Open 19 - Nightless (Over?) before 430

[Elias_the_thief]

To Guardian:

Even so, the tone and content of his post are perfectly consistent with scum trying to gain brownie points. He doesn't anger town by pointing the blame at us, he just complains to the mod about how modkilling a townie is bad.

Um, no. You're missing the point. HypoEliasScum wouldn't have to respond to the modkill threat at all. If you believe that he's got some mastermind plan to gain townie brownie points and that he can develop this plan in seven minutes, then you also would believe that he'd take an extra couple of minutes and doublecheck his posts for things like "does it look like I have too much information"?

This is right on the money. First you claim that my post is a contrived attempt to appear town by going against a modkill. However, at the same time, I call Oman obvtown? If I were making a post to appear protown, do you think I would let something that major slip?

You know Oman is town. You know that complaining about townie modkille = looks townlike. You make the post in 7 minutes or less. Final answer: yes.

Well. That is your opinion, which I do not agree with. There is no way to prove to you that that was not the purpose of my post of my post then simply say it. So good for you Guardian. I cant attack a purely opinion based point.

[slight wifom] I hate to bring records into it, but im 6 and 1 as scum. Im not that stupid. [/slight wifom][/b]

Hm. The one thing this makes me think -- if you are in fact town, what is your town win record? I remember it being something like the reverse. That doesn't do much to make me think you are a good citizen to keep around, or that your case on me is apt to be particularly sensical.

YAY FOR AD HOMINEMS! For any of those who find your logic soundly defeated, just insult the other players abilities! The perfect strategy!
...Except of course for the fact that its a logical falacy, and that even the dumbest of people can present a logical argument. Yes, I'm 1-4 as town. Most of those games I was mislynched in when I knew scum but no one wanted to listen. But thank you for using dirty tactics to promote your opinion, I really liked that.

This looks like a BS argument to justify why your questions are more important than Elias's questions. And it ignores the fact that Elias was

doing both things at once

.

Exactly. In the beginning of the post, I respond to your arguments about my supposed contrived yet mistake ridden post, and at the end I mention in one sentence that you are not responding to my points at all. In my next post, I again respond to your points about the Oman thing for the first three sentences of the post, and then at the end accuse you of avoiding my points (in one sentence). Then you pull this crap about how im using my case to avoid your points. Hey, guess what? If I posted my points, then you post on a different subject afterwards, then your the one who is attempting to change the subject of discussion with points unaddressed, not me. Further, You made two posts in which you focused only on the Oman thing, both of my posts addressed both issues.

You were trying to make me address your case instead of adressing the Oman issues. I couldn't do that in the time alotted. I've explained this.

Hey look! Youre expressing your opinion of what I was doing as fact! I love when people do that. Anyhoo, I simply dont believe that you "didnt have the time" seeing as you made several posts on the topic of the Oman thing before you got around to the other issue. Well, I think this opinion battle is going to go unresolved just like the first, though I'm pretty certain the town will side with me on this one.

And then, CRASH, the site is dead for weeks. I am deeply saddened by the loss, since this was probably the most telling part of the Occult wagon, when it was just starting. Anyways, after NAR is replaced, the suspicion on John/Occult are beginning to pick up again. Here, BM is the very first to suggest the pairing of John and Occult. He then proceeds to vote Occult, on VERY faulty reasoning.

FOS: BM (Guardian).

Faulty reasoning is a BM scum tell?

Pay more attention to the part where he is the first to mention the possible pairing of Occult and John. Later he agrees with himself, and it seems to me as if he was the route of this idea.

I see this, and it was quite bad. I say again: since when is faulty reasoning a BM scum tell?

Mainly because this all the times that bad reasoning come into play, they support Occult getting lynched, which leads me to believe that this faulty reasoning is not genuine, but is in fact a contrived attempt to shift attention to Occult.

BM being on the Occult lynch looks suspicious, I submit to that. But honestly, holding me responsible for BM's logic doesn't make much sense from a meta-perspective. He uses bad logic to attack townies and scum alike.

Not in this game he didnt. Give me some quoted examples and I'll believe you.

He is questioned for his reasoning, he evades the question. He eventually states that he is voting Occult because of the possible pairing with John, yet he is not voting John. He at this point has posted more evidence against John, yet is voting Occult on the sole basis of a possible link to John.

FOS: BM (Guardian).

Yeah that wasn't great play on BMs part. You are ignoring how blagho voted John, I notice.

I'm confused. How does Blahgos vote relate to BM? I mean, he replaced him, but the guy made two posts, one with the vote, one requesting replacement. I'm guessing it couldve been a random vote, he couldve been joining a buddy in bussing, or he couldve been distancing. I believe Blahgos vote is a null tell.

I think blagho, with John being scum, looks very much like a townie who didn't really care and wanted a wagon. If you think it was scum distancing... well I can't really argue with that, I can just tell you that it is wrong and that I disagree.

I didnt say that I thought it was distancing. I said that it couldve been any one of the three things I mentioned, making it a null tell, because Blahgo never posted anything game relevant again. Way to COMPLETELY misinterpret my argument.

Not at all -- if this could be one of three things, why couldn't BM's attacking Occult be as town. I have proffered no evidence as to why this should be viewed as town attacking scum.

Because of the context, guardian, the context. Blahgos one post looked absolutely unrelated to anything. He posted twice! How is it possible to determine what in hell he was voting for? Now, if you look at Bm attacking Occult, first, he used bad logic, and seemingly only when attacking Occult. Not to mention, he randomly decided to attack Occult when a John wagon was building, of all times. Finally, theres the fact that he placed John and Occult as partners and switched to Occult for no reason. If he thinks that Occult and John are partners, why switch to Occult?

But you have equally and similarly provided no evidence as to why BM attacking Occult was scum attacking town -- in the previous quote you say it is only suspicious because Occult showed up town.

Look above. The context of his votes and bad logic, combined with the fact that occult comes up town is what makes it suspicious. I dont remember saying it was ONLY because Occult turned up town.

So, you are in fact being quite selective here -- you are attacking one of my predecessors solely because he wagoned town, and said that was a scum tell.

Um, no. Read above.

Then inverse happened when my predecessor wagoned scum, but instead of saying that is a town tell, as would logically follow in the inverse situation, you dismissed that as a null tell.

Look at the context. They are very different occurences. You cant just look at this in black and white.

Soon afterwards, Occult uses attacks BM, because he has seen BM often more aggressive as town, and he feels BM is sitting back this game. John (known scum) comes to his defense, saying that aggressiveness is not a scum tell (completely ignoring the fact that the attack is based on specifically BMs tactics).

FOS: BM (Guardian)

(for sitting back this game, and since Johnscum defends him).

So Johnscum buddying with BM is a scum tell for BM?

First of all, do not mischaracterize this. Although it could be buddying up, it could just as easily be defending a scumbuddy, which is what I see it as.

And I see it as buddying up. You've done nothing to at all convince me or anyone else that it was more likely to be defending than buddying, and it wasn't defending. Saying blagho's vote was a null tell and that John was more likely to be defending is something of a double standard.

Not at all. You see, Blahgos vote was his first post from him. With no other text, there is no way to tell what it is (I think it was probably a random vote at this point). John's post comes well into the game, defending a player already taking heat. Now why would a scum go out of their way to buddy up to someone already taking heat? I can see a mafioso calling someone town to buddy up (*cough* you calling me town all game *cough*), but trying to defend someone already under pressure from meta logic? That is VERY unlikely to be buddying up. Further, I think of Johns play as noob scum. Buddying up is usually a play made by experienced scum, not noobs, from my experience. Defending buddies is a common mistake from newb scum. Therefore, it is much more likely this is defending, not buddying up.

Second of all, I'm using this one fos to represent both the metagaming, which I agree with, and the defense from John.

Hmm? I am slightly confused.

Youre confused easily then. I simply said that this fos is a combination of me being suspicions because I agree with the metagaming, and of the suspicions I have from John defending him. And you were only attacking half of it. I was basically saying my fos will stand on this point, even were you to prove to me that Johns defense of BM wasnt scummy (very doubtful).

Some time goes by. Guardian replaces BM. He calls YB very suspicious, and places a vote. Sometime later he unvotes and votes someone else (IH i think). Guardian makes another post calling YB scummy. Yet, when deadline rolls around, guess who is not on YB, for all his talk? Guardian. Interesting.

FOS: Guardian.

It is completely clear that YB was my #2 suspect, and that IH was far and above my #1 suspect. I've responded to this many times. Voting YB at the end of day would have meant nothing -- YB was going to be lynched, and I would have rather had IH lynched. I saw no reason to move my vote.

There is also no reason not to move your vote. Your move to not vote simply shows to me that you were reluctant to lynch him. Why would you not vote if you thought he was scum?

I wanted IH lynched. I didn't want to support a YB lynch over an IH lynch. Moving my vote or not moving it had no effect on the outcome, why are you pressing this so much?

Because I find it scummy. And I dont believe a protown player would play the way you did in this situation. This: "I didn't want to support a YB lynch over an IH lynch.", in light of the evidence at time, and knowing Johns alignment as we do now, is very suspect.

It was obvious that IH wasnt going to be lynched that day.

/disagree. Well, maybe at the end it was.

Contradict yourself much?

But YB possibly could have been wrong, and I didn't want to support it.

Points like this hurt your case, not help it. IH could easily have been wrong as well, we had about equal evidence for lynching either of them, really. Yet "YB could be wrong", and an IH lynch is A-Ok.

Next day, Guardian doesnt do too much til the end. He had been calling Romanus suspicious and Aimee town all day. Yet when deadline rolls around, instead of voting Romanus (which would have prevented the Aimee lynch) he stays on IH.

FOS: Guardian.

Voting Romanus *wouldn't* have prevented an Aimee lynch, first off. Second off, I was like 65% sure on Romanus, 70% sure on Aimee-town, and 90% sure on IH. Why should I be expected to change my vote when everyone else is placing meaningless votes at day's end? Like some votes on mustafa, for instance?

It wouldve helped towards preventing it. Basically, I dont like the passive attitude you took towards the Aimee lynch near the end of the day.

OK, that's more supportable -- but I wanted IH lynched -- and with 2 votes needed only, he *was* a viable candidate. *Anyone* was a viable candidate, and I saw no reason to change my vote.

Even though at the time everyone was disagreeing with your cases on him. But alright.

On page 43, IH attacks him for not moving to Romanus and letting Aimee get lynched (1051). However, IH makes a typo in the post. Guardian exposes the typo and avoids the question. (1053). However, IH never brings up the point again, despite Guardians obvious evasion.

FOS: Guardian, mFOS: IH.

I wanted clarification -- I agree with the fosing IH, but I really wasn't sure what IH meant -- did he expect me to switch to Romanus, or to mustafa, or what? I don't like at all how you attack me for trying to get clarification on this typo.

I think it was pretty obvious what he meant, otherwise, why would I have known what he was saying?

Because you assumed what he meant instead of having him explain it himself? IH-Elias connection?

Huh? Since when were scum allowed to privately daytalk? In order for me to have any better understanding of his point then anyone else as scum, we would have to be daytalking. Also, who were you expressing suspicions on at the time, yet notably not voting? Romanus, thats who. It was fairly obvious what he meant.

Guardian votes MoS on BS reasons. Later, he votes Tony on BS reasons. (Not saying that it was a bad vote, saying that his PROVIDED reasons were bad).

FOS: Guardian.

Also, sometime during this day, he attacks Skruffs for something that NAR did, which he has no evidence of happening besides other peoples reports

I have already responded to all of this. MoS was really scummy and wasn't contributing and needed to be voted. If Oman doesn't get replaced, I feel that the same standard should probably apply. I don't think my reasons for voting Tony were BS. Also, as I've said many times, I was shadowing this game, and when I saw it needed replacement I jumped in. I hardly remember them now, but I had read NAR's votehopping and badlogic.

MoS wasnt really scummy. Adel was scummy, hopping into the game voting random immediately without reasoning, but MoS really wasnt, he hadnt finished reading.

mustafa was scummy. MoS wasn't doing anything. Game was dying. Lynch MoS.

As I see it, you basically just said "I had an easy lynch, and an excuse. Lynch MoS".

I disagree on your reasons for tony. And about NAR, if you can hardly remember it, why in hell are you attacking someone about it?

I remembered it then, and I have my recollections of it and yours in writing.

Do you remember what post 27 was? If not, then why attack people for it?

Answer: because you can go back and read it. We don't have a direct history of NAR's actions, but we do have a fairly reliable indirect history if it -- your analysis included. Or were you misrepresenting NAR's actions?

I was representing NARs actions correctly, yes. But do you know whether I was or not? No. You trusted them no apparent reason. And I believe it was because by blindly believing me, you had a better chance of getting someone lynched, which I see as a fairly antitown action.

He has also votehopped the whole game, despite his posts, which have attacked IH all game.

Quoted For Lying. WTF Elias -- you attack me two or three times in this post for NOT switching my vote off of IH, and now accuse me of votehopping? WTF?

Don't you see? Thats what makes your votehopping so suspicious. There were two particular instances, near deadline, where you decided to stick your vote on someone when you were suspicious of others.

Notably IH over YB and Romanus? YB and IH I thought were scum together, and moving my vote did not matter at all. Romanus we don't know his alignment, all though from your posts 7 back I'm really beginning to guess it is town.

You didnt votehop nearly as much as I thought, though I still think youchange your vote too much for my likeing (almost always arbitrarily, and almost always back to IH after a while).

Besides those two instances, you've been hopping around like crazy (and always landing back at IH).

That's not really true. IH has been my main focus.

It is true. Youve voted for pretty much anyone that anyone has showed the least bit suspicion for, though you havent hopped as much as I thought.

And for all his talk about IH, the only good point he has, as far as I can tell, is IH's voting record.

FOS: Guardian.

IH is flippant and scummy every single post, and blatantly ignores arguments and tries to contrive arguments on others. His voting record is only a part of what I find him scummy for.

As far as I can tell he's responded to every one of your points. From what I've seen, youre the one that ignored one of his points.

The point where you assumed what he meant but he never clarified? That one? Why are you defending him on that and attacking me?

Also, you count all his responses as "responding to every one of my points"? He has typed text after quoting almost all of my points, as I've said, he hasn't really

responded

to them in many instances.

Stop being ridiculous. You cant just say, "I dont like what he said" and claim he never responded. If you dont like the response, deal, but dont try to make it out as if he didnt say anything.
Also, Im hardly defending him. I'm pointing out a fault in your arguments, in order to further my case against you. The fact that your faulty point happens to be against IH has nothing to do with it.

If you feel otherwise, provide me with some quotes.

I've done this before... I am too busy to re-read IH right now, but if me doing this will be relevant, I can do it at some later time.

And we agree that the only point of his I've ignored is the one where he never made clear what his point was?

Ah. Too busy. alright then. Also, IH claims that he did clarify what he meant in a later post.

I think that there is A LOT of good evidence for a Guardian lynch. Therefore, I will

vote: Guardian

.

Wow Elias. I have a question for you. Most of "your arguments" were brought up by others and responded to by me numerous times in the game.Why is it that only now you find me scummy for them, and you didn't find me scummy for them at earlier times when they came up?

Mainly, this stems from the fact that I dropped off the radar around oh...page 29ish? And from that point on I've been saying things like "I need to reread", Ill reread tomorrow" and such, and not really paying attention to the thread. I finally got a round to it, and this is what I found. Also, there at least 2 or 3 points in there I never saw brought against you.

Ah -- so you didn't find me suspicious because you've been lurking all game without any relevant opinions, and just now you are re-entering? .

Um, yes. I have been lurking most of the game, from a combination of lack or effort, RL getting in the way, and your giant feuds with IH. Roll your eyes all you want, Im thinking youre just unhappy that there is another participating protown player in the mix.

I see that you didnt respond to the rest.

[Guardian]

To Guardian:

Even so, the tone and content of his post are perfectly consistent with scum trying to gain brownie points. He doesn't anger town by pointing the blame at us, he just complains to the mod about how modkilling a townie is bad.

Um, no. You're missing the point. HypoEliasScum wouldn't have to respond to the modkill threat at all. If you believe that he's got some mastermind plan to gain townie brownie points and that he can develop this plan in seven minutes, then you also would believe that he'd take an extra couple of minutes and doublecheck his posts for things like "does it look like I have too much information"?

This is right on the money. First you claim that my post is a contrived attempt to appear town by going against a modkill. However, at the same time, I call Oman obvtown? If I were making a post to appear protown, do you think I would let something that major slip?

You know Oman is town. You know that complaining about townie modkille = looks townlike. You make the post in 7 minutes or less. Final answer: yes.

[slight wifom] I hate to bring records into it, but im 6 and 1 as scum. Im not that stupid. [/slight wifom][/b]

Hm. The one thing this makes me think -- if you are in fact town, what is your town win record? I remember it being something like the reverse. That doesn't do much to make me think you are a good citizen to keep around, or that your case on me is apt to be particularly sensical.

You seem very convinced of it, but I don't think it is that great a case.

This looks like a BS argument to justify why your questions are more important than Elias's questions. And it ignores the fact that Elias was

doing both things at once

.

Exactly. In the beginning of the post, I respond to your arguments about my supposed contrived yet mistake ridden post, and at the end I mention in one sentence that you are not responding to my points at all. In my next post, I again respond to your points about the Oman thing for the first three sentences of the post, and then at the end accuse you of avoiding my points (in one sentence). Then you pull this crap about how im using my case to avoid your points. Hey, guess what? If I posted my points, then you post on a different subject afterwards, then your the one who is attempting to change the subject of discussion with points unaddressed, not me. Further, You made two posts in which you focused only on the Oman thing, both of my posts addressed both issues.

You were trying to make me address your case instead of adressing the Oman issues. I couldn't do that in the time alotted. I've explained this.

And then, CRASH, the site is dead for weeks. I am deeply saddened by the loss, since this was probably the most telling part of the Occult wagon, when it was just starting. Anyways, after NAR is replaced, the suspicion on John/Occult are beginning to pick up again. Here, BM is the very first to suggest the pairing of John and Occult. He then proceeds to vote Occult, on VERY faulty reasoning.

FOS: BM (Guardian).

Faulty reasoning is a BM scum tell?

Pay more attention to the part where he is the first to mention the possible pairing of Occult and John. Later he agrees with himself, and it seems to me as if he was the route of this idea.

I see this, and it was quite bad. I say again: since when is faulty reasoning a BM scum tell?

Mainly because this all the times that bad reasoning come into play, they support Occult getting lynched, which leads me to believe that this faulty reasoning is not genuine, but is in fact a contrived attempt to shift attention to Occult.

BM being on the Occult lynch looks suspicious, I submit to that. But honestly, holding me responsible for BM's logic doesn't make much sense from a meta-perspective. He uses bad logic to attack townies and scum alike.

He is questioned for his reasoning, he evades the question. He eventually states that he is voting Occult because of the possible pairing with John, yet he is not voting John. He at this point has posted more evidence against John, yet is voting Occult on the sole basis of a possible link to John.

FOS: BM (Guardian).

Yeah that wasn't great play on BMs part. You are ignoring how blagho voted John, I notice.

I'm confused. How does Blahgos vote relate to BM? I mean, he replaced him, but the guy made two posts, one with the vote, one requesting replacement. I'm guessing it couldve been a random vote, he couldve been joining a buddy in bussing, or he couldve been distancing. I believe Blahgos vote is a null tell.

I think blagho, with John being scum, looks very much like a townie who didn't really care and wanted a wagon. If you think it was scum distancing... well I can't really argue with that, I can just tell you that it is wrong and that I disagree.

I didnt say that I thought it was distancing. I said that it couldve been any one of the three things I mentioned, making it a null tell, because Blahgo never posted anything game relevant again. Way to COMPLETELY misinterpret my argument.

Not at all -- if this could be one of three things, why couldn't BM's attacking Occult be as town. I have proffered no evidence as to why this should be viewed as town attacking scum.

But you have equally and similarly provided no evidence as to why BM attacking Occult was scum attacking town -- in the previous quote you say it is only suspicious because Occult showed up town.

So, you are in fact being quite selective here -- you are attacking one of my predecessors solely because he wagoned town, and said that was a scum tell.

Then inverse happened when my predecessor wagoned scum, but instead of saying that is a town tell, as would logically follow in the inverse situation, you dismissed that as a null tell.

Soon afterwards, Occult uses attacks BM, because he has seen BM often more aggressive as town, and he feels BM is sitting back this game. John (known scum) comes to his defense, saying that aggressiveness is not a scum tell (completely ignoring the fact that the attack is based on specifically BMs tactics).

FOS: BM (Guardian)

(for sitting back this game, and since Johnscum defends him).

So Johnscum buddying with BM is a scum tell for BM?

First of all, do not mischaracterize this. Although it could be buddying up, it could just as easily be defending a scumbuddy, which is what I see it as.

And I see it as buddying up. You've done nothing to at all convince me or anyone else that it was more likely to be defending than buddying, and it wasn't defending. Saying blagho's vote was a null tell and that John was more likely to be defending is something of a double standard.

Not at all. You see, Blahgos vote was his first post from him. With no other text, there is no way to tell what it is (I think it was probably a random vote at this point).

In your POV, blagho's logic was no worse than BM's, and you say it was probably random (not scum motivated). Yet you say that it ending up on town has no significance?

John's post comes well into the game, defending a player already taking heat. Now why would a scum go out of their way to buddy up to someone already taking heat?

To look townlike?

I can see a mafioso calling someone town to buddy up (*cough* you calling me town all game *cough*), but trying to defend someone already under pressure from meta logic? That is VERY unlikely to be buddying up.

First off, nice assuming that you're town .

Secondly, dude -- if it makes no sense for scum to go out of their way to someone already taking heat, why would I, as scum, defend Aimee? Your logic isn't internally consistent, you are applying double standards all over the place to try and wind up with me-scum.

If you aren't applying a double standard here -- then it was VERY unlikely for my actions with Aimee to be scum motivated?

Further, I think of Johns play as noob scum. Buddying up is usually a play made by experienced scum, not noobs, from my experience.

Not to me, but OK.

Defending buddies is a common mistake from newb scum. Therefore, it is much more likely this is defending, not buddying up.

I think you underestimate John's play, and if he were here he'd probably be quite happy you are interpreting it in this way.

Second of all, I'm using this one fos to represent both the metagaming, which I agree with, and the defense from John.

Hmm? I am slightly confused.

I simply said that this fos is a combination of me being suspicions because I agree with the metagaming, and of the suspicions I have from John defending him. And you were only attacking half of it. I was basically saying my fos will stand on this point, even were you to prove to me that Johns defense of BM wasnt scummy (very doubtful).

Agree with what metagaming? And your suspicions will stand even if I prove to me that your argument for me-scum isn't valid!? Now I'm

really

confused.

Some time goes by. Guardian replaces BM. He calls YB very suspicious, and places a vote. Sometime later he unvotes and votes someone else (IH i think). Guardian makes another post calling YB scummy. Yet, when deadline rolls around, guess who is not on YB, for all his talk? Guardian. Interesting.

FOS: Guardian.

It is completely clear that YB was my #2 suspect, and that IH was far and above my #1 suspect. I've responded to this many times. Voting YB at the end of day would have meant nothing -- YB was going to be lynched, and I would have rather had IH lynched. I saw no reason to move my vote.

There is also no reason not to move your vote. Your move to not vote simply shows to me that you were reluctant to lynch him. Why would you not vote if you thought he was scum?

I wanted IH lynched. I didn't want to support a YB lynch over an IH lynch. Moving my vote or not moving it had no effect on the outcome, why are you pressing this so much?

Because I find it scummy. And I dont believe a protown player would play the way you did in this situation.

Those two sentences have no logic in them at all.

I could attack you making post 1444 and when you ask "WTF why are your pressing this?" I could respond "Because I find it scummy. And I dont believe a protown player would play the way you did in this situation."

This: "I didn't want to support a YB lynch over an IH lynch.", in light of the evidence at time, and knowing Johns alignment as we do now, is very suspect.

Again, I can't respond here, you don't explain WHY at all.

It was obvious that IH wasnt going to be lynched that day.

/disagree. Well, maybe at the end it was.

Contradict yourself much?

Like 90% of the day IH was possible. And moving my vote would at the end have accomplished ending the day sooner, at the most. I still supported IH more, and saw no reason to jump ship.

But YB possibly could have been wrong, and I didn't want to support it.

Points like this hurt your case, not help it. IH could easily have been wrong as well, we had about equal evidence for lynching either of them, really. Yet "YB could be wrong", and an IH lynch is A-Ok.

I sitll think IH lynch is not going to be wrong. Like, IH-wrong = 1/15. YB wrong there = 1/3.

Next day, Guardian doesnt do too much til the end. He had been calling Romanus suspicious and Aimee town all day. Yet when deadline rolls around, instead of voting Romanus (which would have prevented the Aimee lynch) he stays on IH.

FOS: Guardian.

Voting Romanus *wouldn't* have prevented an Aimee lynch, first off. Second off, I was like 65% sure on Romanus, 70% sure on Aimee-town, and 90% sure on IH. Why should I be expected to change my vote when everyone else is placing meaningless votes at day's end? Like some votes on mustafa, for instance?

It wouldve helped towards preventing it. Basically, I dont like the passive attitude you took towards the Aimee lynch near the end of the day.

OK, that's more supportable -- but I wanted IH lynched -- and with 2 votes needed only, he *was* a viable candidate. *Anyone* was a viable candidate, and I saw no reason to change my vote.

Even though at the time everyone was disagreeing with your cases on him. But alright.

I'm not going to stop finding someone suspicious because others don't.

You are basically attacking me for

not

being opportunistic.

On page 43, IH attacks him for not moving to Romanus and letting Aimee get lynched (1051). However, IH makes a typo in the post. Guardian exposes the typo and avoids the question. (1053). However, IH never brings up the point again, despite Guardians obvious evasion.

FOS: Guardian, mFOS: IH.

I wanted clarification -- I agree with the fosing IH, but I really wasn't sure what IH meant -- did he expect me to switch to Romanus, or to mustafa, or what? I don't like at all how you attack me for trying to get clarification on this typo.

I think it was pretty obvious what he meant, otherwise, why would I have known what he was saying?

Because you assumed what he meant instead of having him explain it himself? IH-Elias connection?

Huh? Since when were scum allowed to privately daytalk? In order for me to have any better understanding of his point then anyone else as scum, we would have to be daytalking.

Not at all. He could have been trying to communicate with you through his post, hoping you'd read it as him telling you to do something.

Are scum allowed to day talk? I think this came up and athey aren't right? Why are you bringing daytalking up, it wasn't implied here.

Also, who were you expressing suspicions on at the time, yet notably not voting? Romanus, thats who. It was fairly obvious what he meant.

I'm not sure it was obvious it couldn't have been interpreted in another way. How is Romanus related to this argument, you seem to be diverting attention.

Guardian votes MoS on BS reasons. Later, he votes Tony on BS reasons. (Not saying that it was a bad vote, saying that his PROVIDED reasons were bad).

FOS: Guardian.

Also, sometime during this day, he attacks Skruffs for something that NAR did, which he has no evidence of happening besides other peoples reports

I have already responded to all of this. MoS was really scummy and wasn't contributing and needed to be voted. If Oman doesn't get replaced, I feel that the same standard should probably apply. I don't think my reasons for voting Tony were BS. Also, as I've said many times, I was shadowing this game, and when I saw it needed replacement I jumped in. I hardly remember them now, but I had read NAR's votehopping and badlogic.

MoS wasnt really scummy. Adel was scummy, hopping into the game voting random immediately without reasoning, but MoS really wasnt, he hadnt finished reading.

mustafa was scummy. MoS wasn't doing anything. Game was dying. Lynch MoS.

As I see it, you basically just said "I had an easy lynch, and an excuse. Lynch MoS".

...

You think me on IH all game = easy excuses? You think me defending Aimee when no one else was = easy excuses? You think me trying to come up with an alternative way to win = easy excuses?

All I see is double standard after double standard. You call me opportunistic in one sentence and too mule headed the next -- which one is scummy? Or, might neither be scummy, and both result out of different situations being responded to in different ways? (*hint: yes*)

I disagree on your reasons for tony. And about NAR, if you can hardly remember it, why in hell are you attacking someone about it?

I remembered it then, and I have my recollections of it and yours in writing.

Do you remember what post 27 was? If not, then why attack people for it?

Answer: because you can go back and read it. We don't have a direct history of NAR's actions, but we do have a fairly reliable indirect history if it -- your analysis included. Or were you misrepresenting NAR's actions?

I was representing NARs actions correctly, yes. But do you know whether I was or not? No. You trusted them no apparent reason.

Other than my reading the game at the time and remembering his actions corresponding to how you and others represented them....

And I believe it was because by blindly believing me, you had a better chance of getting someone lynched, which I see as a fairly antitown action.

More double standards. Here I am taking the easy way out, earlier I am too stubborn with Aimee and IH.

The back and forth "too opportunistic. not opportunistic enough. too opportunistic. not opportunistic enough." really makes your argument fall flat.

He has also votehopped the whole game, despite his posts, which have attacked IH all game.

Quoted For Lying. WTF Elias -- you attack me two or three times in this post for NOT switching my vote off of IH, and now accuse me of votehopping? WTF?

Don't you see? Thats what makes your votehopping so suspicious. There were two particular instances, near deadline, where you decided to stick your vote on someone when you were suspicious of others.

Notably IH over YB and Romanus? YB and IH I thought were scum together, and moving my vote did not matter at all. Romanus we don't know his alignment, all though from your posts 7 back I'm really beginning to guess it is town.

You didnt votehop nearly as much as I thought, though I still think youchange your vote too much for my likeing (almost always arbitrarily, and almost always back to IH after a while).

ROFL! "You don't votehop as much as I thought... but you're still BAD." Wow this is so contrived I can't even believe it. Seriously, wow.

And always ending up on IH -- Like when I lynched MoS? Oh but wait, you attack me for THAT too.

Your argument has no consistency.

And for all his talk about IH, the only good point he has, as far as I can tell, is IH's voting record.

FOS: Guardian.

IH is flippant and scummy every single post, and blatantly ignores arguments and tries to contrive arguments on others. His voting record is only a part of what I find him scummy for.

As far as I can tell he's responded to every one of your points. From what I've seen, youre the one that ignored one of his points.

The point where you assumed what he meant but he never clarified? That one? Why are you defending him on that and attacking me?

Also, you count all his responses as "responding to every one of my points"? He has typed text after quoting almost all of my points, as I've said, he hasn't really

responded

to them in many instances.

Stop being ridiculous. You cant just say, "I dont like what he said" and claim he never responded. If you dont like the response, deal, but dont try to make it out as if he didnt say anything.

His responses are highly inadequate a great deal of the time. Like that phraseology better?

Also, Im hardly defending him. I'm pointing out a fault in your arguments, in order to further my case against you.

Hey! Guess what!? Pointing out flaws in a case on someone = defending them.

The fact that your faulty point happens to be against IH has nothing to do with it.

In mafia, it has everything to do with it. By pointing out flaws in a case on IH, you are, pretty much by definition, defending IH.

If you feel otherwise, provide me with some quotes.

I've done this before... I am too busy to re-read IH right now, but if me doing this will be relevant, I can do it at some later time.

And we agree that the only point of his I've ignored is the one where he never made clear what his point was?

Ah. Too busy. alright then. Also, IH claims that he did clarify what he meant in a later post.

IH also claims that I responded when he clarified .

I think that there is A LOT of good evidence for a Guardian lynch. Therefore, I will

vote: Guardian

.

Wow Elias. I have a question for you. Most of "your arguments" were brought up by others and responded to by me numerous times in the game.Why is it that only now you find me scummy for them, and you didn't find me scummy for them at earlier times when they came up?

Mainly, this stems from the fact that I dropped off the radar around oh...page 29ish? And from that point on I've been saying things like "I need to reread", Ill reread tomorrow" and such, and not really paying attention to the thread. I finally got a round to it, and this is what I found. Also, there at least 2 or 3 points in there I never saw brought against you.

Ah -- so you didn't find me suspicious because you've been lurking all game without any relevant opinions, and just now you are re-entering? .

Um, yes. I have been lurking most of the game, from a combination of lack or effort, RL getting in the way, and your giant feuds with IH. Roll your eyes all you want, Im thinking youre just unhappy that there is another participating protown player in the mix.

I'm unhappy your case is BS, and that furthermore it is a case on me that is BS, and furthermore that it doesn't seem to follow fluidly at all from your reactions at the time.

I'd love to see you re-address the above -- I don't see how your case on me is anything but throwing as many arguments as possible (no caring if they contradict each other) to try and find me scummy.



GAH mafiascum I hit preview and half of this somehow submitted. So here it all is again.

...

[Guardian]

Wow, I read your first few responses. I literally have 0 desire to continue going back and forth with you.

You arguments are mostly misinterpretations/misunderstandings of my arguments if not completely bull-shittery.


Like calling my meta on you ad-hom. You brought in the meta, not me. But you don't like it when the meta is applied fully, eh, only the good parts.

Yeah feel free to respond to my post, but I am done quoting your wall of badlogic and responding it for now, at the least. I have many better things to be doing.

[Simenon]

Vote Count

TonyMoonshine (1)- Guardian
Setael (1)- VitaminR
Guardian (2)- Elias_the_theif, TonyMoonshine
Thok (1)- Setael

Deadline- September 19

[Setael]

Elias - unless I'm misunderstanding something somewhere, your post 1333 right after the possible modkill announcement seems to contradict what you are saying about it now.

Um, yeah,this point is under the assumption that Oman is town. Alright. Ive had a town feel for him since the reread.

And now you say:

When did the fact that I agreed with that point at a later time change into me thinking "oman is town, i will assume a modkill is bad"? Somehow you seem to have transformed one of my statements into a totally different one. My first reaction at the site of a modkill is "oh shit, stop the modkill". Sorry if thats wrong.

I don't really agree with the argument that this means you

know

Oman was Town because you are mafia, but I do think Post 1333 was you admitting your reaction to the mod's announcement was mostly because you thought Oman was Town, and Post 1449 seems to deny that.

[TonyMoonshine]

I have many better things to be doing.

I never commented on the IH/Guardian back and forth because, unless you checked the thread 3 times a day, there was no way you could stay up to date. The same is now happening with Elias and Guardian.

People need to stop stalling. We have 50+ pages of information.

Mod: Please set a deadline.

When this game started in April I didn't think we would still be playing in September.

Confirm vote: Guardian

[Guardian]

I have many better things to be doing.

I never commented on the IH/Guardian back and forth because, unless you checked the thread 3 times a day, there was no way you could stay up to date. The same is now happening with Elias and Guardian.

I really agree. It's getting to just be a serious of "U" "NO U" "NO NO U" or something. I'm sure some of my responses seem that way too, and, if Elias wants to get the last word in that's great, but I'm not really interested in going on and on and on.


And I'm back at college right now. I really should be out, or doing work, or seeing what the other people living with me are doing, not sitting here playing mafia.

.

Mod: Please set a deadline.

It appears the mod has....?


Tony, why confirm vote? What have I done to merit such an honor ?

[Thok]

Sigh.

VitR, are you still happy with your vote on Setael?

Setael, what do you think of Skruffs?

[Setael]

I can understand some of the players' frustrations. Vitr, Tony and Guardian have all vocalized it and others have probably thought it. Skruffs' solution seems to be to only spend enough time on this game to not get modkilled. Normally if you don't have time to keep up with a game you can be replaced. However, we're all kind of stuck with this one for the duration because with a thread this long, it will be virtually impossible to find replacements. The only reason I replaced in is I wasn't smart enough to check the length of the thread before I offered.

So anyway... I don't know what the solution is. I'm trying to keep up with the current posts while also reading the back thread. The deadline isn't until Sept. 19 so that's plenty of time for everyone to just spend as much time on this game as they can. However, if you're in a hurry for it to END I think you're outta luck.

To answer Elias' question... NAR seemed really scummy to me but everyone seemed willing to completely forgive all of it when Skruffs replaced in, and if you completely ignore everything his predecessors did, Skruffs has seemed pretty pro-Town in general to me. He has been blatantly lurking since I joined, but I don't necessarily think that's scummy. Here are the two posts Skruffs has contributed since I replaced in:

Thok asks Skruffs if he has anything to add to the game, and less than an hour later, Skruffs posts this:

I really don't, Thok, which is why I'm keeping quiet.
I was most interestedi n OMan, and right after I posted about how he and VitR seem to be linked together, two things happened -
Oman dropped out of the game
and VitR started getting BACK into the game.

I am half tempted to lynch IH just to force Guardian to focus on someone else, but it seems he already has moved his focus onto Elias.
Elias and Guardian have been buddies for a long time, mostly in their agreement about me.. so it's interested that the two of them would start cannibalizing each other.

Elias's comment about finding three scumin 17 days is Also intriguing, because, well, it mostly is made up of mistakes. IT harkens back to the days of John asking if scum could nightkill. Elias's response to it - both in pretending Oman is definitely town, and in misconstruing how the game is set up, could be a sneaky diversion.

17 Is my lucky number, though (believe it), which kind of wants me to be suspicious of Oman even more.

One thing I will say is that for saying the reason he has been lurking is he has nothing to add, that was some pretty decent content. Except for the lucky number thing. I hope you don't really base your suspicions on that type of thing. But I guess if everyone did, this game would end much faster.

@Skruffs: Any other reasons for the lurking? It doesn't really work to say "I haven't been posting because I have nothing to say" and then make some noteworthy accusations and comments.

So then, Thok asks for Skruffs to be prodded and not long after he posts:

I haven't been prodded, and I am behind a few pages. IT's not due to lack of interest, but more because of lack of energy and time. That Frezno game sucks up all my mental bandwidth.

Okay. So Guardian accused Thok of bussing him.

Thok, you are curious who to go after if Guardian turned up scum. The answer, of course, would be you - or else the whole point of voting him for saying 'you bussed him' (the implication that you and him are both scum) - is null and void. Do you follow?

The whole term 'bus' comes from 'throwing under a bus', which in most mafia terms was originally (as far as I am aware) used to represent someone who will betray/backstab/exploit one player for their own gain. IT's typically used to describe one mafia voting another mafia player to appear town to everyone else.

At least he no longer seems to be absolutely, irrevocably trusting Thok like it seemed everyone was when I joined, but I have to wonder if that's because I pointed it out or because he really would suspect Thok if Guardian turned up scum. Or both. Or neither.

In summary, at the moment I am neutral on Skruffs.

[Guardian]

Thok, I'd like to pick your brain a bit. Full detailed explanations aren't as neccesary but:

1) What do you think about Setael right now? You don't like how I've been very neutral towards her role, and have attacked "her" previously -- what do you think now?
2) Also, what do you think about Elias? Again, you don't like how I attacked him, but what do you think about his recent responses? Do you still think his complaint about modkill came from a town perspective?

It might be more helpful for me if you answered these from the perspective that you are assuming I am town -- because you have expressed you don't like my reasoning on them, and it isn't useful to me to hear what you think about them tacitly assuming I am scum. Feel free to answer either way, or both ways.

---

Tony -- who is your #2 suspect after me, and why? Even if they are way behind me, I'd like to hear who they are and why.

---

IH Vitr and Skruffs I'd like to hear from more generally, what their current suspicions are, what they think in the end, etc. Thok's question to VitaminR makes sense.

---

I would also like to hear what Elias has to say about Setael's question, I hadn't liked that too but didn't nearly articulate it as clearly as she did.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias - unless I'm misunderstanding something somewhere, your post 1333 right after the possible modkill announcement seems to contradict what you are saying about it now.

Um, yeah,this point is under the assumption that Oman is town. Alright. Ive had a town feel for him since the reread.

And now you say:

When did the fact that I agreed with that point at a later time change into me thinking "oman is town, i will assume a modkill is bad"? Somehow you seem to have transformed one of my statements into a totally different one. My first reaction at the site of a modkill is "oh shit, stop the modkill". Sorry if thats wrong.

I don't really agree with the argument that this means you

know

Oman was Town because you are mafia, but I do think Post 1333 was you admitting your reaction to the mod's announcement was mostly because you thought Oman was Town, and Post 1449 seems to deny that.

I said that the point is only viable under the assumption that he was town. I never said that I made the consious assumption that he was town when making the post. "Um, yeah,this point is under the assumption that Oman is town." means that the only way my points make sense is if he is town.

And Guardian, oddly enough, I agree with you about the back and forth. But you know, you're just going to refute them somehow, then I will, and at no point will one of us say "oh shit. I'm wrong". I'm not going to remove my vote, and youre not going to admit any error, so laying down our oens on the issue is actually a good idea. Though there are certain points i'd like to continue discussing (which I'll bring up in the next couple days).

[Guardian]

I said that the point is only viable under the assumption that he was town. I never said that I made the consious assumption that he was town when making the post. "Um, yeah,this point is under the assumption that Oman is town." means that the only way my points make sense is if he is town.

Wait -- what are you saying here. You made an

un

conscious assumption that he was town? Or that your points don't make sense? Or something else? O.O

And Guardian, oddly enough, I agree with you about the back and forth. But you know, you're just going to refute them somehow, then I will, and at no point will one of us say "oh shit. I'm wrong". I'm not going to remove my vote, and youre not going to admit any error, so laying down our oens on the issue is actually a good idea.

This is sort of what happened with me and IH, except that I was in your shoes. Then I figured, eh, I think he is scum, but there are at least two other players besides him who are scum , so there is no reason to be 100% singleminded, just present the case and leave it out there, and if others see the light return to it.

And yeah, there is definitely no way I'm going to say "you're right Elias, I'm scum" because I'm not, and you really aren't going to convince me of that .

Equally, it is very hard for people (me included) to say "oh, my case is wrong, oops", and even though it is, I doubt you are going to say that. The thing I don't like about this is that I think your case has a suspicious inconsistency or two, and I'd like you to address at least how those are not inconsistencies.

Though there are certain points i'd like to continue discussing (which I'll bring up in the next couple days).

OK, that's fair. We should definitely be more targeted in our debate, it makes it more readable and relevant.

One thing I would definitely like you to address if we are to continue in a limited fashion -- how is what John did with BM (me) different from what I did with Aimee such that it makes no sense for John-scum to be doing it with me-town, but that it makes sense for me-scum to be doing it with Aimee-town.

The scenarios are almost identical, but one you have not addressed and one you say is surely John protecting me-scum.

[Elias_the_thief]

I said that the point is only viable under the assumption that he was town. I never said that I made the consious assumption that he was town when making the post. "Um, yeah,this point is under the assumption that Oman is town." means that the only way my points make sense is if he is town.

Wait -- what are you saying here. You made an

un

conscious assumption that he was town? Or that your points don't make sense? Or something else? O.O

I'm saying that when I looked back on my post, the only way my points were viable and sensical was to assume Oman was town. I didnt think this when I made the post, the comment was purely retrospect.

[Guardian]

I said that the point is only viable under the assumption that he was town. I never said that I made the consious assumption that he was town when making the post. "Um, yeah,this point is under the assumption that Oman is town." means that the only way my points make sense is if he is town.

Wait -- what are you saying here. You made an

un

conscious assumption that he was town? Or that your points don't make sense? Or something else? O.O

I'm saying that when I looked back on my post, the only way my points were viable and sensical was to assume Oman was town. I didnt think this when I made the post, the comment was purely retrospect.

So when you made the post, what

did

you think/assume about Oman's alignment?

[Setael]

I'm nearly through reading the thread and then I'll post my notes. I wanted to address the current Elias situation, in light of a few things I saw in my read-through that surprised me.
Post 1054 -

I'm still suspicious of Oman, (through suspicions of Romanus)

1178 –

Alright, thats me convinced. Oman and Adel are my top suspects Guardian (I have been suspicious of Ramanus all game, and thus Oman, and Adels post added to my previous suspicion for mustafa/MoS). I'll wait for adel to defend herself, and I guess claim. If it's not satisfying I plan to put down the -a vote.

1263 –

On the other hand, I've been suspicious of Oman/Romanus all game, and would like to see him lynched.

I didn't expect to see anything like that, since it directly contradicts what Elias said about Oman right after his reaction to the modkill announcement.
post 1333

Um, yeah,this point is under the assumption that Oman is town. Alright. Ive had a town feel for him since the reread.

And what he's saying now...

I'm saying that when I looked back on my post, the only way my points were viable and sensical was to assume Oman was town. I didnt think this when I made the post, the comment was purely retrospect.

So I read what Elias posted after his read-through, expecting him to have given a big explanation on why all of a sudden he thinks Oman is Town. And, oddly enough, in his re-read analysis he doesn't say anything about Oman. Nothing.

Post 1312

After rereading the first 21 pages, I get the following impressions (in light of known alignments):

BM/Guardian is probably scum. Tony and Skruffs are probably town.
I plan to expand on these opinions tomorrow after I finish rereading. Trust me, there are reasons behind my thoughts, I just need to get around to posting them/finishing my reread.

If he thought Oman was very pro-Town in the reread, I think he'd have mentioned it here.
Post 1321 -

Up to page 42...opinions about tony and skruffs have changed more towards neutral, guardian/BM still seem like scum to me. More tomorrow, including my reasoning and findings.

Post 1323 - Posts his findings. Doesn't mention Oman once. His next post is when he expresses his frustration at the possible modkill.

To go from "I've been suspicious of Oman all game and I'd like to see him lynched" full circle to assuming he's Town is pretty huge, and I'd have expected some reasoning behind it... or for him to at least MENTION it in one if not all of his posts detailing his reread. It doesn't add up. Maybe in Elias' desire to look pro-Town by being upset at the mod's announcement, he just slipped and forgot he was supposed to be thinking Oman was scummy. His "knowledge" that Oman was Town came through accidentally, and after that, the rest was backpedaling.

I really can't see EliasTown thinking Oman seemed pro-Town in his reread which went against Elias' stance the entire game... and then just neglecting to mention it until later when, like he said "the only way my points were viable and sensical was to assume Oman was town."

*More general post on entire thread forthcoming.

[Guardian]

IH, Tony, Elias, or Thok need to be lynched.

That is my order of preference. I would not support a wagon on Skruffs, VitaminR, or Setael at this point.

• IH for his anti-town behavior all game. These reasons
  are convincing
  , but I've summarized them many many times to go into detail here. Actions on wagons and contrived responses are recurring themes.
  
• Tony for his non-helpfulness, lack of reasoning, and recent actions (the hammer, for instance -- look at his explanation for it).
  Attacked me for being "too townlike" this was then later forgotten. I find that similar to Elias's reasoning, though potentially less bad.
  
• Elias lurked all game, and then came in with an ill-founded attack on me that seems inconsistent and ill conceived. I cannot see his complaining about the mod kill coming from town perspective.
  
• Thok has been strongly sure about a lot of players this game, including in defending them, and I haven't necessarily liked his reasons or understood why he had such a firm read on all these players. Thok would be my least ideal lynch at this point.

Of all the cases, I think that against Elias recently is the most obvious -- not the most strong, but the most obvious.

No one has joined me in voting either of my top two suspects; if someone were to go for the third, I think I would participate, especially as we are about a week out from deadline and me getting deadline mislynched in this game after all I've put into it and read from it would be ridiculously stupid.

I've responded to the cases on me, and they are bad. Period.

[Setael]

First of all

unvote

. Thok is still on my scum list, but now that I've been able to digest the entire thread, he is lower than he was.

Also, neither Elias nor Tony acknowledged my suspicions brought up in Post 1365. Possibly they just saw that I didn’t realize Mustafa was dead, so they didn’t bother to read the rest of that post. Please disregard my suspicions of Mustafa and respond to the rest.

For the reasons in 1365 (dropping his case on NAR that he'd been so adamant about because...why? Vitr told him it looked fishy... and "That's just NAR" and then a lot of blatant lurking) as well as 1464, Elias is now at the top of my scum list. I just don't buy that he had such a huge change of heart on Oman and then didn't bother to mention it when he reported his re-read findings.

I'm also suspicious of Skruffs after the read. Post 563 Skruffs says (after Guardian posts a scum list)

I mean, we alreayd know IH is scum,a nd John, and we know that Occult is town. So jamming six other people into a mass in the middle doesn't really decipher things.

Guardian points out that Skruffs said "we already

know

IH is scum" which would only be true if Skruffs is mafia, unless it was just a typo.
573 Skruffs responds - doesn't see the need to correct saying he

knows

IH is scum - just clarifies that he is building a case on IH and doesn't want to vote until then.

The case on IH is forthcoming. WHen I have something I can definitely say is the root for my suspicion, I will project that into a post, with a vote. But I'm not going to sling votes just because I think it.. that's not very responsible.

575 skruffs presents his case against IH – still doesn’t vote him
576 IH responds to Skruffs case by saying

(Bleh I know I'm playing this game poorly, I got apathetic after day 1)

post 629 Skruffs drops IH to the bottom of his scum list.

Then the vote hopping begins.
Post 787

Vote : Mustafa
I'm feeling fairly confident in this. But not raelly.

A couple of posts later, he votes for Mustafa AGAIN. Not sure why…

Ironically, in Post 809 Skruffs says to IH:

IH - o ye of votehopping majesty

and then posts 813, 817, 821, 885, 897 are all of Skruffs vote hopping. And not only vote hopping, but changing his vote without giving any reason or explanation.

Post 897 – Skruffs finally votes IH – gives no reason other than highlighting in red that IH stayed on Occult wagon. Interesting to note that he didn't vote until after thok’s post 876 which made it nice and safe to do so vote IH without having to worry about it going anywhere.

Post 976 -

Vote : Mustafa
There, he's more scummy than Guardian, so, I'd rather to see him go than the other.

Notice Skruffs never gave reasons for dropping his IH vote – if he’d have pushed for IH, surely Guardian would’ve jumped on and Vitr had said in 926 he’d vote IH.

The way I see it, there are 2 explanations for Skruff’s play here.
1) He’s scum and he’s bussing IH (post 576 leans toward this).
2) He’s scum and he knows IH is town, so he throws together a half-hearted case against IH and then doesn’t vote. Wouldn’t want to look bad when IH comes up Town.

Now, after reading the entire thread, I tend to agree with Thok and anyone else who agreed with the Raging Rabbit theory. I think it's most likely that both IH

and

Guardian are Town. Guardian seems sincere in his insistence that IH is scum, but IH's defense and explanation to everything Guardian brings up seems quite sound.

If that is true and IH is Town, then it’s scenario #2. Either way, Skruffs never convincingly voted or really pushed to get IH lynched which is odd considering how sure he was that if John/YB was mafia, that meant IH was, too. How can you say “we already

know

IH is scum" and then not follow through with a convincing vote?

Other random scummy hits:
Post 769

My reasons for not voting Occult were pretty lame to say the least. That's why he went after me. This is not a reason to find him scummy.

Tony promises reasons for his suspicions on Guardian in Post 914; never provides them.
Says he’ll answer Thok’s questions in 1163; never does.

Then in Post 1233 Guardian says to Tony:

Adel is a good candidate, and IH I think is still better than you, and I could see Adel being scum with you, but I am tempted to try and start a last minute wagon on you because you are so scummy right now...

So Guardian threatens a wagon on Tony, and what does Tony do in the very next post? He hammers Adel. Scumtastic. Still hasn’t explained it.

Post 696

Tony I have no real read of, so I'd prefer him dead to make sure I'm not missing anything.

Did you really mean that? I want to assume you were being sarcastic, but I'm not really sure...

Post 889

Could you give me a summary of what you find scummy about Skruffs. Also, you should take into account that Skruffs also can behave weirdly.

Makes it tough to give a summary/case – anything can be excused as “behaving weirdly”

Post 1046

I consider the current MOS-Skruffs argument a protown point for Skruffs. Skruffs falls into the definate protown category for me.

@Thok: Did you change your mind about this when MOS came up town?

Post 1046

MOS-why should we disregard what you predecessor did? He might be a newb (and I think you're overpressing this point, since your claimed lack of reread should theoretically keep you from being able to assess mustafa's newbness-what do you think mustafa did that should be cosidered newbish?), but inaddition mustafa being a newb doesn't rule out mustafa being newb scum.

*And yet it’s ok to disregard what Skruff’s predecessor did? I don’t hear any complaints that Skruffs was given a clean slate.

So my scum list is as follows:
Elias
Skruffs
Tony / Thok - possible IH if I'm wrong and all Skruffs' chaos was bussing. Not really convinced about that, though.
So...

vote: Elias

. I'd also be happy with a Skruffs lynch, but once again I'm the only one who feels that way. I think Tony is very likely also scum, and then if I'm wrong about one of my three which is definitely possible, I still think there's a good chance Thok is scum.

[Thok]

Elias lurked all game, and then came in with an ill-founded attack on me that seems inconsistent and ill conceived. I cannot see his complaining about the mod kill coming from town perspective.

The modkill argument has essentially become a "he said, she said" argument. I still believe that EliasScum wouldn't have reacted strongly to the modkill, and Eliastown would have reacted strongly to the modkill even if he only believed that Oman is scum.

Setael mentioned that she hadn't seen Elias mention that Oman was town; I think that was somewhat implicit in his post 1323, when after his reread he doesn't attack Oman, but does attack Guardian and IH. (Reading Setael's comments, it's obvious she doesn't agree with this interpretation. And I'm probably being too generous in defending Elias and not letting him develop his own defense, but I don't feel like I have the wrong read on him.)

I'm also not convinced the case on Guardian is particularly weak. VitR has said he doesn't believe it, but he hasn't really said why. Setael's at least responded to my comments when I've asked her (I'd argue that her responses are fairly wishy-washy, but at least they are there). Nobody other than Guardian has really said why Elias's case is weak.

Thok has been strongly sure about a lot of players this game, including in defending them, and I haven't necessarily liked his reasons or understood why he had such a firm read on all these players. Thok would be my least ideal lynch at this point.

This sounds like a version of a "Thok knows too much" argument, which generally ranges from miserably wrong to horribly ineffective. (I can show you a post from Calvin and Hobbes where LML goes miserably wrong in attacking me while I am town for exactly the same reason. He has told me that he is actually dropping "knows too much" as a scum tell, partially because of that game.)

Of all the cases, I think that against Elias recently is the most obvious -- not the most strong, but the most obvious.

Just because it's "obvious" doesn't make it correct.
---------------

To answer Guardian's second question (I've basically answered his first question about the whole Elias thing above) I'm happier with Setael then with her predecessors, as she's participating much more and being particularly active. On the flip side, I dislike how she's essentially dropped a lot of her arguments (for example, she's essentially switched up her case on why she's suspicious of me; it was originally for me not focusing much on Guardian/IH, some of my reactions to various events, and for me not being under pressure from the previous things, and now it's basically for my attack on Guardian.) I do realize that part of her choice of arguments are arising from her slowly reading a 55 page game and not necessarily seeing the whole picture in terms of what is happening. (This is part of why I asked her about Skruffs; given her claimed reasons for being suspicious of me, it seemed possible/probable that she would also be suspicious of Skruffs, who had been called protown by lots of people and not really pressured much this game.)

@Setael-The difference between mustafa and NAR in terms of the replacements is that NAR is a crazy 14 year old who screws around with games and generally acts crazy (if you want a reference, read Mutually Assured Destruction mafia, where he fake nukes another player for no reason whatsoever. Also, he tried on multiple occasions to get around game limits by using alt's), while mustafa actually seemed to be interested in playing mafia.

Also, in your reread, what did you think of Guardian's plan (to lynch to four people) and the wagon that ensued after that?

At the moment, I don't like an Elias lynch (I've said what I think about the modkill comment multiple times). Also, if the Elias's comment was strong enough to actually make him worth lynching, then the STD comment I mentioned earlier (where he doesn't know the number of scum) should be nearly as strong an indicator that I'm protown. And yet nobody's actually claiming that.

I could be up for a Tony lynch; he's likely scum for the reasons everybody said about him not arguing anything, his illogical defense of Occult day 1 (defending Occult just to apparently defend Occult), and for his consistent pressure on Guardian for the lynch to four plan. I've also said that I feel that a Tony lynch would be useful in figuring out IH's alignment.

I need a reread to see if I'd support a Skruffs lynch. The main things in Skruff's favor are the two votes on john early on (at the end of day 1 and near the beginning of day 2).

[VitaminR]

Honestly, I'm not at all sure about my vote at the moment. Setael has made me feel a bit better about that role, but I'm not sure about the alternatives. I think I would probably support a Tony or IH lynch.

Thok, I've simply not had the time and opportunity to really scrutinise the case against Guardian.

Did you really mean that? I want to assume you were being sarcastic, but I'm not really sure...

Yeah, I meant that at the time. Keep in mind, it was said in a different context and did assume we'd have the breathing room for that.

[TonyMoonshine]

Tony promises reasons for his suspicions on Guardian in Post 914; never provides them.

Lies.

Says he’ll answer Thok’s questions in 1163; never does.

More lies.

He hammers Adel. Scumtastic. Still hasn’t explained it.

All lies. Go back and read my posts. My answers were brief, but I did address everything.

[Setael]

Can you please direct me to the posts? I must have just missed them, and would appreciate you giving me post #'s.

And... can you explain your hammer? kthnx.

[TonyMoonshine]

Can you please direct me to the posts? I must have just missed them, and would appreciate you giving me post #'s.

And... can you explain your hammer? kthnx.

Nope.

I still want to post something about voting records and that's going to take priority. Next time make sure your statments are facts and not BS.

Very scummy.

fos: Satael

[TonyMoonshine]

ebwop

statements

[Thok]

Says he’ll answer Thok’s questions in 1163; never does.

More lies.

Only if by answer, you mean "give a vague response that repeats what you've already said in post 1227". And even then, you've only really answered the first of my questions in 1163 (not b.-e. of the list of questions I asked).

In addition, I asked a bunch of follow up questions in post 1231, and you certainly haven't answered any of them (except for a cryptic "I'll look at the vote count").

[Skruffs]

You must have missed the whole john/yb thing. John got 'called out' by vitamin r, first thing day one, some discussion was had about it, and last minute the wagon shifted to occult. I saw the shift and realized that scum was pushing it. Occult got lynched anyways, so the next day i started up a new wagon on john, and it went through.

Also - what was my post 568 in response to? You are making errors of omission.

When did I get a clean slate? Look at Guardian, elias, and someone else (oman I think) who all suggested I be lynched for NAR's actions when there is NO RECORD remaining of what NAR did, thus, nothing to quote, respond to, etc. again, error of omission.

But I do like the whole IH conceding he was playing a bad game - while be accused of being scum. I also like how you then attempt to clear IH (in part) by using my 'half assed case' as part of the reason for clearing him. Either I'm scum and ih is town or II'm scum and bussing him. There's no other possibilities, huh?

Vote: Setael

Biased playing, false dilemma, and... MISREPRESENTATION!!!