The Manor: Chzo Mafia (Game Over!)

[ZazieR]

@Lamont

What''s your opinion at this moment:
A Stepho-town, Naomi-town
B Stepho-scum, Naomi-town
C Stepho-town, Naomi-scum
D Stepho-scum, Naomi-scum
E Something else

and why?

[Xtoxm]

I've just found out that this thing is a freeware PC game. Trying it out.

[Stephoscope]

So if Trilby is a "safeclaim", that means that Trilby is not actually a role in the game? I find that idea absurd.

Naomi is Trilby. Lamont is obvscum--and that's not OMGUS, that's noting that he thinks I should be shot just because I changed my mind about something and he supposedly doesn't agree.

To anyone who has not yet voted: there is likely several scum already on my wagon, and there will be one more once Devestation inevitably switches his vig vote to me. Please make the right choice.

[ZazieR]

Stepho, this

[Stephoscope]

I don't see us making a lynch at this time without a major re-alignment, but I am pretty sure that either Stephoscope or Naomi are scum, and within 24 hours I will have made my decision as to which one to vote for.

[Stephoscope]

Can you give a date since when RL got crazy for you?

I don't have an exact date, but you'll notice that I stopped signing up for games a while back. I was consistently playing four at a time for months before.

Yet, you also thought Lamont was lying. But did nothing to question his 'PR' at that time. Even though you were very positive that he was scum, before Naomi claimed due to an example of scum having to use a PR. I see no reason why you'd not question him about a PR you thought was fake.
There are some reasons possible:
-Naomi claimed Trilby. If you are scum and she's not, you want the powerrole out of the game.
-Lamont is your buddy. The first attack was used to give the impression that you two aren't scum together(bussing). But due to Naomi, you could drop your attacks, trying to save one of you or Lamont one day extra.
-Nobody was buying your attacks against Lamont, and some saw them as scummy. To not draw unwanted attention, you attack somebody else: Naomi.

Need more?

Or maybe it's EXACTLY as I explained it, that my attention had shifted from Lamont to Naomi. Are you claiming my attacks on Naomi were unwarranted?

And you're misrepresenting me, saying that I was sure Lamont was scum because of the devil sign thing. I was sure he was scum *because of his being stubborn and not saying he wouldn't use it*. There's a huge difference.

[Pyromaniac]

I don't feel any need to waste more time explaining my thoughts on Naomi, given that she is apparently not a candidate for vig or lynch.

wat

[ZazieR]

I don't see us making a lynch at this time without a major re-alignment, but I am pretty sure that either Stephoscope or Naomi are scum, and within 24 hours I will have made my decision as to which one to vote for.

And if you have read what Deves says later on, you''d know that he has a neutral opinion of Lamont.
Also, he stated in day 1 why he was suspicious of you.

[ZazieR]

Can you give a date since when RL got crazy for you?

I don't have an exact date, but you'll notice that I stopped signing up for games a while back. I was consistently playing four at a time for months before.

Yet, you also thought Lamont was lying. But did nothing to question his 'PR' at that time. Even though you were very positive that he was scum, before Naomi claimed due to an example of scum having to use a PR. I see no reason why you'd not question him about a PR you thought was fake.
There are some reasons possible:
-Naomi claimed Trilby. If you are scum and she's not, you want the powerrole out of the game.
-Lamont is your buddy. The first attack was used to give the impression that you two aren't scum together(bussing). But due to Naomi, you could drop your attacks, trying to save one of you or Lamont one day extra.
-Nobody was buying your attacks against Lamont, and some saw them as scummy. To not draw unwanted attention, you attack somebody else: Naomi.

Need more?

Or maybe it's EXACTLY as I explained it, that my attention had shifted from Lamont to Naomi. Are you claiming my attacks on Naomi were unwarranted?

And you're misrepresenting me, saying that I was sure Lamont was scum because of the devil sign thing. I was sure he was scum *because of his being stubborn and not saying he wouldn't use it*. There's a huge difference.

You asked me to explain how your behaviour would make sense as scum. I give you reasons. (Comment on your first sentence of the second paragraph)
Your attacks against Naomi weren''t unwarranted, but I find it noteworthy that you didn''t question Lamont when you thought he was lying.
And I never said that you thought he was scum due to the devil sign thing. However, you asked him not to use it. But when he does show a PR, you did not ask him to drop it. Even when you thought he was lying.

[Stephoscope]

I don't feel any need to waste more time explaining my thoughts on Naomi, given that she is apparently not a candidate for vig or lynch.

wat

She doesn't have votes for the vig, and I tend to believe she is protected. I didn't realize she had a couple votes for the lynch, and I will certainly step in and defend her if need be...but I still really don't want to talk about the lynch until we know what the vig results are.

If it's clear I'm going to be vigged, of course, I will do my best to help the town beforehand (while simultaneously trying to save myself--it'd be a mistake)

[Stephoscope]

I don't see us making a lynch at this time without a major re-alignment, but I am pretty sure that either Stephoscope or Naomi are scum, and within 24 hours I will have made my decision as to which one to vote for.

And if you have read what Deves says later on, you''d know that he has a neutral opinion of Lamont.
Also, he stated in day 1 why he was suspicious of you.

So? This is scummy to me, I completely answered your question and you're acting like I missed something.

[Stephoscope]

You asked me to explain how your behaviour would make sense as scum. I give you reasons. (Comment on your first sentence of the second paragraph)
Your attacks against Naomi weren''t unwarranted, but I find it noteworthy that you didn''t question Lamont when you thought he was lying.
And I never said that you thought he was scum due to the devil sign thing. However, you asked him not to use it. But when he does show a PR, you did not ask him to drop it. Even when you thought he was lying.

I'd arrrrgh-ue *groan* that my 951 and 989 are the strongest criticisms of Lamont's fake PR that were made. Why would I question him directly or ask him to stop? Do you really think he would have? I'm not going to waste my time for the sake of consistency. And again, that fake PR does have a rational explanation, and I didn't believe the devil sign did.

[Stephoscope]

And Lamont still can't explain how changing my mind is supposedly a scumtell.

[ZazieR]

I don't see us making a lynch at this time without a major re-alignment, but I am pretty sure that either Stephoscope or Naomi are scum, and within 24 hours I will have made my decision as to which one to vote for.

And if you have read what Deves says later on, you''d know that he has a neutral opinion of Lamont.
Also, he stated in day 1 why he was suspicious of you.

So? This is scummy to me, I completely answered your question and you're acting like I missed something.

You did miss something: Deves list of opinions.
Here he states why he has a neutral opinion of Lamont. Nowhere does he mention his attacks against Naomi. Therefore, I think that your reason for vig-voting Deves is invalid.
So state why I''m wrong with this.

[ZazieR]

You asked me to explain how your behaviour would make sense as scum. I give you reasons. (Comment on your first sentence of the second paragraph)
Your attacks against Naomi weren''t unwarranted, but I find it noteworthy that you didn''t question Lamont when you thought he was lying.
And I never said that you thought he was scum due to the devil sign thing. However, you asked him not to use it. But when he does show a PR, you did not ask him to drop it. Even when you thought he was lying.

I'd arrrrgh-ue *groan* that my 951 and 989 are the strongest criticisms of Lamont's fake PR that were made. Why would I question him directly or ask him to stop? Do you really think he would have? I'm not going to waste my time for the sake of consistency. And again, that fake PR does have a rational explanation, and I didn't believe the devil sign did.

Why would you have asked? To prove that he was lying? The devil sign was farfetched, but this wasn''t as there was clearly a PR. You thought he was scum and you thought that he was lying about the ''aaarrrgh'' PR. Yet, you didn''t ask anything about it. Naomi hadn''t even claimed yet when Lamont first started. So your argument that you were grilling Naomi doesn''t make sense now as well.
No, I don''t think he would have stopped. But why should that matter? Weren''t you trying to get him to stop with the devil sign, even when he had shown he wouldn''t? In that case, you also tried him to stop. But when the ''real'' PR came, of which you thought it was a lie, you didn''t. And I see no reason why that is.
As for his explanation, that came day 2. So that doesn''t explain why you didn''t question him when he first started this ''PR''.

[ZazieR]

And you (Stepho) still haven''t explained what comments have made you think that Naomi''s claim is true.

[Stephoscope]

I don't see us making a lynch at this time without a major re-alignment, but I am pretty sure that either Stephoscope or Naomi are scum, and within 24 hours I will have made my decision as to which one to vote for.

And if you have read what Deves says later on, you''d know that he has a neutral opinion of Lamont.
Also, he stated in day 1 why he was suspicious of you.

So? This is scummy to me, I completely answered your question and you're acting like I missed something.

You did miss something: Deves list of opinions.
Here he states why he has a neutral opinion of Lamont. Nowhere does he mention his attacks against Naomi. Therefore, I think that your reason for vig-voting Deves is invalid.
So state why I''m wrong with this.

My case against Devestation is in 1363 and 1364. Note how he credits Lamont. I fail to see how what you are bringing up is relevant.

[Stephoscope]

You asked me to explain how your behaviour would make sense as scum. I give you reasons. (Comment on your first sentence of the second paragraph)
Your attacks against Naomi weren''t unwarranted, but I find it noteworthy that you didn''t question Lamont when you thought he was lying.
And I never said that you thought he was scum due to the devil sign thing. However, you asked him not to use it. But when he does show a PR, you did not ask him to drop it. Even when you thought he was lying.

I'd arrrrgh-ue *groan* that my 951 and 989 are the strongest criticisms of Lamont's fake PR that were made. Why would I question him directly or ask him to stop? Do you really think he would have? I'm not going to waste my time for the sake of consistency. And again, that fake PR does have a rational explanation, and I didn't believe the devil sign did.

Why would you have asked? To prove that he was lying? The devil sign was farfetched, but this wasn''t as there was clearly a PR. You thought he was scum and you thought that he was lying about the ''aaarrrgh'' PR. Yet, you didn''t ask anything about it. Naomi hadn''t even claimed yet when Lamont first started. So your argument that you were grilling Naomi doesn''t make sense now as well.
No, I don''t think he would have stopped. But why should that matter? Weren''t you trying to get him to stop with the devil sign, even when he had shown he wouldn''t? In that case, you also tried him to stop. But when the ''real'' PR came, of which you thought it was a lie, you didn''t. And I see no reason why that is.
As for his explanation, that came day 2. So that doesn''t explain why you didn''t question him when he first started this ''PR''.

Again, I wasn't going to waste my time for the sake of "consistency", not when I was focused on Naomi. You're trying too hard here (just like you were with my steroids example), hopefully everyone else can see it, and that's all I have to say about this.

[Stephoscope]

And you (Stepho) still haven''t explained what comments have made you think that Naomi''s claim is true.

Naomi's entire body of work and the mod's 1206, along with the lack of a counterclaim with apparent protection available.

[ZazieR]

You asked me to explain how your behaviour would make sense as scum. I give you reasons. (Comment on your first sentence of the second paragraph)
Your attacks against Naomi weren''t unwarranted, but I find it noteworthy that you didn''t question Lamont when you thought he was lying.
And I never said that you thought he was scum due to the devil sign thing. However, you asked him not to use it. But when he does show a PR, you did not ask him to drop it. Even when you thought he was lying.

I'd arrrrgh-ue *groan* that my 951 and 989 are the strongest criticisms of Lamont's fake PR that were made. Why would I question him directly or ask him to stop? Do you really think he would have? I'm not going to waste my time for the sake of consistency. And again, that fake PR does have a rational explanation, and I didn't believe the devil sign did.

Why would you have asked? To prove that he was lying? The devil sign was farfetched, but this wasn''t as there was clearly a PR. You thought he was scum and you thought that he was lying about the ''aaarrrgh'' PR. Yet, you didn''t ask anything about it. Naomi hadn''t even claimed yet when Lamont first started. So your argument that you were grilling Naomi doesn''t make sense now as well.
No, I don''t think he would have stopped. But why should that matter? Weren''t you trying to get him to stop with the devil sign, even when he had shown he wouldn''t? In that case, you also tried him to stop. But when the ''real'' PR came, of which you thought it was a lie, you didn''t. And I see no reason why that is.
As for his explanation, that came day 2. So that doesn''t explain why you didn''t question him when he first started this ''PR''.

Again, I wasn't going to waste my time for the sake of "consistency", not when I was focused on Naomi. You're trying too hard here (just like you were with my steroids example), hopefully everyone else can see it, and that's all I have to say about this.

When it first started, Naomi hadn''t claimed. This is even stated in the post you just quoted. Yet, you do not try to counter that argument. Why''s that? And how come you didn''t?
You thought he was scum, you thought he was lying. Your reason for not questioning him about the PR, is according to you, because of Naomi''s claim.
This isn''t true as pointed out as Lamont''s PR came before the claim.

So state the reason why you didn''t question him.

[Lamont_Cranston]

Also lamont, different factions.

What was this aimed at?

Would you like me to answer this?

[ZazieR]

And don''t talk about ongoing games.

[ZazieR]

Also lamont, different factions.

What was this aimed at?

Would you like me to answer this?

Sure

[Lamont_Cranston]

Also lamont, different factions.

What was this aimed at?

Lamont, who said that Naomi was cleared if stepho was scum.

Oh, whoops. Yes I concur and have changed my opinion there as you can see from my previous posts.

[ZazieR]

And you (Stepho) still haven''t explained what comments have made you think that Naomi''s claim is true.

Naomi's entire body of work

and the mod's 1206, along with the lack of a counterclaim with apparent protection available.

Elaborate on the bolded, explain why that post from the mod increases the truth of Naomi''s claim and tell me what happened to the safe-claim argument.