Newbie 1006 (Game Over|Scum Win)

[Wisakedjak]

I'm curious, Wisa, other than stating that I'm wrong and Boberz is right (which is an opinion, not a fact), what exactly is your argument against me?

gaulamos made a really good post that points out some of your inconsistencies that I find to be scummy. A basic recount is:

Hypocrisy in stances, twisting arguments outside of context to make cases, and having an anti-town attitude that you say is pro-town.

So.

Hypocrisy in stances is in the last post. I'll quote the text for ease of reference, even though it's literally right above this one.

Paschendale wrote:Let's here what other people have to say, and maybe we'll actually find a scum instead of a noob.


To be honest i saw nothing wrong with this at first, however you followed this up with this:

Paschendale wrote:Bad meta at its finest. Trying to guess what the mod was thinking, especially when roles are assigned randomly, leads to bad choices.
Vote: Wingless


So let me see, you were willing to wait for people to come in on your 1st post, them people pointed out you were fence sitting and you just decided to vote Wingless 2 hours later. You attacked Wingless for trying to guess what the mod was thinking, i agree with you that that might lead to bad choices but that also shows that Wingless is just probably a noob townie.

Hypocrisy like this is really scummy behaviour. That's a mark against you.

Taking quotations out of context:

Wisakedjak wrote:I'm certain that Boberz is exagerrating a little. There's nothing in the rules that states: "BE 100% SERIOUS AT ALL TIMES OR I START KILLING PUPPIES". Read that post again without thinking he's serious and you'll see what I mean.

Paschendale wrote: I don't just speak of his first post.

boberz wrote:
Thank you, I was trying to demonstrate this by doing rather than saying.

Do as I do and all that.

On that point what do you make of the game so far Zach

boberz wrote:Any thoughts Zach?

Paschendale wrote: Twice he refuses to put his money where his mouth is and asks for support of his decisions. Boberz doesn't even believe in his positions enough to find support himself, so he tries to link himself to someone else and rely on them to prove for him.

Taking something that's clearly not serious and using it as evidence against a player is a pretty stupid thing to do. You take a couple lines, twist them out of context and build a case on it. When this doesn't work, you just switch to the next thing to tunnel Boberz with. Boberz is a target because he's aggressive and vocal, but he's not stupid and he calls you out for this.

The last part is having a clearly anti-town attitude:

On top of this, you actually

voted for someone who you thought was town

and said that, and I quote:

I don't actually think he's scum. I think he's trying to outthink the meta of the game, and that's a stupid position. That's the kind of playing that is weak for town. That's why I voted him... ...You have to root out the weak townies in order to get at the scum.

WHO VOTES FOR SOMEONE THEY KNOW IS TOWN?

SCUM.

However, the notion that mafia will be more active than town doesn't often ring true, either. Getting town to fight each other is a good scum stance, as is

leading witch hunts on townies.

That's one of those second guesses that seldom pan out.

The bolded part is what I'm going to point out here. It's one of the fun things about language, really. What's the difference between a 'witch hunt' on townies and a bandwagon on scum? One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

What I see you doing here is taking pro-town activities, denouncing them and saying that anyone who steps up to a leadership position and makes a case against someone (which, ironically enough, you yourself are doing), that it's a scummy thing to do. This confusion of motives is yet another mark of your scummy behavious, or at the very least huge anti-town tendencies.

Laying grounds to control the votes, while theoretically pro-town, is only so if the person is a) actually town and b) correct in his accusations. His unwillingness and inability to actually back up his claims and lay votes himself does not show real belief in his stances, nor genuine scum hunting. His actions are inherently self-centered, rather than group-centered. Scum's objective is to protect themselves. Town's objective is to kill the right people. His goal is just to kill the people he chooses, whether they be innocent or guilty. That's scummy.

For the record, you haven't backed up your claims except by using poor logic. You don't bother to address the holes in your arguments that I point out to you (admittedly, I didn't ask a direct question, so perhaps the fault is mine), the stances you do hold belief in are inherently anti-town and far more self-centered than this made up case you have around boberz. You project motives into his actions that aren't actually there for anyone else looking at what he posts. This is much scummier than what Boberz is doing.

tl;dr version

Paschendale, at this point I'm convinced that it doesn't matter whether or not you're town or scum. You need to be policy lynched because you have hypocritical stances, you make horrible arguments with terrible logic on the weakest premises and you have a proven anti-town attitude. This kind of play is detrimental to the town no matter who's side you're on. Everyone should vote you today for this reason.


edit based on reading the new post:

Pasch: Why have you not commented on flip-flopping like gaulamos pointed out?

On a side note, I am not protecting Boberz. I am pointing out your bad logic and arguments and explaining why they are bad. If you have a problem with that,

stop making bad arguments

.

Seriously, guys, ISO Pasch's posting and explain to me how I'm wrong.

[andrew94]

im not a fool

[andrew94]

andrew94, regarding the post you made about boberz role fishing with the "cop out" comment and trying to figure out who to vote for, who to hammer and what people's voting patterns will be with his three questions, do you actually believe what you said, and if so why, or are you just playing stupid or a third option?

im serious about the cop out comment.
why the phrase'cop out' just say fucking WHY NOT VOTING

instead he say cop out which is often related more likely to the cop
and then he says ' o it means not voting'

i say whatever

[boberz]

Because it is more than just not voting. 'Cop-out' is a really common phrase where I come from. It obviously isn't on andrew land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cop_out
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cop%20out

How on earth would I be considering let alone mentioning the cop as either faction in that situation. It makes a lot more sens if you assume I mean not taking responsibility/wimping out or copping out.

---
I am not in aworld of my own here.

[boberz]

Boberz is playing passive-aggressively

Nothing passive about it.

[Zachrulez]

andrew94, regarding the post you made about boberz role fishing with the "cop out" comment and trying to figure out who to vote for, who to hammer and what people's voting patterns will be with his three questions, do you actually believe what you said, and if so why, or are you just playing stupid or a third option?

im serious about the cop out comment.
why the phrase'cop out' just say fucking WHY NOT VOTING

instead he say cop out which is often related more likely to the cop
and then he says ' o it means not voting'

i say whatever

... what?

[Zachrulez]

tl;dr version

Paschendale, at this point I'm convinced that it doesn't matter whether or not you're town or scum. You need to be policy lynched because you have hypocritical stances, you make horrible arguments with terrible logic on the weakest premises and you have a proven anti-town attitude. This kind of play is detrimental to the town no matter who's side you're on. Everyone should vote you today for this reason.

For the purposes of bandwagon analysis it matters. A policy lynch allows people to hop onto the wagon with your policy reason, making analysis and review a lot harder in subsequent days. Policy lynches get a big frowny face.

[Zachrulez]

I said he was a threat because the combination of reckless assaults on people and the attempts to influence others to follow without casting votes himself seems more like manipulation than fervor. His attacks come across as ingenuine and, as I said, aimed more at cementing his position than in actually killing the right people.

Laying grounds to control the votes, while theoretically pro-town, is only so if the person is a) actually town and b) correct in his accusations.

His unwillingness and inability to actually back up his claims and lay votes himself does not show real belief in his stances, nor genuine scum hunting. His actions are inherently self-centered, rather than group-centered. Scum's objective is to protect themselves. Town's objective is to kill the right people. His goal is just to kill the people he chooses, whether they be innocent or guilty. That's scummy.

When you use words like threat, I tend to see your arguments from a scum POV. It gives me the sense that you're viewing him in terms of being a threat as opposed to being interested in figuring out his alignment. This bothers me.

The bolded portion has a few problems.

A player trying to control votes is null. (The logic and nature of the arguments being made is far more important.)

You can't know a) for sure if you're town, and b) is burden of proficiency. in that you're qualifying a statement that leading the town can only be pro-town if it catches scum. There's a whole slew of problems with that mindset.

[Paschendale]

Can someone please explain to Wisa, slowly and in small words, how I have already answered his questions. Over and over.

Changing your mind about something isn't flip-flopping. It's being human. My first post, I didn't see anything I wanted to attack, then I did. Hypocrisy is when your actions contradict one another. Mine have not done so.

My attitude is not anti-town. I overreacted towards Wingless, entirely based on frustrations about other things not related to this game. I was mad about other stuff and that showed in some of my posts on page 2. There is no mood that shows scum.

Honestly, I'm tired of arguing with you two. I'm certainly not going to convince you to vote yourselves, so I'll move on.

Zach, you're an experienced member and your opinion seems to be highly regarded. You agreed with me that trying to out think the mod was a bad position. I'm sure you'd agree that I went off too hard and ranted a bit. You've been very critical of me thus far, but have not actually questioned Boberz (who has just as many votes on him) on his actions. Do you really see absolutely nothing in my points? Do they not make any sense to you at all? I was critical of Boberz on my first post (the one that got me accused of fence sitting) because I thought he was being too reckless and tossing out bull. I contend that he has continued that trend. I also contend that Wisa's criticism of me, even if true by the acts he presents, are completely overblown in their scope. My actions might be slightly problematic, but hardly as damning as he claims. Exaggeration to this degree is a lie.

Andrew and Zdenek have been also been critical of Boberz' actions. And, in fact, we both sit in the same situation. I have 3 votes against me, with Boberz threatening to be a fourth. Boberz has 3 votes against him, with Zdenek suspicious of him but not yet voted for him. The only strong difference is that Boberz needs to get someone else onto the wagon, because he can't rely on scum to hammer me, because he and Wisa will only make 4.

Zdenek, could you please elaborate on your reasons to suspect Boberz, but maintain your vote elsewhere?

Wingless, as I said before, I'm sorry for jumping on you so hard. I realize that was a harsh way to begin your first game. Do you still find my actions scummy? Do you think I'm working against the group? Am I trying to spread confusion? Or am I revealing the scum?

[Paschendale]

I said he was a threat because the combination of reckless assaults on people and the attempts to influence others to follow without casting votes himself seems more like manipulation than fervor. His attacks come across as ingenuine and, as I said, aimed more at cementing his position than in actually killing the right people.

Laying grounds to control the votes, while theoretically pro-town, is only so if the person is a) actually town and b) correct in his accusations.

His unwillingness and inability to actually back up his claims and lay votes himself does not show real belief in his stances, nor genuine scum hunting. His actions are inherently self-centered, rather than group-centered. Scum's objective is to protect themselves. Town's objective is to kill the right people. His goal is just to kill the people he chooses, whether they be innocent or guilty. That's scummy.

When you use words like threat, I tend to see your arguments from a scum POV. It gives me the sense that you're viewing him in terms of being a threat as opposed to being interested in figuring out his alignment. This bothers me.

The bolded portion has a few problems.

A player trying to control votes is null. (The logic and nature of the arguments being made is far more important.)

You can't know a) for sure if you're town, and b) is burden of proficiency. in that you're qualifying a statement that leading the town can only be pro-town if it catches scum. There's a whole slew of problems with that mindset.

I'm saying that being a leader, rather than actually being right, is not pro-town. Townies should be willing to sacrifice themselves to hunt the real bad guys. Boberz's playstyle has been much more defensive than that. He's trying to keep his hands clean.

When I said he was a threat, I was referring to his recklessness and haphazard playstyle. There have been two pages of argument since then where I have refined my position from "I think he's bad" to "I see him as scum". By page 2, there was no reason to think anyone was scum over anyone else. But by challenging him, I forced him to show his hand. And his hand was that he is more concerned with opposing my challenge of him than in rooting out scum.

I also note that in the very same paragraph you quote, where I view "him in terms of being a threat as opposed to being interested in figuring out his alignment", I go on to discuss his alignment, with my proof for it, in the very next sentence. Seriously, are you actually reading my posts or just cherrypicking for things to complain about? Your initial vote for me was because of my vote for Wingless, and now you're just grasping at thin air. Even the quotes you choose invalidate your arguments.

[Zdenek]

...

Andrew and Zdenek have been also been critical of Boberz' actions. And, in fact, we both sit in the same situation. I have 3 votes against me, with Boberz threatening to be a fourth. Boberz has 3 votes against him, with Zdenek suspicious of him but not yet voted for him. The only strong difference is that Boberz needs to get someone else onto the wagon, because he can't rely on scum to hammer me, because he and Wisa will only make 4.

Zdenek, could you please elaborate on your reasons to suspect Boberz, but maintain your vote elsewhere?

Well, I don't recall saying that I am suspicious of him. I think he was being obnoxious, but he seems to have calmed down a little. This agrees with his motivation for this style of play, to get the game out of RVS/RQS, so I see no reason to change my vote to him.

[Zachrulez]

I'm saying that being a leader, rather than actually being right, is not pro-town. Townies should be willing to sacrifice themselves to hunt the real bad guys. Boberz's playstyle has been much more defensive than that. He's trying to keep his hands clean.

When I said he was a threat, I was referring to his recklessness and haphazard playstyle. There have been two pages of argument since then where I have refined my position from "I think he's bad" to "I see him as scum". By page 2, there was no reason to think anyone was scum over anyone else. But by challenging him, I forced him to show his hand. And his hand was that he is more concerned with opposing my challenge of him than in rooting out scum.

I also note that in the very same paragraph you quote, where I view "him in terms of being a threat as opposed to being interested in figuring out his alignment", I go on to discuss his alignment, with my proof for it, in the very next sentence. Seriously, are you actually reading my posts or just cherrypicking for things to complain about? Your initial vote for me was because of my vote for Wingless, and now you're just grasping at thin air. Even the quotes you choose invalidate your arguments.

But you say here.

This brings me to Wingless. I don't actually think he's scum. I think he's trying to outthink the meta of the game, and that's a stupid position. That's the kind of playing that is weak for town. That's why I voted him. You have to root out the weak townies in order to get at the scum. So, I stand by my position. Wingless is trying to do everything except analyze what people are saying. If you want someone who really isn't taking a stand, look at him. His contributions have been bad math and an OMGUS vote.

And then this here.

You know what, you convinced me. You're a bigger threat than Wingless. And Zdenek makes a good point. Hopefully Wingless will shape up. You have no such excuse Boberz.

[Zachrulez]

You can say you went on to discuss his alignment, but what I'm really saying is that I don't see you genuinely interested in figuring out his alignment, as your statement about Wingless displays that you were happy pressuring him initially even though you didn't think he was scum. You rationalize Wingless as town and a threat.

[Zachrulez]

Zach, you're an experienced member and your opinion seems to be highly regarded. You agreed with me that trying to out think the mod was a bad position. I'm sure you'd agree that I went off too hard and ranted a bit. You've been very critical of me thus far, but have not actually questioned Boberz (who has just as many votes on him) on his actions. Do you really see absolutely nothing in my points? Do they not make any sense to you at all? I was critical of Boberz on my first post (the one that got me accused of fence sitting) because I thought he was being too reckless and tossing out bull. I contend that he has continued that trend. I also contend that Wisa's criticism of me, even if true by the acts he presents, are completely overblown in their scope. My actions might be slightly problematic, but hardly as damning as he claims. Exaggeration to this degree is a lie.

1. I don't have to find everything you say and do to be scummy in order to find you scummy.

2. I don't find Boberz play scummy.

If you're town, you're in danger of tunneling on Boberz. Your case in it's present form doesn't convince me that Boberz is scum. You need to evaluate the value of your points against him and either come forth with a better more clarified case, or start looking elsewhere for scum.

If you're town... if not, please continue, because in that scenario the wagon on you is taking us in the right direction.

[Zdenek]

Some quotes of Paschendale:

Of Boberz: Trying really hard to get someone hammered ASAP. You're very zealous about scum hunting. On day one, this is the right stance.

Well, later he did ask that we not take anyone to L-1, so this doesn't seem to be correct, but that's not the point I want to make. Initially, you were in favour of Boberz's actions, but rapidly changed your tune. So his methods are correct as long as he doesn't vote for you?

Bad meta at its finest. Trying to guess what the mod was thinking, especially when roles are assigned randomly, leads to bad choices.

That's more OMGUS than anything else, and as someone who's supposed to be a role model for the new folks, you should know better.

Misunderstanding both meta and OMGUS? Intentionally?

You have to root out the weak townies in order to get at the scum.

Anti-town.

You're a bigger threat than Wingless.

Wingless is a threat to you? Why would both Boberz and Wingless be a threat to you?

He'll sacrifice townies who disagree with him in order to make himself feel stronger.

I don't see any evidence of this.

Scum know not to engage so hard. Townies who disagree are the ones who'll fight back, as I am right now. Boberz is trying to kill the competition, not the scum. His position is geared towards ensuring that he lives longer and isn't lynched himself.

So you must be town because you are arguing against Boberz? That seems like a pretty terrible argument. Boberz has gone after you from the get go, and I don't think you were positioned as competition then (and you probably aren't now either).

Your second point is also wrong, since his methods cause a bandwagon on him to form.

After reading through your posts, I get the feeling that we are playing completely different games because I am just not seeing things the same way.

[Wisakedjak]

For the purposes of bandwagon analysis it matters. A policy lynch allows people to hop onto the wagon with your policy reason, making analysis and review a lot harder in subsequent days. Policy lynches get a big frowny face.

I hadn't considered that. I'll keep it in mind for the future.

[Robocopter87]

__________

:

|

Vote Count

|

:

Wisakedjak [0]
gaulomos [0]
Zdenek [1] Boberz

Paschendale [3] Zachrulez, Wingless, Wisakedjak

Rydonmower [1] Zdenek
Wingless [0]
andrew94 [0]

boberz [3] andrew94, Rydonmower, Pashcendale

Zachrulez[0]

:

|

Not Voting

|

:

gaulamos

:

|

Amount to Lynch

|

:

With 9 Alive it is 5 to Lynch.

:

|

Deadline

|

:

Midnight of September 27^th.

__________

[boberz]

His rationale is that I am challenging him, not that I'm scum.

My rationale is that you are not latching on to simple arguments. That you are tunnelling to a heavy degree. And you clearly lack basic critical thinking skills required for a town win.

He's in just as much hot water as I am, except he's just ranting and yelling, and misunderstanding my posts... I'm offering a conclusion based on his consistent attitude.

I am not, whenever I get enough time I walk in here and prove you wrong. Found any claims I haven't substantiated? Excused your lying yet? Stopped tunnelling yet? No you are avoiding as much as me, I just avoid the useless stuff, you avoid the stuff that could get you hung.

Self-preservation, without a serious attempt to kill someone you claim to be scum?

How about if I am not sure of your allignment? But I am not self preservation, surely acting in a way that causes a wagon on myself in every day1 shows I am not into self preservation. You really have the wrong person to try this accusation on. It simply isnt true, I say so, my meta says so, my play so far says so. All sorts of things just show you are wrong. but talk to Wisa he knows.

Great choice of words, especially after my reply to one of your questions:

Tbh I totally forgot this, but if you knew that you english was not necessarily up to scratch why assume the worst about my post without asking anyone?

So you are willing to take down someone you think it's a townie just because you think he's weak. Interesting... specially because this is a newbie game.

I would do this in day 2 I think. It is dangerous to have noobs in lylo. (notice not newbs only noobs.)

as opposed to any actual logic

Hypocrite.

delaying tactics

No tactics about it, my sister had just had two epileptic fits at college so I had to pick her up and look after her; if you must know. I didnt realise one afternoon not proving how crap you are was tactical, but each to their own.

I have explained multiple times how Boberz' attacks are unfounded and bullyish, rather than actually proving why anyone is scummy. He's used idle threats, delaying tactics, and even a "why me" whine when he claimed that he is often railroaded on day 1. I've quoted him several times and shown his belligerence and lack of proof. I have also pointed out how this position is more self-centered and less team-centered, and we all know that is a scum position. I'm sorry if you misread my comments as "fluff", but I'm actually showing you a pattern.

Most of this is wrong. My attacks are not unfounded, they do show why people are scummy when they are (or just wrong when they are just wrong), my threats arent idle, i didnt use delaying tactics, no I deliberately get myself wagonned on day1 you fool that is why I am not scared like you, nobody has proof just evidence I have a fair bit of that, it is team centred but dont get yourself in wifom anyway!!! But more importantly the vast majority is not scummy.

Boberz is trying to insinuate himself in a position of power

THis is a protown position imo. Especiallywhen you are me

If my position is still unclear

It is clear but wrong. Get it into your skull you are wrong. You are actually wrong. Provide some evidence and I will tell you why you are wrong. but remember the constant in the equation: you are wrong.

im not a fool

I know which is why it spikes my interest whenever you say something foolish

Can someone please explain to Wisa, slowly and in small words, how I have already answered his questions. Over and over.

Someone can explain it to me while your at it. Or maybe nobody has followed Pasch this far. Or maybe Pasch, your wrong!

Honestly, I'm tired of arguing with you two. I'm certainly not going to convince you to vote yourselves, so I'll move on

At risk of giving andrew a heart attack, I consider this a cop-out.

The only strong difference is that Boberz needs to get someone else onto the wagon, because he can't rely on scum to hammer me, because he and Wisa will only make 4.

This sort of comment makes me think your crap town Pasch. I mean there are large points for you being scum, but I dont necessarily feel it anymore. But you probably are.

I'm saying that being a leader, rather than actually being right

Are these things mutually exclusive or not??? Big question you need to answer it.

He's (boberz) trying to keep his hands clean

Really?

I also note that in the very same paragraph you quote, where I view "him in terms of being a threat as opposed to being interested in figuring out his alignment", I go on to discuss his alignment, with my proof for it, in the very next sentence. Seriously, are you actually reading my posts or just cherrypicking for things to complain about?

But the threat should not be an issue at all, meanwhile hypocrite. You literally took one phrase from a large proper post of mine, and suggested I was asking for support, when I was encouraging activity. Ludicrous.

[boberz]

Also, going under the radar here is andrew.

unvote vote andrew

He hasnt posted much, and what he has posted has been devoid of any kind of critical thinking.

The following posts are examples of attacks that have not felt 'real'. They seem like he is just fabricating pretty poor attacks merely to get me (someone who has seen his meta, is an experienced player and an apparently easy target) wagoned.

u caught a scum in 3 posts- i notice you dont do this in last game

I may not have done specifically this in every game, but I always start of in a very strong accusatory high profile townleading way. I like to think I was on meta, check it for yourselves;this felt fabricated.

then you said stop talking about the cop. its funny how YOU started it

I can understand (sort of) people not knowing the phrase and assuming I had committed some kind of cardinal sin. But once my explanation had been given to continue to accuse me of first mentioning the detetective is very strange.

1st question so he knows whos pro and who to kill and who to mislynch (newbs)
2nd question so he knows voting patterns etc
3rd so he knows who to hammer

These are questions you will see in many newbie games all over the place. It is simple questions to help introduce people into the game. It contextualises everyone's play so people know what to expect from whom. I certainly dont need help in finding lynch targets, I am quite good at attacking in case he hadnt noticed.

---

no saying that you got both scum on the 4th post is NOT testing the waters. that is not scumhunting, imagine how a newb would react- he also said he didnt want to vote me so i could cry OMGUS. what kind of a shit excuse is that- so i wont vote confrimed scum cos he has a vote on me?

i like how you completely ignored my post

This is something different. It is just completely misunderstanding everything.

I do do it in every newbie game I play, and it works.
He confuses himself over the OMGUS, I was suggesting andrew would accuse me of OMGUS not the other way around. Either way it was the first few posts, why does he still care now?

---

im not a fool

For someone who is so busy with exams, and when so much is going on in the game he picked a strange thing to comment on.

If we assume his points against me are crap, which they are (they are atleast repititions in most acases as well as being factually crap), he has been active lurking the whole time.

im serious about the cop out comment.
why the phrase'cop out' just say fucking WHY NOT VOTING

instead he say cop out which is often related more likely to the cop
and then he says ' o it means not voting'

i say whatever

There was no point in going on about this, he is miles behind avoindint the real discssions.

[andrew94]

there is a reason why i hate walls of text just quote the relevant parts not the whole fucking post pls. i got exams

[andrew94]

someone pls condense all the arguments (summarise) and use only quotes that matter not the whole thing . ill try rreread after study

[boberz]

I did, except in one case (the last, in which case it was the whole post under question.

To the cross post >>> No read it yourself. Make your own judgements. If you cant catch up replace out, you cannot ban people from walls.

[andrew94]

walls = mafia trying to hide

[Zdenek]

For the time being, it is clear that nothing is going to come of my Rydonmower suspicions, and Andrew94 really pisses me off with is garbage analysis. I think that his statements in various posts are ludicrous, especially where he discusses the meaning of "cop out.", so

unvote Rydonmower

vote Andrew94

While I am definitely suspicious of Paschendale, I think there is a good chance that he is just dumb, so I am not going to take him to L1 yet. Hopefully pressure on Andy will get him to start playing.

[gaulamos]

I don't see any problem in not rushing to a lynch, we do have time to make sure we are doing the right thing in lynching you.
I also don't think Boberz is trying to get you to back down from him, what he's probably doing is reminding you that, if you're town, you should be hunting scum. You have not presented real evidence against him. He's agressive? yes, that makes him scum? no.
Also i haven't saw any post from you where you tryed to scumhunt him (or anyone else for that matter).

I'm accustomed to much faster games, where a day usually lasts 48 hours. That's probably why I'm coming across as impatient.

I am hunting scum. I'm pointing out the only two people who are acting like scum. Boberz is trying to insinuate himself in a position of power (a defensive, survival based move) and Wisa is protecting him (a scumbuddy move). I'm sorry if you don't find this "real" scumhunting. What would you like me to be doing instead? Trying to attack people I think are town? I don't think you're scum. I don't think Zdenek is scum. I have no real reason to suspect Wingless, Andew, or Rydon. Maybe Zach since he's been extremely cautious thus far. But I must remind myself that we are in no hurry.

Like i said before we have time to not rush in to a misslynch, that's why you are being giving time to defend and hunt scum. The problem is that your not doing nothing to save yourself. I'm still not sure if you are scum or just someone new to the game that's just playing badly.

If my position is still unclear, then just go ahead and lynch me. And when I flip town, I hope you'll have the wisdom to go after Boberz and Wisa, the scum team.

Lynching town is obvious anti-town, and by your own admission you have voted for someone you tough was a townie. Now here, if you really are a townie you should be defending yourself and not saying

go ahead lynch me

, this is also anti-town.

Can someone please explain to Wisa, slowly and in small words, how I have already answered his questions. Over and over.

Can't you explainned it again? I also haven't saw those answers.

Honestly, I'm tired of arguing with you two. I'm certainly not going to convince you to vote yourselves, so I'll move on.

Assuming you are right and Boberz and Wisa are scum, you shouldn't just

move on

, there's other people playing and if your town those are the ones you need to convince.

Zdenek, could you please elaborate on your reasons to suspect Boberz, but maintain your vote elsewhere?

Getting someone to do what you should be doing yourself or trying to buddy up to Zdenek? Either was this looks suspicious.

Great choice of words, especially after my reply to one of your questions:

Tbh I totally forgot this, but if you knew that you english was not necessarily up to scratch why assume the worst about my post without asking anyone?

I'm not questioning anymore the fact that you were refering to the cop, it seams obvious now that it was not the case. But when i see a word like

Cop

posted in a mafia game i will assume you mean the role of Cop, not some funky expression i never heard before.
And just for you to understand, when you said "Cop out" in my mind you were saying something like people do in CB radios: "JonhDoe out"

Paschendale, at this point I'm convinced that it doesn't matter whether or not you're town or scum. You need to be policy lynched because you have hypocritical stances, you make horrible arguments with terrible logic on the weakest premises and you have a proven anti-town attitude. This kind of play is detrimental to the town no matter who's side you're on. Everyone should vote you today for this reason.

I would prefer voting for someone i suspect to be scum than just to hit a possible townie due to policy lynching.

Also, going under the radar here is andrew.

unvote vote andrew

He hasnt posted much, and what he has posted has been devoid of any kind of critical thinking.

someone pls condense all the arguments (summarise) and use only quotes that matter not the whole thing . ill try rreread after study

Not posting much is not a indication of scum, especially since Andrew said he would probably be busy. But this doesn't justifies the fact he should be reading everything, summarised or condensed posts will not give you the proper grasp they should.
Also i have to agree with Boberz that i have not saw one single relevant post from Andrew, which makes him even more suspicious than Paschendale.

VOTE: Andrew94