888: X-COM TFTD Mafia: Over!

[malthusis]

Spencer is being prodded...

[Emile Buchard]

@Claude, Are you implying that I would vote Leon

just

because he's said he supports my lynch? If so, then no.

Everyone, I'm really sorry about not posting as much, but my life's suddenly gotten busy since D-1. That explains my lack of content.

As for Gehard, it was a weak case to begin with, and as has been said before, meta fishing ins't so much a scum tell as it just broke the rules. If you look at it, the case against me is really weak.

The reason I'm getting the blame is because there's a real lack of scummy people in this game--which is good. Just take a look at Spencer. He hasn't been posting much recently, and when he did he went all out against Stuart, whom he probably gathered was an easy target.

FoS: Spencer

[Jaime Marcelle]

IDIOT. (Or scum, I'm not sure yet- but you've been wrong on every issue). Why would you assume it's random? It clearly
isn't.

The point of that was not weather it was random or not. The point behing that post was because of his baseless vote.

How the fuck does that work? Fishing to find out if someone has a role is scummy if he does have it, but not if he doesn't?

Someone wasn't reading my post... I wasn't rolefishing. I never said it wasn't scummy if he didn't have that role, I was using a rediculous role as an example.

NOT EXPLAINING YOUR VOTE DOES NOT MEAN YOU DON'T HAVE A REASON. THERE ARE PLENTIFUL PROTOWN REASONS FOR NOT EXPLAINING THINGS, FOR INSTANCE, YOU WANT TO SEE WHO SEES WHAT YOU SEE. YOU WANT TO SEE IF PEOPLE WILL BLINDLY FOLLOW YOU. PERHAPS YOU WANT TO SEE IF THE VOTEE GIVES THEMSELVES AWAY BY SAYING 'WHY ARE YOU VOTING ME? IS IT ZOR, YOU WANT TO SEE WHO WILL SCUMMILY CLAIM THAT NOT GIVING REASONS IS SCUMMY.

Yet none of the reasons you gave work if he kept his vote on all day with no explanation even when he was at L-1 and would definately die if he didn't...

Anyway, just to point something out: If Edward is scum I can easily see him using this post to protect himself "After rereading I think Stuart is pro-town" can be used to get town points for saying a confirmed townie was acting townish (especially since a lot of people thought he was scummy)

Anyway, I agree with Igor. We should put a vote on someone (even if we don't mean it to stay) so I will

Vote Leon

for posting rare, weak posts.

[Leon Dreyfus]

Jaimee, wow. Fencriding hard, m'boy. Your stance on me is beyond flimsy and you use it ina way that is easy to back out of.

[Jaime Marcelle]

Jaimee, wow. Fencriding hard, m'boy. Your stance on me is beyond flimsy and you use it ina way that is easy to back out of.

True, but like I hinted, it is mainly a placeholder vote and I don't plan to keep it on for too long until a more scummier person comes along.

[Leon Dreyfus]

True, but like I hinted, it is mainly a placeholder vote and I don't plan to keep it on for too long until a more scummier person comes along.

...

...and you use it in a way that is easy to back out of.

[Claude Lefevre]

Igor has a good point, my comment was out of place, as no votes had been cast, yet, but obviously I didn't find a very decisive activity of his in the previous days either. Anyway, I am the first who is still uncertain, and as I was leaning towards Emile, I now have to say that the discussion between Jamie and Leon is getting interesting. I do not understand what Jamie wants to do with a placeholder vote. I had a placeholder vote on him for two days, but at least I had reason for that and I tried to ask content-related questions. Is your reason for voting Leon just his alleged lack of contents?

@Edward: next time I read the word "idiot" in a post I ask for replacement. And if I were the mod I would kill the player who posts it.

[Edward Smilie]

IDIOT. (Or scum, I'm not sure yet- but you've been wrong on every issue). Why would you assume it's random? It clearly
isn't.

The point of that was not weather it was random or not. The point behing that post was because of his baseless vote.

You're REALLY splitting hairs now. I said you assumed it was 'random.' You're saying I'm wrong because you weren't saying it was 'random' you were saying it was 'baseless.' The two are synonymous- you were accusing him of voting without a reason, no?

Not only that, but you USED the word 'random' to describe Stuart's vote, and said you were going to vote him over it:

will probably be voting for Stuart pretty soon because of his random vote out of the RVS

Contradict yourself much?

How the fuck does that work? Fishing to find out if someone has a role is scummy if he does have it, but not if he doesn't?

Someone wasn't reading my post... I wasn't rolefishing. I never said it wasn't scummy if he didn't have that role, I was using a rediculous role as an example.[/quote]

Uh, I read it just fine, thanks. You said:

I wasn't trying to rolefish. in fact, I think the only way that could truely be considered rolefishing is if he actually is a secret daycop.

The only way it could be considered rolefishing is if he actually was a daycop. That's what you said. Now, clearly a person who is rolefishing doesn't know whether the other player has that role in the first place. My point is that whether or not someone is rolefishing clearly isn't dependent on whether the person being fished (or not) actually has the role that may or may not being fished for.

Yet none of the reasons you gave work if he kept his vote on all day with no explanation even when he was at L-1 and would definately die if he didn't...

Well, yeah. But if you're getting attacked over something you're doing that you think is good and protown, it's human nature to dig your heels in over it. The 'fuck you guys, i'm protown, this is protown, and if you're dumb enough to lynch me over it, you get what you deserve' attitude. He was standing on principle. Standing on principle at the expense of risking lynch is townish- he clearly wasn't playing to survive. I don't think it was smart, but it wasn't scummy either.

Anyway, just to point something out: If Edward is scum I can easily see him using this post to protect himself "After rereading I think Stuart is pro-town" can be used to get town points for saying a confirmed townie was acting townish (especially since a lot of people thought he was scummy)

Well, of course a lot of people 'thought' he was acting scummy. I read him as hugely protown, and i'm not going to shy away from sharing that because someone might try to smear me over it. It would be a rather stupid scum to think he could get protown points by pointing out the townieness of an already dead town player, i think.

[Igor Schultz]

I tend to want to vote edward to get him out of the way. We had some good town players talking about real issues and then we get this joker around. didn't he get replaced out...

A leon vote an't bad but I'm not sure I would push that to our d-2 lynch. Right now I feel like an emmy vote is best. since he/she can't post much we need to get any shred of info out of her. I think the only way we might be able to do this is by getting her to l-2. Not to lynch but to get some info on one of the more scummy players.

[Jaime Marcelle]

Is your reason for voting Leon just his alleged lack of contents?

Pretty much. But the point of my vote is to try and find scummy people. And yes Leon it is easy for me to back out on it...

You're REALLY splitting hairs now. I said you assumed it was 'random.' You're saying I'm wrong because you weren't saying it was 'random' you were saying it was 'baseless.' The two are synonymous- you were accusing him of voting without a reason, no?

The only way it could be considered rolefishing is if he actually was a daycop. That's what you said. Now, clearly a person who is rolefishing doesn't know whether the other player has that role in the first place. My point is that whether or not someone is rolefishing clearly isn't dependent on whether the person being fished (or not) actually has the role that may or may not being fished for.

Oh snap. I guess I wasn't reading my own post. My bad . That was bad logic on my part but still, the main reason of why I was "Rolefishing" was to show him how redicious he was acting.

Well, yeah. But if you're getting attacked over something you're doing that you think is good and protown, it's human nature to dig your heels in over it. The 'fuck you guys, i'm protown, this is protown, and if you're dumb enough to lynch me over it, you get what you deserve' attitude. He was standing on principle. Standing on principle at the expense of risking lynch is townish- he clearly wasn't playing to survive. I don't think it was smart, but it wasn't scummy either.

Here's the thing. He never even statedwhy he couldn't tell us the reason behind the vote. that just confuses people and doesn't contibute anything to the game. While this may have been confirmed as just him not being smart now. It was a very scummy play at the time.

I tend to want to vote edward to get him out of the way. We had some good town players talking about real issues and then we get this joker around. didn't he get replaced out...

I think this is the replacement. Didn't you read the mods latest post?

Also, I'm probably going to reread Emile and Leon in iso sometime in the near future and post what I find.

[Claude Lefevre]

Here is the way I see the lynch options. Top-down in decreasing convenience.

1) Edward (supported by Igor). He was called scummy day one. The case was thin but he was unable to defend and made himself scummier. He finds himself in a hard situation and asks for replacement. Replacement comes. Re-reads. Thinks heck, how do I talk myself out of this mess? He leaves. Third replacement: rude, nervous, overaggressive. Worth thinking about, imo.

2) Emile (supported by Igor, Leon, some others). As I just posted, I was leaning towards him. But we already had a quicklynch, and we lost pr's, therefore I am a little reluctant as long as he does not post something more.

3) Jamie (supported by me). It is really hard to me to decide how I feel. Sometimes he looks a calm and reflexive town, then he has some incredible falls. He soft-fished on day 1 (which started my case on him), he tends to self-contradiction and he keeps a vote on Leon as placeholder out of a very thin reason. Also, he posts huge posts that normally turn around the same old points (who lurks and who does not, mainly) adding little new.

4) Igor (supported by no1, I guess). Overreaction in post 410, some obscure posting (to me at least). His attitude is of the type "I could accept both emile's and leon's lynch", which is never good. But no more than this. 4th in my top 5.

5) Leon (supported by Jamie). I do not FoS him, but since someone does I have to include him. I do not seem scumminess in his posts. Nor does Jamie, who keeps voting him, tho.

Also: at the very moment I get town-vibes by Andrew. Eager to read his next posts and his comment bout this list of mine.

[Edward Smilie]

Is your reason for voting Leon just his alleged lack of contents?

Pretty much. But the point of my vote is to try and find scummy people. And yes Leon it is easy for me to back out on it...

You're REALLY splitting hairs now. I said you assumed it was 'random.' You're saying I'm wrong because you weren't saying it was 'random' you were saying it was 'baseless.' The two are synonymous- you were accusing him of voting without a reason, no?

The only way it could be considered rolefishing is if he actually was a daycop. That's what you said. Now, clearly a person who is rolefishing doesn't know whether the other player has that role in the first place. My point is that whether or not someone is rolefishing clearly isn't dependent on whether the person being fished (or not) actually has the role that may or may not being fished for.

Oh snap. I guess I wasn't reading my own post. My bad . That was bad logic on my part but still, the main reason of why I was "Rolefishing" was to show him how redicious he was acting.

Well, yeah. But if you're getting attacked over something you're doing that you think is good and protown, it's human nature to dig your heels in over it. The 'fuck you guys, i'm protown, this is protown, and if you're dumb enough to lynch me over it, you get what you deserve' attitude. He was standing on principle. Standing on principle at the expense of risking lynch is townish- he clearly wasn't playing to survive. I don't think it was smart, but it wasn't scummy either.

Here's the thing. He never even statedwhy he couldn't tell us the reason behind the vote. that just confuses people and doesn't contibute anything to the game. While this may have been confirmed as just him not being smart now. It was a very scummy play at the time.

I tend to want to vote edward to get him out of the way. We had some good town players talking about real issues and then we get this joker around. didn't he get replaced out...

I think this is the replacement. Didn't you read the mods latest post?

Also, I'm probably going to reread Emile and Leon in iso sometime in the near future and post what I find.

[Edward Smilie]

Oh crap, the long post I was writing got lost when my net connection went down. Dammit.

To precis: @Jaime, I don't think he was acting ridiculously. I think I would have voted without explanation there too. That vote came after a particular post of Emile's that was very scummy (go look it up). The natural reaction would be to think it was in response to that. He had a very good point in that all the people who said he was voting 'without reasons' just because he didn't share them were attacking him with craplogic.

@Igor: I'd say I've talked more about 'real issues' since i replaced in than you have. Any particular reason you see the need to call me a 'joker?'

[Emile Buchard]

Edward, do you realize how anti-town not explaining reasons are? Seriously, he flat-out refused to give any sort of reason what so ever. That is A1 anti-town play. The way the game moves is that you state your reasons for a vote and then other people debate those reasons. How are we supposed to validate his case if it's just "because he smells scummy"?

And Edward, how are we supposed to

know

he has a reason if he didn't tell us his reason. Also, please refrain from directing obscenities at other players--it ruins the spirit of the game.

Also, you said

Whyte was in the right on virtually everything.

Whyte said that vote reasons were "anti-town", so using deductive reasoning, if Whyte was right on everything, then he was right when he said that vote reasons were "anti-town", no? Yet you gave reasons for suspecting other people. The word for that is "contradiction".

I think I would have voted without explanation there too.

Now how the hell can you say that you would have voted without explanation as well if you don't know why Whyte voted without explanation or even if he had an explanation to begin with. Crap logic.

FoS: Edward

[Jaime Marcelle]

Edward, I think you need a referesher on what scummy is. Being scummy is something that either a. helps scum more than town or b. hurts town more than scum (Well, there are some conditions that break this but whatev). Stuart fell right under letter b. He hurt town a lot by not telling us what he was thinking and he didn't hurt the scum at all.

@Jaime, I don't think he was acting ridiculously. I think I would have voted without explanation there too. That vote came after a particular post of Emile's that was very scummy (go look it up). The natural reaction would be to think it was in response to that. He had a very good point in that all the people who said he was voting 'without reasons' just because he didn't share them were attacking him with craplogic.

Alright, I guess I can agree with you that Emiles post was scummy but how do you know that that was the reason for his vote? If that post was the main reason he voted Emile don't you think he would tell us that instead of hide it all day? How hard would it be for him for tell us that that post was the reason for voting him. Also, you say that there are plenty of reasons someone would hide their vote (they want to see who would follow them, want to see what their reaction is etc.) yet now you say it is because of this post which has nothing to do with the reasons stated.

Anyway, we're not going to get anywhere by talking about wether Stuart was townie or scummy. Let's get back to the game. Right now I will

unvote

for now until new information comes up.

[Edward Smilie]

Edward, do you realize how anti-town not explaining reasons are? Seriously, he flat-out refused to give any sort of reason what so ever. That is A1 anti-town play.

No, no it isn't. I would take a player like Fritzler, BabyJesus or JDodge who has the confidence to vote without needing to spell out everything they're thinking every day of the week over the newb who feels the need to justify every little detail of their argument.

The way the game moves is that you state your reasons for a vote and then other people debate those reasons. How are we supposed to validate his case if it's just "because he smells scummy"?

And this is precisely it. If other players are playing decently, they will take a look at the player being voted, and try to figure out why the vote was made. It encourages other players to think about the game more, in other words, which helps the town.

And Edward, how are we supposed to

know

he has a reason if he didn't tell us his reason. Also, please refrain from directing obscenities at other players--it ruins the spirit of the game.

Criticizing someone's civility is the resort of someone who's losing the argument. Also, I haven't sworn at anyone.

Also, you said

Whyte was in the right on virtually everything.

Whyte said that vote reasons were "anti-town", so using deductive reasoning, if Whyte was right on everything, then he was right when he said that vote reasons were "anti-town", no? Yet you gave reasons for suspecting other people. The word for that is "contradiction".

Note the word 'virtually.' I would not go so far as to say that it is never a good idea to make a case. But he is correct in that dicerandom voting is antitown, he is correct in that you were a good target for a vote at that point, and he is correct in that not giving reasons is not scummy. That's 'virtually everything' at least as far as this game is concerned.

I think I would have voted without explanation there too.

Now how the hell can you say that you would have voted without explanation as well if you don't know why Whyte voted without explanation or even if he had an explanation to begin with. Crap logic.

???

What I'm saying is, if i were in the game at the time, i would have voted you at that juncture on the basis of your post 70, which was really scummy, and i wouldn't have explained it straight away either.

Btw what was scummy about 70:

You called Otto and Leon scummy for attacking Jaime over his dice vote. Now, dice voting is antitown, for the reasons i and others have given earlier in the thread (and the recent MD poll agreed by 2-1, so it's a majority opinion but not an uncontroverted one). It's a post that cannot possibly move the game forward. Also, you call Leon scummy for 'asking questions and furthering the discussion' which is like the opposite of scummy. Voting people for protown things = scummy.

Edward, I think you need a referesher on what scummy is. Being scummy is something that either a. helps scum more than town or b. hurts town more than scum (Well, there are some conditions that break this but whatev). Stuart fell right under letter b. He hurt town a lot by not telling us what he was thinking and he didn't hurt the scum at all.

Thankyou for your patronizing tone. I agree with the definition entirely, but I absolutely disagree 100% that Stuart hurt the town by not explaining his vote.

In the end, who you vote for and when is far more relevant than what you say when you're doing it. Not explaining makes people think a bit more, and takes them out of their comfort zone. Both of these are protown goals.

In addition, it may have been a gut vote, and explaining gut votes is kinda pointless. He did admittedly hurt the town by getting lynched when he could have avoided it by not standing on principle, but angry players do silly things sometimes.

Alright, I guess I can agree with you that Emiles post was scummy but how do you know that that was the reason for his vote?

Well, I don't know, but I can be pretty sure. I mean, imagine you see someone commit a crime. Then you see them getting arrested. It's likely the two are related, isn't it? Emile makes a scummy post, and immediately Stuart votes him.

If that post was the main reason he voted Emile don't you think he would tell us that instead of hide it all day? How hard would it be for him for tell us that that post was the reason for voting him. Also, you say that there are plenty of reasons someone would hide their vote (they want to see who would follow them, want to see what their reaction is etc.) yet now you say it is because of this post which has nothing to do with the reasons stated.

This is the thing- if he were scum, what does he stand to gain from standing on principle? That's what i mean by a 'fuck you guys' attitude. He believes 100% that not giving reasons is not scummy, and he will refuse to be bullied into it. I think a townie is far more likely to stand by a game theory position that is bringing him heat than a scum is. When town interrogates someone, they're usually looking for sincerity. Stuart came across as very sincere in his belief that not revealing his reasons was the best play for town. Whereas y'all went 'He disagrees with me on game theory! SCUM!'

Also, you seem to have your wires crossed. I said I thought

he made the vote

because of Emile's post. I think he

declined to explain it

because he believed it was the more protown way of making the vote.

Anyway, we're not going to get anywhere by talking about wether Stuart was townie or scummy.

It's relevant, because it impacts on how many scum were on his wagon. If the Stuart wagon was, as you contend, essentially reasonable, then reasonable townies would support it, and so Gerhard might be the only scum on it. If it is, as I believe, a crock, then it's more likely to have been pushed with heavy scum involvement, and have another scum or perhaps two on it. It looked from my pov like a wagon that KNEW it was wrong at the time.

Personally, I think the most likely split is two on, one off, so we're looking for one scum from each half of the game. I've already indicated that, based on what I read day one, Emile was suspect no1: I need to do more digging on those off-wagon.

[Edward Smilie]

Gerhard Krause:1 (Leon)
Stuart Whyte:6 (Igor, Gerhard, Jaime, Emile, Claude, Andrew, Otto)
Emile Buchard:2 (Stuart, Tracey)
Leon Dreyfus:1 (Spencer)

Not Voting:1 (Orski)

Noting end of d1 vote count. Some things strike me here:


1) Is Leon scum bussing his partner while there's no chance of him actually swinging, or is he genuinely gunning for him? I'm leaning the latter.
2) Both of those voting Emile were town, and are now dead. Stuart, of course, was run up in response to voting emile. In addition, he attacked Otto, who is town, and now dead, and defended dead scum Gerhard.
3) Of those off the wagon, I think Spencer looks worst.

However, if he does flip town we need to be careful not to let the people off the wagon off the hook, since at this point I think that that would be an even easier place for scum to hide.

Note scum on wagon directing attention away from wagon.

I think gerhard might (repeat might) be scum on the wagon from a very mild read, that is his fishing early on and mid way. Not good for a vote yet.

A very mealy mouthed bit of attack on Gerhard, could well be distancing. Especially since we hadn't seen the flip yet, and Igor seemed to think Stuart was scum, given that he was voting him.

Jaime's willingness to appraise people differently based on the flip seems townish.

296 makes it really seem that Jaime is just a n00b who hasn't even considered that there could be an argument for not providing reasons with one's vote.

Igor tries to blanket-absolve everyone on the wagon, including himself, (and poss. buddies?) except for the known town Otto, pinning the blame on Stuart himself. If Igor = scum, more likely all three scum were on wagon.

I don't understand why people think his claim was 'crazy' or pointless. He was at l-1, you claim honestly there.

Andrew is town. No, I won't elaborate.

Also, to snyone that knows about XCOM (since I don't know to much abot it) are there multiple alien races and if so are they at war with each other or something (if there aren't multiple alien races the kill is probably more likely to be a vig kill then an SK kill).

Please don't speculate about what town power roles might be out there. It's antitown.

Andrew's points vs Emile are good.

Igor with the antitown speculation as well.

Also, Gerhard seemed to be a VERY opportunistic scum: voting both Edward and Stuart when they were the most scummy people. He also attacked Orski (Edward's replacement) which leads me to beleive that whoever the replacement is for Orski is town.

Just to remind Jaime (and everyone else) of this.

Claude is giving me a middle-of-the-pack scum vibe.

Leon's 346 is good, an argument i've seen town use many, many times.


So:

On the wagon- most likely scum Emile, Igor. Claude is a possibility on the middle-of-pack thing.

Off the wagon: Spencer, since I know I'm not scum, Leon looks very town, and the others are dead.

I think I want to lynch on-the-wagon at the moment as I'd put my life on there being scum in the three listed, and possibly more than one.

Vote: Emile

[Jaime Marcelle]

So that puts Emile at what, L-3 L-2? It would really help if we had a votecount (hint hint)

Also, sorry I can't post much right now. I'm really tired. I'll get back to you tomorrow.

[Andrew Lemarchand]

Here is the way I see the lynch options. Top-down in decreasing convenience.

1) Edward (supported by Igor). He was called scummy day one. The case was thin but he was unable to defend and made himself scummier. He finds himself in a hard situation and asks for replacement. Replacement comes. Re-reads. Thinks heck, how do I talk myself out of this mess? He leaves. Third replacement: rude, nervous, overaggressive. Worth thinking about, imo.

Pretty much 100% WIFOM reasons. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the new Edward yet, but I definitely won't be voting him because he's the 3rd player. Also, what exactly do you mean by "decreasing convenience"?

2) Emile (supported by Igor, Leon, some others). As I just posted, I was leaning towards him. But we already had a quicklynch, and we lost pr's, therefore I am a little reluctant as long as he does not post something more.

Edward has laid out the most compelling case against Emile yet. Something else to note is Emile's switch on Spencer, who he has only mentioned twice. In iso 10, Emile calls Spencer probable town. In iso 18, Emile is feeling real heat for the first time and completely flips on Spencer, the only non-replaced player who has posted less than Emile. Townies on your tail? Seems like a good time to suggest a lurker lynch.

3) Jamie (supported by me). It is really hard to me to decide how I feel. Sometimes he looks a calm and reflexive town, then he has some incredible falls. He soft-fished on day 1 (which started my case on him), he tends to self-contradiction and he keeps a vote on Leon as placeholder out of a very thin reason. Also, he posts huge posts that normally turn around the same old points (who lurks and who does not, mainly) adding little new.

If anyone thinks Emile is scum, they should probably take a look at Jamie as well. Jamie has declared Emile one of his top suspects even before Stuart flipped town but he has never voted him. He also defended Emile's lack of activity in iso 50 by pointing out another weak performer, Leon, and defended Emile with guesswork WIFOM in iso 35. Finally, he has done nothing but agree with and defend my top suspect, Igor.

4) Igor (supported by no1, I guess). Overreaction in post 410, some obscure posting (to me at least). His attitude is of the type "I could accept both emile's and leon's lynch", which is never good. But no more than this. 4th in my top 5.

His unique communication skills don't make him scummy, just difficult to literally read. However, I do find him to be one of the scummier players, if not the most. I understand the need to think about what possible roles are out there, but this dude fucking loves to talk about roles, especially a town vig. Igor also supports a Claude lynch because of...what? Claude mentioned his name once? Igor is cool with lynching Edward to get him out of the way. and he apparently wouldn't mind a lynch of either Emile or Leon as well. Um, being ok with lynching half of the remaining players for no real reasons screams scummy.

Vote: Igor Schultz

5) Leon (supported by Jamie). I do not FoS him, but since someone does I have to include him. I do not seem scumminess in his posts. Nor does Jamie, who keeps voting him, tho.

It's tough to read him and I wish he could be more active, but he's not really anywhere near my scumdar at the moment.

To sum up, I'm throwing some

FoS: Emile, Jamie and Igor

. Unlike Igor, it's not that I wouldn't mind seeing them lynched, rather, I am confident that at least 2 are scum and should be the town's targets for D3.

[Claude Lefevre]

quick post from work.

1) Good post by Andrew. I agree with his reading of Emile & Jamie (ça va sans dire, I believe). Also: convenience is not the right word... lets say "the more interesting cases on the top, the thinner on the bottom" of the list. Anyway, I agree that we cannot but give Edward time. This third Edward opened in a very aggressive way, but he is doing interesting stuff now.

2) Ok Edward, I would not vote you for external reasons or for reasons depending on the behavior of Ed I and Ed II, but I do not like the way you put me as a third possible FoS just because I included you in my list. You are free to FoS me whenever you want and however you like, but you want to give some more reason than a counter-FoS.

3) Emile, you want to do better than keeping discussing Stuart's old stuff. You are being voted. What is your opinion on Jamie and Igor?

I am now reducing my options to Emile, Jamie and perhaps (PERHAPS) Igor. I believe we have a L-3 situation right now, so I am gonna place my vote as I did for Stuart, and hope it doesn't turn into a disaster again.

Vote: Emile

.

[Edward Smilie]

2) Ok Edward, I would not vote you for external reasons or for reasons depending on the behavior of Ed I and Ed II, but I do not like the way you put me as a third possible FoS just because I included you in my list. You are free to FoS me whenever you want and however you like, but you want to give some more reason than a counter-FoS.

Erm, your listing me on some list or other has nothing to do with you being my third most likely suspect on the Stuart wagon. Read the reason I actually gave- that you give me the impression of 'middle of the pack' scum. It wasn't a counter-FOS.

Also, I'm sorry, but i will never agree to the condition of not calling someone an idiot if the stupidity of the argument merits it. I would never play on a site or with a mod that puts that kind of unreasonable restriction on players expressing themselves. Assuming someone has no reason because they don't share one is simply idiocy. It is. I don't see how a rational adult without any kind of agenda can reasonably conclude that.

For crying out loud, 'Village Idiot' is a well known piece of mafia terminology.



I am now reducing my options to Emile, Jamie and perhaps (PERHAPS) Igor. I believe we have a L-3 situation right now, so I am gonna place my vote as I did for Stuart, and hope it doesn't turn into a disaster again.

Vote: Emile

.[/quote]

[Claude Lefevre]

sorry, English is my second language and I must have turned really stupid these days... I misunderstood your post, and I would like to ask you, for future reference, what a middle-of-the-pack mafia is. I am not familiar with the word.

Village idiot is a mafia terminology. Idiot is an insult. But this does not matter right now.

[Edward Smilie]

sorry, English is my second language and I must have turned really stupid these days... I misunderstood your post, and I would like to ask you, for future reference, what a middle-of-the-pack mafia is. I am not familiar with the word.

By middle of the pack scum, I'm referring to a phenomenon i've noticed, where the scum are neither the people who are being aggressive, forcefully pushing cases, nor the people who are doing the strange or erratic things that often result in early lynches. They tend to be people who blend into the crowd- playing the cautious townie, if you will. Being polite, measured, and not distinctive in any way. That's the impression i get of you. You post a lot, but you don't say very much- but not to the extent when your active lurking would stick out.

[Igor Schultz]

Edward if I ping emmy would that gain town points or scum points. If she flips scum I was the one who voted first and who started this. I just want you to know that. One thing that is true about edward his his middle of the pack mafians. I have noted the same. I started this wagon thus I must be town! yay! FYI sometimes scum make long posts about the d-1 stuff that we already know. But as of now edward does not need to be lynched as our d-3 choice. We have little info and if we assume that he would have played scummy we would just make asses of ourselves. But remeber when emmy flips scum I was the one who started this. If she flips town feel free to lynch me.

[Andrew Lemarchand]

Igor - your latest post really looks like scum trying to prematurely take credit for bussing one of his partners.

Edward - Call anyone you want an idiot, but don't complain when they patronize you in return.