Mini 611 - Troy, Meet Helen (Game Over)

[Lord Gurgi]

Charter: Respond to every question if you please. You owe it to the town after attacking almost every player in this game for dodging questions.

[charter]

Gurgi, how is me answering EVERY question going to be productive? It's just going to be another eye bleedingly long wall of text that no one is going to want to read. You actually want me to respond to everything Tinsley wrote?

If you're going to vote for me regardless of my answers, save me hours of time and just vote me anyway. If me answering could change your vote to Tinsley then I'll do it, but please just tell me straight up.

[Lord Gurgi]

Why are you arguing this point? You asked if anyone wanted answers to any of his questions and I want all of them.

[CF Riot]

I'd like the town's opinion on something. If I noticed some flaws in Tinsley's case, should I point it out at this point or wait for Charter to defend himself?

I don't really have a strong town read on Charter, so I don't really have a reason to defend him, and I think Tinsley's case has been honest up to this point. I don't think he's trying to frame Charter or anything. Still, there are things I've noticed that I disagree with. Give 'em up or sit on them?

[ShadowGirl]

You won't answer to save yourself, but only if it will get Tinsley lynched? That just somehow doesn't seem right.

Well, considering it doesn't seem charter has too much intention to defend himself I suppose you should point them out.

Anyway, I shall likely be absent for tommorow - I'm going to the CNE and will probably be exhausted when I get back.

[Lord Gurgi]

CF Riot: Please hold on to them until charter answers, I'd rather he finds them on his own rather than you give him a free out.

[Macavenger]

CF Riot: Please hold on to them until charter answers, I'd rather he finds them on his own rather than you give him a free out.

Agree with this. It's just good policy in general.

I should have time to do some reading and get some significant content up either tonight or tomorrow.

[charter]

I'll answer, but I won't have time tonight or this weekend (maybe sunday).

[Farkshinsoup]

Anyway, I shall likely be absent for tommorow - I'm going to the CNE and will probably be exhausted when I get back.

Hey, we live in the same town! Small world. Pick me up some Tiny Tom's donuts?

Haven't had a chance to read the Tinsley case against charter, so I have no comment. Will look at it tomorrow.

[ShadowGirl]

Definitely. What topping/flavouring would you like? I usually get cinnamon.

And if you see anyone in the art & crafts building trying all the dips and jams, it's probably me. Or eating one of those fancy candy apples that cose a ridiculous amount of money.

[CF Riot]

One was enough so two is a definite. I'll wait. Depending on how this all plays out it may not really matter.

[Walnut]

Unvote Tinsley, vote Charter

I don't want someone to "accidentally" hammer Tinsley while this is going on.

I kind of agree and disagree with LG and Mac. Yes, you want people to have to think and speak for themselves, but it would be ridiculous if you sat back and let someone get lynched on the strength of a argument that is just wrong. This game is not one versus one, it is about shared information.

The only bit I will comment on now though is the 3rd to last bit of post #899 where Charter tried to answer a question directed to CFRiot- we have cleared that up now, so it should be ignored.

[Lord Gurgi]

We are suggesting that he

wait

not that he ignore. We want charter to find what he can on his own without having the answers given to him.

[Walnut]

Yep, and that is why I kind of agree with you

[CF Riot]

Yeah, I've already thought of that Walnut. Don't worry, if Charter gets to 4 votes or so I'll speak up. It's nothing major though, just things I notice that I don't think are scum-tells.

[Mizzy]

Vote Count:

Tinsley 4 (camn, Thesp, Farkshinsoup, charter)
Macavenger 3 (Lord Gurgi, CF Riot, ShadowGirl)
charter 2 (Tinsley, Walnut)
Walnut 1 (Macavenger)

Not Voting:

None.

10 Alive = 6 to lynch!

[charter]

There could be cult leaders or survivers though, that's not above possibility. Tbh, speculation on 3rd party roles offers us no help at all, until someone makes a hint at their role if they are pro-town. Having said that Lord Guri's post was that there are likely to be either 3 scum or 3 scum and a SK, it was Charter that brought up the speculation about it.

Fishing for pro-town roles to drop hints that you can pick up? Makes me wonder, why do you care who the pro town roles are?

Post 67 questions Had for flip-flopping on charter’s posts 20-22. The quote above is another example of charter twisting someone’s word against them. How was Had fishing for pro town roles? He doesn’t vote Had here, but waits until post 82 after Netlava and Walnut have expressed suspicion, and Mac voted Had.

He mentioned power roles, hence I thought he was trying someone to hint that they had one. I didn't twist words, I asked him two questions, so I really don't see how that can be construed as word twisting. Now I know that he was hinting that he had one.

I will be interested in seeing who the next person to vote for Had is (assuming someone does.

Post 94 – This is a nice vague comment. He may have been setting himself up to trust/accuse someone here.

So it is vague, how is that scummy?

Post 101 – Everyone knows about this post too (Let Had live, if he isn’t NK’d we lynch him tomorrow). Votes BB for his semi-claim.

Did I even mention lynching Had today? No.

I think you trying to pin this on me is scummy. What does everyone else think?

Post 117 – Reacts to Farside’s reaction to post 101 by thinking she’s scummy for pinning it on him. Fark (I think) nailed this, it’s an appeal to everyone else.

How is it an appeal to anyone? I thought farside's action was scummy. Asking everyone else was pointless (though did set me straight).

Post 154 – Calls out Batt for his “What if Riot turns up dead as Doc?” question to Netlava regarding Riot’s “Breadcrumb”. I actually thought it was a good question, but I’m noticing that charter has definitely trying to spread suspicion among nearly everyone. I think someone mentioned that as a scumtell in this game. The only people I don’t think he has cast suspicion toward were Netlava (whom many here thought was the scummiest D1), Mac, and I think Shadow Girl (but I’m not certain on that one).

Show me where I've tried to spread suspicion among nearly everyone. If by that you mean ask lots of people probing questions, then yes, I probably have.

Post 156 – Further defends Netlava on Batt’s question “hesitating to say loaded question”

I clarify why I questioned Batt. There's no defending anyone there.

If you now say that I'm further directing people, I'm going to explode. I'm not telling anyone to do anything, just explaining what I assumed obvious and that everyone thought.

Post 172 - The first case of charter becoming aggressive towards others when they accuse him in this game. You shouldn’t play this game if you can’t handle answering questions.

So I'm aggressive, how is that scummy? Thanks, I'll quit MS now...

I didn’t catch this in my Mac analysis but he defends charter in post 182 when Farside is questioning him.

Ask Mac.

Post 235 – Had questions charter on his “I’ll be interested in seeing who the next person to vote Had is” comment. Charter replies with “It wouldn't have given me any more than everyone else. I simply would have found it interesting.” So why ask the question?

Because I was interested! I thought it would be interesting! Why is that scummy?

On to the next post.

[Tinsley]

Finally! The end to the charter analysis:

Post 657 – Charter posts an LG reread analysis

140, basically just lets us know he's alive

That’s funny, going back and looking, LG speaks out against a BB lynch. He also supports a charter lynch. But I guess by posting he did let us know he was alive.

175, Netlava is exactly right. Everything in the entire post is golden.
176, votes Netlava with terrible reasoning.
188, no point of this other to just remind people that Netlava did something that can be considered fishy

That golden post 175 by Netlava calls out LG for not pushing charter’s bandwagon. Yet when LG does push for a Netlava bandwagon in post 188, there’s no point to it.

212, Netlava is right again, by this time Mac has taken over lynching Netlava duties, convienently leaving LG's hands virtually clean

Now I do like this one. As long as you replace Mac’s name with Thesp and Fark, then replace LG’s name with Mac. I'd also like to mention that charter's given out some blame to Fark, LG, and camn for Netlava's lynch, but never Mac, even though Mac put a lot of suspicion on Netlava.

317, [LG’s] first useful content filled post.

I strongly disagree here. He may be guilty of tunnel vision and lurking early on, but his early posts did provide his opinions. I did notice LG has been suspicious of charter right from the start, which makes charter’s efforts to have LG lynched seem OMGUS.

434, anxious to lynch a townie
448, this is worth looking into
451, STILL anxious to pull off the lynch before something can happen

While I agree that LG seemed anxious to hammer Netlava in 451, he certainly was not in 434. He was responding to SG’s misunderstanding that CF Riot’s confirm vote had hammered Netlava. All LG said was “we’re waiting for Thesp to hammer.”

@camn, walnut is right, just because someone is being extremely town, doesn't mean a thing. Suspecting Mac based soley on that is scummy.

More evidence of a possible charter/Mac relationship.

@Riot, if you go back and reread Netlava's and LG's posts from yesterday, and take into account knowing Netlava is town, LG plays like he knew it yesterday as well.

How did LG play like he knew Netlava was town? You played like you knew Netlava was town, so you're scum?

Fark, trying to play off your frequent wagon hopping with legitimate reasons ("There's nothing scummy about being strategic with your vote to make sure that scum gets lynched (especially since we haven't even lynched one of them yet)") certainly isn't helping you in my mind. I would just use the defense, "I know I'm town, so I'd rather someone else scummy get lynched". It would have been much more believable than your trying to supply actual reasoning for the votechanging.

Post 701 – Charter calls out Fark for his vote changes. How many times have you changed your vote today? Nevermind...I'll get to this later.

Riot, in 629, you suspect five people. Five!

Post 716 – You have VOTED four people. Four!

I'm pretty sure Walnut is scum, but on my reread I found things that made me doubt whether he actually is scum or not, hence why I'm now not so eager to lynch him.

Post 727 – You’re being wishy-washy again.

Someone else vote LG and I will switch over to him. Don't care about your reasoning, make something up if you must.

Post 738 – I don’t think this one even needs an explanation. Post 744 is more of the same.

Actually, unvote Fark, vote LG LG has once again gone to non-contribution as soon as he's not in danger of being lynched, I'd like to urge him to contribute some more.

I've posted more recently than camn. Thoughts about that? I have been contributing for a while since I was wagonned.

ONCE AGAIN, LG is throwing unfounded suspicion camn's way. Camn's case is different, she's been minimally posting all along, you post much more when you have some votes on you.

Yes, quite sure LG is scum.

Post 766 – Another case of charter twisting someone’s words. I think this is number four. He continued to insist that LG was casting suspicion for the next several posts.

Didn't find anything about LG, but I did on Tinsley. I'd be Ok with a Tinsley lynch. Coupled with most of the town's suspicion of him and his post 654, he's not looking too good anymore.

Post 817 – So all game you’ve insisted that I’m town, but now that I’m the most popular lynch, I’m scummy? Seriously though, look at “most of the town’s suspicion”:

Thesp – Early reason for suspecting me was that I popped up whenever my name was called. I believe that’s all he’s provided
Fark – My “crappy” argument on him (Pretty close to the argument that you made) + OMGUS (Fark’s words, not mine) vote on Fark
Camn – Voted me to pressure me to answer a question.
Walnut – See Fark’s reasons

Then he looks up one quote from me, twists my words (I think that’s five times now) and decides that it’s good enough reason to vote me.

I'd still like to see that speech. Charter - with the recent developments between LG and Fark, do you still think they are both scum? I think this is more proof that Fark is trying to get any lynch besides Walnut, but it's making me wonder whether or not LG is scum.

I didn't read too much into this post before, as I was willing to take any and all votes for LG without caring the reason for them. Fark fell pretty much right under this category.

His post is trying to get me to pick Fark over LG. Coupled with my strong belief that LG is scum (which I stated a few posts before Tinsley's) and Fark's recent claim, this statement by him is incredibly manipulative.

Going back and looking at D2 charter voted: Walnut, LG, Walnut, Fark, LG, Tinsley

I think charter’s “job” was to try to bring out the doc today, by vote hopping. He never does put a vote on Mac, Riot, or SG (I think the two former are possible partners, I’m not sure why he never placed a vote on SG – maybe cause she wasn’t drawing any suspicion), or Thesp and camn (already revealed their roles.)

I also think he’s trying a little too hard to look protown. I’m not sure how many rereads he said he did, but I’d bet it was somewhere around 20.

Yes, quite sure charter is scum.

[charter]

A little more on charter (up to page 15):

Regarding Netlava:

I won't lie, I've been biased towards him this game because he helped me out the most last game, but I'll do a reread without this bias.

Post 250 – Trying to justify why he hasn’t been suspecting Netlava, and a horrible justification at that.

Next time I'll just not take a stance on Netlava or I'll just keep my bias towards him. How is it scummy instead of truthful?

Post 264 – The results of his “unbiased reread on Netlava.” Strangely enough returns nothing on Netlava. Instead he admittedly stopped reading all posts but Walnut’s at 137. Note that at this point Walnut has been taking some heat for sitting on the fence regarding Netlava. Charter votes Walnut.

Not the results of my "unbiased reread on Netlava". Nice try though. Post 331 chief. How is this scummy?

Regarding LG’s questioning of his reread:

I'm not saying anything about how scummy Netlava is or isn't. I actually commented on five players, and formed opinions on others, however, me revealing them now will NOT help lynch scum, so don't ask for them.

Why not?

Because it would have distracted the town unnecessarily. How is this scummy?

Here’s something very interesting:

Charter I haven't dropped suspicion of Walnut. I pointed out that I still find him scummy in 252. I think Netlava is far scummier. You said in 250 that you've been too biased in favor of Netlava this game and are going to reread intending to be more neutral. Did that happen? You don't mention Netlava in your recap of the game anywhere.

Charter responds with this:

I haven't done that reread yet, I doubt I can today, hopefully this weekend. I didn't mention Netlava, but I didnt mention a lot of others either.

Was this an example of one scumbuddy nudging another on a mistake he made?

No. You can take any interaction and ask your question.

Post 289 – Suggests camn claim when we’re at L-3…for Walnut.

No. I tell camn that if she thinks her role is better for the town to know, then claim. How is it scummy?

Do you know if the mafia's kill would still go through on you? AKA a one for one trade? (not that I would mind that)

Post 294 – Asks camn if a mafia kill would still go through if they targeted her. Interesting question for a townie.

How is this scummy? OMGZ! YOU WILL BE INTERESTED...

Post 331 – The long awaited “unbiased Netlava reread” contains the following statement

312, Had flips on me AGAIN. Now I'm aggressive town, whereas before I was scum. I'm honestly about willing to lynch Had regardless of his claim... Also Had, there's nothing we can question you on your claim with until tomorrow.

How did charter not catch any crap for this?

About willing is not willing. Why didn't you give me crap when I said it? Why wait this long?

His analysis of Netlava basically amounts to: Some good posts, some bad posts, I don’t think he’s scum. Great analysis.

Thank you. How is this scummy?

Regarding LG speaking up about Batt defending him:

LG, why did you not either 1- reiterate what Batt said (as in he defended you correctly) or 2- set everyone straight? You STILL manage to dodge answering while 1- shifting blame elsewhere and 2- Looking like you're concerned (I say looking because I'm pretty sure you're scum by now)

My new list is LG then Walnut then Batt. Still willing to lynch any for the deadline.

Post 347 – Charter loves to do this. Passing off his interpretation of comments/actions as facts.

I looked back, but I couldn't find where he was shifting blame. I don't see where I state it's fact though.

I have explained my stance on BB previously. He needed to ask to be replaced or modify his style greatly, or he was scum. I am not sure how I am responsible for whether other people post about him or not- if I attack him and no one else does it is not deliberately fruitless and therefore scummy, as you seem to be saying here.

You've decided from two posts that BB is scum? Pretty bold statement there.

Post 357 – Another example of charter twisting someone’s words.

Not another example of charter twisting someone's words. I asked a question. Walnut said he thought BB was scum, and BB made two posts.

I thought this was very interesting too:

Batt regarding charter twisting Walnut’s words:

Wait, what? Two things wrong with your statement here Charter.

1) You seem to ignore the fact Walnut stated "[BB] needed to ask to be replaced or modify his style greatly..." It seems you are trying to make Walnut look scummy instead of finding scummy things Walnut has done.

I don't agree with this. First, regardless of his disclaimer, he still made the statement "you are scum" after BB had made two posts which I feel he shouldn't be able to make. Second, I'm not making him look scummy in that post, you're saying that for me. I first questioned his assertation, then said that was a bold statement considering BB made two posts.
Way to go on defending Walnut...

I went back and looked, and I didn’t see where Walnut said “you are scum” unless you were referring to the quote above in which case you’re still twisting his words.

Ok, I twisted his words.

Sorry that I sounded like a broken record in here. But I didn't see how most of what he brought up was relevant to anything but my playstyle. I didn't see how it was scummy of me.

[ShadowGirl]

I have a trojan on my computer and I'm trying to get rid of it - if I don't respond within a day or it means I've probably messed up my computer.

[charter]

@Thesp, your reason for suspecting farside/Fark is lack of scumhunting (396). What are your thoughts on Walnut and his lack of scumhunting?

This was in post 409, based on the logic in his post 856, charter was trying to get Thesp to vote Walnut.

Yes, so what? How is it scummy if I try and get people to vote for those I think are scum?

Fark in Post 411

I think had is scum, judging by the way he claimed. Maybe we should lynch him today anyway. Besides, the worst case scenario is losing an unknown sanity cop, which isn't that bad, is it? I'm sure my excellent scum hunting abilities will make up for it.

Can't believe we were not going to lynch the guy who suggested lynching a claimed cop. A claimed cop with no counter-claim.

Charter’s response in 412:

Fark, just because there's no counterclaim only means the real cop might not be an idiot. It certainly doesn't mean Had is town. However, I agree that that post by Netlava is terrible.

Now’s a good time to look at charter's quote in post 331 (“The Unbiased Netlava Reread”) How can the post by Netlava be horrible when you said almost the exact same thing?

We both made a horrible post.

Post 415 – Criticizes ShadowGirl for not contributing anything new, comparing her to Walnut. He’s done this a few times to SG to this point, which falls in line with my theory that scum came into the game targeting Netlava, Walnut, and ShadowGirl for lynches.

Is there an argument in there? How is it scummy?

Start of D2

Post 464 – I’ve already covered this, but he asks Thesp who he investigated and why we shouldn’t lynch him, but Walnut is scum because of this quote:

Thesp, you are both a claimed cop and my number one scum suspect on Day 1. What do you have to say for yourself at this moment?

I told you already, I interpreted Walnut's post differently.

Post 467 – This has been covered as well. I asked for ideas on why Batt was NK’d. Charter wanted to shut up all discussion on it. Now’s a good time to look back on the exchange between Batt and charter that I posted above.

Tinsley, please do all the night speculating you want. All you'll do is waste time and make this thread even pointlessly bigger than you've already made it.

Post 476 – Also been covered – Fark asks for the case on Walnut and charter just posts a huge block of quotes.

Already answered this. Why do you bring up all this stuff now after I vote for you?

I really think it was the mafia’s plan all along to make Netlava the target on D1 because of his play style. While all members of the scum team may not have voted Netlava, I feel confident that one or two did.

Tinsley, if you aren't scum, you need to stop talking. How can a townie possibly know the mafia's plan? What makes you so confident that one or two did?

I can somewhat see your point on speculating on the NK, but what is wrong with my statement here?

I'm really getting frustrated with all these crap quotes of my posts and trivial comments on them. You are making unfounded accusations trying to appear pro town by saying stuff that sounds good and people might believe, but townies can't know if it's true. You're misleading them and I'm trying to stop it.

Walnut's question of "What do you have to say for yourself at this moment?" I interpreted as "You were wrong about Netlava being scum and you're my number one scum suspect, what do you have to say for yourself at this moment?" Going back, I can see how what I said created confusion.

Post 479 – This is the defense of his comment about Walnut in post 464. I still don’t see how Walnut's comment was a scumtell.

How does this make me scummy?

Tinsley, where is there an actual case? All you do is give your two cents on my posts. There's been like three or four posts of mine that are scummy, and WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THEM! Where were you when that was going on?!?!? Oh, that's right, I wasn't voting you then, so I wasn't scum then...

[charter]

Everything up to page 26:

Now, why does fark get singled out when SG has done NOTHING this entire game. Why are you not suspicious of Walnut who has done zero scumhunting the entire game?

The reason why I didn't answer these questions before... He singles out Fark when they apply to half the people here. Why do you all jump on me for trying to figure out why he's singling out Fark? Why don't you ask him why he singles people out?

Post 503 - Another case of charter setting up an SG lynch and getting irritated when being interrogated.

This argument is so bad I laughed. How is that setting up a SG lynch? It isn't.

Thesp, what makes you so sure SG is town. Comment on the rest of my questions.

Post 510 - Again singling out SG.

How is this scummy? SG hasn't contributed hardly anything orignal this whole game. She needs to start.

Post 540 – This is camn’s post. She calls out charter for being wishy-washy using a one of charter’s quotes about not liking one of Netlava’s posts (he made several posts like this) and then another where he stated he had his suspicions that Netlava was town. I thought this was the key to the wishy-washy comment. She also used a charter quote saying it is painfully obvious Walnut is scum. Camn makes another good point about charter making small pointless comments (All Aboard!) while calling out others when they do it.

Camn's post was wrong, and was already shot down. Go back and read it. How is making small pointless comments scummy?

Ok, so I wasn't sure about Netlava yesterday, and I am about Walnut. How is that wishy washy? I wasn't positive Netlava was town yesterday (like I am with Walnut) so I'm not going to make assertions that he is. You are trying to take your being wrong about him and twist it to make me look bad.

Fark's big reason for voting me was that I quoted some of my posts. Other reasons are all like "I don't like how charter does this" or "charter said something scummy on page 5".

Post 548 – Here he completely avoids the keys to camn’s and Fark’s arguments. How can you find so many bad posts by Netlava, but have suspicions he’s town? “I don’t like how charter does this” was actually the fact that said if Had lived to D2 we lynch him. “Charter said something scummy on page 5” was actually charter’s appeal to the majority when Farside called him out.

Bad posts don't equal scum. Oh wait, did I try and get Had lynched today? In fact, I think I said the opposite. Yes, quite sure I did. You're making stuff up here Tinsley...

Post 552 – Mac FOS’s the entire charter bandwagon. I agreed at the time due to how quickly it filled up. Now I think this could be evidence of a charter/Mac pair.

This is ridiculous. You're just saying whatever you can to try and save your own ass. Obviously Mac was right because the wagon disbanded immediately because it was filled with non-existant arguments. How is this scummy? It isn't (I'm going to just answer that question I ask of you after practically every post).

This is exactly what I wanted to say, but I couldn't cause two more people would jump on me for OMGUSing.

Post 553 – If you’re town, shouldn’t you be more concerned with pointing out scum than getting lynched? You’ve made a few comments like this that make me think you’re worried about being lynched.

Yes, but how can I point out scum if everyone who votes for me has an equally non-existant to terrible reason? If I was lynched from that wagon, I doubt anyone could have pinpointed the scum. Isn't everyone worried about being lynched, so how is that scummy?

Walnut is scum because he misdirects the town

rather than scumhunting.

Post 555 – Oh the irony!

That was me trying the opposite of posting a lot about Walnut and just posting one line saying why he's scum (which I said a few posts before wouldn't convince anyone, so I was trying it because my trying an actual case didn't work).
Thank you once again for your pointless comments Tinsley!

Yes, you've found a buddy of the town, Mac.

Post 559 – Another post suggesting a possible Mac/charter relationship.

How is it scummy? It isn't.

Yeah, Fark seems scummier with each post he makes. Why would rereading the Walnut case make me less scummy? He gets called out for putting up a crap case against me, so he moves on to the person he thinks is the next easiest to get lynched (that isn't his scumbuddy known as walnut), Tinsley. There's plenty of stuff you could have brought up against me, but you just gave up. Not to mention your latest contradiction you use as evidence agaisnt Tinsley

Post 567 – This post makes nearly the same case that I made on Fark. Yet I’m the one about to be lynched for making a crappy case. This also falls in line with what I think Mac and Riot have been doing, buddying up to me.

Is this even related to me? How is it scummy?

Post 569 – Charter again defending me.

Not charter defending you. Charter telling Fark he's scum and his case against you was bad. How is this scummy? It isn't.

charter, you suspect a lot of people. Can I ask you who your top townie is and why?

Looking for someone to kill off tonight? There is absolutely no reason you need to know this, but I know that I have no choice but to answer all questions directed at me. It's been Riot for quite some time. I only suspect three people, I think I made that pretty clear in my post 567, not the "lot of people" you put in my mouth.

Post 592 – This is an incredibly scummy post, it’s got a couple charterisms. We have another example of charter being aggressive when someone asks him a question. Also for those of you that never read the trainwrecked game, charter brought a lot of suspicion on himself as scum by not answering a question. It looks like he’s trying to point out that he’s answering the question, even though he doesn’t like it, just so people won’t lynch him. Claims Fark put the “lot of people” statement in his mouth, when at this point he’s cast suspicion on: Walnut, Fark, LG, Thesp, Tinsley, camn, and SG.

I tend to get more aggressive when people make crap up against me. I don't see the need of anyone asking someone who is their top townie pick. How about you tell me why someone needs to know that, Tinsley. You're putting lot of people in my mouth again, I said in 567 the three people I was suspicious of. You know that who you're suspicious of can change, right? It doesn't have to stay the same throughout the whole game.

Ehh, I'm leaning towards Fark being horribly wrong in his assessment of things, but wrong as town now. He's definately not out of the woods yet, but I'd prefer a Walnut or LG lynch today now. I don't have proof of this, just my feelings.

Post 608 – So what made you change your mind on Fark? By the way this is Wishy-Washy.

His recent posts. Yes, that is wishy washy, how is it scummy though? It isn't.

Tinsley might actually BE town, which is why he took a stand, allbeit on a lost cause.

Post 611 – This is camn’s quote about my case on Fark, but I thought I’d bring it up again, I like it even though it has nothing to do with charter.

This is just more Tinsley trivial commentation.

Post 644 – Votes LG. LG predicted this in the post prior to charter’s vote, made a couple hours earlier. Yet charter didn’t even see the comment.

Already explained this. How is it scummy? It isn't.

As with your reread knowing Netlava was town, would you consider his "very scummy" play sinister if I was lynched and came up town? Out of curiosity, how do you defend yourself unjustly?

Are you sure that's directed at me? I don't think I said I was going to do a reread today. Also, I know for a fact I never said he was very scummy. I don't even understand that last question.

Post 651 – Charter once again twisting people’s words. How many examples is that now? Is 3 right?

Cute. I answered the wrong thing, which is why I was confused. I later answered what Walnut wanted me too. And no, we're not at three.

Post 653 – LG has called charter out for not reading his post before voting. Charter says that’s not enough evidence to build a case on him. Do we have enough now? Charter also admits he voted before reading LG’s post, but got excited when he saw Fark had voted for him and decided to vote for LG too. He says he had a big speech questioning Fark on his vote, then he goes on to call Fark’s vote horrible.

You haven't found a single new thing on me and did anything but comment on it. You haven't showed how what I've said is scummy, probably because most of what you quoted isn't. How is this scummy by the way? What's that? It isn't? Nope.

Post 655 – I tell charter I’d still like to see that speech, but he deleted it. Isn’t that convenient? You can’t retype it?

This is ridiculous. I summarized what it said and I did delete it. I already went over this, I didn't care why Fark voted LG. I planned on getting LG lynched, then calling Fark out on it tomorrow. You can come up with your own questions for Fark, I don't have to do it for you. How is me deleting it scummy? It isn't.

Sorry if I'm sounding abrasive or sarcastic. I'm just fed up with answering this massive commentation on my posts. It's getting really old (to me anyway).

[charter]

Finally! The end to the charter analysis:

Post 657 – Charter posts an LG reread analysis

140, basically just lets us know he's alive

That’s funny, going back and looking, LG speaks out against a BB lynch. He also supports a charter lynch. But I guess by posting he did let us know he was alive.

How is this scummy or even an argument against me?

175, Netlava is exactly right. Everything in the entire post is golden.
176, votes Netlava with terrible reasoning.
188, no point of this other to just remind people that Netlava did something that can be considered fishy

That golden post 175 by Netlava calls out LG for not pushing charter’s bandwagon. Yet when LG does push for a Netlava bandwagon in post 188, there’s no point to it.

How is this scummy or even an argument against me?

212, Netlava is right again, by this time Mac has taken over lynching Netlava duties, convienently leaving LG's hands virtually clean

Now I do like this one. As long as you replace Mac’s name with Thesp and Fark, then replace LG’s name with Mac. I'd also like to mention that charter's given out some blame to Fark, LG, and camn for Netlava's lynch, but never Mac, even though Mac put a lot of suspicion on Netlava.

How is this scummy or even an argument against me?

317, [LG’s] first useful content filled post.

I strongly disagree here. He may be guilty of tunnel vision and lurking early on, but his early posts did provide his opinions. I did notice LG has been suspicious of charter right from the start, which makes charter’s efforts to have LG lynched seem OMGUS.

I've also been suspicious of LG from very early. How is this scummy or even an argument against me?

434, anxious to lynch a townie
448, this is worth looking into
451, STILL anxious to pull off the lynch before something can happen

While I agree that LG seemed anxious to hammer Netlava in 451, he certainly was not in 434. He was responding to SG’s misunderstanding that CF Riot’s confirm vote had hammered Netlava. All LG said was “we’re waiting for Thesp to hammer.”

How is this scummy or even an argument against me?

@camn, walnut is right, just because someone is being extremely town, doesn't mean a thing. Suspecting Mac based soley on that is scummy.

More evidence of a possible charter/Mac relationship.

How is this scummy or even an argument against me?

@Riot, if you go back and reread Netlava's and LG's posts from yesterday, and take into account knowing Netlava is town, LG plays like he knew it yesterday as well.

How did LG play like he knew Netlava was town? You played like you knew Netlava was town, so you're scum?

LG never tried to further the Netlava wagon but always made sure it was known he was on it and supporting it. Townies generally try and make arguments against those they find scummy. LG doesn't generate anything new against Netlava. No, I didn't play like I knew Netlava was town yesterday. If you think I do, then show me.

Fark, trying to play off your frequent wagon hopping with legitimate reasons ("There's nothing scummy about being strategic with your vote to make sure that scum gets lynched (especially since we haven't even lynched one of them yet)") certainly isn't helping you in my mind. I would just use the defense, "I know I'm town, so I'd rather someone else scummy get lynched". It would have been much more believable than your trying to supply actual reasoning for the votechanging.

Post 701 – Charter calls out Fark for his vote changes. How many times have you changed your vote today? Nevermind...I'll get to this later.

Difference is, I only changed it between the three I thought were scum (Fark, Walnut, LG) until I voted you. How is that scummy?

Riot, in 629, you suspect five people. Five!

Post 716 – You have VOTED four people. Four!

Another pointless comment. How is this scummy?

I'm pretty sure Walnut is scum, but on my reread I found things that made me doubt whether he actually is scum or not, hence why I'm now not so eager to lynch him.

Post 727 – You’re being wishy-washy again.

Yes, this is the second time I've done it. What Camn said was wishy washy isn't. How is this scummy?

Someone else vote LG and I will switch over to him. Don't care about your reasoning, make something up if you must.

Post 738 – I don’t think this one even needs an explanation. Post 744 is more of the same.

Yes it does need an explaination. How is it scummy?

Actually, unvote Fark, vote LG LG has once again gone to non-contribution as soon as he's not in danger of being lynched, I'd like to urge him to contribute some more.

I've posted more recently than camn. Thoughts about that? I have been contributing for a while since I was wagonned.

ONCE AGAIN, LG is throwing unfounded suspicion camn's way. Camn's case is different, she's been minimally posting all along, you post much more when you have some votes on you.

Yes, quite sure LG is scum.

Post 766 – Another case of charter twisting someone’s words. I think this is number four. He continued to insist that LG was casting suspicion for the next several posts.

How is that not LG trying to deflect onto Camn? It's pretty much the definition of deflecting. How is what I said scummy?

Didn't find anything about LG, but I did on Tinsley. I'd be Ok with a Tinsley lynch. Coupled with most of the town's suspicion of him and his post 654, he's not looking too good anymore.

Post 817 – So all game you’ve insisted that I’m town, but now that I’m the most popular lynch, I’m scummy? Seriously though, look at “most of the town’s suspicion”:

Thesp – Early reason for suspecting me was that I popped up whenever my name was called. I believe that’s all he’s provided
Fark – My “crappy” argument on him (Pretty close to the argument that you made) + OMGUS (Fark’s words, not mine) vote on Fark
Camn – Voted me to pressure me to answer a question.
Walnut – See Fark’s reasons

Then he looks up one quote from me, twists my words (I think that’s five times now) and decides that it’s good enough reason to vote me.

I never insisted you were town. I know because I didn't insist anyone was town. (I said I thought Netlava was, but I never insisted that or tried to convince anyone of that). I didn't twist your words, I saw the light.

I'd still like to see that speech. Charter - with the recent developments between LG and Fark, do you still think they are both scum? I think this is more proof that Fark is trying to get any lynch besides Walnut, but it's making me wonder whether or not LG is scum.

I didn't read too much into this post before, as I was willing to take any and all votes for LG without caring the reason for them. Fark fell pretty much right under this category.

His post is trying to get me to pick Fark over LG. Coupled with my strong belief that LG is scum (which I stated a few posts before Tinsley's) and Fark's recent claim, this statement by him is incredibly manipulative.

Going back and looking at D2 charter voted: Walnut, LG, Walnut, Fark, LG, Tinsley

I think charter’s “job” was to try to bring out the doc today, by vote hopping. He never does put a vote on Mac, Riot, or SG (I think the two former are possible partners, I’m not sure why he never placed a vote on SG – maybe cause she wasn’t drawing any suspicion), or Thesp and camn (already revealed their roles.)

My "job" is to lynch scum. More unfounded accusations by Tinsley. Either show that my "job" was to bring out the doc or don't say it.

I also think he’s trying a little too hard to look protown. I’m not sure how many rereads he said he did, but I’d bet it was somewhere around 20.

Yes, quite sure charter is scum.

I believe I've done maybe 5 total/partial rereads. I don't know where you get 20 from or why you'd say that.

Discuss.

[camn]

Wow.

This is a huge battle....
Let me sum up the arguments:


Tinsley - "Charter, doing X, Y, and Z is scummy"
Charter - "None of that is scummy."
Tinsley - "Is, too."
Charter - "Is not!"

[Lord Gurgi]

Someone with a longer attention span than me might want to count the times charter says: "How is it/this scummy?"