not he is

fishing

or asking for clarification.

At the time that was posted, Ceph was a suspect, so asking for clarification in the sense of "Did you just claim?" (which would aid the suspicion on Ceph) is more so understandable as opposed to "so you're....?".

I feel it would be far too early to pull a stunt like that and a major slip up. We could only really know later (Day 2 later) with more substantial activity and post lynch/nk clarity.

You see, where:

OccamR's post suggests a variable, a 50/50 of "Is he fishing, or is he asking for clarification?"

Ceph has a post where he tries to provoke the very

idea

of claiming to someone who at a time, based on meta, would potentially screw himself over with a scum claim (far more valuable a scum tactic than what OccamR did).

So

I would stick with Ceph

, "the devil I know" (as in the one with what I feel was a scummier action)

and maintain that OccamR's was

suspicious.

(this is just in my opinion though)

so

Confirm Vote: Ceph
FoS: OccamR

============
Ceph looked scummier to me, and more concerned about role fishing (IMO) because of this

Post 378

Not only is Zero worthless, it's not like we know for certain that he's town......

I'd like to see a claim at least, personally.

Post 394

Well I didn't mean I wanted him to claim immediately. As in,

I'd like to see him run up to L-1

so that he'll have to claim.

This goes hand in hand with that "note to self" business - - You're bringing things up uneccessarily and saying that you only brought them up because they rely on things to happen

later

.

I'm afraid I can't count what you say in the above as anything less than backtracking. You mentioned a claim because you wanted him to claim - simple as that - - and the time you chose, was rushed and could only benefit scum given Zero's meta

I agree with AndyTony, mainly because I have already claimed to be town.

Right, because obviously when

I said I wanted you to claim

it was because I expected you to claim mafia.

You don't make it easy to trust you when you bounce between wanting something, not wanting something, meaning something seriously, not meaning it seriously - - I cna't see any other way to look at this event other than you were indeed looking for a claim.

Post 396

I said that wrong

given the context of you actually claiming scum on occasion.

It was sarcastic.

Backtracking again, and on this account, you're saying he claims scum "on occasion" when in reality, you know perfectly well that he claims scum when he's pushed, backed into a wall, facing ignorance, etc. - - it's not something he does "on occasion" for the good of his health.

Post 406

I don't get how this is scummy.

Honestly I'd still like to see him run up to a claim.

make up your mind - you can't want a claim and then try to shrug of the responsibility of asking for it - -

-You try to backtrack by saying that you don't want a claim, you want him to be put at L-1 so that he CAN claim
-There is evidence that can be at best used to

suspect

Zero
-That being said, can you please list the evidence you feel warrents putting him a vote away from dying AND wanting him to therein claim his role?

Take responsibility for the things you ask for - you either want the claim, or you don't - - you either want him at L-1 and have to explain why the case is good enough for that - or you don't

But playing both sides of the fence just won't work in the big picture, is all I'm saying

Yeah. I felt Ceph was a more concrete choice (hopefully MCD and the other voters as well! lol) - - and had more issues with "claim" talk and provoking than Occamr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Don't forget that quote and those post numbers MCD!

[AndyTony]

I FoS'd him for the very reason I stated when I did so, MCD - - if it doesn't suit you, I apologize! - - The minimum requirement for an FoS from me is if the person is of interest (something is unclear, suspicious, questionable, not fully understood)

So do you admit you put words in my mouth when you made the comment that I thought he was possibly scummy? Or was it an accident in the wording? - - I'm sensitive to the fact that not everything is worded so carefully in case someone tunnels you!

================================
Also, all those posts went from

255, 266 - - jumped over two hundred posts to - - 470, 471 before ending in the five hundreds.

A lot happens in between there, MCD - unless you feel those were hundreds of unimportant posts. I think you've found another dead end here.
================================

And in your final question (wasn't the easiest to read, but I hope this helps)

- - I wanted the clarification. Not the knowledge of his role.

Ceph ultimately did clarify that, leaving it a one time occurance for Occamr. I felt Ceph palyed with fire too many times when it came to claiming and provocation to Zero (hence the vote).
================================

Hope that clears it up!

Did your re-read from the beginning of this game get comprimised from tunnelling me, or did you find anything else out in another direction?

@MCD -
A list of evidence and points please

@Alduskkel -
A list of evidence and points please

Assuming you would both like to be fair, and also assuming there IS a case here, I'd like the courtesy of addressing these points and pieces of evidence (if they exist)

I'd like to continue being forward, open, and clear!

[AndyTony]

@MCD - I say I'm tunneling because even after kham acknowledged the fact that she missed Zer0 saying he was brothers with dejkha, I still have a hunch about her.

@pablito - I don't expect to die soon or anything. But I've considered that it could have happened during N1 so I waited until D2 to determine whether it was worth reading the entire thread.. and I still am pretty unmotivated to go back and read page-for-page. I'm doing selective reading at the moment. (the Cephir case)

1. Can you better explain the tunnelling, and more so - this "hunch"? Was there something suspicious in specific that occured in the post you mentioned (where Kham said she didn't catch that Zero and Dej were brothers)? - - was something missed

2. Why did you feel you were a probable N1 target?

[AndyTony]

@ Al

-887 is a previous post. I get that. But whether you're repeating yourself or not, I would like to see a list of evidence and points that you have on me AT PRESENT.

That way I can address them fairly.

I'll address them right now

[AndyTony]

881*

[AndyTony]

Let's go with AndyTony

My laziness is preventing me. I still haven't through all his defenses.

eh.

vote: AndyTony

Can you elaborate on your vote?

It seems careless and out of nowhere.

There is no case on me, no evidence, and no unanswered questions.

What I do have, is:

A high profile player tunnelling me with empty pockets (MCD)
A follower who like you, has no points or case, and has nothing to investigate on me (Alduskkel)
And a player that's hungry for a lynch with or without fair treatment/evidence (hohum)

This situation is most opportune for scum - - can you please explain what you have to offer here with that vote?

It seems outlandish and irresponsible for the town's sake for you to drop in, shrug off investigating, make note of your laziness, and "meh" - throw a vote on someone without investigating or having evidence
===================================================

****This is pretty odd. When did voting someone with no case NOT mean they were scum?****
====================================================

@MCD -
Your case points
Your queries
Your evidence against me

@Alduskkel
Your case points
Your queries
Your evidence against me

@Hohum
Your case points
Your queries
Your evidence against me

@Pablito
Your case points
Your queries
Your evidence against me
=====================================================
All points that MCD brought up have been addressed (ahem - Alduskkel....hence I want to know what is PRESENTLY unclear for you).

It is only

fair

that I am able to address what I am accused of and clarify any queries. Otherwise, what the heck are we doing here? A wagon of suspicion my way with nothing to investigate, no evidence, and no points?

....How is this injustice not a problem with the rest of the town?

[AndyTony]

***I stress again - - - A voter is SCUMMY to vote someone with NO case***

I've been nothing but willing to play the game with everyone and answer/ask questions - - this constant denial and refusal to list the case and points clearly only proves me right

[AndyTony]

Back that statement up, hohum.

What's unanswered?

[AndyTony]

ugh. you're a waste of my time, hohum.

@All -
I've said my piece. I've answered all that's been asked. I've made all the requests I can for fair treatment and process.

Do what you will. Ignore my requests, whatever you want.

Fishing tomorrow. I'll try to poke by in the late evening.

Night.

[AndyTony]

Just got in from fishing (two bass, one pike and an almost Muskie on a hot day - true luck.) I have dinner with the lady's parents where I will be scumhunted at the table (insert laughtrack) - -

I should be able to have a tangable post later tonight to respond to the day's activity - I had a rushed skim read of it and:

1. Thank you MCD for the list - I will address it fully
2. hohum and pablito seem ignorant and antitown with their regard for lynching me because I "make his head hurt" (pablito) and hohum because I don't answer questions (all the while, he admits being ignorant and refuses to answer questions until I am lynched.....for not answering questions, what? What? that makes my head hurt.....hey! does that mean I can vote him?! lol)

I'll be back!

[AndyTony]

As requested, AT. Reasons for suspicion:

-Continuous claim that you had the most concrete case on Ceph. Could be a possible preemptive defense for when Ceph flipped town.

Yes, if you're tunnelling me and trying to look at things in any way you can to make me scum.

But if you check my meta, repetition is my game, I repeat everything over and over, including my cases.

And I've said this once, I'll say it again - - - There was no better case than the Ceph case. If there was, please let us know. Otherwise, I shouldn't be prosecuted for repetition (especially in a game where the day's activity was often lacking/involving replacing people and needing to fill people in)

-Post 728 - Instruct Kise how to conduct his review of the game to avoid appearing scummy to you. Regardless of the fact that you're preemptively afraid of tunneling Kise, letting him throw any tells would seem like a better scum hunting strategy to me than telling him not to.

One pattern everyone will once again see with you is that you are taking old news and trying to make it new, nonstop.

That is to say:
Every issue you have, every questionable event you recall - - - I've explained it all fully, I've been asked (oddly enough by you) already about these things D1.

Why would you accept my answers then? Why wait until D2 to decide to ask me several thins

again

in an attempt to make them fresh and new and seem like unanswered issues?

The "instructing Kise" comment of yours? The one you asked me about and I clarified ALREADY on D1? - - - that's your opinion. The fact is, I didn't want to get caught up in tunnelling someone for something as petty as "new addition trying to compensate for lost time" syndrome.

Multiple inconsistencies:

Post 256 - You expressed an interest in knowing Ceph's role.

You are either lying, or are trying to manipulate.

MCD - did I not once again address that very concern? Did I not make it clear I did not want to know his identity?

Is your gameplan to tunnel me, ask me D1 questions again, and again, and again until you get the answer you WANT? Because you won't get it, you will only get accuracy and honesty.

Post 457 - You vote for Ceph for wanting to know Zero's role.

Misrepresenting again, MCD.

You should be careful.

I primarily voted Ceph for trying to use a player's meta to provoke him and lead to an unfair wagon/lynch.

Post 140 - Mention that due to Zero's meta, folks should be careful about applying pressure willy-nilly. Calculation--Intelligence--Prosperity for town.
Post 144 - Claim that there are other ways to catch scum than just by applying pressure.

Post 337 - You immediately cast a vote for Zero three minutes after he votes for Dejkha without reason. Note that you don't ask any questions first, just fire off your vote and then proceed to ask questions.

Once again. There was an entire conversation about this topic. There were questions asked (by you) about this. All on D1.

If this truly struck you as evidence, why did you not vote me D1? It seems opportunistic and cheap of you.

You are asking ALL OF YOUR D1 QUESTIONS. - - the majority of your "case" are things you asked, and settled on D1 - - this makes no sense - where are you coming from and why are you tunnelling?

I have a full explanation as to why I voted Zero. the fairness and positive mentality I advocated is reliant on it being a two way street of respect. If it is not - - we risk giving handicaps and bias' to people - - Zero voted Dej the moment he was out of this game - - it was illogical and read as scum - it would have been narrow minded for me to baby him and continue preaching "fairness and intellect" when he demonstrated none

That was the full and understandable answer you got yesterday.

You clearly are desperate for a new answer along with a case, MCD

Post 528 - Agree that we should wait for replacements before proceeding with lynch. Also claim that the beauty of the game is that it doesn't press us for time. You then go on to mention that you're happy to keep waiting.

Post 734 - You request a shorter deadline to 'jump start' things.

Were you hoping nobody would read and notice that I said this from "500" series posts, and finally in the "700" series posts? lmao

Things changed MCD - - there's a gap between those posts where I felt the time had begun to hurt us.

post 528 - sweet, lets wait a bit and see what happens.

post 700 - okay, we've waited, and people will start making shit up and hurting the town

Once again - - D1

Why not vote me then? A lot of your "evidence" didn't require Ceph to flip scum/town - - all of your "evidence" and "inconsistencies" (which were answered, and satisfied you last day) were from D1. They did NOT NEED CEPH TO FLIP

which begs the question - AGAIN - because I like to repeat - - why are you tunnelling, and why are you repeating D1 topics that you settled on already? You're not only repeating them, you're doing it with ignorance to the fact that YOU were the once that asked about them to BEGIN with!

Post 179 - You claim to be an advocate of diplomacy
Post 773 - You ask hohum to stop being hypocritical and aggressive toward Alduskkel. Also claim that 'people are more than happy to be civil.'

Post 773 - You begin referring to hohum as 'ignorant' (and continue in following posts). Not very diplomatic or civil.

Ignorance isn't some racial slur nor is it demeaning. When someone ADMITS they refuse to answer a question or be reasonable - they are being ignorant.

I'm passionate about waht I advocate, MCD - but I'm not going to see rainbows 24/7 - - I call it as it is, and he was being ignorant
===============================================

MCD
ALL - and I mean ALL of your evidence regarding "inconsistencies" were answered, often asked by you, and settled with you on D1. I answered, you accepted it and didn't persue anything.

NONE of that D1 "evidence" relied in ANY way to Ceph flipping town/scum (meaning there was nothing stopping you from investigating it further, FoSing me, Voting me, etc)

Yet you settled. You asked, I explained, and all of my explanations are perfectly understandable and reasonable. What isn't easy to understand, is why you chose to repeat all the old news on D2. Why you choose to tunnel me. Why you did not put these points into action yesterday.

Surely you can see why I find you suspicious?

Is that all you have?

**sigh** Let me know.

Make a new list with what isn't clear NOW.

And do try to be honest - - because the majority of your points were cleared up on D1 and you made it seem like it would stay that way (I guess you didn't need a D2 mislynch then, since Ceph was lined up? hm.)

You seem opportunistic, disorganized, irrational, illogical (in the revival of clarified material from D1 that you CHOSE TO IGNORE until today unneccessarily?)
==============================================

@Town
What are your thoughts on MCD tunnelling me with such weak points, that he already addressed, had me answer, and LEFT ALONE on D1?

Why choose to ignore it all then and not today (when he began to tunnel me suspiciously)

[AndyTony]

@ ALL
I think if you read the post where Khamisa announces the V/LA - she says something to the effect of "mon-fri" - - I may have misread, but I got the impression she would be back at the end of the week

@ Kise
No, there have been no "bold faced lies". I've been forward and clear.
D1 - MCD asked me questions and had me clarify what I was doing and why (something I've ben very forward about). I clarified and answered, and he settled. It is today that he has chosen to lump them together and ask them again.

What's everyones thought on my closing town directed question in post 1010? I'd like to hear input.

@MCD
Your theory on pairing me with Dej is based on him knowing my alt which was never a well kept "secret". He was playing a game with my alt at the time - - where if you check my meta you'll find that he was modkilled and broke all ties with me.
He made intentionally hurtful remarks about my mentally handicapped brother and his lifestyle and I will never play a game with him again (I held that mentality near the end of his time in this game - I'm not sure if that's why he opted out, though)
Long story short - you were right to wonder if he knew my alt based on history. That's the extent of it.

And my relationship at present with Alduskkel doesn't add up to that either.
=======================

@Kise -
Since MCD is obsessed on inconsistencies (or just me, as it would seem)

What IS your position on utility lynching? You seem to on this page call hohum out on it (understandable) - - yet later make the statement (in regard to possible scum pairing) that if one of the two persons are guilty, the other is. It's a bit hypocritical.

Also - - it's a little early to be speculating partnerships, there's hardly a case suggesting even one person is truly scum.
=====================================================

[AndyTony]

MCD

Here is a recap of your "evidence" being cleared up on D1 when you talked in depth (already) the first time, and did not call it scummy or suspicious

The Zero Vote

@AT

AT, earlier you spent lots of time explaining that due to Zero's past play you wanted folks to 'be careful about applying the pressure willy nilly.' Also went on to say that Calculation and Intelligence would lead to Prosperity for the town. You also talk in another post about using other methods for catching scum, as applying pressure to Zero could lead to a scum claim....

I felt that right after I expressed the distinction between hunting scum and hunting lynches - - hohum understood that we now have a person (zero) that will crack under pressure whether he's scum or not - -

hohum actually states that if zero gets emotional, he will lynch him for it - - - we don't lynch for people being emotional (because townies can be so as well) we lynch for being scum - -

My observation is to stress that we should be careful about applying the pressure willy nilly. Hohum is aggressive, which in all fairness is just as emotional as Zero.

Calculation - - Intelligence - - Prosperity for town

It can totally happen

Understandable - - We know that pushing this particular player will make them do something nonsensible (since it's happened as both scum and town) hence I'm pointing out that there are otherways to discover scumtells.

Scumtells can be in general actions, and yes, they can slip under pressure -- scum indeed slip under pressure - - however, this player tends to false claim under pressure - -

So we ask ourselves, do we want to approach him for a false claim, or a scumtell - - and we now know how best to get it. Scum will use his emotions against him for a potential mislynch, no? - - I'm suggesting we appreciate there are otherways to catch scum (part of that new thinking I was trying to spread - that I mentioned earlier) - world of possibilities, guys.

So what the heck is with the quick knee-jerk pressure vote? Where's the calculation and intelligence that you rambled on about earlier? You're the one preaching being crafty (vs. getting tough) with Zero, and then you're the 1st one diving on with a pressure vote after he votes Dejkha.

You spent a lot of time talking about Zero and how you thought he should be approached. Then you seem to pounce with a pressure vote. Kind of a disconnect, isn't it?

Vote: Zero

What are you playing at? Did you not read?

Stop trying to confuse the game - - and considering we're past random and in a lull, I would suggest having more reasoning behind your voting.

Your first response to me voting him. You ask the same questions, made the same comments, had the same issues.

Here's my first response:

I see where it can look a little one sided to you, but that's just the thing - -

I gave Zero plenty of open mindedness and opportunity, and I feel like his

carelessness and hypocrisy

is almost

a slap in the face for trying to be understanding

, you know?

The moment he got

hypocritical

and

redundant

, any form of

understanding or open mindedness offered would be nothing short of

favortism and a bias

based on meta.

His vote on Dej (including the weak reasoning), his impatient, hypocritical logic toward "just wanting a lynch already", and his dare of "Here's my bad logic, what are you going to do about it" puts me RIGHT off.

Understanding and open mindedness is a

two way street

, otherwise I'm giving an unfair bias and buddy nature that shouldn't be there.

I saw Zero demonstrate hypocrisy, narrow mindedness, and a hunt for a lynch over scum - - that merits my vote

Pretty direct, straight forward, and understandable. Nobody else had a problem with it, and even you yourself responded with:

Fine

. But your 1st pressure vote came BEFORE 'his impatient hypocritical logic toward just wanting a lynch already, and his dare of bad logic...'

And your first vote HAD to be a pressure vote, or you wouldn't have confirmed your vote afterward, right?

You accept it as not being scummy, suspicious, worth a vote or an FoS - - however, you try to reason how my own motivation came BEFORE he did any of these the things I said.

You were incorrect - - and as always, I clarified, and respectfully addressed the concerns:

Nay - -

My vote is for his vote on Dej - - completely

illogical.

He even stated in an early post that multiple people were "quiet and keeping to themselves" - -

Why vote someone who's switching out?

**It's

at that time I felt the illogical vote was hypocritical

**I also strongly agree with Ceph's point on the possibility that

it could be a case of "My scumpartner is leaving - I should vote him and hope he goes down so I can get immunity"

------------

The confirm vote is for the "There's my illogical vote - do what you want" and the idea of "let's lynch already" instead of "let's get scum already"

- - and the singling out of Dej for not posting when he hypocritically stated an acknowledgement that MULTIPLE people were doing it and not just Dej.
------------


But yeah. That's my line of thought lol

It indeed was NOT before

What exactly have I dont wrong that isn't fair or justified? It's pretty straight forward

What have you done wrong that isn't fair or justified? You spent a lot of time going on about Zero's history, mentioning how he needs to be approached differently, not pressured, etc. Remember? 'Calculation---Intelligence--Prosperity for Town.'

Then the minute he does something 'illogical,' as you put it, you're the first one on with a vote. WTH? Seriously. What do you expect of this guy? He claims scum when pressured, regardless of affiliation. Do you think that's just a little oddity in his gameplay, and that other than that, he'd be a solid, logical player?

The fact that he's apparently claimed scum so frequently tells me a couple of things: 1) His play often gets him into trouble 2) He can't argue his way out of a paper bag 3) He doesn't give a crap whether his team wins or loses.... Not a real solid player there, at least not yet, anyway.

Now obviously Zero can't get a free ride

because he might crack at any minute. Seeing that you were the one preaching 'Everyone be careful around Zero,' though, it seems more than just a little odd that you'd be the first one on him (and on him so quickly) for his illogical dejkha vote...

Anyone else hopping on wouldn't have raised as much suspicion, but you did exactly what you were telling others not to do.

You practically ignore everything I took time to tell you! I filled you in on my reasoning, logic, motivation, feelings, and you seem be either re-introducing (still D1) the same concerns......or you could just be telling me where you were coming from and why it raised an eyebrow

Either way, we were beating it into the ground, but I STILL gave you the courtesy and attention any player deserved. I addressed that you felt unsettled and explained again and clearer/further.

Hence it would be illogical, would it not? Why would I be so calculated and then do something to draw attention to myself, Mad?

Your points are clear and understandable,

however you've forgotten that what I preached was contigient on it being a two way street.

All of the

fair, careful, calculated approaches I preached about, go for the whole town and not just in regards to Zero

- - the moment

he betrayed the sanctity of that with poor logic, ignorant statements, and appeals to emotion

,

I was left with no choice.

It was a two - way -street.

He didn't co-operate on his end, and why not? Surely he has the memory to, hell we discussed it thoroughly in the game, this is classic "Don't touch the hot plate" scenario - - he touched the hot plate after promising not to, being told we would be otherwise fair, and saying he would play with the very logic and calculation I promised him

He has conducted himself with the very parameters that he described in the people he hated and felt the need to false claim for - - it's

hypocritical, illogical, against what I preached, and a slap in the face.

Had I let it slide, Mad - I would have been babysitting him and seemingly buddying up to him.

I've called it as I've seen it, justified 100% of the way my actions, and have only made demands for Zero's answers and logic - - not his emotions.

The logic I preach is a two way street

-

**In addition to that -

I strongly preached not throwing meaningless votes on Zero in an effort to play his emotions to a lynch

- - my vote had

reasoning and logic behind it, and all actions leading to it, and following the unvote, have been

explained.

After that. After explaining, and being openg as possible - - - you settled.

Your very next post was directed toward the Ceph case.

You dropped all interest in this issue.

1. Did you forget that we talked about it so in depth?
2. That point of interest did not rely on Ceph flipping anything. Why would you settle?

The "Role Fishing"

You beat this one into the ground on D1 as well.
Opened with:

Scummy..........
fishing for the role. No matter how it gets spun, he knew which words to throw out there to coax Zero to claim and it was scummy and manipulative. There is no doubt in my mind that he hoped a claim would come - - the moment he knew the consequences of fishing for it when I brought it up, he got ansy again.

Vote: Ceph

I feel the suspicions are valid, and my opinion on his scum action is more so concrete than something weak and interpretive - - my vote will stay for now.

AT, what are your thoughts on OccamR's apparent role fishing from earlier on Day 1 (post 255) below?

It's the same thing. When I talk about it, you'll see why I didn't want to, I promise. I'd like to give a hint or something but then it would probably be obvious. If everyone really insists I'll do it now. It's not as big of a deal as it appears to be, but I'd still rather save it.

Are you talking about a role ability you have?

To which I reply

I find it hard to tell whether or not he is

fishing

or asking for clarification. At the time that was posted, Ceph was a suspect, so asking for clarification in the sense of "Did you just claim?" (which would aid the suspicion on Ceph) is more so understandable as opposed to "so you're....?".

I feel it would be far too early to pull a stunt like that and a major slip up. We could only really know later (Day 2 later) with more substantial activity and post lynch/nk clarity.

You see, where:

OccamR's post suggests a variable, a 50/50 of "Is he fishing, or is he asking for clarification?"

Ceph has a post where he tries to provoke the very

idea

of claiming to someone who at a time, based on meta, would potentially screw himself over with a scum claim (far more valuable a scum tactic than what OccamR did).

So I would stick with Ceph, "the devil I know" (as in the one with what I feel was a scummier action) and maintain that OccamR's was suspicious. (this is just in my opinion though)

so

Confirm Vote: Ceph
FoS: OccamR

Et Vous...

Okay. Which of Ceph's posts do you think OccamR could have been asking for clarification on when he asked about Ceph's role? Also, which post of Ceph's do you think someone could have misinterpreted as a role claim?

I gave more full explanations and open mindedness

@MCD -
You presented me with post 255 did you not?

*****In that post, I expressed the interpretation/impression I was left with. It could have been asking for clarification just as much as it could have been asking about roles - - it's a variable, and the circumstances (because of how early it happened) suggest it would be more than irresponsible and risky - - - it's far too reliant on interpretation.*****

Then there was Ceph's situation.

Circumstance is what made his scenario all the more substantial.

The circumstance was this:

A player with a meta of claiming scum under pressure (whether true or not) had pressure on him.

This is valuable to scum. The ingrediants to this valuable occurance is three things:

1. Pressure
2. Votes
3. Claim

Zero had 1 and 2 on him - - and in that circumstance,

mentioning

a role claim is asking for trouble.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember, it's just my opinion (and asked for, at that)

Is your question leading, or do you just disagree with the opinion?

I express why it hadn't raised a flag for me more so than Ceph.

I agree that Ceph is a better vote than OccamR.

On a few occasions, though, you've pointed out that, in your opinion, you made the 'best' case on Ceph based on possible role-fishing. If that's the case, I'm trying to figure out how OccamR's possible role-fishing made it past you without a word...especially as you've decided to FoS him, since I've brought it to your attention.

You agree and then ask why it didn't catch my attention (which was simple to answer)

@MCD

It's exactly that - - This game had been moving rather slow and I hadn't given earlier posts proper attention until you pointed that out to me. I didn't miss the post/not read it and then make an opinion on it like Khamisa, but I certainly had an opinion (with the FOS) when you brought it to my attention parallel to Ceph's situation.

But yeah, in light of both, those are my feelings.

After that - you dropped it.
You didn't fos me, vote me, or persue questioning. You played on and interacted with the rest of the town without any more issues with it

.

1. Did you forget that we talked about it so in depth?
2. That point of interest did not rely on Ceph flipping anything. Why would you settle?

The OMGUS "contradiction"

Page 7

I'm also looking at you as scum due to Post 166 where you actually considered me lying about being busy and lazy and lurking.

Personally, I think that would be an absolutely pathetic scum tactic to attempt, and considering it is even funnier.

I offered some food for thought to change the subject we were on - -

You just said you want to consider me scum for innocently questioning you. That's dangerously close to omgus - - "I suspect you for thinking I'm suspicious" - are you serious?

Also - sharing my thoughts and observations can lead to others helping to contribute and point things out and help me past mental blocks - it's teamwork and a safer method than "forget sharing thoughts and ideas, lets toss a vote and see if it sticks"

I'm very unsettled at your omgus reaction to an innocent question - I made no statements that you were a liar, I asked for someone's opinion.

I explain and later repeat my opinion of "omgus behavior" (which even so, I do not vote or FoS someone for)

Almost at the end of D1

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... 1_You_Suck

I believe my conclusion is that your actions are scummy.

Your vote on me, in reaction to an observation on you, is in fact "OMGUSy" as you put it.

I see you're getting more aggressive lol

Easy, Pooh Bear

Hohum and I go at it and I explain my OMGUS opinion. It was still D1 and you said nothing about it - - your posts to follow didn't even mention it. You didn't fos me, vote me, or persue questioning. You played on and interacted with the rest of the town without any issues with it

1. Did you forget that it existed there already?
2. That point of interest did not rely on Ceph flipping anything. Why would you not mention it?

"Instructing Kise"

MCD - - I don't regard it as instructing someone to avoid my scumdar at all, I regard it as keeping them away from a mislynch at my hand. In my last game, there were multiple incidents of people not considering their actions fully, and rightfully striking me as scum - - My weakness on this site is "tunnel vision" and I don't want to risk it in this game.

So then obviously you would consider Kise scummy if he were to conduct a crappy review of the game, right?

ANY scumtell can lead to a mislynch. Personally, thought, I'd still prefer that players throw those tells, and then let me sort through the information myself. Mislynches are bad, but scumtells can be good.

Telling someone 'Hey, don't do that, or I may think you're scummy...' is kind of an odd way to go about catching scum, isn't it?


Additionally, I'm still comfortable with my vote on Ceph...

In his case, he was a new-comer establishing himself. From experience, there is pressure to make an impression/make up for lost time (so to speak) and I have seen first hand, that lead to empty "scumtells".

I simply value scumtells in the form of consistent gameplay rather than anxious introductions - - tried to put out a fire before it started (I have a tunnelling issue).

I too am still comfortable with my Ceph vote.

This is D1 as well and I more than once explained it.

You dropped it as well. You didn't FoS me or vote me.

1. Did you forget that we talked about it?
2. That point of interest did not rely on Ceph flipping anything. Why would you settle?

===============================================

Are you noticing a pattern yet?
It's all old news, it's all things you made a decision on and chose not to persue - - why? In a game where we persue scum, and you choose not to persue something, is that not acknowledging that you won't find scum (and in turn, saying it's not evidence?)

You passed on all these points, you asked, I answered, you dropped it. They didn't even rely on Ceph flipping which means there is no good reason for you to hush up about it until today.

###############################################

MY POINT

All of your "evidence" and "issues" were talked IN DEPTH and existed on D1.

You passed them off as null tells after (considering you settled, and didn't ask furhter, FoS, Vote, or even make a simple statement)

Which means bringing them up again is illogical.

It means you did not:

SEE EVIDENCE - INVESTIGATE - FIND SCUM

It means you:

DECIDED I WAS YOUR TARGET - READ THE THREAD FOR WHAT YOU COULD USE.

And tragically, you can't use any of it, can you? You already investigated it and found dead ends and my forwardness and honesty.

Thus - - You sir are hunting for a lynch. Not scum

Scum hunt for lynches.

Why did you settle D1? Because the Ceph wagon, the wagon you were on, was promising enough? You figured you'd save it for D2 when you'd need a new target?

Stop tunnelling me.

*****
===============================================

@ TOWN

In light of this observation, what are thoughts on MCD?

[AndyTony]

Same here*


MCD - There's a lot more to that post.

Re-read everything under "MY POINT"

This is about you on your end, not me. You conveniently miss the point and observations that prove you are hunting a lynch and not scum.

Unless you had a good reason to "save" my investigation for today so that you could see Ceph's lynch through. (Which is also scummy)

Remember - I didn't just answer and clarify - - You sir accepted those answers and stopped investigating. You settled. You chose not to identify any of those events as points of interest or evidence after we had our in depth hash outs.

***The rest of the town will see. They'll read it and understand - I don't expect you to be upfront about something like that (understandably) - but it's a valid point.

You're tunnelling me, hunting a lynch and not scum. You clearly decided I was a target, and then went back to see what you could use (hunting a lynch) - - - It's the other way around.

[AndyTony]

p1010 {AT}-To answer your question AT, maybe he didn't go after you then because he felt Ceph was a better lynch. With you leading that wagon, Ceph's flip would definitely matter in respect to the points he brought up. Finding out an alignment tends to paint others' positions a bit easier. Also, I actually liked p984. You asked him why he thought you were scummy and he gave you a concise list. Just because he asked you a question and you answered doesn't mean he has closed the book and will not be able to look at things in a larger scope. Can you point to places where he specifically said that he was ok with your explanations? Regardless, all of these points are inconsistencies. Once you put them together and they don't paint a very flattering picture of you.

I think you should take a closer look at post 1023 before making statements like that.

I outlined clearly that it is not so black and white as question and answer being sufficient.

==They are NOT inconsistencies (first of all), there is reason and logic behind everything I've done.

==They did NOT rely on Ceph flipping. Whether Ceph was town or scum, an "inconsistency" in your eyes or MCD's eyes, is an inconsistency none the less is it not? Why drop the topics after discussing them, and let Ceph's wagon hold strong? Think about it - it could have saved a life to voice "valid" suspicions against me. It is more suspicious that he would leave them alone so Ceph would die quicker and cleaner and only have more of an issue with them today so he could have a new target.

==You've made a bland opinion of the matter with no regard for his tunnelling or the logical picture I painted in 1023 proving that he decided to regard me as scum and THEN go hunting for what he could use to support it (hunting a lynch - scummy) - - - whereas it's supposed to be evidence leading people to scum.

==How do you explain him having in depth conversations on all his points, me explaining the valid logic behind them, and him moving on to other topics, people, and wagons, dropping those topics on me entirely for D1 without another mention of them or a hint that he felt they were scummy, still suspicious, worth more investigation etc?

*They did not rely on Ceph flipping
*He dropped all those topics the moment I they were logically and fairly explained
*They were given fair attention, and he chose not to FoS, vote, investigate further, or even comment on them afterward. They were DEAD ISSUES.

He's tunnelling me. D2 opened up, he picked me, and went back to find evidence - - having none, he rehashed old shit that was useless for evidence.
=======================

Give 1023 more attention, please, your posts suggest you haven't (though your activity is appreciated having replaced in with so much to read)

***Oh, and for the record. I was most vocal and high profile D1 - but I did NOT start the Ceph wagon.

Almost 500 posts in, you will see that The Replacement and MCD were heading it up.
=======================

Lobster, Khamisa, Zero, Kise,
- Can I get your opinions on 1023?

Kbub
- What were the details to your opinion?

Khamisa
- Since your opinion on Zero changed with an inconsistency to his activity (substantial posts from him vs. your reasoning). It would suggest that you formed your opinion of him going from town/scum based on other people's discussion, and not Zero's behavior. Were you playing off the town, or is there a certain post you can link us to where Zero sold himself to you as scum? - - You posted almost 5 pages after he voted on Dej and said you thought he was annoyed town, and that his reasoning was fishy at best.

As people other than Zero posted and speculated, you held on to this sentiment until out of nowhere you made the statement suggesting Zero was "Mad that his scumpartner left" (Dej). You went from thinking he was town, and voted Dej because he was mad that he bailed - - to making the statement that they were scumpartners (something myself and others speculated).

Also at that time - - you were against a Zero lynch and a Ceph lynch, had trouble with understanding/agreeing with the case, yet felt his lynch was inevitable. If you felt his lynch was inevitable, but felt he was town (and at the time, that both players of interest were town) why not be more vocal about it? Were you trying to be low profile when you weren't V/LA? Were you making statements to play off the town's speculations and not make any concrete statements (seems it)?

In addition to playing under the radar by
- Having low profile activity when not V/LA
- Doing little investigation for your opinions, and instead, playing off of the town's speculations (not making concrete decisions you could be held to)
- Playing slightly hypocritical and anti-town (making the light statement that you felt both players of interest were town, yet doing nothing to find more suitable alternatives or stop a lynch from happening - a town lynch you called "inevitable")

Can you explain your actions? Why such low radar, non-commital, town playing with little investigations?

[AndyTony]

@d3x -

I think you inferred a lot more hostility and negativity than there was. I didn't imply anything like that, and I even went so far as to thank you for taking the time to replace in a big game and read.

Hey. Open-mindedness be damned lol

MCD didn't settle with "fine." - - You'll notice that after our conversations, they would end with me giving a final response, and him moving on. Him investigating other opportunities. Him not FoSing me, voting me, telling me I'm suspicious or that he doesn't trust my actions. He. Moved. On.

- You're voting me for the sake of pressure. Okay.
===============================================

@All
At this point, votes on me for pressure seem more legit than votes on me with no case but intent to lynch. It's not really annoying me any more. I've made best efforts to be forward and clear, and I'll continue to, whatever.
===============================================

Alduskkel - I haven't taken to anyones case, I've just participated and voiced an opinion. I'm more concerned about the

nature

of Khamisa's activity (which is different than anything specific people would like to nail her for). In my re-read I noticed she said enough to actively lurk, but nothing to be commited to. She was also inconsistent - - she made note of our two D1 players of interest striking her as innocent, yet had no problem voicing their lynches being "inevitable" (why not do something to save them if she thinks they're town? Why did she think them town, did she have better suspects? If so, why didn't she voice them?)

It's all lumped up as "curious" for me, but not concrete.

I'm more concerned with MCD tunnelling me, and your D2 actions.

I'm torn, because all of the things that have me voting you are applicable to hohum, however, his gameplay suggests it's his nature and he could be a narrow minded and aggressive towny - - whereas your behavior D2 is seemingly suspicious.
===============================================

[AndyTony]

I'm finding more unease with the fact that she's had one foot in the water and one out at all times when she IS active.

Any points of interest I mention that HAVE been mentioned are things I'd like Khamisa to address.

The points, regardless of who has mentioned it, have not been fully cleared up.

I'm a guy who is curious for answers. I haven't voted her, nor have I based a case on her (to clarify, for your sake).
====================================================

However - Do you find it scummy for someone to steal a case? To vote someone without bringing anything new to the plate?

This is why my vote remains on you, Al.

hohum is being characteristic - - you, are being anti-town and opportunistic.

Is there anything else motivating your activity at this time?

Do you have any thoughts outside of this topic? Anything about post 1023 and MCD behavior? Anything about hohum's recent narrow minded post? Anything at all?

I'm asking out of interest, it's not rhetorical.
=====================================================
@ Kham
- If you've read up to this point, I'm sure you know what needs addressing *

[AndyTony]

@ Al -
I never stole a case, I'm addressing valid suspicions and questions I wouldn't mind hearing answers to. You're suggesting that I'm not allowed to be interested in the answer to a question unless I'm the one who asks it.

And I wouldn't make hypocritical statements of "I find stealing cases scummy" after the day you've been having. (Hence the vote)

And my questions to you, please.

@Zero -
Any way you'll have it, I primarily want people to address his tunnellin, and his lynch hunting (picking me as a target and THEN trying to find evidence - - and I'll point out, still unsuccessfully)

[AndyTony]

Frankly I think it's bad of d3x to answer for MCD

In all honesty, I agree Ald. However, I was however asked directly and that just so happens to be my reasoning. I had nothing else to answer with.

Remind me what your direct question was that lead to MCD's defense, please

(I'm not saying it's not there, I'm just asking)

[AndyTony]

Al
- "Giving credit". Do I strike you as the type to try to run something like that past everyone? Kbub's post RIGHT ABOVE MINE says it already - why would I post right after him?

You're grasping at straws
=================================================
d3x

One final note. Please give me exact posts where it will be clear that

Almost 500 posts in, you will see that The Replacement and MCD were heading it up.

This is of particular importance to me as that's the person I replaced and the general opinion I had was that he was lurking. In fact, I just did an Iso on the Replacement and at about 500 posts in, he was going pretty hot and heavy after Khamisa. What are you angling at here?

By the way AT, could you please respond to this?

MCD was on that Ceph wagon to stay a lot earlier than me - - Your post suggested I had more ownership over the Ceph case than I really did - - I was simply high profile in my activity.

And the direct question was what people felt about the "My point" section. It's a well organized post and you either agree with it (MCD is tunnelling and lynch hunting) or you don't - - you don't seem to, no harm done, it's your take on it.

That's all

[AndyTony]

Not WIFOM, Al -

Let's be honest, I'm above trying to "steal" something from a post RIGHT AFTER it was posted. That's illogical and fruitless.

My vote and case are the ones I have on you. I've stolen nothing, I just share the same desire to have Khamisa answer.

[AndyTony]

@ AL
- I don't think Khamisa has fully addressed/cleared herself from suspicion, and I'm sure she'll get that impression when she reads that she is of interest to so many people. Why post right after him? Dude, that's when my post was up lol I didn't plan anything, I read the board, made notation, posted my thoughts.
==============================================

@d3x
I'm going off of post 450 for that earlier statement - - I'm pretty sure Oddin was earliest on the Ceph wagon, and that by 450 you see the only people on it are Replacement and MCD.

That statement is me clarifying that I hardly built it and wagoned it. I was simply present for investigation, high profile, and ultimately voted it with confidence.

I don't know where you're getting "these statements about the Replacement" lol - - his name was just in the 450 vote count, that's the extent of my care/knowledge of him.

Is this your time being best used right now? lol replace into a game and devote your time to the high profile person of interest alone? Maybe it wasn't so hard replacing in late after all.
===============================================

@Khamisa
- Address the concerns when you get a chance, please!

@hohum
- Your play has continued to be very much so aggressively narrow minded. You targeted me, cheered for a case you had nothing to do with, and haven't conducted any investigations this day.

Why are you actively lurking? You do nothing but occasionally drop by and make ignorant statements about quicklynching me.

I understand your position on policy lynching (which I find unfair to towns) and apparent tunnel vision, but it would help to know what you're doing.

I think you can only hide behind your "aggressive town meta" for so long before you just seem like scum.

Where is your investigation?
Who are your other points of interest?
Got any evidence to back up your vote yet?
===============================================

@Pablito
-I'm finding your gameplay extremely uncharacteristic when compared to the last game I was in with you (as AA23). You were fair, calculated, positive, and very helpful to the town. Hence I'm a tad put off by your mentality to simply "meh" - throw a vote willy nilly somewhere.

There seems to be a lot of complacency (sp?) on your end, and I was hoping to better understand it.

Don't you think that you risk tunnelling someone by throwing a vote on them willy nilly?

See, just as MCD targetted me, and is now tunnelling in his effort to find ANYTHING he can use on me, I worry that your "meh" vote on me could instigate you going

"Alright, time to unvote....bah...can't be bothered....let's keep it.....hm...gonna need evidence though (the tunnelling begins)"

If you're not going to unvote, I'd like to better understand your case.
I've asked before already - but can I see a list of points I can fairly address by now?
===============================================

[AndyTony]

If I did actually choose you as a target, and then went back to see what I could use, it would be pretty lucky that there was such a jackpot, wouldn't it?

1. So what made you "choose" me for D2 if it's not for a scummy reason? Hunting a lynch is not very pro-town

2. If all of those points from D1 weren't dead issues for you, why would you make such serious a fuss about them D2 and not before? They didn't rely on Ceph flipping, and surely his life could have been spared if there were other scum prospects.

Looks like an inconsistency, MCD....

You either held back on D1 so Ceph would lynch smoother, and saved calling your beef with me a case for D2 (scummy)

Or you only decided today to rehash the old shit to support your tunnelling.
===============================================

@d3x
-

Are you trying to push me off of your case just because there is a case? This doesn't make any sense. Are you accusing me of tunnelling? Please explain this comment. How is my time not being 'best used' by pursuing a case {regardless of who it's on}? How is questioning players that are lurking "devot{ing} your time to the high profile person of interest alone"? I have pending sentiments out there on Zer0 and Khamisa. Not to mention the time I soent putting together those 2 monster post.

...Easy tiger, no need to get worked up. I'm simply wondering what your special interest was in my situation with MCD.

I mean, he's interrogating me, he's the one with all the issues (on things that have valid and understandable reasoning) yet he's the one not voting. The people who are, are hohum (currently actively lurking), Pablito (who "meh" - threw a vote my way), and you.

Yet I've seen no fair and concrete case.

**And you have "pending sentiments with Zero and Khamisa?

If that statement is true, why are you voting me? Have you already decided how you'll feel about them when they get back to you? lol

That's all, mate.

[AndyTony]

Meh. My 'special interest' is that you asked me my thoughts. I just so happen to think that MCd has some valid points.

Trying to paint it as anything but that is scummy, in my eyes

. You are

inferring that I've taken a special interest when you are the one asking me my thoughts. That's weird.

In regards to Khamisa and Zer0, I'm not into Voting or going into full attack mode on players that aren't around unless I have no other choice. I like the case against you {whether you think it's fair and concrete or not} and their unwillingness to speak has been duly noted. Have no fear.

******
So me clarifying, and defending weak accusations against myself is scummy to you? "Trying to paint it as anything but [valid points] is scummy"
******

*****
And special interest? It's one thing to answer a question, it's another to have pending issues with three players including myself, and only vote for me (before hearing from them, and without working on the case lol)

I'm glad I inspired you to try and use the word "inference" more, however, it doesn't apply to the "special interest" topic - - your actions implied, good sir!

A vote before you hear everything you need from players you claim to have pending concerns with sounds rash and irresponsible - - you're basically admitting to making an ill informed decision (having voted and then acknowledged you're waiting to learn and hear more from others)
*****

Zero and Kham have been present recently. If they leave your issues "pending" - will that make them scummier, or give you cause to ignore them and tunnel me?

See, these are valid concerns, there are many things that factor into a mislynch.

I can't help but find your behavior a tad opportunistic. But hey! You voted. You must be pretty confident

So do tell:

What is your case on me? What are your points? lol

List them off, and I guaruntee you'll get a response and have me fairly address them. I do hope you have some of your own thoughts, because MCD has found nothing on me, and he's the one that started the whole darn circus lol (and isn't voting).

**Your activity and ambition is appreciated - I can only hope you'd have a more open mind before condemning me for another man's discomfort.

There is a logical and fully explained motivation and reasoning behind everything I've done in this game, and everything MCD has taken a frown to.

People are CHOOSING to look at these elements in any way they can to make a scum title fit ME.

That's all backwards, you see? The evidence should spark and inspire, should lead and reveal - and at the end of the road? Scum! That's what's exciting about this game.

MCD targetted me D2 and had to backtrack in order to FIT an idea around me.

Now naturally I have to respond! It's only fair. But I can only be hasselled with the same thing so many times.

*What are your feelings toward Alduskkel's behavior for D2 (for instance). His activity has been void of inestigations, questions, and more specific scum hunting (when we regard how he was D1) and he opportunistically hopped on a train of thought from MCD and the now lurking, narrow minded (in current gameplay), policy town lynching, hohum.

It's rather uncharacteristic.
===============================================

@hohum
- There are things for you to address.
(please also include evidence to back up your vote!)

@Khamisa
- There are things for you to address.

[AndyTony]

In light of this observation, what are thoughts on MCD?

It seems as though

MCD is trying to get you to repeat yourself until you create a slip-up

. I feel you have

addressed and answered all of his points with an overwhelming degree of evidence

.

I fully agree.

[AndyTony]

Al
- I type "lol" a lot :s. I find text to be very less personal and often cold, so (and this started on msn messenger) I type "lol" to give a more pleasant impression (lol = smiling, pleasant/positive, lmao=actually laughing etc) Pretty lame, but yeah. lol

- It's not a misunderstanding or you being wrong, it's just a matter of reapproaching the post. You'll notice that kbub points out the

inconsistency

whereas my questions are leading, and trying to determine if Khamisa it

people pleasing

or following. I'm not sure if everyone is the same as me on this, but I have a favorite "scum tell". I find anyone who plays neutral and pleases the town (by following their logic without adding anything new, by not conducting investigations, by being afraid of conflict and butting heads) is scummy.

That being said. With Khamisa still unanswered for, hohum still lurking, ODDin challenged in good form by Pablito, and general things calming down:

Unvote:Alduskkel

As the game has continued, there are more questions and ideas in other directions (making my decision less informed). Only fair!
===============================================

@Kbub
- I agree and have encountered it

[AndyTony]

@MCD
- Thoughts? Sounds like you're unhappy people aren't dancing to your tune.

You're tunnelling is making it very hard to appreciate the idea that you're aggressively confused town. Stop tunnelling me, it hurts towns more than you'd think.

- What are your thoughts on the ODDin ideas from Pablito?
- What are your feelings to Khamisa sitting on the fence, avoiding confrontation, not bringing anything new to investigations/conducting any of her own? What are your feelings to her little activity with no active V/LA?
- What are your feelings toward hohum's narrow mindedness toward a case that came after his prejudice to me? What are your feelings to his lurking?
===============================================

[AndyTony]

So me clarifying, and defending weak accusations against myself is scummy to you? "Trying to paint it as anything but [valid points] is scummy"

"Trying to paint it [the MCD issues] as anything but [valid] is scumm"

I'm defending myself, saying they are not valid - there's no confusion there.

I'm glad I inspired you to try and use the word "inference" more

I'm sorry...

what

? What exactly are you saying here, AT? I want it to be clear that you're being condescending and mocking me openly because I'm pursuing a case on you.

Condescending?

I'm clarifying that there was NO inference, d3x - - I'm making it very clear that you sir,

implied

.

The information I'm trying to glean from Khamisa and Zer0 have

nothing

to do with the case on you. How can you say that it's uninformed to think someone's scummy and still ask questions to others? Assuming you are Scum, there are 2 others out there.

I'm saying it's

ill informed

.

What are your feelings toward Alduskkel's behavior for D2 (for instance).

I think it is noteworthy and curious, but

I find that others are doing a good job of questioning him, as is the case with Khamisa and Zer0

.

So you're voting me without working on the case yourself or having any of your own thoughts/evidence,

and that decision is ill informed because you've voted me (while still waiting to gain more information from pending persons of interest)

Yet once again - although they're pending, you're going to vote a man based on someone elses investigation (which was a null one, he's not even voting me) while waiting to let other people do more work for you? lol

Think about it - you have pending interests in people, and don't want to interrogate them because "others are doing a good job" enough?
==============================================
Do whatever you've gotta do, man, I've no personal beef with you lol

Would like to see your reasons for voting me, though. Listed. So I can address them fairly.

Are you not confident in the case?
Are none of your points yours?

Let's see the list

[AndyTony]

So me clarifying, and defending weak accusations against myself is scummy to you? "Trying to paint it as anything but [valid points] is scummy"

"Trying to paint it [the MCD issues] as anything but [valid] is scummy"
I'm defending myself, saying they are not valid - there's no confusion there.

Why are you ignoring what I am clearly saying? Why did you refuse to include my very clear breakdown on what we were talking about? When I said "trying to paint it as anything but is scummy" I was not refering to you defending

anything

.

Let's see if I can do this in a way you'll understand.

- It was fair for me to come to the conclusion I did, d3x. There is NO reason to be hypocritical and negative.

- I was not wrong. You were simply in need of clarification, which you have done (seem familiar?)

- Look at the bold. How would everyone feel about you having an indescrepency like that? Whining about a player seeming condescending while making comments like that?

- There is NO reason for you to lose composure, I am as open and willing to hear another player out as much as I expect the same in return, I've shown nothing but that in this game.
==========================================

I'm glad I inspired you to try and use the word "inference" more

I'm sorry...

what

? What exactly are you saying here, AT? I want it to be clear that you're being condescending and mocking me openly because I'm pursuing a case on you.

Condescending?
I'm clarifying that there was NO inference, d3x - - I'm making it very clear that you sir,

implied

.

First, your statement is dripping in sarcasm. You "inspired" me to try a word more? Bullshit that's not condescending.[/quote]

Once again - for you to not be full of nonesense on this one, you would have to do two things.

1. Connect me to your game meta where you recently made a post (before I did in this game to you) where you used the word "inference" in such a manner

2. Acknowledge that you are being condescending an emotional yourself, sir - while making those issues toward me.

I assure you that it wasn't condescending - hence I went so far as to clarify. I've been in games where someone will make an empty and fruitless point toward me just so they can use a word I "use on them" in an attempt to seem clever. I didn't want you to get trapped in something as childish as that and corrected it's use (since you in fact did NOT use it correctly)

And the second point? You're being hypocritical and suspiciously emotional.

Had you actually read D1, you would see that I had logical, understandable, and fair reasoning to every action, decision, and comment.

If you've actually followed D2, you will see that I have clarified, reassured, and continued to be fair and reasonable.
===============================================
What I'm trying to tell you is that there is indeed no case. There are no indescrepencies, contradictions, or holes.

If you believe there are - I insist that you list them, otherwise, I will have to assume you simply don't know what you're talking about (which would explain two things:

Why you are so aggressive and easily offended/confrontational
Why you refuse to make a brief and

fair

list
Why in addition to not interrogating me (even though you've voted) you won't continue to interrogate OTHER PEOPLE because....they're lurking? And...as you put it, in addition to their lurking, OTHER people are interrogating them just fine?

So you like other people doing the work FOR you,
and you don't find lurking scummier than me.

LMAO.
===============================================

This can be a fun game, d3x, you just need to take a breather and step back to look at this whole game objectively. I'll always hear you out fairly when you need to clarify things that you accidentally imply, but we won't get anywhere with you flying off the handle at me because so far it's made you seem

1. Like a follower (latching to a case someone else made without investigating it yourself or offering anything new)
2. Dependent on other people (not interrogating other people because there are other players doing it for you...as you suggest)
3. Suspicious (not finding other players with "pending issues" genuinely lurking and being narrow minded as something scummy
4. Hypocritical (getting emotional and driven toward me for being "condescending" when it would seem it's not REALLY an issue with you since you did it to me in your recent post where I bolded it above)

You risk shooting yourself in the foot. There's no need to get up on your hind legs - keep a cool head, mate.

I will need that list, though.

[AndyTony]

Oh. A pressure vote. With people backing off of me.

Then why do you defend the "evidence" on me?

Seems like you want to vote me, but don't want to commit to the evidence.

I'd add that to the list I've made toward you, mate.

Very suspicious behavior. Like wanting to vote/lynch someone but not wanting any of the responsibility.

[AndyTony]

lmao

d3x is "having a blast" while getting sarcastic, negative, and fussy lol "okay".

Bully you off the case?

Do whatever you need to do, man, it takes 7 to lynch and enough people see the whole debacle for what it really is.

Keep your vote, I've said my peace, mate
==============================================

@Khamisa
- Are there pressing RL circumstances that are making it harder than ideal to post more than you have been? Do you have anything more to say for yourself on any raised points?

-Why have you been avoiding confrontation?
-You seem to have spent D1 coasting on other players' ideas, and not really interrogating or taking risks

My vote lies between you and hohum.

hohum, though ignorant and lurking, is still seeming characteristic (though the lurking makes it worse by the day)

however your gameplay is uncharacteristic than what I've seen in the past, and you have been down right playing it safe all the way through.

See, if I had to decide between you or hohum being scum, I would say you. Hohum, with multiple things against him I can think of - has had a "fuck you" attitude throughout this game. He snaps, gets testy, curses, gets ignorant like a child when he can't form his own thoughts and suspicions into something legible etc. - - - - and honestly? That reads town in a way.

Think about it - why would he risk being lynched with such negativity off the get go? It's characteristic of him on mafiascum, in this game, and even now.

His lurking is what's saving a vote your way, and I'd like to see you address all the things presented to you!

[AndyTony]

Someone insulted you?
------
What are your thoughts on Khamisa "playing it safe"?

I'm deciding between hohum and her, and hohum has played without caring who he offends/pisses off that it makes it difficult to see him as scum (but he's lurking). Khamisa has been people pleasing, and avoiding confrontation like CRAZY - - I don't even think she's had an interrogation of her own - if she's asked a question, it's been asked before/has been innocent and once again - to avoid confrontation.

She's played it safe and has had a couple major V/LA's.

Thoughts?

[AndyTony]

Playing it safe is different from being town, indeed.

There's no way to truly act town (ironically, that's scummy) - people only ever come across/make sense as town. You however, were proactively "on the fence" with a lot of issues; you lacked passion/intensity/genreal

drive

to scumhunt, or investigate, or persue a lead, or argue - - - and that comes across as scummy to me.


Your statements to d3x about how you felt about the Ceph wagon differ to D1 mentalities slightly, for instance. It also begs the question: If you didn't think any of the suspects were scum, who

did

you find scum? Why did you not defend those on trial for being innocent in your eyes (by letting us know what made them less suspicious/town like to you) - -

You see, you seemed to have avoided wagons and the responsibility there of because you weren't convinced they were scum (so you stood by, and avoided confrontation - you could have voiced up about thinking they were innocent) - or you could have had better prospects for us.

The reason you didn't have better prospects, other suspects, any other lead - - is because you weren't looking for any (seemingly). You weren't investigating, inquiring, looking for clarification, making solid concrete opinions of your own - - - it feels far too "safe" to be town to me.

**The above is just to explain where I'm coming from with this, Kham - I'll hear you out still and am glad you aren't so limited on the internet now (however, that means I expect to hear from you more on this board)

Thoughts?
===============================================

@hohum & Lurkers
- Still with us/remaining in the shadows?

[AndyTony]

Not a fan of lurking (hohum, Zero) - but the more I look at it, the more it looks like Khamisa was trying to stay on the fence and play things safe. She hasn't stood for anything, defended anything, challenged anything - - the avoiding of confrontation, absentism, and unusual behavior toward seeing someone lynched that she claims she believed to be innocence makes me suspicious.

Vote:Khamisa

She's avoided confrontation and responsibility while playing it safe. That reads scum to me.

[AndyTony]

Mod
Can we get prods on hohum and ODDin?
As well as a vote count!

Thanks!

[AndyTony]

kk - hope you get well

[AndyTony]

I harped on you? I took issue to your "meh" and unmotivated attitude - - and you posted in 1077 a response to me. That was good enough for me, you suggest it's your gameplay.

And yeah - one post that looked like you put work into. It was a sound observation you made.

[AndyTony]

there's no need to prod me. I've got nothing to say.

Lynch me or lynch andytony.

Why would we lynch you?

[AndyTony]

Hohum, if you paid any attention you would see that Kham is being looked at for ACTIVELY lurking - and for me, primarily, the fact that she has been playing it safe.

@ hohum - - can you not ruin this game for us? You behavior is very anti-town, and your kicking and screaming won't accomplish anything.

There's no need for this behavior.

It's not a lurker hunt, it's a scum hunt -
why are you ignoring us?
what special knowledge do you have that makes it a mislynch?
if the wagon is driven by scum, why call me scum and forget I'm on the wagon late?
what investigating have you tried to accomplish today?

all you've done is crossed your arms, sighed a whining moan, and demanded the lynch of a player you haven't investigated, called the town's scumhunting efforts of the day fruitless, and threatened to ruin the game for us.

All without a leg to stand on or evidence.

How can we take you seriously or fairly consider your ideas when you behave this way?

You will hurt the town - you will make the game less fun. Please stop.

[AndyTony]

My own idea on active lurking is being present enough to NOT be lurking, but hardly contributing or being present for it to even matter.

Meaning that Kham, when you WERE present, you didn't investigate and you played the game a little too safe for my liking (trying to avoid confrontation and negative attention by sitting on the fence) - - did you have nothing to offer? Anything to fight for? Any passion for a thought or idea? In my opinion: no.

I feel that you've played far too safe and have tip-toed as best you can, and it's finally caught up with you.

I've played in games with you where you've been the polar opposite (with V/LA's included if memory serves) so this is kind of uncharacteristic, I feel.

That being said:

Can you prove that theory wrong? If you indeed have not been playing it safe, and voicing/agreeing, sitting on the fence to avoid confrontation - - - have you indeed scum hunted or made observations of your own? Do you have a case to present us or a fresh look on something? Do you have anyone that you'd finally like to investigate? Anything to challenge? The whole ordeal seems as complacent and easy going as D1 D2 gameplay from you (even going so far as to accept your lynch in the above post)

[AndyTony]

*posted right after reading 1142

all caught up now

[AndyTony]

My vote stays.

I don't have an issue with the lurking - lurking is absense. I have an issue with the activity in her active lurking - - I have an issue with her D1 actions.

Why would she not conduct investigations, suggest new ideas, challenge, or make concrete statements about a single thing? Whether it's personal attitude or role - - this is mafiascum. If you play the game, there are things expected of you, no? She's avoided all

responsibility

and has played safe to have NONE on her - played safe to avoid ALL consequence of actions by barely taking any.

@Al - You seem to be swayed easily and pass it off as "talking yourself out of" things. I don't mind people being cautious, but I can't help but be reminded of what had me suspicious of you to begin with - - - what's up?

[AndyTony]

Al,
remember that it's active lurking and not cold cut lurking. And as for it being a tactic? I think it was more of a convenience - D1, myself and others were so high profile it was nothing short of irresistable to take that opportunity and play it safe.

[AndyTony]

@ ODDin -
If Al "Magically changing his mind" on a wagon makes him partners with that person, it should be noted that he has been uncertain and flip floppy in other areas of this game and with other people* (to be fair)

@Pablito -
Pushing it way too much? I had multiple people

admittedly

tunnelling me and being close minded, I wanted them to exercise their scumhunting in a broader scope and maybe twice asked people what they thought of your observation. I always support broad and open minded thinking, why wouldn't I have approved of your observation? Tunnelling, whether on me or anyone else, is hurtful to a town.

I'm comfortable with the Khamisa vote. I'd like to hear more input from her at the very least - it seems weird that her defense is coming from players other than herself.

[AndyTony]

@ODDin -
No worries, your points are important to me and I'll address those, as well as any Kham doesn't answer by the time I get back (you repeated my questions to her and I'm hoping she'll answer you!)

I'll have more time later on and give them fair attention

[AndyTony]

I'm not sure if that's an entirely fair statement - - he's sometimes all over the place, but he's active, trying to be proactive, and isn't tunnelling.

It would be nice if he were more concrete and

productive

, but a lynch candidate? I don't see that just yet.

**be back later tonight, all!

[AndyTony]

ODDin -
I took a look at 1045 and 991
- - - It seems the sentiment of "AT, having protown reasons/answers for why you do things don't clear up inconsistencies" whereas what I'm clarifying is - they are NOT inconsistencies.
I'm finding it a little close minded to have multiple people in this game tell me "Just because you have an answer to a question, and just because it fits, doesn't mean we believe it"
Do you understand that people are therein

choosing

to look at me as scum because it suits suspicions better?

**Evidence shouldn't be something one needs to warp perception on - - it shouldn't be something one needs to accept (suspicions) by ignoring something else (pro-town responses)**

All of my actions have pro town reasoning and explanations - - there's no getting around that nor is there lynching that. To be FAIR - yes, you and the others are right - you can all choose to assume the state of my mind, ignore my responses, and look at me as scum because it's

easier to call me a liar (in the face of explained, good logic) than to scumhunt and find someone with more concrete/tangable evidence

Let's be honest - the only way someone can continue to call anything I've done an inconsistency or scummy is to ignore my protown explanations. I have been nothing but forward in this game, open, and willing to explain. Zero mystery - - I've been passionate in what I believe in and haven't been afraid to butt heads.

To respond to your 991 post where you vote Al.

I voted him as well and am still weary of him (I first voted him because I thought him to be opportunistic and uncharactersitic between D1 and D2, and he's being way too flip floppy today for my liking).

You state that I'm giving MCD way too much credit for any wagon on me and I have to disagree.

Think of the people who followed it.

We have hohum - who has done ZERO work D2, been ignorant and anti-town, and opened up the day with a grudge on me from D1 - - he was looking for any reason to vote me, and MCD's questions came along, hohum voted it like it was a case (and not an inquiry) and demanded (with more ignorance) more votes for a LYNCH

Pause. Nobody finds it odd that this anti-town player that also believes in policy lynches (hurting town) wanted a quicklycnh so early on D2? Right after a mislynch? Seems a little rushy - sounds like someone was scared.

Continueing.... - - hohum hops on mindlessly, and Al opportunistically joins. It's at this time that NOBODY has a case on me and in essence, not even the person who technically started it. You see, there never WAS a case on me - there was a series of questions that MCD felt needed my attention (...again) - - and hohum simply voted it and demanded others to mindlessly join in - - and they did! - - - not a single person had something fresh and new to add, they all used material (old, useless material that is weak for evidence because one would have to ignore valid explanations) that MCD presented.

Hence I gave him the most credit for starting this thing - though in practical regards, hohum's mindless, anti-town, suspiciously rushed and poorly motivated attack on me does indeed put it into motion.
===============================================

hohum wanting to

leave this game

because we're lynching Khamisa makes me even more suspicious of the two.

I am confident based on Kham's ACTIVE PLAY (read that again hohum, her play when ACTIVE) that she has been TRYING (not just "happening" to, not her style, not a choice) trying to be under the radar - avoid confrontation - please the town.
===============================================
So to conclude - you're more than entitled to believe what you would like to. Just know that there's better evidence out there that doesn't require you to ignore

valid

. pro town explanations

and as for the MCD getting credit for the wagon thing - - at this point in the game, hohum has won my regard for scummiest between him and Al - but I prefer a Kham lynch.

I'd like to see Kham's go through, and then see if hohum is around D3 so we can have a chat about why he so passionately didn't want her lynched, and wanted a quicklynch so early in the day (irresponsibly and opportunistically).
===============================================

@Al,
What?
I was saying that I'd be back to respond to ODDin, and that I hoped Kham would have responded to his (my - before he repeated them for her benefit) concerns and questions. I'm just saying I'm looking forward to at least hearing from her - there's no V/LA and I'm seeing no game play from her.

She has NO interrogations? Suspicions? Inquiries? Comments on things that make her uneasy that haven't already been made?

I think it's because she's not interested in those things (even though it's WHY we play mafia) - - I think she hasn't had anything like that come up for her because she's been too busy trying to stay in the shadows and go with the flow. Her lack of those thins is additional evidence to that sentimentality.

[AndyTony]

And to clarify my standing on you at this moment:
1) I DO NOT find you repeating your case on ceph scummy.
2) I feel the inconsistencies in your words mentioned by MCD were sufficiently explained by you and clarified quite enough. I DO NOT find these things suspicious. (However, I don't think that finding these issues to be suspicious is suspicious either. That is, while I myself don't agree with these points in the case against you, I don't think it's absurd for others to follow these points, and I do think that a town player could agree with these points - thus, I don't think accusing you based on this points to be a scum-tell.)
3) I DO find you instructing Kise suspicious, and don't find your explanation on this issue satisfying.
4) I DO find you being very defensive and accusing back anyone who has brought up any points against you (hohum, MCD, Al, d3x) somewhat suspicious. This includes painting MCD as more aggressive and more responsible of the wagon against you than he actually is.
5) The point on the OMGUS issue quoted above - pending clarification.

Better said - - I feel MCD is most responsible for the entire event. The followers that fueled it and kept it alive (like hohum) are at fault no doubt, but I felt that saving further persuit of these things for D2 was a distraction - - if he wasn't satisfied D1, I would have prefferred him reapproaching it all then.

But as I've come to regard it presently - hohum threw fire on the ordeal.

As for the last couple of points.

The omgus behavior vs. OMGUS? = = simply put, I didn't know it would be an issue later on. The definitions of the individual concepts hold true for me and I never contradicted them as you saw, but as far as making it clear? We never know what will be miniscule and what will be an issue on a mafiascum board. It was just a shame it took so long and so much of everyone's time to be on the same page.

"turning on everyone that votes me" = = When one feels they're being attacked with an injustice, it's natural to view the attackers as malicious. I always tried to be fair and open minded - but it would have been narrow minded and stupid for me to NOT

consider

as I did, that scum could have been looking for an easy wagon. (considering we have two opportunistic players - hohum [and we know how he's acting], and Al [who's been flip flopping too much for comfort]). I don't make concrete statements that they are or are not scum, but suspicious? I'm entitled to suspect, and I've been responsible in knowing what was fair/unfair to persue in other poeple.

All in all - I'm settled on Khamisa. Ultimately it's not a person that voted me.

Instructing Kise? = = That's really a matter of opinion. My explanation is fair and informative, and the best I can do is offer links to completed games where I indeed allowed myself to play like an idiot and mislynch. I've cost the town more than once for that and am to this day a believer that a new player always runs the risk of looking scummy when trying to "make up for lost time" so to speak. Kise was getting dangerously close to that, and I like my evidence to be substantial and not circumstantial. That's the best I can explain it really, up to you on taking it or leaving it.

But yeah - that's about the extent of it. I think I addressed what you mentioned now.
===============================================

@Khamisa
- I'm sold on thinking your scum based on how you used your time when you were active on D1. Your meta will show that you at the very least try to compensate for lost time (V/LA's) with substantial and sometimes original content (even when brief). It's hard to believe that in this game that demands activity, investigation, thoughts, questions, and suspicions, that you have had none of your own. You haven't had any passion in trying to figure something out or make something clear, and in doing that, you have been avoiding confrontation (which I feel scum would naturally want to do). It's one thing to be out of the spotlight, so to speak, but it is another to be hiding back stage.

Your D1 thoughts and decisions weren't your own, and even when they weren't your own, you were on the fence.

You believed certain people were innocent and allowed them to be lynched?

What made you think they were innocent?
Did you have suspicions elsewhere?
Why did you not mention those suspicions?
If you had no suspicions elsewhere, why were you not sold on the D1 candidates?
Why did you have no investigations for anyone of interest D1/D2? Or even new questions for that matter? What did the people of interest say/answer that convinced you they weren't scum and how did that make you feel about people trying to lynch them? Why not ask the LYNCHERS questions if you indeed thought they were accidentally/intentionally lynching town?
Forget questions, then - why not any comments or opinions that would help forward anything?

Have you avoided all of the above because it would require you to have a concrete stance on something? Because you would be committed to something and therein have the responsibility attached to you?

What are your responses to all of the above, Khamisa?

If you have no response to it, and in addition have none of those things for today...

Town, you can surely see why I feel her activity has been playing it safe and scummy.

In addition to that: I'll be very interested to see the outcome. We've had enough people for and against it that it will also shed interesting lights on relationships (particularily hohum, who passionately wants her alive)

Which begs the NEXT great question.

hohum - what makes you think khamisa is innocent? (in regards to her ACTIVITY) what has she done that made you SO sure, that made you SO mad and passionate, that you would quit the game and ruin our fun?

I think it's worth all the town knowing if it's that important, is it not? hm.