Newbie 982 - Shadows of Death, Game Over!

[Guybrush]

@GB: Is there a problem with me giving a small list of ideas to restart conversation? Conversation has picked up considerablysince then, don't you agree? If I really wanted to go with idea 2, don't you think I would've voted for Valk immediately after my ideas or at some point inbetween then and now?

Yes, it is a problem if it gets you lynched in the end (partially because of it) and if you flip town.
I wouldn't brag about moving the conversation if I were you, because it made you look suspicious even more.
Had our reaction to your suggestion been "Yeah. Let's vote her out. I vote: Valk", then you would've voted for Valk as well.
So again, don't brag about something you did only because of town's reaction.
You were checking for our reactions.
If we agree - you get yourself a free mislynch.
If we disagree - you say you were trying to get the conversation going.
(under assumption you're scum, and Valk is not, of course)

[Akira]

Okay I'm back: was expecting a few more pages, but I guess it's better this way (for me that is).

@Akira

I know you said to wait with questions, but here it is anyways, so it will be nice and ready when you come back:
You voted for zauper in your #188, stating your reasons in #185 (as everyone else's).
However, I (in my #178, where I analyzed you) mentioned that the case on zauper could have easily gone in your direction as well, since you did your share of agreeing with others too.
So, can you comment on why are his (zauper's) quotes of agreement different than yours that I found in my #178?
And if you thought that this is such a good reason to put a vote on someone, then how come you didn't defend from my observations in #178 about this?

Actually I never really saw myself as overly-agreeing. The agreeing argument that we've been using against zauper should have a good number of agreeing posts by the suspect (in this case zauper) to back it up, and IMO there are enough in zauper's case. Plus I didn't see him do much disagreeing either. Is 3 agreements in my case really that much? (I'm referring to your detailed read on me)
You judged my agreeing as null-tell in #178. Has this changed now?

I don't really understand your second question. I didn't defend myself because you said it was null-tell, so it looked to me as if there wasn't any need to defend myself. It would just seem stupid and scummy.

@Akira
-Early you say you believe Mafia are prudent with accusations.
-You later find Avox's tirade on 2k3 [not prudent actions] suspicious. Is this a sign that you may not have been too sure about that prudent line?
-I get that there's no rush, technically' but you've been in this game from the start, and you currently have no vote placed... fix it, please.

Let me start by welcoming you, omnino. It's good to see someone so active and dedicated has replaced Loaka.

Actually I never said that in my ISO#1. I said that they were prudent in general, not necessarily with accusations. It's different with accusations.
IMO when choosing who to accuse they're prudent and they make sure the argument they use can't be turned against them and, more importantly, can't get them voted (2k3 and Aurorus are an example). But once they choose who to accuse, and they're sure it's a good choice, they raise a pretty intense accusation.

@zauper: Do you believe I made up the V/LA? Or do you think my "BW" vote is the only thing scummy about me?

PS: Sorry for the long post, the more to re-read, the more to post, I guess.

[Guybrush]

@akira

ooBAZZoo found 4 quotes from zauper where he agreed (+ 1 backtracking).
I found 3 quotes from you where you agreed.
I'm not sure why you see it THAT different.

And, I'll say to you what I said to 2003 - when I use\borrow your logic (like I did here), then

you

need to defend it, and not me.
So that should answer your question - agreeing is a null-tell to

me

. That's why I don't find zauper that suspicious for his agreeing, nor did I find you suspicious for it.
But it is suspicious when a person who says that agreeing is suspicious has done fair share of agreeing himself.
So, I'm trying to see if you could vote yourself based on your own logic.
That's why you then should have defended, even if I stated it was a null-tell for me - because you obviously disagree.

[Akira]

@akira

ooBAZZoo found 4 quotes from zauper where he agreed (+ 1 backtracking).
I found 3 quotes from you where you agreed.
I'm not sure why you see it THAT different.

And, I'll say to you what I said to 2003 - when I use\borrow your logic (like I did here), then

you

need to defend it, and not me.
So that should answer your question - agreeing is a null-tell to

me

. That's why I don't find zauper that suspicious for his agreeing, nor did I find you suspicious for it.

But it is suspicious when a person who says that agreeing is suspicious has done fair share of agreeing himself.

So, I'm trying to see if you could vote yourself based on your own logic.
That's why you then should have defended, even if I stated it was a null-tell for me - because you obviously disagree.

I guess I didn't say anything because it's hard for me to say "That's actually a good reason for you to suspect me." It must be a personality trait, because now that I think about it, there wasn't much of a problem with stating what I thought.

But I do disagree with the bolded part of your post. I think it's actually less suspicious in that case than normal over-agreeing. If someone believes that over-agreeing is suspicious, I don't think they'd do it themselves. They would probably try to avoid it, which could lead to the opposite, which is

over-disagreeing

.

[AurorusVox]

^I found this response hilariously scummy;

I guess I didn't say anything because it's hard for me to say "That's actually a good reason for you to suspect me."

Town should have no reason to

not

acknowledge when they have done something wrong and hold their hands up and admit that they've acted suspiciously. By trying to hide that fact, and defend against a legitimate accusation even when you agree with the accusation, it just digs you into a deeper hole.

If someone believes that over-agreeing is suspicious, I don't think they'd do it themselves. They would probably try to avoid it, which could lead to the opposite, which is

over-disagreeing

.

But the point is that you've agreed three times to Zauper's four times, which isn't that different. Can you state what you think the distinction between agreeing and over-agreeing is, so that there is no confusion? Because if you've said over-agreeing is suspicious, and yet have over-agreed (which is GB's accusation), then you've got something to answer for.

Furthermore, do you think that someone "over-disagreeing" is more likely to be town or scum? I.e., do you think that scum would disagree with something, even if they believed the point to be "true"?

[Akira]

^I found this response hilariously scummy;

I guess I didn't say anything because it's hard for me to say "That's actually a good reason for you to suspect me."

Town should have no reason to

not

acknowledge when they have done something wrong and hold their hands up and admit that they've acted suspiciously. By trying to hide that fact, and defend against a legitimate accusation even when you agree with the accusation, it just digs you into a deeper hole.

That's easy for you to say when you don't quote what I said right after that. I said that I simply made a bad decision and I didn't pay much attention to that part of the post because of him calling it null-tell. For me, it was a drop in the ocean, a mere detail amongst his giant

AKIRA READ

. So I decided to ignore it. Was it really so deeply necessary for me to post my thoughts on the matter??

If someone believes that over-agreeing is suspicious, I don't think they'd do it themselves. They would probably try to avoid it, which could lead to the opposite, which is

over-disagreeing

.

But the point is that you've agreed three times to Zauper's four times, which isn't that different. Can you state what you think the distinction between agreeing and over-agreeing is, so that there is no confusion? Because if you've said over-agreeing is suspicious, and yet have over-agreed (which is GB's accusation), then you've got something to answer for.

Furthermore, do you think that someone "over-disagreeing" is more likely to be town or scum? I.e., do you think that scum would disagree with something, even if they believed the point to be "true"?

I believe that almost every user in this thread has made around 2-3 agreements in one way or another. Apart from that, his 2k3 vote by persuasion was a possible scum-tell for me, and that vote was a result of one of his agreements. I'm not looking at the mere number of agreements. That's irrelevant. What matters IMO is the actual content. Also, he often didn't back up his agreements with some supporting evidence. ("

That's a valid point, I'm not sure how to address it, honestly

"). It's hard to describe really, but I hope you get the picture.

And I believe that at this point in the game, over-disagreeing is more suspicious than over-agreeing. It's a bit like lurking and active-lurking. I'm not sure if they would disagree even with posts that appear completely true to them. I guess it depends on if they benefit from it or not. I can't properly talk about scum's habits because of my lack of experience, so I'm bound to make some mistakes.

[AurorusVox]

That's easy for you to say when you don't quote what I said right after that. I said that I simply made a bad decision and I didn't pay much attention to that part of the post because of him calling it null-tell. For me, it was a drop in the ocean, a mere detail amongst his giant

AKIRA READ

. So I decided to ignore it. Was it really so deeply necessary for me to post my thoughts on the matter??

I'm not concerned with whether or not you replied to it in detail. I'm interested in you saying that it's a problem for you to admit when you've made a mistake. Only scum have a reason to want to hide any errors that they make. You've now said you made a bad decision, so you've gotten on board with admitting your mistakes. But only after you were prompted on it, by GB and myself.

And I believe that at this point in the game, over-disagreeing is more suspicious than over-agreeing. It's a bit like lurking and active-lurking. I'm not sure if they would disagree even with posts that appear completely true to them. I guess it depends on if they benefit from it or not. I can't properly talk about scum's habits because of my lack of experience, so I'm bound to make some mistakes.

Hm. Scum will only hide their true agreement if it benefits them. When you initially tried to skim over the fact that something that you did was scummy, did that benefit you?


So, Akira; I think that your last two posts were scummy. I still don't think you're the best lynch candidate for today, at the moment, so I won't be voting for you just yet, but I'm planning on re-reading Zauper's and 2k3's recent posts when I get a chance to see if I need to re-jiggle my lynch preferences to accommodate.

----

This part of your response I have less problem with, but I'm curious.

What matters IMO is the actual content. Also, he often didn't back up his agreements with some supporting evidence. ("

That's a valid point, I'm not sure how to address it, honestly

"). It's hard to describe really, but I hope you get the picture.

I get the picture, but could you supply fragments from the rest of the posts that contribute to this feeling? You seem to have voted him for reasons already stated, without supplying many of your own (in ISO#15 when you place the vote, you even say "my reasons are the same as everyone else's"). Do you have anything of your own to add, or is it simply that you've been persuaded by others' posts?

[Haylen]

Vote Count

2K3: Zauper, Guybrush
Zauper: 2k3, ooBAZZoo, Akira
Valkyrie_Hrist: Michel
Akira: omnino

Not Voting: Valkyrie_Hrist, AVox

Deadline is Sunday 1st August 9pm GMT+1. With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch.

Akira's V/LA has been noted.

[AurorusVox]

Thinking about it, I might as well vote in the meantime. All this talk about lynch preferences has gotten me in the mindset that it's a lot closer to the deadline than it actually is.

Vote: Akira

[Haylen]

seth replaces Valkyrie_H affective immediately. Welcome him ^_^

[AurorusVox]

Hello Seth, I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Omnino - welcome and apologies about some of the lengthier posts! When you've had a chance to catch up, perhaps you can have a go at answering any of the questions aimed at Valk that you feel able to, since we all had quite a bit to ask of her.

[MichelSableheart]

Appearantly, Valkyrie won't be answering then I still would like to hear what Seth believes is the reason for her concern about my vote for Aurorus, but can't expect a complete answer.

So to get back to the discussion I cut of in #202 - #207 because we were still waiting for an answer from Valkyrie then.

When I mentioned Valkyrie's strong reaction to my vote of Aurorus, I was referring to Post #64, in particular the remark that I should retract my vote. Allthough it is true that her remark came after discussion with Guybrush over my opinions and explanations, there was absolutely no reason for her to ask me to unvote. Aurorus didn't have a lot of votes on him so he wasn't in danger of being lynched. I hadn't posted since Aurorus reply to my post #30, so I hadn't had an opportunity to unvote yet. Guybrush didn't explicitly ask Valkyrie for opinions on my vote, only on my explanation. My vote for Aurorus didn't involve her in any way. Without reason to actually mention my vote, the statement that it should be retracted strikes me as overly concerned for a different player.

[Akira]

Hm. Scum will only hide their true agreement if it benefits them. When you initially tried to skim over the fact that something that you did was scummy, did that benefit you?

What are you referring to exactly?

This part of your response I have less problem with, but I'm curious.
I get the picture, but could you supply fragments from the rest of the posts that contribute to this feeling? You seem to have voted him for reasons already stated, without supplying many of your own (in ISO#15 when you place the vote, you even say "my reasons are the same as everyone else's"). Do you have anything of your own to add, or is it simply that you've been persuaded by others' posts?

His agreeing posts are these:

I do agree that all liars are lynched.

He didn't post any kind of reason as to why he thinks that liars should be lynched.

You're voting for 2k3 because you think he's scum since he said he'd vote, and since then hasn't appeared to you to be actively looking for scum? I suppose that's reasonable. He has been active, but hasn't been talking about substance, largely.

The first sentence makes me think he's about to contradict Aurorus on his vote, but instead he ends up agreeing. It made me think that he had a problem in mind with Aurorus' vote, but decided to not post it. This post of his looks overly-cautious for my tastes.

After reading through the arguments, I have to admit that I'm persuaded by AurorusVox [... ] Vote: 2003041 (2k3)

He provided some back-up reasons here, but what seemed strange to me was that he seemed to be defending 2k3 (and attacking Aurorus) in most of the posts before this one, (ISO1, 2 and 3) but suddenly ended up being persuaded by the argument. This could also be because of an unconfident, weak personality (no offense), but it just seemed too much of a contradiction to me.

@Akira: That's a valid point. I'm not sure how to address it honestly.

I'd say this is another situation similar to the previous quote. He agrees with me on something which is against Aurorus (my ISO#9), even though he was agreeing with him during the Aurorus vs 2k3. Also, I expected him to at least lower his suspicions on 2k3 after agreeing with my post, but he didn't do anything of the sort.

This is what I think about zauper. I am now waiting for zauper to reply to my post #251. It'll help me get a better idea of why there are such problems with his posts. For now, I judged them as scummy, but it isn't crystal clear. I'd like to ask a couple of questions to confirm my theory.

[omnino]

Unvote

.

Thanks for the retort, Akira. I would like to state that Akira is no longer on my preferred lynch list. I would now only support a lynch for Akira if it was going to stop a lynchless day.

Is Zauper on V/LA or is this just a tactic to try and let the two votes on him slide in to obscurity through lurkiness? Can't find a mention of it in his ISO. He's getting plenty of mentions, but not made an appearance since the 17th...

Mod: any news on Zauper?

Not sure about voting him at the moment as he could find himself replaced soon anyway.

[AurorusVox]

In this post: I try to sort out my top four suspects into some kind of order, but fail miserably.

Akira

Akira is providing decent enough responses to warrant a lessening of suspicion on my part, but I'm not ready to unvote him until he's answered my questions. He's a slippery one, because he goes from posting small scummy posts to small townie posts in almost alternating fashion.

I guess I didn't say anything because it's hard for me to say "That's actually a good reason for you to suspect me."

I'm still referring back to this part of a previous post, where you identified a good reason for someone to suspect you, but then treated it as a null-tell.

From your last post, it would seem that you think that Zauper's agreement is suspicious in light of the extent to which he has disagreed? I.e. you think that his posts have shown him to be "against" me and my reasons, but that he used them to vote for 2k3? Would this mean that you are suggesting that someone's reads have to remain static? That their mind can't change? Or is it that Zauper's mind has changed either side of his vote, but that he hasn't unvoted? In that case, why not ask Zauper directly why he hasn't unvoted? (I've asked this question below for you)

You've said that you suspect him, and that you have your reasons. But your question in #251 is about how he sees your vote for him, not about your reasons for voting him. It seems as though you've accepted your initial reasons (reasons that others have stated before you?) as a solid given, and are now moving onto trying a new angle. Would this be a fair assessment?

Zauper

What do you feel that 2k3 has done recently to justify your vote on him? Or are you still basing your vote on his early behaviour?

After ISO'ing Zauper, his recent play seems hampered by inactivity or an inability to post regularly. I don't think it would be fruitful to try to get much out of him until he has answered some of the current questions aimed at him.

2k3

When ISO'ing 2k3, I came across something that I'd missed earlier on in the game;

3) TBQH, I don't know how to answer this, but since it's just theoretical, I think he might. Remember, your vote for me was the very first official vote of the game. I think no matter who cast the first vote, he would've tried a BW.

Actually, Michel's vote on me was the first vote of the game, but Zauper didn't try to BW on that. Does this change your argument in any way?

Because I'm wondering, if you were

really

trying to scumhunt a Zauper/Vox scumteam, why you didn't bring this fact up? By focusing on the vote on you as the first vote of the game and ignoring the earlier vote on me, you've played defensively and emotionally, not offensively and logically.

Also, I noticed this discrepancy:

@AV&GB: I'd be willing for a Valk or a zauper lynch.

I think there is a possibility that Valk is scum (she's a close 2nd right now)

If I really wanted to go with idea 2 [lynching Valkyire ~ AV's note], don't you think I would've voted for Valk immediately after my ideas or at some point inbetween then and now?

2k3, you say in one post that Valk is your close second suspect who you would be willing to lynch, but then in a later post you say that you never really wanted to lynch her. This looks like an inconsistency under pressure. Please state, point blank, if you would vote for Valkyrie, and under what conditions.

Valk

I won't comment on Valk any more until seth has had a chance to read up and post some content.

My re-jigged lynch list needs time to settle. In particular I want to see Seth's contribution and Zauper's answers to any outstanding questions we have of him. I'll also wait on 2k3's and Akira's retorts to my questions, before seeing if it needs to be reordered. I have a theory that I'll see what people think of when some of these questions have been answered.

[Akira]

In this post: I try to sort out my top four suspects into some kind of order, but fail miserably.

Akira

Akira is providing decent enough responses to warrant a lessening of suspicion on my part, but I'm not ready to unvote him until he's answered my questions. He's a slippery one, because he goes from posting small scummy posts to small townie posts in almost alternating fashion.

I guess I didn't say anything because it's hard for me to say "That's actually a good reason for you to suspect me."

I'm still referring back to this part of a previous post, where you identified a good reason for someone to suspect you, but then treated it as a null-tell.

From your last post, it would seem that you think that Zauper's agreement is suspicious in light of the extent to which he has disagreed? I.e. you think that his posts have shown him to be "against" me and my reasons, but that he used them to vote for 2k3? Would this mean that you are suggesting that someone's reads have to remain static? That their mind can't change? Or is it that Zauper's mind has changed either side of his vote, but that he hasn't unvoted? In that case, why not ask Zauper directly why he hasn't unvoted? (I've asked this question below for you)

You've said that you suspect him, and that you have your reasons. But your question in #251 is about how he sees your vote for him, not about your reasons for voting him. It seems as though you've accepted your initial reasons (reasons that others have stated before you?) as a solid given, and are now moving onto trying a new angle. Would this be a fair assessment?

I didn't think about it much, which is why I

thought

it would be better to ignore it. But I understand now that what would really have been a benefit was stating my opinion on the matter.
---
I do believe that reads can change, but I haven't seen it happen very often (in this game) so I believe zauper to be a bit more jumpy with his reads than the rest. When others had a certain opinion on someone, they kept it for at least a couple of posts, while with zauper I haven't seen it last more than one or two posts. But I'm curious to know too why his vote (or at least his opinion) on 2k3 hasn't changed.
---
I thought someone would eventually point that out. There will be some follow-up questions after that, and my current question (which, I know, seems to be a defense more than an offense) is just a way to see exactly how far he thinks I'd go if I was scum to avoid suspicion. So your assessment is truthful, because I am approaching the zauper case from a different angle.

[seth]

Hello. I'm rereading everything.

[AurorusVox]

Unvote

- I'm satisfied with Akira's response.

[ooBAZZoo]

@ Seth - Welcome. I know you've got alot to read, but could you give us an idea of your experienc playing mafia games?

@ Michel - Back in post #222 you stated:

I'm willing to support a lynch of Akira, though I don't want to push it at this moment.

Since Akira's scumminess seems to be the main topic at the moment, what were/are your reasons for finding Akira lynch-worthy? x

[ooBAZZoo]

@ Aurorus - Your recent play has struck me as suspicious. If we take your actions in the last couple of pages (and ignor your reasons) it reads like this:
#235 - Omnino votes Akira
#258 - You vote Akira
#263 - Omnino unvotes Akira
#267 - You unvote Akira
This looks a lot like a BW vote to me. Whether it makes you scum or not, I'm undecided.

---

Now if I analyse your reasons for voting
In post #256 you wrote to Akira:

I still don't think you're the best lynch candidate for today

, at the moment, so I won't be voting for you just yet, but I'm planning on re-reading Zauper's and 2k3's recent posts when I get a chance to see if I need to re-jiggle my lynch preferences to accommodate.

But in your very next post your wrote:

Thinking about it, I might as well vote in the meantime [...] vote:Akira

When you wrote post #256 who did you think was the best lynch candidate at the time?
Why then in your next post did you vote for Akira and not this person? Did your opinion change so that he became the ‘best lynch candidate’ in your mind, or was there another reason for your vote?

---

In terms of your unvote, it also strikes me as convenient that

immediately

after Omnino’s unvote you found that Akira’s answers “warrant[ed] a lessening of suspicion on [your] part”, and you the proceeded to unvote him yourself a few posts later.
Were Akira's responses really that satisfactory for you to remove a vote ynou only recently placed? x

[AurorusVox]

I wonder. Would you have found it less suspicious if I had simply

FoS

'd him?

Of course, you could see it as me copying Omnino's votes; or you could see it as Akira being suspicious for a time, and then Akira not being suspicious anymore. If he's doing something that looks scummy, then I'm going to vote for him, and it's likely that at least one other person will too - if he stops being scummy, then I have no reason to keep voting for him, and this has a good chance of being true for other people. Would you have preferred me to maintain my vote against someone who appears townie?

As for my reason for voting Akira, despite not really wanting to lynch him, it is simple; it was a pressure vote. If a vote is hanging over someone's head while they answer questions, it makes those questions carry more weight. I think you can see that it was a pressure vote because I maintained my vote until all of my questions had been answered.

In #256 I was still debating who I thought the best lynch candidate would be, between my top four suspects (this is why I said I would re-read and re-assess). So I hadn't decided on my #1, though I knew that it wasn't Akira. That's why, when Haylen posted the vote count, I got myself out of the deadline mindset and decided to opt for the pressure vote over the lynching vote. Another reason that I voted for Akira over the other four was because I thought that he would be the most likely to answer my questions quickest, since Valk was still missing and had other questions to deal with, Zauper was the same to an extent and I hadn't yet ISO'd him, and I'd just gotten through with questioning 2k3. If I haven't yet decided on who my top lynch candidate would be, I'd rather have extra pressure on my questions whilst I re-read and ISO.

As for my reasons for unvoting, there are a few;
a) My questions had been answered and the vote had served its purpose.
b) Akira again held his hands up to admit he had made a mistake
c) He has offered a different take on Zauper to justify his vote (his jumpiness)
d) He is trying to get a read on Zauper from a new, unique angle

These last three all gain Akira townie points imo. The reasons for my unvote are not sinister, but there in his post itself. What did you make of his response? It doesn't sound like you got a particularly townie vibe from it.

[seth]

Alright. I think I have a basic idea of what's going on, but a lot the posts were confusing and superficially long so bear with me. I'll try to answer any questions that you had for Valk, but I have ignored most of her posts so.

FoS: zauper

Post #54

AurorusVox: If you are questioning Bazz about his accusation, why are you supporting his accusation by voting for 2k3?

You are trying to look like you're scumhunting when you're not.

Post #57

Why do you think 2k3 is scum?

Again, trying to seem pro town.

Post #60

You're voting for 2k3 because you think he's scum since he said he'd vote, and since then hasn't appeared to you to be actively looking for scum? I suppose that's reasonable. He has been active, but hasn't been talking about substance, largely.

Clearly you can still question multiple people, but at this stage of the game it's not like there's a lot of concrete evidence to go on, so it just seems off to me.

This sounds like you're posting for the sake of posting and you don't actually have anything to contribute.

Post #93

@Akira: That's a valid point. I'm not sure how to address it, honestly.

This looks like you're creating a backdoor to latch onto Akira's FoS on Vox while at the same time you're making an excuse for maintaining your vote on 2k.

Post #100

How are you trying to hunt? The post above mine just says "I feel I've been trying to hunt". Have you been trying to hunt by not contributing to the conversation?

What questions have you been asking, and to who? Other than your back and forth with Aurorus, I don't see anything.

I'm voting for you because you say you're trying to scumhunt and I have seen 0 evidence of it.

Reiteration of what Vox had already pointed out a couple of pages back.

Post #142

I still don't see what the justification that 2k3 posted for voting for me was; other than that I had been convinced by Aurorus. (I still don't particularly see 2k3's actions to dates as being scumhunting; rather they appear to me to be the attempt of a scum to throw off suspicion on themselves).

This is bullshit, you even quoted the part where 2k explained his reasoning on you.

Post #162

@ 2k3; I'm afraid I don't see how my strategy is to 'get on everyone's good side'. I've questioned multiple people. (yourself and AV, largley).

By agreeing with everyone, which is what you had done up to that point.

-

Post 162

was towny
* Your thinking was similar to mine

-

Post 163

was scummy
* You were on the fence and not taking a stance on anything

-

Post 169

was scummy
* Again you were on the fence, you're asking a lot of questions but in the end, you're just agreeing with what other people point out and latching onto them (Vox, Akira)

- I have mixed feelings on

Post 197

* You point out that Akira was scummy for hopping onto your BW after 4 days of being out of town but you don't push him at all

You've lurked for the last few pages so I'm going to assume that you're V/LA.
The rest of your posts have been nulltells or slight towntells that are overshadowed by your lack of aggressiveness.

----

In regards to the posts on this page involving the allegations against Akira, I agree with Vox and Omnino that Akira's last few posts were townie but I sure as hell don't agree with Omnino that Akira should be given a "Pass Go" ticket out of this lynch. A couple of town posts doesn't take him off the chopping block.

[2003041]

@Seth: Welcome to our chatterfest!
@AV: 1) I didn't notice this on my re-read since I was ISO'ing, but it does kinda change that reasoning. I still beieve he was looking for a BW, but now that I think of it the vote from Michel was for you. If he BW'ed for you, that would change the whole complexion of the game because I wouldn't have had the suspicion of you and zauper being scum buddies.
2) I don't think my statements are contradictory. First off, the Valk lynch was an idea. Something to contemplate. Besides, why would I change my vote from my number one suspicion to get my number two suspicion lynched, especially when the person I'm voting for hasn't said anything to alter my suspicions in a positive way?

[Guybrush]

First of all - I'm hugely disappointed with Valk leaving, even though I got most answers from her that I wanted.
What concerns me a bit is that no one at any point expressed sharing my views about importance of her possible slip.
But I'm gonna trust my instincts & my logic - I'm going to look at it as pretending to be oblivious without supporting logic behind it.
With an interesting case of changing her attitude.

And then seth and his #271 - I didn't like it one bit.
He picked the most probable lynch candidate, and (what seems to me) went ahead with a priori assumption that zauper is scum.
I'm looking at #271 as trying too hard to present zauper as scum, and I disagree with lots of points made there.
But, let's leave the defending part to zauper (if he ever shows up).

Seth claimed he'll try to answer Valk's questions, but at the same time admitted he ignored most of her posts.
So I don't see him as someone who will be able to clear her name.
And I didn't like that he chose to accuse first, and defend later (if he ever tries that).

[AurorusVox]

You didn't answer my question. I asked you to state, outright, and you didn't.

1) I wondered if you were going to say that the fact that he didn't suggested that we were scumbuddies, and that was why he didn't BW on me. And then I would have been ready with the suggestion that it might have just meant that he simply had a better concept of the case against you, and wasn't mindlessly BWing. Strangely, you opted for neither of these. Would you have just assumed that Zauper's scumbuddy was whoever he BW'd with? Because there's a major flaw in that reasoning, which is that he could have voted along with

anyone

- he could even have voted along with you.

2) And it is contradictory, because in the first two posts you said that she was suspicious. In the last post of yours that I quoted, and in others, you have said you only brought it up to start conversations. Either you brought up her lynch because you think she's suspicious, or you brought it up just as a throwaway idea. I'm trying to see how committed you are to your suspicion of Valkyrie. And I'll tell you why.

Based on 2k3's recent play, I wonder if there might be a 2k3/Valk scumteam. As Guybrush pointed out, 2k3 has had very little to say about Valk for much of the game. And now she throws a comment out there "Oh, why don't we lynch Valk" but then back-pedals almost immediately to say that she never wanted to lynch her in the first place. It looks like scum trying to make it look as though they'd willingly lynch their buddy when they have no intention of doing so. Moreover, Valk has barely mentioned 2k3 in any of her posts.

You've climbed up my scumlist, 2k3.