Mini 1021: Battousai's Mountaintnous Mountain Mafia (Over)

[PranaDevil]

Vote: Nexus

For it being the first time you get to play against me.

[PranaDevil]

It's not usually done, I know, but I have reason to believe we should massclaim immediately in this particular game. I'm really hoping I don't have to explain why.

Beautifully done. I had to stop for a moment before it clicked, at which point I had a good hearty laugh at that, purely because it made me stop and think. Even if you're scum I might keep you around if you keep the comedy up. .

unvote; vote: LoudmouthLee

Because I feel like a wagoning.

[PranaDevil]

I'm just used to voting like this, I think you can vote pretty much however you want as long as it's bolded (though each game is run based on the mod's rules).

[PranaDevil]

Still quite happy with where my vote is currently lying.

[PranaDevil]

Hai Xite. Can I ask why you didn't answer my wonderful question?

(more later. kthxbai)

Erm... Because everyone should suspect everyone at this stage, just some more so than others? That's what I would suggest anyway. It seems strange to say you can basically only suspect one person at a time, especially to then push that issue.

FoS: Saga

[PranaDevil]

I answered because it didn't seem like that much of a worthy question to require taking much time up over to be honest. It's page 2, so it's not as though we're going to have great reads on everyone yet. Also you just said that Xite (Who I think is male) said it was distancing anyway... so that is answering why Xite suspected them both, and it's something that scum often do as well.

[PranaDevil]

Seeing as it's not worked. I actually had somewhat of a plan in voting for you Lee. At this stage I don't think you're scum. However, an early wagon can often draw up some opportunistic scum. So I threw a vote on you, and waited to see who did what with it.

As it would appear, we didn't get any scum coming out of the woodwork to try and drive the wagon any further forward, so it has become a bit pointless. But that will explain why I deliberately ignored your comments towards me until now. To answer them would have given the game up right at the first hurdle.

unvote

I'm somewhat curious as to you thinking I was going for an honest to god quick lynch though, you seem rather "jumpy" with your actions Lee. But at the moment I'll class that as possible town getting unnerved by a vote without a reason on them as I admit I have done so in the past.

But CA is also curious, considering you are admiting to voting me solely to get a wagon going. Interesting.

FoS still resting firmly on Saga as well though.

[PranaDevil]

Bit defensive there suddenly? I merely said I found it curious and interesting. Which it is being as scum could have easily jumped on the previous wagon and obviously didn't, so if that was your intention it obviously wont be working.

Incidentally, as I say, I only said it was curious and interesting, I never said I felt you were outright scum because of it. The defensiveness based from nothing at all is noted however.

[PranaDevil]

Because you outright said you just wanted to get a wagon going. How will any mafia see that and go "ah, must be a good lynch then"? I stuck with giving no information to see if others might follow, evidently they didn't, there's a small difference in doing it, which is why I'm curious about your way of trying things.

Also, nobody really says "that was a curiously scum move" either. It was a curious move, it's neither pro-town nor anti-town, it's just curious. But why are you acting so defensively? That's what's currently rubbing me up the wrong way now. Lee I understood, he was (as it seemed) being wagoned for no reason whatsoever, and it appeared to him to be people hurrying him to a lynch, so I can understand him being defensive and agitated that he's being wagoned so heavily. You don't get that privilage.

[PranaDevil]

Lee, I picked you solely because you already had two votes on you, absolutely no other reason, at that time I had no clue if you were town or scum, just the knowledge I could get some info from not just yourself, but from others who might choose to hop on the wagon.

CA, what's wrong with a bandwagon? Nothing in essence, but there has to be a reason, throwing your vote onto absolutely everyone is helping nobody, for one you're not building a wagon by changing your vote so often because it isn't hanging around long enough to create a possible wagon. For two you've announced by your own hand that your ENTIRE reason for doing so is to find where people stand on various players... well you can not only do that without wagonning absolutely everyone, but by announcing what you are doing, you have destroyed it's effectiveness.

That was why I refused to give any more info on my voting for Lee, I couldn't give any actual reasons. I couldn't come up with any bullshit to spew to vote for him, as when I voted him I had no reason, but I wanted to make out I'd "seen something" that led me to him, hence saying the minimal at the time. The only person who did do anything was Lee himself, who jumped on the defensive fast, and as I have said, for good reason, so I feel he's possible town now.

CA is looking scummier in my eyes the longer this goes on, and... iamausername makes an exceptionally good point both with jumping onto Leech for no reason, and then the view of CA avoiding accountability for his actions. So with that in mind...

vote: ConfidAnon

[PranaDevil]

Lee, I picked you solely because you already had two votes on you, absolutely no other reason, at that time I had no clue if you were town or scum, just the knowledge I could get some info from not just yourself, but from others who might choose to hop on the wagon.

CA, what's wrong with a bandwagon? Nothing in essence, but there has to be a reason, throwing your vote onto absolutely everyone is helping nobody, for one you're not building a wagon by changing your vote so often because it isn't hanging around long enough to create a possible wagon. For two you've announced by your own hand that your ENTIRE reason for doing so is to find where people stand on various players... well you can not only do that without wagonning absolutely everyone, but by announcing what you are doing, you have destroyed it's effectiveness.
...

This is coming from the guy that posted the 3rd vote in me when the game was 6 posts old! There's nothing wrong with a bandwagon if there was a reason.... I find significant holes in your logic here.

No Lee, my logic has no holes in it, you're just not understand where I'm coming from, but let me attempt to explain.

My point is that my reason for the wagon on you Lee was to see who needlessly voted for you with absolutely no reason. Which was my reason for voting you, it wasn't to get you lynched, it was to begin a wagon to see if anyone jumped on it without question. I've seen it work in the past. It doesn't even necessarily nail scum right off the bat, however it DOES have the benefit of getting us well out of RVS. And yup... it has. Page three and RVS is in the past.

However CA's wagons had no reason because the reason he's stating is nullified the very second he states he wants to wagon for the sake of wagoning. It's interesting to note that the second that is pointed out he is strongly pushing for my lynch. I would go so far as to say that CA is actually trying to push for my lynch now because he was caught out, and can no longer hide behind the random voting.

[PranaDevil]

Not got a clue where Xite is going anymore. I don't believe Nexus is scum after that post that Xite is claiming to have seen something in. How's about giving us your information rather than expecting us to play "guess the scumminess"?

and CA, your latest post makes no sense to me, I've stated exactly what I thought at the time, and the hypocritical thing I don't get... you are wagon hopping between anyone possible and not giving chance for these wagons you claim to want to ever pick up steam. I at least gave chance to see if anyone hopped on Lee's wagon. So don't try saying my plan and your plan were the same here. Hell, I wasn't saying what my plan was when I voted, and thus completely ruining the entire purpose of the vote in the first place.

[PranaDevil]

lol what?

I don't even know where you're going with that one... it is the same, because we were both after the reactions of people. However you said you wanted to start a random wagon. That obviously shows that you had no clue if the player was scum (or knew they weren't ) and so no right minded scum would fall into that trap, as was already said it reads exceptionally like "I don't want to be responsible for my actions so I'll claim I'm voting randomly".

[PranaDevil]

Xite, want to actually show us where the scummy factor was in Nexus' post yet, or we still playing the guessing game? After all, why should I clarify anything if you can't be arsed?

[PranaDevil]

I'm not seeing it Xite, but then Nexus is playing mafia because I brought it to another forum recently, and he's jumped here to play more games too. There is zero RVS there as it stands (Everyone's scared about being lynched it would appear), so Nexus isn't used to RVS to begin with, so a 3 page RVS would be rather long to him. So it's a null tell to me purely because of current meta from the site he transferred from.

Also, we're only onto our 3rd/4th (running simultaneously) games on the other forum, and Nexus only started up in the second. So he's also pretty new, thus I'm not going to be calling stuff that is generally just noob stuff as scummy.

[PranaDevil]

Active? I thought I was being less active than normal for me considering I'm modding 2 games elsewhere, playing in two on here, and a third on another site, and was busy all of today. I guess I do have a lot of free time at the moment so, so it's not all that surprising.

Still, not surprised I'm viewed as scummy, I tend to take the view that I'd rather come off scummy initially to get discussion going, than potentially have a long drawn out RVS.

[PranaDevil]

Hadn't really noticed dalt before fitz. But the fact this isn't his first game, and he knows how he should be voting are rather concerning. It's not even a possible noob tell, just a blatant attempt to lie about being a new player. Not sure if I'm going to vote for him as it would feel more like a policy lynch (Lynch All Liars) but it's definitely shifted him up in my views of being scum.

[PranaDevil]

I'm starting to get the feeling Xite is actively searching for things to try and comment on, regardless of how small and pointless, in the interests of "scum hunting".

I also notice how CA, who is currently taking the lead in votes, is given a nod towards being town according to Xite, but no reason is given. Sly attempt to buddy, or slight attempt to convince everyone your partner is town Xite?

Also Xite, what if Nexus (or anyone to be honest) finds that the players they feel are scummy have already been commented on? Are they to then outright ignore those players and try calling someone they feel is town out as scum, despite not feeling that way towards them?

Sorry, but your demand to make a case on someone else unnerves me quite severely. It's like saying "Don't look in this direction, look somewhere else or you're scummy".

I'd be happy on either an Xite or a CA lynch right about now. I would be wholly against a Dalt one either.

[PranaDevil]

Apologies, I normally wait for the e-mail notification before checking threads these days, and never got one for this thread at all since my last post, so I've quickly caught up and I'll respond to a couple of things that stood out.

4) I don't think I ever said not me in my request. If he finds me scummy, then I wholly encourage him to try and get me lynched. Of course he's going to see my responses and have to judge from there, just like how I would expect it to be with anyone he made a case on. I just don't want any more "Oh I'm a noob, don't lynch me plox" because that, IMHO is a noobscum tell. This is my exercise for him to help him be a better player.
5) Of course you would. You're cute you know that?

4 - I didn't mean not focus on you, I meant not focus on people already being targetted, as if you're somehow trying to defend them without outright defend them, that's how it came across to me.

Regarding the EBWOP for number 5 after, yeah it was a typo, I'd be all for a Dalt lynch after that. I'm not one for an instant "Policy Lynch" as solely focusing on those will take us straight into brown trousers time. However I feel there's a huge difference between a general policy lynch of someone caught out lying, and someone who was using their lies to try and make town believe they were new and didn't really know how to play, especially when there's evidence to prove otherwise. It smells of trying to gain sympathy points and I don't like it.

Unvote
Vote: PranaDevil

I don't believe your explanation of baiting scum as a reason for starting a wagon. It's a fairly weak defense.

With that said, I'm going to be honest with you all. I will not be very useful to you all until there has been at least one lynch. I am not good at picking out textual tells and analyzing posts.

Right, so there's a little pressure on you from others, not even votes yet, and yet you come rushing in and vote me citing that you don't believe my explanation of baiting scum? It's not exactly like I'm the only person who does it. I picked up the idea from RayFrost in fact when I played a newbie game with him, I wound up hating RVS so I'll do what needs to be done to get out of it, even if that makes me look a little scummy to begin with. Much better that than spending 5 or so pages doing nothing but joking about. I'd rather get straight in there.

However, you follow that up immediately with you saying you're not good at picking out textual tells or analyzing posts. So you vote me, state a reason, and then basically admit your reasoning wouldn't be good anyway? Wha?

Not to mention the fact you didn't pay close enough attention to get a good Voting list (Hell, you had Lee voting for himself in the first one).

Now... onto Nexus.

Much as I think you seem to be a stand up bloke, in this game you're beginning to small a bit of scum. You're using phrases like Tunnelling when at this stage I honestly don't think anyone has. Xite has, indeed, focused on you a fair bit, but he's looking elsewhere too. So that's not tunelling, and that would be the absolute closest player you could even attempt it on as he's been pointing out stuff you've said for a while. Then you've used OMGUS, which doesn't really work if the person has a reason for voting you beyond "He voted me!".

Finally though, the reason your vote was still on Lee... you "forgot" to remove it, but yet it was done to see how he reacted? Sorry you can't have it both ways.

[PranaDevil]

I wasn't going to mention Dalt going MIA, because I pretty much did yesterday, and I don't want things to come across in a hypocritical manner. It is possible the site decided to have a temporary hiccup and Dalt was waiting like I was, but c'mon, by now he should've checked the thread. Same goes for CA, I hadn't really noticed his disappearance until iam's post, but yeah... what gives guys? Heat hits and you go running?

My vote's staying on CA though. especially after iam's point about him not only going MIA and pointing out he stated he was pushing for a lynch, only to suddenly go back on that and claim he wasn't pushing for a lynch.

[PranaDevil]

An hour IS a short timeframe... especially when you've already stated that random voting "this many people" "accomplishes nothing", only to random vote someone who again isn't already being voted for.

Nothing of signifigance was posted in that time either. Just 3 posts, one being Commie responding to the "commie hate" you jokingly responding to it, and Leech posting his joke vote.

The fact you are seemingly so defensive of it doesn't smell right, and the contradiction in your posts is obvious.

[PranaDevil]

Another thing you're ignoring is my reason for not voting in the first post.

Alright, I'll bite. What part of your post, the entirety of which is quoted below, gave a reason for not voting?

Just a little Vote Count, the contents of which I find odd:

Prana (1/7) [Lee]
Lee (3/7) [Nexus, Anon, prana]
commie (2/7) (username, Xite)
Dalt (1/7) [Saga]
username (1/7) [having]

That's freaking crazy and random voting this many people accomplishes nothing.

Observations:
- username didn't realize that this game was all vanilla, probably an innocent mistaske but I'm keeping my eye on him/her
- Lee attempting to explain away the random vote thing and giving evidence to substantiate this is trying too hard. A simple "this is how we did it in the day" would have sufficed.
- Having also didn't read that there are no roles in this game, again keeping my eye on.
- Lee is getting pretty defensive, I'm saying that he's town for now.

Will refrain from voting for now.

[PranaDevil]

Okies, how'd that quote block in my post get stuffed up? Both quotes should be from Korashk, bad, stupid quoting fail.

Note to self, don't try posting late at night when you're half asleep, you look like a tit.

[PranaDevil]

Okay, I was letting Nexus and Lat have their debate, and seeing what I could get from it. Nexus appears somewhat scummy to me, but I'm still not sure if he's outright scum, or it's because he's not used to the seriousness of this site. So I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Dalt is still suspect, I'll give him a pass on the fact it wasn't a full game he played before as he replaced out. However an activity post and nothing more is always suspect from where I sit. I want to hear Dalt's comments on everything that's gone on, most noteably everything regarding him.

However, by default that means havingfitz shoots up my suspect list. I'll admit to not actively checking the game Dalt was in until it was pointed out, because I honestly didn't think someone would stretch so far as to link to a game someone replaced out of in short order, and while it still supports Dalt knowing how to vote. I think it makes HF look scummy to be trying to portray Dalt as a liar.

I'm still not liking CA's reasoning so much, because if he were trying to do what he says he was he would have known pointing out what he was trying to do would also have got him nowhere, and it smells more like not wanting to be responsible for his votes.

However, one thing I DO like from CA, and it's made me look in that direction more, is his comment on Korashk, which stands out to me even more so after he claimed he had a reason to not vote initially, despite never actually posting one, but yet somehow claiming he had to discredit what I was saying.

So for now...

unvote; vote: Korashk

CA looks scummy to me a little, but Korashk is saying more by not saying anything at all after he was called out on that point, and I think he was hoping it would blow over by the time he returned. I'd like to see more pressure on Korashk.

[PranaDevil]

Llama, don't know if you're planning on doing so, however I'd like you to also give opinions on Korashk as you read through as though he were just another player in the game.

[PranaDevil]

Dalt is still suspect, I'll give him a pass on the fact it wasn't a full game he played before as he replaced out. However an activity post and nothing more is always suspect from where I sit. I want to hear Dalt's comments on everything that's gone on, most noteably everything regarding him.

However, by default that means havingfitz shoots up my suspect list. I'll admit to not actively checking the game Dalt was in until it was pointed out, because I honestly didn't think someone would stretch so far as to link to a game someone replaced out of in short order, and while it still supports Dalt knowing how to vote. I think it makes HF look scummy to be trying to portray Dalt as a liar.

How am I trying to portray him as anything? A fact is a fact. People can make excuses for dalt’s post in this game compared to his past but I have stated nothing but the truth. In post 100 you were suspicious of him as well after I made my points on him. So how am I now shooting up your list of suspects?

Right, where do I begin?

I initially took your word at it's face value, I assumed if you'd gone to the trouble to look at Dalt's history you would have done so in depth, I saw no reason to check your reasoning. I've since realized to never do that and to always, always check. Reason being the following:

It's been revealed that Dalt replaced out very quickly, this means he may not remember so much about how things are done here.

It's also been proven that the game was, if I remember it rightly (it's 12:30am, and I'm not going to check), TWO years ago. That's a long time to be remembering something you barely looked at.

Despite evidence pointing this out, you have still decided to pursue Dalt, something I really don't like. Dalt may be somewhat scummy for his disappearing act, especially as he HAS said he plays elsewhere, which means he must enjoy Mafia. But that doesn't change that everything else isn't that scummy, he may have forgotten he had signed up, or just deliberately chosen not to mention that game as he felt we'd react badly. Which is a fair point. (If he was here, I'd let him answer, he's not, so I'm going to have to think of possible reasons that prove you shouldn't just assume someone is lying) Why did he not know how to vote? Perhaps where he plays they don't type vote in bold letters, perhaps they just bold the name of the player they're voting for? You are assuming every site plays the same as this one and they don't.

So basically, your arguments don't hold water, and thus they are invalid, the fact you continue pushing them despite people pointing this out makes you scummy, and look desperate to try and convince people you are right.

[PranaDevil]

Lat, I actually never thought he would take my view quite so literally if that's what happened. I think he meant that we had to add the : between vote and the player we were voting for, mainly because I've always had to put vote first. So if he thought I meant "just bold the name and that's it" he took me at my wording a bit too literally. Though it does stand out further and make HF scummier.

[PranaDevil]

They're invalid because you are looking at them in a black and white "he's lying or not" position. You're ignoring (deliberately or otherwise) the huge shades of grey in between.

I'm not saying he wasn't lying, but I'm pointing out that to say he 100% definitely was it ridiculous.

Also, how do you know he remembered his password? I use this name on a couple of other forums so if I went back to one I'd previously signed up to, but used a different password I'd have to e-mail to get it resent to me. Or perhaps he uses the same password for everything? These are the shades of grey I'm talking about.

[PranaDevil]

OK...you admit he lied. You don't think he was 100% lying (shaking my head). What % would you assign to his lie and what % of a lie do you find objectionable?

Buggered if I know in regards to percentages, I have no clue if he deliberately lied or not, I'm just pointing out to claim he deliberately lied is to paint him scummy for your own ends, and to not actually consider all possibilities, which we, as town, should be doing.

I did not think of the password email reset possibility but whether he uses the same one all the time or had a new one sent to him, that doesn't take away the fact he at least recalled he had an existing account...which negates the comment you made about him forgetting he had signed up. The fact he had an existing account would indicate to most people that they had participated in activities here which goes against what he said in his first post (that lie thing again).

Okay, now assume he uses the same username on every forum he goes on, and forgets he's signed up here before, and goes to create an account and is told the username already exists...

See where I'm coming from here? His next action is "Oh, have I already signed up here before? I wonder..." tada.

It's called seeing things from all angles, sure, there's a chance he's lying. But considering it's a huge 2 year gap there's much more chance of him not lying and your blatant refusal to see anything beyond that lie makes you scummy, but not as scummy as...

Hey guys, I would like to call to your attention that Korashk posted just yesterday in his other game.

Can we get some votes on him?

You mean the guy who replaced out and is no longer playing this game? Vote switch time.

unvote; vote: CA

At least pretend to pay attention to what's going on.

[PranaDevil]

HF, it can be disputed, as I'm not the only one disputing that he's not actually lying.

There is a huge difference between not being sure/being forgetful, and outright lying.

Things aren't set black and white, you are deliberately ignoring the fact there are other potential factors, everyone is pointing this out, and you're sitting there with your fingers in your ears ignoring everything people are saying, convinced you are right.

[PranaDevil]

Did dalt lie? Not looking for rationalization...just a yes or no answer.

Not a clue, like I say, shades of grey, stop looking at this as a black and white situation for a change

Could dalt have completely forgotten the fact he had played on the site before? This would require him not remembering he had an account (which he is using) and a password (which he either remebered or had reset).

Yes, did you ignore my point about some people use the same name on all forums they are on?
But as you seem insistant on outright ignoring that point, I'll quote it here:

Okay, now assume he uses the same username on every forum he goes on, and forgets he's signed up here before, and goes to create an account and is told the username already exists...

See where I'm coming from here? His next action is "Oh, have I already signed up here before? I wonder..." tada.

If dalt did recall that he had an account and therefore had probably done something on the site before (and what do we do on this site?????)...then what non-lie reason could he have for claiming this as the first time he had played here?

You mean apart from the fact that (as someone else brought up) he didn't want us to believe he was a flake right from the offset? Yeah, that would be a lie even if he forgot he had an account as once he realized he had and got a password reset/used the password he normally uses for stuff, he'd be able to check what he's done before, or at least know he's been on the site before.

But does the last one make him scummy? No, not in the slightest, it makes him a human who doesn't want us to see him as an asshole before we get started.

You are blatantly trying to stretch one exceptionally tiny issue into something massive here and I'm really not liking it.

[PranaDevil]

217 (PD) - I do not even know what you want here from me. Saying that my predecessor was not that great of a player? If so, Korashk was not a very good player.

I meant more along the lines of whether you find any of his posts scummy or not, and what you feel about his dialogue with other players.

[PranaDevil]

I'm also wondering whether we might get a bit more from Prana.

Let me know what you want me to comment on and I'll give an opinion, I'm just not seeing a great deal to comment on. When I do see something I do comment (As you'll have noticed) but when I'm seeing arguments where I don't really have strong feelings either way I find it better to watch and see where things go so I can get a read of the situation and of the players involved. But I'm more than happy to comment on anything if you let me know what you want my view on.

[PranaDevil]

I don't like giving my thoughts on everyone, it gives the scum the ability to see where they currently lie in the grand scheme of things. However most likely to be scum for me are CA, Llama (based on Korashk's play), and HF. In no particular order.

[PranaDevil]

Leech needs to post more.

Iam seems to be scum hunting, posting regularly, and generally asking questions when he sees they need asking. I'm liking his play at the moment.

[PranaDevil]

I'm sure Leech or Prana could elaborate for him on it.

And everyone else, and don't make it seem bad that everyone else could see huge gaping holes in your case because you were too busy being narrow minded on it.

[PranaDevil]

Does that mean Dalt is a dolt?

I'll get my coat.

[PranaDevil]

9 – Prana (first to claim on iamausername’s massclaim list) states that iamausername post was not a serious post. Does not claim. No evidence that he understood the setup from first post.

Exsqueeze me? No evidence that I understood the set-up? You mean beyond thinking iam was joking about claiming, thus quite obviously showing that I found it funny BECAUSE everyone would be going "I'm Vanilla, how's about you?" Nope, no evidence there, no siree.

48 – Prana unvotes LML, and states that his vote on LML was an insincere puch to get scum to vote for LML. Says that it didn’t work. Fails to state why he thinks that LML was town, or why his plan didn’t work.

From his reactions to my "accusing" him. He was obviously frustrated that he was getting heat that early on. Scum would've been more inclined (in my experience) to be laid back about it and shrug it off that early on. Town want to know why there's a quick wagon on them for no reason. It's got nothing to do with whether I felt he was town when I voted for him, I've made that point quite clear.

As for why the plan didn't work, no bugger fell for it and hopped on the wagon, that's why. I thought all of this was quite obvious at this stage of the day?

FoS: Wendy

Not liking the play at the moment. I don't mind coming in and looking everyone over, but I would expect there to be more scrutiny in things, and not just firing off at everything without properly paying attention to it.

[PranaDevil]

His gambit failed to catch scum due to your play. I assumed that you did not understand. To be clear: you knew the setup on page one? Why didn't you go along with the massclaim after iamausername stated that he was serious?

No, sorry, his gambit "failed to catch scum" because I don't think it was a worthwhile gambit. Scum early on would play safe and claim vanilla. Which means unless scum were the last two to claim they would have to have been a complete dolt (dalt?) to make that mistake in a normal game, let alone a game like this where everything is staring you in the face.

[PranaDevil]

Wendy, this is your first game surely, as I'm getting a strong sense of not paying attention to things coming from you at the moment.

At the start I thought he was joking, thus I posted saying so.

When he responded to it I had no idea where he was going, so no, I didn't "understand the goal" of it. In fact I've never once said I understood the goal of it until he said what the goal was, so thanks for putting words in my mouth there.

My vote on LML was, as I have repeatedly stated, a gambit to catch scum myself, it failed miserably but alas it has worked in the past and was worth a shot.

But basically your entire case on me is the following:

iam tried a gambit, I thought it was a joke, he said it wasn't, I chose not to role claim anyway.

Right? That's your ENTIRE case on me... of everything that's been said in the game, of every scummy comment made, of which there have been a few (and some of them by me early on in an attempt to lure out scum, like I've already said previously, multiple times), what stands out to you is I didn't follow a single player's gambit when I didn't even understand their gambit at the time?

Sounds to me like you are blowing something out of proportion for the sake of it to me in an attempt to look like you're scum hunting.

[PranaDevil]

so you didn't understand his gambit at post 8? then once he made his "It wasn't a joke" post at post 12 you did understand?

Why did you choose to not go along with it? Why didn't you claim?

What the? Read what I'm saying, namely this:

"In fact I've never once said I understood the goal of it until he said what the goal was, so thanks for putting words in my mouth there."

He damned sure didn't say what the goal of it was in post 12. Please to be not putting words in my mouth any longer.

2 questions for everyone that didn't replace in:
at which post number in the thread did you understand that this setup was open, with 2 vanilla scum and 10 vanilla town?

When it was announced in the Sign Up thread, so before the game had even began.

at which post number in the thread did you understand that the goal of iamausername's post at post #8 was to catch scum claiming power roles?

Buggered if I know, and I'm not about to go check just because you wish to tunnel on me for some god awful reason. But here's a hint, it's a damned sight later than post 12.

[PranaDevil]

I strongly advise a harsh dose of comedy Wendy.

I thought a JOKE was beautifully done. I wondered why he wanted us to claim and then realized "Ah, it's an all Vanilla claim, he's pissing about, clever".

So I thought his goal was to crack a joke in the RVS.

I felt I made that blindingly obvious at the time what with the "I had a good hearty laugh at that" line.

Now are you going to try scum hunting or are you destined to just distract town by tunnelling on me over a completely pointless issue? Because if it's the second one I may well vote for you on principle so we can get you out of the way and get on with some real scum hunting here. (Not to mention while I may have been arguing Dalt's case, it didn't mean I felt he was town, I just felt he didn't deserve to be run into the ground like HF appeared to be doing. But two players not helping town in the same slot is rather curious in my view).

[PranaDevil]

I've been watching proceedings, and I do comment when I see something I feel requires comment. But in the past I've responded to almost everything and cluttered up the thread with needless banter when being a bit quieter would have benefitted the town as a whole, leaving my comments to when they are required.

Regarding my vote on CA, as it stands I still feel he's likely scum. His early wagon pushing and claiming he was trying a gambit (despite announcing said gambit when he was placing the votes) didn't sit well with me. Along with his statement of wanting to hear more from Korashk not long after he had been replaced made me feel he wasn't following the game properly, which in turn suggests he's scum not paying too much attention. (Had he been aware Korashk had been replaced I feel he would have said "whoever has replaced Korashk" or "Korashk's slot" not just plain "Korashk")

I'm really not liking Wendy's play, though whether she's scum or not I'm unsure about. I could be getting a bad feeling because she's painting my early game comments as scummy despite ignoring the obvious with it. It could just be noob play focusing on one thing and ignoring everything else.

HF is also scummy to me still. If only because he was pushing Dalt heavily despite him not being here. It feels like he was hoping for an easy lynch and got stuck arguing it when nobody felt it was the way to go.

As for why I'm not pushing CA. Because at the moment I'm not entirely sure exactly who is scum, that's why I'm keeping an eye on who's saying what, seeing if there's two people backing each other up regularly, or if anything stands out, and when something stands out I do mention it. I just feel a lot of things brought up about people haven't been as scummy as they've been made out.

But I have previously stated I'm more than happy to respond to anything anyone wishes to ask of me. So if there is anything you want to direct me to feel free.

[PranaDevil]

Well I highly doubt half of the players in the game are scum. Though I do get where you are coming from, it's possible people saw my point that I tried a gambit and latched onto it as an excuse to act scummy.

It's one thing to begin the game, get discussion going, and hopefully nab scum in the early game, but for others to latch onto it does seem strange. So no, no FoS from me, I like the thinking, it's not something I'd thought about before.

[PranaDevil]

Actually I've always said just because Dalt was a noob it didn't mean he wasn't scum. Wendy's play just increases the possibility for that slot, as I can't see two people in that slot making a right hash job of things.

As for the question, doesn't really change my opinion of his play so much. As I was more trying to show the shades of grey, his play what little of it there was, was god awful no matter how you sliced it. I just don't like to see someone getting slammed for something in a "black and white" type of scenario when it's more likely a shade of grey in the middle.

[PranaDevil]

I still don't understand why you decided against claiming. What would it have hurt?

Why did you choose not to cooperate with a ploy that could catch scum, after he said that he was serious?

Because even when he said he wasn't joking, it still felt like he was just deadpanning his joke. It was RVS, and as Leech has said, plenty of people joke around in it. I generally hate RVS in general but I do appreciate a good gag as good as the next guy (normally more so in fact) so it seemed like a good line to me.

But I'm with LmL on this one. Wendy's been pushing pointless topics since she entered, has jumped over anyone who so much as looks in her direction and given no true solid reasoning for her actions, while continuing to flog a dead horse when it had died prior to her entering the game.

unvote; vote: tomorrow wendy

[PranaDevil]

"I have an un-outed alt with less than 1,000 game posts prepared to replace into a single game on some date after August 11th. Can you spot my alt?"
Yes, Wendy, we can.

[PranaDevil]

FWIW nolynch today is optimal for town. at some point we will have to get of of evens (NL @ 4 alive with 1 scum remain is really rough for town, and each day we wait until then yields a slight loss of expected win %)

While I agree at some point we could do with a No Lynch to even out the numbers properly, I don't feel Day 1 is EVER the day to do it, as you lose information from the lynch, and leads to day 2 with no information beyond who died. I don't like that.

However, I also don't wish to get stuck discussing that point as it's Mafia Theory, and will distract town as a whole.

[PranaDevil]

Lat, first when you request someone to respond to questions can I strongly advise repeating them so they don't need to search to find them? Anyway, questions answered below:

1. What do you think about the Lateralus / Nexus situation

Overblown to be honest, looks to me like two town arguing back and forth.

2. Your current views on Korashk/LlamaFluff?

Possible scum, though that's still focused mainly on my feelings towards Korashk, Llama's been pretty neutral play wise. At this point I wouldn't like to see a lynch on him.

3. What do you think about the Lateralus / Xite situation?

I don't really see a Lat/Xite situation at this point, more a lot of people pointing out a fair few flaws in Xite's play. With Leech's recent post pointing out Xite stuffed up Iam's gambit, and by his own admission, knowingly did so (unless he wishes to backtrack the statement that he knew what the gambit was). Followed with his most recent posting where he's basically saying Leech should only find him scummy if he also votes him. Thus suggesting we should all be vote hopping anytime someone says something we deem scummy. So right now I'd be all for a Xite lynch.

4. Any other suspicians or alternates to who could be scum if fitz turns up town?

Think I've answered this a few times, but while I still find HF scummy, I also find Adendy and Xite scummy, and obviously CA as I only recently removed my vote from him thanks to Wendy pissing all over her/his own shoes with the self voting and sudden voting (and pushing) for a No Lynch on day 1.

[PranaDevil]

I much prefer Nightwolf's view on the No Lynch situation. No Lynching just before MyLo is the best course of action. No Lynching now gains us nothing of use for tomorrow and leaves us in much the same spot we are now.

Today we are lynching, that's the general consensus, and thus I think the discussion has run it's course.

Also, deadline is just 4 days away, so we need to make a decision, as it stands it's increasingly looking like the options are Wendy or Xite at the moment. Personally I'd rather Wendy (and it appears 3 others do too), however I'd be happy with a Xite lynch too at this stage. Either way we need to start making our decisions soon.

@Mod

Can we get the deadline posted with the vote counts as well? Having to check back to find it is tiresome.

[PranaDevil]

Besides, Prana needed a good poke.

It's been a year.

[PranaDevil]

If you're scum, we'd like to thank you very much for making it easy.

However it is suspicious, as surely even if wendy is scum, he could have done a much better job? Getting classed as scummy to that extent is poor play whether you're scum or town. Not just if you're town... so I'm wondering if HF knows something the rest of us don't?

I'm still suspicious as hell of Wendy, but that HF line makes me wonder a lot.

[PranaDevil]

1) Why/How do you have Town reads on TW, Lat and Wolf?

This gets explained when I have not been drinking. Town tells are mostly gut mixed with weak tells though. Are you challenging any of these town reads?

Being as LmL is voting wendy, I'd have said that one went without saying. I don't feel wendy is town either. The sudden vote hopping, the almost deliberately acting scummy play... it's not town behaviour in my view.

[PranaDevil]

Actually I've not too long ago said CA is still one of my picks as likely scum. I just feel that Wendy or Xite are stronger and better lynches today.

[PranaDevil]

Can we move away from the No Lynch discussion? I'm getting annoyed at the fact you are deliberately trying to distract the town by dragging it up seemingly every post. We are not no lynching, we have already decided that as a group, it is not optimal play, and it is only going to distract from honest to god scum hunting. The only reason someone would want to continue pushing something when it has long since been decided it's a waste of time discussing it at this stage is to deliberately distract town from the actual scum hunting they are trying to do.

[PranaDevil]

Okay wendy, I've just had a glance over HF's posts in ISO and cann't see any discussion about a day 2 no lynch. Please show me where he's done so.

[PranaDevil]

Okay... HF has posted nothing there suggesting we have a Day 2 No Lynch, and you are putting words in his mouth.

You are suggesting that it would be optimal play to No Lynch tomorrow (you're wrong again, someone else already suggested the ideal time for that is 1 day from MyLo, which isn't day 2).

So not only are you content with attempting to keep everyone focused on trying to No Lynch, despite the fact it's been routinely pointed out that it's not happening, and that it isn't optimal (it isn't), even by your own words (which is what HF was actually getting at there, namely you need 2 flips to work off, and that happens faster by lynching today anyway, thus contradicting yourself). But you're also attempting to claim HF has said something he hasn't?

Thanks to that I'm now much less concerned about HF being scum, but as good as certain you are. So thanks for that at any road.

[PranaDevil]

FFS, please reread it. He was asking "How so" in reply to "if we do that then no-lynch becomes optimal on day 2, and informed scumhunting still doesn't begin until day 3."

I still don't see it, it just seemed to me to be him arguing against the fact a No Lynch is optimal this early... which is solely what you are suggesting, and I'm still stating, point blank, you are wrong. It's not optimal this early because it gives us nothing to work off.

That's also the last I'm saying on the subject. This entire Lynch or No Lynch discussion is absolutely ridiculous and is distracting, and a waste of time as well, outside of the fact it's making me more and more want to see wendy lynched for pushing it.

[PranaDevil]

Okay... first, HF, don't worry about a no lynch, in the rules we have:

16) At deadline, the player with the most votes is lynched. If there is a tie, the player who had the most votes first will be lynched.

Now, wendy... I'm sorry, but dragging up ONGOING games is just throwing stuff to see if it sticks. The worst bit about it is that you're playing that fine line between discussing ongoing games, and just mentioning there IS one.

The problem is not a single other player can comment on those games WITHOUT getting mod killed. Which, as far as I'm concerned, is a scummy trick to try and eliminate some competition early on before you get lynched and thus buy whoever your partner is some free time.

Sorry, but drag up previous meta by all means (I still don't like it as a defence, but whatever), but don't drag up ongoing games. At best it's anti-town as it's potentially making people comment ON said game, at worst it's scummy. Either way it's bad play.

So yeah. I'm all, 100%, for the wendy lynch.

[PranaDevil]

Except those two players (Of which I'm one) CANNOT comment on Xite's playstyle between the games without being mod-killed. Thus it's still pointless. Yes, Xite is questionable in this game, and it's this game I'm using to judge it. Not previous ones.

And warning or not, how is anyone meant to make USE of the meta without referencing ongoing games? They can't, thus you've posted the warning to be able to do what you've just done "But I told them not to reference them" while at the same time saying "hey, look at this ongoing meta we can use".

Sorry, but it doesn't add up however it's sliced.

[PranaDevil]

Except those two players (Of which I'm one) CANNOT comment on Xite's playstyle between the games without being mod-killed.

IIRC, you are only in one shared game with him. Which one was it?

Popularity.

I expected that llamafluff and CA would have enough experience with his play to have a basis for an informed opinion of his alignment in this game.

was i wrong? Do you have more experience with Xite than one game? Has alignment been mod-revealed in those games?

Just one game, and stop trying to push for me to reveal information on it. Sorry, not happening. The game is ONGOING. Thus even suggesting his flip is, as far as I'm concerned, grounds for potential mod-removal. You're also forgetting that a lot of factors go into things, such as if you're scum, who your buddies are, and if you're town, who the scum is, and who else is in the game. Different factors change certain issues. Sorry, but you're not drawing me into your trap.

And warning or not, how is anyone meant to make USE of the meta without referencing ongoing games? They can't, thus you've posted the warning to be able to do what you've just done "But I told them not to reference them" while at the same time saying "hey, look at this ongoing meta we can use".

one of which is currently in Night one, and the mod just revealed his alignment as MAFIA earlier this week! Dood, you should look at it.

Or how's about "dood" you should stop trying to make people reference ONGOING GAMES?

That's the very last I'm going to comment on the ongoing games bullcrap.

So far you've drawn people in with useless images, self voting for no reason (bollocks to your claimed reason), tried to distract town with a pointless Day 1 no lynch which outright contradicts your requirement for needing 2 flips to be able to start scum hunting (a no lynch on day 1 means you have to wait until day THREE for those two flips, when it's actually 3 flips... talk about contradicting yourself), and now you are trying to get people modkilled by referencing ongoing games.

At this stage I couldn't care less what you have to say in your defence, you're scum. My vote will be staying on you, and I have no reason whatsoever to remove it, as nothing can top what I've seen from you.

[PranaDevil]

FFS, I even typed out "if we do that then no-lynch becomes optimal on day 2, and informed scumhunting still doesn't begin until day 3" in post 422. .

I know, I saw you type it out, I also stated you were completely wrong and that if we go for a no lynch (which is a good idea) EARLY GAME IS A STUPID TIME TO DO IT.

I can't even remember who originally said it (I want to say Wolf, but could be wrong), but the optimal time is the lynch before MyLo, anytime before that is just throwing away information (you said you need two flips, yet want to go for three, WHAT?!), anytime after that is giving the game up.

You have made no sense, have basically gone this road of you're right and everyone else is wrong, and are knowingly, and deliberately trying to distract town. You're scum.

[PranaDevil]

Except you don't need to no lynch day 2, do you? You could no lynch later in the game, as in just before MyLo, thus you are contradicting yourself AND being wrong about it all in one swoop.

This is my complaint with you, you're basically sticking your fingers in your ear and going "lalalala" to anyone elses view that a no lynch this early is a shit idea (it is). How's about dropping the entire No Lynch crap this early and realizing that Day 2 we'll have two flips, and can start making those informed decisions you are so high on, while also agreeing to No Lynch the day before MyLo.

The reason you wont is because you're scum, and you say you will have a better idea of who scum is after two flips. In that case why would you want THREE flips before that point when, by your own admission, after two you can actually start going after the scum? If we hit scum Day 2 then the No Lynch becomes an exceptionally stupid effing idea until much, much later in the game doesn't it?

[PranaDevil]

Except that only works if you Quick No Lynch at the beginning, by this point in Day 1 scum already know who the biggest threats are. They already know who is thinking things through well enough to get rid of, so your statement holds no water.

Scum are't about to kill the person posing no threat to them at all are they? They'll hit the person posing a decent threat. They already know who this is at this point, and if they don't then the scum are idiots who will out themselves anyway.

So, as I say, your statement holds no water, and it doesn't "differ by a day" unless we mislynch Day 2. According to your own statement you work better with 2 flips, that's Day 2 if we lynch now, and more information in total. So sorry, but your reasoning is wrong.

[PranaDevil]

They already know who is thinking things through well enough to get rid of, so your statement holds no water.

then why vote to lynch me if you know scum will want to nk me?

lol

Scum are't about to kill the person posing no threat to them at all are they? They'll hit the person posing a decent threat. They already know who this is at this point, and if they don't then the scum are idiots who will out themselves anyway.

so why are you voting for a player who would be obvious NK bait later in the game?

lol again.

So, as I say, your statement holds no water, and it doesn't "differ by a day" unless we mislynch Day 2.

what are the odds of that? Please demonstrate your fluency with game theory by showing your work.

You expect me to spend my free time number crunching? Yeah... smeg off.

Seriously, I'm sick of this moronic argument, you are distracting town.

@Everyone, please to be lynching wendy now, thankies.

[PranaDevil]

Hm, it's nice to see you're serious now tw, and it looks like Prana's getting a little angry.

Not so much angry, just frustrated that wendy is so deliberately trying to derail actual scum hunting in favour of unusable meta and game theory discussion.

Prana and Xite, what do the two of you think of each other?

Not got a strong read on Xite, and will need to do an ISO to check him, so will do that come next day phase. I do feel there have been some questionable comments from him as I've seen them pointed out by others. Just at this stage I feel wendy is easily the best lynch for the day.

And now wendy has decided to call everyone idiots, and is playing an Appeal To Emotion card.

If we were playing scum tell bingo I'd have a full house by now off wendy alone I'm sure.

[PranaDevil]

you gave us a triple helping of WIFOM which wasn't requested, a large dose of distracting via Mafia Theory, and a side order of a mental breakdown.

[PranaDevil]

Because... I don't have time now perhaps? You think I spend all day every day on here or something? Seriously? I'm actually busy today, so I'm just flicking over when I get an e-mail to say there's a new message, I don't have the time to dedicate to a full ISO check.

[PranaDevil]

If that was you putting time and effort into this game, I'd hate to see you just meandering along.

As for Xite, I don't know, most of the recent game has been wendy distracting the fuck outta me because I've been stuck arguing the second most stupid and ridiculous argument I've ever been a part of on this site (and 3rd overall).

[PranaDevil]

Nexus. CA I can somewhat understand as he's rarely been about for ages. wendy I agree with on though. Lots of distracting, deliberately preventing scum hunting and now, because he's unable to get what he wants he runs off hoping to keep his slot alive for his scum buddy, and I'm not buying it.

I'll be rather pissed if people allow him to get away with that.

[PranaDevil]

If by worthwhile you mean "showed us obvscum" then I agree. However I definitely agree on your second point.

All wendy has done, as far as I'm concerned, is make a lot of noise and do nothing of worth. He needs to be the day 1 lynch.

[PranaDevil]

Llama, seriously check over wendy's current posts, I see absolutely no reason to leave her in the game. Xite I may not have a strong read one way or the other, but the fact that he's not done anything so overtly scummy that I was instantly drawn to it tells me he's not the best lynch for the day and that wendy is, mainly because wendy HAS done a ton of stuff that's so scummy that I've seen less scummy scum.

[PranaDevil]

Okay, I saw this this morning, and have just walked in and have a few things to do before I can give it a reread (I'll aim to do so tonight, but if it winds up being tomorrow, so be it).

But my first views are that focusing on who wendy was suspicious of is pointless because it was inHim entering the game and he may have had a totally different view on how things are. (Plus focusing on who the dead was suspicious of opens up WIFOM and we don't want to head down that route anyway unless it's scum trying to create confusion).

Regarding wolf's question to me about CA and Fitz.

I still feel both are somewhat scummy, but I'll be able to expand further (or perhaps get new insight into both players) during my reread.

Regarding the No Lynch, I'm still in favour of the "day before MyLo" viewpoint from before. It gives us the most chance to gather information (which helps town more than scum in my mind) before we do it, and the more information we can get, the better it is for town.

[PranaDevil]

Still need to do a re-read, but first and foremost has to be countering this entire post because, y'know... if people are going to suspect me I'd rather they did so with actual points and not just through trying to paint me scummy over things that are obvious when you actually look at it.

Regarding the EBWOP for number 5 after, yeah it was a typo, I'd be all for a Dalt lynch after that. I'm not one for an instant "Policy Lynch" as solely focusing on those will take us straight into brown trousers time. However I feel there's a huge difference between a general policy lynch of someone caught out lying, and someone who was using their lies to try and make town believe they were new and didn't really know how to play, especially when there's evidence to prove otherwise. It smells of trying to gain sympathy points and I don't like it.

This is very interesting. Please look at "when there's evidence to prove otherwise." This comes across as complete bs to me especially after Prana defended Dalt until and after he left. Surely when one is ready to lynch scum they'd look at the fine details, or the shades of grey as Prana was willing to preach when he defended Dalt's situation of the game. This comes off as an opportunistic reason to lynch Dalt. (#18)

No idea where you're going with this one... at the start I didn't know about Dalt's history, so it came across as trying to get sympathy points. After his history was shown up, and Fitz began his tirade on him I began defending him because I had more information.

You'll note that a lot of people playing mafia have their views changed as more information appears, and a lot of my "defence" (not that I need it, but it appears required here) is quite obviously going to be "that was earlier in the day, things happened since". Or are we suggesting something we say early on should be stuck to religiously throughout the game no matter if different evidence comes to light? I'm not one for tunnelling if I can help it unless the person is acting considerably scummy (see: wendy).

Okay, I was letting Nexus and Lat have their debate, and seeing what I could get from it.

When he first posted this comment didn't bother me so much, but now later on considering he hasn't done anything with the information in this debate makes me suspicious. This looks like an excuse to not say anything, it is understandable to not interfere directly but I don't understand why he didn't voice his opinion on the matter when it was over. (#23)

Because by the end of it all I'd gained from it is possibly 2 townies arguing (I think I even said as much at one point, but I can understand not posting the pro-town Prana stuff, and only focusing on anything that doesn't show that I was pro-town). I don't feel stating "I think they're town at the moment" to be a pro-town move. Sorry to say, but if we all start announcing what we feel of all players in the game then scum get to gauge how well they're doing, and I don't like that. If everyone says a specific player is "obv. town" and they are town... they may well be night killed and we've lost someone who was strong. However, more importantly, if the entire town thinks a player is obv town, and they're scum... well the scum now know how well they're blending in. This is a negative. I'm not about to delver further into why I feel people are town, or why I felt it was two townies arguing. Just that I know that's how it felt.

FoS: Wendy Not liking the play at the moment. I don't mind coming in and looking everyone over, but I would expect there to be more scrutiny in things, and not just firing off at everything without properly paying attention to it.

It's funny because wendy was more scrutiny in things. (#37)

We're saying that in hindsight surely? No way was that play using "Scrutiny", no way no how, and I'd be surprised if you said that without laughing. wendy entered, fired off a pointless vote, then because I questioned him, fired one off in my direction and used crap from my first couple of posts to back it up... what? How is that showing scrutiny if you can't be arsed to read the thread when you replace in?

Then we spent the rest of the day with wendy arguing about wanting a no lynch day one, and how it "has" to be a no lynch on day 2 if we don't do it day one... THAT IS NOT USING SCRUTINY, that's being a waste of space. Sorry, but there was barely any scrutiny there... unless you mean that he spent time putting together a nice little excel document that did sweet fuck all for us.

Now are you going to try scum hunting or are you destined to just distract town by tunnelling on me over a completely pointless issue?

This is also funny because you at this point you don't even try to look for scum, all you do is argue with fitz and wendy.

At this point I felt one of those was scum as well, hmmm.

While wendy was targetting me because... hell how the hell should I know at this point? wendy hadn't got a clue where he was going at that point, as he was arguing early game issues, and not (by that point) actually issues that had arisen. hmmm.

Because even when he said he wasn't joking, it still felt like he was just deadpanning his joke. It was RVS, and as Leech has said, plenty of people joke around in it. I generally hate RVS in general but I do appreciate a good gag as good as the next guy (normally more so in fact) so it seemed like a good line to me.

But I'm with LmL on this one. Wendy's been pushing pointless topics since she entered, has jumped over anyone who so much as looks in her direction and given no true solid reasoning for her actions, while continuing to flog a dead horse when it had died prior to her entering the game.

unvote; vote: tomorrow wendy

Here we go, opportunistic vote at #45, even though you said you were unsure about about wendy's alignment at #42. I've got to say, this is rather odd considering you had FoS'ed wendy, normally when one does that they are suspicious of said person and believe them to be moor likely as scum right? Then why'd you wait for LmL to kick things off so you'd have full support, oh wait because it's opportunistic. (#45)

I'll keep this in mind for future reference, if you feel someone is scum, and FOS them, NEVER be the second to vote for them, Lat will be all over your case. I have nothing to defend here, I voted someone I felt was scum. How the smeg does that make me scummy?

So right now I'd be all for a Xite lynch.

I also find Adendy and Xite scummy

Aw thanks for giving us your opinion on Xite, it's good to know you thought he was scummy and that you supported his lynch! (#48 and #48)

Thanks for missing something else in that post btw.

1. What do you think about the Lateralus / Nexus situation

Overblown to be honest, looks to me like two town arguing back and forth.

What did I say just earlier in this post? Way to paint me scummy there, search for only the negative, and ignore anything that would counter your points. Nicely attempted that man.

however I'd be happy with a Xite lynch too at this stage.

Hey, you still seem to believe this! (#49)

Just one post from me afterwards? Amazing that I'd still be feeling the same way isn't it?

Actually I've not too long ago said CA is still one of my picks as likely scum. I just feel that Wendy or Xite are stronger and better lynches today.

Alright, it seems clear that if your suspicious of Xite and you willing to have him lynched you'd have an opinion on him correct? Note, it's interesting how you add in Xite as a strong and better lynch, were you lying? (#53)

No, I was being honest "at that point of the game" (This is important boyo)

Not got a strong read on Xite, and will need to do an ISO to check him, so will do that come next day phase.

Whoa dude, I thought you wanted to lynch Xite. If you were willing to lynch Xite why the PranaDevil wouldn't you have a strong read on him? Oh wait it's because both candidates were town and you wanted to pick the more obvious and more likely to be lynched for the day's lynch right? (#65)

Because by this point my brain got royally fried with a combination of running two games elsewhere which went nuts (Nexus will back me up on this, he's on that site too), and more importantly because I got stuck in a pointless argument that I didn't want to be in (and I suppose looking back I should have begun ignoring him... though I felt he was so obv.scum I did get distracted by it), with wendy. At this stage of the game I wanted wendy lynched over anything else, and it showed. All other reads went to shite because I allowed myself to get distracted.

So, by "that point in the game" I felt wendy was the strongest lynch candidate, and I'd forgotten how Xite had played previously that made me feel he was scummy, and no longer had the time to properly go back and give a full read on the situation. Does that make me scummy? No. It means I have stuff that needs doing elsewhere (like going to the doctor, getting X Rays done etc. Not that it should make a difference, but you do seem to feel that being busy elsewhere somehow means "don't want to do it" which is bullshite of the greatest amount).

As for Xite, I don't know, most of the recent game has been wendy distracting the fuck outta me because I've been stuck arguing the second most stupid and ridiculous argument I've ever been a part of on this site (and 3rd overall).

How can you not know about Xite? YOU WANTED TO LYNCH HIM. START SCUM HUNTING (#68)

See above.

Xite I may not have a strong read one way or the other

DAMN IT PRANA START SCUM HUNTING.

If anything this quote and the last is proof that you're ok with lynching people you don't have strong reads on.

Now lets look back to my earlier suggestion, how convenient is it that you didn't have time to do an Iso read on Xite. Now how much better is that that you didn't do so in order to get a strong read on him when you did have the time, did I mention that you wanted to lynch him? If you did, you might not have had to lie to us. (#68)

Hold it! That bold bit, how is it? I've chosen at this point NOT to vote Xite. You've also taken this one COMPLETELY out of context to further your push for me. I go on to say that "the fact that he's not done anything so overtly scummy that I was instantly drawn to it tells me he's not the best lynch for the day and that wendy is"

Earlier in the game Xite felt scummy to me. By this point in the game he feels decidedly less so, and so I couldn't say outright one way or the other, but wendy had been proving himself to be useless to town at best, and blatantly obviously scummy at worst.

But my first views are that focusing on who wendy was suspicious of is pointless because it was inHim entering the game and he may have had a totally different view on how things are.

How convenient is it that Wendy was suspicious of you at one point, now tell me, why are you indecisive and a liar? (#78)

It's convenient wendy was suspicious over me early on for zero reason? Or it's convenient we had a back and forth because wendy was being completely worthless to us and distracting town (successfully it would seem in my case)? Now tell me, why are you deliberately ignoring posts and facts that would derail your case?

Opinions change, based on a variety of factors. I appreciate you pointing things out, but why didn't you bring this up yesterday when it would have been useful, as opposed to wait until the lynch last night had happened, and we return to the day phase only to then try and make out I'm scummy despite the fact that everything you brought up can be argued away quite simply just by taking a second to think about things. Namely where they are in the game, and the context of what happened.

I appreciate that the Xite thing does indeed come across scummy (Hell, I'd have called me out on it too), but I see absolutely nothing else you can call bad play unless you count getting distracted by other bad play of course.

Had Xite not been given the noose yesterday I'd have gone back over my thoughts about him today, and likely either swung one way or the other, but what you are saying is that when I lost track of where I stood on Xite due to allowing myself to be distracted I SHOULD have lied and said I found him scummy or something.

I'd rather back down on a case because I've lost track of it and didn't have time to properly go over it, than risk lynching someone that I no longer have had a case on through not following them. How is that scummy? Scummy would have been to continue to push my lynch on Xite without having a case on him. The fact I backed off shows I wasn't ready to lynch anyone at all, and only lynch those I felt that were scummy by that point.

[PranaDevil]

No idea where you're going with this one... at the start I didn't know about Dalt's history, so it came across as trying to get sympathy points. After his history was shown up, and Fitz began his tirade on him I began defending him because I had more information.

This is not true. You made that post and cited that there was evidence against Dalt at post #143. Fitz posted his evidence against Dalt on post #99. How can you say "Oh there's evidence against Dalt" when you can't even be bothered to read it yourself. You saw fitz's post and figured that would get Dalt lynched, you didn't investigate further because that isn't required in your scum win condition.

Correct, I figured I didn't need to go check meta at that time (And I hate, with a passion, meta arguments anyway, people's gameplay can change between games and not just because they're town or scum. So meta arguments are null and void to me, the closest I'll come to "meta" would be "I've played with that guy a few times and know he's good at scum hunting").

It was only after it was proven that Dalt had been on here once before, and then had replaced out, that I began defending him. But that's only if you "can be bothered to read it yourself" of course.

Because by the end of it all I'd gained from it is possibly 2 townies arguing (I think I even said as much at one point, but I can understand not posting the pro-town Prana stuff, and only focusing on anything that doesn't show that I was pro-town).

Aww now you're being deflective, how nice. If you want to talk about how you're so pro - town why don't you bring up these points? I don't see them, around 50% of your posts are useless, (I'm generalizing, I notice that around post #30 and until now Prana doesn't really do any good scum hunting) Now seeing how I think so, show me how you're pro town.

I felt wendy was scum, had suspicions early on about Xite, and had suspicions about Fitz because of the Dalt wagon, though I'll readily admit that Day 1 was a lot of "Stop pushing for the no lynch" and "Stop harping on about Dalt's so called lies" because while I'm all for pushing people and getting information out of them, I'm decidedly against trying to paint someone as scummy for something that can be explained with a bit of thought, and against trying to demand someone's opinion is right above all else, especially when they are trying to claim that by saying one thing, I'm saying something completely different, more so when I have stated that's not the case in the past (in regards to "No lynching day 1 means you want to no lynch day 2" which was most of what wendy was spouting).

We're saying that in hindsight surely? No way was that play using "Scrutiny", no way no how, and I'd be surprised if you said that without laughing. wendy entered, fired off a pointless vote, then because I questioned him, fired one off in my direction and used crap from my first couple of posts to back it up... what? How is that showing scrutiny if you can't be arsed to read the thread when you replace in?

Then we spent the rest of the day with wendy arguing about wanting a no lynch day one, and how it "has" to be a no lynch on day 2 if we don't do it day one... THAT IS NOT USING SCRUTINY, that's being a waste of space. Sorry, but there was barely any scrutiny there... unless you mean that he spent time putting together a nice little excel document that did sweet fuck all for us.

Wendy questioned and pointed out things he thought was scummy. He almost got lynched Day 1 because you can't comprehend him, he had every reason to be mad. Wendy did more than putting together a nice excel document (which btw he said would be good after two flips so why not take a look at it now) he also gave a lot of meta links, none of which you probably haven't looked at. You should though, they're good reads.

"Because you can't comprehend him"? No, I comprehended him perfectly well. "We should no lynch, and I'll spend the entire day arguing that point and pushing that argument onto others if given a chance", which, I'll note, he did. Sorry, but Day 1 is often a crap shoot at the best of times, all wendy did was make it even more so because by being town he was pushing something that had already been stated wasn't happening repeatedly by the majority of people. That's not being a good scum hunter in the slightest.

As for the meta links? See above, not only am I not going to go using meta (because I hate it) but I'm not about to spend hours of my day reading old bygone games, those who want to, hey, that's fine, but don't go trying to make out it makes me scummy for choosing not to do so. It's something I've never done, and something I'll never do in the future either.

While wendy was targetting me because... hell how the hell should I know at this point? wendy hadn't got a clue where he was going at that point, as he was arguing early game issues, and not (by that point) actually issues that had arisen. hmmm.

Do you honestly have no idea why Wendy was suspicious of you? Go back and read his posts, tell me if you still can't understand and I'll try to explain.

Go on, explain. When wendy was suspicious of me the ONLY things being pointed out was that I prevented an early gambit that... I had no idea about at all. So tell me, how is that scummy? Apparently it was my fault we didn't catch scum out with someone elses gambit, a gambit I felt was a joke... I'm sorry, but if that's the scrutiny that we're basing wendy's play on, I think it leaves a lot to be desired.

I'll keep this in mind for future reference, if you feel someone is scum, and FOS them, NEVER be the second to vote for them, Lat will be all over your case. I have nothing to defend here, I voted someone I felt was scum. How the smeg does that make me scummy?

Good, look at a point I make on how your scummy then ask a question except you completely leave out the whole point. Loving the deflective you're showing Prana.

Looking back at my case I think I made a little mistake, Wendy did post in between Prana's FoS and vote. That doesn't change my view on his vote being oppertunistic as he does state after his FoS in post #42 that he's unsure about Wendy being scum. Wendy had only made one post and I don't think that post was what made Prana decide to vote Wendy. Wendy was pretty much the same player as he was when Prana said he was unsure of if wendy was scum or not, it looks like he only wanted to vote him when he knew he would have other people to support his vote.[/quote]
That's just making stuff up to fit your case and you know it. You're stating what my thought process was, when you have no idea what my thought process was.

What my view point was, is that wendy was acting scummy as hell, and after thinking about it, he deserved a vote more than a FoS. Done deal. You're either stretching things to fit your opinion of me as being scum, or you are scum deliberately trying to paint me as scum. But either way this one was a huge, massive stretch to get the answer you're getting.

Thanks for missing something else in that post btw.

Great, now what does this do with anything? The one liner you posted is hardly a good analysis and this information wasn't even given until I asked you.

Except I stated earlier in my last post why I didn't give an analysis or any information prior to you asking. I see absolutely ZERO reason why I should say "X and Y appear pro-town in my eyes" it benefits the scum a whole lot more than it benefits the town. Neither of you looked likely to be lynched, and thus voicing my opinion that, at that point, I felt you were both town arguing, would have helped nobody but scum. Why are you deliberately ignoring my point about that?

What did I say just earlier in this post? Way to paint me scummy there, search for only the negative, and ignore anything that would counter your points. Nicely attempted that man.

Still wondering what this has to do with anything, I'm unsure on what you're actually speaking about.

I was referencing that earlier in my previous post I had stated that I said you and Nexus appeared pro-town, and that I had said so later. And I'd also explained why I didn't mention it. I note again you refused to acknowledge that fact though, as though announcing who the pro-town seeming players are somehow helps us catch scum.

No, I was being honest "at that point of the game" (This is important boyo)

How strange, that you would be willing to lynch someone you didn't have a strong read on. Only to forget about your earlier thoughts you had on him later when it suited your needs.

Hold up here. You're saying I'm scummy because my feelings on someone changed from "I think he's scum" to "Not really got an opinion"? Seriously? Other people stood out more to me (CA, wendy, Fitz) to the point that I didn't have as strong of a read on Xite as I did on those three.
In fact... this entire Xite thing is you suggesting that because I ORIGINALLY said he felt like likely scum early on, that I have to retain that thought for the REMAINDER of the game, is that what we are suggesting here? Because if it is I severely think you need to rethink about how you play this game.

Someone who appears scummy could even continue to appear scummy, but if others appeared scummier you would rather lynch them. In this case Xite slipped from my radar after a short while at the same time I became more and more suspicious of wendy. It stands to reason I would focus more of my attention (especially closing in on the end of the first day, which we were) on getting the person I feel is scum lynched.

I also point out that when my feelings on Xite slipped. I STOPPED trying to lynch him. I note this again because, once more, you are refusing to pick up on it. I never once tried to lynch someone who I "didn't have a strong read on" because at that stage of the game I had a stronger read on Xite than I did on others come later on. I would hope you are going to continue attacking anyone who placed a vote on someone and has since stated that they don't have a solid read one way or another.

It was day 1, strong reads are few and far between that day, and it's generally something stupid that gets pulled up on. Or because someone was playing stupidly (see: wendy), expecting everyone who votes on day 1 to have a super strong read is ridiculous.

So instead of stating your opinion had changed and that Xite's posts (later on?) had changed your views on him you decided to forget everything that happened, is that right?

No, early game he still felt somewhat scummy, by the time wendy had gone nuts, Xite hadn't posted anything that I could see (standing out at least) overtly scummy. However it's also true I was focusing my attention on wendy more than most by this point, however I had planned to do a full read on Xite when we returned, I've stated this previously as well (before we even went to night phase no less), and something may have stood out more then, I don't know, I'm not about to go wasting my time searching Xite's posts at the moment when he got lynched. Thus rather than "forgetting everything from before" which is just stupid, it was simply that I was no longer paying as close attention to Xite, which meant he felt less scummy to me after that point, and as I had wound up not paying extra attention to his posts because I was having a lot (and yes, likely too much, I admit) of back and forth with wendy. You are suggesting I should have lied and said I felt Xite was scummy when I didn't feel he was by this point. By telling the truth you are claiming I am lying, yet by what you are saying, you are suggesting I should have lied. This makes no sense!

I appreciate that the Xite thing does indeed come across scummy (Hell, I'd have called me out on it too), but I see absolutely nothing else you can call bad play unless you count getting distracted by other bad play of course.

You should read my post again.

- Oppertunistic voting and lyching
- Inconsistent views
- Willing to lynch people when you don't have a strong read on them.
- Lying is most likely somewhere in here, along with the inconsistent views

Okay... let's see those:

1 - How? Show me my "opportunistic voting and lynching". I've not once been "opportunistic" in my voting, I voted wendy after only ONE vote had gone on him, one, not 3 or 4 which would be opportunistic, a single lone vote. I voted because I found wendy scummy. Done deal.

2 - Inconsistant views... we're back to the Xite thing again aren't we? That's the only legitimate thing I'll accept, but that's due to focusing on wendy over Xite, which is bad play on my part, not scummy play on my part. There's a difference.

3 - Willing to lynch... ah bollocks, this crap thing again, read up above, I've already answered it, and you're just wrong and talking out your ass to make your story fit, it's the old case of "say something enough times and people will believe it" routine that has been used for years.

4 - Lying... yeah... not done so yet, however you're on my case because I dared to be honest.

You didn't just back down from Xite, you completely forgot about him and attacked Wendy. What case did you have exactly, did you have any of it saved or are you lying about having a case against him? Yes it is scummy to push on someone without a case, but when you backed off that contradicted your earlier beliefs in wanting to lynch Xite.

So I'm now scummy because I don't have a notepad file, or an excel file keeping tabs of absolutely everything that goes on? Seriously?! I'm supposed to store and save tons of data just to play this game? If you do that, fine, well done for you, but don't expect everyone else who plays the game to do the same. Sorry for not being such an uber scum hunter like yourself.

You know what else is great? You mention how the town shouldn't be distracted and scum hunt but you continue to let yourself do so to make yourself look like you're active and make it look like you're scum hunting when you're not. It's even better that my case against you will be an excuse not to do any scum hunting right now. If you do happen to be town, you've screwed us over for the day and I'd really like you to start some scum hunting on the very slight chance you aren't scum.

No, I admit I got distracted, but it had nothing to do with "looking active", and everything to do with "I honestly thought wendy was scum trying to distract town", unfortunately I wound up distracted by that as a whole, but I'm still going to state wendy's play was, at best, anti-town, and at worst, scummy. Even if he did flip town.

Now where is everyone else? Let's get some more votes on Prana and look for his partner.

I love this line, you may as well be saying, "Hey, what's everyone else doing? I'm going to keep tunnelling on Prana so come join me."

[PranaDevil]

It was only after it was proven that Dalt had been on here once before, and then had replaced out, that I began defending him. But that's only if you "can be bothered to read it yourself" of course.

Why would you ever use evidence against someone when you don't know what the evidence is, it's like you're saying what you did was ok.

Buh?

Explanation of Dalt stuff:

Fitx gives case against Dalt, I am in agreement Dalt does look scumm, at this time not checking the Meta link (See... I may have said it before, but... I hate freakin' meta, I REFUSE to read it, catch me here? I also don't expect someone else to balls it up so spectacularly), and agree that what Dalt's done is somewhat scummy.

Someone else then points out the gaping holes in Fitz' logic... and I proceed to realize the mistake in pushing the Dalt case immediately afterwards. How the hell is realizing I made a mistake in attacking Dalt and backing off scummy?

Sigh… you really should learn to read behind the lines. The meta links were pretty good information, and while we're on the topic would you like to provide us a few of your games as both town and scum?

Still not about to go reading them. Also for Pranatown, go read all my games on here. I've not been scum on this site, only times I've been scum are on another site in which the play (in my opinion) isn't as good and half the time it becomes more of a crap shoot anyway.

Rules state you play to your win con right? Let's assume he was doing so. Keep in mind everything he did he had a town mindset.

You're now assuming that hindsight works just as well as it does at the time... wrong, and I'll be questioning some of your opinions on this one... because oh boy are you wrong here.

Now let's also assume he's someone who plays mafia for fun, he's likes to mess with all of us. First half of his posts were more towards questioning why people did certain things while the second half was more on game theory. Testing reactions and making jokes is something he does often. What I'm trying to say is that a lot of Wendy's actions were just to get reactions, everything else people did not understand was Wendy was saying. Testing reactions and making jokes is something he does often.

Game theory = bad town play. I did it myself in a previous game, and realized afterwards. Game theory is best left to the MD forum, placing it in the game threads just wastes time and... oh yeah, distracts sodding town!

Wendy Iso #36 is a fantastic example of both. In this post it's a clear attempt to buddy with me, to see what my reaction would be. He also gets to see Nexus's reactions plus others seeing this post would be wondering what Wendy was thinking since this Nexus suspicion is new and respond if they wanted to. This would bring out information.

So... an attempt to buddy is obviously pro-town trying to get reactions? It's easy to say that in hindsight because we know he was town, at the time it was scummy. Simple as that.

Iso #37 is just him screwing with all of us and making fun of Xite. That's why everything he had listed is reasoned as Gut, because we all know how Xite likes to use Gut for everything.

Ah yes, the great evidence of being town, pissing about.

Iso #39 Wendy is demonstrating how to prove a random vote. Something Korash k had done very early in the game but does not give evidence that makes it certain. He also gives a witty comment, again to let us know he's joking and screwing with us.

Rather than waste a bunch of brain resources, I did the equivalent of flipping a coin, and we got to share a teaching moment as a side benefit.

Does no one else smile when they read this post?

No, I wondered what the point of it was, it was wasting time.

Wendy's excel sheet will be useful in the future, even a little bit now. Even though we all agree to this let's stop bashing him for making the future days easier for us.

That's suggesting everyone who is scum plays the game the same. This is not true.

Iso #65 Wendy makes another joke, again did no one think was funny?

LmL - Why does everyone have to be freaken Professor Mafia?
Wendy - Actually I am Professor freaking mafia, "shows award"

This isn't really contributing much to scum hunting of course, I'm just trying to show that there were reasons for Wendy's posts. That being said it's interesting to note how LmL said Wendy was claiming to be a great scum hunter when he was claiming to be great at scum.

Of course there were "reasons for wendy's posts", but there's reasons for scum posts too. You can't honestly tell me that what you've posted so far is proof wendy was obv. town here. You've actually only proven so far that, beyond creating an excel sheet, wendy was being useless (and the excel sheet is close to that too)

Iso #73 states that his self vote and no lynch were to get over eager scum. Wasn't really a bad idea as he had the disguise of a newbie, and with many people on him the scum might have gone after him.

Yeah, because scum never quickly back up on something and claim it was to catch scum do they? This is not a defence for his actions, and only looking back in hindsight.

Iso #76 Here's the meta report. It's too bad Xite was town, but regardless this was still useful. There's more than just links to Xite though.

Prana, if someone was to use meta against you what kind of accusations do you believe you would be faced against?

Buggered if I know, I don't think I'd play the game any differently as scum. At least here, on the other site town was always overpowered so the only way to play as scum there was to lose so you had to try and rush game days without standing out.

Iso #102 Gets mad at Prana, this I think is the real point where he explodes. It's understandable that someone would get mad if they constantly had to repeat themselves.

Yeah... considering I had to repeat myself back to him countless times, and am now doing so to you, I know the feeling. But I try not to lose my cool over it, y'know?

Now you're probably wondering what anything had to do with you, first off Wendy starts questioning why you weren't of the gambit. It is strange that you understood the setup you still did not go on with the gambit. Even if you did think he was joking why didn't you claim ahead anyway?

There are multiple possible answers for this, the one Wendy probably thought of

Scum - Ha ha IAU I see through your gambit and it won't work!

Also you not being a part of it hurts the chance for it to work at all which could save your partner. The problem is proving this is very hard, if not possible so he questioned you find out information.

Why didn't I claim anyway? Because... y'know... I laughed at it and moved on. If I believe someone is just joking I'll simply laugh and move on, instead of taking it seriously. But you've even said there are multiple possibilities (the one I just said is the true one of course, but why let that get in the way of you posting the only one that keeps up your "Prana is scum" bollocks?)

That's just making stuff up to fit your case and you know it. You're stating what my thought process was, when you have no idea what my thought process was.

What my view point was, is that wendy was acting scummy as hell, and after thinking about it, he deserved a vote more than a FoS. Done deal. You're either stretching things to fit your opinion of me as being scum, or you are scum deliberately trying to paint me as scum. But either way this one was a huge, massive stretch to get the answer you're getting.

Is it?

Did you just randomly decide, hey Wendy's scummy I'll vote him?
What factors affected your choice?
Was Wendy's post between your FoS and vote important in making your vote?
Was there any new evidence brought up against Wendy that made you decide to vote against him?
Did others opinions have any affects on your vote for Wendy?

I don't remember specifics at this moment in time and I'm not about to go checking back through the thread solely to prove something that is pissing ridiculous to ask. Unless you are going to ask everyone on both wagons to provide exact reasons why they voted for someone at the exact time they did.

Simple answer: I found wendy scummiest in the game at that point, thus I voted for him. Is that not how this game works? How are we suggesting that me voting for someone who was utterly useless and distracting being scummy? Why are you not pushing everyone on that wagon if he was so obviously town and just me?

Except I stated earlier in my last post why I didn't give an analysis or any information prior to you asking. I see absolutely ZERO reason why I should say "X and Y appear pro-town in my eyes" it benefits the scum a whole lot more than it benefits the town. Neither of you looked likely to be lynched, and thus voicing my opinion that, at that point, I felt you were both town arguing, would have helped nobody but scum. Why are you deliberately ignoring my point about that?

Was there any holes in my reasoning, what about Wendy's defense? If you do make an analysis would it not provide content for the town to use in order to find scum?

I was referencing that earlier in my previous post I had stated that I said you and Nexus appeared pro-town, and that I had said so later. And I'd also explained why I didn't mention it. I note again you refused to acknowledge that fact though, as though announcing who the pro-town seeming players are somehow helps us catch scum.

What?

Saying Lat / Nexus looks town then says so later while giving a one line description while explaining why you didn't give an analysis = countering my points and being town?

Does this make sense to anyone? Can you show me which part of my case you're talking about?

These two things go together, and wendy's defence? I thought it was you and Nexus? I just felt at the time you were likely town arguing. Again, it is not beneficial for town to have pro-town players revealed because that allows scum to know how they're doing, and allows scum to know who definitely needs killing that night. It helps scum, and doesn't really help town all that much.

Hold up here. You're saying I'm scummy because my feelings on someone changed from "I think he's scum" to "Not really got an opinion"? Seriously? Other people stood out more to me (CA, wendy, Fitz) to the point that I didn't have as strong of a read on Xite as I did on those three.
In fact... this entire Xite thing is you suggesting that because I ORIGINALLY said he felt like likely scum early on, that I have to retain that thought for the REMAINDER of the game, is that what we are suggesting here? Because if it is I severely think you need to rethink about how you play this game.

What?

It changed from "Lynch the witch!" to "I don't see anything interesting" WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONING AS TO WHAT HAPPENED AND WHY

It's ok to change your opinion, but it's even better to start explaining how it changes and why when the time happens instead of completely forgetting what your past suspicions were.

Not about forgetting "past suspicions" but all about "I didn't really follow him from the point I got hung up with wendy", and as I've repeatedly said, this is bad town play, and I accept that, calling me scummy for it is stretching to a hideous degree.

Someone who appears scummy could even continue to appear scummy, but if others appeared scummier you would rather lynch them. In this case Xite slipped from my radar after a short while at the same time I became more and more suspicious of wendy. It stands to reason I would focus more of my attention (especially closing in on the end of the first day, which we were) on getting the person I feel is scum lynched.

You stated that he was one of the two best and strong lynches for the day, can I really only expect you to be suspicious of one person for being scum and being lynched? Can I really expect you'll completely forget your past suspicions later on?

See, this is how you're deliberately trying to paint me in a bad light, you keep saying I forgot, when really if I "forgot" to do something it was to stop following Xite after wendy picked up, so can we please stop saying I "forgot" Xite was scummy, and state the truth that I felt wendy was scummy, but that I had also said I still felt Fitz had done enough earlier with pushing Dalt to appear scummy, and that CA still felt off to me. But shall we forget all that in favour of "it was only wendy or Xite", because anything else harms your case right?

I also point out that when my feelings on Xite slipped. I STOPPED trying to lynch him. I note this again because, once more, you are refusing to pick up on it. I never once tried to lynch someone who I "didn't have a strong read on" because at that stage of the game I had a stronger read on Xite than I did on others come later on. I would hope you are going to continue attacking anyone who placed a vote on someone and has since stated that they don't have a solid read one way or another.

You stated you thought he was a good lynch. Meaning you are willing to participate in his lynch if the time comes. I barely even know what're trying to say, you're feeling slipped is just another way to say you forgot everything that happened and went after the easiest target is it not?

No. Stop trying to bend things to fit your opinion here. I'm getting sick of it.

If I was so willing to participate in the lynch of him... Why did I refuse to jump to it? fucksake. The entire "you were willing to lynch someone you didn't have a strong read on" is rendered totally null and void by that one small fact that I DIDN'T LYNCH HIM. Sweet jesus.

Sigh… If I have ever stated any where that you should lie please quote that and show me. Until then I am going to assume you're putting words in my mouth, until then I guess we might has well say having inconsistent suspicions on people is ok along with using I forgot as an excuse for scummy behavior. I can't see any pro town player completely ignoring not only someone who he was suspicious of and believed was a strong lynch but also forgetting when he had these suspicions, which were there for more than one post.

So you putting words in my mouth repeatedly is perfectly okay and normal? (Just check through the post I'm replying to, you did it a few times) But the second you can claim I'm doing the same to you it's scummy scum scum? Riiiiight.

You are saying I should lie because I dared to be honest about how I went from pushing Xite, to not pushing Xite. Again, was it good town play? No, course not, and I think the rest of the game would agree. Does it make me scummy? No.

What you are suggesting I should have done is continue to push the case on Xite so that I did not appear to have backed off from it, doing that would be claiming I had a case when, by that point, I didn't. Basically I either lied and pushed a cash, or I did what I did do, and that's stopped pushing the case and... get called scummy for it? What? That makes no sense. Your case thus far doesn't make any sense.

1. Take a look and see, and yes that vote was opportunistic. You are lying again. Your vote wasn't the second. It was the 4th. Post #355 Night / Xite are voting for Wendy. LmL then votes. Then you vote. YOU LIED.

How's about... when I said I was second on the wagon it was through not checking it and taking you saying LmL voted and then I did as stating I jumped on the wagon second. I wasn't about to go hunting to find out exactly what number on the wagon I was, and so I took what you said about it and used that. So no, not lying. What is it with you and effing lying?

Either way, I don't really care where I was on the wagon, all I care about is I was voting someone who was the scummiest player on day 1 in my eyes. Done deal.

3. You said you thought Xite was a strong lynch, are you denying this?

No, I'm not. I said he was a good lynch AT THAT TIME.

Are you suggesting someone who is a good lynch at point A in the game HAS to therefore be a good lynch come point H in the game? Because that's what you're suggesting to me here.

4. I don't know man, but apparently forgetting everything you do is ok now so whatev, but it's interesting to go back to the "uses evidence against people without reading it" I can't even see a town player who wants to win not read the thread. Did you even click the link that havingfitz posted, you would have seen that the game was two years ago, a point you defended.

Dalt case, read above.

So I'm now scummy because I don't have a notepad file, or an excel file keeping tabs of absolutely everything that goes on? Seriously?! I'm supposed to store and save tons of data just to play this game? If you do that, fine, well done for you, but don't expect everyone else who plays the game to do the same. Sorry for not being such an uber scum hunter like yourself.

Why can't you comprehend me? That's not what I'm saying at all. [/quote]
No, it is what you said, you asked me where my notes were and if I'd saved them. I have no notes, thus if I'd simply said that you would start harping on about not having a case to begin with, blah blah blah. We already know this, and it's damned obvious.

I'd rather back down on a case because I've lost track of it and didn't have time to properly go over it

This post sounds like you had a case against Xite, I am asking you if you have a case. Now you're going on about you don't take notes.

Does this mean the case you had does not exist?

Ah... so you did that anyway? Nicely done that man.

No, I admit I got distracted, but it had nothing to do with "looking active", and everything to do with "I honestly thought wendy was scum trying to distract town", unfortunately I wound up distracted by that as a whole, but I'm still going to state wendy's play was, at best, anti-town, and at worst, scummy. Even if he did flip town.

Sigh… still missing the point. I want you to start scum hunting right now. As in now. Do you know when? Now? Still wondering when? Start scum hunting.

Right back at ya buddy. But you're right... I need to start working out who scum are, thankfully I think I have a nice easy start thanks to your tunnelling.

I love this line, you may as well be saying, "Hey, what's everyone else doing? I'm going to keep tunnelling on Prana so come join me."

whatev, nevermind Prana's town and we should all stop being active.

Wrong there, you asked everyone to hop on my wagon. That's not asking everyone to be active, that's trying to get people to join you.

So... scum hunting... scum number 1 would be...

vote: Lateralus22

Tunelling, blatant putting words in my mouth, and pretty much using hindsight to make his case on me in regards to saying how obv. town wendy is.

Cue "Obvious scum with an OMGUS vote" response... now!

[PranaDevil]

I'm only going to comment on relevant stuff, because this is going on way too long, and it's going to be a bastard for anyone wishing to re-read later on. I also want to, tomorrow, have a look in a few other places instead of getting hung up over a simple back and forth that is us both going over old ground constantly.

Sigh… this isn't about back off the dal case… this is about citing something as evidence when you can't even be bothered to read it… the links weren't even about comparing one's style and seeing how people play… it's just straight up did dalt play in a game or not…

It wasn't though, because the link being there showed that Dalt was "in" a game previously. It was later evidence that proved that while he was, in theory, in the game, he wasn't actually playing it and was replaced quickly (like here). It's a completely different issue once that was brought in. I did not need to click the link initially because... well surely that would be logical enough to assume that whoever posted the link wasn't lying about him being here?

If distracting town is bad why did you participate in that?

Yes or no, have I not repeatedly said that was bad town play on my part? Yes... yes I have, there is zero reason to keep repeating the same thing over and over again is there?

First let's get one thing straight, I haven't ever said Wendy was "OBV" town. town and obv town are two different things. Yes all my reasoning is the final conclusion from seeing wendy is town and then trying to find out the reasons for what he did. I don't even understand some of your points, it's focused more on the reasons for wendy's actions not how they give evidence for his role.

My problem with it, is that it's solely looking at it in hindsight, what you are suggesting is that scummy or poor play can be simply explained away as good play after they're gone and shown to be town. This is not true. Thus just because wendy flipped town, it does not mean to say his play was actually any good.

Is vote analysis a way that will help town catch scum?

Depends on whether scum in this game play the same as scum in random game A. Scum take on a variety of forums, some push a case heavily and spend the day tunnelling, others hedge their bets and throw stuff around at everyone, throw everything that's in the middle of that too, and there's your answer.

Or basically, it depends on the scum players. Some are more vote happy than others, some are more opportunistic, and some are more willing to lie low by being the first on a wagon and just seeing how the ground lies.

Of course there were "reasons for wendy's posts", but there's reasons for scum posts too. You can't honestly tell me that what you've posted so far is proof wendy was obv. town here. You've actually only proven so far that, beyond creating an excel sheet, wendy was being useless (and the excel sheet is close to that too)

sigh… why would I go back and try to find scum reasons for his actions? It's just going to waste time, I'm not trying to convince wendy was a good townie I'm just trying to explain the reasons for his actions. No this isn't proof of wendy being town these are the reasons I think of knowing that he's town. I'm telling you the why not the what.

I'm not asking you to find scum reasons for his actions. I'm pointing out that you suggesting that he had reasons, is suggesting scum wouldn't have a reason for those same actions. Ergo it doesn't add up. Okay, he was town... but what he was doing was anti-town in more ways than one, and I've explained why.

Yeah, I guess, it can go either way. The reason I gave fits more of a townie gameplay, a scum game play would be too risky.

Doesn't that bring in a two ton lump of WIFOM?

Yeah… considering I had to repeat myself back to him countless times, and am now doing so to you, I know the feeling. But I try not to lose my cool over it, y'know?

You didn't understand what he was saying.

Let's say I smelt what he was cooking, and it was grade A monkey crap /rock

Yes there are, the situation's like a pizza, take or add what toppings you want. Should I really make a list of? Wendy was town, that is a fact. Again I'm not trying to prove wendy was town, I'm trying to explain his actions, it's ok if you don't agree with that. Now knowing wendy was town do you have any explanations for his questions that doesn't lead to Prana is scum?

How's about... oh I dunno... wendy was going off all guns blazing at someone who didn't go all out agreeing with him, and in fact was dismissing his crap as worthless (which most of it was)?

Put it this way, say I'm the lynch today, or I get night killed, does that mean our entire exchange and my vote on you all adds up to "Lateralus is scum, no two ways about it"? Of course not. It means nothing more than we had an exchange and there's a possibility I was on the right track, but absolutely nothing more. It's not an outright fact that because Player A was town and had an exchange with Player B, that Player B must be scum.

Simple answer: I found wendy scummiest in the game at that point, thus I voted for him. Is that not how this game works? How are we suggesting that me voting for someone who was utterly useless and distracting being scummy? Why are you not pushing everyone on that wagon if he was so obviously town and just me?

Simple answer: It was a good point in the game for you to switch your vote on wendy. It doesn't require an original thought and you had the support of other people. Is not a good place to put your vote? I want to know what the situation was and how wendy changed your view. Sigh… again this really isn't that much about wendy, you already know the others factors that play in.

You don't put words in my mouth? Riiiiight.

These two things go together, and wendy's defence? I thought it was you and Nexus? I just felt at the time you were likely town arguing. Again, it is not beneficial for town to have pro-town players revealed because that allows scum to know how they're doing, and allows scum to know who definitely needs killing that night. It helps scum, and doesn't really help town all that much.

How do they go together? This really seems to be close to offtopic.

Okay... seriously now? Seriously?

These two things go together because they are talking about the exact same damned hting, and you've been avoiding that fact ever since your first post.

You state I didn't give what I said about the you/Nexus situation, I have stated why (It's bad town play to announce who appears to be town), and I also stated that I pointed out I did (when questioned by you) state I felt you were both town, but refused to expand beyond that.

THAT'S IT, that's the entire thing. But you've been treating them as two seperate things right from the off.

I don't see how I'm stretching it at all. Wendy and Xite were the two top lynches. You were ready to lynch both, wendy exploded, went after the easiest target. If you said you were all for an Xite lynch why would you later say that nothing really stuck out to you?

Because after wendy exploded stupidly (lol, easy target... more like scummy play, but whatever), I focused more on wendy.

Are you suggesting good town play would be to still be for a Xite lynch late in the game but only have a case for the first half of the game day?

If yes, then it's shitty play.

If no, then thank you for agreeing with me, can we move on?

No. Stop trying to bend things to fit your opinion here. I'm getting sick of it.

If I was so willing to participate in the lynch of him... Why did I refuse to jump to it? fucksake. The entire "you were willing to lynch someone you didn't have a strong read on" is rendered totally null and void by that one small fact that I DIDN'T LYNCH HIM. Sweet jesus.

That isn't true. I like Latin and I'm willing to finish my homework today. Just because I decide that my English homework was more important to finish today and that I could only finish one of the two subjects doesn't mean I wasn't willing to finish my Latin homework.

What? You're basically suggesting that while I could have easily jumped on Xite and guarenteed he was lynched. The fact I continued to push for a wendy lynch and was actually annoyed people couldn't see why he should be the lynch candidate over all else is somehow scummy?

WHAT?! You are making zero sense to me here. I wanted Xite lynched... yet refused to jump on his wagon, and pushed heavily for the wendy one instead? How does that make sense if I wanted to lynch Xite? What the freakin' hell man?! Make some god damned sense because you're actually annoying me with your point blank refusal to listen to any kind of logical issue here.

I haven't put words in your mouth, I took what you said and drew logical conclusions from them. Either directly quoting what you said or paraphrasing.

Except for all those times that your "paraphrasing" has actually been "here's what your mindset was at this point". Which isn't paraphrasing, it's bullshitting and putting words in my mouth.

This is false, my attack on you for forgetting about Xite shows the opposite. You forgot everything you did and went after the easiest target, am I missing something?

That much of an easy target that Xite got lynched and not wendy right?

Are we now to assume that anyone acting so anti-town and scummy should never be lynched because if they're town then people who were pushing it were only going for "the easiest target"? Are we suggesting we should all now go and target someone who has done nothing scummy and try and push them for nothing at all, because they're not the "easy target"?

Holy balls.

I don't remember saying you were second on the wagon, if I did show me. You are saying that were on the wagon second as a defense for your vote not being opportunistic. What am I supposed to think when that is turned out to be a lie and that the reason you gave was a lie. You even stated that voting 3rd or 4th would be opportunistic, does this mean you are saying your vote is opportunistic?

Why all the "you lied, rawr!" bollocks?

I took what you were saying at face value (rather stupid I suppose, maybe I'm generally too trusting that people wont balls something up spectacularly), and assumed that what you meant by voting after LmL meant I was second on the wagon. If I was 4th, I was 4th, all I knew was wendy wasn't at L-1 and I voted him. Done.

When someone's a good lynch that means they've done scummy things. Just because the game moves on does not mean the scummy things they had done go away. You are suggesting that they do.

Show me where I said that Mr. "I don't put words in your mouth".

What DOES happen though, is that later in the game when others have done scummier stuff in my eyes, they become a better lynch over someone who I only noticed seeming scummy early on, and failed to keep track on after wendy exploded.

Xite's early play I found very suspect. Xite's late play I failed to get enough of a read on as most of my attention went to wendy. Are we clear on this yet?

The early scummy play doesn't "vanish" but I REFUSE to lynch someone if I don't have a solid read on them. When I was keeping close tabs on all players I spotted scummy play from Xite. When my attention got drawn to wendy I wound up not keeping a close eye on Xite, which means, amazingly enough, I no longer had what I felt to be a solid read on him.

Does this make sense or do we need another go round of you completely missing my point here?

Early read - check. Would lynch.
Late read - Not there, wont lynch without it.

It's all about the point in the game, you are deliberately missing it.

No, it is what you said, you asked me where my notes were and if I'd saved them. I have no notes, thus if I'd simply said that you would start harping on about not having a case to begin with, blah blah blah. We already know this, and it's damned obvious.

Ah… so you did that anyway? Nicely done that man.

The last two quotes were supposed to read at the same time because they were on the same point.

I thought you said you had a case, that implies you have reasons to believe someone is scum. It would make sense for someone to write this stuff down. You said you lost track of the case and didn't have time to properly go over it. This implies that there is a physical case and that you didn't go over it. All I want to know is if that is true. No need to be angry. Now tell me if there is any misunderstanding?

I know they were the same point, I was being facietious.

I've already said I don't keep notes. So how am I going to have a "physical case" my cases come from reading people in ISO. I dunno, maybe it would be easier to keep tabs on all players, but to be honest, that would be WAY too much work for a game. If I'm playing in 4 or 5 games at a time, I don't need to have a notepad file for every player in each game just to keep track of them, if someone wants to do something like that, then fine, go for it. But I wont.

Thus, my "case" on him was from what he posted and reading over it. You are making out that because I don't "write this stuff down" that it's somehow scummy on my part by using it in a case against me.

Now where is everyone else? Let's get some more votes on Prana and look for his partner.

This quote has 3 points

Where is everyone is looking at the activity of the thread, as you can tell there isn't very much now. I want everyone to be more active.

Let's get some more votes on Prana is clear. Prana's scum so why not vote him?

and looks for his partner applies that we should be looking for Prana's partner. This will take attention away from Prana and look at other suspects.

Actually, what it said to me was:
First bit, same as you.

Second bit same as you.

Third bit "Prana's obviously scum, so who is his partner".

Sorry, but that's scummy. If I wind up lynched today I would hope to hell everyone turns on you tomorrow, because you've admitted that you are tunnelling on me, and are admitting to not going to look for "other" scum, but solely anyone who could be "Prana's partner", this is not pro-town play, this is tunnelling play. What happens when I'm shown to be town? Do you go "oh, sorry" and move on? You should be looking elsewhere as well because there's no definite answer on who is or isn't scum. Deciding that one player is scum and refusing to consider otherwise is crap play.

Yeah, hypocritical 'cause of my play against wendy previously, whatever. I'm just pointing this out to you, and your tunnelling is uber-scummy.

Tunneling - I am having a conversation with you am I not? I have about 3 or 4 posts against you for the day, now since you're using tunneling as a point against me what do you think about the nexus situation? From your viewpoint you can argue that I tunneled Nexus there so why did you not point it out?

Because at the time it felt like two town going at it, the fact you're doing it again after your nexus case fell through, and to someone different, hoping to get more support this time is, in my mind, telling. Thus I'm pointing it out now.

blatant putting words in my mouth - please show me where I'v done so. I'v already explained my points against you are using quotes or I am paraphrasing. I suggest you show the evidence, a nice this is where he put words in my mouth section of your posts would be helpful. Please post text examples to support your claims.

Have done twice in this post alone, that's just a single post, but if you honestly want me to rip you a new one by pointing them all out, I shall endevour to do so when I wake up tomorrow.

and pretty much using hindsight to make his case against me in regards to saying how obi. town wendy is - This is not true. You asked me to explain wendy's actions and I did. I never once stated wendy was OBV town. Yes I did have the belief he was town. The post parts about wendy had little to do with how your scum, please do not misunderstand me. I was trying to explained the why to wendy's actions to show his reasons for what he did, I was not trying to prove wendy to be town, I don't recall ever saying I was.

You were solely using hindsight, and stating that wendy's actions basically show how town he was IN HINDSIGHT. Suggesting that I was attacking wendy for anything other than finding him scummy is ridiculous, and suggesting wendy was attacking me for anything outside of attacking him is just as ridiculous because that's exactly how it went.

Very interesting, I probably would have called out on OMEGUS but it's really the reasoning you've had that bothers me more as point one isn't very strong at all, and I am confused as to why you had not called me out on it earlier since by your definition of tuning I had down it before, point two I can't find the putting words in your mouth, and point three is a complete misunderstanding that has little to do with you. The point you made is very interesting.

I'd say the point I made was rather bang on target.

[PranaDevil]

Weren't you curious about the conditions of the game and how long ago it was?

No. Please listen to me on this point instead of ignoring what I am saying.

I did not feel need to because it was put across as "Dalt has played here before, here's proof" and I took that at face value. What part of "I don't use meta" is hard to understand here?

It was WHEN the evidence came up that I not only backed off the case, but started looking at the issue of Dalt more logically and argued that case with Fitz. That's the entirety of it, there's no hidden agenda, there's no "You say that, but you mean this" like you keep suggesting with half of your case on me, that's everything to do with it.

Me - didn't talk about Nex / Lat
Prana - Gave a one liner saying you did

Alright but… how does this prove your town?

How does it prove I'm scum? You need to be showing why it makes me scum, not me showing why it makes me town.

Want to know what it makes me? Clever for not giving scum more information than they need.

Wendy was town, now you're saying it was scummy play to explode. This means that scum can justify attacking wendy because his exploding was scummy. that makes him an easy target.

The rest of your points there are many variables to take into account and it's very situational so it's difficult me to answer.

Are you therefore suggesting that town players should never attack someone who is looking like obvious scum?

It's a null tell is what it is, at least at this stage of the game. If later in the game you can prove someone has been bouncing their vote around on any popular wagon, then hey, go for it... but after they apparently did it a single time, when they feel someone is scum? No... not really a stronge case there.

What's with the first point? Wendy was an easier target so you went after him. (For your sake read as scummy since it appears to me you are refusing to acknowledge wendy as an easy target for scum, if this is not true tell me)

You are refusing to acknowledge that wendy appeared scummy, if this is not true, tell me.

If scum wants to lynch two people they will attack the easiest target to lynch. Do you disagree with this?

Depends if it would look scummy to do so. If it would be diving on someone they've spent all game defending to that point, I highly doubt they'll jump on the case.

There was a point in the game you thought both Wendy and Xite were good lynches. Wendy explodes being an easier lynch and you go after him. Can you understand?

wendy becomes scummier and I focus on him more, and less on Xite. Can you understand?

Sigh… both are town so scum want to lynch them. both have done scummy things that scum can use to get them lynched. Are you trying to tell me that Xite stuck out more to you?

Not even sure where you're getting your second point from. Are you trying to tell me scum will want to lynch someone who hasn't done anything scummy?

No, I'm telling you that, by what you are suggesting, I shouldn't have voted for wendy for being scummy, because voting someone who appears scummy, who then flips town, is scummy.

That makes no sense. By that token we should never wagon someone unless we're 100% positive, in which case why aren't you attacking anyone who hopped on the Xite case? It would appear he was the easier lynch by the end of the day.

The post was written in a neutral tone, no need to be so defensive. Since you bring it up though, you lied, rawr.

The letter m is after l, are you going to assume the letter l is the second letter of the alphabet?

You know full well this misses the point about as much as England did during the world cup.

Then why did you say this?

As for Xite, I don't know

the fact that he's not done anything so overtly scummy that I was instantly drawn to it tells me he's not the best lynch for the day and that wendy is, mainly because wendy HAS done a ton of stuff that's so scummy that I've seen less scummy scum.

The early scummy play doesn't "vanish" but I REFUSE to lynch someone if I don't have a solid read on them. When I was keeping close tabs on all players I spotted scummy play from Xite. When my attention got drawn to wendy I wound up not keeping a close eye on Xite, which means, amazingly enough, I no longer had what I felt to be a solid read on him.

So you forgot the scummy things Xite did?

Okay, this is getting effing ricockulus.

EARLY DAY I found him scummy.

LATE DAY I hadn't been following his play close enough to have a read for that portion of it.

So no, it doesn't vanish, I never suggested for once Xite's play vanished, but if I have a stronger read on wendy, and have stopped paying close attention to Xite's play, I will REFUSE to give a read on that player. It would be scummy as all hell to be willing to lynch a player I do not have a read on.

All this bollocks about "You didn't have a strong read on him and wanted to lynch him" is just that, utter bollocks. At the time I wanted to lynch him I had a scum read on him, at the time I said I didn't... lo and behold, I hadn't been following him, and it's anti-town at the very best to continue to push someone's lynch at that point.

So understand that, I wanted a lynch on him when he felt scummy, and when I got tied up with wendy I wound up not paying as much attention elsewhere as I'd have liked. My mistake? Too damned right, I've said it before. But IT DOES NOT MAKE ME FREAKING SCUMMY. Stop moving the goal posts.

What you are suggesting is that when I no longer had a read on Xite I was pushing for his lynch, and that is completely untrue, and massive fabrication that you know you have created.

Sigh… alright, does this also mean you have cases on everything player in the game since you can do the same thing for every player?

If I'm using this as a case against you I must be doing a pretty bad job considering my last post was trying to clear up a misunderstanding and that Im willing to drop it if it is.

No idea what you mean here, I'm assuming you mean do I have a case on every player... and of course not, I like to think of myself as intelligent (though readily admit I often have trouble getting my point across), but I'm not able to keep tabs on everything every player does, that means re-reads and checking what's said etc. likely multiple times. But that's how I play. I always thought that was how the majority played if I'm honest with you.

I'll be very, very confused. Your crappy play will also lose the town a day. If I believe you are scum why wouldn't I try to get you lynched, why wouldn't I look for your partner? If something sticks out about another player that I think is scummy then I'll probably attack them for it.

Ah, so me defending myself, and not actually doing anything scummy is my crappy play? Or could it be you're hoping I'll make an easy target and you can swing people onto my wagon? You attacked me for pointing out wendy's play was crappy, but now you're saying mine is, hypocritical don't you think?

Why didn't you point this out when I was attacking Xite, is it only scummy if I'm tunneling you? Why didn't you reference me tunneling Nexus and Xite when you made your point?

What part of "I had stopped closely following Xite" are we still missing?

So Prana, since you want to move this away from the conversation between me and you, who do you think is scum?

You, for one, for what I feel is a pretty poor case, but I will have to take a look elsewhere, considering I'm repeating myself almost every time I reply to you, it becomes rather draining.

The whole dismissing someone being a good lynch at point A and saying they have have to be a good lynch at point H comes across as you saying that just because it's point H that it's difference. It's also noted that point H is later on in the game because you dismiss someone being lynched at point H it sounds like you're saying the scummy things they did at point A vanish.

I'm saying that the things they did between point A and point H weren't closely followed, and not done so enough to get a solid read on them, ergo it would be scummy as all hell to be willing to lynch them SOLELY for their contributions leading up to point A.

Or are you somehow suggesting it would be great town play to only have half a case on someone and still lynch them for it? Because that is EXACTLY what you are suggesting I should have done at the moment.

[PranaDevil]

A nice little list of misreps and cramming words in my mouth, courtesy of Lat. (And this was done while skim reading, so it's possible there's a couple I missed).

Putting words in my mouth:

Whoa dude, I thought you wanted to lynch Xite. If you were willing to lynch Xite why the PranaDevil wouldn't you have a strong read on him?

Oh wait it's because both candidates were town and you wanted to pick the more obvious and more likely to be lynched for the day's lynch right?

Putting words in my mouth:

You saw fitz's post and figured that would get Dalt lynched, you didn't investigate further because that isn't required in your scum win condition.

misrep

How strange, that you would be willing to lynch someone you didn't have a strong read on. Only to forget about your earlier thoughts you had on him later when it suited your needs.

Putting words in my mouth (Via wendy now):

There are multiple possible answers for this, the one Wendy probably thought of

Scum - Ha ha IAU I see through your gambit and it won't work!

Misrep:

can I really only expect you to be suspicious of one person for being scum and being lynched?

Putting words in my mouth:

you're feeling slipped is just another way to say you forgot everything that happened and went after the easiest target is it not?

Misrep:

Simple answer: It was a good point in the game for you to switch your vote on wendy.

Misrep:

Just because the game moves on does not mean the scummy things they had done go away. You are suggesting that they do.

Also, returning back to this:

Now knowing wendy was town do you have any explanations for his questions that doesn't lead to Prana is scum?

What about "wendy was wrong", otherwise we are suggesting that should either me or you flip town, the other "has" to be scum by default, which would be ridiculous, would it not?

[PranaDevil]

Alright first off, the evidence was all there in the thread havingfitz posted. Second I can't imagine any pro town player not investigating something someone claims to be as evidence for any another, and then wave that link citing it was proof that dalt lied.

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it didn't happen. I want you to stop thinking that everyone plays the game your way, and start thinking that everyone plays it differently, I've explained how things went down, if you don't want to believe me, that's fine, it's your perogative, but I'm not about to change my story because you don't like it. I'll tell the truth, you believe whatever you want.

Are you therefore suggesting that town players should never attack someone who is looking like obvious scum?

It's a null tell is what it is, at least at this stage of the game. If later in the game you can prove someone has been bouncing their vote around on any popular wagon, then hey, go for it... but after they apparently did it a single time, when they feel someone is scum? No... not really a stronge case there.

First off nooooooooo, never said that, give me a direct quote. Also let's say there's a vi in the game doing scummy or anti town things, scum can very easily justify their vote against them for a lynch, that doesn't make them not scum.

Just because scum could easily justify their vote on them, it does not mean everyone who votes for them must be scum. I again want to know why you aren't pressuring others on the wendy wagon. May I point out Nexus and Fitz joined after me, are their votes not "opportunistic" enough to warrant your attention? What about what Leech pointed out in regards to Llama and that he says he considered unvoting before deadline to force a no lynch? Is that not strange behaviour to you? This is how come you are tunnelling on me, you are ignoring everything else in the game completely.

You are refusing to acknowledge that wendy appeared scummy, if this is not true, tell me.

I can completely understand why you think wendy is scummy, and when wendy was in the game I disagreed without that. Now that's a clever way to avoid the question isn't it? Do you believe scum might possibly try to get wendy lynched?

My point isn't whether scum would try to get wendy lynched. Scum would try and get everyone but their partner lynched (and even then they'd be likely to hop on the wagon if they appeared to be going down), that much is just downright obvious. My point is that you are ignoring any reason why pro-town players would want wendy lynched for his actions.

Do you think it would look scummy to try and get wendy lynched?

Huh? Of course not, wendy was scummy as fuck. Otherwise you have 4 other people to get questioning as well.

Are you really suggesting that Xite was the easier lynch? It took a lot of effort on the part of the Xite wagon to make sure he was lynched and not wendy.

Ah, so would it not stand to reason that it would be scummy to push a lynch of Xite so strongly knowing he was town? This is why I take issue with your case on me. It's saying one thing and doing another. You say I'm scummy for how I felt wendy was scum. Yet you felt Xite was scum and pushed that case. Does that mean you are scum too?

So no, it doesn't vanish, I never suggested for once Xite's play vanished, but if I have a stronger read on wendy, and have stopped paying close attention to Xite's play, I will REFUSE to give a read on that player. It would be scummy as all hell to be willing to lynch a player I do not have a read on.

Hmmm, this quote suggests otherwise.

the fact that he's not done anything so overtly scummy that I was instantly drawn to

Remember Prana before this you had said you were willing to lynch Xite.

Okay, read carefully here, because I'm getting annoyed at repeating myself over and over again because you refuse to actually understand what I'm saying.

Let's split the game into two periods.
A - B
B - C

A is the start of the game, B is the middle of day 1 roughly, and C is the end of day 1.

So, the A - B section:
I find Xite somewhat scummy, I state as much, I state that at that point I would be happy with a lynch on Xite. So in period A - B I would lynch Xite.

Then around point B wendy draws my attention so much that I can see no possible way he can be anything but scum (possibly like you're doing with me now... y'know, perhaps you should go looking elsewhere considering you have an entire two weeks to do so, and I would hope to god you're the next lynch if, for two whole weeks you solely tunnel on me). So...

B - C:
I let my attention be drawn mainly to wendy, thus I no longer am paying extra close attention to Xite (I'm reading what's being said, but going over wendy's crap more, like I say, not great town play, but at least I'm willing to admit that). Therefore I have no read for Xite for this section.

Now, while he may have been scummy in the A - B section, I REFUSE to lynch someone I don't have a read from sections A through C. That would be scummy as hell, and I'm not in the game of being scum when I'm not, y'know?

Thus my only conclusions are that you are doing one of the following:
1 - Suggesting I should have "actually" been willing to lynch Xite, and lied about not having a read on him for the B - C section. Which would be crappy play.

Or

2 - You have decided to take a quote from A - B, and attribute it for the entire A - C section, which is a massive misrep no matter which way you swing it, just as claiming I got less of a read from him with more information. It's not "more information" if I wasn't letting it sink in now is it? It's actually less information in my case. Yes, bad town play, but no, not scummy play, there's a difference.

Oh also I am suggesting that at the time you wanted to lynch Xite you didn't have a strong read, nothing more, nothing less.

And I've just said otherwise, repeatedly, in basically every post in this day phase, can you please understand the difference between what you are insinuating happened, and what I'm stating DID happen?

You spoke of the case against Xite and said you didn't look over it. That suggests that there was physical case, if not please clearly say what you mean so there are no more misunderstandings. I guess we both agree that this is a misunderstanding?

By case I simply mean what he posted. Once again, I do NOT store cases on players. I've said that three times at least now. I can hardly say it more clearly than I have done each time.

Wendy joined the game at post #288, so surely you would have seen me posting against Xite then? Since you weren't paying attention to Xite were you also not paying attention to the people who posted responses to Xite? Your FoS against wendy is at #329, this was before wendy exploded. It seems strange that you would have missed me "tunneling" Xite then when you used tunneling as a reason for why I'm scum, still strange that you didn't bring it up before then and brought up again but did not show the past situations as supporting evidence. If you think I'm scum why wouldn't you take the time to make a good case with supporting evidence?

Considering you were responding to Nexus, iau, Fitz, and others throughout it, it didn't feel like tunnelling, in fact even reading back over it, it doesn't feel like tunnelling, what you are doing here, focusing solely on me and NOBODY else, is tunnelling to a huge degree no matter what way you slice it.

I think my case is pretty awesome, as is my supporting evidence. Alright you think I'm scum now (It's starting to look like pure OMGUS, right?) so why would you look the other way? Don't you want to find scum and get them lynched?

No, it's not looking like pure OMGUS, it's looking like "this guy's tunnelling like fuck, misrepping me, putting words in my mouth, and basically creating a case that isn't there", but why be honest about things when you can make up my thought process yourself?

And I'd like to ask you the same thing, don't you want to find scum and get them lynched?

Oh right sorry, we're tunnelling on me today, and everyone else can be ignored.

lol majority of those were questions, lulz… if they were wrong why didn't you answer them and correct me? None of those are putting words in your mouth.

Sorry, but just because they were questions doesn't change what their intention was. If you wanted an honest answer you'd have worded them better than something which would give a straight yes/no response.

1. Question

No, more like a statement with a "right?" tagged on at the end. Which is exactly what it was.

2. Alright so what did you do then? I can't find any pro town reason a townie would't investigate the situation, what did happen then?

I have done, multiple times, read above, it's not my fault you refuse to accept what I'm saying in favour of tunnelling on me. Also, this is evidence of putting words in my mouth because you're stating I saw a chance to get Dalt lynched and went for it, which would be false because I didn't pursue it the second the actual evidence came to light (hey, you like meta, I don't, whoopie).

3. Sigh… did you or did you not forgot about your suspicions on Xite? If yes then can you see how anyone can think of you?

Read above.

4. lol… that was never used against you, that was pointed out was pure speculation on a theory wendy could have thought up as as for why WENDY thought you were scum and questioned you, not I.

If you weren't using it as part of your case, why did you make such a big deal out of it? If it is meaningless in your case on me, it is just fluff instead, is that not correct?

5. Question

Not so, again it's a statement in the form of a question.

6. Question

Again, statement in the form of a question.

7. Are you denying that was an opportunistic situation for someone to make their vote? When I ask you further about the situation you just tell me you wanted to change your vote without any further reasons as to why about what other factors changed your choice.

I felt wendy was scum, and had already given my reasons for it. Are we going to just play tennis with this point? Either you believe me or you don't, I don't give a toss right about now, I'm sick of re-hashing the same thing over and over again with new words. You still misrepped me with what you were saying whether you wish to admit it or not.

8. That was what I understood from your post, is there a misunderstanding? Yes or no, if yes then why not tell me so we can drop it?

I've pointed it out multiple times, and again further up on this post, read them.

9. lol how this putting words in your mouth… you were angry about I mentioned a simple observation that wendy could have thought up as that leaded you to scum so I asked you to look from his perspective and give me some answers that doesn't. No, I'm not suggesting that if one of his flips town the other is scum, that's not the whole point of explaining wendy's actions lol… This might be hard for you to believe, but the wendy analysis was about wendy… not you or against you lol…

I never said that last one was putting words in my mouth, I merely wanted to return to it because it caught my eye while skimming through. You'll notice I specified above each post whether it was putting words in my mouth or misrepping me. I stated neither on this one, but I like the sudden defensiveness from the start in replying to that.

Also, why were you giving an analysis about a dead player? We know they're town, what we don't know is whether they were correct in their suspicions or not, you are basically suggesting that wendy's opinions had to be correct and that's final, when it's laughable to think that.

You wanted me to explain why WENDY was suspicious of you, we are also on the subject of wendy using scrutiny.

This is the definition of scrutiny

examination: the act of examining something closely (as for mistakes)

Part of showing you the reasons for why WENDY did things was to show HE WAS USING SCRUTINY. Are you telling me that looking at the early situation and asking questions about it was not scrutiny? I had posted this earlier before and you responded to it.

No, you wanted to explain it, I merely said to "go on" you then posted it, and have since said it wasn't part of your case on me, thus admitting it was basically a big ball of fluff that you posted.

And no, I don't believe wendy was being scrutinous (I think that's a word) with what he was doing, I think he was being a terrible player and most of what was being posted got us nowhere and fast. It would also appear at least 4 other players felt that he was being scummy as well.

Now... I've responded to that... but I did go through an ISO on Lat either way (because I only felt it fair to do so being as I'm voting him). As I'd typed it up prior to seeing Lat had responded, I shall just C+P it under this:

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

First, I want to look over Lat (until the end of Day 1, as I feel everything on Day 2 has been covered by myself during the back and forth). Obvious I know, but I either want to prove to myself he's not scum, and he's town going nuts in the wrong direction, or whether he's scummy as hell and needs lynching "like naow!"

I found a couple of things, but more things that show that he's being hypocritical in his case on me, rather than things that make him scum in my eyes. So I'm going to go with the fact he's town, but completely got himself tied up over something and is reluctant to see where I'm coming from for fear it makes him look scummy for pushing the case and backing off again.

Lat ISO #3

Votes Nexus putting him at 3 votes and the largest wagon. Considering his case on me suggests I was going after an "easy lynch" would it therefore be logical to conclude that he was doing the same by pushing someone he felt easy to lynch? If the answer is no then I expect him to back down from pursuing this point on my case because you can't have it both ways, either it's scummy to do it, which Lat did as well, or it's not scummy to do it.

Lat ISO #8

"Alright I understand, I assume you made all of your posts in a fast way?"

That bit?

Yes. Up until I made that comment, now I'm slowing down a bit.

Yes, that bit.

Now you've told me you're lying. You did not post every post in a fast "Think as I write way."

Lets look at your largest post (#111). There's a load of information there, you're telling me a person with a "short attention span" remembered all of that and typed up all of it without referencing to the thread even once? Even I had to read through the first few pags to get what was going on =/

Now my point is, now at this point you've finally slowed down why didn't you keep on posting in this way? Why are you rushing and as you yourself and you end up saying "'I'm not doing very well at explaining myself at all. (#174)"

Also your first list you believe it should be titled "This is where I stand" right? Does this mean that your second and third list is more of an "official" correct scum list you stand by?

Okay, I've brought this up because of the evidence that he is calling out people for "lying" just because he doesn't understand what they're saying, much like has been done with me.

Now, I take from that, that far from actually thinking someone's lying he is instead trying to justify pressing someone further by claiming they are lying when the honest fact is either he doesn't understand what they're saying, or that he is just looking to see if he can get a lynch going.

I'd also like to point something I seriously noticed come end of Day 1.

At this point you still haven't pointed out my flaws in the Dalt case that you have somehow brought up well after the fact to somehow beef up your case on me. Why is that? You're asking me why I didn't ISO Xite earlier (despite me stating I didn't have a chance), you have no reason to have not done that previously, so why do it now unless it's solely because you needed to try and make your case seem more solid than it actually was?

Surely attacking me for things you haven't done yourself is hypocritical?

So, conclusion is while he's acting somewhat scummy in my eyes in his attack on me, it's possible I'm looking at it that way "because" it's an attack on me and I know I'm town, so to that end I'm going to stop responding to Lat for a few days and look elsewhere, I'll try and get it done tonight, but no promises.

[PranaDevil]

-Opportunistic voting
-Inconsistent views
-Lack of scum hunting
-Citing evidence against people when you don't read it
-Scum oversight

1 - Bollocks and I've stated why earlier on (I note you refuse to admit that)

2 - Bollocks again, and I've stated why earlier

3 - Got hung up on wendy, fair point (planned to scum hunt yesterday, wound up with killer headache, wasn't about to make myself worse just to appease you, so sorry).

4 - Get to this in a second Mr. misrep

5 - Ah yes... the "can't be proven either way" one, cleverly done.

Now, that second spoiler, the Dalt crap. I do like how you take an early game post, and mix them in with DAY TWO posts to make it sound scummier, well done that man, blatant misrepping here.

The first bit was early in the game, the "evidence" I was citing was what Fitz brought up.

Now read carefully here, I DID NOT read it because I DID NOT THINK IT WAS NEEDED.

I took it at face value of "Dalt has played here before", there's a link showing he's been on the site before, I thus felt whoever posted it would have checked it beyond "yep, Dalt's name is in there". Turns out that wasn't the case, and so I changed my views as soon as somebody pointed this out.

HOW THE HELL IS THAT SCUMMY?!

How is it scummy to acknowledge you were wrong and argue AGAINST the policy lynch on someone? (This goes to Llama as well btw)

I do love how I'm being made out to be scummy... for doing something pro-town.

3rd Spoiler tag... not really "that" interesting unless you are just trying to divert people to focus on "things that aren't scummy" but you are insinuating that they are. (Remember people that someone will repeat something over and over again to try and make others believe them, that's ALL Lat has been doing). Yes, hopping 3rd or 4th on a wagon would be scummy, but that also only works if you did it KNOWINGLY. I didn't care where I was on the wagon because I felt wendy was scum. You are now suggesting that anyone who's 3rd or 4th on a wagon is insta-scum. That's pretty shit reasoning.

4th Spoiler - I'd already made clear by now that the "All for a Xite lynch" post was made EARLY in the game, and "overtly scummy" bit was after I'd focused on wendy more than everyone else.

I'd say that, Lat ,you are giving a "brief rundown" but completely ignoring any defences given deliberately to try and make me the "easy lynch" for the day. Giving a one sided view rather than being pro-town and listing both sides of the debate is rather poor town play in my eyes. Town should be looking at everyone as possible scum, you are tunnelling quite severely, and are desperately trying to get everyone on my wagon.

Now... Llama, that Korashk vote. May I point out that I also said "Korashk is saying more by not saying anything at all after he was called out on that point"?

That's not just "he's lurking, vote him" but "He's gone suspiciously quiet after he was called out". I'd have figured you would have seen the difference in that, though I can understand you getting all jumpy about it as it's your player slot.

[PranaDevil]

Now, I said I wanted to pick up on someone who seemed scummy, and I've not liked his predecessor either, soooo... We'll begin with the original spot in that slot... Korashk.

ISO 1 & 2

It's been gone over a few times, but he states he doesn't wish to random vote, then random votes.

ISO 3

Posts the vote count because he likes the information readily available... I read that more as "wanting to make it seem like you're posting lots when you're actually posting nothing of use". Mod should be posting the vote counts, not the players. Feel free to keep a regular tally in notepad.

ISO 7

Votes me for not believing my reasons, fair enough. But then admits that he's not very good until one flip has happened. I doubt most are great until one flip has happened, but why point it out? Also note the further use of posting a needless vote count.

ISO 9

States Just over an hour isn't a short time frame (it's a bloody short time frame), then states the reason he didn't originally random vote is because his Satellite internet ran out and couldn't access the RNG... but yet could access this site? Also what's wrong with rolling two dice? Surely with only 11 people to pick from (you wouldn't pick yourself) 2 dice does the job just as well if you really desperately need to random vote.

ISO 10

Suggests that random voting and asking the person to respond is more than a random vote... what is anyone meant to say in response to an actual random vote? "Erm, you're voting for me randomly" is about all I could muster up for that one. At least ask them something.

After this he basically just vanishes completely and we get LlamaFluff replacing him, so moving onto ISO on Llama.

ISO 1

Good opening, gets information early, I'll admit I like that entry to the game.

Up to ISO 8 spends a lot of time focused on CA, considering CA's play and arguments, this is good.

ISO 8

CA maybe although I am still wondering how much of this is my "always scum" read of him acting up again.

Hold up. Haven't you been making a decent argument against him, and now you're suddenly saying "but I could be wrong". Do you think he's scum or not? Why the sudden back peddaling?

ISO 11

On being asked about the vote currently on CA, and if it's best placed there:

Not quite sure, I am probably going to move it to Xite pretty soon. TW is a strong town read, leads votes, and deadline appears to be approaching. CA is still very scummy though, I would be happy with a lynch of Xite or CA.

Why not move to Xite anyway if you feel Xite is more likely scum? (As I'm getting from the "probably going to move it to Xite pretty soon" line).

Also says:

I want to at least lay out a few key points as to why xite is scum before I vote her

This is important.

ISO 12

Due to an extreme lack of posting time over this weekend (yes I realize when deadline is but it cant be avoided) I am going to leave my vote on CA

This is exceptionally relevant.

ISO 13

Will of course vote xite to not have TW get lynched.

Didn't you just say you would only vote Xite after laying out key points? Now you're saying you would vote Xite just to prevent a wendy lynch?

ISO 14

Havent read since my last post but a skim shows lack of sudden CA wagon

vote xite

So only voting Xite after giving views on her... to voting Xite to prevent a wendy lynch, that's the reason thus far (despite the fact the lynches were tied and he hadn't followed the thread).

ISO 15

This is Day 2 now, and there's this:

I did debate setting my alarm for right before deadline and unvoting to force no lynch though.

But... the rules state that whoever hit the most votes first would be lynched regardless... so not only does that not hold water, but you forced Xite to be lynched by doing it.

ISO 16 - 18

Doesn't say a great deal more fluff posting than anything, but the last line in 18 stands out to me:

CA I now slightly lead town again. Im skitzo like that.

What?! You've been claiming he's scum ALL game, stating you wanted him lynched more than anyone else all Day 1, how in the hell are you backing down on that now? He's not said anything for god-knows how long (okay I could check the ISO of him to find exact times, but that's not relevant). How is he town? How has your read changed so drastically from Definite Scum to Likely Town?

ISO 21

Targets me in regards to... the Dalt stuff and my voting Korashk? I could have understood if he had mentioned something about the Xite stuff as even I admit that was shitty play on my behalf, but the Dalt stuff and Korashk stuff (which feels stuffed in there to fluff the post out)... that's half hearted scum hunting at best.

As I said earlier I feel Lat may well be town (but that last post by him makes me curious I admit, however that could be because it's directed at me, and I don't want to get hung up into tons of OMGUS type voting since, after my initial read of him I got a town feel for his posting, even if his Day 2 stuff is focused wrong). So my vote is going to be leaving Lat and going where it should be.

unvote; vote: LlamaFluff

[PranaDevil]

Llama, I'll make this quick (I think I did more than enough lynch/No Lynch discussion day 1 to go on about it tons here too).

As long as we No Lynch prior to MyLo (and a few players have expressed a willingness to do so, but on the day before MyLo, not before, not after) it gives us an advantage. The actual advantage comes from the odd numbered town as opposed to the even numbered town. Not how early you do it.

That being said, if we do it on the day before MyLo then we have to do it quick and fast so scum have no additional info that day phase.

Also, while I'm here, LmL said:

I believe that the Lat/Prana discussion is a very dense read of two townies completely going at each other. Unless something drastically changes, I won't be voting for either of them today.

If you notice recently I've agreed the same, I don't feel Lat is scum, I honestly wanted to think him as scum so I went and did an ISO of him (hence why my ISO of Llama was later than I wanted it to be), however it turned out that I couldn't really find anything scummy in Lat's play Day 1. He was playing a pretty solid town game, and the only negative I can bring up on Day 2 is his attacking of me, and that's solely because I know I'm town and he's been tunnelling, but that, in itself, isn't a tell for me. I just want him to start looking at other cases and seeing what he can see of others without the thoughts of "Prana is obv. scum" in his head.

[PranaDevil]

Nightwolf, I agree the me/Lat exchange pretty much goes nowhere, I'd still like to see him start looking elsewhere as he's not done so yet this Day phase.

However, I feel saying to ignore all posts by the two of us is a poor move. For one I feel I made a relatively good case on Llama, and by saying to ignore all posts by me it means Fitz may just skip over that entirely when reading through. I also wonder if other people missed it purely because it was just another long post by me, without seeing who it was focused on.

[PranaDevil]

In regards to the Dalt stuff Lat, I've made it quite clear. The fact there was a link AT ALL showed he had been on the site before. I honestly did not believe someone would go to the trouble to fish out a meta link and fail to pay attention to the fact it was years old and he replaced out basically without doing sod all. I fail to see how that is scummy, you however are making some huge deal out of it.

1 - Yes
2 - Fuck no.
3 - Yes
4 - Knew it wasn't a hammer vote, thus didn't need to care at that point.

Number 2 and 3 are annoying though, you're still repeatedly going on about "Forgetting" Xite's scumminess, I have repeatedly pointed out this is not the case and shown why, please stop deliberately misrepping me by choosing to mislabel what you are saying. It's anti-town at best, and scummy at worst.

The way you add number 3 there makes out that choosing not to use meta is somehow a scum tell. I'd like to know why that would be, when there are a variety of factors that could lead to perhaps playing differently in different games.

Lat, want to stop tunnelling on me now? Day 1 you are town as hell, Day 2 you're getting scummier by the post for this severe tunnelling.

-----

Llama, interesting video, but I'm getting the feeling that you posted it on the basis of people having to re-listen over and over just to try and pinpoint scummy behaviour, which is harder than just quoting it on the forum. Why are you suddenly switching over to video? I see no reason for it outside of preventing quoting of what you are saying. Well, that and preventing people spotting you going back on what you say if/when you do so.

I don't think videos are a good way of posting thoughts, as it prevents people actually looking over the posts properly repeatedly, and anyone who is working in an office and plays there, or would have restricted access to sites like youtube (Like I did for a month a while back while looking after my Dad) would be unable to view them. I would rather no videos were posted like that.

[PranaDevil]

Lat, see this post - http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 5#p2478635

Just search for the line "Okay, this is getting effing ricockulus.", and it's that section there. It explains it just as well as any other time I've explained it.

[PranaDevil]

I recognize the game you pointed out had someone make that move, but I still think it is a town tell to an extent. Ignorance of setup tends to be a town tell, as scum inherantly know more about it.

That doesn't add up.

How are scum going to know more about the game setup? Surely all the scum should know is something like:

You are a goon, this is your partner.

So how are scum knowing more about the setup from that? Unless you know something the rest of us don't?

The rest of that post is just mafia theory about the No Lynch that uses math which is false.

The math is correct if (and only if) there is no discussion taken place in the game up to the point of the no lynch, as it's assuming a random mislynch and a random kill during the rest of the time. When actual discussion has taken place it changes things considerably, and therefore just treating it as a mathematical problem is a terrible thing to do.

[PranaDevil]

I was also going to point out that Leech botched his calculations, as it's not whether the amount of town are even or odd, but the total number of players. So after the first No Lynch we will stick at odd numbers from there on out in this setup.

As for Llama, the thing you're still forgetting is your maths only works if nobody ever speaks at any point in the game and we just lynch randomly, once you take reads of people into hand then the numbers change (either more beneficial for the No Lynch, or less beneficial for the No Lynch depending on where the suspicion lies etc). But we wouldn't know that until the game's over anyways.

The optimal time for a No Lynch is pretty much "before MyLo", once we hit MyLo it's pretty much too late, but earlier than that I don't feel is optimal at all. Especially when you then consider that scum would be more likely to take out someone they feel is strong on the town's side anyway, which means on Day 1 with a No Lynch (as optimal strategy is it happens right off the bat with no discussion) someone who would be a great benefit to town winds up night killed without putting in any input.

Regarding the Lee issue... I still feel Llama is scum. Lee however does need to respond to iam's post there, and Nexus, hold off putting someone at L-1, you never know if the scum would self-hammer to cut the day short and prevent themselves accidentally outing their buddy. Better to be safe than sorry and all.

[PranaDevil]

Holy crap... the 8th? Time doesn't half fly when you're busy. I was sure we had a good while before the end of the day. I suppose putting someone at L-1 isn't so much of an issue with that in mind.

However to answer your question (even though it's shown my comment wasn't really needed now) is that Nexus had proceeded to unvote afterwards Lat, consider it more me giving him advice than just attacking him or anything.

Not sure about a Llama/Lee scum team, without doing a full check on them (which I shall attempt to do when I get in from work tomorrow in fact), it would be wrong to make a statement one way or the other. I was actually wanting to do a more thorough read on Lee anyway, so this can kill two birds with one stone, as I hadn't considered them being a scum pair prior to you mentioning it, but I will take that into consideration while reading Lee (and checking over Llama while I do so to see how things tally between them).

[PranaDevil]

No matter how distracting another player is a townie shouldn't be forgetting why they suspected other players in the thread, especially when we are still in day one.

Please note, once again (because I'm sick and tired of repeating this point over and over again, and I'm sure as hell everyone else is fed up of seeing it), I did not "forget" my case on Xite. What I did do is "lose track" on Xite.

Are you suggesting that I should be voting for someone I only have half a case on? Seriously, please go back and check my posts this day phase to see my issue with Lat on him pushing this issue. It's a complete misrep to claim I "forgot" my case when I have stated I got distracted by Wendy and thus, while I still felt Xite's early day stuff was scummy, I hadn't been following her case for the second half of the day phase.

As I have said, it would be scummy to vote someone when your only issues would be the early day and you can give no true insight to the late part of that day.

On reading the thread, these two reactions are just pretty ridiculous when you put them next to each other. The first one is PD just taking Fitz's word as golden because he clearly doesn't check the game in question. Just looking at PD's defenses of himself, it is clear he isn't a lazy player so to me it looks like he just took this as a chance to position himself for an easy lynch.

Straight question:

Is not liking meta scummy? Yes or no.

Now his calls that Lat is town feel very fake to me, seems like a drastic change of opinion over such a short time frame. It doesn't look natural and I'm not buying it.

Did I not point out that I went into an ISO of Lat on the basis of proving him to be scum... and actually brought up that he is most likely town? I think I did. Prior to doing that I felt he was scummy because he was attacking me. I think that's rather natural, when you are town, to feel someone tunnelling on you to be scummy. So why is it scummy to feel that way, check that player out, only to return with a pro-town read after that ISO check?

As for my top two suspects... Llama for obvious reasons (check my case, which I still like in all honesty), and I would go with LmL, but purely because of the earlier points about him as I've not had chance to check over him properly, so I don't see me voting him today unless I get chance prior to deadline.

And Lat, reason for not voting Fitz? My vote was elsewhere at the time. Strangely enough my vote cannot be in two places at once. Are you suggesting it's scummy to have suspicion on two players at once now?

[PranaDevil]

PD, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. “Lost track” and “forgot” are basically the same thing, period.

No, it doesn't, forgot would suggest I forgot about the fact I previously found Xite scummy. Lost track states that I no longer paid enough attention to Xite to get a full read on him. Anti-town I'll admit, but then I've admitted that before, but scummy? That's a stretch.

Straight question:

Is not liking meta scummy? Yes or no.

No.

Straight question:

What does that have to do with anything?

You are using the fact I never checked the Dalt link as a reason I'm scummy. At that moment in time I had no reason not to believe that the link proved Dalt had played a game here before. I wasn't about to click the link because I don't like using Meta, however the link itself (in my eyes) proved that Dalt had lied. As soon as it was pointed out that there was an issue with that, I took a closer look and found out that there was a huge area of greyness surrounding the issue, and immediately backed off from my case, and actually argued strongly against the Dalt pushing.

How is that scummy?

[PranaDevil]

vote: No Lynch

[PranaDevil]

I'm assuming he means this rule:

12) If the game goes to 72 game hours (3 day and night phases) with no deaths, all living factions will forget why they were killing in the first place and will live happily ever after (draw).

Which means as it stands, the town are looking for a draw? The second No Lynch vote was bloody stupid anyway, it was obvious scum had chosen not to kill as we returned from night early, just like we have here. So why did we just repeat the damned cycle? Both sides were damned stupid there anyway. Town should be trying to lynch, the first No Lynch was good, I agreed with it and went with it, the second was just a massive waste of for all involved as the outcome was known before it was done. Scum on the other hand are supposed to be trying to win, and evidently have gone against their win condition by not doing so. So I haven't a clue what's going on, but we do need to stop the damned No Lynches.

[PranaDevil]

Yes Lat, let's lynch the guy pointing out the stupidity of attempting to go for a No Lynch THREE TIMES RUNNING. That's what I meant about the draw, if we no lynch we may as well be saying we want a draw, which would be utterly stupid and ridiculous. Apparently that's a negative?

[PranaDevil]

Because what's to say the scum are going to kill again? I have no clue what's going through their mind, they've no killed twice, which is utterly ridiculous because scum should be trying to win, not passing up on killing people. So for all I know they want a draw, which would mean giving it to them (It would be stupid, but so far there's been a shit ton of stupidity from them, so what do I know?)

[PranaDevil]

NW, the reason for the first no lynch was obvious, the idea is because we're at an even number of players, having an odd number is better for town as the odds work out better in our favour for a good lynch.

The second time, after no kill happened, was pointless.

This time would just be ridiculous, and I'm actually concerned at anyone considering it. It just feels like people are just willing to give up, or are banking on the rest of the town agreeing with them so the scum get their way.

[PranaDevil]

Figured that while it was pointless, enough people seemed to rush in for it that I may as well see where it leads. Now it's failed miserably twice, why should we just play to a draw?

[PranaDevil]

Lat, rather than just deciding "Prana's scum" and outright ignoring any other possibility from your play (Which is severely becoming anti-town with your refusal to actually look elsewhere properly), how about, y'know... actually trying to look at all possibilities?

The way you are playing it will lose town the game, as if you're town, then people lynch me, see I'm town, and then could well wind up lynching you because you refused to do anything beyond focus on me for weeks on end, and then what? Well done scum they've got the game in the bag.

I want to win this one, so I don't want you cocking it up royally by having town going in the wrong direction because you've decided to stick your head in the sand about things.

[PranaDevil]

So what you are saying is that despite the fact that a mislynch could severely damage the town, you have decided that even if someone (me in this instance) is town, the town is better without them then actually removing scum from the equation?

Also, lack of original thinking? I will note I'm the first person actively pointing out the utter stupidity of a third no lynch, I also was the first person to create a case on Llama, I went through your history and, despite the fact you've been non-stop attacking me, pointed out that if anyone is blindly obviously town, it's you from your first days actions (your day two actions leaves a lot to be desired however), so how have I not done any "original" thinking?

I don't want to get into another huge debate with you right now, but you're just trying to force the view that I'm scum on everyone else, you're not suggesting it and asking people to make their own minds up, you're trying to dictate to everyone and that I don't like. Your day 1 play wont save you forever, if you don't start looking in other areas today and I get lynched then you can guarentee that the town will turn on you, and if you're town, then you've just lost us the game.

I haven't done too much in the way of checking during the night phase purely because I've had limited time and so decided to hold off just in case I wound up killed (considering the previous kills, I had no clue where the scum planned on going and didn't want to waste my time), so I plan over the next few days to check over the whole thread to see where I stand on everyone after a proper re-read and ISO check of things.

[PranaDevil]

Sweet christ.

*headdesk*

[PranaDevil]

He hasnt voted for scum (except maybe RVS, although I still say Leech-HF is the least likely pairing out there)

Read this, and wanted to give it a quick check (not in depth, but just the once over to see who Leech has voted for so far).

Nexus
fitz
Xite
Wendy
LlamaFluff

They are the only people he has voted for (not in order I'll note, stupid ISO not taking you to their first post automatically).

So he's voted fitz in RVS, fair enough, but how do you know fitz is town?

Yes, we know Nexus, Xite and Wendy were town now, but again, nobody, other than yourself (and perhaps your partner) know your alignment. So are you suggesting we just take your word for it? I still don't like your play, and still feel it's possible you're scum Llama, I'm not sure of Leech, want to check some things there first. (Yeah, I know, been saying that a lot, I think the TW argument took things out of me early on, and I've never really picked back up since, which hasn't been a great help, now the me/Lat debate isn't going to continue raging on this phase, I'll see if I can muster up the willpower to get going through everyone who is left.

[PranaDevil]

Okay, I'm not even going to attempt to start defending myself or anything here, I'm just going to do what I should have been doing up to now, and that's look over everyone up to now, I'll only comment on those I believe are scummy after my ISO of each person, as it would be a waste of everyone's time to read through a long ass post about why someone is pro-town at this stage.

In addition, I'm struggling to get back into this game, and have done for quite a while now, so I apologize if I don't seem as enthusiastic as I perhaps should do.

Sotty7 (ConfidAnon)

Not linking directly to the posts, just do an ISO on them and follow the posts down (it's much easier that way anyway).

(Beginning with CA)

Post #0

Votes LmL

Post #1

Wants an LmL wagon

Post #2

Wants a Leech wagon now.

Post #4

Decides to vote me instead.

Post #6

Says he wanted to get a wagon started to move the game on, despite the fact he jumped away from the LmL wagon, that makes no sense to me.

Post #13

Finally unvotes me when he can't get a wagon on me, disguised behind finally "getting" what I'm saying, despite me not ever changing what I was saying.

Also states he didn't intend to push for my lynch, yet at post #11 he said outright that he was pushing for me lynch.

post #14

Jumps on Fitz now for not much of a reason

Post #22

Starts asking for more votes on Korashk, even after Korashk has requested replacement. Replacing out isn't a scum tell, it could simply be his free time has been reduced and he has to pick which games to play in.

(Switch to Sotty)

Post #3

Latches onto Lat's case on me very quickly, and pushes the non-existant issue of the Dalt stuff which has been gone over way too much to do so again now, suffice to say I find that scummy.

Post #4

Says "PD, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. “Lost track” and “forgot” are basically the same thing, period."
Yet they aren't the same thing, "forgot" means you can't remember even having a case, "lost track" means you had the original case there, you just never continued following it. Massive difference and it looks strongly like trying to force a lynch through.

Post #17

After all the no lynching she returns and now backs off me suddenly? Sounds more like trying to get me on side all of a sudden and wanting me to vote in the same direction she is.

Post #18

Tons of WIFOM that leads to... voting Llama, who I was pushing as scum before. Combined with the previous attempt to seemingly buddy with me, and now go after someone I was voting previously with WIFOM reasoning makes me think Llama may well be town and Sotty is attempting to gain my confidence.

vote: Sotty7

I will be looking over others, but I'm shocked CA/Sotty has lasted this long looking back, CA was blatantly scummy, and Sotty hasn't actually done anything of use since entering the game except keep her head above water and now, somehow say the two she most suspected are now town in her eyes and then use WIFOM to vote Llama (someone who has seemed scummy to all). It all just feels false from Sotty, like she's wanting to appear scum hunting without ever doing so.

[PranaDevil]

What he's saying just doesn't make sense, at all.

Could say the same about you matey, and I'll just take a line from this post to show as much.

PD was hesitant to no-lynch yesterday. The scum also no-killed twice in the face of our no-lynch attempts. They clearly wanted us to have to lynch to keep the odds in their favor, yeah? So, who would be more opposed to a no-lynch, town or scum? I can see legitimate town reasons to object, (not wanting to draw mainly) but I do not consider Prana's objections one of those reasons.

You don't consider my reasoning to be legitimate town reasons?

You have stated right there that the main reason would be to not want to draw, this is non-negotiable, it's right there in your text.

Let's have a little look at what my first post was in regards to the third no lynch shall we?

I'm assuming he means this rule:

12) If the game goes to 72 game hours (3 day and night phases) with no deaths, all living factions will forget why they were killing in the first place and will live happily ever after (draw).

Which means as it stands, the town are looking for a draw?

The second No Lynch vote was bloody stupid anyway, it was obvious scum had chosen not to kill as we returned from night early, just like we have here. So why did we just repeat the damned cycle? Both sides were damned stupid there anyway. Town should be trying to lynch, the first No Lynch was good, I agreed with it and went with it, the second was just a massive waste of for all involved as the outcome was known before it was done. Scum on the other hand are supposed to be trying to win, and evidently have gone against their win condition by not doing so. So I haven't a clue what's going on, but we do need to stop the damned No Lynches.

Read the bold bit, right off the bat I point out I don't want a draw. So by your own admission I have argued the point from the main town perspective, and yet you are also suggesting I'm not doing that? How does that work?

[PranaDevil]

Yeah, I wanted to lynch scum.

Even without that rule there, I'm pretty sure there's a common consensus on the site as a whole that after a certain amount of no lynch/no kill periods (when done deliberately, which was happening here) there's a "Happy Ever After" decision. Otherwise the game would go on indefinitely until some of the players got bored and gave up entirely.

When scum no killed the first night, that should have been information enough that they had deliberately no killed. At that stage none of us (except the scum, obviously) knew whether they were fucking with us, or decided to actually play for a draw (which would have been effing stupid, but then the first two kills already had me thinking that anyway, so perhaps that was their intention, buggered if I know).

Thus, seeing as we had no kill the first night, the best way of making sure we didn't get stuck in an endless cycle would be to lynch and try killing scum.

Come day 3 we knew the mod had added a rule, which means I was less happy to go with another no lynch, because if the scum had decided to go for the draw we would have just given it to them. I refuse to accept that giving entire control of the game to scum was a good move. How can it have been? We voluntarily gave up our only weapon to kill scum and let scum decide whether to just end the game then and there as a draw. This isn't a positive move.

Sure, it's worked out better for town (Than the draw at least) in the end as we got what we wanted, but it's also delayed things hugely, made checking up on stuff more frustrating, and as I'm already struggling with the game it's hindered me no end, and I'm sure others are the same (Llama touched on it on the previous page). But you can't honestly say that I was arguing a pro-town point from an anti-town standpoint there.

Also, town hadn't just "decided" that the best time for a no lynch was mylo, I actually pushed the point early on that I wasn't up for an early no lynch, and that the only time I wanted to consider it was the day before mylo, I'm pretty sure I was the second person to say it as well (though I'm not going to re-read just to find out if I was second or third saying it). So it's not just going along with it, it was me actively encouraging it.

[PranaDevil]

Which means as it stands, the town are looking for a draw?

The second No Lynch vote was bloody stupid anyway, it was obvious scum had chosen not to kill as we returned from night early, just like we have here. So why did we just repeat the damned cycle? Both sides were damned stupid there anyway.

Town should be trying to lynch,

the first No Lynch was good, I agreed with it and went with it, the second was just a massive waste of for all involved as the outcome was known before it was done.

Scum on the other hand are supposed to be trying to win,

and evidently

have gone against their win condition

by not doing so. So I haven't a clue what's going on, but we do need to stop the damned No Lynches.

First, the bolded. Very interesting word choice here. Town should be trying to lynch, while scum on the other hand should be trying to win. On the other hand? That phrase tends to imply a difference of some sort, so the town must not be trying to win as they lynch, their only concern is that they should be lynching. That is basically a scum claim in itself since he wants to win and yet winning is exclusively associated with scum there.

Different word choices do not make me scum, I'd not even say they're poor word choices, as I tend to type as I think things in my head, and I don't tend to go over the posts with a fine tooth comb to make sure they're worded expertly. I have no reason to be re-reading my posts repeatedly just to make sure tiny things aren't accidently in there. You're forgetting that to call something scummy it has to at least be negative to the town, how is a different choice of words a negative to the town?

There are other things off about this post as well though. Example: the underlined. The rule was just added after the second no-lynch/no-kill, so the conclusion that town is looking for a draw cannot be obtained from the first two no lynches.

Except for the whole fact that it's common knowledge that after a few no lynch/no kill period there will be a "Happily Ever After" decision even if it's not in the rules of course, or are you suggesting the mod would just let it continue going indefinitely? So how would the "endless loop" have been fixed? I was worried we would move into a draw, because it made absolutely no sense that the scum no killed to me, and made even less sense we no lynched twice in a row, and I was seriously wondering what everyone was smoking on the third. Yeah, it worked out that we didn't draw, but where did it leave us? With a game harder to get into than if we had lynched day 2. I'd hardly say it's worked out nicely for us here.

Then we have the italics as well, which says that the scum are not playing to their win condition by not killing. Prana does admit though when asked that it would be in town's favor to get scum to kill. This would naturally mean that it would be in scum's favor for them not to, making it their best play.

But scum's win condition is to eliminate town, they should be playing to do as such, not avoid killing town, I can actually understand why scum no killed twice running and only killed when forced, though it was still crap play as if the rule hadn't been put in, how do we know how far they would go with it? It could have led straight to a forced draw, fact is we had no clue what they were doing, just that they no killed two nights running. If they had been planning for a draw, the third no lynch would have run us into it, which as far as I'm concerned meant everyone voting no lynch on day 3 was playing against their win condition (Whether scum or town, as scum should be trying to force mislynches too).

Now, since Prana seems convinced that the scum are playing for a draw. As I said, for that to be the case, they wouldve had to decide that from the beginning with the way they have played. So the is the possibility (though I wouldn't consider this entirely likely myself) that the scum play was for the exact reason of being able to use the argument of handing the scum a draw in order to avoid the otherwise inevitable no lynch when it would occur.

What? What about if someone was getting a bit to close to them? Evidently that didn't happen, but you're looking in a black and white situation, I'd rather accept that there are a lot of shades of grey in between and play things safe. Apologies if you don't accept that playing safe and wanting to win are good town behaviour, but I don't like just throwing in the towel and giving up, which as far as I was concerned is what we did on the third no lynch because we threw our chance to decide what happened away and allowed the scum to decide whether the game went on or just ended. How is that playing to win?

All of the following Prana quotes strike me in some way as betraying a scum mindset:

I have no clue if he deliberately lied or not, I'm just pointing out to claim he deliberately lied is to paint him scummy for your own ends, and to not actually consider all possibilities, which

we, as town

, should be doing.

Do I need to explain this one?

I'd wish you would. If I'd just said "which we should be doing" I'd have been jumped on for the fact it was ambiguous and could have suggested I meant "we" as in "me and my scum partner", hence why I put town but it would appear it's one of those lose/lose situations, you ignore putting town and someone jumps on you for it, you put town and someone jumps on for it. What it boils down to is a complete and utter null tell.

Things aren't set black and white, you are deliberately ignoring the fact there are other potential factors, everyone is pointing this out, and you're sitting there with your fingers in your ears ignoring everything people are saying,

convinced you are right.

If fitz was scum pushing a mislynch, which Prana was arguing, he wouldn't be convinced he was right, he'd know he was wrong.

I didn't say

I

was convinced he was right, I said

HE

was convinced he was right and ignoring everything. How the hell did you manage to even get that cocked up so badly?

Now are you going to try scum hunting or are you destined to just distract town by tunnelling on me over a completely pointless issue? Because if it's the second one I may well vote for you on principle so we can get you out of the way and get on with some real scum hunting here.

"I may well vote you on principle" - it seems like he's just non-commitally floating the idea of a policy lynch here to see if he can get away with it.

It was a threat to try getting him to scum hunt. Please do not be twisting things to make them scummy.

Actually I've not too long ago said CA is still one of my picks as likely scum.

Wording issue here; the fact that he mentions that he's said it not too long ago, rather than just saying straight "CA is still one of my likely picks as scum" suggests that he is overly concerned with appearing consistent.

Was it long ago or not? It was also responding to a direct question from yourself, so I was pointing out that had you been paying attention you'd have known that. Again, you're stretching to twist something into being scummy.

wendy HAS done a ton of stuff that's so scummy that I've seen less scummy scum.

^ This is a big one. Just, really think about what he's actually saying here. wendy has been remarkably scummy, so scummy, in fact, that Prana has seen

less scummy scum

. Why would that be at all remarkable if wendy was scum? It wouldn't. This sentence only makes sense if Prana is saying that wendy was a remarkably scummy

townie

.

Meh, badly worded, my point was I didn't 100% know if wendy was scum or not, but I've seen scum in other games who were less scummy despite being blatantly obvious about it.

I'm not one for tunnelling if I can help it unless the person is acting considerably scummy (see: wendy).

The first in a long series of posts on D2 where Prana continues to insist that wendy was scummy scum scum even though he died and flipped town. Basically, the purpose of this is to place the responsibility for wendy's lynch on wendy's shoulders, and thus not on Prana.

What lynch was that then? You mean the non-existant one where wendy replaced out, survived the lynch and was killed overnight by the scum? That one do you mean? That means I cannot be responsible for any lynch of wendy, but I can damned sure say that wendy was responsible for acting scummy. Or did I force Adel to come in and act scummy?

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

I'm now actually concerned with Nightwolf from the above, and what Sotty said, despite the fact my vote is on him. (That's not to say I currently believe Sotty to be town, but I don't believe there could be a Sotty/Nightwolf connection, as there was no reason for him to attempt to bus Nightwolf), I'm not liking iam either, that massive post from him against me didn't even feel like town scum hunting, just felt like he was twisting things deliberately to push for the easy mislynch, but as nobody is voting him I wont get anywhere pushing for his lynch today with such a close deadline. But I don't believe he's town at all.

As the Sotty wagon also doesn't appear to be going anywhere, and any lynch of my suspects is better than me allowing known town to be potentially lynched, I'll throw my vote on Nightwolf.

unvote
vote: Nightwolf

Apologies as well for not being around for a good few days. (Wont explain here, the long and short is we had restricted net access)

[PranaDevil]

I dunno about "scum" playing well, but I feel Leech played a blinder. I think the closest I can come to playing "well" is wriggling out of Lat's grasp to begin with, before eventually getting lynched.

I'm also fine with the scum QT being posted, I'll let Leech decide whether he wants it posted or not.

[PranaDevil]

Clarification: Prana was the first poster in the thread, there should be stats on this kinda of stuff.

I tend to be an early poster in games I'm in. Mainly as I have sod all else better to do XD.

Also, I have to say that at the beginning I was very apprehensive about going after the more scummy looking targets, partly because this was the first time I'd played as scum over here, and partly because when I had played as scum elsewhere I wound up lynched (even if I had a logical argument for what I was saying). So making it tougher I felt would create more problems.

But knowing Leech has much more experience than me, and is a better player than me, I went with it and it worked a treat. Obviously not a tactic that can be used on a regular basis (or even that rarely for that matter), but beyond the Lat case on me I think it worked well for both me and Leech as it kept everyone guessing.

Of course it also forced everyone into multiple re-reads of the game which is where I came unstuck myself as a combination of getting fed up of constantly re-reading and being busy at times meant I fell back quite a bit which allowed me to neglect the thread just long enough to where when I finally got an argument in, it was too late.

Great game though, as it's a game I honestly felt could go either way and both sides would have earnt their victory at the end.

Also, people may notice in the scum QT, but I'll state it here. Me and Leech only joined this game to play a proper game together on site, and we commented about how it would be just our luck to be scum together... stupid bloody randomizing