Newbie 1289 - Game Over!

[buldermar]

You are discussing a theory point that you dismissed as a situation in which I wasn't intentionally leading anyone astray. If you can't use it for scumhunting (i.e. you're not finding scum motivation in doing so), what is the point in focusing on that instead of addressing the rest of the game?

The way I think, this discussion

is

an event in this game and

does

to some extent reflect alignment. Whether I can make proper use of it or not is a different matter.

There

are

plenty of things you could be addressing already or showing your opinion about, yet you haven't yet done anything that reveals interest in finding scum.

I think you're misinterpreting my correction as an avoidance of matters that actually have to do with the game. To me, this is more relevant than anything else going on currently. If you think otherwise, I recommend you point out something I should comment on (and I shall do so).

There is a difference between content and arguing for argument's sake, and my impression is that you are more interested in correcting people than in figuring out the intent behind their words and moving on. That makes little sense from a Town perspective.

What make little sense from a Town perspective is continuing a discussion by asking questions that has already been answered and repeating statements that has already been made. It also doesn't add up why you'd think my behavior is scummy. Firstly, as BT already pointed out, theory talk is a null more often than not. Secondly, assuming that you actually do think I'm scum, I'd think you'd at least take the time reading my only other game. If you did so, you'd realize how flawed your reasoning is.

Repeatance of previously posed questions and made statements in conjunction with your claim that

I'm

responsible for the ongoing of this discussion appears scummy to me. The same goes for your insistence that talking theory is a scumtell in conjunction with (I assume) the fact that you did not read my only other game.

VOTE: Tierce

[buldermar]

Would you say that it is more reasonable of someone to make a random vote than make a vote based on a very limited amount of information?

A random vote is just that. A random vote. Usually the purpose behind it can be a conversation starter to get the game rolling along. Many reasons exist for voting for somebody, but I personally don't take a random vote all that serious.

A random vote is by definition not based on information, else it wouldn't be random. Anyway, thanks for clarifying that you are not making this distinction.

[Tierce]

It has nothing to do with BT, ovyo.

buldermar: you are acting like that is all I'm doing, which is an invalid reduction of my actions. I'm trying to understand why you would keep yourself apart from the game and assume content will be generated regardless with a low signal:noise ratio, and I'm not just going to drop it and let you continue to do so--when scumhunting a player, I need to understand why they're doing what you're doing.
In clipping our posts the way you have, you are giving an incorrect representation of the matters addressed--for example, your lack of proactivity was something I brought up in Post 58.
Theory talk, by itself, isn't scummy. Theory talk

to the detriment of addressing the present game

is

scummy, because you are willingly avoiding discussing this game. In addition, you seem to expect someone with an initial scumread on you to jump up and read your other game(s). I read lots of other games, but I don't have neither the time nor the patience to meta everyone I have scumreads on, regardless of how many games they have. Those are unreasonable expectations to have of someone who isn't even voting you.

Airick: vendetta is null so far.

BT: reads, please?

[ovyo]

So then why is your vote still for my slot? I didn't make that vote, and cannot justify Sylvants reasoning for it.

[Tierce]

You're still the same slot. I don't particularly care if you can't justify your predecessor's actions, they don't stop being scummy/townie because the player was replaced--your alignment didn't change between replacements.

[BT]

UNVOTE: Deltabacon
VOTE: vendetta21

Low progress : words ratio. Getting some vibes here.

This seems opportunistic. It happens on post 26. BT -- what progress do you feel was made previous to that point in the thread? It appears to me that my action in post 11 has spurred the a lot of things currently being discussed. Essentially you voted me for making a move that took us out of RVS. What is your idea of progress?

The way I see it, any progressive RVS post that isn't intent at making progress is to be looked at. Worse, any post that is intent at

not

making progress, but scum are usually more subtle about that. Your #25 seemed like a lot of effort with no result; You update your read, explaining that you find act x scummy but it's not worth your vote, but you leave it at that. You put a reasonable amount of effort into reading PaperSpirit, so you have no excuse for not keeping the ball rolling.

By the way, opportunistic is a nice word to tack on. Care to explain why it fits? I'm surprised I'm not your vote after that quote. It's currently on no one, as a matter of fact.

I do not agree with your [Tierce's] read on Sylvant/ovyo, but it is still early. I do find it odd that Sylvant voted PaperSpirit after PaperSpirit's post about a no-lynch.

You disagree but you find it odd. Which is it? 'Odd' needs elaboration.

What is your read on Vendetta? He voted PaperSpirit too, and it clearly was not random. It seemed like that was a quick and easy vote on a newbie jumping on a bandwagon.

What wagon?

Repeatance of previously posed questions and made statements in conjunction with your claim that

I'm

responsible for the ongoing of this discussion appears scummy to me. The same goes for your insistence that talking theory is a scumtell in conjunction with (I assume) the fact that you did not read my only other game.

VOTE: Tierce

I'd be willing to vote this as well. These are reasons that existed after your exchange that ended in #58. No comment on her more recent exchange with Deltabacon, no comment on anyone else.

Though I don't find it scummy, your reasons are flawed as well. Townies aren't prompted to immediately read past games of people they're voting (although that would be nice), and her 'insistence' on her view of you doesn't strike me as scummy either. Don't forget to reply to this with your opinion on others.

@Tierce: All in my posts. If you're asking about Ovyo, her predecessor's vote seems likely enough to be mindless RVS (so much that he didn't consider his target - I see it plenty).

RedRabbit needs to show up.

[RedRabbit]

Sorry for my low levels of participation up until now, but as luck would have it as soon as the game started my free time dried up. I have been reading but unable to post due to the fact I was mostly at work. Anyway, I'm a lot freer now and will start to make up for it. To start of let me

unvote Airick10

My scumdar is leaning towards a few players. They would be, in no particular order of scumminess, Tierce, Vendetta21 and Buldemar.

Tierce:

Thinks that PaperSpirit is obvtown based on four posts. The only thing that is revealed in these posts, besides that PaperSpirit is obv

new

, is that PaperSpirit thinks that a no lynch is preferable to town on D1, something that Tierce herself doesn't agree with. Bases her vote on Sylvant/Ovyo because of his vote for this "obvtown" while conviently ignoring Vendetta21's vote. The more obvious target on this basis should have been Vendetta21 afaics. Refusal/reluctance to remove the vote after Sylvant had been replaced is suspect as Ovyo can't know why Sylvant placed the vote. The only reason I can think of that this would be reasonable is because

if

Sylvant was scum, he gave it away by voting second on a newbie and tried to pass it off as random. That's a loose read imo. Unless she knows he was scum!

Vendetta21:

It's already been mentioned, but the the unvote on PaperSpirit was suspect given the addition of the "for now"(#25). In a further explanation he admits that it's very likely that PaperSpirit is a newbie but is suspect that he is acting in a way that does not convince him that PaperSpirit is confirmed town. Hardly surprising since he's 1. A newbie, and 2. Not posted since. Weak scum feeling.

Buldemar:

Took the thread off on a tangent re game theory by 'correcting' Tierce that lynching a confirmed town is not preferable to town on D1. Tierce, as far as I can tell, never made this claim. He seems to operate, both here and in his previous game , on a 'logic trumps all' platform, but this 'error' seems deliberate. I feel he is pushing a lynch based on unsound reasoning. One to watch for me.

In reference to that tangent, I also think Buldemar is wrong. A lynch is

always

preferable on day 1 even if the hammer vote comes from a confirmed town (i.e. self-voting).

My towndar is leaning towards Airick10, PaperSpirit and BT. The rest are in the nullzone.

[RedRabbit]

I haven't voted deliberately. I'll wait for further responses.

[buldermar]

buldermar: you are acting like that is all I'm doing, which is an invalid reduction of my actions.

No, you're misinterpreting me. I claimed that you're equally responsible for the ongoing of our discussion.

I'm trying to understand why you would keep yourself apart from the game and assume content will be generated regardless with a low signal:noise ratio, and I'm not just going to drop it and let you continue to do so--when scumhunting a player, I need to understand why they're doing what you're doing.

Your claim that I keep myself apart from the game is an allegation. I've communicated with Airick10, PaperSpirit, Vendetta21 and BT. I've also responded to every question in my direction.

Your claim that I assume content will be generated regardless cannot be commented on because it relies on the premise of above allegation (that I keep myself apart from the game), which is false.

I don't think you're scumhunting me, because you're barely paying attention to what I'm writing (as shown in post 75).

In clipping our posts the way you have, you are giving an incorrect representation of the matters addressed--for example, your lack of proactivity was something I brought up in Post 58.

I was merely showing that you were repeating yourself, as if you wanted to have this discussion go on and blame it on me (which is scummy).

Theory talk, by itself, isn't scummy. Theory talk

to the detriment of addressing the present game

is

scummy, because you are willingly avoiding discussing this game.

Again, this is an allegation. I've not avoided discussing this game. I've responded to every question and commented on every post I found relevant to comment on. Once again, I encourage you to prove me wrong by providing me an example of something I missed (this is the 3rd time I request it btw).

In addition, you seem to expect someone with an initial scumread on you to jump up and read your other game(s).

Here you're utilizing a straw man tecnique. I assume it is based on this:

The same goes for your insistence that talking theory is a scumtell in conjunction with (I assume) the fact that you did not read my only other game.

I point out that your interpretation of me talking theory being a scumtell would be challenged by the fact that I talked theory in my other game where I was a cop. I never asked of you to read an entire game, I found it peculiar and scummy that you wouldn't open the game and falsify the assumption that my theory talk is something unique for this game.

I read lots of other games, but I don't have neither the time nor the patience to meta everyone I have scumreads on, regardless of how many games they have. Those are unreasonable expectations to have of someone who isn't even voting you.

[/quote]
Once again, you're taking things out of context. I'm not expecting of everyone who votes me to read up on things. My point was made in lights of your claim that talking theory is a scumtell. In other words, it is due to the nature of your claim.

Though I don't find it scummy, your reasons are flawed as well. Townies aren't prompted to immediately read past games of people they're voting (although that would be nice), and her 'insistence' on her view of you doesn't strike me as scummy either. Don't forget to reply to this with your opinion on others.

As you probably can deduce from my response to Tierce, I have no such expectations.

I think Tierces townread on flawed and weird, but not scummy; I think PaperSpirit is a new player and I think his initial posts merely reflects this (i.e. null).

I think Airick10 is being a bit inconsistent. He seems to be advocating random votes to get conversations going, but in post 24 it appears that he considers a vote based on a limited amount of information pre-mature (which is odd when he advocates votes based on no information at all). I tried to dig a bit in post 56. Based on post 73 I concluded that the inconsistency is most likely a coincidence (or at least not deliberate).

Let me know if there is something else you'd like my comment on.

[BT]

Buldermar, what Tierce means by addressing the current game is talking about the current players (instead of general lynch talk, which you seemed to be doing for a while).

I think Airick10 is being a bit inconsistent. He seems to be advocating random votes to get conversations going, but in post 24 it appears that he considers a vote based on a limited amount of information pre-mature (which is odd when he advocates votes based on no information at all). I tried to dig a bit in post 56. Based on post 73 I concluded that the inconsistency is most likely a coincidence (or at least not deliberate)

Is Airick's inconsistency scummy? I don't understand what your aim was with this part.

Tierce:

Thinks that PaperSpirit is obvtown based on four posts.

Is this something you find odd? I don't think it's difficult to see how she got to that conclusion.

[buldermar]

Buldemar:

Took the thread off on a tangent re game theory by 'correcting' Tierce that lynching a confirmed town is not preferable to town on D1. Tierce, as far as I can tell, never made this claim. He seems to operate, both here and in his previous game , on a 'logic trumps all' platform, but this 'error' seems deliberate. I feel he is pushing a lynch based on unsound reasoning. One to watch for me.

In reference to that tangent, I also think Buldemar is wrong. A lynch is

always

preferable on day 1 even if the hammer vote comes from a confirmed town (i.e. self-voting).

My towndar is leaning towards Airick10, PaperSpirit and BT. The rest are in the nullzone.

Lynching a townie on D1 is better for the town than no lynching, because if nothing else, it already reduces the pool of scum suspects by one and we have better odds tomorrow. Make sense?

Could you elaborate on your "logic trumps all" interpretation and what this entails?

[buldermar]

Buldermar, what Tierce means by addressing the current game is talking about the current players (instead of general lynch talk, which you seemed to be doing for a while).

I think Airick10 is being a bit inconsistent. He seems to be advocating random votes to get conversations going, but in post 24 it appears that he considers a vote based on a limited amount of information pre-mature (which is odd when he advocates votes based on no information at all). I tried to dig a bit in post 56. Based on post 73 I concluded that the inconsistency is most likely a coincidence (or at least not deliberate)

Is Airick's inconsistency scummy? I don't understand what your aim was with this part.

Thanks for the sincere question! Initially I thought that Airick's inconsistency was scummy because he seemed to attempt to justify voting Vendetta on this basis. My aim was to allow him to attempt to justify his inconsistency further (which is something I thought he would be likely to do if it was a deliberate inconsistency). He seemed so unconcerned with the matter that I concluded it was unrelated to his read on Vendetta altogether. I know this may seem a bit backwards, I hope you can follow my thought process.

[buldermar]

I'd like to request a prod on PaperSpirit.

[BT]

So this tells you nothing about Airick? Why mention it in the first place?

[RedRabbit]

Tierce:

Thinks that PaperSpirit is obvtown based on four posts.

Is this something you find odd? I don't think it's difficult to see how she got to that conclusion.

I don't find it excessively odd, no. I can see how she might have come to that conclusion. That he's

obvious

town is a bit of a stretch I feel, but what perplexes me more is that she voted Sylvant and not Vendetta based on her assesment of PaperSpirit's townieness. I would think that Vendettas scumminess was more revealing based on some of his subsequent posts, the fact he voted second and that Sylvant's seemed random/jokey when Vendetta's was not at all random. Why not vote for Vendetta if the reason for voting Sylvant was because he voted PaperSpirit who is 'obviously town'? Is what I'm getting at here.

Buldemar:

Took the thread off on a tangent re game theory by 'correcting' Tierce that lynching a confirmed town is not preferable to town on D1. Tierce, as far as I can tell, never made this claim. He seems to operate, both here and in his previous game , on a 'logic trumps all' platform, but this 'error' seems deliberate. I feel he is pushing a lynch based on unsound reasoning. One to watch for me.

In reference to that tangent, I also think Buldemar is wrong. A lynch is

always

preferable on day 1 even if the hammer vote comes from a confirmed town (i.e. self-voting).

My towndar is leaning towards Airick10, PaperSpirit and BT. The rest are in the nullzone.

Lynching a townie on D1 is better for the town than no lynching, because if nothing else, it already reduces the pool of scum suspects by one and we have better odds tomorrow. Make sense?

Could you elaborate on your "logic trumps all" interpretation and what this entails?

That you prefer using reason and logic above 'gut feeling'. Logically.

This is just the way I'm reading you as a player.

The quotes above show that Tierce never mentioned lynching a confirmed townie would benefit town, but that is what you later accused her of.

This is where your discussion starts:

This is incorrect. Lynching a person at random on D1 is better for the town than no lynching, but lynching a

confirmed

town is worse than no lynching. If this was correct, there would also be a time for self-voting - namely a scenario where you're on L1 with limited time left of the day.

She made no reference to this, but you pulled her on it anyway.

Then you said this:

I am talking about the case you used as an example (that a confirmed town lynch is superior to no lynch).

It was never quite obvious for me why you would make such (in my opinion outrageous) claim, which is part of the reason I corrected it. You were talking about the misconception that lynching a confirmed town is superior to lynching no town, and insofar you define this as a corner case you were by definition talking about such.

Could you quote me where she says this before you pulled her on it, because I can't find it? She clarified her position in post #40 but you still thought it was worth voting for her after that.

I've read your last game, and from what I'm reading in this one, you do seem to like taking a logical and deliberate approach to playing the game. The best way I can put it is that, to me, you seem to have a very methodical outlook. That you missed where she didn't use the word "confirmed" when saying it's better to lynch D1 is a little off on my initial reading of you.

[PaperSpirit]

Sorry for the inactivity, a few things have been happening irl. I've skimmed through all the posts.

I'd like to request a prod on PaperSpirit.

What does a prod do?

In my opinion, voting no lynch in Day 1 would put you under the spotlight as doing that really isn't beneficial to the town. Thus, it's a scummy move. Vendetta acknowledges that and voted for you. I just want to chulk it up as a point brought up by a new player and nothing more. I think Vendetta is jumping the gun a bit.

I do find it odd that Sylvant voted PaperSpirit after PaperSpirit's post about a no-lynch. Random or not? We will never know as ovyo can not defend that action.

@Airick10: Why do you think that Sylvant voted me was odd, when yourself said that voting no lynch in day 1 would put you under the spotlight, aka odd? Besides, voting on someone just adds some pressure and creates a conversation

[izakthegoomba]

A prod is a message that I send you if you're not active enough, after 72 hours without posting (or 48 if a player requests it). If you don't post shortly after a prod, or if I have to keep prodding you, I may replace you. But you posted before I got online, so you get away with it this time.

Votecount 1.02

vendetta21 (3) - BT, ovyo, Airick10
Tierce (2) - Deltabacon, buldermar
ovyo (1) - Tierce
Airick10 (0) -

none

BT (0) -

none

PaperSpirit (0) -

none

Deltabacon (0) -

none

RedRabbit (0) -

none

buldermar (0) -

none

No Lynch (1) - PaperSpirit

Not voting (2) - vendetta21, RedRabbit

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch. Deadline: (expired on 2012-10-18 11:36:09)

[buldermar]

So this tells you nothing about Airick? Why mention it in the first place?

I didn't say it tells me nothing about Airick, I said it is null with respect to his alignment. Why do you twist my words in this manner?

[buldermar]

Buldemar:

Took the thread off on a tangent re game theory by 'correcting' Tierce that lynching a confirmed town is not preferable to town on D1. Tierce, as far as I can tell, never made this claim. He seems to operate, both here and in his previous game , on a 'logic trumps all' platform, but this 'error' seems deliberate. I feel he is pushing a lynch based on unsound reasoning. One to watch for me.

In reference to that tangent, I also think Buldemar is wrong. A lynch is

always

preferable on day 1 even if the hammer vote comes from a confirmed town (i.e. self-voting).

My towndar is leaning towards Airick10, PaperSpirit and BT. The rest are in the nullzone.

Lynching a townie on D1 is better for the town than no lynching, because if nothing else, it already reduces the pool of scum suspects by one and we have better odds tomorrow. Make sense?

Could you elaborate on your "logic trumps all" interpretation and what this entails?

That you prefer using reason and logic above 'gut feeling'. Logically.

This is just the way I'm reading you as a player.

The quotes above show that Tierce never mentioned lynching a confirmed townie would benefit town, but that is what you later accused her of.

This is where your discussion starts:

This is incorrect. Lynching a person at random on D1 is better for the town than no lynching, but lynching a

confirmed

town is worse than no lynching. If this was correct, there would also be a time for self-voting - namely a scenario where you're on L1 with limited time left of the day.

She made no reference to this, but you pulled her on it anyway.

Then you said this:

I am talking about the case you used as an example (that a confirmed town lynch is superior to no lynch).

It was never quite obvious for me why you would make such (in my opinion outrageous) claim, which is part of the reason I corrected it. You were talking about the misconception that lynching a confirmed town is superior to lynching no town, and insofar you define this as a corner case you were by definition talking about such.

Could you quote me where she says this before you pulled her on it, because I can't find it? She clarified her position in post #40 but you still thought it was worth voting for her after that.

I've read your last game, and from what I'm reading in this one, you do seem to like taking a logical and deliberate approach to playing the game. The best way I can put it is that, to me, you seem to have a very methodical outlook. That you missed where she didn't use the word "confirmed" when saying it's better to lynch D1 is a little off on my initial reading of you.

I don't think logic and gut feeling can be compared in this manner.

Lynching a townie relies on the premise that someone is confirmed townie, else you'd be lynching a player whose alignment is unknown, which is a entirely different matter. Furthermore, if this

is

a misunderstanding on my behalf, I'm left wondering why she never simply pointed this out.

If anything she confirms it in post 40, claiming that self-hammering minutes before deadline may be acceptable.

I'm voting her for different reasons that I have already pointed out.

[BT]

So this tells you nothing about Airick? Why mention it in the first place?

I didn't say it tells me nothing about Airick, I said it is null with respect to his alignment. Why do you twist my words in this manner?

Null with respect to his alignment is exactly what I meant by "it tells you nothing". I'm not twisting your words because you never said it - rather, I'm stating a fact. No one was arguing that it

wasn't

null, so there was no need to point it out. Why did you point it out?

As a general note, 72hr prods suck. 4 posts and 1 votecount in 24 hours.

[Deltabacon]

Airick has the right idea, but I prefer this one:

VOTE: Sylvant

Here, you do not justify your vote with anything, you only state that it heightens the odds of hitting scum D2. But surely it's preferable to at least hunt for scum D1 rather than get someone out of the way? You then proceed to say:

RVS is not a necessity; I prefer to do away with it ASAP and

my ovyo is not random.

But without explaining why it is not random. Is it because of the RVS

(That random vote that was pretty much his only contribution to the entire game)

? I'm pretty sure that nothing else could be derived from his other two posts that could possibly amount to anything, they were a request for help and a post to cancel the request because he figured it out. If he wasn't scummy, why did you vote him? To pressure him? If so, what about Oyvo is scummy? You said that I join them in the scum bin in your post 67, yet you say that you only push on Ovyo to get a better read on them. Is Ovyo scum until you get a better read on her? What about Sylvant's slot was scummy, and what about Ovyo has prompted you to label her as scum?

Two,

I pushed lightly on buldermar and ovyo. The latter because she joined the game with a passive position and I want to get a better read on her

, the former because he's discussing theory instead of addressing the game itself.

I've made quite clear that these two are scumreads. Your attempts at misrepresentation and trying to paint me as scum, apparently without even reading my posts in depth (or you'd see my reads and understand how I'm forming them) or trying to understand my motivation, mean

you join them in the scum bin

.

I genuinely cannot see why you are being so obstructive to my probing, I'm asking you for your reads, but you're holding your cards close to your chest. I accept that you have a townread on Paper, I just don't see why? Has your position on him been reaffirmed or shaken by their most recent contribution however succinct it was? I need to know why you are doing what you are doing.

When scumhunting a player, I need to understand why they're doing what you're doing.

Thats all I want to know: Why you have a townread on Paper (Other than not having any votes on him, which is an awful argument.) Why you have a scumread on Ovyo and if it has wavered any due to her recent posts.

[RedRabbit]

<snipped>
Lynching a townie relies on the premise that someone is confirmed townie, else you'd be lynching a player whose alignment is unknown, which is a entirely different matter. Furthermore, if this

is

a misunderstanding on my behalf, I'm left wondering why she never simply pointed this out.

If anything she confirms it in post 40, claiming that self-hammering minutes before deadline may be acceptable.

I'm voting her for different reasons that I have already pointed out.

Well that's the way I read it. That a

confirmed

townie can only exist when that townie flips town. Trying to lynch day one is preferable to hit scum, but if you hit town that is also preferable to not lynching at all. The difference between a townie and a confirmed townie can't exist before the lynch, in my view, except if it is yourself that is self-lynching and even that is preferable to a no lynch. My read on you would have lead me to believe you'd spot that. That you didn't seem to have as much to do with my read of you as it has to do with your actions.

As I've pointed out earlier and as Deltabacon has, sort of, alluded to in the post above this, I'd like a bit more info re the Sylvant vote by Tierce. So to add pressure:

vote Tierce.

[buldermar]

So this tells you nothing about Airick? Why mention it in the first place?

I didn't say it tells me nothing about Airick, I said it is null with respect to his alignment. Why do you twist my words in this manner?

Null with respect to his alignment is exactly what I meant by "it tells you nothing". I'm not twisting your words because you never said it - rather, I'm stating a fact. No one was arguing that it

wasn't

null, so there was no need to point it out. Why did you point it out?

As a general note, 72hr prods suck. 4 posts and 1 votecount in 24 hours.

Yes, you're obviously twisting my words because it tells me something despite being a null with respect to alignment. For instance, it affects how I estimate his alignment based on his future actions. Generally speaking, any sort of profile/information about the players has the potential to become advantageous at a later point despite currently being null. I pointed it out for these reasons.

[buldermar]

<snipped>
Lynching a townie relies on the premise that someone is confirmed townie, else you'd be lynching a player whose alignment is unknown, which is a entirely different matter. Furthermore, if this

is

a misunderstanding on my behalf, I'm left wondering why she never simply pointed this out.

If anything she confirms it in post 40, claiming that self-hammering minutes before deadline may be acceptable.

I'm voting her for different reasons that I have already pointed out.

Well that's the way I read it. That a

confirmed

townie can only exist when that townie flips town. Trying to lynch day one is preferable to hit scum, but if you hit town that is also preferable to not lynching at all. The difference between a townie and a confirmed townie can't exist before the lynch, in my view, except if it is yourself that is self-lynching and even that is preferable to a no lynch. My read on you would have lead me to believe you'd spot that. That you didn't seem to have as much to do with my read of you as it has to do with your actions.

As I've pointed out earlier and as Deltabacon has, sort of, alluded to in the post above this, I'd like a bit more info re the Sylvant vote by Tierce. So to add pressure:

vote Tierce.

Obviously on day 1 the only confirmed town when you're town yourself

is

yourself. Hammering yourself (confirmed town lynch) is inferior to not hammering yourself (no lynch) in this setup.

[Airick10]

@Airick10: Why do you think that Sylvant voted me was odd, when yourself said that voting no lynch in day 1 would put you under the spotlight, aka odd? Besides, voting on someone just adds some pressure and creates a conversation

As I've stated, your no-lynch proposal is a scummy move and it is easy for others to immediately vote you on that alone. It is justifiable at the time. I did not look at that as scummy, rather than you just being a new player putting a proposal on the table. That is why I asked how many games you've played. I find it odd how Sylvant's vote, which I'm pretty sure was random, just happened to be on you after your no-lynch proposal. Vendetta's vote was not random.