Okay, since you asked so nicely:
schismatized starts with the wagon on xyzzy (I occasionally think that people pick such difficult names to spell in order to prevent people from voting for them) and then makes a statement that makes some sense. "I think that wagon got a lot of info from xyzzy. If someone had to die right now, it would be him. Its much to early for that so i am going to unvote vote: Mert." Which is notable only because Mert was the nightkill.
Some hasty and spurious logic on the part of schismatized here:
"I was more suspicious of xyzzy when i voted for mert, but i didnt and still dont think we have had enough discussion to end the day. Given that, i just voted for the next scummy person in my mind." (This phrasing is just off. It also links you to Mert who was NKed, and I tend to look for such linkages.)
Attacks dylan for doing exactly what he admitted to earlier, apparently because dylan requested discussion of the matter:
dylan41985 wrote:I do think that xyzzy is scum but I'm thinking about changing my vote to somestrangeflea.
but I'm not trying to push a faster lynch... so I won't do it yet if there's still a lot of discussion.
? thoughts ?
schismatized wrote:If you think hes scum then vote for him. Asking someones permission looks like a setup for if he turns up town after lynch. You could easily say, "well xxxxx told me to vote for him."
This is reaching for an argument, and seems hypocritical considering his own actions. When dylan votes, schismatized makes a sniping comment, then vanishes completely.
Mneme's weird interaction with Patrick mentions schismatized, well after schismatized stops playing. This is a point in your favour, I think: "Patrick: major lurking. contradictory play re dylan. (probably the least scummy of those listed; based on the PBPA, schismated, xyz, and dylan are probably more scummy)."
You finally enter the game, pages later. Put an FOS on xyzzy, which I understand, and another on JDodge, which I heartily approve (playing unhelpfully is scummy, regardless of your role).
I don't like this phrasing, it's oddly gentle, considering: "mneme, convince me to vote someone else." A little later, "mneme, you very well could be town, but you easily could be scum and you've done nothing to convince me otherwise -- and its not like I have extremely high standards."
Based on your tone with others, this seems awfully nonconfrontational.
You congratulate the "doc/rb/other", which people make a lot of fuss over. I don't see it myself, it seems more an indication of gratitude, but it causes comment. Later you respond with "I've read jeep's thing too... I congratulated whomever despite having read it; our doc/rber/whatever did a good job, and I thought it would be nice to congratulate them..." which seems strange too, but not really scummy.
You say this, which is phrased REALLY oddly:
"Would have been a better day one lynch, still likely to be scum."
You understand that people's roles don't change, right?
You're still criticising JDodge for not posting but you post this: "Also, no one's asked me any questions, and my opinions haven't change, meaning I don't need to post." There are other reasons to post. One is to promote discussion with the town.
You clash with Setael, in part because you don't think there's any validity to investigating your prime suspect's strange escape from lynching. (I'm not saying I'm not grateful, because otherwise I wouldn't have gotten to play with you all, I'm just saying it's pretty strange when you look back at it that everyone swung their votes away to somestrangeflea. Knowing both our roles, I know that it was most likely just chance, because I see no reason scum would want to keep me in the game. Xyzzy was playing pretty awfully, so maybe they thought they could use him as a distraction. That's my best guess.)
And here is where I part ways with you in a big way. Regardless of Setael's alignment, it makes sense to go back and analyse the game, and try to make linkages between people. Setael played dylan, and schismatized pushed dylan to a vote and then vanished. Setael's argument with you makes sense, regardless of her alignment. For the same reason you look scummy to me, because you're attacking me and I'm town (he must KNOW I'm town, and he's attacking me! There's a reason OMGUS is a common phrase, and that's a large part of it), you may look scummy to her because your predecessor attacked hers.
Setael presents a great many theoretical possibilities. Clearly all of them cannot be true. But your post 385 takes these out of context and addresses them as if she said they were all true simultaneously, which is deceptive. You speak of a straw man? This post is the definition of it. You also said this, in the same post: "OMGUS, HOS: Setael. If the case on you has any merit, you're getting a vote." And then you post this little gem:
Guardian wrote:I'd like to get other people's reactions to Setael before I continue further.
I have a few things to bring up, but I'd like to see what a few specific others think, if that's OK.
which is EXACTLY what your predecessor nailed dylan to the wall for, isn't it?
And since Setael never does get a vote from you, I'm guessing your case against her has no merit.
I want to note that you never do explain why you find xyzzy's posts scummy, and I'd be interested in such an analysis, since you've asserted that you do.
The recent argument between you and me doesn't require recapping for anyone, I think, but your strange wishywashiness about "you may be town, but I am sure you are scum, but I don't want to assert too much certainty, but if I had a gun I'd kill you dead, but you still might be town" (and yes, I can see how this would be annoying, but I still think it's a pretty close paraphrase to what you've said, as a rereading of our posts will attest) seems scummy to me. Either you think I'm scum, or you think I'm not. Trying to cover both sides of the equation seems to me to indicate that you want others to think I'm scum, while you can still have an out and say, "I said IF she was town! See, not certain!" when your accusation is disproved. And that shows a level of knowledge of my alignment that makes you suspicious in my eyes.
OMGUSsy? Maybe. I don't think so, but it's certain that I noticed your odd phrasing more because it was directed at me, which I think is human nature, really, so I'm not going to say that it absolutely is not. But in any case, it's true, and it is suspicious, and that, with the other evidence presented, is why it's earned you my vote.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
!
