Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[yellowbunny]

Whoa...action!

I still need to go more in depth into Sajin's comments on various posts...I've started to but today has been quite busy so far. So I might have more to say on his points. One quick clarification though...

Sajin wrote:
@131- I agree with everything in this post of yellowbunny's, besides the obvious misread Smile
YB says there that she sees a CUBAREY - Noob pairing likely. I can see CUBAREY, but Noob? I'm not so sure. Elaborate, please.

My intention was to say that there COULD be a Cub-Noob paring which would explain Noob sticking up for Cub...not that there necessarily was. I think in subsequent posts I made it more clear that I wasn't so sure that's what was actually going on.

So, @Saijin...when you say you agree with that post of mine...do you mean that you DO think there is a connection between the two? Or you think it was just Noob (now Hero) stating what he thought the likely cause of Cub's behavior was?

[Ojanen]

I got prodded. I've been a vegetable lately, I'll try to make that not happen again. I'll post content today.

[Wall-E]

Post 51 may be Jase trying out the "do something silly and scummy at the beginning then go serious-as-scum" thing.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Then Idiot King distracts from the bit of attention the flip-out granted him by bringing up a RVS policy discussion and baiting people into joining it by taking the unpopular side (pooh on all of you who participated, scum helping their partner distract).

It's the same RVS discussion, in fact, that we've all groaned through in every game ever.

Vote: Idiotking

[Wall-E]

@Idiotking- post 64, Random voting is needed by town to generate discussion. Not taking part in a random vote is scummy, because it means less discussion.

@Ojaned- post 73, although that is a reasonable assumption I doubt someone like Walle who plays multiples would not post in thread simply because he was night talking. You assume to much about peoples free time. Sure some have some here and there but some have large blocks of free time followed by large blocks of being busy.

@Walle- post 103, fail? You claim VT.
if your scum- That was such a bad way to cover up and your cracking under pressure this early?
if your town- you just failed town as any PRs just got upped in chance to be killed ><

There was not enough pressure on you at this point to claim. Period.

Admonishment acknowledged, and I agree with you.

@Next few posts after 103, echos my sentiments.

@131- I agree with everything in this post of yellowbunny's, besides the obvious misread

@142- vote count summary, I think a lot of people here have wishy washy votes at this point. Why do we only have 4 votes on the board on page 5? Why? I read this as a mild form of busing. Just not sure on who.

@172- I agree with walle and disagree with burfy here, your vote is/was not on the "scummyest" person as previously claimed. Your 2nd sentence I am assuming you meant "Note that I?"

@173-Kreriov- Semi agree. I see walle's large increase in participation as scummy because it strikes me as trying to be under the radar, and then realizing your in danger, and desperately clinging to a rope, spamming posts to survive.

It's my normal playstyle when I have free time.

[Wall-E]

All right, I couldn't sleep so here's some analysis.

Wall-E has consistently been the most scummy. Late to the thread, preemptive vanilla claim and a failure to scumhunt characterized the beginning of his play. His bizarre vote and unvote in posts 191 and 200 represent the height of his stupidity and this post:

I'm too close to the action in this game to be unbiased. I'm hoping someone else makes a strong case for me to analyze. I think that for today that might be all I can manage.

represents a final abdication of a desire to produce content. 10 of his 25 posts are basically empty including this classic in iso post 15:

vote: Wall-E

Think and might meant I was still planning to try.

[qwints]

I find this series of posts rather bizarre:

Iso 16

I agree with X's post 56 that IK is the best lead at the moment. I'll put my vote on IK for now.

Vote: Idiot King

Iso 17

Hm. Interesting.

Unvote

.

Nothing to add for now.

Iso 19

Oh, I see I'm being an idiot in this game. Let's stop that now.

Next, some damage control:

I agree with X's post 56 that IK is the best lead at the moment. I'll put my vote on IK for now.

Vote: Idiot King

Idiot King abstained from random voting because he says he doesn't like it...that was why X voted for him. Two questions:

1.) Aside from not liking to vote initally, has Idiot King done anything to make you suspicious of him?
2.) X has since removed his vote from Idiot King. X's vote is currently on you. What do you think of this?

1) No.
2) I think that you are right. What about it would you like to discuss?

IK: No idea why I voted for you. I'm reading again to see, but I think it was the way you refused to random vote...

Iso 26

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Then Idiot King distracts from the bit of attention the flip-out granted him by bringing up a RVS policy discussion and baiting people into joining it by taking the unpopular side (pooh on all of you who participated, scum helping their partner distract).

It's the same RVS discussion, in fact, that we've all groaned through in every game ever.

Vote: Idiotking

Wall-E seems to be all over the place on what he thinks about idiotking. I don't like these inconsistencies nor the way he seems to keep going back to the same point without addressing idiotking's responses.

[Wall-E]

Or I saw something, forgot what it was and unvoted, then saw it again on a re-read.

[Ojanen]

Looking for answers for a couple of things first:

@X

And as for attacking indiscriminately, that's how I try to get reactions from everyone. Judging reactions is how you can really find scum. Scum attack discriminately.

So, in this game, would you say your intention/method has been to attack indiscriminately, shooting (mostly loaded) questions whenever you see something about which reactions could be gotten out of?
(not suggesting this would be a bad thing in itself)

@Wall-E
Your vote on Idiotking page 8, unvote page 9. Please explain thought process. What made you say "Hm. Interesting" in your unvote post?

[Ojanen]

Didn't preview. Not satisfied with that, though, Wall-E. What was so "interesting" that made you do the first unvote?

[X]

Anyway, to respond to your statement back when and because it seems pertinent now, just because I do not think lurking in and of itself is scummy do not think I do not notice or want to do something about it.

When someone has less access, that's one thing. When someone's lurking, it's another. Lurking is scummy.

@X, hedging just means saying that you could be wrong.

e.g. wall-e's lurking is scummy BUT he might just be lazy.

It's not necessarily a scum tell, but scum can use it so that they can point back and say they were suspicious of their partners.

I see. And there is a lot of hedging in Idiotking's posts.

Wall-E's 252 is a major regression. More significant things have happened since page 3.

@X

And as for attacking indiscriminately, that's how I try to get reactions from everyone. Judging reactions is how you can really find scum. Scum attack discriminately.

So, in this game, would you say your intention/method has been to attack indiscriminately, shooting (mostly loaded) questions whenever you see something about which reactions could be gotten out of?
(not suggesting this would be a bad thing in itself)

Not exactly. I'd say that that

was

my method at the beginning of the game. Now there are actual conversations going, so I don't have to provoke anything.

[X]

Sorry for the double-post.

V/LA until Sunday.

College visits.

[Wall-E]

Yeah Noob, that is the biggest problem with day 1, everything is supposition and accusation with little or no backing. If I say I hate it for that reason will that be ok?

A quick, unnecessary claim is not supposition. It is concrete evidence. True or not, its also a bad move to claim with no real reason. Actually, I also do not like some of the following

@yellowbunny and anyone thinking I'm good at this game: omg fffff ahahahahaha No I suck. One thing I have going for me is bull-headed stubbornness, which is often a trait of experts, but rest assured it's a by-product of my single-mindedness and not skill.

That's not to say I haven't caught my fair-share of scum in my day, though I'd attribute that more to my understanding of logic.

Anyway, this is going to take some undoing, but I'm down.

As I've tried to explain, it's a common error for me, since I'm typically in five or six games at a time, once in a while one slips through the cracks

Ok, so you are not an expert at this game and yet you are in 5 or 6 games at once. Even if you are not an expert, you should know better than to claim to quickly.

Having said all this, I am still going to do this

unvote

I already have limited time and access on the weekends, this Sunday is Palm Sunday, and I do like Wall-Es willingess to admit 'this is going to take some undoing'. I look forward to reading the resulting discussion on Wall-E and Cubarey in particular on Monday! Enjoy the weekend all.

I don't like this post. Nothing has changed (I'm still scum) but an unvote regardless.

You think that the case agains Wall-E has the most merit...? I disagree wholeheartedly. In my opinion the only substantial thing we've seen has been from cubarey.

Well, lets exchange our opinions:

I think

the cubarey case isn't too strong

simply because his joining date says the 22nd of March 2009...that's certainly not enough time to even have finished one game.

I think he's trying a bit too hard to fit in.

I've quite a few other small suspicions which again I've eliminated until further evidence comes up:

I find it odd how X and Idiotking seems to come to a mutual understanding, of how the other person was just trying to generate discussion, so fast

I also find Leu and you a bit odd in certain places of that debate but I'll save why for now so not all my methods of observation will be known this early in the game.


Wall-E's case is much more interesting, its little pick ups like this that in my opinion are much more important.

Another one. Is Cubary scum or not, W1N?

I don't like how in 129 Ojanen gives X a pass to attack without justifications and use rhetoric at-will. Ojanen has posted very little useful scumhunting and he's buddying to X who appears to be obvtown in this game so-far (except that he's backed off IK which I dislike).

X's questions to Idiotking before the NATURAL IMPULSE post:

Simply trying to please? Trying to blend in? I'll bite. Unvote: Wall-E. Vote: Idiotking.

Guilty conscience, maybe?

How did I miss this? Going along with the flow because you don't want people to look at you is the worst reason to go along with the flow. That is actually the scummiest thing I've seen so far. Quite honestly, it's not anything significant, but my best lead right now.

None of these are questions that have meaningful answers, this is rhetorical provocation to get some reactions going. (Not saying anything against that, I like X so far, at least he's been tickling people to get something going)

From post 90

Why would the Natural impulse be to call him scum? He was not accusing you he was asking for you to explain your vote. Moreover, such a question is not a witchhunt its a request for information. Any innocent player would have viewed it as such. A guilty player however would have the "Natural impulse" to cover his own guiltiness by calling the request for information an attempt " to get me in trouble on baseless evidence

So this is a misrepresentation of the interaction and the nature of the questions. They were not "requests for information".

From his last post

First day lynches are almost always semi-random by definition. Someone says something that seems suspicous, someone else calls him on it and if he/she does not respond with an appropriate answer the original poster finds himself with a couple of votes, if there are no other likely targets people start to join the wagon (either becuase they have no firm suspicions themselves or they are scum and want townies to die). I thought your reaction was over the top and you stating that it would be a "natural response" to call someone scum for asking you for an explaination a possible tell. At this point I stick by my initial read of you.

This is more of the same, and stating previous experience but at the same time ignoring that OMGUS is a really common gut reaction to provocation. Also shows that despite everyone who commented on disagreeing CUBAREY didn't seem to go and check again what actually happened, or else he's misrepresenting on purpose.

Otoh, it's interesting to see how Idiotking's way of responding to this last Cubarey post is now quite different from what he was like before. He's merely defending himself, not questioning Cubarey anymore.

[Wall-E]

Anyway, to respond to your statement back when and because it seems pertinent now, just because I do not think lurking in and of itself is scummy do not think I do not notice or want to do something about it.

When someone has less access, that's one thing. When someone's lurking, it's another. Lurking is scummy.

@X, hedging just means saying that you could be wrong.

e.g. wall-e's lurking is scummy BUT he might just be lazy.

It's not necessarily a scum tell, but scum can use it so that they can point back and say they were suspicious of their partners.

I see. And there is a lot of hedging in Idiotking's posts.

Wall-E's 252 is a major regression. More significant things have happened since page 3.

Please name what you think we should be discussing, X?

[Wall-E]

@Noob: can you post who you have found scummy/towny?

At this point I'm really not sure, I have a few suspicions but obviously there can't be 4 scums. I'll post this in detail during a weekend. (I have spurs of activity also, most of my content will come on weekends).

I'd also like to say we shouldn't make a complete list of who we think is scum and who we think is innocent. Sure the scum should be brought up, but I've been told (and I think it makes perfect sense) that have complete lists help scum to perform their night kill as they'll obviously kill off the person everyone thinks is townie.

can you name for me the four scums you had in mind?

I am still eagerly awaiting your response to this, W1N.

[Ojanen]

Ugh, upon preview I caught Wall-E saying something about me buddying up to X. I'll look at that later, but this was written before and not as a reaction to that as my earlier question hopefully proves.


Ok, thanks for the answer X. Looks like I won't catch you again before the V/LA.
I asked, cause I thought there might have been a small something on page 6. I thought it was inconsistent with the rest of your behaviour that you didn't react in any way to this unexplained, strange vote to you:

Post 139

To NOOB"

This is not the only cite where you can play Mafia (It may be the oldest and best but its definately not the only one).

To Idiotking. Now that sounds like a reasonable response.

Unvote Idiotking vote X

Now that I looked at it again, yellowbunny did ask for an explanation from CUBAREY, which shrinks this ping.
Still, your next message is the one (144) were you post your impressions on people. On the "townish" section are:

CUBAREY is not scummy, just confused, I think. He doesn’t get that the natural gut reaction to a loaded question is to think that your inquisitor is scum.
Idiotking is not scummy. He reacted well under pressure.
Ojanen is not scummy. He’s scumhunting analytically.

Sooo, CUBAREY votes for you. No explanation, but you've been badgering him recently before his vote (to be fair, several people have, but you're the loaded question guy). If he doesn't understand that natural gut reaction is to think that your inquisitor is scum, doesn't that kind of contradict the apparent reason of his vote? If his reason is something else totally unknown, why are you putting him to your townish-list without hearing explanation?
Actually, this first caught my eye cause I didn't think the assessment of me was really deserved, but I

had

said earlier that I liked your play so far.

[Ojanen]

Wall-E, that response fron W1N is lost forever. He asked to be replaced.

[Wall-E]

@Wall-E
Your vote on Idiotking page 8, unvote page 9. Please explain thought process. What made you say "Hm. Interesting" in your unvote post?

Yeah Noob, that is the biggest problem with day 1, everything is supposition and accusation with little or no backing. If I say I hate it for that reason will that be ok?

A quick, unnecessary claim is not supposition. It is concrete evidence. True or not, its also a bad move to claim with no real reason. Actually, I also do not like some of the following

@yellowbunny and anyone thinking I'm good at this game: omg fffff ahahahahaha No I suck. One thing I have going for me is bull-headed stubbornness, which is often a trait of experts, but rest assured it's a by-product of my single-mindedness and not skill.

That's not to say I haven't caught my fair-share of scum in my day, though I'd attribute that more to my understanding of logic.

Anyway, this is going to take some undoing, but I'm down.

As I've tried to explain, it's a common error for me, since I'm typically in five or six games at a time, once in a while one slips through the cracks

Ok, so you are not an expert at this game and yet you are in 5 or 6 games at once. Even if you are not an expert, you should know better than to claim to quickly.

Having said all this, I am still going to do this

unvote

I already have limited time and access on the weekends, this Sunday is Palm Sunday, and I do like Wall-Es willingess to admit 'this is going to take some undoing'. I look forward to reading the resulting discussion on Wall-E and Cubarey in particular on Monday! Enjoy the weekend all.

I don't like this post. Nothing has changed (I'm still scum) but an unvote regardless.

You think that the case agains Wall-E has the most merit...? I disagree wholeheartedly. In my opinion the only substantial thing we've seen has been from cubarey.

Well, lets exchange our opinions:

I think

the cubarey case isn't too strong

simply because his joining date says the 22nd of March 2009...that's certainly not enough time to even have finished one game.

I think he's trying a bit too hard to fit in.

I've quite a few other small suspicions which again I've eliminated until further evidence comes up:

I find it odd how X and Idiotking seems to come to a mutual understanding, of how the other person was just trying to generate discussion, so fast

I also find Leu and you a bit odd in certain places of that debate but I'll save why for now so not all my methods of observation will be known this early in the game.


Wall-E's case is much more interesting, its little pick ups like this that in my opinion are much more important.

Another one. Is Cubary scum or not, W1N?

I don't like how in 129 Ojanen gives X a pass to attack without justifications and use rhetoric at-will. Ojanen has posted very little useful scumhunting and he's buddying to X who appears to be obvtown in this game so-far (except that he's backed off IK which I dislike).

X's questions to Idiotking before the NATURAL IMPULSE post:

Simply trying to please? Trying to blend in? I'll bite. Unvote: Wall-E. Vote: Idiotking.

Guilty conscience, maybe?

How did I miss this? Going along with the flow because you don't want people to look at you is the worst reason to go along with the flow. That is actually the scummiest thing I've seen so far. Quite honestly, it's not anything significant, but my best lead right now.

None of these are questions that have meaningful answers, this is rhetorical provocation to get some reactions going. (Not saying anything against that, I like X so far, at least he's been tickling people to get something going)

From post 90

Why would the Natural impulse be to call him scum? He was not accusing you he was asking for you to explain your vote. Moreover, such a question is not a witchhunt its a request for information. Any innocent player would have viewed it as such. A guilty player however would have the "Natural impulse" to cover his own guiltiness by calling the request for information an attempt " to get me in trouble on baseless evidence

So this is a misrepresentation of the interaction and the nature of the questions. They were not "requests for information".

From his last post

First day lynches are almost always semi-random by definition. Someone says something that seems suspicous, someone else calls him on it and if he/she does not respond with an appropriate answer the original poster finds himself with a couple of votes, if there are no other likely targets people start to join the wagon (either becuase they have no firm suspicions themselves or they are scum and want townies to die). I thought your reaction was over the top and you stating that it would be a "natural response" to call someone scum for asking you for an explaination a possible tell. At this point I stick by my initial read of you.

This is more of the same, and stating previous experience but at the same time ignoring that OMGUS is a really common gut reaction to provocation. Also shows that despite everyone who commented on disagreeing CUBAREY didn't seem to go and check again what actually happened, or else he's misrepresenting on purpose.

Otoh, it's interesting to see how Idiotking's way of responding to this last Cubarey post is now quite different from what he was like before. He's merely defending himself, not questioning Cubarey anymore.

X's reaction was interesting. He's been tunneling on me the whole game, and here I noted a connection between him and IK.

Unvote: Vote: X

ISO 1: He random-votes me. I'm always suspicious when someone random-votes a player and then conveniently that person becomes their #1 scum suspect. It's a big coincidence pill to swallow. (smallville rocks)

ISO 9: Mentions me again, now taking a fence-sitty position on me.

ISO 12: Claims I'm adding no content despite the fact that I am.

ISO 13:

Wall-E is scummy for twice “forgetting” about the thread even while posting about not hitting the Watched Topics button. Plus, he hasn’t lifted a finger to find scum.

I dislike 13 because of the word, "Plus." A psychologist once told me that if I wanted to lie effectively I should give only one excuse when making an excuse for something, because the tendancy is for people to give two or more reasons, stringing them together with 'alsos' and 'besides.' X here looks like he's excusing himself from future attacks, and he gives two reasons. Minorest of minor points here, since I try to steer away from trying to find scum by reactions. This one popped out at me though.

ISO 15: He quotes someone else's defense of him in response to my "baiting" post and then goes on to vaguely respond to it. He follows that up with an appeal to emotion: "Wall-E, if you had done any of those attacks in 761 you would have been modkilled."

I am a logic-gamer who judges reactions. So basically, I look at a cause-reaction pair. If there's a reason that scum would have that reaction more than town, I note it (and usually announce it). Sometimes I'll probe further because of such a reason. But I have specific things to point to when I suspect/accuse someone. I never base my opinions on "vibes" - I just don't get them.

Hi! And as for attacking indiscriminately, that's how I try to get reactions from everyone. Judging reactions is how you can really find scum. Scum attack discriminately.

The contradiction here is telling, imo. Do you look for reactions (or "vibes" as some call them) or do you analyze plays?

ISO 20 and 21: He revisits IK and seems overly interested in IK's status. I think X is IK's partner, but I'm only about 20% sure.

Unvote: Vote: IdiotKing

and

FoS: X

[Ojanen]

@Wall-E
Woah, that's some messed up quotes.
Your answer to the unvote might be more swallowable than I thought it would be, but I need to reread stuff to verify.

I have my doubts about X, but also about your arguments against him.

Does tunneling mean attacking someone and disregarding everything else around them?
What's obvtown? "Obvious town"?
What's ISO? Can I get a list of a certain player's all posts after each other in this thread or something?

[Wall-E]

At the bottom of the screen, there is an option to sort the thread by poster.

I'm only like 20% or 25% sure about X, like I said. It's stretchy, but something about him has been bothering me. I conceed the point that it could be just OMGUS. I was hoping for some perspective on this after all the research was over, which would be now.

[Idiotking]

Was prodded.

If hedging is what you say it is, qwints, a quick check of my posts in the only other game I've actually played on this site will tell you that I personally have to hedge. My whole concept of this game is based on possibilities, and because of that I can't ever be sure that I'm right. And I completely sucked in the other game I've played here, so call it self-paranoia if you want, I don't trust myself.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Define flip-out, please.

Oh, and could you make up your mind on what you're after, Wall-E? You seem to just be jumping after whoever's a target at the moment (mostly me). Cubarey was after me, so you went after me. Once I wasn't the main focus anymore, you unvoted and still haven't adequately explained WHY you voted in the first place. Now you're dragging up old, OLD posts and trying to make an argument out of them? Haven't I said anything 'scummy' since page 4? If so, why haven't you brought it up yet? If not, why are you trying to make a case against me on such crappy 'evidence?'

[Sajin]

@X post 247- I was referencing the point when walle said he played multiple forum games of mafia simultaneously and that was his excuse about not posting. Then after he gets a few votes, spams posts. I see spamming posts in this regard as bad because it looks scummy to do so as its a tactical defensive measure, and that abrupt a change is usually because a lurking scum was caught and now tries to salvage the lynch. Note- its not the spam by itself that makes it look bad, its the fact that this only occurred after he felt threatened by votes, as clearly stated in reference post.

@X and yellowbunny onCubarey issue- Unsure on cubarey at this point. I agree that Cubarey's comment struck me as odd. A pairing? Maybe. I really need more post information to be able to back that up...so lets see some cubarey and hero

a page behind....till tonight.

[Ojanen]

@Wall-E

How have you read the thread and posted your suspicions (not just today, but also before)? First read everything, then comment your suspicions based on the relevant posts of the past? Or read from start, catch up slowly and post your suspicions as the suspicious posts come up? Or skim everything, and then build suspicions from thorough reread and catch up slowly? Or something else?

I assume I assumed the right definition for tunneling cause noone is correcting me.
In that case the claim that X has tunneled on you sounds plain odd. You just quoted him saying that he's been attacking indiscriminately and I think it's clear that while we can't tell if he has truly been indiscriminate, he has attacked many.
I need to go and look at the context of the reaction/analyze contradiction to see if I really find it to be a contradiction.

[Wall-E]

Was prodded.

If hedging is what you say it is, qwints, a quick check of my posts in the only other game I've actually played on this site will tell you that I personally have to hedge. My whole concept of this game is based on possibilities, and because of that I can't ever be sure that I'm right. And I completely sucked in the other game I've played here, so call it self-paranoia if you want, I don't trust myself.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Define flip-out, please.

Oh, and could you make up your mind on what you're after, Wall-E?

I want a glass of wine, a warm bath, a box of chocolates, and you.

You seem to just be jumping after whoever's a target at the moment (mostly me). Cubarey was after me, so you went after me. Once I wasn't the main focus anymore, you unvoted and still haven't adequately explained WHY you voted in the first place. Now you're dragging up old, OLD posts and trying to make an argument out of them? Haven't I said anything 'scummy' since page 4? If so, why haven't you brought it up yet? If not, why are you trying to make a case against me on such crappy 'evidence?'

What abut my evidence is crappy?

[Wall-E]

@Wall-E

How have you read the thread and posted your suspicions (not just today, but also before)? First read everything, then comment your suspicions based on the relevant posts of the past? Or read from start, catch up slowly and post your suspicions as the suspicious posts come up? Or skim everything, and then build suspicions from thorough reread and catch up slowly? Or something else?

I don't remember. Probably a little from all the options.

I assume I assumed the right definition for tunneling cause noone is correcting me.
In that case the claim that X has tunneled on you sounds plain odd. You just quoted him saying that he's been attacking indiscriminately and I think it's clear that while we can't tell if he has truly been indiscriminate, he has attacked many.

And what do you think? He has been indiscriminate in most cases, but with me he has not. I base this on the evidence I presented already.

The scum in this game are doing a good job, I hate to confess, because I typically have much stronger convictions in a game.

I need to go and look at the context of the reaction/analyze contradiction to see if I really find it to be a contradiction.

I await this placeholder post's fulfillment.

[Wall-E]

@X post 247- I was referencing the point when walle said he played multiple forum games of mafia simultaneously and that was his excuse about not posting. Then after he gets a few votes, spams posts. I see spamming posts in this regard as bad because it looks scummy to do so as its a tactical defensive measure, and that abrupt a change is usually because a lurking scum was caught and now tries to salvage the lynch. Note- its not the spam by itself that makes it look bad, its the fact that this only occurred after he felt threatened by votes, as clearly stated in reference post.

Actually it started as soon as I had some time to dedicate to this thread. If you look at my posting activity today, I've been "spamming" all my threads (btw you're still wrong if you think i was spamming or making any contentless posts on page 11).