Mini 942: Gonzo Mafia - Game Over!

[Zachrulez]

Hammering isn't scummy, but you can still legitimately vote someone for hammering.

True... but.

I find recks action antitown, but not scummy. So I have a neutral read on him. And that is the problem with most that I could comment on.

If I was really reaching for a conclusion, I would call zachs town:

votehopping is almost never scummy, but it is good to show what you are thinking. If he didn't do this in previous games, this towntell gets stronger: he is rather using his vote for information discussion etc, then trying to find a good excuse for a vote whenever he votes (that would generally mean that he would vote less)

But, the use of votes is mostly a playstyle thing, so it isn't really a great tell. Random votes don't tell me a thing, tbh. VI's play is ok, but I think that is expected from him. Reck has already been named, and Hohum is quite unreadable for me at the moment.

So I'm trying to investigate, but there is nothing scummy that stands out for me yet. It would also help if I got to know some of the players better.

if you are scum, and someone makes a point against you that is quite ridiculous, what do you do:

A calmly explain why it is ridiculous.
B call that person a moron, etc.
C something else (please explain what you would do)

Note bolded mine.

Reck is making mistakes, not being scummy. The wagon might be appealing, but is quite a random one.

I know very well what ad hominem means. As far as I know, Zach didn't even read my accusations, he just went on how bad I am as a player.

Now, he may think that fun, and all, but that doesn't mean that his votes on page 3 were well reasoned, or that there was any need for a votechange between them (the cases were very similar)

Zach never replyed to this.

unvote vote zach

. You may have a friend in Sotty, but that doesn't mean you are right.

Please tell me why you needed to votehop there

.

Again note bolded mine. I have argued this to death. But basically she's making my vote hopping into an issue after previously drawing the conclusion that she saw it as pro town. I have an issue with this.

She also claims I never responded to the point that my votes weren't well reasoned. I have responded to death with the fact that I explained my votes in a previous post, even going so far as to reference the post itself. Now... if you don't LIKE that explanation, that's fine, but that's really all it is, there isn't really anything I can do or say beyond that to explain what I did because that's the explanation and the rationalization that was going on in my mind at the time.

Also in ISO 23 she's trying to discredit my attacks by calling them ad-hom, accusing me of not reading her posts and simply referring to her as a bad player. This is another issue I have with her. She's trying to characterize my suspicions and the points in my case as personal attacks in order to discredit them. Scum do this.

[ekiM]

You don't think the replacing out means much. So your whole case is based on flinter attacking Zach? And you're sure he's town, because you have good meta on him. Which flinter doesn't have access to. See the problem here?

The problem was her case wasn't even close to good. She misused ad hominem to make it look like it was something. She abandoned a reasonable Kyle case for it

simply because Zach was pressuring her

. I don't see a townie motivation for that, do you?

I didn't agree with her case on Zach. Actually I didn't understand what she was saying at all. The bolded above seems to be speculation. Why isn't it possible she actually thought her case was credible?

What specifically about her play?

I feel like I am on constant repeat, but her weak case on Zach combined now with the back tracking in post 331.

Is it backtracking though? I'm not so sure. When I first read the post by Zach it looked reasonably strong, but on re-reading flinter and seeing ISO 15 I think it's the difference between not minding vote hopping

per se

, and her going back and deciding Zach's reasons for vote-hopping were bad.

And the weak case on Zach.. yes it was weak. So what? flinter was a weak player. Weak players sometimes make weak cases. I'm not sure how that's actively scummy.

Also, before Zach highlighted that possible contradiction, all you had was that flinter made a weak case? I'm not convinced that's scummy

at all

, let alone the scummiest thing I would expect someone to see after a full day of play.

Why? For both.

Hohum because I don't see the case against him. It seems to amount to hohum is abrasive, I don't see how he has been scummy as the day progressed. I did intially find him scummy with his pushing of Vi, but he has fallen down my list a little as the game progressed because he is actively calling people on their BS, AKA scum hunting.

The case, I think:

Early obsession with Percy to the exclusion of the rest of the game.
Saying his vote on xRx was final.
Taking an hour to make that final vote, "he posted a couple times after xreck had his "K. lynch me" post and only later voted him, and his vote then makes it sound like he's ok with auto-lynching people who do what xreck did, and yet he didn't mention it earlier. They way he included a link is scummy."
Caring about xRx threatining to replace, but ignoring flinter replacing out when he said he suspected her.

I don't know why you say the case is "he's abrasive". Only people defending him have tried to make it about that, as far as I can see. The problem is him sticking it to xRx, and the way he went about it.

I did just re-read the Percy/Hohum/Ort love triangle and I'm not seeing how hohum is scummy from this. I don't agree with Percy that hohum misrepp'ed him. Percy seems to try and paint hohum as active lurking in his vote post and I'm not buying that.

hohum made a huge deal out of something minor in a way that rang false for me. Then he stuck with it for ages. I don't follow the last sentence.

I will say the solid point against hohum is brought up by Jack:

If you think something is scummy enough for a

final vote

, it doesn't take you almost an hour to make up your mind about it. And if you think it's that obviously lynch worthy, going out of your way to post a supporting evidence link is a sign that you are worried about coming under fire for it.

I would like to here hohum's explanation to that.

Me too.

[ekiM]

zach - she said votehopping

per se

isn't scummy, later went back and read that page again and decided she didn't like your

reasons

for votehopping. I'm not convinced that's contradictory.

[ekiM]

And everything she said in ISO 15 seems referenced in ISO 23.

Zach his posts on page three are seriously weak: Reck had a point here.

Zach is making 2 active lurking cases already, and saying Hohum isn't aggressive enough. Sorry, 3 active lurking cases: on me too. (locke and sotty were the others). Votehopping isn't the problem, it is that the votes are not very different,

and weak

.

Now, he may think that fun, and all, but that doesn't mean that his votes on page 3 were well reasoned

,

or that there was any need for a votechange between them (the cases were very similar)

Zach never replyed to this.

unvote vote zach. You may have a friend in Sotty, but that doesn't mean you are right.

Please tell me why you needed to votehop there.

[Zachrulez]

zach - she said votehopping

per se

isn't scummy, later went back and read that page again and decided she didn't like your

reasons

for votehopping. I'm not convinced that's contradictory.

I'm not buying it. I'm not even buying that she originally read my reasoning for either vote or my explanation for the votes afterwards. This was demonstrated when she asked me why I felt the need to vote hop

after I already explained it.

[Zachrulez]

And everything she said in ISO 15 seems referenced in ISO 23.

Zach his posts on page three are seriously weak: Reck had a point here.

Zach is making 2 active lurking cases already, and saying Hohum isn't aggressive enough. Sorry, 3 active lurking cases: on me too. (locke and sotty were the others). Votehopping isn't the problem, it is that the votes are not very different,

and weak

.

Now, he may think that fun, and all, but that doesn't mean that his votes on page 3 were well reasoned

,

or that there was any need for a votechange between them (the cases were very similar)

Zach never replyed to this.

unvote vote zach. You may have a friend in Sotty, but that doesn't mean you are right.

Please tell me why you needed to votehop there.

ok, so she repeats herself in an effort to make it look like she's actually bringing new content to the table.

Look, I see where you're coming from. I just don't buy it. If she has an issue with the play I don't think it takes 7 posts to decide to vote me for it, (in response to having her kyle vote called out no less.) and I don't think dwelling on actions I did on page 3 in the low information stage of the game are a genuine attempt at trying to figure out my alignment.

[VP Baltar]

He said nothing. The bottle of whiskey was tilted high over his face, and I could see that he was finishing it off....So what? I thought. We can always get more. The whiskey stores opened at seven, and I didn't have to be in court until ten. There was plenty of time to do anything we wanted. Many wrongs could be righted in five hours if we had the right tools....

---

Vote Count 1-14

:

Jack ~ L-4 (Zachrulez, Sotty7, ortolan)

Sotty7 ~ L-4 (xRECKONERx, Locke Lamora, Vi)
xRECKONERx ~ L-5 (Debonair Danny DiPietro, hohum)
hohum ~ L-5 (Percy, Jack)
Debonair Danny DiPietro ~ L-6 (ekiM)

Not Voting: Jahudo

With

12

alive, it takes

7

to lynch. Deadline is March 31 at roughly 3 p.m. (GMT -4).

[Vi]

I don't agree to a DDD wagon so much. I'm fine with letting him live through the Day and then crisping him D2 if he doesn't do something spectacular then.
The second-to-last time I looked Locke Lamora was leaning Town; the last time I looked LL was doing a good job of not catching up after saying he was going to. I'll give him a chance.

After reading everything up until here, the majority of what I want to say is that I'm still waiting for people I want to hear from to post - LL, hohum, ortolan, Jahudo, a little Percy. Only five out of the other eleven players >.>

I'm curious as to how I wound up in Jack's top three, particularly aside ortolan.

Other than that, none of the arguments have really swayed me except for the usual impulse to flame xRx. But I do want to try something.

Unvote: Sotty7
Vote: ortolan

(L-6)

[Jahudo]

First I'd really love for someone to explain this whole tunneling=scum thing to me because I swear not only is it inaccurate, I just don't see the logic behind it.

I don't do questions (or at least I don't think I do). I read, I analyze, I vote, I borrow other people's arguments and sometimes I even occasionally write up actual cases, but I really don't think I do questions.

That second paragraph does sum up your play in this game, and if that's how you find scum then that's how you find scum. But I think that, and tunneling like you have, is a good way to play as scum.

I've seen plenty to dislike from reck and nothing that really looks pro-town to me. I've brought up the things I found interesting from his forced case on Zach to his threat to replace out and I quoted Vi in regards to his shifting meta reads and using his commitments as a smokescreen.

You've said that reck's case on Zach was ridiculous and bad, which sounds like an easy way to stay vague so that if a specific tell about reck making his cases is later dropped, your unexplained reasonings can stay in-tact.

-----------------

Only page 10 at the time.

That's how I read it too, and it explains why you didn't like Zach or Sotty before you made your player reads where Sotty went into the town column.

[Sotty7]

I didn't agree with her case on Zach. Actually I didn't understand what she was saying at all. The bolded above seems to be speculation. Why isn't it possible she actually thought her case was credible?

I suppose it is possible, I just don't think that it was. Her vote was reactionary because Zach said her case on Kyle was weak. She then started to say that he was personally attacking her which I believe was a smoke screen. This is my interpretation of her vote.

I don't know what more you want from me ekiM, I saw flinter as scummy and the more I pressured her and questioned her the worse it got. It is clearly all there in the thread for you to read. If you don't agree, you don't agree. But nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise, you think flinter was a weak player, I don't and I am not going to cut her slack for building weak cases.

I guess the question is now, do you find me scummy for my pushing of flinter?

The case, I think:

Early obsession with Percy to the exclusion of the rest of the game.
Saying his vote on xRx was final.
Taking an hour to make that final vote, "he posted a couple times after xreck had his "K. lynch me" post and only later voted him, and his vote then makes it sound like he's ok with auto-lynching people who do what xreck did, and yet he didn't mention it earlier. They way he included a link is scummy."
Caring about xRx threatining to replace, but ignoring flinter replacing out when he said he suspected her.

I don't know why you say the case is "he's abrasive". Only people defending him have tried to make it about that, as far as I can see. The problem is him sticking it to xRx, and the way he went about it.

I will agree hohum hasn't been as forthcoming as most players and that is an issue. I already stated that I agreed with Jack's point against hohum RE:the final vote. But Percy's vote seemed a lot to do with his actual dislike of hohum and how he approached the game.

I did just re-read the Percy/Hohum/Ort love triangle and I'm not seeing how hohum is scummy from this. I don't agree with Percy that hohum misrepp'ed him. Percy seems to try and paint hohum as active lurking in his vote post and I'm not buying that.

hohum made a huge deal out of something minor in a way that rang false for me. Then he stuck with it for ages. I don't follow the last sentence.

Are you talking about the post restriction thing here or the post about lurking? Also the last sentence is talking about this:

Unvote, Vote: hohum

For:
1. Overdefensiveness (both wrt myself and ortolan)
2. Malicious misrepresentations of my play
3. Inconsistent interaction between different players and selective reading of the game
4. Overall active lurking and lack of content.

I think hohum needs just as much pressure as xRx right now, and I think he has a better chance of being scum.

Defensiveness isn't a scum tell.
I don't agree there was a misrep.
Three I can concede.
Four is just out right false. He's been providing content, just content Percy didn't agree with.

[Percy]

@ortolan

: Firstly, the search tool is here.

It seems like your kyle vote was "suspicious person replaces out = scum", and I think this is a weak reason to vote someone. Turns out you agree, since you unvoted straight afterwards and put your vote on Jack. I think the reason for his FoS is clear, and I don't like players voting for someone because they don't explain their (negative) gut reads.

I liked this post of Vi's, and I agree with most of her reads, so I'm still very undecided about him.

However, I have a town gut read of DDD right now, even though I think he's an anti-town player.

Also,

I think it's entirely likely that flinter replaced out of here because she didn't like us/the game.

This is the read I get too. The best point raised against flinter has been this one by zach, but I'm far more inclined to follow ekiM's interpretation of these events than zach's.

@Sotty

:
First of all, I'm glad you've decided to step up, defend hohum and answer the case against him!

Secondly, you failed to respond to this rather lengthy reply I made, including a question I put to you:

@Sotty7

:

He has a point about Ort's selective reading and I'd like Percy's input from that.

I assume you're referring to this:

Also percy likes to bitch about selective reading but he isn't calling you [ortolan] out for it for some reason, only me.

Now I see hohum calling ortolan out for lurking, but I don't see him making any arguments to back up the charge of selective reading. I personally don't see ortolan as ignoring a

part

of the game, just not posting very much. My specific charge against hohum was this:

Finally, you accuse others in this game of lurking, but you've basically refused to participate in this game until I've responded to your satisfaction; for example, I have no idea what you think of flinter or kyle99, two players who have attracted suspicion from others.

...and I already responded to hohum like this:

Also, whilst ortolan's post count is less than yours, I've got a much clearer understanding of what he feels about the events in this game. I'm calling you out for selective reading because that's exactly what you're doing.

In summary, I find your question bizarre, and I'd like you to give me your input on what you think hohum's point was, and why you thought what I had already said was insufficient.
(Also, you didn't answer ortolan's first question, which is essentially the same as mine, which is why I'm asking it again.)

You essentially ignored my case against hohum at this point, and parroted a line hohum casually threw out while accusing me of hypocrisy (without defending himself, ironically). I think this line of argument is demonstrably false, as I've outlined.

Here I'll clarify each of the points I raised.
1.

Over

defensiveness - You note that defensiveness isn't a scumtell, but being overdefensive

is

a scumtell. I concede that this isn't one of my strongest points (in that it verges on playstyle criticism), but he not only lashes out at anyone who attacks him, he's also accused

every person who has ever voted for him of being scum

.
2. Misrepresentations - Firstly, it was his branding me a lurker, and implying I was lying about my modding commitments. That jab was a misrepresentation of my play so far; it felt like he saw my "sorry I'll be on tomorrow" post and did whatever he could to twist that into an attack on me; it's the kind of non-discriminatory knee-jerk case building that screams scum to me. Secondly, his characterization of the post restriction exchange as me "going on the offensive" was really the backbone of his case against me, even though I was posting only to clarify my position, and even stated that it was a very weak tell, if anything at all. This links back to 1.
3. Selective reading - Glad you think this was a good point, because it is.
In addition, I took the point originally brought up by Jack and developed it further in this post, including calling him out for OMGUS and further hypocrisy.
4. Active lurking - Again you accuse me of personal dislike, which is not the case. I'll answer this with another question: If xRx is lynched flips town, how will you feel about hohum's play today? I'm happy to concede that scum-xRx safely rules out hohum-scum-with-xRx, but looking at him in ISO and I think the active lurking label is apt. Also links back to 3 - if you think 3 is good, why not 4?
Finally, he hasn't posted since Saturday, and then only to defend himself (without actually answering any of the questions put to him), and there's less than 48 hours until deadline. He locked on his vote and hasn't come back.

But Percy's vote seemed a lot to do with his actual dislike of hohum and how he approached the game.

OK, those are two very different things; I'm not voting hohum because I "dislike" him, but I am voting him based on how he's approaching the game, because I think he's approaching this game

in a scummy fashion

. Why is that a bad thing?

I still have more reading to do, and I'll get a post in before deadline.

[ortolan]

What is it with people saying I'm

still

lurking? That's BS. I'm in a different timezone to all of you. When you're posting simultaneous walls 'o' text I am asleep.

ortolan has been playing what seems to be a very passive game so far, and he's found easy reasons to be on easy wagons all the way down

Easy wagons would be DDD or possibly XreckonerX, whose wagon I have moved off.

Other than that, none of the arguments have really swayed me except for the usual impulse to flame xRx. But I do want to try something etc.

You do know you have a very very bad habit of trying to get me lynched when you're scum, a tell which has been accurate in 2/2 games (100% of the time). Why is this tell not valid in this game? On day one no less? So close to deadline having not commented on me all day? You must be trying hard to make me drop a scumread on you.

Tearing my case apart on Jack/flinter and hohum is the easy thing to do, the reasoning isn't ostensibly that good. That's not to say I don't think there's a good chance of hitting scum there, especially in comparison to lynching a lurker (which is the mother of all easy lynches).

[ortolan]

Also we badly need to lynch someone today. Not sure even if everyone will get to post before the deadline but it's tomorrow my time.

Mod: is it possible to have a deadline extension due to the replacements so close to deadline (Jahudo and Jack)?

No. The gods have judged you have had ample time. ~The mod

If it is not possible I will vote for anyone to secure a lynch. No lynching is completely horrible on day one. All you US peeps etc. need to make sure we get within lynch range of at least one person by tomorrow.

[ortolan]

Vi: I'm not sure how many unique players you voted but I counted seven vote movements total on day one. This leaves an effectively meaningless paper trail for your votes on subsequent days and I kind of have a hard time buying the idea that you always move your vote so erratically.

[Locke Lamora]

Right, my main thoughts and responses to people:

Jahudo: I usually unvote when I vote for someone else. I rarely do it by itself. I hadn't unvoted ekiM because I wasn't yet inclined to vote for someone else.

Sotty: I voted for you because it felt like you were misrepping me and basing your whole case on what you perceived to be the implications of my posts, not the posts themselves.

Reckoner is bothering me now. His early bad vote on Zach looked more like town-Reck to me but his 'lynch me' attitude does not match to what I know of him from Lost Mafia. He seemed committed to that game throughout D1 even when he was frustrated at being wagoned. How much of this is down to him not having much time to post is hard to tell but I find the AtEish tone very scummy.

Unvote; Vote: Reckoner

Zach: you suggested that Sotty is playing to her scum meta by casting doubt on her suspicions of you, then you didn't follow it up at all. Does this mean you don't really think Sotty is scummy for doing so?

[ekiM]

So it's like... less than thirty hours until deadline. Here's roughly what wagons people have said they like, correct me if I'm wrong (wagonee listed, then people who said they'd like it).

Hohum - ekiM, Jack, ortolan, Percy, Vi(?), xRx
Jack(flinter) - hohum(?), Jahudo, ortolan, Sotty, zach
xRECKONERx - DDD, hohum, Percy, Sotty
Debonair Danny DiPietro - ekiM, Jahudo, zach
Ortolan - ekiM, Jack, Vi
Sotty7 - Locke(?), Vi, xRx
Vi - Jack(?)
Percy - hohum(?)
Jahudo(kyle) - DDD(?)
Locke Lamora - Jahudo
ekiM - ?
Zachrulez - ?

People I had most trouble listing: DDD (said xRx, maybe would've supported jahudo/kyle?), hohum (said he was locked onto xRx, hasn't posted in ages), Jahudo (said more reads were coming), Locke (hasn't posted in an age), xRx (... yeah).

It would be good if everyone would make it clear what wagons they will support. We don't have long.

I would prefer one of hohum, DDD, ortolan. Of those, hohum is the most viable. Failing that, any viable wagon. I will be working at a computer all day tomorrow so I can hammer right up until deadline.

unvote; vote: hohum

.

[ekiM]

Oh, hi Locke.

With that return to the game, I would like to lynch Locke also.

[ekiM]

Locke please list exactly which wagons you will and will not support. All I know now is that you're voting for one of the day's biggest punching bags.

[Locke Lamora]

I don't think DDD is scummy, his posts feel similar to the last time I played with him as town. I'd support Jack's based on flinter's play, I need to read Jack more thoroughly to be more sure about that slot. I'm reading hohum as town.

Vi, although that lynch would never happen at this stage, is increasingly pinging my scumdar; I particularly don't like his recent vote on ortolan which is in clear contrast to his call for bigger wagons and I feel it's too close to deadline for a major change of direction. I'm also dubious of him saying he's having a hard time getting reads; it doesn't seem to fit with the tone of his posts.

I'm waiting to hear from Zach before I say any more on him and Sotty.

[ortolan]

If it wasn't clear Vi is another potential wagon I would show interest in but I assumed no-one else would vote him.

[Vi]

ortolan has been playing what seems to be a very passive game so far, and he's found easy reasons to be on easy wagons all the way down

Easy wagons would be DDD or possibly XreckonerX, whose wagon I have moved off.

...which doesn't contradict anything I said.

You do know you have a very very bad habit of trying to get me lynched when you're scum, a tell which has been accurate in 2/2 games (100% of the time). Why is this tell not valid in this game? On day one no less? So close to deadline having not commented on me all day? You must be trying hard to make me drop a scumread on you.

This almost made me laugh out loud.
*Unless you have an alt I don't know of, we've only played together in one game. Unless you're pre-emptively saying I'm scum in this game.~ In Election Mafia I pushed you because

surprise!

you were the scummiest person on the page, and you said that you were so intentionally. Saying that I'm scummy for pushing you when you're scummy is laughable.
*I haven't commented on you all Day because

you haven't been here

and I've been trying to sort out the mayhem from the people who HAVE been here.

Tearing my case apart on Jack/flinter and hohum is the easy thing to do, the reasoning isn't ostensibly that good. That's not to say I don't think there's a good chance of hitting scum there, especially in comparison to lynching a lurker (which is the mother of all easy lynches).

Playing OMGUS against me is the easy thing to do; the reasoning is easy to BS. That's not to say I don't think there's a good chance of hitting scum there, especially in comparison to lynching a VI (which is the mother of all easy lynches).

Lynching lurkers is hard btw.

Vi: I'm not sure how many unique players you voted but I counted seven vote movements total on day one. This leaves an effectively meaningless paper trail for your votes on subsequent days and I kind of have a hard time buying the idea that you always move your vote so erratically.

ortolan: I'm not sure how many unique players you voted but I counted

six

vote movements total on Day one. This leaves an effectively meaningful paper trail for your votes on subsequent Days and not doing the research on how I play when I already told you this is normal for me just makes you look terrible.

If it wasn't clear Vi is another potential wagon I would show interest in but I assumed no-one else would vote him.

For suspecting you. That's so low it's legitimately funny.

--

It would be good if everyone would make it clear what wagons they will support.

You got all of mine, plus Locke Lamora for the same reason you said (although I don't think it would happen).

I particularly don't like his recent vote on ortolan which is in clear contrast to his call for bigger wagons and I feel it's too close to deadline for a major change of direction.

says the person who doesn't say anything about ekiM doing

the same thing

I'm also dubious of him saying he's having a hard time getting reads; it doesn't seem to fit with the tone of his posts.

That was then; this is now

--

Now I really,

really

want an ortolan wagon. It'll most likely have to wait though.

Realistically I'll probably vote hohum at deadline, but unvoting ortolan after this "defense" would be rather terrible

[ortolan]

hey I know you tried to push my lynch in election mafia when you were scum, and also in Phate's game...Deathnote, when you were scum. The fact you apparently forgot we were in both these games makes me even more confident you didn't actually realise it's a tell you've already dropped twice. Although I'm kind of surprised you're being so brazen about it yet again.

[ortolan]

oh and one more thing which just occurred to me before I go to bed- I also recall you liking to line up lynches in both those games, which works with the "I'll realistically vote hohum today then ortolan tomorrow" comment. It also makes sense with your really dodgily timed vote on me so close to deadline, so you can avoid taking responsibility for membership of a viable wagon.

[Zachrulez]

Zach: you suggested that Sotty is playing to her scum meta by casting doubt on her suspicions of you, then you didn't follow it up at all. Does this mean you don't really think Sotty is scummy for doing so?

It means... I'm really not sure.

Even if she's nearly 100% convinced I'm town, she is usually interested in my motives and my thought process of who I'm suspecting and why. In this game for whatever reason she doesn't seem that interested.

Nagging thing that's bothering me. Another one of those nagging things is her tendency to follow my preferred links as though I'm all knowing. (Which in the past more so than now has worked VERY effectively for her when we've played together.) Since reading and studying up on our past games, it's a tendency I've noticed from her when she's scum.

[Sotty7]

That would be a good point if I hadn't questioned you or called you out in this game when I have. We agree on flinter/Jack but I think that's about it. I don't know your opinion on hohum for example, or Percy.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 15#2175115
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 83#2175383
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 37#2186937
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 01#2193901

You're just paranoid that I am always scum