Newbie game 806: Game over (the scums win)

[Zachrulez]

Zach, your motivation for d3x to vote last makes sense whatever alignment you are. That's a fact. When I say it "fits in" I mean that it certainly doesn't provide any evidence against that possible scumpair.

I think you have the stronger claim in isolation, although you're not crystal clear by any stretch. But if d3x starts acting really scummy in LyLo, and you're his only possible scum partner... I absolutely can't ignore that.

Do you admit that d3x is acting really scummy? If so, why shouldn't I suspect you because of that?

I don't see him as scummy. What about him do you suddenly find scummy? How does it affect your view of Facebook and Toast?

Vote count

(5 players alive = 3 to lynch before deadline)

(1) Toast - Zachrulez
(1) Zachrulez - Toast

Not voting:

d3x, facebook, sigma

:arrow:

Deadline: 28 August (click this to see cowntdown)

[d3x]

Um...wow. Have you two been waiting all this time for someone to say something?

Here are my thoughts on the current discussion.

sigma. Not only are you twisting things around to make them look as scummy as possible, but you're doing it very recklessly. I don't even comprehend some of your statements from a Town perspective.

1. What made you pull out a quote from the Scum PM? I know that everyone has access to them, but guess what I haven't read since my last game as Scum, a Scum PM. That seemed to be right on the top of your head. I wonder why.

2.

Caution about discussion -- not so much.

You are exactly right. Why did I say I was doing this? To try and kickstart the discussion that stalled out a while ago. I cautioned the remaining players that we still have over 2 weeks and nothing happened. No real indepth discussion. No remote sense of urgency. I'm now saying that I'm sick of waiting until the deadline for a flurry of activity. I am

trying

to start discussion. By your own equation, that is not scummy.

3.

Scum hate being the only guy at the party.

You know who else hates to be the only guy at the party? The Townie who just lost the game for us. I fail to see how my being the only person willing to step up and Vote would constitute a Scum slip.

Let me clarify something. I am not averse to discussing my current choice for the lynch today. I am however averse to discussing my current choice with so many lurkers out here. Before this morning, things were moving at a snail's pace and that doesn't help the Town a bit.

I also want to look at this. You say that I've only posed 2 "light" questions at the Zach. The funny thing is, I can't find a single question you addressed to Zach {before right now}. How then is this something to put onto me. Is it because you aren't confident in who you are planning on voting? If you aren't, then why haven't you been pursuing more discussion based questions on both sides?

[sigma]

sigma. Not only are you twisting things around to make them look as scummy as possible, but you're doing it very recklessly.

Not twisting, just scumhunting.

1. What made you pull out a quote from the Scum PM? I know that everyone has access to them, but guess what I haven't read since my last game as Scum, a Scum PM. That seemed to be right on the top of your head. I wonder why.

Weak. I pointed out that what you just cited as a justification for your actions is in the stated objective of the scum in the rules, which apparently you didn't read in full.

2.

Caution about discussion -- not so much.

You are exactly right. Why did I say I was doing this? To try and kickstart the discussion that stalled out a while ago. I cautioned the remaining players that we still have over 2 weeks and nothing happened. No real indepth discussion. No remote sense of urgency. I'm now saying that I'm sick of waiting until the deadline for a flurry of activity. I am

trying

to start discussion. By your own equation, that is not scummy.

You are actively holding back discussion by witholding information for a scummy reason (not wanting to be the only one citing their voting plans.)

3.

Scum hate being the only guy at the party.

You know who else hates to be the only guy at the party? The Townie who just lost the game for us. I fail to see how my being the only person willing to step up and Vote would constitute a Scum slip.

Not willing to vote isn't a scum slip. Citing a scummy reason for withholding information is a scum-slip.

Let me clarify something. I am not averse to discussing my current choice for the lynch today. I am however averse to discussing my current choice with so many lurkers out here. Before this morning, things were moving at a snail's pace and that doesn't help the Town a bit.

I just don't think this makes sense. The town can't wait for all lurkers to weigh in on whether to start discussion about something before we start discussion.

I also want to look at this. You say that I've only posed 2 "light" questions at the Zach. The funny thing is, I can't find a single question you addressed to Zach {before right now}. How then is this something to put onto me. Is it because you aren't confident in who you are planning on voting? If you aren't, then why haven't you been pursuing more discussion based questions on both sides?

I'm not confident on my vote yet. I've been concentrating more on re-reading the thread and looking for patterns of play and interactions between Zach/Toast and other players, but I haven't gotten much of anything. I agree that I should pursue more questions, and I've said in p414 that I was planning to. Note also that I have very limited access on weekends currently.

@Zach: Here's why I think d3x is scummy currently:

1) I want to see him at least partially justify his reasoning for being 'confident' about a vote. He's not doing that. I think this is anti-town.

2) To justify this, he cited a reason that only a scum would see as a good reason: "For your last question{s}, I would prefer to answer them when I've heard more from the rest of the players. If most are againt showing the cards early, then I don't want to be the only guy at the party, so to speak."

[sigma]

Double your pleasure, doublepost gum.

@facebook, toast: I know d3x, Zach and I have been talking a lot, so I don't want d3x's question to get lost in the mix. Count me as seconding this question:

@all- Do you prefer voting now or waiting? If you prefer waiting, what information would you like to gain in the next week+? What questions would you like answered that haven't been answered thus far?

[sigma]

And sigma turns the unassisted triple play.

@mod: Prod for facebook, please?

Done!

[sigma]

Don't stop me now ('Cause I'm having a good time)
Don't stop me now (Yes I'm having a good time)
I don't want to stop at all

I decided to investigate Zach because he seemed to talk less than anyone else. My initial choice was going to be you (d3x), but I decided that it would be easier to try to extract information by re-reading your iso than by trying to wiggle more information out of Zach.

@Toast: Have you extracted any more info by reading d3x's iso? Who do you feel is more likely to be scum at this time: me or d3x?

@Zach: Can you please elaborate on the reason that you investigated d3x rather than HR on day 1? It seems to me that you had two viable choices night 1 for an investigation: HR, and d3x. Why one over the other?

[Zachrulez]

@Zach: Can you please elaborate on the reason that you investigated d3x rather than HR on day 1? It seems to me that you had two viable choices night 1 for an investigation: HR, and d3x. Why one over the other?

It is actually very interesting the way you fired off this question as if my choice of investigation on night 1 was solely between HR and d3x.

That was not even close to the way my thought process worked when I chose my investigation. In fact, there's probably a decent argument to be made for an investigation of yourself or Ipeanut also being strong investigation choices.

As it was, d3x was the player I assessed as potentially being the most dangerous as scum, and I also had a tough time getting a solid read on him.

I had what I thought was a clearer feel for HR, and that coupled with the fact that he was an IC, (As IC's stand a decent chance of being early nk targets.) was the reason I passed on investigating him.

Who would you have picked had you been in my position? (And not just between HR and d3x.)

[d3x]

An excellent trifecta, sigma! EDIT: A grand slam Home Run {that's 4 points for any non-Baseball people out there}!!! Anyway, let's get to defending myself...

I pointed out that what you just cited as a justification for your actions is in the stated objective of the scum in the rules

You're trying to pull me into a huge batch of WIFOM and I'm not going to bite. The fact of the matter is, you are twisting my words here. I was saying that I didn't want to Vote until hearing back from everyone. Now you're making it look like I'm not willing to back myself up because I'd stick out. That's not what my original point was.

which apparently you didn't read in full

I didn't read them at all, sigma, as I said before. This information wasn't in the 'Rules' it was in the Scum PM. While they were posted, I had no reason to read them. Again, it's interesting to me that they came so easily to your mind. I'll try asking a different way. If you're a Townie, why were you looking so closely at the Scum PM?

The town can't wait for all lurkers to weigh in on whether to start discussion about something before we start discussion.

Yes, actually, we should. I'm not saying that all discussion should stop until the lurkers get back, but I think it'd be very dangerous to lay out a full case before everyone has checked in. Otherwise, you don't have the full story on people. It's too easy to sheep an opinion and fly under the radar if a mistaken case is already out there {ala facebook and Toast on all of my wagons}.

You know, in going over some of your most recent posts, I'm going to pull out the following 2 quotes.

if you're confident to the point that it's very unlikely you'll change your mind, then I have no problem with you voting at this time.

Let me clarify -- you shouldn't vote without hearing from the others

These are back to back posts from you. This is where you're trying to twist what I said into something scummy after I've just finished saying that you're trying to force me into an early vote. Your 'clarification' changed the entire message of what you were blatantly saying. That's not clarifing, it's retracting.

I also want to look at some other points you've recently made.

I want him to back up his statement that he's confident enough to vote with, at the very least, the person he wants to vote for and the reasons why. A vote just confirms that he actually means those things. That's risky, for sure, but everything is risky at this point in the game.

This doesn't sit right with me. The logic behind it is sound, but the risk assessment isn't. If the behavior you are trying to get me to do is risky, then why push it? Why then also call it scummy when you yourself say that it's very risky?

If we didn't want to deal with risk, we shouldn't have lynched a townie two days in a row.

This isn't cool. You're pulling out the earlier mislynches and saying we shouldn't have done them if we didn't want to play risky. What are you getting at, exactly? What are you inferring was the 'safe' lynch?

Unfortunately, your play isn't telling me anything about our current dilema. As neither 'Cop' gave a read on you, I have no real way of going after one of them due to your recent play. I do, however, think that you are the last Scum. Your most recent few posts confirm this in my mind. I said that the Scum are lurking and you suddenly become

very

active and start going after lurkers. I call you a hypocrite regarding my questioning of one of the 'Cops' and you start questioning both of them hurriedly. I haven't wanted to come out with my suspicions due in part to the ability of the last Scum to latch on realizing a lost cause to try and earn Townie points for the LyLo tomorrow. I wanted to try and find the last Scum by baiting a hook and I think I caught a whopper. by the way, sigma, I find it very telling that you want me to lay out my case in one nice clean package. If you've read my Iso and have been paying attention {which I know you have, you called me for only sending Zach 2 softball pitches} you'd know who I suspected and why. It's like you were trying to get me to put it all out there so you could +1 and ride to tomorrow.

Now to lay down the rest of my cards, I think Toast is our Scum 'Cop'. I know that Zach has a correct investigation on me, but that doesn't really mean much. He could be trying to buy my loyalty by buddying. Afterall, the Scum know who's innocent too. I've been mildly suspicious of Zach since midway through D1 due to his infrequent posting style and his penchant for asking short questions and not really adding much to the discussion, IMO.

Toast, however, is a bird of a different color. His investigations don't add up to his play in the least. He came out and started sheeping me and then didn't confirm my innocence? That doesn't even begin to make sense to me. Why check out facebook when there were multiple others that would serve a better purpose? The lack of a promised post kind of cemented it for me. If I was the Cop and I was trying to point-counter point another claimed Cop, I'd make damn sure that I was meeting promises I made.

Further, I find this to be a huge Scum Slip...

One is that d3x is actually innocent and zach is using his knowledge of this to help win d3x over, the same way I'm trying to convince facebook.

His followup to my questioning isn't that hot either. I say it's scummy because he's saying a Scum Zach is trying to buy my loyalty and he says...

It IS the same as me trying to convice facebook.

This comes immediately after I've said that it's unbelievably scummy.

With all of that said. I am confident in saying that the Scum Team is Toast and sigma.

[sigma]

Who would you have picked had you been in my position? (And not just between HR and d3x.)

Interesting response. I wouldn't have thought in terms of 'most dangerous scum' and just investigated the person I found most suspicious. This would have been facebook or HR, probably facebook for me. Your method is probably better.

If you're a Townie, why were you looking so closely at the Scum PM?

Nice "why have you been beating your wife" question, here. I read the rules closely. This is my first game, as you may recollect, and I'm anal-retentive enough to read everything closely, at least the first time. You've done a very nice job of twisting the focus of this discussion, though: you turned me saying "hey look, guys, d3x just cited a reason that's a scum objective in the rules" to "he just knows the scum objectives because he got a scum PM". Very good work on your part.

You know, in going over some of your most recent posts, I'm going to pull out the following 2 quotes.

if you're confident to the point that it's very unlikely you'll change your mind, then I have no problem with you voting at this time.

Let me clarify -- you shouldn't vote without hearing from the others

These are back to back posts from you. This is where you're trying to twist what I said into something scummy after I've just finished saying that you're trying to force me into an early vote. Your 'clarification' changed the entire message of what you were blatantly saying. That's not clarifing, it's retracting.

It's clarifying. Here's why: The only reason I said 'you shouldn't vote without hearing from the others' is because you had already said that you wouldn't. If you hadn't said anything about that previously, I would have had no problem with you voting, full stop. I should have made that clear in my first post.

If we didn't want to deal with risk, we shouldn't have lynched a townie two days in a row.

This isn't cool. You're pulling out the earlier mislynches and saying we shouldn't have done them if we didn't want to play risky. What are you getting at, exactly? What are you inferring was the 'safe' lynch?

The only thing I'm getting at here is that we (including me) as town screwed up on those lynches and should have played better if we wanted to be in a less risky position. that's all.

I do, however, think that you are the last Scum. Your most recent few posts confirm this in my mind. I do, however, think that you are the last Scum. Your most recent few posts confirm this in my mind. I said that the Scum are lurking and you suddenly become very active and start going after lurkers.

You are OMGUS'ing. Not everyone who tries to scumhunt aggressively is scum. The HR lynch has taught me that. I don't know if you're OMGUS'ing because you're dirty scum or misguided town, but that is what you're doing. And I find it amusing that you're implying I'm a lurker now with "I said that the Scum are lurking and you suddenly become very active." I think that's the one thing you can't possibly accuse me of. (Weekend lurking, maybe.)

I call you a hypocrite regarding my questioning of one of the 'Cops' and you start questioning both of them hurriedly.

Seriously??? I love how facebook's not scummy for lurking her way through the last week while I'm now apparently scummy for asking questions of the people we're trying to lynch. I've been planning on asking questions of Zach and Toast. Go read p414 again. Your baseless accusations have nothing to do with how I'm playing this game.

[d3x]

Before responding to the rest of your response, I'll ask this. If it was scummy for me to not post my thoughts and suspicions because it would hamper the dicsussion of the Town, then why didn't you even mention my suspicions on Toast?

[sigma]

I'm glad you finally posted them. As it happens, I was concentrating on defending myself in that post. I'll get to your case on Toast. However, I just noticed something else that I want to point out. Sorry for not getting this in earlier.

I pointed out that what you just cited as a justification for your actions is in the stated objective of the scum in the rules

You're trying to pull me into a huge batch of WIFOM and I'm not going to bite. The fact of the matter is, you are twisting my words here.

I was saying that I didn't want to Vote until hearing back from everyone.

Now you're making it look like I'm not willing to back myself up because I'd stick out. That's not what my original point was.

You are flat-out lying.

Here's my original question:

Before you vote, however, my question is -- who are you planning on voting for? Why are you confident enough to vote for that person? Give me some reasons.

Note that I'm asking for reasons and a named candidate -- not a vote.

And here's your response, complete with justification:

For your last question{s}, I would prefer to answer them when I've heard more from the rest of the players. If most are againt showing the cards early, then I don't want to be the only guy at the party, so to speak.

You were not justifying a refusal to vote, as you just said above -- you were justifying not answering my request for information.

[d3x]

sigma- The problem with the Scum objective that you sited is that it talks about blending in with the Town. That means that actions taken are trying to do what Town does. As I did "what Town does", it makes no sense to call it scummy. Along those lines, I am a believer that a tactic fully coming to light loses a lot of its potency. I have told you why I was not sharing my reasons for full disclosure. In fact, I believe that due to this tactic, I have caught you. Had I told you earlier that I was trying to lure Scum out by withholding my full beliefs, I'd have essentially negated the reason for doing it.

The problem I have with...

It's clarifying. Here's why: The only reason I said 'you shouldn't vote without hearing from the others' is because you had already said that you wouldn't. If you hadn't said anything about that previously, I would have had no problem with you voting, full stop. I should have made that clear in my first post.

...is that you didn't leave something off. You changed it. You went from "I have no problem with you voting" to "you should wait to vote" as soon as Zach responded to your post saying that you were calling for my Vote. As I just said, that's not clarifying, it's changing your position.

we (including me) as town screwed up on those lynches and should have played better

The thing is, they weren't lynched because we dropped the ball. We mislynched them because they were acting scummy. That's not the fault of the Town. I'm also fairly confident that we had Scum on those lynches. I do find this interesting, though. I just peeked back and saw that interestingly enough, while Toast was on both, you were absent on both lynches. Why then do you hold yourself at fault for the mislynches? You knew that they were innocent and didn't do anything to stop the wagons? Scum Slip?

You are OMGUS'ing.

The wiki has an interesting definition on this...

it is sometimes used as a shorthand to indicate that you are voting for someone primarily because they voted for you.

I am not Voting {read: going after} you because you are Voting {read: going after} me. I am going after you because of the numerous reasons I have given and also because you are ultimately the big question mark here. Zach got an investigation on me. Toast got an investigation on facebook. No one looked at you. You are the fully unattached unknown. That doesn't sit right with me. Aside from the reasons I've previously listed, your defensive play D2 rose the hairs on the back of my neck. These are thought-out reasons, not because you're after me.

I find it amusing that you're implying I'm a lurker now with "I said that the Scum are lurking and you suddenly become very active." I think that's the one thing you can't possibly accuse me of.

I'm going to respond to this with a little exercise. Follow me here...

D3 started on 8-7
You have availability issues on the weekend, that's fine.
You posted 3 times that first week. I'm not including the 2 posts without content.
Since I've starting making statements like...

I personally don't think that we're going to get much more from everyone as 2 of the players here are Scum and won't want to stick their necks out too far.

You've increased to 6 posts on Monday alone {not including your EBWOP} and 3 posts

so far

today {not including your prod request}. That's a pretty significant increase. I'm not saying you're lurking, I'm saying you're reacting to my blanket accusations on Scum.

On this topic, I just looked back. We've had our share of lurkers/inactives in this game. You've only proded 3 people in this game. Toledo88 {1}, Toast{1}, and facebook {1}.Now remember, Toledo88 and Toast are the same player. The player I'm accusing you of being Scum with. The funny thing is, the facebook prod came after I accused the Scum of lurking. I remember in my first game, I was really mad at my Scum partner for lurking and I asked him to be proded multiple times. Is it concrete? No. Is it interesting? Definitely.

Seriously??? I love how facebook's not scummy for lurking her way through the last week while I'm now apparently scummy for asking questions of the people we're trying to lynch. I've been planning on asking questions of Zach and Toast. Go read p414 again.

I never said that facebook wasn't scummy, I said she wasn't Scum. There's a huge difference there. Especially with the points I've just finished making. And about p414? Not only did it come after me accusing the Scum of not contributing, but the remark you're referencing doesn't make sense. It is the post where you're dinging me for not asking questions of Zach. It would hold more weight if it had come even a single post before you start going after me. It proves nothing and is scummy that you are pointing out your

willingness

to question someone as basis to find me scummy for not questioning them more. You hadn't asked him a single question! How is that not hypocritical? My...

baseless accusations have nothing to do with how I'm playing this game

are

dictated

by your play.

As for your final point. I have nothing to say but confusion. In answering your original questioning, I was wrapping the 2 things together {Voting and laying down my full case} because you posed your

I have no problem with you voting at this time. Does that make sense?

and your

Before you vote, however, my question is -- who are you planning on voting for? Why are you confident enough to vote for that person? Give me some reasons.

literally back-to-back. This also ties to the point I was making at the top of this post. "A tactic fully coming to light loses a lot of its potency." Had I realized fully what you were asking for {without my Vote} I would have responded the exact same way. Take it as you will. I can further back this confusion up with Zach's quote...

It's clear to me that Sigma wants you to vote before committing to voting himself, and that is worth noting.

2 players thought you were calling for me to Vote. It wasn't until after you 'clarified' in p419 that we were all seemingly on the same page.

tl;dr? sigma's still scummy.

[facebook]

I don't have much to add, honestly. I still think Sigma is a better lynch than d3x, but if we lynch Sigma we don't learn too much because neither Cop investigated him. I've followed d3x's logic all game, and haven't been too fond of Sigma for the last couple of days. I think I'm ready to vote, after all, you guys have said plenty more and before I was almost ready to anyway. =) So who is voting first, and whom last, hm?

And btw, I'm aware I've lurked a lot, it's just I'm busy working a lot and often forget about the game, sorry. =P

[sigma]

d3x: I think we've said our piece at this point.

@facebook: You are aware that the only acceptable choices for a lynch today are Zach and d3x, correct? You've been talking like I'm a good choice for a lynch, but I'm not sure if you're talking about lynching me today or lynching me on day 4. Let's be clear, voting for any of d3x, facebook or sigma would be a disaster for the town.

[sigma]

*facepalm*

EBWOP: The only acceptable choices for a lynch today are Zach and

Toast

. I think I've been analyzing d3x too much.

Seriously, though, 50% chance of hitting scum if we lynch Zach or Toast. 33% chance of hitting scum if we lynch someone else. We have to lynch Zach or Toast today.

[d3x]

Just a real quick point of order, sigma. Assuming that the person voting is Town, it's a 50% chance voting for me you or facebook. I have either your or facebook {as does Zach}... You get the picture. I do agree, however. It's between Zach and Toast today to see if we get a D4.

[sigma]

Now to lay down the rest of my cards, I think Toast is our Scum 'Cop'.

Currently, I agree, although I'm not as confident as you are.

I said that I believe Zach at the beginning of the claim/counter-claim discussion, and events since then (especially the last two days) haven't given me a good reason not to. I laid out some reasons in my first post saying that I believed Zach, which I still feel are relevant:

1) I agree that Zach's actions D2 towards d3x line up with Zach being a cop. He clearly had a completely different attitude towards d3x on Day 2.

2) Toledo's playstyle was predominantly lurking. It could be just playstyle -- maybe he was trying to stay alive rather than find a good investigation target, but he just didn't really read like a cop to me at all.

3) Toast hammer still looks scummy.

4) The biggie: Toast's night actions are not consistent with someone who had an innocent on facebook and suspected Zach enough to investigate him.

In addition:

1) This appeal to emotion in iso 9: "I'm definitely worried, because Zach is much more experienced than I am." Very subtle, but it's an appeal because he's trying to evoke sympathy in a newbie game with fellow newbies.

2) From my perspective, this mess of WIFOM in Toast's iso 9 is scummy:

About zach's fake role-claim:
His claim that I'm a scum needs no explanation. His claim that d3x is innocent has two possible interpretations: One is that d3x is actually innocent and zach is using his knowledge of this to help win d3x over, the same way I'm trying to convince facebook. The second interpretation is that d3x is actually scum and that Zach is trying to cover him, but that would be a very unwise plan, as it would blow away any chance of them winning if zach is lynched and discovered to be scum.

If you accept this analysis to be true, then the corollary is that if we lynch Toast and he turns up scum, facebook is most likely innocent. Replace all names with their opposite counterparts (d3x with facebook , zach with Toast, etc.) and we see a subtle argument that facebook is more likely to be innocent then I am. Because I know my alignment, if toast is scum, then facebook is his partner, from my perspective. I may be over-analyzing this, given that it's probably just WIFOM, but I find it interesting.

Anyway, the point is that this section is a mess, it's WIFOM, and it also includes a scum-slip (I agree with d3x that this is what it looks like.)

I'll be honest: emotionally, Zach and d3x as scum resonates with me. Zach is an IC who hasn't been NK'ed, while d3x is a talented newbie who's already proven that he's very good at playing scum in his previous game. It's the perfect newbie game scum-team.

But for me, the evidence doesn't point to it right now. For me, the scum-o-meter looks something like this:

Scummy!

Toast
|
|
d3x
facebook
|
Zach
|

Towny!

I can't justify voting for Zach right now based on the evidence. Toast is still my current choice for a lynch.

@d3x: If we end up getting to day 4 and you're deciding who to lynch, I suggest you re-read the entire thread before making your decision. Note especially how facebook has buddyed up to you the entire game.

@facebook: Do you agree that we need to lynch Zach or Toast? If so, who are you planning on voting for after reading all of this?

[d3x]

Have no fear, sigma. If we choose correctly today, The night will be full of rereading on my part, paying special attention to you and facebook and your interactions to the then confirmed Scum 'Cop.

[d3x]

[singing to the tune of Otis Redding]
Lurking at the end of the Day.
Watching the

tiiiiime

roll away.
Lurking at the end of the Day,
Wasting

Tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime

.
*whistles*[/singing]

Mod

- Can we get another prod on Toast? He lurked until a request for him to post and now we're past the 72hr mark again. Thank you!

Also, @Zach- I know that you're all for the Toast lynch, but I would like to get you thoughts on my case against him as well as my continued points on sigma. As I believe you are the true Cop, I want your read on sigma before we end the Day {as no matter what, I won't be getting the chance tomorrow}. If you weren't the Cop and you had to choose Scum from this bunch, what would your case look like?

Done

[Zachrulez]

Also, @Zach- I know that you're all for the Toast lynch, but I would like to get you thoughts on my case against him as well as my continued points on sigma. As I believe you are the true Cop, I want your read on sigma before we end the Day {as no matter what, I won't be getting the chance tomorrow}. If you weren't the Cop and you had to choose Scum from this bunch, what would your case look like?

I think your case does a good job of highlighting what I already know.

The contradiction about how he went from not being interested in me to suddenly investigating me is a good point.

There's also the quoted statement.

One is that d3x is actually innocent and zach is using his knowledge of this to help win d3x over, the same way I'm trying to convince facebook.

Which is pretty self explanatory.

Toast's hammer, which was cast at a key point in the game before we had a chance to see more posting from Dizzle and HR has been covered.

There's also the matter of Toast's stated certainty of the non existence of a doctor not making sense. There's really no way for a cop to know that, and there's really no reason for them to look for one. There is motivation for scum to look for a doctor however.

As to Sigma, I'll try to keep this as simple as possible. I think he's most likely to be scum. It was clear to me that he stated he was willing to see you vote. I'm fairly confident he wanted you to commit before comitting himself. His reaction is even more telling.

I believe the town will get the most information if you put your money where your mouth is.

Read: I want you to vote now.

Summary: if you're confident to the point that it's very unlikely you'll change your mind, then I have no problem with you voting at this time. Does that make sense?

Read: I

really

want you to vote now.

As soon as you notice this and begin to question it, he starts saying you are scummy and immediately backtracking from his repeated statements of wanting you to vote.

My concern stems from your willingness to get me to Vote so far ahead of deadline without hearing from anyone else.

Let me clarify -- you shouldn't vote without hearing from the others. Here's why: because you've already said that that was your plan, and I would find you extremely scummy if you voted in direct contradiction to what you'd just said. I should have put in that conditional clause to begin with.

My point is this: we're all going to have to vote at some point. My point is that if you're going to make comments like "I feel confident enough to Vote" you should back them up with, at the very least, the person you're going to vote for and the reasons why you're confident that they're the lynch.

Which would have been good if he hadn't have said all of this AFTER giving you a chance to vote after telling you to put your money were your mouth was. What kept him from saying all this beforehand? The fact that he

actually

wanted you to vote before hearing from everyone else while trying

to look like

he wanted you to wait?

I don't think much really needs to be said past that, everything he said against you after that was pretty much an effort to drag you through the mud after you questioned his motivations. It was a clear attempt to turn it all back around on you and make it about how you apparently being confident enough to vote is now scummy. Why didn't it look scummy to him until you questioned his motives in his statement of wanting you to vote because you had made up your mind?

I also find it funny that he attacks you for not questioning my claim enough when he hasn't made much of an effort to pose questions to EITHER claim himself... like he's waiting to see which way the wind blows.

[sigma]

*twiddles thumbs*

[facebook]

Are we going to wait until Toast posts...? I have to say, atm I am pretty certain it's Toast/Sigma. I have read and re-read everything and it all seems to point to you two from my PoV. I know I have followed d3x all game, but what can I say? If I think he is right, I am not going to go against him for the sake of it. d3x and Zach are the most convincing players imo, and Sigma comes across as scummy, and Toast comes along as quiet. Toledo also came across as scummy imo.

[d3x]

@facebook- Can you go into why you think sigma is scummy?

[sigma]

@facebook- Can you go into why you think sigma is scummy?

seconded.

[Zachrulez]

Looks like we're still waiting for facebook to post.

For reference, it's been 6 days since Toast's last post. (When he said he'd post the next day)

We also have about 6 days to the deadline at this point.