Mini 692: Boost Mafia (Game Over!)

[Guardian]

When I do read I miss important details/my reading comprehension has been pretty bad. And it is hard for me to "get into the game" and spend the time I need to really figure it out.

Was this something you’ve been aware of for a while? I feel that your confidance has been pretty high about what you have said throughout the game, so if you know that you miss important details when you read sometimes why do you keep calling for people to join a bandwagon you support?

Yeah it has. I call for it to get people's feedback about the wagon (importantly that of the person being attacked), and to see if they join, and because it is currently my best guess for what the right play is.

If I missed details I expect the player being attacked to defend themselves, or others to point this out. I assume that I am right and act confident because as far as I know I am right, and whomever I am focusing on is the player that I think deserves most focus at that time.

If I did miss lots of crucial details and people join wagons anyway, that tells me something. If people ignore wagons I try and start, that tells me something too.

I AM confident in my choices of who to wagon -- I think they are the most likely to be scum based on the evidence that I am aware of, and good candidates for producing further evidence. That doesn't mean I am sure that they are scum or sure I haven't missed anything. Make sense?

Jahudo, why did you try and compare yourself to Incognito though? What does it matter if he was guilty of the same thing you were guilty of?

I’m comparing the accusations but I cannot say for certain if they look exactly the same, what with me knowing I was trying to scumhunt and forgetting to be opinionated. I think that it can be a town and scum move so I think you need to make individual judgments based on each occurrence.

Why do you think that it can be both a scum move and a town move? I think that in general asking people's opinions before you express your own is a scummy thing.

Jahudo -- if you in fact did give your opinion before you asked others -- as you pointed out -- then WHY ask me to compare your actions to Incognito's?? According to you the actions were not the same -- you did not even do what you say Incognito did :O.

[iLord]

asdfasdf

However, as you have already demonstrated, sometimes you change your opinion without announcing it in-thread so I wanted to pin you down on the reasons for the change when you made the change rather than leave you with wiggle-room on a later Day to say that your opinion at changed some time earlier in a similar way to when your opinion on Electra's claim changed some time after the reason you changed your mind was posted but some time before you announced it in-thread.

Fair enough.

Here's the rub though. If you boosted Electra in order to boost-hammer her since we were nearing deadline, then that is a perfectly acceptable reason for boosting her even if she isn't the 2nd towniest on your list. There would be nothing wrong with unboosting Guardian - even if he was number 2 on your list - in favour of someone you reckon is town and can be boost-hammered.
But apparently that isn't the reason why you boost-hammered. That's fine too - and I'm pleased that we've managed to remove that element of ambiguity from your boost-vote.

The reasoning was because of my read of her - the timing was because of the circumstance. I was intending to boost her because I believed she was town. I boost-hammered her at that moment because we needed to start boosting players.

And don't try and just pass this away as "trying to catch me on my opinion." That's just an excuse for pushing a weak point that failed. If you look at your original post:

If you think that Guardian is a townie then it doesn't make sense to unboost him in favour of another person who you also think is a townie, unless you are deliberately trying to (over)emphasise how you are carefully boosting only the two people right at the top of your townie list.
I don't understand why you would unboost someone that you believe to be town.

That's not a prod - that's an attack. And I find it very suspicious that you are tying to change that.

But you did both in the same post. If you're saying that the scumdar and the boost were unrelated then I suspect that is something that will come as a surprise to most other players.

So what if they were in the same post? I'm sure other players without a need to construe attacks against me will see that I've already mentioned that I was going to boost Electra before - it was simply time to boost her.

I wonder if I am the only person who hasn't gotten the sense that the iLord-Incog argument has been valuable, meaningful and centred on this game (rather than discussing whether anti-town motivation can diminish a good point, etc). Maybe. I doubt it though.

You're ridiculously obviously trying to distract from the point. Your original post:

Yes I am strongly of the opinion that you avoided confrontation with Incog for quite a while, preferring instead to allow SL to do all the running.
You have also explained how you preferred to "shape" SL's case rather than present your own points. Which I found - and still find - significant since you then went on to ask people their opinion on springlullaby's case.

You start off saying that I avoided confrontation with Incognito, and now you've mutated your point to the fact that our discussion wasn't meaningful, no doubt implying that we were distancing.

pps: eldarad is still scum, amirite?

Most definitely. We need more votes on Eldarad.

I said it was pro-town. That doesn’t mean they are town. Yes I can see scum doing that but wouldn’t they also be putting themselves into a spotlight by making these accusations? I think it helps gain a read on both the accuser and the accused.

Original Post:

I'm not sure what spring is trying to say with "8 out of 10 persons reserving judgment are scum...". If she said something like "I think people who reserve judgment are anti-town" it wouldn't sound like a baseless accusation.
I do like how she called you out for being passive aggressive, even if it isn't an accurate term to use. The reaction posts I saw of you did not look passive aggressive, so I think she succeeded in prodding you to gain a better read for us. At this early point in the game,

I'm getting some town vibes from Incognito and I would from spring too if not for that 8 out of 10 thing which I think needs a further explanation.

No where did you say that it was pro-town. In fact, the underlined part implied that you said it was indicative of town.

[Elmo]

Day 1, Vote Count #18

eldarad (3) <- Guardian, iLord, Huntress
Huntress (2) <- sthar8, Electra
Incognito (2) <- Jahudo, Raging Rabbit
iLord <- eldarad
Mana_Ku <- TDC
Guardian <- Incognito

Not voting: RandomGem, Green Crayons.

sthar8 was boost-hammered and will be boosted in twilight. With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.

[sthar8]

sth if you want to just link to the crazy case next time you post that would be helpful. I'll try and find it.

I actually think it'll help if I reiterate and summarize. I'm working on it, don't worry, but in the absence of a deadline, I need to finish my reread on Jahudo first.

I disagree with what Incognito has said and you have said about finding multiple players suspicious to be scummy.

Maybe it's a bit clearer if I say that the scummy part is maintaining vague suspicion on a large number of players? Being skeptical is protown, refusing to commit and keeping avenues of attack open to avoid drawing attention later is scummy. It's not the "I don't consider anyone to be probable town," it's "I think half the town is scummy enough to mention, but I'm not going to vote for anyone or provide a useful case until I have to."

My summaries do not give the rest of the town a lot of info to use. However, if you ask me why I put someone somewhere, then I'll explain my reasoning.

See, this is exactly the problem I have with that post. You state who you find to be the scummiest, then you try to put the burden on the town to figure out why, or to question you more closely. Not explaining why someone is town is fine, and might actually be protown at this point, but you didn't give any reasons for your scumreads. It's more helpful for us to know what you're thinking when you make your list, not what you're thinking a week later when someone gets around to asking you about it.

Yay?

Probably. I'll miss the $$$, but the 19-hour days were starting to get to me.

Yes but I think that suspicious on boosted people should be suspicion without votes until day 2 at the earliest to avoid being counter-productive.

That is exactly what I'm saying.

[Guardian]

respond to something sth said about Huntress.
read over past 3 pages and respond to other things
read crazy,

read huntress.
read eldarad
read jahudo
(finish incognito read)?

I want to remark at this time that I have an odd vibe against Huntress; everything mentally is telling me that she is town, but I have this weird gut that she is scum; when I played with her previously I got this overwhelming town-vibe from her, now I get a neutral vibe. I question her motives! I will likely finish that list of reads within a week. I hope I have internet access over the holidays, my family may be changing plans on me .

[iLord]

See, this is exactly the problem I have with that post. You state who you find to be the scummiest, then you try to put the burden on the town to figure out why, or to question you more closely. Not explaining why someone is town is fine, and might actually be protown at this point, but you didn't give any reasons for your scumreads. It's more helpful for us to know what you're thinking when you make your list, not what you're thinking a week later when someone gets around to asking you about it.

I believe I stated that I was in the process of acting upon my scumreads. Like my Jahudo case that came a little bit afterword.

[eldarad]

I've been trying to read the thread and then respond as far as I can, but it isn't working for me and I can't follow up or react to answers.

So, I'm still reading the thread but I don't expect to post until Saturday. Expect a sizeable post then.

[sthar8]

I believe I stated that I was in the process of acting upon my scumreads. Like my Jahudo case that came a little bit afterword.

The simple fact is that you voted without reasoning, then presented your case six days and (more importantly) two pages later. And nowhere in your summary post do you mention upcoming cases. This seems really scummy to me.

[sthar8]

EBWOP: Whoops, forgot my quote tags. That first bit is by iLord.

[Huntress]

When I did my initial read I wasn't thinking about who to boost, just looking for possible scum.

So you chose to ignore a significant game mechanic and barrier to lynching during your first read? Like I said, given the quality of information that we have recieved, I don't believe you.

That's your choice; but I don't see how I could choose who to boost without first discounting those I thought scummy. Having finished my initial read I looked at Electra first, partly because because she was my highest suspect at the time, but also because so many were prepared to boost her so I needed to be sure of my read on her in order to take a decision on that too.

You imply that I'm not making any effort to find lynchable scum and yet, in the same sentence, you quote a couple of words from a post that reports the progress of my continuing individual reads, my read on iLord to be precise.

I'm not sure how I could have been more explicit with that statement. And your "progress report" gives us exactly

zero

information, which is basically my whole point.

So telling you that a player I originally thought possible scum now gives me a townie feel after a more focused read is giving you

zero

information is it? If you wanted me to expand on it you only had to ask. And if you had rather I hadn't said it at all ...

I started with Electra because she was the first to catch my attention. I was doing my read on her and getting my thoughts together before she was boosted. What would have been the point of not posting it? I still had questions I wanted answered. Please don't forget that I'm still catching up and didn't have the opportunity to raise these points at the time they originally came up. Remember, there's also the possibility I might not be alive tomorrow. Would you rather my thoughts on her remained hidden?

I don't care about your questions and probing before the deadline, or before the boost. Once we had boosted electra, especially under a deadline, a townie would have evaluated how useful her information would be to the town. You might still have posted it, but I would expect at least some effort to

find lynchable scum

instead of what we got, which was, "I'm posting!"

Your statement about not being alive tomorrow is ridiculous. In fact, I'd be glad if scum killed someone who isn't contributing anything relevant to town discussion, and killing scummy townies would be a welcome assistance.

You imply that I'm not making any effort to find lynchable scum and yet, in the same sentence, you quote a couple of words from a post that reports the progress of my continuing individual reads, my read on iLord to be precise.
I note that you address the second to last sentence of that quote but not the last one.

Ok, I'l do it now.

That last sentence is a manipulative strategy using a fallacy known as a "straw man" in which you assume the weakest and least relevant argument possible on my side in order to make my argument appear less valid. I'm pretty sure everybody saw it, categorized it correctly, and ignored it, because it bears no relevance to the discussion.

No. It wasn't a strawman. It was a genuine question which you have avoided answering and have tried to excuse yourself by calling it a strategy. So I'm going to ask it again. Would you rather my thoughts on Electra remained hidden?

So why are you raising the subject?

Um, you accused me of attempting to "suppress discussion" on this topic. So, you brought it up. So, what's your point here?

Waaay to take things out of context! Go back and look at the original posts. I'd quote them here but I realised that would be falling for your diversion tactics.

The points I was raising with Electra were things I couldn't find answers to in the thread. I had questions about others but all that I wanted to ask had already been asked and answered in the thread and I didn't see the point in repeating them. If I should want clarification on anything you can be sure I will raise it when I need to.

So all that stuff about how important it is for you to express your opinion on every subject no matter how irrelevant to the current discussion fits into this how?

Pardon?

Actually, that post was typed mostly before your post, but due to the family emergency I didn't have enough time to revise as I would have liked. Regardless, what are you trying to say with that "nine hours" nonsense?

It just seemed odd, that's all, but emergencies I understand so I'll ignore it in this case.

And what ad hom do you mean?

And his current scramble to divert attention from Elderad back to me combined with his desire to supress discussion of my other top suspect obviously doesn't help.

This is pretty much a textbook example of attacking someone to decrease the value of their arguments. It may not be as personal as some of the examples we've already had in this thread, but that doesn't make it any less fallacious.

That comment was just part of a quick explanation of why I wasn't joining your boostwagon, and was a description of how I saw your actions, not of you personally, so I think 'ad hom' is a misnomer here.

You missed the most important part - the fact that Crazy agreed with EVERYTHING I said consistently up until post 166 when I turned around and voted for the person who had been blatantly sheeping off of my opinions.

Your statement that Crazy agreed with EVERYTHING you said consistently up until post 166 is blatantly false.

Massive QFT to everything that eldarad has said so far.

I don't know where he got the number 166, but your emphasis is clearly in the wrong place.

The emphasis was Eldarad's, not mine.

I want to remark at this time that I have an odd vibe against Huntress; everything mentally is telling me that she is town, but I have this weird gut that she is scum; when I played with her previously I got this overwhelming town-vibe from her, now I get a neutral vibe.

Could that be because last time you

knew

I was town? . But I'm aware that the fact that I'm not fully caught up yet is affecting my posting a bit and I'm sorry about that. Still doing my read on Incognito.

[iLord]

The simple fact is that you voted without reasoning, then presented your case six days and (more importantly) two pages later. And nowhere in your summary post do you mention upcoming cases. This seems really scummy to me.

I was mistaken in that account - I did not mention that I was making a Jahudo case, something I thought I said. However, I did mention that I was working on it a few posts down.

Why is voting and then promising a case later scummy?

[Elmo]

Deadline

: Thursday, 18 December 2008, 06:00 UTC, which is 7 days, 6 hours, and 41 minutes from this post. No majority before deadline means no lynch.

[Green Crayons]

No need to worry - I didn't fall off the face of the Earth.

This is a highly complex game due to the multi-persona interactions (and the replacements don't help). Due to this, when I go back to reread someone's posts to get a feel for them I ultimately need to first get a feel of other players of whom they are criticizing'being criticized by in order to determine if the original player is off-base or legitimate or whathaveyou. This is normally par for the course, but usually it's a one vs. one dichotomy (such as SL/Incog in this game); here, however, the standard is a wider variety of small "battles" instead of all out "wars" (once again, such as SL/Incog) which requires a larger set of established reads in order to fully appriase a player.

Just giving an explanation as to my prolonged silence (coupled with a busy work schedule right before the holidays). I'm not completely done, but I'm really comfortable with iLord's criticism of jahudo and sthar's/eldarad's criticism of Huntress - moreso than my criticism of Rabbit - mainly because I don't think either jahudo or Huntress respond to their criticism as diligently, thoroughly or convincingly as Rabbit has done (though not to say I still don't find Rabbit suspicious, just that I think jahudo and Huntress' response to being put under scruitiny has led me to believe that they're more likely to be scum).

Another read into the respective jahudo and Huntress threads of conversation is required, but then I'll put my vote somewhere.

[Incognito]

I approve of the deadline. I also sent a PM to the mod asking him to prod RandomGem as his last post on the site was on the first of this month.

Green Crayons:

Are you leaning scum on Huntress based off of her own actions, the actions of her predecessor, or both combined?

Updates on things:

• I still think Guardian is likely scum for the points I've previously provided against him and his predecessor. I'm amazed that he's now pretty much conceded that he probably has been misreading stuff and probably didn't read the thread closely enough and is now trying to ask forgiveness for this but had tried to defend himself against those points earlier when I pointed out how I found this to be scummy.
  
  
• I could easily find myself supporting a Jahudo lynch. I've always gotten the feeling that he's been playing a more spectator-y role in this game than anything else. Some of his recent defenses just seem strange to me too. This specific example was pointed out by both iLord and Guardian:
  

  <snip>
  A tendency that has been shown and is exhibited here is Jahudo’s opinionless posts

  I could say the same for Incognito. One of SL’s points against Incog in post 222 was that he asked for people’s reason for voting Skillit without Incog giving a stance himself. I did not think this was a scum tell at the time, post 224, but I agreed that Incog was not taking a stance.

  To me, it almost looks like he has implied knowledge that I'm town as he's using one of my earlier actions almost as a benchmark to display why his own action that iLord was calling him out for shouldn't be labeled as scummy.
  
  I still don't like his explanation for his shift in stance from "I'm not feeling as comfortable as I was about my Incog-vote" to "I nominate Incog for today's lynch". This shift in stances just doesn't feel natural. It's not like he's pointed out more
  recent
  actions of mine that he's found scummy from the point he made his "uncomfortable comment"; I'm assuming he'd still be basing his opinion on everything I've done in this game prior to this "uncomfortable comment".
  
  
• Still dislike the eldarad wagon. I don't find him particularly scummy.
  
  
• Still don't know what to think about Huntress. I mentioned previously that I didn't have much of a problem with Crazy but Huntress hasn't really done much to really base my read on. I do, however, almost get the impression from her posts that she's sorta succumbed to the idea that she might be the D1 lynch, so her seeming lack of urgency to finally update all of us on her thoughts is somewhat bothersome. I haven't looked into how many games she's in currently so I don't know what her division of time and labor is but yeah, just throwing that out there.
  
  
• My read of iLord is somewhat in flux -- I still do think his list-making and summary posts do look contrived, but I'm wondering if maybe he's just slightly weird town. I'm also still bothered by his early coaching of springlullaby as I think the only way a person can really coach someone on how to attack someone else is by knowing the coachee's alignment. I think I'd rather support Jahudo's lynch over iLord's lynch at this current time though.

And ta-da! Incog's slightly uninspired post is complete.

[Jahudo]

Why do you think that it can be both a scum move and a town move?

intentional vs. accidental; Faked indecision vs. genuine indecision could be factors that we really can't quantify. But I also think it's scummier if withheld during a forming wagon; a little less scummy when withheld during the initiation of suspicions; far less scummy when withheld during conversation devoid of suspicion.

When I didn't immediately give my opinion about Electra's claim I feel it wasn't as detrimental as not giving opinion during suspicions.

Jahudo -- if you in fact did give your opinion before you asked others -- as you pointed out -- then WHY ask me to compare your actions to Incognito's??

I’m not comparing my actions with his. I’m saying that the accusations on me could be on other people too.

No where did you say that it was pro-town.

I said I was getting town vibes on page 5. I don’t think that’s enough time to say they’re town or scum and I didn’t.

@iLord: I haven't replied to some of the points you've written that weren't posed as questions. Are there any you want responses to specifically?

To me, it almost looks like he has implied knowledge that I'm town as he's using one of my earlier actions almost as a benchmark to display why his own action that iLord was calling him out for shouldn't be labeled as scummy.

How does that look like implied knowledge? I'm asking people to look at individual accusation and see how bad the actions really look. In that post I felt you asking-questions-before-giving-your-own-opinion about Skillit’s wagon looked scummier than what I did, which was withhold opinion about setup.

[Guardian]

I still think Guardian is likely scum for the points I've previously provided against him and his predecessor. I'm amazed that he's now pretty much conceded that he probably has been misreading stuff and probably didn't read the thread closely enough and is now trying to ask forgiveness for this but had tried to defend himself against those points earlier when I pointed out how I found this to be scummy.

Incog, did you not read the part of my post where I said most of your points were flawed?

I think the points I am, to use your words, "asking forgiveness" for are different than the points you attacked me for.

They are not "pretty much... those points... that [you] pointed out how [you] found to be scummy."

The actions we both describe are similar, but you assume a motivation in your attacks, and accuse me of doing these things intentionally. Moreover, I think me attacking you was and is pro-town, something you are pretty keen to disagree with. I still think I am right in suspicion of you, something you, again, disagree with. You accuse me of making dirty reads where I purposefully ignore relevant details. That's not what happened; I missed stuff on accident.

Your points are for the great part

wrong

; don't misrepresent what I said by claiming that I said your points were

right

.

[Incognito]

How does that look like implied knowledge? I'm asking people to look at individual accusation and see how bad the actions really look. In that post I felt you asking-questions-before-giving-your-own-opinion about Skillit’s wagon looked scummier than what I did, which was withhold opinion about setup.

I didn't get the impression from the post that I quoted above that you thought my questions about the Skillit wagon looked scummier than what iLord called you out for. You even said in that very same quote that you "did not think this was a scum tell at the time". How does that equate into you thinking that my actions were scummier than yours? Like I mentioned in 613, it looks like you were using my earlier actions around the Skillit wagon as a benchmark to compare to and use to explain why your actions are not as scummy as iLord has made them out to seem. I didn't get the sense that you were comparing these two actions in levels of scumminess.

Incog, did you not read the part of my post where I said most of your points were flawed?

Yeah, I read it but clearly I disagree. I assume a motivation to your actions and accuse you of doing these things intentionally because I thought springlullaby was scum and still do. You replaced her, you received the same role PM as she did, and instead of dispelling my doubts about your particular character, you managed to highten them further by performing additional actions which I do deem as scummy. It's unfortunate that not enough people in this particular game seem to see it this way at this current time.

[Guardian]

It's actually fortunate, not unfortunate.

Just trying to help out.

[Jahudo]

You even said in that very same quote that you "did not think this was a scum tell at the time". How does that equate into you thinking that my actions were scummier than yours?

I changed my opinion of it after the tell was brought into attention. I had not been looking at it in that way before. My own opinion is that context determines how likely it is to be scummy or not.

Like I mentioned in 613, it looks like you were using my earlier actions around the Skillit wagon as a benchmark to compare to and use to explain why your actions are not as scummy as iLord has made them out to seem. I didn't get the sense that you were comparing these two actions in levels of scumminess.

I get what you're saying. I'm comparing the context of both situations to say yours looks like a stronger tell.

[Elmo]

RandomGem has been prodded.

[iLord]

My read of iLord is somewhat in flux -- I still do think his list-making and summary posts do look contrived, but I'm wondering if maybe he's just slightly weird town. I'm also still bothered by his early coaching of springlullaby as I think the only way a person can really coach someone on how to attack someone else is by knowing the coachee's alignment. I think I'd rather support Jahudo's lynch over iLord's lynch at this current time though.

Again, I must repeat that motive does not weaken magnitude. SL's points's strength is not affected by her alignment. I found two points strong, and I found you scummy. So, I continously advised SL to drop the weak points because I wanted the case to be successful.

@iLord: I haven't replied to some of the points you've written that weren't posed as questions. Are there any you want responses to specifically?

This is where my bad memory kicks in - I don't even remember you dropping points.

[Huntress]

I'm not completely done, but I'm really comfortable with iLord's criticism of jahudo and sthar's/eldarad's criticism of Huntress - moreso than my criticism of Rabbit - mainly because I don't think either jahudo or Huntress respond to their criticism as diligently, thoroughly or convincingly as Rabbit has done (though not to say I still don't find Rabbit suspicious, just that I think jahudo and Huntress' response to being put under scruitiny has led me to believe that they're more likely to be scum).

What is it exactly about my responses that make you think that?

Still don't know what to think about Huntress. I mentioned previously that I didn't have much of a problem with Crazy but Huntress hasn't really done much to really base my read on. I do, however, almost get the impression from her posts that she's sorta succumbed to the idea that she might be the D1 lynch, so her seeming lack of urgency to finally update all of us on her thoughts is somewhat bothersome. I haven't looked into how many games she's in currently so I don't know what her division of time and labor is but yeah, just throwing that out there.

Pardon? Where on earth do you get that impression from? I'm no more likely to be lynched at the moment than you are. There are only two votes on each of us at the moment. You may be "just throwing that out there" but if you're trying to push a lynch on me you're going to have to provide evidence, not just unwarranted slurs about my commitment to the game. I might be wrong but I'm guessing this is some kind of pre-emptive OMGUS attack in response to the increasing suspicion I have on you that I mentioned earlier. I'm hoping to have my read on you finished by the weekend.

[Jahudo]

I don't even remember you dropping points.

Post 501, I mostly responded to the topics with questions attached.

Comments on other people’s views of Electra, but still doesn’t disclose his opinion.

An opinion on alignment at that point in the game was dependent entirely on whether you believe scum could/would claim at that point. I hadn't seen anything like that before so I didn't know what to make of it.

Notes that he has some comments on SL’s 129 - Comments that he never gives.

Looking back at that post I don't remember exactly what I was going to comment on but Incog addressed alot in post 137 and I think I withheld comment until SL responded to that, then until Incog responded to her again, etc. This SL quote really stuck out to me though:

4. Wtf with the 'it's bad to run up on someone who ends up being innocent'. a) Are you suggesting that you won't make cases because of the off-risk that the people may be innocent?

It seemed like an inference she used just to strengthen her point but he might not have meant it that way originally and I don't think it looked like he did. Do you remember this Incog?

Note his opinion that sthar8’s suspicion is exaggerated.

What was your note on this?

[Incognito]

Errr, Huntress, where do I even

suggest

that I'm going to attempt to push a lynch on you? I even linked to a post where I specifically mentioned that I had absolutely no problems with your predecessor and felt like sthar8's case on him misrepresented him in certain areas. I'm just saying that you replaced into the game on the 15th of November (that was a month ago) and you

still

haven't fully caught up to everything. If you actually wanted to make an impression on anyone to influence people's decisions or give people a chance to form an opinion on you, then I would expect you to take a stand sooner than you have and not wait until the weekend before the deadline to finally do so. In that very same post you just quoted me from, I mentioned who my preferable lynch candidates were. You were not one of those people.

I couldn't care less if you build up suspicion on me or not. I know what I am, and I'll respond to any points you bring up against me like I've done with all the others.

[Incognito]

Looking back at that post I don't remember exactly what I was going to comment on but Incog addressed alot in post 137 and I think I withheld comment until SL responded to that, then until Incog responded to her again, etc. This SL quote really stuck out to me though:

4. Wtf with the 'it's bad to run up on someone who ends up being innocent'. a) Are you suggesting that you won't make cases because of the off-risk that the people may be innocent?

It seemed like an inference she used just to strengthen her point but he might not have meant it that way originally and I don't think it looked like he did. Do you remember this Incog?

Yeah, I do remember that. What specifically do you want to know about it?