Newbie 588 - Game Over!

[Dave]

Sorry, Some Real Life stuff has been happening latley, I will make a list when I get back

"The same as the last one" Vote Count

Abstract Actuary - 1 (goborage)
Grum - 1 (rolandofthewhite)

Not Voting - 6 (Abstract Actuary, camisade, Cat_Killer, Dave, Grum, The World No.1 Noob)

5 to Lynch

[Abstract Actuary]

Seems like it could be scum saying "I'm not going to name any names as to avoid leaving any more trail."

This is what I said. The key words are "could be". Most things that people do you could look at and say, "Would scum say something like this?", "Why would they say something like this?" and "How would they say something like this?"

In this instance I looked at what he had said while he was at L-1 (most likely unbeknownst to him) and gave what a scum in his position could be thinking. There is a key difference. I didn't say what he said made him more likely to be scum, or was even a scummy statement in itself. I just showed what scum would have been thinking and doing in that sentence.

And here is what you say I am contradicting.

Mafiamurkrow had acted strangely, but nothing to make me think she was scum.

Even if you think this is a contradiction (I disagree), it doesn't imply anything. The contention is that I somehow caused the Mafiamurkrow lynch. The point of my post was to do the opposite. It isn't a post that a mafia member, especially an experienced player, would be likely to do (try to slow down the lynch and get a claim - very protown). I could never have foreseen that that post could cause someone to drop the hammer when it's purpose is to warn people not to drop the hammer.

[Grum]

I think it scares him a little because you are such an experienced player and thats just what a skilled mafia player would do...
Like the #1 thing, I am again saying it seems mafia to be so very pro town and suggesting that, it is intimidating...
I beleive you are town but your skill makes it easier to cover up scumminess. At that I am a little scared.

[goborage]

Seems like it could be scum saying "I'm not going to name any names as to avoid leaving any more trail."

This is what I said. The key words are "could be". Most things that people do you could look at and say, "Would scum say something like this?", "Why would they say something like this?" and "How would they say something like this?"

In this instance I looked at what he had said while he was at L-1 (most likely unbeknownst to him) and gave what a scum in his position could be thinking. There is a key difference. I didn't say what he said made him more likely to be scum, or was even a scummy statement in itself. I just showed what scum would have been thinking and doing in that sentence.

And why would you do this at all? Do you regularly place insinuations in people's posts? How can you deny that your post does not make MM look bad to the rest of town? You're giving a scummy flavour to MM's post; one that was not there before.

And here is what you say I am contradicting.

Mafiamurkrow had acted strangely, but nothing to make me think she was scum.

Even if you think this is a contradiction (I disagree), it doesn't imply anything. The contention is that I somehow caused the Mafiamurkrow lynch. The point of my post was to do the opposite. It isn't a post that a mafia member, especially an experienced player, would be likely to do (try to slow down the lynch and get a claim - very protown). I could never have foreseen that that post could cause someone to drop the hammer when it's purpose is to warn people not to drop the hammer.

The contradiction that I see is your pro-MM lynch post vs your anti-MM lynch stance you later took. It implies that you are distancing yourself from the MM lynch even though you were for it.

[Dave]

@ No.1Noob He placed the hammer yesterday without waiting for a roleclaim of Mafiamurkrow. He then roleclaimed when Grum pointed out after the lynch that he would of liked Mafiamurkrow to claim. Also Abstract Actuary pointed out in post 87 that he wanted a role claim too, so this means either No.1Noob did not read that carefully enough or wanted to place the hammer quickly and get a lynch in before Mafiamurkrow could claim, and some people could possibly unvote. This makes me think he is scum. Regarding him claiming, I think he does know that it was Mafiamurkrow that needed to claim, but he wanted to claim to clear himself if he came under scrutiny later in the game and say that it was a noob mistake.

Vote No.1 Noob

I will re read the thread and make a list when I get a spare 20 minutes.

[The World No.1 Noob]

Well all I can say is I really did think that he was asking for my role claim. And to the hammer, well I didn't even know what a hammer was when I voted but as I say I do still defend Camisade's vote on Maf, at the time it was the reasonable thing to do. But I guess it really goes down to if you believe me or not because I do admit that however you look at it I did do something wrong.

[goborage]

Well all I can say is I really did think that he was asking for my role claim. And to the hammer, well I didn't even know what a hammer was when I voted but as I say I do still defend Camisade's vote on Maf, at the time it was the reasonable thing to do. But I guess it really goes down to if you believe me or not because I do admit that however you look at it I did do something wrong.

Why would you bring up Camisade out of the blue? The question is directed at you, not him.

[The World No.1 Noob]

Sry, its because I voted for Maf on the reasons that he gave and I find those reasons quite acceptable.

[Abstract Actuary]

I think it scares him a little because you are such an experienced player and thats just what a skilled mafia player would do...

A skilled mafia player would not do that. A skilled mafia member would rather not mention it at all in the hopes that someone reads a good case against the target and votes with it, not realizing it was the hammer. One point of my post was to point out that the next vote would be the hammer. A mafia member would rather that fact is not known.

And why would you do this at all? Do you regularly place insinuations in people's posts? How can you deny that your post does not make MM look bad to the rest of town? You're giving a scummy flavour to MM's post; one that was not there before.

Yes, I like to try to read into posts and see what that person's motivations could have been as town and scum. In this situation at L-1 I didn't know if Mafiamurkrow was aware of the situation and was daftly avoiding giving more information as scum, or he was completely unaware. The post sounded simply unaware, but I wanted the rest of the town to realize the other possibility and especially I wanted to add pressure to Mafiamurkrow to elaborate his suspicions and name names. That was the point of the sentence. "MM, you aren't allowed to go quietly into the night. Name some names."

The contradiction that I see is your

pro-MM lynch post

vs

your anti-MM lynch stance

you later took. It implies that you are distancing yourself from the MM lynch even though you were for it.

The contradiction either doesn't exist or it doesn't matter. There are two parts of your post that are incorrect.

It wasn't a pro-MM lynch post.

That is the point you seem to be missing this whole time. The point of the post is to point out the situation, call for a claim, and prevent any accidental hammers.

Where do I attack an MM voter other than Noob? I don't have an

anti-MM stance

. The premature hammer and no claim from MM sucked. Other than that I haven't picked out anything from any other voters that struck me as suspicious. As the game progresses and I reread the round I may find something more, but for now, nothing else stuck out.

[goborage]

I think it scares him a little because you are such an experienced player and thats just what a skilled mafia player would do...

A skilled mafia player would not do that. A skilled mafia member would rather not mention it at all in the hopes that someone reads a good case against the target and votes with it, not realizing it was the hammer. One point of my post was to point out that the next vote would be the hammer. A mafia member would rather that fact is not known.

Or if scum wanted to make themselves look pro-town they would rush to be the first one to point it out.

And why would you do this at all? Do you regularly place insinuations in people's posts? How can you deny that your post does not make MM look bad to the rest of town? You're giving a scummy flavour to MM's post; one that was not there before.

Yes, I like to try to read into posts and see what that person's motivations could have been as town and scum. In this situation at L-1 I didn't know if Mafiamurkrow was aware of the situation and was daftly avoiding giving more information as scum, or he was completely unaware. The post sounded simply unaware, but I wanted the rest of the town to realize the other possibility and especially I wanted to add pressure to Mafiamurkrow to elaborate his suspicions and name names. That was the point of the sentence. "MM, you aren't allowed to go quietly into the night. Name some names."

When you first defended yourself, you said that your post was purely to inform town that MM was at L-1 and that you didn't think she was scummy. Now you say you were pressuring MM. Why would a guy not suspicious of MM pressure her?

Let's look at the quote again: Seems like it could be scum saying "I'm not going to name any names as to avoid leaving any more trail."

You then offer this explanation: I wanted to add pressure to Mafiamurkrow to elaborate his suspicions and name names. That was the point of the sentence. "MM, you aren't allowed to go quietly into the night. Name some names."

I'm having trouble connecting your MM post with your explanation. Your MM post is not a question; it's not even directed at MM. It's directed at town. If you wanted MM to list her suspicions why wouldn't you just ask?

The contradiction that I see is your

pro-MM lynch post

vs

your anti-MM lynch stance

you later took. It implies that you are distancing yourself from the MM lynch even though you were for it.

The contradiction either doesn't exist or it doesn't matter. There are two parts of your post that are incorrect.

Of course it matters. I read your "I didn't find MM scummy" post as a lie. There's an accepted doctrine called Lynch-All-Liars of which I am a proponent of.

Other than that I haven't picked out anything from any other voters that struck me as suspicious. As the game progresses and I reread the round I may find something more, but for now, nothing else stuck out.

Here's another problem I have with you - your lack of scum-hunting. Beyond defending yourself, you don't really post here much. Day one you parked a vote on Cat Killer and pretty much lurked the rest of the day. You didn't develop a case against Cat Killer or ask her questions. And if you really didn't think MM was scum then why wouldn't you defend her or try to convince town of another option?

[The World No.1 Noob]

Abstract Actuary wrote:
Seems like it could be scum saying "I'm not going to name any names as to avoid leaving any more trail."


This is what I said. The key words are "could be"

I really find this explanation quite weak

[Abstract Actuary]

Or if scum wanted to make themselves look pro-town they would rush to be the first one to point it out.

Both plays could have value for scum. In my opinion, the one where you allow a quick mislynch with no role claim opportunity of a townie has much, much more value over potentially gaining a minor townie point. A good scum would choose the first option.

When you first defended yourself, you said that your post was purely to inform town that MM was at L-1 and that you didn't think she was scummy. Now you say you were pressuring MM. Why would a guy not suspicious of MM pressure her?

I would like to pressure anyone and everyone I can, whether I find them scummy or not. That is a big part of the game. I still maintain I didn't find MM scummy at the time. My read on Mafiamurkrow at the time was "Middle of the Road" - a very viable pressure option. I wasn't leaning in either town or scum direction. This also addresses something you say below. I never said I thought MM was town and the lynch should be altogether prevented.

Let's look at the quote again: Seems like it could be scum saying "I'm not going to name any names as to avoid leaving any more trail."

You then offer this explanation: I wanted to add pressure to Mafiamurkrow to elaborate his suspicions and name names. That was the point of the sentence. "MM, you aren't allowed to go quietly into the night. Name some names."

I'm having trouble connecting your MM post with your explanation. Your MM post is not a question; it's not even directed at MM. It's directed at town. If you wanted MM to list her suspicions why wouldn't you just ask?

Alright, I can buy that. It would have been more effective to address her specifically and request more information. On the other hand a passive pressure technique can also have it's merits, too. See if they choose to ignore the indirect request or see if they jump up and defend themselves at first chance. You don't get that opportunity with a direct request.

The contradiction that I see is your

pro-MM lynch post

vs

your anti-MM lynch stance

you later took. It implies that you are distancing yourself from the MM lynch even though you were for it.

The contradiction either doesn't exist or it doesn't matter. There are two parts of your post that are incorrect.

Of course it matters. I read your "I didn't find MM scummy" post as a lie. There's an accepted doctrine called Lynch-All-Liars of which I am a proponent of.

I still maintain that is wasn't a lie. I also maintain that my read on her was middle-of-the-road.

In general I'm not a fan of any blanket doctrines. But if there was one I would blindly follow it would be Lynch-All-Liars. But the crux is understanding what the nature and severity of the lie must be to follow it. Something that is essentially inconsequential is not a lynchable lie. You have to get at the heart of, the purpose of and the effect of the lie for the reasons you lynch on it. This goes to my opinion of doctrines. You can't follow them to the letter.

Anyone who follows them to the letter is just acting foolish and is being lazy. That person is just looking for any excuse to have an immovable vote that doesn't require any more explanation or digging. Mafia members love to make votes like that because it gets them out of scum hunting or leaving any future trail for that entire day (or maybe even future days if their target is not lynched). Now, I'm not saying that is what you're doing, since your focus has been broad this entire day. In fact, my read on you is town, but that is not the issue at hand.

Other than that I haven't picked out anything from any other voters that struck me as suspicious. As the game progresses and I reread the round I may find something more, but for now, nothing else stuck out.

Here's another problem I have with you - your lack of scum-hunting. Beyond defending yourself, you don't really post here much. Day one you parked a vote on Cat Killer and pretty much lurked the rest of the day. You didn't develop a case against Cat Killer or ask her questions. And if you really didn't think MM was scum then why wouldn't you defend her or try to convince town of another option?

I agree, I would like to be scum hunting more. But unfortunately I feel that this issue has inhibited that for two main reasons. I've spent most of my time trying to show how this issue is a non-issue and it is distracting the town and this issue is distracting the town. Most of the conversation this day has been about this issue, The World's #1 Noob and some role possibilities, with the occasional player throwing out a list of suspicions.

Regarding my play on day 1: The day was unfortunately short. Something I tried to prevent. But there wasn't much that happened. Also, I typically play pretty slow on day 1 because there is usually very little to go on as was the case in this game. You can meta me if you want. I usually pick it up as the game goes on and more and more information comes out.

===============================

Abstract Actuary wrote:
Seems like it could be scum saying "I'm not going to name any names as to avoid leaving any more trail."


This is what I said. The key words are "could be"

I really find this explanation quite weak

In your own words and with your own opinion:

What am I trying to explain?
Is it something that needs to be explained? And why?
What do you find weak about it? Do you think that the words "could be" are me implying that this quote makes her scum?
Have you read the followup conversations and posts about the subject?
Why did you choose to ignore them when addressing this quote?
Do you find the entire defense satisfactory? Why or why not?
Do you think that that notorious D1 post makes me more likely to be scum or town? And Why?
Do you think that my defense of that post makes me more likely to be town or scum? And Why?
What is your overall read on me?

[goborage]

Just a quick prod request - AA, I'll reply to you later.

mod: Can you prod camisade and roland and Cat_Killer?

Done

[camisade]

sorry, been busy lately. I'm going to sleep now but I'll catch up with this tomorrow.

Also I'm not going to be in town Thursday or Friday and I won't have internet access, just to warn everyone in advance.

[The World No.1 Noob]

goborage wrote:
Or if scum wanted to make themselves look pro-town they would rush to be the first one to point it out.

Ummm, but then anything can be reasoned that way, if townie or mafia does something pro-town you can just say that they want to make themselves look pro town, so I don't think we can use that as a reason against AA.

[The World No.1 Noob]

The World No.1 Noob wrote:
Quote:

Abstract Actuary wrote:
Seems like it could be scum saying "I'm not going to name any names as to avoid leaving any more trail."


This is what I said. The key words are "could be"


I really find this explanation quite weak


In your own words and with your own opinion:

What am I trying to explain?
Is it something that needs to be explained? And why?
What do you find weak about it? Do you think that the words "could be" are me implying that this quote makes her scum?
Have you read the followup conversations and posts about the subject?
Why did you choose to ignore them when addressing this quote?
Do you find the entire defense satisfactory? Why or why not?
Do you think that that notorious D1 post makes me more likely to be scum or town? And Why?
Do you think that my defense of that post makes me more likely to be town or scum? And Why?
What is your overall read on me?

Wow long list of questions OK I'll do my best to answer them

1. You're trying to explain that you weren't accusing Maf or anything
2. Yes because it important to the game to clear yourself whether you're townie or mafia
3. Yea I find the "could be" explanation very weak.
4. Yes I did
5. Ignore? do you mean why I didn't include it as part of the post in a big quote? Because your explanation was based on that first sentence, it explained what you thought you were saying to everyone.
6. No, not that explanation (but some of your other actions do really seem pro-town so I'm not sure about you)
7. Please explain what a D1 post is
8. On that single defense you're mafia because its just totally misleading, you make your argument which seems to be well justified ONLY IF we understood that "Seems like it could be scum saying "I'm not going to name any names as to avoid leaving any more trail."" and the "could be" in it means that you're only giving out a possibility not an opinion.
9. Overall read on you = not sure (thats why I haven't voted)

[Dave]

We need to pick up activity in this thread.

[Grum]

Been away and from what I've read so far it seems that AA is only on defense and gobarage is still attacking every one its looking like AA is just being usefull but not worthy of being pro town(yet only because hes on defense) I'll hold off on my opinion of him because I want to see some real help out of him... as for gobarage... still pushing way to much and not helping with it.

[goborage]

Or if scum wanted to make themselves look pro-town they would rush to be the first one to point it out.

Both plays could have value for scum. In my opinion, the one where you allow a quick mislynch with no role claim opportunity of a townie has much, much more value over potentially gaining a minor townie point. A good scum would choose the first option.

I don't agree. I haven't been on the site that long but I've never seen a quick-lynch actually go through. Someone always points out an L-1 sooner or later. And if that's the case then really it's a race to who can point it out first and look the most pro-town.

When you first defended yourself, you said that your post was purely to inform town that MM was at L-1 and that you didn't think she was scummy. Now you say you were pressuring MM. Why would a guy not suspicious of MM pressure her?

I would like to pressure anyone and everyone I can, whether I find them scummy or not. That is a big part of the game. I still maintain I didn't find MM scummy at the time. My read on Mafiamurkrow at the time was "Middle of the Road" - a very viable pressure option. I wasn't leaning in either town or scum direction. This also addresses something you say below. I never said I thought MM was town and the lynch should be altogether prevented.

To this I refer to your activity. Where exactly is this pressure that you direct at "anyone and everyone"? The pressure you put on MM is a lone example. There is an inconsistency in your behavior and in your explanation.

Let's look at the quote again: Seems like it could be scum saying "I'm not going to name any names as to avoid leaving any more trail."

You then offer this explanation: I wanted to add pressure to Mafiamurkrow to elaborate his suspicions and name names. That was the point of the sentence. "MM, you aren't allowed to go quietly into the night. Name some names."

I'm having trouble connecting your MM post with your explanation. Your MM post is not a question; it's not even directed at MM. It's directed at town. If you wanted MM to list her suspicions why wouldn't you just ask?

Alright, I can buy that. It would have been more effective to address her specifically and request more information. On the other hand a passive pressure technique can also have it's merits, too. See if they choose to ignore the indirect request or see if they jump up and defend themselves at first chance. You don't get that opportunity with a direct request.

Passive pressure technique? Is there such a thing? MM ignoring that line is a null-tell to me because that line does not ask anything of her. If you asked a direct question and she ignored it, then it would mean a lot more. I still don't buy your explanation of the "seems like it could be scum" line.

The contradiction that I see is your

pro-MM lynch post

vs

your anti-MM lynch stance

you later took. It implies that you are distancing yourself from the MM lynch even though you were for it.

The contradiction either doesn't exist or it doesn't matter. There are two parts of your post that are incorrect.

Of course it matters. I read your "I didn't find MM scummy" post as a lie. There's an accepted doctrine called Lynch-All-Liars of which I am a proponent of.

I still maintain that is wasn't a lie. I also maintain that my read on her was middle-of-the-road.

In general I'm not a fan of any blanket doctrines. But if there was one I would blindly follow it would be Lynch-All-Liars. But the crux is understanding what the nature and severity of the lie must be to follow it. Something that is essentially inconsequential is not a lynchable lie. You have to get at the heart of, the purpose of and the effect of the lie for the reasons you lynch on it. This goes to my opinion of doctrines. You can't follow them to the letter.

Anyone who follows them to the letter is just acting foolish and is being lazy. That person is just looking for any excuse to have an immovable vote that doesn't require any more explanation or digging. Mafia members love to make votes like that because it gets them out of scum hunting or leaving any future trail for that entire day (or maybe even future days if their target is not lynched). Now, I'm not saying that is what you're doing, since your focus has been broad this entire day. In fact, my read on you is town, but that is not the issue at hand.

First off please don't talk of how pro-town I am while you are defending yourself. Maybe it's just me, but when people do this it comes across as an insincere attempt at buddying.

The lie that I am reading into isn't an inconsequential one. If your leanings toward MM did indeed change from Day 1 to 2 it can be read as distancing.

Other than that I haven't picked out anything from any other voters that struck me as suspicious. As the game progresses and I reread the round I may find something more, but for now, nothing else stuck out.

Here's another problem I have with you - your lack of scum-hunting. Beyond defending yourself, you don't really post here much. Day one you parked a vote on Cat Killer and pretty much lurked the rest of the day. You didn't develop a case against Cat Killer or ask her questions. And if you really didn't think MM was scum then why wouldn't you defend her or try to convince town of another option?

I agree, I would like to be scum hunting more. But unfortunately I feel that this issue has inhibited that for two main reasons. I've spent most of my time trying to show how this issue is a non-issue and it is distracting the town and this issue is distracting the town. Most of the conversation this day has been about this issue, The World's #1 Noob and some role possibilities, with the occasional player throwing out a list of suspicions.

Regarding my play on day 1: The day was unfortunately short. Something I tried to prevent. But there wasn't much that happened. Also, I typically play pretty slow on day 1 because there is usually very little to go on as was the case in this game. You can meta me if you want. I usually pick it up as the game goes on and more and more information comes out.

I doubt that you would be scum-hunting much even if I hadn't zeroed in on you. Don't try to blame it on me. It's been three weeks; I'm sure if you wanted to you could have pointed out all kinds of things.

Distracting to town? Have you seen town? No one is talking at all. If I have to point fingers at each person one by one to get conversation going I will. Besides attacking you, I've also asked you to make a list of suspicious people, which you have not done.

We need to pick up activity in this thread.

Great post. Nice to see a few words every 5 days just to avoid the prod.

Been away and from what I've read so far it seems that AA is only on defense and gobarage is still attacking every one its looking like AA is just being usefull but not worthy of being pro town(yet only because hes on defense) I'll hold off on my opinion of him because I want to see some real help out of him... as for gobarage... still pushing way to much and not helping with it.

Too aggressive? You obviously have not played much mafia outside of this game.

Hey Grum how about you try to be useful and stimulate discussion instead of coming in every few days to complain about my playstyle? Where's that list of suspicious people I asked for a few weeks ago?

[Cat_Killer]

Just a quick prod request - AA, I'll reply to you later.

mod: Can you prod camisade and roland and Cat_Killer?

Done

Sorry - I honestly forgot about MafiaScum. Just didn't enter my mind to check it. it's 2.46am right now, so I'll post tomorrow. I really mean it this time. I WILL post tomorrow.

[camisade]

I think it's interesting that you'd defend Dave and not yourself. I'm not entirely sure what, if anything, to make of this.

Besides that, I agree with #1noob when he says you aren't scum-hunting. Do you have anything to say about this? And where's that list you said you'd make?

He basically said the reasoning against me was random; not much to defend there besides the lack of scumhunting (which is true.) and I thought his argument against Dave with the "awesome" post is a null tell. But Dave's lack of posting then the "We need to pick up activity in this thread." is just

I completely forgot about the list, sorry.

From least to most suspicious:

goborage
Cat_Killer
rolandofthewhite
Abstract Actuary
The World No.1 Noob
Dave
Grum

I don't really have a read on cat_killer or roland, so I sort of just stuck them in there.

-------

Been away and from what I've read so far it seems that AA is only on defense and gobarage is still attacking every one its looking like AA is just being usefull but not worthy of being pro town(yet only because hes on defense) I'll hold off on my opinion of him because I want to see some real help out of him... as for gobarage... still pushing way to much and not helping with it.

Haha, have we not said anything to you about this before? Gobo is just scumhunting and he is obviously the most town looking player at this point. I don't know why you keep posting about gobo's playstyle. And you should post your opinion on AA.

-------

9. Overall read on you = not sure (thats why I haven't voted)

Didn't you just say on the last page he was one of your most suspicious? How has this changed?

-----

@ everyone: In order to promote discussion I think we should all post the most suspicious people on our lists and the reasons for them.

Sounds good to me.

1. Grum
2. camisade
3. Dave
4. gorborage
5. Abstract Actuary
6. Cat_Killer
7. The World No.1 Noob
8. rolandofthewhite

I'd like to see your reasonings for the list (especially me, goborage, and The world No.1 Noob)


Sorry that my post is sort of jumping around everywhere and isn't really in chronological order.

[The World No.1 Noob]

The World No.1 Noob wrote:

9. Overall read on you = not sure (thats why I haven't voted)


Didn't you just say on the last page he was one of your most suspicious? How has this changed?

It hasn't he is still one of my most suspicous, but then I have 4 most suspicous people on my list because I wasn't sure of the order. Sure I'm suspicous of him but that doesn't mean he's mafia, so until I have a very good reason to be sure that someone's mafia, I'm "not sure" about the person and won't vote. I've learned from by mistake on day 1.

[Dave]

@ No.1Noob He placed the hammer yesterday without waiting for a roleclaim of Mafiamurkrow. He then roleclaimed when Grum pointed out after the lynch that he would of liked Mafiamurkrow to claim. Also Abstract Actuary pointed out in post 87 that he wanted a role claim too, so this means either No.1Noob did not read that carefully enough or wanted to place the hammer quickly and get a lynch in before Mafiamurkrow could claim, and some people could possibly unvote. This makes me think he is scum. Regarding him claiming, I think he does know that it was Mafiamurkrow that needed to claim, but he wanted to claim to clear himself if he came under scrutiny later in the game and say that it was a noob mistake.

Vote No.1 Noob

I have posted my reasoning for who should get lynched but no one seems to have taken notice of it.

@Camisade: Why am I you second most suspicious?

[Grum]

Been away and from what I've read so far it seems that AA is only on defense and gobarage is still attacking every one its looking like AA is just being usefull but not worthy of being pro town(yet only because hes on defense) I'll hold off on my opinion of him because I want to see some real help out of him... as for gobarage... still pushing way to much and not helping with it.

Haha, have we not said anything to you about this before? Gobo is just scumhunting and he is obviously the most town looking player at this point. I don't know why you keep posting about gobo's playstyle. And you should post your opinion on AA.

Honestly I like AA hes really being helpful in my eyes and heres the thing. I posted that again about gobo for one reason I wanted him to taste his own medicine in a sense and push him around a little to see what he did. He confermed my thinking. Hes acting very scummy. pointing fingures at people to much to in a sense get people to look away from himself. Now I will post my list of suspision, because I was waiting for him.

here it is:

1. Gobo(reasons just mentioned)
2. Cat killer(been quiet lately)
3. Dave(quiet but still active maybe not knowing what hes doing)
4. # 1 noob(really iffy on this one)

I have my own way of picking out scum I may be wrong and just have a confilicting opinion with Gobo but, I'm going ahead with this...

Vote Goborage

[b/]

[goborage]

This is the worst list I've ever seen. There is little to no thought behind it. If not posting = scummy then why isn't roland on your list? And where is the reasoning behind #1noob?

I like AA

This discredits you entirely. How much you like someone is not in any way a measure of townliness. Just because you don't like me doesn't make me scum either.

And how has Abstract Actuary been helpful to town? He has publicly admitted that he hasn't been scum-hunting.