Mafiascum.net

Zach being technically confTown or not is irrelevant, he can play the role all the same since he's doomed if he's scum.

No one is rolling dice. Playing the numbers doesn't mean a decision has to be made (unlike you are pushing me to do by trying to get me to hammer Zach, which not so incidentally would give you a win), it means we take advantage of the numbers. That's why (gasp) I've been scumhunting while you have been throwing mud at my plan. That's why I am tired of you going round and round trying to paint me as scummy for presenting a plan like this without showing how it is scummy (hint: it's not). You're trying to get me to hammer, and that is not scummy (whatever your alignment, you'd win--there's no Town/scum motivation in it), but you call me scummy for me (obviously) preferring it to be you who hammers Zach. Why are you trying to associate scummy intent with an action that you know is null?

So I've got Tierce saying she will hammer me and Saulres saying he won't...

In post 125, Tierce wrote:Why are you trying to associate scummy intent with an action that you know is null?

Two reasons.

1) As you said, I win if he picks you. It's in my best interest, if he's town, to make every argument I can that you are the scum.

2) I feel the way you presented the plan, not the plan itself, was not a town way of doing so. If I had thought of that plan first, I would have suggested it differently than you did. And since I'm town, I think my way is "the" town way and your way is not.

Having said that, the more this discussion goes on, and Zach just sits back, the more I'm starting to think we're doing our usual dance and he's the scum laughing. But I'm not sold on that yet. We (town we, not you-and-me-we) need him to start participating more though.

(Oh, and yes, I've seen you play this way, or similarly at least (in my poor memory) back in PARANOIA Mafia. You were presenting plans and all there IIRC, and you were scum.)

pedit (you're kidding, even now too?): Oh hi Zach. Yes, that's corerct, but I really hope you're looking at my reasons for saying that. It's a scumclaim, as Tierce is trying to present it as. It's a disagreement on the strategical value of doing so.

In post 127, saulres wrote:

In post 125, Tierce wrote:Why are you trying to associate scummy intent with an action that you know is null?

Two reasons.

1) As you said, I win if he picks you. It's in my best interest, if he's town, to make every argument I can that you are the scum.

2) I feel the way you presented the plan, not the plan itself, was not a town way of doing so. If I had thought of that plan first, I would have suggested it differently than you did. And since I'm town, I think my way is "the" town way and your way is not.

How would you have presented the plan then?

In post 127, saulres wrote:Having said that, the more this discussion goes on, and Zach just sits back, the more I'm starting to think we're doing our usual dance and he's the scum laughing. But I'm not sold on that yet. We (town we, not you-and-me-we) need him to start participating more though.

So you're going to try to pressure me to act fast, rather than taking my time to make the most informed decision possible? (Regardless of how long it takes, I'm going to have to make one eventually.)

In post 127, saulres wrote:(Oh, and yes, I've seen you play this way, or similarly at least (in my poor memory) back in PARANOIA Mafia. You were presenting plans and all there IIRC, and you were scum.)

I really need to have another look at that game. Truth be told it's all a blur and I was never paying that much attention to it. (For obvious reasons.)

In post 127, saulres wrote:pedit (you're kidding, even now too?): Oh hi Zach. Yes, that's corerct, but I really hope you're looking at my reasons for saying that. It's

not

a scumclaim, as Tierce is trying to present it as. It's a disagreement on the strategical value of doing so.

How is me picking which one of you hammers me any different than me choosing which one of you to hammer if you guys were in fact cross voting?

My point is that you say Zach is not scumhunting, but call his claim "genuine", so then you go and find scummy intent in every action I take, like things that are null at worst (which Town-you would realize because you are doing the same, and if you were genuinely trying to see things from my PoV, you'd definitely notice that) and having more knowledge about Zach's claimed role than you do. Your case for me being scum is bad, and there is no real reason to make a bad case if you are Town.

Stuff like this:

In post 55, Tierce wrote:

In post 31, saulres wrote:No, Tierce, lynching Zach is

not

the way to go if you're town. Town would look at the things at their VT role (as I did), the wording of the town win condition ("dead", not "lynched"), and come to my conclusion that he's telling the truth.

...And? If he's telling the truth, he is still the lynch. Choosing to lynch a claimed super saint is not scummy, but you're trying to say it is:

In post 33, saulres wrote:And was I shocked to see her vote you right off the bat like that, instead of taking time to think it through. If she's "inclined to think that saul is scum" then she should have voted for me, not for you.

Bonus points for the posturing in the first sentence.

In post 50, saulres wrote:

In post 27, Tierce wrote:Incidentally, you shouldn't have claimed, Zach. I think. But that cow's been milked.

This statement is not said from town to someone they think is scum.

See above, under the LOLNOPE NOT CLAIMING section. It wouldn't be optimal for me to counterclaim as a supersaint, and I am not clarifying things on that end. It doesn't matter, because

I'm not the lynch

.

In post 65, Tierce wrote:You were trying to paint me as scummy for knowledge I've had for over a year. What is the Town motivation in that?

[...]

"If she were Town, she would have waited and thought [things she already knew for months] through." This makes no sense coming from Town.

In post 113, Tierce wrote:

In post 111, saulres wrote:My point is, if she's scum, then her goal is to get you to pick me to hammer you, and to convince you to vote me when I don't.

What's your point? Of course I don't want to be lynched if I am not vengeful; that would lead to a loss for my faction, whichever it is. How is this alignment relevant?

In post 114, saulres wrote:I was calling you scum for voting zach right off the bat and setting me up to be the one to hammer. Reason: I know I'm town. If you're scum, you know that too, so you placed the first vote on him and began building up a case that I should be the one to hammer. If you're town, you would have tried to convince me to go along with the plan. You didn't do that, you're just trying to shove it down our throats. Still haven't done it.

WHY SHOULD TOWN-ME FOLLOW YOUR PLAN?

In post 121, saulres wrote:If she's town, the proper play would be to convince everyone that she's town and

then

suggest what she did. But instead, she's trying to shove it through.

You're also accusing me of having better arguments than you and implying that this helps me if I am scum. Well... sorry for being more or less competent in persuasion, I guess? That is not alignment-relevant, and the ring-around-the-rosie would be the same if we were playing "regular" 3p LyLo, so my argumentatitve ability is completely irrelevant.

saulres wrote:

In post 125, Tierce wrote:Why are you trying to associate scummy intent with an action that you know is null?

Two reasons.

1) As you said, I win if he picks you. It's in my best interest, if he's town, to make every argument I can that you are the scum.

2) I feel the way you presented the plan, not the plan itself, was not a town way of doing so. If I had thought of that plan first, I would have suggested it differently than you did. And since I'm town, I think my way is "the" town way and your way is not.

Having said that, the more this discussion goes on, and Zach just sits back, the more I'm starting to think we're doing our usual dance and he's the scum laughing. But I'm not sold on that yet. We (town we, not you-and-me-we) need him to start participating more though.

(Oh, and yes, I've seen you play this way, or similarly at least (in my poor memory) back in PARANOIA Mafia. You were presenting plans and all there IIRC, and you were scum.)

pedit (you're kidding, even now too?): Oh hi Zach. Yes, that's corerct, but I really hope you're looking at my reasons for saying that. It's

not

a scumclaim, as Tierce is trying to present it as. It's a disagreement on the strategical value of doing so.

1) ...So you resort to hypocritical arguments? This isn't scumhunting, this is mudslinging.

2) Still no. I am not you, and this has been proven time and time again in different games. How are things scum-motivated

Please tell me how this plan has any hidden parts when there are no hidden variables other than my role, which is irrelevant in this case. The plans in Paranoia obviously had hidden bits, because I was scum and we had a multivote ability. I like to optimize the setup in my favor. It's null, because I try to do it regardless of alignment.

And to that PEdit: No, I am not trying to present it as a scumclaim. I understand why you are doing it regardless of alignment, I'm just telling you it's pointless (it's not really playing against your wincon, it's just null stalling of the game), and I am not pushing you on that line of thought regarding your alignment. Theory disagreements are not indications of scumminess--but you are using one to push me as scum above, because "you think that your way is the Town way".

In post 128, Zachrulez wrote:How would you have presented the plan then?

If I came up with it? By playing long enough to hopefully establish myself as town, or to get a scumread on you. Then presenting it.

In post 128, Zachrulez wrote:So you're going to try to pressure me to act fast, rather than taking my time to make the most informed decision possible?

That's not what I'm doing there.

In post 128, Zachrulez wrote:How is me picking which one of you hammers me any different than me choosing which one of you to hammer if you guys were in fact cross voting?

Because I'm being asked to vote someone I may not have a scumread on. That's under control. Being mislynched because I do that isn't under my control.

In post 129, Tierce wrote:How are things scum-motivated

if you were me?

Because I don't see the town motivation in presenting it the way you did. I can see town presenting the argument, I don't see it being presented that way, no matter who you are. It's taking a mafia theory question and basing the play of this game on one viewpoint in that discussion. If we were having this discussion in GD I'd be presenting the same viewpoint, but there's no risk of losing there. There is here.

In post 129, Tierce wrote:Please tell me how this plan has any hidden parts

??? I don't believe I said that.

In post 129, Tierce wrote:And to that PEdit: No, I am not trying to present it as a scumclaim.

Um, yes you are? Saying "If he picks you and you don't vote him then I'm voting you" is equivalent to saying "If he picks you and you don't vote him then you're scum." Because . Unless, of course, that one is scum. Or they have some weird ability/wincon.

Changing the order a bit to keep relevant point together.

In post 130, saulres wrote:

In post 128, Zachrulez wrote:How would you have presented the plan then?

If I came up with it? By playing long enough to hopefully establish myself as town, or to get a scumread on you. Then presenting it.

In post 129, Tierce wrote:How are things scum-motivated

if you were me?

Because I don't see the town motivation in presenting it the way you did. I can see town presenting the argument, I don't see it being presented that way, no matter who you are. It's taking a mafia theory question and basing the play of this game on one viewpoint in that discussion. If we were having this discussion in GD I'd be presenting the same viewpoint, but there's no risk of losing there. There is here.

...Presenting something that is optimal in MD means . That does not mean it's all I'm doing, and I am not basing my whole play on "one viewpoint". I'm trying to scumhunt, which isn't helped when you appear to think that hypocrisy is a valid strategy regardless of alignment. Hypocrisy isn't scummy by default, but surely you can see how it doesn't help Town? This is Mafia, not a catfight. And again, you have a theory disagreement with me. That does not mean that the way I presented it is scummy. Why would I want, as Town, to try and build Towncred before I present a plan that I know is optimal? So that I have a better chance of convincing people to follow me? I don't need it, because I know that the numbers show that , and more importantly, .

In post 130, saulres wrote:

In post 128, Zachrulez wrote:So you're going to try to pressure me to act fast, rather than taking my time to make the most informed decision possible?

That's not what I'm doing there.

You've asked me to hammer Zach twice now.

In post 130, saulres wrote:

In post 129, Tierce wrote:Please tell me how this plan has any hidden parts

??? I don't believe I said that.

You]re saying that I am playing similarly as Paranoia Mafia because I'm presenting a plan. I have two counterpoints to it: I present plans as Town (you were in Maf.Triplicate! I quickly decided the lynch order when the Rarefaction mechanism became obvious! Look, a plan as Town!), and my "similar play" in Paranoia had a plan with hidden parts, because Town didn't know some of the pieces. So how is my plan-crafting similar to Paranoia in particular, and why did you jump to that game without thinking of the much more recent one in which we were both Town?

In post 129, Tierce wrote:And to that PEdit: No, I am not trying to present it as a scumclaim.

Um, yes you are? Saying "If he picks you and you don't vote him then I'm voting you" is equivalent to saying "If he picks you and you don't vote him then you're scum." Because . Unless, of course, that one is scum. Or they have some weird ability/wincon.[/quote]That's not what a scumclaim means. But if you refuse to hammer Zach, I am not going to hammer him myself out of the blue, and he's not going to hammer me (since he could just ask me to hammer him), so you are still the lynch.

None of this is really scumhunting. :/

Quote fail in that last bit. Rewording a bit:

In post 130, saulres wrote:

In post 129, Tierce wrote:And to that PEdit: No, I am not trying to present it as a scumclaim.

Um, yes you are? Saying "If he picks you and you don't vote him then I'm voting you" is equivalent to saying "If he picks you and you don't vote him then you're scum." Because

one doesn't vote people they don't think are scum in LyLo

. Unless, of course, that one is scum. Or they have some weird ability/wincon.

That's not what a scumclaim means. But if you refuse to hammer Zach, I am not going to hammer him myself out of the blue, and he's not going to hammer me (since he could just ask me to hammer him), so you are still the lynch.

If Zach is Town, asking for someone to hammer him is the same thing as us crossvoting and asking Zach to hammer one of us, that does not account for the possibility of Zach being scum. I'm not going to allow that to happen when we have a claimed supersaint. Call it "shoving down your throat" if you want to. It's not scummy and I have to keep trying to wash the mud you're lobbing at it.


I'm ignoring any "but I don't wanna lynch the supersaint why are you making such a scummy plan you have no credibility" posts from now on. It's getting silly and I am tapping the keyboard keys with far too much force. >.> <.<

Sigh.

In post 131, Tierce wrote:Why would I want, as Town, to try and build Towncred before I present a plan that I know is optimal? So that I have a better chance of convincing people to follow me? I don't need it, because I know that the numbers show that this is optimal, and more importantly, I don't need to build up Towncred.

You're asking me to hammer him if he picks me. The only reason I would have to do so is if I think he is scum, because as town, it is not in my best interest to hammer him yet since could be the scum. If you convinced me you were town, though, then I hammer him, because he'd be the scum. That's why it's important to have towncred before asking the other person to agree to the plan.

In post 131, Tierce wrote:You've asked me to hammer Zach twice now.

That's not what I was doing there. Here, let me bring the whole thing in:

In post 128, Zachrulez wrote:

In post 127, saulres wrote:Having said that, the more this discussion goes on, and Zach just sits back, the more I'm starting to think we're doing our usual dance and he's the scum

So you're going to try to pressure me to act fast, rather than taking my time to make the most informed decision possible? (Regardless of how long it takes, I'm going to have to make one eventually.)

I wasn't pressuring him to act fast in the part he was responding to, and I wasn't pressuring you to do anything there either.

In post 131, Tierce wrote:how is my plan-crafting similar to Paranoia in particular

Because I've seen you do it as scum, so I can't assume you're town just because you're doing it again.

In post 131, Tierce wrote:None of this is really scumhunting.

The back-and-forth with you? It's really not, no, it's defending my decision because the last I heard Zach was thinking I'm more likely to be scum and I'm not ready to vote him.

In post 132, Tierce wrote:you are still the lynch.

And then Zach flips scum and me and I weep over my carefully nurtured "Town LyLos won: 0" in the post-game.

I'm trying not to have to weep. But if he's town and he picks you, you will be weeping.

The only parts that interest me (which were not answered) are:

In post 131, Tierce wrote:Why would I want, as Town, to try and build Towncred before I present a plan that I know is optimal? So that I have a better chance of convincing people to follow me? I don't need it, because I know that the numbers show that this is optimal, and more importantly, I don't need to build up Towncred.

Your reply didn't address this. I don't need to convince you to follow a plan based on numbers. I get your point, but I don't wait on this magical pile of Towncred before presenting a plan like this, that's nonsense. Because as I stated, I will hammer Zach if he asks me to. Therefore, if he is Town, he has to scumhunt and pick well, and I have to scumhunt and see which of you I'm convinced he's scum, and you have to scumhunt, etc. Shirking away like you are doing doesn't solve anything (well, it keeps Zach's no mislynch streak, so THAT's something), it just changes the lynch target to you, and the case you are presenting on me is scummy because you keep calling things scummy . It's a bad case, you're not scumhunting, you just want me to hammer Zach without figuring things out further.


And:

In post 131, Tierce wrote:You're saying that I am playing similarly as Paranoia Mafia because I'm presenting a plan. I have two counterpoints to it: I present plans as Town (you were in Maf.Triplicate! I quickly decided the lynch order when the Rarefaction mechanism became obvious! Look, a plan as Town!), and my "similar play" in Paranoia had a plan with hidden parts, because Town didn't know some of the pieces. So how is my plan-crafting similar to Paranoia

in particular, and why did you jump to that game without thinking of the much more recent one in which we were both Town?

I bolded the relevant bits. Calling out a game on vague terms and neither going into detail nor presenting non-matching points for my Town play makes this call-out irrelevant. If I craft plans as either alignment, how is it I never asked you to think that my plan design is something I specifically do as Town, --you and Zach have seen me as Town and as scum and I've played multiple games with both of you; in fact, I'm fairly sure I said I design plans as any alignment. But you're latching on to this scum game from ages ago and using it to imply that I (only) craft plans as scum without providing a counterpoint. A counterpoint you had direct experience with, and much more recent than Paranoia. Why are you so eager to call this a scum behavior when it's one of my biggest strengths ?

Open 369 (third party): tried to devise a way of winning (hiding from the Town that the co-win would never happen);
Fluffydash's MLP the First (scum): suggested killing the remaining Town in a scum-scum-Town neighborhood so we would have Daytalk during MyLo for quicklynching coordination;
Mini 1313 (Town): got my strongest Townreads on the lynching wagon instead of me, because a mechanic would give them benefits from it;
Mini 1324 (Town): played the numbers and didn't use my suicidal kill N1 to increase odds of winning;
Paranoia (scum): organized several strategies throughout the game, including a final vote lock for scum;
Open 390 (Town, game with supersaints): just leaving this here because OH GOD TIERCE THOUGHT THIS THROUGH TOO FAST there's no way she has had experience with this role claim before right?;
New York 155 (serial killer): hit the same targets as scum on the first two Nights, decided to lay low the rest of the game to play on the setup knowledge;
Mini 1383 (Town, hydra with Vi): devised the plan of leaving confirmed Town as final revivals;
Micro 70 (Town): organized a lynch order for the LyLo groups that played on the numbers.

I've been doing this for . I plan things out and try to optimize setups. I'm not about to wait on "Towncred" to publicize things like this when it is . I expect people will be convinced by mathematical truths when I calculate them.

And yet here you are calling me scummy for presenting it as I did, when I've been doing it like this since I started vaguely thinking about setup solving. What in the merry hell.


Okay, I'm done discussing it. I want responses to:

Why do you think , with my history, would have convinced you first as Town, instead of presenting the plan and then scumhunting?
Why are you latching onto a scum game where I presented a plan when you have had first-hand, recent experience that shows I also craft plans as Town--which shows that it is a null behavior at worst and not 'similar' just to that scum game?

EBWOP:

In post 134, Tierce wrote:see which of you I'm convinced

is

scum

What a ridiculous homophone to make a typo on.

Oh hai guys.

I can see Tierce's play from a town point of view. Saulres I'm finding harder to see that way, and he's not really helping me much, most of what he's doing is more or less having the effect of putting pressure on effecting the gamestate in a way that only benefits him.

26 bothers me at a gut level, but if that's going to end up being the only point against Tierce, I'm thinking the decision is going to have to be Saulres here.

In post 137, Zachrulez wrote:most of what he's doing is more or less having the effect of putting pressure on effecting the gamestate

One of our Englishes broke. Not sure if it was yours or mine. Can you rephrase this?

You're not addressing saul's points directly. Why is that?

In post 138, Tierce wrote:

In post 137, Zachrulez wrote:most of what he's doing is more or less having the effect of putting pressure on effecting the gamestate

One of our Englishes broke. Not sure if it was yours or mine. Can you rephrase this?

I was referring to him telling you to hammer me, and also his little backhanded slap about how I'm starting to look scummy because I'm taking my time in making a decision.

You're not addressing saul's points directly. Why is that?[/quote]

I could, but it's a lot of work which is likely going to amount to me picking him to hammer me. Why go to all that trouble when I can just say I'm picking him?

Oh bugger.

In post 139, Zachrulez wrote:

In post 138, Tierce wrote:

In post 137, Zachrulez wrote:most of what he's doing is more or less having the effect of putting pressure on effecting the gamestate

One of our Englishes broke. Not sure if it was yours or mine. Can you rephrase this?

I was referring to him telling you to hammer me, and also his little backhanded slap about how I'm starting to look scummy because I'm taking my time in making a decision.

In post 138, Tierce wrote:You're not addressing saul's points directly. Why is that?

I could, but it's a lot of work which is likely going to amount to me picking him to hammer me. Why go to all that trouble when I can just say I'm picking him?

In post 76, saulres wrote:The problem with this plan is, from my POV it guarantees a town win for Tierce to be your hammerer. Which is what she was arguing for me to be the hammerer. And since I'm leaning towards her being the scum, I'm unlikely to agree to vote you. And I'm sure she'll say the same thing.

This is why I think it's so important for Tierce to claim

whatever

she is, and I'll unvote her if that's what it takes. I just don't accept that Tierce is a VT also.

pedit: Exactly.

ppedit: He hasn't done any scumhunting. He's just riding the claim. That's not solid enough to be conftown.

pppedit: Then town loses.

There's a lot of other points I can make, but when it comes right down to it this is what bothers me the most.

The implication of the statement seems to betray that he knows my alignment to me, despite all of his claims in further posts that he hasn't ruled me out.

So Saul can go ahead and hammer me... and by god, he better be scum.

Fair enough. I've done the same as confTown in LyLo, but from where I'm standing it's frustrating because it hampers my ability to scumhunt you. Sad Tierce.

In post 141, Zachrulez wrote:

In post 76, saulres wrote:

pppedit: Then town loses.

There's a lot of other points I can make, but when it comes right down to it this is what bothers me the most.

The implication of the statement seems to betray that he knows my alignment to me, despite all of his claims in further posts that he hasn't ruled me out.

No? He was saying that Town would lose in reply to my #75, which was "we'll lynch you if you don't hammer Zach". That is not a perspective slip.

In post 143, Tierce wrote:Fair enough. I've done the same as confTown in LyLo, but from where I'm standing it's frustrating because it hampers my ability to scumhunt you. Sad Tierce.

In post 141, Zachrulez wrote:

In post 76, saulres wrote:

pppedit: Then town loses.

There's a lot of other points I can make, but when it comes right down to it this is what bothers me the most.

The implication of the statement seems to betray that he knows my alignment to me, despite all of his claims in further posts that he hasn't ruled me out.

No? He was saying that Town would lose in reply to my #75, which was "we'll lynch you if you don't hammer Zach". That is not a perspective slip.

Yeah, you guys preview editing like crazy is confusing. Nontheless, he was simply too quick to believe my claim, and his posts about reconsidering me don't ring true.

If he truly isn't sure I'm town, he should be fine hammering me and he's not.

In post 144, Zachrulez wrote:his posts about reconsidering me don't ring true.

How?

Yes, I'm being a nag. But I have to see whether I would be comfortable about lynching saul if he doesn't hammer you, and that's why I need you to be open with your scumhunting.

Jesus Christ.

Zach, are you picking saul because he said he won't hammer you, which means he's the lynch and you win as scum with the gutsiest gambit I've seen in a while?

Don't answer that. Mogget might need a :PARTY:nfoil hat before this game is over.

Don't need to do this at this point, but for Tierce's benefit.

In post 133, saulres wrote:Sigh.

In post 131, Tierce wrote:Why would I want, as Town, to try and build Towncred before I present a plan that I know is optimal? So that I have a better chance of convincing people to follow me? I don't need it, because I know that the numbers show that this is optimal, and more importantly, I don't need to build up Towncred.

You're asking me to hammer him if he picks me. The only reason I would have to do so is if I think he is scum, because as town, it is not in my best interest to hammer him yet since

you

could be the scum. If you convinced me you were town, though, then I

would

hammer him, because he'd be the scum. That's why it's important to have towncred before asking the other person to agree to the plan.

It's not her asking you to do it, it's doing it because the decision should be mine, not yours, and it's the optimal play with the information we have.

In post 133, saulres wrote:

In post 131, Tierce wrote:You've asked me to hammer Zach twice now.

That's not what I was doing there. Here, let me bring the whole thing in:

You did, twice. Here's both instances.

In post 82, saulres wrote:
pedit: Awesome. So do it. Otherwise it's just lip service. Scum could easily conceive a plan like that hoping it makes them look townie enough to have the supersaint pick the other person.

In response to Tierce 80.

In post 118, saulres wrote:

In post 116, Tierce wrote:Zach plays the role of confTown and gets to pick who hammers him, he either dies as scum or takes down one person with him, making this a 50% LyLo over a 33% one

This explains where you're coming from very well. But it's just reducing the game to a numbers game, and I'm not willing to go along with it if he picks me. If you really want to go that route, then you should just hammer him and get your 50%.

And again here.

In post 128, Zachrulez wrote:

In post 127, saulres wrote:Having said that, the more this discussion goes on, and Zach just sits back, the more I'm starting to think we're doing our usual dance and he's the scum

So you're going to try to pressure me to act fast, rather than taking my time to make the most informed decision possible? (Regardless of how long it takes, I'm going to have to make one eventually.)

I wasn't pressuring him to act fast in the part he was responding to, and I wasn't pressuring you to do anything there either.[/quote]

You were calling my inaction scummy.

In post 133, saulres wrote:

In post 131, Tierce wrote:how is my plan-crafting similar to Paranoia in particular

Because I've seen you do it as scum, so I can't assume you're town just because you're doing it again.

It's a non point because her doing it isn't scummy.

In post 133, saulres wrote:

In post 131, Tierce wrote:None of this is really scumhunting.

The back-and-forth with you? It's really not, no, it's defending my decision because the last I heard Zach was thinking I'm more likely to be scum and I'm not ready to vote him.

Yup.

In post 133, saulres wrote:

In post 132, Tierce wrote:you are still the lynch.

And then Zach flips scum and me and I weep over my carefully nurtured "Town LyLos won: 0" in the post-game.

I'm trying not to have to weep. But if he's town and he picks you, you will be weeping.

Weep Saulres... weep.

Zach, is there any point in me responding to Tierce, or if I don't vote you are you going to vote me?

Two quick things:

In post 143, Tierce wrote:

In post 141, Zachrulez wrote:

In post 76, saulres wrote:

pppedit: Then town loses.

There's a lot of other points I can make, but when it comes right down to it this is what bothers me the most.

The implication of the statement seems to betray that he knows my alignment to me, despite all of his claims in further posts that he hasn't ruled me out.

No? He was saying that Town would lose in reply to my #75, which was "we'll lynch you if you don't hammer Zach". That is not a perspective slip.

^This.

And, this, which I just don't get:

In post 145, Tierce wrote:I have to see whether I would be comfortable about lynching saul if he doesn't hammer you

Up until just now it's been "If you don't hammer you're the lynch". What changed?

pedit: Seriously? I didn't sign up for a Marathon...

I have a meeting now, will get back to this later.

In post 146, Tierce wrote:Jesus Christ.

Zach, are you picking saul because he said he won't hammer you, which means he's the lynch and you win as scum with the gutsiest gambit I've seen in a while?

Don't answer that. Mogget might need a :PARTY:nfoil hat before this game is over.

We wouldn't be in this situation if I was scum. (Which is WIFOM, but seriously Tierce, Occam's Razor.) I'm picking him because I think the reason he won't hammer me is because he's scum.