Mini 891 - British Comedy Mafia (Game Over)

[Netopalis]

Why? You need to give reasons for your statements.

[DeathSauce]

Fuzzy also tried outing China's partner, so if you're going to call Net on it, it's only right to call Fuzzy out on it, too

[Snow_Bunny]

Fuzzy also tried outing China's partner, so if you're going to call Net on it, it's only right to call Fuzzy out on it, too

I already have. Check out my iso.

Why? You need to give reasons for your statements.

I already have. Check out my iso.

[Netopalis]

Your last post was 4 pages ago. Are you saying that you have nothing to add over those 4 pages?

[Sanhora]

@Kikuchiyo
Congrats. You totally knew how to evade part of my questions. If you really think that your answer of you having told who was suspicious yesterday is going to stick with me, you're wrong. Your suspicions were:
'Also, as of this point(pg. 13) I see no reason to lynch Budja and as I look at the most current votecount I would say that all of my scumreads are currently on his wagon. I am fencesitting on Neto.'

Guess what? Names are appreciated. And in case you forgot, I also asked for reasons and who you'd have lynched D1 if you were allowed to choose.

As for the question you did 'answer', it's a one-shot ability. Also a reminder, I asked you to place yourself in my shoes. Instead, you said what you'd have done in general. Try again.

To answer your question, perhaps there is a reason why the one who I voted didn't match the player I was thinking about to target? That's right. It's time for a phrase: Pressure Vote.
A player who just follows the crowd and who gets replaced by a player who is replaced before deadline, but absent during the main part of it definitly deserves attention. But don't worry, due to the way you've 'answered' my questions, this vote has gotten more special.
And yes, I took a gamble. But know what? Scum love players who can be a possible lynch (Look back at the posts in which players mention that I'd be lynched if I didn't prove my ability or that it could be a SK ability)


@Faraday
Next time when you check, it's good to read mod posts as well. If correct, he asked to be replaced in one game through PM. But the mod has a Post Restriction ._., so I'm not fully sure.
In the other, the mod told on the 24th of december (My time) that Jason has responded to his prod and later on he notifies that Jason had said he'd post, but didn't do so. Which was why he was replaced.


@SB
I don't follow something. Both Netopalis and FM have asked for the second mason claim. That's why you think they are scummy, not? So why does Neto get your vote, when you asked FM to die already after he made a no-lynch vote?
I want to hear your FM case and Neto case and why you choose Neto over FM, right now.

[Sanhora]

EBWOP

My thoughts for now: I believe China's mason claim. I'm still suspicious of Net and Fuzzy. I was suspicious of Imag based on a link with Mac, but as Mac turned town, those suspicious have lessened.

Vote: Net

Either I can't read or weren't you the one who said that trying to link a player with another is weak and bad scumhunting? (post 122)
So why were you doing it yourself?


Also, SB and Imaginality, please help me a bit and link 3 town games and 3 scum games each.

[BloodCovenent]

Sanhora have you read the thread yet? Why didn't you use your abillity?

Not fully done yet. Am up to page 17 if I remember correctly.
As for my reason why I didn't use my power, I blame all the scummy looking players. I didn't even finish reading this game and I've spotted scum one after another. To make things worse after that, I received the shock that one of them claimed to be a mason. And in the end I'm glad that I decided not to use my ability or else there was the possibility that my next serie/movie would be about the dead talking mason partner as I hadn't seen that BC has claimed to be China's partner before.

Anyway, some questions which need to be answered asap:
Faraday - Did Jason have any reason to lie that he had asked to be replaced in all of his games?
CM - Can you give me a summary why you decided to claim mason? Also, why did you claim to be a mason, without giving us your name (As I don't think you did)?
BC - Same as above. A summary and your reasons for not claiming your name, please.


Time to finish my read.

so you didn't use your powers because there were players that were scummy, and you didn't want to use it on them because they claimed. That is such a horrible reasoning. You could have confirmed one, if not two players.

I didn't claim my name because i forgot at the time of my claiming. And what do the names have to do with much? How would you be able to tell if someone was lying by the names?

China pretty much summed up why we know we are masons.

Hi China,

Guess what? With my ability I can kill a player. I prefer to kill a player who is most likely scum with it. And I finally have the chance to look into my suspicions.

Then why do you think Josh Lied about his role?

Also, in case you didn't know, ML was having suspicions regarding you and BC. With his help, the case against you would have been much stronger than using NK specualtion.
And guess what, you're not even my top suspect.

Yea, because Mac wanted to lynch me, and China put up a decent case against him. Killing Mac was a decent scum move.


@Net: Saying from your experience confirmed masons daytalking are uncommon is like an appeal to time, you've only been around for a few months. You making that statement really doesn't mean much to me at all. And sorry, the same for you Faraday.

@Kiku, why do you want lynch analysis so freaking early? Lynch analysis means shit on day two when there wasn't a N0 with a lot of kills.

@Sanhora, why did you give lynch analysis? WHat good did it do? The only thing that probably came of it was some way to make China and I look scummy because we're working as a team to get rid of scum. That's so pointless to do Lynch analysis on day two as well, like I told Kiku. You should know that it doesn't yield much return this early. Oh wait.... no you wouldn't >.>

Will read the other wall of texts later >.>

[Snow_Bunny]

EBWOP

My thoughts for now: I believe China's mason claim. I'm still suspicious of Net and Fuzzy. I was suspicious of Imag based on a link with Mac, but as Mac turned town, those suspicious have lessened.

Vote: Net

Either I can't read or weren't you the one who said that trying to link a player with another is weak and bad scumhunting? (post 122)
So why were you doing it yourself?


Also, SB and Imaginality, please help me a bit and link 3 town games and 3 scum games each.

I don't follow. My suspicious of Imag were based mostly on his link with Mac, but as you say, I don't find links between players a strong tell, and thus why my vote lays on Net.

I'm sorry if I find rude, but if I can take the time to find six past games of my own, I'm pretty sure you can as well. There's a search option in the forum, you know.

[kikuchiyo]

Sanhora:

Not sure what you are getting at. If you have questions please list them in a town friendly manner. Maybe number them. Also, poviding implications with your questions is rude and will only damper the conversation.

You are being a tad hypocritical in implying that me not naming "who" on the wagon I found suspicious is somehow suspicious itself when you admit that you have come out of the gates today with a "pressure" vote on someone who was not your top suspect(which you have still not named).

If you recall, I wanted the Lyman slot lynched day 1 as his behavior warranted it. The lack of stump backs up those suspicions. However, your reasons were somewhat reasonably stated for not using the "power" and so I would rather hunt those buddying to you first.

I can't place myself in your shoes. I don't know your alignment or the extent of your "power". Therefore I can only say what I would have done. Not sure what you're asking for.

Not sure what you mean by "follow the crowd", but accusing me of being "absent" near deadline was explained. Further, your slot dissappeared under pressure after a questionable claim where he gave contradictory explanations. Why are your suspicions somehow "founded" and mine are not?

As for this:

Scum love players who can be a possible lynch (Look back at the posts in which players mention that I'd be lynched if I didn't prove my ability or that it could be a SK ability)

Its generally the kind of statement where one produces evidence. How can you ask for my suspects and withold yours? I am not done looking through this thread. I don't read during night phase. It is often a waste of time. When I have something to contribute I will post it.

[kikuchiyo]

BC: Sorry, I thought day 2 was for analyzing day 1. [/sarcasm]

[ortolan]

Twenty third vote count

Fuzzyman (2): Faraday, DeathSauce
kikuchiyo (1): Sanhora
imaginality (1): Chinaman
Netopalis (1): Snow_Bunny

Not voting (5): Fuzzyman, imaginality, Netopalis, BloodCovenent, kikuchiyo

6 to lynch.

I don't think a Q&A would do it. The one possible way I see to confirm your daytalk ability is that one of us PMs one of the two of you a word or phrase that is unrelated to this thread. Then the other one would post that word or phrase in the thread, and the person sending the PM could confirm. This is skirting very close to the edge of the rules, but might fly.

PMing other players in relation to this game is not allowed.

I am auto-prodding Fuzzyman and imaginality, who haven't posted since this day commenced.

[Sanhora]

@BC
First of all, if you thought that with scummy players I only meant you and CM, you're wrong. Secondly, I hadn't seen back then that you had claimed to be his mason partner. Third, don't pick the wrong reason for me not using my ability last night. As stated before, each scummy player now has the chance to show if my suspicions are wrong or not and they can claim before I use my ability if needed. Last, if I had targeted one of you or CM, we'd be stuck with two freshly-turned VT's if you guys are telling the truth and one dead town guy who can still talk. While you guys can now try to prove if your claimed roles are true or not without one of you dying and I can still use my ability to catch scum.

As for the names, it seems that names are connected to roles if the information you two have given are true. Hence, they are important.

Josh didn't lie. He misunderstood his role. Just like many others did.

Also, Netapolis and Faraday are right. Daytalking is very uncommon outside of open games (And even then they are still rare) and nightless games.

Yep, BC, you're obv right. The VC (Once again, VC, not lynch) analysis doesn't show much. Except for what I concluded from it. When I look at that post, FM, SB and imaginality don't look good to me. The claims from you and CM explain the votes from you.
Sorry that I didn't think and posted the analysis before asking you if I should do so
What's so bad about analysing the votes from D1 on D2?


@SB
Congrats. You're even better at dodging questions than Kikuchiyo. Sorry, Kik, but you've been downgraded to second place.
SB, respond to post 683.
As for post 686, my question is easy: Why would you use something that you see as weak and as bad scumhunting?
And about the bit of the search. You know which games you've played. And I'd think that you'd know in which games you were town and which games you were scum. That's so much easier than the search function with the issues MS lately has and my slow internet connection.
Guess I don't have to count on your help.


@Kik
The two empty spaces between each player and the empty space between each part isn't good enough? I can't please everybody.

Anyway, the hypocritical bit. In case you forgot, I have yet to show the complete analysis yet. I have only shown one part yet. But the break should be over soon.
Also, the difference between us. While we can both mention that we thought some players were suspicious, I can give names without being vague and give reasons why. Even at this point, you have yet to give the suspicions you have from reading up till page 13 with reasons why. I love how you keep trying to evade that bit.
(Also, the one name you give with reasons also enjoy your vagueness. Stating that his behaviour warranted it, doesn't give us one bit. What about his behaviour?
Also, I think I remembered that last time you said he deserved to be lynched due to the discrepancy of his claim. No sign of that now?)

As for Josh's absent, all is explained with one quote:
'However, did he just flake in this game, or was it sitewide? If its sitewide I couldn't hold it against him.'

Good for you that you could think off his reason for disappearing: Site-wide flake.
Scummy to see you now trying to use it against me.

As for the evidence. May I post the games in which that wasn't the case? Because that way, I can post way less links than if I had to link to each game in which the scum let the scummy looking town players left alive. Haven't you noticed this in your games?

And last, I'm talking about this quote:

Would you have used this 1-shot ability when you have some suspects who might be able to explain the actions you thought were scummy, but couldn't respond to those because the game was in night phase and who could possibly be a town PR?

Place yourselves in my shoes. Use the above quote in a town scenario and if you believe I'm scum, use that one as well. However, I don't see the point in asking anymore, because if you'd have replaced Josh, you wouldn't even have read the game during the night. Unless you want to state that you'd have used your ability without any information as town, the answer would be that you wouldn't have used it.

[Sanhora]

BloodCovenent

In post 384, you mention an ongoing mini game in which you state that you mentioned there were two scum as well. Can you quote that bit from that minigame and give the name of that game?

Why did you ask the question in post 523? Though the reason why this post got my attention is for a different reason. Neto just gave his case on BC. This was his first post after that. And suddenly, he asks to see the case against him. This is +/- 1 1/4 day later. It's only after Neto states that BC hasn't responded yet that BC responds. If it wasn't for the mason claim, this would have been seriously scummy. Now, it's less.

Netopalis

Didn't mind the way he questioned the claimed mason. The only thing I did mind was him asking for what's usually done with one claimed mason in post 407.

See the bit for you at the area of CM in this post.

What information did the Budja lynch give you? (post 493)

Chinaman

Though it was written at post 430, it's more about 398. I really didn't like how you wanted Budja lynched based upon him being a vanilla townie and then state later on that it's possible we have vanilla townies.
Also, did BC tell you that the role is called 'Mason/neighbour'?
(And with this said, have both you and BC sent a PM asking the mod if the two of you are really confirmed?)

I have said it before, but will do so again. Post 441 shows you evading Netapolis accusations.
(Though with this said, it surprised me more that

Netapolis

never got back to this. Please explain why)

Fuzzyman

Post 462 really shows a serious case of getting the attention from him away to somebody else.
Though you also get second place.

Snow_Bunny

once again took a first place away. She tried to push the attention she was getting to two players, not one. Sorry FM.

Post 606 shows again the PBPA approach. If that's not scummy enough, adding the following definitly would be. Because this is a case according to him. Yet, when looking at post 611, DS is nowhere to be seen from the players FM mentioned he wouldn't mind seeing lynched.
Talking about post 611, it's interesting to see how he did know that players were talking about Neto being a possibility to switch to BC, yet didn't know if his vote would cause a possible no-lynch if he didn't switch (While he was on the biggest wagon).

[Sanhora]

So short stated -
Players that really need attention in my opinion:
Snow_Bunny
Kikuchiyo
Fuzzyman
(And to a lesser extend Faraday, due to the players he has replaced
and Imaginality)

Due to their claim, I'm willing to 'overlook' the masons for now. Though I hope they will check with the mod regarding their 'confirmed status' in case their claim is true and that they will explain their actions.

Leaving DeathSauce and Netopalis.
I'm not a huge fan of the way DeathSauce has played, but I have a really strong gut read on him.
Neto has done a few questionable things at first and a few at the end of D1. But I have in general a good feeling about him due to his content.

[Netopalis]

I never got back around to my accusations against Chinaman due to the claim. I sort of lost track of it, actually. What exactly do you not like about me asking what standard procedure is with mason? I've never seen a Mason claim quite like this one, and I was hoping that someone with more experience would have some more information about what the best course of action was. I'm not exactly sure why you consider that to be scummy.

[Sanhora]

You never got back to your accusations due to the claim though one of your accusations in post 438 is about the claim?
As for why I think it's scummy: You thought somebody was scummy. This is shown in the comments you make. But then you suddenly ask what normally is done. It seems as if you're scared your comments will discredit you and therefore want to join the general opinion.

[kikuchiyo]

Anyway, the hypocritical bit. In case you forgot, I have yet to show the complete analysis yet. I have only shown one part yet. But the break should be over soon.

Me neither. That's why you are being a hypocrite.

Also, the difference between us. While we can both mention that we thought some players were suspicious, I can give names without being vague and give reasons why.

So you say. Saying and doing are two different things. We both have suspects and reasons. Neither of us has posted them completely. There is no difference.

Even at this point, you have yet to give the suspicions you have from reading up till page 13 with reasons why. I love how you keep trying to evade that bit.

Not evading it in the least. Just not succumbing to your "pressure". I will lay out information as I see fit and when it is relevant. Not sure what you are getting at with the parentheses part. Please rephrase if you have an actual question.

As for Josh's absent, all is explained with one quote:
'However, did he just flake in this game, or was it sitewide? If its sitewide I couldn't hold it against him.'

Good for you that you could think off his reason for disappearing: Site-wide flake.
Scummy to see you now trying to use it against me.

I am not using it against you. Others were using it against the slot yesterday. I explained why I would not. That doesn't change the FACT that he replaced out under pressure and after a rather poorly worded and understood claim. In case you haven't noticed: I am not advocating your lynch.

As for the evidence. May I post the games in which that wasn't the case? Because that way, I can post way less links than if I had to link to each game in which the scum let the scummy looking town players left alive. Haven't you noticed this in your games?

Please rephrase. I don't understand what you are saying.

And last, I'm talking about this quote:

Would you have used this 1-shot ability when you have some suspects who might be able to explain the actions you thought were scummy, but couldn't respond to those because the game was in night phase and who could possibly be a town PR?

Place yourselves in my shoes. Use the above quote in a town scenario and if you believe I'm scum, use that one as well. However, I don't see the point in asking anymore, because if you'd have replaced Josh, you wouldn't even have read the game during the night. Unless you want to state that you'd have used your ability without any information as town, the answer would be that you wouldn't have used it.

Please note that this is your assumption of my answer. To be clear: If I replaced into a game during night phase and had a power I would use it. How I used it and how I would determine how to use it would depend on the situation. We are treading thin ice here. I would rather get off of the subject. You claim to have had suspects. If I had suspects and could vig one then I would. You claim to have had more than just one. Yet you didn't pull the trigger. You pissed away an oppurtunity to help town because (if you are town) you were not guaranteed survival.

[Fuzzyman]

I apologize for my abscence; I had a perceived internet problem yesterday. I will have a big response post in the coming hours.

[Snow_Bunny]

@SB
Congrats. You're even better at dodging questions than Kikuchiyo. Sorry, Kik, but you've been downgraded to second place.
SB, respond to post 683.

How can I respond to 683 if it isn't towards me? What exactly do you want me to respond to?

As for post 686, my question is easy: Why would you use something that you see as weak and as bad scumhunting?

Because sometimes you don't have anything else, and you have to work with the tools you can afford, even if they are weak and bad. Also, btw, I love the twisting of words here. IIRC, I said that linking a player for the actions of another is bad. I found a link between Mac and Imag, going both ways. But as Mac turned town, guess that link is nothing worth looking at.

And about the bit of the search. You know which games you've played. And I'd think that you'd know in which games you were town and which games you were scum. That's so much easier than the search function with the issues MS lately has and my slow internet connection.
Guess I don't have to count on your help.

I don't have the time, nor I want to do it. The problem is, you wouldn't take more than an extra couple of minutes reading my games. Also, if you read my sig, you would notice that I only have one finished game as scum, and you wouldn't be asking that stuff.

[Fuzzyman]

Fuzzyman

Post 13 really set off my gut. If you want to know why, a reason that includes 'pro-town' sets off my gut due to the way you formulated it. Add the word 'general' and it gets worse.
But can you elaborate on why you think advancing mafia theory is a pro-town thing to do?

In general, the advancement of mafia theory creates more ways for townies to optimize their play than for scum to optimize their play.

About post 162, I'd like to know what scumhunting you've done up until this point according to you.

Smooth strawmanning. I wasn't using his lack of scumhunting as a criticism upon him, I was using it as a reason for him not to stump himself.

Post 177 is joining the bandwagon for the sake of joining the popular bandwagon. Mostly his response to Budja's pressure vote reason is scummy as Budja is still voting a player he thoughts was scummy. The other reason Budja gave is basically the same as 'I think that multiple players are scummy, but this one has support from a different player, so vote'. And that is null.

You think that ''I think that multiple players are scummy, but this one has support from a different player, so vote'' is a null tell. I think it's a form of bandwagoning.

I have no idea what to think of post 227. In one way, FM argues that it's scummy from imaginality to drop his suspicions around Jason (Which weren't there as it was a lurker vote), but on the other hand discredits he imaginality for focusing elsewhere. No matter what imaginality does, FM isn't happy.

So you argue that keeping his Jason vote and not trying to stifle Josh role discussion are both necessary without the other? That doesn't make sense.

I never trust it when a player condems a V/LA (Post 310). It shows he's using everything he can get.

Yeah, I'm afraid you're correct, and I do seem to have tunneled quite a bit there.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vote:Fuzzyman

Mostly for repeatedly calling me a liar about my vote on dana, even though I clearly posted my reasons in my iso post 2. In addition, Fuzzy's iso post 38 is a half-assed PBPA that is chock full of smarmy mischaracterizations of my posts.

Yeah, it's a little OMGUS, but Lynch All Liars is sound gameplay.

Hey, if you think LAL is good, then I'm sure you'll understand when I...

Vote: DeathSauce

.

You had said that you "disliked" dana's entrance. "dislike"=/="think it's scummy". Besides, dana has given her reason (if fairly weak) for her vote now. It would also be nice to see you actually tell the world how my attacks on you have been "mischaracterizing".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- Early no lynch vote that he claimed was for ‘advancing mafia theory’ (not even sure what that means but I don’t buy it), as the only purpose here would be to start a meaningful discussion. The unvote like 2 seconds later means there’s no chance of much coming out of this, and the fact he unvotes uner the slightest bit of pressure is to me scummy.

It's scummy to unvote when you're at that moment voting NL? I've not heard that one before. Also, you don't seem to be getting the idea of the NL vote. Things other than the vote itself could be examined leading to meaningful discussion. The reactions to the vote for instance, such as that I am examining this instant.

- Goes from saying he doesn’t like the Josh wagon as anti-town =/= scummy (Josh was doing what anti-town things as opposed to scummy things btw?) from jumping on it b/c Josh refuses to discuss mafia theory. Theory speculation can generally distract from scum-hunting in a game and ‘I’m not a fan of avoiding things simply because I’m bad at them- scum do that to avoid tripping up’ is a bs argument when it comes to theory as most people even as scum don’t lie about theory as they’ll be easily caught out.

Had Josh not avoided the subject, I feel that any simple misconceptions he may have had would have been easily distinguishable from lies.

- his iso 11 is wrong. Wrong answers is ironic since I don’t like his response. Not being alone in your thinking not mattering to a townie is flat out false, it always makes someone more confident if they’ve someone agreeing with them, to say town don’t think like this is false. And every vote adds pressure not matter L-111 or L-1.

My impression of Budja was that his opinion (and consequentially his vote) was being influenced by others' votes, which is bad and scummy. I still think this was the case.

- his Fos in 227 is absurd, either he’s not paying attention, or well he’s not paying attention. Imag’s reasons for his vote were clear, Jason had been lurking and he wanted more content, obviously the replacement would solve a lot of this thus the FOS makes no sense. And the Josh role discussion was becoming tedious in all honesty.

The tediousness of actions should not influence decisions on whether or not to do them, at least in mafia.

- other things of note seem a genuine lack of scum-hunting. He seemed happy to ride the budja wagon to completion but never really did much apart from that. General lack of scum-hunting etc.

I guess I reply with my DS case.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Post 462 really shows a serious case of getting the attention from him away to somebody else.
Though you also get second place. Snow_Bunny once again took a first place away. She tried to push the attention she was getting to two players, not one. Sorry FM.

Eh, I've gotta disagree with you in this case. No real use repeating what others have already said for the purpose of defending myself, you know what I mean?

Post 606 shows again the PBPA approach. If that's not scummy enough, adding the following definitly would be. Because this is a case according to him. Yet, when looking at post 611, DS is nowhere to be seen from the players FM mentioned he wouldn't mind seeing lynched.
Talking about post 611, it's interesting to see how he did know that players were talking about Neto being a possibility to switch to BC, yet didn't know if his vote would cause a possible no-lynch if he didn't switch (While he was on the biggest wagon).

Using the PBPA approach is a scumtell in and of itself now? :confused: I said "Budja>BC>Josh>Neto" because they were the ones in the votecount (and thus relevant in crunch-time), not because they were my top 4 scum picks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was just the stuff directed at me; I'll read over this day's posts again a couple of times in the morning.

[imaginality]

Prod received, and apologies. Back in this game as of my next post.

[Faraday]

Too busy at the moment to be posting in all my games. Will get to this one tomorrow, now that i've recieved a deadline extension in another

[DeathSauce]

Josh didn't lie. He misunderstood his role. Just like many others did.

Sanhora, I think you've been doing a good job of scumhunting so far, but this statement can not possibly be true.

According to Josh, everything he revealed about the role was after careful consideration and extensive consultation with the mod. I find it nearly impossible to believe he"misunderstood his role"

Please explain this misunderstanding

[Netopalis]

How exactly did Josh lie? Did I miss that?

[DeathSauce]

Vote:Fuzzyman

Mostly for repeatedly calling me a liar about my vote on dana, even though I clearly posted my reasons in my iso post 2. In addition, Fuzzy's iso post 38 is a half-assed PBPA that is chock full of smarmy mischaracterizations of my posts.

Yeah, it's a little OMGUS, but Lynch All Liars is sound gameplay.

Hey, if you think LAL is good, then I'm sure you'll understand when I...

Vote: DeathSauce

.

You had said that you "disliked" dana's entrance. "dislike"=/="think it's scummy". Besides, dana has given her reason (if fairly weak) for her vote now. It would also be nice to see you actually tell the world how my attacks on you have been "mischaracterizing".

How do you know that "dislike" doesn't equal "think it's scummy"? Can you read my mind? Also, dana is no longer in the game, please pay attention.

I really don't need to explain how your PBPA attack post was"mischaracterizing" (I put it in quotes because I'm pretty sure that isn't a word.) Anyone reading it can see you were reaching, but for your edification, let's take a look.

I do have a bit of a case; the player that I think has been most overlooked in this game is DeathSauce. Let's look at some of his slips over the game...

~ Iso Post 8 ~ One-liner votes for danakillsu without previous accusation of him.

False, see my iso post 2 which you commented on above. Do you now admit you were lying about this?

~ Iso Post 9, 10, 11 ~ Goes 1984 on me when I note the above.

I have no idea what "goes 1984" means, but you were repeatedly lying about my vote and it's reasons, just becuse you skimmed over a portion of one of my posts, even going so far as to call something I wrote a "blatant lie", did you not expect me to respond to that?

~ Iso Post 16 ~ Claims that not hammering is townish (certainly something scum would have us believe)

Mischaracterization. In some cases, a certain player choosing not to hammer can be seen as a pro-town action . In no way did I imply or infer or state that this is an absolute rule.

~ Iso Post 21 ~ Is a part of the BC wagon (though not voting for it), which is largely based on a grammar messup causing miscommunication

Mischaracterization. I stated I would support a BC wagon. I didn't vote for BC because as soon as I said that, my two biggest scum targets jumped onto that wagon and I am hardly likely to follow their votes. Secondly, in what fucking way is a slip about having two scum in the game a "grammar messup"?

~ Iso Post 25 ~ Calls the quoted post scummy, but I really don't see it and I doubt others do; needs to explain.

You doubt others do, huh? again, your reading comprehension skills are showing. Read others reactions to what I wrote and see if your "doubt" continues.

~ Iso Post 0 ~ Admits to only skimming the thread (certainly not something town would find benefit in doing)

Total BS mischaracterization. I had JUST REPLACED into the thread! I posted to let everyone know I was here, not to provide you with an enormous in-depth analysis. This one ticks me off more than any other of your underhanded nonsense.

Congratulations, you have now forced me to post the longest damned post I have done on this site in years. I fucking hate long posts. Die scum!