Newbie 523: (Game over!)

[BrettH84]

/confirm

[BrettH84]

Do we wait for an "on your mark, get set, go!" from the mod? I got one from my first game, so I would think so, but he took everyones name out of bold letters.

[BrettH84]

Do not reffer to ongoing games. Refference removed.

...I guess we should get this thing started.

vote: Paradoxombie

You're name is a pain to type, and I'm shortening it to Para from here on out

[BrettH84]

Do not reffer to ongoing games

[BrettH84]

Well you could wait in silence... that's one approach. Or we could start random votes to get discussion going and see if anyone does or says something stupid. Although I wouldn't say my vote was random, there was a reason. The reason being para's name seems to take the most effort to type. See reach? The ball's already rolling.

[BrettH84]

Well, let me ask you guys something. I see that some of you non-voters recently joined, and some have been around a while. Those who have been around a while, how else do you suggest to start real discussion? Because right now there is small talk about how we don't like to random vote, and how we're waiting for real discussion and we're bored. I could be a townie or mafia, and that conversation wouldn't make me screw up. I could be the devil in disguise, and you'd never know from our current line of conversation. So until someone enlightens us on how to start real discussion, I'm going to vote for a non-voter who has been around a while and should either have another means of creating discussion, or should realize random voting usually works out well.

unvote: Para
vote: Sint

Perhaps you don't want real conversation to start and that's why you're not voting?

[BrettH84]

So if you've been playing for more than four years, what got any other ideas to instigate conversation? I'm just saying small talk won't make anyone look suspicious.

[BrettH84]

Ok, so here's me pleading my case and responding to kittens "leaning towards me." I'm just trying to get discussion going, since discussion is good for the town. You might not agree with how I'm doing it, but at least I'm not saying that I'm bored and twiddling my thumbs. If you want something that is more of a scum tell, look to para, who has said nothing, or Sint, who has said as little as possible in a post, pretty much checking in and nothing else. Lurking is always a questionable play style in my eyes.

[BrettH84]

Oh, and I think everyone pleading their case as to why they are townies at this point is arguably similar to random voting. Hardly anybody has done anything to show their worth. So most people can't do much more than say "I'm a townie. Believe me."

[BrettH84]

Sorry, I didn't realize I was Bint. I thought Sint was Bint and it was just another typo. I couldn't pick two people to vote for right now because there isn't enough information. But I will agree with Sint's FoS of pink kitten. As it was stated, my switching of a vote wasn't random. It was to generate discussion, and I gave a reason for it. And I also intentionally picked the person who already have votes on him because it's more likely to create discussion. Yet you keep hounding me for switching one random vote for another. You claim I FoSed someone when I was being looked at. Where? I did say that my vote wasn't as scummy, and that people lurking were more scummy. But I didn't FoS anybody because that's not nearly enough to go on. Yet you are make me out to be a person crazily switching votes and FoSing other people. Yet on post 56, you claim to be suspicious of many people on thin evidence. I've already addressed the thinness of suspicion for me. That post was 7 minutes after the vote that put Sint L-1, yet you are casting suspicion on Scrapes for not having removed it yet? The only one with some validity to it would be the suspicion on Reach. His vote is bold putting someone at L-1 that early, but if people are afraid to random vote, it's likely they're afraid to quick lynch too. So he said he would make things interesting, maybe he meant he was looking to generate discussion. I've seen experienced townies put someone at L-1 quickly realizing that townies won't quick lynch. So it either generates discussion, or creates a quick lynch and a mafia giving himself up. You'll probably push for a Reach/Brett scum pair from the last two statements, but I hope you realize it's just logic reasoning and past experience.

I will agree with Quagmire that it's possible kitten is an overeager townie. She did ask a lot of questions of people at the start, so that could be possible. Do I think it's more likely than not that kitten is mafia? No. But she asked who I was most suspicious of, and right now it would be her. But I'm going to wait for future conversation to tell which she is.

On a side note, I have two finals tomorrow, so you might not here from me for the rest of the day, and until Saturday evening. I'll try to check back if I have the time and I make good progress studying.

[BrettH84]

EBWOP: Sorry, it was only 7 minutes after the L-1 vote on Sint that you said it was suspicious of Scrapes not removing his vote. However I just realized he posted between the two. So I retract the statement that it was thin to be suspicious of him based on that. Although it may have been while he was typing. So I'm saying it's not reason to be suspicious of Scrapes, but I'm also saying that wasn't poor reasoning either.

[BrettH84]

Bird:

FYI, you're double counting Para and Kitten, and Scrapes is nowhere to be found in your vote count.

Fixed.

[BrettH84]

I'm not saying I'm sure of his innocence. What I'm pointing out, is that Kitten is throwing around accusations on weak and false arguments. Sint seems to be pointing out the same things. Does that make us scum buddies? And you're missing the point of the first Sint post you quoted. You imply he should be defending his innocence, and instead is defending a vote against him. But you are taking the post out of context, because it was in response to Kitten's question, which was who are his two suspicious people. So he has no need to defend himself, and he's pointing out that Kitten's weak arguments are making her suspicious. You also question why he is sure that I will agree with him and that we may be a team. How about it's because he's referring to where Kitten is misrepresenting me, and he expects me to also point that out, since it's my posts she's misrepresenting? The fact that you're attaching yourself to weak arguments like these and taking Sint's quote out of context makes me question you scumness.

[BrettH84]

Ok, so if you don't question my reasoning on voting him, might I ask why you think Sint and I may be a mafia pair? Especially when you say we have done nothing particularly scummy.

[BrettH84]

Well even if you aren't trying to take it out of context, it clearly is out of context if you look at the post he was responding to.

[BrettH84]

So Kitten FoSs me without really claiming a reason, but the only thing I had done was change my vote. You seem to be in agreement that I wasn't looking for a lynch, but just to spur conversation. And it seems to have worked. So if that vote isn't seen as scummy, then that FoS seems unwarranted. So she FoSs me, then 1 minute later, FoSs Reach. Then about 8 minutes later she adds Scraps to the list while mentioning me and Reach again. Then half an hour later votes Reach. Then in posts 64 she says I'm suspicious for changing my random vote, after that accusation had been dealt with I believe. Then in post 65 she says, in caps, that I'm randomly changing my FoS when I'm mentioned as scummy. She has been moving her FoS more than I have. And you say my arguments are as thin as hers? Mine at least involve logic and consider people's motives behind their actions. I don't think she considered my motives very much when saying my 1 vote switch was scummy. And then FoSs me for doing something she does even more. Yet you think my agreeing with Sint's logical reasoning is as scummy? I think you're either mafia, or you're developing tunnel vision. You should consider the logic of the arguments before you think people agreeing with them is scummy. If arguments have a basis, expect people to agree. Even in post 90 she still seems to be missing the point. Now she either has poor reasoning skills, or is really trying to make me look bad. She says my vote has no consistency, after I said it was to spur conversation. And if you look where votes were at the time, voting someone who already had one vote is better than voting for someone with none. And she says lot of other people had not voted as well, and seems to wonder why I didn't vote for them. Clearly I can only place one vote, so I placed it as best as I could. Now I'm not trying to say I think it's very likely she's mafia. As I said early, I agreed with someone that it's very likely she's just an over-eager townie. BUT I'm pointing out the poorness of her arguments because you seem to think that my points against her are weak and makes me scummy. I'm saying they're based on good reasons, some of the best to go on right now since there's not much anywhere. And I'll remove my vote, as you request, but then I don't want to hear it mentioned as evidence of me vote hopping. And I don't see how me leaving my vote on Sint makes he and I a likely scum pair. If I've missed something, please let me know, because I think all the reasons to believe I'm mafia are weak and hopefully this answered all of it.

unvote Sint

[BrettH84]

Oh, and I'm realizing that the thread is becoming dominated by a portion of the players. It would be nice to see some input from the people who have been fairly silent, to at least know where you stand on your beliefs. Just a mentioning of the arguments you agree with and ones you don't will be good so we at least from you.

[BrettH84]

The post wasn't directed to you Kitten, it was to Scraps. He acknowledged in post 87 that he thought my change of vote was to create discussion. And that is why voting for someone with one vote already is better than voting for someone without. Giving a person one vote wouldn't generate conversation. Yes you can be suspicious of more than 1 person, but you were suspicious of 3 at the same time, yet criticize me for changing my suspicions, when I haven't done much of that, and never without reason. And again, you didn't ask me to remove my vote, Scraps in post 85 questioned my integrity for having my vote on Sint still.

[BrettH84]

Well you say it's amusing that Kitten "basically says 'oh ok, that's all good, unvote'" in regards to her vote on Reach. By amusing do you mean scummy? Normally easily letting someone off the hook like that I might consider suspect. But you'll notice that when she is suspicious of scraps for leaving his vote on an L-1 player, he removes it promptly, and so she easily dismisses this. So I wouldn't read much into her letting him off easily since she's done it with someone different as well. I'd chalk that up to a different playing style.

As for the removal of my vote: I had initially placed my vote on you to spur discussion, and once it got going, there was no reason to have it there. But there was nowhere else to put it either, so I was content either way. So I left it on so that nobody would accuse me of vote hopping or whatever. But once people start claiming it's suspicious that I still have it there, I have no problem removing it. In other words, it was there because I didn't move it, not because I found you suspicious at that point. So if someone would like me to remove it, I'll oblige as long as people don't accuse me of vote hopping, which is what I wanted to avoid in the first place. I hope that is cleared up.

As for the rest of your post, I am starting to feel more and more that Kitten has a different playing style than me, and I'm finding her less scummy. But I am suspicious of scraps. In another game someone said something to the effect of "a person with a weak theory is suspicious, but not as suspicious as the 2nd person who takes that theory and runs with it." Basically, it's hard for someone to see the flaws in their own reasoning, but it's easier to see it in others. So the 2nd person who doesn't mention the flaws is more scummy, at least that's how I interpret it. And that is kind of what I see in scraps. It took him a while to come around when we were pointing out how Kitten's argument might be weak, and still believed that our pointing that out was scummy. And he also claims to have misrepresented you on accident. But he goes on to provide a theory of me paired with Sint as mafia. There was little there to support that theory, and it's possible the misrepresentation was intentional to reinforce his theory. So because of the misrepresentation and his tardiness in coming around to logic make him top on my suspect list. And I'm sure someone will point out that's not much, but that's the most I have to go on, at least until I give the whole game a reread.

[BrettH84]

Quagmire, for someone who has been playing for four years, I'm disappointed in how little you have contributed. I just reread the game, and there have been lots of attacks on peoples arguments, and you haven't done much more than make general comments about why random voting isn't that great. It's been a while since we've heard from you, and in the last time we did, it was a very brief. You just refuse to answer Kitten's question because there isn't much evidence yet. But at the end of the post you do say:

I also don't like this post one bit:

Anyway, I think the random and second votes against Sint were fine, but reach's vote isn't reasonable. Trying to encourage discussion is fine, but risking a mistaken lynch like that is scummy. I've read games where newbies lynch too quickly and it's usually because someone casts the last vote stupidly without warning.

This is how that post ended. You don't like it "one bit." But you don't give any reason. "One bit" makes me think it's not that you're just not a fan of the post, but you're strongly opposed to it. What didn't you like about his post? I tend to agree with it.

[BrettH84]

it also just doesn't feel like a townie thing to say. I mean, I haven't played in very many newbie games, so I don't know if it's Paradoxombie trying to "guide" you newbies into how you should play the game or he's making a generic "that's not how a town should play" post, so that's why I haven't voted for him at all yet.

Are you saying that because it's a generically town comment, that it could be scum trying to look good without adding much?

Fixed the tag, you had "Disable BBCode in this post" checked, which is why the quote did not work. Also deleted a post of your's consisting of nothing but a comment about the quote not working

[BrettH84]

I'd also like to here the reasons for Quagmire voting for Para. Right now I'd have to say there isn't much to go on for anybody, except Reach. And with him, I'd say he's either a newb mafia or newb townie. Based on his voting pattern he could be either, but I'd lean towards mafia.

[BrettH84]

I'm driving from Texas to Illinois because of Christmas break. There's stuff I gotta do along the way, so I won't be able to get online until Tuesday or so. Just thought I'd let you guys know.

[BrettH84]

So I just got back from the road and on an internet connection, sorry for the absence. Fortunately we still have a pretty good amount of time, but please if your schedule permits check the forum often so we can get quick responses.

Quagmire, I don't disagree with some suspicion of Para, but you really think he would be the best vote for a lynch on day 1? I feel Reach is probably more deserving due to his risky voting. He is either mafia or a reckless townie in my eyes. Could I get a comparison between the two and insight into what makes you feel more comfortable with a para lynch than a reach lynch?

[BrettH84]

vote: Paradoxombie

nobody is really saying much, and I agree with Para deserving some suspicion, so I'll go along with it. We'll have to lynch somebody.

[BrettH84]

I think you deserve suspicion because you post very rarely. And the few times you do post, there isn't much there. You point out the obvious or you ask poor questions that won't really get anywhere. For example, in 127 you ask scraps why he thinks Reach is trying for a lynch. But scraps never said he thought that, he asked reach if thats what his vote was trying to do. Also, in post 143 Quagmire says some fluff about peoples playing styles, but then reaffirms his vote on you. You're the next post, and all you say is you agree with most of what he says. You're not going to defend yourself? Also, you don't really seem to try to go after anybody. You did vote for Reach when he made his L-1 vote, and you have seemed to have stuck by that without really adding anything else. You assumed he's going to be the lynch on day 1 with no real discussion on him other than his poor vote. And you aren't fostering any discussion on it either. It seems to me that overall, you're only adding the obvious in your rare posts. I'll admit this really isn't damning evidence, or a whole lot to go off of. But I think it carries as much weight, if not more, than Reach's L-1 vote, and deserves suspicion.

[BrettH84]

Para, have you read the game? I probably have about 5 times the posts you do. If you look back, I've clearly presented my opinions on Pink Kitten earlier in the game, then on you. And most posts presented the logic behind my opinions. I've also updated my opinions of people as they changed. At the beginning of the game it felt as though I was one of the few people pushing for discussion, and have repeatedly asked silent people to post more. And you're accusing me of not posting enough, avoiding the presentation of my opinions, and contentless posts? I'd have to say that is totally wrong. Also, you say I've only gone after you since I made that statement you quoted. That's because you're the only one who gave new cause for suspicion. And as I said earlier, I feel that suspicion outweighs the suspicion due to Reach's vote. I expect you to meet certain expectations if you're not wanting to seem suspicious. If you don't want to meet them, then you'll be suspicious in my eyes. But it's not that I don't "like" your play. I just find it slightly suspicious. But since I find you most suspicious, I'm voting for you.

[BrettH84]

Pink Kitten: at first I was suspicious of her. But now I'm leaning more towards she is a reckless townie. See previous discussions on her for reasons.

Sint: I feel that he is probably one of the most likely to be a townie. He's provided plenty of arguments with the logic behind it which I have mostly agreed with. IF he turns up mafia, I would take another look at Reach and Pink Kitten because of post 63. I don't agree with the argument he provides for them not being scum partners together. If he were scum, it may be that he was trying to help his partner seem innocent. But I believe he is town.

Reach: Whether he's townie or mafia, I think he's reckless. The L-1 vote he made probably was a bad idea, but at least it did generate conversation. I am tending towards reckless townie. His arguments are weak and some things he's said weren't perfectly accurate, but I knew what he meant. For example when he mentioned Pink Kitten's "vote hopping" when she was really just FoSing. Also mentioning anything "a hunch" is poor reasoning to cite in my eyes. So he's definitely reckless, I'm too unsure to pick either townie or mafia. But if we were going to risk a mislynch, I wouldn't mind him being it.

Broken Scraps: I like to favor people who clearly put out their opinions with logic behind it. They're willingly pinning themselves down on those issues and can't change things later. I think it makes it more sincere and seem less likely that they're hiding something, because they can't change what they've said. Broken Scraps has done that. he's posted more content than most, along with his opinions and logic. However he did slightly contradict himself. At one point he said a statement by Pink Kitten was slightly suspicious, then shortly after said he only pointed out the typo, and didn't find her suspicious for it. Also, he did take a quote from Sint out of context. That had been cleared up, but because of these two things, I still find him slightly suspicious. Only slightly because of his willingness to post, or I'd be more suspicious.

Quagmire: I really think he has a townie power role. He hasn't posted much. I mentioned him not saying much, and he says he has opinions on people, but isn't saying anything "for a reason". That statement really makes me think he's got a power role. If you have a power role, I think you'd be somewhat more silent so that you don't get night killed by the mafia and can utilize your role. Usually, I find a lack of posts suspicious, but in the posts he has made, he has provided logic and insight that makes me believe his innocence.

I've already commented on Para, so see that post for analysis. As for myself, I'm innocent. Obviously if I provide analysis, it might be biased, so I'll leave that to someone else, and answer as needed. Or, you can just believe me

[BrettH84]

Hey Hasdgfas. It's nice to see a familiar face. I hope you can read fast, we're deadlined.

[BrettH84]

You can say that it's not good hasdgfas, but I feel like this game is incredibly slow and someone has to say something for discussion. But do you think it's a scummy move? If I thought Quagmire had a power role and I was mafia, wouldn't it be better to not say anything and see if he falls into a day 1 lynch, or just NK him rather than say something? Maybe it wasn't the best thing to say, but I don't feel it should draw suspicion on me.

[BrettH84]

1st quote: You don't like my defense of Sint here. But as I mentioned in that exact same quote, I'm not defending Sint, I'm attacking Pink Kitten's poor logic. At the time I found Pink Kitten suspicious.

2nd quote: Someone else questioned me removing my vote because it was requested. You said I should leave my vote there if I felt it was in a good spot. As I also mentioned in another post, I no longer thought it was in a good spot, but there was no better place to put it, so I left it. So at the time I removed it, I looked at it as a no vote, but didn't want to switch it so people think I'm vote hopping. And rightly so it seems, because someone was suspicious of Pink Kitten for vote hopping, and she didn't even place a vote! If I thought it was a good spot, I would have left it. And I disagree with the idea that townies shouldn't be careful what others think of them. They're just as likely mafia in everyone elses eyes as the true mafia. To avoid being mislynched, townies should be just as concerned with how others see them as mafia members. If Reach/You really are a townie, the mistake of the L-1 vote could easily lead to a mislynch of Reach/You.

3rd quote: Maybe I misunderstood the quote. But I still believe the theory that a person reading poor logic should be more likely to see that it's poor than the person proposing it. And so the 2nd person is more likely in my eyes to be either a poor player, or someone who doesn't mind the bad logic (mafia most likely).


4th quote: I did say that I thought Reach was a better lynch. But after that quote Para gave new reason for me to be suspicion of him, and he moved up on the list. See previous posts for specific reasons.

5th quote: You're right, we're always risking a mislynch. I only said I wouldn't mind if it was Reach/You. I didn't say you were my number 1 choice. Right now it's Para. So I'm sticking by my guns and leaving my vote on him, as you advise. And it's not that I'm trying to get on people's good side with that 5th quote. It's more that we're deadlined, so we need to start organizing a lynch. I'd prefer lynching Para, but as I said, I wouldn't mind going along with Reach/You since right now Quagmire seems to be the only other suspicious of Para.

As for the power role thing, if people want to believe he's got a power role, fine. I only provided information that was already there for everyone else to see. I just wanted to give my reason as to why I thought Quagmire was a townie. Because for other players I mentioned that their lack of content posting made me suspicious of them. So I can't just come out and claim I think Quagmire is townie when he's been doing the same thing. So I felt like I should give a reason as to why I differentiated him from the others. But I based that on one statement, which isn't really that great of evidence. It just makes him more likely to be a townie.

[BrettH84]

As stated before, I'd prefer to lynch Para instead of Reach. So I'm still voting for him until the deadline gets closer to see if anyone agrees. And I wasn't "catering" to anyone, as I said before also. It was because there was no longer a reason to have the vote on him, but also nowhere else to put it. So why change votes and do something that could be interpreted as scummy when there is no reason? But I also didn't mind removing it. I was indifferent. I don't think it's catering to someone when I don't care either way.

[BrettH84]

Well he has been pointing out things and asking things I felt were answered in his analysis of me. The fact that he's asking again I might find suspicious if it were Reach. But since Hasdgfas is a replacement and might not have read the forum enough times to catch it all, I wouldn't hold it against him. So I'd say there's nothing new to make me suspicious of him.

[BrettH84]

I didn't say it changed his scumitude. I just said he hasn't done anything to add to it. And his recent questions I would find scummy since they were already answered, if Reach asked them. But since they were answered before Hasdgfas joined and there is a lot to read, it isn't scummy. Reach should know the answers to the questions, but Hasdgfas might have glanced over those parts.

[BrettH84]

Para, as I mentioned, the power role comment was poor play whether I am townie or mafia. And people tend to find poor play scummy. So I understand and agree that it would seem scummy mostly because it was a dumb thing to say and I should have kept it to myself.

[BrettH84]

Again, about me and my voting:

The quote you have was about me leaving my vote, then removing it when someone asked. I didn't care where my vote was because I didn't know where else to put it, and you were in no danger of being lynched.

And two people are suspicious, and I do care which one goes, but don't mind if it's the other instead. See post 178, I've said that before. I'd prefer Para over Hasdgfas.

And I copied Quagmire's view about Pink Kitten being a townie who was all over the place because I agreed with it. I also agreed with your attack early in the game on her logic. When I see something I agree with, I say so. Her logic was poor, and I agreed with you. Quagmire suggested she might be a reckless townie, and after looking at more of her play, I agreed with him.

Also, I'd like to make a request. If I'm put at L-1, and someone feels like hammering, LET ME KNOW BEFORE YOU DO. There are some other things in posts still that I'd like to point out if I'm on my way out. If I'm on top of the list, I'll post before and as close to the deadline as I can.

[BrettH84]

Sint, you've been focusing on me a lot, and you haven't said anything about Para for a few pages now, and haven't said much all game about him. Do you agree or disagree? I'm wondering if you're developing tunnel vision because there has been a lot said about Para and he's at L-1, and you haven't commented on it.

[BrettH84]

You're right. In 142 you said "pretty quiet, somewhat suspicious, not contributed much.
" and nothing more, while giving analysis on everyone. But things have been mentioned about him since then that deserve discussion. In 169 you mentioned that you said you stayed out of the discussion between me and him. That's all you said about him and so I don't really count that as commenting on him, just clearly avoiding the discussion. And I missed what you mentioned about Para because you slipped it in with your analysis of Quagmire. But you still didn't say much about him, except that he and Quagmire have experience, and that he doesn't deserver to be lynched. So far I'm missing where you address whether or not you agree or disagree with the things brought up against him. I'm in a hurry to class but wanted to get that in. I'll repost later today if I missed something or if there's a response.

[BrettH84]

I reread the post, and the only other mention of Para is about Quagmire voting for Para based on reasons that apply to himself. That's more about Quagmire than Para. Am I missing something?

[BrettH84]

I didn't realize Para is an IC. How do you know?

[BrettH84]

So first of all, it took over two months to get through two days, and that's only because of deadlines. You have to post more often than that, or games drag on and it never helps the town. I know some people said they don't have that much time. But if you can check your email daily, you can check this daily. It's not fair to other people if you don't give the game enough attention. Don't play if you can't.

Second of all, my power role comment wasn't a mistake, it was totally intentional. The game was going nowhere, we needed discussion. And I was the doc, so I figured if anything, I could protect him at night and see if the mafia would really be influenced by that comment, and steal their NK.

To answer your question hasdgfas, I didn't claim because I didn't think I would actually get lynched day 1, although I was close. I really thought Para and Sint were both scum, and thought they'd let me be to day 2 where I could point more stuff out. I was closest to being mislynched. I dropped bread crumbs to a few things you town totally missed.

I said there was something that I wanted to say if I was going to be lynched. That's practically a claim, I hoped town would pick up on it, and mafia wouldn't. I also figured I'd be investigated or Para would, and that would clear me for day 2.

Also, I don't know how you guys lynch CS day 2 and not either para or sint. Here's my reasoning that I was going to bring day 2, but died. At the end of day 1, if no mafia were voting for me, they could have switched to me and gotten a free mislynch. They could have claimed it was due to the deadline and been free of most suspicion for hammering. So I thought the mafia were already voting for me. Maybe one was voting for para and switching might have looked obvious. But CS, if he were scum, definitely would have hammered me in my eyes.

I also thought Sint was para's buddy day 1. That's why I pointed out his "tunnel vision". By tunnel vision, I wanted to say he was scum. But that would have made me look very scummy. Then once I said I had something I wanted to say, but only if I was going to be lynched, Sint pushed me hard for that information and put me at L-1. That just screamed scum to me and that's when I really was convinced he was Para's partner. Nobody picked up on that. I thought if I made it to day 2, we had the game won.

Either way, good game everyone. I hope to see you in other games.

[BrettH84]

Not Hindsight, saw it going into night one, and hinted as such.

[BrettH84]

Nothing else hinting to me having a power role, but in post 206 and 208 I really wanted to come out and call Sint scum. I basically called him out on his silence towards you, and he denied it. I pretty much called him a liar, and cited him throughout the post. I thought that was as hard of evidence as we had on anybody. Nobody in the town really commented on this. I questioned him later on the page about his lenience on you. Nobody on the town commented on it at all, and I was kind of shocked. I wanted to call him scum, but only 2 people were really attacking me, you and him. I hinted as much as I could without saying you two were partners. I thought calling you both scum would make it look like I was trying to save my skin. That happens all the time when people are under scrutiny. But at that point, the most active people were you, me, and Sint. That's not good news for me.