Open 193 - Friends and Enemies: It's over!

[charlatan]

In fairness, the points I've raised about ABR haven't really changed since you first agreed with me and voted him. There's merely been some elaboration. So, if you think the points are weak (which is apparently scummy), I don't understand why you voted in the first place

Do you think I agreed with every point you've raised the entire game? I agreed with you on one point early in. (The point that I mentioned at the time and also again in my last post.) There are others I do not like. Again, these are available for you to read in my last post.

Because I'd rather be voting Rampage at the moment

This seems intentionally obtuse. Troll, eat this man's first child.

Please. I push on one guy and mention that I think another's scummy, and suddenly have to answer for not voting for the secondary guy, when I never stopped questioning the first?

@Charlatan, by the time I asked about your irreverence you'd already had reactions from Amished. He wasn't just attacking you for asking about lunch but rather was trying to figure out what you were up to. I won't deny that you should be given a chance to scum hunt as you see fit but to continue not to give a straight answer at that point looks more like an attempt to bait Amished into doing something you can attack than trying to judge how he'll react.

You don't really get to decide when the usefulness of another's experimentation has expired. It's a matter of interpretation, and seeing as I really haven't attacked Amished I don't even know what you're trying to get at here.

This is a very simple thing -- you were denied an easy answer for once and it upsets you, and though I very, very, sincerely doubt it affected your game in any way it still irritates you, so we're talking about this instead of the actual one-line reason you gave that is supposed to justify your vote. It's not the kind of silliness I've come to expect from you.

In the end here you're welcome to do what you want regarding him but I've seen nothing in his play that makes me want to move him out of the neutral category so far. As I said earlier, with Albert B. Rampage you want to watch how his game flows rather than the individual things that he's doing in order to get a better read. The sort of switching of opinions on you for example is something that I've seen him do as town; he's not settling on something yet so as of yet he doesn't worry me overly.

I know that you know as well as anyone else that Rampage also gets a free pass based entirely on this argument frequently.

[Scien]

So, two players I find particularly scummy early in the game are arguing, and I also think the points they are raising against each other are largely weak (which I believe to be a more or less reliable scumtell early in the game). What, specifically, about that is troublesome to you? Is it just that they're arguing that somehow makes it illegitimate? Do you feel that I have no basis to say that I find one or both of them scummy?

I think its pretty natural to be suspicious of someone just throwing out what was basically a, "Hey I am currently voting player A, but I would totally vote player B if it is more convenient." I do get your point that it might be a view that is given by a player with a pro-town role I guess, but I think its pretty understandable for everyone to look at that comment and feel that you are just giving yourself an out for future use. It's not so clear for people not in your shoes to see your motive here.

In fairness, the points I've raised about ABR haven't really changed since you first agreed with me and voted him. There's merely been some elaboration. So, if you think the points are weak (which is apparently scummy), I don't understand why you voted in the first place

Hmm. This is interesting.

Do you think I agreed with every point you've raised the entire game? I agreed with you on one point early in. (The point that I mentioned at the time and also again in my last post.) There are others I do not like. Again, these are available for you to read in my last post.

And the point you are mentioning was good enough to vote over? Everything else is weak right? That's the claim you are making? Just wanna hear you say so or not.

P.S. Yes everyone respects everyone. I get it. Heh.

[charlatan]

And the point you are mentioning was good enough to vote over? Everything else is weak right? That's the claim you are making? Just wanna hear you say so or not.

At the time, sure. Albert stated intentions for his bandwagon. They were clearly not his intentions for the bandwagon. He also changed the reasoning he gave. I wished to push him about this.

This is important: The easiest way to defend Ramp is to say that he does pro-town things as town and he does anti-town things as town and he's both mean and nice as town, and he likes OMGUS as town, etc. In other words, every conceivable behavior on the spectrum of human behaviors can be bent into an argument for his alignment regardless of what that alignment is.

The only way I know to get a proper read on him is to try and get into his face about something, and make him defend his behavior. He's capable of tripping up, too. We lynched him in the very first game I played on this site, and we did it by approaching him this same way. Watch out for players that try to get people to stop questioning him by saying "oh, this is nothing new, you're seeing something where there's nothing." Ramp's a big boy and should be able to defend himself without help.

I think its pretty natural to be suspicious of someone just throwing out what was basically a, "Hey I am currently voting player A, but I would totally vote player B if it is more convenient."

That's not basically what I said. If you actually believe that's what I meant, then there's a communication breakdown here. I would not haved switched to VP "if it's convenient". I don't even know what convenient would be in this context. But I find the two of them vote-worthy and certainly did not have anyone I thought was more suspicious at that point. (That is changing as more people are getting in the mix; I need to re-read.)

Mind you, we're talking single-digit pages when this started. We were not (and probably are not) near the end of the day. It should probably not be so shocking that I did not have a lot of places I felt interested in laying a vote.

I do get your point that it might be a view that is given by a player with a pro-town role I guess, but I think its pretty understandable for everyone to look at that comment and feel that you are just giving yourself an out for future use. It's not so clear for people not in your shoes to see your motive here.

What? When did I say anything about pro-town power roles or anything like that?

I understand looking at that and thinking "well, he's hedging bets to be on a leading wagon". I think it's wrong, of course, because where the suspicions of those accused lie should not affect interpretations of their scumminess on an individual level. I'd love to see some argument for why it's inherently scummy, but so far nobody has given one.

Instead, this is what we've gotten:

SC dropped the first vote on me, because he "didn't like" that I said VP and Ramp were the top two on my list. Still waiting to hear what about that he doesn't like, or why that is an actual scumtell.

Ramp's reason was because "QFT", and he's going to skate on that again probably, and whatever.

Zorblag's provided reasoning was because he thought that when I said I found VP and Ramp to be the most suspicious at this point, it was "too convenient." Solid! The real reason is, presumably, that I stepped on his toes by interfering with his early-game meta read, which should not even be a big deal since his early game meta reads on me apparently do not lead to correct conclusions, in this game or last game.

[Amished]

@Char: I think the point that Troll was trying to make is that you were trying to bait somebody (not necessarily me, but anybody) on something that you couldn't really defend as anything *but* "oh hai, wuz joke lulz, got reackshun"

Dammit anyway, where's DDD?

Unvote
Vote: DebonairDannyDiPietro

I don't care if you don't have nothing to weigh in on, weigh in on it anyways.

[Scien]

And Happy Birthday Amished. Unless the Amish don't celebrate it... and if so then sorry for mentioning it.

[Amished]

Haha, thanks. The Amish with horse-powered computers like I do celebrate it...

[Zorblag]

You don't really get to decide when the usefulness of another's experimentation has expired. It's a matter of interpretation, and seeing as I really haven't attacked Amished I don't even know what you're trying to get at here.

You're welcome to pursue experiments as far as you'd like to but if it looks to me like you're going to try to excuse trying to get someone to attack you by calling it scum hunting then I'm going to point that out. No, you didn't attack Amished, but then he didn't take the bait that you were putting out there. When I asked my question you and you decided not to answer it certainly looks to me as though you should have had the information you claim you were going for.

This is a very simple thing -- you were denied an easy answer for once and it upsets you, and though I very, very, sincerely doubt it affected your game in any way it still irritates you, so we're talking about this instead of the actual one-line reason you gave that is supposed to justify your vote. It's not the kind of silliness I've come to expect from you.

If I was voting you now because I was upset by your not answering a question in a straightforward manner then I would be acting in a silly manner. I don't think that it's the sort of thing that I'd be that likely to do as either town or scum and apparently, as you've seen me play both alignments and are making that statement you don't either. That would seem to me to make it more likely that I'm actually voting for you because of the reason that I gave (which was in fact primarily the case.)

My irritation isn't entirely directed at you; I tried to make that clear at the start of Post 250. I then went on to complain about VP Baltar's answer to a question as well. Why would I then be directing my frustration at you in particular? We have a better chance of finding scum if we don't make obscuring answers when there's no good reason to part of the expected play. As I've said, that lets scum do so without standing out and that hurts our chances of finding them. If you think that view on my part is just me being petulant then I suppose that's your prerogative.

We're talking about this issue rather than the reasons that I gave for voting you because that's what you chose to respond to in your first post after I cast my vote. You talked about the votes the others had cast for you but everything that you directed towards me had to do with your failure to answer my question. Why is it that you're trying to strawman me like this rather than asking me more about why I cast my vote?

I know that you know as well as anyone else that Rampage also gets a free pass based entirely on this argument frequently.

What I know is that Albert B. Rampage often gets attacked for his playstyle when he's town, especially by players that aren't used to watching him in action. I know that I expect people to suspect Albert B. Rampage and make moves like VP Baltar is making when they don't have a good feel ahead of time for what to expect. I don't think that I'm inclined to call that a free pass as it's garnering suspicion that has a real possibility of leading to a lynch for play that in the context of coming from Albert B. Rampage is a null tell at worst (and in my experience probably a slight town tell.)

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Albert B. Rampage]

I'm happy with my charlatan vote. He always writes big paragraphs as town or scum, so don't let that deter you.

[charlatan]

We're talking about this issue rather than the reasons that I gave for voting you because that's what you chose to respond to in your first post after I cast my vote. You talked about the votes the others had cast for you but everything that you directed towards me had to do with your failure to answer my question. Why is it that you're trying to strawman me like this rather than asking me more about why I cast my vote?

The simplest answer is that I didn't (and probably still don't) actually believe that your "too convenient" comment was more important to you than issues of confusing playstyle, since you devoted a few words to the former and many more to the latter. Either way, I brought up the specific issue of "that's too convenient" being a flimsy non-reason in my last post, so you're welcome to respond to it now.

What I know is that Albert B. Rampage often gets attacked for his playstyle when he's town, especially by players that aren't used to watching him in action. I know that I expect people to suspect Albert B. Rampage and make moves like VP Baltar is making when they don't have a good feel ahead of time for what to expect. I don't think that I'm inclined to call that a free pass as it's garnering suspicion that has a real possibility of leading to a lynch for play that in the context of coming from Albert B. Rampage is a null tell at worst (and in my experience probably a slight town tell.)

What, to you, signals a scumtell for Rampage if it's not conflicting logic and changing of stances?

I'm happy with my charlatan vote. He always writes big paragraphs as town or scum, so don't let that deter you.

Your contribution is noted.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Your contribution is noted.

I have this idea that you contribute more as scum than as town.

[charlatan]

Your contribution is noted.

I have this idea that you contribute more as scum than as town.

Well, that's more like what I'd like to see (you saying anything concrete), though a simple check on my past games will indicate that this is false. I do post more when I'm defending myself, but I suspect most people do this.

I've also noted the use of "contribute" instead of "post a lot", which are two very different things.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Like Zorblag says, I'm not even settled in yet. I need more posting from Debonair Danny DiPietro and Porkchopexpress.

[Head_Honcho]

Votecount:

Vi(1): Ojanen
SerialClergyman(1): PorkchopExpress
Sando(2): Debonair Danny DiPietro, Vi
PorkchopExpress(1): Sando
VP Baltar(1): Scien
Albert B. Rampage(2): charlatan, VP Baltar
Charlatan(3): SerialClergyman, Zorblag Albert B. Rampage,
Debonair Danny DiPietro(1): Amished

With 12 alive it's 7 to lynch.

Just want to say I'm loving the activity so far.

VP: It actually had never occurred to me to iso the mod for votecounts, thus why I tried to accommodate for the slow way. That is much preferable to vandalizing the top pages, so thanks.

[VP Baltar]

Do you think I agreed with every point you've raised the entire game? I agreed with you on one point early in. (The point that I mentioned at the time and also again in my last post.) There are others I do not like. Again, these are available for you to read in my last post.

Well, I want to look specifically at your vote:

It wasn't that. My ass can be the center point of multi-page discussion for all I care.

I was more focusing on why he would transition from an RVS vote on me to legitimately accusing me of being scum after I said he was such. Could be a mountain out of a molehill, but it's early game.

Ah, yes, I do agree with that. Actually, it's even a stretch to call it "legitimately" accusing you of being scum, since there has never been any indication from Ramp as to why you're scum aside from the fact that you like drugs, and I think we all know that drugs appeal to those from all walks of life regardless of criminal persuasion. I wouldn't think twice about it if he hadn't called for others to pile on votes. Come to think of it:

Unvote
Vote: Albert B. Rampage

So, in that vote you are agreeing about ABR OMGUSing me over really no reason whatsoever.

However, when you are clarifying most recently you say:

Obviously, I agree with him in regards to the disconnect between Ramp's stated intentions for his votes and what they actually accomplish (and, as such, what his real intentions might be, as surmised surmised using -- get this -- my mind.)

I do not agree that Ramp is playing apart from him meta style-wise, in terms of being OMGUS-y, the cockiness, etc. In fact, those are my fave parts about him.

I don't really understanding you saying the bolded portion when the quote you cited before your vote (the first bolded line) is me directly talking about him OMGUSing me.... so, yeah, you can see people's confusion over your stance that you think one of ABR or I is scum.

Please. I push on one guy and mention that I think another's scummy, and suddenly have to answer for not voting for the secondary guy, when I never stopped questioning the first?

When the clearly implied question is 'what differentiates these two enough that you want to vote one over the other', yes you need to answer the question in a non-obtuse manner.

I know that you know as well as anyone else that Rampage also gets a free pass based entirely on this argument frequently.

I do agree with this, however.

But rather than look for little scummy intricacies to base a vote on, I just skip the pleasantries and go right into OMGUS. Think of it as my counter-strategy or insect repellent.

Can you link some recent games as town so I can see this in action?

Waiting.

And finally,

Unvote, Vote: charlatan

[charlatan]

Obviously, I agree with him in regards to the disconnect between Ramp's stated intentions for his votes and what they actually accomplish (and, as such, what his real intentions might be, as surmised surmised using -- get this -- my mind.)

I do not agree that Ramp is playing apart from him meta style-wise, in terms of being OMGUS-y, the cockiness, etc. In fact, those are my fave parts about him.

I don't really understanding you saying the bolded portion when the quote you cited before your vote (the first bolded line) is me directly talking about him OMGUSing me.... so, yeah, you can see people's confusion over your stance that you think one of ABR or I is scum.

One is a question of style meta, one is a question of the vote-morphing justification. Ironically, this is what I misunderstood in your quote way back when, only now reversed. When I said "OMGUS-y, the cockiness, etc." I was referring to what you called him being "personally reactive" and "touchy". I do not think these are legitimate reasons to attack him over, but I do think revisionist history is.

Some other points to clarify: I do not necessarily think "one of ABR or [you]" is scum. It's totally possible that neither or both of you are. Most of the players in this game had not even posted enough to leave much of an impression on me either way. Early on Day 1 I said you two were my top suspects and it was like, oh damn, shocking revelation.

Please. I push on one guy and mention that I think another's scummy, and suddenly have to answer for not voting for the secondary guy, when I never stopped questioning the first?

When the clearly implied question is 'what differentiates these two enough that you want to vote one over the other', yes you need to answer the question in a non-obtuse manner.

No, I really do not. I have already explained that the only way I know to get anything close to sincere responses out of Rampage is to attack him, and to do so at full speed. So, if I had actually answered this question it would have looked like this: "Well, Vi, I am voting him because he did a scummy thing and I want to put some pressure on him and see if it gleans more information."

Since pressure votes are pointless when you say that's what they're for, I decided I would not answer that question at that moment. That was instance #2 in this game of me putting too much faith in this playerbase.

Unvote.

That vote is not doing anything anymore. I will place a vote again shortly, after I've re-read, and hopefully after some of the others have gotten their posts in for the day.

[Ojanen]

Hard to say so early, but I've disliked his voters more than him.

Well, we all know you and I can't get along, but I haven't heard you say anything about charlatan. What don't you like about him?

A lot has happened on the charlatan front since this question yesterday but I'll answer anyway. At that point I had gotten a gut twinge from him when he disagreed about meta with you early and then soon went back to look and said that the comment from Albert to pile on votes on VP was actually vote-worthy. The food-fishing had felt a little aimless.

It's old with the categorical voter-disliking btw, since Amished-town-feel is one of the few early conclusions I've felt good about so far.

I also do not like that VP tried to call a scumpair so early, then later stuck by it as a legitimate supposition. (I fully expected him to just be baiting Scien, really.)

Hey charlie, what where you referencing here as a later legitimate supposition? Couldn't find at glance.

So, two players I find particularly scummy early in the game are arguing, and I also think the points they are raising against each other are largely weak (which I believe to be a more or less reliable scumtell early in the game).

Why do you believe raising weak points is more or less a reliable scumtell?

That vote is not doing anything anymore.

Do you still find ABR scummy?
Was the vote originally based on anything that you found microscopically scummy or was it pure desire to pressure?

Inclined to go lurkervote route at this point.
From Porkchop, from his few posts, on gut front asking people's opinions on Scien/Vi felt pretty unrelatable when his own opinion was

Sure. I think Vi is making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill and that Scien's L-# point isn't leading anywhere.

nowhere usually leads nowhere.
(For the record, the explanation was

@Ojanen: Because someone could always see something I've missed/overlooked/whatever. Also, getting people to comment on things can be revealing regardless if I'm certain of an issues scumminess or not.

which is reasonable and vaguely alien in the 1st sentence.)
saw u hanging online yesterday1!!1
Post scum.

vote: PorkchopExpress

[SerialClergyman]

VP and Amished - what do you think of Ojanen so far?

VP - I am going off the town hunt thing. I wasn't successful so much in correctly identifying town - I was OK, but not great. The lessons from it are 1) beware of conf bias early at all costs and b) be very prepared to look for townies as well as look for scum.

I was already going off the strict look purely for town when I played 880, hence I pushed Amished scum, and i've been doing a mix of both for a little while now.

Charlatan - you looked at two arguing parties and said you didn't like either person's argument and are now preparing to vote one of them. Essentially, you didn't comment on the argument, explain which arguments you thought were good or not and you left yourself room to vote for whichever one started losing the argument. It wasn't just opportunistic, it was setting yourself up to be opportunistic later when you really could tell what was the best wagon to hop on.
And if two people are arguing against each other with poor reasons (aside from the facti t's early on D1) I don't know why you wouldn't address the issues. It seems really odd to me to have two opposite players you find scummy for attackign someone with bad reasons, yet being ready to join one of them to attack the other.

VP - the meta of Albert is from an ongoing F&E game where he said not to look for connections in game then died and town flipped.

[Amished]

@SC: I had her as a possible third scum mostly cause I didn't see her stand out. I've really only seen her as scum while I was modding; and she seemed to be about the same. Obviously a one time one sided meta is useless; but I didn't get a pro-town vibe off of her like I did with many other people so far. Her 290 I got townie vibes from, but it's only one post so I'll have to reserve more definitive judgment til later.

tl; dr version: OJ is an uncomfortable neutral.

[PorkchopExpress]

My apologies for my absence. I’ve been a little swamped the last few days. For the record, emptying your kitchen while you have a hang-over might just be the worst summer activity ever.

@Sando: It’s pretty simple really. My opening vote is usually based on whatever little quirks the thread offers. I was aware that not everyone confirmed and it tickled my fancy to vote on that. When I looked back at the start of the game SC’s name came up. So that’s where my vote went. That strikes me as fairly random.

@Charlatan: What in particular changed your mind about VP?

@Ojanen: You’ve lost me at “reasonable and vaguely alien” and their significance. Please to clarify.

(I’ll put up more tonight, after work. I’m going to have to give the Charlatan mega-discussion another readthrough. My first instinct is that I like VP’s post 288 and SC’s post 291.)

[charlatan]

Charlatan - you looked at two arguing parties and said you didn't like either person's argument and are now preparing to vote one of them.

I assume you are talking about this quote? I said a similar (though less strongly worded) thing similar to this in 221, too:

I think arguments on both sides of the fence are contrived, and am comfortable with voting in either direction more than for anyone else in the game at this time.

I didn't say I was "preparing to vote one of them" in this quote. I had already been voting one of them for the last 100 posts or so. Do I misunderstand, or are you just plain wrong?

Essentially, you didn't comment on the argument, explain which arguments you thought were good or not and you left yourself room to vote for whichever one started losing the argument.

144, 156, 175, and 221 all deal with VP and ABR and my thoughts on them. There are probably others that do, too. I actually feel pretty confident that I had contributed to the conversation more than you yourself even at that point.

It wasn't just opportunistic, it was setting yourself up to be opportunistic later when you really could tell what was the best wagon to hop on.

I don't think this even makes sense given that I was already voting one of them. (You do know that I was, right?)

It seems really odd to me to have two opposite players you find scummy for attackign someone with bad reasons, yet being ready to join one of them to attack the other.

Join one of them to attack the other? I had spats with both of them prior to the quote in question, was voting for one already, and helped neither.
Either there's a major communication breakdown here, your memory is terrible, or your reading comprehension is off. Or maybe you're just plain reaching.

Hey charlie, what where you referencing here as a later legitimate supposition? Couldn't find at glance.

This:

Pretty sure of yourself eh? Sure of one scum pairing on page 5... And sure that it is chainsaw defense instead of him buddying me... Dang you are good. Got information that I don't to help you be so good?

It's called experience and a good intuition.

This suggests to me that he was serious about a Scien/ABR pairing, not just trying to get a rise.

Why do you believe raising weak points is more or less a reliable scumtell?

Because scum are more apt to work from the conclusion backwards than townies are. Rather than thinking "these things are scummy, therefore I'll
attack PlayerX", plenty of scum will think in terms of "what can I look for to say is scummy from PlayerY?"

That vote is not doing anything anymore.

Do you still find ABR scummy?
Was the vote originally based on anything that you found microscopically scummy or was it pure desire to pressure?

I do still find him scummy. The desire to create pressure stemmed from something I find substantially scummy, so both, I suppose.

@Charlatan: What in particular changed your mind about VP?

My mind did not "change" about VP. I don't think I've indicated anywhere in the thread that I found him particularly townish. I went from unconcerned with him to finding some of his stances re: ABR questionable.

[Ojanen]

Do you still find ABR scummy?
Was the vote originally based on anything that you found microscopically scummy or was it pure desire to pressure?

I do still find him scummy. The desire to create pressure stemmed from something I find substantially scummy, so both, I suppose.

I don't understand why you unvoted on someone you think is scummy to reread the thread.
"Substantially scummy", the thing I've seen you reference ABR on was the revisionism, is that what prompted you to pressure vote then?

@Ojanen: You’ve lost me at “reasonable and vaguely alien” and their significance. Please to clarify.

There's nothing much to clarify except clumsily trying to word out why you twinged me more than triple D.
Something leading nowhere/creating no scummy vibes from either of them to you as explained afterwards, exposing people to oversensitivity on the matter you found exaggerated by wanting to generate more discussion on it, lurking, D1=>vote.

[PorkchopExpress]

I don't understand why you unvoted on someone you think is scummy to reread the thread.

Similarly why isn't Charlatan's vote on the other half of his top two suspects in the mean time?

[Vi]

Regarding charlatan vs. VP Baltar+ABR: I understood your answer to my question, so don't worry about that.
In a similar vein, I particularly want to ask about what you're doing with your vote, but I think it would be better to wait and see what you do.

Could you summarize briefly your position on VP Baltar + ABR?

---

@Ojanen: As evidenced by your lurkervote, are you convinced that the "present" players are more likely Town?

---

@ABR - what is your read on Scien? (Of course there's a reason I'm asking.)

---

PorkchopExpress 296 seems intuitively scummy. I thought you were catching up, not egging on.

Unvote: Sando
Vote: PorkchopExpress

(L-4)

[VP Baltar]

One is a question of style meta, one is a question of the vote-morphing justification. Ironically, this is what I misunderstood in your quote way back when, only now reversed. When I said "OMGUS-y, the cockiness, etc." I was referring to what you called him being "personally reactive" and "touchy". I do not think these are legitimate reasons to attack him over, but I do think revisionist history is.

Well, I was pushing them as related, but even moving past that, let's look again at the quote you cited and voted after:

charlatan wrote:


It wasn't that. My ass can be the center point of multi-page discussion for all I care.

I was more focusing on why he would transition from an RVS vote on me to legitimately accusing me of being scum after I said he was such. Could be a mountain out of a molehill, but it's early game.

Ah, yes, I do agree with that. Actually, it's even a stretch to call it "legitimately" accusing you of being scum, since there has never been any indication from Ramp as to why you're scum aside from the fact that you like drugs, and I think we all know that drugs appeal to those from all walks of life regardless of criminal persuasion. I wouldn't think twice about it if he hadn't called for others to pile on votes. Come to think of it:

Unvote
Vote: Albert B. Rampage

The portion of my quote that you cited is very clearly talking about OMGUS ("accusing me of being scum after I said he was such"), so I don't see how you are now saying you don't agree with that when that appears to be exactly what you were agreeing with in that passage.

Some other points to clarify: I do not necessarily think "one of ABR or [you]" is scum. It's totally possible that neither or both of you are. Most of the players in this game had not even posted enough to leave much of an impression on me either way. Early on Day 1 I said you two were my top suspects and it was like, oh damn, shocking revelation.

Do you feel like people are trying to lock you into a position where you have to commit to either ABR or me?

VP and Amished - what do you think of Ojanen so far?

Given that I've had a bit of interaction with her as scum lately, I'm on the watch to say the least. As far as her play this game, it seems a bit guarded in the sense that she's not posting a ton, but I don't necessarily feel that she's pushing any scummy wagons at this point. I don't have an alignment read on her either way at this point yet, however.

VP - I am going off the town hunt thing. I wasn't successful so much in correctly identifying town - I was OK, but not great. The lessons from it are 1) beware of conf bias early at all costs and b) be very prepared to look for townies as well as look for scum.

I was already going off the strict look purely for town when I played 880, hence I pushed Amished scum, and i've been doing a mix of both for a little while now.

Damn you and DDD and your changing tactics after I finally start to get used to your approaches.

@Charlatan: What in particular changed your mind about VP?

Pretty sure he never said that.

Join one of them to attack the other? I had spats with both of them prior to the quote in question, was voting for one already, and helped neither.

I don't recall having a spat with you.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Unvote; Vote: Amished

Tosses a "content plz" vote on me without asking for any specific content which is weak; asking for generic content doesn't actually help the town at all. Additionally I'm a relatively easy target and his vote can immediatly be spun off as nothing more than a pressure/content vote. This is of course strange because he claims to already have a scum team in mind, but instead of pushing a wagon on one of them, he goes for the lurker? Scum.