ZOMBIES! - Zombies take over for the win!!!

[evilsnail]

Vote: Yosarian2

He knows why.

[evilsnail]

Good point, manho. Can't believe I missed that.

Unvote, Vote: McZombie

[evilsnail]

Unvote, Vote: tatetothetot

Scum is more likely to be using the specific scum flavour.

[evilsnail]

Silly boy, Sample PMs are for town!

I realise that everyone has seen the flavour. But scum is more likely to actually use the right terms, since it is likely more prominent for them. It's a classic tell.

@ODDin: Nope.

[evilsnail]

@ABR: Cool, you can be my nemesis.

@ODDin: Nothing really, just had more time on my hands. I usually random-vote someone, then upgrade it to a quasi-random one (e.g. my tatetothetot vote) and then cast a real vote.

[evilsnail]

Sure, if you want to break my heart.

[evilsnail]

Snail, I'll be a nemesis. I'm no ABR, but it's better than no nemesis.

Awesome. Now this is where I vote you, in DRAMATIC FASHION, but I like my vote at the moment, so just imagine I did and that you are suitably awed and intimidated.

[evilsnail]

lol at bv310.

[evilsnail]

Still like pressure on tatetothetot. I could also go for an ODDin vote. His excessive caution in voting CoolDog seemed off.

xReck - who do you think is scum? You've basically done no scumhunting since your random votes.

[evilsnail]

I like kmd's point about xReck. I think I noted this myself too. He has shown very little interest in actually finding scum.

McGriddle's FOS on Yosarian is a bit of an overreaction.

[evilsnail]

I won't rest until Evilsnail is lynched.

Really? On the basis of a page 4 gut read?

I'd be more surprised, but I'm starting to get used to triggering this response with my town play.

[evilsnail]

Careless reading on my part, mostly.

[evilsnail]

iLord: why exactly is Diamondilium changing his posting style scummy? I don't really see what it accomplishes for scum.

[evilsnail]

At this point, I think scenario 2 is more likely. Especially given that McGriddle's first response was to think that he was wrong about there being two scum because of the size of the game. If it truly was a scum slip, I don't think he would have responded like that.

[evilsnail]

I'm here, need to catch up a little.

[evilsnail]

Reck's anger seems genuine to me. I'm not convinced by the case on him.

[evilsnail]

Calm down there, child, it's just a game.

Agree with this. Reck, ease up on the f-bombs. I'm not squeamish about swearing or anything, but you're going to get yourself modkilled.

[evilsnail]

Oh I told everyone I prodded deadline was tomorrow. Sorry for the scare I had it in my head deadline was Wed not Fri

Hehe, well, it got me to re-read/read the last 15 pages of the thread to get up to speed, so..

I still think McGriddle's uncertainty about the set-up makes him unlikely scum. Re-reading, xReck seems scummier to me than before. It bothers me that he's done little scumhunting, especially early on. He was much more proactive as town in another game I was in with him. I would probably support both a XReck and a tate lynch at this point.

[evilsnail]

I just really don't believe that claim. McGriddle said twice he doesn't mind being the lynch today and was pretty fatalistic about the whole thing, not like a cop panicking and begging us not to kill him. Now all the sudden "I'm the cop...lol, oops."

Check it out:

Fair enough, I wouldn't mind being the lynch today, I know I have bad play in this game, and if it came to a lylo situation and I was still alive I know I would be the killed person. So if you guys decide to lynch me I am with it.

it looks like there is no exit plan for me so I am accepting my fate.

I suppose we should be careful and not lynch a possible cop, but I really, really don't believe McGriddle.

This is spot on. I don't believe the claim. I was really not suspicious of McGriddle up until this point, but that claim reeks of scum. Would really like to see McGriddle address these points.

[evilsnail]

You saying and underlining, thus emphasizing, that last sentence doesn't really bode well, imho.

Indeed, underlining is totally scummy.

Vote: ABR

Oh wait...

Unvote

.

The reasoning given so far for both the tate and the ABR wagon are absolute crap. ABR is totally right that Kmd turning up deputy is no way significant.

FOS: everyone who is pretending that it is

.

We need to be lynching iLord today, for somehow figuring out McGriddle was lying town when this was totally not obvious.

Vote: iLord

[evilsnail]

Wow. It was painfully obvious that Mcgriddle made an honest mistake.

In other news, I'm now confident iLord is scum who knew Mcgriddle was town and that the claim looked bad.

Cult tried to recruit Kmd, who said the same thing. That totally makes sense if iLord is scum.

[evilsnail]

Are you voting me because I correctly pegged McG and you did not? You know I could just not suck at scumhunting.

Yes, I am voting you for correctly pegging McGriddle as lying town, because lying townies are rare, when lying scum is common. It's a weird conclusion to draw.

I'm also not convinced by the case on iLord. If he's scum, he knew McG wasn't scum, but he didn't know he wasn't cop. And either way, I see little reason for iLord to advise McG to admit that he wasn't a cop. I don't really see how it matters to iLord either way. If anything, the longer McG claimed to be cop, the more time it gave for people to potentially counterclaim and expose themselves.

There was good evidence that McGriddle was lying. The fact that everyone else jumped to the conclusion that he was scum, but iLord thought he was lying town is weird.

Post 848 by evilsnail is scummy. First, he horrendously twists Starbuck's words. He may not agree with the point being made, but it's quite obvious she wasn't referring to the fact that the phrase had been underlined.

I was having a little fun with it, because I didn't see how ABR emphasising his point made anything scummy. Big deal.

Way to misrepresent what I meant.

Well, explain to me then why emphasising something is scummy. Convince me that it wasn't you creating a reason to jump on that wagon.

Also, suddenly he says the case on tate is crap. Not only did he not say a single word against the case on D1 (although he's read the relevant part of the thread, as indicated in post 718), but he had actually agreed with the original argument about referring to the townie PM (which was actually the weakest and least logical part of the case), as can be seen in post 9 and later in post 128.

FoS: evilsnail

I said the reasoning given for the wagon today is crap, not that there isn't a case to be made against tate. There are too many people jumping on the tate wagon on the basis of nothing or weak arguments, like bv310, CMAR, iLord or ani.

[evilsnail]

Wow . Way to misrepresent me AGAIN.

Where did I say that emphasizing was scummy? It would be awesome if you could point that out, rather than putting words in my mouth.

What does it matter whether you think I'm misrepresenting you? I'm asking you to explain it to me, because I clearly don't understand your point. It's not as if I'm building a case on it.

It was the tense and tone of this sentence and his emphasising of it that doesn't bode well. It's like he's trying to put into everyone's minds that the above is FACT. When we really don't know if it's fact or not.

Why is this significant? Suppose that ABR is trying to put it in people's minds that that line is fact. Is he more likely to do that as scum? Why? Why isn't it something a townie does when defending themselves?

The reasons for the wagon today are the same as the reasons for the wagon on tate yesterday. Doesn't it make sense for people to begin D2 by voting for the next best suspect on D1? There weren't any new reasons made against him, it's still the same reasons from yesterday.

This is maybe true of the iLord, but CMAR and bv310 weren't voting him yesterday. Ani was, but for the same weak reason. It's scummy when people slip onto a wagon like that.

[evilsnail]

How is the fact that townies lying being uncommon make it scummy for me to recognize it when it occurred?

There are two options. You are either town with an uncanny gut read or you're plain scum. The latter is far more likely.

The first sentence here is completely irrelevant. I indicated that he had to be lying. I also notice how closely you stick to the term "weird" to describe my read. Why "weird" and not "scummy?"

Both are fine. It is both scummy and weird.

[evilsnail]

Nah, I said the "reasoning given so far," referring to the fact that too many of the votes on there (bv310, CMAR and ani) were not backed up by good reasoning.

[evilsnail]

Wolf, I totally don't understand your point. Tell me, what should a pro-town player use there instead of an embedded conditional? An embedded conditional means only that something isn't an established fact. Should I be treating iLord's alignment as established fact? Why wouldn't I concede that there's a chance that I'm wrong?

Also snail, I'm getting the aura of you subtly defending ABR.

Why so quick to jump to his aid?

"The aura of subtly defending ABR"? I AM defending ABR. I've said the reasoning given for his wagon is crap and I've agreed with his defense. I'm not jumping to his aid. I just think the wagon on him is bad. Why would I not say so? Why would I withhold my opinion?

The reasoning that had been presented by that point was either no reasoning at all or reference to the case from yesterday (and one would assume, in the context, that those who didn't present a reason - CMAR and bv - also referred mostly to the case from yesterday).
When you say "the reasoning is crap", it means you think there is reasoning, and the only reasoning that could be there was the case from yesterday. If you thought that people were voting without reasoning, you should have said "why are you voting for tate?".

Bottom line, you can't simultaneously say "you didn't say a reason" and "your reason is crap".

Ah, come on. Let it go already. I opened the thread, saw five votes on tate in quick succession with weak reasoning (such as ani's "

vote: tate

for not answering anything" or CMAR "antitownishness = not helpful"). So I said the reasoning given for the wagon was crap.

[evilsnail]

There's a disconnect with your thought process here. Why was CMAR and my name on your list here:

My initial comment was just on the basis of the page 34 votes. In response to ODDin's question, I had a careful look at all the original votes. I realised, for instance, that you had been on the tate wagon. Somehow I thought you hadn't been.

Additionally, what do you feel about tate not answering questions asking him about his reads on other players? Do you feel it's okay for anyone to do so with impunity?

I don't think it's straightforwardly scummy. It's obviously not helping the town, but it's very counterproductive as scum. So I don't feel it's a strong tell either way.

We're playing a game of behavioral

analysis

. I don't have to rely on "gut reads." McG was most definitely behaviorally town and I noted as much yesterday.

Lying townies are just rare. When someone lies about their role, by far the most likely explanation is that they're scum.

Additionally, you're saying that it's more likely for me to be scum than to be right. You seriously have little basis of effectively saying that I suck at scumhunting.

Yes, that's more likely. Doesn't mean you suck at scumhunting. It's just that town is the uninformed majority and even skilled players are rarely exactly right, especially in such a detailed manner.

What differentiates in your mind from "scummy" and weird?"

"Weird" is something that's off or unexpected. If there's a scum motive for this discrepancy, it's scummy. If there isn't, as in not answering questions or communicating only in pictures of animals, then it's not necessarily.

How is "vote: tate for not answering anything" weak reasoning? What's the difference you perceive between my reasoning and Ani's and why did you not consider my reasoning weak?

As I said above, I realised you'd already been on the tate wagon yesterday, which means it's not so weird that you didn't give real reasoning for your vote today.

What do you think CMAR is referring to when she says "antitownishness?"

Not answering questions.

[evilsnail]

Throughout all of Day 1, the only time you ever mention is ABR is here with the following...

Yeah, he didn't do much to raise my hackles.

You HAVE stated that his wagon is crap, but why is it crap exactly? Instead of giving a reason why, you just sit here and keep repeating that "his wagon is bad" or "his wagon is crap".

I made one comment in one post, saying that the wagon is crap and why I think so! Specifically, I said that KMD turning up deputy is insignificant. I haven't said anything about ABR wagon since, except in response to you.

[evilsnail]

I don't like tate very much at all, he is now a lurking too. I don't get the iLord case it doesn't really make any thing chage in my mind. I think iLord is town (not the most townei but still town.) Albert for me is always in the gray, can't pen town or scum. Evil snail (with respect) pisses me off a little. I say this because he wants to lynch iLord, he wants to lynch albert, and he makes cases that seem a bit to stretched for me...

I don't want to lynch ABR. What other cases have I made that seem stretched to you? I addressed the tate thing when iLord raised the issue.

[evilsnail]

What do you mean?

[evilsnail]

So you saw five votes in a row just as the day started and immediately assumed that none of the voters could've had reasons lingering from yesterday? Really, now.

That's not what I said. I said I thought you hadn't been on the wagon Day 1. I remembered it wrong, clearly.

I really don't see why we're still talking about this. It's not as if any of the interpretations of my comments that you and ODDin have been digging through are substantially different or as if I've said anything that I don't still stand by.

How is it counterproductive? If you don't answer questions, there can't be any scumtells on you, and apparently you don't get lynched either. Tate can effectively coast through the game saying he won't answer anything he feels like can be used against him.

It's counterproductive in that it just casts a lot of attention on you. It's like the way CSL he plays. He hardly answers any questions and bandwagons shamelessly. Sure, it's a good playstyle for scum, but it's also counterproductive, because it gets him lynched all the time. So I'm not seeing the scum motive for refusing to answer questions. And let's not pretend that tate coasting through this game refusing to answer questions is a reasonable scenario. Obviously that's not going to happen.

You, my friend, have not played enough Mafia if you believe lying townies are rare enough not to be considered a possibility.

I have played in a truckload of mafia games. Don't tell me what to believe and what not to believe.

The focus of this question wasn't on me, it was on the difference between me and ani's reasons. I'm voting Tate for the same reasons that ani is. Why say my reasoning is okay, but Ani's not?

If that's all there is to your tate vote, then your reasoning is just as bad.

I'm not going to wade into all the detail about you concluding that McGriddle was lying town. I have like five or six people questioning me about this vote and, to be frank, I'm sick of having to justify every sentence.

Even you have to admit that there are two ways of seeing your McGriddle stance, either you're competent town or scum. It's simply a matter of whether I think the "behavioural evidence" for McGriddle being town is strong enough that your conclusion was reasonable. I don't think it was. You think it is, but the way you're arguing with me suggests that you don't think my point of view is even a possible one. Surely you have to concede that, given this kind of situation, the you-being-scum scenario is not an unlikely one. My point of view is not that unreasonable.

[evilsnail]

No, here's what you said:

Now you're talking about a different quote, at which point I was still under the impression that you weren't on the tate wagon Day 1.

What you said here is that there's "too many people" voting tate for "nothing or weak arguments," after which you list everyone voting him except for ODDin (Incidentally, this adds another question into the mix, which is why did you consider ODDin to have a legitimate reason?).

ARGH. I'll go over this again. When I opened the thread I saw a number of people voting tate with very little reasoning and I thought most of them hadn't been on the tate wagon the day before (turns out this just applies to bv310 and CMAR, though none of the people voting were major players on the wagon or anything). That seemed pretty opportunistic, to just jump on a wagon because it was big yesterday without good justification. ODDin actually justified his vote, so it didn't bother me so much.

You say you understand that there was an attack on tate yesterday and that you had just forgotten that I was on it. If you understand the tate attack yesterday and believe it a legitimate reason, how do you not assume that the people voting were for yesterday's reasons?

It just seemed a different group of players than were pushing the tate wagon yesterday. Don't see why it's so strange that I had this impression.

Attention means nothing if it doesn't get you lynched. And tate's coasting through the game without answering those questions like a pro right now. I have no need to pretend anything.

If he keeps saying it, he's going to get lynched for it. Just because it's hurting the town. Still doesn't mean it makes sense for scum.

Offsite or an alt?

Alt, technically, though I've never played concurrent games on different accounts.

Regardless, I don't mean to attack your experience (Although with your post count, you'll forgive me for being mistaken). I'm pointing out that it is foolish to consider lying townies so unlikely that you don't factor it into your analysis.

I just think that "you clearly haven't played enough mafia" is bandied about too much, which is why I was a bit ticked off. Even very experienced mafia players routinely disagree about tons of things.

I do factor lying townies into my analysis. But, unless you can show me why McG was clearly lying town and it's convincing, I think the scenario under which you're scum is more likely.

What else did you believe was behind my tate vote?

I didn't really remember. I had to go look at your vote.

Especially if you have the experience you claim, I believe your conviction that I am scum because of my McG read may be falsified, hence why I am pressing this issue. It certainly is a possible town perspective - kmd expressed as much. But your adamant refusal to consider that your point against me may be far weaker than you initially perceived reads like scum afraid to back down.

That's totally not true. I've admitted from the start that it is possible that you are just competent town. If I seem stubborn, it's only because a lot of people have attacked me over the vote.

Curiously, do you think I am the most likely candidate for scum right now?

Yes, that's why I'm voting you. I think there's a legit case on tate also, but there's no rush in getting to that.

"Weird" is something that's off or unexpected. If there's a scum motive for this discrepancy, it's scummy. If there isn't, as in not answering questions or communicating only in pictures of animals, then it's not necessarily.

So you don't believe I had a scum motive?

I didn't say that. I said it was weird and because there is an alignment-based reason for it (scum knew McG was lying town), it's scummy.

As I said above, I realised you'd already been on the tate wagon yesterday, which means it's not so weird that you didn't give real reasoning for your vote today.

The focus of this question wasn't on me, it was on the difference between me and ani's reasons. I'm voting Tate for the same reasons that ani is. Why say my reasoning is okay, but Ani's not?

Just hadn't looked at your vote in detail. I didn't think my comment would be that confusing to everyone and be scrutinised to this extent.

Not answering questions.

How is this weaker than my reasoning?

It isn't. Your reasoning is weak too. I just hadn't looked at your vote, as I've said.

[evilsnail]

iLord, I've been a little busy recently and I don't want to drag up the whole discussion again, so I'll just respond to a few outstanding points.

On the tate wagon: it wasn't really THAT big Day 1. It's not that strange that I thought the people voting him today weren't on the wagon yesterday. Two of them in fact weren't and none of the others were a major presence on the wagon.

Forgive me for asking, but Netherlands alt? I don't believe I recognize you if you're on site. Of course then again, I don't really know everyone around here.

Yes, but before your time. VitaminR. Don't think many people still know it. Actually played a fair amount under that account (more posts than you anyway! ).

I don't understand the last part. Why would townie become more stubborn once people attack them?

I didn't mean it that way. I meant that the fact that I'd been repeating myself a lot might make me seem more stubborn than I am.

Incidentally, you mention the legit case against tate. Most interested to hear what this constitutes.

Lack of scumhunting, use of scum flavour, etc.

Incidentally, why exactly do you think I'm scum? I don't like your vote on me. Fine, you disagree with me on my vote. That's pretty natural, but, even if you accept the discrepancies you seem to think exist in my reasoning, I don't see what the scum motive is (keeping in mind also that I could have just jumped on the tate wagon - unless you think this manoeuvre was designed to attract attention away from that).

I'm half-convinced by your McG being town case, at least enough to let go of this whole thing for now.

Unvote

[evilsnail]

I myself am primarily offsite.

Well, it wasn't a serious comment. This isn't about who has the most experience.

"I don't like" = it feels off to me. Your vote is pretty OMGUSy and is mostly predicated on the fact that you don't agree with me. Sure, you can wrap this up in "your thought processes seem inconsistent" or "your statements seem fabricated," but basically that is what it comes down to.

I basically believe a lot of the points expressed in #848 for fabricated.

So, to clarify:
- You believe I didn't seriously think the tate votes up until that point were bad, as evidenced apparently by the fact that, when pressed on the details, I had to qualify/revise my points somewhat (which I totally admit, my intial comment was based on my hasty impression of the wagon rather than a detailed examination of it). The scum motive behind is... what is the scum motive behind this? I didn't attack anyone over the tate wagon. It is seriously baffling to me how much you read into this whole train of thought, especially when I think it's totally valid to say that the initial tate wagon today had an opportunistic feel to it. This was all I was trying to say.
- You believe I haven't considered the town-you scenario in enough detail, because the whole case is fabricated. Now, I don't really see why I need to do this in the first place. The idea that McG was lying town didn't seem obvious to me at all and I saw the same evidence you did. Of course I've considered the scenario in which you're town. I had that exact perspective myself. The fact that your conclusion differed so much from mine is what it makes it scummy. As for a scum motive, I don't see how this is not obvious. The same reason why scum declare town-reads: to look pro-town, to buddy up to a player, to not leave your fingerprints on a mislynch.

Who I believe is the scummiest player? Well, my top suspects for scum are you and xReck. I also don't like bv310's opportunism and lack of contribution (plus, he's my nemesis).

[evilsnail]

Here. Have to say manho doesn't look great under pressure, but, other than that, I'm not terribly convinced by the case on him. Just looking at lurkishness and lack of scumhunting, it seems to me you could make a similar, but better, case on some other players, like bv310.

[evilsnail]

I have info that says xReck is scum. I won't reveal what this is yet, but xReck needs to claim in his next post.

[evilsnail]

xReck is lying. He targetted Kmd Night 1. That is the info I have. I was hoping to catch him in a lie by getting him to claim.

Vote: xReckonerx

[evilsnail]

I'm 100% certain xReck is lying scum. Heck, you can lynch me tomorrow if he doesn't turn up scum.

Starbuck, are you still referring to the one comment in one post I made about ABR?

[evilsnail]

@ABR: I never claimed to be a Tracker. I have a different type of ability.
@ODDin: This is the only useful info I have.

Also, I really think we need to be lynching xReck today. The reason I didn't keep this information to myself was that we're in a cult game and it pays to lynch scum as early as possible.

[evilsnail]

I never said I had the results yesterday either. I'll elaborate, if necessary, but I'd prefer to say as little as possible about the details of my ability.

[evilsnail]

Okay, fine. My ability allows me to determine who a player targetted the night before. That's why I don't have a useful N1 result and why I only found today that xReck targetted Kmd N2.

[evilsnail]

evil, you didn't have to reveal your special ability yesterday in order to push for reck's lynch. You could push for his lynch legitimately, by bringing up arguments. Yet you didn't.

Yeah, I considered this, but, if convincing to lead to a lynch, it makes me a good NK target anyway. If it's not convincing, which is pretty likely, it risks scum targetting me because I'd make a good conversion (I'm on to one of them). So I waited for a bit, to see if a wagon would naturally develop on xReck. That way, I could have pushed for it relatively surreptitiously. But it didn't.

[evilsnail]

Okay, fine. My ability allows me to determine who a player targetted the night before. That's why I don't have a useful N1 result and why I only found today that xReck targetted Kmd N2.

So you still have no idea whether or not he is scum, only who he targeted.

That's not good enough to lynch him for me.

Are you kidding? He claims to have targetted bv310. He is

lying

.

[evilsnail]

Argh, double ninja.

[evilsnail]

evil, you didn't have to reveal your special ability yesterday in order to push for reck's lynch. You could push for his lynch legitimately, by bringing up arguments. Yet you didn't.

Yeah, I considered this, but, if convincing to lead to a lynch, it makes me a good NK target anyway. If it's not convincing, which is pretty likely, it risks scum targetting me because I'd make a good conversion (I'm on to one of them). So I waited for a bit, to see if a wagon would naturally develop on xReck. That way, I could have pushed for it relatively surreptitiously. But it didn't.

Wait a minute. You said you just got the results yesterday. Contradiction here?

What? I got the results today. I never said anything else.

[evilsnail]

Okay, fine. My ability allows me to determine who a player targetted the night before. That's why I don't have a useful N1 result and why I only found today that xReck targetted Kmd N2.

Does this ability have a flavor name?

Yeah, I'm the

Sheriff

. The idea is that I can question people in that capacity, I suppose.

[evilsnail]

evil, you didn't have to reveal your special ability yesterday in order to push for reck's lynch. You could push for his lynch legitimately, by bringing up arguments. Yet you didn't.

Yeah, I considered this, but, if convincing to lead to a lynch, it makes me a good NK target anyway. If it's not convincing, which is pretty likely, it risks scum targetting me because I'd make a good conversion (I'm on to one of them). So I waited for a bit, to see if a wagon would naturally develop on xReck. That way, I could have pushed for it relatively surreptitiously. But it didn't.

Wait a minute. You said you just got the results

yesterday

. Contradiction here?

EBWOP: I mean last night

Oh, I see this now. I didn't realise ODDin was talking about yesterday. I thought he was asking why I decided to reveal my result. I was just talking about my thought process today.

[evilsnail]

I'd make a good conversion (I'm on to one of them).

You just claimed yourself as a VT, but with an ability

called

Sheriff. ORLY?

Erm... no. I never claimed to be convertable. I just meant that, if I had kept my result secret and pushed for xReck's lynch hard, I would have made a good conversion target for scum. I didn't say I wouldn't die as a result of that.

[evilsnail]

As several people have pointed out, it was a typo. I found out last night that xReck targetted KMD Night 1. My ability allows me to determine who someone targetted the night before.

Also, xReck is definitely not the town cop. Just the readiness with which he claimed should tell you that.

Reck's anger seems genuine to me. I'm not convinced by the case on him.

Evilsnail, when did you change your mind about Reckoner?

I think it was Night 1. Might have already been later that day. I played a game with him in which he was town recently and he's just not contributing nearly as much as then. Also, I didn't like the vote he came out Day 2.

By the end of Day 2, xReck was one of my top suspects.

Who I believe is the scummiest player? Well, my top suspects for scum are you and xReck. I also don't like bv310's opportunism and lack of contribution (plus, he's my nemesis).

[evilsnail]

Cool so I'm L-2.

gg town. gg. Please lynch ABR or MrSuave tomorrow after I flip.

Haha, well done admitting that I'm telling the truth. If you were telling the truth, you would have said to lynch me.

[evilsnail]

SlySly, I overlooked the word "yesterday" in ODDin's question, as I've already said. I investigated xReck N2 and got the result that he targetted Kmd N1. End of story.

[evilsnail]

Geez, SlySly, you're abrasive. I did not mean yesterday at all in response to ODDin. I was honestly just describing my thought process today.

I don't see how you can claim the typo means anything. It doesn't even make sense if you read it the other way. And the conversion slip isn't a slip to begin with. You know, if I hadn't typoed the first time around, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

[evilsnail]

Still here. Only content with a Reck lynch today. Some of the theories people have been advancing (like me being a recruit who somehow knows that Reck is a PR) make little sense to me. Occam's Razor, people. xReck is a good player, which is why he's convincing now, but he's scum.

[evilsnail]

Okay, xReck, I'll explain why I really think you're lying and there's nothing messing with my results. Were your results on bv310 and ODDin exactly the same?

[evilsnail]

This should've came out a long time ago.

I'll explain after Reck answers.

[evilsnail]

We should be lynching Reck today, seriously. I claimed so we could cult asap. Anyway, Reck, I asked you a question about your results. Was your result on bv310 the same as the one you got on ODDin?

[evilsnail]

EBWOP: "lynch cult asap."

[evilsnail]

That Pie lynch was absolutely atrocious.

In other news, I caught another scum. Let me know if anyone is interested in actually listening this time around.

[evilsnail]

Whatever, I'm going to pretend that people are going to listen to me and not withhold info.

Starbuck, please claim night actions.

[evilsnail]

And Night 1?

[evilsnail]

And I would be the reason why SlySly didn't die, if you are indeed a vig. My power comes with a RBing ability while I investigate. This is what I was hinting at while asking Reck about whether his N1 and N2 results were the same.

[evilsnail]

I'm not a tracker. I didn't reveal everything about my role yesterday.

I'll give the full claim, for clarity:
I'm a Sheriff and I can detain people, like a jailkeeper. While I do this, I can investigate them and then I'm told all the targets of their night actions

so far

.

For you, I was told you targetted no one Night 1 and Yosarian Night 2. For xReck, I was told he targetted KMD Night 1.

Now, why did you decide to vig Yos?

Also,

Vote: xReckoner

[evilsnail]

And I would be the reason why SlySly didn't die, if you are indeed a vig. My power comes with a RBing ability while I investigate. This is what I was hinting at while asking Reck about whether his N1 and N2 results were the same.

If your power comes with a RB, why didn't you target Reckoner?

Well, I thought about that, but since xReck wasn't told he was RBed by me (he claimed to have normal results Night 2), which means he wasn't doing anything Night 2, I thought that there was too big a chance he wouldn't be doing anything Night 3 either. So, I felt like the info gained by investigating someone else was worth it.

[evilsnail]

Starbuck, could you give me specific examples? Did you indicate any of these feelings in-thread?

[evilsnail]

WTH are you guys on with the still not believing me crap? It's obvious why I didn't reveal info on Starbuck today. I could have caught her in a lie, since I hadn't revealed the RBing part of my claim yet (nor the fact that I receive all night actions so far, yesterday I said that I received the target of the night before).

Starbuck's skepticism I understand least of all, because she knows my RBing ability is for real (SlySly didn't die last night) and I also knew she'd targetted Yosarian2 (which, given my claim, was the only result I could have had that indicates scum).

For SlySly's convenience:
The person I detain I investigate. So I can jailkeep only one person and this is also the person I get results on.

Night 1: I targetted Yosarian2, but didn't find anything out. I targetted him only because I thought he was town and figured my jailkeep ability might be useful.

Night 2: xReck, found out he targetted kmd Night 1.

Night 3: Starbuck, found out she targetted Yosarian Night 2 and no one Night 1.

[evilsnail]

evil, you still didn't answer my question: why did you not reveal your role fully yesterday, although you were asked several times to do so?
Also, why did you practically disappear towards the end of yesterday?

Well, my idea was just to reveal that xReck targetted KMD and use the other parts of my role (like the RB thing and the fact that I find about all night actions) to potentially catch people in lies later on. I thought it would be enough to get xReck lynched. Then, when it looked like it wasn't going to be, I was going to reveal the RB thing (though, by this point, I had pretty much lost enthusiasm for the whole thing - I wasn't really expecting it would make a difference. Even now, when it's basically confirmed that I have some ability to tell who targetted who and some RBing ability, no one appears to believe me).

As for my disappearance towards the end of yesterday and my general apathy that day: to be perfectly honest with you, I was going through a break-up at the time and my mind really wasn't on mafia.