Mini 767: Cubic Mafia (Game Over!)

[Walnut]

/confirm

[Walnut]

vote Flame

because it is probably better than flaming votes.

[Walnut]

Don't you think that if you were scum trying to not stick out you would be more likely to random vote than not? The majority of players are doing it, and scum tend to want to be safely hidden in the majority.

[Walnut]

RVS is a nice way to see some voting patterns

Such as who is bold enough to put that risky second vote on someone, when everyone else is cautiously looking for someone who has no votes on them yet?

I much rather prefer just jumping ahead and asking questions to see how people reply when confronted early on, and then use that as a means of comparison if they come under fire later on.

While I agree with getting things underway fairly quickly, I know that if someone calls me out for a random vote I tend to react pretty calmly because I know that the town would be insane to lynch me solely on the basis of the random vote. My reaction when coming under fire later on may well be quite different, as it may require more active defense. Do you think I am unusual in this?

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?

@Beyond_Birthday: When you say that 4 of you can vouch that Magnus is always this eager, do you mean as both town and scum? In your experience, has this approach worked well for the town?

@Magnus:

Yes, I was expecting a straightforward answer, in order to see how he reacts to this questioning, to see if he's thrown off base.

This kind of contradicts itself. A non-straightforward answer still showed you how he reacted. I think "Anyone could be scum" is a reasonable answer at this stage, far from being indicative of dodging and trying to avoid giving the town reads. What is the point of forcing someone to name names at this stage? What does it tell us about that person? What does it tell us about the questioner?

[Walnut]

I believe nocmen explained what the point was.

Really? I thought he said the point was to see how people answered, not to require them to answer in a specific manner.

The fact of the matter is that he named names when pressured.
Which means he had names, which means he had suspicions, which means he was dodging the question, which is how he reacted.

While still pointing out the impossibility of your question, he mentioned two "small scum reads". There is clearly a difference between "I have suspicions of people" and "I think people are scum." If you were being absolutely pedantic, he has still not answered the explicit question of "Who do you think is scum, and why?". My read of this is that you come out of it as more scummy than him, for attempting to force an argument that just isn't there. That said, you are getting a startling character reference:

even if Magnus did attack someone in that game, it probably would have been largely ignored

Magnus, do you consider this to be a true statement,? Whether you consider it true or not, do you consider BB justified in making it? What do you see as his purpose and the likely result of him saying it in this game?

Thanks Rice. That was the most useful post ever. Then again, I'm bored and relatively useless in games until discussion picks up, and this talk between Noc, Magnus, and Isacc is about to put me to sleep with boredom.

This bothers me, because it seems true of a lot of players, but is also an excuse for the scum to cruise through Day 1. How about saying something startling and waking yourself up?

Back to Magnus: I generally like Nocmen's play so far. I think it is realistic at this stage to want to engage people in conversation through asking them questions to draw them into conversation without expecting instant gratification in scumhunting. I don't agree so much with what he said about getting vote patterns from the RVS stage nor comparing reactions to questions in the RVS stage to reactions later in the game.

[Walnut]

Magnus, do you consider this to be a true statement,? Whether you consider it true or not, do you consider BB justified in making it? What do you see as his purpose and the likely result of him saying it in this game?

Well, err... I'd hope they'd listen to me.
I don't know, I supose I'm not good at convincing people, but fiding the scum is a different story. Generally, more people think I'm scum when I'm town, and call me obvtown when I'm scum, judging from the games I've been in. (Much to my amusement, of course).
That said, why ask these questions? High suspicion here. Looks like you're sizing me up to see how well you can convince people to mislynch me from my POV.

I had a number of reasons for asking these questions, including:
1) Seeing how you responded to questions ;
2) From the way that you have started the game you have shown confidence in a method of direct questioning and drawing quick conclusions. I was interested to see if you were aware of how other players regarded this;
3) To see whether you thought BB was scum for saying what he did;
4) To have all players thinking about the situation.

What baffles me is that when I point out that BB is undermining your credibility (and, to use your words, potentially setting you up for a mislynch), you ignore the elements about BB and instead perceive it as me attacking you.

[Walnut]

BB is undermining my credibility?
I humbly request you support this statement

BB is the one who said

even if Magnus did attack someone in that game, it probably would have been largely ignored

Which immediately suggests that you are largely ignorable. I took issue with this, as it undermines your credibility. However, you seem keen to endorse his position:

BB is answering honestly and, from my POV, more or less correctly, about how I play.

Which results that

You're the one who keeps pushing conversation down this route, resulting in this so-called "undermining of credibility"

So no, you have misunderstood me. I have made no attempt to undermine your credibility, but instead attacked someone else for doing so.

If this results in "undermining my credibility" without analyzing if I'm actually scum or not, doesn't that imply your objective is not to find scum, but instead get someone (namely me), to look scummy to people so you can get them lynched? (I want an answer to this.)

If, in fact, any player's credibility is undermined, it does not necessarily get them lynched, it is more likely for their arguments to lynch another person be taken less seriously. However, I suggest that you direct that question to BB- I refer you back to my as yet unanswered question to you in post #78:

What do you see as his purpose and the likely result of him saying it in this game?

I am amused that you then say (paraphrasing) "I made a dumb attack on nocmen to see who would follow it" and are then surprised if people think it was a dumb attack

You're actions now start to make sense, making me feel a bit more comfortable about what you did. Definitely thought through,and planned ahead. Not sure if that's good for town or scum though. I'll remain with you on neutral.

This is accepting of you. My first read of it was that he had launched a line of attack and when it was unsupported said "Oh, of course that was my plan all along".

I am definitely "generalizing the game, and trying to get as many others to comment as possible". Initially it was mainly noc, magnus and Isacc posting, then more of magnus, me, caf and BB, and I am aware of Trumpet of Doom, Dourgrim, the now replaced Southland (welcome MafiaSSK!) and others to a lesser extent being in the background. This is one reason why I am averse to getting into saying who is scummy looking this early, as we are only dealing with a subset of the players, and those who are posting are the only available targets. Look at the playstyle differences- magnus is all action from the start of the game, nocmen and I are active and asking questions but more likely to just register the answers and move on, BB admits to being bored by this stage- which, when it boils down, is what has been the bones of a lot of the discussion to date.

On that note, this kind of bugs me:

Well, I can't draw too much from what I see so far.

VOTE:Southland

Post please.

RBT- it is about your third post, and I recall BB calling one of them "the most useful post ever". To say that you can't draw much from what you see is a bit off as you have not contributed significantly yet yourself, and to vote someone for not posting when you are yet to post content is much the same.

[Walnut]

I don't care what you think of me, no matter if you're scum or not, that isn't my job. My job is to find the anti-town factions.

BB, if you are town, would you not have three jobs:

1) To find the anti-town factions (as you say).
2) To present your case in such a way that other town players also vote for them (which is what you described magnus as failing to do in a previous game).
3) To not appear so scummy that the town targets you instead (obviously being lynched as a townie can be ok depending on circumstances)

What do you think- is that list about right?

[Walnut]

Walnut, why are you so eager to pit Magnus and BB against each other?

I pointed out that a comment from BB that I thought undermined Magnus' credibility. I asked Magnus to comment on whether he thought it was valid and what he thought the purpose and impact of it was.

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?

The continuation of it has been because Magnus thought I was undermining his credibility.

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?

I thought it was appropriate for Magnus to be the one to respond to BB's comment, as it was regarding him. Not sure what you define as scumhunting- I observed a few things from that conversation.

@BB: I liked this answer:

If 1 and 2 are successfully done, then 3 should be automatic.

However, 1 and 2 aren't always successfully done, especially earlier in the game, hence the value of 3.

[Walnut]

Walnut you failed to

actually

answer the question.

Which specific question are you talking about?

Why did you think it was important that Magnus' credibility was being undermined?

It is either justified, in which case it is good to know as we can all just ignore Magnus from now on, or unjustified, in which case we have to look at why BB said it.

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.

If by "pushing" you mean raising it initally, it was something that struck me as subtle but effective as an attack on magnus. I was at the time engaged in a discussion with magnus regarding his case on nocmen, and when I first read that my initial thought was "Oh, no one takes any notice of him anyway, why continue talking with him?" then realised how much I was being affected by what seemed a throwaway comment by BB.

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

.

Because it seemed to me that magnus had initially misunderstood, and had taken it as me saying he was ignorable, when I was in fact pointing out that someone else had said that.

[Walnut]

He should concentrate on the more scummy of players if he wants to be considered pro-town.

Who are these "more scummy of players" that he should be concentrating on?

[Walnut]

Well I remember post 127 (Walnut) post 128 Nocmen and my own post thats been speculated under only, are the three that found him scummy.

My post #127 is asking him about his statement about the job of a town player. I am not sure how you count that as me seeing him as scummy.

[Walnut]

BB, I find it interesting that your results indicate that your two friends from a previous game are least scum-like. Do you believe it possible that your % approach favours a particular playstyle and has little relevance to scumminess? It might be time for a little reflection on that.

Right now, my sense is that magnus_orion has shown the most scum like play, but I am still trying to figure out what out of that might be attributable to his personal style. I am not interested in the Phily lynch. Look at his join date, note how he was pretty much the first person to voice an opinion on anything much and got slammed for it, then has tried to play it safe-ish from there. My read is more a new player than a scum player.

[Walnut]

In my opinion, the time for critical thinking comes later in the game. The time for action is now.

This probably best explains the issues I have had with magnus. My preference is for thinking, especially as action without much thought naturally looks either silly or scummy.

@Caf19: The initial post that PhilyEC made that people reacted to was #42:

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


Hmm..I'd be looking at the posts of the last ones that random voted or havent even posted yet. Scum aint too eager to stick out D1 page 2 so that be where my suspicions lay atm as for someone in particular, I think its not a good idea to throw names about just yet.

@nocmen: You noted my "defense" of Phily. What did you think of Riceballtail's explanation of BB's reasoning before BB had answered the question?

[Walnut]

Walnut seems to have been trying to get B_B and magnus suspicious of each other, then not been happy when it didn't work.

While I don't agree, I can see why you think I was trying to make magnus suspicious of BB. However, why do you think I was trying to make BB suspicious of magnus?

For that matter, he's been trying to make individual players suspicious of each other for much of the game, including apparently trying to make Nocmen look at RBT.

It's about consistency. If two players perform a similar action there needs to be a reason given why it is scummy for one of them but a null tell for the other. It makes the player think about why they commented the first time and justify the decision around whether to apply the same logic the second time.

[Walnut]

For that matter, he's been trying to make individual players suspicious of each other for much of the game, including apparently trying to make Nocmen look at RBT.

It's about consistency. If two players perform a similar action there needs to be a reason given why it is scummy for one of them but a null tell for the other. It makes the player think about why they commented the first time and justify the decision around whether to apply the same logic the second time.

So, we should lynch Empking and Zwetchenwasser every single game because their play style is scummy? No. That is the point of metagaming, so you can use someone's play style to condemn/defend them. It is inherent that in a game with familiar people that you expect a certain style of play from a person and not from others. Lowell is one of the most unique styles I've seen and I will not attack him for his play. His actions have not been shown to be scummy, and I think you're very closed minded for ignoring this possibility.

Did I say anything like that? No, I said that the accuser should look at why they accused one player and not the other and provide a justification. If your justification happens to be "Well, that was Empking, and he is always like that" it is answer that the town can work with, whether they agree with it or not.

That is the point of metagaming, so you can use someone's play style to condemn/defend them. It is inherent that in a game with familiar people that you expect a certain style of play from a person and not from others.

This bit is fine. I am not personally a huge fan of metagaming but can respect its place. I do think that if someone has adopted a consistent playstyle that on balance is unhelpful to the town they should not be allowed to hide behind it, but natural selection within a specific game can largely take care of that.

[Walnut]

RBT- do you think that you are as much guilty of the perceived lack of scumhunting as anyone else? You seem to be implying that you are happy to wait for other players to do the posting and then for you to pick up suspicions from it.

I like magnus' point regarding Isacc posting the intent, waiting for someone else to vote, then joining the vote a lot more than his earlier attack on nocmen for "dodging the question".

This is the first game I've ever seen you play, you have to admit, Zwets more likely for me to see in a game than you are and I havent read any games with you in it, but if you claim you always play like this I'll look into it since you've done the same for me. (Which is a pro-town move from you to be fair)

Why do you think that is a pro-town move, Phily?

[Walnut]

I will say that I don't currently suspect walnut

You do have a point thoug, I have been ignoring ToD... Except nothing jumps out at me when I read his posts... other than the lurking, and the ignoring philly. I'm trying to balance whether or not He or walnut would be philly's scumpartner (as ToD attacked walnut, I'd see he and walnut as being scumpartners unlikely)... and I'm leaning walnut.

magnus, what between those posts caused you to change your opinion so dramatically?

@RBT: I agree that analysis is a separate activity from posting. But along the lines of the conversation BB and I had earlier about the job of a town player, you can't do a lot of good with your analysis if you happened to get lynched for lurking first.

Hi Seraphim, by a quirk of fate I am voting for you. Please give me lots of good reasons to move my vote!

[Walnut]

So magnus:

1) You posted an explicit response to a post of mine.
2) Someone else commented on my post.
3) Someone else voted for me.
4) You then said you found me scummy for it.

Does that sound familiar? It should, as it is pretty much what you are accusing Isacc of doing.

Newbieness is not an excuse for scumminess.

What are you actually trying to say here? That newbie play does not look like scum play?

[Walnut]

Yes, newbie play does not look like scumminess, what made you think it would?

I don't actually know where to start here. It is like arguing with someone who is claiming that the Earth is flat. I see any further discussion of this as a distraction to the thread, but if enough people other than magnus see value in taking it further, please let me know.

I can see now why BB said that people would ignore magnus, so my suspicions of him for that comment have gone down.

[Walnut]

MafiaSSk, RBT- any more of a case on Caf19? I am finding it pretty easy to resist the urge to jump on the slowly forming bandwagon, because... well, no one has really put forward any reason to do so. The "say very little, say very little, then- vote this guy!" approach is not at all convincing. If we are going to pick someone arbitrarily and vote for them, I am happier with my initial random vote on Flame/Seraphim, because he still has not said anything at all.

[Walnut]

@Caf: I am voting for Seraphim, am happy with that vote, and encourage others to join me. I would roughly divide the players into three groups right now: those who have posted considerably and I have a slight positive read on, those who have posted considerably and I have a mild scum read on, and those who have not posted much at all. The last group is the one I am most interested in right now, and it includes RBT, ToD, MafiaSSK and Seraphim. Part of the purpose of Day 1 is to get everyone talking and get a chance to get a feel for all of the players, and I don't want us to be going into Day 2 with a whole bunch of people who have not posted much. Of those in the scummy leaning group, I would probably vote for Isacc first- he seems to have been following someone else's views a lot.

[Walnut]

Lurkervoting is not always the most productive course of action.

QFT. However, as I said in my previous post, we have a whole third of the town not contributing much, so I am in no hurry to lynch yet, and more keen to get them involved. The deadline is now less than a week away, and it is insane that someone can go the whole day without posting a single content post.

you actually be in favour of lynching Seraphim if he continued to lurk for the rest of the day?

Depends what else comes up, and if there was any chance of getting a lynch on him before deadline. If no one else was going anywhere near him, I wouldn't waste my vote there. I am a bit more suspicious of him than the average lurker on account of his making an active decision to replace into a game then lurking.

What's funny is that I have no idea what SSK see or is voting for. I was quite literally going for reactions.

"I have just done something scummy, but of course I did it on purpose". Similarly to when magnus did it early on, you get a reaction that says "That was scummy". It's a terrible defence.

@Isacc: Whether it is due to the frequency and timing of your posting or that you just happen to think similarly to other players, the majority of your posts say something that someone else has already said. Taking a look at post #310 as your most recent example, it essentially includes two points:

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.

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. Now that he is starting to post more, I am getting more of a scum vibe from RBT (see earlier in this post). I'll do some more thinking about who I would round out my top three with.

Actually, come to think of it, Walnut's last list should have included phillyec. Selectivity, much?
Walnut will have to explain this.

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.

[Walnut]

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.

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.

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.

If I call the sky blue, is that following too?

If someone else has called the sky blue, yes it is. Especially when it is the entirety of your contribution.

[Walnut]

Well, y'know, nobody is going near him at the moment either. I guess I just don't see the utility of your vote and I think it could be better put to use elsewhere.

By leaving my vote on Seraphim and explaining why, I have drawn attention to the fact that Flame/Seraphim accounts for 2 (now 3) posts, for a total of "Hi, I am here", an in-joke with RBT, and now his most recent post to say he is still re-reading. That is insfufficient for a Day 1 contribution- we will go into Day 2 knowing nothing about him.

@Caf19, magnus:

those who have posted considerably and I have a slight positive read on, those who have posted considerably and I have a mild scum read on, and those who have not posted much at all.

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.

I see what you are getting at, but the answer is simple. I felt I had a decent read on him (which was largely that he was showing more newb than particularly scum); his not posting for a long time after that was not consistent with the read that I had made, so he fell more into the lurker category.
And if you think I am trying to be too agreeable, I should mention that BB's last post was worthy of American Idol- y'know, the early rounds where they show people who think they can sing but really can't.

@MafiaSSK: Go meta me. I live for defense. I consider it a better scumhunting tool than groundless accusations

[Walnut]

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

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.

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

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

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

@Isacc: Whether it is due to the frequency and timing of your posting or that you just happen to think similarly to other players, the majority of your posts say something that someone else has already said.

I would say it was scummy to do deliberately misrepresent it this way- not sure if means that Isacc, BB and magnus are all scummy as they all seem to think he has made a fine argument.

Alright, to re-read the whole game to prove a point:

Post 10: Isacc confirms.
Post 37: Random vote.
Post 47: Comment on Phily's post 42, which Walnut and Caf19 had already commented on.
Post 48: Asks a question in response to Nocmen's dislike of random voting, as magnus had already done.
Post 52: Aggressive in response to Nocmen, who magnus is already querying.
Post 66: Legitimate content.
Post 69 & 72: Clarifying.
Post 79: Defends his post 52.
Post 94: Will post later.
Post 98: Will post later.
Post 125: Sorry. Will post later.
Post 137 & 138: A long PBPA. Some original stuff, but by its nature a lot of it is expressing a view that someone else already has.
Post 145: Comment on Phily in response to magnus' question.
Post 149: Misinterprets or misrepresents something I said (sound familiar?)
Post 166: Vote Phily (which Nocmen, magnus and Walnut have found suspicous in terms of timing)
Post 173: Response to Nocmen, who called him out for this in post 170.
Post 180: Says Phily is defending against magnus as it is easier than defending against Isacc.
Post 200: Will post tomorrow.
Post 227 Will post tomorrow.
Post 259: Will post later.
Post 275 & 276: Catch up post; any content is carefully neutral.
Post 279: Clarification.

Isacc again misrepresents my case as arguing that he was lurking because he was V/LA, but I am not showing all the "will post later/tomorrows" to show he was lurking. I am showing them to include all of his posts, so that you can see that the "generalisation" holds and I have not just cherry picked examples that suited my case and left others out.

BB, magnus- I want you to say that you have read this post, and either still agree with Isacc's argument or stop voting for me.

MafiaSSK, RBT, ToD- I am not really sure why you are voting for me. Is everyone else clear on why they are? That is important stuff going into Day 2.

[Walnut]

Walnut has made exceptionally little atention to others

Read again, and you may realise that I have in fact mentioned almost every other player in the game. I have not made big cases on them, but I have asked them questions and drawn them into public exposure so that the town has a view of them.

No one other than me is voting for Seraphim (although two others have belatedly agreed that he should talk today), so at this point I think it is time to move my vote

unvote

.

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

Then, in response to "The evidence was there from throughout the game." he replies

Irrelevant.

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

I have decent suspicion of Isacc, but at least this has caused him to post more, so the town has a clearer view of him. RBT, on the other hand, also looks scummy and has a fairly close ratio of votes to words posted, so

vote Riceballtail

.

[Walnut]

I am vanilla town.

Making the assumption that I am lynched, as I don't see a great willingness for people to switch their votes at this stage, here are a few parting thoughts.

Overall, I am not a bad lynch, as I have been open and involved enough for people to have made a decent read on me. Can I honestly say that voting for me is a scummy move? No, as Day 1 is always a bit unclear, and I am sure that there are things that I have done that could be seen as scummy. However, I don't think good arguments have been put up against me. ToD voted for me two weeks ago, has made two posts about Phily since then, and is V/LA for the week up to the deadline. What will the town be able to say about him come Day 2? MafiaSSK is voting me for overdefending (as far as I can tell). Is that a legitimate argument? Will it seem any more or less legitimate when you review at the start of Day 2? I don't really know why RBT is voting for me- does anyone? Isacc and BB's votes I am happiest with, as while I think the argument that Isacc makes is completely wrong, at least it is there and available to everyone to reread later. There is an argument for keeping me alive as I have posted a lot and am therefore a known quality, whereas if you lynch me, you are still almost at square one in terms of what you know about some of the other players. However, there can be value in seeing who is on a mislynch (as magnus said), so that may make sense too.

Get well soon Dourgrim, and on a parting note I have to laugh- I can't quite believe that Seraphim finally posts, only to say that he is still re-reading!

[Walnut]

Congrats guys, and thanks Kairyuu for modding.

I think he should have been lynched day 1. Phily/phail was very lucky to survive til end game.

Heh, a fair bit of what got me lynched was trying to avoid getting him lynched on Day 1. Not because I thought he was innocent, but if he was scum keeping him alive and closely observing his arguments and reactions to attacks on others seemed potentially profitable. That said, I got sidetracked by RL and got a bit sloppy in my writing, so got some deserved heat and was lynched. I had Isacc right though, and was surprised first that people supported him, then way more surprised by the weird claim Day 2. Any explanation on that?