Newbie 785 - Game Over

[falkomagno]

@giskard.

You built your case against me in post 187. Well, in fact was a kind of PBPA with your own opinion about my activity. I respond you properly in post 209 and I did point by point. You didn't counter-argument my answers given in post 209. You just skimmed, in post 232, the last part of my post, and as some kind of conclusion of your case, you say again why"my vote for qwints was terrible", that, correct me if I'm wrong, is the axis of you accusation against me

I answered you again, but, the fact that in post 232 you just counter-argument my last part of the post, implies that the rest of my answer post is not wrong or debatible for you, thus, was logical responses. If not, and as I said before, I encourage you to elaborate your case against me, since, by now I just see that in your opinion I shouldn't did vote for qwints and that makes me scum. I don't see anything else.

And well, it's true that qwints clarify himself about his "I'm serious" joke. In fact, he unvote me later. I've been keep my vote against qwets because he stop his activity for a while, so he gave me no reasons to unvote him, but right now I don't think that he is the scummest person. I was critical about him, and with people who says that he was townish, because he suddenly dissapear. but lately, he has contributed, and there is no reasosn to keep my vote on qwert.

Unvote

I know, because I see you biased against me, that, no matter if I vote, or vote for anyone else, it's probable that my behaviour is scum to you. That's fine, I just want to motivate you again to elaborate, so I can respond properly as well. If I'm wrong, you have to prove it.

@ Cyren. I agree with you about get involve about zito/shotty/me/gadget cases. But right now, and due those huge walls of text from side and side, whatever I would say would be a too little. But, what the hell.

Zito: I see tha he's elaborating his arguments, but I noticed some emotional blackmail, putting people in a position -if you aren't with me, you are against me-. I saw that reaction from zito with qwints, corps and myself

Shotty: It's true that he has just post with real content lately, when he felt the pressure from zito, and the lynch becoming. this can be understandable, but, maybe it's just too late

Corp:Hard to see corp. But I'm not want to add in that positive BW about him agreeing that is townish. No way

To be honest, about you and gadjet, I will have to read both of you isolate, so, later I can post my opinion about it

Qwerts,: As pointed some valid points lately. I'm about neutral on him right now[/b]

[Papa Zito]

^^^ Good post.

Zito: I see tha he's elaborating his arguments, but I noticed some emotional blackmail, putting people in a position -if you aren't with me, you are against me-. I saw that reaction from zito with qwints, corps and myself

Not sure I get this. None of the three you mentioned have moved on my list. Qwints is hunting me, that's good, he's contributing, plus didn't I just post a big PBPA on him to show why I think he's town? I pushed The Corporation a bit for a post I didn't like, he responded well. Your last post was good stuff. I'm not condemning anybody who isn't voting for Shotty. Halp?

[Giskard]

@giskard.

You built your case against me in post 187. Well, in fact was a kind of PBPA with your own opinion about my activity. I respond you properly in post 209 and I did point by point. You didn't counter-argument my answers given in post 209.

First of all, the point I was attempting to make with the PBPA was that you haven't offered much content that could help. I summed up the PBPA by saying

The only posts that he made that have any real content are 51 and 64. Both or these posts give what seem to me has terrible reasons for putting quints at L-2 and that has me very suspicious of falko.

But since you want me to comment on all of your responses here you go:

...Here is a PBPA of falko's activity:


20. The much debated "just advice me when the RVS stops, and the serious voting start" post
37.

ok...let put some pressure right now...since it's early and there is not real reasons to put in danger anybody...but, the explanation of qwints doesn't be enought...

unvote, Fos qwints

This post is essentially the same as the ones that the case against Shotty is being built upon.

but at that time, That was a legitimate question.

That still doesn't change the fact that this post is the same as the ones used in the case against Shotty. It is a generic "Go Team Town!" statement that doesn't help us but puts up the appearance that you were trying to help.

51. Responds to some questions and votes for quints for vague reasons. This was (at the time) the third vote for quints and I seem to recall reading somewhere that the third person on a bandwagon is likely mafia.

So, be third in a votation is scum. ....I can't see a weakest reason to suspect in anybody...

You were jumping on the qwints bandwagon in order to lynch a person that was suspicious of you. That doesn't seem like a weak reason to me.

64. Responds to questions regarding post 20. Clarifies that he voted because quints is "creating confusion" although I did not find anything confusing about quints accusations.

So, if I ask if X post is serious, and you say yes, just to recognize a couple of post after that you weren't serious, is clear as water. Sorry, but to me it just create confusion.

I have discussed this one in subsequent posts.

93.

yeah...I saw meta...metagame and others like that, and I'm curious.

Talking about the game. I think that we have to clarify who are lurking and who is away for legitimate reasons

Not much of value in this post.

I was asking something, it's that wrong?. there is a lot of vocabulary and abbreviations used in mafia games, and if new players like me question about it, isn't matter of value or not in the post, but to clarify issues. That's was worth for me, and maybe for another new player who would have the same doubt.

I don't care that you didn't know what meta meant. I asked what it was first so why would I use this against you. The second half of the post however, is another one of the posts that says and contributes nothing while still appearing at first glace to help the town.

125.

What do you mean lack of activity...I'm been as active as I can, and I've done at least 2 post in any page...

but, to be honest, right now I can not suspect strongly about noone, I think that, if somebody ahs noticed some argument fissure, we can go deeper in that way. I didn't see anythig so suspicious lately

Another post with no real content.

that's what I thought in that moment. If I didn't suspect anybody, why not to share that opinion??

Because it doesn't help us at all. It is yet another post like 37 and 93.

Responding post 56.

It's true that I was involved in the RVS, when I vote for The Corporation. Then, qwert vote for me because an unclear reason about OMGUS. So, I ask for a call when the serious vote stage starts, so, we can differentiate true arguments and fake or joke arguments. When qwert says that he was serious, well, How do you understand that?.

And That leads me to Responding post 52

I think that the responses given by qwerts are just creating confusion, and that only serves to scumm. Why do you say that you are serious, as a joke??. It's like voting for himself. Then, he makes weak assumptions, as said that I'm going to stop posting until the real stages starts, when I just ask WHEN starts. I'm not aganist RVS, since that can be fun and stuff, I'm against obscure argumentation, and attemp of create confussion

The only posts that he made that have any real content are 51 and 64. Both or these posts give what seem to me has terrible reasons for putting quints at L-2 and that has me very suspicious of falko.

I think that post 64 clarify my position about that. Simply say that "is a terrible reason" did'nt make any sense if you don't say why. You just can quote and say...that's terrible, that's null, that's worthless, that doesn't have nay value, because you have to argumentate and say why in first place.

I responded to this in 232

You just skimmed, in post 232, the last part of my post, and as some kind of conclusion of your case, you say again why"my vote for qwints was terrible", that, correct me if I'm wrong, is the axis of you accusation against me

I am just going to quote post 232 to make this simpler

The way I am reading it, you saw a guy with two votes who was suddenly starting to attract attention by voting for you and decided to add your vote to what you thought would be a growing pile. Since then you have done nothing to help us find any other suspects as I illustrated in post 187.

I answered you again, but, the fact that in post 232 you just counter-argument my last part of the post, implies that the rest of my answer post is not wrong or debatible for you, thus, was logical responses. If not, and as I said before, I encourage you to elaborate your case against me, since, by now I just see that in your opinion I shouldn't did vote for qwints and that makes me scum. I don't see anything else.

First of all, you didn't answer me. You dodged the my argument and instead posted a conversation that never happened and didn't apply to what I said. Secondly, I am not voting for you because you voted for qwints. I am voting for you because you were the third vote on a player who was suspicious of you and who was attracting attention from most of the other players. You then proceeded to not post anything else that could help us to find scum. You didn't even ask qwints any more questions even though he said this:

You can't create pressure by saying "let's pressure him." You create pressure through pointed questions and votes. The fact that you say "there is not reals reasons to put in danger anybody" makes this post basically white noise.

He was damn near begging you to interrogate him and you didn't ask him anything. If you found his comments so confusing (which you have stated is the reason why you voted for him) then why didn't you start asking questions so that you could understand what he meant?

[Giskard]

Giskard and Falko -

I know you have your own thing going, but can we get your insight on the zito/shotty/me/gadget arguments too?

Zito & Shotty - I am 90% sure that one of these two is mafia. The arguments laid out by Corp and Zito are quite compelling. Shotty's responses and accusations aimed at Zito are not. While I could see scum adding to the arguments being made by Corp, I don't think they would be as adamant about it as Zito has been. I am not, however, completely convinced of Shotty's guilt as should be evident by where my vote lies. The missing 10% is the chance that Corp is scum and he caught a lucky break when Zito decided to lead the charge against Shotty.

Cyren - You have done nothing to cause me to suspect that you are scum. And this makes me think you are scum. j/k. Seriously though, you seem to have the towns best interest at heart.

Gadget - Gadget certainly hasn't been much help to the town. But he also doesn't seem to be actively trying to hurt the town.

[falkomagno]

@Zito
I'ts not a big deal, just a vague impression. It's due at sentences like this:


about corp:
This post hurt my townie read on Corp a bit

and , about qwints:
Well, this was disappointing. (post 253)

but again, it's not big deal. It's just that I noticed that and that's all. I'm not planing defend that or attack or something based in such weak impression.

@Giskard

I see that,instead recognise that initially my post was enough for you, you prefer to respond "post by post" now, to put clear that you haven't giving me any point, and to clarify that in fact, you are not agreeing with nothing that I said before. I hope that this effort be a real confirmation of your thoughts against me, and no a post due for a misinterpretation of a "challenge" of my post 275.

Since, in your counter-response, I see that your case is not because I did "a terrible vote" as I thought earlier, but two concrete things:

1. My statements, until 21 May, are not helping town (you put the word

help

7 times in that post).

2. I must to be scum, because I vote for qwints when he had two votes


Well, there is my answer to that

1. I consider myself as an active player, who has post things relevants to the game, but, with some limitations inherent to the game, as some uncertainty and doubts. One of my post, that you consider as "useless" is about to identify lurkers, that, is a major matter to me. If you disagree about it, fine, but I still thinks that towns shouldn't not to be afraid to post , and lurk is scum, and make the game slow. I encourage posting.

2. First I want to clarify something. My concept of

FoS

has been changed from the beggining of the game 'till now. I first thought that you would use FoS as a low level of vote. I mean, if you cast a vote for someone I thought that was the most clear sign of suspicious in that persons, and any level below just enough a FoS. But now, I think that FoS it's only used when you has cast a vote and you can't vote for anyone else, so you put a Finger (or even a hand) of suspicious in someone, to indicates your suspicious without cast a vote (because you can't).When I put a FoS in qwints, to "pressure him", phyl, and later qwint himself point correctly that a Fos is nothing of pressure, if you can cast vote. So, I castd a vote and correct my mistake voting, instead of remain an useless Fos.
But, there is something wrong in your statement, and its about the concept of BW against quinst. If is tru taht, at that point my vote for Qwints was the third he received, that was hardly a BW, since the first vote was given as a joke in RVS. In fact, and according with that, the first vote was properly unvoted by gadjet (post 56). Pretend put my vote as a scum move to quicklynch in someone is biased, and I see that as a attemp to try to put facts in a way to look bad, isntead overview all the facts around. If I attribute this to the fact that you felt "challenged" by me, it's ok. But, If you persist in see the things with a narrow perpective I would think that you have another interest besides the truth here.

[Cyren]

Corp - I said I didn't want to switch my vote till he responded meaning I'm still waiting for something more substantial to sway me officially. I didn't think the "to lynch tomorrow" list was enough for me.

Also it seems like you were pretty keen to get me back in the discussion on Shotty. What was the motivation for that? I have shown in the thread that I post when I see something scum and attack it hard. Since I rejoined the discussion at your behest you have had no comment on Zito or I's comments. Strikes me as somewhat weird.

The motivation was that you summed up some stuff you thought might have been scummy and then let Zito take it from there. I felt like you were sitting in the background letting the BW take its course. Then you posted saying you had nothing to add/say and I just found that odd. I felt like you were saying Shotty's response to you and swayd you to think he was town.

And...Your post 264 was responding to my post where I commented on your posts in the shotty/zito discussion...Also the post before this I comment. I'm part of the discussion I don't understand what you're trying to get at here...

Lynch of pure statistics alone? I don't understand that either.

As for Zito I don't have much to say there. Most of their arguments sound more emotional than logical now. Just "haha no" and "lawl you're an idiot" It isn't going anywhere to me anymore...

I agree about Gadget's posts. Its also very convienent that he can't post much now. I'm not saying the excuses are lies, just very convienient/lurkerish/off topic lately. (I think someone mentioned this already)

Phily

You didn't respond

Phily -

You said you "defend those in the right and go down on those in the wrong" Do you not see anyone in the wrong anymore?

And your current posts have been a little... confusing.. from their lack of content. Can you elaborate why exactly you voted for shotty?

My case on Gadget? No real opinions, only suspicious of me for attacking him OMGUS, no substance in most of his posts, his current active lurky-ness, side tracking from the game, ignoring posts, not defending/explaining himself well or at all, and the "I sit and watch" excuses to not put what opinions out there he

may

have while simply agreeing with others.

Zito -

Too hard on him? Not at all. Especially since he's dodging now and trying to lurk to deadline.

That doesn't answer the question of why you refrain and tell others to as well. We can still question others at once instead of everyone focusing on one person. Course, that is usually why my posts are so long.

Lulz. Somebody call Mastin, there's walls and he's not involved

Haven't had the pleasure of playing with, but have read some of Mastin's work.

Qwints-

OOOH kind of like if A is true and B is true C must be true thing. Gotcha.

Falko- liked your post 275 you brought your thoughts together so we can get a read on you.

I don't like how you said,

If I'm wrong, you have to prove it

. It is true, but sounds kind of bad to hear from town.

I didn't notice the emotional blackmail, just the emotion. I'll have to re-read on that.

Giskard-

The fact that you don't suspect me, makes me suspect you -.0 lol

Really though you should suspect everyone. Or... should we? I must try to play a game going in thinking everyone is town once instead of everyone mafia.

Actually... that does sound pretty scummy to me. >.< If I weren't me I'd be highly suspicious lol

Why do you find zito scummy but not I though? Seeing as we keep getting lumped together.

Sorry it took a bit to post, thought it had earlier.

[Papa Zito]

Too hard on him? Not at all. Especially since he's dodging now and trying to lurk to deadline.

That doesn't answer the question of why you refrain and tell others to as well. We can still question others at once instead of everyone focusing on one person. Course, that is usually why my posts are so long.

Blinkblink. The rest of that post addresses your question.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Official Vote Count

GadgetArcrep - 1 (Cyren)

Shotty to the Body - 3 (The Corporation, Papa Zito, PhilyEc)

falkomagno - 1 (Giskard)
Papa Zito - 2 (qwints, Shotty to the Body)

Not Voting - 2 (falkomagno, GadgetArcrep)

5 to Lynch.

Deadline

is the end of Saturday, May 30th (Eastern, GMT - 4).

[Papa Zito]

5 to Lynch.

Deadline

is the end of Saturday, May 30th (Eastern, GMT - 4).

Ack. Seems my extension request was denied.

All - we really, really need to come to some kind of consensus, and soon. The two most likely lynches at this point are Shotty at L-2 and myself at L-3. As I stated before, I am fine with either a Shotty or a Gadget lynch today.

Not Voting - 2 (falkomagno, GadgetArcrep)

You guys really need to lay your votes. Especially you, Gadget. Quit trying to skate by to deadline.

[falkomagno]

I'm agree about to get a consensus. In fact, and since he isn't say anything to save himself, I would push to the gadjet wagon.

I mean, I'm gonna actively push for gadget to say something intelligible.

vote gadget

Because we are still waiting for your big post.

[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.

[The Corporation]

Corp - I said I didn't want to switch my vote till he responded meaning I'm still waiting for something more substantial to sway me officially. I didn't think the "to lynch tomorrow" list was enough for me.

Fair enough.

Also it seems like you were pretty keen to get me back in the discussion on Shotty. What was the motivation for that? I have shown in the thread that I post when I see something scum and attack it hard. Since I rejoined the discussion at your behest you have had no comment on Zito or I's comments. Strikes me as somewhat weird.

The motivation was that you summed up some stuff you thought might have been scummy and then let Zito take it from there. I felt like you were sitting in the background letting the BW take its course. Then you posted saying you had nothing to add/say and I just found that odd. I felt like you were saying Shotty's response to you and swayd you to think he was town.

Just to clarify I let Zito "take it from there" because he went off arguing the semantics of a useful post, the validity of lurking with Shotty and rehashing conclusions I had aready come to (and had been unsatisfactorily rebuffed by Shotty). None of that interests me. Just because we have our votes on the same guy it doesn't mean we have the same arguments.

Again, why I had nothing to add. Zito's questions IMO were irrelevant or rehashed, Shotty's responses just as such.

I would just underline that to me Zito's approach seemed more like a smear job than a logical coherent argument which is how I make my votes (see: 167, the Philly questioning etc).

And...Your post 264 was responding to my post where I commented on your posts in the shotty/zito discussion...Also the post before this I comment. I'm part of the discussion I don't understand what you're trying to get at here...

I don't think you have been as involved in the Shotty inquisition as you have asked others to be. You seem to be very happy with Zito and myself doing a majority of the heavy lifting on him. My assumption has been for a long time your vote will end up on Shotty regardless - but we will see what happens there.

Lynch of pure statistics alone? I don't understand that either.

Maybe qwints could clarify here but isn't it statistically better for the town to lynch first day rather than not? If so, promoting a no lynch is anti-town.

As for Zito I don't have much to say there. Most of their arguments sound more emotional than logical now. Just "haha no" and "lawl you're an idiot" It isn't going anywhere to me anymore...

Agree 100%. However lets be more specific. Do you think Zito has made any convincing points on Shotty's scumminess (save for ones already covered by me)? Point for is fine if its easier for you.

I agree about Gadget's posts. Its also very convienent that he can't post much now. I'm not saying the excuses are lies, just very convienient/lurkerish/off topic lately. (I think someone mentioned this already)

It's one of those deals where if we look over him D1 (seems like happening) and he turns out scum we will be kicking ourselves. But whatever, I'm more confident in votes based on actions so lets see him put his money where is mouth is today.

[GadgetArcrep]

I have not been lurking.

I forget to visit this site because I cant be fucked reading all this fucking text.

Apologies for swearing.

Here goes nothing.

Post next. As in, quite literally.

[GadgetArcrep]

First thing before I start, Really, apologies for inactivity, I have been checking, and looking but seriously cant be fucked writing when all people wanna do is write walls of text, some of which containing parts along the lines of a childish "Ha" (not exact phrasing, but the tone is such, Papa. )

These are my opinions from what I read above.

And Excuse lacks of quotes in a few parts.

(Firstly my points of interest)

Currently my Main suspect, from his posts is Papa

Gesseppi

Zito (sorry, was eating pizza)

I've noticed a fair few times he shrugged off statements. Mostly at the times where something the town might note something about him, based on what they are getting on him and how they perceive him to be.

STTB: " [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."
PZ:"Prove it, it doesnt make it true by just saying it (Repeat, Repeat)"

We all have opinions of everyone, but your "Surely you wouldnt believe that, guys?" plays are plenty, and in my opinion, wearing thin. People can see, people can read and people can take note or shrug off another persons opinion, we dont need someone telling us what to believe.

Those parts and unneccicary use of Lulz ( without that much of an explanation why) is your generic filler material, too, the helium in your balloon that is your cases, making them look bigger, but let all the gas out, its a shrivelled up shell for what it is. You play your posts like a polititian, in my opinion. Fancy, but mostly smearing.

My second Suspicion was on Cy, but to be honest, she posts and reads others posts with as much thought an substance as any "Pro Town", she has her own opinions that are well thought out and backed up well enough to be a good opinion for others to consider, that are different than bandwagoning off anothers posts and arent outrageous and scummy in nature. Why the sudden change in opinion, some of you might ask, well, I might of not been posting about such, but I have been reading them (this is the part where I stick my neck out again.), and, from what I have seen, she is just too unscummy to be one of the mafia.

Phily, I still have my ideas about you, but you are off the hook for my vote this time, Though I cant help but wonder why you have become so quiet and reserved once the pressure has been taken off. yet become so agitated and agressive, with long. "Evidence" filled posts, by which I mean the "me? Scum?" lines.

Your lack of real activity save for a few noting lines kinda is worrying about my opinion on you at the moment, you dropped of the face of the earth, to lay low, maybe?

Shotty: Out of a Shotty vs. Zito, Shotty is, by comparison the town. Your arguments make more sense to me than Zito's, and you have your reasons, rather than his shrugoffs, Plus they have substance.

( now for the short opinions on others)

Corp: Definitely town, he has been probing and working on a lot of things here, pretty much a backbone of the entire game.

Falko: Posts probe and arguments have some reason, but they are rarer than the arguments the others play. could go one way or another, judging by actions to follow.

Qwints: He has only posted (counting consecutives) about once a page, lacking one on this page so far. he has weighed in as middle ground, 50/50 split, to me.

Giskard: he has a low chance of being scum, he has a good argument and is working well at post rate, especially during the late afternoon, where the climax is to this day, apparently.

That said, my vote is placed on Zito.

VOTE: PAPA ZITO

[GadgetArcrep]

*Pants* I told you I would get around to posting something... Eventually.

[Papa Zito]

Not that Gadget needs any more evidence, but...

First thing before I start, Really, apologies for inactivity, I have been checking, and looking but seriously cant be fucked writing when all people wanna do is write walls of text, some of which containing parts along the lines of a childish "Ha" (not exact phrasing, but the tone is such, Papa. )

Admits to lurking. Some have a dim view of that, you know.

I've noticed a fair few times he shrugged off statements.

1. Likes to ignore points made against him and/or dimiss them as OMGUS without providing a response.

You play your posts like a polititian, in my opinion. Fancy, but mostly smearing.

I would just underline that to me Zito's approach seemed more like a smear job than a logical coherent argument which is how I make my votes (see: 167, the Philly questioning etc).

These are the crux of your argument, which you have stolen from elsewhere. Delicious irony. Also, didn't we decide earlier that posting player lists like this was a bad idea? I thought we did.

I've got both scum on my wagon. I must be doing something right.

[PhilyEc]

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.

Agains, Shotty > Gadget, at the moment.

Now going to tackle another set of walls.

[Papa Zito]

Now going to tackle another set of walls.

Heh, sorry.

---

UnOfficial Vote Count

GadgetArcrep - 2 (Cyren, falkomagno)
Shotty to the Body - 3 (The Corporation, Papa Zito, PhilyEc)
falkomagno - 1 (Giskard)
Papa Zito - 3 (qwints, Shotty to the Body, GadgetArcrep)

Not Voting - none

5 to Lynch. Deadline is the end of Saturday, May 30th (Eastern, GMT - 4).

---

So everyone is voting, good. We have roughly 32 hours to meet the 5 vote requirement. If we don't, this comes into play:

[*]Deadlines may be implemented if I feel that discussion is lagging. At deadline, ½ the original number of votes will be required for a lynch. In the case of a tie, the person who first received the required number of votes will be lynched. If this number is not met, a No Lynch will occur.

There will be no reduced number of votes in LyLo.

1/2 of 5 is 2.5, so I'd assume we round up to 3. Shotty and I are tied at 3, but Shotty reached 3 before I did so he would be our lynch. I'm ok with this but I'd rather see us come to consensus on someone and not leave it to chance.

[Cyren]

I started a post unfortunately I haven't gotten to finish it. Some real life stuff is getting in the way. I'm going to try my hardest to post tonight or early morning.

I would post what I have but that wouldn't be smart.

[The Corporation]

Jeez Zito you are asking for it dude. After allowing the hypocrisy of 293 to fully set in I'm struggling to feel totally confident in voting Shot. But then I look at the names who have voted for you and I'm reassured.

[falkomagno]

I would don't buy that bandwagon on zito right now. In fact, I've never expect that status in votation right now. I think the behaviour of zito as so improbable scum, since, as a new come he has pointing some big issues about the town without any attachments, so, consider his agressive gameplay as scum is something wrong. also, the respond of gadjet it's not enough for me, and his critics to zito was based more about the shape that in the content of zito's post. say that he's like a politician, with fancy words bu lack of meaning is not a complet overview.

[Papa Zito]

Jeez Zito you are asking for it dude. After allowing the hypocrisy of 293 to fully set in I'm struggling to feel totally confident in voting Shot. But then I look at the names who have voted for you and I'm reassured.

The irony is Gadget's for voting me while doing the same thing I'm being accused of doing by his partner.

I should probably post less or something. I'm excited by this game because I'm pretty sure we've nailed both scum on Day 1 and it's making me sloppy.

[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.