Open 184: Friends and Enemies Mafia (Over)

[Netopalis]

Oh, and also, SC - Nero? I don't even know HOW to play the fiddle!

[farside22]

farside - that's actually the kind of language tell that I hate. I'm sure I've said something similar, I often say 'blah is town' or 'blah is certainly scum'. If you are actually scum you can control that. Any decent player can be careful to say 'if they flip...' or 'we were right' not 'the town was right'. It's just easy to circumnavigate, so once the tell is common knowledge, it's pretty worthless. I wouldn't put much stock in that quote you posted at all, to be perfectly honest.

I have made the error as scum more often then not. However I brought the point up and he ignores it. Had he said blah I meant if or just admitted it as an error I would agree with you a bit about it possibly being an error. The fact he has ignored it twice after I brought it up catches my attention more.

[Shotty to the Body]

farside - that's actually the kind of language tell that I hate. I'm sure I've said something similar, I often say 'blah is town' or 'blah is certainly scum'. If you are actually scum you can control that. Any decent player can be careful to say 'if they flip...' or 'we were right' not 'the town was right'. It's just easy to circumnavigate, so once the tell is common knowledge, it's pretty worthless. I wouldn't put much stock in that quote you posted at all, to be perfectly honest.

I have made the error as scum more often then not. However I brought the point up and he ignores it. Had he said blah I meant if or just admitted it as an error I would agree with you a bit about it possibly being an error. The fact he has ignored it twice after I brought it up catches my attention more.

I ignore it because it's retarded, everyone uses different semantics. How is town me more likely to use if than when or whatever? Just because you make obvious semantics changes when you're scum doesn't mean others do the same. Please prove that I do this only as scum with links to my posts if you want to use this as some sort of logical evidence.

[farside22]

I won't apologize for setting up lynches, it makes sense to say where you would like to go the next day in case you are killed, the drawback is it creates WIFOM, yes, but I still think I should put my thoughts out there. In sake of dealing with the current issues and among the outcry of "qq setting up lynches qq," I want to just move forward with the DLA lynch that I'm quite sure on and deal with the rest tomorrow. I'm not nearly 100% sure of my ABR read, but DLA I AM quite sure of.

Setting up lynches is so bad. IE if DLA is not lynched today and turns out that DLA may be town you are letting the scum know exactly who will be next for lynching and they will not kill that person. I'm just saying why lining up lynches is bad using DLA in this case.
Scum can use this too as a signal to let their scum buddies know who is an easy lynch day 2 in case the scum is lynched.

[farside22]

farside - that's actually the kind of language tell that I hate. I'm sure I've said something similar, I often say 'blah is town' or 'blah is certainly scum'. If you are actually scum you can control that. Any decent player can be careful to say 'if they flip...' or 'we were right' not 'the town was right'. It's just easy to circumnavigate, so once the tell is common knowledge, it's pretty worthless. I wouldn't put much stock in that quote you posted at all, to be perfectly honest.

I have made the error as scum more often then not. However I brought the point up and he ignores it. Had he said blah I meant if or just admitted it as an error I would agree with you a bit about it possibly being an error. The fact he has ignored it twice after I brought it up catches my attention more.

I ignore it because it's retarded, everyone uses different semantics. How is town me more likely to use if than when or whatever? Just because you make obvious semantics changes when you're scum doesn't mean others do the same. Please prove that I do this only as scum with links to my posts if you want to use this as some sort of logical evidence.

Using retarded is not something I appreciate being used. Secondly if I make that error as scum what is to tell me that others do not.
Finally I'm not going to search through thousands of games looking for this trip up. I can't recall the game in question as it was back a ways but if you have time to do research why not show me a game where you made a similar trip up and was town.

[Shotty to the Body]

I won't apologize for setting up lynches, it makes sense to say where you would like to go the next day in case you are killed, the drawback is it creates WIFOM, yes, but I still think I should put my thoughts out there. In sake of dealing with the current issues and among the outcry of "qq setting up lynches qq," I want to just move forward with the DLA lynch that I'm quite sure on and deal with the rest tomorrow. I'm not nearly 100% sure of my ABR read, but DLA I AM quite sure of.

Setting up lynches is so bad. IE if DLA is not lynched today and turns out that DLA may be town you are letting the scum know exactly who will be next for lynching and they will not kill that person. I'm just saying why lining up lynches is bad using DLA in this case.
Scum can use this too as a signal to let their scum buddies know who is an easy lynch day 2 in case the scum is lynched.

How can you possibly know any of that? There are so many ifs, mays, and hypotheticals there I can't begin to imagine how you can conclusively state it.

The present has more impact than anything on a lynch, just because I say I would like to lynch X tomorrow doesn't mean it will happen, I'll probably be pushing it, but everyone will decide what to do with it when they see my facts the next day when I vote X and (re)post my case. They don't decide now that they have to lynch whoever and scum can't conclusively determine what the town will do the next day either, especially with a night-kill thrown into the mix that may irrevocably change parts of the case or the geography of the game.

[farside22]

I won't apologize for setting up lynches, it makes sense to say where you would like to go the next day in case you are killed, the drawback is it creates WIFOM, yes, but I still think I should put my thoughts out there. In sake of dealing with the current issues and among the outcry of "qq setting up lynches qq," I want to just move forward with the DLA lynch that I'm quite sure on and deal with the rest tomorrow. I'm not nearly 100% sure of my ABR read, but DLA I AM quite sure of.

Setting up lynches is so bad. IE if DLA is not lynched today and turns out that DLA may be town you are letting the scum know exactly who will be next for lynching and they will not kill that person. I'm just saying why lining up lynches is bad using DLA in this case.
Scum can use this too as a signal to let their scum buddies know who is an easy lynch day 2 in case the scum is lynched.

How can you possibly know any of that? There are so many ifs, mays, and hypotheticals there I can't begin to imagine how you can conclusively state it.

The present has more impact than anything on a lynch, just because I say I would like to lynch X tomorrow doesn't mean it will happen, I'll probably be pushing it, but everyone will decide what to do with it when they see my facts the next day when I vote X and (re)post my case. They don't decide now that they have to lynch whoever and scum can't conclusively determine what the town will do the next day either, especially with a night-kill thrown into the mix that may irrevocably change parts of the case or the geography of the game.

Are you seriously telling me as scum you never looked at what people say in the game to know who is an easy lynch target for the next day and decide not to waste a NK on said player?

[Shotty to the Body]

farside - that's actually the kind of language tell that I hate. I'm sure I've said something similar, I often say 'blah is town' or 'blah is certainly scum'. If you are actually scum you can control that. Any decent player can be careful to say 'if they flip...' or 'we were right' not 'the town was right'. It's just easy to circumnavigate, so once the tell is common knowledge, it's pretty worthless. I wouldn't put much stock in that quote you posted at all, to be perfectly honest.

I have made the error as scum more often then not. However I brought the point up and he ignores it. Had he said blah I meant if or just admitted it as an error I would agree with you a bit about it possibly being an error. The fact he has ignored it twice after I brought it up catches my attention more.

I ignore it because it's retarded, everyone uses different semantics. How is town me more likely to use if than when or whatever? Just because you make obvious semantics changes when you're scum doesn't mean others do the same. Please prove that I do this only as scum with links to my posts if you want to use this as some sort of logical evidence.

Using retarded is not something I appreciate being used. Secondly if I make that error as scum what is to tell me that others do not.
Finally I'm not going to search through thousands of games looking for this trip up. I can't recall the game in question as it was back a ways but if you have time to do research why not show me a game where you made a similar trip up and was town.

Good thing I'm not here to be appreciated then. Nice try, it's your evidence the burden of proof is on you chief.

Me as scum

Me as Town

Me as Town

Me as Town

There you go, I've gone through all the thousands of threads (lols) and found my only scum game and three games where I was town, now you can analyze my syntax in all of them and report your findings. Or you can just realize semantics aren't a serious scum-tell compared to actual play and move on with your life.

[Shotty to the Body]

I won't apologize for setting up lynches, it makes sense to say where you would like to go the next day in case you are killed, the drawback is it creates WIFOM, yes, but I still think I should put my thoughts out there. In sake of dealing with the current issues and among the outcry of "qq setting up lynches qq," I want to just move forward with the DLA lynch that I'm quite sure on and deal with the rest tomorrow. I'm not nearly 100% sure of my ABR read, but DLA I AM quite sure of.

Setting up lynches is so bad. IE if DLA is not lynched today and turns out that DLA may be town you are letting the scum know exactly who will be next for lynching and they will not kill that person. I'm just saying why lining up lynches is bad using DLA in this case.
Scum can use this too as a signal to let their scum buddies know who is an easy lynch day 2 in case the scum is lynched.

How can you possibly know any of that? There are so many ifs, mays, and hypotheticals there I can't begin to imagine how you can conclusively state it.

The present has more impact than anything on a lynch, just because I say I would like to lynch X tomorrow doesn't mean it will happen, I'll probably be pushing it, but everyone will decide what to do with it when they see my facts the next day when I vote X and (re)post my case. They don't decide now that they have to lynch whoever and scum can't conclusively determine what the town will do the next day either, especially with a night-kill thrown into the mix that may irrevocably change parts of the case or the geography of the game.

Are you seriously telling me as scum you never looked at what people say in the game to know who is an easy lynch target for the next day and decide not to waste a NK on said player?

Why are they an easy lynch target because I said the day before I wanted to go after them?

[farside22]

I won't apologize for setting up lynches, it makes sense to say where you would like to go the next day in case you are killed, the drawback is it creates WIFOM, yes, but I still think I should put my thoughts out there. In sake of dealing with the current issues and among the outcry of "qq setting up lynches qq," I want to just move forward with the DLA lynch that I'm quite sure on and deal with the rest tomorrow. I'm not nearly 100% sure of my ABR read, but DLA I AM quite sure of.

Setting up lynches is so bad. IE if DLA is not lynched today and turns out that DLA may be town you are letting the scum know exactly who will be next for lynching and they will not kill that person. I'm just saying why lining up lynches is bad using DLA in this case.
Scum can use this too as a signal to let their scum buddies know who is an easy lynch day 2 in case the scum is lynched.

How can you possibly know any of that? There are so many ifs, mays, and hypotheticals there I can't begin to imagine how you can conclusively state it.

The present has more impact than anything on a lynch, just because I say I would like to lynch X tomorrow doesn't mean it will happen, I'll probably be pushing it, but everyone will decide what to do with it when they see my facts the next day when I vote X and (re)post my case. They don't decide now that they have to lynch whoever and scum can't conclusively determine what the town will do the next day either, especially with a night-kill thrown into the mix that may irrevocably change parts of the case or the geography of the game.

Are you seriously telling me as scum you never looked at what people say in the game to know who is an easy lynch target for the next day and decide not to waste a NK on said player?

Why are they an easy lynch target because I said the day before I wanted to go after them?

Answering a question with a question now?

[farside22]

On a side note had you just said I have stated people as scum in that was as town and scum and it's a null tell half this discussion would never have taken place.

[Shotty to the Body]

I won't apologize for setting up lynches, it makes sense to say where you would like to go the next day in case you are killed, the drawback is it creates WIFOM, yes, but I still think I should put my thoughts out there. In sake of dealing with the current issues and among the outcry of "qq setting up lynches qq," I want to just move forward with the DLA lynch that I'm quite sure on and deal with the rest tomorrow. I'm not nearly 100% sure of my ABR read, but DLA I AM quite sure of.

Setting up lynches is so bad. IE if DLA is not lynched today and turns out that DLA may be town you are letting the scum know exactly who will be next for lynching and they will not kill that person. I'm just saying why lining up lynches is bad using DLA in this case.
Scum can use this too as a signal to let their scum buddies know who is an easy lynch day 2 in case the scum is lynched.

How can you possibly know any of that? There are so many ifs, mays, and hypotheticals there I can't begin to imagine how you can conclusively state it.

The present has more impact than anything on a lynch, just because I say I would like to lynch X tomorrow doesn't mean it will happen, I'll probably be pushing it, but everyone will decide what to do with it when they see my facts the next day when I vote X and (re)post my case. They don't decide now that they have to lynch whoever and scum can't conclusively determine what the town will do the next day either, especially with a night-kill thrown into the mix that may irrevocably change parts of the case or the geography of the game.

Are you seriously telling me as scum you never looked at what people say in the game to know who is an easy lynch target for the next day and decide not to waste a NK on said player?

Why are they an easy lynch target because I said the day before I wanted to go after them?

Answering a question with a question now?

Why are you afraid to answer it? Of course I look at what people say to see who I want to NK, thanks captain obvious question, but you still haven't told me how me saying I would like to lynch them tomorrow means they're an easy lynch unless they were actually scummy before I said it. In the end a player makes himself an easy or a hard lynch and someone saying "tomorrow I'm going after such and such" isn't going to change that.

[Shotty to the Body]

On a side note had you just said I have stated people as scum in that was as town and scum and it's a null tell half this discussion would never have taken place.

Sorry, I really don't get this sentence... "If I had said I state people as scum in that was as town and scum" whaaaat? Please rephrase. =\

[dramonic]

Votecount is the same as the last one.

[Shotty to the Body]

ORLY? Sorry your avatar is an owl, I can't help myself....

[farside22]

Why are they an easy lynch target because I said the day before I wanted to go after them?[/quote]

If you know that what it is that mafia does then why on earth are you asking me that question? Unless your mafia and it doesnt' matter what you say. Lining up lynches it anti-town.

Sorry, I really don't get this sentence... "If I had said I state people as scum in that was as town and scum" whaaaat? Please rephrase. =\

If you told me from the start that you make that mistype before as town and scum and said it was a null tell instead of making shitty comments half of this argument we had would have been avoided.

With that thought in mind do you always lash out in a shit way when people question your motives or are you always nasty and rude to people that question your motives?

[Shotty to the Body]

Why are they an easy lynch target because I said the day before I wanted to go after them?

If you know that what it is that mafia does then why on earth are you asking me that question? Unless your mafia and it doesnt' matter what you say. Lining up lynches it anti-town.

Sorry, I really don't get this sentence... "If I had said I state people as scum in that was as town and scum" whaaaat? Please rephrase. =\

If you told me from the start that you make that mistype before as town and scum and said it was a null tell instead of making shitty comments half of this argument we had would have been avoided.

With that thought in mind do you always lash out in a shit way when people question your motives or are you always nasty and rude to people that question your motives?[/quote]

You still didn't answer the question. Nice slipping that one in there "unless your mafia," your just loading on the implied scumminess now, that's a sign of a failing case.

I went through the wiki standard tells, setting up lynches isn't among them. No one has satisfactorily told me why it's a scum-tell. You say it's because it helps the scum pick out easy lynches, but the easy lynches are apparent whether or not I actually say I want to lynch such and such tomorrow and if I'm wrong I wouldn't go after them, so I don't really see the horrible anti-townness here except you don't seem to like it. I.E. if DLA were to turn town, ABR obviously wouldn't be someone I would pursue since the connections I thought I had were to a townie. If they're both scum, hiphip hoorah. The only way this creates some negative is if DLA is scum buddying up to ABR-town, but if that's the case the scum were obviously planning to use those connections against him anyways if DLA was buddying him and then they wouldn't kill him anyways making it a moot point. (I just thought since you use insane hypotheticals I might as well make my own countering one.)

In essence, yes I give scum some information about what I want to do the next day. This is a trade-off to giving the town the same information and building up a more air-tight case against potential scum buddies. It isn't inherently anti-town as you claim.

Do you always try to take the moral high ground and ask people loaded questions? Honestly you put an 'or' there for two things that are essentially the same and expect me to answer that question like there's two unique choices. Maybe I'm just shit nasty to the sort of play that tries to turn nothings like semantics into scum-tells.

[farside22]

First it seems you just want to ignore everything I pointed out or you not thinking what scum typically does. What part of this did you not understand?

Setting up lynches is so bad. IE if DLA is not lynched today and turns out that DLA may be town you are letting the scum know exactly who will be next for lynching and they will not kill that person. I'm just saying why lining up lynches is bad using DLA in this case.

You stated this yourself:

Of course I look at what people say to see who I want to NK

How is lining up lynches not relevent to scum motivations. If they know a person is willing to vote and who they want to lynch would it not bennifit them to keep both players alive in this case?

Also found this here and no one seemed to disagree with the statement:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &&start=25

Setting up mislynches - Planning lynches for future days, without taking into account information that may become available. Should only be used as a scumtell with extreme care, because pro-town players who are suspicous of multiple player tend to state that they want to see them all lynched. Setting up mislynches - Planning lynches for future days, without taking into account information that may become available. Should only be used as a scumtell with extreme care, because pro-town players who are suspicous of multiple player tend to state that they want to see them all lynched.

Finally my question about your attitude is valid. Everything you have said to me has been catty or nasty remark attached to it. I'm wondering if it's scum motivated, a fact I'm female, or if you general make nasty comments to people for no reason.

[kikuchiyo]

Wow. Look at this mountain. or is it a molehill?

Seriously, sometimes I will try and paint someone scummy when I think they are town to try and keep them safe at night. Or I will act scummy enough to keep myself safe at night. I could link you to a game, but I think Saber was in it. I played a little scummy to stave off the nk because I had the role of doc. "Setting up lynches" is an entirely subjective scum tell in that regard. Unless you have a specific point(which I may have missed, tl;dr) I suggest we move on.

Does anyone want to post an update for me? My reading time is limited.

[Shotty to the Body]

Gasp. I just said earlier that the set-up doesn't affect the game as much as the current play because of information gained in between the set-up and the now. That's exactly what michael says, in fact that quote seems to point more towards not using it as a scum-tell lol. I specifically say I'm willing to change my mind based on the flip which is new information yes?

Clearly not everything I said has had that effect, but whatever. You got me, I'm a sexist, dead on /major major sarcasm. I'm insulted you would even suggest that. I attack people's ideas, to some degree this extends to the mind that creates those thoughts.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Farside and SC are pushing a case on Shotty based on mostly ethereal evidence.

1) Lining up lynches

I don't agree this is a scumtell in this situation.

2) Going for easy targets

This is the only valid argument against him. Shotty, why are you going for easy targets? DLA can be lynched whenever. Now is not the time, trust me.

3) Calling me a scumbuddy of DLA, and changing his mind

I don't think it was as far-fetched as that. Seems plausible considering it was still early in the day, and now he changed his mind. Good players change their mind a lot, it's part of recognizing and fixing your mistakes.

Right, nice of you to skip the step where I get discussion going again and ignore ABR's Elli wagon which is an EASY, I STRESS EASY, wagon. If I'm such an easy wagon hunter why don't I vote for Elli?

This is true, and I would vote Ellibereth again if he weren't in the same category as saber. Also take note that I'm not trying to lynch him that early on day 1 as you are trying to lynch DLA on page 25, which is a big difference.

Shotty, I don't want to be obnoxious, but I'm a much more experienced than you. I want you to read this paragraph:

My theories are all independent of each other. I've taken great care not to associate my suspects with each other or else I might out masons. I was a mason once, in a game much like this one. Me and one of my partners, a new player at the time by the name of a papaya, were outed on Day 1. It's bad enough if scum figure out who the masons are without the masons having to actually come out and claim, dragging one of their partners with them because they did a bad job of hiding their relationship.

Now, I want you to abandon any link you think you've made and keep it to yourself from now on. Linking, in a Friends and Enemies game, on Day 1, with all the masons alive and unclaimed, is quite simply anti-town.

I just want to know one thing. When someone makes a comment like this.

Right pushing DLA is defending CSL. I just said I don't know his alignment or care, he's not the right play. His lynch will be info-less. Talking to you is pointless,

when DLA flips scum

lynching you next.

How are you not voting on them? Once again only scum know who is scum. He is saying when not if in this comment. As ABR said many a post ago. Cutting off the head of the snake is more profound.

This is only as bad as this:

saberwolf hast most definitely shown a lot of crappy anti-town behavior so far that, in my opinion,

makes me a viable lynch.

[Shotty to the Body]

Well I didn't think of the connections that way, but I still think DLA is a proper lynch. You think who, Neto is the correct lynch? I reread your ISO but I didn't find out much about why you think that, do you mind explaining?

How far is Netopalis from reaching Shotty scumminess, clergyman? I'd love to lynch him today.

Why the swap in opinion here? You sure don't imply that I'm town with that line, what changed?

[farside22]

I appologize that this will be a long post. I copied the quote instead of the number so I can get through things faster right now.
First things first. STTB states that ABR is DLA's scum buddy in this quote

I encourage everyone to

unvote vote DLA

. ABR is an obvious scum-buddy to DLA considering how much DLA was vacuumed to ABR's opinions and as newb-scum didn't know any better to hide all the blatant buddying big enough to choke a horse.

And this quote:

I could go for a DLA lynch today or tomorrow, if we lynched hewitt today and he flipped town I would be 100% behind a DLA lynch day two.

first did you answer the question of how hewitt's flip determines DLA?
Second did lining up lynches not become scummy?

Who pushed Hewitt's lynch the hardest? ABR and DLA? Last time I checked pushing mislynches was bad? Hewitt said the same thing in 278. Why aren't you busting his balls?

However when ABR comes on he switches his vote over here:

Ridiculous, fine. DLA tomorrow.

unvote vote CSL

So if ABR is scum with DLA why is sttb following ABR's vote and logic here?

Next up I have a theory about scum. I think when I see people who make as many catty comments has STTB does by down playing what another person says it makes me start to wonder is he doing this for any town reason?
I can see scum using comments to down play another player so that no one will want to listen to their comments and he can sweep it away as someone he finds "moronic"
A list of comments he's made towards mostly me with one towards DLA.

CSL will always be CSL, expecting pro-town behavior from him is moronic, look for pro-town motivation it's the best you will get.

So you allow people to just follow others and accept it because it's there meta?
Yet some people so far has pointed out that DLA is typically this way as well what makes him different?

It has nothing to do with meta, quit misrepping. It's fucking common sense, not everyone can possibly post original material against a lynchee, if this isn't true throughout the game it is definitely true on D1 when we have nothing to work with..

Right pushing DLA is defending CSL. I just said I don't know his alignment or care, he's not the right play. His lynch will be info-less. Talking to you is pointless, when DLA flips scum lynching you next.

Good response here, nothing even resembling a logical case based on my posts or scum-tells just more "YOU WANT TO LYNCH ME YOU MUST BE SCUM!" from DLA. Your points are fluff nothings.

I ignore it because it's retarded, everyone uses different semantics

Of course I look at what people say to see who I want to NK, thanks captain obvious

I found all these just within today. Someone who likes to make snide comments and downplay someone's comments just comes off scummy> it's hard to explain on paper but it's seeing someone in middle school who thinks that being a bully to others will have people follow them so they don't get beat up too.
My scum theory on this and it's just a theory is by down playing another player who is making a case he can make it seem as if they are useless and all he has to do is convince others how useless that person is by repeately calling them names.

Finally there is this little gem in which I'm making my case clear on CSL

Really? Please tell me what other points you have on CSL, you sure as hell never mention them.
which I did plenty of time throught the day. I had to restate everything I said which got ignored.

[Shotty to the Body]

Neto didn't agree with it and ABR wasn't willing to vote, you were defending him, none of the other players were posting, deadline was coming up, the only way to move forward was to lynch CSL and move on. I don't like playing with CSL anymore than the rest of you, to make an omelet you have to break some eggs and if CSL had to go to get people focused on DLA and the others taking the easy lynch out that was fine by me.

So you don't like me or the way I play and you don't like the comments I made towards you so I must be scum? Way to be personally invested. This is the latest in a line of attempts to maintain a wagon that is falling apart at the seams, Farside has lost out on her last real attempt at a legitimate scum-tell so now she turns to this.

I have another post coming about your CSL comments, please hold.

[Shotty to the Body]

All my comments about CSL:

Wow, this is one heated debate. If Hewitt flips town, ABR will look stupid, If I'm correct.

Hewitt and ABR, keep arguing. It's fun watching you two have at it.

What have you done this game exactly but follow BW's and then critisize someone for not contributing. Talk about hypocritical. I disagree with ABR. I don't see it as a good case and the following with no reasoning in this game is really dumb.

unvote
vote: CSL

hewitt, I'm going to have to agree with ABR on this one. You have not contributed at all. I know I haven't contributed much either, but that's because I don't see anything that sets off my scumdar, EXCEPT this.

This is kind of a funny little misrepresentation here. When did I ever state that I've been a top contributor?

This is the post that has me seriously question CSL and his hypocrital comment. Calling out another player when his actions and comments have been less then stellar.

At this point in time, people can vote for hewitt along with a simple DIE SCUM DIE! for all I care. Not posting a lot of content isn't scummy, it's just lazy. Not voting for scum is scummy.

farside22, can you replace Lab Mafia?

The fact that Ellibereth is following this wagon along with CSL no I'm not convinced of hewitt's scummiest with these 2 on the wagon.

As for Lab Mafia he said he would be back on Tuesday. I will give him a chance to return then. If not then I will find a replacement mod.

Unvote

With that post, hewitt is either protown, or extremely skilled town. That post, as far as I know, is protown.

I'm now going for a DLA BW. Since hewitt now appears protown, as per this:

I could go for a DLA lynch today or tomorrow, if we lynched hewitt today and he flipped town I would be 100% behind a DLA lynch day two.

I am inclined to

Vote: DLA

HOWEVER, this doesn't mean I'm done with you, hewitt.

Also, if anyone sees a flaw with his statement, I will switch my vote back to him...

Following again? With that as your reason?
Since when has lining up lynches been pro-town?
Anyone?

I would like to just point out that hewitt didn't take his vote off of ABR till (1) he realized no one was agreeing with him or (2) looking for an easier lynch.
CSL and hewitt ignoring each other combined with CSL remvoing his vote from hewitt looks like it was a possible buss trying to backtrack.
That's my theory. WIFOM all you may say but still looks suspicious.

*those looking for the short end:

CSL makes a hypocritacal post. Follows people onto BW's and his vote change off of Hewitt just didn't fly with me.

1st post: Okay the vote. CSL is scummy because he BWs and is hypocritical.

2nd post: Reiteration of CSL being hypocritical.

3rd post: Has nothing to do with why CSL is scummy besides reiterating that he bandwagons.

4th post: Criticizes CSL for guess what, bandwagoning.

The last bit is about how CSL was possibly bussing Hewitt.

The summary: CSL Bandwagons and is Hypocritical. Being hypocritical there is a so-so secondary reason, the real reason for the vote is CSL's bandwagon voting. The same thing I said was the only reason for Farside's vote on CSL. This is supposedly all the posts Farside had on CSL, where are all the other reasons she keeps mentioning? I don't see them. If there is something else please give it to me one more time because I missed it.

I apologize if I offended you I can be hotheaded, it's self-recognized flaw.