Open 54 - Basic 12 Player (over) before 529

[Ether]

1 Crub (IH)
1 Patrick (Crub)

6 Unvote (Andycyca, Bookitty, Glork, Patrick, Shanba, Thestatusquo)

8 alive; 5 to lynch.

[Crub]

I'll probably have more to say in the morning before I go, for now at least, nobody is in any sort of danger. I'd also be happy to see Crub present his cases, particular the one against me, mostly because I don't think he has one.

You're right there's not any one thing that you've done, however there is enough "off" interaction between you and Andy, it's made me suspicious since day 1 and the way it's continued has done nothing to allay my suspicions.

[Thestatusquo]

Glork, you know damn well why I am not checking the thread.

[Glork]

Glork, you know damn well why I am not checking the thread.

No, actually.... it had slipped my mind entirely. I don't keep mental tabs on everything that's going on in your life.

[Andycyca]

Still here, but I'm having network problems.

Also, *bump. I'd still like to know what does TSQ think of Crub.

[Glork]

Eh.

Vote: Crub

FoS: Patrick, Shanba

[Bookitty]

Things I know for sure: IH and Glork are town.

Things I am convinced of:

Shanba and Patrick are very unlikely to be scumbuddies.

Shanba's early vote and then unvote of Andy "Reasonably happy with Andy's response." Might be distancing. But then the argument with Andy in which Andy accused Shanba of pretending to distance from Patrick...Andy said this: "Also, I never said you and patrick are distancing, I commented that you might be trying to frame him on a "distancing" scene." Which seems to indicate an assumption that Patrick is town (or at least trying to give the appearance thereof). So Shanba and Andy might be scumbuddies, but Patrick and Andy are far more likely.

Crub's recent posts make it very unlikely he's scum with Andycyca. So, if my reasoning is correct, these are the possible scum trios:

Shanba/Andy/TSQ
Shanba/Crub/TSQ
Patrick/Crub/TSQ
Patrick/Andy/TSQ

A link between Crub, Andy and Patrick that no one seems to have mentioned or caught:

By [scene to be added later] do you mean that we have already failed and we have lynched one of patrick/andy?

Which at the most innocuous seems to be indicating that he thinks both are town, and worst "we have already failed" might be a reference to a link between Crub and one or both of them. Either way, it's odd phrasing for someone to use if they didn't have some knowledge of the alignments. (If I'm wrong about this, please let me know.)

In light of that quote, this later one looks odd too (made under pressure, when he thought he would be lynched:

I feel there's definitely a connection between Andy and Patrick Look at it more closely tomorrow, there's scum in them thar hills.

I think the most likely scumgroup is Shanba/Crub/TSQ. If Crub is actually town, then I guess I would go with Patrick/Andy/TSQ as the next most likely possibility. The one person (and since none of you know for sure that I'm town, it's really important that you check my logic carefully in this regard and pick it to shreds) who pretty much has to be scum, if I'm right that Shanba and Patrick aren't scum together, and Crub and Andy aren't scum together, is TSQ.

So TSQ is my favoured lynch today due to the reasoning above. I'm willing to lynch Crub as well, though, because I just have a gut feeling that I was wrong about changing my vote there, and I think it's because I think Crub is scum.

As always, I could be wrong, so please, attack my reasoning on this and point out where I'm wrong. I apologise for the length of this post, but I wanted to provide my reasoning as clearly as possible since we're in LYLO.

[Thestatusquo]

Um, that was a whole lot of talk saying "Tsq is scum" without actually saying why TSQ is scum. In fact, most of your reasoning assumed TSQ as scum, and then argued that the others fit with him.

It would seem to be odd reasoning, then, to say that I am your favored lynch target without actually saying what i have done that is so scummy. That would seem pretty important at LAL. perhaps you could go do it now.

[Glork]

Um, that was a whole lot of talk saying "Tsq is scum" without actually saying why TSQ is scum. In fact, most of your reasoning assumed TSQ as scum, and then argued that the others fit with him.

It would seem to be odd reasoning, then, to say that I am your favored lynch target without actually saying what i have done that is so scummy. That would seem pretty important at LAL. perhaps you could go do it now.

Actually, I believe she made several points against Sikario.

But if you want a reason that you seem scummy: You've not done a damned thing since replacing in other than making this one post to try to cover your own ass. I could well be wrong about one of my top three, and you are definitely the Alternate in my scumlist.

[Thestatusquo]

Glork, read my post referencing chamber, and also my post about the positions discussed in scumchat. It's not as if I've added no content to this game.

[Crub]

Eh.

Vote: Crub

FoS: Patrick, Shanba

GG Scum.

[Bookitty]

Um, that was a whole lot of talk saying "Tsq is scum" without actually saying why TSQ is scum. In fact, most of your reasoning assumed TSQ as scum, and then argued that the others fit with him.

It would seem to be odd reasoning, then, to say that I am your favored lynch target without actually saying what i have done that is so scummy. That would seem pretty important at LAL. perhaps you could go do it now.

Actually, if you read my post, you'd understand that if Shanba and Patrick don't make sense as scumpartners, and I think everyone would pretty well agree Crub and Andycyca don't make sense as scumpartners, then you HAVE to be scum. IH and Glork can't be scum. I know I'm not. So saying I need to make a case on you is irrelevant, really, because mathematically if you accept my premises, you have to accept that you're the only person who absolutely has to be scum for them to work.

It would make more sense for you to attack my premises, because I think my logic is correct. So I don't think you understood my post.

[Thestatusquo]

Right, and I am saying that I disagree with some of your premises. Specifically, I don't know how you can fiat that the rest of the town should just believe you're not scum. In addition, I haven't read the thread yet, but I think your analysis is lacking in one key area, and that is that it assumes that since players don't look like scum together, then they can't be scum together. This is part of why I think looking scum partners can be good if a link exists, but is complete bunk when you're looking for an absense of a link. This is because it ignores skill. Shanba and Patrick are both fantastic experienced players. They are good at playing the game of mafia, and I think for you to assume that they'd leave direct ties to their scum partners is foolish. If you were analyzing the play of two wet behind the ears noobies, then perhaps I could see the point, but that is not how good players act.

I have seen scum come right and vote their scum buddy and press them hard at LAL. This is actually a good stategy, because it ensures survival if one or the other scum player is lynched.

Going to do reread tomorrow, btw. I'm off work.

[Bookitty]

Right, and I am saying that I disagree with some of your premises. Specifically, I don't know how you can fiat that the rest of the town should just believe you're not scum. In addition, I haven't read the thread yet, but I think your analysis is lacking in one key area, and that is that it assumes that since players don't look like scum together, then they can't be scum together. This is part of why I think looking scum partners can be good if a link exists, but is complete bunk when you're looking for an absense of a link. This is because it ignores skill. Shanba and Patrick are both fantastic experienced players. They are good at playing the game of mafia, and I think for you to assume that they'd leave direct ties to their scum partners is foolish. If you were analyzing the play of two wet behind the ears noobies, then perhaps I could see the point, but that is not how good players act.

I welcome your refutation of my premises. While I readily admit that I will take Glork and IH's comments far more seriously, since I know that they are acting in the best interests of the town, I would like everyone to pick apart my logic and show me where I'm wrong.

That said, your statement that I'm trying to "fiat" the town into believing I'm not scum is not true, which lends support to my belief that you didn't really read it. I stated quite clearly that "since none of you know for sure that I'm town, it's really important that you check my logic carefully in this regard and pick it to shreds", which is the opposite of what you accused me. So that's just a false accusation.

Your original post complained about me not making a case on you directly, which has nothing to do with my premises at all, and only now are you getting around to attacking those premises.

Additionally, since I didn't know what you were talking about, your posts regarding Chamber and some scumchat conversation don't constitute content, at least for me.

[Thestatusquo]

You just ignored what you requested, kitty mah dear. You asked me to address your premises, and you just fell for what we in the biz like to call a "Deliberately weak argument." It's a pretty strong tell.

This is the logic from which is flows: There are two ways to argue in a game of mafia. There is one which attempts to use logic, and understanding to find scum. This kind of argumentation takes reason, and uses the assumption that the other sides alignment is not determined. This is used by town players, and good scum players who are attempting to look townie. Then there is the other kind of argumentation. This is the style where the person is trying to "win the argument" To score points. This is a strategy generally used by scum because they already know alignment, and are not interested in discovering the truth, but rather in making their opponent look stupid, or bad, and making themselves look right.

DWA seeks to emphasize this fact. Look at my post. I made three different arguments there. Well, really 2. I made two arguments which were subsets of the same argument. Here they are, labeled for your convienience, with warrants.

1) You can't assume you're town: None.
2) Scumpartner links are only valid for determining links, not lack of links.
a) This is because you ignore the skill of the players involved: Patrick and Shanba are skilled, experienced players who would not be likely to draw you a map right back to their scumbuddies.
b) Your point is contingent on wifom: because sometimes it is a better strategy for scum to attack a partner pretty hard at lylo in order to "clear" themselves for the next day if one of them dies.

Now, The first one is obviously bunk, its a stupid point, with little content, and it takes up one sentance in a pretty decent sized post, whereas the 2 a and b are reasonable, (probably) correct, and well warranted. This is done deliberately, in order to emphasize which style of argumentation a player is using. If you were really interested in the flaws in your logic, if you were really trying to discover my alignment in general, you would be addressing the most salient, relevant parts of the post, because discussing them can lead to the correct lynch. You didn't do this, in fact, you completely ignored them and went after the one part of the post which looked like a slam dunk can't lose make me look stupid argument for you. This reflects very poorly on what you are trying to do in this game, and I am pretty sure I will be voting you, but I want to reread before I do that.

In the mean time,

MAJOR FOS: BOOKITTY

[Bookitty]

1) You can't assume you're town: None.
2) Scumpartner links are only valid for determining links, not lack of links.
a) This is because you ignore the skill of the players involved: Patrick and Shanba are skilled, experienced players who would not be likely to draw you a map right back to their scumbuddies.
b) Your point is contingent on wifom: because sometimes it is a better strategy for scum to attack a partner pretty hard at lylo in order to "clear" themselves for the next day if one of them dies.

Now, The first one is obviously bunk, its a stupid point, with little content, and it takes up one sentance in a pretty decent sized post, whereas the 2 a and b are reasonable, (probably) correct, and well warranted. This is done deliberately, in order to emphasize which style of argumentation a player is using. If you were really interested in the flaws in your logic, if you were really trying to discover my alignment in general, you would be addressing the most salient, relevant parts of the post, because discussing them can lead to the correct lynch. You didn't do this, in fact, you completely ignored them and went after the one part of the post which looked like a slam dunk can't lose make me look stupid argument for you. This reflects very poorly on what you are trying to do in this game, and I am pretty sure I will be voting you, but I want to reread before I do that.

In the mean time,

MAJOR FOS: BOOKITTY

Okay, first off, you say something that's a lie in a post, I'm going to point it out. I think pretty much anyone would.

I've stated my reasons for thinking Patrick and Shanba are unlikely scumbuddies, and I notice you don't even attack my premise that Andy and Crub are unlikely scumbuddies. Patrick and Shanba haven't attacked each other in LYLO, so what they are likely to do has nothing to do with what CRUB did in LYLO. Incidentally, my reasoning for thinking Patrick and Shanba can't be scumbuddies has nothing to do with lack of connection, which further bears out the thought that you're not actually reading the game (or at least my posts) at all. But you had said you would have further analysis, so I intended to wait until that analysis materialised before I refuted your general points. I was trying to give you time for a reread. I don't think we have all that much time, but I was willing to grant you that much.

You said: "Shanba and Patrick are both fantastic experienced players. They are good at playing the game of mafia, and I think for you to assume that they'd leave direct ties to their scum partners is foolish." Even the best players slip up. If not, there's no point in anyone else playing Mafia, is there? It's nearly as though you're saying there's no point in analysing them at all. Is that your point?

If I were going for the slam-dunk can't-lose arguments, why would I post long, content heavy posts detailing my reasoning and then request others to pick apart my logic? Surely it would be easier not to post content at all, and then to attack others for doing so, as you have done?

I'll await your analysis. Regardless of what I think about your alignment, I think it would be helpful to have everyone's opinions out on the table, and I'd like to hear yours.

[Thestatusquo]

1) Just because possible answers exist to the points I raised, it doesn't mean that the DWA doesn't apply, in fact it even weakens your position, because it proves there were decent answers that you straight out ignored to attack the DWA.

2) The point is not that you pointed out that it was a weak argument. Any player should, and would do that. The point is that you attacked ONLY that point, ignoring the rest of the post which raised significant questions with your advocacy. Its not what you attacked, but what you did not attack that triggers the DWA.

3) It wasn't a lie, it was simply a weak argument without a warrant. Noting your attempt to misscharacterize me here.

4) Shanba hasnt attacked patrick in LYLO? Now you are the one that is lying. A quick glance over shanbas posts for the day shows that he in his opening post said he thought patrick was scum. He then lists Patrick as his #1 scum suspect. Patrick hasn't attacked SHanba?

I'm having trouble seperating Crub and Shanba as my first and second suspect, though I think there's a good chance that's a false dilemna and that they're both scum. Andy is a close third, TSQ is fourth but really needs to say something, Bookitty is fifth. If I had one chance to call out the scumgroup now, it would be Crub/Shanba/Andy.

That would be another lie, and seeing as those are both from today, and today is LYLO, I would say that what you just said is a big load of crap.

5) Actually, you can extend what I said about Patrick and Shanba to andy and Crub, potentially. The reason I did not is because I have never played with either of them, and thus have no idea how skilled they are, the argument was not shanba and patrick specific, but rather a general argument that your position ignores the skill of the players involved, with Patrick and Shanba as example.

6) Yes, even the best players can slip up in a game of mafia, but the point is that to assume they will is poor strategy. You should be looking for which players are scummy in their own right, and if you can connect two players together because of that, then all is well and good, but I don't think you can ever make the positive claim X is not Ys scumbuddy in a game of mafia barring extroadinary circumstances such as a player being cleared. (for instance, you could unequivocally claim that glork is not my scumbuddy, but then, what would be the point?)

7) First of all, that's wifom, as there are clearly balancing factors as to why it would be a bad idea to just lurk. It's also wifom, because your question answers itself. "Why would I do X in a game of mafia" Well, precisely because you can then point to X as a reason why you are townie. Second, the fact that you make "content heavy posts asking for others to pick your logic appart" doesnt mean anything because when I DID that, you ignored it, and looked to make me look wrong, rather than determine whether I was right or not. Thats a direct link into a DWA, which I have found an extremely accurate scum tell. (Not to name drop, but I learned it from reading seol.)

8) I don't like the conciliatory nature of your posts. They seem to be asking the towns permission before you go on, which to me is a hallmark sign of scum testing the waters. But that's very small compared to DWA.

[Bookitty]

Since TSQ requested this (I do have the strangest sense of deja vu):

Sikario8 provided almost zero content to the game. That's pretty consistent with a meta of him as both town and scum, though, so I'm looking at the non-content he provided.

First votes for Elmo (known townie), then defends Shanba a bit

But wouldn't Shanba benefit more from actively, if discreetly, pushing a bandwagon? Let the town lynch itself?

which could be a link between them. Patrick pushes him for his reasoning (this is why I am less convinced of a Patrick/Sikario link -- Sikario reacts very poorly under pressure, and I know Patrick knows this) and Sikario responds:

When I say let the town lynch itself, I do not mean by lurking, I mean by voting and actually having the town lynch itself while NKing at the same time – dual attack. When you say you’re becoming a bit sKeptical and say that my reason isn’t good enough – what do you mean? You’re shooting one-liners. What do you think about Shanba, what is your opinion?

This is notable in my view because Sikario8 was studiously avoiding any content except in connection with Shanba.

Votes for JDodge (known townie) and when questioned about it by Elmo (also known townie) replies:

I had no idea my vote would metamorphisize into such a catastrophe; however, JDodge doesn't seem to care, so...

The difference in how much Sikario cares about Shanba and JDodge is pretty striking.

JDodge criticises the vote as well, and Sikario8 replies:

I had no idea you'd actually say anything about it. You don't mind, do you? I mean, it's practically harmless and, if it does come up to something, I can easily withdraw my vote. I just...want to appear...well...active.

And later to JDodge:

Are you honestly this upset about being lynched?

What do you mean about Elmo? I thought he wanted a dead Shanba for Christmas.

This post is just ridiculously scummy:

You're an incredible genius, JDodge; however, I was not going to accuse you of an OMGUS - you're doing the logical thing of trying to protect yourself by throwing a vote my way unless you're actually upset about being voted for no reason, which I believe you are. Due to this, I'm going to seriously consider why I'm voting for you. While I do this, would it be possible for you to consider why I shouldn't vote you? It'd be like a court case.

O and, btw, I'm in no way trying to jokingly brush aside your desperation vote. (Hopefully, you'll be able to pull yourself up by dragging me down to the bottom of the sea, right?) LEARN TO SWIM, ASSHOLE!

He doesn't even know why he's voting him?

And this, to JDodge:

To keep from being deadline lynched, couldn't you switch your vote to someone else so that they'd have as much as you?

Any townie will do?

Another link between Sikario8 and Shanba, this one addressed to Glork:

Well hell, I don't know, YOU'RE the mastermind...!

Oh...wait...or is Shanba the smart one...? Anyway, I'd rather get rid of JDodge than Shanba.

This quote seems oddly knowing that Ripley is town and trying to cast suspicion on Glork, given what we know now:

I like this. It works so well for Glork to be the serpent confusing the young Ripley, whom clearly has no chance of survival when pitted against the big snake. Glork sees you as pathetic, Ripley, or am I still trapped in fables...?

The rest is largely garbage, and then we get to TSQ, who produces gems like this, to Glork:

Well, I'd have to read the thread to know that, now would I. Now that you're cleared, I figure I'll just Barn you.

And this:

P.S. I said that just because I knew it would make glork blow up. I'll reread eventually.

And no real content at all until I posted indicating that, given the premises I was working with, he seemed nearly certain to be scum. If nothing else, that post served a useful purpose in actually persuading TSQ to contribute to the game.

I'd still like to hear other people's opinions on my original premises. Especially if you see counterevidence or a link I've missed, speak up, and tell me where I'm wrong and why. We're nearly out of time.

[Bookitty]

The problem with your entire DWA argument is that it depends heavily on you making one assumption, and me making another.

It's surely possible that Shanba and Patrick have accused each other fairly viciously of being scum throughout the game as partners. I don't have a good meta on them as scumpartners. It's also true that I don't see it that way. I'm not going to argue a case I don't believe in. You think they're scumpartners, fine, then present a case against it that doesn't involve them being so fabulous at the game that they would never distance that heavily, or alternatively provide some links between them.

I think Glork agrees with you that they're likely scumpartners, and it's true that because I know he's town, his arguments will carry more weight with me, as will IH's, but I'm very willing to listen to counterarguments from ANYONE. I asked for them. I'm looking at the ones you provided. I'm checking them against previous games for a meta read and trying to draw conclusions. Sadly, this isn't an instant process.

The better argument against me, and the one you did not make, is that I responded to your original post (which was demanding a case against you, somewhat betraying that you hadn't read my previous posts nor my basis for argument in the post you were attacking) and attacked the obvious lie, and then in a subsequent post it's possible to argue I was reacting more out of OMGUS when you attacked me. That's a valid argument, except that your first reaction to the original post you attacked looks like OMGUS, so I can see how you wouldn't want to bring that up, perhaps.

If you think there are any links between Shanba and Patrick, then you should bring them up. I didn't see any. If you find their distancing to be false and inconsistent, you should bring that up too. Simply saying that "they're too good" seems a defeatist attitude, and one that isn't helpful, especially in LYLO. I presented my argument (something that, at that point, you had yet to do despite ample time before your computer problems), and I provided the reasoning that I used to derive my conclusions, so that others could objectively assess the merits of my case. I think that's the right thing to do. You didn't provide any content at all until you felt attacked. So the argument about "content-heavy posts" falls down, because you only did that under pressure.

I look forward to your case on me.

[Thestatusquo]

OMGUS is a stupid argument, usually. The natural reaction of any player being attacked is to look at the person attacking her. This leads to it being more likely that a player would attack that player. That being said, I don't think OMGUS (as shitty a tell as it is) is even valid in this case because you were attacking me before hand.

The DWA is not merely a difference of assumptions. Stop trying to brush it aside, as if the logic doesnt apply. it wont work. The logic is very specific. Stop trying to say you "attacked the lie" because that's not at all what happened. You neglected the relevant part of the post in order to attempt to shift the debate to ground where you could win. Thats not a difference of assumptions, that's a methodology of how you're posting.


Thats another thing, too. You continue to call what I said a "lie" and that subtle attempt to poison my well is a pretty good tell as well, but tell me how "the rest of the town can't assume you're not scum" is a lie? If you can, I will give you a million dollars. This is mainly because you can't. It's weak, it was borderline irrelevant, but it certainly was not a lie. Stop calling it one, now, lest you look foolish.

You keep saying you "don't hold my arguments with as much weight as glorks" Thats fine, but you're sounding like a broken record by this point. The way you keep repeating it like a mantra makes the following line "I look forward to any/all imput/compaints/suggestions etc. etc. etc." ring very hollow. It's like you're trying to remind the rest of the town to not take my arguments seriously because I'm not cleared, which is once again subtly poisoning my well.

The links, or lack there of, between shanba and patrick was not the point. It was an illustration of concept that YOU can't make the assumption that they are not. Since you're now conceding it as a possibilty, you've lost your whole "mathmatical" case against me, and are now stuck with a couple of weak statements from a player who's playstyle is best described as "OMGUS with a hint of Panic." you're going to have to do much better if you expect to misslynch me, I pride myself on being hard to lynch.

Lastly, stop trying to downplay what I'm saying by telling me "You look forward to my case." A VERY significant portion of that case (aka a tell I consider to be able 75-80% accurate) has already been concretely demonstrated, and the way you've responded to the attacks has not been very good at all.

[Thestatusquo]

Missed something:

Simply saying that "they're too good" seems a defeatist attitude, and one that isn't helpful, especially in LYLO. I presented my argument (something that, at that point, you had yet to do despite ample time before your computer problems), and I provided the reasoning that I used to derive my conclusions, so that others could objectively assess the merits of my case. I think that's the right thing to do. You didn't provide any content at all until you felt attacked. So the argument about "content-heavy posts" falls down, because you only did that under pressure.

Wait what?

1)I said that good players do not lead you to their scumbuddies, and that instead you should look at their motives in their actions from the whole game. How is that a defeatist attitude? The point is it's poor strategy to expect a good player to slip up, and instead you must play like they haven't, or try to force them to slip up, as I have forced you to slip up.

2) WHAT? my argument about content heavy posts was that it was wifom for you to say that you were town because you amde content heavy posts, and I also said that it didn't matter, because you still didn;t respond, and still fell for the DWA. How does me "Being under pressure" cause that logic to :Fall" It's possible that Im not understanding you perfectly here, but if you're saying what I think you are, then you make no sense.

[Bookitty]

Right, and I am saying that I disagree with some of your premises. Specifically, I don't know how you can fiat that the rest of the town should just believe you're not scum. In addition, I haven't read the thread yet, but I think your analysis is lacking in one key area, and that is that it assumes that since players don't look like scum together, then they can't be scum together.

You said that "I don't know how you can fiat that the rest of the town should just believe you're not scum" -- which indicates that I am somehow dictating to the town what it should or should not believe. I in fact said the opposite of what you are accusing me of fiating. I asked the town to look at my conclusions with that knowledge. Therefore, this accusation was a lie, and an easily disprovable one.

And you're arguing a case when you admit "I haven't read the thread yet"?

WHAT are you basing your arguments on?

I misread this the first time, I thought it said "I haven't reread the thread yet", but on rereading your post, it's clear that you haven't read the thread the first time.

You're making these counterarguments about Shanba and Patrick without having read the thread, three days before deadline? WHY?

[Bookitty]

The DWA is not merely a difference of assumptions. Stop trying to brush it aside, as if the logic doesnt apply. it wont work. The logic is very specific. Stop trying to say you "attacked the lie" because that's not at all what happened. You neglected the relevant part of the post in order to attempt to shift the debate to ground where you could win. Thats not a difference of assumptions, that's a methodology of how you're posting.

Since you have not read the thread, you do not know the relevant arguments I have already made in this regard about why I did not feel the debate between Shanba and Patrick was distancing. I think Glork disagrees with me on this. I'm pretty sure he's read the thread.

Since you have not read the thread, you also have no valid counterarguments about why their arguments were actually distancing, and so you are attacking based on theory of the game. While this is interesting, it has nothing to do with the specifics of the situation, and it's very hard to attack something so vague with evidence and fact. So far as I can figure out, your argument is that Patrick and Shanba are really excellent players and that we can't tell anything from their interactions. This is true in your case, because you haven't read the thread.

I really want you to make a case against me, now, because at least it would indicate that you had READ THE THREAD.

(Perhaps I'm being too subtle.)

[Thestatusquo]

1) The point is, regardless of what you're asking the town to do, you're asking the town to believe you are town in order for them to lynch me. In fact, you have made no arguments as to why YOU are not scum, simply that everyone is mathmatically eliminated save me. (you neglect to mention that you yourself fall into the exact same slot as I do, and therefore in order for your "mathmatical" proof of me being scum to work, anyone would have to assume that you are not scum, otherwise they are faced with a choice of you or me. )Really not a lie at all.

2) Why is your behavior now any less likely to be indicative of alignment than say, your behavior yesterday? Have you magically lost your win condition, and are thus excused from doing scummy things? This time frame argument makes no sense, as since I've obviously read what you've been posting, and found several VERY scummy things in it, its perfectly capable of being a "case"

3) It is pretty obvious what I am basing my arguments on. Your behavior. Go back and read my arguments again. I have explained all my logic very thoroughly.

4) STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I have not made any counter arguments about Shanba and Patrick. I am not making any positive claim as to whether or not they are scum buddies. I DO NOT HAVE TO. SINCE your argument is contingent on the fact that they "mathmatically" cannot be, the mere chance that they are disproves the whole thing. I have given 3 reasons why you cannot be sure that they cannot be scum buddies, and you have responded to exactly none of them, and are now attempting to attack the time at which I make my arguments, rather than the arguments themselves, since you know you can't beat them.

I was actually unaware that the deadline was that fast approaching. I'm going to update my FOS to a

VOTE: Bookitty

[Thestatusquo]

Once again, no matter how many times you tell me I haven't read the whole thread, it doesn't defeat what I'm saying.