Open 124 (2:10 Bugs Bunny -- GAME OVER) before 761

[Zachrulez]

I guess that was some sort of veiled accusation.

Not that all the previous lynches have pretty much been anything but easy and against players that seemed completely unable to defend themselves (Millar, Emp, Zwet.)

How are you and AndyTony not obvscum?

I think it's veiled because you truly don't know how to accuse us directly without evidence.

Huh?

That being said. Can you give us any?

Poked me with a stick one too many times...

The second part of your quote makes me more uncomfortable with you. Do you know how many of the lynches you had a hand in? All of them. You were a tool in the death of all of those people, and now, in having no cases on other people, you're throwing accusations around with no case, and you're distancing yourself from the wagons you were on.

I could careless how comfortable you are with me... scum need people to be comfortable with them. As far as being a tool in the deadl of all those people... I can't BELIEVE you just said that.

Okay. You've both argued your points well, and though I have my feelings toward lynching town, I suppose it is the only way to know.

gah.... I've been working on an essay and it's after midnight lol I thought I'd be coming to this board with some happy thing to read upon that didn't rack my brain more!!!

Okay.

Vote: Millar13

Phail - thanks for your concise point of view - - Giuseppe, appreciate the clarifiction on the FoS I had earlier..

I'll be back when I can. Gonna nap.

You hammered Millar while sounding unsure of yourself.

C:\>votecount

Running VoteCountTM

Empking - 6 - Giuseppe, Zachrulez, dejkha, AndyTony, madeofphail, zwetschenwasser

Cephrir - 1 - Empking
Giuseppe - 1 - Pablo Molinero

AndyTony - 0
Grimmy - 0
dejkha - 0
zwetschenwasser - 0
Pablo Molinero - 0
Zachrulez - 0
madeofphail - 0

Not Voting: Cephrir, Grimmy

With 10 players, it takes 6 to Lynch.

Your reasons for your emp vote...

K...

Vote : Empking

At the very least, I'd like this to inspire him to post a bit more and at the very least defend himself.

I've considered the evidence on him and Guiseppe in realtion, yes, to the relationships. I suppose I value direct links rather than webs of "if this person is X than that person is Y" - -

Can you hit me up with that list of who is potentially what based on his allignment?

This is like a joke that stopped being funny a long time ago.

C:\>votecount

Running VoteCountTM

zwetschenwasser - 5 - Cephrir, AndyTony, Zachrulez, madeofphail, Grimmy

madeofphail - 1 - dejkha
dejkha - 1 - zwetchenwasser

Cephrir - 0
AndyTony - 0
Giuseppe - 0
Grimmy - 0
Zachrulez - 0

Not Voting: Giuseppe

With 8 players, it takes 5 to Lynch.

Your reasons for your Zwet vote...

As for the rest. I just think the on/off voting patterns like that are scummy (and I haven't turned a blind eye to Andy Tony's either)

Remember he's saying we

both

pulled off after that big defense post - - and I don't believe there was ever a change in vote pattern without me specifically saying why - I think the reason is chief, Dej - what you're saying would make sense, but I think it applies to someone who's following the wagons like stock markets rather than explaining their actions.

Deal with it. They're true.

I'm explaining that my only way to deal with it is to vote you on finding it scummy, Zwet - I understand your attention span is shorter than your posts and don't want to burden you, but until you can illustrate your reasoning behind what I regarded as scummy

Vote: Zwet

Far as I'm concerned, talking to Grimmy is a matter of finding out if he's your partner. No reason to take a vote off one scum just because we all remember there's another.

Cheers, Zwet. Wish you'dve cared enough to have just cleared it all up.

Nice...

Bad cases, bad logic, distancing, all in exchange for lurking. I think I preferred your lurking.

OF COURSE YOU DID. You're one to talk about bad cases, bad logic, and distancing when you've done all of the above in past lynches with your past reasoning.

Hey, Zwet and Guiseppe are scum! I'm sure of it! Oh shit they're not? It's not my fault, it's Zach's! Look! He was on every lynching bandwagon.

WELL SO WERE YOU! What say you to that now? Will you try to rationalize your actions hypocritically in a desperate effort to paint me as scum, an attempt to prevent us from realizing that we should have lynched you on day 2?

How will you rationalize the way you weakly hopped on every lynching wagon, while rationalizing their town flips as being someone else pulling the strings? How can it not be you? How can you? Do you even need to convince us that it's not you anymore? Or do you really feel like your scum victory is so inevitable this close to the end that you can make any shitty argument you need and just deflect anything I say against you by saying that I'm a lurker?

Not to mention the ridiculousness that has spawned from you over the last few days attempting to stick people to your lynches as their "scumbuddies." Yeah, your logic is so flawless that once it becomes impossible for your accused players to be scum paired with said players, you change your theories accusing the same people with crappy tunnelvision with new crappy logic that is also based similarly on the same logic that you used to try to link the people to the now confirmed townies in the first place.

Zach and Zwet are likely scumbuddies.

oh shit, Zwet was town, Zach was distancing. *Insert lame logic here*

Obviously scum? Why do you keep trying to have other people make cases against themselves to save you the work?

... Yeah, what do you have to say for yourself now. In light of all this work I've just done, this comment seems a bit ridiculous now doesn't it?

My vote stands

Yeah, speaking of votes...

Vote: AndyTony

I may regret not pushing for your lynch harder earlier in the game, but there's still time to correct that little mistake.

Shortened reason: For trying to distance away from his own hand in the lynching of the 3 townies in this game while attempting to hypocritically cast blame on me for being on the bandwagons as well.

One thing I can say for you AndyTony is that there's a lot of information for me to make my cases out of. About 130 posts worth.

To wit Dejkha has posted something around 113 times.

Even Dejkha has posted almost twice as often as Zwet, who posts nothing but one liners usually as it is, and is usually a pretty easy read. This seems quite unusual to me.

I think it's worth noting (and I did some math on this.) That your posts combined comprise of 35% of the game posts. (And probably even more of the game space when we consider the size of your posts.

I think this is fair game, considering that you both have attacked us all so much on lurking, cause I could see it as a viable strategy to intentionally overpost to make it more difficult for the rest of us to read through the game and actually encourage the very lurking you are so brazenly accusing us all of...

Yeah...

[Zachrulez]

And with that, I'll share some posting statistics of some of the remaining living players

Grimmy - 21 posts
Ceprir - 37 posts
Phail - 41 posts
Zachrulez - 64 posts (65 counting this one.)
Dejkha - 113 posts
AndyTony - 130 posts

Just thought this would make things a little clearer for everyone.

[dejkha]

Zach, let me share your voting patterns:

Your first post is a vote on Millar that you never change

Your ISO Post 16 is voting Andy based on one post. Your last post before that was 4 days earlier.

Your ISO Post 34 shows your weak reasoning (if that's what you want to call it) to vote Emp, only making one small post within the 3 days previously to that.

And your Zwet vote seems fine to me.

As far as I can tell, those were your only votes throughout the game.

... Yeah, what do you have to say for yourself now. In light of all this work I've just done, this comment seems a bit ridiculous now doesn't it?

You mean the comment that makes complete sense given how you gave no evidence before the time it was posted? Oh sure. Are you ready to be lynched or what?

Not only does it seem like your case includes how he was also on every wagon, but you fail to explain why his reasons are scummy. You say you've "done all this work", but it's not that much at all.

To wit Dejkha has posted something around 113 times.

Even Dejkha has posted almost twice as often as Zwet, who posts nothing but one liners usually as it is, and is usually a pretty easy read. This seems quite unusual to me.

I think it's worth noting (and I did some math on this.) That your posts combined comprise of 35% of the game posts. (And probably even more of the game space when we consider the size of your posts.

Yes, I want everyone to take note of my high post count, but not only that, but I want you all to look at my post count in other games so you can see how similar it is.

Zach, posting our post count and trying to make it look like we're "overposting" seriously looks like a desperate attempt to turn attention to someone else. Sorry, but when your posting pattern includes you posting one day every few days, sometimes with only one useless post, that's lurking. At least Phail had content in his post, unlike you. You and Cehpir were lurking and Phail seems to have stopped posting. Me and Andy have both included content in our post, so don't blame your bad reading skills on us trying to make the thread "harder to read".

[Grimmy]

My top 3 suspects are in no particular order:

Cephir
Zachrulez
MadeofPhail

While one of them flipped town, I still want to take a better look at the other two, and I shall do so as the week goes on.

Grimmy
cut and pasted the above from an older post

[Zachrulez]

So your point is that I'm trying to prevent Phail's lynch?

I haven't actively defended or attacked Phail in anyway. (Though I do recall that one of both you and AndyTony may have said some things that could be seen as a lead in to lining up his lynch for today on day 3. I will have to look into it.)

So what's your point? If I thought Phail was scum that would be one thing. I think what has become painfully obvious is that all of the lynches have in reality been controlled by you and AT.

And I haven't really seen anything that makes me think Phail is scum, but apparently you guys have, and have decided not to act on it until today or all days. (After lynching all of the weaker players.)

[Zachrulez]

Also Dejkha, are you honestly saying you don't find my case against AT interesting in the least?

I mean, even if you disagree with any points I made against you... I would have to find it strange if you didn't.

[Zachrulez]

My top 3 suspects are in no particular order:

Cephir
Zachrulez
MadeofPhail

While one of them flipped town, I still want to take a better look at the other two, and I shall do so as the week goes on.

Grimmy
cut and pasted the above from an older post

We're all still alive.

What are you talking about?

[dejkha]

So your point is that I'm trying to prevent Phail's lynch?

I haven't actively defended or attacked Phail in anyway. (Though I do recall that one of both you and AndyTony may have said some things that could be seen as a lead in to lining up his lynch for today on day 3. I will have to look into it.)

So what's your point? If I thought Phail was scum that would be one thing. I think what has become painfully obvious is that all of the lynches have in reality been controlled by you and AT.

And I haven't really seen anything that makes me think Phail is scum, but apparently you guys have, and have decided not to act on it until today or all days. (After lynching all of the weaker players.)

I've brought up evidence on Phail since Day 1 and my vote was on him yesterday. The problem is that you're dismissing it without any counter or reason. I never said you were defending it, but you've tried to prevent a lynch on more than one occasion only to end up on the wagon anyway. If you don't want a lynch to be controlled by anyone, then participate and make cases like we have.

Don't blame it on us just because you're lurking. Believe it or not, staying quite doesn't help with the problems you have. In fact, a lot of the problems you have with me and Andy are you own fault for not posting more and not posting more posts with content.

[dejkha]

Also Dejkha, are you honestly saying you don't find my case against AT interesting in the least?

I mean, even if you disagree with any points I made against you... I would have to find it strange if you didn't.

Most of the points you made aren't evidence. And the ones that are can be applied to yourself.

[Zachrulez]

So the answer is no.

You may steamroll this town and win the game, but I'm not going to lay down for you.

[Zachrulez]

Yes, I want everyone to take note of my high post count, but not only that, but I want you all to look at my post count in other games so you can see how similar it is.

Looked up your post count for one of the other games you have posted in recently besides this one.

I won't name it since it's ongoing, but you posted 55 times in that game.

I will also note that it's almost twice as long as this game is post wise.

[Zachrulez]

And another game that's been going on longer than this one.

23 posts.

Scrolled down a little more for that one.

C:\>votecount

Running VoteCount

TM

madeofphail - 2 - dejkha, AndyTony

AndyTony - 1 - Zachrulez

dejkha - 0
Cephrir - 0
Grimmy - 0
Zachrulez - 0

Not Voting: Grimmy, Cephrir, madeofphail

With 6 players, it takes 4 to Lynch.

[dejkha]

Nice job, Zach, but this time I think it would be better not to pick a Large Normal Game, which is coincidentally the game I've been catching up with today since I haven't had time to post for the last 2 week and a half. How about you find a 2 games game with a similar amount of players then you're point will be of concern.

[dejkha]

And make sure its not ongoing also, since it wouldn't do much if you don't know if I was scum in the game.

[dejkha]

And another game that's been going on longer than this one.

23 posts.

Scrolled down a little more for that one.

I've been forgetting about that game (read through my posts to see) and it's an ongoing game in which my role is unknown.

You're still not making any headway, Zach. The closest thing you can get to a low post count on a finished game with me as scum in my newbie game, in which I was only learning.

[Zachrulez]

I disagree, you asked to be metaed in this regard, which is scummy in and of itself.

And now you're flailing in defense because I've found 2 games that don't compare to your ever lovely frequent posting meta.

So your excuse for one is that it's a large theme game (Which I would imagine would give you more people and things to talk about.)

And you forgot about the other...

But it's not your opinion that matters, and I have to wonder why you're posting so frequently to discredit it...

[Zachrulez]

And don't try to bury this under 20 posts. I'll keep bolding these post numbers to make sure they are read.

[dejkha]

The problem is that those are ongoing. You have no support if you don't know my role in those games, thus making your argument full of flaws.

[AndyTony]

That being said. Can you give us any?

Poked me with a stick one too many times...

Are you saying this is OMGUS? Because to my list of feelings about you, that's now added

You hammered Millar while sounding unsure of yourself.

I'm always sure when voting - what you're referring to is me being HOPEFUL that it wouldn't turn out bad for town.

I never vote without expressing my thoughts and feelings - your argument is empty.

Bad cases, bad logic, distancing, all in exchange for lurking. I think I preferred your lurking.

OF COURSE YOU DID. You're one to talk about bad cases, bad logic, and distancing when you've done all of the above in past lynches with your past reasoning.

This is opinionated, no evidence. I never gave OMGUS votes, or totally unsure votes - I always expressed thoughts and gave fair chances.

Hey, Zwet and Guiseppe are scum! I'm sure of it! Oh shit they're not? It's not my fault, it's Zach's! Look! He was on every lynching bandwagon.

Not what I'm saying -- I'm pointing out that you're using the mislynches as some form of evidence on me, and in doing so, seemingly distancing yourself - I'm reminding you that you're on the wagon's too - chill out, Zach, you're slipping scum

WELL SO WERE YOU! What say you to that now? Will you try to rationalize your actions hypocritically in a desperate effort to paint me as scum, an attempt to prevent us from realizing that we should have lynched you on day 2?

Can you rephrase this with less emotional distress from being called out as potential scum? It's makes you seem more scummy and you're calling me hypocritical and scum with no evidence

Obviously scum? Why do you keep trying to have other people make cases against themselves to save you the work?

... Yeah, what do you have to say for yourself now. In light of all this work I've just done, this comment seems a bit ridiculous now doesn't it?

You haven't done work up to this point! You've given opinions with no evidence, and emotions without understanding (especially with me pointing out you were on the very wagons you try to condemn me for)

Vote: AndyTony

I may

regret not pushing for your lynch harder earlier in the game, but there's still time to correct that little mistake

.

Shortened reason:

For trying to distance away from his own hand in the lynching of the 3 townies in this game while attempting to hypocritically cast blame on me for being on the bandwagons as well.

I was saying that you distanced yourself by condemning me for the wagons I was on, and forgetting you too were on them. How is that distancing? It was more so re-attaching you, pal...
Show the hypocrisy, you can't just say it.... and it's also attached to the wagon distance idea - -

You turned my wagon comment on you and repeated it to me - that's pretty cheap, man - I didn't say I wasn't on those wagons, I reminded you that you were on them all too and should be careful with saying I'm scum - YOUR HANDS ARE JUST AS DIRTY.

Which means you need to clarify, or have a better reason for the vote on me (aside from the above admitted "OMGUS" vote earlier in my post here...

One thing I can say for you AndyTony is that there's a lot of information for me to make my cases out of. About 130 posts worth.

Then use them and make a better case

[AndyTony]

too many flaws in his argument

[dejkha]

The problem is that those are ongoing. You have no support if you don't know my role in those games, thus making your argument full of flaws.

Actually, I don't even know why I'm arguing that. All he needs is to looks at completed games where I was town and my post count was high. If he finds those two things, his argument is null.

[Zachrulez]

The problem is that those are ongoing. You have no support if you don't know my role in those games, thus making your argument full of flaws.

It's not about knowing your role, you're kinda fogging up the point a bit.

You argued Meta as a defense. This is about games that don't apply to your meta.

It's not about your alignment in those games, it's about you acting as though your meta was consistent with ALL your games when it was not.

[dejkha]

In games, I'm active in, it's consistent. The games you choose, there were times that I didn't post for days into weeks. In the large game, it's a legitimate lack of posting due to my internet troubles that I told everyone about and it naturally takes longer to catch up. Think what you want about the other.

But if the point is that it's not consistent with the other 2 games of the many I've played then fine, but good luck making a case out of it, since that point is irrelevant.

[Zachrulez]

I haven't even gotten into metaing AndyTony yet either to see if his posting level is consistent either.

I'll do that, and start looking at Phail's posts. (I believe I had trouble understanding what he was trying to say at least half the time.) Which on a rough read puts him in the same category as Millar, Zwet, and Emp.

We'll see if that changes.

[AndyTony]

I think your OMGUS should be acknowledged by everyone (as in my previous post - early)

And you should clarify your case if you intend to keep that vote on me - it would otherwise seem more scummy - -

I told you not to freak on my for the mislynches because you were also on the wagons. - - - you took that point from me, perverted it, and shot it back, telling me that "I was on the wagons too!" - - As thought it were news or something. Do you understand? You're basing your case off of nothing (assuming you had more than "AndyTony was on the wagons and is hypocritical for saying I was too!" - -

I would only be hypocritical if I contradicted myself. I said no such thing to suggest I wasn't on those wagons, I reminded you that I wasn't alone and you were there too - - -

So with that cleared up - I'd suggest a new case. I'm very confident those votes won't climb considering there's no evidence on me, and I think it would be insulting the intelligence of everyone else on the board to think there could "still be some out there" even after you've looked. We've all looked at each other, we've had a lull - - you're right now suggesting that everyone is too foolish to see how scummy I am, yet even YOU have failed to prove such a thing - - where's your evidence?

Please clarify...