Mini 659: The Neighborhood- Game over on Day 6

[Darox]

Vote: Ythill

Obv scum for obv reasons.

[Darox]

Clearly this is going to be something I forget regularly.

##Vote: iamausername

[Darox]

##Unvote: iamusername, Vote: Rashiminos

I don't like the miller claim. Far too much potential for WIFOM there. I'm going to treat him as someone that hasn't claimed for now, because that means less headaches.

[Darox]

I am by no means ignoring the claim.

However, it will not affect my opinions on iamausername

for now

. As such, I will consider him as if he had not claimed.

My vote is not random.

[Darox]

1)

Darox - In post 9, you subtley changed your vote to Username but provided no specific reasons for doing so. Was this on the basis of his claim? If so, why was the claim voteworthy?

I don't like miller claims. I don't really like any page one claims, but miller is the most headache inducing.

It was a better reason than why I was voting Ythill, who was lynched recently in another game with me.

@Rashiminos:
You did some things that I thought were a little suspicious, such as the push for flavour claim, but that has cleared up now.

##Unvote: Rashiminos

I want Lowell to respond to Tony's questions.

[Darox]

##Vote: Lowell

Haven't liked his play at the start and this attack on tony is starting to look more and more of a stretch.

[Darox]

##Vote: Lowell

Haven't liked his play at the start and this attack on tony is starting to look more and more of a stretch.

I'm not a big fan of posts appearing to change in meaning unless you can provide some outside support for such an assertion.

IGMEOY: Darox

Que?

"Appearing to change in meaning"?

[Darox]

It seemed that you said the attack was more of a stretch

now

, which would imply that you initially didn't see it as much of a stretch earlier, despite the attack remaining the same postwise.

Am I missing something?

He started out with suggesting Tony was pushing a lynch without tying himself to it, then suggests later that in addition to this Tony is trying to draw out counterclaims, as well as supporting fake claims, metagaming, and flavor-testing.

[Darox]

I am of the opinion that meta can't be used to defend poor behavior.

The idea is they eventually get broken out of the habit.

[Darox]

Explanation: I don't think Lowell is town.

I think he is neutral with a disruptive playstyle, which comes off as scummy.

Things I don't like about Lowell. Fishing for role claims day one. 100% belief in miller claim. Case on tony.

[Darox]

I think he is neutral with a disruptive playstyle, which comes off as scummy.

neutral as in you have no read on him, or neutral as in 3rd party alignment? Your comment makes no sense to me. Is somebody who is 'neutral' to you right now the scummiest person you can find? Does that mean everybody else is coming across as clear town to you?

I'll choose misrep for twenty dollars Jerry.

I think he is playing in a poor manner. Like I said above.
I am undecided on whether this makes him scum or an idiot, but I am leaning scum. Like I said above.

Nobody has done anything to come across as anything near clear town to me. Ythill is probably the person I find most helpful to the town. Elias has been pretty good.

[Darox]

I think he is neutral with a disruptive playstyle, which comes off as

scummy

.

I think he is playing in a poor manner. Like I said above.
I am undecided on whether this makes him scum or an idiot, but I am leaning scum. Like I said above.

Nobody has done anything to come across as anything near clear town to me. Ythill is probably the person I find most helpful to the town. Elias has been pretty good.

Since it has worked out so well for me in the past, I'll have to go with Misrep again Jerry.

I called him neutral because I am undecided on whether he is scum or an idiot. LIKE I SAID ABOVE.
I used the words neutral and scummy in my initial post. SEE ABOVE.

I hope you can understand this, because if I roll three misreps in a row I have to go directly to jail and do not collect my $200.

[Darox]

I used the words neutral and scummy in my initial post. SEE ABOVE.

Yes, you said his

playstyle

comes off as scummy. That's still not the same as saying that you think he's been scummy in this game. And even if you meant to say his play in this game has been scummy, why did you use the word 'neutral' at all?

Regarding the Darox argument: I don't believe it's giving a tell on him either way, not for me at least. I think its just one comment being dragged out of proportion, probably due to a misunderstanding to his initial meaning.

I disagree. I think his original post was very clear in its meaning; there's no way you'd say "I think he is neutral with a disruptive playstyle, which comes off as scummy." when what you meant to say was "I think he is scummy."

Darox proposed a policy lynch to "correct" Lowell's behaviour in future games, and when people pointed out that this is a terrible idea if we want to win

this

game, he completely changed his story. It's backtracking, plain and simple. And I think that's a scummy reaction.

/facepalm

Now I have to go to jail for rolling three misreps in a row.

My sole experience with Lowell has been this game. His playstyle to me, is his actions in this game.

I used the word neutral, like I have said twice before, because I am not 100% sure whether his play in this game is the result of him being scum or him just playing badly.

I never meant to say "I think Lowell is scum guys, lynch please", stop putting words in my mouth.

How have I changed my story?

[Darox]

If only I had a dayvig.

I FIND LOWELL SCUMMY, LIKE I HAVE SAID SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE. HOWEVER, I THINK THIS COULD JUST BE BECAUSE OF HIS PLAYING STYLE, WHICH I FIND IS ANTI TOWN. I USED THE WORD NEUTRAL INTENTIONALLY BECAUSE IT DISPLAYS MY MIXED FEELINGS ON LOWELL.

What is wrong with someone being put at L-1, exactly?

[Darox]

I think he is neutral with a disruptive playstyle, which comes off as scummy.

neutral as in you have no read on him, or neutral as in 3rd party alignment? Your comment makes no sense to me. Is somebody who is 'neutral' to you right now the scummiest person you can find? Does that mean everybody else is coming across as clear town to you?

I'll choose misrep for twenty dollars Jerry.

I think he is playing in a poor manner. Like I said above.
I am undecided on whether this makes him scum or an idiot, but I am leaning scum. Like I said above.

Nobody has done anything to come across as anything near clear town to me. Ythill is probably the person I find most helpful to the town. Elias has been pretty good.

So, I'm going to have to come to the conclusion that your question is loaded.

I do not want Lowell to be lynched based on his current behavior. I want him to speak up more and try to clear his name.

What is 'a lot' wrong with L-1, exactly?

[Darox]

I want him to stop acting in an anti town manner. Because... it is anti town?

[Darox]

Only if no one manages to make themselves look scummier and a deadline threatens, but I find this unlikely.

[Darox]

Why should I have unvoted him?

You still have yet to explain why being at L-1 is somehow fundamentally wrong.

I knew he was at L-1 when he was put there, but I felt the added pressure would be useful.

As far as I can tell, this line of questioning is based on the assumption that no one would ever have a reason for not unvoting when someone is at L-1 excluding wanting that person dead. This is not the case.

[Darox]

##Unvote

I don't support any hammering of Lowell right now. Still want him to talk more though.

[Darox]

The case against me is highly amusing.

Does anyone have something other than that I don't want to see Lowell dead right away but I do want him to say more?

[Darox]

Was that the case?

I thought the case was that you seemed to think his play style is scummy, yet refused to remove your vote at L-1.

Now that he is at L-1 again, you suddenly do remove the vote, contradicting your previous argument of 'what is wrong with being at L-1'?

Also, this isn't the first time in this game that Lowell is it L-1. What makes you think the strategy is going to make him talk this time?

Wait, what?

He was not at L-1 again, he was on the same 5 votes he had been on since Tommy unvoted when he was at L-1 the first and only time.

So, I am not contradicting myself, and there is still nothing wrong with being at L-1. My argument is not 'what is wrong with L-1', I don't have an argument against your points because you don't have any real points.

[Darox]

Can someone try to summarize the case against me?

So far all I have got is that not unvoting when someone is at L-1 is somehow morally wrong, and unvoting when someone starts calling for an immediate hammer is clearly the move of a dirty sleaze.

This is obviously a joke, so tell me. What is the real case against me?

[Darox]

I fail to see how being asked about why I didn't unvote ASAP when Lowell was at L-1 then unvoting because someone started calling for a hammer is bad, when the reason I was voting was to pressure, not to reach a lynch.

I find your #2 reason for following the Lowell bandwagon to be dubious. Going with a lynch because 'its the only one with momentum' is a scummy action. Was there really no other people worth looking into at all? Or did you decide to ignore them because no one else was looking their way?

[Darox]

No, it is scummy to support a lynch because you think it's the only one that will be supported.

Thanks for twisting my statements with your question, by the way. I never said it was scummy to follow the majority nor join a wagon without bringing up your own unique point.

So why are my actions bad again? Everyone seems to have wandering trains of thought and can't answer this properly without a blanket statement of 'It just is, M'kay?'

[Darox]

It may be that you thought there was no such risk, for reasons that you haven't yet disclosed. Your recent unvote, on the other hand, shows that by that point you

did

think there was a risk, which is why iamausername has asked you this question:

What made you decide that Lowell suddenly was in danger of being hammered, Darox?

You haven't answered that yet.

My my, how about this?

EBWOP: Lowell has refused to claim.

I support a hammering.

Or maybe this?

There's still a week before the deadline, so if people need to discuss this further, that's fine by me.

But personally, I agree. Lowell remains the scummiest player, and I'd like to see him swing.

Crazy of me to think that there might be a risk of an imminent hammer, right?

@Darox: I've already posted a decent summary of the case against you...

I totally agree with the questions posed to Darox and I don’t like how his replies have gone. He’s dodged the basic gist of the accusation: voting a player whom you find neutral yet disruptive is not pro-town play, and it suggests overall suspicions that are too weak for a townie to hold honestly. It sounds like scum leaving room, later, to escape culpability for a lynch or to reverse positions if the wagon goes sour. Saying “misrep” and getting frustrated does not change these things.

Furthermore, when asked to defend his vote, Darox tried in vain and eventually detracted it quietly. And there have been a few other minor points.

I can go into the minor points if you'd like, but I'd be satisfied, for now, if you addressed what's explicit above.

Also, your meta suggests that you are normally more forthright and direct with your defenses. What's different in this game?

Your above quote only holds weight if you think I was voting to achieve a lynch. The entire point of the vote was to see if Lowell would do anything to solidify my opinion on him.

I haven't 'tried in vain', I have pointed out that all you had against my vote was that 'leaving someone you don't find 100% scummy at L-1 is a moral and social injustice'. The only reason I unvoted was the calls for an immediate hammer that I showed above.

Your meta comment amuses me. I am acting different from the 6 other games I am in? The difference in this game is mostly that I don't have any solid leads so far.

Can someone try to summarize the case against me?

Besides the inconsistency in your attitude to unvoting, there's the whole "making themselves look scummy" thing that I've been discussing with Rash which I note that you've failed entirely to comment on, and more importantly, there's your initial Lowell vote, which was extremely poorly reasoned and bandwagonning as hell, and the whole reason I became suspicious of you in the first place.

Please point out the inconsistency, I'm stupid and obviously thought my votes were somehow justified.

I noticed Rash pretty much destroyed your 'making themselves look scummy' argument without needing my help, which wasn't hard considering the logical fallacies in it.

Seems a bit of a stretch here. On the one hand you're assuming that townies can make themselves look scummy with the suggestion that hypothetical Daroxscum would take advantage of such townies. If this is the case, then we have this idea of townies who do "scummy" things, and probably do so unintentionally. In this case, how can we rule out hypothetical Daroxtown making himself look "scummy?" How can we get past this circular logic going on here?

[Darox]

The moral and social part is making fun of you guys for calling leaving someone at L-1 wrong, for no other reason than 'it just is'.

Ythill, if you may, please tell me what your immediate reaction to someone quick hammering someone who hasn't done anything majorly scummy? Would you say 'Its the fault of those damn people who didn't unvote when he reached L-1', or would you start seriously questioning why someone dropped an untimely hammer? I would be fine letting a quick hammer fall on someone I didn't have an alignment read on but thought was anti town. It means suddenly there is one less anti town player and there is a very suspect person who somehow thought dropping a hammer early and without real merit was a good idea.

But really, the point of this is moot because Tony or whomever unvoted him before I had the chance to even contemplate not unvoting him.

[Darox]

I did briefly consider it, but I decided to wait it out a bit, but Tony rendered the point moot by doing it himself.

Also, the entire point is that lynching an unknown this early is a

bad thing

, which is why anyone that hammers would be suspect.

[Darox]

Claim or die is not the same as 'He hasn't claimed yet, kill him.'

What rash is saying is your argument doesn't prove anything at all, except that I might have an alignment.

I was contemplating my actions after I had decided not to unvote and whether it was a good pick, but then tony decided for me.

[Darox]

Claim or die is not the same as 'He hasn't claimed yet, kill him.'

I can possibly see a very slight semantic difference there. I can't see how that difference could mean the difference between you unvoting and not unvoting with your stated position. If you weren't ready to see Lowell lynched, why didn't you offer any resistance to Oman's "claim or die" sentiment?

Because I wanted Lowell to do something. That was the entire point of my vote. The claim or die was a push in that direction. There is a huge difference between the two, because one is pushing for a claim, and the other is a request to get someone lynched. If you can't see the difference between these two then I give up, because you are obviously wearing blinders.

I was contemplating my actions after I had decided not to unvote and whether it was a good pick, but then tony decided for me.

So you admit that this statement:

But really, the point of this is moot because Tony or whomever unvoted him before I had the chance to even contemplate not unvoting him.

was, in fact, a lie?

No I did not. Nice word twisting. I stated that it was in fact perfectly true. I decided to not unvote Lowell, then was contemplating my actions and if I should remove my vote after all, but Tony's unvote decided for me.

This is difficult. Darox is looking increasingly suspicious, but Lowell is worse. .

## unvote

Really, while Lowell has gone quiet and is being prodded again, I'm thinking Darox is looking scummier by the post. Never liked his brushing off the case against him as 'a joke', and after user had him cornered, I'm even more convinced he's scum caught out.

Defending yourself against other peoples attacks which are seemingly based upon cotton candy and rainbows looks scummy, but lurking and pushing bad cases isn't? Oh my, I have been playing the wrong game entirely.

Also, I love the way you justify your vote without any actual evidence, but rather try to preemptively assure people that you are not voting without reason for the sake of a wagon.

[Darox]

Claim or die is a threat holding the promise of a potential future lynch. It is not a command to lynch. How can you not see the difference.

[Darox]

Still not the same thing as calling for a hammer. You are giving him time to breathe and explain himself.

[Darox]

I wasn't really taking a side there, just stating that the two are in fact different, in spite of what some people here seem to believe.

I do however think that Lowell should be given time to explain himself. Lynching him now based on his current actions would be a bad idea and ultimately would leave us stranded in D2.

[Darox]

The deadline rapidly approaching.
Deadline means no lynch.

This is bad.

And, as Oman said, his big post wasn't exactly enlightening and he still ignored requests for a claim.

Vote: Lowell

[Darox]

Of course there was always a

##Vote: Lowell

in there.

[Darox]

This is a thoughtful post.

I didn't get why the scum would try to kill user. Despite Ythill's theories a power role claiming miller to try and avoid the night kill is far from likely in the current meta, and makes for an easier lynch, as well as all the 'Lynch all Liars' rhetoric which hurts any future results he wants to claim later.

[Darox]

This is a thoughtful post.

I didn't get why the scum would try to kill user. Despite Ythill's theories a power role claiming miller to try and avoid the night kill is far from likely in the current meta, and makes for an easier lynch, as well as all the 'Lynch all Liars' rhetoric which hurts any future results he wants to claim later.

The only reason why this post is making me think about you is because i have no idea what you are exactly trying to get at.
A) They didn't try to kill user, User is gone. No more user.
B) Easier lynch of whom?
C) Why exactly would hurt any future claims of Ythill (if thats who you're refering to)

This is very easy to answer.

A) You are wrong
B) You are wrong
C) You are wrong

Oh, alright, I'll explain it a bit more.

A) Yes they did. Thats why he is, you know, dead. Unless you are suggesting there is a vigilante/serial killer who decided to kill AND that the mafia got blocked/countered by another player, the Mafia killed user.
B) Easier to lynch User. Because, you know, he was the one that claimed Miller, which brings the focus onto him.
C) I'm referring to the 'Claim miller as cop' idea from Ythill which suggests why he would be a target for night kills despite claiming miller. Someone who claims miller then later claims that they are instead cop is a liar. Considering the 'Lynch all Liars' idea, I think that claiming miller at the start would only be damaging to any pro town investigative power role.

[Darox]

Could it not just be that they wanted to get the miller out of the way rather sooner than later, and save power-role hunting for when they have a better shot?
No scum wants a miller in a endgame. And the chance that user could've been fakeclaiming to protect himself would be a bonus.

Can you explain what kind of Bizzaro world where a claimed miller is harmful in the endgame to the scum team?

[Darox]

##Vote: TonyMontana

This vote has reasons.

[Darox]

So you have absolutely 0 leads fhq?

[Darox]

Vote Count

(6 to lynch)

TonyMontana:

Darox

Not voting (9):

Elias, Rashiminos, Oman, TonyMontana, crywolf, bionic, Tommy, Ythill, fhqwhgads

There is something wrong with this picture.

I'll give you a hint.
There are exactly 9 things wrong with this picture.

[Darox]

Lowells large post

The fact that it failed to describe any of his actions or motives, or claim despite people calling for it, prompted me to hammer and end the day before the deadline struck.

[Darox]

Tommy, Tony is complaining about my vote on him, not my vote on Lowell.

[Darox]

Could it not just be that they wanted to get the miller out of the way rather sooner than later, and save power-role hunting for when they have a better shot?
No scum wants a miller in a endgame. And the chance that user could've been fakeclaiming to protect himself would be a bonus.

I just thought of another reason to kill user. So the scum can be like "why on earth would they kill user?"

Can you please explain to me what prompted you to defend the mafia nightkill choice?

And user narrowed a cops search for scum, as well as the towns (as long as user was believed) , so yet another reason for them to take him out of the equation.

Why are you continuing to defend the mafia nightkill choice? Why do you feel the need to justify the decision?

Tony:

I still feel like his initial vote was a little suspect. The unvote @ L-1 + revote @ L-2 was null. However, what I find most suspicious afterwards was the way Tony stopped looking at other people. His posts after that vote were all defense or side-comment until the end-of-day IGMEO Oman. This while serious discussion about the Lowell lynch was taking place.

@Tony: Why did you stop hunting?

How do you know whether I'm "looking at other people"? I'm just not the instigator type.

Why did you try to seem like you might actually have other suspects then defend your lack of insight on others by passing it off as a character flaw? Why did you decide to not answer the highlighted question?

I don't like slippery arguments. Are you denying the charge or not?

The charge of not being involved in the arguing? Not denying, no.

Lets repeat the question here.

@Tony: Why did you stop hunting?

How does your answer link up to what the question is asking? Why did you feel compelled to give a weaselly non-answer to Ythill's questioning?
(Incidentally, Ythill, why did you call him out for his slippery answers the first time but not the second time?)

Vote Count

(6 to lynch)

TonyMontana:

Darox

Not voting (9):

Elias, Rashiminos, Oman, TonyMontana, crywolf, bionic, Tommy, Ythill, fhqwhgads

There is something wrong with this picture.

I'll give you a hint.
There are exactly 9 things wrong with this picture.

Dude, if you got something to say, say it. Insinuating that you have some kind of special knowledge is not gonna make everyone follow you blindly, and it's a scummy trait, so you're not doing yourself any favours.

Where did I insinuate that I had special knowledge? Why are you seemingly trying to pull a claim from me here?
(In case anyone couldn't figure it out, I was complaining that no one was voting period, not that no one was voting for Tony.)

[Darox]

Could it not just be that they wanted to get the miller out of the way rather sooner than later, and save power-role hunting for when they have a better shot?
No scum wants a miller in a endgame. And the chance that user could've been fakeclaiming to protect himself would be a bonus.

I just thought of another reason to kill user. So the scum can be like "why on earth would they kill user?"

Can you please explain to me what prompted you to defend the mafia nightkill choice?

This isn't really defence. He's trying to work out how the mafia are thinking, which is pro-town."

Excuse me?
How?

Just because you say it is doesn't make it so.

I could say "daykilling the confirmed cop is pro town" all I like, but it doesn't make it so.

[Darox]

Can somebody remind me how Crywolf has managed to slip completely out of the picture here?

Sure, Darox soft-claimed

I haven't soft claimed anything.

[Darox]

I'm voting for Tony because he is scum. I thought that was obvious.
I also thought it was obvious that I hadn't softclaimed. Because, you know, I never once hinted at something like 'I'm going to get you tonight' or 'I won't let you die' or 'I have proof of guilt' or anything along those lines.
What you interpret from my actions does not equal a softclaim from myself.

Anyway, back to the scumbag.

Why did you try to seem like you might actually have other suspects then defend your lack of insight on others by passing it off as a character flaw? Why did you decide to not answer the highlighted question?

Why did you not answer this question at all Tony? Not even a deflection?

Can you please explain to me what prompted you to defend the mafia nightkill choice?

Uhh.. the discussion that was going on about the nightkill.

What made you feel the need to justify the mafia's decision? Why do you persist in deflecting the questions?

@Tony: Why did you stop hunting?

How does your answer link up to what the question is asking? Why did you feel compelled to give a weaselly non-answer to Ythill's questioning?
(Incidentally, Ythill, why did you call him out for his slippery answers the first time but not the second time?)

It linked up, and Ythill understood the context, and I don't believe it went over your head either, so bring some real inquiries please.

Why do you refuse to answer this question? Why did you stop hunting, or alternatively, what makes you feel that you have not stopped hunting? It is not a tough question, and I want you to answer me.

Where did I insinuate that I had special knowledge? Why are you seemingly trying to pull a claim from me here?
(In case anyone couldn't figure it out, I was complaining that no one was voting period, not that no one was voting for Tony.)

You vote for me, saying nothing else than "This vote has reasons"
Several people go "whatever" and ask you to bring forth reasons if you got em.
You say nothing, then make the votecount comment, which could not have been interpreted as anything else than a wish for people to follow your lead.
After several requests for an explanation, you now attempt to construct some arguments against me, and is still not adressing the question.

So how does this answer either of my questions again? You described my actions then completely failed to make the connection between them and me somehow saying I had special knowledge.
Not to mention some misrepresentation. My votecount comment could easily have been interpreted in the way it was meant rather than your abstract take, and I'm not 'attempting to construct some arguments', I am asking some questions.

So can you please answer these two questions again, and properly this time?

So I ask again: What did you have in mind when you said "This vote has reasons"

See first line of this post.

[Darox]

So can you please answer these two questions again, and properly this time?

I did, but let me spell it out for you..
1) "This vote has reasons" (Oh, if only this would amount to a reasonable basis for a vote everytime.)
2) I'm trying to get a coherent answer from you, not a claim.

##vote: Darox

So why did you ignore the rest of the questions? Fear of slipping up?

[Darox]

Au contraire, both are quite plainly obvious. You are scum, and this is why I am voting you. Simple huh?

I guess you can't slip up if you don't answer any questions and don't take any initiative. Oh my, what ever shall I do now?

So Sarah Palin, are you going to answer my questions or do you need time to fabricate more answers?

[Darox]

I'm voting for Tony because he is scum. I thought that was obvious.
I also thought it was obvious that I hadn't softclaimed. Because, you know, I never once hinted at something like 'I'm going to get you tonight' or 'I won't let you die' or 'I have proof of guilt' or anything along those lines.
What you interpret from my actions does not equal a softclaim from myself.

Anyway, back to the scumbag.

Why did you try to seem like you might actually have other suspects then defend your lack of insight on others by passing it off as a character flaw? Why did you decide to not answer the highlighted question?

Why did you not answer this question at all Tony? Not even a deflection?

Can you please explain to me what prompted you to defend the mafia nightkill choice?

Uhh.. the discussion that was going on about the nightkill.

What made you feel the need to justify the mafia's decision? Why do you persist in deflecting the questions?

@Tony: Why did you stop hunting?

How does your answer link up to what the question is asking? Why did you feel compelled to give a weaselly non-answer to Ythill's questioning?
(Incidentally, Ythill, why did you call him out for his slippery answers the first time but not the second time?)

It linked up, and Ythill understood the context, and I don't believe it went over your head either, so bring some real inquiries please.

Why do you refuse to answer this question? Why did you stop hunting, or alternatively, what makes you feel that you have not stopped hunting? It is not a tough question, and I want you to answer me.

Where did I insinuate that I had special knowledge? Why are you seemingly trying to pull a claim from me here?
(In case anyone couldn't figure it out, I was complaining that no one was voting period, not that no one was voting for Tony.)

You vote for me, saying nothing else than "This vote has reasons"
Several people go "whatever" and ask you to bring forth reasons if you got em.
You say nothing, then make the votecount comment, which could not have been interpreted as anything else than a wish for people to follow your lead.
After several requests for an explanation, you now attempt to construct some arguments against me, and is still not adressing the question.

So how does this answer either of my questions again? You described my actions then completely failed to make the connection between them and me somehow saying I had special knowledge.
Not to mention some misrepresentation. My votecount comment could easily have been interpreted in the way it was meant rather than your abstract take, and I'm not 'attempting to construct some arguments', I am asking some questions.

So can you please answer these two questions again, and properly this time?

So I ask again: What did you have in mind when you said "This vote has reasons"

See first line of this post.

How about answering all of these?

[Darox]

No, you answered the very last two.

Try reading the actual post.

[Darox]

I'll do this in tiny, bite sized pieces so you can understand. Lets start at the beginning, shall we?

#1

Why did you try to seem like you might actually have other suspects then defend your lack of insight on others by passing it off as a character flaw? Why did you decide to not answer the highlighted question?

Why did you not answer this question at all Tony? Not even a deflection?

I did. Fail.

Not once did you answer this question I posed to you.

Your first response, here, does not mention the question once.

Your next four posts do not address the question either.

In your very last post, you claim to have answered the question.

Where?

[Darox]

For those of you playing at home.

Tony:

I still feel like his initial vote was a little suspect. The unvote @ L-1 + revote @ L-2 was null. However, what I find most suspicious afterwards was the way Tony stopped looking at other people. His posts after that vote were all defense or side-comment until the end-of-day IGMEO Oman. This while serious discussion about the Lowell lynch was taking place.

@Tony: Why did you stop hunting?

How do you know whether I'm "looking at other people"? I'm just not the instigator type..

I don't like slippery arguments. Are you denying the charge or not?

The charge of not being involved in the arguing? Not denying, no.

No, Tony, that's not what I said. You found an early target and then you gave up the hunt. You didn't just refrain from arguing. You refrained from everything that wasn't defense or side-comments until almost the end of the day, when Oman got your OMGUS.

*IGMEOY
I understood what you meant, and I wasn't denying it.

These are Tony's answers.

None of them explain

why

he stopped hunting. None of them answer the question.

Can you please stop stonewalling tony? Thanks.

[Darox]

The grand list reasons why Darox initially placed his vote on Hannah Montana.

From the beginning, twilight of day 1.

IGMEOY, Oman...

Oman makes an obvious joke. Tony thinks this is suspicious and apparently deserving of an acronym. Now this could just be high spirits, but lets press on.

Are you trying to make yourself a Mafia target, or are you rather trying to misdirect a doc?

In response to Rashiminos saying that since Lowell has been hammered he will wait until the next day to post all his suspicions.
...
What the hell, Tony?

Where did this idea that not posting all your innermost thoughts and fancies before night falls makes you a prime mafia target come from?
What made you blurt out to the world that you thought Rashiminos thoughts were so important that stopping them would be a mafia priority?
To me this looks like a really bad attempt to frame Rashiminos for nothing more substantial than cotton candy.

I didn't IGMEOY you for your last comments.

Tony states he wasn't acronyming Oman for his Lyncher joke after all, and that there are mysterious alter motives for this. Oman is quick to ask what reasons he has for this vicious acronyming, but Tony refuses to even dignify him with a proper response. I think Tony was hoping for backup from anyone on this and when it failed to arrive he faltered then clammed up.

Could it not just be that they wanted to get the miller out of the way rather sooner than later, and save power-role hunting for when they have a better shot?
No scum wants a miller in a endgame.

And the chance that user could've been fakeclaiming to protect himself would be a bonus.

Starting the day by lamenting the loss for the town is a very old scumtell.

FoS:Elias

I just thought of another reason to kill user. So the scum can be like "why on earth would they kill user?"

"Guys, it was a good choice, honest! I'm not dumb guys, I know my choice was a smart one."

Seriously though, what compelled you to

justify

the scum night choice. You are throwing out a collection of reasons why the scum night choice was a good decision, and you mention that if he was a cop in disguise it would have been a bonus.

And user narrowed a cops search for scum, as well as the towns (as long as user was believed) , so yet another reason for them to take him out of the equation.

More of the above, justifying the scum's kill.

Shortly after this I vote for Tony.

He then proceeds to extend his policy of stonewalling Oman to include my questions as well.

[Darox]

Apathy strikes hard and fast.

I'll get around to explaining why Tony is still scum and why his answers are unsatisfactory some time this weekend.

[Darox]

A wise man once said - if there is nothing happening, vote!. Well maybe a wise man never said that, but one probably should.

##unvote;##vote Darox

mostly for voting and then all the reasons given for the vote have occurred after the vote.

Wrong.

Read my reasons again and you will find it is listed in chronological order and that my vote is at the end.

[Darox]

**Tony has been prodded**

Pick it up, folks. Only one person is being replaced, but a number of people are pushing the activity guidelines to the limit.

Marathon day and the associated Grey Screen of Death's may have something to do with it.

I know it's slowing me down.

[Darox]

I'm pretty happy with my vote on Darox still. While his analysis was adequate, it feels to me of a case of 'too little, too late'. He's been claiming a case on tony since his explanationless vote earlier. Then, when coaxed to give an explanation, he gives one mainly on tony's actions AFTER his vote. When this is pointed out to him several times and is re-asked to give is original case, he gives in and does. While his 'new' case does relate to things tony has done before his vote, it feels to me he's been buying time to fabricate a case to justify his vote. I don't buy it.

Ythill's post has convinced me somewhat that we need to take crywolf's actions more seriously. His case points out that she is either scum, or an overconfident newbie. Note that option two does not rule out she's scum either. I don't think it'll be difficult to sway my vote to her if we near deadline.

Still waiting on Oman to point out who else is town, so I can narrow down who he thinks is scum.

Please, if you don't have the decency to actually read the thread, at least admit to it and don't just make stuff up.

I never once posted two cases or two sets of reasons for my vote on tony.

[Darox]

Hi peg.

[Darox]

I am pretty awesome, huh?

This reminds me.

Need to get back to harassing tony some more.

[Darox]

I'm willing to believe the claim for now. Flavor seems okay and I expect a doc, so unless she's counter-claimed, I'm happy.

Also, in my opinion, lowered activity is a doc-tell, bionic.

Let's Lynch Darox. It's not like it's out of nowhere, he was nearly lynched yesterday and for good reason. He's only gotten scummier since then. If everyone who reads the thread votes for Darox, we could get him strung up by deadline.

This is adorable.

Lynch me because I say so is a compelling argument.

[Darox]

I think that wolf's flavor sounds too bland. And bionic might be on to something. My role PM doesn't mention other places.

How many of you were born and raised in the Neighborhood?

My role doesn't mention any places so I'm assuming I've been in the Neighborhood for 28 years.

[Darox]

I think that wolf's flavor sounds too bland. And bionic might be on to something. My role PM doesn't mention other places.

How many of you were born and raised in the Neighborhood?

My role doesn't mention any places so I'm assuming I've been in the Neighborhood for 28 years.

Actually, I read it wrong, it does imply I have spent all 28 years in the neighborhood.

[Darox]

Theres a deadline coming up.

A vote for tony is a vote for justice.

[Darox]

That's not my arguement. My arguement is that you helped to lynch Lowell for no good reason yesterday, you overreact and stonewall when people question you and your case on Tony is rubbish.

Ho ho.

#1: So did six other people.
#2: That's a matter of playstyle and not indicative of scum.
#3: My 'case' on tony is excellent and he should be lynched today.

[Darox]

Vote Count

(6 to lynch)

crywolf (3):

Ythill, bionic, fhqwhgads

TonyMontana (3):

Darox, Oman, crywolf

Darox (2):

M4yhem, TonyMontana

Ythill:

Rashiminos

Not voting (1):

pickemgenius

You're funny Ythill.

I'm considering a Ythill vote, but my Tony vote is so excellent.

[Darox]

Tony is the best lynch, and this should be evident.

[Darox]

Claim, Darox.

I'm not voting Tony. I think the case against Darox is far better. Ythill sums up his day two play nicely; his day one play was nothing but opportunistic bandwagonning.

You're funny.

[Darox]

Claim, Darox.

I'm not voting Tony. I think the case against Darox is far better. Ythill sums up his day two play nicely; his day one play was nothing but opportunistic bandwagonning.

You're funny.

This isn't funny Darox. We are in the last moments of the day.

Oh and, I'm starting to think Jester with Darox and his stupid moves here.

You're really funny.

Tony is still the best lynch.

[Darox]

So whats the case on me again?

That I vote for people and that I think the non existant case against me is a joke?

Or is it simply because I was mean to Tony and asked him hard questions?

[Darox]

Ten minutes?

Really?

Also thats 5 each, not 5 : 4/