Mini #704: Hunchback of Notre Dame, Game Over

[ClockworkRuse]

I am La Esmerelda's goat's Djali. Although the town believes I am possessed by the Devil, I am sided with you all. I have no powers, which is good.

Do you not think "the town believes I am possessed by the Devil" might be interpreted as hinting you are a miller?

It might be, but that is all just speculation. I'm not into outguessing the mod.

[Mizzy]

But if that's your playstyle I think that makes

you

a "bad townie".
Also you're sort of strawmanning his case against you.

Good thing your opinion means absolutely nothing, huh?

And no, I'm not strawmanning anything. I answered and debunked his points and he refuses to admit it or back down on any of them, even the one where he was glaringly wrong.

[ortolan]

err wut?

What of my points were wrong?

You may have been successful in reducing some of my points to subjectivity e.g. arguing that it is acceptable to vote a town player who is being unhelpful (although I still disagree, and think this is bad town play in and of itself and/or scummy), but in no way have you demonstrated any of my points were "glaringly wrong" in any way whatsoever.

[Mizzy]

err wut?

What of my points were wrong?

You may have been successful in reducing some of my points to subjectivity e.g. arguing that it is acceptable to vote a town player who is being unhelpful (although I still disagree, and think this is bad town play in and of itself and/or scummy), but in no way have you demonstrated any of my points were "glaringly wrong" in any way whatsoever.

Except the entire part where you suspected me for what ended up being a misread on my part. Basically, I suspected you for something that really wasn't what I thought it was (I had misread your post) and admitted that. Yet you have still not addressed or explained why that seems to be still a part of your case when it's not even valid.

What other points in your case do you feel are still valid enough to be still voting me?

[Battousai]

Post 427:

Initially I thought you claimed miller or had some special ability because I felt the line, "Although the town believes I am possessed by the Devil, I am sided with you all." was written to tell us that. Now that you have came out and said you have no special abilities, I wonder why you wrote that instead of "I am La Esmerelda's goat's Djali. I'm a vanilla townie, which is good." What you said was could have been, and was at least by me, hinted at if you turned up dead you could be revealed as scum when you weren't, your scum pals or a townie could suggest that you could be actually town and the reveal wasn't correct.

0

Post 441:

Well I'm still on the fence about CR. See above post. So if that was the case it wasn't counter-intuitive and he could have made a mistake and thought he had to be the lynch target. I mean as town voting Nat is a good move as allowing yourself to be lynch guarantees a mislynch, where as a Nat lynch did not. Of course the CR lynch does seem to give the most information from it, but CR seemed critical of that D1. You say CR seems town and that scum had to be on his wagon and vote one of them with that being your only reason. Go back and look at their reasons and see WHY they voted CR and see if there is logic behind it or that they actually thought CR was scum.

-2

Post 445:

Voting for no reason.

-2

Post 452:

ThAdmiral continues to vote then unvote almost immediately after.

0

Post 456:

While I do find Mizzy somewhat suspicious, some of these attacks are just wrong. First Mizzy has explained in the past that the vote on Ramus stayed on Ramus due to his actions/reactions after the initial vote. The inconsistancy thing is off.

0

Post 467:

Why is a hammering unvote worse than any of the other votes in the day (except it doesn't leave time for the lynchee to defend themselves)?

Post 469:

While there is a difference between not having a reason and not posting a reason, it leaves the other readers to just assume why you voted or if you even had a reason. Also not posting a reason is anti-town as it leaves the person you're voting in a position of not knowing why you voted them and defensless.

0

Post 471:

CC seems to be scumhunting and going away from his play from D1.

1

Post 473:

Urza explains that not giving a reason to his vote was to get reactions, something that I feel town or scum would try to do to find/incriminate someone. Your reason that only scum would get antsy is complete bull, IMO. As town or scum, I wouldn't be worried persay about a vote like that, but as town I would find it at fault and somewhat scummy and as scum I would try and get people to see it as scummy. As scum, if I felt you got a guilty on me I wouldn't get worked up over the vote or try to get you lynched since that would get you to claim with a guilty on me. Instead I would save my NK for you.

0

There, that's up to page 19. I will try and finish page 20 tomorrow if there is any meat in there.

[destructor]

Also, CR is still on my scummy-list. Not sure why some folks are treating him as more town or as nearly confirmed town just because of ambiguous flavoring in ort's role message (or so he claims). Heck, I'm not sure why ort unvoted based on that.

Why wouldn't CR-scum have voted for Nat?

@ destructor: question - do you think it would be a good idea to lynch both people on cr's wagon, one after the other?

Not solely for them being on the wagon. Caboose was kind of useless but Urza seemed townish. It would have been nice to know why he voted CC now, but we won't know that for a while at least. There are other players who were on it too that I wasn't comfortable with, like Battousai, but I felt his play later in Day 1 was very pro-town. I think the people to look at are those with the most spurious reasons for having joined CR's wagon.

Can you explain what makes you think "Urza seemed townish"? Would you lynch Urza after you lynch me and I flip town, or a vice versa situation (i.e., do you think there was definately scum on the CR wagon?)?

Urza seemd townish mostly because he was contributing and active. Or maybe his activity made me think he was less likely to be scum, or something.

I do think at least one scum was on CR's wagon. I think you are scum.

MM, you said you didn't find the reasons I gave for voting CC yesterday very strong. Do you still feel the same way? Do you the conclusions I came to regarding the end of Day 1 are reasonable?

Yes because I still see the context/circumstances of CC's actions to be reasonable.

But no one, importantly including CC himself, has yet provided an explanation for why he would FOS a player for helping scum choose a nightkill. How is that reasonable, whatever the context or circumstances?

ThAd, I've seen you writing about scum definitely being on Nat's wagon and say MM should look at both Nat's and CR's wagon for a more thorough analysis. Who do you suspect on Nat's wagon? Who do you suspect on CR's wagon?

If you are breadcrumbing that you're a cop and actually have a guilty on me, then your sanity is in question.

Whoa what? What did you expect Urza to say to that?

Post 426:

Don't like this post at all. By saying me or CR could make the difference strikes me as if he's trying to shift the blame for a mislynch onto us (mostly me)because we weren't voting at the time and we COULD have voted to save Nat. His post was also at the end of the day, which I think he could have thought the final vote count would be soon and I wouldn't have gotten on. From this Destructor and CR could be a scum team, or Destructor just prefered a Nat lynch due to their being less information gotten from it.

-5

I haven't blamed anyone for anything. Levelling the vote count meant anything ANYONE did would be more telling. The only people who really had to worry about that were scum.


I have to go now. I'll finish catching up tomorrow.

[ThAdmiral]

Something strikes me as slightly inconsistent here. It seems from your last sentence that you are basically accepting cr as town but you are only looking at peoples reactions to the nati wagon.
I think you should take into account how people reacted to both wagons as it would make for more thorough analysis.

I think there's a good chance that CR town, but that cannot compare with the mod-confirmed town status of Nat.

Fair enough

@ mm: it also seems like you did a lot of analysis which didn't actually factor in to your final suspicions.
A way to provide more merit to what is essentially not a very solid vote?

Can you clarify what you mean and/or give examples?[/quote]
It seems that the reasons why people were on natirasha/willing to vote for him didn't factor in to your overall assessment, and instead you just based your suspicions on reasons from yesterday.


@ mizzy: why so defensive?

[Mizzy]

@ mizzy: why so defensive?

That's pretty much how I always am when people interject opinions that I don't care about and that aren't helpful to the game.

[ThAdmiral]

And no, I'm not strawmanning anything.

So your entire case now stands on nothing but your dislike about my playstyle, which isn't actually scummy, you just don't agree with it.

By the way this is strawmanning.

@ mizzy: why so defensive?

That's pretty much how I always am when people interject opinions that I don't care about and that aren't helpful to the game.

This whole game is based on opinions.

[Mizzy]

By the way this is strawmanning.

Is it strawmanning if what I say is true? I keep challenging him to update his case with the new information that he asked for and that I gave, and he hasn't done that. Most of his points "against" me weren't even scummy things or "inconsistencies" at all.

[ortolan]

Post 456:

While I do find Mizzy somewhat suspicious, some of these attacks are just wrong. First Mizzy has explained in the past that the vote on Ramus stayed on Ramus due to his actions/reactions after the initial vote. The inconsistancy thing is off.

0

That actually wasn't the argument. It was that if she thought Ramus suspicious and worthy of a vote (which could be through either his reasons for his initial vote or his actions/reactions afterwards) then she should have found Axelrod equally suspicious when he replaced in. She didn't, which implies her reasons for voting Ramus were based on opportunistic wagoning. She claims that one can vote for a townie for "bad play", explaining why she was voting for Ramus but not Axelrod (apparently she thought Ramus was playing badly but not scum?). I claim in contrast that voting for a townie for "playing badly" is in itself either bad townie play or scummy, and I'm more inclined to think the latter in her case. When you say "some of these attacks are just wrong", were there any other that you disagree with, because the one you've quoted here as an example you actually misinterpreted.

And Mizzy, for someone who earlier accused me of being "over-defensive", you seem to be getting very defensive over me placing *one* vote on you, with no-one else suggesting an inclination to join your wagon yet. Why is one vote of such concern to you?

On another point: I don't think you ever gave a good answer as to why you thought CR's question about Ramus' play was addressed specifically to me.

[ortolan]

Is it strawmanning if what I say is true? I keep challenging him to update his case with the new information that he asked for and that I gave, and he hasn't done that. Most of his points "against" me weren't even scummy things or "inconsistencies" at all.

Actually it's because I actively had to seek out further replies to most of my arguments in Post 456. Remember, when I actually made it you said in Post 459:

And you know what, I'm just going to stop answering the load of bull your entire post is. You completely manipulated what I said and instead of asking for reasoning or explanations for my actions, you write them up to suit your own "case." You not only failed to mention or address that I admitted that I had misread your post in which you claimed, but now you are using that against me as if I hadn't misread your post.

Most of the post you made about me simply lists things I did, and then the rest of it misrepresents things I said into things you are trying to say I did and only the end of it really explains why any of it MIGHT be scummy. The only real point you have against me is completely rendered useless due to the fact that my suspicion of you was based on a misread, which I admitted to, and so really, your case is a big fat load of nothing. Good job.

I will consider responding to the rest of that "case" once you re-write and re-think what you have there.

So your original "reply" to my case consisted of ignoring it and pretending it was based on nothing, which is why you're only now answering some of my arguments.

[CarnCarn]

Also, CR is still on my scummy-list. Not sure why some folks are treating him as more town or as nearly confirmed town just because of ambiguous flavoring in ort's role message (or so he claims). Heck, I'm not sure why ort unvoted based on that.

Why wouldn't CR-scum have voted for Nat?

Why wouldn't CR-town vote for Nat? CR-scum could have gotten a traitor vibe or something from Nat - who knows? Sure, I see his not voting Nat as a protown point in his favor, but my question/comment was directed at the people who pointed to ort's claim as evidence for CR being more protown.

@ destructor: question - do you think it would be a good idea to lynch both people on cr's wagon, one after the other?

Not solely for them being on the wagon. Caboose was kind of useless but Urza seemed townish. It would have been nice to know why he voted CC now, but we won't know that for a while at least. There are other players who were on it too that I wasn't comfortable with, like Battousai, but I felt his play later in Day 1 was very pro-town. I think the people to look at are those with the most spurious reasons for having joined CR's wagon.

Can you explain what makes you think "Urza seemed townish"? Would you lynch Urza after you lynch me and I flip town, or a vice versa situation (i.e., do you think there was definately scum on the CR wagon?)?

Urza seemd townish mostly because he was contributing and active. Or maybe his activity made me think he was less likely to be scum, or something.

I do think at least one scum was on CR's wagon. I think you are scum.

That's not quite what I asked. What I asked was what if I'm not? I take it now that your next lynch suspect would definitely be Urza, even though you have a townish read on him. This is noted for future reference.

MM, you said you didn't find the reasons I gave for voting CC yesterday very strong. Do you still feel the same way? Do you the conclusions I came to regarding the end of Day 1 are reasonable?

Yes because I still see the context/circumstances of CC's actions to be reasonable.

But no one, importantly including CC himself, has yet provided an explanation for why he would FOS a player for helping scum choose a nightkill. How is that reasonable, whatever the context or circumstances?

I gave reasons for why I thought it was anti-town play. Then, the general opinion became that it was mostly a theory clash, which I'm OK with, too. What are you missing?

If you are breadcrumbing that you're a cop and actually have a guilty on me, then your sanity is in question.

Whoa what? What did you expect Urza to say to that?

I expected him to say he was a cop with a guilty on me, because that was what I thought he was suggesting...

Post 426:

Don't like this post at all. By saying me or CR could make the difference strikes me as if he's trying to shift the blame for a mislynch onto us (mostly me)because we weren't voting at the time and we COULD have voted to save Nat. His post was also at the end of the day, which I think he could have thought the final vote count would be soon and I wouldn't have gotten on. From this Destructor and CR could be a scum team, or Destructor just prefered a Nat lynch due to their being less information gotten from it.

-5

I haven't blamed anyone for anything. Levelling the vote count meant anything ANYONE did would be more telling. The only people who really had to worry about that were scum.

FWIW, I agree with/support the reasoning behind this. That's why I said the play wasn't that scummy.

[ClockworkRuse]

By the way this is strawmanning.

Is it strawmanning if what I say is true? I keep challenging him to update his case with the new information that he asked for and that I gave, and he hasn't done that. Most of his points "against" me weren't even scummy things or "inconsistencies" at all.

They can be things that he finds scummy and you don't. Conflict in opinions does not make one point more or less true, a lot of day one was about that if you noticed Mizzy.

More later, tomorrow hopefully. I want to get a bit of a read through to catch up a little bit. I've fallen behind on this game.

[Axelrod]

Most of my "stuff" is done now, so I'm going to be getting back up to speed here shortly (and this time I mean it.) Expect good things soon.

[Mizzy]

And Mizzy, for someone who earlier accused me of being "over-defensive", you seem to be getting very defensive over me placing *one* vote on you, with no-one else suggesting an inclination to join your wagon yet. Why is one vote of such concern to you?

On another point: I don't think you ever gave a good answer as to why you thought CR's question about Ramus' play was addressed specifically to me.

It's not the vote (I could honestly care less who you vote at the moment) but your "case" and the reactions to my debunking of said "case."

Yes, I actually did answer that already, a long time ago.

What I am calling for you to do is go through your case and, point by point, update it with the information you have now. Most of your points you called inconsistencies, which they weren't, and they weren't even scummy actions and those things should be marked accordingly. The couple of potentially questionable things you had listed there I have answered to and explained why you have them incorrect or that things were misrepresented.

Why not just go through and update the case? Do you have a reason why you won't? I don't care if you keep your vote on me or not, but what I am interested in seeing is if you keeping asserting that the case you have is any good and even whether or not you can even acknowledge that one of the points was a direct result of a mistake on my part that I corrected and took responsibility for. It feels like you are voting me on an emotional case when that's not the best thing in the world at all for any one pro-town to do and if you can show me that you have a decent reason to be tunnel-visioned on me, then I will shut up and let it go.

[ortolan]

What I am calling for you to do is go through your case and, point by point, update it with the information you have now. Most of your points you called inconsistencies, which they weren't, and they weren't even scummy actions and those things should be marked accordingly. The couple of potentially questionable things you had listed there I have answered to and explained why you have them incorrect or that things were misrepresented.

Why not just go through and update the case? Do you have a reason why you won't? I don't care if you keep your vote on me or not, but what I am interested in seeing is if you keeping asserting that the case you have is any good and even whether or not you can even acknowledge that one of the points was a direct result of a mistake on my part that I corrected and took responsibility for. It feels like you are voting me on an emotional case when that's not the best thing in the world at all for any one pro-town to do and if you can show me that you have a decent reason to be tunnel-visioned on me, then I will shut up and let it go.

This is just rubbish and you tried to claim I did the same thing to CR on day one. Here's what happens:

- I make lengthy post with evidence you're scum (456).

- You refuse to answer most of it (459):

And you know what, I'm just going to stop answering the load of bull your entire post is. You completely manipulated what I said and instead of asking for reasoning or explanations for my actions, you write them up to suit your own "case." You not only failed to mention or address that I admitted that I had misread your post in which you claimed, but now you are using that against me as if I hadn't misread your post.

- I spend most of my time wringing answers out of you because you've failed to answer the case properly in the first place.

- You then claim my case was weak to begin with, because you've forced me to isolate my points, because you refused to answer them when they were presented together. Great tactic! Pity it's blatantly obvious what you're doing.

But for the record, I will revisit it (pretty much all the points still stand to me) just to prove to everyone why you're scum.

[petroleumjelly]

Day Two Vote Count: #3

2 CarnCarn (destructor, Urzassedatives)
1 Mizzy (ortolan)
1 ThAdmiral (Machiavellian-Mafia)
1 Urzassedatives (CarnCarn)

With

10

alive, it takes

6

to lynch, and

4

to lynch at deadline! Deadline is January 8, 9:59 pm CDT.

Not Voting – 5 – Axelrod, Battousai, ClockworkRuse, Mizzy, ThAdmiral

Thanks to all for being so active!

[Mizzy]

This is just rubbish and you tried to claim I did the same thing to CR on day one. Here's what happens:

- I make lengthy post with evidence you're scum (456).

- You refuse to answer most of it (459):

I was wondering if you would latch onto that "stop answering" line to make me look bad, and I was right, you did.

Your case (I just go down the list):

Point 1 of 10 - Responded to in post #459.
Point 2 of 10 - Responded to in post #459.
Point 3 of 10 - Responded to in post #459.
Point 4 of 10 - Responded to in post #459.
Point 5 of 10 - Nothing to respond to; it was my opinion.
Point 6 of 10 - Nothing to respond to; extension of point 5.
Point 7 of 10 - Nothing to respond to; I did already answer and quite fully so.
Point 8 of 10 - Responded to in post #462.
Point 9 of 10 - A whole paragraph of WIFOM. Nothing to respond to that I can find.
Point 10 of 10 - Responded to in post #459 - Based on a misread.

So I didn't directly respond to 3 of 10 points, two of which were basically two ways of saying 1 point (and that point wasn't actually a scummy point, just a hypothesis) and one was a huge plot conspiracy blow-out by you with nothing for me to respond to at all.

Out of your points, only two I can see as valid case points and one of them was based on a misread which I admitted to. The second one is that I stopped attacking a replacement who stopped doing the anti-town things his predecessor did. I fail to see what more can be said about that.

I spend most of my time wringing answers out of you because you've failed to answer the case properly in the first place.

Wait, you are? I think I just showed that I answered 70% of your points from the case, which is actually 75-80% because the two-points-are-the-same thing. Everything that I felt could be responded to has been responded to, yet you keep asking about things that have been answered. Why?

You then claim my case was weak to begin with, because you've forced me to isolate my points, because you refused to answer them when they were presented together. Great tactic! Pity it's blatantly obvious what you're doing.

This is quite false, as shown by my numbers above. There are actually two posts with the answers; they are not isolated.

But for the record, I will revisit it (pretty much all the points still stand to me) just to prove to everyone why you're scum.

Please do and please be quite thorough in your explanation of each point, including an update. I want to know why you think each one is scummy. And please leave the conspiracy theories for a different post; I want to see if you can write a post that contains all fact and no fiction.

If I didn't explain or answer one of the points thoroughly enough for you. let me know. I can try and answer more thoroughly once you flesh-out your updated case.

[destructor]

Mizzy, you never got back to me about the rest of my case on CC. Can you do that now?

@ Everyone

- How many of you have read the setup rules? I see Batt, ort and CR talking about CR being a Miller, but a Miller isn't even a possible role in this setup so I think Batt's reason for being iffy about CR (504) are null.

You say CR seems town and that scum had to be on his wagon and vote one of them with that being your only reason.

This wasn't my only reason and I thought I made that clear. I noted his "noisy" FOS, hop to Caboose when the opportunity arose.

Why wouldn't CR-town vote for Nat? CR-scum could have gotten a traitor vibe or something from Nat - who knows? Sure, I see his not voting Nat as a protown point in his favor, but my question/comment was directed at the people who pointed to ort's claim as evidence for CR being more protown.

For most purposes in this game, there are only two scum who matter. If the two Mafia who know each other die, scum lose, even if the Traitor is alive. If CR was one of them, letting himself get lynched when he could have stayed alive would be terrible play. If he's the Traitor, he would obviously have known that Nat was town. The point here is that scum have WAY more incentive to stay alive than town do.

I had to look back to see who the people who said ort's claim was evidence that CR was town and couldn't find anyone. Who do you think used ort's claim to try and clear CR?

That's not quite what I asked. What I asked was what if I'm not? I take it now that your next lynch suspect would definitely be Urza, even though you have a townish read on him. This is noted for future reference.

I know what you asked. I

didn't

say that Urza would be my next lynch target. I said I think you're scum. It sounds like you're trying to accuse me of setting lynches up or something.

I gave reasons for why I thought it was anti-town play. Then, the general opinion became that it was mostly a theory clash, which I'm OK with, too. What are you missing?

I don't believe

you

ever provided a reason for the FOS. I know what other people said and I asked, "Why FOS over a theory dispute?" The fact is that you were trying to paint rofl as suspicious for something that was only anti-town

if he was town anyway.

I don't see how that makes sense as town.

I expected him to say he was a cop with a guilty on me, because that was what I thought he was suggesting...

What would be the benefit in outing a Cop? I

really

find the assumption that he had a guilty result on you scummy, with or without the overt role fishing.

Regarding the ort-Mizzy drama, I honestly have been finding it hard to follow, but reading Mizzy's 515 sounds like a reasonable request. I assume the last line of ort's last post meant he was agreeing to do this.

[ThAdmiral]

This is just rubbish and you tried to claim I did the same thing to CR on day one. Here's what happens:

- I make lengthy post with evidence you're scum (456).

- You refuse to answer most of it (459):

I was wondering if you would latch onto that "stop answering" line to make me look bad, and I was right, you did.

Your case (I just go down the list):

Point 1 of 10 - Responded to in post #459.
Point 2 of 10 - Responded to in post #459.
Point 3 of 10 - Responded to in post #459.
Point 4 of 10 - Responded to in post #459.
Point 5 of 10 - Nothing to respond to; it was my opinion.
Point 6 of 10 - Nothing to respond to; extension of point 5.
Point 7 of 10 - Nothing to respond to; I did already answer and quite fully so.
Point 8 of 10 - Responded to in post #462.
Point 9 of 10 - A whole paragraph of WIFOM. Nothing to respond to that I can find.
Point 10 of 10 - Responded to in post #459 - Based on a misread.

So I didn't directly respond to 3 of 10 points, two of which were basically two ways of saying 1 point (and that point wasn't actually a scummy point, just a hypothesis) and one was a huge plot conspiracy blow-out by you with nothing for me to respond to at all.

As town you should have had nothing to hide so I don't see why you didn't just answer these questions at the time.
As frustrated as you were you still should have responded to them.

[Machiavellian-Mafia]

roflcopter
Reasoning behind willingness to vote Nat: Impending deadline
Overall game evaluation: Neutral read
Conclusion: Not a scum suspect. Now revealed Town by mod.

MM
Reasoning behind voting Nat: Impending deadline, preference of Nat over CR and Urza
Overall evaluation and conclusion: Obviously town

Rofl and my own behavior do not really change how I view others.

But no one, importantly including CC himself, has yet provided an explanation for why he would FOS a player for helping scum choose a nightkill. How is that reasonable, whatever the context or circumstances?

I saw that FOS as CC initially disagreeing with rofl on the merit of town lists, which was reasonable enough.

It seems that the reasons why people were on natirasha/willing to vote for him didn't factor in to your overall assessment, and instead you just based your suspicions on reasons from yesterday.

I did factor them in, but I obviously put more weight on the overall assessments since many people reacted in similar ways to Nat.

[Mizzy]

As town you should have had nothing to hide so I don't see why you didn't just answer these questions at the time.
As frustrated as you were you still should have responded to them.

Actually, he didn't ask me any questions that I hadn't answered that I know of. What I didn't respond to were things he didn't ask but his hypothesis and theories.

[Battousai]

@ Everyone

- How many of you have read the setup rules? I see Batt, ort and CR talking about CR being a Miller, but a Miller isn't even a possible role in this setup so I think Batt's reason for being iffy about CR (504) are null.

You say CR seems town and that scum had to be on his wagon and vote one of them with that being your only reason.

This wasn't my only reason and I thought I made that clear. I noted his "noisy" FOS, hop to Caboose when the opportunity arose.

First, I don't see CR as being a miller. What I see or think may have been CR-scum trying to use his death and turning up scum as a way to get people to think he was town because of how he claimed. I asked other questions on whether or not he turned up scum under investigations and what not, just to feel out what he was actually claiming (special abilities and all) and not just townie.

Second, my response was directly to that post and did not take into account other posts. If you would have posted something about these other reasons from D1 into that post via link or mention of it, I wouldn't have said what I did.

[CarnCarn]

I had to look back to see who the people who said ort's claim was evidence that CR was town and couldn't find anyone. Who do you think used ort's claim to try and clear CR?

Yeah, you're right, reading back, I think it was just ort himself, and that was in addition to other things I guess.

I know what you asked. I didn't say that Urza would be my next lynch target. I said I think you're scum. It sounds like you're trying to accuse me of setting lynches up or something.

Yes, I was. When you think there must be scum on the CR wagon, I assume you would follow through on that if one person died and was confirmed town.

I don't believe you ever provided a reason for the FOS. I know what other people said and I asked, "Why FOS over a theory dispute?" The fact is that you were trying to paint rofl as suspicious for something that was only anti-town if he was town anyway. I don't see how that makes sense as town.

Here you go:

I will be V/LA 12/2-12/4 (returning 12/5)

Right now, no one stands out at an obvious suspect. I feel that a CR lynch is the best, though. If he flips scum, then I can understand why his wagon stalled out earlier. If he is town, then we can investigate his wagoners tomorrow. It puts his earlier comments in some context.

I also find Axel mildly suspicious for his "townie" list, especially this early in the game.

Vote: ClockworkRuse
FoS: Axelrod

townlist:
mizzy
carncarn
mach-maf
axelrod

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't like kinds of lists. The players often end up dead the next day.

FoS: roflcopter

The problem with that is that it makes deciding NKs for the scum a lot easier if they know who the town thinks is town and who the town is unsure of.

But probably the most explanatory of all:

I didn't really see a point in CarnCarn's FOS of rofl. His list could only be construed as anti-town at most, since the effect it would have on scum's kill choice is null if rofl was scum anyway. There is no ulterior motive for rofl as scum to have posted a list.

Yeah, it's not like there is a Mafia Traitor or anything in this setup...

Chances of scum being on my wagon... quite high.

You never considered the Traitor in this setup and how they might communicate with mafia in thread (doing something that helps them figure out who is looking the most town, for example). And you never responded to this post, either, and instead choose to continue your rampage of "CC is scum for FoSing someone doing something he thought was anti-town!"

What would be the benefit in outing a Cop? I really find the assumption that he had a guilty result on you scummy, with or without the overt role fishing.

I wasn't asking him to claim (note that I didn't believe for a second that he was a cop anyway - he brought up the specific scenario and I just responded to it). I was just stating that if in fact he is a cop with a guilty on me, he should think about it some more, and also explained why my perceived reaction to his vote was not scummy.

Now, your original reason for voting me:

I didn't really see a point in CarnCarn's FOS of rofl. His list could only be construed as anti-town at most, since the effect it would have on scum's kill choice is null if rofl was scum anyway. There is no ulterior motive for rofl as scum to have posted a list. If the list helps scum, rofl must be town and so an FOS makes no sense. There was also that IGMEOY at Caboose which seemed useless. I also just noticed that he seemed to jump ship from CR to Caboose after MM posted a case.

Caboose seems useless, but CC is looking like opportunistic scum.

Vote: CarnCarn

Please explain how

FoSing

two players for what I believed was the exact same anti-town behavior looks like "opportunistic scum."