Here are your answers:
First, your questions about my post 480 -
1. It was needless in that it essentially walled the game into looking at fluff posts and insults for 20 pages. Very little of substance was said and all it did was drawout a connection between andrew and drmyshotgun (which, given their present claim, is unlikely to be a positive thing).
2. See posts #168, #240, #248, #308, #97, #153, #363, #368, #370, #373 and every defense post for andrew following my vote.
3. Stifling discussion without giving good reasons is a sign of both being informed and not looking for scumtells. Discussion = good for the town. I don't know why I had to make this clear to you.
4. I thought it was interesting but circumstantial. I didn't think it was a slam dunk, but I felt by applying proper pressure I could get a better read for andrew. Unfortunately drmy intervened immediately thereafter and further cemented his connection with andrew, which led me to conclude that he had to claim for the benefit of the town.
5. See my above post as to why andrew's response was illogical.
6. His post in defense of andrew was, and I quote "Vote:McStab Retard :/" Please, show me the helpfulness in that post. Really gonna catch scum by calling people retarded and not providing reasoning to votes.
7. Again, please use your head a little before asking me these questions. If I put someone at L-1 it is far more impactful than just placing a pressure vote on him (the 4th, I believe).
8. Are you kidding me? I want you to find me a single person in Mafia theory who thinks discussion is bad for the town. If you think discussion is bad for town, please, go back to Newbie Games. It's not fake town jargon, it's cold hard facts.
9. I will lump this together with what should be 10. Soben and VisceraEyes have been posting logical cases for why people are acting scummy, applying pressure, and posting their views on everyone else in the game. They aren't tunnelling like you and, in particular, drmy and andrew, had been.
11. You contradicted yourself. You have been tunnelling you say, but then you ask "How is not anything new". If you have been tunnelling up to this point, and you are continuing to tunnel, it is nothing new. As to why I didn't attack you for it, I wasn't suspecting you as much as drmy for his reaction. I had already indicted both of you for tunnelling through the way you carried out your arguments, but I wasn't directing this specific pressure on you.
Your questions to me in post #483:
1. It's not discrediting for no reason. I write alot of words in the first place so that I don't have to go over points again. If people are too stupid, impatient or just can't read the first time, I don't feel as though I need to waste my time explaining it to them (see: what I currently am having to do).
2. Unless I'm the luckiest guesser in the history of mafiascum, in guessing correctly that it was a slip of tongue (keep in mind that his post consisted of one sentence), you're grasping at straws here.
3. I explain why directly underneath. It's terrible play for a logical reason - it hurts their wincon whether they are scum or town.
4. Because it started over fluff and devolved into a back and forth that produced more fluff.
Your questions to me in post #487:
1. See my dozens of posts as to the systemic buddying they exhibited. You don't need to post double questions to sound more like a townie.
2. The fluff posts is the fact that between the both of you you've both been concluded as either "slightly scum" or null on everyone's reads lists, and yet you have posted well over 100 posts between the two of you. Furthermore most of your attacks seem to be directed against each other (up until this point). My content is what I've been posting recently. If you're claiming that you can get scumtells off me, then I'm not posting fluff, as fluff is, by definition, useless.
3. Arugula, post #356, questions why drmy thinks andrew is 100% town, and why he's hiding his reasons. If Arugula is scum, he's noticed. Arugula, #358 - you just claimed mason or scum. Soben, #369 - Drmyshotgun is siding with Andrew. VisceraEyes, post #325 - Andrew seems to be setting up a mason claim with drmyshotgun. How much of this game have you actually read Potack?
4. The masons speculation comes from, let's see if you can figure it out, me looking to elicit a reaction earlier on andrew. Instead, I get a crazy response from drmyshotgun, showing a connection. Can you figure out what two players who are connected means? Either scum or mason. I speculated equally scum or mason. Individually my reads are evolving and changing, but it doesn't matter - their proven association means either scumteam or masonteam, and will be shown through one of their flips either tonight or tomorrow (tonight if mason likely, tomorrow if scum likely). As for who their last member is, no clue as of yet, I would want to see a flip before I devoted all my time to studying possible third connections. For day one, bagging two scum would be good enough.
5. Repeating the same dumb question/speculation twice doesn't make you more town.
6. See my original logic for my actions in those posts above. Then see his illogical reactions. Rinse, wash, repeat until it sinks in.
7. See my logic of why his kneejerk reaction means he is grouped with andrew. Then see how it means they are either scum or masons. Then see, how, up until the point I'd written that, he was refusing to claim mason.
In response to your questions of my post #489:
1. See previous answers to your redundant questions.
2. See question 3.
3. Will post tonight (see timeline I posted for the post).
In response to your questions of my post #495:
1. It isn't helpful to the town because it's an OMGUS response with no other information or evidence as to why he thinks you're scum. If it isn't helpful to the town it is useless fluff. If it is just OMGUS it is either scummy or useless fluff - neither is pro-town play.
2. See my response to the last ten times you asked me that.
3. I don't get the question. They are partners, but not necessarily town partners, is what I meant.
4. YOU'RE TELLING ME! Your hypocrisy is overwhelming through posting this.
5. Only horribly fake if you have some sort of problem with logical reasoning.
6. I unvote him the first post after I see his claim. I explain why in the next few sentences. Do you actually read posts or do you just put question marks everywhere on things that sound like they'd be town questions.
7. You contradict yourself. Nope, try again, means that they are still likely masons? But then you say why would the mafia leave masons alive. Seriously, I get some contradictions in your posts, but this is just ridiculous - they are side by side posts.
8. It cleared up the vagueness in that they finally made a testable (albeit only through death) claim that they are masons, when it was made clear to them (through my posts and the other people I cited above) that they were connected. They were only conclusively connected through drmy's reaction to my pressure vote.
9. First, Andrew OMGUS' you by claiming you are scum (see his illogical response). Second, drmy attacks me for attacking andrew (which is followed afterwards by claiming they are partners). These two attacks are based solely on you and I pressuring andrew. This is textbook OMGUS.
10. Note the first part of my sentence "Overdefensive". The two people they are "scumhunting" are you and I. Both of us had attacked them at the time. Hence, the only "scumhunting" was attacking those who pressured them. Read: OMGUS
11. BECAUSE OF WHAT I SAID ABOVE, ARE YOU ILLITERATE. WE WILL KNOW THEIR ALIGNMENT AFTER TONIGHT OR TOMORROW AT THE LATEST.
12. We get it, you're definitely town and taking a hard stance by asking the same question multiple times.
My apologies for some of the insults, but I really want to get across that more than half of your questions are contradictory, already explained, or the same question stated multiple times.
You're not really scumhunting, but it's evident to me that you're trying very hard to come across as a scumhunter.
Vote:Potack
