Well, I tend to get concerned when I have two votes on me. I'd like to think you'd get concerned when a BW in the making is on you (and you did). I was just going to point out faulty logic and leave it at that. But if you want to play the "reiterating your actions so you don't look scummy because you're actually scum" game I can play too.
Post 33:
I didn't reveal who I found most suspicious until I saw someone else agreed (unless it was a random vote).. Why? Because I was hoping he would further confirm my suspicions by acting even scummier. I assumed by voting for him that implied Nobody Special found him suspicious as well.
Regardless, I put a second vote on someone.. So what? The first was an unexplained random vote.. Or a vote based on suspicions that weren't explained, I decided to go on that and vote as well and explain why I found him fishy. It's just the vibe I got. Which is all I have to go on at the moment, and the discussion being created.
If I had to take a guess right now I'd guess that Nobody Special is mafia with quadz. Obviously, that's a huge longshot, but that's the best longshot I see at the moment.
At this point you had 2-3 votes on yourself for your attitude, primarily. You are defending your own actions in an attempt to get people off your back.
Post 69 concerns your questions to get help as to how you should get the scumhunters off your back. And later on people were criticizing quadz for asking a very similar question - basically, "how can I act more pro-town?"
THat aside, I think I was too hasty too point out some of my suspicions. Instead of getting the discussion I wanted (And pointing out that I did find quadz to be most suss, although really it wasn't based on much but the impression I got from him) I've just got people asking me to explain myself. Nothing really to help me with my scrum hunting. But that's been my own folly, game's here follow a different structure to games I've played on other sites, and I probably should have just been a learner than someone trying to get "too involved".
And this part of that post is you explaining your actions up to that point.
In Post 70, you continue to defend your actions and attempting to get people off your back by saying that focusing on you will draw suspicion from "actual scum players." Also, I think this is when you put down your cop claim.
Post 76:
I said I had already decided what I was going to do, and was asking you what you would do to find out more, my form of "scum hunting". I wasn't going to followin anyone's advice, although chances are what I do will be what someone answers.
My questions were designed to figure out more about you guys and "scum-hunt".
Again, "reiterating your actions." Also, rereading, Post77 is starting up my scumdar again:
@Uite, I knew the bandwagon didn't exist, that was my attempt to start one.
Early lynch is a major scumtell, which a lot of people seem to have ignored. However, mallow's play, and early lynch attempt, is twenty times scummier than yours.
Let's talk about your logic (and AGar's). I have not "sat on the fence" since about Page 3. I "sat on the fence" until someone's scummy play earned my vote, in which case it was you, at first. Then mallow caused my scumdar to go off the charts so I changed my votes. Your accusations that I've "sat on the fence" too hard and are therefore scum are null. Now, quadz has tried to sit on the fence too hard, in my opinion, and you reiterate your suspicions in Post 85:
@uite, my reasons include him trying too hard to sit back on the fence. I read his posts from a scum point of view and it makes sense as to how he's trying to play it smart. He knows I'm not scum so he's not jumping onto this bandwagon, he's waiting for other people to justify it, so if he can get involved he's not responsible in any way.
He seems to point out some obvious points: ie that statement which is always true, and then adds that we should wait for dRool in case he's that "more scummy" person... He's an "experienced player" (whatver the acronym here is), if he's mafia, you have a 0/100 chance he will come in here and do something suspicious when all the heat is on me. Why you would even think he's going to come in here and turn himself into a target makes no sense.
He's pointing out how many agree with his position, and just can't stick by his own justification.
Post 84 shows you reiterating (for the third or fourth time) your suspicions of people who stay neutral.
Just browsing through these games, they can just be characterised by people staying as neutral as possible... Which seems to me ridiculous. People all just try analyze critically stuff when there's nothing there. The mafia game at it's core is a guessing game. You have to make guesses and have convictions, if everyone does everything just via neutrality and careful analysis, then you get no where. Every lynch is "justified" and mafia never have any responsibility if they do the same thing the town does. By actually posting a case against someone for little, but doing so that you don't back down, you can learn a lot more than this hurr durr DP is suss for being arrogant etc. This isn't creating any discussion or helping scum hunting at all (unless of course if I am scum). But by focusing on people for reasons people won't agree with you can learn something
People, let's be reasonable. It's Day One. Day ONE. The only evidence we have at this point against anyone are the wording of posts, attitudes, and voting patterns. No one has died yet, so we don't know alignments, and we can't assume guilt by association or vote patterns yet. People are going to be neutral, because there is just not enough evidence to convince some people by wording alone. I'm not one of them. Mallow has played an extremely scummy game so far, and a few others have as well (quadz and DP in particular). With such scummy play by these players, you can't just lynch someone based on "oh they've stayed neutral they must be scum try to blend in too hard." I consider that a scumtell if they still sit on the fence on Day 2 onward.
Post 89, this is where DP starts getting angry:
So... you're saying we shouldn't analyze, and make random guesses? That sounds like a plea from someone who knows their play doesn't stand up to analysis to me.
HAHAHA this is where I lost myself. Was laughing so hard as I read your post.. You're "GODLIKE ANALYSIS" has led the town into lynching the cop you retarded inbred.
GOOD ANALYSIS MATE
Honestly, I don't think a single person here has any idea what they're doing, no one even puts effort into their analysis. Hence the terrible poopy not making sense etc. This isn't worth my time, just lynch me.
fuck your reasoning, but I just can't take these terrible ideas like voting people for retarded reasons. A ploy? How about this, I'm the detective. Yes, game ruined. We all happy?
Here you're firing back against people who are voting against you. Apparently, I'm scum because I'm doing the same thing to you and AGar. Hypocritical logic much?
There we go. You've accused me of being a scumbag for firing back against accusations/votes and for supposedly "sitting on the fence." Your relentless attacks against me (which are hypocritical, considering you've used the same defenses as I've outlined above) cause me to draw two conclusions as to your motives:
1. You've either targeted me for a mislynch today or another day
2. You're retaliating for my earlier post
Despite the huge amount of evidence I've compiled against mallowgeno, you seem determined to attack ME? That's a scumtell to me, called the Chainsaw Defense, in which a scum partner attacks those who attack his partner. At this point I'm rather certain that mallow is scum. If he flips town, he played so scummy it's his own fault. If he flips scum, I was on the mark. Either way, stop searching for half-assed reasons to accuse me and look at who's
really
playing scummy here. Unless you already know.
Giving up a good game does not make.
