American Gods Mafia - Game over

[WrathChild]

SGR: Of course there's nothing inherently scummy about declaring V/LA. That's not what I said. I said that the way WC offered the information up unprompted suggested he had concerns about people calling him out on it and to me that concern is something that is more likely to come from scum. Sure, townies can do it, but I think scum are more likely to be thinking about it. Evidently you disagree with that, but I don't think it's hard to see why scum would be more concerned.

Ythill: I don't think your point was particularly far-fetched, nor do I think you should have had a rock-solid case at that stage, and I never said either. My problem is with SGR spending a lot of time criticising your logic and talking about how far you were reaching, but that not being at all consistent with him electing you. He appears to have little comprehension of much of your logic, so I fail to see how he is quite happy to put trust in you to go backstage.

WC: can you tell me when I tried to push a lynch on you based on your schedule announcement?

I mis-spoke. I meant that you were focusing on a schedule announcement a bit too much. I apologize, you are absolutely right that you did not try to push a lynch on me. I merely meant that you that your concerns were reaching a bit, like I said at the end of your Note.

[WrathChild]

Hi there, Seacore.

@Mod: is there some reason you didn't prod werewolf?

@Wrath:

I asked you whether you read the rules. Answer please.

Yes I did. Did I misunderstand something?

[SGRaaize]

@SGR:

The reason for the change is that we are far from done with D1. And, actually, ani is scummier than Ghost by current standings, but I suppose you had no way of knowing that.

By current standings?

[Ythill]

By

my

current standings. Just an update.

@were:

Yes I did. Did I misunderstand something?

I was just wondering about your schedule defense. Since prods are every 48 hours in this game, I'd think you'd either bold a cyclic V/LA notice for the mod or differentiate between V/LA and lite content for the weekends. It seems like you're concerned about player perceptions but not mod perceptions.

[Ghostlin]

Ghostlin is def more scummy than Ani, although I don't see the reason for the change now that the Bandwagon is midway.
Still, I rather get Ghostlin killed than Ani

Unvote

Vote: Ghostlin

Boom.
I detected scum in my first post.
trollface.jpg

Except that vote was RVS, a number of days ago.

[LlamaFluff]

@Ythill - I kinda can see the ani-case, but this being one of the only times I havent thought he was obviously scum and should be lynched/vigged instantly. Your first two points I dont see as a tell at all, and the others are minor tells if anything. Just not feeling ani-scum at all, call it gut if you have too, but this is probably the only time I have played with him where I thought he wasnt scum after the first ten pages.

Im happy with where my vote is headed to V/LA

@WC and Agar - Please post a case on ani. Do not refrence Ythills case in your case.

[A Gaggle of Geese]

We appreciate all the Elect votes on ourselves.

We are also aware that we owe a rather substantial post, but both of us have been a little busy lately. It should be arriving tomorrow.

Rest assured that we are scumhunting, it has just been in our QT so far, bouncing reads around.

[farside22]

@Ghostlin: Which of Ythill's 3 of post looked like he handled himself well and kept pressure going?
And why?

@Ythill

He is? He is responding to everyone. He's definately on my people's radar that were talking so how do you get avoiding confrontation and attention from?

Bleck. Just take out the my in this sentence. It's poorly written. In short SGR is getting plenty of notice.

As for llama:
I didn't like his vote on SGR for the sake of BW. I've modded a few games he was in and his comment

I will wagon for wagon sake. Any of the WC-SGR-Ani triangle of chaos getting a wagon on them will be good for reads on all of them, and im pretty sure SGR is vote leader.

unvote
Vote SGR

Seemed really off. It's like someone you have known all your life who scum hunts and angles things (even as scum) that does a 180 saying sure lets BW vote.
It's just really off for me.
Also before the above post he didn't say jack about WC. It doesn't sit well with me.

[Saint]

205 posts went by before the mod pmed me
I didn't know this thread was opened

[vezokpiraka]

I don't see the ghostlin case.

I think he is playing to his meta.

[Saint]

I've skimmed the big wagons in iso, and I completely understand the one on SGR
his "town will be in a bad spot if I die" is pretty bad.....
"I'm pretty sure the Town isn't gonna survive if it keeps having these lapses in logic"
I don't like this either.

Meh, stand-alone, it might be, but I have a Town-Tell on Ythill overall
-cut-

care to explain this? thanks.

I'm going to read the game straight through now

[Saint]

I don't see the ghostlin case.

I think he is playing to his meta.

speaking of meta, I can completely feel the benevolence in your posting
glad to see we're on the same side ^^

[Ythill]

this is probably the only time I have played with him where I thought he wasnt scum after the first ten pages.

Unless he

was

scum in all those other games, this seems like reason enough to keep an eye on him.

Llama is slipping back to MotR on the behavioral tells. Still honorary town, obv.

Just take out the my in this sentence. It's poorly written.

I know that, but I am trying to figure out what the error was. Let me explain. It seems like you initially wrote that he was on

your

radar, then tried to qualify it, then decided to write that he was on other people's radar. People make mistakes, obv, but this one might be indicative of you retooling to keep your suspicions straight, which seems scummy. Like I said, sorry to nitpick.

[Ghostlin]

Case on SGR:

ISO 0: Doesn't really answer Ythill's question. The other three comments are less than useful.
ISO 1: FOS Locke about asking why WC would post specific availblity. If you're on, you're on. If you're not...don't you have a signature for that? (Personally I didn't find either motive scummy. If Locke wants detailed reasoning about someone's schedule or why they felt like posting it, go nuts.)
Here's where SGR drops his contraversal sentence. I'll get to why it's not entirely what he says it is later.

ISO 4:

I get what you mean.
On the other hand, there are certain players that won't help us even if they are Townies and there are certain players that will end up helping Town a little even if they are Mafia just by trying to look Townie.
So, at the end, we gotta end balancing between the two

I quoted this directly because of the reasoning here. He's making an argument of letting scum players live because they could help Town a litte--this isn't a protown argument, nor necessarly playing to the wincon.

ISO 5: "Scum wouldn't be that dumb!" defense.
AtE: "If I do end up getting lynched... may god have mercy on Town's soul". Ranks right up there with "You're making a huge mistake!"
"Its not so much as me defending you as me trying to get the logic behind your lynch so I can kill you" = "Please let me understand your case so I can lynch you, please."

ISO 6: " I'm still more curious on the beginning of this shitstorm instead of its current state." Shouldn't you care about the wagon as it's shaping up?
The rest of it, I get it. He has a town or null read on WC.

ISO 7: His response to my post. His first comment "Town won't survive these laspses in logic" makes it sounds like he's more vital than the rest of town.
No, sorry. I could see a scum doing that just to make the argument he wouldn't do such a blantant thing as buddy his scum buddy, make town swallow that pill so he can get town cred.
As for the AtE: look up.
I like how your only comment to 'this sounds scummy' is 'lol'. I see you take these arguments seriously.
The rest is fine, except you did go on and on about how Ythill's reasoning is faulty. Twice. And didn't vote him. At all, once.

ISO 8: Votes me for fallacious reasoning.

ISO 12: Doesn't like the Ythill case on Wraith, never votes it, doesn't really vote for anyone on the Wrath wagon, Doesn't like my case on him; I must be scummy.
ISO 13: Kinda a 'I give up' reverse AtE. "I don't care any more guys, I give up, have fun."

ISO 14: I was the second one on your wagon besides OMGL, who you've not suspected. In fact, you've never asked for clarification on OMGL's case on you.
ISO 15: Asks Ythill why he suspects Apok, but says he doesn't suspect him.
ISO 16: Tunnels on me. At this point, he's thrown out any case at all and just tunnels.
ISO 17: "If you have to suspect someone, it should be Ythill, for:

1) Suspecting WraithChild under no basis (Cause he didn't RV? Doesn't matter. Cause he said "First Post"? Means jackshit. Cause he joked "OMGUS", doesn't mean crap either

2) Thanking WraithChild for a confirmation on being scum, where in the last post he didn't say absolutely anything that would confirm or even slightly give a scum tell (For saying he is inactive at certain parts of the day? Nope, and ythill suspected Locke based on him quoting that. For saying he has victories as Mafia on another game? WIFOM at best, WTH at worst.

So, yeah, I know I sound like I'm buddying, but I have no idea what part of the answer turned you from "What's the pro..." to "WOW, yeah, I see it"."

"What I said is that, on the sequence of messages I showed (The 4 quotes), you should have seen Ythill as the scummiest person of the group, because he was the one to cause a shitstorm for no motives, I have been corrected on the "no motives part", he does have motives, but honestly, they the one that started the shitstorm is completely far-fetched and the one after that is a little bit too far-fetched for my tastes...

I am not contradicting myself, I said that Ythill was the one to cause the shitstorm between him and WrathChild, and I explained why one neutral person should see Ythill as the scummiest of the two based on those 4 posts. Regardless, I trust Ythill for his logic and scumhunting."

Which of these statements is not like the other one? There was no specific person he was addressing this to, btw. This "neutral person" he was talking about didn't exist. He was covering his bases until a Ythil lynch showed up, and then backpedaled when it didn't. I'd even give him points if he said, "Yeah, I suspected Ythill, but I don't now and here's why," but he doesn't do that, he posts blantatly the opposite.

ISO 18: SGR: What, Ythill and I have the same suspicions!

ISO 19: SGR: "No, I'm not doing this for populist reasons. By your reasoning, you must also suspect Ythill of being scummy."

ISO 20: Does everything I wanted in ISO 17 except say he suspected Ythill for suspecting Wrath Child for bad motives.

ISO 23: This is only interesting if you're interested in what you think SGR finds scummy:

Bad logic on anyone but him=not scummy.

Asking followup questions about V/LA, even if your reasoning may be rooted in what you think is logical= scummy.

ISO 24: "I'm not scum because I said something scummy!" No, you're scum because you're backpedaling on a suspicion that you originally had to set up a lynch; have been applying differing standards to everyone, have mirrored the tells of someone with more town cred than you and your biggest opponent and one of your agitators of your lynch, have contradicted yourself and backpedaled AND have been saying scummy things in the middle of it. That's why you're scummy.

ISO 26: Which would be interesting if you said, 'I think the case on me is bad and here's why'.

ISO 29: And the tunnel on me continues.

tl;dr: SGR's only built cases on people he's confident he can take to lynch. As soon as a person becomes popular, he seems to drop the case against them, seeming to even backpedal in the case of Ythill. I'm not saying people can't change their minds, but he's not admitted that: quite the opposite, he claims the only reason he'd begin a sentence that started with "If you have to suspect someone..." was to compare the play the other person being accused at the time. There's more than a few blatant buddying posts, first to WC than to Ythill (the WC defense is amusing, apparently scum are much too smart to buddy their partners). He's almost deliberately blind to the faults of the people who are voting the same way as him, however, if you oppose him in anyway, watch out. Also, he's said a few things that are a little more than scummy.

[Ythill]

I stopped reading that terrible IoA crap sandwich about halfway through. If you

are

town, learn to scumhunt... and hire an editor.

[AGar]

@WC and Agar - Please post a case on ani. Do not refrence Ythills case in your case.

1 Part of Ani trying to pass off like his RVS vote was the start of a snowball effect wagon, trying to claim credit
1 Part of no one else going for an OGML bandwagon save for Farside
1 Part of my whole "large game theory" argument I had with Ghostlin

(Who gains more scumpoints by the hour).

Ani is not my strongest scumread, OGML is, but I'm willing to compromise in order to get a wagon rolling on a player multiple people find scummy.

Ghostlin gains more scumpoints for choosing the SGR wagon as his poison, after telling me my Large Game theory was essentially wrong.

Essentially, I'm willing to go with OGML, Ani, or Ghostlin at this point. All three are satisfying to me.

[Ythill]

@Ghost:

Meh, sorry, that came off more harsh than I intended.

1) Please try to be concise. If you must quote long posts, do so in quote tags. Linking is much better.
2) Your points of suspicion are questionable. The fact that you are capable of a slanted paraphrase and applying buzzwords to things doesn't have anything to do with SGR's alignment. It's so bad, I'm not even marking it down as a tell because I can't imagine someone faking it on purpose.

Here is an actual scumtell...

Except...I just read Llama's ISO, and he didn't mention anything like this. Ythill DID mention sacrifices, but he advocated the opposite (sacrificing players that are blatantly VIs). Hence, where are you getting the information from? I'd like you to explain what you meant, because I'm uneasy with the thought that you pulled this from somewhere less public than the normal thread.

1. You missed a blatant statement made by Llama while claiming that you were reading his iso looking for it. I think you are skimming and exaggerating and I don't think you'd be doing those things as town.
   
2. You accused LL of learning Llama's opinion by private means, but didn't even give Llama a passing glance. A town-aligned player who believed LL and Llama had discussed things in private and suspected one would suspect both.

@AGar:

There are two counterwagons to your boy, SGR, and both are on your suspect list. Why are you still on the smaller wagon?

[AGar]

@AGar:

There are two counterwagons to your boy, SGR, and both are on your suspect list. Why are you still on the smaller wagon?

I'm voting Ani atm. Is he really the smaller of him/Ghostlin? Last I checked he wasn't.

[AGar]

Apparently he is.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Ghostlin

[Ythill]

Lovely.

@Saint:

I have a night zero cop result on Not Voting. He's town. Please vote for someone else in your next post.

[SGRaaize]

I've skimmed the big wagons in iso, and I completely understand the one on SGR
his "town will be in a bad spot if I die" is pretty bad.....

Oh, come on, I have explained this time and time before

"I'm pretty sure the Town isn't gonna survive if it keeps having these lapses in logic"

Considering you suspect me for this line I said, shouldn't you be agreeing with me? If before this line I was saying nothing worth Lynching for, then that line makes sense and the Town is having lapses of logic.

I don't like this either.
care to explain this? thanks.

There is literally nothing to explain, Ythill has been scumhunting, has been active, has been agressive, and aside from his Lynch on WrathChild, has had logic.
I don't need a deeper motive to Elect someone

--------------------------------------

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh....

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

ATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATA

Case on SGR:

ISO 0: Doesn't really answer Ythill's question. The other three comments are less than useful.

Doesn't matter, and the other three comments are regarding my defense on WrathChild

ISO 1: FOS Locke about asking why WC would post specific availblity. If you're on, you're on. If you're not...don't you have a signature for that? (Personally I didn't find either motive scummy. If Locke wants detailed reasoning about someone's schedule or why they felt like posting it, go nuts.)

Alright, personally, I saw it as Locke leaving a breadcrumb on the path to WrathChild's lynch by using a Null-Tell as something suspicious.
That BW never ended up picking steam, though, which is why Locke Lamora may have stopped giving attention to that bit of detail (Then again, to be fair, he was answered and there was not much to pressure on, so he might have just made a honest question)

ISO 4: I quoted this directly because of the reasoning here. He's making an argument of letting scum players live because they could help Town a litte--this isn't a protown argument, nor necessarly playing to the wincon.

It means they can be scumhunted at Night, ya bloody goose

ISO 5: "Scum wouldn't be that dumb!" defense.

Regardless of WIFOM, it makes sense, you have to accept the fact that the chances of Scum doing what I did to defend a Scumbuddy D1 are way below 50%

AtE: "If I do end up getting lynched... may god have mercy on Town's soul". Ranks right up there with "You're making a huge mistake!"

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, meh, fair enough. Honestly, though, its true, if I was gonna get lynched for the previous posts's reasoning, may God have mercy on Town's soul

"Its not so much as me defending you as me trying to get the logic behind your lynch so I can kill you" = "Please let me understand your case so I can lynch you, please."

Erm... Yes... That's what I said... Derp... That means I am Town because I want to lynch someone to advance the day but I want good reasoning to lynch that person.

ISO 6: " I'm still more curious on the beginning of this shitstorm instead of its current state." Shouldn't you care about the wagon as it's shaping up?

.____. What? I was more interested at what started the stupid BW, which was YThill, because I thought it was weird and was asking logic on him. You're just grasping at straws now, buddy, you have made one legitimate point in this shitstorm until now.

ISO 7: His response to my post. His first comment "Town won't survive these laspses in logic" makes it sounds like he's more vital than the rest of town.

No, it doesn't, it makes it sound like Town would be dumb to vote me for the reasons it was voting me, AND GUESS WHAT, IT IS!!!

No, sorry. I could see a scum doing that just to make the argument he wouldn't do such a blantant thing as buddy his scum buddy, make town swallow that pill so he can get town cred.

Except that's ridiculous, unnecessarily risky and dumb. And although it could happen, don't you agree it has more chances of

NOT HAPPENING

?

As for the AtE: look up.
I like how your only comment to 'this sounds scummy' is 'lol'. I see you take these arguments seriously.

lol

The rest is fine, except you did go on and on about how Ythill's reasoning is faulty. Twice. And didn't vote him. At all, once.

I have a Town-tell on YThill, as I said before, I think he's an active scumhunter, and I think he did a mistake on WrathChild, not every Town has to be a perfect scumhunter without any failures, I think its time you and Locke move on from that argument

ISO 8: Votes me for fallacious reasoning.

Fallacious reasoning? LOL'D. I'l show ISO #8 again, and you try to argue it.

First point: I'm sure we, as town, will somehow incredibly survive if you somehow made it to the gallows.

I'm pretty sure the Town isn't gonna survive if it keeps having these lapses in logic

The FOS uses the 'scum wouldn't be so stupid to do that argument,' which is invalid, and illogical, and could lead to WIFOM.

It isn't invalid, nor is it illogical, it may not lead to WIFOM, as it

IS

WIFOM, the logic is obvious, a Mafioso would not put himself on such a prominent role, nor would he go as far as defending his scumpartner when there was one vote placed at him

AtE noted.

AtE means "Appeal to Emotion" according to the Wiki, where the heck did I appeal for your emotion?

Second point: This just sounds scummy.

lol

Why not ask the other players for a case?

We're at 4 pages in the game and you're already lost:

What's your reasoning on WraithChild? I am sorry, but your vote-lynch makes no sense

Link: http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p2848638
If you even bothered to ISO me instead of trying to look for an easy target to kill, this wouldn't have happened

'Oh, hi, I'm just going to defend you until I can figure out a way to kill you' in the hands of scum is like, 'Hi, I don't want to look like I'm sheeping but I want to find a legit way to throw you under the bus.'

What it means is simple, apparently there has been a huge scumtell WrathChild gave which I missed, because there were about 3 votes on him for no reason whatsoever aside from a ridiculous BW, I am trying to find logic in the BW so I can follow it, I have not been given logic.

and:

Vote Lynch: Ghostlin

WrathChild admitting to trying to sound less suspicious sounds good, but Ghostlin voting me with bad arguments and lack of attention leads me to believe he's just trying to look good while joining a BW he thinks will pick up steam

ISO 12: Doesn't like the Ythill case on Wraith, never votes it, doesn't really vote for anyone on the Wrath wagon, Doesn't like my case on him; I must be scummy.

Hmm, alright, this one kind of makes sense if seen from a neutral point:

1) I think the WrathChild was just something YThill wanted to do at the beginning of the day, as to start discussion (It did)
2) The people that followed, I didn't care much for it, in one of them, I had a Towntell on them (farside22) as soon as he started posting, even if he was kinda weird with that "Oh, I see it now" comment.
3) You, on the other hand, decided to join my BW, which was clearly picking steam, and your logic DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE, it wasn't like YThill's, which was far-fetched but I could see working, yours doesn't make any sense, it only started making sense when I said "Town is doomed" (and everyone misread what I meant with that), until then, you had nothing on me and you clearly used derpy arguments (which I all countered in that quote thing I did above, and you didn't answer, yet I'm using faulty arguments, LOL)

ISO 13: Kinda a 'I give up' reverse AtE. "I don't care any more guys, I give up, have fun."

Hmm, yep, yep, fair enough, second legitimate point but to give it some context, I was gonna sleep, and I was kinda expecting to be lynched by then (I don't believe YThill would unvote me when we were at L-2)

ISO 14: I was the second one on your wagon besides OMGL, who you've not suspected. In fact, you've never asked for clarification on OMGL's case on you.

OMGL said "Gut feeling", I asked "Fry me?" = "Why me?", he didn't answer. Considering he has been tunneling on me all game, I ignored him and hoped people would do the same. Honestly, though, I get what you mean, I should have FoS'd him or whatever, but I didn't, my priority is you and Ani.

ISO 15: Asks Ythill why he suspects Apok, but says he doesn't suspect him.

So?

ISO 16: Tunnels on me. At this point, he's thrown out any case at all and just tunnels.

Bullshit, start answering to the fucking arguments I'm making like what I'm doing here instead of non-chalantly putting your fingers on your ears and screaming you can't hear me

ISO 17: "If you have to suspect someone, it should be Ythill, for:

1) Suspecting WraithChild under no basis (Cause he didn't RV? Doesn't matter. Cause he said "First Post"? Means jackshit. Cause he joked "OMGUS", doesn't mean crap either

2) Thanking WraithChild for a confirmation on being scum, where in the last post he didn't say absolutely anything that would confirm or even slightly give a scum tell (For saying he is inactive at certain parts of the day? Nope, and ythill suspected Locke based on him quoting that. For saying he has victories as Mafia on another game? WIFOM at best, WTH at worst.

So, yeah, I know I sound like I'm buddying, but I have no idea what part of the answer turned you from "What's the pro..." to "WOW, yeah, I see it"."

"What I said is that, on the sequence of messages I showed (The 4 quotes), you should have seen Ythill as the scummiest person of the group, because he was the one to cause a shitstorm for no motives, I have been corrected on the "no motives part", he does have motives, but honestly, they the one that started the shitstorm is completely far-fetched and the one after that is a little bit too far-fetched for my tastes...

I am not contradicting myself, I said that Ythill was the one to cause the shitstorm between him and WrathChild, and I explained why one neutral person should see Ythill as the scummiest of the two based on those 4 posts. Regardless, I trust Ythill for his logic and scumhunting."

Which of these statements is not like the other one? There was no specific person he was addressing this to, btw. This "neutral person" he was talking about didn't exist. He was covering his bases until a Ythil lynch showed up, and then backpedaled when it didn't. I'd even give him points if he said, "Yeah, I suspected Ythill, but I don't now and here's why," but he doesn't do that, he posts blantatly the opposite.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
Did you really think I was dumb to the point of thinking people were gonna lynch YThill when they were electing him? This is the second time you rely on me being a Mafioso that's retarded and 100% incapable of thinking

ISO 18: SGR: What, Ythill and I have the same suspicions!

We do

ISO 19: SGR: "No, I'm not doing this for populist reasons. By your reasoning, you must also suspect Ythill of being scummy."

Yep, although this point has been legitimately argued by Locke Lamora

ISO 20: Does everything I wanted in ISO 17 except say he suspected Ythill for suspecting Wrath Child for bad motives.

What?

Bad logic on anyone but him=not scummy.

Look here, Ghostlin, your logic was clearly to join a BW on me that was already ongoing, YThill's logic was to create a BW on WrathChild that was ignored when WrathChild brought up his points (and I defended him, I guess), can you stop pretending they're the same thing when they clearly aren't?

Asking followup questions about V/LA, even if your reasoning may be rooted in what you think is logical= scummy.

Wrong

ISO 24: "I'm not scum because I said something scummy!" No, you're scum because you're backpedaling on a suspicion that you originally had to set up a lynch; have been applying differing standards to everyone, have mirrored the tells of someone with more town cred than you and your biggest opponent and one of your agitators of your lynch, have contradicted yourself and backpedaled AND have been saying scummy things in the middle of it. That's why you're scummy.

Once again, you think I was gonna try to lynch YThill, come on, now, son

ISO 29: And the tunnel on me continues.

This is the part where you argue my arguments, because I am clearly giving them and not just going OMGML on your ass

tl;dr: SGR's only built cases on people he's confident he can take to lynch.

Like YThill, amirite? And me trying to see logic on a BW on WrathChild when it was growing on me trying to lynch the biggest BW, amirite? You have read my ISO's, yet you truly believe you, I am so positive you are scum its not even funny

As soon as a person becomes popular, he seems to drop the case against them, seeming to even backpedal in the case of Ythill.

Ythill was popular way before I "backpedalled" in your words

I'm not saying people can't change their minds, but he's not admitted that

I haven't changed my mind, I have explained what I was meaning with "If I have to lynch a person of these two, it would be YThill for starting the shitstorm on almost nothing", you have to understand that there's a certain plane and then there's the wider picture, and YThill isn't scummy on the wider picture

quite the opposite, he claims the only reason he'd begin a sentence that started with "If you have to suspect someone..." was to compare the play the other person being accused at the time.

...
...
Yes... ._.

There's more than a few blatant buddying posts, first to WC

I was clearly buddying up to WC so I could lynch the bigger BW which was... erm... WC, oh shit.

than to Ythill

I always trusted Ythill from the beginning he answered my questions, he scumhunts, he's agressive and overall, he makes sense, even if he far-fetched a little too much on WC, he's town. Me disagreeing with him on one point =/= Me suspecting him, get over it

(the WC defense is amusing, apparently scum are much too smart to buddy their partners)

Your attack is even more amusing, because you think scum would defend their partners on a Page-1 BW without much logic as I have defended him, you are obviously being a bullshitter here

He's almost deliberately blind to the faults of the people who are voting the same way as him, however, if you oppose him in anyway, watch out. Also, he's said a few things that are a little more than scummy.

You have brought two legitimate points on me, you won't be as credible as you want to be until you answer to my "faulty" arguments on you

[werewolf555]

Ok, starting to read and will post reads soon.

[farside22]

I know that, but I am trying to figure out what the error was. Let me explain. It seems like you initially wrote that he was on your radar, then tried to qualify it, then decided to write that he was on other people's radar. People make mistakes, obv, but this one might be indicative of you retooling to keep your suspicions straight, which seems scummy. Like I said, sorry to nitpick.

I honestly didn't know I put my in that sentence. I get interrupted often when I'm on MS when reading. I put everything into a notepad. Depending on the time (it says 8:19am when I made that post) it means I'm getting ready for work and getting everyone up and ready at the same time as checking the thread and writing out my cases or catch up post. I will be in the middle of a sentence when my son will ask for something, like more juice or to change the channel or potty ect. Then after getting to anything I can I'm running to get myself ready for work.
You'll probably see it happen from time to time, where I type something worded horribly. I've seen it first hand but it's the best I can do with a short time I can get online to play.


OMG people can we please not have the wall-o-text from hell.
*cries*
I'll look at those last 2 walls a bit later. I'm still looking for an answer from Ghostlin. I find it odd he found Ythill town then unelected him because he didn't vote for him as he was listed first on a scum list.

I need to reread the game, see what people are seeing about Ani, and maybe even decide if Ythill's worth a vote.

I still want ghost to do what he said. Also why did you do an iso case on SGR and not check into Ani first?

unvote
Vote Ghost

His entire early case against SGR is that SGR is trying to figure out what the ani case is somewhat inefficiently. I think its a good thing to try and force out that case, because im not too sure it exists at this point.

Can you explain how you come to the conclusion?

[farside22]

@farside:

@Meta - I see little to no reason for meta in most cases, because people can easily enough go around and switch their behaviors, which makes meta a null, imo.
@ no defense - I understand you are supposed to defend, I just saw a whole crap load of it.
@"that's not what I read" - That's a difference of opinion. I can't really argue that.
@ Scum D1 - SGR has been around for about a year. Something tells me that it's not a noob mistake, but a more planned gesture.

I sense a contradiction here. If a player has been around long enough and has been accused before of defending someone that many are attacking looks scummy, why would said player do that again if they are scum?
Who else do you think is scum and why?

[AGar]

I'm not worried. Wraith's vote is stupid, and unless I see some underlying scum reason to OMGUS vote a voter who random voted him (extremely unlikely), then I'll ignore it.

I stand by my Wraith vote, however. All Wraith has done so far is explain how many games he's been in, defend himself and give us a very tiny amount of meta.

These sentences do not mesh well together.

On one hand, he's "not worried" about an OMGUS vote.
On the other, he's willing to bandwagon the guy who OMGUS voted him, with very weak reasonings.

Yeah, do not like.