Open 160 Bird 7P (GAME!) - before 823

[hohum]

I knew that was coming. You shouldn't have made the joke. It would have been funny to watch someone take the bad case bait.

[VP Baltar]

Sorry, I'm bored waiting to

crucify

listen carefully to Charnel.

[hohum]

So you're ready to come out of the gate tomorrow swinging at charnel then? Let's just be careful not to quick lynch.

[VP Baltar]

Charnel will get his in twilight.

[hohum]

I wish we could lynch in twilight. You realize he's probably not going to post until D2 begins because there's uh, 3 of us ITT calling for his blood now. I can just see the "I logged off, didn't see this until now" post flying off of his keyboard.

With any one of the three of us (you, me, yabba) he's only got 2 hot-heads to deal with.

It would be kind of pointless for him to lube up and bend over and post right now.

[hohum]

EBWOP: with any one of the 3 of us gone tonight

[VP Baltar]

Well it should be interesting to see the scum and doc WIFOM their way through this one.

[Light-kun]

Vote Count:

egrunts - (hohum, muzzz, yabbaguy, VP Baltar)

L-1
NONE

L-2
NONE

L-3
yabbaguy- (Charnel)
hohum- (egrunts)


With seven alive, it is four to lynch.

[Light-kun]

"You betrayed us!" cawed hohum!

"Yeah!" agreed the rest!

"Surely you speak like the black feathered fiends, now talk!" hohum accused.

"No!" Crowed egruntz, "I would..." but it was too late. He spoke their language, and the case had been sealed.

He was placed in boiling water (cooked up with delicious carrots, onions, and other yummy flavor-filled veggies), and alas, he parted with feather, then skin, and at last with life!

egruntz, the crow aligned goon

has been boiled to death day 1.

[Light-kun]

muzzz thought he could be a vigilante. He wanted to get that last nasty traitor. He had solved it all in the midst of the night, but alas, the crow traitor had friends that night. They ganged up and slaughtered him, pecking him apart until his insides fell from his blue feathered body.

muzzz, a Good Ol' Blue Jay Townie, pecked to death Night 1.

With 5 alive, it takes 3 to lynch.

[hohum]

You guys really suck. That was the HARDEST lynch I've ever had to conduct. It shouldn't take 13 pages to convince 5 townies to lynch scum.

Anyways, might as well start things off on a productive note.

Vote: Charnel

[hohum]

BTW, boiled to death? Seriously? Who boils crows? Maybe this should have been a Lobster themed game

[hohum]

one more thing before I go to bed:

Dear Cop,

I'm glad to see you lived through the night. Please do not claim today unless you managed to get a guilty result on someone.

KTHNX BAI

[hohum]

I'd like to hear from Octo early this morning.

@Octo: what are your thoughts?

[VP Baltar]

I agree with hohum, Octupis, what say you?

Charnel, I read you in iso last night and I can maybe see where you were coming from a bit more as potential town. I'd still like you to answer the question about changing positions on egruntz at the last minute.

[Octupis]

I'd like to hear from Octo early this morning.

@Octo: what are your thoughts?

Well, I'm glad egruntz turned out to be scum. What I find more interesting is muzzz's death. Charnel and Yabba were the only people to vote from him, and Charnel/mykonian voted for him twice but I think that is of very little significance. I don't think there is any real evidence to point towards anyone being responsible. He didn't make any real enemies, he kinda coasted through the game not posting much after his initial interrogation.

Another thing I find interesting is Charnel. Going back to our mini argument earlier, it strikes me as weird that I was the only one that he attacked. He didn't seem alarmed that VP Baltar had just voted or the reasons why but was insistent on attacking me. OMGUS, I think it's called.

Following his near death experience where I incidentally saved him, his first post was to point out he had not actually been lynched. His following post was amazing, he said I had annoyed him but as I had saved him with my ninja unvote, I was no longer suspicious and all off my actions were fine. His reason being he had not kept a cool head. He then goes back to his vote on muzzz. It was unfortunate that the argument between BloodCovenent and huhom broke out where names were called not only because it wasn't very nice but it took the spotlight of off Charnel who had just nearly got lynched. He was obviously at L-1 for a bit so it begs the question why he didn't claim.

Vote Charnel

I was still suspicious of you after Day 1 even though I was okay in your eyes for saving your ass. Being at L-1 now, I expect you to claim. Just to clarify, I am intent on lynching you, this is not just to pressure you

That is what I think... I have other suspicions but they are not as fervent as my suspicions of Charnel.

[Charnel]

Charnel: You seem to have done an about face in that last post regarding your stance on BC. Did post 266 strike a nerve, or what?

Agreed. Explanation very necessary. I'm ready to hammer pending this response.

I am sorry if I understand the question wrong, but I have said quite often that I thought BC a target, and more likely bad town then scum.

guess I was wrong, but still, that was my opinion. Early game (just after RVS) this was less clear, and I did not still know what way he would go, and as you kept asking, I answered in clearer and clearer statements that my feeling that it was a bad lynch.

I don't know how far I am yet in votes, but don't lynch me. I have some time till the guests come, and I have still to give you that promised case.

[Charnel]

Bloodcovenant >>> this could be for a few reasons.
a) he's scum who's trying to detract the town
b) he's misguided town
c) he's stirring up discussion. Mastin selfvotes during RVS consistently for this precise reason.

(I see post 37 now... just as I thought.)

Assuming a) automatically is jumping to conclusions.

not his whole post, but not out of context:

Here yabba logically analyses BC's play. He makes three options, first two short, and not really obvious, and the third already with an argument. He is indirectly defending BC, by making one option more likely.

Your response indicates tht you have some inside knowledge of the setup.

I'll confess, I know everything. I can truthfully tell you that there are 2 goons, a cop, a doc who can't save the cop, and 3 townies.

You were right, I knew it. Kudos.

and sarcasm seems to be yabba's way to react on unexpected pressure. He discards the accusation by pretending he doesn't take it seriously.

I'll ask again, why do you think I should find you "somewhat suspicious"? Also, what do you mean by "inside knowledge" of the setup? I truly don't know what you mean.

and seen the sarcastic answer last time, this is a blatant lie. (was his response on Hohum)

I feel that yabba is doing this too, and it irritates me.

FOS: Bloodcovenent

(he's at L-2 already, if I counted correctly. If it's lower, I'll make it a vote.)

This is where I start to believe you're detached from the game on a level that seems scummy. First off, you're springboarding off a comment which made no mention to you, which is bizarrely opportunistic, and secondly, how in the world do you come up with that conclusion? Love me or hate me, saying that I've been coming up with nothing but fluff is completely incorrect.

Where am I just doing color commentary?

not even a vote. He hasn't made one. But still, here he tells the town he has the intention to vote. He waits though. Hesitates is probably the better word.

In his next post he puts me at L-1... Saying this about BC:

@BC-116: I have never used gay as an insult. Ever.

Also, a lot of people have addressed several times that dodging a question is just that, you dodged a question. Maybe you overlooked it, but really, there's no way of knowing that. Fact of the matter, you got a response.

Having a second look, I don't see how scum would be this abrasive. Ironically enough, I'm now inclined to think that BC is towntelling, because usually I would think the scum would try to be a little more on the down-low instead of tripping everyone's wires. He's been a bit useless, but I think he's just weak-town, honestly.

and so he gets his mislynch, and hopes to save his buddy.


next we get Hohum's almost hammer, and yabba's next post contains:

@BC-151: You don't even factor in the possibility that hohum's town who just misread the topic. Like you. You missed the Unvote. I almost missed it myself. You're being hypocritical in that hohum could very well have made the same honest mistake you just admitted to.

Change:

BloodCovenent >>>

speculative town

tilting scummy

Still, my vote rests on Charnel because I want to know why he tried to ask for a lynch on someone else when he's under some pressure himself. I think he was in no position to do that. I'd rather have him over BC at present.

and he stays on me for a crap reason. He does that so he might save his buddy. However, if that fails, he found BC scummy, so there is nothing wrong with bussing.

This isn't Survivor: Mafiascum, hohum. If you're voting based on the weakest player or whoever's "doing it wrong", well, you're doing it wrong.

Good night everyone.

and next: a full defense of BC, while 2 posts above this one he found him tilting scummy!

After that, he attacks me for placing my vote in the middle of a post.

Charnel's defense of BCgruntz is suspect. The "sorry, try again" statement is irking me.

Seeing as now we *do* have to factor in town stupidity with our claim, my suggestion, lynch Char, investigate gruntz.

and this would help scum in this case... Yabba is trying to direct the game so he gets a little advantage for scum.

and after Egruntz reclaims, yabba finally busses.

please, UNVOTE, and take time to read this!

[Charnel]

claim

confirmed town.

Being so problematic yesterday, I got investigated. The doc was also kind of clear, which makes this game with one mislynch to go an easy win. NO quicklynch, massclaim will win us this game.

[Octupis]

claim

confirmed town.

Being so problematic yesterday, I got investigated. The doc was also kind of clear, which makes this game with one mislynch to go an easy win. NO quicklynch, massclaim will win us this game.

How do you know you got investigated?

[Charnel]

unvote first, then we can talk.

and because he told you.

[VP Baltar]

I like certain points that Charnel makes in 317. Let's see where this goes:

Vote yabbaguy

[VP Baltar]

also, I may not be opposed to mass claim today if the order puts Octupis and yabba guy at the top and hohum and myself at the bottom. (order of top and bottom claims is probably irrelevant).

[yabbaguy]

Charnel: A Point-By-Point Analysis
Written by yabbaguy

Gentlemen, I would like to submit that on counts of connecting himself with and defending proven scum, contradictions, OMGUSing, and hollow voting and arguments, among other reasons, I submit that Charnel has proven himself scummy, and is our ideal candidate for a lynch this the Second Day of our investigation.

Please, at this moment in time, open a new tab or window in your browser with this topic. Then in that new tab, set the filter to All Days- posts by Charnel- Oldest First. I shall reference all post numbers by what is given in this filter. Remember, clicking the white piece of paper to the left of the timestamp will show you the post in context.

Let us begin.

Posts 0-2: This is his initial tussle with VP Baltar. Often I find that the scum votes early, but often with serious intent. In addition, note his chain of what I would deem “stupid” questions. As you recall, it had been pretty obvious as to Baltar’s main reasoning behind the vote. To me, this is scum trying to derive discussion when all he is really doing is trying to ask a pointless question to look like he is.

Post 4: As we have now deduced, Charnel is an alt for an experienced player. Charnel, with deliberate intent, gave the connotation that he was a new guy, when this is false. A deliberate lie like that should be seen as nothing less but scummy, and his subsequent defense amplifies the fact.

Post 5: Another vote, but saying that “spewing out too much theory” is a reason is cruddy. Here, he tries to draw an Information Instead of Analysis scumtell, if I’m using the term correctly, but in fact, muzzz has stated that this theory discussion is for the purpose of scumhunting. Ergo, no foul, and the vote is errant.

Post 8: Here he confesses his detachment from the game. I am not inclined to believe that it’s honest misreading in the face of all the evidence I have seen. Not playing the same game as the rest of the town is scummy as in the long run, it’s easier for a true townie to act town than it is for scum to attempt to act town. Anyone who has a noticeably different stance on the game should be called out.

Post 9: Charnel is bringing in irrelevant theory. We’re playing an Open game, and he brings in the possibility of a Mason-Vig nobody knows about. We’re playing fucking Bird. This is easy. Complicating matters is useless to the town.

Post 14: First off, he cites sarcasm as a reason for voting me when the question was how I had inside knowledge of the setup. He went off-topic. Detachment from the game.
He mentions “wanting to improve his town game” for playing an alt, when he could just as easily be assigned to scum. He’s trying to slip some manipulation in.
He also feels like he was being treated like a newbie, but from my vantage, I still don’t see how “Sorry for being the new one” could be construed as anything other than “I’m a newbie”

Post 15: I really don’t know how hohum could’ve done the research Charnel describes here.
Also, this was the post where I called Charnel out for asking for a lynch when he was under pressure. He was at one point at L-2, Octupis had unvoted but still had an FOS aimed his way. Yet Charnel at this point bluntly said “Can we lynch Octupis” without the town having significant discussion on the matter. To me, this is Scum trying to accelerate the Day, and we never forget that a short Day is always pro-Scum, as discussion is truncated, and the risk of an errant lynch becomes so much greater.

Post 16: He uses and tags sarcasm. He stated earlier he hated sarcasm. Hypocrisy.

Post 19: Draws an EXTREMELY vapid conclusion based on me saying how I didn’t see the specific link between VP and Charnel. He immediately jumps to “So you’re scum?” without making the connection apparent. Totally drawing a case out of nowhere.

For this next post, please hit the piece of paper on post 25, then scroll to post 192 which Main Mykonian made.

myko Post 192: There is nothing beyond OMGUS about the vote. He explictly said that he voted for me because he is annoyed at me. Voting for your attacker out of emotional frustration is the epitomy of OMGUS, and is extremely weak.

He also cites me making a case out of nothing, when I am right on the money. This is the point I made about having votes not be hidden in the middle of nowhere, and his refusal to do so is something I see as anti-town and scummy.

Please hit your back button and return to the filter.

Post 25: Bandwagoning is not a scumtell, and as far as I can tell, Baltar had good reasoning behind hopping on the wagons. I also notice how Charnel only cites the BC wagon, something I take note of as a possible slip.

Post 26: “Sorry, try again.” That’s the scummy message Charnel conveys here as he completely overlooks the point that egruntz was trying to distance himself from all scumminess that happened before he dropped in, which is inherently scummy in itself. As it turns out, the town is correct, and now the point remains that Charnel has defended flipped scum, trying to deflect hohum away from what I believe to be his scumbuddy.

Post 27: Now he accuses me of being OFF wagons too much, as opposed to his case of VP being ON wagons in scummy fashion. This is a contradiction.
He also vauntlessly claims that BC is “just a target” which is basically just hollow whining. It’s one thing to be wrong, it’s another thing to be wrong with no defense for why you’re wrong.
How am I directing mislynches which never happened? I’ve been suspicious of BC (I’m right), and Charnel (which he wishes wasn’t true). But my friend, it is all too true, and it is going to stop here.

Conclusion: So what can we summarize from all this? Charnel has consistently defended proven scum, placed votes and drawn reasoning for what turns out to be no reason at all, contradicts himself, and makes statements that are so outlandish that it makes readily apparent that he is not a fellow townsperson. In light of all the plainly put evidence, analyses that I faithfully believe to be true and am willing to be questioned on, and basic common sense, I urge you to vote and lynch Charnel with all due speed. He has stuck out as a player who has not been contributing positively to the town from the start, and has acted scummy all game.

May I answer any questions you may have? If not, I would like to declare this the best move for the town to make this, the Second Day of our ongoing investigation.

---

I don't want to quicklynch either, so my vote remains off for now. A separate post reacting to 317 among others will come shortly.

[yabbaguy]

@Charnel-317:

Yes, I was strongly advocating for bullet c. One must never forget that I was still trying to find my way around suspects, and I was stating fact here, that BC could very well have had intention to just stir up discussion. Obviously later, he shrunk in the face of this attention, but that's how I saw it at the time.

Sarcasm, eh, not one of my glorious moments. The point was getting across here, that by claiming "inside knowledge" of the setup, I was demonstrating that there is no such fact. In retrospect, I was a little short-sighted because I didn't take into account that it could've meant who was scum and who was town. I apologize for that.

Again though, I wasn't sure at the time what he meant. It was dumb of me, but that's nothing more, it's just stupidity, not a lie.

If you'd look, I wasn't sure of the votecount, and I didn't want the Day to end considering there were quite a few other people who hadn't made as much noise. I would have voted otherwise.

At one point, I got myself tangled in a knot by thinking that abrasiveness was a towntell. It's obviously null now, especially with his subsequent docclaim to come.

Charnel, you dismiss trying to accelerate the Day as a crap reason. We never forget that scum want the Day to be short, and you did just that. I was putting pressure on you, and you decided to ask for a lynch on someone else whilst I was trying to pressure you. That is something that is legitimate, and I don't understand why you deny it.

I was telling hohum that his *reasoning* for voting BC was bad. You can still be suspicious of someone and yet call someone else's reasoning bad. That's not chainsaw.

and this would help scum in this case... Yabba is trying to direct the game so he gets a little advantage for scum.

I don't get this.

And when egruntz unclaimed, I knew he was just trying to distance himself from all prior scumminess. That's when the vote came down.

---

Everything I have said is legitimate, and what I believe to be true. You have demonstrated contradictory and hypocritical behavior.