Mini 387: Suicide Bombers, GAME OVER (at last)!

[chaotic_diablo]

vote chaotic_diablo

[chaotic_diablo]

At the beginning of the game, people throw votes on random people. Voting myself is my way of joining in. It has no bearing on whether I'm scum or not.

I have never seen a lyncher, but I've seen one jester. At the time of the Jester's lynch, he gave a bomb to someone else and that player died along with the Jester. Let's keep that in mine in case something like that happens.

[chaotic_diablo]

The bomb thing could possibly happen - seeing as it's a suicide BOMBER mafia. However, I would've thought that the bomber role would be too powerful if he could plant bombs during the day - of course this depends on the number of bombers.

The jester I played with got to choose the target and only when he or she was lynched. That's pretty limited.

As far as random voting goes, I think it's a bit extreme to not being able to. What kind of roles lets the player kill off a person who voted this other person third, then unvoted and voted another person? As twomz said, I think we should be careful on the lynch, not the votes.

[chaotic_diablo]

Several people just blipped on my radar. It's not really strong, but I'm going to keep an eye on them.

unvote

[chaotic_diablo]

Well, the voting thing on cardboard was interesting. Especially when people didn't catch the joke.

[chaotic_diablo]

I called you defensive, not scummy, there is a difference between the two imo

So what kind of point are you trying to bring up? Supposively, you called him defensive to call it into attention. My attention is on him now, but there's nothing there.

[chaotic_diablo]

vote sherlock

[chaotic_diablo]

Just to get things moving.

Well..
Random votes often end up in lynching a townie.. so I'm not going to do that..

What else is there to say?

He establishes that random voting is bad. Yippee. Big clue, but wait!

I'd do a random dice roll on this forum, but I don't know how, so I'll have to random.org it.

How odd.. Random.org also says Twomz. So he must be scum. Rolling Eyes

Vote: Twomz

What the? He randomly votes even though he just said that he wouldn't. IMO, it has to do something with the "fat ugly mole" exchange he had with sherlock. As a result, there is a slight established connection.

The next big thing is MGS's rise to defend sherlock in post 31.

I see what you're saying - however pointing out that could just be letting people know.

In this case, MGS is telling us that sherlock's point is to inform us. However, just in the last page, sherlock accused both TCS and I of being "lynchers" with little evidence. This is tied in with sherlock's post 27 in that he subtly tells us to watch out for the "dangerous" people, TCS and I. Seriously, err on the side of caution? What sort of suggestion is "not voting?" In a way, I think MGS was trying to divert our attention from that aspect.

Later, MGS starts "lurking" like everyone else. [quote="MGS']Well.. there's not much I can say.

I'm still watching though.[/quote] However, when I voted for a nonexistant sherlock, MGs immediatel rises to question me.

I'm here now.

What've I missed? Why are you voting that Chaotic?

It's difficult to vote someone who isn't here. There, he establishes a stronger connection.

That's about it.

unvote

if I need it

vote molestargazer

[chaotic_diablo]

Sorry, your name is so similar to MGS in acronym. MSG, MGS, yadda yadda yadda.

What's that got to do with anything?
I don't hold grudges. I don't see what that's got to do with anything. I'm slightly confused there with that 'connection' you're talking about.

It's not the grudge, but the slight exchange in what seems to be a 'joke.' In a way, it can be viewed as just a joke itself or scum trying to warm themselves with another player/scum. There are plenty of other reasons, but I'm going with the latter for now since there's more points to support it.

I was actually saying that in regards to that post only - not a word was said or thought about when it came to the 'other' posts.

Still, you defended sherlock and tried to lessen the impact. The main issue is that you didn't let sherlock defend himself. Although defending other people is fine, you must have at least a plausible reason to do it. In your case, you were trying to tell us sherlock's motive, which isn't something we can believe.

You know, anyone can jump in right about now and at least tell me how my argument are stupid.

[chaotic_diablo]

Prods for everyone! Please?

[chaotic_diablo]

I don't like CD's (mistaken) Sherlock vote and I don't much like the case he attempts to make against MSG. It looks kind of contrived to me.

Can you explain the terms in which you 'dislike' the actions? Since the actions are strong enough to warrant a vote, there should something other than "I dislike it." I find it strange when you have more to explain for a fos than a vote.

[chaotic_diablo]

Can you shed light on the Sherlock vote?

In post 10, he gave reasons which didn't add up. According to him, the potential to be scum isn't as suspicious as having no read on a player. Seriously, 'hiding' something and 'copying' go real well together.
In that same post, he makes an assumption that both TCS or I might be a lyncher. Although this might be true given the theme, his points did not have enough merit to make any such assumption. This could mean that sherlock is a lyncher himself.
The in post 27, you can read post 30 and get the gist of it. It just looks like sherlock was trying to make himself appear helpful.
Here's where things get messy for me. For some reason, I had the rationality that Pablito and sherlock were both the same person, but existed in the game simultaneously.
When Pablito said that sherlock was a good lynch, he was referring to himself. From my experience with him, I wouldn't be surprised if he was right; pablito might have actually clued us of his alignment. Then my bad rationality kicked up and I voted sherlock.

You seem to have made your case against MSG "just to get things moving." Do you believe in it? It looks contrived to me, which strikes me as scummy, no matter why you whipped it up.

Yes, it was to get things moving. Since MSG had a closer relation with sherlock/pablito at the beginning of the game, I thought sparking some points would get people to talk.

[chaotic_diablo]

I think Sherlock is speculating too much...C_D ALWAYS self votes. I'll bet TCS either always does as well, or does it for the same reaoning I would, that is, just to do it.

Yes, I always selfvote, but I don't go around and tell everyone this. He doesn't know, therefore it is still a legitimate attack on both TCS and me. Whether it is speculation or not is how he could link up "lyncher" with "selfvoting." According to sherlock, a lyncher is someone who needs to kill a certain player to win. Since selfvoting is a more suicidal move, there is a very bad connection.

C_D, could you refrence the game you played with the jester por favor?

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=233
In the form of a kamikaze.

Unless you are saying that MSG piggybacked on everyone's lurking and was the last to start lurking (and I'm not sure how you'd prove that), it sounds like a logic fallacy. The rest of your attack doesn't wow me at all.

Don't cut out the rest of my post. I used it to emphasize the sherlock and MSG connection. This is when he 'lurks' but pops out when I vote sherlock, who is nonexistant.

I kinda want to vote for C_D because of his shoddy attack on MSG.

It's suppose to be shoddy.

C_D - By the way you continued that push to get me lynched, that to me looks like you were jumping on the excuse that Kelly presented you. When I defended myself with those reasons, you came up with more - which makes me think you wanted me dead.

Wagon hopper.

[chaotic_diablo]

Hopping?
If I remember rightly (which I probably haven't), I haven't voted at all before this - and certainly not in the past few pages. How does this count as hopping?

Wagon jumping, you're referring to wagon jumping. Wagon hopping is when you feed the players excuses in order to hop on a bandwagon. I might be wrong on this, but I'm just clarifying what I mean.

As for going on a bandwagon - well, yeah. I agree with what STD said about you, and I'm voting for his reasons which I believe to be correct. Perhaps there's a little bit of annoyance in there as well - but you've not proven yourself innocent to me personally yet.

What

are

STD's reasons?

[chaotic_diablo]

Why?

Game stalling, needed something fast. I made a pretty quick argument that was meant to be bad so that someone would hopefully catch it and create some discussion.

[chaotic_diablo]

Twito: The key word in that quote is "shoddy."

See, CD gets it.

I agree that MSG's vote isn't OMGUS. However, I still believe he's wagon hopping.

[chaotic_diablo]

OMGUS means

O

h

M

y

G

od

U

S[/]uck. It means you're voting for a person just because he/she voted for you.

[chaotic_diablo]

OMGUS means

O

h

M

y

G

od

U

S[/]uck. It means you're voting for a person just because he/she voted for you.

Why you repeat it? Or did you just skim the rest of the post after that?
Maybe your just finding something to say.

Skimmed it, and repeated it. My mistake.

[chaotic_diablo]

Good work Twito.

confirm vote: CD

[sarcasm]Oh right, I'm sorry, I forgot to add that I'm a lurker who had nothing better to say because, clearly, my previous posts are devoid of content.[/sarcasm]
Just what are you implying now that you've 'caught' me in this oh so terrible and heinous act?

I've waited a while, but I really want to know. Just how is my attack on mole contrived? Are my explanations valid at least?

[chaotic_diablo]

CD do you ask this question out of vanity? Why do you care why I find your argument contrived when you've said it was meant to be bad?

I made a pretty quick argument that was meant to be bad so that someone would hopefully catch it and create some discussion.

No, I don't find it reassuring that you say this argument was meant to be bad.

I wouldn't be asking the question if I knew the answer. It's not like I have a pocket dictionary on your rationality. As far as I'm concerned, I feel that my explanation is justified. When I'm constantly attacked, that's when I want to know why I'm wrong.

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm not sure what you're talking about there. I asked you why you wanted to know, not whether you knew.

Your "explanation" is that you made a case that was supposed to be shoddy. Right? Are you asking me whether I find this plausibly pro-town?

I just want to know why you think my actions are scummy. I felt that since the game was stalling, it's either I try something stupid and get myself killed, or hit on something at least viable enough for discussion. I don't understand how my actions are scummy, since I think my actions are justified. As a result, claiming that my argument is scummy much less contrived doesn't really explain much to me unless you can tell how it is scummy. It's not like I'll agree to condemn myself.

For instance, you can claim that a guy who stole food can be a criminal. However, you didn't really know the guy is suffering from poverty and his family was starving to death. So far, you've just generalized my actions but haven't given any sort of indepth explanation. Even if my argument is shoddy, I at least like to make it reasonable to a point.

[chaotic_diablo]

For instance, you can claim that a guy who stole food can be a criminal. However, you didn't really know the guy is suffering from poverty and his family was starving to death. So far, you've just generalized my actions but haven't given any sort of indepth explanation. Even if my argument is shoddy, I at least like to make it reasonable to a point.

Isn't the act of stealing a crime regardless of reason?

Would you like me to provide a different example? Say we give the death penalty to someone who committs three crimes. A guy robs a liquor store for beer and gets caught; he is sent on probation. Next, he robs a supermarket for clothes and gets caught again. Once again, he is sent for punishment. Now, this guy wants to turn his entire life around, so he does. He gets married, gets a good job, and his life is great. However, one time, he spotted the exact same bike his daughter has in his neighbor's garage. As a result, he takes it thinking his neighbors stole it. He is convicted of stealing and is sentenced to the death penalty. Stealing is a crime regardless of reason. Good job, you support his death.

[chaotic_diablo]

Beyond whatever merits of the case itself, it is scummy to make an argument you don't believe in.

That makes more sense. I might not agree with it, but it's more than your generalization that it's "contrived."

That is something scum do like all the time.

Of course, scum do not deliberately make arguments that won't be seen as reasonable.

That's assuming you know what scum will do. I don't think that's possible. Can you provide any examples from other games?

[chaotic_diablo]

[quote="KC"}I feel I'm repeating myself here. You admitted you contrived it, after it was criticized. How can you now complain that there's nothing to this criticism? [/quote] I said my argument was shoddy, not contrived.

Huh? What do you want an example of? If scum make up bs arguments to make a townie look bad, of course these arguments are both 1) contrived and not actually believed in and 2) not supposed to look unreasonable.

How are BS arguments reasonable?

An example of scum making a reasonable argument that you were able to catch.

[chaotic_diablo]

You said it was deliberately shoddy. More importantly it was deliberately something you didn't agree with.

Deliberately shoddy, but not because I disagreed with it. Don't put words in my mouth.

[chaotic_diablo]

I can agree that my argument is shoddy, but that doesn't mean I have to disagree with where I'm going with it. I still think that there is a connection between MSG and sherlock/Pablito. The only problem is that I don't have enough information to make a reasonable argument on that belief. As a result, I already know my argument is shoddy. Shoddy just means the argument is made of poor quality, doesn't it?

[chaotic_diablo]

The sherlock replacement issue isn't a big deal.

I'm not seeing how my stealing analogy is a distraction. It's about the only thing anyone has ever bothered to post about.

I don't see how wagoning random people will accomplish anything.

[chaotic_diablo]

And then there are the people who don't bother to comment at all.

Prods requested.

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm more interested in getting those lurkers to post. Pretending to contribute while not doing so is scummy, but I'm not ready to vote based on that until I hear more from everyone else.

[chaotic_diablo]

unvote

vote ubertimmy

That's a lynch I think.

[chaotic_diablo]

But most of all I really don't like Sherlock's posts. But I'm not going to vote him. Seriously Sherlock looked the scummiest to me on the re-read.

Tried to make mountains out of molehills.

I didn't catch this at first. Thanks Jack. Is pablito joking around with moles or something?

I don't see the rolefishing in MSG. If there is, it's pretty subtle.

[chaotic_diablo]

Twito began the Ubertimmy bandwagon, and never jumped off of it. I would call this a coptell; however, we began with Day, so there's no way that he could have known from the beginning that Timmy was scum. Still, I would bet a dimebag that he was the one protected from last night's mafia hit.

I thought the ubertimmy bandwagon was just metagaming silliness from Twito.

Again, has it not been clear that I've been jumping wagons?

So that makes it okay to do so?

I'm just waiting for something scummy to happen. So far, I see nothing wrong.

In other words, you're scum trying to jump on an opportunistic bandwagon?

Also I'll bother to defend KC.

Why?

If this was the rule all scum would need to do would be saying nonsense (like the KC vs c_d discussion) and they would survive o endgame.

What makes the discussion 'nonsense' to you?

[chaotic_diablo]

Bad logic on TCS's part.

[chaotic_diablo]

Comparing mafia with a witch hunt is bad logic. "Witch hunting" is a synonym to "lynching mob." There is no looking for information in a witch hunt. You get accused, you undergo a trial, then you die if you survived the trial. The *trial* are a series of tests that only witches can survive through.
Ex. Witches can float, right? What happens if you don't? Well, you sink and drown.

I do see your point though. I can't say I agree with it, but I do see it.

[chaotic_diablo]

Rolefishing...

[chaotic_diablo]

Read a bit, this is the only thing that I felt was big enough to be shown.

Here, waiting for something interesting to happen.

I'm just waiting for something scummy to happen. So far, I see nothing wrong.

I'm on board. Masterchief, you're going to have to say something. Maybe you will with three votes.

vote: Masterchief

The Masterchief wagon looks scummy. That is, the specific people voting him.

I got that part.

You know what looks scummy, is suggesting that other people look scummy (e.g. myself and pablito ("our best bet")) without voting, but going ahead and adding your vote to a bandwagon that already has steam.

Basically means TCS is supporting an outside bandwagon.

I haven't picked up much by reading over TCS's posts other than excessive lurking and a few misreads. Other than that, I'm going to go ahead to ask for an explanation from KC. The general attitude KC has taken is understandable, but not productive.

I don't -know- how you're reading TCS' posts, Kelly, which is why I'm having trouble seeing any of it.

QFT

[chaotic_diablo]

CD, you've read TCS' posts. You've directly commented on a couple of his posts (your "bad logic from TCS" and "rolefishing..." posts). I'd guess you have some opinion on him and aren't just asking to be fed one. If he's not the best candidate for your vote then why don't you say who is?

Pablito is my best candidate.

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm waiting for dead rik's top three choices. MSG picked him next.

[chaotic_diablo]

Since dead rik isn't going as planned, is it okay if I present my top three and reasons instead?

[chaotic_diablo]

I'll just get to the main points. I do have some minor ones, but they have either been discussed already or are just stupid.

Top 3
1. Pablito
2. TCS
3. Twito

Pablito

Again, has it not been clear that I've been jumping wagons? And why is this suddenly big news?

Pablito has been jumping wagons for quite a while now, so that fact should only reinforce the case against him, not provide an alibi. The way that Pablito tries to twist basic logic so that he can continue to do something scummy in front of our noses just means he's trying to give himself an advantage over everyone else.

So witches float then? That must mean they're full of hot air. *ba dum*

Therefore, I think I'm justified in voting Masterchief then because surely he would float to the surface.

Translation: my vote is justified because MC is surely scum.

Would it be harmful for me to say that half of the reason I started the wagon is to incite pressure on MC who I believe to be pro-town and the other half of the reason was to see who would join and how others would react?

Translation: OMG! The MC bandwagon is going downhill so I need to hop off it fast!
That is a clear 180 degree turn on his stance.

TCS

Twito began the Ubertimmy bandwagon, and never jumped off of it. I would call this a coptell; however, we began with Day, so there's no way that he could have known from the beginning that Timmy was scum. Still, I would bet a dimebag that he was the one protected from last night's mafia hit.

The first thing we should do is suspect Twito, not praise him and drop all suspicion. The point is that Twito was correct that ubertimmy was scum, so why was he? As TCS pointed out, Twito could not have been a cop since he didn't have a chance to investigate. Considering that there are many possilibities on how Twito was right, there is no reason to put Twito into favorable light.
In addition, TCS slips and says that Twito was the possible "night target." Although there is no certainty in the post, if it's true, then the first thing we should do is suspect TCS.

Ok then.

unvote, vote: Kelly Chen.

At least I'll be consistent now. Pablito has convinced me by his actions since my long post that he isn't mafia, just insanely erratic. Maybe he has a post restriction that says he has to change his vote every five posts or get modkilled? Razz (Joke!)

Poor excuse to vote KC over Pablito. "Pablito isn't scum because he acts scummy, but he isn't."

Twito

Twito had been shooting for ubertimmy's lynch for the entire day one period. I have four scenarios for this.
1. Twito is scum who sold out his partner.
2. Twito is a lyncher.
3. Twito got lucky.
4. Some undiscovered game mechanic.

[chaotic_diablo]

Jack goes next.

[chaotic_diablo]

So you are voting me based on me perfectly nailing yesterdays lynch?

What vote?

c_d first protecting ubertimmy and trying to make alternative wagon based on shitty reasons. It's so obvious c_d and ubertimmy are scum together.

I can't protect someone who's dead.
What wagon are you talking about?

[chaotic_diablo]

That said things are too calm and I'm afraid we may end up having to choose on a deadline again.
I'd like to propose a game.
The name is "Top 3".
Each person says who are their top 3 suspects and

WHY

, and then choses who is the next.
11 are needed to play this game, let's play?

That's what we're doing right now. MSG already went and set the standard of bolding. Go check post 342. Even Jack and Kelly Chen followed that standard.

[chaotic_diablo]

Where's neongrey's list?

[chaotic_diablo]

I've given no input in a while, sorry.

The thing that seems off to me in Jack's post is that there is more anti-TCS points than anti-Kelly points, yet the vote goes to KC.

Kelly votes TCS but doesn't provide a reason--with no reason a bandwagon is doubtful.

Kelly did provide a reason. However, it came late and I can agree with the doubtful bandwagon.

So, basically what you're saying is that it's better for the town for Kelly Chen and I to constantly be at each others' throats to the exclusion of all other considerations? Have I read you correctly? You are saying that we can't change our minds, and that we should just hammer away at each other until one of us finally says something stupid enough to get wagoned?

The way I see it, Jack said you had KC on your top 3 list. However, the problem was that you went on a lurker pursuit despite having two other suspects, so it looked liked distancing. In a way I can kind of see his point and I tend to agree with Jack. Bickering against each other isn't the ideal situation, but it still doesn't cover the fact that you suspect that person.

Claiming distancing is one thing, but your post is downright distracting.

vote:Jack

I don't buy your vote either.

Also, if TCS is trying to distance from me, why would he admit he was voting me on OMGUS?

Here's my view. TCS had you on his top three, so it means he isn't scum with you. However, later he says that his vote is OMGUS, that clearly establishes that he was distancing. The OMGUS explanation isn't the distancing action, it's the action that proves a past action to be distancing.

#11 was not particularly serious (I informed neongrey in the same post that she was scum), and confirming my vote didn't actually do anything new.

Usually a confirmation means you are serious in considering a lynch on that person. Although it did not provide anything new, it's still gives a strong and

serious

opinion. I feel that this is clear backtracking. It's not often that someone confirms a vote, then says later that he/she wasn't "serious".

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm about convinced in placing my vote on TCS.

vote TCS

there it is.

[chaotic_diablo]

All I had to do was shut up and let you lynch Masterchief or Kelly Chen. Clearly, CLEARLY I am scum. If I were scum, why would I stick my neck out so often and so blatantly?

Sticking your next out doesn't say anything about your alignment. It's really

how

you do so that determines that.

If this is what trying to participate gets me, you might as well lynch me and waste your damn day.

This isn't protown play. No matter what you do, protown players should seek out scum, not try to earn our pity. In short, this is scum tactic or downtrodden townie.

Or maybe you saw that all of the wagons were stalling and you were hoping to push one so that we didn't end up looking at you?

I don't want to sound harsh, but this post is a piece of crap. You're blindly throwing darts at a target without knowing what you're hitting.

If I get lynched, I implore you to take a good hard look at the people on my wagon.

Agreed. I'll take a look if you end up innocent.

You're at -2. My suggestion is to claim.

[chaotic_diablo]

Like apparently it's super-scummy to accuse people who accuse you.

Sometimes it is. If you do it, then you're just trying to divert the suspicion from the points on you to someone else. However, those points on you are still really there since you didn't discuss them.

In your rebuttal, you state that Jack was "distracting" and was trying to force an argument between you and KC. In reality, Jack said you were "distancing". No counterpoint was made to disprove it. When you tried to explain your distraction point, you were trying to grasp straws. Post 517 basically proved to me that you were trying to find an excuse to cast suspicion right after your first explanation failed.

[chaotic_diablo]

Um, I thought it was painfully clear that KC and I wanted to lynch each other.

That means there should be no correlation between KC and you.

That doesn't seem like distancing to me. Isn't distancing where you try to appear distant from your scumpartner, not actively attempt to lynch him?

True, but distancing means you're actively trying to hide any sort of correlation with a specific person. In your case, attempting to lynch a scumpartner would mean we would think you would never be partners with a particular person. In addition, you would also know a lynch on that person would never come to pass. It's a scum tactic to fool the town.

Other than this, what possible counterpoint am I supposed to bring up to prove Jack wrong? "Nuh-uh!"?

If you can't prove him wrong, then it means Jack is right. If you haven't been distancing, then you should have an explanation for your actions.

What's with the wierd arguments here? I think he's town even though he acts scummy? We should lynch this person even though there is scant evidence on him/her? He is just being himself? Could someone at least give a valid reason on why to lynch or not to lynch someone? We won't catch scum just because we have some freaky "gut" feeling.

[chaotic_diablo]

I haven't put together my top three. If that's still desired then I'll oblige.

I'd like it.

I'm not sure why there isn't more support for the Masterchief lynch. Given Twito's and Dead Riki's correct assessment on Ubertimmy, I find that Masterchief fits that same bill. He doesn't seem entirely scummy, but he's absolutely not playing for the town.

My reason for not supporting a MC lynch is mostly because of metagaming. I've been in a few games with MC and I'm pretty much in disbelief. All the lynches turned him up town, and even when he's cop, he still managed to get himself lynched Day One. The example is the Theme Game PS2Sux Mafia, I just replaced into it. MC's bad play makes it extremely difficult to gauge and causes town to head into the wrong direction. There is a chance that he is scum, but I'd much rather see him vigged that lynched.

I find Chaotic Diablo to be leaning toward town. He's had some interesting discussions - the shoddy argument, his stealing example, and the witch hunt. Along with some other analysis, I don't see much that doesn't indicate town. I did find it odd that he mentioned never hearing of a lyncher before, but then uses it as one of the four possibilities to explain Twito's success.

sherlock explained the lyncher role, and I was able to apply it later in the game. Just because the information was obtained early in the game, doesn't mean it's unusable. I try to keep in mind things that may connect with other things. Other times I just forget, hence rereading helps the memory.

What I don't agree with: I think C_D has a greater chance of being scum than HH says.

phbbt!

I agree with most of HH's post, except for the TCS part. I would change my vote, but the logic for TCS is weak IMO. A frustrated townie act doesn't prove of disprove whether someone is scum or not. I'm about done with playing on "gut" today.

[chaotic_diablo]

I still feel MSG is more likely to be plain newbie than newbie scum.

What gave you that idea? The part where acts newbie? That isn't a valid reason why you should choose one over the other.

Blatent role fishing, and what I belief to be a fake lack of knowledge of the game. Basic Mafia knowledge dictates the most likely reason for a no kill is a doctor.

Not blatant, controversial. MSG told us he had never played in a mafia variation. In addition, it also makes everyone else wonder what exactly happened on that night. In my opinion, the thing I paid more attention to is why MSG would find it "odd" to see a no kill.

Defends the blatent role fishing. Suspicious because it didn't need to be said, I feel.

Of course it had to be said. It was my opinion and allowed people to know where I stood concerning that particular issue. I didn't feel that the small rolefishing or whatever was significant, as I explained above.

I'd just like to say the extensive use of "mountains out of molehills" is highly suspicious. TCS said it once, as did Pablito. Strange phrase to use multiple times.

I've also noticed this and thought it was a joking correlation between scum, with MSG as the butt of the joke. However, I can't tell if it is really valid since it could just as easily be a set-up. I've also seen Pablito(or someone) use the phrase in another game, though I can't immediately recall it.

He attacks Pablito who looks to be one of the most pro-town players in the game so far, imho.

Liek Twito, how did you come to this? I didn't view Pablito as the "most" protown.

I don't really see how that could be a connection...

You are

mole

stargazer. That's the connection.

@Twito, since there isn't a bandwagon on you, does that mean you're scum?

[chaotic_diablo]

Even in newbie games there is a doctor, plus he came off throughout the game as generally knowing how things work and the correct terminology to use. Generally when a person says "Hmmmm....No-one died last night, how did that happen?" it is a scum hoping for SOME kind of a reaction, perhaps a doc claim.

MSG's newbie game did not consist of a doc. As a result, it's quite possible that he didn't expect any sort of doc save. http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4038
My point is that he found it "odd" as though he expected the kill. That might just stem from his newbie game in which someone will always die each night.
Newbie games are there to give "newbies" experience so it comes to no surprise that his play and terminology might seem correct at first. As the game progressed, you can see more faults to his playstyle, like every other newbie.

Sure, you stated your opinion, and I was stating that I felt that by defending what I, in MY opinion, considered blatent role fishing, you were being scummy.

And now I've explained in my opinion on why I felt it was insignificant.

[chaotic_diablo]

BA, let's first find how STD is scummy instead of making indirect assumptions based on the actions of a claimed scum. It's to avoid any set-ups. Even if we assume that MSG is a newbie scum, it's still a logical fallacy to think like that. By the way, is Sailor Jerry in this game?

KC's case is weak, I agree with HH. I'm going to go back and dig up my notes sometime in the late future and place my vote.

[chaotic_diablo]

STD is a better player than both MSG and Ubertimmy, and is less likely to drop tells which we can pick up on to decide he is scum. As such, I'll take any information that CONFIRMED SCUM gave me rather than trying to read into everyone's posts. At the very least, pointing these out creates direct responses which can be judged for scuminess.

The point is that you are trusting the actions of a confirmed scum. You cannot determine if that information is reliable unless you have support that relate directly with that person. It's scum play to lynch someone based on something they did not do. You are supporting your argument with "guilt by association". That ia a logical fallacy and should be taken into consideration whether you want to or not.
You find one little sentence in one post and blow it up as though it is THE scum connection. Don't twist my intentions and claim that I'm not taking advantage of poor scum play. I'm simply trying to tell you that you assume too much and provide very little.

[chaotic_diablo]

The fact that I could look back and, prior to MSG being lynched, could find connections showing him react (Or not really react) to Timmy early on is reason enough that I can look at that line and generate some discussion on the topic. MSG largely didn't say much about Timmy and defended him for no particular reason at times. Same with STD here. I believe the connection deserves some discussion, along with the points I just brought up in my previous post.

Again, guilt by association isn't reliable. It is a source of information, but isn't something that we can largely depend upon. For your previous points:

STD is a better player than both MSG and Ubertimmy, and is less likely to drop tells which we can pick up on to decide he is scum. As such, I'll take any information that CONFIRMED SCUM gave me rather than trying to read into everyone's posts. At the very least, pointing these out creates direct responses which can be judged for scuminess.

Taking information from a confirmed scum is more like playing the odds. I don't trust scum and I believe that you shouldn't either. I'd rather not build a theory or assumption on such a thin base.

STD has lurked, for the most part, and only hopped on the MSG wagon at the last possible moment.

So you're saying STD is distancing? I agree that this might be the case. All you need to do is provide points on how STD is scum. Otherwise hopping to lynch scum isn't exactly scummy. Again, we shouldn't walk on a thin base and assume too much with very little.

All he has said for the last 10 pages or so was that he would be surprised if TCS turned up town. Post 435 is the last time he provided actual content, and it largely comes off as a post slapping MSG on the wrist for playing poorly. This was regarding his list of 3 suspicious people, which everyone was asked to post.

Could you elaborate more? Your point isn't quite clear to me.

I should also point out that your interactions of MoleStarGazer near the end of the previous day should be noted, especially considering you largely attacked the points AGAINST him, but didn't make any effort to defend him.

I argued for myself and only myself. MSG was mixed in and only constitutes one part of my defense to the argument that YOU made. Why should I make a defense for another player for having an opinion that I have. I don't like how you're twisting the situation.

You also never directly stated your opinion on MSG yesterday, instead just letting the rest of us lynch him. Furthermore, you seemed to drop your case which you were pushing so heavily earlier against TCS, once he became less of a trendy target. Despite a lack of continued support for the cause, you never removed your vote on TCS even until the end of the day.

I have no obligation to follow the opinion of the majority. I still held my firm belief that TCS was scum.

[chaotic_diablo]

vote Twito

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm pretty sure Twito is scum or needs to explain himself. We started Day One, not Night One. Twito could not possibly have a guilty investigation on ubertimmy at that time.

*MOD EDIT*

The VOTE COUNT - 5 to lynch

2 Brutal Assassin (Twito, Save the Dragons)
1 Jack (Kelly Chen)
1 Pablito (HackerHuck)
1 Save the Dragons (Brutal Assassin)
1 Twito (chaotic_diablo)
1 chaotic diablo (pablito)

Not Voting: Dead Rikimaru, Jack

[chaotic_diablo]

You failing to notice it and trying a Twito wagon is coincidered a reasonable scumtell.

Just prove me wrong and lynch me. I'm kind of tired with the usual crap metagaming where people hide behind reputation and fail to give out anything. Instead, they give out vague hints that lead to nothing and dance around like a little deer. Just explain it to me, I'm an idiot.

[chaotic_diablo]

Twito's claim was a joke claim, yes?

Who cares? Obviously everyone can get away with anything by saying "Oh! I was just looking for reactions" or "It was all part of my plan".

[chaotic_diablo]

Get away with what exactly? I don't see what scummy plan he would have had in mind with that.

I didn't say anything about scummy.

[chaotic_diablo]

Get away with what exactly? I don't see what scummy plan he would have had in mind with that.

I didn't say anything about scummy.

You voted him and said he was scum?

I'm not being specific. I'm being general.

[chaotic_diablo]

You're only going to dig the hole deeper.

As for Pablito's post. Should I repeat whatever I said in the other game? There are three things I can do for a bandwagon.
1. Join it
2. Defend against it
3. Do nothing

I prefered to do nothing since my stance on MSG is pretty much "I could care less". That's it. There's my defense.

[chaotic_diablo]

Interesting how in the first quote he disagrees that MGS is more likely newbie town than newbie scum, then starts to explain his behavior.

I never argued that MSg was newbie town. I was raising a point that Jack was taking one side over the other despite the fact that MSG is acting newbie all the same.

I did not defend MSG's newbie behavior. I explained why I thought a particular action was newbie and not rolefishing. I provided points and evidence that MSG brought up and determined that. Why are you generalizing that I'm defending MSG's newbie behavior when I have only explained an action for my defense and for only that particular action? Is my evidence crap or did you just not read it? Where have I defended MSG's other newbie actions?

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm going to go ahead and ask for a cop to come out and reveal his investigative results.

[chaotic_diablo]

I think we shouldn't necessarily look at who was pushing the TCS lynch over the MSG lynch, but look at who was willing to stick to the TCS lynch while the MSG lynch built up.

We should focus on the timing, not who supported what and which wagon. I'm thinking scum defected at a certain critical moment to lose suspicion. Of course, I know this only because you are referring to me in this post, and only me.

unvote

vote pablito

[chaotic_diablo]

If you think scum defected at a critical moment, then state your case. There's a good one and it's called pablito StD and BA. If you want to think that scum defected TOWARD MSG at the critical moment. I'd rather focus on the timing of scum not defecting at a critical moment.

I don't think scum would choose an easy lynch if it meant pain the ass in the long run. When someone mentions how convenient a bandwagon is, it usually means it's scum-driven. Hypothetically, if scum were to bring it up, it's an easy excuse to switch wagons without drawing suspicion. Out of the three you presented, I agree that BA can be ruled out. That leaves both STD and you. You mention "convenience" alot and use it to switch around the wagons.

After all, TCS and MSG were tied at four, I would think that scum would've stuck on TCS at that important time. I mentioned that before. What part of that does not mention timing. I'm confused. You misread me. You vote me for the most inane reasons ever.

I'm not so certain scum would lie there and work with a stalemate. If TCS was lynched, it would only implicate the ones on that wagon since it was "convenient". If MSG was lynched, it would still implicate the ones on TCS. Moving to MSG simply because the other is "convenient" without being convinced by a person's argument is something we should look into.

C_D isn't making much sense right now. The call for the cop to out him/herself if there is one is suspicious, given that it would make more sense for C_D to claim whatever inside information he has (if he has any) prior to asking for a cop claim. If he doesn't have any information, it is a scummy thing to ask for.

I don't have information, that's why I'm blatantly asking. With the information we have gathered, we can deduce that scum might only be able kill people when lynched. If that's true, then what danger is the cop in now? If we have a doc, then they can simply protect the cop. If possible, there might be a doc that can remove the bomb off the cop. Right now we need all the information gathered to catch scum. The other reasoning is that scum plants a time bomb. If that's true, then cop claiming would help us before he/she explodes.

[chaotic_diablo]

cop claim would make sense one the one hand, since it's seems the mafia couldn't kill him. But I believe the mod said that the town one "when the bombers were lynched and

there were townie power roles still alive

" so we certainly don't want him claiming, he'll get taken out when we lynch the last bomber. That's almost enough to get me to vote C_D.

When and where did the mod say this?

[chaotic_diablo]

Oh goody. I'm screwing up in this game so badly. I might as well screw up some more.

Anyway, I remember that post. However, it's not on post 15. Must be typo or something.

Or that one had inside info, and

the other just wanted a cop claim for the hell of it,

which is probably the more likely case, but the wild speculation of the whole thing is hardly something to lynch by

That's just about right.

[chaotic_diablo]

Alright, I'll claim. I'm a townie who wins when all mad bombers are dead.

[chaotic_diablo]

Did you read my above post? That pretty much explains why I'm in a more-than-lynching mood.

Seriously. We're at two for two, DO WE ABSOLUTELY NEED TO BE CAUTIOUS to still win the game? The answer is no. Show me with reason why we can't afford to mis-lynch at this point in time and then tell me I'm being too reckless for that reason only.

Here's the worst case scenario.

Let's assume that each bomber may place one bomb on each person. So on day one, ubertimmy had no explosion. MSG had one. So if we lynch a bomber now, then we might lose two protown players this time around. Now, if we assume that the bombers are aware of each other, most likely there won't be a double-bomb, so we will still lose 2 protown players. Since we have 9 players, we lose 3 players (including bomber) if we lynch a bomber. If there are 4 bombers, we will lose 4 players (3 protown) if we lynch correctly the next day. At that point, we have only 2 protown players left. If we do not lynch a bomber today, we lose under the given conditions stated above. Just one mislynch will cost town alot.

[chaotic_diablo]

Okay, let's think about it, 4 bombers who each get to place a bomb. Mislynch D1 and D2 then the game is over. We should never be at lynch-and-lose by D2.

Let's think 3 bombers who each get to place a bomb...mislynch D1, 3 bombers, 3 bombs, 5 nonbombed. mislynch a nonbombed D2. 3 bombers, 6 bombs, 1 nonbombed. Then by D3 we lynch a bomber, we have two explode and we are left with 2 bombers, 4 bombs and the last nonbombed. That means game over already. I still think this is overpowered as is.

Let's assume there are 3 bombers, and only one bomb may be placed. If we mislynch every time and on the person without the bomb, it takes exactly, 5 days for them to win (4 days if there are 4 bombers). That's a pretty long time and with mistakes that are most likely to occur, it's even longer. That's pretty underpowered.

I do NOT think that bombers get to both 1) talk during night and 2) each get to place a bomb. I think it's either one or the other unless the town is supremely overpowered.

#2 is probably there to prove that #1 is false. That leads them to double-bomb the same target or other possible mistakes, such as bombing themselves. As a result, we may get two bombers for the price of one (and some other townies). Survival isn't on their list of win conditions.

Just to screw with them. If we have a bomb-removing doc, then the bombers are forced to double-bomb again or risk a loss.

So C_D, if you're a vanilla townie, please explain how you came to the worst case scenario, because I could only see you making such an assumption if you were a power role. Even still, I don't know what to think of you in this game and your making mountains out of molehills.

I have no power role and I came to the worst scenario through being a temporary pessimist.

I think the one thing we can take for certain is that we do not have 3 SKs in the traditional sense. The mafia do know about each other. Otherwise MSG would not have acted the way he did in regards to ubertimmy (unless it was all an odd coincidence).

It is possible, but it's only one instance. Proof comes when it happens multiple times.

I think we're in better terms than you two are portraying, but c_d taking a worst case scenario stance is kinda pro-town if you ask me. But the way he keeps on making odd logical trajectories out of the littlest things (exploding over "mountain over molehills" getting into it with KC over the defintion of OMGUS) is just confusing me. Normally I'd take that as a pro-town tilt, but c_d is just unlike what I've ever seen from him, that I can't read that as pro-town.

Consistency isn't my strong point.

[chaotic_diablo]

Pretty damn sure that C_D or STD is scum, and I'm leaning rather heavily towards C_D given the aggressiveness of his defenses and his attempts to completely remove the scum from their partners.

Being aggressive in my defense isn't scummy. Would you like me to lie down and give up?

[chaotic_diablo]

It makes sense. I thought you had some more complicated idea. It also occurs to me that four bombers would nerf the meaning of CD's case out of nowhere against MSG early game.

Of course it would nerf the case since it is an early assumption not based on future details. Given, I don't know how the bomber mechanic works since I'm not a bomber.

Haha, I see the contradiction in KC's case. If the bombers were inexperienced and inactive, then of course they wouldn't be very smart and make a dumb choice. KC's disbelief in Jack's "because they're dumb" is basically a contradiction to her case. That's funny.

Anyway, why don't we ask people why they would have chosen TCS as a target? It might give us more insight on KC's case or something like that.

[chaotic_diablo]

That would simply be off topic discussion, since the general concensus is that the choice to bomb TCS was dumb on the scum's part. "Why would you have made a poor choice to bomb TCS?" isn't a question which is going to uncover scum, it is just going to uncover confusing answers and add to the general clutter of the scum-hunt.

The general consensus is that bombing TCS was dumb for scum. If that's the case, then discussion will clutter the the scum-hunt anyway. Asking ourselves "who's dumb enough to do this" and "who was able to communicate" won't help us since the range of those answers will pretty much boil down to newbies, experienced players, and everyone.

Asking people to put themselves in scum shoes in answering that question only means that townies will end up looking scummy just by addressing the question :/

Asking for an opinion is one of the general ideas in mafia. Asking people from a townies point of view will not produce answers or information since it can be easily faked. The point is to force scum to come out, not let them lie back and move along with the town tempo.

I'm not disbelieving Jack's "because they're dumb" explanation. I still think that's the best explanation.

I'm not saying it's scummy. I'm saying it's funny.

You being scum doesn't for me fit in well with this idea, but I'm not confident enough about that to vote based on it. Maybe you're dumb lol.

Okay, what is your vote based off of?

[chaotic_diablo]

I quoted the whole post because I think it's important. When pressed by KC, who said the argument sounded contrived (I agree) and asked if it was to get things moving, C_D said it was intended to be weak and get things moving. BUT if you look in the context of the thread, I think the quote at the top "Just to get things moving" is an answer to MSG's question about C_D's sherlock vote, and not referring to his case against MSG at all. It looks like the msg case was contrived (distancing in this case) and when called on it he lied about it.

It was weak because it is based on information gained early in the game. As a result, there is alot of guesswork required. I highly doubt guesswork would be "strong".

Getting things moving is literally "getting things moving". After my case, no one provided any sort of insight or opinion. It wasn't until KC replaced in when the game started moving again. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but the game was stalling before and after my case.

You can interpret whatever you want on my early case on MSG, but you

will

find that you are wrong.

Jack, I have an incredibly good memory on who used to agree with me and who didn't. You first challenged KC for attacking me for an argument used to "create discussion". Now you're joining my bandwagon on the case that it is "contrived". here, let me quote you.

You were going after c_d for an argument which was an attempt to get some discussion going--you thought the argument was poor and this indicated c_d was scum, I think it's much more likely that scum would have let things go with no talking. I've done the same thing when discussion is waning.

So you would have done the same thing? I don't think so.

Then, c_d, what made you drop MSG from your top 3? It seemed like you found a link between MSG and me/Sherlock during D1 but you suspected me and not MSG...too curious for my tastes.

I had sherlock in my sights from the beginning. My case had everything to do with

MSG relating to sherlock.

MSG was simply someone who I found to have alot of correlation with my prime suspect. Since sherlock was being replaced, there was no way I could attack sherlock. Even after his replacement, I can't possibly expect that replacement to answer to sherlock's actions. I still find him suspicious and still think you are suspicious, so I guess I do have an inflexible suspicious mind.

Also, why choose Jack to go next in the top 3 list instead of me - your top candidate?I was very surprised when I was kinda late in the sequence DESPITE consistently being in the initial top 3 lists.

I just chose Jack for the hell of it. He's active, let him go next. That was when the list was delayed by someone else and I just took it over.

And lastly you previously said "consistency isn't my strong point" - do you mean in this game or between different games?

Between and during different/same games.

[chaotic_diablo]

I did challenge KC for that. That's because I originally read your msg accusation post as "to get things moving". But it now looks like it

wasn't

to get things moving. You didn't specifically address whether or not "just to get things moving." was in response to msg's question. Why not?

My accusation had the intention "to get things moving". Please don't try to state your opinion as though it is fact. It was not in response to MSG's question and it was not there to answer it.

[chaotic_diablo]

You do see how it looks like that though. msg asks a direct question

of you

, you have a sentence at the top of your post that would answer that question. The sentence ended in a period not a colon.

That sentence was not there to answer the question. It is there to address the purpose of the post. Why are you trying to force your opinion in? My answer was clear and blatant. Nothing is going to change it.

Also, when KC questioned you on your sherlock vote you gave reasoning, even though that was just a vote post, but you claimed you msg vote was for starting discussion. Why is that? Why did you ignore msg's question?

What is the importance of the question? What was MSG hoping to accomplsh by asking the question? I felt that it was just a standard question given to anyone who appears to give no reasoning to a vote. I simply ignored it in favor of moving the game. KC's question was one used to accuse me, so I addressed it.

As for stating opinion as fact I said "it

looks

lie it wasn't to get things moving".

f course, how could I have missed that?

[chaotic_diablo]

I don't believe you. You keep trying to duck out of answering questions. Your voting record is by far the most damning as well.

Vote:Chaotic_diablo

lynch -1

Okay fine, I don't believe you either.

Why don't you explain a little on the voting record? You have never mentioned it before so you're putting me at -1 while tacking on something you haven't let me address. You're voting record isn't exactly clean either.

[chaotic_diablo]

Longer days give scum a more likely chance to mess up. Since no activity is basically the case on shortening the day, it's not the best option. No activity just means scum realize that they can just sit back and watch things go without contributing in anyway. I'd rather not let them have it go that easily. I realize that you have been trying to put effort into sparking discussion, but I'm having trouble why the discussion has dwindled. Is it because scum are manipulating it or is there really nothing to discuss?

[chaotic_diablo]

That makes no sense C_D, we have in my estimation 8 townies and one scum. Do you really expect us to believe that the dwindling of discussion is the scum letting you be lynched?

I stated it is a possible strategy used by scum, not that they are responsible for it. Longer days are argued to help town. Shortening the day always needs at least some short of opposition. Since scum are most likely not going to argue given an easy lynch is closeby, it mostly lies on the townies to do so. Or it could just mean I'm stalling. But what the hell, you'll know soon enough.

Please respond to why you tacked on the vote count. Since you were quick in arguing against me now, you should be quick enough to answer the question.
[quote="CD']Why don't you explain a little on the voting record? You have never mentioned it before so you're putting me at -1 while tacking on something you haven't let me address. [/quote]

C_D defenses are seeming more and more desperate as the day goes on.

Actually, Pablito is going to hammer me on something that deals with nothing on how scummy or townie I am. It's simply because the game was stalling and that I'm the most likely lynch. If you want a defense on how I'm not scummy, then there must be an attack on how I am scummy in the first place. Hell, TCS had desperate defenses yesterday and he turned up town. What is your point?

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm getting impatient.

So c_d, explain why or why not your top 3 has changed from your original top 3 and what lead you to those changes.

Here are my old notes from my original list. It's outdated and I haven't looked at it, which probably was a bad idea. Give me some time to update it and post my new top three.

POST 200
MSG
Post 3: Says he won’t random vote
Post 7: He random votes
Post 28: Agrees with Sherlock’s post 27
Post 31: Defends sherlock’s post 27 against Tamuz’s post 30
Post 125: Pushes for a bandwagon with steam, explanations are bad
Post 228: Rolefishing
Post 270: Hops on MC as well. Little contradiction possible.
Post 342: See STD Post 326

Sherlock/Pablito
Post 10: Terrible logic
Post 19: Backtracks, lynchers, now it’s jesters
Post 27: overly Protownish. No votes without good cause
Post 36: Attempts to justify cardboard’s vote
-
Post 75: Post is off. Wiping slate clean with jokes?
Post 149: Refuses to participate
Post 261: Tries to give himself an alibi for a scummy action
Post 266: “helps” KC. Why?
Post 268: Votes MC
Post 291: Clearly Scummy. 180 degree turn in the other direction. In addition, he fails to give us the results of his ‘plan’.
Post 306: Terribly bad slip-up
Post 307: Plan again? What for?

TCS
Post 16: Hyperdefensive
Post 50: Hyperdefensive
Post 105: Random voting is over.
Post 152: misinterpretation, hyperdefensive
Post 260: Twito cop thing
Post 281: Hops on MC, wagon hopper
Post 303: Gives Pablito an alibi for an otherwise scummy behavior
Post 327: Copfishing

Scalebane/DeadR
Post 23: Supports a Jester turnout
Post 80: Devoid of content
-
Post 174: Probably has a valid point

Tamuz/Masterchief
Post 30: Accuses the overly cautious people
Post 35: Misses cardboard’s joke
-

Bird1111/jack
Post 33: Goes with the flow
-
Post 239: Mentions tension surrounding mole and Pablito.

Twito
Post 38: Votes ubertimmy and declares scum
Post 67: Joke? Perhaps not.
Post 101: Insists on a ubertimmy vote
Post 112: Says there is a read on ubertimmy, but doesn’t explain
Post 202: Sticks to ubertimmy
Post 224: doesn’t regret the ubertimmy lynch, even before the lynch
Post 250: Reinforces the thought.

Neongrey
Post 41: Repeats what already has been said
Post 275: Observe him. The post is off.

Twomz/STD
Post 42: Suggestion that cop should come forward if finds guilty. Directing cop.
-
Post 326: Wants a post from mole? Why? Mole gives one in post 342, with detail.

KellyChen
Post 146: Fos TCS right after STD does.
Post 154: Backtracks and foses STD
Post 220: Entire games defense? What is your point?
Post 254: Votes TCS and tries to bully people so that explanation could be left out

[chaotic_diablo]

He even quoted my original question but failed to fully answer the question. His notes may make him look more pro-town, but he's intentionally procrastinating.

I'm not procrastinating, I'm dumping all my past notes before the 48 hour limit. If I get the chance to review them and update them, I will. I can't lengthen a time limit that you yourself set up.

Apparently, what c_d decided to take from my question was "how did you get to your original top 3", which I thought was already clearly stated when he posted that. I didn't want that. I wanted to see how the old top 3 changed to his new top 3. c_d could've easily have said, "I don't know if my top 3 is still the same, let me re-read", but instead he was very vague.

Whatever I say will always be interpretted as stalling. Simply saying that I'll reread won't help my position in anyway. You stated yourself that you will hammer in 48 hours, stalling for more time won't do anything.

And when I've already said, I will hammer at

maximum

in 48 hrs and in my next post say "I'm impatient", your make damn sure that your next defense is worthwhile and says something, or at least give an agenda or timeline of what to expect.

If it'll change your mind, then fine, I'll ask for more time and

will

answer the question before or on Feb 16. If you don't like it, then hammer away.

c_d didn't. So I'm choosing to believe that c_d didn't truly want to defend himself. Of course, he did, and he did what he thought necessary. But not enough for me.

I'm unclear on what actions that made me scummy, but I'm aware enough to realize that I've done something scummy. It's kind of hard to make a defense with those conditions. People have been simply hopping on after your "CD dropped out of the discussion" post.

First KC wanted a wagon, so she hopped on. She later unvotes.

Then DR made some argument about "explaining MSG's newbie behavior" when I clearly made an argument. That argument has not been seen again.

BA comes up and votes because he already has suspicion on me and the wagon is growing.

Then holy crap, the contrived case comes up again.

Later KC votes and says there's nothing that gives a "town vibe" on me.

Jack returns to the "contrived case" and then ends up disbelieving me for no reason.

Now there's a hammer waving at me because some guy is "impatient".

Honestly, what defense do you want me to make? I really don't feel like defending myself since I already have argued the cases that made sense and I can't defend against wagon hoppers who give reasoning such as "I find him scummy".