890: Cults of Darkness and Shadow - Game over!

[Chaco]

/confirming

[Chaco]

Yeah, I'm gonna hop in and say Random Incants are not a good idea. As you could leave your vote on someone if you are gone. It could end up being a big mistake. That's if though.

Anyways, two sum teams of 4 is extraordinarily unbalanced. The win Ratio would be like:

45:45:10

The 10% being Town.

[Chaco]

Actually the bottom is interesting, Seacore, if we are sure at times of 2. We can throw the weight in order to lynch two in a day by letting the incant number drop on the equal number of those two.

[Chaco]

Agreed. I like the idea of 2 confirmed to one suspicious as 3. That's the only way I'd do 3.

[Chaco]

Agreed. 3 is very risky and should only be used when people have been confirmed/ultra suspicious (i.e. they last minute voted the day before). If we are bad enough to get three town in one hit, we're fucked.

I believe I'm going to enjoy working with you, Brother Chaco.

Agreed.

Also, just as a side hit @People who have already incanted. I do not think that was a good move in the slightest, and a No Lynch may not occur since you have done so. That can be considered scummy since, if you read the rules, you'd know the relation of the two.

A good practice in later days may be to withhold votes at first in case we are in need of a no lynch. Tenative idea though.

[Chaco]

Chaco why would possibly ever want to NL the first day? I read the rules, and since a NL is a bad idea today, then obviously I had no real need to hold my vote.

Which is why I said for later days.

[Chaco]

Huh? I assumed you were reffering to the day, doesn't matter anyway, since you clarified I guess.

Well, I consider a NL a fallback. The option of that fallback is destroyed when someone immediately votes.

It's just speculation, not that I want one.

[Chaco]

I think we should make it an absolute agreement, that is, with multilynching. Like the idea of incanting right now, it was to be absolute votes. 12 of 12. With the multilynch, I really believe we need absolute consensus.

[Chaco]

I don't like the buddying between Chaco and Seacore.

You're just jealous you aren't a member of the brolliance. <.<

Anyways, no. If he buddies me, so be it. All it looks like he's doing is what you're falling for. Which would be, if he flips--

Actually, answer this first. If Seacore were Incanted and flipped scum, right this instant. Who would you incant next?

Money says me because he's been buddying me. It's a common scum tactic, and you fell right into it.

Mod edit - duplicate post and request to remove said duplicate post have been removed.

[Chaco]

@Dis: Because I wanted to see how far he'd go. Because that, in my opinion isn't enough to incant him yet, and if I were at that time don't you think he'd stop what he's doing? Leaving me without further buddy esque posts to look into.

[Chaco]

Well, normally, when someone buddies me I generally respond with,"Do not invoke me." But I was interested in his alignment, so wanted him to further it.

Also, @98: No, not really. Your soft push makes no sense since the push would be to get them to vote, however I wanted the contrasting. I felt like incanting a bunch without need to is pointless.

And I used today as an example, but the purpose was for later days. Since you, obviously, cannot

un

incant.

[Chaco]

Magua...lmfao. As awesome as that sounds, I doubt it would work. Scum would mess it up somehow. But even then...that would reveal them...that's a brilliant strategy! Wow...legit.

[Chaco]

Haha, no. That was a requirement, rule #19, in TTGL mafia. The Rule of Cool.

And now to the buddying...

You say it was more mutual. Indeed, as was meant. I wanted him to buddy more so I could get more of an insight into his alignment. But, as you said, you would suspect me. It was in game ties. Scum do a great deal of distancing and buddying in games. A mafiaso with a great knwledge of how to balance these two is almost unrivaled. When, I play as scum I set ties on Day 1. So that if I am lynched it creates a ring of pure blind accusation. Guilty by association. Sound familiar? Well, it is quite the hefty tactic. Seeing through this tactic is only the beginning. But then, you have different levels of it. How many people do you draw those ties too? Do you distance your partner or distance another townie more so to distract them from that too? It's the balance of these actions. It takes a great deal of thought, and an even greater deal to interpret them. I was trying to interpret them, as you saw he invoked Snow_Bunny as well. Further interpretation right now is out the window. I understand the concern to my part of the buddying as well. Their is a veil of suspicion right now even after explaining my motives. It is a great deal of WIFOM now.

I'm almost ready to incant Seacore. I don't wanna spearhead it just yet, but In due time. Yes.

[Chaco]

So the difference in this game with 'normally' is caused due?Cause this is strange. You see buddying as a scumtell, but normally you'd stop it, but in this game you wanted to see what would happen.

Well, that's because in past games it stops there and what good comes from it? They know I want them to stop, so they do. Where as in this scenario I can use it in a more fruitful manner. Instead of instantly dismissing them, using their tactic against them. Are we on the same page at all? As in, not trying to be rude, but do you understand my position?

I think you misunderstood by what I meant with 'soft push'. You called the action scummy, without calling it scummy as you stated that 'it

can be seen

as scummy.'As for you stating that today was used as example, not buying that.

It was an example, whether or not you buy it.

Also, you're grasping and twisting my words. I stated "it can be seen as scummy", that by no means states "that is scummy." Lots of things can be seen as scummy, however when using an

example

you explain what can be. Understand?

As for your general thoughts about buddying, I was asking which reasons you can see for town and which reasons you can see for scum doing so. Please state them. And I'm still waiting on your opinion of the buddy posts from Seacore.

...I stated my thoughts. However, to suit you... Town has little to no reason for buddying, in my opinion. Everyone is suspect to them so they should by no means be casting one person aside to from a psuedo, what would you call it...alliance I guess? Psuedo-alliance?

And as you deduced, I do find his buddying somewhat scummy.

As for your part about me, check Chaco posts after I questioned him about the buddying stuff. Either I can't read or he does think you're scummy for it.

Bingo.

[Chaco]

Datadanne and Snow, if you would, can you please give your thoughts?

[Chaco]

Chaco - Engages in the idea of a controlled multi-lynch, which I consider a protown concept, but something about his reaction the buddying accusation rubs me the wrong way. And no, it's not just OMGUS from me. It's like he didn't like the attention and decided to say "oh no, I was just laying a trap for him" Vibe: neutral

I didn't deny buddying. My wording may have been off, but upon elaborating I never denied it. Anyways, to the point, I feel that you aren't understanding my method as you are on the wrong end of it. First, let's start out with a simple question: Have you ever tried odd tactics to catch scum?

[Chaco]

Regarding the page one posts not thinking it is a good idea to throw around incantations, I strongly disagree. Too many times I see people fence sitting or not backing up suspicions with votes and this mechanic helps force them to both put there vote somewhere and have to back it up. The random voting stage is not significantly better or worse in this game than it is in others.

Semi, I can't agree with that. There's a difference between casting Incants, and as you phrased, throwing them around. You CANNOT remove these. They have to stick somewhere. So as the incant number tocks down, bad tings can happen. You honestly seem hella scummy to me for saying throwing around incantation isn't bad. You don't see the potential of the mistakes here.

As far as the RVS, the RVS is near pointless here. Start it out someway different the only thing RVS does is create a larger incant pool in this game.

The "all in for Incanting" attitude is really odd. Right now there is no pressure, but as the day comes to an end it will cause loads. You do realize that however many incants we have down determines the length of the day, right?

All this discussion of crafting a multi-lynch is bad. Let's just lynch whoever we find most scummy. If two players get lynched, great. If not, well then we lynched the most scummy person by majority. I am not going to try cooperating to try and get a double lynch, I m going to be voting for the player I find most likely to be scum.

That is a flimsy stance, Semi.

IGMEOY

as the game progresses to see how you hold to this opinion. Scum would say that, but also flip for a town double lynch.

@Chaco
Saying you are almost ready to incant someone is scummy. If you were almost ready to incant, what kept you from doing it?

I'm watching Seacore more closely and seeing how he responds to things. I want a better read, so as you say...I actually can thoroughly backup my vote.

[Chaco]

To reiterate my point so that people will read it:

The games deadline is based on the Incant pool. The larger the incant pool, the shorter the day, no matter how you look at it.

[Chaco]

I'll reply tomorrow Semi, too long of post for my phone. But I think we missed each other. In terms of the posts.

[Chaco]

Sorry Im kind of AWOL right now...I'll try to get back soon...

[Chaco]

Incant: Mipe

The way he's acting, he needs to be incanted.

Sorry, I'll give more explanation later. but I really gotta go right now.

Percy: I'm gonna be gone a few days, could be more than that. Not sure. Sorry.

[Chaco]

I'm back now. Still not in a good frame of mind.

I know my last post was scummy as all get out, but I had to go work some things out. Like right at that moment. I'll start catching up soon.

[Chaco]

Wow.

Just. Wow.

I seriously think you would've been less scummy if you just hadn't posted.

Yeah, but I honestly I didn't care if I looked scummy or not. If I cared if I looked scummy I wouldn't have done that. I wanted my incant down before being gone for a few days just so if he was to be lynched I wouldn't stagnate the game by not being here to vote. He was where my incant was going anyways, so I just went ahead and put it there.

After reading through, and already having a bad gut on Semi, I'm really starting to dislike him more. There is no downside to an engineered double lynch today. Absolutely none. They cannot foil it without revealing themselves.

Honestly, to me it seems like a way not to vote for Data. Making me want the double lynch all the more. There's just something about it you can tell that his motives lie in the wrong place. Read this post:

The only way I want two lynches to happen at once is if it happens naturally.

I don't like the idea of trying to craft a double lynch. I don't like the idea of people here saying things to the effect of "Yeah, I don't buy that claim, but I'm going to vote for ___ instead because I want two people lynched." That's a load of crap. Let's just lynch mipe.

If the majority of people want to lynch mipe, I don't see why a smaller minority should be the ones choosing to do the second lynch (most of whom are also presumably part of that mipe-hate). Why do a select few get to vote your second suspect and not your top suspect?

If everyone on the mipe wagon did this I doubt we would all also vote for the same second person. A second lynch isn't representative of a majority and isn't even representative of being on any sort of equal ground as mipe's wagon.

What gives some people the "privilege" to not vote mipe if he is their top suspect and use their vote somewhere else, but not allow others to do the same? It makes you less accountable for your suspicions overall since you are apparently allowed to spread them out more. That is scummy.

Furthermore it allows mipe's potential partners to lessen the blow or to have an excuse not to be voting their scum buddy.

And tell me what you think.

!!!

Backed me up nicely...

Chaco would be my second choice for my incantation. I don't support a Datadanne lynch, and disagree with policy lynches in general. I don't think he will be entirely useless nor do I think he will be impossible to read. Though I am not looking to run Chaco up for a double lynch either. He can be examined further and lynched tomorrow if he is the scummiest player tomorrow.

Anyways, thoughts right now:

-I am okay with the double lynch of Datadanne and Mipe.
-Semi,

IGMEOY

Also, about Startransmission, there is nothing wrong with what he said.

FoS: Snowbunny

for the reaction to that. Pending to change though.

Uhm anymore....I'll hit more points later. I'm sure I missed a bunch.

[Chaco]

Incant: Datadanne

There.

[Chaco]

Yeah, semi did a good job of stating his position. And to be honest, I'm going to go with him. double lynches are beneficial if we have confirmed scum. As much as I love policy lynches on lurkers. In this game it is too risky to go around suspect lynching and throwing a lurker in there with it. Although that is like my dream. <.<

I'm for the Datadanne replacement, however he has an annoying habit of not getting replaced from what I've seen. If it goes into later days, get rid of him. He'll be of no use in end game when he's not posting content.

So, my vote goes back to Mipe.

Incant: Mipe

[Chaco]

Okay, I'm willing to go with the single lynch too, then. But I'd like a few thoughts on my replacement question first.

Lynch before replacement or after?

Lynch before, night gives him time to catch up without a load of pressure. That's just my preference when replacing in. *shrugs*

[Chaco]

Incant: Chaco

I couldnt agree more, SOG.

Incant: Chaco

Can I get a case to back up those votes? These votes are mere meaningless to me as they present no backing, if you're going to vote please give me something to defend myself with.

Dramonic, you've done nothing so far besides pretty much...nothing. Thoughts on the game so far? Besides one line buddying posts.

I wanna look back at Serial kinda since he defended the Mipe wagon early. More to come later.

[Chaco]

I asked for a case, thank you. Not a one liner. That gives me nothing to respond to. If you are looking for towns best interest it is best that I mount a defense, I cannot do that from a one liner. And also, I want you to post yours before Semi.

Semi, if you would, do not post a case before Dramonic does.

[Chaco]

@Dramonic:

Point 1: Not much I can say here besides reiterating what I said. Also, you've buddied Semi does that make you scum? Seacore was town and his buddying was scummy?

Point 2: This is really null 80% of all players supported this.

Point 3: How is this even a point? You're give yourself too much credit. I thought it would be better for you to catch up over the night phase and post your thoughts after having time to read and not have the usual "Still reading" junk.

Point 3:No, I didn't backtrack on Semi. You're basically saying that--well example:

You think player A is scummy.
Player A says something you agree with.
You agree with it.

Does that make you scum for agreeing with someone you suspect? I really think you are grasping for material and don't see why half of these are points...

Point 4: I explained why I did that, as I was not sure when I would be back. Not to AtE, but if you want to penalize me for a death in my family have at it. I stated I'd be gone and wasn't sure how long in a response to Magua.

Semi, the last point regards you. I can't really say much about the first quote other than I didn't get to it. Sorry, I guess.

[Chaco]

1: In actuality it loses the basis, but thats besides the point. There are hints of buddying to SOG, besides the voting.

2: So 80% of this game is anti town? Why only point it out on me then?

3: It helps everyone else, it wasn't for you.

4: I never admitted he was totally right, I said he did a good job of representing his side.

5: It's what I chose to do, so no matter what you think of it whats done is done. It was my choice as it was the better one.

[Chaco]

Seacore also has a lot of buddy-ing and "I agree" attitude.

I couldnt agree more, SOG.

Double standard?

[Chaco]

No, but you're denying a basis of the Seacore-Chaco buddying which applies to the SOG-Dramonic buddying.

[Chaco]

Dramonic was your little conniption all talk? "You just were afraid of my opinion?" Because honestly, you have a handful of posts and none of which are busting with this "opinion".

More opinion please?

[Chaco]

I think you are scum, I want you lynched. That's all the opinion you need so far.

No, that's not all the opinion I need right now. That attitude in itself is anti-town. You replaced in for a person warranting a policy lynch, and I have seen nothing up to this point, from you, making me want to change that outlook. You've posted less than Data has, with little content.

The fact that you instantly responded to me when I called upon you alludes to the fact that you are lurking.

[Chaco]

Tracker, Snowbunny is on twice and I am on 0 times.

Also, I exaggerated on Data posting more than Dramonic. Dramonic has posted 8 times, where as Data posted 5. However, Dramonic has posted 5 one liners out of 8 total posts.

[Chaco]

I did not find Datadanne scummy.

Did you find him policy lynch worthy? And do you feel there has been a significant change in the play since Dramonic has replaced in? do you feel he is an asset to town with the attitude he is taking to the game? "I think this, therefore it is."

[Chaco]

As stated before, I am against policy lynching.

That's your style, so that's fine by me.

No, Datadanne was not policy lynch worthy. No one else will be either.

Whether or not you are against it, doesn't make them not worthy of a policy lynch.

There has been a change between dramonic and Datadanne. Unlike Datadanne, I don't think dramonic will disappear for days at a time. In my numerous past games with him he keeps active and I'm sure as the game goes on I will be able to get reads on him. He has not yet done enough to be considered an asset or not to this town. Part of that answer depends upon the town and part of the answer will depend upon dramonic.

So you're read on him is neutral? Or would it be a more pro-town read since you said you do not think he is scum? Or do you have enough info to derive a stance? If not, then why the claim of his township? If so, why not enough to prove he's an asset or not?

If you don't know what I mean by that, an example would be that some towns are more accepting of zwetschewasser while others aren't (though I am not comparing dramonic to zwets at all, just using an example of how sometimes it is the town that helps determine a player's value to the game)

It's quite straightforward. In your opinion, do you feel that Dramonic is currently an asset to the town?

[Chaco]

see, these are the kind of posts why I think you're scum. All you really want to do is take a stance that you can later try to condemn if he's wrong on any point.

It's incriminating to want a solid answer? He's already given himself room to back out on, and I do find that scummy. If he's sure at this point, why leave the trail of doubt to later follow out? Reads can be wrong, there's nothing wrong with that. But setting up your bail out, is indeed very scummy.

[Chaco]

How is SOG's read on me supposed to affect the fact he's voting you?

Does that have anything to do with my questioning of his stance?

[Chaco]

Well, my perception is that you are wanting to lynch me and think I'm buddying to SOG.

Whether or not that is the case, that does not currently effect Semi's vote on me. I am trying to get more information.

[Chaco]

Actually it does. I don't think that anyone is worthy of being policy lynched, which is why I am against policy lynches. I would find it very odd for someone to say that they are against policy lynches, but then also state that certain players are worthy of a policy lynch. That just makes no sense, how would you justify being against all policy lynching if you thought anyone was worthy of a policy lynch? That would be a huge contradiction.

I didn't mean it as getting you to admit it, I was saying just because you are against it doesn't mean the others are. More than half of the game was for policy lynching him, which was why I questioned you here.

I don't have a read on him. It isn't a neutral read, it isn't a pro-town read, and it isn't a scummy read. I did not claim his township, this is a misrepresentation by you. If you think I did I'd like you to point out where.

...but as of now I do not find dramonic to be scummy.

Explain what you mean here then. You do not find him to be scummy, but you have no read? To much ambiguity there.

Why did you feel my post was in need of such extreme scrutiny when you haven't questioned any other post to this extent throughout the game so far? It seems that there would be far more important things to take note of and investigate than my post, which in all honesty was answered quite clearly by any literal means. It looks to me like you are trying to make something out of nothing.

You laid down an incant with out first backing it up, Dramonic hopped on right with you. I had to request a case. There is some buddying action between Dramonic and you, as well as the ambiguity behind your "no read" on him. Which I do not find likely. To say he is not scummy must mean you have some sort of read him. Deny it as you may, that is the simple truth.

Explain to me what more important things are going on right now.

And no, if I were making something of nothing I'd scrutinize you for every little thing you've done and not one post regarding the ever so useless Dramonic.

@Magua: I'm torn right now between the two. I'm pretty damned sure Semi is lying, and Dramonic is useless at the moment.

So I'll go with the liar.

Incant: Semi

[Chaco]

You are saying that you have no read on him. You labeled him as not scummy to you. That sounds like a read to me. The ambiguity lies in your trying to cover up that lie.

I also agree with Magua, I do not see you two being scumbuddies. I do however, think either of you could be scum at this time.

[Chaco]

try to avoid referring to me as ever so useless, its not like I havent actually posted a list of point against you which you tried to

weakly

refute.

@Magua: my reasoning has been given <<

Your reasoning was the side that was

weak

.

[Chaco]

You are saying that you have no read on him. You labeled him as not scummy to you. That sounds like a read to me. The ambiguity lies in your trying to cover up that lie.

"Not scummy" isn't a read. It is a lack of one. (that's what the "not" is for, it means that some) To be specific, it is a lack of a scummy read. "Not scummy" is a subset of "no read."

The definition of not having a read is that I don't find a person to be scummy/town/third-party/anything! Not having a read means that I don't find a player to be any of those things. I don't understand what is so difficult to comprehend about this. Saying that someone is not scummy to me and that I have no read on that person are not conflicting things.

Chaco, do you ever find people to be scummy that you have no read on?

That's the thing, it is a conflicting view. You are saying you have NO read on him, saying that he isn't scummy to you requires a read. I do not get why you deny this so. You ca n't just throw out a baseless "Oh he's not scummy to me." Well, you can. But I do not expect it from you, which is why I am pushing the fact so hard.

Saying someone isn't scummy to you, means that you have a read. Simple enough. It may not be leaning to two sides heavily, but it is in fact a read.

I rarely have no read, and when I do it is early on D1. Scum slips and tells change my read to scummy. What you are saying makes no sense.

[Chaco]

No, it doesn't. That's the way it is and the the way it always will be. By you seeing that I don't find someone scummy you are making the false assumption that I have a read on him him to be something else. Which is the wrong assumption.

Then how did you come about that basis?

Why wouldn't you expect it from me?

Past play.

Again, no, it doesn't mean that. How can someone be scummy to me if I don't have a read on them? If I don't find someone to be scummy because I have no read on them, how is saying I don't find them to be scummy a lie?

Again, how did you get the basis that he is not scummy?

That just means we play differently. Just because you play with a certain ability or preference doesn't mean that I play with those same abilities or preferences.

No, but we should be able to come to a consensus between the two. Agreed?

Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's wrong.

Also, you dodged my question. Do you ever find people to be scummy that you have no read on? A yes/no answer will suffice (until my followup question). I don't need to know how you prefer to play or how long it takes you to get reads on players... that isn't what I was asking for. Do you ever find people to be scummy that you have no read on? Yes or no.

Even if I were lying about having no read on dramonic, which I am not lying about, why would that be scummy? you can't just say that an action is scummy, you need to know what makes it scummy given the context you find it in.

I don't understand why so many people on this site just look at an action and automatically declare it as scummy with no thought about

why

it is scummy. Town do "scummy" things all the time. Town can be hypocritical, they lie, contradict themselves, vote for no reasons, vote for bad reasons, buddy to others, lurk, fence-sit, post contentless garbage and a myriad of other things people label as "scummy." Yet as soon many people see one of these "scum tells" they hop onto it immediately without so much as a thought as to why it might or might not be scummy. Players in general need to stop playing on autopilot and do a little more thinking. These things need context or analysis to be considered scummy.

No, I didn't dodge it. I answered it, and you even quoted it. And again I will say, I form an opinion. So I guess I'll say no because, once they do something scummy that attributes to a read. I really don't understand the necessity for a Yes/No answer here. Making something of nothing? I explained the way I did it, that's better than a yes or no answer. Only using Yes or No limits my reply to only something you want to hear.

Liars get lynched. Plus, I am trying to understand your "No read" + "He's not scummy to me" combination. They don't parallel. And as you said, I am trying to get to the context of it, but you're going into a turtle shell.

Town can do scummy things yes. So you're saying we can pass you off as town because you did something scummy? No, I'm trying to get to the bottom of something and you're shelling up on me with a wall of useless post whining because you're under scrutiny.

Where, or what, is your basis for saying "He's not scummy to me."?

[Chaco]

Here are the options:

(1) Someone is not scummy.
(2) Someone is scummy.

There are no other options. Someone either is or they are not. Period. When I eliminate option (2), option (1) is all that remains. Any decision made on a read or lack of read on any player will fit into one of those two options.

And you said you had no read on him, so how did your not scummy come about?

[Chaco]

Is it that hard to grasp that deeming someone not scummy requires a read?

[Chaco]

Semi, you aren't proving your examples right...you are reiterating them.

To answer your questions, only using Yes/No:

Q: Do you ever play hockey on Sundays?

A: No.

Q: Do you ever find people to be scummy that you have no read on?

A: No.

A Elaborated: By finding them scummy my read would go from "No read" to "Scummy".

Now to this:

"Tell my why they do not parallel."

You CANNOT have a NO READ on someone who TO YOU...ISN'T SCUMMY. They contradict in every shape and form.

It's Kinda Like this:

Town------------No Read-----------Scum

To the left is town, and to the right is scum.

You said "He is not scummy to me." Which puts us here.

Town---<D----No Read---------Scum

[Chaco]

I do not feel the English is the problem here, it is the Logic behind the English.

You said:

But as of now I do not find dramonic to be scummy.

Do not find him to be scummy. The "find" you are using is "to feel or perceive", so you do not feel he is scummy?

Which goes back the very same thing. This is not a difference of English, as you wish to pass it off as.

[Chaco]

Semi, you just slipped up. You are preaching the wrong use of find now that I backed you into a corner. As I typed out my response I noticed the change.

But as of now I do not find dramonic to be scummy.

I did not find Datadanne scummy.

First, before I point out your errors, let us go over the forms of Find.

1. to come upon by chance; meet with:

He found a nickel in the street.

2. to locate, attain, or obtain by search or effort:

to find an apartment; to find happiness.

3. to locate or recover (something lost or misplaced):

I can't find my blue socks.

4. to discover or perceive after consideration:

to find something to be true.

5. to gain or regain the use of:

His anger finally helped him find his tongue.

6. to ascertain by study or calculation:

to find the sum of several numbers.

7. to feel or perceive:

He finds it so.

8. to become aware of, or discover (oneself), as being in a condition or location:

After a long illness, he found himself well again. She woke to find herself at home.

9. to discover:

Columbus found America in 1492.

10.

Law.

a. to determine after judicial inquiry: to find a person guilty.[/*]
b. to pronounce as an official act (an indictment, verdict, or judgment).
11. to provide or furnish:

Bring blankets and we'll find the rest of the equipment for the trip.

12. South Midland and Southern U.S. (of farm animals) to give birth to:

The brown cow found a calf yesterday.

Now, let's go through and rule out the ones that cannot be.

1. to come upon by chance; meet with:

He found a nickel in the street.

2. to locate, attain, or obtain by search or effort:

to find an apartment; to find happiness.

3. to locate or recover (something lost or misplaced):

I can't find my blue socks.

4. to discover or perceive after consideration:

to find something to be true.

5. to gain or regain the use of:

His anger finally helped him find his tongue.

6. to ascertain by study or calculation:

to find the sum of several numbers.

7. to feel or perceive:

He finds it so.

8. to become aware of, or discover (oneself), as being in a condition or location:

After a long illness, he found himself well again. She woke to find herself at home.

9. to discover:

Columbus found America in 1492.

10.

Law.

a. to determine after judicial inquiry: to find a person guilty.[/*]
b. to pronounce as an official act (an indictment, verdict, or judgment).

11. to provide or furnish:

Bring blankets and we'll find the rest of the equipment for the trip.

12. South Midland and Southern U.S. (of farm animals) to give birth to:

The brown cow found a calf yesterday.

Now, before moving on further, do you understand why these to are left?

The first one is what you are stating: You did not

meet

with Scumminess within Dramonic. Any other form would not support your "I did not find scumminess within Dramonic." The form I selected as the only factual one with your statement, which is to feel or perceive it. It is the ONLY one that will make sens with your wording. And let alone, the only one that would make sense period. Now, let us bring the two out and compare them.

1. to come upon by chance; meet with:

He found a nickel in the street.

2. to locate, attain, or obtain by search or effort:

to find an apartment; to find happiness.

3. to locate or recover (something lost or misplaced):

I can't find my blue socks.

4. to discover or perceive after consideration:

to find something to be true.

5. to gain or regain the use of:

His anger finally helped him find his tongue.

6. to ascertain by study or calculation:

to find the sum of several numbers.

7. to feel or perceive:

He finds it so.

8. to become aware of, or discover (oneself), as being in a condition or location:

After a long illness, he found himself well again. She woke to find herself at home.

9. to discover:

Columbus found America in 1492.

10.

Law.

a. to determine after judicial inquiry: to find a person guilty.[/*]
b. to pronounce as an official act (an indictment, verdict, or judgment).

11. to provide or furnish:

Bring blankets and we'll find the rest of the equipment for the trip.

12. South Midland and Southern U.S. (of farm animals) to give birth to:

The brown cow found a calf yesterday.

Now, comparing the two to your statement, I shall label the forms as you have used them using Red and Blue.

But as of now I do not find dramonic to be scummy.

I did not find Datadanne scummy.

I did not find there to be any scuminess in dramonic.

Understand now? What you are trying to pass it off as, is not so.

[Chaco]

I got the whole afternoon thinking about this, and I think i got it wrong. Yes, you know there's a town confirmed pr because you know Darkness didn't protect anyone of their own. And thus, you assume the PR comes from town who fended off Shadow's kill. That's it.

Interesting, so that still has you labeling him as Darkness Cult?

[Chaco]

omg...

seriously Chaco, just stop. You're covering yourself with ridicule here. This redefines grasping for straws.

It's not grasping. If it is wrong, show us where it is. Just whining about it will do no good.

Dramonic, you have now posted 12 one liners out of 15 posts out of a total 8 days in this game.

[Chaco]

@ Semi: I am going by your wording, Semi, the first two are Feel/Perceive in the way you worded them the last was coming across, pretty much. Yes, they all will fit because essentially they are all find. But, that's not the case. The point I'm making here is that the first two REQUIRED a read from the way they were worded, and the last did not. The change you are saying I noted, is meaningless. The change that in fact did note, makes this part. You do know quite a bit, I'll give you that. So, I do think you have the knowledge to make such a change and I really feel you did. Why is it so hard to admit you had a read on Dramonic? What you were saying was contradictory, and it seems other people are getting that feel too. Of course, other than Dramonic.

@Dramonic:
One post of mine or Semi's amounts to almost all of your posts combined.

[Chaco]

And you've produced no content at all yet, so I wouldn't be one to critical over the game.

[Chaco]

I've given 5 reasons why I think you're scum all of which I deem valid. The defense you tried to provide against the points I've risen was weak in my opinion, therefore I am still very sure you are scum.

Additionally, your ridiculous semantic formulation debate with SOG wasn't actually fluff, I admit. More like you desperately trying to find something to say SOG is scum (and failing miserably might I add), but it DID increase your scumminess by an exponential amount.

The fact you purposely ignore the content I have posted is just another added bonus to your scumscore.

And which pretty much everyone else has deemed weak?

I'm not desperately trying to find something on Semi, if I were I'd be tossing out a lot more than a debate over verb tenses. Which is what it has amounted to now.

Dramonic...4 posts out of like what....19 now? That doesn't make up anything. Your honestly full of shit.

It's hard to admit that I had a read on dramonic... probably because I didn't have a read on dramonic.

How do the first two

require

a read from their wording?

"But as of now I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy."
<sentence two snipped for irrelevance>
"I did not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic."

With the exception of the tense and preposition phrase "But as of now", sentences 1 and 3 are the same sentence.

**Incoming grammar lesson monologue. If you don't want to read about grammar, stop now. There is no game content found below. Though grammar is really interesting and if you do read on you'll probably learn something about grammar.

Let's first sync up the tenses and remove that prepositional phrase from contestsant number one for ease of comparison.

"I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy."
"I do not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic."

Now "I" is the subject/nominative of both sentences. Everything past "I" is part of the predicate.

"do" is the predicate or acting verb of both sentences coupled with the adverb of "not." The verb "to do" generally requires the partnership of an infinitive which is a helping verb, which here is not an exception, in this case that infinitive being "find/perceive," whichever you want to use at this point.

Next let's look at a couple direct object nouns. "Scuminess" and "dramonic" aren't the same nouns in a literal sense, but both sentences have a prediacte nominative as the direct objects, so the sentence structure between the two is still the same so far.

(A 'prediacte nominative' is the acting subject of the prediacte phase. More on this later.)

When looking at the next infinitive, "to be," we have an additional pronoun, "there," in the second sentence. However, this pronoun is not acting like a pronoun. When joined, generally with the verb "to be," the word "there" acts as an introduction to a clause in which the verb is coming before it's subject. For example "There is no spoon." The word "there" has no real translatable meaning to the sentence here since "Is no spoon" is not proper english grammar (there are many other languages in which this grammar would be fine).

Think of the word "there" as a reflexive pronoun in this case. When you say "there is no spoon" you are essentially saying "There exists no spoon," which has the same translation as "no spoon exists," eliminating the word "there" entirely since the subject "spoon" is now at its place before the verb. Let's look at the clauses within each sentence's predicate separately for a moment (this is the clause following our verb and helping verb)

"

I do not perceive

dramonic to be scummy."
"

I do not perceive

there to be any

scuminess

in dramonic."

We can get rid of the pronoun "there" by rearranging the word order in the second phrase to "

I do not perceive

any scumminess to be in dramonic" We then have the same exact verb in the prediacte, "to be." Nothing exciting there. So now we've whittled it down to:

"

dramonic

to be scummy."
"any

scumminess

to be in dramonic"

I underlined both prediacte nominatives. What we do with the word "any" that seems to be poking out the front is more or less ignore it. The word "any" is an adjective to the direct object that expresses emphasis when in a sentence with a negative. Basically it emphasizes that the person saying the sentence is sure that there is no scuminess. It does not change the meaning. It could even be cut out.

The prediacte infinitive "to be" has the same use in both clauses, linking the predicate nominative to it's compliment. So "to be" also passes the identical test between the two sentences.

"

dramonic

to be scummy."
"

scumminess

to be in dramonic"

"scummy" and "in dramonic" are both complements. A complement follows a verb to let us know the meaning of a phrase. In both clauses these are acting as predicate adjectives, they modify the prediacte nominative so we know what's going on. Their actual part of speech is not important when dealing with complements.

"scummy" let's us know more about "dramonic" and "in dramonic" lets us know more about "scuminess." The part of speech which a word is does not affect the kind of complement it is within the sentence, so it does not matter that one complement is an adjective and the other is a prepositional phrase. Complements can also be nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc.

"I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy."
"I do not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic."

So looking back at the whole picture, both sentences have their nominatives (I), a negative (not), a verb with helping verb (do perceive), a direct object (dramonic/scuminess), a complement to the direct object(scummy/in dramonic), which are combined by a linking verb (to be).

Structurally they are the same sentence. They have all the same parts.

Honestly, Semi, I can't say anything I haven't already on the matter. I think we're doomed to not see eye to eye on this matter. However, I do appreciate you replying back.

So, nothing more can come out of this at this point.

[Chaco]

How do the first two

require

a read from their wording?

I will answer this though. Because of the usage, to me, it was like you "felt" he was not scummy. Thus you must have had an establishing read that would set off this "not scumminess."

Do you have a read on Dramonic now? Or has he still posted far to little content?

[Chaco]

since when did pretty much everyone = magua?
I deem more than 4 of my post have actual content.
WHy are you insulting me anyways?

More have said it than Magua. Tells me you aren't really reading.

Well, I deem only 4 of them breaking the one to two liners.

Cause I was hoping you'd actually post.

[Chaco]

That's based all off of assumption Snow. You're ruling out that a town protective role exists in that line of thinking.

[Chaco]

That's based all off of assumption Snow. You're ruling out that a town protective role exists in that line of thinking.

I'm not ruling out anything. I'm saying that as a town I have no way of knowing there's a town PR. But he does.

This is a semi open set up, I'm pretty sure you know there are Town PRs. That was a dumb comment.

[Chaco]

I gotta say that Snow Bunny is starting to make sense to me. Couple with Serial's apparent slip about targeting specific scum groups, I am growing more convinced.

Thing is, it doesn't make sense. The only thing Serial has done is just what Snowbunny has done. Made assumptions on the set up.

[Chaco]

That's based all off of assumption Snow. You're ruling out that a town protective role exists in that line of thinking.

I'm not ruling out anything. I'm saying that as a town I have no way of knowing there's a town PR. But he does.

This is a semi open set up, I'm pretty sure you know there are Town PRs. That was a dumb comment.

Pretty sure? I'm sorry, but if you actually read the first post of the game, you'll see there's no mention whatsoever about town having PRs. All it says that some players (regardless of alignment) will posses special abilities. So, again, why should I be sure there are town PRs?

I'm not following Snow Bunny's logic regarding SC and his alignment. Out of this debate I'm agreeing with SC. It does seem pretty unlikely that the scum teams would have three members with PRs. It is far more likely that each team consists of two with one PR.

Never outguess the mod, nor base your assumptions in the setup if you don't know it. And, btw, I'm not saying anywhere that the Darkness team has a PR. For all I know, SC could be Darkness' last member. The point is not Darkness having a PR or not. The point is SC

knowing

Darkness didn't protect anyone during past night.

So there are no PRs in this game? Wow.

[Chaco]

It's called being facetious, but since I don't understand written language I wouldn't know that. Now would I?

Explain the logic behind your assumptions, and then point out how this apparent "slip" is factual.

[Chaco]

I'm not trying to be dense here, but I want to make sure this is actually your point.

Isn't it obvious!

[Chaco]

It makes sense.

Not much, to look at it in that way, he would have to know what he's accusing SC of. Because the natural assumption is a townie block, like you said.

[Chaco]

I'm surprised Chaco isn't dead yet. and if he flips scum SC sounds like a solid partner.

Why're you surprised I'm not dead yet? In all honesty, I'm surprised more people aren't pissed at you. You've amounted to shit.

[Chaco]

17 of 22 now...17:5.

[Chaco]

Yeah, sorry guys for my attitude in this recently. It just peeves me when someone acts on a high horse when really they haven't done anything but lurk. I'll tone it down, but seriously, it annoys me. A lot.

[Chaco]

After reading back through on iso I found her posts to be... not scummy.

Uh oh... quick! hide this line from Chaco!!

Your lucky I like you, Semi. Lmfao.

[Chaco]

I'm gonna have to go with Start's claim on this, as I was already suspicious of Semi.

And I'd rather not have a Town Guardian outed, not this Early in the game.

[Chaco]

Sorry, been inactive for the holidays, and will be again for New Years. I will answer the questions directed at me however, in a post after this one.

[Chaco]

What about his claim makes me more suspicious?

It wasn't exactly about his claim making you more suspicious as it was, I was already somewhat suspicious of you. So, him coming in and claiming dreamwalker just kinda made me go "Hmm?" So I kind of saw it in the way he did, as the odds being less of town guardian and shadow targeting you. So I kept my vote on you, looking at it now, and since you've explained yourself. I don't think it's the way to go for today. As the day progresses it is looking more and more like SC is going to be lynched. So I'm going to go and read on him, and then take a stance on his lynch. That'll be up Jan 1st hopefully.

[Chaco]

I'll get a post up later tonight. I got food poisoning on New Years, and have been throwing my guts up since then. Up until this morning, so I'm still kinda woozy. I'll do a reread and a few and get my promised post up.

[Chaco]

I'm taking my vote off of SOG, just wait a minute for my post explaining. It ate my last post.

[Chaco]

Anyways, after looking through the ISO, I do not think that SOG should be lynched today. Just because we have differing view points-- on well, most everything--doesn't mean that he should be lynched. From my POV at least. Anyways, after looking back and comparing Start and SC about their Darkness ideas I don't feel comfortable with either of them today as well. I honestly think Im going to go with Magua on this one and go to Heliograph. As he said, he's done nothing. But also, if anyones down for a Dramonic lynch just gimme a yell. I would kill him in an instant since he has still done nothing.

But Heliograph is definitely getting my vote for the day.

Incant: Heliograph

Still more to come in a bit when I make a good post.

[Chaco]

Effin alt games.

[Chaco]

Wow, uhm, that breadcrumb is different. Since town guardian is claimed, and Dreamwalker, both making accusations that SOG is scum. You can't argue that really, so

Re-Incant: Dramonic

, might as well confirm their claims.

[Chaco]

Blah that post put Dramonic on the mind.

EBWOP:

Re-incant: Semioldguy

[Chaco]

...

Are you not paying attention or just made a mistake?

You should be incanting SOG, not dramonic.

I was reading your post while typing, so it messed me up when I saw Dramonic's name.

[Chaco]

Yeah, I thought his claim was legit since no one CCd, but even then there could have been two.

And great play by SOG, honestly, that was good.

Start, your middle line of your last post seems insincere. Just a feeling.

Dramonic, has continued to do nothing, and posts once like every seven days.

Rereading.

[Chaco]

I feel like I've been a dick to you, in the beginning of the game. So I'll apologize for that. Sorry. However, using the Holidy season as an excuse over the stretch of almost a month isn't acceptable in my book. You have had mainly one liners and very little comment. I can quote about 3, maybe more, calls for you to voice your open. All were left unreplied.

So for now, I am going to park my vote on you.

Incant: Dramonic

[Chaco]

Elaborate on your funny feeling involving Start, please.

[Chaco]

...and I am not at all comfortable with any assumptions about the size of the scum teams.

Why's that? You're thinking one side has 3? Which means for it to be a scum team meaning the other has 2. So 5 people in this game are scum? Leaving only 7 players to town. That doesn't seem right at all, and there's no way there's a one man scum team as all that would be is an SK, which is not in this game.

FoS: Deathsauce

[Chaco]

...and I am not at all comfortable with any assumptions about the size of the scum teams.

Why's that? You're thinking one side has 3? Which means for it to be a scum team meaning the other has 2. So 5 people in this game are scum? Leaving only 7 players to town. That doesn't seem right at all, and there's no way there's a one man scum team as all that would be is an SK, which is not in this game.

FoS: Deathsauce

You're suspicious of me for not trying to outguess the mod? Not seeing any reason to defend myself against that.

It would be perhaps more enlightening if you were to explain why you defended Serial, but since you chose not to do so, I'm really comfortable with my vote.

Point out in what posts I defended him, and I will do so. All I remember doing is saying there's no reason to doubt his claim at that time. I don't exactly call that defending.

[Chaco]

That's not a defense, that was questioning Snow Bunny's logic, which you are trying to twist into a defense. When it is not.

Also, that by no means means that there is 3 members.

[Chaco]

I don't remember you saying I defended him.

And please explain how you know this.

[Chaco]

Deathsauce, you can choose not to submit a guard, look at the OP. You are basing this assumption off of a "what if". I honestly do not think there are three Darkness, because look at the results from last night. Shadow got a kill on Magua. Darkness most likely would have gotten their kill across-- that is if their is only one Town Guardian-- but seriously, don't say anything.

You are making connections that are nonexistent.

[Chaco]

Hit an unexpected V/LA. I'll read up in a few.

[Chaco]

Where are you guys getting these Shadow numbers from? Cause I can see where Faraday is coming from, but why would there be a lone scum on a "team"? That's just an SK...and this is

Cults

of Darkness and Shadow.

[Chaco]

Answer to my question Start?

Also, if you were honestly suspicious of me...how did you forget?

[Chaco]

Yep, you're right. I for some reason thought we had three dead scum, two darkness and one shadow. But there are two shadow, and I'm an idiot.

And I wasn't suspicious of you so much, which is why I said I had a null tell on you.

Okay, that makes sense I guess. So why were you all like "Oh noes I forgot about Chaco!" When you were suspicious of SnowBunny and investigated there.

[Chaco]

Why did you act as if you meant to investigate me when it was brought up later to only say it was a null tel and would've investigated Snow anyways?

[Chaco]

Mass suicide is a god awful idea, a simple no cannot express that.

Right now my suspicions are gonna have to fall on Dram, because, well he's been off the radar the ENTIRE game. Like really, I don't see Dram playing like this normally at all. Really odd to me.

[Chaco]

Incant: Dramonic

Either way.

[Chaco]

I don't know what you're talking about....

[Chaco]

Yeah, you guys were on me, and man Dramonic...I bet you think I hate you! Lol. Nah, no in the slightest. It was more of a thing I could attack. <.<;

Anyways~ Faraday is some pro shit.

[Chaco]

Gotta say, I find Faraday's humor amusing as well. One of the best I've been partnered with honestly.

SOG, is still utterly amazing.

Dram, I want to kick you for lurking and not really explaining why I was scum. (For town) But I'm glad you didn't.