Mini 999 - Isolated Mafia (Game Over)

[screl1]

Hello all.

AWA - I have never played before but it would only make sense to have to have 7 people vote to lynch someone on day one. Otherwise there could be 6 votes for person A and 6 votes for person B which would result in a double lynch.... unless we could are able to do that

[screl1]

So far this is what I have analyzed of each person’s posts. Sorry if I mistake a girl for a guy, but my default setting is that if you are online you are a guy.

Players that have failed to post anything of interest:
Merlin
My Milked Eek
Guthrie
IdiotKing

Players worth analyzing posts:

Remussaidow

He voted for idiotking because he thinks there is a chance he is an idot. Analysis of action: can’t blame the guy – besides this was just a rv.

Copper

He voted for Michel because Michel has outwitted him in the past. Analysis of action: rv based on a previous game.

DavidParker

He voted for Agar on a OMGUS vote. Analysis of action: rv which is a common occurrence at the beginning of a game.

AWA

He originally voted for button because he believed that he was involved with a fake bandwagon which was really scum working to get someone bandwagon lynched. Then he starts to get into a bit of a pinch with AWA and then unvotes to appease Agar. Analysis of action: AWA is possibly worried about votes. From what I gather scum is usually more worried about votes than a townie would be. With his join date being back in 2008 I figure that a single vote would not really worry someone who was a townie. Then he was quite for a while until Agar shifted his attention to Michel. And now he is targeting Michel with Agar. The lack of posts during that time could be of course because people do have lives and they are not logged on 24/7, but I find it curious that he would back down just to get the vote dropped off. Because there

is

nothing concrete here

FOS: AWA

.

MichelSableheart

He was the first to begin an actual analysis which was directed over how fast people confirm. He then voted for milked. Michel then became the center of a cluster fuck of posts between himself, Agar, and now AWA. They all are arguing about logic, or lack thereof in some of the posts. He is arguing about what he believes should be done at the beginning of the game and is trying to make a transformation from what started as a random vote into a vote that is backed by logic. Because of this

FOS: Michel

TheButtonmen

He started by voting for Michel joining with copper to create a bandwagon. Button then voted AWA to appease Agar because joining in on the bandwagon was a scum move. He did not answer Michel’s question and said that it will distract from game and lead to ‘noise’. Although I agree the question is irrelevant, there is nothing else to discuss right now so is there an ulterior motive behind joining michel’s first vote? Is there a negative past history between these two? Just makes me curious but I do not think it has to deal with being scummy in this game… not yet at least

Agar

Agar already has a lot of things to analyze but I think the highlight is that he has already pointed fingers at rem, awa, and now Michel. From what I can see AWA and Button have already changed votes based on Agar. Lastly Agar is convinced Michel is a dumbass or scum (or both). Because Agar has pointed the most fingers and seems to have the most power over others

FOS: Agar

If anyone disagrees/has anything else to add/questions/expansions on ideas feel free to add

[screl1]

Sorry for the double post but that was as of somewhere on the second half of the second page, I got distracted by a movie and didn't think to refresh before I posted.

[screl1]

TheButtonmen

He started by voting for Michel joining with copper to create a bandwagon. Button then voted AWA to appease Agar because joining in on the bandwagon was a scum move. He did not answer Michel’s question and said that it will distract from game and lead to ‘noise’. Although I agree the question is irrelevant, there is nothing else to discuss right now so is there an ulterior motive behind joining michel’s first vote? Is there a negative past history between these two? Just makes me curious but I do not think it has to deal with being scummy in this game… not yet at least

A) Bandwagons aren't scummy.
B) Bullocks about appeasing AGar, I voted AWA because he's scum.
C) You agree the question is irrelevant but want to discuss it, that makes no sense.
D) No history why do you ask?
E) This game has had truck loads of scummyness already.

A.) I agree - AGar was calling it a scummy move
B.) That is just what it looks like to me
C.) Was just curious if you didn't like him from some past game or something and that is why you joined that bandwagon
E.) Agreed

[screl1]

Agar

Agar already has a lot of things to analyze but I think the highlight is that he has already pointed fingers at rem, awa, and now Michel. From what I can see AWA and Button have already changed votes based on Agar. Lastly Agar is convinced Michel is a dumbass or scum (or both). Because Agar has pointed the most fingers and seems to have the most power over others

FOS: Agar

One question - when did I point fingers at rem? I missed that.

Well this is what happens when you drink, watch a movie and write a review over the course of a couple of hours... You said, “Is it really a random reason? Doesn't seem like one.” I took that as pointing a finger, perhaps it was just playful banter?

TheButtonmen

He started by voting for Michel joining with copper to create a bandwagon. Button then voted AWA to appease Agar because joining in on the bandwagon was a scum move. He did not answer Michel’s question and said that it will distract from game and lead to ‘noise’. Although I agree the question is irrelevant, there is nothing else to discuss right now so is there an ulterior motive behind joining michel’s first vote? Is there a negative past history between these two? Just makes me curious but I do not think it has to deal with being scummy in this game… not yet at least

A) Bandwagons aren't scummy.
B) Bullocks about appeasing AGar, I voted AWA because he's scum.
C) You agree the question is irrelevant but want to discuss it, that makes no sense.
D) No history why do you ask?
E) This game has had truck loads of scummyness already.

A.) I agree - AGar was calling it a scummy move

Wait what? Where did I call bandwagons a scummy move? I said AWA's hesitation about bandwagons was scummy.

You were not calling all bandwagons scummy, but you did say, “I'm gonna move my vote, because your fear of a bandwagon mislynching someone in the early game is really scummy.” Again, alcohol and distractions got in the way. I was trying to say that you (Agar) were calling Button’s bandwagon views scummy, right after this happened Button unvoted, voted for AWA who you (Agar) had just voted for.

[screl1]

@Screll: Any particular reason why you are FoSing everyone who starts discussion, while ignoring everyone else?

I gave out 3 FOSs - AWA, AGar, and yourself.

I didn't give it to the others because I had no reason to suspect them at the time of my post. Continued lurking on their part will be considered suspicious activity. As of right now I am going to believe that they are simply busy people with lives outside of mafia.

[screl1]

@MME - You claim that I am scum, anything to back up your argument with or are you just blabbing?

@Michel - When did I withdraw my opinion of AGar? He asked a question and I responded with direct quotations from him.

@AGar - I did say that David's first vote was random, I also said that Copper, and Rems votes were random. Does this mean that all of them are scummy with me? Also I leave for 1 day and that makes me inactive therefore scum? I think you better check this thread because there are a number of others who are less active than myself.

On a side note this is my first game, after reading the wiki page I thought it was a good thing to give an FOS if you were not sure that a person was scum... looks like that page needs to read "give out an FOS and get labeled as scum"

[screl1]

@AGar - I did say that David's first vote was random, I also said that Copper, and Rems votes were random. Does this mean that all of them are scummy with me? Also I leave for 1 day and that makes me inactive therefore scum? I think you better check this thread because there are a number of others who are less active than myself.

For the first part, yes you did say Copper and Rems were random as well. But you didn't bring up OMGUS with their votes, you did with DP, and it seems like you're moving to buddy up to him. For the second part, I didn't say you lurked. I said you conveniently put in 3 FoSes in the midst of a massive heavy posting spree by myself and MS, where they could easily potentially slide by unnoticed or underrecognized. I also said I wanted to see more of other players in a post prior to that.

Agar – Are you serious? As difficult as it might be, I am going to try and break it down so that you can understand. DAVID’S VOTE WAS THE ONLY OMGUS VOTE. If I said the other ones were then that would be a lie.

VOTE: Agar

Either you are too stupid to figure out that this was the only OMGUS vote, or you are trying to project your scum on me. Either way that is bad for town.

I don’t care if you are in the middle of a posting spree, I will post where I please, if you decide to ignore it and let it go by unnoticed then that is your fault. Town wants people who pay attention to everything and not just the big posts between two people.

[screl1]

Agar – Are you serious? As difficult as it might be, I am going to try and break it down so that you can understand. DAVID’S VOTE WAS THE ONLY OMGUS VOTE. If I said the other ones were then that would be a lie.

I understand that. What I don't understand is why if you felt it was a random vote you mentioned the word OMGUS? Explain that to me, that's what I want to know. Otherwise, right now, it looks like a scumbuddy trying to preemptively answer any questions that might come up about his partner's RVS vote.

OMGUS: "used as a shorthand to indicate that you are voting for someone primarily because they voted for you. . " - Mafiawiki
Random Vote: "initial votes are made with no substantial reasoning offered. These are often referred to as random votes." - Mafiawiki

The vote was in retaliation to someone else who voted for him. What else would you call it? The other votes were just random votes which is what I called it.


[quote="AGar]
As for the timing of your post - I read it. What I'm saying is it conveniently got sandwiched in during that posting spree where people were even saying that there was a lot to read and several people have said

they're refusing to read everything MS and I wrote

(tl,dr; MS and I have differing opinions on how to open the game), and it could have been coincidence, but dropping 3 FoSes on the three active players at the time is mighty suspect, and that's a good time to put it in when people might not notice it.[/quote]

This means that they are going to ignore you, not me. And your whole argument about where I posted is completely asinine. So far you hijacked the thread, vote hop, pointed the most fingers, used worthless arguments like, "your post was in a bad position" and made claims like I never said that... oh wait... yes I did, makes me think you have acted the scummiest out of everyone here so far.

@Michel - When did I withdraw my opinion of AGar? He asked a question and I responded with direct quotations from him.

Well this is what happens when you drink, watch a movie and write a review over the course of a couple of hours... You said, “Is it really a random reason? Doesn't seem like one.” I took that as pointing a finger, perhaps it was just playful banter?

Again, alcohol and distractions got in the way.

Rereading, I have to admit that you didn't actually withdraw your opinions. Still, the fact that you immediately point at alcohol and distractions does give me an impression of "don't blame me for my opinions, I'm not fully responsible for them!"

I never changed my opinions, I just gave him calling rem out as playful banter. I used direct quotes to point out what I was saying. I never changed my mind or withdrew any opinions of AGar. I pointed out that I did it over the course of a movie, and a few beers. AGar pointed out two 'problems' with my post but later admitted to both so I don't see the problem.

Town wants people who pay attention to everything and not just the big posts between two people.

Says the player who only FoSed players who made big posts.

Says the player who admittedly argued a irrelevant topic. From my understanding when people derail a thread it is considered a bad thing.

[screl1]

I hate quote tags. Attempt #2

I understand that. What I don't understand is why if you felt it was a random vote you mentioned the word OMGUS? Explain that to me, that's what I want to know. Otherwise, right now, it looks like a scumbuddy trying to preemptively answer any questions that might come up about his partner's RVS vote.

OMGUS: "used as a shorthand to indicate that you are voting for someone primarily because they voted for you. . " - Mafiawiki
Random Vote: "initial votes are made with no substantial reasoning offered. These are often referred to as random votes." - Mafiawiki

The vote was in retaliation to someone else who voted for him. What else would you call it? The other votes were just random votes which is what I called it.

As for the timing of your post - I read it. What I'm saying is it conveniently got sandwiched in during that posting spree where people were even saying that there was a lot to read and several people have said

they're refusing to read everything MS and I wrote

(tl,dr; MS and I have differing opinions on how to open the game), and it could have been coincidence, but dropping 3 FoSes on the three active players at the time is mighty suspect, and that's a good time to put it in when people might not notice it.

This means that they are going to ignore you, not me. And your whole argument about where I posted is completely asinine. So far you hijacked the thread, vote hop, pointed the most fingers, used worthless arguments like, "your post was in a bad position" and made claims like I never said that... oh wait... yes I did, makes me think you have acted the scummiest out of everyone here so far.

Rereading, I have to admit that you didn't actually withdraw your opinions. Still, the fact that you immediately point at alcohol and distractions does give me an impression of "don't blame me for my opinions, I'm not fully responsible for them!"

I never changed my opinions, I just gave him calling rem out as playful banter. I used direct quotes to point out what I was saying. I never changed my mind or withdrew any opinions of AGar. I pointed out that I did it over the course of a movie, and a few beers. AGar pointed out two 'problems' with my post but later admitted to both so I don't see the problem.

Says the player who only FoSed players who made big posts.

Says the player who admittedly argued a irrelevant topic. From my understanding when people derail a thread it is considered a bad thing.

[screl1]

unvote

for starters. Random votes no longer serve a purpose, and IK doesn't seem to be posting enough to apply anything like serious pressure right now. Of course, I'm not in any position to talk about that, I haven't posted as much as I should in this game either.

Moving on from that:
Screl- from my own memory and the appearance of other peoples posts, you placed FoSes on the only players actively participating. Why not vote for any of them? The purpose of voting in day 1 is to apply pressure and measure reactions. Do you honestly feel that all three of these people are worth watching, but not worth forcing reactions from?
Also, why are you so nervous at L-5? Especially early in the day one stage?
I find all of these highly suspicious, but I also don't think that it warrants a vote just yet, since answering these questions will give me the same set of reactions and answers that I'd be looking for from voting pressure.

Again, first game and from my understanding if you are only suspicious you give an FOS. AGar and MS were derailing the thread, this is suspicious but again it is early in day 1 so there isn't much to talk about so I just did an FOS. AWA was because he made a vote then withdrew it the second he got called out, just seemed spineless and a way to attempt to loose attention. Like I said earlier I have learned that voting is better but you live and learn right? Nervous at L-5? Don't think I would say that I am nervous, but I did start voting (quick learner) I called out AGar and since he attacks everyone I figured I better make a point of it to make sure everyone pays attention to him.

[screl1]

Screl- Thanks.
Side note, why aren't you in a Newbie game as game #1? they really do help.

From my experiences the best way to learn something is immersion. Figured if I just jump in I will catch on quick enough.

[screl1]

You seem to be missing the point. It was an OMGUS vote. But you can't have a random vote and an OMGUS vote in the same vote, which is what you're trying to do. You brought up that DP might be OMGUS-ing, but you more think he's random voting. WHY bring up the OMGUS? No one else had so much as mentioned it beyond the RVS, it wasn't something being used against DP. It looks to me like you're trying to buddy up to him by preemptively clearing him of OMGUSing, because otherwise there is no reason to bring up OMGUS.

Feel free to correct me, but from my understanding an OMGUS vote that early on is a random vote, not a serious vote. Since I was analyzing everyone else I figured I might as well tack an analysis on him. Two types of votes - random and serious, this was random. And who needs to buddy up to clear a vote in the beggining? And is OMGUS voting something that needs clearing up? Seems like you are grasping at straws.

In case you haven't read the thread in full (which it strikes me as you didn't) I have admitted that in the moment of that argument, I thought MS was scum for what we were arguing about. When I think someone is scum, I pressure them until they break. In regards to vote-hopping, I random voted DavidParker, called out AWA for being scummy, found MS scummier, stayed on that vote for a while, then when I re-read my argument and realized it wasn't part of the game, I retracted and moved to who I found the scummiest (being you). Pointing the most fingers, I've casted 3 serious votes, and brought up suspicion of DavidParker. That might be the most out of anyone, but I'm hardly calling out everyone, and at least I've been willing to fully commit to my suspicions, not hand out worthless FoSes when I have no vote on anyone. Would you rather I tunneled in on players so I miss how scummy you and your partners are? And I'm not using your post timing as my sole reason to suspect you, l have plenty of others too. Like the mis-representations and false claims. Where have I made claims like "I never said that... oh wait... yes I did"? I just iso'd myself to be sure, and I don't see it at all.

Instead of typing a paragraph I am going to use bullets to get my point across in a more concise manner.
1.) Like I have said already, I thought you were supposed to use FOSs until you were certain and FOSs were saved for the beggining when you are not sure. Clearly I was mistaken and now I am voting.
2.) Not sure what you mean by tunneling - care to explain?
3.) Using a post time at all is worthless
4.) What does it mean to iso yourself?
5.) To respond to your last question allow me to answer with a few quotes from you.

Wait what? Where did I call bandwagons a scummy move? I said AWA's hesitation about bandwagons was scummy.

Ah ok. Yes, this did transpire.

[screl1]

Also I'm not liking the fact that Screl has fallen silent after I countered his argument.

Miss a day for the 4th, logged in last night and saw 3 of promises for long posts from inactives plus another one this morning. Figured I might as well wait for those before I post.

[screl1]

time check

[screl1]

I am going to try and do this in order of when it happened. If I mixed something up deal with it.

@ DP - in regards to post 114 reference post 107.

@ Everyone - I concede that OMGUS is not random. I should have said that the vote was not serious similar to the other random votes which is what I was trying to say. From now on I will try to break down everything I say as to avoid future confusion.

@ AGar - Thanks for teaching me about ISOs and I do not expect you to explain everything to me.

@ Copper - How many people are actually posting in this game? If it is more than 1 will you add signatures to your posts so there will be no confusion?

@ DP - Post 141, point 3 - I had already voted.

@ Oso - post 147 - You said that I didn't know what night is for. What is the night phase for?

Going by the game's clock MME said that he would have a post within 24 hours on Jul 04 at 4:01 pm. I was hoping that he would start posting to back up his claims and add to the game. There was an argument within this game that seems relevant here - strawman arguments. He doesn't backup his claim or build a case, he only has 3 posts within the game : give me a while to catch up, MS & AGar are spewing shit / people are not posting / myself and DP are scum, and his third post was that he will post with a self imposed deadline of 24 hours. It is now Jul 07 at 1:08 am.

Unvote

Vote: My Milked Eek

[screl1]

When you say you made an opinion while under the influence, you're distancing yourself from whatever opinions you stated. Now you say that you never changed your stance on AGar. Why did you bother telling us you drank in the first place?

I said I made the post under the influence, not the opinion. There is a difference. I explained what I meant in the same post where I said I had been drinking.

Read the following wiki article: Night

I know that. I guess he was alluding to the idea that if I was scum I could use night to discuss strategy. This is the part that I was talking about, "The game thread is generally locked to prevent public comment during Night phases". Didn't know if this game was straying from the norm.

What was this for? o_O

So I could accurately state the time when referring to MME's promise of posting within 24 hours.

@screl: Any reason why you mention MME, but not remus who also promised but didn't deliver?

MME has a grand total of 3 posts, and has yet to contribute anything of value. Also MME's was on Jul 04 while rem was on Jul 05. Everyone knows they are both lurking/inactive, but I was just explaining why I am putting my vote where I am.

[screl1]

So the best you can do is build a case against a lurker?? Wow, how impressive. How about you do some actual scum-hunting now?

Who is this in reference to?

[screl1]

So the best you can do is build a case against a lurker?? Wow, how impressive. How about you do some actual scum-hunting now?

@ DP - I voted for MME on post # 156. MS voted for MME on post # 158. Why are you only attacking me on the subject?

[screl1]

@ MS - There are actually 2 points I want to go over with you.

First is why I voted for MME over Rem. I view MME as lurking more. To back this up I will go to the post counts: Rem = 5, MME = 3. Although this might not be a large difference Rem's posts have had more substance to them. He asked questions which leads to discussion. MME has only 1 post with zero substance and to back up his argument he said, "Read for yourself lazy ass." The next question that might be raised is why not mention both. Last time I tried this it turned into an OMG he used 3 FOSs scum! So I figured I might be better off targeting one player at a time. If you really need me to go into a play by play over why I have selected MME over Rem then I can but I am trying to avoid text walls.

Second point is about DP's targeting similar to my targeting. This was a good question that made me pause and think for a minute. I keep ending up with the same answer though, no it is not the same. I decided to go after MME based on logic. His argument against me was emotional and he had no reason to single me out other than he already has his vote on me.

@Copper - I am disappointed. So far you had been doing such a good job, no mistakes. Alas I guess all good things must come to an end. I am still pondering your logic to see if I agree with it. Regardless of the outcome of that little debate, you need to check your facts before you start voting. My post very clearly states that I voted for MME first. Your vote comes from the logic that I took a safe vote by following MS, since this did not happen your logic is flawed.

[screl1]

I will add this on as a side note so that it doesn't get mixed up with my actual post. I disagree with Coppers logic because 1 vote does not really put pressure on a lurker, especially with DP being L-3 (I think). Therefore a few people would have to vote for the same lurker to get them out of the little hole they have dug.

[screl1]

@ Oso & Copper - I used the same reasoning as AWA in not voting DP. I however used my vote in the mean time to draw a lurker out of his corner which worked. I said that it 1 vote would not necessarily put pressure on but I figured if I voted first others would follow. Besides it can't hurt to delay night as long as possible, we would be better served by allowing day 1 to go on as long as possible right?

@ DP - The only reason I was talking about the difference was because I was asked a question. You said it was all to easy to vote for a lurker, wouldn't it have been easier to vote for you when everyone else is?

@ MME - I went after you because out of the lurkers your posts are the most worthless. That was the logic - and look - it worked, you posted. Also don't post a self imposed deadline if you are not going to follow through. Remember you created that deadline, not me.

@ Copper - I didn't defend my vote by saying MS did it to, I said to DP why are you only attacking me? I was just pointing out that he seems to be tunneled in on me. Lastly my vote seems to have drawn MME out of hiding which is what we want...

[screl1]

You think David is scum?

Clarification question - do you think David is town?

[screl1]

Didn't bother to go back and look at your stance.

[screl1]

screl, get in here and bus your partner already.

I see no reason to rush the end of day one. Worst case scenario - nothing changes, best case scenario - the inactives get replaced and we learn something about the new players.

[screl1]

... 5 minutes to get to the I-cant-type-properly-because-I-drank-too-much stage? Lightweight.

@screl - you're admitting to bussing then?

no, just giving time for replacements like I said. I can even tell you my time line right now, I will vote for him on the 15th because I will be gone on the 16th.

[screl1]

1 is better than none, and why do you feel the need to rush into this lynch? Better yet tell me what the greater benefit is of lynching today with no replacements vs waiting a few days, possibly getting 1 or 2 new players, and still making the same lynch.

[screl1]

@Screl1:

Why do you feel this lynch is rushed?

There are two ways to look at it, the lynch is being rushed or the ending of day 1 is being rushed. They both happen by the same action which is where the confusion might be. I am of the belief that the ending of day 1 is being rushed. As I have already said, worst case scenario is that nothing changes. I find it hard to see that as a large negative. Best case scenario is that inactives are replaced and it gives lurkers a chance to post more. The counter arguments that have been used are that 1.) Inactives have not been replaced and the odds are that they will not be. 2.) Active players will become inactive.

The first argument was made by AGar, which is just as worthless as when he attacked me over where I posted in the thread.

The second argument makes sense, but I think that if active people fall off, they will become active again once day 2 begins.

One last thing, AGar - you have been harping on me for not dropping the hammer as of yet, but you have failed to mention anything about AWA taking the same stance, why is that?

[screl1]

I was reading through and I noticed something that struck me as odd. Equinox voted for DP to put him at L-3. Then he says, "don't drop the hammer until we've heard and discussed DP's claim." DP makes cop claim and without discussion Equinox apparently believes DP before there was even a chance for a counter claim, and votes for me. Possible connection between these two? Also is Equinox defending DP in post # 226? Seems very odd that one would vote for someone and then turn to defending them so quickly.

[screl1]

Hmmm... well this is interesting, I was waiting for AGar to vote for me to post this and it looks like I didn't need to wait very long. AGar and Equinox both used the argument that I should not wait to vote for DP because the inactives would not be replaced, that my not voting was actually me not wanting to bus a scum buddy. AGar decided to attack only me when others were taking my position. Keep in mind that I have been the second most likely to be lynched as of yet. Then they both jump to voting for me without questioning DP's claim. Then AGar says that he doesn't buy DP's claim but changes his vote to me. Seems like this could be an attempt to start a new bandwagon to protect a scum buddy.

[screl1]

show this defending?

I was asking if he was defending when he said, "I would like to think that DP learned his lesson".

[screl1]

Since it will no longer end day 1,

Unvote

Vote: DavidParker

[screl1]

Since it will no longer end day 1,

Unvote

Vote: DavidParker

WTF? Explain.

The reason I wasn't voting for DP earlier was because it was going to end day 1. It no longer ends day 1. I believe if you look back a few posts you will see me saying over and over again the reason I have yet to vote for DP was because it would end the day early. My vote no longer does that hence the vote change

[screl1]

...if you aren't willing to see him lynched then why are you voting him?

I wasn't willing to end the day early. The people have changed there votes so my vote no longer ends the day. This isn't that hard of a concept...

[screl1]

Go look at post # 206. I said that I was going to vote for him. I just moved my time frame up because it is no longer a day ending vote.

[screl1]

EBWOP:

For some insane reason, I checked. DavidParker was at L-1 as of post 197, then moved down to L-2 as of post 220. screl1's explanation that he didn't want to hammer makes sense.

His vote now doesn't. Waiting for that explanation now.

Post 239 - DP has 3 votes....

[screl1]

oh and the cop claim - it was my understanding that people make false claims all the time. No reason to believe him so far so why start now?

[screl1]

That is not the sole reason you're voting DavidParker, is it?

I'll rephrase so you can stop dodging.

Why do you think DavidParker is scum?

EBWOPreview: ...you're not serious, right?

Do you really want me to write a WOT only to state the same reasons that DP was L-1?

[screl1]

okay well check back later tonight - I am in the middle of a movie and then I am running.

[screl1]

Equinox – Below you will find an analysis of DP throughout this game, it is because of these reasons that I believe DP to be scum. I might have missed one or two things so I reserve the right to come back and add to this list later. Also I don’t know if I would say the bandwagon is on me, two of you switched your votes to me, fairly quickly if I might add. DP still has the most votes and Day 1 is almost over now.


He stays in RVS when everyone else is out of it

He follows everyone else’s votes

He admits he has not done much as of yet – post # 128

He uses arguments that are rehashes of what others say

As of post # 154 he is still building case against me for FOSing people

He attacks me for voting for lurker – then says the lurker should be the lynch for day 1. Why would you attack a vote if you think it will end up being right? He also goes on to say in the same post that we should lynch MME 3 times who is a lurker and in my opinion an active lurker.

He says that lurkers will lurk until they are pressured, so I should ignore them and vote for active people. How would one pressure a lurker without voting for them? Can’t FOS them since that would be a scum tell according to DP.

He makes a post that is 141 characters long with no major errors; 5 min later he makes another post that is 83 characters long where he appears to be drunk off his ass. Now I know when you drink hard alcohol it can hit you like a wall, but come on – really?

He claims cop which cannot be verified, if you look to his past however we see that DP has made false claims before.

He seems to have disappeared for now, perhaps hoping things blow over




On a side note after going back to reread the thread I noticed that MME said he started posting because he had more time in post #179, but the mod says that he prodded MME in post #180. That would make me think that he posted because he had to rather that because he had more time. Since that time he has said “I know I haven’t been posting but whatever” and has yet to post anything that hasn’t already been said.

[screl1]

Screll's behaviour might come from town, but I find it very remarkable that he felt strong enough about DP being scum that he is willing to ignore a cop claim, but didn't feel strong enough about DP being scum to place a hammer. Giving more time to discuss is also giving the scum you found time to wriggle his way out of a lynch.

I already said I was willing to drop the hammer, I just wanted to give more time to replace inactives.

I'd like to point out the irony of #259 - One of screl's points against DP is that DP is re-hashing cases that other people have used. Screl's entire case is a re-hash.

I said that it would be a rehash before I wrote that. I have been coming up with original content and working to create conversation. I was pointing out that any argument DP was using had already been used by someone else.

[screl1]

Well I guess I am screwed, no power role to fall back on here. Just a run of the mill VT.

@Oso and others who are commenting about my lack of activity: I already said I would be gone in post 206.

After reading some of DP's recent posts I have noticed an interesting theme.

Post 271 – “greater pressure on the following day for mislynching a claimed PR.”
Post 284 – “posting a big case in an attempt to kill a claimed PR”

@ DP: why do you keep referring to yourself as a claimed PR rather than just a PR? I would think that if you were actually the cop you would refer to yourself as such.