Newbie 922: Day 3

[Acosmist]

Meh.

I have no reason to agree on points that are incorrect

You failed at reading comprehension for many pages. In fact, if you'd not posted like a moron, the walls of text wouldn't have been quite so large.

‘tunnelling’ efforts by Acosmist

Bull.

Show me where I ignored anyone else in discussing Lawls. If it's "tunnelling" to try to get someone to post in the mafia game he joined, then it's time to get myself replaced.

You had a hard-on for Cojin that was

nothing like

my pressure on Lawls.

I have explained my reasons for not wholeheartedly subscribing to his claim (post 368).

So did I, but I didn't vote to lynch him, because it's game theoretically retarded to risk taking out a doctor to defuse a potential charade that is impossible to maintain.

Similarly, Acosmist tunnelled Lawls.

Moral equivalence fallacy.

Is the Lawls tunnelling only acceptable because you choose to join the Lawls wagon last minute?

Loaded question.

I did share a bit of my suspicions with Lawls, Pan, and BaB on D1 so I was not entirely tunnelling. And the lack of analysis accusation is bullshit...especially given the level of effort you put into your Pan and Lawl votes on D1.

So now you weren't entirely tunnelling, but, presumably, I was (you never qualified your accusation of me). Reading this post of yours, one would think I tunnelled more than you did! Thankfully we have the day 1 record to review.

It wasn’t much prior (EF ISO 27) to your vote on Lawls that you had said your top two suspects were Pan and Nacho and that you were, “finding Lawls less and less scummy with each passing hour.”

And then, in the course of discussion about Lawls, he changed his mind. He posted about it.

And you made no comment of suspicion towards me (at least not in your top 3) despite the fact all your current suspicions were relevant by the end of D1 as well (sans the knowledge of who was/n’t town).

You have a unique sense of estoppel. I don't think people should keep quiet about their suspicions because they didn't raise them immediately. This was part of your pathetic case against Cojin. Is EF your new Cojin?

What are you hoping to illustrate with your added emphasis? Mentioning Cojin was a L-1....so?

That was your bold, champ. Try to keep up with the game you are in!

The play warrants a lynch line is preceded with reasons...to which only the lurk comment could be construed as supporting a policy lynch but which is not the lone reason for my suspicions towards his play.

This:

But if he is a doc as he claims to be.....I'm not even sure scum would bother killing him at night since surviving would make his claim even more doubtful. His play just warrants a lynch. Then maybe scum would have mercy and NK one of the town wallposters.

is not calling for a policy lynch?

I don't even get what that's supposed to mean; if we don't lynch the doc, the scum might outwit us and not nightkill the doc, giving us, what, at least one night of protections? Oh no!

The only policy type situations I have had exposure to that I would support a lynch on are lynching liars and active lurkers....neither of which Lawls or Cojin were guilty of iirc.

Then why did you want to lynch a claimed doc that you thought the mafia would cleverly keep alive, earning us an extra night of protection?

Apparently yes....unless you can concoct a better example.

Oh? You're voting me? Since when?

I saw your reasoning prior to the lynch. By the end of the day I would hope you'd have had a few reasons for voting Lawls. I was commenting on the fact you gave no reassoning for voting Lawls when you initially voted him.

Except for the sentence right after the vote.

It was almost two weeks after your vote on Lawls before you gave any insight into your reasoning (Acos ISO 32), and again in ISO 47. It's interesting to note that once you did provide some reasons they were just as applicable to Cojin.

No, that's just false. That I took so long to give reasons for my vote and that the reasons were just as applicable to Cojin. We've been through this.

Why is it a surprise? I don’t recall casting suspicions your way on D1. I don’t consider lack the of social skills a scumtell.

You said it was scummy for me to accuse you of pushing a policy lynch. Not day 1, but, again, we don't share your pathological view of estoppel, so I'm looking at what you've done today, which is try to discredit me without meeting me head-on. How can I be scummy and not scummy at the same time? Are you a dialetheist?

So I hear people who try to get doctors lynched are not cool.

Vote: havingfitz

Nacho: if you're not the second scum, who is?

Votecount
Nachomamma8 - 2 (havingfitz, Ellibereth)
havingfitz - 1 (Acosmist)

Not Voting - 4 (Furry, Nachomamma8, Panacea, Elementary Fermion)

With 7 alive, it's 4 to lynch.

[Panacea]

Welcome, Furry!! Your avi is adorable..!

Panacea is still railing on the random wagon thing, it looks like an attempt to make the players on the wagon out as scummy which is very wrong, especially the mentioning of the first few voters. At this point she seems to be responding negatively to RVS pressure, and trying to turn it the wagon around on the voters.

There was a sizable wagon on a townie within a few days of opening, and the case was pathetic. 'Nuff said.

Furry's probably town.

Mathmania to, what, gut feeling in .2 seconds..? I don't like this at all.

The Havingfitz/Acosmist debate is going to be invaluable to the game, I can tell. (Well... Okay, to me, anyway.) Carry on, you two.

Days will have a deadline of three weeks. If the deadline is reached, the day will end without a lynch.

Welp, Pan was wrong instead of me.

Sorry about this!! My last game with MiteyMouse followed those conditions, so when I double-checked the rules a couple of days ago and saw this:

If the majority of players are voting for one player, he will be lynched and the day will end.

It just read all wrong. My mistake, sorry!

[Acosmist]

I didn't see the soft claim as you did; I saw a townie reaction based on another game (Ellibereth knows which one). So, the vote came off.

Is it ongoing? Can I look into it?

No, never willing to lynch. Willing to pressure, but not willing to lynch.

Pan, stop sucking up to the mod >.>

Cojin, you're acting... weird. Freaking out and claiming PR when you're at L-2 and no one really wants to lynch you isn't TownCojin play...

I mean, I just read Newbie 908, where you pegged two scum in two days after a successful Doc protect; the only thing that messed up your game was vanilla fakeclaiming cop... The Cojin that's playing in this game definitely isn't the Cojin that's playing in that one...

Unvote, [L-1]Vote: Cojin

That's not willing to lynch? You even helpfully note that he's one vote from getting the rope...

Mhm. I was on the lynchwagon, wasn't I?

You liked Lawls for being aggressive, you thought I was focusing too much on him, and...you had nothing against him. Then you voted him. That's your position?

[Acosmist]

Ellibereth, having claimed that his magic numbers mean one thing, and then later mean another thing wholly inconsistent with said first thing, and with no explanation for either conclusion (sic), is stupid and scumtastic.

And then he started using the numbers again. So he flip-flopped twice. He's on track to lose the 2004 presidential election at this rate.

It seemed like he thought he could get away with BSing using numbers, and then there were a couple people in this thread who could easily call him on it (sup, us!), so he backed off. Then, because his general strategy is to use numbers to BS, he fell back on it when he thought the smoke had cleared.

My only problem is that that makes 3 scummy people (havingfitz, Nacho, Ellibereth) with 2 mafia left. And our margin for error is getting small.

Welcome, Furry!! Your avi is adorable..!

Oh how naive you are...

[Ellibereth]

[quote="Pan"]Mathmania to, what, gut feeling in .2 seconds..? I don't like this at all. /quote]

Nonono, gut to Mathmania, back to gut in 4 seconds.
Tis be my meta. Anyone here whos' played with me (namely Nacho...the short little show Furry and I were together in), can confirm that. Or you can check it up yourself in my wiki.
Acostopofpagewall makes me want to rethink my town read on fitzy. Pana 526 looks town.

TOWN
Fermion
Acos
Elli

PROBTOWN
Pana
Furry <- most likely to change.
fitz <- need to recheck

PEOPLE LEFT
Nacho


HEY NACH, CAN YOU LINK ME TO ANY TOWN-READABLE POST YOU MADE THE WHOLE GAME. I SKIMMED YOUR ISO AND CAN'T FIND ANY.

[Acosmist]

Nonono, gut to Mathmania, back to gut in 4 seconds.
Tis be my meta.

So your shtick is to be inconsistent.

Can the replacements do us all a favor and actually read the game before commenting? Between Furry wanting to vote Cojin (good luck with that!) and you making reads based on two pages of posts there is a whole lot of useless stuff being said.

[Panacea]

Oh how naive you are...

Hm? But it

is

adorable. It looks so happy!

My only problem is that that makes 3 scummy people (havingfitz, Nacho, Ellibereth) with 2 mafia left. And our margin for error is getting small.

Leaning toward Ellibereth, myself. Havingfitz and Nacho are pretty tied with me, pending Havingfitz's rebuttal of Acosmist's post to him.

Tis be my meta. Anyone here whos' played with me (namely Nacho...the short little show Furry and I were together in), can confirm that.

Nacho's 0 for 1 on the accuracy of his previous experience with our players (Cojin), so while I'd like to hear his feeling anyway for future reference, I won't put too much stock in it. Furry?

Pana 526 looks town.

Huh? What about that could possibly give you a town read? It's not particularly helpful, compared to my usual. (Ew, my apologies if that sounds ridiculously vain. Not at all my intention.)

Can the replacements do us all a favor and actually read the game before commenting?

As per my initial sentiments when Ellibereth came in with the statement that he could "survive" without reading, I don't see the point of replacing in if you're not going to read.

Though, Acosmist, I think Furry actually

is

reading the game, and offering his/her (?) comments on the state of the game at which he/she left off. So he/she would have voted Cojin at the time he/she's reading. Amirite, Furry?

Heya, Furry,are you completely opposed to us knowing your gender on principle, or would you mind letting me know how to refer to you? ^^* You can even say "Think of me as ____" if you'd like. This is confusing.

[Ellibereth]

Pan. I posted links earlier and you can check my wiki.
I never read the entire game when replacing. I at most skim a few pages back or so. The only time I came close was when i was with a day-talking mason and I only looked at the last quarter or so and she gave me the rest.

[quote="Pan"]
The Havingfitz/Acosmist debate is going to be invaluable to the game, I can tell. (Well... Okay, to me, anyway.) Carry on, you two. [/quote
^^^ This came from town.

[Furry]

Welcome, Furry!! Your avi is adorable..!!

*glee*

Though, Acosmist, I think Furry actually

is

reading the game, and offering his/her (?) comments on the state of the game at which he/she left off. So he/she would have voted Cojin at the time he/she's reading. Amirite, Furry?

Correct. You just wouldnt believe the day ive had though (it just ended with doing a three hour thermodynamics assignment). Have no energy to spend on getting caught up the rest of the way tonight

Heya, Furry,are you completely opposed to us knowing your gender on principle, or would you mind letting me know how to refer to you? ^^* You can even say "Think of me as ____" if you'd like. This is confusing.

I am ambiguous. It doesnt matter what you call me, although it seems about 60-40 that people think im male.

@Eli - I forgot about that game... wow that was a broken game

Tomorrow I should easily be able to get caught up

[Panacea]

Though, Acosmist, I think Furry actually

is

reading the game, and offering his/her (?) comments on the state of the game at which he/she left off. So he/she would have voted Cojin at the time he/she's reading. Amirite, Furry?

Correct. You just wouldnt believe the day ive had though (it just ended with doing a three hour thermodynamics assignment). Have no energy to spend on getting caught up the rest of the way tonight

'S cool. Activity's down as is. -.-

Heya, Furry,are you completely opposed to us knowing your gender on principle, or would you mind letting me know how to refer to you? ^^* You can even say "Think of me as ____" if you'd like. This is confusing.

I am ambiguous. It doesnt matter what you call me, although it seems about 60-40 that people think im male.

Aaaand since we're so dead, I can add a little tidbit without feeling like I'm distracting the hunt! I was totally leaning female: you said "hun" earlier, the "*glee*" thing, and your avi looks somewhat female, by the expression. But whatever. I'll just call you by your name as much as I can.Or use whatever Bridges was talking about earlier.

[Panacea]

:arrow: Havingfitz: It's been two days.

:arrow: Nacho: It's been almost three.

:arrow: Ellibereth: Happy birthday.


. _i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_
/_________________\
\_________________/

Um, it...

kinda

looks like a cake... And I dunno how old you are, so for proportion's sake, happy 11th.

[Furry]

Stuff is getting a little choppy here. It almost looks like someone secretly replaced EF, we get derailed for a bit, then suddenly lawls is at L-1. The biggest problem I have with that is, I actually am not sure what the case on him is. By no means is he a town read, but this surprises me when the better wagons of Cojin and EF are both being ignored.

Aschom is answering some questions in a sense of being much more preoccupied with self-preservation and breaking up people who he sees as tied together. He doesnt want to be in lylo with RF and pan because "he will be lynched" which skirts the obvious answer to the question of "who is your most neutral read". I dont think he has major problems if any with the afformention two, but seems keen on breaking up som trust of eachother. Im always thrilled when town reads agree that they are both town, ususally they are trying to lynch eachother.

Tip - If people tighten up cases others are more likely to agree with them. Start it broad but shorten it to key points, especially as exchanges go on. At least you guys arent pulling the "my answers are in bold" thing.

Cojin is pulling the same thing as EF earlier in being afraid that moving is vote is going to get him lynched. Unlike EF however he is blatantly asking permission, im actually betting that lawls is town, especially if EF (and to a lesser extent fitz or ascom) is scum.

SOMEONE IS FINALLY GETTING ON EF!!! *glee*

I mean wow that took long enough but at last.

Cojin seems upset that the wagon fell off lawls before a claim, and Aschom now seems to be fishing for town feeling on a EF wagon before he goes for it or not by getting opinions of lurking with respect to him while others have been doing so as well.

nice to see the old EF replaced his newfound self that lasted a few pages...
Was thrilled to see a massive post from him untill I realized it was just him complaining about days taking too long. If you really want I can link to a few games where scum lynch day one led to town victories. Parts of it though are making me seriously second guess myself, especially the part about wanting to learn.

Also this whole modkill thing is stupid. At very most (and even then its reaching) its a forced replace. It shouldnt be discussed in the thread by EF, Pan or even the mod. Ive been in games nearly ruined by this type of thing, and dont want it happening in this one.

Ok wow we are getting someone where on EF, and I will go into IC mode here for a bit. I think I finally understand what stage of gameplay he is stuck in.

-It is always best to be voting someone who you think is scum, regardless of how you think other players will react to it. If you have a read, you vote, you explain it and ask questions of the player in an attempt to either solidify said read, or to figure out what is really going on. When you play for self-preservation, you are playing to the scum win condition, which is why I have been railing on you for most of my read (untill that blowup which reads really town which is why im now shocked nacho is voting you, but thats a different story). Long story short, vote who you think scum is, not who you think everyone else wants you to vote.

Ascos needs to shorten his posts. Im a fan of big posts when necessary but half of his arent.

So yeah, im not surprised with what im sure will be a forthcoming Cojin wagon, I would be on it. EF in his little breakdown moves to somewhat of a town read, nacho jumping on the wagon at that time I dont like. Most likely will depend on how he goes about explaining this.

So Cojin (yeah yeah) is still scummy, ascos is hitting a few bells, something about fitz has me on edge and nacho I will have a good opinion on in a few pages, although he appears to be crashing hard right now.

Maybe a bit more later tonight, more then halfway caught up though. Thinking I just might read through, bring up key points and make a case though, this is feeling tedious.

[Nachomamma8]

--> Pan: It's been about six days since you've offered content, by the way >.>

Is it ongoing? Can I look into it?

Sure... It's called Glitch in Time, modded by Haylen, in the New York Forum. I'll link you to it if you'd like, but I'd rather not open another window just yet.

That's not willing to lynch? You even helpfully note that he's one vote from getting the rope...

Exactly. By putting right next to my vote, in bold, that he's at L-1, I force whoever was going to hammer to think up of actual reasoning to hammer a claimed doc. No accidental hammers were going to result; it'd take an idiot scum will balls of steel to hammer Cojin at that point.

Then you voted him

because deadline was approaching and you didn't want to lynch the claimed doctor

. That's your position?

Mhm.

HEY NACH, CAN YOU LINK ME TO ANY TOWN-READABLE POST YOU MADE THE WHOLE GAME. I SKIMMED YOUR ISO AND CAN'T FIND ANY.

ISO 0. The greatness ends there.

Nacho's 0 for 1 on the accuracy of his previous experience with our players (Cojin), so while I'd like to hear his feeling anyway for future reference, I won't put too much stock in it.

For future reference, you should probably read every game he's ever replaced into. It's his self-aware meta, thus, null-tell.

Nacho: if you're not the second scum, who is?

Panacea or Furry. I'll explain Pan later when I'm in a more case-making mood.

[Panacea]

--> Pan: It's been about six days since you've offered content, by the way >.>

That's a matter of your opinion. My statement on your last post was supported by, well, fact: namely a timestamp. -.- But way to get defensive.

He doesnt want to be in lylo with RF and pan because "he will be lynched" which skirts the obvious answer to the question of "who is your most neutral read". I dont think he has major problems if any with the afformention two, but seems keen on breaking up som trust of eachother. Im always thrilled when town reads agree that they are both town, ususally they are trying to lynch eachother.

Furry, would you mind explaining this a bit?

[Furry]

He doesnt want to be in lylo with RF and pan because "he will be lynched" which skirts the obvious answer to the question of "who is your most neutral read". I dont think he has major problems if any with the afformention two, but seems keen on breaking up som trust of eachother. Im always thrilled when town reads agree that they are both town, ususally they are trying to lynch eachother.

Furry, would you mind explaining this a bit?

Was off this post

Which of the players in this game would you not want to be in LyLo with?
What player do you find yourself agreeing with the most?

RayFrost and Panacea. I know who's getting the rope in that situation.

Panacea until recently. I hope her RayFrost fangirlism can be purged; I'm hoping my questions here help do that.

The first one is normally answered by "Player X because I have so little information on them". He takes an approach of "What lylo situation will result in my lynch", which is a far more standard approach of scum then town.

The second one starts trying to put distrust between two players that have town reads on eachother. Again there is reason for town to do this if they think one is scum, just maybe not quite so blatantly. Like the first response, trying to instill distrust between two people is a bit of a scumtell. He did followup with a push on RF so its not quite as bad, just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[havingfitz]

sigh....

I have no reason to agree on points that are incorrect

You failed at reading comprehension for many pages. In fact, if you'd not posted like a moron, the walls of text wouldn't have been quite so large.

Fact => if you didn’t post like such a pompous ass with an obsession to prove yourself right when you are wrong, the walls of text wouldn't have been quite so large. Seriously...do you talk like you post when in conversation with

friends

other people?

read the Panacea corpus
avoid petulant tu quoque counterattacks
Res ipsa loquitur
Modus tollens
he's not estopped
well, tu quoque
stop hiding behind the gibberish canard
Tautology detected!
I agree with Frege, Russell, Kripke, etc.

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

unique sense of estoppel

<I’m torn between Niles and Frasier but I’m leaning towards Niles>

‘tunnelling’ efforts by Acosmist

and I

Bull.

Show me where I ignored anyone else in discussing Lawls. If it's "tunnelling" to try to get someone to post in the mafia game he joined, then it's time to get myself replaced.

You had a hard-on for Cojin that was

nothing like

my pressure on Lawls.

You conveniently left out the part of my quote where I include myself in that sentence (added in bold by me!!!!). I was responding to an accusation of tunnel vision from EF in a post that he mentioned you in comparison w/ me. I assume EF inferred I had tunnel vision due to the fact I had my vote on Cojin a good portion of D1....though I did assess other people critically D1 as well. I did not say you ignored other player, I basically pulled you in to the tunnelling conversation after EF brought you up as I would say our levels of ‘tunnelling’ or tunnel vision, or leading a bandwagon were basically equal.

I have explained my reasons for not wholeheartedly subscribing to his claim (post 368).

So did I, but I didn't vote to lynch him, because it's game theoretically retarded to risk taking out a doctor to defuse a potential charade that is impossible to maintain.

Why are we debating an exchange between EF and I. I also did not wholeheartedly subscribe to Lawls’ being scum and that was right. Some we get right...some we don’t. Once Cojin claimed Doc his fate was most likely sealed, so not being the D1 lynch was a moot point that ended up being the best outcome for town (though I am somewhat surprised he survived N1). If Cojin had been the D1 lynch I’m certain Lawls would have been kept around to distract town on D2. Now we have a clean slate with the top two D1 bandwagons gone.

Is the Lawls tunnelling only acceptable because you choose to join the Lawls wagon last minute?

Loaded question.

Is that you EF? The fact remains he did join the Lawls’ wagon (again) at the last minute. I think the Lawls and Cojin wagons were very similar...with certain characteristics of tunnelling included...and EF does not seem to have a problem with the Lawls ~tunnelling. Is that because he was on the Lawls’ wagon? Not loaded. It’s a simple yes or no question.

I did share a bit of my suspicions with Lawls, Pan, and BaB on D1 so I was not entirely tunnelling. And the lack of analysis accusation is bullshit...especially given the level of effort you put into your Pan and Lawl votes on D1.

So now you weren't entirely tunnelling, but, presumably, I was (you never qualified your accusation of me). Reading this post of yours, one would think I tunnelled more than you did! Thankfully we have the day 1 record to review.

This is still from the same post where you are brought up in the tunnelling discussion. It’s not like I brought you into the fray (EF did) and called you out or compared your play to mine only to change my level of tunnelling later in the game...it’s the same post. Just because you vote was on Lawls the entire game after you took your random vote off me does not mean you ~tunnelled more than me. If anyone is taking my post that way...it is not intentional.

It wasn’t much prior (EF ISO 27) to your vote on Lawls that you had said your top two suspects were Pan and Nacho and that you were, “finding Lawls less and less scummy with each passing hour.”

And then, in the course of discussion about Lawls, he changed his mind. He posted about it.

I think it’s sweet how you answer for EF.

And you made no comment of suspicion towards me (at least not in your top 3) despite the fact all your current suspicions were relevant by the end of D1 as well (sans the knowledge of who was/n’t town).

You have a unique sense of estoppel. I don't think people should keep quiet about their suspicions because they didn't raise them immediately. This was part of your pathetic case against Cojin. Is EF your new Cojin?

Where was ‘this’ part of my case on Cojin? Is my vote on EF? Am I your new Lawls? And estop being so pomp-ass.

What are you hoping to illustrate with your added emphasis? Mentioning Cojin was a L-1....so?

That was your bold, champ. Try to keep up with the game you are in!

Comprehension fails even the biggest heads sometimes. I was responding to a post by you that mentioned "Emphasis added..." Why are you pointing out the text I bolded for

your

benefit instead of answering the question I asked that pertained to the bolded text?

The play warrants a lynch line is preceded with reasons...to which only the lurk comment could be construed as supporting a policy lynch but which is not the lone reason for my suspicions towards his play.

This:

But if he is a doc as he claims to be.....I'm not even sure scum would bother killing him at night since surviving would make his claim even more doubtful. His play just warrants a lynch. Then maybe scum would have mercy and NK one of the town wallposters.

is not calling for a policy lynch?

How is it? I thought Cojin’s play was scummy. I vote people I think are scummy. Scummy play warrants lynching. Do you consider that a policy lynch....voting people you think are scummy? I don’t think so.

I don't even get what that's supposed to mean; if we don't lynch the doc, the scum might outwit us and not nightkill the doc, giving us, what, at least one night of protections? Oh no!

You’re obviously not perfect.

The only policy type situations I have had exposure to that I would support a lynch on are lynching liars and active lurkers....neither of which Lawls or Cojin were guilty of iirc.

Then why did you want to lynch a claimed doc that you thought the mafia would cleverly keep alive, earning us an extra night of protection?

Because I thought he was scum. The claim meant nothing to me as there was no way to confirm it (short of his flip). The rest is/was all WIFOM hypothesizing.

I saw your reasoning prior to the lynch. By the end of the day I would hope you'd have had a few reasons for voting Lawls. I was commenting on the fact you gave no reassoning for voting Lawls when you initially voted him.

Except for the sentence right after the vote.

You mean this sentence right after the vote:

It looks like you're unhappy someone called you on your spammy, recycled "analysis" post.

You really want to claim that as the reasoning you used to back up your Lawls vote when you made it

It was almost two weeks after your vote on Lawls before you gave any insight into your reasoning (Acos ISO 32), and again in ISO 47. It's interesting to note that once you did provide some reasons they were just as applicable to Cojin.

No, that's just false. That I took so long to give reasons for my vote and that the reasons were just as applicable to Cojin. We've been through this.

If you think it’s important to the game, prove it. I stand by my comments.

Why is it a surprise? I don’t recall casting suspicions your way on D1. I don’t consider lack the of social skills a scumtell.

You said it was scummy for me to accuse you of pushing a policy lynch. Not day 1, but, again, we don't share your pathological view of estoppel, so I'm looking at what you've done today, which is try to discredit me without meeting me head-on. How can I be scummy and not scummy at the same time? Are you a dialetheist?

Other than your continued focus on me (and the inaccurate policy lynch accusation) I don’t find anything you’ve done particularly scummy. At least not enough at this time to divert my attention from Nacho and Pan.

***********************************************************

My only problem is that that makes 3 scummy people (havingfitz, Nacho, Ellibereth) with 2 mafia left. And our margin for error is getting small.

Leaning toward Ellibereth, myself. Havingfitz and Nacho are pretty tied with me, pending Havingfitz's rebuttal of Acosmist's post to him.

I’m leaning towards you as scum along with Nacho. How do you feel about Nacho’s end of D1 actions and play so far on D2 (I realize your end of D1 actions weren’t much better than Nacho’s) and what in my play has me on par with Nacho?

The Havingfitz/Acosmist debate is going to be invaluable to the game, I can tell. (Well... Okay, to me, anyway.) Carry on, you two.

^^^ This came from town.

How does Pan’s interest in seeing another wallpost exchange between Acosmist and I indicate she is town to you? The exchange is doing no good to town that I can see and is only distracting other town from scumhunting and allowing scum to hide behind it. Admittedly, I’m just as guilty as Acosmist at perpetuating the exchange but I can’t help it. I try to refrain from initiating wallposts but I find it difficult refraining from replying to them.

[Acosmist]

So havingfitz and who else?

[Acosmist]

Lynch all liars; time to put the rope around your neck, fitzy.

[Nachomamma8]

Funfact:

Havingfitz thinks than Pan and I are scum together.
I think that Pan and Havingfitz are scum together.
Pan thinks that Havingfitz and I are scum together.

Find the townie and win the game?

[Acosmist]

Funfact:

Havingfitz thinks than Pan and I are scum together.
I think that Pan and Havingfitz are scum together.
Pan thinks that Havingfitz and I are scum together.

Find the townie and win the game?

Panacea is the townie :teach:

[Panacea]

I'm aware I've got some things directed at me from Havingfitz, but I'm mobile, so you'll have to wait a bit on that.

Just to keep this from going too far out of hand, Nacho, I never said you and Havingfitz are scum together. I've been flying slow circles around Ellibereth for a while now. I'm thinking one of either you or Havingfitz as Ell's buddy, provided he's scum.

Acosmist, though I do appreciate your help, it unsettles me that you've been so quick to clear me all game. I've been told before that I play obvtown (our very own RayFrost, actually), but I'm starting to get concerned here.

[havingfitz]

Lynch all liars; time to put the rope around your neck, fitzy.

If you are town your crap play is only unrivaled by mine if you are scum. Whoever the scum is has to be absolutely loving the Acosmist/havingfitz diversion.

Show me where you think I have lied and I'll clarify whatever point it is you are getting wrong.

[Acosmist]

If you are town your crap play is only unrivaled by mine if you are scum.

what

[havingfitz]

Crap. Scratch the 'un.'

If you are town your crap play is only

un

rivaled by mine if you are scum.

what

[Panacea]

sigh....

I have no reason to agree on points that are incorrect

You failed at reading comprehension for many pages. In fact, if you'd not posted like a

moron

, the walls of text wouldn't have been quite so large.

Fact => if you didn’t post like such a pompous

ass

with an obsession to prove yourself right when you are wrong, the walls of text wouldn't have been quite so large. Seriously...do you talk like you post when in conversation with

friends

other people?

Hey hey hey, I must've missed this last night. C'mon, guys, this isn't productive. Furthermore,

I try to refrain from initiating wallposts but I find it difficult refraining from replying to them.

'Kay. So which is more important? Your win condition or your need to

insult

discredit

argue with Acosmist?

Whoever the scum is has to be absolutely loving the Acosmist/havingfitz diversion.

Er... Did we forget that Acosmist is

voting

you? He's kinda entitled to argue his case, and the majority of us will kinda benefit from it.

How does Pan’s interest in seeing another wallpost exchange between Acosmist and I indicate she is town to you? The exchange is doing no good to town that I can see and is only distracting other town from scumhunting and allowing scum to hide behind it.

Uhm... Seriously? Speaking as a townie unsure of either of your roles, the debate is quite functional in

determining

said alignments, wouldn't you agree? Also, you're tied for my number 2 suspect. I'm inclined be interested in his case on you. I've already said that this interest doesn't a town tell make, but neither does it a scum tell. Personally, I foresee this exchange being crucial to outting scum in the (it's true, maybe not close) future. You wouldn't happen to have a problem with that, Havingfitz, now would you?

Havingfitz, do you feel that Acosmist is scum? I just want as solid an answer as you can provide, please and thank you.

How do you feel about Nacho’s end of D1 actions and play so far on D2 (I realize your end of D1 actions weren’t much better than Nacho’s)

On Nacho, more forgivable now that I'm aware that there would indeed have been a no-lynch. I think someone mentioned Nacho's vote as opportunistic? I'm not ruling it out, but I think his reasons make sense. A No-lynch D1 would have been unacceptable (particularly when we had two such strong wagons we'd only WIFOM ourselves over Today). One had claimed Doc. It's not hard to see that logic.

On my actions, at the time I thought Lawls would die as most voted anyway. Even since enlightened (on the process of a lynch in this game, not of Lawls's flip. ), I don't regret that decision. As I said at the time, Lawls's request for replacement seemed townie, but choosing to stay killed the vibe. THAT or a claimed Doc? I think it worked out for the best, because I'm fairly confident that if we hadn't lynched him Yesterday, we'd be doing it now.

and what in my play has me on par with Nacho?

Nacho was uber-helpful at the beginning Yesterday, but Today he almost seems... detached? His final vote looked suspicious to me (given my incorrect mindset). With you, I don't like this:

Coming out of D/N1 I'm leaning against Acosmist being scum...slightly against EF as scum. TBD on Ray. ATM, I'm thinking scum are within the BaB, Pan and Nacho group. Really don't like how Nacho handled the end of D1 though.

Vote: Nacho

You actually

said

that you thought Acosmist had a decent chance of being scum, then you voted Nacho. Since then, you've been embarking on a novella against Acosmist and having fits on Elementary without moving your Nacho vote. Then you somewhat abruptly decide Acosmist is town and (along with yourself) distracting the rest of town from the hunt. This feels... weird...