Open 19 - Nightless (Over?) before 430

[Thok]

Do you think I should have voted Romanus earlier, when I didn't believe there was a legitimate case on him? If not, why should I be held accountable for not voting him?

If I felt that you had legitimate reasons to believe there wasn't a good case on Romanus, I would agree that you had reson not to vote him.

My point is that I don't believe that you've ever made a convincing argument that there wasn't a good case on Romanus. Much of my argument against Romanus was based off of how he reacted to the John/Occult wagons. You basically ignored this/claimed not to understand the argument, even when I explained it in detail.

If IH turns out to be scum (highly likely), should I be held accountable for voting IH instead of Romanus?

If IH is scum (which I feel you are way too certain about), I believe you are more likely to be town. But it would to some extent be irrelevant to whether or not you voted him over Romanus. Your feelings on IH have little to do with your choice to vote MOS/Adel. It might sort of explain your vote for IH rather than Romanus when Aimee was lynched.

On reread, I do see that you expressed a lot of suspicion of mustafa on day 4.

[Guardian]

Do you think I should have voted Romanus earlier, when I didn't believe there was a legitimate case on him? If not, why should I be held accountable for not voting him?

If I felt that you had legitimate reasons to believe there wasn't a good case on Romanus, I would agree that you had reson not to vote him.

Wait -- Thok -- burden of proof! I don't have to have legitimate reasons to

not

vote someone. According to that, I'd have to have legitimate reasons why you are town to not be voting you -- which is obviously paradoxical.

All I need to

not

be voting someone is to have a better reason to vote someone else. I had a better reason to be voting IH than Romanus, just as I have a better reason to be voting IH than you.

My point is that I don't believe that you've ever made a convincing argument that there wasn't a good case on Romanus. Much of my argument against Romanus was based off of how he reacted to the John/Occult wagons. You basically ignored this/claimed not to understand the argument, even when I explained it in detail.

The above being said... I DID have a legitimate reason not to vote Romanus. I re-read day one and did detailed analysis, and in my opinion he did not actively steer the whole John/Occult issue and was legitimately scum hunting and seemed like a confused townie -- and I've said as much.

Then, you continued to keep bringing up how he did, and I responded many times with "I don't see it".


So, not only are you using a whacked out, unfair, illegitimate assignment of burden of proof by saying that I have to have good reasons to NOT be voting someone (when in reality one only needs a reason to BE voting someone), I did in face HAVE those good reasons for not voting Romanus.

If IH turns out to be scum (highly likely), should I be held accountable for voting IH instead of Romanus?

If IH is scum (which I feel you are way too certain about)

I feel that 4 players are way too uncertain about IH's scum-ness. He's scum. He needs to die. If he isn't scum -- wait, that start of a sentence is a non-sequitor. He's scum.

I believe you are more likely to be town. But it would to some extent be irrelevant to whether or not you voted him over Romanus.

Yeah.

Your feelings on IH have little to do with your choice to vote MOS/Adel. It might sort of explain your vote for IH rather than Romanus when Aimee was lynched.

Agreed... me finding mustafa and MoS and Adel scummy for good reasons is why I voted MoS/Adel.

And like I said, me finding IH more scummy than Romanus explains why I voted IH over Romanus...

On reread, I do see that you expressed a lot of suspicion of mustafa on day 4.

Yeah.


Do you stand by this?:
Each player has the burden of demonstrating good reasons why he was NOT voting for any other player at any time in the game.

If you do not fully stand by it, please qualify it to the extent you do stand by it, and explain how that qualification applies to me not voting Romanus.

[Simenon]

Vote Count

IH (2)- VitaminR, Guardian
VitaminR (1)- Skruffs
Guardian (1)- Thok

[Skruffs]

You are not voting VitaminR, and you really should be.
Everyone - scum or town - put their opinions out there and tried hard to do whatever they were doing - whether it was well foudnded, ill foudnded, or not.
VitaminR (by his own admission) watched the thread but didn't post.

With the conclusion we had - and the alternatives, and what wound up happening with Setael, that strikes me as worse than the flipflopping Guardian was kinda-sorta-pushed to do so near the deadline. Guardian was extorted to vote for Setael - wether he was town or scum, it wasn't really his decision because I think the vote was done in self preservation.

[TonyMoonshine]

Thok, I think there has been 2 - 3 attempts to wagon Guardian but they always seem to fail. Why is this? When I have more time I am going to look into this. I know without looking at least once you voted and unvoted.

IH and Guardian are brought up a lot. Guardian has been after IH for several game days now but neither get lynched.

[VitaminR]

You are not voting VitaminR, and you really should be.
Everyone - scum or town - put their opinions out there and tried hard to do whatever they were doing - whether it was well foudnded, ill foudnded, or not.
VitaminR (by his own admission) watched the thread but didn't post.

Yeah, I was torn and I didn't have much time. I figured I'd have more time to mull it over later.

[Skruffs]

Torn, huh.
Didn't know who to bus first, right...

[Thok]

Do you stand by this?:
Each player has the burden of demonstrating good reasons why he was NOT voting for any other player at any time in the game.

If you do not fully stand by it, please qualify it to the extent you do stand by it, and explain how that qualification applies to me not voting Romanus.

I think it's clear I don't believe the full statement you've given. For example, I'm not asking you why you aren't currently voting Skruffs.

I do think a player has a burden to explain why he wasn't voting for a possible scum lynch if that players vote helped prevent the scum getting lynch (this is where you IH vote during Adel/Romanus and you MOS vote during MOS/Oman falls). I think that if a player disagrees with an argument against another player, he has a burden to explain why he disagrees with the arguments, and to try to refute the arguments/explain why those arguements shouldn't apply if he feels they are bad arguments (this is where I feel your arguments for not lynching Romanus applies; it feels to me as if you sort of tossed my arguments to the side and never really considered them.)

Serious Question: If we lynched IH today and he came up town, would you vote for yourself tomorrow? If not, who would you go after?
----------------

Questions for lots of people:

Tony: Have you taken a look at the vote counts yet? Or you planning on avoiding that responsibility?

Skruffs: What do you think of Setael's attempt to test VitR by voting IH, and her attack on VitR when he didn't appear? Also, how do you justify your lack of participation in the middle of yesterday (up until I started prodding you and you and Setael went after each other)?

VitR: What do you think of Setael moving off Tony and putting herself in danger to get a wagon going on IH?

Elias: Name your top three suspects, with reasons.

IH: what do you think of Skruffs and Elias?

[Guardian]

Do you stand by this?:
Each player has the burden of demonstrating good reasons why he was NOT voting for any other player at any time in the game.

If you do not fully stand by it, please qualify it to the extent you do stand by it, and explain how that qualification applies to me not voting Romanus.

I think it's clear I don't believe the full statement you've given. For example, I'm not asking you why you aren't currently voting Skruffs.

OK, good, thought so.

I do think a player has a burden to explain why he wasn't voting for a possible scum lynch if that players vote helped prevent the scum getting lynch (this is where you IH vote during Adel/Romanus and you MOS vote during MOS/Oman falls).

Woah -- so you basically believe this?:

If a player votes someone else when someone who later turns up scum is also up for lynch, that player has the burden of explaining why he WASN'T voting for that scum post mortem?

Thok, before I respond, in your opinion, did I have the responsibility of explaining why I wasn't voting Romanus at the time, before we knew his alignment, or only after, when we now do know his alignment?

I think that if a player disagrees with an argument against another player, he has a burden to explain why he disagrees with the arguments, and to try to refute the arguments/explain why those arguements shouldn't apply if he feels they are bad arguments (this is where I feel your arguments for not lynching Romanus applies; it feels to me as if you sort of tossed my arguments to the side and never really considered them.)

That's fair, to an extent. Whether or not players should have the impetus to do this, I *did* do this -- I re-read day one, and didn't see Romanus wagon shifting. I thought he was a townie trying to figure thing out.

So I did explain why I didn't like your argument .

Serious Question: If we lynched IH today and he came up town, would you vote for yourself tomorrow? If not, who would you go after?

If we lynch IH today and he came up town, after PMing Simenon to make sure that it was accurate, and expressing some pretty extreme disbelief....

I would probably look harder at Tony and Skruffs, and still consider you Thok. Your defense of IH would not be defending a buddy, but there are still points against you I don't like. IH's suspicion of Tony would be marked as genuine, and Skruffs would be there still, but peripherally.

If IH came up town, I would probably vote Thok or Tony, I would strongly suspect they were both scum, and at LEAST one.

VitR: What do you think of Setael moving off Tony and putting herself in danger to get a wagon going on IH?

I'd like to respond to this after VitR does. Good question, btw.

Elias: Name your top three suspects, with reasons.

Heh, also a very good question .

[Skruffs]

Thok:
I think that Setael was trying to 'badger' VitR to do what she wants, in a way to give VitR an 'out' when IH turned up scum, because she could then turn the tables on GUardian instead.

Second part:
Justify? I slacked on all of my games for the end of august/beginning of september. It was a lot easier to put posts in very large games and very small games, but this game was not striking me in any way. I very definitely slacked for a while.




VitaminR has been almost defeatest since Setael's lynch. Very different change of pace. HE started strong, adn through Occult's lynch and up to John's lynch stayed strong. After John's lynch, he backed away from the game. Now, after another scum's even more so.

I would put my scummy list at VitaminR - Tony/Thok/Elias - Guardian/IH - (Skruffs), with more scummy players towards the front. This is based mostly on the attempt of Setael to try and garner a last minute lynch of IH - when she was nto in danger of being lynched herself, and thus not having a need to be desperate.... VitaminR's awareness of the trickiness of that situation and not being able to put himself out there, one way or another... and Guardian's kinda blundery play.

Quick review or Romanus/Oman/Setael, with old names replaced with new names to avoid confusion.
romanus -
Starts off with vote on (DrainBead)Thok with half-valid reason on it.
2 weeks later, switch from Thok to (BM)Guardian - says Guardian's post (similar to mine) came off as scummy. Negates occult/(john)YB partnership and says scum wouldn't pair up that early. (WIFOM breadcrumbing?)
Later, continues needling Guardian, asking for responses and such. Fairly intense.
"What worries me more than anything is that Battle Mage and Skruffs are in complete agreement with everything. I severely doubt you are both scum, that would be too easy and stupid, but I am almost willing to bet one of you is being taken for a ride. "
Makes the same comparison as to OCcult/John with me/Guardian. Hurm.

When Occult was at -1, made a point of saying he thought OCcult was town - so it seems he was playing more to look town himself more than others. So he could have been bussing BM - but bussing one partner to spare another is bad, and unlikely. I think Guardian is more protown because of ROmanus/BM's early interactions.

Later on, moves to SKruffs (what a douche that skruffs is) first saying he doesn't like his paly, then picking at semantics, trying to get a 'did you claim not a townie' thingie out of him. REpeats assertion that occult is town, and FOSses Tony.

Changes his mind, says he likes me and that makes me more scummy. Wish I had noticed that.

At this point, he has
Voted : Thok, Guardian
Fossed : Tony
IH - Not actually talked TO, but has referred to IH in debating BM's scummy player post.
Likes: Skruffs

States he doesn't really feel like lynchign john so early in the day. Fosses VitR but not me for voting John - and then redirects attention to Occult wagon.

Ageres with IH about something... Votes occult.
While saying BM is scum.

Starts day 2 fresh on BM. I think this is more likely to make guardian town,a gain, because he was trying to pull attention away from John. AGain points at BM - while trying to pull wagon off of BM. (WHy didn't anyone notice this after wards... urgh)

Mentions a VitR and IH connection - the third pairing he's mentioned so far.
Occult/John, Guardian/Skruffs, IH/VitaminR.

COntinues to poke at Guardian - warns him of flailing. (Rrr?)

Wow - attacks Aimee for sayign she would choose YB over IH. (We missed this, too >.<) Bonus points for IH.

FInally ROmanus switches over to John - with a very long diatribe about how scum want people to look at the here and now vs voting records. HE stresses that - here and now - and then condemns YB for some rather astute wagosn adn puts him at -2. I think this might be worth looking at to see who jumped in right behind him, because I think Romanus may have been giving the all clear to "bus" - but not knowing who was on the wagon and whatnot, that's just an assumption. ( reading romanus's post sin isolation here)

Resumes attacking Aimee (town). Never attacked John (except for the condemnatino post) and actually kind of defended him. I'm thinking ROmanus has a crackable playstyle at htis point - but he also kept his opinions to the players who were most 'in the scene' - he hasn't even mentioned Elias yet.


Tries to tie GUardian to Mustafa(town)]

Pushes for Aimee and says he doesn't like the case on IH. ( -- points for IH)
Says he origianlly liked guardian, but not anymore. Very strange. He never liked guardian.
Suggests Guardian and AImee are scum.

Finally he mentions VitR - in his reread of page two - "VitR is the first to put pressure on John for his pregame question. This in my mind all but clears VitR. No need to put pressure on a scumbuddy when no one else has. " He latere clears vitr - AGAIN.

FOS : VITR

TOny - qusetions if TOny is vote happy or not. Later says he can't fault tony.
IH - questions if IH was pushing wagon onto others and away from John. (this is only interesting if he follows up with tryign to vote IH)

"Impressions:

VitR is town. I will be shocked if he comes up scum.
I do not like IH's play on this page. It looks like deflection by way of a pro-town post.

Not much on Elias

Blahgo, well, is just being blahgo.

There seems to be something up between Tony and IH. I don't know that it is due to alignment or what, but something to keep an eye on. "

FOS : Elias, VitR

After that, he coaches his buddies to be careful abuot their voting history. Will be good to see who starts voting Romanus after this point.

Then resumes attack against GUardian.



Okay there's mroe, but to be honset, I have other thigns to do tonight.
Elias and VitaminR are my top choiuces for scum. IH adn Guardian are my least likely choices - unless Romanus knew that he and John would be lynched first and so spent the entire game distancing from teh two of them. This leaves Thok and Tony in the middle. UI don't see Romanus talking about Tony much of anywhere, which makes me quasi suspicious of him (like I am of Elias, now)

[Skruffs]

Iw ill point out that I don't think any of ROmanus, Oman, or Setael ever said they thought VitaminR was scummy though. They (mostly) used his initial attack on John as grounds for clearing him, but Oman and Setael then tried to say I was bussing, later on. Them not considering that VitaminR could have been bussing was either a very grand plan by all three players to frame VitaminR, or, busddies defending each other.


I stand by my vote.

[Thok]

I think it's clear I don't believe the full statement you've given. For example, I'm not asking you why you aren't currently voting Skruffs.

OK, good, thought so.

I do think a player has a burden to explain why he wasn't voting for a possible scum lynch if that players vote helped prevent the scum getting lynch (this is where you IH vote during Adel/Romanus and you MOS vote during MOS/Oman falls).

Woah -- so you basically believe this?:

If a player votes someone else when someone who later turns up scum is also up for lynch, that player has the burden of explaining why he WASN'T voting for that scum post mortem?[/quote]

You act as if this is an utterly ridiculous request.

Thok, before I respond, in your opinion, did I have the responsibility of explaining why I wasn't voting Romanus at the time, before we knew his alignment, or only after, when we now do know his alignment?

Certainly you should be able to explain it after you know his alignment. It's possible you should also be able to explain why you weren't defending a person you believe to be a townie alternative is lynched.

Practical question: supposing I am town, how should I go about determining whether your vote of IH during Aimee/Romanus (I mistakenly did Adel/Romanus above, sorry about that) and your vote during MOS/Oman arise from you mistakenly thinking Romanus/Oman is town as opposed to a delibarate attempt to keep Romanus/Oman from being lynched?

I think that if a player disagrees with an argument against another player, he has a burden to explain why he disagrees with the arguments, and to try to refute the arguments/explain why those arguements shouldn't apply if he feels they are bad arguments (this is where I feel your arguments for not lynching Romanus applies; it feels to me as if you sort of tossed my arguments to the side and never really considered them.)

That's fair, to an extent. Whether or not players should have the impetus to do this, I *did* do this -- I re-read day one, and didn't see Romanus wagon shifting. I thought he was a townie trying to figure thing out.[/quote]

I need to reread Romanus to see if this was a reasonable view to take of him. However, there were definitely massive sudden jumps that he made that weren't consistent from post to post.

[Guardian]

Thok, if you want me to respond, please re-quotify that so it is less confusing .

Skruffs makes sense; this disturbs me, especially with IH last .

[Thok]

Sorry about, that, here's the post with proper quoatations.

I think it's clear I don't believe the full statement you've given. For example, I'm not asking you why you aren't currently voting Skruffs.

OK, good, thought so.

I do think a player has a burden to explain why he wasn't voting for a possible scum lynch if that players vote helped prevent the scum getting lynch (this is where you IH vote during Adel/Romanus and you MOS vote during MOS/Oman falls).

Woah -- so you basically believe this?:

If a player votes someone else when someone who later turns up scum is also up for lynch, that player has the burden of explaining why he WASN'T voting for that scum post mortem?

You act as if this is an utterly ridiculous request.

Thok, before I respond, in your opinion, did I have the responsibility of explaining why I wasn't voting Romanus at the time, before we knew his alignment, or only after, when we now do know his alignment?

Certainly you should be able to explain it after you know his alignment. It's possible you should also be able to explain why you weren't defending a person you believe to be a townie alternative is lynched.

Practical question: supposing I am town, how should I go about determining whether your vote of IH during Aimee/Romanus (I mistakenly did Adel/Romanus above, sorry about that) and your vote during MOS/Oman arise from you mistakenly thinking Romanus/Oman is town as opposed to a delibarate attempt to keep Romanus/Oman from being lynched?

I think that if a player disagrees with an argument against another player, he has a burden to explain why he disagrees with the arguments, and to try to refute the arguments/explain why those arguements shouldn't apply if he feels they are bad arguments (this is where I feel your arguments for not lynching Romanus applies; it feels to me as if you sort of tossed my arguments to the side and never really considered them.)

That's fair, to an extent. Whether or not players should have the impetus to do this, I *did* do this -- I re-read day one, and didn't see Romanus wagon shifting. I thought he was a townie trying to figure thing out.

I need to reread Romanus to see if this was a reasonable view to take of him. However, there were definitely massive sudden jumps that he made that weren't consistent from post to post.

[TonyMoonshine]

Tony: Have you taken a look at the vote counts yet? Or you planning on avoiding that responsibility?

I like your use of the word

avoiding

to make it look negative. I'll get to it. If there is anything regarding votes you would like to add feel free.

You voted for Guardian, right? Is there any point in continuing your back and forth with him? He's going to have a response for everything you bring up and I think it, a. it drags the game on, and b. gets in the way of useful information.

We need to see more from Skruffs, Vitr, IH and Elias.

[Skruffs]

Tony - scroll up a post or two. >.>

[Skruffs]

Things to research - Did anyone claim to reread day one and NOT point out that Romanus deflected the wagon from John? Aimee and Mustafa were both partially implicated in further lynches. Who claimed to have read?

[TonyMoonshine]

Sorry Skruffs. I missed your lengthy post.

[Skruffs]

^.^

[Guardian]

Things to research - Did anyone claim to reread day one and NOT point out that Romanus deflected the wagon from John? Aimee and Mustafa were both partially implicated in further lynches. Who claimed to have read?

Skruffs, I read and did a detailed analysis of day one and I didn't think Romanus was a major player. Maybe I missed that he was, but that was what I thought.

I forget which post/page number at this point, but look through my posts for the two really, really long ones to see why I didn't think Romanus was that fishy.

[Skruffs]

Wait, was it aimee vs romanus day three when guardian was voting IH at deadline?


Omg!
Fos: guardian

[IH]

Hm. I would have at least liked to hear something from Adel, that is a shame, and a bit surprising . I'd rather have been lynching IH .

Tony, you are rising quickly on my scumlist. Explain all the things you were supposed to explain before lynching Adel, and then try and explain what possibly motivated you to move off of me and on to Adel.

My thoughts? You are scum and wanted to make sure the lynch of a townie happened.

Also, seeing as you have constantly and consistently thought I was scummiest, what prompted you to move on to Adel?

for the record: I read Tony's play, and I retract that IH and Tony wouldn't make sense together -- Tony found IH so scummy day one/two, and now refuses to comment on him. I don't like that one bit.

I was completely decided that I was going to continue pushing the IH case today, but I am beginning to think that Tony might make more sense....

Tony, you have some explaining to do.

vote: Tony

Curious why guardian left this, as I would think he'd press this more, but eventually ended up back onto me.

I will be curious to see as how this transpired.

Yeah, I don't want a speed lynch of Tony by any means -- I want to hear from him, but it would be absolutely crucial if we hit scum today.

I would like to note that my initial game read of IH, Vitr, Skruffs has not yet been proved to be wrong... I am beginning to doubt that it is completely right (Skruffs has started playing much more reasonably), but I am definitely still highly wary of VitaminR and, of course, IH.

Which is actually putting the wrong spin on it GUardian. Your read on us hadn't been proved because we haven't been lynched.

FoS:Guardian

BTW, the reason I mention the IH-Tony possibility, is because that is something of a bad mark for Tony, for me -- IH being scum wouldn't necessarily rule out Tony being scum, as I'd though, and that means for me that pursuing Tony makes sense even if I am also right about IH.

I continue to find this backtrack scummy.

No.

How about you explain why Adel was voting you.

Faulty tony scum.

Major FoS:Tony

I dislike how VitR tries to distance himself from the wagon in post 1250 (top of page 51)

Tony never did explain his hammer on adel.

I am suspicious of Tony's hammer because he expressed no suspicion of Adel, and Adel was trying to promote a me-wagon, Tony's main suspect.

Hammering Adel was not internally consistent with Tony's thinking.

Guardian points out an interesting link between himself and Tony.

Yeah, I should look at the wagon results better and not post in a hurry. I think I got confused as with me it was MoS and with Elias it was Adel, and IH never voted for MoS. Still, lame slipup, my fault.

And I would say this proves Guardian is just looking for anything that makes me look suspicious.

What part? You agree that the questions should be asked? Explain what you are doing here other than agreeing with Skruffs

I still contest this was pointless and stupid.

I am not convinced that he OR you is town OR scum, so, theoretically, if we were to cede and vote IH and he turned out to be town and it turned out that you were pushing for a townie at the expense of everything else for most of the game...
I'm asking if you would be willing to put your money where your mouth is. If we lynch IH and he's town, would you be willing to be lynched the next day? Is *that* how sure you are that he is scum? I am not indicating if this should happen, but I am curious if you are THAT sure of IH being scum that you are willing to potentially LOSE the game over it?

Tentative

FoS:Skruffs

I seemed to have skimmed over this before.

Guardian, do you still claim Tony and I could be scum together? Have you forgotten about day 2?

However, I am quite sure IH is scum -- and I would be willing to potentially LOSE the game over it -- if we lynch someone other than IH today and they end up not scum, I will very likely vote IH early tomorrow (at lylo -- and if IH is not scum then at that point the scum could quicklynch him to win).

Major FoS

[quote="Guardian]

My reasons for lynching Adel were mostly selfish. I wish to get this game over ASAP so I have more time for other things. I wasn't following the vote count until Mod posted last update. I realized I could hammer, but I didn't know how shitty of a spot it would put the town in. Before you ask, I would do it all over again.

That's really bad play, if you are town. Why would you do it all over again? [/quote]

After claiming you would lose the game, just to let me be lynched.

FoS:Guardian

What are your thoughts on these voting histories? Read back a few posts -- what conclusions do you draw from them?

I don't want to unvote IH by any means, but Tony does not seem like a bad second option. But IH is the play. IH should be lynched.

This statement looks indecisive as if he's trying to convince himself and then everyone else.

This statement also looks like he's throwing suspicion onto Tony, but to keep his vote on me. I kind of get the feel that Guardian votes me, calling me scummy, and I'm a "placeholder" until he can find a secondary player, if that makes sense. Like it's a good way to really call anyone else extremely scummy as long as he stays on me, he doesn't have to commit as much on everyone else.

Post 1269 is significant.

However, I am quite sure IH is scum -- and I would be willing to potentially LOSE the game over it -- if we lynch someone other than IH today and they end up not scum, I will very likely vote IH early tomorrow (at lylo -- and if IH is not scum then at that point the scum could quicklynch him to win).

What?

FOS Guardian

. This can't be a protown point of view. Your case against IH isn't strong enough to justify voting him immediately out of lynch or lose.

No -- it is. I don't get how people are still not seeing this, but IH is almost surely scum. His play has not been pro-town in the slightest, very few of his actions could I see as having pro-town motives... if we don't lynch IH today and lynch a townie instead,

I will maybe wait a little bit tomorrow

, but I think that forcing the issue is appropriate -- IH is scum, and needs to be lynched.

Notice how Guardian does one thing important here. A slight backpedal. Hardly unnoticeable. It has nothing to do with his commtiment to the case against me, but instead the give in of pressure. Just because Thok says that it cannot be a protown point of view to want your suspect lynched that much. Guardian then responds maybe he

will

wait.

I show this later in this post!! You started replying to my post before you'd even finished reading it

I'm quite unsure how this is scummy, btw. I seem to post like that in every game, and you're the only person who has really objected to it.

Voting analysis didn't bring us anywhere in the last Nightless game. Granted, that was partly due to Stoofer playing an amazing game, but still.

I'm a bit tired of waiting for something to happen.

Vote: Oman

Everybody. Please note this. FoS:VitR

Like I said, Tony makes a good second choice, and VitaminR looks like a good third, with Oman being also a good possibility if one of those three doesn't turn out... but IH needs to be lynched today, pretty much.

Note Guardian's scumlist. IH on top as usual. Tony a good second choice. VitR all the way down at number three, and Oman thrown on there willnilly.

Also, I'll say again, for the record, that YB was my #2 suspect and while I wanted IH gone first it was clear I did not at all oppose the YB lynch.

......... defense before an attack?

This Post is significantly excellent. Protown points for Elias.

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.

warning-The following is a theoretical scenario

I think.... Guardian was in fact reading this game before he replaced in. If Guardian is in fact scum, and already had a case against John/Yogurt Bandit, he'd probably use it, but probably balked at lynching him. This leads to me. For Guardain to try and find another lynch, he'd need to find a person to distract from John/Yogurt Bandit. He then began attacking me.

He continues to attack me, because of the point against him that he moved off of Yougurt bandit, when his initial read had Yogurt bandit being confirmed scum, and then changing it extremely quickly for being that sure. For him to be able to move off of Yogurt/John, he would need an exceptionally strong reason for doing so. Which is would explain why he has harped on me for so long.

End Theoretical scenario

EXAMPLES! The beginning of Guardians first post and the beginning of Guardians second post. Notice the shift?

Hey guys.
I do have limited access but I've read the whole thread and am ready to contribute!

I thought I was replacing john, which made me kind of sad, because my inital notes before reading my role were that the most likely scumlist was:

Vitr, IH, nar(now Skruffs), and john(now yb). Luckily, I am replacing BM not john, so my analysis shall not go to waste

Suprisingly I had time for a reskim. I realize I am wrong about Vitr steering the John lynch, I guess IH and Vitr got mashed together in my mind. He was happy with lynching either of them, and he did hammer though.

That being said, Vitr and IH seem to agree with me that john is the next play, his pregame question was absolutely scummy, and his reactions to the happenings in the game seemed scummy.

I am now somewhat less suspicous of Vitr and moreso of IH. Finding IH to be scum would make me more convinced of Vitr, as they still seem linked to me in my reread.

Now. Some notes. Guardian felt I was following VitR. He originally stated in his first post that for me to be scum, it would first need YogurtBandit to be lynched. That would mean VitR would be scum, and that would mean Nar/Skruffs and I would be scum (apparently).

Now, why would Guardian balk at this original plan? Assuming he is scum with not only YogurtBandit but VitR also, that would mean for two town lynches, that they would not necessarily follow him on, they would need to lynch two scum (Buddies) first.

YB makes the most sense to lynch to me for today (again I'm happy I didn't inherit that role) and I am happy to go along with his (again imo) scum buddies in voting him.

vote YogurtBandit

Which changes as we all know. What's funny is how this changes to where IH is the play for today.

Romanus is no longer as likely town in my eyes, but other than the two things I pointed out I find him a pretty likely town candidate.

Notice the contradicting statement? He is no longer likely town, but you find him a pretty likely town candidate.

We also now know that Romanus is scum.

= |

I will be perfectly clear right now: I believe John is a good play for today even though I think his scum partners are getting some distancing out of it, but I will switch my vote if either Vitr Skruffs or IH come under more pressure, especially if the deadline stands. The fact that both Skruffs and Vitr are on the john wagon actually does make me wonder about it a bit.

Notice how he says he believes John is the play today, but essentially treats him as a number four, as he would switch his vote to make sure one of me, Skruffs, and VitR are lynched.

I'm going to go ahead and

Vote:Guardian

from things I've already seen. Back to day 5 I believe.

I don't know what to make of post 1327 with the knowledge of Oman's alignment... I'm leaning towards Elias being town.

Notice how Guardian uses this to effectively avoid responses to Elias

disagree. Well, maybe at the end it was. But YB possibly could have been wrong, and I didn't want to support it. IH was my top choice

BS

This is as far as I've gotten on day 5 so far, but I felt that my discoveries/thoughts were important on the matter. I will attempt to read the rest of it later, and respond to all of this that I've let slip by.

[IH]

Lies! He was almost as scummy as IH, and I obviously, obviously supported his lynch. And -- what do you know -- Setael was my second choice to IH -- and I was on her lynch wagon.

It would be worth of note that Guardian attacked me for being on a late day lynch wagon of a townie when "nobody would be blamed if she was scum" or something.

It was also simultaneous with me arguing that her complete lack of response AND her predecessors actions WERE full of scum tells.

Much of my suspicion of mustafa came from your (imo seemingly good) advice to look for who supported Occult over John. Mustafa was obviously one of those characters, and he also had a few other black marks on his record.

This looks DrippingGoofballish in which she took up her scumbuddies arguments after he was confirmed scum (See Mini 413, Cats mafia, for more)

My bad about the John lynch -- IH *has* brought that up repeatedly -- I thought you agreed with it.

My voting record, I *guess* is arguably bad -- but not counting day one, I've lynched one townie and one scum. Certainly others have done equally bad or worse

Voting records should count not only end of day lynches, but who you hopped around on during the day.

I feel that 4 players are way too uncertain about IH's scum-ness. He's scum. He needs to die. If he isn't scum -- wait, that start of a sentence is a non-sequitor. He's scum.

I've been feeling this a while, but I think it's time to bring up Arguments from repetition

IH: what do you think of Skruffs and Elias?

Since reading more of day five I think Skruffs alignment as town would be dependent on Guardians, since Guardian has attacked Skruffs alot without providing reasons. Guardian being town=Skruffs still unsure. Guardian being scum=Skruffs town I think

I think Elias is town, tbh.

Woah -- so you basically believe this?:

If a player votes someone else when someone who later turns up scum is also up for lynch, that player has the burden of explaining why he WASN'T voting for that scum post mortem?

Thok, before I respond, in your opinion, did I have the responsibility of explaining why I wasn't voting Romanus at the time, before we knew his alignment, or only after, when we now do know his alignment?

Think deadline situations. I think you should have when keeping your vote on me instead of on romanus. I didn't have a chance to be lynched. Romanus did. Now, before you say it wouldn't have made a difference, it would make even

less

of one by staying on me. In my mind, you essentially helped lynch aimee by freezing your vote.

[Thok]

Romanus is no longer as likely town in my eyes, but other than the two things I pointed out I find him a pretty likely town candidate.

Notice the contradicting statement? He is no longer likely town, but you find him a pretty likely town candidate.

IH, while I haven't read your post in full detail, I do thing this particular point is stretching. Guardian is clearly saying there that he believe that Romanus is a little less likely to be town, but not so much less likely that it moves him to Guardian's scum group.

Your interpretation is basically igoring the word "as" in Guardian's post.

[IH]

No, it just felt like caving, like I pointed out elsewhere in the post. Posting just to satisfy someone, while essentially keeping his stance.