I'm still here, haven't been active due to real life. My vote remains on Tony.
Tume: What I have seen from you so far has not been very good. Your focus appears to be not getting lynched rather than finding scum. Why are you so defensive?
WhereIsTony: You have never provided reasons for voting for Tume. Your vote was on pope until it was transferred to Tume. You have not provided any analysis on Tume. now that your out of suspicion you've moved back to your old ways of single line posts that don't give any detail. You asked if you should reevaluate Pope/Tume on page 7 but have not done so. Now you have cast the lynch -1 vote for no reason. (and since you deny this let me quote all of your posts since Tume joined.)
1. Context: Tume replaces pope, J_Slr removes vote from tume due to replacement.
WhereisTony wrote: bit of a quandry here.
Pop acted pretty scummy but, his replacement may not come off as such.
Not sure idf i should re-assess based on the new guy, or consider that the new guy may just be a better player.
Answer: YES! everyone else has been reevaluating their votes yet after 3 pages you have yet to catch on to this. +20% Scum
2. Context: Tume calls for Tony to defend himself.
WhereIsTony wrote:tumescence wrote:Syphen, WhereIsTony:
Your lack of self-defense is making me progressively more suspicious of you. Defend yourselves!
As stated in an earlier post I don't think defending yourself with a few accusation or votes is productive, i prefer to continue to hunt for scum, the best defense is taking out the Mafia.
I am starting to find Michel more scummy with his vasnishing for prolong periods showing up and throwing out a few theories.
It seems like he stirs things up sees what damage he does and then resurfaces once things have settled.
Could be scum baiting could be trying to turn the town on itself.
Analysis: People have been saying that scumhunting is better than trying to defend yourself. This is true, but in every other case this game when even a little suspicion is cast on a player (ie. J_Slr against me, Me against M4yhem, J_Slr against Yuu) that player has not symply ignored the suspicion as you have. They have defended their actions while still hunting for scum. Suspicion is cast upon you yet you completely ignore it and continue in a "by the book" fashion. Also, is that the best accusation you can come up with? seriously weak. +15% Scum.
3.Context: J_Slr writes: @Tony: you raise a good point about Michel, maybe we should put some pressure on him to be a little more active?
WhereIsTony wrote:unvote
vote Michel
reason stated two or three posts ago
Analysis: You are to be responding to J_Slr's request that you provide more information about Michel by putting a vote on him based on truly terrible reasons. Lets go back to the reasons you voted for him. You think that Michel is trying to turn the town on itself when the only post where he did more than request more information or post his opinion on all the players was when he voted for you. His posts have done nothing to turn the town on itself. What they have done is provide useful insight and force people to clarify and explain their thoughts. Not only have you placed a vote based on a very little amount of information and on top of that extremely flawed and in my opinion false information.
4. Context: M4yhem has mentioned the polls again.
WhereisTony wrote:I would Actually revisit my list
Tum
Michel
Jon
would be my top three
Very little information here but what i can gain is that you have provided very little reasoning on your top three people. With Tume/Pope as I stated waay back on page 5 or 6 you did little to put pressure on him other than a random vote and the statment "I'm secure in my vote." As stated early in this post you have done nothing to question Tume or Michel. You have not even indicated that you thought Jon was suspicious and seem to only be listing him because other people think he is suspicious.
5. Context: M4yhem has asked if people are ok with voting off Syphen.
WhereisTony wrote:Syphen's lurking stopped being so suspicious to me once i realized he was just not on much.
One line post, no real information. The same kind of post that people found suspicious and he avoided when under suspicion. Now that he only has my vote on him he has fallen back to his old ways.
6. Context: M4yhem asks Tony about his reasons for voting for Michel.
WhereisTony wrote:I was hoping for a reaction, or a post from michel thus the vote.
One line post...etc denys his suspicion on Michel.
7. Context: M4yhem placed the 3rd vote on Tume.
WhereisTony wrote:
Unvote, Vote:tumescence
Looking for a quick lynch? Maybe. No reasons for a vote? defiantly.
8. Context: Yuu asks why the fourth vote without reasons.
WhereisTony wrote:I had explained my reasons on this vote so many times.
I have been voting for pope/tum from the beginning, I changed it to try to get a reaction from michel despite my strongest suspicion being on pope/tum.
Once michel was proidded I went back.
The reasons you have stated for voteing for Pope/Tume are thus.
1. Pope didn't post in the first 19 posts of the topic.
2. Misinterpreted popes confusion about random voting as suspicious.
3. What I'm calling the "Scum Gloat" post. he writes: I'm pretty secure in my vote right now.
4. "Other than Pope seeming Scummy to me initially no one has really screamed pro-town."
5. @ pope Why were you nervous?
6. my vote is just an indicator of my suspicion based on the fact that he claimed cop
7. You give a list of reasons on the bottom of page 5. they are all one line and most are inconclusive at best.
These are all bad reasons to vote for someone.
Total analysis on WhereisTony: His inability to provide any significant information, reasoning, or analysis means he is scum and cannot think like a townie.
Tony: Care to defend yourself? if you do try to make it a meaningful post.
