Mini 1830 - Game Over

[House]

If this town wants to keep their collective heads shoved up their asses about you the entire game, I'd prefer being lynched.

"This" town? I don't like the sound of that.

Yes, THIS town. As opposed to the town in other games that DON'T have their heads shoved up their asses.

[Manuel87]

1.

He absolutely was

using a WIFOM defense.
"Also why would i throw suspicion on him if he was my scumbuddy?" "no if i wanted to distance myself from him i would voted him" "Why would i throw shade on my buddy in that situation?"

3 questions i asked you that are perfectly reasonable as your accusastions dont make sens but instead of answering those questions because you cant you call them wifom so it looks like you responded to them while in reality you dodged them while reading me scum for them.

2.

He absolutely was

shadecasting Square.
"As i said i dont like his playstyle mainly because its easy to play the same way as scum."

Thats not shadecasting its a fact. Unlike you i wouldnt lynch someone for their playstyle so what "shade" did i cast on square?

3.

He absolutely was

doubtcasting me.
"And this is a classic "i dont know an answer"" (because I didn't answer the WIFOM question)

If you know an answer why not present it? Any question you cant answer is wifom because you know the answer you would give will only disprove your silly accusations.

And this is a classic "i dont know an answer"

There are plenty of reasons for why scum would throw suspicion on their buddy, and it's almost impossible to know which reason it is. I think you know that already. So why even ask that question? And then why doubtcast me just because I didn't drink your wine?

Where did i doubtcast you? I simply asked you a question about your read that you still refuse to answer.
Even if there are plenty (i disagree with that statement btw) you should have had one in mind when you used the argument which on is it?
Also let me rephrase it a little. Why would i throw shade on my buddy in that situation?

Why would i throw shade on my buddy in that situation?

So you could say exactly this?

So this finnaly is his brilliant reason i did "cast shade" on my supposed scumbuddy. That probably can be said about every argument ever made by somebody.

4.

He absolutely was

fence-sitting Square.
"Null: Square: As i said i dont like his playstyle mainly because its easy to play the same way as scum. His argument against Eager was good but as i said before it was awkward that he only referred to the Rhazh analysis." "I dont like his playstyle but i dont think thats a reason to lynch someone."

And yes, it could also be buddying. If you're scum and square's town, then it makes sense for you to keep yourself open to lynching him later (via shade-cast and fence-sitting), while at the same time chainsaw-defending him (buddying).

At best it would be suspicious if i voted for him when he is getting lynched for sure after that.
Do you say my argument is wrong that its awkward to only mention your read on Rhazh?
Other then you i will not lynch someone for his playstyle. Your argument about everyone starting as scummy is just an easy way of excusing a push on more passive players.
How is that buddying? Also keeping myself open for lynching him later is bullshit since that would be suspicious af.

If Square's town: You would cast-shade on Square if he's town because that leaves yourself open to lynching him if you have to. You would chainsaw-defend him to buddy him because if you don't have to be a part of lynching him you could say "I was defending him."
If Square's scum: You would also cast-shade on Square if he's your buddy because that leaves yourself open to lynching him if you have to for town-credit. You would chainsaw-defend him to keep him from being lynched.

Instead of arguing about what i said or answering my question he just repeted the exact same thing he said before that i already had proven wrong.
And now he again he brings up an argument that has already been proven wrong.

Now if you can argue that he wasn't doing those things, I'd like to hear it.

But you can't. Instead, you're trying to throw out evidence simply because it involves commonly used mafia terms. Terms that have been proven to describe mafia behaviors. What's worse, you're trying to take the fact I was calling out his behaviors, and turn it against me, with only the reason of "buzzwording," rather than actually looking at his behavior and deciding if he's guilty of what he's accused of, which he is.

You call it Wifom because you cant answer those questions. Your accusations were all wrong and you couldnt explain any of them thats why you call the questions on your reasoning wifom.
You use buzzwords to not answer questions while it looks like you did. Later you just repeat the same thing over and over.

Now i would like to hear why people are voting me because as of now the reasons i see are as follows.
Eager: Ok if i cant kill Square ill kill Manuel he has some votes again.
CCC: Finnaly some pressure off me yeah we should totaly lynch Manuel
Gamma: Eager is right i dont know why but yeah all of my 3 scumreads are voting him it has to be a good lynch
Grendel: We dont have time lets lynch him
Square: I townread him on the last 20 pages he has to be lynched

And dont come with that shitty argument that i am defending myself ofc i do.

[gerryoat]

manuel you should claim now

[Manuel87]

manuel you should claim now

I will not claim before intent or i see a decent reason why i should be lynched.

[House]

You idiots are lynching town.

[gerryoat]

manuel, you've been null, so. I wouldn't mind hammering you here. BUT, I plead to my fellow towns, please lynch square, do I have to quote all the contradictions again? I don't get why people can't see that.

[House]

I'll lynch one of eager/Gamma/Victor.

Those are my only options.

[Huntress]

All of his reads are contridiictions. He states manuel is town yet votes him here. He says I'm prob town but says he could consider voting me. He says his biggest scumreads are huntress, jester, victor, yet doesn't push on any of them, and instead goes on the opposite wagon.

Am I insane or am I the only one seeing this??

Square was giving his impressions page by page there. The contradictions you're seeing appear to be the progression of his reads through the game. Although I don't see how he ends up on Manuel.

Again, I am interpreting your words from my POV.

What you're doing is not interpretation, more like creative writing.

Here are some follow-up questions I may have used:
If he claimed ulterior motives: So you're claiming a non-town win condition?

How does claiming to be town with ulterior motives equate to claiming a non-town win condition?

What he was doing, in this case, was a lack of action rather than an action. Had he not pointed it out, there would have been no discussion of it.

I disagree. Posting without voting can be a good way to start discussion (I've sometimes done that myself), but my point there was that rather than waiting to see who reacted, he presented himself as one who was Doing Something. Meaning, he gave me the impression he was trying to

look

townie rather than actually being townie.

[Manuel87]

i would vote CCC or Eager
Could also vote Gamma but i think he is just an idiot.

[House]

i would vote CCC or Eager
Could also vote Gamma but i think he is just an idiot.

VI is a lovely hiding spot for scum.

Do a combined ISO of eager and Gamma, and tell me you don't see the theater.

[gerryoat]

I'll lynch one of eager/Gamma/Victor.

Those are my only options.

I'm not lynching eager today at least and prob not gamma either. i guess I'd be OK with a Victor vote, but idk why you tr square dude, did you even read my case on them?

[Huntress]

I've a town read on Manuel so I'm not willing to vote there.

@ Grendel:

As far as I can see, the following quote is your only explanation of your read on Manuel:

I don't feel like dissecting posts 254, 259 tonight, but both rubbed me the wrong way. And I'm not seeing any thing that looks townie since my explanation on why I thought he could be town. He had a lacking presence in today's voices imo.

What was it about those posts that bothered you?

@ CCC:

I know you had a slight early suspicion of Manuel, but your recent comments on him seem to be more based on eager's posts about him rather than Manuel's own posts.

I've got some comment's on eager's case on Manuel but I've run out of time for now.

[gerryoat]

wait what happened to your CCC read, house?

[gerryoat]

All of his reads are contridiictions. He states manuel is town yet votes him here. He says I'm prob town but says he could consider voting me. He says his biggest scumreads are huntress, jester, victor, yet doesn't push on any of them, and instead goes on the opposite wagon.

Am I insane or am I the only one seeing this??

Square was giving his impressions page by page there. The contradictions you're seeing appear to be the progression of his reads through the game. Although I don't see how he ends up on Manuel.

exactly, which is why I am saying, there is no possible way as town he comes up with that vote right there other than to bw on a vote that's now him

[House]

I'll lynch one of eager/Gamma/Victor.

Those are my only options.

I'm not lynching eager today at least and prob not gamma either. i guess I'd be OK with a Victor vote, but idk why you tr square dude, did you even read my case on them?

Why should I work with you when you refuse to work with me?

[House]

wait what happened to your CCC read, house?

I stopped caring about CCC a while ago, I was just curious about responses to the case. People stopped responding.

[gerryoat]

How am I refusing to work with you?

[House]

How am I refusing to work with you?

Do a combined ISO of eager and Gamma... Tell me whether you see the blatant scum theater or not please.

[Manuel87]

I wont vote in my townreads.
Ill check the Iso on Gamma+Eager
@House: how can i combine the two isos?

[House]

@House: how can i combine the two isos?

Bottom of the page, below quick reply.

Choose a name, click +, rinse and repeat until bursting with joy.

[gerryoat]

bless you, i never knew that existed. I'll do it now

[Manuel87]

@House: how can i combine the two isos?

Bottom of the page, below quick reply.

Choose a name, click +, rinse and repeat until bursting with joy.

Thanks

[Manuel87]

Okay looking at the 2 isos together its seems like Gamma is always following Eagers vote while scumreading him and having him in his would lynch list. But never gives a reason why he does.
Finally when the Square lynch wasnt happening he moved his vote again to me instead of Eager when he had me in his townlist and Eager in his scumlist.
Would lynch Gamma, Eager or CCC

[House]

Would lynch Gamma, Eager or CCC

You are on the right track, but...

Vote Count 1.09

Not Voting

: The_Jester

House

: VictorDeAngelo

Square World

: gerryoat

eagerSnake

: Manuel87, House, Huntress

Manuel87

: CCC, eagerSnake, Gamma Emerald, Grendel, Square World

(L-1)

Do you really think scum will be likely to have three members on the d1 lynch, which they are trying to do to Manuel?

That's why I think Victor is the scum off the wagon.

[gerryoat]

How long do we have until we have to decide?