Mini 767: Cubic Mafia (Game Over!)

[Isacc]

/confirm

[Isacc]

Caf: People should have believed me in that game =P too bad for them. Apparently, some vig realized my awesomeness tho. I think I know who it was too =P

Vote:Beyond_Birthday

because last game I was under too much suspicion to make a successful case on you!

[Isacc]

To elaborate, those who vote last in the RVS have proven to be likely scum in my experience. That said my exp has been a month long

Better to start from that than from nowhere in my opinion..

Correlation does not imply causation. Also, in a month, do you have enough games to really recognize such a trend?

In both of my finished games, your theory did not hold. Scum voted at pretty much random points during the random phase.

[Isacc]

doublepost: Nocmen, if you are anti-random vote stage, what would you prefer to do to get the game going?

[Isacc]

Exactly what I'm doing now. Asking questions. Do you have a problem with me asking questions?

Aren't you jumping to conclusions here?

When did I say anything about having a problem with you asking questions? When did I even make anything suggestive of an attack on you?

I asked for your ideas as to how to move the game into a more serious stage. I see no reason for your defensiveness. It seems a little shifty.

Are you saying that you could get possible scum reads a day into the game just like that? I'm not going to base a vote off RVS or get suspicions from that, I prefer to see how their opinions and style changes as time goes on.

If you admit that it'd be impossible to get a scum read this early, then why would you ask this question:

Who do you think is most likely to be scum and why?

[Isacc]

Isacc,

2 posts after a comment about dodging questions

you respond to a question with a series of questions and a statement of suspicion. Do you feel that you sufficiently answered the question directed to you? By the same token Magnus- you are noticing a trend of people dodging questions- what do you think of Isacc's answer?

To the bolded part, can you give the post number? I can't find any of my posts referencing question dodging.

To your direct question, yes I felt I answered it sufficiently. He asked me if I had a problem with asking questions, and I responded by saying I suggested nothing of the sort.


Also,

Noc

you failed to respond to my second question in post 52. Please respond to it, or else explain why it was ignored.

[Isacc]

Post 52, starting with the second quoted part. Read from there down and you'll see the question (it's hard to paraphrase, otherwise I would do that instead of making you look back).

[Isacc]

@Noc: I see. That was not clear at first. Thanks for clarifying.

[Isacc]

btw,

hos: nocmen

you were mentioning conclusions about isacc's post?

Also, Isacc, for the sake of clairty, which question are you referring to?

I didn't see that post.

As for conclusions, I was saying that his actions could imply that he is afraid of questions I'm asking, because it gives him more chances to slip up.

I'd say this "conclusion" is pretty reachy, and not very well founded. I didn't make any condemnation of your questions, so there is no evidence for you to imply that I am at all afraid of your questioning.

[Isacc]

@Magnus: Yes, I has stuff to say, but it'll have to wait until after school xD.

[Isacc]

Doing 2 take-home tests for Calculus BC and Statistics. Gonna have to give me until tomorrow to post. Sorry.

[Isacc]

I super apologize. Give me one more day to post, I got loaded with surprise economics homework tonight.

I will make a big PBPA on the posts since my last content post, tomorrow.

[Isacc]

Alright so let’s see here…PBPA

Posts 83-88: Primarily, Magnus and Noc argue over whether B_B is acting the way he did in the previous game, with Nocmen seemingly reading Magnus’s comments as “B_B is cleared from suspicion.” Odd there, but not relevant really. Personally, I’d have to say that B_B isn’t playing Drastically different or similar to our last game with him, mostly because I didn’t think lurking was part of his play, but more as busy (as he didn’t really lurk a ton after Day 1).

A few more posts of meta-analysis/discussion…

Post 93: Here is the start of the big “BB is undermining you Magnus!” argument that Walnut makes. This argument he makes bothers me, but I’ll get to it nearer to the end of said argument…

95: Caf makes an argument that is a decent counter to Magnus’s style. However, I can’t honestly find Mag scummy at this point, because I recognize his actions as his particular style. Whether it’s effective is another topic, but I think he is sincere in scumhunting thus far.

99: I find it odd that with a lot of things going on, Phil wants to let things develop more. Town unsure of how to read things, or scum unsure of what people will bandwagon on? Consider it noted.

101: Here’s where I reiterate: Is Magnus’ scumhunting strategy effective? Debatable. However, is this post an accurate description of how he has repeatedly described his scumhunting strategy? Yes. While I can sympathize with suspicions of his actions, as his scumhunting strat tends to be risky and suspicious, I vouch that he uses the strategy he describes here when playing as town.

Let’s note that I don’t consider him cleared. Just, as of yet, I haven’t detected any real scumtells.

103: Woops votecount and my random vote is still on. Lol.

Unvote

106: Hello SSK. Welcome to another game together.

111: Here’s one of the major comments that got my attention. Walnut has been strongly arguing this “B_B is undermining Magnus” stuff. He continues to argue (against Magnus himself) that Mag has been undermined by BB’s comments. This is suspect IMO.

Walnut

, why are you so eager to pit Magnus and BB against each other? What purpose does it serve? If Magnus and BB both feel that each other have been honest and accurate, why are you so strongly pushing the contrary? This seems like an attempt to incite an argument between the two, and I do not see any relevance to scumhunting. Care to explain yourself?

113: This seems odd. There are a few lurkers in game so far, however BB is probably the most active of all the potential “lurkers.” Noc, why did you choose him to pressure, over say, Flame (

Mod: I don’t think he’s posted since confirm…prod please?

), Rice, Trumpet, or Dourgrim?

116: Laaame excuse. Better hold true to the promise of improving your content, or I’ll be looking back at this.

117: This post is bothersome. You note a problem with BB’s comment, but drop the issue immediately after mentioning. Also, your suspicions on Magnus beg this very important question:

Dour,

what do you think of Magnus’ explanation of his scumhunting style? This is very important.

119: Magnus’ argument about attacking “for being polite” seems like a complete misunderstanding of the argument being made. Coming from him, this isn’t too surprising.

His “more importantly,” however, is definitely notable. I will wait to post my stance on this accusation until Dourgrim answers my question.

The suspicion on Nocmen is more null in my mind. The interpretation is possible, but I don’t see a strong sense of his attitude swinging that way.

124: Lol, this is why I requested that Kairyuu get you into the game, if you hadn’t already signed up. You’re fun BB =P, one of my favs.

132: This certainly seems like a blatant attempt to not scumhunt. Noc, couldn’t you have easily analyzed those 5 posts?

133: Phily here ignores attitudes and seems to be looking at superficial face-value. Not a good thing to be doing. Does it seem logical that a scum (or anyone) would openly post an OMGUS and be serious? I saw his OMGUS as a joke, and a humorous retort to a tunneling-esque case. Idk, maybe BB will clear this up.

134: Dourgrim’s arguments are as I expected them to play out (not counting the first two paragraphs in this posts, which are mostly about playstyle). His counter-argument about the second quote follows what I meant when I said it seemed Magnus had misunderstood him. However, I still think my question needs answering, because frankly the way he answers should be more helpful than any of the reads this argument is giving me.

135: The first section of this post makes good points, which again leads back to Dourgrim needing to answer my question.

Summary:

Walnut and Dourgrim have sparked my interest. Answer the above questions, as it will help me better detect your alignment.

[Isacc]

Hmm...I think the questions I posted may be hard to find...here they are!!

Walnut, why are you so eager to pit Magnus and BB against each other? What purpose does it serve? If Magnus and BB both feel that each other have been honest and accurate, why are you so strongly pushing the contrary? This seems like an attempt to incite an argument between the two, and I do not see any relevance to scumhunting. Care to explain yourself?

And,

Dour, what do you think of Magnus’ explanation of his scumhunting style? This is very important.

[Isacc]

double post:

135: The first section of this post makes good points, which again leads back to Dourgrim needing to answer my question.

....?
135?

I like Doug's last post. Looks quite town to me.

There were sections in there?
I'm completely lost on how to read RBT.

Sorry, meant 136 (your post).

[Isacc]

@Issac: How are you feeling on Philyec (as in analysis of play so far)?

It seems like IIoA a lot of time, stating things that aren't really analysis or scumhunting but that rather are an attempt to avoid seeming like lurking. The few times he posted actual analysis content, I sensed a lack of sincere thought (post 133).

Summary: Definitely suspicious, however I am giving him a chance to improve his content and follow through on his promise of catching up.

[Isacc]

Walnut you failed to

actually

answer the question. Why did you think it was important that Magnus' credibility was being undermined? Why did you think the issue was worth pushing? Repeating "because it looked like BB undermined Magnus' credibility," is not an answer. Please answer the question again.

Also,

I thought it was appropriate for Magnus to be the one to respond to BB's comment, as it was regarding him.

If this is so, then why did you keep pushing the issue when BB and Magnus both said it wasn't a big deal? It sure didn't seem like you wanted Magnus to respond to BB, because you weren't satisfied with that and kept arguing the case. In actuality, it seemed like you wanted Magnus to specifically respond

antagonistically

.

[Isacc]

@Dour: I'm still waiting on that answer.

@Others: I'm with Magnus on Phillyec. Post 158 is pretty bad vibes across the board.

I think hes scummy, he could be scum.Perhaps I phrased 'before I'm completely convince' inappropriately. It was meant for pressure but I am not going to vote for him until more scumminess is revealed AFTER he answers all the questions his post brought up.

Seems like backpedaling to me. 'Nuff said.

In Day One I'm not suprised. Theres been no concentration on scummy players yet since we've not made much progress, would you agree? The only problem is, attacking everyone doesnt help anyone. More concentration on scummiest players is more appropriate.

This is so noncommittal it's almost a contradiction. Seems to start by saying "Magnus' attacks on most players makes sense this early," but then ends with "However, attacking more ppl instead of just the scummiest is bad."

Maybe Dourgrim's answer will change my mind, but in the meantime, I think Phil is the strongest suspect.

Vote: Phillyec

[Isacc]

@Dourgrim: Not really...here, maybe I need to be more specific.

Give me your opinion on this quote in particular:

I LOVE to polarise things. I want the town to divide into two groups on an issue, those with one thought and those with another thought. The scum will tend to agree with each other on the thought that benefits them, and then, they're found. Of course, saying that doesn't worry me too much, because the other option is for scum to be disunified, in which case, they're screwed due to infighting.

Mind you, I am not asking you to comment on whether you think the strategy is effective. Think of it this way: This is Magnus's claim. He is claiming this strategy. What do you think about this

claim

? (emphasis on claim)

Hopefully, I'll get an answer that will give me a solid read this time.


@Phily: 145 and 166 should be exactly what you are looking for. I don't see any misunderstanding. However, if you care to explain yourself in response to my 166, that would probably help us all out a lot.


@Nocmen: Fair assessment. If only I had managed to have time to post before Magnus lol (he only beat me by a bit, that bastard =P). Anyways, in all seriousness, it was Phily's post 158 that really started pinging the scumdar.

[Isacc]

Magnus says I'm scum but for what, repetition is very effective and this is exactly what hes doing. Good scum play in my books but theres always the chance that hes just decided to tunnel on someone hes assured himself is scum, a very unavoidable thing town players do when eager to grandstand in a game.

Seems like someone decided there was an easier target to defend against than me, eh? =P

[Isacc]

Posting this in both my games:

Meh, really busy again tonight, and I just can't type any major posts. I'll reconvene with yall tomorrow. Sincere apologies.

[Isacc]

Alright, got to my other games, but mom is yelling at me over school stuff. Will get to this one later tonight, or else sometime tomorrow. Don't worry, I won't be inactive much longer!

[Isacc]

EBWOP: And no lynches till I'm back (in case anyone is near that point)!

[Isacc]

FML.

It was my birthday yesterday, and I only just got home from work after just getting home from rochester.

Tomorrow is Easter. Shoot.

Kai, if I'm getting ridiculous, you have permission to replace me...however, if you can wait I

will

catch up! I'd like to stay in.

unvote

until then though, I don't want to lynch before I read what has happened.

[Isacc]

Alright, a lot has happened, and I can finally post now.

Dourgrim-Magnus played out interestingly, and different than I expected. My suspicion of Dour has gone down significantly. I see a town attitude, plus despite what Magnus says I think Dour has argued his points well. My only major disagreement is that I do not find Magnus a major scum suspect yet, as I have only seen a few minor tells so far.

Philly has done nothing to make himself seem more town. However, Magnus's request is fair and I think waiting for him to make an attempt at being protown is a good idea (though didn't we do this before...?)

Magnus's case on my vote on Philly: I remember this accusation...it was placed on me already...but hey, I'll argue it again. There was a specifically damning post by Philly in my eyes, which came before Magnus's post. Thus, I felt that a vote had been earned. If you notice, Magnus's voting post was only a few minutes before mine, and I do not precisely remember now (it was how long ago?) but I think I had been writing it while Magnus posted.

Anyways, the other fact is, it's all well and good to speculate this except that I actually find him scummy. If he flips town, that'll be unfortunate, but I have no real evidence to believe he will at this point.


@BB: I'm pleased that you think I'm playing drastically different. I played terribly in Neapolitan, and I've been working on playing better, a lot. I got tired of being the mislynch suspect (I was a top scum suspect in 2 consecutive games as town...ironically never lynched though lol).


Important: There was a lot of discussion I missed about whether or not playstyles are damning. The easy answer to this is that a playstyle (whether anti-town or pro-town) is never good evidence to being scummy (OR towny). A playstyle is generally a constant, and so will have no correlation to town or scum. Plus, I strongly believe a good read can be deduced from

how

a player uses his strategy.

@Seraphim: Yay, it's Seraphim. WoT would have been a town win if I hadn't failed so much xD.

[Isacc]

Oops, forgot:

As it's been awhile, if I missed any accusations/questions/queries/interrogations on me, I would appreciate them being reposted now.

[Isacc]

Hey, Isacc posted!

Anyways, the other fact is, it's all well and good to speculate this except that I actually find him scummy. If he flips town, that'll be unfortunate, but I have no real evidence to believe he will at this point.

Who is "he"? Your pronouns were unclear here, isacc. At least to me.

He is Philly. To rephrase it for clarity:

"Anyways, the other fact is, it's all well and good to speculate all this except that I actually find Philly scummy. If Philly flips town, that'll be unfortunate, but I have no real evidence to believe that Philly is actually town at this point."

[Isacc]

Prod gotten, and I haven't really been inactive, I just was hoping Philly would have posted by now, since he's my top suspect. This is getting pretty frustrating.

@MafiaSSK, and RBT: Wow -_-. Worst case ever lol.

[Isacc]

[Isacc] seems to have been following someone else's views a lot.

Hardly. There is really

one

event where anyone has mentioned it seeming like I followed anyone, namely following Magnus on voting Philly. I have defended myself against that too, but that's irrelevant (you can choose to believe or not). The point is, this kinda seems like a severe overgeneralization.

I think you should make some cases on non-lurkers. Could you please name your top three scum suspects and why you suspect them (with evidence)? No lurkers, mind you.

[Isacc]

First, that Phily hasn't posted (which magnus has already said). Secondly, that RBT and Mafia SSK have not presented a strong case (which I have already said. So, not so much an overgeneralisation, and it keeps you in my top three.

Ok, this is wrong on multiple levels.

This isn't even an example of "following others" for two simple reasons. First, "following" would generally imply a direct attempt to conform to a specific viewpoint. Usually, it's most accurate when a person conforms to one side of a major argument without bringing anything to the table. Why? Because there is a lack of reasoning for choosing

that side

of the argument.

However, in this situation, I am not buddying up to any particular opinion. I'm stating a fact. Philly hasn't posted, and the other two didn't make a case. It's not a select opinion which I am "following," instead being essentially an objective fact which I am acknowledging. If I call the sky blue, is that following too?

Next, issue.

Following others is generally a scumtell for the simple reason that scum are trying to stay on everyone's good side. Therefore, if you are accusing me of "following," in a scummy way, my "following" should fulfill this goal.

However, how does post 310 that you quoted fulfill this at all? Both the things that I allegedly "followed" on were so utterly obvious that I was not going to gain townie points and get on people's good side. If anything I was gonna score "he's not completely unaware of his surroundings" points, which don't help me one way or the other.

The moral of the story is, your entire accusation is a pretty large reach. I'm honestly surprised you would even try to make 310 out to fit your accusation, when you could have argued the old point of my Phillyec vote (which is at least arguable on both sides). The evidence you chose to use kinda makes it seem like you were trying to make my posts seem "follow-y" rather than actually pointing out what gave you that idea in the first place.

[Isacc]

Fair point on Phily. I guess I felt I had a decent read on him from his early posts, but had overlooked that he has not posted much more recently.

You overlooked it? But it was in your points against isacc, which were hinted at in the post where you left out philly. More selectivity.

Didn't even get what you were saying at first, but after re-reading, QFT.

Walnut, you accuse me of following. As evidence for following, you site my accusation of Philly. This would suggest that you knew that Philly was inactive at the time you accused me of following (since that's the opinion I was allegedly "following")...which was in the same post where you now claim you didn't realize he was lurking...

[Isacc]

How would noting that Isacc followed someone else's opinion on Phily have a direct correlation to whether I was keeping tabs on how much Phily had posted recently? I agree it would be suspicious for me to say that Isacc was repeating a point about Phily being absent then in a subsequent post say that I did not realise that Phily was absent. However, to make an argument out of saying it in the same post seems a bit unbelievable.

At the same post you did two things: Accused me of following, and admitted not realizing Philly lurked.

In order to prove I was following, you then said that I copied Magnus by stating that Philly was lurking.

However, when you accused me, you clearly did not know that Philly was lurking, so you could not have noticed the evidence you cited at the time of your accusation, meaning your evidence is not related to the case against me.

Isacc, that was a weird attempt at a strawman. You start off by attempting to define "following" as a particular set of behaviours, then demonstrate how you are not displaying them. You go on to say that I was completely wrong to say that you were "following" when in fact you were actively lurking and proud of it.

1. How is that strawman, at all? I directly disproved your argument.

2.

This

is strawman. Rather than proving I was following (your original case, which I countered) you try to switch your accusation to active lurking. Now you're just trying to find a scumtell you can cling to.

3. You're going to accuse me of actively lurking? NO DUH. Did you see my signature? I was too busy all weekend to make a long solid post. Friday (when I posted my alleged "following/active lurking" post) I spent all day doing homework until I went to work that night.

So, yes I was technically "active lurking."

Due to being V/LA...

Your argument is holding less weight by the minute.

Also, we are damn near deadline. I'm personally against lynching lurkers, and I even less like the idea of lynching a non-existent player (who do we lynch? Phillyec or the replacement? Omg it's like mafia no-lynch limbo!?!?!? lol). However, a no-lynch is most definitely unacceptable, for blatantly obvious reasons.

I'd say this new reaction by Walnut is extremely suspicious. Part of me feels like my judgment might be clouded and OMGUS is just talking here, but switching accusations to find one that fit better is definitely rubbing me the wrong way. I'm comfortable with a

Vote: Walnut

[Isacc]

No, this is simply not true. I accused you of following in post 313; I acknowledged that I had overlooked Phily's lack of posting in post 319.

No, my accusation

is

entirely true. In the post where you called me followy, you

did not include

Philly on your list of lurkers. 319 was just where you admitted that in 313, you hadn't realized Philly was lurking.

Again, simply not true. I was not setting out to prove it; you said it was an overgeneralisation, and rather than go back and point out all of the previous posts where it had happened, I said "Look, you are still doing it- take your most recent post as an example". The evidence was there from throughout the game.

Irrelevant. The point is, rather than using evidence that you had when you made the case, you brought up something new (which was, coincidentally, not good evidence in the least, which I assume you agree on since you never countered that argument?), and tried to play it off as evidence of my following.

This suggests that you tried to find evidence to fit the case, rather than actually recognizing a legitimate trend. I think that if you had been making a solid argument, you would have pointed to the evidence that led you to believe I was following.

Do you know what strawman means? Apologies if I seem to be repeating myself, since you didn't seem to read it the first time. You started off by saying (paraphrasing) "By following, you mean...". You continue by saying "following is usually ..." and "in general, following is ...". In doing so, you have made an initial assumption that is wrong (whether intentionally or not), and from there proceeded off down the wrong path. The result is that you have not disproved my argument- you have not even addressed it. In post 319 (prior to your strawman) I expanded on "following" by saying

I concede the point that I did not see the connection to strawman, while there is a connection. Yes, my analysis of your bad evidence does not disprove my following.

However, the blame is laid on me for "strawman" in this scenario, why? You accused me of following. I asked you for evidence. You used bad evidence, I disproved it.

You didn't bring up any better evidence afterwards.

I was not avoiding the issue of following, you just failed to make a case that actually addressed the entire issue. Don't pin the blame on me.



Alright, finally you do an actual case. This time I will argue against the entire case you make,

because you have one

.

Post 10 and 37 are obv not important.
Post 47: Philly's comment was that he noticed a trend of last voters being scum. Trends like that are disproved by more valid trends, therefore it was logical for me to comment on it even though others had, as it gave more evidence to Philly's idea not being a legitimate trend.
Post 48: *Buzzer* WRONG. Magnus had asked Nocmen who he thought was scum and why. I asked an entirely different question, specifically what he felt was a better strategy than random voting.

No following here

.
Post 52: Wrong again. Magnus is querying Nocmen about who he thinks is scum. I am responding to Nocmen's response to

my

question, of a different nature. I did ask a question about Magnus' issue at the end, however it was a question Magnus had not asked yet.

No following here either

.
Post 66-72 are as you described them.
Post 69: Yep.
Posts 94-125 are V/LA, as you mentioned.
Post 137 and 138: I do not see how you find that to be "by nature" expressing similar views as others. I spent some of it pointing out that Magnus was being honest about his strategy (which no one else could have said, since only I know him in person), and then asked questions of you and Dour which had not been brought up before. There were two, maybe three opinions I made in the PBPA which were arguably "following," but out of 17 posts I analyzed, that's hardly significant.

"Similar views" is not the majority of

this

post either

.
Post 145: Yes.
Post 149: You are really trying to add "misrep" onto the list of suddenly appearing points against me, aren't you? However, this was not misrepresentation at all, as a quick glance at the post should show.
Post 166: Yes, this is the only arguable evidence I have noticed thus far of "following." I have defended myself against this, but to reiterate, my 166 was a direct response to Philly's 158 which really pinged the scumdar hard, and had little to do with Magnus's post. In fact, something else I am noticing, is that Magnus's vote against Philly used one of

my

arguments as a major reason for voting, so Magnus is about as likely following me as I am of following him (specifically, neither of us are following, we just happened to agree once). Not to mention, my post in which I voted Philly made different arguments than Magnus, and so really wasn't "following," in the most literal sense.

Arguable, but not very solid evidence of following.

Post 173: Hey, you're also ignoring an entirely original inquiry against Dourgrim here, and only mentioning the very last line of my post.
Post 180: Yep.
Posts 200-259 all V/LA, so yeah.
Post 275/276: Catching up, and mostly original, is the real point. Posted my personal opinions on a couple things.
Post 279: Yes, clarification.

So, where is this following that was so common? I see one example of following that is arguable at best. The others were not examples of following. I see no real case here.

Not to mention. 13 of the posts (I grouped the same ones you grouped) that you mentioned were non-V/LA, and of those, you only even accused me of following on four of them. Add that to the one most recent post that you tried to write off as following, and

you

have only even mentioned 5 out of 14 of my posts as following.

Assuming that those were good examples (most were not, but let's assume for the sake of this argument), you, who made the argument in the first place, listed nearly 2/3 of my posts as original content. Where do you get off saying that I am usually following?

Isacc again misrepresents my case as arguing that he was lurking because he was V/LA

Misrep is the accusation of the day!
No, I didn't misrep. I explained that I was not following, you accuse me of admitting that I was actively lurking (which would logically mean that you find that a scumtell as well, no?) and I countered the accusation by saying that I was V/LA so the accusation is null.

So, there.

[Isacc]

I don't have time tonight for another long post. Anyway, a lot of it would be repeating myself, as Isacc either does not read well, does not understand well or is scum deliberately misrepresenting most of what I have said.

I have done none of these things. If you want to make these accusations, you must back them up with evidence.

His last post starts with the following argument:
Isacc: Statement A.
Walnut: That is wrong, Statement B.
Isacc: No you are wrong, Statement B!

This is just wrong. 'Nuff said.

The evidence from throughout the game is irrelevant? Oh, that's ok then.

WOW. Talk about misrep here, and from the big misrep accuser too. That irrelevant was NOT at all referring to the evidence being irrelevant. Maybe if you actually quoted the full context rather than

one word

you would be able to see that.

What I was calling irrelevant was an entirely different issue; specifically that the fact that evidence was present throughout the game was irrelevant

as long as you did not actually use it in the case

.


And you end with an "Isacc is suspicious, I'll vote RBT"? That whole last paragraph sounds like you saying you're going to wait until others will join the wagon before you actually go after me anymore. Not to mention, you haven't countered my arguments...

[Isacc]

Alright, this may very well be my last post before deadline, as tomorrow is prom for me (and Kairyuu). Before the day ends, I want to be clear.

My suspicion on Walnut is at about 80% right now. Not perfect, but not weak either. However, Walnut lynch is better than no lynch, which is what we are dangerously close to seeing.

I think that's all I needed to say. Hopefully I can post again before deadline, but I wouldn't bet on it. If not, can we please decide on a lynch? I really don't like the idea of a no-lynch on D1.

[Isacc]

Oh, I'm allowed a bah post under these rules.

Very well then, I better make this count:

BAH!

hmmm... feels lacking..
oh well.

Screw it, scum won't post. I watched Magnus last night. One visitor: Isacc.

Ergo scum and all that crap:

Vote Isacc

Haha, nice. Interesting gambit. Unfortunately for you, you've been caught in the lie.

I am the town Tracker, and I tracked BB. BB targeted Magnus last night. In his words:

Ergo scum and all that crap:

Vote: Beyond_Birthday

[Isacc]

1) Isacc's claim does not preclude the existence of another player who targeted Magnus. Even if he's telling the truth, "B_B=scum" is a non sequitur.

2) If B_B's lying, he's got some serious cojones. Especially since he claimed first, and we should be nowhere near lylo - there is no good reason for scum to claim unprovoked at this point.

1) Would be logical, normally. However, B_B's lie about me targeting Magnus results in the only logical conclusion being that he is scum (or town lying, but in this situation I see no reason for town to lie).

2) Well, it sure seems to be working predictably. You're all jumping on his bandwagon quite fast, doncha think? Seems like it wasn't such a crazy strategy to pull off.


If you guys really think I am the more likely scum here, I think you should consider BB's play end of the last day. Post 339, he jumps on the Walnut wagon with pretty much no reasoning for his actual vote. He posts a lot of speculation about who would be scummy based on the flip, but never actually justifies his case. Commandeering a mislynch much?

In other news, in the event that I am mislynched, I would like to note:

1) Take a look at MadeofPhail. Starts of wanting to discuss night actions (DING DING DING) and then jumps pretty quick on this wagon.

2) I'd watch out for Caf19. Notice his last post says I am the right lynch, but he fails to actually vote me, and asks others' opinions first. Seems like he wants to make sure he's getting on the popular wagon before he commits.

3) MafiaSSK is another Walnut wagon surprise. I don't really think he ever gave any explanation at all for that vote.

4) Nocmen is obvtown by 382.

Yeah I know, early to be giving "If I get lynched" sentiments, but I am going to be gone all of tomorrow, and most of sunday.