Newbie 785 - Game Over

[Shotty to the Body]

Vote: Toledo88

for being the only one with numbers in their name.

[Shotty to the Body]

You can just call me Shotty for short Qwints. =P

[Shotty to the Body]

I dunno, I wouldn't read much into it.

[Shotty to the Body]

Could be, I'm keeping my vote where it is until Toledo88 posts.

[Shotty to the Body]

If Giskard is voting for him unless I miss my guess he's at L-1 for no reason, some of you should unvote. I don't think there's anywhere near enough evidence to put anyone at L-1 at this point. =\ If we lynch now we'll have learned almost nothing from D1.

[Shotty to the Body]

EBWOP
Nvm, I miscounted. Either way let's not bandwagon anyone just yet.

[Shotty to the Body]

Could be, I'm keeping my vote where it is until Toledo88 posts.

I hear, and I obey =P


I have a question for qwints:

unvote, vote falkomango
For making an acknowledged OMGUS vote.

Why would falkoscum be more likely to OMGUS vote than falkotown?

Mod, I believe on the last vote count, you didn't note that Gadget was voting for qwints. Currently, it says he's not voting.

Unless I managed to somehow misinterpret the vote count -.-

I also forgot to do this before: Welcome to the game everyone

unvote

=P

[Shotty to the Body]

Assuming Phily is scum (not saying for sure he is, just speculating) then I would have to presume one of the people not posting as much to be his scum friend. I think Gadget makes a good point in 58 as well to that end.

Mod can we get a prod on Cornellius?

Nope. Everyone has posted within the last 48 hours.

[Shotty to the Body]

Assuming Phily is scum (not saying for sure he is, just speculating) then I would have to presume one of the people not posting as much to be his scum friend. I think Gadget makes a good point in 58 as well to that end.

Mod can we get a prod on Cornellius?

And why are you assuming I'm scum? Because I don't agree with qwints? Who does agree with him?

The point of the parentheses was to say I was just speculating if you were, not actually saying you were.

[Shotty to the Body]

Assuming Phily is scum (not saying for sure he is, just speculating) then I would have to presume one of the people not posting as much to be his scum friend. I think Gadget makes a good point in 58 as well to that end.

Mod can we get a prod on Cornellius?

And why are you assuming I'm scum? Because I don't agree with qwints? Who does agree with him?

The point of the parentheses was to say I was just speculating if you were, not actually saying you were.

Okay so why are you

speculating

that I'm scum?

Seems to be the hot topic at the moment. As for being paranoid about being lynched, seems like a null-tell. Though I guess overreacting could be perceived as scummy?

[Shotty to the Body]

Cornellius is either lurking or flaking, if he is lurking that seems scummy to me since we are having actual debate now and discussion helps town and hurts mafia, so there's no reason for town to lurk.

[Shotty to the Body]

I think we're focusing too much on a single player at this point, honestly Phily strikes me as an honest, albi aggressive townie. I would really like to hear some posts from Cornellius, don't think we should let a lurker skate by with no questioning or if he's being replaced it would be good to know. In any case,

Vote Cornellius

[Shotty to the Body]

I don't constantly watch to see if people are logged in, but I know I check the game at least once a day so if he does and isn't posting that would constitute lurking and if he isn't looking at all that is flaking. You can't just ignore a single person for a whole day because they refuse to put a post in.

[Shotty to the Body]

Cornellius is either lurking or flaking, if he is lurking that seems scummy to me

since we are having actual debate

now and discussion helps town and hurts mafia, so there's no reason for town to lurk.

The debate itself doesn't really help given we are discussing things in real life we have no idea about. What is of note is the reaction of others to the lurking accusation against him - be it defending, pushing harder, explaining further. If we flip Cornellius his scumbuddy may have subtly noted themselves, it could also give us some leads in reverse.

Truly stated, though I don't think he said anything about RL stuff like Toledo did, just said he would post whenever RVS was over, which it clearly is. Would like to hear more opinions on what we've talked about already though.

[Shotty to the Body]

Why so eager to proclaim your allegiance?

Why so serious?

No but really, I did these things to avoid a mislynch.

I think scum have hijacked my case

and though I've come out with logical explainations and answered people I'm being told I'm scummy for actually doing this.

The tone of my questions as far as Ican remember (being drunk atm doesnt help) lead me to believe that these 'proclaimations' came about because I was being questioned. This is what happens when you question PhilyEc!

Which person(s) is the scum you believe are hijacking it?

Out of Qwints, Giskard, Gadget and yourself, I find strongest town read on Giskard and yourself. Gadget and Qwints, not so much.

Why do you think Gadget and Qwints are more scummy than myself, Giskard, and Corp? Get some of your ideas out there so we can discuss them.

[Shotty to the Body]

Shrug, now that he's here we can judge him by his posts like everyone else. I find it really odd Qwints just dropped off the map about the time Phily started edging that way more heavily in his posts. I don't really know about Falko, the sudden lack of activity just throws opinions off right now, though it'll make voting easier in the later days.

[Shotty to the Body]

I really wish Qwints would come back and defend himself against all these accusations. Putting him at L-2 without giving him a chance to respond seems excessive though.

[Shotty to the Body]

Sorry for the inactivity folks, I'll be rereading this whole page and posting some responses tomorrow, only had time to skim it tonight. Welcome Cyren, thanks for the PBPA, I'll be looking at that more carefully and trying to assuage your doubts since I'm on the fence!

[Shotty to the Body]

BTW Good to see life back in the thread AMEN.

[Shotty to the Body]

Okay time to do some explaining I suppose, sorry for the weird hours for yet another post. So far in Day 1 I've been paying more attention to the way people play/post then attacking specific people. I've made a case against lurking because I think letting someone go under the radar is a bad idea, so calling me out is legit and I'll try to explain my 'fluff.' The posts you quoted Corp, while not containing a whole ton of scum hunting, I thought included some very useful advice for town to follow especially since a lot of us are new. Don't bandwagon, don't quick lynch, making sure a lynch gives us something to work with the next day. That's been the gist of my play so far, trying to make sure we learn the most about each other and can study the day more closely for clues after we lynch. The longer the day is, the more inconsistencies there will be to see from scum in my opinion. I haven't made any strong accusations because I don't have a strong read on everyone, especially with two replaces. I commented on the cases that were made, to give an idea of what I thought about it at the time. I didn't post a case because I didn't have one to post.

I'm planning on doing rereading over the weekend and will be posting more thoughts then and hopefully a PBPA then. Also welcome Papa Zito. Seeing as there's been a swap and activity, joyous activity.

Unvote

[Shotty to the Body]

I wasn't trying to lynch when I put a vote on a lurker, what that does is encourage them to stop lurking and actually participate in discussion which is what happened. I don't think Lynch all Lurkers is a good policy, but at that point we had someone at 3 votes I believe and we hadn't heard anything from one player. I unvoted once he started posting again. Pressure applied + goal accomplished + unvote = scummy?

Cyren is confusing me a little. I said don't quick lynch, which means the day goes longer, which means we get to see more of the inconsistencies I talked about, I don't see how those are contradictory.

I'll be working on my opinions of everyone and posting that tonight since Papa seems so interested in them. =P

[Shotty to the Body]

Apparently I'm retarded and didn't actually unvote until after the replace, so consider some of that null since he flaked. Though the objective was the same and I did unvote after I saw his replace start posting, the flake throws it off however. Writing up my long post now, sorry for the triple if that happens.

[Shotty to the Body]

And tonight arrives early, huzzah! ( Btw melodrama is an integral part of being me. =P )

Phily - Concluded he was town after the first few pages. Albeit aggressive town, but town. I accepted his reasons for 'defending' falko and he's admitted it was a mistake. Don't agree with his no vote or vote scum policy, I think votes can be used to apply pressure. Difference of opinion /shrug

Probability of being scum (at this time): Low

Falkomango - I consider most of the RVS skipping BS to be a null-tell, though it spawned interesting arguments to examine. His consistent floating with the breeze attitude however seems to be either the actions of scum avoiding attention or of a new player unsure of himself, I favor the latter at this time. His post 209 responds well to Giskard and I thought he explained himself logically and it fit along the lines I could imagine him going through to reach this point. Still he could be a very sneaky scum.

Probability of being scum (at this time): Low-Medium Low

Giskard - Joins in the attacks on Phily early in the game, I think he seized on Qwints idea of defending and pursued it. Good effort scumhunting, if misplaced in my opinion. Again picks up on my questioning of Toledo and pursues it, can't tell about Toledo's rl problems or lurking though, discuss that later in his/Cyren's post. His most recent attacks seem genuinely motivated to me (post 187) though I disagree with his conclusions about Phily.

Probability of being scum (at this time): Low

Qwints - Again I think the Phily rampage in the beginning was justified and Qwints pointed out the error/scumtell Phily made, points for that in my book. The drop off the earth seemed odd to me at the time, but finals are a very reasonable excuse to do so. =P His new views seem unannounced but tempered at this point, hes backed off on Phily (post 177) and seems to be formulating opinions as lynch time draws near. His willingness to answer questions brought up is good to me, our fault if we let him slip by if we think he is scum. Though he still dropped off the world in the middle of an attack on him, one way or the other.

Probability of being scum (at this time): Low-Medium Low

Corp - Solidly pro-town as far as I can tell. Done a good job pursuing leads and catching mistakes, good scumhunter though mistaken in this case. Everyone has mentioned why he is pro-town: good analysis, attacks, activity, what not etc etc. I won't reiterate it when no one suspects him. Will have to revise of course as the targets of his attacks get lynched, could be very very good scum.

Possibility of being scum (at this time): Very Low

Here comes the meaty part about suspects, if I had to guess I think only one of the three below is scum and I've missed one elsewhere, but I could be mistaken of course. These will change drastically based on the result of D1 lynch most likely.

Toledo/Cyren: Toledo struck as a very odd either lurker or someone with huge amounts of inactivity. I pointed this out with him and Corn (for short). Giskard made a good point about in 91. Toledo goes on to tell me in 98 he disapproves of votes on lurkers, coming from the horses mouth? I have to admit his RL reasons for inactivity are compelling and I believe him, but still just something to note. Toledo also closes before being replaced that he considers Phily to be innocent (138) which made me get more of a town read off of him. Cyren then replaces in and hits us with a beautiful wall of text. I become confused since I had a mostly pro-town read on Toledo when I again come under assault for pressuring a lurker to vote in Cyren's 205. She herself said

I somewhat disagree with you, I think it did deserve a vote even if it was to pressure him to continue to participate in RVS, qwints was the only one voting Falko at this time so there wasn't really a reason to worry about a Lynch yet. Had it gone to L-2 or L-1 I would say Falko didn't deserve it.

in 164. What's with the double standard between my vote on Corn and Qwints vote on Falko earlier in the game? One of the inconsistencies I was mentioning has appeared. Both her and Papa claim that I was trying to lynch him by putting him at L-4? Seems a bit farfetched and they repeat that fact despite the fact I've said I just wanted to get him to post. I removed my vote from Toledo early on when he posted in the same situation (post 36) and I would've done the same except Corn flaked. On the flipside of this issue her general way of posting has been very scum hunting oriented and she has followed all her posts up well with some form of explanation. This puts her on the short list but behind the two others.

Possibility of being scum (at this time): Medium Low-Medium

Gadget: Gadget has been an active player so far and been commenting on much of the cases posted, building off of other players arguments. However I found in review Gadget's posts that it felt more like he was riding bandwagons then formulating his own opinions. He started the Qwints wagon on page 2, but most of the meat for that idea came from Phily. He then flips quickly from qwints to Phily with little reason in post 58, jumping on the idea Qwints and Giskard have been pushing. He presents some reasons in 89, but they seem thin to me at best. He flips back to Qwints for active lurking (post 134) and then unvotes again with little to no reason. We finally see consistency on Qwints which is points for him, but when Qwints asks for specific points to respond to Gadget just glosses it over, not very town to let a suspected scum off with no questions. Cyren makes some points for Gadget being scum for me, see post 205. There is a very real possibility what Gadget mentions in 195 about both replaces being scum, in which case the evidence brought up is probably a sham and the other incidences I'm referencing coincidental of his style. If Cyren and Zito are scum I think Gadget is being directly attacked by Cyren and side swiped so to speak by Zito. Zito doesn't attack Gadget, just subtly nods agreement with Cyren while interpreting her responses for Gadget (post 211), as he tells Philly not to post for Gadget, let her speak for herself instead of wriggling away. He implies that Gadget is scum by accepting a lynch on him or myself. More on that next.

Probability of being scum (at this time) - Medium

Papa Zito - This is where things get interesting, and sticky. As a replace a couple people have mentioned the halo of innocence which makes it very unlikely for either Zito or Cyren to eat a D1 lynch, but Corn was my main suspect and nothing's really changed with that since his being replaced except lurking has been turned into massive walls of text everywhere. Overcompensation for the lurking charges against his predecessor? I have to concede Corn did flake and some of his inactivity can be prescribed to that, but Zito still feels the need to defend lurking (post 186), why so up in arms about it if your predecessor flaked the whole time instead of lurking like you claim? Qwints told us early on (post 49) that lurking should be discouraged and at least 3 players including myself have stated explicitly, by action in mine and Qwints case and by quote for Cyren, see above, they don't mind putting votes on lurkers to get them to post.

So after defending lurking, Zito decides I'm the most suspicious. Some reasons are fair, its my first game and I made a mistake by sitting out for the first 5 or so pages and observing more than posting. On the other hand, Reasons 2, 3, 5 are pretty much BS. Reasons 1 and 4 are the same thing worded differently and are mostly copycats of Corp's original case. Reason 2 refuted above about his defending lurking and predecessor history. Reason 3 I gave useful advice not a list of acronyms, they aren't the same thing. Reason 5 is just twisting my words, a strong read at this point is relative, not absolute. So we have essentially one mistake as the amazing case to lynch someone, perfect. Not to mention the someone most concerned with your predecessor being scummy.

Moving onto the debate Cyren is having about the innocence/guilt of Gadget and to some degree Corps case for me. Cyren replaced in first and made a solid post reviewing everyone. Zito did something similar, no big deal so far. Cyren's posts about Gadget have much more meat however and they didn't opportunistically take advantage of a case being made against the person bringing their scummy intentions to the front of everyone's mind, like say Corp's case towards me. Also Zito has been encouraging Cyren's case towards Gadget as well. The fact that he joined second gave him the opportunity to piggy back his opener with Cyren's and mark Gadget as a suspect so he has 'reasons' to agree with Cyren. I'm convinced that if Gadget or myself is lynched (which seems likely at this point) and the lynchee flips town that one of the two replaces is scum, most likely Zito.

Probability of being scum (at this time): Medium+ (aka medium but higher than Gadget =P )

------
All this being said I think either Zito or Cyren is scum or that Gadget is scum and they are both innocent. If that's the case then it's my own fault for getting accused by Zito, but if either of us are lynched and flip town to consider both the cases made by Cyren and Zito very carefully. I had a whole other section planned out with the 3 possible scenarios of scum running through my head, but I don't think I can spend another hour and a half writing the explanations so I'll just write some quick outcomes of the D1 lynch and what I would think after that for if I'm not around.

I'll just assume I flip town since if I flip scum this is a bunch of bullshit you'll ignore anyways.

(Me Lynched) If Gadget votes for me, consider him closely. Consider Zito closely. Cyren remains where she is without more info, consider voting status and night kill.

Likely Scum: Zito + Other

(Gadget Lynched: flips town) Consider Cyren more closely, but be careful in case Zito bandwagoned that case to fruition. Consider Zito.

Likely Scum: Cyren/Zito + Other, or, Cyren and Zito

(Gadget Lynched: flips scum): Clears Cyren. Clears Zito.

Likely Scum Remaining: Unknown

I could be wrong about Zito, but I don't think so. He showed up as town on my radar until he proved his willingness to defend lurking and conjured a case out of the air against his biggest attacker rather then defending himself with reason, counting on the innocence halo of a replace to carry him through this day where he hopes I will be silenced.

This is probably full of grammar mistakes and about a billion misplaced modifiers, I'll shorten it up later if people want, but I wanted to get my whole thought process out there for people to see, will check back in later. Peace.

[Shotty to the Body]

First, a quick observation: Zito is actively pursuing the only player building a case against him. Coincidence?

I laid out several reasons why going after lurkers early on Day 1 is a bad idea in that post. You've failed to address any of them here. This is an obvious attempt to deflect.

You didn't really lay out any reasons, you waved off a reference that townies would want to lurk, but never mentioned any of them. The only reason to lurk is to fly under the radar and avoid giving your opinions or drawing attention to yourself, not exactly pro-town. Not a deflect at all, lurking isn't good for town, especially on day one, period. Going after lurkers gets them to post solves the problem, its not a lynch attempt, its a pressure vote, you still fail (intentionally?) to realize the difference.

My list is useful. Unless you know all of them, I guess. Regardless, you've completely missed (intentionally?) the point - useful advice doesn't help us find scum. And useful advice, unfortunately, is all you've offered.

A bunch of acronyms are helpful for reading through posts, not for scum hunting. Maybe your version of advice isn't helpful, but actually giving people tips about what is generally the goal of town and how not to shoot yourself in the foot, especially in a newbie game, is actually probably very helpful in scumhunting in the long-run. It's not a baseless attack, but that's all you seem to recognize as useful.

Again, you (intentionally?) missed the point - You haven't taken a stand on anyone until you were forced to. Even with this post you haven't fully committed to anything, because even after all this analysis you still aren't voting one of your chief suspects. To me it seems like you're throwing up a huge cloud of smoke, throwing out a couple names and hoping something sticks. If someone does bite then I'm guessing you'll happily hop onboard.

Nice one, if I had voted you would've said "Look, Shotty's just voting someone else to throw our attention elsewhere." Good play since you could complain about my decision either way, hope people see through this obvious ploy. Sorry, I like to actually hear other people's opinions and come to a consensus with them before voting.

Classic scum post. You completely fail to refute what's being said (probably because you can't) and instead try to attack the person. It doesn't matter if I joined first or fifth. What matters if what I say makes logical sense.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I outlined how I refuted what you said, try reading the post. What you say is just an echo of Corp's earlier post with a few rusty bells and whistles tacked on to make it look different. You've done the exact same thing with your position on Gadget by copying Cyren. Coincidence? Classic case of bandwagoning and riding the coat tails of other people's arguments.

Logical fallacy. What someone flips doesn't determine anyone else's alignment. The intent of the voter does. Townies mislynch all the time.

Hope you have a lot more lines like this for when you get asked about your townie lynches in the coming days. Intent to lynch town is pretty scummy in my book.

This is a fantastic paragraph and deserves more breakdown.

1. Translation: He was fine until he started targeting me.
2. Refuted this 'point' above
3. Out of thin air? I examined what you said and found numerous scummy things, none of which you've refuted.
4. I had no idea you were even attacking me. When was this? PhilyEc has been applying the only pressure I've felt so far.
5. lolwut
6. bzzzt

1. Ummm, I didn't even put posts in until after you started targeting me, so there's no standard of comparison.
2. Supporting lurking is fail.
3. Once again failure to read the post or just glossing over things that were said.
4. Pretty sure I was the one applying pressure to your predecessor to get him to post, since your such a fan of lurking once I'm gone you could do the same with less chance of being called out.
5.Lolwut this post contains nothing at all refuting anything I said, just more attacks against me. What was that? A classic scum post someone called that? Oh wait that was you, lol good job.

So I agree that you can't just ignore what our predecessors did. Part of the burden of being a replacement is that you have to account for the actions of the one you replace. Cyren and I shouldn't be considered "innocent" just because we replaced in, so if you have an issue with something our previous selves said, feel free to question it.

A post any scum would be willing to throw out when he's under little to no fire and realizes his predecessor lurked/flaked so much there's almost nothing to question.

I'll throw another acronym out there: FUD. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. That's what Shotty is trying to spread to the town by making a bunch of baseless accusations and ignoring cases against him. Shotty really needs more votes.

Right, right.... Baseless because they aren't something you can bandwagon on? I'm not trying to spread any fear or doubt. Zito's reasons for lynching me are a load of BS based on the fact I decided to observe and report rather than attack during day one. At least I contributed original ideas and independent opinions to cases that were presented instead of jumping on the coat tails of every case against someone right as I replaced in.

[Shotty to the Body]

Okay there's a few posts I want to reply to, so you'll just have to bear with me as I go through this. I'll separate by post to keep things simple.

[Shotty to the Body]

Cyren is confusing me a little. I said don't quick lynch, which means the day goes longer, which means we get to see more of the inconsistencies I talked about, I don't see how those are contradictory.

My mistake, when I read it the tone in my head was you saying more inconsistencies was a bad thing.

Post 215...... When I first started reading this post I was glad. Even if its a PBPA that everyone is doing now, you're giving your opinion and backing it up. I don't even mind I'm a suspect. I'll address that part now.

It wasn't a double standard. The two scenarios are just different. Qwints voted because Falko's post sounded like he was saying "I won't participate till blah blah". And they stated why they thought it was scummy. Someone choosing to not participate, hurts the game. Falko however doesn't disappear and still posts. Main difference I was supporting A SINGLE pressure vote. In the text you quote I said if it had gone up I would have said "Falko didn't deserve it" Quints also wasn't asking or trying to persuade others to vote for Falko.

You place a vote on Corn saying "we shouldn't let lurkers slide under the radar" and you call out to people to vote for him too. ONE vote is a pressure vote, but asking others to vote as well (on D1 mostly) is asking for a lynch. It wasn't that you "Put him at L-4" it was the "Come on people don't let him get away with not posting!" sound of your own posts that made me (I don't know Papa's thoughts obviously) accuse you of trying to lynch him. You also don't offer information on other players at the time but center your posts around your vote for CA.

Zito doesn't attack Gadget, just subtly nods agreement with Cyren

while interpreting her responses for Gadget (post 211), as he tells Philly not to post for Gadget, let her speak for herself instead of wriggling away.

This is a grey area for me. I'm not too botherd by what Zito did since he was using it as evidence to back up his own thought process, but in the original case with Gadget and I... I didn't want Phily to start defending himself or commenting on Gadgets flip-flops and my questioning why Phily was "trustworthy" because Gadget could have used anything Phily said to simply say, "I think he is scum/town" because of..." and use whatever Phily had posted THEN instead of explaining his thought process in the beginning. If that didn't make sense just disregard it. I also didn't have anything to wriggle away from. Gadget SHOULD be suspicious of me because he should be suspicious of everyone if he was town, but being more suspicious of me because I built a case against him is BS OMGUS.

Cyren's posts about Gadget have much more meat however and they didn't opportunistically take advantage of a case being made against the person bringing their scummy intentions to the front of everyone's mind, like say Corp's case towards me. Also Zito has been encouraging Cyren's case towards Gadget as well. The fact that he joined second gave him the opportunity to piggy back his opener with Cyren's and mark Gadget as a suspect so he has 'reasons' to agree with Cyren

This is an interesting point. Not sure if I agree with it right now, but its in the back of my mind...

........I was okay and happy with your post until you added the hypothetical future scenarios....

ALL you did was help scum there. Since you wrote that, if you get lynched and end up town all mafia has to do is choose how to best play your hypothetical scenarios off by who they NK and target the next day. For all you know gadget, I, Zito, and you could ALL be town and you just condemned town. Not to mention some of what you said makes no sense. If Gadget gets lynched and is scum, how does that clear Zito and I? Don't answer that but keep it in your head for future reference. IN short you just set up targets for mafia to knock down or you are mafia trying to cast suspicion off you by doing so, OR is a scare tactic. Either way very anti town.

Alright, I'll concede after further thought the future scenarios thing is indeed a logical flaw and rather stupid, so to prevent the scenario Cyren mentioned consider that struck. I guess I failed at communicating my thoughts early on which has been pointed out many times, everyone can consider that as they make their votes. Glad we got the misunderstanding cleared up. More questions are welcome if people are confused about something else I wrote.

[Shotty to the Body]

This post hurt my townie read on Corp a bit.

Let me ease your mind a little.

[1]I do have a slight concern that

if

Shotty is town he has been forced into a situation where he can't really defend himself. [2]If scum lies within you or Zito - he is going to have a hard time building a case because your predecessors lurked and you guys have come straight out at him.

[3]If it lies somewhere else he is going to have a hard time building a case, save for Gadget perhaps. [4]That is why I'm disregarding a lot of the Zito/Shotty exchange in my mind and trusting my original read on the first 160+ pages of dialogue mostly.

1. wat. Townies should always be able to defend themselves. Scum are the ones at a disadvantage here because they have to manufacture things to make mislynches happen. Townies should rarely (can't say never) lie.
2. wat. Cyren and I have both posted massive quantities of content since we replaced. There should be plenty there for people to form opinions of us and build a case if need be.
3. wat. Nothing is stopping him from building a case on someone else. Also, Gadget already has one, why should he build one on Gadget?
4. WAT IN ALL CAPS. If you don't want to comment on our exchange fine (I guess) but to just ignore it completely is ludicrous. There's way too much there on both players to just wave a hand and dismiss it all.

Bad post is bad.

1. Lieing isn't the issue with Shotty. Nor is manufacturing things. What exactly do you think he is "manufacturing"? His case against you? He does make a valid point that you have echoed a lot of my arguments against him, as well as adding a whole lot of other stuff (which I will address in point four). Jumping on my initial case and flogging it into the ground could be seen as scummy (making sure now to tie it all back to me), however I have enough faith in my initial read (another plug for post 167) too look beyond that and trust that you just have the same good read as me.

2. There is some out there - half as much as those that participated before you came into the game. And 99% of your posts are either attacking him or agreeing with his suspicions in 215. The only thing he can contradicts is your attacks on him and a lot of that can be written off with 'you can't just count what our predecessor did' and 'well of course you would say that'. Not leaving much. I say that because I agree with most of Shotty's observations (sans the hardcore suspicion on you and his innocence).

3. Nothing. Again assuming he is innocent for a second, you and I can't see a significant case for them to answer now, so I don't really expect it of others. Especially one who seems to not have the strongest scumdar in the game. But again - I don't give too much creedence to this point because I'm leaning strongly to scum on him.

4. Allow me to elaborate. For a start you are preaching to the converted. When I posted 167 I was 70% sure that my vote would stay on Shotty for the duration of this day. When he didn't reply adequately and practically agreed with the case you can bump it up to 80% - this is before you come in. Reading your discussion 30% of it seemed to be a nit picky discussion about lurking - which I give no creedence to. Another 25% was spent picking at the difference in definition between helpful behaviour and scum hunting behaviour - again I have little interest in this when it comes to voting. In the remainder there was a lot of repeating things ideas I had in 167, as well as a few other ideas.

In essence there was nothing in your discource that moved my already strong opinion on him. Just to reiterate I did intentionally try to avoid giving creedence to parts where you were posing repackaged or similar sentiments as I did in 167 - I kind of want to avoid agreeing with myself and potential group think. Sorry. Please don't confuse not being effected by the discussion to "waving a hand at it".

So to sum things up I was 80% when I posted 167. 85% after Shotty's reply and while your enquries moved you to this point (or something like it) it just didn't move me either way on that scale. I'd say I'm now at 90% after reading this...

Corp - Solidly pro-town as far as I can tell. Done a good job pursuing leads and catching mistakes, good scumhunter though mistaken in this case. Everyone has mentioned why he is pro-town: good analysis, attacks, activity, what not etc etc. I won't reiterate it when no one suspects him. Will have to revise of course as the targets of his attacks get lynched, could be very very good scum.

Possibility of being scum (at this time): Very Low

I know it might be a little in my self interest but that kind of sounds like a gun being loaded at my head. A bit of a set up for "aw wow I can't believe he went" should he make it through the day...

I'd like to thank God someone finally posted about this. Zito's been attacking me with the material from this entire day, most of which was pointed out earlier by others. Zito's predecessor posted a grand total of FOUR posts and only two that weren't "Oh sorry I haven't been on I'll post my thoughts in another 5 days lolz." Not exactly a lot to work with since he got lurk/flake through the day, the thing I was trying to prevent. Now since his replace activity is high, we have something to judge, but since I built the case Zito just throws it out as OMGUS because I'm reading too much into his attacks on me? His arguments are scummy as hell and I'm locked into a corner since I have almost nothing to work with from before. It's hilarious he posts against me for inaction/indecision considering his predecessor did NOTHING but FoS once.

Also I have to agree Corp it is sort of odd to ignore an entire exchange that spans pages and involves numerous walls of text. And I really don't understand how my analysis of you is some kind of loading gun, care to elaborate?

[Shotty to the Body]

The walls of text, we are building them.

Yes, yes we are.

First, a quick observation: Zito is actively pursuing the only player building a case against him. Coincidence?

Lawl. I started putting a case together on you first. Someone else is already hunting my other suspect.

Lawl, your first post was a suspicion of me so it was hard for me to get any thoughts in before I was "under attack." That was a quick quip anyways.

I laid out several reasons why going after lurkers early on Day 1 is a bad idea in that post. You've failed to address any of them here. This is an obvious attempt to deflect.

You didn't really lay out any reasons, you waved off a reference that townies would want to lurk, but never mentioned any of them. The only reason to lurk is to fly under the radar and avoid giving your opinions or drawing attention to yourself, not exactly pro-town. Not a deflect at all, lurking isn't good for town, especially on day one, period. Going after lurkers gets them to post solves the problem, its not a lynch attempt, its a pressure vote, you still fail (intentionally?) to realize the difference.

I listed three. And townie power-roles want to lurk a bit early on so they don't get nightkilled. See Mastin (Doc) in the game I linked earlier for an excellent example of what happens when power roles take the limelight.

And I've already discussed why going after lurkers early Day 1 is bad, so I see no need to rehash the rest of this.

So are you trying to tip us that your predecessor lurked because he's a PR? Seems like a stupid thing to do if you really are one since that would probably get you night killed. Of course, Mafia don't have to worry about that now do they?

My list is useful. Unless you know all of them, I guess. Regardless, you've completely missed (intentionally?) the point - useful advice doesn't help us find scum. And useful advice, unfortunately, is all you've offered.

A bunch of acronyms are helpful for reading through posts, not for scum hunting. Maybe your version of advice isn't helpful, but actually giving people tips about what is generally the goal of town and how not to shoot yourself in the foot, especially in a newbie game, is actually probably very helpful in scumhunting in the long-run. It's not a baseless attack, but that's all you seem to recognize as useful.

Sigh. You're going to make me do a post-by-post, aren't you? Fine then.

Post 1: Random vote
Post 2: Call me Shotty. (Call me Ishmael.)
Post 3: "I dunno, I wouldn't reach much into it."
Post 4: Waiting for Toledo. (Waiting for Godot.)
Post 5: Advice: Somebody unvote Giskard since he's at L-1.
Post 6: Oops, counted wrong, nevermind.
Post 7: Unvote.
Post 8: Speculates that if PhilyEc is scum, then a lurker is too. Can we prod Cornelllius? Mod says no, he posted recently.
Post 9: Defense against a PhilyEc jab. "I was just speculating"
Post 10: Says he's speculating since PhilyEc "seems to be the hot topic at the moment"
Post 11: Back to Cornellius!
Post 12: Phily is town now. Votes Cornellius.
Post 13: Cornellius is a bad, bad lurker person.
Post 14: Defends against a Corporation jab about Cornellius
Post 15: Asks PhilyEc for more info
Post 16: Where's Qwints?
Post 17: Where's Qwints?
Post 18: Sorry that I've been inactive everyone. (irony, lol)
Post 19: Yay the thread is alive.

Posts 20 onwards were part of the ongoing debate.

I should have done this earlier, I suppose. Bad me. So the grand sum total of your advice seems to be contained in post 5. And the grand sum total of your scumhunting seems to be contained in post {ERROR 404: FILE NOT FOUND.} Oops, there wasn't any.

Guess I have to do my own relook at all my posts now, joyous. (FML for posting in general, now I actually have to pay attention unlike the list of 4 posts in Corn's list.)

1: Random Vote
2: Call me Shotty (Hi Ishmael)
3. See quote above, in response to Gadget saying "Looks like someone is already Retaliating there." (concerning Falko's random vote.)
4. Keeping a vote on Toledo to get him to post.
5. Suggest not lynching so early since I thought someone was at L-1
6. Edit 5, advise not bandwagoning early.
7. Unvote after a post is made by Toledo.
8. Speculates that both scum probably wouldn't step up front like Phily did, so if he is scum the other is probably a low poster.
9. Correcting Phily, I wasn't assuming you were scum. =P
10. Make a mistake by saying I'm going with the hot topic, I just thought I would offer my thoughts on the subject at hand, which I did with my own opinion and idea.
11. Point out that Corn isn't posting and that means either lurking (which I consider scummy) or flaking.
12. Encourage town to branch off of the Phily path, asserting (consistently with post 10) that I thought his quote on quote 'paranoia' was a null-tell and I'd seen enough to mark him as town at that point. Put a vote in (there's that thing that Zito keeps bitching I don't do enough) on Corn to encourage him to post and ask for other's thoughts on him lurking/flaking.
13. Replies to Toledo advocating lurking or at least letting the lurkers go because they might have other commitments. Something to note, though since Toledo had genuine real life issues with posting maybe that was a bit of self-preservation. Again state we shouldn't just ignore someone since they refuse to post.
14. Reply to Corp and call for more opinions on other subjects since I didn't have any substantive evidence that hadn't already been posted. (don't see how I defend a jab since I agreed with Corp?)
15. Phily says he thinks certain people are more scummy and I ask him to elaborate since I didn't see reasons for it in that post.
16. This post was made on the assumption Corn was actually going to start posting again, so I was willing to drop the inactivity thing against him under that assumption. Point out that Qwints disappeared about the time Phily started making strides against him.
17. Thought it was unfair to put so many votes on Qwints without giving him a chance to respond to his attackers.
18. Start posting again after a dead weekend, first time checking since Cyren posted her first wall of text and Corp put something substantive out there to respond to.
19. People posting stuff that matters again, yay.

And I'll stop there. Obviously if you reread the thread you get a better idea of things, but there's clearly more in some of these posts then Zito's half-sentence summaries let on.

Again, you (intentionally?) missed the point - You haven't taken a stand on anyone until you were forced to. Even with this post you haven't fully committed to anything, because even after all this analysis you still aren't voting one of your chief suspects. To me it seems like you're throwing up a huge cloud of smoke, throwing out a couple names and hoping something sticks. If someone does bite then I'm guessing you'll happily hop onboard.

[1]Nice one, if I had voted you would've said "Look, Shotty's just voting someone else to throw our attention elsewhere." Good play since you could complain about my decision either way, hope people see through this obvious ploy. [2]Sorry, I like to actually hear other people's opinions and come to a consensus with them before voting.

1. And you know this how? You saw into the future perhaps?
2. Yes, there was an obvious consensus on Cornellius being scum. Oops, wait, no there wasn't. This sentence is also How To Be a Bad Guy 101: Riding Town Opinion to Success!

1. Yes, watch out for the bus tomorrow. And it's a really cheap, easy, and almost painless way to get in a free shot since you could've complained no matter which way I went without looking too scummy.
2. You still fail to realize the difference between a vote to lynch and a vote to get someone to post. Considering how much you pride yourself on logic this almost has to be intentional since I've been pointing out the difference for days now. It's not exactly riding opinion when I've already posted my thoughts and everyone is free to examine them and comment. Considering I've actually pointed out things that other people haven't, unlike a certain someone, I wouldn't talk to much about being a bad guy if I were you.

Classic scum post. You completely fail to refute what's being said (probably because you can't) and instead try to attack the person. It doesn't matter if I joined first or fifth. What matters if what I say makes logical sense.

[1]Actually, I'm pretty sure I outlined how I refuted what you said, try reading the post. [2]What you say is just an echo of Corp's earlier post with a few rusty bells and whistles tacked on to make it look different. [3]You've done the exact same thing with your position on Gadget by copying Cyren. Coincidence? [4]Classic case of bandwagoning and riding the coat tails of other people's arguments.

1. Actually, you pretty much didn't refute anything. Repeating that you did over and over again doesn't make it true.
2. Prove this. Saying it doesn't make it true.
3. Prove this. Saying it doesn't make it true.
4. Prove... ah, you should get the point by now. Plus there isn't a bandwagon on you yet. For some reason.

I love when a pattern emerges.

1. Lol apparently some people seem to think I made some counterpoints since they've pointed them out and you just keep glossing them over.
2-4. Okay, lets look at the proof. Compare your opening opinions of myself and Gadget to the opening opinion's of Cyren on Gadget and Corp's case against me. Let's look back to the 5 points I talked about in the first post where I analyzed everyone. Right, the part where the reasons that aren't a load of crap are copycats of Corp's case worded differently. Once sure, I'll buy it, but making the same cases as two other people against two players that are the easiest targets?

Logical fallacy. What someone flips doesn't determine anyone else's alignment. The intent of the voter does. Townies mislynch all the time.

Hope you have a lot more lines like this for when you get asked about your townie lynches in the coming days. Intent to lynch town is pretty scummy in my book.

Intent to lynch scummy players shouldn't be.

Is it what you meant to do or what you did that really matters? You can mean to lynch scum all day, but if you lynch a bunch of town I don't think the rest of the people in the game will accept, "Well I thought they looked scummy!" when it comes time to pay the piper.

This is a fantastic paragraph and deserves more breakdown.

1. Translation: He was fine until he started targeting me.
2. Refuted this 'point' above
3. Out of thin air? I examined what you said and found numerous scummy things, none of which you've refuted.
4. I had no idea you were even attacking me. When was this? PhilyEc has been applying the only pressure I've felt so far.
5. lolwut
6. bzzzt

1. Ummm, I didn't even put posts in until after you started targeting me, so there's no standard of comparison.
2. Supporting lurking is fail.
3. Once again failure to read the post or just glossing over things that were said.
4. Pretty sure I was the one applying pressure to your predecessor to get him to post, since your such a fan of lurking once I'm gone you could do the same with less chance of being called out.
5.Lolwut this post contains nothing at all refuting anything I said, just more attacks against me. What was that? A classic scum post someone called that? Oh wait that was you, lol good job.

1. How did I show up as town if there's no standard of comparison?
2. Read plz
3. I read it. I analyzed it. I dissected it. Posting this doesn't make it true. Etc.
4. You pressured my predecessor for lurking. I, obviously, am not a lurker. Hence, no pressure. Phily was attacking me for stuff I said. You should try it some time. Also, your crystal ball is amazing, where can I get one?
5. You had the nerve to claim I didn't use logic. The nerve! It deserved a lolwut.

1. You misread, you say I thought you were fine until you targeted me. In reality, you've been targeting me since you replaced in so you have no standard to compare my actions now to my actions with you before you attacked me since there really weren't any.
2. All your material on this condemns me for getting lurkers to post, I've read it and supporting lurking is fail.
3. You actually ignored most of the post where I analyzed you and everyone else, didn't see any responses to any of the comments made there, just some vague OMGUS wave off.
4. You would think no pressure, but since you continually defend lurking and your predecessor's (few) actions it makes me think there still is some pressure you feel the need to fight against. Yes, the bus, remember and no you can't have it.
5. Maybe you use logic but you sure seem to ignore a lot of things.

So I agree that you can't just ignore what our predecessors did. Part of the burden of being a replacement is that you have to account for the actions of the one you replace. Cyren and I shouldn't be considered "innocent" just because we replaced in, so if you have an issue with something our previous selves said, feel free to question it.

A post any scum would be willing to throw out when he's under little to no fire and realizes his predecessor lurked/flaked so much there's almost nothing to question.

Because a townie wouldn't make that post, right? And let's just ignore the fact that the post completely and totally obliterated your point 6 in that paragraph. Which was, just so we won't be confused: "[6]counting on the innocence halo of a replace to carry him through this day where he hopes I will be silenced."

Of course your happy to make that post, by the way WIFOM that first sentence out. Your predecessor posted FOUR FUCKING TIMES with NO CONTENT. How can we judge you on any of that, maybe that's why I tried to discourage his lurking? I'll do his PBPA since it won't take more than 5 seconds.

Corn PBPA
1. I don't like to random vote so I won't.
2. I'll post later lol (not).
3. One FoS pointing out nothing original.
4. I suspect no one.

How useful in judging a replace.

I'll throw another acronym out there: FUD. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. That's what Shotty is trying to spread to the town by making a bunch of baseless accusations and ignoring cases against him. Shotty really needs more votes.

Right, right.... Baseless because they aren't something you can bandwagon on? I'm not trying to spread any fear or doubt. Zito's reasons for lynching me are a load of BS based on the fact I decided to observe and report rather than attack during day one. At least I contributed original ideas and independent opinions to cases that were presented instead of jumping on the coat tails of every case against someone right as I replaced in.

No no no. My vote is on you because you're the scummiest player in the game. Why are you the scummiest player in the game? Because:

1. Until I came along, you were just making contentless posts and trying to appear townie by asking for information.
2. Going after an easy target, a lurker, who can't/won't defend himself instead of someone who would actually answer. Again to try to earn townie points.
3. Failing to refute anything I've said. And I've said a lot.

1. My posts have been far more useful than anything your predecessor put in and all you've done is ride other people's arguments and reword them so they look pretty.
2. Trying to prevent this maybe? Getting blindsided with nothing to comment on.
3. Once again you gloss over anything that disagrees with you, and you must have a huge pile of gloss at this point, can you see the table underneath?

[Shotty to the Body]

Well, this was disappointing.

We then come to a rather bizarre pair of posts:

I'm not going to interject into the Gadget/Cyren conversation here since Cyren doesn't need my help, but I am going to say that the above solidifies Gadget as my #2.

All - keep in mind that we have a deadline a week from today, so we'll need to start moving to a consensus soon. At this point I'm fine with either a Shotty or Gadget lynch.

I dont think it was that concrete a result. Thats a bit of a stretch Zito.

No? Hmm. I'll explain then. Sorry Cyren, wasn't trying to interfere.

Cyren's basically saying "I'm scumhunting, please don't answer for him so he can wriggle away." ... Second point - I haven't seen Cyren push for a lynch yet. ... Cyren's just saying to pay attention to other conversations, even if you aren't involved in them. Your post is a blatant misrepresentation.

What we have here is Papa not only defending Cyren, but putting words in his mouth. That's quite scummy.

Okay first... Cyren is a she.

Second, have you actually read the thread? I didn't want to get involved in Cyren's hunt, but Phily asked me to explain how I came to my conclusion and that was the only way to do it. If you read Cyren's post later, she even says that my take on it was correct.

Papa further attacks Shotty in 220.

{reposts wall of text}

This post is deeply scummy.
1. He dismisses Shotty's arguments as OMGUS without examining their validity.
2. He attacks a strawman, claiming Shotty supported lynch all lurkers.
3. He attacks Shotty with rhetoric (e.g. huge cloud of smoke, FUD) rather than concrete points.
4. He refuses to engage Shotty's responses, then calls Shotty out for ignoring his points.

Again, first, have you read the thread? There's been another exchange between us since what you quoted.

1. I went point by point and refuted everything he said. Also, irony.
2. Shotty voted a lurker. I made a case about why this is bad. Attack the case if you want.
3.

I went point by point and refuted everything he said.

Clouds and FUD are a general comment on his strategy.
4. Pete and Repeat sat on a log. Pete fell off, who was left? 1, 3, and 4 are all the same, and so is my answer. I went point by point, refuted his remarks, and he has failed to defend.

I went point by point, ignored the things he said I didn't like, ignored all the points he made about me being scummy, wrote a giant pile of bull, and misinterpreted him whenever I could.

Fixed.

[Shotty to the Body]

Vote Zito

If I wait any longer he'll probably tell me I rode the opinion wave that I started.

[Shotty to the Body]

Okay first off, I'm not going to bother writing another wall of reply to Zito since nothing new has been gleaned and he's shown his willingness to ignore valid arguments in sake of his case and now dismiss the actions of his predecessor in his last post even though we should judge him by those. Second thing I would point is that now he criticizes me for not putting anyone on my list in the high/very high category even though he told me earlier I couldn't possibly have a strong read on anyone in day one and it can't possibly be relative! If that's his view how could I possibly put anyone in the high probability category? The contradictions are strong in that one. Lastly, I would point off I did say I wasn't pushing for a Corn lynch after my pressure vote, maybe you've misunderstood because I know at least some people got that part before you showed up and started fogging the issue, check Phily's 152, he seems sure I wasn't pushing a Corn lynch. I concur with the consensus that nothing new is to be gleaned from reposting another wall and town should decide from here. Still, if anyone wants me to answer to specific parts of it I will.

@Cyren
1. You've both replaced in with similar strategies which is to post everywhere. The priors to that played similarly also by both being our lowest posters, now you two have become the highest. Your cases/reads are at least synergistic though I attribute that more to Zito copycatting. Also, Toledo felt the need to defend Corn when I pressed down on him to get him to vote. That much circumstance from two completely different sets of players casts suspicion onto both of you in my eyes.

2. If you reread my post 215 I point out several things about Gadget. I'll put the most important ones here. Gadget suffers from the same thing I'm under attack for which is a wait-and-see approach. I've apparently been learned in this aspect and after closer review of Gadget's posts I thought they contained more bandwagonish attacks rather than independant (sp?) thought much like Zito's posts. He flipflopped early in the game between Phily and Qwints by jumping on other people's arguments. Also as part of the group that was on Qwint's case he also ignored Qwint's call for specific arguments about him being scum, if you thought he was scummy why would you let him slide? Following your and his posts I tend to agree with you he's been contradictory and evasive in trying to defend himself. The fact he hasn't stepped up and taken you point by point suggests that he can't. I also note your post about him suddenly disappearing right as lynch/deadline time comes up. I disagree with you on that his suspicion of you is purely OMGUS though I would like to see more facts from him on that point, I'll explain that in the next point about my vote on Zito. I would also contest the wait-and-see approach isn't a for sure scum tell if the person contributes original and useful ideas to each case presented.

3. I would point to your predecessor's behavior for one, he defended Corn's lurking position in 98. Also Gisk noted something I thought interesting though circumstantial and unprovable in his 91. Also things like the double-standard I pointed out made me suspicious, though I'm beginning to think we've had a bit of miscommunication since we've already had to clear up two different posts by the other. >.> Those combined with what I mentioned in 1 were what made me at least mildly suspicious of you.

4. Phily hasn't done anything terrible to change my opinion on him since then, after a reread he's been fairly probing, though he also let the Qwints subject drop. My biggest concern with him right now is he dropped a vote on me with very little reasons posted, especially since that's the hammer vote if things stay as they are until the deadline on Saturday. I'm hoping for a response from him before then so I have time to respond to his post.

5. Alright this is how I feel about the vote I've made on Zito and Gadget's suspicions of you. This is a rather difficult position we've been put in so bear with me. Both of your predecessor's lurked and/or flaked their way through most of the day. Gadget has more to work with than I do, but still almost nada in the way of content. The replaces come and start posting a lot, good. Now we have something to look at from these players. The problem is since we've both been attacked off the bat by replaces with low-content predecessors it was hard for us to have a read on them before you guys came in and started posting a ton. Now that we've been able to get a read, it isn't really fair to just call OMGUS on us for voting Zito in my case or Gadget in yours, though he hasn't done so yet. I'd like to hear some actually reasons from Gadget about the suspicions he mentions in 206. He hasn't posted anything in the way of content since and as the other player on the chopping block seems like he is flying under the radar and letting me take all the heat since I'm actually defending myself. I won't call his case OMGUS until he gets to post about it, but his inactivity considering he is on a lot of people's top three scum list is surprising.

6. Chinese food, good occasionally, but I don't seek it out. Egg rolls are yummy and I love fortune cookies. I play WoW, what does your husband play? If you know. =P (race/class)


@Phily
Take a look at point 4 above Phily. You've asked for a summation of our cases and you have a vote on me without putting up one of your own. Especially since it could be the hammer come deadline I'd really like to know why you think I'm scum. I'd note you said you thought my post were hostile? You weren't exactly friendly when Qwints accused you early in the day, why do you think its a scumtell? Also the last few posts between me and Zito were pretty organized, but I'd be happy to go through your concerns point by point.

My case on Zito.
1. Likes to ignore points made against him and/or dimiss them as OMGUS without providing a response.
2. Continually defends lurking, no matter how he tries to word it saying I disagree with pressure votes on lurkers is pretty stupid. Continually argues that I was trying to lynch a lurker even though I wasn't and have pointed it out about 6 times.
3. Has been bandwagoning on other people's cases, specifically Cyren's and Corp's, since he replaced in.
4. Contradicts himself a lot. Ex: Judge us by our predecessor and then recanting that in his last post, saying I score no points by looking at his predecessor's history.
5. Misrepresents people's posts on his way to 'building a case.' Check out his version of the PBPA of me versus mine, reread the posts and see if you thought his summary did them justice.

[Shotty to the Body]

EBWOP: Should be quotes around "I disagree with pressure votes on lurkers." He says that, he doesn't say I do. Clarification there.

[Shotty to the Body]

Except I'm not his partner, he's my #2 how do you figure that? Just repeating that were scumbuddies doesn't make it true.

[Shotty to the Body]

Also at this point unless there's a huge exodus to Gadget it's going to be me or Zito lynched and I'd rather have everyone come down on one side or the other no matter what happens so I would encourage the Gadget voters and/or Giskard to make a switch.

[Shotty to the Body]

1. Until my hunt, he was just making contentless posts and trying to appear townie by asking for information. (yes, yes, Corp posted this too)

Yup and something that was very vote worthy when he first pointed it out

2. Going after an easy target, a lurker/flaker, who can't defend himself instead of someone who would actually answer. Again to try to earn townie points.

Agreed, chasing the policy lynch/ lurker is the easiest lynch considering theres little defense avaliable

3. Failing to adequately defend himself against pretty much anything I've said.

Nulltell, scum have little reason besides ill will but town can just fail.

My case was basically within my post of the vote.

I saw Shotty was merely playing a hiding under the radar type of gameplay. Never getting involved in major topics of discussion, rather yelling the most expected lines of town, one by one.
At the moment his defense is poor but the fact that he now thinks your scum for pointing out an obvious flaw in his gameplay adds to why I shouldnt change my vote.

Come into suspicion after I announced them as my suspects. Had I been late saying this there would've been another 'Phily jab' =P

Zito, its strange but when I read your quotes of Shotty they seem more hostile than I'd previously taken them to be. Hes definately on guard and not being organised about collecting his thoughts.

Shotty > Gadget, at the moment. Vote Shotty

You call that a case? I looked more hostile than you thought? You've ignored all the points I've made in 285 and didn't answer any of my questions. Also it isn't OMGUS that has me voting for him, if you've been reading ANYTHING out of those arugments or even the list in 285 I have about 6 different reasons independent of "pointing out a flaw in my play" that reads him as scum. I've gone through every post he's made point by point, how much more organization can you want? You put it IN YOUR OWN POST (152) that I wasn't going after him and that was a bad thing. Now I was trying to lynch him and that's a bad thing too? The hypocrisy astounds me! You've posted nothing new or even incriminating about me and your putting the hammer vote on me for the end of the day. At least Zito tries to hide his bandwagoning by making his own posts and actually writing responses to me, you copy paste one of his posts as your "case" and even contradict yourself in the process, terrible. Watch this one in the coming days folks.

[Shotty to the Body]

EBWOP: When I refer to post 152 the him in that sentence is Corn (and the next sentence as well), that refers to Phily's reason 2 for lynching me, which is really some of Zito's reasons for voting me, but hell, let's pretend their Philly's for a moment.

[Shotty to the Body]

bah

[Shotty to the Body]

Nice job everyone. Quick question for everyone, did you think I had any better way out then what I did at the end of D1?