Mini 811: Foggy Londontown Mafia - Over!

[Hero764]

serial:

1) Tell me what is wrong with my "defending" of Far_Cry. I can't just be trying to get a scummier person lynched? If I don't agree that he is as scummy as you say he is(which I explain, go read some games he's been in for yourself, he has this same horrible playingstyle in every single one of them. It simply isn't an indication of scumminess), I'm automatically his partner?

2) I didn't vote Far_Cry because he just has a horrible playstyle that you can't get a read out of. I didn't vote Wiirdo because he hasn't been jumping on every bandwagon he can, amongst other things. dank already pointed out the bandwagoning, but let's look at more of his select few posts:

Awww, we're leaving the RVS already? Anyways, it is true that the third vote on a wagon is scummy, even if it is a random vote. The thing is, there's nothing scummy about Neferenom's reaction. With a bandwagon accusation this early in the game, I think more information could be gained from her reaction than the actual bandwagon vote.

Now obviously that's no where near conclusive, but I'm not finding Neferenom suspicious at the moment.

"While what she did was scummy, she doesn't seem so scummy to me." Taking both sides. This post has an incredible newbscum vibe to it.

This line bothers me somewhat.

Neglects to explain it.

If you'll also notice, through the entire Mokina/kikuchiyo bloodbath, nadroj also seems to be attempting to take both sides.

Dank - What are your thoughts on Mokina at the moment? You comment about my "good point" post but not about the point in question. Nothing really scummy about that, I'm interested in hearing your stance on her.

Also, why no "good point" posts? I understand that it contributed nothing, but I was stating my viewpoint on the subject.

Unvote, Vote: Mokina

Forgot to do that in my earlier post.

Kiku -- The reason that line bothered me is because

it seems like a scum thing to say.

If you are scum, and you get Mokina lynched, and she flips town, you could say "She was town, but her behavior was screwing us over." A Get Out Of Jail Free card if people call you out on leading the Mokina bandwagon.

There's probably more if you read his posts in iso. I'm not saying he's obvscum, but he's definitely scummier than everyone here. Far_Cry simply acts this in every single game, you can't just say that makes him scummy.

3) I don't see what the lateness of the breadcrumb has to do with anything. Scum can breadcrumb just as early as anyone. Hell they could probably get a mason, doctor, vig, and cop claim in four consecutive posts and no one would notice.

4) I didn't 'drop' the case against kiku, I've already stated it over and over again if you want to go look at it. It wasn't going to go anywhere, so I stopped pushing it(long before the claim). Mokina's case was, I assume, simply a chainsaw defense of me. No logical reason to keep pushing after a claim.

5) "I" derailed the bandwagon? Yeah, because I somehow had control of what would happen after I posted that.

kikuchiyo:

1) Have you read Far_Cry's meta yet? If so, what do you have to say about it.

2) When did my activity drop? Mokina's has yes, but I've still been posting at least once a day.

dank:

1) Why the switch of vote? You think a policy lynch is better than lynching someone who is scummy?

Vote Count Ten

Far_Cry: 5 (kikuchiyo, nadroj15, qwints, SerialClergyman, dank)
nadroj15: 3 (Hero 764, Far_Cry, Lowell)
qwints: 1 (iamausername)

Not Voting: 3 (Mokina, Nikanor, Tenchi)

With 12 alive it's 7 to lynch.

Current deadline: Saturday, July 18th 8:10 AM EST

[qwints]

This post (298) helped halt a FC bandwagon.

unvote

vote: nadroj

for scummy bandwagoning.

Why did you wait until other people put votes on FC before you did? It isn't like he's posted since you last did.

There were three quick votes on FC before this. After your post, dank switched from FC to nadroj (A switch that should be remembered.)

26 hours prior to this vote, you had FOS'd FC for trying to be on both sides.

I'd say we were backed into a corner. There was no way Mokina wasn't going to get more votes on her, and the longer we waited to less believable the claim would be. dank: You wouldn't have voted for Mokina if it hadn't been for the claim?

To tell the truth, perhaps Lowell is

not so suspicious

. I'm rly not sure wat kind of game hes playin. Hes makin himself too scummy, if u know wat I mean. Obviously, he wouldn't be doin such stupid stuff if he was mafia.

I still hav to say he's suspicious,

but I will leave him for later.

Make up your damn mind, looks like you're trying to make sure you're on both sides so you can easily switch whenever its convenient. Scummy.

FoS: FC

Nadroj needs to post more content as well.

The comment about nadroj is the ONLY thing you had to say about him before you voted for him. That demands some explanation besides implying that you can't control what other people do.

[qwints]

Also, since I've had some bad experiences, could both masons confirm that their pm explicitly states that they know the other is town?

[dank]

Why the switch of vote? You think a policy lynch is better than lynching someone who is scummy?

I have always been between FC and nad, and i've stated my reasoning for picking between them a few times.

Honestly, they're both just as scummy. The thing with FC is this is how he plays, and how he will play for the rest of the game. If he is scum, always playing scummy in every game is an excellent strategy, because people will be wary of voting him, like myself and others have been. If he's town, he will only be a major distraction, and will probably help us very little. I had been preferring a nad lynch, but I think FC could help us even more, even if he turns out to flip town, for the reasons i stated in my last post.

[Hero764]

There were three quick votes on FC before this. After your post, dank switched from FC to nadroj (A switch that should be remembered.)

I don't control dank's actions. How is this even close to a real argument?

The comment about nadroj is the ONLY thing you had to say about him before you voted for him. That demands some explanation besides implying that you can't control what other people do.

What do you want me to explain? It is true I didn't pay much attention to nadroj's posts at first.

Also, since I've had some bad experiences, could both masons confirm that their pm explicitly states that they know the other is town?

Yes. My PM states Mokina is town.

[Hero764]

I'll wait to see what FC says in response to dank.

[qwints]

Hero, let's see if I can make my point clearer.

1. You had not expressed any suspicion of nadroj.
2. You had expressed suspicion of FC.
3. FC became the leading wagon after three quick votes.
4. You vote one of those voters.
5. This vote was immediately after nadroj voted.
6. Nadroj became the leading wagon based on other's following you.

(You claim that 6 was not something that you could control, but wasn't that what you wanted to happen?)

This sequence of events is scummy because you, once again, took pressure off of FC. Furthermore, you voted for someone you hadn't expressed suspicion of as soon as (2 minutes after, in fact) he voted for FC. This occurred even though nadroj's vote was based on very similar reasoning that caused you to express suspicion.

Frankly, it looks like you were trying to distance yourself from FC after you had been called out for defending him earlier, but you got nervous when a bandwagon started forming. This demands a better response than "I can't control what others do."

Why did you vote nadroj right after he voted FC?

[Hero764]

Hero, let's see if I can make my point clearer.

1. You had not expressed any suspicion of nadroj.
2. You had expressed suspicion of FC.
3. FC became the leading wagon after three quick votes.
4. You vote one of those voters.
5. This vote was immediately after nadroj voted.
6. Nadroj became the leading wagon based on other's following you.

(You claim that 6 was not something that you could control, but wasn't that what you wanted to happen?)

This sequence of events is scummy because you, once again, took pressure off of FC. Furthermore, you voted for someone you hadn't expressed suspicion of as soon as (2 minutes after, in fact) he voted for FC. This occurred even though nadroj's vote was based on very similar reasoning that caused you to express suspicion.

Frankly, it looks like you were trying to distance yourself from FC after you had been called out for defending him earlier, but you got nervous when a bandwagon started forming. This demands a better response than "I can't control what others do."

Why did you vote nadroj right after he voted FC?

This is ridiculous.

The reason I had not expressed suspicion of nadroj earlier is because I didn't really pay much attention to his posts. Looking back, he was definitely the scummiest out of anyone here. Why do I have to express earlier suspicion of everyone I vote?

Yes I had expressed suspicion of FC. This was before I read some other games of his and found that he acted the same in all of them.

And then I voted Nadroj, not because he voted FC, but because of the

way

in which he did it. He waited until other people had voted for FC to make sure he was safe scrutiny for doing so, do you deny that it was one of the scummiest, if not THE scummiest post all game? His explanation afterwards is pretty lackluster as well. Then dank showed where he had done this sort of thing before, which prompted me to read him in iso, and I only saw more reasons to vote for him.

Let's try this question: Why DON'T you find nadroj scummy?

[DraketheFake]

Effective immediately

Nikanor

replaces Wiirdo. This is reflected in the vote count above (Nikanor, there's no need to unvote before you vote as I'm wiping the slate).

Additionally, the deadline is hereby extended exactly one week from the posted time, which makes the new deadline

Saturday, July 18th at 8:10 EST.

The vote count at the top of the page will change to reflect this as well.

Additionally, I'll be

Prodding

nadroj if he hasn't posted in a couple of hours.

Thanks.

[Nikanor]

I'm confirming now.

[SerialClergyman]

Hero - you have to look at your actions in context. You've been defending him all game, been called out for defending him. I agree with you that it's ok to defend osmeone when there's a dodgy case on him, but the case on FC is GOOD, he IS ACTING SCUMMY. Then even when you're pushed up against a wall for defending him so strongly, are accused of being masons with him (and turn out claim masons with someone else), you STILL end up defending him.

So take a look at someone who is defending someone scummy, no matter how scummy they get, and when a bandwagon starts on them, despite 1 day earlier FoS'ing him, you choose THAT MOMENT to vote someone you hadn't mentioned as scummy all game.

It's just too convinient. And no, you couldn't tell exactly what other people were going to od, but when a bandwagon is forming and you vote one of the people forming it for 'scummy bandwagoning', what do you suggest is the likely out come of the vote?

Your meta defence of FC is also really inadequate. I understand that he mightn't be the most conventional player, and I understand that he might always post in this manner - but HE HIMSELF gave us a 'hypothetical' of how he would act if he was scum, and that fits his posting profile exactly. If you can't vote him based on a meta of his playstyle after that, I can only assume you have an ulterior motive.

1) Why the switch of vote? You think a policy lynch is better than lynching someone who is scummy?

And this dichotomy is total manipulation. How about a lynch on someone who is scummy and will give us more info if he flips is better than lynching someone who is a noob lurker?

Essentially - I don't believe you. Your current story is you've been defending FC all game because the attacks on him have been bad. You hadn't looked at nadroj much all game or declared any suspicion on him but you chose THAT MOMENT to vote him, just when votes were building against your bestest defending buddy FC. You claim you couldn't control what would happen after your vote, and that voting someone for 'scummy bandwagoning' in the middle of a forming wagon was not intended to pressure people away form the wagon.

Well I think all of those things are likely to be false. I say we vote FC and if he flips scum all eyes are on Hero tomorrow.

The lateness of the breadcrumb matters. If you're under pressure and you're looking ot claim mason and you have a post on the first page that crumbed that you were masons with Monika - well that's all well and good. The whole point is at that point of the game, you couldn't have known the situation, couldn't have known what was going to happen. when you refer ot that breadcrumb, I know it wasn't influenced by what's happened in the game, I know that you couldn't be claiming it because it fits the situation.

Now - say you're getting to be in trouble on page 7, there's a lot of talk, a lot of suggestions about what you might be. So you pick the most convienient claim and breadcrumb it right there! You have had a lot of time in the game ot pick the most convineient claim at that point. If the talk was asking if you were a cop, you could have crumbed cop at that point. You see what I mean? The later the crumb, the more time you have to read the game state and pick a convienient or convincing crumb.

But that's neither here nor there. I'm pretty sure we can confirm the masons as false on a FC scumflip and probably town on an FC town flip, and coupled with his scumminess that makes him the play for today in my eyes.

[Hero764]

Hero - you have to look at your actions in context. You've been defending him all game, been called out for defending him. I agree with you that it's ok to defend osmeone when there's a dodgy case on him, but the case on FC is GOOD, he IS ACTING SCUMMY. Then even when you're pushed up against a wall for defending him so strongly, are accused of being masons with him (and turn out claim masons with someone else), you STILL end up defending him.

Nonononononononono

I have not been defending him all game. Don't even try to start this. And I wasn't pushed up against the wall at all, it was Mokina's actions that made me claim. Were you paying attention during the reread?

So take a look at someone who is defending someone scummy, no matter how scummy they get, and when a bandwagon starts on them, despite 1 day earlier FoS'ing him, you choose THAT MOMENT to vote someone you hadn't mentioned as scummy all game.

Yes, THAT MOMENT, because in THAT MOMENT, nadroj acted really scummy. Every vote took place at some moment, and you can't say they are scummy because they took place at that moment. That's ridiculous.

It's just too convinient. And no, you couldn't tell exactly what other people were going to od, but when a bandwagon is forming and you vote one of the people forming it for 'scummy bandwagoning', what do you suggest is the likely out come of the vote?

I'm glad there's a bandwagon on nadroj because I find him scummy. Is there a problem with that?

Your meta defence of FC is also really inadequate. I understand that he mightn't be the most conventional player, and I understand that he might always post in this manner - but HE HIMSELF gave us a 'hypothetical' of how he would act if he was scum, and that fits his posting profile exactly. If you can't vote him based on a meta of his playstyle after that, I can only assume you have an ulterior motive.

I'm sorry but I attribute his whole scum playstyle thing to being an idiot and not ever seeming to think before he posts. Its obvious he was bullshitting during that whole fiasco(at least to me) and I don't think that makes him scum, just a bad player. You act like I'm saying he's 100% town when that's pretty far from the truth. I stated my reasons for voting nadroj, and my reasons for not voting FC. I'm not allowed to try to convince people to see it how I see it without seeming scummy? That's ridiculous and you know it.

And this dichotomy is total manipulation. How about a lynch on someone who is scummy and will give us more info if he flips is better than lynching someone who is a noob lurker?

Read dank's post, he said FC had been anti town and wasn't helping at all, and that he voted for him because of that, not because dank thought he was scummy. That's where the question came from.

Read:

Anyway, despite my uncertainties, his play is flat out anti-town and distracting, and is not at all helping us, so there really is no reason to keep him alive.

Sounds like a policy lynch suggestion to me.

Essentially - I don't believe you. Your current story is you've been defending FC all game because the attacks on him have been bad. You hadn't looked at nadroj much all game or declared any suspicion on him but you chose THAT MOMENT to vote him, just when votes were building against your bestest defending buddy FC. You claim you couldn't control what would happen after your vote,

and that voting someone for 'scummy bandwagoning' in the middle of a forming wagon was not intended to pressure people away form the wagon.

bold: Obviously I wanted people to see it my way, but you can't blame me for their actions. I wanted people to vote nadroj instead of FC yes, and coming away from his wagon was a side effect of that. That does not mean what you're making it out to be. And besides, I'm pretty sure dank's post was largely responsible for the wagon, much moreso than my one liner post. Why aren't you attacking him? Tunnel-visioned much?

The lateness of the breadcrumb matters. If you're under pressure and you're looking ot claim mason and you have a post on the first page that crumbed that you were masons with Monika - well that's all well and good. The whole point is at that point of the game, you couldn't have known the situation, couldn't have known what was going to happen. when you refer ot that breadcrumb, I know it wasn't influenced by what's happened in the game, I know that you couldn't be claiming it because it fits the situation.

I didn't refer to the breadcrumb, Mokina did.

Now - say you're getting to be in trouble on page 7, there's a lot of talk, a lot of suggestions about what you might be. So you pick the most convienient claim and breadcrumb it right there! You have had a lot of time in the game ot pick the most convineient claim at that point. If the talk was asking if you were a cop, you could have crumbed cop at that point. You see what I mean? The later the crumb, the more time you have to read the game state and pick a convienient or convincing crumb.

Mmmk.

Its WIFOM though, since scum wouldn't want you think that and would crumb earlier.

[iamausername]

Now - say you're getting to be in trouble on page 7, there's a lot of talk, a lot of suggestions about what you might be. So you pick the most convienient claim and breadcrumb it right there! You have had a lot of time in the game ot pick the most convineient claim at that point. If the talk was asking if you were a cop, you could have crumbed cop at that point. You see what I mean? The later the crumb, the more time you have to read the game state and pick a convienient or convincing crumb.

The problem with all this is that claiming to be masons with someone besides the person he was getting heat for defending - that's pretty much the exact opposite of "the most convenient claim".

And, again, Hero didn't breadcrumb it, Mokina did. Meaning that she'd have to know that Hero was planning to claim mason with her, despite this being the stupidest plan ever, if they were in fact both scum together with Far_Cry, which is what you are suggesting. That's utterly ludicrous.

[SerialClergyman]

I have not been defending him all game. Don't even try to start this.

I'm not starting it [joke]I'm ENDING it - hehe sorry, couldn't help it [/joke]. Seriously though, I'm not arguing this with you. I think you've been defending him all game and it certainly seems that way to most of the town.

It's just too convinient. And no, you couldn't tell exactly what other people were going to od, but when a bandwagon is forming and you vote one of the people forming it for 'scummy bandwagoning', what do you suggest is the likely out come of the vote?

I'm glad there's a bandwagon on nadroj because I find him scummy. Is there a problem with that?

So you've changed your stance from 'I can't help what people do' to 'I'm happy I convinced them'?

Its obvious he was bullshitting during that whole fiasco(at least to me) and I don't think that makes him scum, just a bad player.

Epic disagreement.

Fair enough about the dank dichotomy point, but it's still framing it in biased terms to me.

Its WIFOM though, since scum wouldn't want you think that and would crumb earlier.

^^ makes no sense. Nothing WIFOM about it. Breadcrumbs are more convincing the earlier they are because it does not allow you to make a claim specific to the gamestate. The later the crumb is, the more information you have on a safe and believeable role. Doesn't suggest anything baout what scum would or wouldn't od, it just means if you crumb early, I know that hasn't been influenced by what's said and I'm more likely to be convinced that's definitely your role. If you crumb late, you have the possibility grow that your claim is tailor-made to fit the current game. So it's not necessarily about inherit scumminess, more that I am much more likely ot believe breadcrumbs that are early and specific. In this case yiou guys got specific, but you didn't get early, which puts you right back into unconfirmed in my eyes.

Part of what makes me frustrated and think you're not town, Hero, is that you make no acknowledgement of some of the really basic points in my case at all.
You KNOW you've been called out for defending FC all game, whether you agree with that assesment or not.
You KNOW that perhaps if you've been called out for defending FC and vote a third party you've never expressed suspicion of with a deliberate intention to move votes off FC's wagon, it's suspicious.

I don't know why you don't just say I've been accused of defending, I don't think I have. The timing of my vote on nadroj looks bad, that's true, but judge the case on it's merits etc etc. Instead you go off the rails and start warning me not to start on you defending FC and rail on about how it was just a coincidence and even though when you started voting him it was for scummy bandwagoning now his entire post history is scummy.

I know you're one for overreactions (no offense ) but I'm not feeling the townie love this time. Plus accusing me of not reading the thread properly (zz you've played with me twice now) and tunneling (because dank with that last post after a whole game of decent scumhunting should be as suspicious as Far Cry with his continual scummy behaviour? Sorry, what??) is just not helpful or convincing.

If scummy-acting unuseful Far Cry flips scum, then scummy-acting FC-defending Hero is scum, in my book.

[SerialClergyman]

iamusername - you make a good point.

I'm struggling to understand why Hero is defending FC so much and this is the only way that I see that mkaes it fit. It's possible that the scum are sitting quietly while we argue about all this and I'm totally off track, but the claim was made in suspicious circumstances with a dodgy breadcrumb by one of the scummier players in the game.

Happily, we don't have to do anything drastic to determine if my theory is correct, we just need to lynch the scummiest player in the game so far.

[iamausername]

I'm struggling to understand why Hero is defending FC so much and this is the only way that I see that mkaes it fit.

Well, as far as your main point of evidence for "Hero keeps defending FC" goes: You're saying that his attacking nadroj deflected from the FC wagon. That's true, I guess, but you're acting like that's the only possible motivation Hero could have had for attacking nadroj, and ignoring the part where nadroj was acting really scummy, and maybe Hero's motivation for attacking nadroj was

to attack nadroj

. Because his vote on FC was the

third time

he'd joined a bandwagon with an "I agree" post and nothing more. Do you not have a problem with that pattern of behaviour coming from nadroj?

[Hero764]

So you've changed your stance from 'I can't help what people do' to 'I'm happy I convinced them'?

No. They are both part of the same stance.

Part of what makes me frustrated and think you're not town, Hero, is that you make no acknowledgement of some of the really basic points in my case at all.
You KNOW you've been called out for defending FC all game, whether you agree with that assesment or not.
You KNOW that perhaps if you've been called out for defending FC and vote a third party you've never expressed suspicion of with a deliberate intention to move votes off FC's wagon, it's suspicious.

Yes I've been called out, and I've argued against it pretty much every time(and its actually people saying, I charitably interpretted his posts, which of course is bullshit). I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it at all. I don't see how I'm not acknowledging them when I've made two posts now arguing against it. And what the hell is up with the deliberate intention of moving votes off FC's wagon? That right there pisses me off. You can twist around what I was doing to make it sound like that, but all I did was vote Nadroj when he made an incredibly scummy post.

I don't know why you don't just say I've been accused of defending, I don't think I have. The timing of my vote on nadroj looks bad, that's true, but judge the case on it's merits etc etc. Instead you go off the rails and start warning me not to start on you defending FC and rail on about how it was just a coincidence and even though when you started voting him it was for scummy bandwagoning now his entire post history is scummy.

So now you're going to attack the wording of my post. Sorry I didn't say exactly what you would've said, I guess I'm scum? The warning thing was just me getting tired of everyone saying I'd been defending FC. Not sure what you mean about the coincidence. I already explained my reasons for voting nadroj, and you have yet to tell me what is wrong with them.

I know you're one for overreactions (no offense Razz) but I'm not feeling the townie love this time. Plus accusing me of not reading the thread properly (zz you've played with me twice now) and tunneling (because dank with that last post after a whole game of decent scumhunting should be as suspicious as Far Cry with his continual scummy behaviour? Sorry, what??) is just not helpful or convincing.

I accused you of not reading the thread properly because you told me the biggest event of the game, the mason claim, was at a different time than it actually was. It was only a semi serious remark anyways. And you completely misunderstand about dank. You accuse me of derailing the FC case when obviously dank had much more to do with that than me, yet you only attack me. Maybe tunnel visioned is the wrong term, but the point still stands.

[SerialClergyman]

iam - the vote is not my main point of evidence, it's the latest point that hasn't been discussed to death.

It's definitely possible Hero wanted to vote Nadroj because he thought he was scummy. But the timing of it is extremely suspicious to me, isn't it to you? And usually people at page 15 have more than the very latest post to go on to vote someone scummy. All the stuff about his other bandwagoning or whatever is retreo-active - Hero cited that as a reason after his vote. So you have to decide whether that one post was enough to get Hero to vote him, or whether Hero is continuing his pattern of defending FC - I just happen to think it's the latter.

As for Nadroj, I agree he's in the band of 3 players who are unuseful to the town (Wiirdo, FC and nadroj) but put him at least scummy in that band. Actually that's not quite true, I think he's probably just as if not more scummy than Wiirdo, but I objected ot the total lack of pressure Wiirdo had for essentially the same behaviour.

But personally, I don't see this as nadroj vs FC, I see this as FC = scummiest player and his lynch would either confirm 2 townies or crack open the entire scumteam. I can't argue with that maths.

@Hero - I'm sorry I pissed you off but it's how I see it. Unfortunately this is a game of imperfect information and people who lie and that's how I saw it. I could be totally wrong, in which case I'll take my hat off to you.

I wasn't attacking your wording, I was attacking the fact that you seemed to be dismissing issues about how scummy the timing of your vote + your defending has been rather than acknowledging you could understand how we'd come ot that conclusion and disagreeing. If I'm town and caught in a difficult coincidence, I'd just say meh, I can understand how you all think that, but this is why it's untrue (see Lumberjack Mafia start of D3) as opposed to your reaction, which was really argumentative and dismissive. It could just be a playstyle thing though.

I did misunderstand about dank, but I still disagree. Dank didn't have a well-established history of defending FC, you did, Dank didn't act first, you did.

@ all Can anyone give me a good reason why we shouldn't lynch FC given he's the scummiest player on the town and his death would either close to confirm two townies or two scum?

[Hero764]

It's definitely possible Hero wanted to vote Nadroj because he thought he was scummy. But the timing of it is extremely suspicious to me, isn't it to you? And usually people at page 15 have more than the very latest post to go on to vote someone scummy. All the stuff about his other bandwagoning or whatever is retreo-active - Hero cited that as a reason after his vote. So you have to decide whether that one post was enough to get Hero to vote him, or whether Hero is continuing his pattern of defending FC - I just happen to think it's the latter.

Uhm, it was enough reason for a vote, hence my vote. The pattern thing only works if you can prove I was defending FC earlier(for illegitimate reasons, of course), and I don't see how voting Nadroj counts as defending FC. The only defending I've done of him is telling people to read his other games, and not just assume that because he exhibits scummy behavior that he is scum. What's wrong with that?

I wasn't attacking your wording, I was attacking the fact that you seemed to be dismissing issues about how scummy the timing of your vote + your defending has been rather than acknowledging you could understand how we'd come ot that conclusion and disagreeing. If I'm town and caught in a difficult coincidence, I'd just say meh, I can understand how you all think that, but this is why it's untrue (see Lumberjack Mafia start of D3) as opposed to your reaction, which was really argumentative and dismissive. It could just be a playstyle thing though.

So you think I'm scummy because I didn't explicitly state that your case had merit and that I saw where it was coming from(not trying to strawman, just curious). If so, what's scummy about that, because I don't see it.

I did misunderstand about dank, but I still disagree. Dank didn't have a well-established history of defending FC, you did, Dank didn't act first, you did.

...what.

What does a history of defending FC have to do with anything? Acting first? So what. Dank was more responsible for derailing the case, so attacking me for doing that you would almost certaintly have to attack dank as well. Its how it works. You can't just disagree.

[Hero764]

Actually serial, I just remembered you can probably relate to this(even though you replaced in after the event).

Remember our newbie game with CJMiller? He acted just as bad, if not worse than Far_Cry, and ended up getting lynched for it. He flipped townie. It wasn't that his posts were scummy, his playstyle was just terrible. Far_Cry is in the same boat.

[SerialClergyman]

Arg - spamming the thread.

The pattern thing works if you have a pattern of defending FC which I certainly believe you do. You have interpreted his words very kindly, dismissed criticism of him acting scummy as something he always does, dismissed my point about FC laying out how he would act as scum specifically matching up with his current actions as him 'bullshitting'. So your vote fits that pattern, yes.

I think an attempt to dismiss arguments rather than acknowledge their merit is scummy. Dismissing them attempts to end the conversation, acknowledging what is meritorious or not about them attempts to solve the issue.

A history of defending FC means your dismantling of the FC wagon is much more significant than his. Your acting first means you were in a more significant position to affect the wagon (note Dank was voting FOR FC before your post.

Still would like an answer on why we shouldn't lynch FC given he's (to me) the scummiest player in the game and his flip would essentially clear two townies or nail two (more) scum.

[SerialClergyman]

Hero - I understand that there's the VI principle in players like CJmiller, but CJ miller was actively not paying attention to the game and was more of a newbie than FC is. He also didn't post his own meta of what to do as scum without reaslising it applied directly to his current game, and he also didn't get defended by one person really prominently.

What would you do if FC was still alive at lylo? Just because he's a bad player doesn't mean he can't be scum, and there are plenty of reasons beyond general wishy washy scumtells to think he's scum this game.

[Tenchi]

Was busy today. Back tomorrow.

[Hero764]

The pattern thing works if you have a pattern of defending FC which I certainly believe you do.

You have interpreted his words very kindly

, dismissed criticism of him acting scummy as something he always does,

dismissed my point about FC laying out how he would act as scum specifically matching up with his current actions as him 'bullshitting'.

So your vote fits that pattern, yes.

bold - Point it out please.

italic - Who the hell who be so retarded as to basically admit to being scum(other than for joke reasons)?

A history of defending FC means your dismantling of the FC wagon is much more significant than his. Your acting first means you were in a more significant position to affect the wagon (note Dank was voting FOR FC before your post.

You're really stubborn to admit dank was just as 'wrong' as me. Any reason for this?

You still neglect to address what was significant about my history made it significant, and neglect that fact that dank had much more to do with it. And what does who dank was voting for have to do with anything? He found nadroj scummy for the same reason as me and voted. If you're going to call dismantling the wagon scummy, then dank is scummy in your eyes, simple as. Also, if you're going to say that dank made his vote because of my post then you really are grasping at straws.

Still would like an answer on why we shouldn't lynch FC given he's (to me) the scummiest player in the game and his flip would essentially clear two townies or

nail two (more) scum.

Besides FC's meta, which makes nadroj much scummier, the bolded worries me.

[Hero764]

Hero - I understand that there's the VI principle in players like CJmiller, but CJ miller was actively not paying attention to the game and was more of a newbie than FC is. He also didn't post his own meta of what to do as scum without reaslising it applied directly to his current game, and he also didn't get defended by one person really prominently.

Yeah because I didn't know if CJMiller was just an idiot in general or if he was just acting incredibly scummy. I know FC is just an idiot in general, and there's no reason to lynch him just based on his playstyle.

What would you do if FC was still alive at lylo? Just because he's a bad player doesn't mean he can't be scum, and there are plenty of reasons beyond general wishy washy scumtells to think he's scum this game.

WOW

WHEN DID I SAY HE COULDN'T BE SCUM PLEASE POINT IT OUT

I'm not trying to be mad at you, but you keep doing this misrepping =/. And if there are plently of reasons could you possibly list them? It might convince me to vote for him.