Mini 1117 - Manhattan Special - [GAME OVER]

[CrazyQuestions]

Vote GreyIce

I wanted to vote for you using your name in the vote !!!

[CrazyQuestions]

We have a curious "Strange" phenomenon to play with...

1 post
2 times calling dumb or similar to grey
3 reasons for his vote !!

[CrazyQuestions]

"Strange" phenomenon updated. The regularity remains...

4 serious words consecutively used in a post: (rid, quick, lynch, scum)

[CrazyQuestions]

Calling his posts dumb isn't a great move, either, as they were RVS posts. The fact you needed reasons for a vote in RVS is also suspect, but forgiveable for now.
VOTE: CrazyQuestions: Looks like I've got the CrazyAnswers for him.

I assume that (you parroting me) + (you voting for me) implies that your vote is random

Crazy exactly what are you trying to saw with the "4 serious words"?

Post 10. Read the four consecutive rhetoric questions of Internet Stranger. Introducing such four

serious

words after a

random

vote by Grey is kinda a curious phenomenon.

Awfully opportunistic to take something like that and hop straight onto a wagon.

My vote on Grey is 100% independent of his initial post. I would have voted for him no matter the number of votes he had when I posted (except probably L-few situation). My words for him express the reason of my vote, which is totally unrelated to this game.

I also think it's interesting that you pointed that out while also being on board with the wagon.

That might be interesting if I would consider Grey's action scummy (and attacking one of his voters and blabla). As I do not find his action scummy, it is completely natural to point out how Internet Stranger's post is worth-reading. Let's see another example of curious practices:

a) Shadow points out IS' post curiousity (indeed, just parrots me)
b) You point out to IS' post curiosity

IGMOY Stranger.

c) You vote for Shadow

These practices have names. Sorry for describing them without their proper name (indeed, the episode includes a similar thing involving the triple Shadow-Me-You...a very curious post that of yours)

Personally I'm finding your play just as suspect as Shadow's right now.

You STOLE my words !!!
However, I will avoid using them, because: (i) in my case, YOUR refers to substrike instead of empking, and that might create confusion in the audience and (ii) I like slow play and I would not use the word suspect for these episodes...

[CrazyQuestions]

Crazy for the record, the entirety of the second paragraph of my first post was aimed at IS and not you.
Sorry for the confusion there

Recorded. You are right in that part.

and that kind of addresses your above 4th point about what might be interesting.

It addresses the triple You-me-shadow since there is no longer such issue.

It does not address the triple IS-You-Shadow. Recorded too.

---

Quote 1:

Also, unrelated: Crazy you and I find IS's post "curious" for two very different reasons. Additionally, "curious" does not equal "scummy" in my book, without hearing out his explanations.

This is also interesting. Look at these other two quotes:

Quote 2:

I don't even understand Crazy's points on IS, though.

Quote 3:

Shadow, why are you calling Crazy out when there are clear flaws in IS' post, which Crazy is actually pointing out?

Now a fancy story. Imagine for a moment that Substrike-scum and IS-scum are parent/child. IS-scum says something very very bad to a little boy (Grey) and Crazyquestions and Shadow tell to IS that he has been a bad boy. Daddy Substrike comes and:

a) says to me: Quote 2...oh, my little boy did bad? how exactly? I cannot understand what you say...
b) says to his boy: ah yes little boy, you probably were bad, you did this and this...do not do it, little boy...
c) says to Shadow: Quote 3... why dont you want to play with Crazy? He has reasons to tell my little boy bad.. (even if he did not understand my reasons !!) ah, bad bad, I do not want to play with you !!!

A time later, daddy meets crazy and says: Quote 1...ah, my little boy did bad. Not exactly what you said, but I also think he did bad (even if he did not understand what i said), but daddy still does not play with shadow...and obviously daddy plays with son

Recorded too.

[CrazyQuestions]

WTF Subs? Are you trying to frame me already? Why the hell has the last three people tried to misinterpret me too?

I love to read piece by piece. Here is where the son tells to Shadow boy...I do not want to play with you

either

, you bad boy !!
[/quote]

There are NO flaws in anything I said, and shame on you for trying to portray them as such.

You do not throw shame on your daddy, do you?? ahh...such a son

[CrazyQuestions]

He's just mud flinging! Calling out Internet Strangers play with out actually commenting on it himself!

Pardon? I was the first in calling out IS. Shadow just parroted EXACTLY my two first comments. Then I added a third novel one. Which game are you reading??

[CrazyQuestions]

Vote GreyIce

I wanted to vote for you using your name in the vote !!!

How scummy do you think Grey was as of post #5?

I already answered this. More or less as much as any other player. I voted due to another game...I would have voted for him no matter he posted or not, or what he posted...indeed, if you want a more precise answer, I thought he was "very very slightly" townie, since I interpreted IS attack on him very very slightly scummy.

My vote on Grey is 100% independent of his initial post.

How can your vote be independent of his first post when you voted him for said post?

My vote is not for this post. I am voting him because in a different game he replaces the player i was voting for. I think he is scummy in that game but I did not write the "vote grey" in the other game because i was already voting for the player replaced. Thus, I wrote "vote grey" in this game as a funny thing...and it has nothing to do with his initial post...

[CrazyQuestions]

Also, Crazy you could just as easily be chainsawing for EMP right now. If anything I've remained skeptical of IS's play thus far, and asking you to clarify your point of "curious", which is (purposely?) a vague definition/word is not a scum tell.

It's like saying someone did something "interesting". Interesting in what way? Curious in what way? It all begs the same question, because calling something "curious" now doesn't help us determine your alignment later.

I do not know what chainsawing means exactly, but I am not even considering Empking in my analysis. It involves only YOU, IS, Shadow and myself.

You have not explained the inconsistency of your quotes. RECORDED.

[CrazyQuestions]

Just so you all know. Crazy is clearly town.

So quickly?

Id like you to say why. Not for giving me townie points (that too, it would be good for town), but mainly because I like to write my arguments in odd ways and many times I am not sure whether some players understand what I say

[CrazyQuestions]

Quote for me, where you commented on IS's alignment. You didn't, you flung mud, you said he was curious and implied negative connotations. You were purposely being vague.

We have a curious "Strange" phenomenon to play with...

1 post
2 times calling dumb or similar to grey
3 reasons for his vote !!

You can read it as

ONLY 1 POST (by Grey)
IS CALLS GREY TWICE RIDICULOUS/DUMB !!
AND ALREADY HAS 3 REASONS TO VOTE

"Strange" phenomenon updated. The regularity remains...

4 serious words consecutively used in a post: (rid, quick, lynch, scum)

You can read as:

And used 4 !! times rhetoric expressions about lynch/scum on Grey ...

What else do you want me to comment? I hope you do not ask people to shout "SCUM SCUM SCUM" after few posts...I just pointed out to the things I found curious....

[CrazyQuestions]

Also, Crazy you could just as easily be chainsawing for EMP right now.

Chainsawwing is indirectly defending a player by attacking the attacker. We're on page 3 unless he can back it up with some facts he shouldn't be using it.

How is this possible?

I started "attacking" IS in post 9 for the IS-Grey episode. Nobody was attacking you at this point, and obviously, not IS , who was following you...
I started "attacking" Substrike because of his quotes on the IS-Grey-Shadow episode...and Substrike was voting for Shadow...

[CrazyQuestions]

You don't want me to ask people to shout scum but you have no problem with Emp shouting town? What is the difference? Both of them have the same dangers.

Empking said I am town. If he thinks so, fine.

I expressed what I found interesting in IS's words. Obviously, my message was an announcement to pay attention to his words. You need me to say SCUMSCUMSCUM when I point out to people's inconsistencies? I can do it with ctrl copy and ctrl paste if you need it.

You don't want me to ask people to shout scum but you have a whole daddy son scum team theory going on?

I dont want you to REQUIRE IT as a necessity all the time. I think my words were clear.
I have not a scum team general theory. I just gave a plausible interpretation of what I was observing. I think it fits.

[CrazyQuestions]

Oh yea, thats right.

Unvote: GREY
OMGUS: Crazy
Vote : CRAZY

For making ME the son in that father/son bullcrap. You might as well have put up some inane survey and had people ask questions on who they think is scum. They are both as useless.

If youre having daddy issues, go see a therapist. Im here to catch the scum, not to make you feel better about yourself.

Given your violent reaction, you can change Daddy/son for Wife/husband, mister alpha...your wife "substrike" may not like to be called wife maybe...you will make him/her to OMGUS vote for me !!!

All that emotional reaction instead of discussing my arguments...

[CrazyQuestions]

...many things...

Since Strike and IS do not seem to be interested in comment my arguments on them two, you may well do. You consider me town and you are voting for strike now, so you are interested in my theory. Please analyze it...

[CrazyQuestions]

You don't need to say SCUMSCUMSCUM you just need to tell us what his curious words imply about his alignment, is it suspicious? Do you think it is scummy? etc. Saying it is just curious is baiting the town.

Do you really need to know why reacting with 2 ridiculous/dumb shoutings and having 3 reasons to vote after just 1 random vote post sounds scummy? Well, I seem the pro here, I am surprised

You think it fits, so you think IS and Sub are scum? If you don't then it doesn't fit.

Creating dichotomies is not very pro-town. Do you know what probabilities are?

I already said that after the first post by IS i thought he was very very slightly scum. After all what has happened later, I think they are slightly scum. From that to say they are scum there is a big gap. I am going to analyze all evidence I can before crossing that point...

[CrazyQuestions]

Non committal and hesitant, you're not on a good roll here.

Labelling. Creating extreme views here...not a good roll here...

[CrazyQuestions]

So thinking you are scum is extreme but talking about daddy son scum teams isn't?

a) If you think I am scum, fine. Keep your eyes open so you can check your theory or find connections. Make a case on me so I can discuss it, etc...

b) I said labelling my words as "non committal" and "hesitant" is extreme. This is a game of uncertainty, and we were talking of page 3. I just start to see facts and point them out for everybody to have them.

c) My story on daddy/son is just what I perceived from IS and Strike against Grey and Shadow. I described in a funny way how what they were doing sounded curious to me. I am not considering them openly scum, or I would write down a case and push for their lynch. I just consider them slightly scummy now, and I continue observing and writting down what I consider useful.

By the way, that will be the case for most of the time, so if you are town, better you enjoy it. I like to play this way because I think it helps the town to share as much information as possible.

No seriously, I think everyone is town but you and maybe Crazy.

Post your thoughts on why.

Crazy, your chainsaw occured when I vote for EMP and then you suddenly post a wall of text on p1 explaining why I'm mafia. Also, fuck your husband/wife daddy/son thing. It's stupid and obnoxious.

My "attack" started much earlier with IS. And I am not saying you are mafia. I am just saying your contradictions are interesting and point out some scumminess to me. And I noted it. You yet have not answered to the contradictions pointed out.

[CrazyQuestions]

I will write my two main points on Substrike for him to answer in a less funny way.
Question 1

a) He dedicates 10 lines to criticize Internet Stranger and Empking for their votes on Grey. He even finds suspicious some of these attacks.
b) He finds scummy and votes for the only player "defending" Grey.

How are a) and b) compatible in your scumhunting?

Question 2

a) He says that he does not understand my issues with IS
b) Critizicing and voting for Shadow he says that there are clear flaws in IS that I am pointing out
c) Later he says we are point out to different flaws

How are b) and c) compatible with a) ?

[CrazyQuestions]

Also, simo, your argument is clearly mistaken

Not only is it totally non committal but it's classic scum bait, I bet he is just waiting for someone else to take his hook and run with it.

Read back posts 9, 12 and 20.

9 states my observations
12 states shadow's observations
20 states how I call shadow's observations "parroting me" (because he mentions exactly the same two facts i mentioned)

[CrazyQuestions]

But on the other hand you do the same thing you were guilty of doing with IS and that is flinging mud, you claim he is parroting but leave it at that, you make no implications as to what this means about his alignment (ie is it scummy).

You are not making implications as to what my second flinging mud means about my alignment.

I obviously disagree that I made any flinging mud. The word "parrot" is as clear as the word "flinging mud". In any case, I did not find his parroting especially important, since some people tend to misunderstand or not even read some of my messages. Since his vote on me seemed to be a joke/random, I did not pay more attention to it.

I need to get a meta on you or something.

You do not need it. You made a mistake (assuming you did not understand my post) calling me on flinging mud. After my explanation, you had to rationalize your past mistaken accusation so you have come with a ridiculous argument. It is so weak that you even retreat politely saying that you need a meta...

[CrazyQuestions]

Your opinion is noted, but you started this episode so biased that no matter your alignment, it is not going to affect my view.

(personally I don't think it was a parrot but that is irrelevant)

1

post

2 times calling

dumb

or similar to grey
3

reasons

for his vote !!

Doesn't mean you can push a BW

on someone who clearly made 2 RVS posts

.

Calling his posts dumb

isn't a great move, either, as they were RVS posts. The

fact you needed reasons

for a vote in RVS is also suspect, but forgiveable for now.

[CrazyQuestions]

Question 1

Q1) I voted for EMPKing about 15 seconds later. Check the post times if you don't believe me. I realized that I found EMP scummier than Shadow at the time and changed my vote accordingly.

Allow me to ask how your mind decided to vote for Empking in 15 seconds, since 15 seconds before you said:

Personally I'm finding your play just as suspect as Shadow's right now

---

Question 2

Q2) We had two different arguments on IS,

I didn't understand yours

. I asked you to clarify.

That's all

. For point "b", see my above answer.

This is NOT all.

If you did not understand my questions, how the hell would you say in the same post:

there are

clear flaws in IS' post

,

which Crazy is actually pointing out

If you did not understand my questions, how the hell would you know our reasons were VERY DIFFERENT?

Crazy you and I find IS's post "curious" for two very different reasons.

.

[CrazyQuestions]

How am I biased? I saw a scum tell and attacked you for it. Why does this make me biased? How am I being prejudice? That is a silly notion.

I proved you that I both noted the behavior of IS and Shadow. The parroting was noted by me, and it was a very minor issue to me since he had not been inconsistent voting me (seemed a fun vote). The behavior of IS was noted by me, and I have been following the story later. You can read the daddy-son story. There is not any mud at all. If you want a wall of quotes to see it, I will do it, at the cost of making people tired of me.

POST 11

"Strange" phenomenon updated. The regularity remains...

4 serious words consecutively used in a post: (rid, quick, lynch, scum)

POST 20

I assume that (you parroting me) + (you voting for me) implies that your vote is random

Read the four consecutive rhetoric questions of Internet Stranger. Introducing such four serious words after a random vote by Grey is kinda a curious phenomenon.

[quote="substrike]
Personally I'm finding your (EMPKING) play just as suspect as Shadow's right now.

You STOLE my words !!!
However, I will avoid using them, because: (i) in my case, YOUR refers to substrike instead of empking, and that might create confusion in the audience and (ii) I like slow play and I would not use the word suspect for these episodes...
[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

Again, you just totally biased by your first impression when you had not even understood my messages. I doubt you understood the message on "the four words". And I also doubt you understood my sentence on the stolen words with substrike...and hence, you better ask someone to explain to you...

[CrazyQuestions]

...words...

Snif Snif, you forgot me. No need to tell me why, but you can do it after answering me what you have avoided, i.e., why you found me scummy first.

[CrazyQuestions]

@Substrike:

Trying to understand what the hell Empking and IS are talking about, I realized that you do not need to answer my Q1. You already did with your previous answer.
Q2 is there for you to answer.

[CrazyQuestions]

You never said he was scummy or voted him once in these quotes.

The fact that somebody does not vote or say SCUMSCUMSCUM does not imply anything. Have you noticed that I have not voted yet?? My words express my opinions. If you cannot read them or my messages are confusing, just ask, but I have expressed clearly that I was mostly looking at IS and Strike. I do not need to show off saying, I am looking you "BECAUSE I AM TOWN", "I AM SCUMHUNTING", HEY YOU SEE ME GUYS? I AM A GOOD TOWNIE...if you need to do this, then I will ask myself whether you are scum, because I do not see the reason for which a townie would do so. I have expressed very openly my observations, and I have shared them. That is pro-town, the rest is either a contest of "im the towniest among the townies" or "im the dick-est among the dick-ies". None of them helps to catch scum.

you made these statements but did nothing with them, you were just throwing them up in the air.

What am i supposed to do in page 1 with my observations except throwing them up in the air?????

this is scummy because its bait for town to use with out you getting yourself dirty after a possible lynch.

lynch? what the hell you talking about? This was the first day in 2 weeks. I am planning to use all the time we have for deciding which is the best lynch. And when I have enough observations, I will do my cases and attack more seriously players. Meanwhile, I post my observations for you to notice what I am finding relevant along the game.

again you did nothing with it, you just left it

Again, what am i supposed to do? SHOUT MORE?? I do not need to vote someone everytime i find a scumread, or i would be voting 10-20 times every day. I post my thoughts and give ideas for people to observe/analyze. That is how town succeeds, by sharing information. Measuring Dicks, Shouting stupidly and voting 20 times you only create chaos and confusion, and mafia benefits from it.

to check a meta, to find out if this is your normal play, to see if you are always this purposely vague or if it's just you being bad scum.

I HAVE NOT BEEN PURPOSELY VAGUE. I HAVE OPENLY EXPRESSED MY VIEWS ON IS AND STRIKE.
YOU CALL VAGUE TO A RATIONAL PRO-TOWN BEHAVIOR. NOTED.

[CrazyQuestions]

...words...

Snif Snif, you forgot me. No need to tell me why, but you can do it after answering me what you have avoided,

i.e., why you found me scummy first.

I'm sorry I missed your question. What was it?

The question is repeated in the 2-lines post. You avoided it again. I bolded it to facilitate your work.

[CrazyQuestions]

This means I have the second biggest, just how the ladies like it.

NON-GAME RELATED VOTE. Consider it a change in my "random vote". You are not in my list of suspects. If you have a doubt about why i am voting you, then I am sorry, you are lost for society.

vote EL SIMIO

[CrazyQuestions]

Is there a reason why Crazy is deliberately NOT mentioning Shado in any of her posts? That just screams misdirection to me. In fact, Crazy has mentioned just about everyone except Shado. First it was the whole sillyness of some childre'ns book story and now a little staged war with Simo.

DEFINITELY, YOU ARE NOT READING MY POSTS.

I have talked of Shadow in two different episodes.

1) In one of them, Substrike/IS bad daddy-boys argued with Grey/shadow.
2) In another, I mentioned his parroting.

I am sorry if i cannot dedicate more time to all players. Time is limited. There are indeed many others I have not explored at all. And your insistance in changing votes makes it more and more chaotic.

I made my case on Shadow, its not my fault none of you all are ignoring his scummyness.

Do you really made A CASE on one player in page 6?
I would appreciate if you summarize in an ordered way your findings, so I can analyze them in detail. I promise to answer each of them and take the most nitid position allowed by your "case". I do not promise to defend him with my armour or to initiate a shouting lynching, as it is page 6, but I promise to give as detailed answers as possible to your "case-points".

LURKING, ESPECIALLY IN THE EARLY GAME, IS A SCUMTELL.

Let's just agree that lurking is a (minor) scumtell all along the game. Sharing information helps the town. Otherwise, we are just playing an equal chance lottery.

[CrazyQuestions]

I already said why Shado is scum. He hasnt even contributed anything. No accusations, no observations, nothing. Even after I called him out. Just snippets and snide remarks. You want a case, thats it.

Ok, noted. I will answer to you after reviewing him. Until now, he was a "parroter" in my agenda, which is not "far way" from your description, so umm...i probably will agree with your case. Now I will analyze other players too if you do not mind. If you add things to your case, keep me posted.

[CrazyQuestions]

This is my first summary/review of players. Plan to continue later with the rest.

SUBSTRIKE

:

1. He declares Grey action null/wifom and goes for his attackers. Dedicates more time to IS and his view can be supported by my previous criticism of IS. However, he "votes" for Empking. In his favour:

The fact that he p-edited may have focused his attention on Empking

Weak

2. He is incoherent discussing my reasons on IS. He first declares not to understand. In the same post, he declares that IS has flaws WHICH I AM ACTUALLY POINTING OUT. Later again, he declares that my reasons are VERY DIFFERENT to his. These two seem incoherent with not understanding my reasons

Weak/Medium (since he has not answered properly)

3. Immediately he turns his views outside the wagonners Empking/IS. Suddenly, he analyzes questioners of the wagon or the wagonee himself (sorrow, Greyice). Just after calling Empking alpha, he agrees with him on Grey. However, he goes back to Empking after another episode. I agree with him in that Empking is a bit volatile wagoning, but I am having the impression that Strike is not touching almost anyone in his analysis.

Confusing/Weak

----------------------------

IS

1. He is attacking Grey immediately with big words, but re-reading sounds more like energy plus wishes to have activity/discussion.

Confusing/Null

2. He criticizes repeatedly Strike but moves his vote to me without any solid reason, despite he is saying what strike is doing is scummy. In his next post he moves to Midnight without a reason, sharing the wagon with his "enemy" Strike. He changes the vote after saying it is a mistake to Shadow. His reason is just a parroting of Erratus but later he wants to simulate this is "his case", etc.

Weak

3. He is very concentrated on Shadow without any attention to other player, or at most, conditional (looks at me for not "talking of shadow", when his only comment on shadow was a parrot).

Weak

[CrazyQuestions]

blah blah blah Crazy. Did someone make you a judge adjudicator when I wasnt looking? Why do you assume that your criticism and ratings and criteria are valued more than anyone elses?

Where did I? ---> This is my first summary/review of players.

Hey Crazy, if youre going to yuck it up on Subs and I, you might as well do it on everyone else to be fair.

Did you read my post? ---> Plan to continue later with the rest.

[CrazyQuestions]

By popular petition, I start with Shadow. I continue later.

SHADOW

1. Parrots my words attacking IS in his first post. I read his vote on me as a joke, but mixes a serious criticisms with a fun joke.

Weak

2. He moves into clarifications with me and empty discussions with Empking, including ridiculous extreme arguments like depicting Empking as someone who already found scum in 10 posts. Shadow can perfectly be interested in slow play, but in that case and thinking as I do, where is he trying to get hints or reads? Which players is he targeting or studying?

Weak/Medium

3. When pressured to participate after lurking, he mixes a "defence" of lurking as null-tell with an attack to the player who favours wagoning lurkers (Grey) at the same time that Grey has disfavoured the player with whom Shadow is discussing (Empking). In his last post, he parrots me again as I pointed out in my summary how IS' case is just one observation (that is not even his).

Confusing/Weak

---

EMPKING

1. His initial posts sound like provocations to get reactions. He starts analyzing them (Shadow, Strike), but soon he deviates into uninteresting debates with Shadow that end up in fun references. But he seems to have a reason behind, as the hyperbole thing is what he seems to be doing.

Weakly positive but tending to Confusing

2. He is interested about Grey's participation, votes for strike in a coherent way with his previous observations and the fact he sees me as town and IS as semi-town. The attacks on him are nothing relevant and he attacks shadow later. Though I was feeling that Empking was volatile in voting, he is consistent in the group of players he initially targeted, a small but enough diverse group.

Weakly positive

3. Good observation on Empkings' avoidance. Do not see coaching in his other observation. However, he is pointing out to behaviors and keeping conversations and hints alive. The hyperbole is also accompanied by a moderate behavior without any rush.

Weakly positive/ Medium positive.

CAVEAT: Possible Bias, due to his town read on me and the fact that some of the attacks on him were empty.

[CrazyQuestions]

Your defenders (like Crazy) take on the job of distracting everyone away from you, but that doesnt work with me does it?

Where did I defend Shadow??

[CrazyQuestions]

P-Edit: Oh hey, Crazy comes out now trying to correct her behavior. Bravo!

???? This guy is totally out of mind...

Crazy: By attempting to sabotage all of my very accurate points on Shadow and trying to paint me in a negative light, youre clearly employing the oh so popular Chainsaw Defense mechanism.

You just repeated Erratus' observation, as I mentioned. This does not defend Shadow at all, as I saw him as a parroter at the beginning and I do agree with Erratus in his view. You are hiding in your alpha-ness the fact that you just parroted Erratus...
In my summaries up to now, Strike and Shadow are up in my list, but you are not. However, your alpha-ness is as useless as simo's.

[CrazyQuestions]

GREYICE

1. Starts the game with a bomb. That was neutral to me at the beginning. The fact that he chooses Pergol sounded to me like a fun/safe option because of non-game issues. However, he suggests later that Pergol is inexperienced and I do not know where he is taking this view from.

Null/Confusing

2. His attacks tend to focus on those players who "favoured" him (calls longing buddier, Shadow lurker), and takes the side of Empking. He does not expose any theory on what he was expecting to happen from his funny thing, which sounds bad. And quickly he moves into lurkers (saporo).

Weak

3. He insists on Lurkers. However, this is an easy path as he could be equally studying those players participating in the thread while at the same time pointing out to lurkers (for instance, asking to mod for prods when time passes). When prompted to "come back" to the game, he points to Empking in a very inconsistent way to his initial views of the game. That is bad because it shows his initial provocation had not any real purpose and he has not thought about its implications. He later claims not to have any view on anybody active since describes Empking as townish.

Weak/Medium

caveat: My views can be biased for an ongoing game.

----

ERRATUS

1. Starts the game questioning actively, and shows later that he follows his questions. Points to Empking in a natural way and turns to Shadow with an accurate observation and to IS for not answering him.

Weak Positive

2. Points to the fact that Grey is not interested in forming wagons. He does not mention how this is especially incoherent with the fact that Grey "prepared a trick to see reactions", but it is a good observation.

Weak Positive

3. I find strange he is attacking Shadow because of his responses to IS. IS is attacking
without any coherence and does not let even answer (and Erratus is suspecting of IS) but all in all, that is:

Confusing

[CrazyQuestions]

CAVEAT: Possible Bias, due to his town read on me

This is where I stopped taking you seriously.

Why? This is useful (at least for me) to check my positions later when Empking may change his position on me. To be aware of your own possible biases can only help you. I just did a caveat, not that I do not take my observations seriously...

[CrazyQuestions]

Crazy's vote in this post was not counted, due to lack of unvoting, as outlined in Rule 3.

Thanks ! Given the nature of that vote, you can forget it...

[CrazyQuestions]

(to Grey) Your being scum is condition on Shado being scum.

I also find curious how strike is focusing so much on you about the voting for lurkers when Grey adopted the name of "LURKillER" in his superhero life...

[CrazyQuestions]

EL SIMIO

1. He starts the game discussing me only. If his post 4 is about me and he is assuming that I am voting Grey with a scumread, then clearly he is not reading me. Thus, he is reading superficially the game and can interpret my words as muddy.

Confusing

2. Participates in no other activity in the thread. A short exchange with empking about lurking and a comment without expressing what he thinks in post 11. Didnt he consider mudding bad? why is he doing here?

Weak

3. Keeps his attack on me without any extra reason. Accepts that I described IS' attitude though now changes his view to "vote and say people is scummy". He is however not pointing out to anyone, so clearly there is no single piece of scumhunting in his actions. Especially important that in post 18, he takes the chance to move to Grey using Empking argument. Especially important since he tells Grey that there is much information in the thread, while he has not analyzed any single player except me. Again, turns to shadow by agreeing with someone and includes me again in his list even if he declared me null finally.

Medium

-----

Longing

1. Starts the game late and glancing at the thread. Consistent with his own "mood", defends Grey with respect to Empking. He was tunnelling in what seems a townie way, as it is consistent with his own way of playing and entrance. Accepts and moves. Similar episode with respect to avoiding answering me.

Weakly Positive

2. Votes for Shadow but does not show any interest in analyzing him. Buddies with saporo, makes casual comment on my summary, but says nothing more about the game. No scumhunting whatsoever.

Weak

[CrazyQuestions]

SORROW

1. Two posts. However, the second one contains info. He points out how Strike is against lurker-voters, when precisely strike kept his vote 3 days on Sorrow-lurker. Good Point.

Note: Go back to Strike and update the observation on Lurkers.

Weak Positive

2. Avoiding participation in the thread. Lurking.

Null/Weak

-----

SAPOROVIRUS

1. Quick read of the thread, expressing opinions over players. However, the summary shows no specific targets or interests and some contradictions (Erratus, later with IS review).

Weak

2. Avoiding participation in the thread. Lurking.

Null/Weak

-----

CONFIDANON

1. 1. Quick read of the thread, expressing opinions over players. The summary shows specific targets and, partially, seems not to be parroting too much.

Weak Positive (if the second part confirms this view)

2. Avoiding participation in the thread. Lurking.

Null/Weak

-----

PERGOL

1. Does Pergol exist?

@Mod: Game Started around 12.27 pm on Tuesday Jan 25. I assume Pergol is going to be prodded around 12. 27 pm on Friday Jan 28. Thanks.

[CrazyQuestions]

I don't think IS is attacking Shado without any coherence. Of course, that's because his attack is basically my attack from 81,

except more loud and obnoxious

.

Why is it confusing that I suspect Shado for his reaction to IS?

1. I am aware of your vote/wagon on Shado and your arguments. That is fine. Points 1 and 2 in my description of you describe that part of you.

2. In my third point, I was discussing mostly your attacks on shado based on his responses to IS, nothing else. These attacks are such loud and obnoxious, and expressed in such extreme and incoherent ways that Shado cannot answer properly no matter what he says. This has nothing to do with the existence of arguments, that I am aware and share.

3. It is confusing because I kind of read you as putting rational observations, and not feeding your view of shadow with IS' mad/extreme/tunnelled whatever. How would you expect Shado to react to IS? I am hardly reading anything from this reaction since I think IS attack does not allow to discriminate the reactions...

[CrazyQuestions]

That wasn't directed at you, don't know how you could think this.

Maybe because you did not write to whom it was directed. You master of liking precise accusations

Post 11? I think you're confused.

I am not. ISO 11.

This quote doesn't have any truth to it.

Quite an elegant answer.

[CrazyQuestions]

Post 11? You mean where I comment on TL's trademark late coming and declaring he ows who scum is? I don't see how this is mud flinging.

Well..my initial message on IS did not say he was SCUM, but my analysis (updated later with the 4 words post, and calling parroting to shadow when he was "accusing" IS) clearly showed my position. You started to point out to my words like absence of commitment. I might think you are a picky player not paying much attention on what others say, but you seem not to be picky with this topic, because you do it yourself.

You did not comment nothing. you just copied his QUOTE and added I WAS WAITING FOR THIS.
A picky you would judge your words in the following way:

I wanted you to comment on the implications (THE QUOTE) has and what it means about (THE QUOTED) alignment - like a townie would have.

I shouldn't have to know anything it's your post and this is why it's scummy. You left it out in the open for us to interpret and run with with out making any commitment yourself.

You don't need to say SCUMSCUMSCUM you just need to tell us what (THE QUOTE) imply about his alignment, is it suspicious? Do you think it is scummy? etc. Saying (YOU WERE WAITING FOR THIS) is baiting the town.

[CrazyQuestions]

Why did I need extra reasons? Scum tells don't get old, I don't need a new tell every page.

They get old if:

a) You realize you did not understand my message.
b) You realize my message points out why i found curious to IS (and this is clearly i read him "scum" because there is no other possible interpretation)
c) You say that Shadow parroting me would be enough and then you realize shadow parroted me.
d) You say that you are gonna meta me and you do not do it at all.
e) You claim your read on me is NULL and however continue...

You quote again, I answer again

You don't need to say SCUMSCUMSCUM you just need to tell us what his curious words imply about his alignment, is it suspicious? Do you think it is scummy? etc. Saying it is just curious is baiting the town.

And I answered that my words are:

I. Saying that he is "overstating dumbness, overstating reasons to vote, overstating the situation by using 4 times serious words" clearly states my position. Adding that Shadow parroted me when he ATTACKED using the same words that I used clearly states my position (otherwise I would say, nooooo, this is a town tell). My positions were clear from the very beginning. In the best scenario of you being town, you are biased because you did not understand my message at the beginning.

I've made three cases on people, how am I not scum hunting?

After you decided I was not the only player in this thread, you have parroted twice. I do not call this scum hunting.

This is a lie, I never used Emps argument I used my own. Our arguments on Grey are completely different, Emp wasn't even on Grey when I voted him. Emp's vote on Grey was because he claimed scum and because he was purposely avoiding the thread, mine was because he was not participating and was just chasing lurkers instead.

Incorrect. Empking EXPLICITLY says

OR we can lynch scum

, which I clearly interpreted as stop lurking stuff, that is irrelevant at this point. You just parroted. Your case on shadow starts again agreeing with someone. Parroting again.
No scumhunting at all apart from your stuff on me that you have not followed. Where is your PROMISED META??

Finish and klaar.

[CrazyQuestions]

You parrot post just calls is a kinda curious phenomena, I don't see how this is making your stance on him clear at all.

Yeah I wasn't making any observations or analysing his posts or anything, it was a totally non game related post about TL's habit of appearing late and calling out scum, he does this every game (I've seen of him). It doesn't have any implications about his alignment and it isn't meant to. It's a joke about our history together. How is this mud flinging

PARROT is clearly a "collective" word in this game. It has a meaning for everyone. It speaks by itself most of the time. It is not mud flinging.

YOUR REFERENCE is "personal" and has not a meaning for everyone. It does not speak by itself and thus needs clarification.

You ask for clarifying/expliciting/not-flinging the word parrot and not clarifying/../.. your own reference?

[CrazyQuestions]

It's the fact that you're saying "Well he thinks I'm town, so I'll give him more cookie points!" basically that alarms me.

Where did I say that?

It is the opposite. I said, "my valuations might be unconsciously affected by the fact that he considers me townie so openly. Keep it in mind". And I said it to myself and to the rest of people. And precisely, I think this is important because games are long and people change their positions. This will help me to review the thread more easily in case that happened.

I would not consciously give cookie points to anybody for considering me town without a specific reason to do so. You are misreading the message.

[CrazyQuestions]

Seriously Crazy, do you think we are just dumb?

You and Simio yes. That makes a reasonable 20 per cent of male population, more or less. Yeah

[quote="IS']
All youre doing is trying to get the conversation away from Shado. You try to piss on Simo and Simo and his ego falls for it.
[/quote]

Yours too. However, this is done without any intervention on my side.

You realize that Shado is a L-2 right? So where is the focus? Where is the discussion?

Why do you ask me? I am analyzing the game, including shado. I like the wagon. Shado is scummy and the scummiest player in it is Simio, with some town and neutral reads...so yeah, I like it. so I am fine with the wagon. But if you pretend to lynch right now, this is not the way I play. We have two weeks. And I plan to use the time.

Its like Crazy is trying to employ the Puppet Defense. "Ooh everyone, look at me im C R A Z Y!!"

quotes please. I am a rational player. A bit of fun is nice, but my arguments are coherent all along the game.

Dont you think that taking a good look at Shado and realizing that I am oh so correct in my findings is the best course of action?

1. I have analyzed Shadow much more than you.
2. I want no credit for it.
3. You are a parroter.
4. You are as ego-alpha as simio.

"Oh... the future is.. hazy, he... he might be.... town" Yes heesh Crazy, thanks for your illuminating insight.

Which game are you reading? I havent said he is town at any single point in the thread.

lynch? Forget it for one week at least...you can ask me back then. I like discussion. I plan to use the time.

[CrazyQuestions]

(the angering IS and the like)

IS does not need my help to feel anger

[CrazyQuestions]

You are scummy because you just asked people to keep voting him in a game with three total blanks and a ton of activity. KEEP voting, as if he's at L-4 or L-3...
No. That makes sense that it's scummy. You respond by attacking me back? Nice. Can you explain your actions?

a) I count 1 blank and 4 semi-blanks.
b) If we have "a ton of activity", why couldnt empking have a clear view that Shadow is scum? If so, why wouldnt he push for it?

The ones who are not voting are players. They can decide what to do. Given the usual way of playing in the thread and the high amount of impulsiveness/testosterone/etc in this game, I find the push very natural. The wagon is legit, and I like it. As you know my play, Grey, it is also likely that I ask right now for an extesion. I want to see the discussion coming from all this. I will not vote because of this, sorry impulsive/testosterone/etc...

If the game drags for 3/4 days without serious analysis and nothing relevant changes, you can count with my vote. If the discussion is fluid and my second analysis of players next week remains similar, you can count with my vote.

@empking: you can use the last two sentences as a promise so you can put more pressure on shadow.

[CrazyQuestions]

Crazy, given your meta, I'm going to assume you're the village fucking idiot, and ignore all the shit you spout at all times, ever, in every game we ever play together.

peace and love...

you have to reconsider your strategy (unless your strategy is a different one), because if I am a village fucking idiot as you think, the immediate response to your AtE words would have been to side Empking more and vote for Shadow...

[CrazyQuestions]

What I think I'm seeing here is that either you're honestly believing that what you're saying is different then what I said

It is very different. I provided my view of Empking. I believe my view of Empking is correct.
I take note of the fact that he DECLARED me Townie as a substantial caveat, since I have observed people can be biased by this. Not that I think I am. But I keep record of this thing to re-study in the future if this changes. Same stuff with Grey (and Pergol if he were around) since we are in an ongoing game and that is relevant to me.

"So he's either all types of scum... or town!"

As far as I understand his words, this is:

She is town. Understanding her behavior if she is mafia would require to accept that she is AT THE SAME TIME such type of scum and such an opposite type of scum.

[CrazyQuestions]

While the bolded is true of IS's last few posts on Shado, it is not true of IS's 97. It's also not true of the attacks on him by Emp, me, or simo.

You agree with me here, since I consider the case mostly correct, and 97 was precisely a parroting of your previous read on shadow. It is later when IS developed the "bolded attacks" and you seem to agree that he did. Fine. Now, what comes is the confusing.

When voting for shadow, you announced the vote with "Now Shado is just resorting to ad hominem. " (in response to one IS' attack. Not 97, but a later one, one of these bolded ones !!) That I found confusing and odd.

1. I would expect town Shado to concentrate more on the cases against him, rather than IS's "SCUM SCUM DIE LYNCH SCUM" posts. Shado focusing on the latter means that he doesn't want to respond to the former.
2. I'd expect town Shado's reaction to IS to be more considerate of IS's alignment. Be it a town read, scum read, somewhere in the middle, or even something to try and figure out IS's alignment. The absence of anything of that sort is a good sign that he doesn't care to figure out IS's alignment, i.e., he already knows what it is.

With these 2 i also agree. The wagon is fine for me. You can, as i said, use my future vote to get more reactions. You need another one. I want as much information as possible meanwhile...

[CrazyQuestions]

OK crazy and emp, so you ARE going to ignore me. fine. I see.

As far as I understand, you asked me no question. Do you want me to answer something in particular?

You asked Empking. I believe he thinks the question on why he finds me town was doubly answered in the thread. First, in a direct way when I asked long ago. Second, with a contradiction argument right above.

-----

Accepts that I described IS' attitude though now changes his view to

"vote and say people is scummy"

.

Siiigh again

you are over stating me

. I've made it clear that I'm not ordering you to go and vote and call people scum...

Stop exaggerating my points

...

Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:03 pm

You never

said he was scummy or voted

him once in these quotes.

This was my original point

...

Finish and klaar.

----

Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:52 pm
Strike votes for MS

Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:26 pm

Lurker can wait.

Strike changes vote to Emp

Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:14 am
MS votes for Strike

Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Strike votes again for MS

@Strike: MS remains being a Lurker.

Since you do not like to vote for lurkers so early in the game, I have to assume that you find him scummy for his actions. Since his first post was scummy for you (yes, you pointed out why) but not scummy enough as to keep your vote on him, I have to assume that the second one is adding scumminess. Since you have not described at all what is scummy in the second post, I have to assume that you are OMGUSing here.

Alternatively, I can also assume that your lurk stuff is full of contradictions.

Please let me know which of these interpretations is closer to reality...

[CrazyQuestions]

MS my vote on you was the fact that you pop in, vote for EMP without explaining it, and then withdraw back into the shadows. Only half that vote is because of your lurkiness, and you're taking both of my statements out of context. I don't like when people vote/pressure people who haven't even posted yet. You had already posted a scummilicious post.

Here you explain why you VOTED for him. He is yet a lurker, so, why are you voting NOW for him if lurkers can wait and you have no new information on him??

[CrazyQuestions]

His parroting hasn't changed this because after you called him out for parroting, again you did nothing with it, you just left it, you never

said it was scummy or that you were suspicious of him

nor

did vote him

, you just said it.

....

I clearly listed other alternatives to calling him scum or voting him. Stop reaching.

really? read the underlined pieces.

look, my words were clear. And I analyzed later, as my daddy/boy stuff suggests, and my summaries suggest. If you just wants to have the last word, as STOP REACHING suggests, this is not the place. So if you really want to stop reaching, think what you are saying, because you are not correct.

p.s. And do not depict yourself as "involved in a one-to-one discussion without wishing" as you try to suggest by saying that I do not stop, and blabla. You can both discuss with me while analyzing other players, I am not jealous

[CrazyQuestions]

I still believe that he is trying to lay low while someone else draws all the attention [ie: Crazy].
Pretty soon Crazy will start "changing her mind". Maybe go after some other "likely scum", like say, Simo, whom she has been pissing on all game.

1. You have a wisdom ability?
2. I do not see any attempt from your side to pressure shadow, get information and a seventh voter. Some of your wagon mates (including me) are probably looking at you saying "this guy is just a shouting shouter".
3. My vote is compromised as much as yours. Well, indeed more, because you are just looking any excuse not to do your job.
4. The list of suspects includes strike and grey too. And among the lurkers, saporo. You can read it easily from my summaries.
5. Do your job and stop protesting.

She expects us to be like little lemmings and follow her over the Cliff of Mislynch.

??

My vote is essentially on Shadow. I just simply want information. Go and find a seventh voter, explore the wagon and people outside the wagon, proceed with the pressure and all these violent things you will do to shadow...it is pretty evident that you like to torture people...go ahead...

[CrazyQuestions]

Ironic comment for IS: ummm, I think the RVS is finishing

unvote

[CrazyQuestions]

...

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?. Nietzsche.

[CrazyQuestions]

@Grey: As far as I am reading, your case on Empking started simply because you considered the following words as the scummiest thing in the thread.

Oh yeah somebody needs to vote Shado

Given the fact that IS shouts for L-1 and the rest of players in the wagon implicitly consider L-1 correct, even the crazy-one who is voting-not-voting shadow, might you tell me why Empking is a rara avis in this group? Why is that especially relevant in his case?

[CrazyQuestions]

You avoided the question.

Why is particularly scummy from Empking and not from all the rest of players in the wagon who have implicitly accepted the L-1.

[CrazyQuestions]

@Longing: If you want a different thing, please ask again, since I did not see anything else. If you simply wanted to hear my position on shadow, please read post 176.

@Shadow

1. Since you simply deny the parroting without any particular argument and avoid the other issue, I cannot comment.
2.

I am interested in slow play, as it's easier to analyse.

. I already covered that in my analysis. Since you do not analyze it, I cannot comment.
3. Since you simply deny the parroting without any particular argument, I cannot comment.

Your posts are sometimes quite confusing to read. No offence intended.

If you find one of my posts confusing, please mention which. I will rewrite it.

While I can appreciate the works of Nietzsche just as much as the next man, this is so irrelevant it pains me to respond to it. Try to keep on topic, CQ.

1. Why do you feel compelled to comment this post? If you have decided to "scumhunt" or "participate", you better start with the dozens of posts before this, as obviously, isolated posts do not tell much.

2. It is not irrelevant. It is very relevant because I basically considered alpha-IS (god) dead in terms of our particular tennis game.

@all: What do you mean with "ninja-hammer" ? Also, why the hell are you so worried about quick hammers? You already "have" 6 votes because I compromised mine. Nobody quick voted you. This is the good thing of compromising a vote. I can enjoy analyzing, IS gets a heartattack waiting for me to vote, and we advance at a reasonable pace.

p.s. if there is any reason for which a sort of newbie in open games should not hammer, please keep me posted so I can vote for L-1. I planned to join a closed small game but as you can see, I mismatched the queue

[CrazyQuestions]

@empking: Yeah. The other way around. I planned to play a small open game with a known set up, so I could easily familiarize with roles. As you can see, I did choose a wrong queue. I realized before starting the game, but since the mod said in the queue that newbies were welcome, I stayed.

I just read the wiki about Super Saints. I am ok with the pack of voters deciding who is the scummiest player among the 7 voters, so this player hammers. If you have any other sort of mechanism like that to minimally increase the chances of the group, I am also fine with it.

Once Grey has talked, I would like to hear something from Strike, Simio and Saporo. Especially the latter, as she is my scummiest read among the lurkers. In any case, I am satisfied with the wagon and I am fine with voting.

[CrazyQuestions]

Yeah I'm finding it hard to disagree, ignoring all of the diddly squat that has happened between me and CQ I'm willing to call him the third man in the party just based on how hard he seems to be trying to not vote SW.

Do you think I will be terrified by such an argument?

1. The debate with me is your responsibility.
2. The debate with me is initiated on your side.
3. The debate with me is based on weak arguments.
4. You tried to point out to Grey and me before entering the wagon.
5. You entered the wagon just agreeing with somebody.
6. You kept inside the wagon insisting on my debate and avoiding any scumhunting.

I will vote SW when I consider it adequate. I have compromised my vote and the circumstances have not changed. I just got information from Grey, I am getting information from you now. I want more information from Strike's and Saporo's positions. Meanwhile, you just insisting in bluff...

[CrazyQuestions]

CQ: those 3 quotes? I never wrote them.

??

I really tried. I read back them. If you mean something like "I was joking and I already understood the message by Empking", I more or less understood that and just clarified what Empking was saying according to my view. If this is what you mean, please stop spamming. If not, ask directly because I do not understand what you mean.

[CrazyQuestions]

1-1. I didn't like that you called it parroting, but I can understand why you feel it might've been parroting. The other issue (my vote) was fairly self-explanatory, as it was a random vote with a little joke tacked on.

Since you simply provide no particular argument about absence of parroting in your contributions, I cannot comment.
Since you do not discuss the fact that you combine a random vote after an accusation in the same post, I cannot comment.

1-2. You didn't address my first point of this line of thinking:

You call my argument "Extreme" and "Ridiculous", but Empking did actually say that he thought he had found scum in his post, roughly 10 pages in.

I interpreted Empking as hyperbolic much before he pointed out. His own words fit with such description. Your argument is therefore extreme as you equate hyperbole to reality and attack him.

1-3. Once again, I just feel that you're trying to misrepresent me here, by calling it parroting. Also, you didn't respond to this:

I didn't try to defend lurkers, I just think that certain players are/were trying to push a lynch on lurkers, which is an easy lynch to push, and rarely finds scum this early in the game.

Since you simply provide no particular argument about absence of parroting in your contributions, I cannot comment.
Why do I need to respond to such an argument? I have not said anywhere that you defended lurkers.

3-1. I commented that post because it seemed so random and crazy that I just had to bring this up.

The post is random only if you do not read the previous ones.

3-2. Why did you have to use metaphor in such a confusing way? Why didn't you just say why you "consider him dead"

[/quote]

My quote is much more accurate than your words. Thus I used my quote.

[CrazyQuestions]

By the way, I want to point out how curious is that ElSimio has been keeping his useless debate with me, since he is at the same time considering Shadow scum and considering that I was mud flinging when I said that Shadow was parroting me (before anybody discussed Shadow). Why would I want people to mud flinging Shadow and lead people to "take the hook and run with it" on my own mate without having any credit for it? Quite amazing !! And obviously, curious means scummy here. I think this is pretty consistent with my description of him, and the only scum wagoning. IS is at least coherent in his equally useless debate.

That reinforces my view of the wagon. Which is our seventh vote?

[CrazyQuestions]

I didn't interpret his reads as hyperbole, I took them totally seriously. There was no reason not to.

He basically took his initial observation on Grey to signal Strike, Grey and You. You used big capital letters to transform his observation into a big shouting. He obviously replied with a different version provoking you. It was clearly a hyperbole...

Sure looks like you said I defended lurking.

How DEFENCE OF LURKING AS NULL-TELL looks like DEFEND LURKERS??

Now you're accusing me of not reading the thread?

You catalogue my post as random. I clarify it is not, and I interpret why you call it random. It is a very reasonable interpretation, especially after you said "You're right, TL, I've been letting some RL stuff get me down, so I'm not putting myself fully into this game. I'm sorry, and I will endeavour to try much harder in this game from now on. My sincerest apologies, everyone." I find you just glanced to the new posts without reading the past ones in detail, and decided to answer a bit the latter ones.

Your quote contributed nothing to the thread except beginning this line of questioning, which isn't helpful to anyone.

If the line of questioning does not help anyone, why did you start it?

[CrazyQuestions]

I didn't transform his observation in any way. Stop trying to misrep me.

a) He basically took his initial observation on Grey to signal Strike, Grey and You. (POST 16)

Sub, Grey and SW calling it now.

b) You used big capital letters to transform his observation into a big shouting. (POST 18)

Read this as:

EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS MAFIA!!!

c) He obviously replied with a different version provoking you. It was clearly a hyperbole... (POST 19)

A better quote would be.

GREY AND EVERYONE WHO TRIES TO DEFEND GREY IS MAFIA!!!

Where did I MISREP you????

Who lurks? Lurkers. By that logic, I defend lurking, I defend lurkers. I didn't defend them, I just said that it was a null-tell, and that we shouldn't analyse lurkers yet, as it was too early in the game to do so.

a) POST 132

What's the benefit of lynching a lurker?

I've always found lurking to be a null-tell

. Both sides do it equally.

b) POST 176: "defence" of lurking as null-tell

Did I say you defended lurkers?
Did I MISREP you?

Now you're accusing me of not reading the thread?

You started it by using a quote that seemed totally irrelevant. I questioned it, you explained it. I still think the quote was unnecessary though.

How does a quote start a line of questioning?? The person who questions the quote is the one who starts "the line of questioning". My quote was part of a different line of debate. You took it and started a line of questioning about its relevance. I still think you were paying much attention.

---

The answers are highly unsatisfactory. I almost thought he was giving bad answers to fake a false debate with me. This is probably just a present for IS. I hardly think we can get more, though I yet want to hear SAPORO and STRIKE before somebody decides this was enough and hammers.

Vote: Shadow

After all the verbal excesses of IS, do not say you didnt notice WE ARE AT L-1.

[CrazyQuestions]

I'd like to say that I'm not seeing a CQ town.

Happy to know. Let's see why.

Seems like a lot of random questions to appear helpful and over-analysis to the max.

Which of my questions are "random" ?
Which of my analysis is over ?
Please, quote...

Umm, wait, I better ask you to META me, as I probably overanalyze. The question is where you get I do that to "appear helpful". Also, If I do these things to appear helpful...ah shit, empking already discussed this...ok, read the post where Empking says im both good and bad scum and also townie

p.s. I apologize in advance. He may quote questions and analysis that I CONSIDERED non-random and relevant. I will obviously answer why. It could be the case that a majority of people think they are not. It could also be the case that some people do not even understand complicated reasonings on why I considered them as such.

I'm not really sure on the meta behind her, but I take it she's a fairly big name player

Your only observation on me is a psychological trait and style, so I think you should have done some meta. Otherwise, I do not see where the scumminess may come from. I am not any big name player. It is my first of these games after a couple of newbies, and I am pretty sure that I can easily be seen as an analytical player with hardly a basic knowledge of theory and standards in the game.

[CrazyQuestions]

vote SHADOW

WE ARE AT L-1

[CrazyQuestions]

incompetent

well jesus I think he's scum but don't insult

Bet you one mafiascum dollar that Empking wants you to write FAKE-INSULT instead of insult.

I think the scum teams will flip as follows, for the record:

CQ/Empking/Lurker?

Shadow/GreyICE/Lurker?

I note that you are pretty convinced that the scum team/teams will have 3 members.
You are skipping Simio in your analysis. And yourself, but well, that I would not expect different.

Next. Saporo, your turn to talk.

[CrazyQuestions]

@Strike: It is funny that you do not write the name of SORROW in any of the teams explicitly, since you are voting for him
Also, do you want to state openly your position on shadow?

[CrazyQuestions]

Why would I, as scum, come in and defend a scumbuddy who is at L-1 and whose play has done nothing to suggest that he won't get lynched at some time in the future anyway? Wouldn't I do better to take the town points by coming in, making an argument of sorts out of his posts, and dropping the hammer? There's a reason they call it a bus.

Maybe because there are no points for you

Crazy,

there's no fucking way

we're playing a 9:4 unless the town has more superpowers than the lovechild of Jesus and Wonder Woman.

I guess it could be 9:2:2

but

less setup speculation

and more focus on EMPscum.

The first bolded sentence suggests a negative tone against my post/argument.
However, the underlined sentence suggests my argument was valid. Thus, the way you wrote the full sequence of words and the tone of them is quite odd.
The second bolded sentence is a complete manipulation of my words. I have not speculated about the setup. I have noted how Strike was pretty convinced of its structure.

[CrazyQuestions]

Secondly, regarding the fence sitting, I'm not choosing a side yet because I'm analyzing relationships, Shadow. You're not really in a position here to make demands of me choosing sides at this point, because now you're starting to act just as scummy as Emp.

Do not distort my words. I have not asked you to choose a side. This is IS' style. I just asked you to state your position. If you are analyzing relationships, I am sure you have many things to say. You can make a full analysis of every single player if you want (please, include shadow).

Regarding the Sorrow thing I'm debating either switching my vote to Emp or hammer Shadow, based on the discussion I'm currently having with Shadow. That's why the vote didn't move in that post. The "Lurker?" also can apply to him though, if you're looking for consistency.

1. The decision of whom to vote for will be based on that discussion? I find this very poor given that you are analyzing relationships and so on.

2. You said you were not voting MS for being a lurker, so he will feel better if you include his name instead of "lurker". He has a personality !!

3. The fact that you say "the lurker also can apply to him" suggests that you did not write LURKER thinking precisely of him. He will be upset with your indifference !!

[CrazyQuestions]

Shadow must be scum. A townie would not create confusion to allow more nitid coments/reactions. Am I right? He would also provide ideas for next day.

[CrazyQuestions]

Read my summaries and find the answer to your question, Empking. It might be

[CrazyQuestions]

Anyway, Empking, I think there are better candidates than Grey for day 2...null

[CrazyQuestions]

Who? Why?

Read my summary and the subsequent posts, I think it is pretty obvious which my view is...

[CrazyQuestions]

I would like you to repeat yourself.

“I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it” Mae West

If I had to bet, Simio and Strike.

you can enjoy Grey if you want...Saporo should talk much more...they are in the basket too.

But if others do not analyze Simio seriously and I am not around, dedicate much time to him. Read my summary on Simio, he entered the wagon late and forcedly. Strike is going to be analyzed no matter what you do

I need to read these posts back. In any case, discount the excitement. Go to the facts

[CrazyQuestions]

Eh, good point. You don't want to seem too eager on a town wagon.

Forget for a moment your view on the townieness of SW. Why would a townie create the confusion he created with his role after the hammer? If you are town, stop your bias for 10 minutes. Save it for day 2.

[CrazyQuestions]

If you valued my advice, Empking, why do you insist?
Mae West is unhappy now

[CrazyQuestions]

Remember he is in my basket...you know my only scumvibes on you have to do with some of these episodes, your eagerness on him sounds a bit fake sometimes
Again, you asked and now you dare to listen Mae...so offensive

[CrazyQuestions]

I am for lynching IS. Claim??

---

p.s. you voted for me without providing reasons, Longing. You have minimized the set of people you looked at day 1, and you seem to do the same day 2, and without reasons again. Erratus is correct.

[CrazyQuestions]

Given post 430, I see no single reason not to lynch. I am happy with a lynch.
IS, please post your comments on every player before I hammer.
---
I find very funny how the investigation turned IS into an almost inoffensive lamb. Oh, such a peace in the thread

[CrazyQuestions]

I dont know who the scum is.

I can only assume this is equivalent to claim SCUM.
I will give you 30 minutes to post your comments on people. If you refuse, i hammer

[CrazyQuestions]

Vote Internet Stranger

[CrazyQuestions]

@Empking: That is completely nonsense. I was attacking IS seriously as you can easily see with the Daddy/Son story. Go and read back coz you are reading a totally different game.

The fact that IS (and ElSimo) decided to attack me based on nonsensical issues makes me guilty of something? That is completely absurd.

Also, you were reading me as solid town and now you decided to change your view based on what? Please make a case.

---

I will make a summary of players after re-reading their connections.

[CrazyQuestions]

1. IS did a bad job distancing from CQ
2. IS (i believe) cr4eated the counter wagon that saved CQ.

1. IS did a bad job attacking me.
2. Saved me? Which serious wagon formed against me? Please, describe it.

[CrazyQuestions]

I will describe it for you.

Vote 1) Random vote on me
Vote 2) El simo votes me because he thinks i am mud flinging and "just waiting for someone else to take his hook and run with it" AGAINST INTERNET STRANGER.
vote 3) Internet Stranger omguses me (in his own words)

This is all the wagon created on me. A wagon based exclusively on me pointing out to the

scummy actions of Strike and IS

against

Grey and Shadow

(Daddy and son story). Think about it. I pointed out to these 4 people in my initial observations. IS was Scum. Grey and Shadow were Townies. And ElSimo helped IS and pushed towards Shadow while keeping his attack on me. Ill extend when summarizing players.

[CrazyQuestions]

Crazy: Thoughts on Simo now/

Ill post my thoughts on all players as soon as possible. Have you inherited IS alphaness? I do not plan to "obey" you.

[CrazyQuestions]

Why are you purposely playing anti-town by ignoring pro-town requests?
Why is "obey" in quotes?

1. I am not playing anti-town. I have not finished the re-reading and I like to make serious summaries, not just shit.
2. Because it is just your tone. I do not know whether your sentence is an imperative or not. But the tone is like that.

[CrazyQuestions]

1. What's your pre-re-read read on simo?

I found him scummy because he was not scumhunting at all. He just agreed to enter the wagon when this had big numbers. When shadow started to "solidify" as scum, I thought he was just distancing as he was predicting a lynch. I have to re-read him because shadow is townie. I want to look back especially to my first episode Daddy-Son because this observation fits much better with the flips of the game. If this is the case, then he "helped" IS by alpha-ing against me. Later, he used that to simulate lot of activity while not scumhunting at all. His attacks on me were shit.

This is more or less a summary of quick thoughts.

[CrazyQuestions]

SUBSTRIKE-UPDATE

1. Back to his initial posts. I think he really plays the daddy-son game with IS (go back and read the son-daddy story if you missed this). Notice how in his first post, he observes my attack on IS and tends to correct IS. He uses a noticeable expression for a first post, like IGMOY IS (mafia). He attacks two other players like Empking (?) and Shadow (Town) with less emphasis, but decides to vote Shadow (Town). After realizing of his misunderstanding, unvotes and votes Empking (?). The player to whom he dedicated more time, IS (mafia), remains untouched.

2. His incoherences on the reasons we both had to attack IS (mafia) remain. He has not explained how he can at the same time say that he does not understand my reasons but declare they are very different to his.

3. As I described in my first summary, he turns his views outside the wagonners Empking (?)/ IS (mafia). Suddenly, he analyzes questioners of the wagon or the wagonee himself, sorrow (town), Greyice (town). There is couple of posts in which he expresses at the same time that he is fine with IS (mafia) (ISO 4 and 5, he just "needed" some clarification) while he says to me that he was skeptical about IS' (mafia) play. He votes here and there, lurkers and then Empking (?) again, accusing him of calling lurkers scum. Goes back to a lurker, sorrow (?) stating very precisely that of course, he is not voting for lurkiness. However, his reasons are very weak since Sorrow (?) was lurking most of the time. He remains without expressing a clear position on the full wagon.

4. Despite he is not expressing openly his view, he adds fire to the wagon on shadow (town) in ISO 15, by defending EMP (?) (quite remarkable since his only serious active target was Empking (?) along day 1 and empking (?) is aiming to lynch shadow (town)). In post 17, he fences even more announcing two coupled teams but expressing no serious opinions. Once he is accused of fence-sitting, he announces that Shadow (town) is being scummy, but twice he justifies that "Your play, if you are town, has been far below optimal, at best." and later he added "Shado's been playing like a scum, even if he's town." And decides to vote for shadow (town) after buddying Grey (town) and setting up some sort of day 2 attack to Empking (?) if shadow (town) is not scum.

Summary: I find Strike scummy. If someone needs clarification on which pieces of my summary are more important or anything else, ask.

[CrazyQuestions]

EMPKING-UPDATE

He actively created discussion day 1. However, now we know that his initial hyperbole dichotomy (Grey (town) or Shadow (town)) is based on two townies. He tunneled on Grey (town) very seriously during his vote to shadow (town), but it is hard to find any evidence against him out there. The read is not so good after time, but I see nothing very serious apart from minor guts here and there.

His change of opinion on a very solid read (me) is quite odd, especially because what he calls "distancing" is based in an initial observation I did guessing correctly 3 positions (IS, Shadow, Grey), and that took me analyzing the game very much during day 1. He should perceive my behavior in day 1 precisely as a paused transition from this initial view to the shadow wagon, which fits with his initial views on me...

Summary: Not especially scummy at this point.

[CrazyQuestions]

ERRATUS-UPDATE

My view on Erratus modified slightly due to the flips, as my only confusing observation on him relates to IS and it was not well defended. My question was why Erratus used IS' attack on Shadow to increase his own attack on Shadow. My observation was and is that IS just parroted Erratus, and after that, started to attack heavily. Erratus argues that post 97 of IS was not of the aggressive sort. But this was already my observation. Post 97 is the one where IS parroted Erratus. Erratus argues that other people was attacking shadow coherently. I agree. I joined the wagon because of several coherent observations by several people. But this does not answer my question. The question remains, why he used IS' nonsensical way of attacking to attack more Shadow (the ad hominem episode). Especially, it does not fit with the play I observe by Erratus.

Having said so, this is my only negative observation on Erratus. Besides, I hardly reconcile IS-Erratus as mafia. For instance, I would expect less interaction in attacking shadow and maybe, some interaction in attacking a third player.

Overall, I do not consider Erratus highly scummy.

---

More analysis tomorrow. I can answer any question Substrike and Longing formulate, but the former wrote he was not interested in discussing with me, and the second has not even expressed any idea about my scumminess. Strike did some sort of analysis, I will probably comment on it when i finish my summaries.

[CrazyQuestions]

Sapor: are you asking why I voted CQ, despite the fact that I voted him yesterday? Or are you asking why I voted CQ at all? I don't get it

You voted me yesterday without reasons too. I guess you had not time to join IS' wagon later, but seeing your vote on me while we lynched IS is your only contribution.

CQ, just because IS was scum doesn't mean his reads were false, scummy actions are scummy, all he did as scum was just make us painfully aware of them.

This is lovely. Are you saying IS' reads were trying to benefit the town?? lovely.

I've never encountered an IS scum so I don't know how to read him now. His tell on Crazy about preventing the lynch was dead on - but he flipped scum, so that casts a hell of a lot of doubt on it, but it still is a bloody solid tell.

1. Quote where and how I prevented the lynch.
2. in that case, How can be a BLOODY SOLID TELL to prevent a lynch of a player that flips townie?? His read on me was that I was trying to PREVEN THE LYNCH OF A SCUM PLAYER. This read is obviously WRONG.

I think you were an obv bus from IS.

This is:

1. Parroting
2. Again attacking me indirectly coz you have no reason against me.

I AM AT L-1. Just in case Elsimo didnt want to make it official. I will continue my cases. I think a couple of the players voting me should take the clear position of attackers and build a solid case against me, given they think I am so obvious scum to put me at L-1. This way I can answer and provide information about the game. I have many many things to say, even if you find me very scummy, I can provide lot of information about connections in this game. I guess you want that, so lets make it official and serious, guys.

[CrazyQuestions]

ELSIMIO-UPDATE

1. He keeps in the same way, avoiding to explore players and without any intention to scumhunt. He did not Meta'd me as he announced, and he has shown no interest in investigating my actions during the game. He just voted for town players all day 1 and defended IS by attacking me.

2. His view on me is totally nonsensical now. His only reason to attack me day 1 was that i mud-accused IS wishing people to follow me and lynch him. Given the flip, that should be read by him as a very townish thing. If he was attacking with a large set of evidence I might think he is tunelled, but since this is his only observation and he is wagonning following others, this is very scummy.

3. His point that IS' read on me is valid is nonsensical too. First, it is the read of scum, and hence, you cannot read it as pro-town. Second, IS' read on me was that I was Shadow scummate by stopping his lynch. Obviously, that read is ridiculous now.

Summary: quite scummy.

Indeed, I think he put nervous when I pointed out to IS and Substrike connection as possible scummates, and he reacted heavily...the two alphas IS and Simio attacked me very seriously...

---

Longing - Update

1. He keeps doing NOTHING. He has voted for me without saying why, both day 2 and day 3, and lives placidly in the wagon.

Weak

Summary: Longing has to participate more or we will find impossible to read this guy later.

[CrazyQuestions]

Are you looking at her posts or her interaction with IS? If I was looking at just the first then I'd put her down as town too.

You have not looked to my interaction with IS. Interaction is a term that includes the two parts (IS and ME). I have not read any single comment in your initial accusation/vote that talks of MY actions. For instance, you did not mention how I pointed out to IS and Strike, or you have not mentioned how I answered back to IS' posts on me, etc etc, describing in which way I seemed scummy or townish. You just observed IS' behavior and read it as some kind of distancing, without reading my reactions at all. Hence, I think INTERACTION is not the good term.

Having said so, in any case, I want you to describe in more detail and with quotes/analysis what you found as a signal to vote for me, since your summary in this post has no previous analysis from you that I can check or understand. In case you were voting for me driven by other motives (as you point out in your post), please also tell me which they are in more detail.

---

@TheLonging: Please answer the following question formulated by Empking.

question 1: What questions have I(empking) asked where the goal was to

look pro-town

?

Please answer too the following question regarding what you said about me day 1 before you started to see me as town with solid points.

question 2: Which "fluff" I was posting, where fluff is understood as in "I'm posting but I'm not really posting to be with town, just so I can

look town

"?

---

List of Longing references to Shadow:

1.

FoS: ShadoWolf
for the record, I'm thinking more along the lines of meta as well, Empking bothers me more.

2.

Did you just ignore everything else that has been said, JUST to address this? Are your partners in the lurkers? Do you even know what is going on Shado? You've done better than this.

...

However, Shado is more scummy than you know, see ^
unvote
vote: ShadoWolf

3.

I analyzed shao.
vote: crazyquestions

Please describe your analysis on shadow. Please describe with quotes where Shadow did the things your analysis "says" he did.

---

I will continue with my summaries on Saporo and Fugitive tonight. Is sorrow playing?

[CrazyQuestions]

His focus on not voting you but still calling you scummy.

1. He was basically faking a town-vs-town play when I described the Daddy-Son story between Strike and IS...but I dont think he had any argument to vote for me, since this would have been highly omgusing and would make attention to be on him...
2. He simulated to be active by talking and talking of me, as I pointed out in my summary...
3. He added indirect pressure to me and made the situation to seem like "oh, we all decided to lynch shadow, it is so obvscum, the rest of things is uninteresting", and all attention moved to shadow...

I do not see why this makes me scummy at all...on the contrary, I analyzed it as a townie signal, but obviously, I have extra information on my side...I wonder why people is not reading my early day 1 attack on IS to judge Strike's connections to IS. I will describe again all the episode if people need it...

[CrazyQuestions]

1) The numerous times you refused to vote even though you claimed your vote was 'practically' on him.

This is not preventing the lynch. This is using the day and sharing as much information as possible. My positions were very clear given my summaries.

I'll say it again, agreeing with someone doesn't mean its a parrot. You have said this about everyone who has agreed with anyone this game.

There is a difference. You can agree and yet provide your view, usually with subtle/minor differences because people see the game in different forms. Parrot implies not providing the own view/perspective and is complemented by following the main wagons easily... When you dont scumhunt and you are forced to give opinions on players, you get into trouble. Parroting is a simple and safe way to post. That you did.

Not bothering with CQ's case on me, if you think he is right read me in ISO and you will see he isn't.

how we will see I am not? Please tell us. If you need more specific quotes/accusations, tell me, Ill be delighted to complement my case on you with detailed questioning if it is easier for you to respond this way.

Votes on Sapo for his contrary logic. Would like to hear your thoughts on this Sappie.

ElSimio run away from the crazy animal when he felt more alone and moved to "Sappie".

vote: ElSimio

Reasons: Summaries. If you want a detailed case, Ill be happy to write it once Simio gets couple of extra votes.

[CrazyQuestions]

SAPORO - UPDATE

she is not posting much, but i checked that she is consistently posting in the two games she is playing. Yet her lack of definition day 1 is worrying. However, I disagree with the existence of a SERIOUS incoherence. Notice how she mentioned first the emotional outbursts of IS, and included the word SUPER. That is consistent with her seeing this as a main point. Later added that Erratus had "a point" which sounds something minor after the big message above. I would interpret this as confusing, and Im more interested about her lack of definition day 1. She is THE SAME NOW. So before a more serious Saporo judgment, id ask her to write a SERIOUS DISCUSSION on all players.

Summary: bit scummy

---

FUGITIVE - UPDATE

Started making a partial summary of day 1, but showed no interest in his own observations. I clarified about me, and he didnt even consider my answer. Day 2 and 3, he is changing his own views on players, since I was scummy and now I am obvtown, Empking seemed town and then he voted for him, Erratus was not even analyzed in his first summary. It is possible that his views on empking and Erratus are based on flips, but he is not describing at all such connections. He promised a case on Erratus on monday, but has posted few times since then without such case. On the contrary, he is attacking erratus for the new posts but not for old ones. It might be consistent with a very unhelpful player not reading the game, but it is at least worth checking. As saporo, our judgment would benefit immensely from a very big serious post in which he describes his cases on Empking day 2 and especially Erratus day 3 (obviously, at the moment he voted, not later).

Summary: bit scummy

[CrazyQuestions]

CQ is there anyone other than your bff EmpKing that you don't find scummy, honestly?

1) As far as I see my summaries, it is ElSimio and You as scummy.
Saporo, Fugitive (and maybe Longing) as somewhat scummy and wishing them to post more in specific directions so I can interpret better their weaknesses.
My bff Emking, My bff Erratus and my bff Sorrow (my update is coming, though not much to say) are not particularly scummy at this point (though the last should participate more, I think).

p.s. If I forgot someone, I will dedicate you some time, promise

2) I think you can read all that from my summaries if you pay a minimum of attention, but if you have extra doubts you can ask.

3) The fact that I analyze all players does not mean all of them are scum. I am not going to say "hey, this guy is town for sure", so do not expect it. My observations are maybe helpful to cross-check with theirs and hopefully converge on scum.

Or are you just content with lynching everyone but your hard won ally?

I am not happy with lynching anybody at this point. We have many days in front. I am happy with wagonning ElSimio and you and making the rest to participate in the things I described in my summaries.

I'm starting to think this might be a CQ/MS and not a CQ/EMP.

Please, make your case on me. Empking and Simio decided to disappear and let you leading the wagon on me. Longing is not participating more, so I think it is your responsibility to write a detailed case on me. Also, I would like you to be specific on the connections between IS and MS, MS and me, and MS with all the rest of dead players, since you consider he is my partner.

I think CQ is all like "oh hey EMP doesn't find me scummy, so I'll just play along and go with the flow, throwing out that he's town so he feels better about his position as well."

Empking voted for me and I only updated my view on him moderately because of some incoherences in this position. I found him mostly fine when he considered me town, when he started a wagon on me without sense, and later. So your observation is quite incorrect.

I've never seen a town player provide lists and lists of players like you do. I've never seen a scum player do it, either, but I've seen scum do similar lists (if not to the groundbreaking extent CQ is approaching.)

Is that a "too pro-town to be town" kind of argument? I am quite interested in your case on me. Please WRITE IT NOW.

[CrazyQuestions]

Nah, I think I'm good resting on the lists of reads you're providing and circular reasoning you used on me for the last two days.
How you don't find MS scummy is fun in and of itself, and really just re-enforces my belief that you're protecting your actively lurking scum buddy.

Your RESTING is scummy. The reason is that your vote on me had NOTHING TO DO with my lists of reads and the circular reasoning of the LAST TWO DAYS. Also, at the moment of voting for me, you found Empking my mate. Thus, you are re-building your case completely.

Please:

1. Describe your case on me BEFORE the last two days.
2. Describe how my reasoning is circular and how the fact I describe reads on people is scummy. Also, describe why you find me connected to MS and why.

Since you seem to avoid me, and you have mentioned twice that you are not interested in answering me, here you can find an stimulus:

Unvote
vote: Strike

---

ElSimio is yet my top choice I guess. Apart from my summary, please notice all of you the following inconsistency that you can easily check by ISOing him:

Posts 0, 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33 and 35 in day one were partially/totally dedicated to discuss one single issue of my play, that is, my attack on IS (and Strike) that ElSimio interpreted as my attempt to MUD FLINGING. In his own words, trying to find people to attack IS with my hook without me showing myself. After a long day thinking like that with 18 posts written about it, am I wrong in thinking that ElSimio was reading that action as evidence of my scumminess AGAINST a townie????
Day 3 starts, IS is known to be scum, and he reads me as his mate and after Empking abandons the wagon he says

"This is a good point that I didn't take into account..."

Really? He didnt take into account that GOOD POINT after 18 posts dedicated to THAT SORT OF POINT AND ONLY TO THAT SORT OF POINT !! (By the way, half of the other 18 posts he wrote were bluff, the other half about Empking/Grey stuff...). His life day 1 consisted in such an observation mostly...

[CrazyQuestions]

I think Empking is jealous because you think now MS is my soul-surfer...he was so fond of his Crazy-Syrene in the ocean...

@Strike: Now you have all the attention of our threesome. Please illuminate us. We are all ears.

[CrazyQuestions]

Yup CQ I didn't take it into account, I've made it very clear that I can't give this game the attention I used to, so when you made it clear I backed off. SOUND FAMILIAR BECAUSE THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED DAY 1.

I have described how you posted 18 different posts about me trying to mud-create a wagon on IS. 18 posts !!
And suddenly, you forgot it when decided that I was IS' mate. You did not even consider it, you did not reflect on it...you maybe are not paying much attention, but you will not convince me easily that you simply forgot all that...

[CrazyQuestions]

What does slinging mud at IS have to do with Shado flipping town?

These are two different points.

POINT 1.

You make 18 posts during day 1 on slinging mud at IS. This was your ONLY observation on me day 1 and you dedicated 18 posts and an amazing amount of time to it. IS flips scum and you dont change radically your view of me? Amazing...

POINT 2.

You sustain your vote day 3 on me with a completely ridiculous argument that IS' observations make me scummy, especially one in which IS was obviously WRONG and BEHAVING SCUMMY.

----

However they are harping on each other for small points- crazy on substrike for "not understanding" the 3 words thing and then finding flaws in internet stranger's vote for grey (which lead to the daddy-son thing).

This is a bad summary of my observations on Substrike. I will make a more detailed summary soon.

Crazy CLARIFIED HER 4 WORDS thing BEFORE substrike said they were voting for different reason- that makes his claim NOT CONTRADICTORY

You forget that in the SAME first post, Strike already called my reasons non-understandable and however said I had recognized flaws in IS...

[CrazyQuestions]

I meant Erratus when I called you out for useless questions day 1, I had you two confused. Forgot to correct that later since day 1 ended so soon after and Day 2 was also quick.

Allow me to dig more, because your answer is QUITE surprising. Lets suppose you read all the messages by Erratus and me as written by "the same person". Well, if this is the case, by page 5, which is when you made your summary, Erratus had posted 5 times and I had posted 26 times. Hence, I am sorry for Erratus but probably I was the protagonist of our double-personality game with you. I had to be much more visible than him in your dreams. And consistent with it, you called us CQ and SHE, in femenine. One can easily read it in your summary. Hence, your summary there applies mostly to me (26/31 is really big, isnt it?) and your contradiction remains.

Now, if you mean that your analysis refers EXCLUSIVELY to the 5 posts written by Erratus and you mixed up name and gender, where is your analysis on my 26 posts? This is a 20 per cent of the information you read and you forgot to write on me? This is highly unbelievable...

That should clear up the rest of your concerns in that paragraph, actually.

Not at all. First, your answer does not explain your switch on Empking. Second, you have not addressed how you promised a case on Erratus prior to your last discussions and right now, you are mostly calling him scum for the NEW observations after this promise.

[CrazyQuestions]

I don't understand why CQ continues to argue with me even after I've admitted he was right and unvoted

YOU FORMULATED A QUESTION IN POST 506

and you pretend me not to answer??? Quite funny that you pretend to assign me the responsibility of a "useless argue"

[CrazyQuestions]

Since some people wanted this, here you have an extra episode of the MLB. Nine strikes. All players out. Your time to defend, Strike. You can obviously say again that you are tired of arguing with me. You can point out to your previous defences if you think you answered appropiately already.

Also, I am happy with describing the validity of these points with other players. At the end, 3 strikes are enough to eliminate a player.

Strike 1.

Description: IS receives attention after his initial contribution. Strike dedicates the first and

largest

part of his initial post to criticize IS. This attack uses tough expressions like

awfully opportunistic

and

IGMOY stranger

. However, in the same post he discusses two other players (Shadow and Empking) with two very odd reasons. The former is attacked and voted after a misinterpretation. The second is accused (and voted after the correction of his mistake on shadow) of an opportunistic vote and indirectly, of creating a wagon exploding in numbers. This is clearly a bit ridiculous as Empking just voted first and the wagon created later with the action of two other players.

Interpretation: IS is scum and IMO, strike-mate may be executing a distancing exercise. Expressed the criticism after I pointed out to the excesses of IS, but after the attack, Strike found reasons to attack and especially vote, other people.

Strike 2.

Description: Strike indirectly criticizes Empking for a wagon exploding in numbers. However, he does not criticize IS for the wagon numbers, even when IS placed a posterior vote and with a tone that is leading and firing the wagon much more. Also, strike does not even ask me about the reasons of my vote, which is the third in the wagon. If he is interested about the numbers of the wagon, why wouldnt he ask me about my vote?

Interpretation: Same than in 1.

Strike 3.

Description: Strike declares not to understand my criticism to IS. In the same post, however, he tells to shadow that IS has clear flaws that

I was actually pointing out

. His explanations about this point are, IMO, defficient.

Interpretation: Strike reacts to the attack on IS by attacking a bit IS' actions, but controlling/checking the accusations of other people. However, when he moved to attack other players (Shadow and Empking) he uses me to attack Shadow. I think he partially/fully understood my initial attack and was just trying to check/explore/buddy the attack.

Strike 4.

Description: Strike is under some pressure by both Empking and me. Empking pushes him because of the (weak) reasons expressed by Strike to vote Empking. I am pushing him because of the Strikes 1 and 3 described above. His reaction is to change his vote without expressing any change of mind regarding Empking. The target is Sorrow, and the reason is very surprising. It is basically for expressing/voting Empking aligned with him, in a lurker style.
In his next post after the vote, he feels comfortable about his vote because he declares that sorrow is avoiding the game. That obviously is merely a natural consequence of the lurker play of sorrow, that was/is pretty evident.

Interpretation: Strike is nervous and decides to move towards a safe participant, a lurker.

Strike 5.

Description: Strike comes back to attack Empking. He uses as a reason that Empking is calling someone lurker early in the game and using that to attack. Surprisingly, Strike attacked sorrow for avoiding the game and at the same time agreed Empking that Grey's retreat was not a good sign. Now he finds Empking's observation scummy even if Empking was totally right in saying that Grey was voluntarily skipping the game and Strike pointed out to a clear lurker as sorrow. The incoherence is very serious. He says

While I agree that lurking is, eventually, a scum tell, I believe that early in the game it is a null tell

. But before he had said to be comfortable about his vote because Sorrow was avoiding the game.

Interpretation: This is a very personal interpretation. I find ElSimio scummy. ElSimio and Empking were fighting here and Strike came back to Empking in a very obvious way.

Strike 6.

Description: Sorrow appears from the shadows and points out to Strike because of the lurking inconsistency. The response in posts 252 and 253 is an OMGUSING one.

Interpretation: He was caught in the inconsistency and reacted by voting back to Sorrow very defensively.

Strike 7.

Description: Strike gives opinion on Shadow in the last minute. Jumps in posts 326, 327 and 328, and launches the possible teams. He writes some stuff on shadow in the lynch vote since he never did. Notice also how in the subsequent posts, he even agrees with Grey on a post about the connection between Empking and me. That is very important since he considered Shadow and Grey were the most likely team and Empking was a secondary team.

Interpretation: IMO, setting up lynches for day 2 knowing the future flip of Shadow.

Strike 8.

Description: When voting for Shadow, he uses expressions like

Shado's been playing like a scum, even if he's town

and

Your play, if you are town, has been far below optimal, at best

.

Interpretation: They suggest he knows Shadow is town and it sounds like overjustifying his vote for a townie.

Strike 9.

Description: Voted for IS after the investigation and was the only player putting the attention in the investigation. Twice. I assume this is what sorrow describes as obvious bus.

Interpretation: I love surfing.

[CrazyQuestions]

Update:

a) Strike did not describe his case on me. I want to hear it, I want you to attack scum. Arent you a townie? Then make a case on me. If you do it well, u can lynch me. Even if you dont succeed, you will help town for the future. Do your case, please.

b) When is it the time in which lurkers are scummy? day 3? why is sorrow's lurking particularly scummy at this point?

[CrazyQuestions]

Since Strike does not want to make his case on me, I will copy all his comments towards me and try to build his own case.

1. Chainsawing for Empking.

ISO 4.

Also, Crazy

you could just as easily be

chainsawing for EMP right now.

ISO 5.

Crazy, your chainsaw

occured

when I vote for EMP and then you suddenly post a wall of text on p1 explaining why I'm mafia.

First: I post walls of text most of the time. I analyze the game. I provide information on the rest of players. Regarding my observation, I did not explain why you were mafia, but merely described one scummy observation of you. You can read back my post after your vote and see how the final two lines state clearly that I would not use the word SUSPECT for these episodes because I like slow play.

Second: The wall of text links you with IS, as described in my summary of you. I had started my observation on IS before your vote. Obviously, I only could make my additional comments on you AFTER your posts/votes. The fact that I wrote after your vote does not explain at all why I was chainsawing for any player. The fact that I was observing IS and the person who posted around him (you) is a signal that my post has nothing to do with chainsawing but with scumhunting.

---

Once explained, I want to add something. Substrike did not mention any type of chainsawing after my first wall of text in his ISO 3. It was only after he perceived the additional pressure on him that he "defended" this way, in an increasing way, as the boldface of ISOs 4 and 5 demonstrate. It is clear not an offensive scumhunting observation. In the most favorable interpretation towards hims, it is a biased-townie defensive stuff.

2. Simplification of his answers.

C) none of the above. Try again next week though, for better random results of attempting to simplify my answers into options a or b without actually reading my justifications.

First: Again as in his first accusations, he just throws an accusation without any evidence. Labelling a player as "simplifying your answers" without the evidence, waiting for people to buy this argument. It is especially relevant since I post a lot, and some less interested people might be tempted to read me as "oh...another wall...surely she is manipulating and stuff..."

Second: Regarding the simplification itself, my answer points out to my own summary on Strike. I think he was inconsistent in the lurking stuff regarding MS. If more clarifications are needed, I am happy to describe in more detail.

3. Grasping for straws.

And Crazy you're really grasping for straws on that 3 scum thing, I want everyone else to note that.

First: I pointed out how you were pretty convinced of the structure. I did not call it a serious scum slip, and my case on you is not built upon this, but every piece of information is relevant.

Second: I especially found interesting that you avoided to include MS in your teams and, as much, you refered to him as LURKER in these teams. I described it, and it is not any kind of grasping because we had pointed out repeatedly on your "inconsistencies" regarding voting lurkers or not.

4. Buddying with Empking plus extra stuff.

Crazy, your buddying with EMP is obvious. Your hypocritical arguments in dealing with him versus dealing with me, and in twisting the words of almost everything I've done, is noted. You're mis-repping me, you've been mis-repping me, and I'm done trying to argue with you about it. You and EMP are our remaining scum.

First: Again, labelling a player without describing the evidence.

Second: Contradictory. Buddying your scum-mate?

Third: Strike has not discussed my arguments on him, as he said very quickly "im done with your stuff", so hardly we cant discuss about the validity of my arguments or the misrepresentation.

He tried to bus you and you've responded by "taking the high road." You point out his lack of a case towards you, then you attack me based on my "lack of cases" on people, which I think is bullshit, by the way.

First: More labellings, no evidence

Second: I pointed out his lack of a case and I mentioned in my analysis of him that this modified a bit my view of him. However, an observation is not enough to find someone scummy. Obviously, I have not based my attack on you "on your lack of cases". That is a clear misrepresentation, evidence can be seen in my summaries of you and the extended case I have described after.

You're acting like you know more than the rest of us, you've been acting that way since day 1. Your third point about me going after townies gets into nothing but WIFOM. I went after town because I didn't know if they were town. Your calling that into question makes me believe that you have information that we don't.

Evidence, please. I have not built my case on you based on the flips of your attacked players. These are minor observations that add up to my general case. I think there is a minor positive correlation between helping scum-lynching town and being scum. Not high, but i think it exists. How is that connected to having "more information" than you?

5. Wishing to lynch everybody.

CQ is there anyone other than your bff EmpKing that you don't find scummy, honestly? Or are you just content with lynching everyone but your hard won ally?

First: lack of evidence in the accusation again.

Second: Describing possible scummy behaviors by players and finding all of them scummy are two very different things. I have obviously stated degrees of scumminess in my summaries that can be read by everyone. I have dedicated time in very different amounts, with a clear interest for the players I found scummier and described as scummier. IS accused me of stopping a lynch and my behavior is clearly promoting the transmition of information and not rushing/wishing blood and lynches. I think all these arguments are correct, but it is difficult to say more since you do not present any evidence in any of your accusations.

6. Random play and trying to appear town.

CQ's playstyle has been random and an attempt at appearing town.

First: lack of evidence, again??

Second: difficult again to say how my play is not random. If i had to argue about it, I would say I am quite analytical and participative as a constant, and my observations on players are usually of scum type more than town type, I dont make "you are town because of this" observations many times, so that is a constant too. I tend to make summaries of my observations to share information, and I have done it consistently at adequate moments of time, so I dont see any randomness there either. I have no interest in appearing town more than the small benefit for the town that this would have. I think my style is tiring for some people and I prefer to keep it because I want to share as much information as possible. I think "appearing town" would advice to reduce the length and amount of my posts because there are many impulsive non-analytical players around, but that would imply reducing the share of information and accelerating decisions, and I think both things are bad for town.

[CrazyQuestions]

ON FUGITIVE vs ERRATUS (skip the summary if you are aware of the story and go to my final conclusions)

Post 440-441: Day opens. Fugitive posts from a different account. Talks of roles and stuff and votes for Erratus.
Post 443: Fugitive announces his vote is unrelated to the role stuff.
Post 444: Erratus explores three players, Longing - Saporo - Fugitive. Asks Fugitive for a justification on his post.
Post 450: Fugitive declares the reason for vote is the interaction IS-ERRATUS. Announces an exposition later. Responds to the questioning by Erratus in an emotional way.
Post 461: Erratus keeps asking why the role stuff.
Post 462: Fugitive answers in an emotional way again.
Post 464: Erratus interprets the emotional defensive stuff as scummy.
Post 468: Fugitive continues the table tennis.
Post 470-471: More and End.
Post 472: Erratus votes Fugitive (note: The longing has not answered yet Erratus, but he changes his vote here).
Post 473-474: My penis is bigger. No, mine.
Post 479: Fugitive reads me as obvTown when I have 4 votes.
Post 481: Oh Fugitive, you are right, yes, he is town, but lets continue our table tennis game, because nobody pays attention to us.
Post 495: Ok, lets meet 15th of feb. for the second set.
Post 501: Since Erratus is asked, he describes his case on fugitive and he repeats his point.
Post 504-508: he answers this is all his case.
Post 510: Fugitive announces that he mixed me with Erratus in his initial analysis.
Post 515: his case is on Grey vs Erratus. WHO IS second in the list? what does fugitive say??
Post 519: Another town read from fugitive on the L-1 person.
Post 529: Consistently, Fugitive announces a like for Empking or MS lynch.
Post 531: Erratus announces a like for Saporo and Nexus lynch. Saporo for fencing. I yet have not heard a simple word by erratus about strike. His expression on me was after Fugitive only.
Post 533: Fugitive answers the case on him by Erratus.
And Emotional table tennis continues. Set 2.

---------

a) Erratus plays better table tennis logic. He wins both sets.
b) Fugitive scumminess remains at the same level for me or a bit less. At least, he expressed a clear opinion on the two players wagonned, without scumslips of any kind. His suspicions are consistent with his emotional view of the game.
c) Erratus raises a bit his level of scumminess. Being logical as he is, he is building a case on one observation, he is forgetting Longing even if he received no answer by him and he has not expressed opinions on the two players wagonned at L-1.

[CrazyQuestions]

Hi guys. I've got a wall written, but it's probably not condusive to helping.

Post it.

I thought CQ was scum until recently, so I'm still keeping my eye on him.

why?

[CrazyQuestions]

My wall stops at post #518 because I got bored of writing it and instead preferred just to remember the last few pages. I think it was a combination of other, scummier people being scummy, and ISO #110 onwards, since you made actual, relevant scumhunts, and I agreed with a lot of it.

I am fine with a wall stopping at post 518. I want to read it. I am going to comment on it.
Please, post it.

[CrazyQuestions]

@nexus: Also, my question was why i was scummy, not why you saw me less scummy later.

[CrazyQuestions]

Ok. I am fine with most of the summary. I tend to read you found scummy grey and strike, apart from the lurkers and it is mostly consistent with things we have seen. But it is fine at this point.

I am fine with your view of my summaries, though i do not see why this could be scummy. I think it is natural to trust your own summaries. I also think it is natural not to update in excess recent information if you are analytical, but instead, add this information and consider it as a whole.

I cannot see however what you mean by lining up lynches. Empking formulated several questions, and I was fine with answering them openly. A neutral re-read of my answers tells me I was quite convinced of Shadow's flip as scum (and I was, and analyzing now, I think I was biased by the high agreement and Simio-IS play). Given that, I do not see how you can observe that i was "lining lynches" or in which posts/behaviors...

[CrazyQuestions]

I haven't forgotten Longing/Nexus. I didn't receive an answer from Longing, true, but that's because he flaked, so it's null.

You changed your vote before receiving his answer. That is odd, especially because you played a similar episode day 1 in which you voted for the person ignoring you, you insisted by asking for votes against this player when ignorance continued. This episode is of special importance because it refers to IS. You unvoted IS later precisely to follow IS in voting shadow.

He has answered you, and I can see why he'd be frustrated by you coming at him again and again when he's done it as much as he has. His reaction here is genuine.

1. As you can see in my summary of him, I find his answers very unsatisfactory. Might you tell me which of the 9 strikes he answered satisfactorily and why?

2. Fugitive answered you too and after more or less 3 posts (similar to strike), said "im done". Why is it different?

[CrazyQuestions]

In both cases I felt the player I was changing my vote to was scummier. Why shouldn't I have vote hopped?

In the realms of internal emotions, how can I check this feeling?

So obviously, I am observing the difference between your previous episode with IS (flipped mafia) and your current episode, in which you hopped before receiving an answer. How scummy is this? Im not attacking you, but I added this observation and when reading back the IS episode, I note that just after he answered you, you voted together for shadow, who flipped town. It is my only source of scum feelings from your side, so I make it explicit for other people to know. I understand there is not a precise answer to my question, however...

He didn't answer your 9 strikes satisfactorily (obviously, as he didn't answer them at all, he just said fuck it). I'm saying he got tired of answering your case in general, rather than those specific points.

But since you dont consider him scummy, I guess you consider his answers BEFORE getting tired of my case as partially explaining my strikes as town and not as scum. Hence, i want to hear your opinion. A line for each of the 9 strikes will be enouh, thanks.

1. Sub started answering your questions on 23, and said he was done on 518.

Wrong. Trying to being fair on your comparison, Sub started in post 44, or ISO 3 (before, he was mostly commenting my view of IS).
In post 169, or ISO 7, he said:

Crazy I honestly just

gave up on answering

your questions, because they are living up to your forum name. The second question was answered, I apologize if it was not to your expectations. I'll try this one more time and then

I'm done with it.

From ISO 3 to ISO 7 that is what you call

four posts apiece

.

But seriously, can you explain why?

Yeah. But since I have read him a bit scummier than you from this episode, why do you want to know about it? It deviates the attention from the important things.

I didn't have a read on you/Confid before my question spree today. Afterwords, I did. Not useless.

Then I want to know all your reads before this episode. I have heard you enough about this one. There is a guy at L-1 and you dedicate your time to someone people is not thinking to vote?

Can't argue with that rock solid logic.

same than above.

EMP and CQ were both trying to make way too big of a deal out of GreyICE's initial post. Their desperation to make a mountain out of a molehill, especially after Grey flipped town, is scummy.

FALSE. In big capital letters. If something, I could be accused of making way too big of a deal out of IS initial post and your initial post. But not Grey. I never attacked grey for his initial post, nor i considered that scummy. Which game are you playing???

FALSE. Again, your second part is false in big capital letters. Where did i try to do a mountain out of a molehill after grey flipped town? I mostly read the stuff between Grey and Empking as null, and so I discussed to him. My candidates were Simio and you, and yet you are. I do not see much attention in Simio, especially because he is not here, and so I am comfortably on you.

In which case CQ is a really bad

tunneling

townie. MS is

guaranteed 100% scum in my mind

This was simply a good joke
Please, make a summary-case on MS. Ah well, I will do it again for you, i guess...

[CrazyQuestions]

Substrike's case on MS

1. Votes Empking without reasons.

[quote="strike" Not sure how I feel about MS's vote on EMP. Not a whole lot of reasoning there other than "oh look, wagon that's not being questioned intensely, yet." In fact I think that's the first honest scum post I've seen all game:

UNVOTE: EMPKing

VOTE: Midnight's Sorrow
[/quote]

MS first post was number 31. His vote can be thus considered his first participation in the game. Clearly, the game was out of the RVS but the amount of information is yet very limited. That a player writes his first post and votes in such a way cannot be considered, by any means FIRST HONEST SCUM POST.

---

Now, extra attack on strike

First: Strike had added pressure to Empking with expressions like "Awfully opportunistic", "wagon shot up in numbers so quickly",
"that's

scummy

", "as suspect as", "try to bully". Hence, how can be the FIRST HONEST SCUM POST he reads? how can be the amount of scumminess so high as to forget his attack on Empking?

Second: It is very inconsistent that after all these expressions on Empking, a player joins the wagon and he reacts this way. Strike was seriously attacking Empking. In my view, Empking's responses were pushing him apart as scum, and he found any reason to leave the attack and move in lurk-safer waters.

---

2. Misrepresenting Strike

and you're taking both of my statements out of context. I don't like when people vote/pressure people who haven't even posted yet. You had already posted a scummilicious post.

The answer: These are the words by MS in his second post, after Strike changed his vote and voted for MS as described above.

How wonderful of you to

have voted me last time for lurking

, and

then go ahead and say much later after you had switched votes to go about saying how much of a null tell lurking was

- as if that what I was doing in the first place >.>- What a wonderful contradiction you have made!

a) The reason exposed by Strike in his initial post can be described as "a lurker came and voted without reasoning much", being fair.
b) After this, strike mentioned couple of times that MS was "a lurker". Said nothing else.
c) He then criticized other people for "voting for lurkers"

You are a lurker, come back, read this, what do you say? It sounds pretty obvious. You say what MS said. This is a good observation by MS, as I mentioned. I do not see any serious misrepresentation in MS' words. We can discuss for hours about the subtle meanings of Strike's vote, but strike voted MS for being a lurker and joining a wagon without reasons. Nothing that MS is misrepresenting in his words...

---

Now, extra attack:

First: MS post was number 200. His second post in the game. An obvious lurker. His two posts were lurker posts. A vote on Empking without much reasons, a comment on the inconsistency by Strike (to whom he was not afraid to point even if strike had been one of the few pushing MS). And Strike insisted in voting a lurker for doing lurker things. To see a OBVSCUM misrepresentation in MS words is exaggerated, and thus, the principal characteristic you can associate to MS at post 200 is....lurker??? This keeps his contradiction.

Second: MS third and fourth posts were numbers 246 and 248. A question for our contestants....do you know which TWO players were commented/attacked by MS in these posts (Strike accusation of misrepresentation comes after these, number 252)................IS and ElSimio. A cookie for those who guessed correctly. A casuality? well, I do not think so. But obviously, you can skip this point if you think is a casuality. The rest of my answer remains the same.

---

3. MS came out of active lurking to vote for him on the basis of a vote for a cop confirmed guilty.

You come out of your active lurking to vote for me, on the grounds that I voted for a cop-confirmed guilty? Please, by all means, try again

I do not think this is even a proper accusation, but i want to compile all words of Strike on MS to show he has no case at all (apart from lurking). The answer. This were the words by MS:

If I've ever seen a scum bus their buddy in a cop out like yesterday as... deftly as this guy, my mind be pulling up the blanks.

As you can see, he is accusing Strike for bussing a scum mate. Well, clearly, MS is not arguing a lot his accusation, but, is MS accusation credible? I think so very much, as I pointed in my own case. Again, this is a second observation done by MS on his own, despite his very serious lurking, these are his observations. In post 517, he clarifies the bus read comes from the declarations done after the vote. Strike said:

Although

I do find the flavor there kind of suspect. I mean, why would results come back as "town" or "anti-town" when there clearly isn't a serial killer here?

He was the only player doubting partially of the report and role discussing, after his vote....I think MS observation is at least, worth-studying. Hence, it cannot be any point against MS. At most, it is a failed scumhunting attempt. And consistent with his play in the game.


4. lurking and lack of content

There are several versions of this, but they have not been evolved more than this:

MS's active lurking is the scummiest thing in the game so far. Iso his posts and tell me how he's town, please. 8 posts. None of which have content. Scum.

First: MS is a lurker. Yes. This is slightly scummy. It is the only observation by strike which is correct.

Second: Given that there are 8 posts, the 2 observations on Strike sound content. Not much, but given he wrote 8 posts and a total of around 20-30 lines, I think is standard.


**********


Hence, the summary of strike's case is:

MS is a lurker.

[CrazyQuestions]

EBWOP: sorry for the mess-quote in the first point of Strike's case.

[CrazyQuestions]

MS is not only lurking, but contributing very little when he actually posts. How is that not scummy?

He cannot contribute if he does not post.

His posts include:
a) in 8 posts, he has done 2 contributions against strike (vote-for-lurkers contradiction and IS-lynch stuff).
b) He opposed openly the two alpha players in the game, even at the cost of attracting attention. One of them flipped mafia.

Hence, his scumminess lives in the absence of posts. Given his minimal participation, the relative content itself is decent. What is slightly scummy is the participation level. That I said, that I agree. The case is purely HE IS A LURKER. I do not think this scummy signal is enough to rally him, especially in the presence of other people.

[CrazyQuestions]

Based on the above post I am 100% convinced that we have a MS/CQ team.

CQ once again you've managed to

oversimplify

my argument in an attempt to paint me as scum. It's just annoying. MS is an active lurking scum, which is different than a scum.

He did not "risk attracting attention"

. He's done nothing other than come in, make a snyde post here or there, or

join in on the biggest wagon

. He's attempting,

much like you, to make it look like he's contributing more than he actually is.

The only person buying it, is you, because

you're trying (very badly) to protect him.

Faking a town-tunnelling this way is just laughable.

1) I have posted

EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT

you had against MS

with your own words

. Hardly I could oversimplify you.
2) He confronted IS and ElSimio just before you voted for him. You can discuss his level of participation, but he confronted the alpha shouters in these very rare situations he posted. And hey, one of them flipped mafia.
3) His vote for Empking was THE SECOND. His vote for you day 1 was THE FIRST. His vote for ConfidAnon was THE FIRST. His vote for you day 3 has been THE FIRST. Sorry, you fail 4 times. 4 votes, none of them was a WAGON properly.
4) He is not attempting to look like he is contributing. He considered himself a lurker. He accepted it. He attacked you for voting him as a lurker.
Obviously, I do not attempt to look like I am contributing. I am contributing.
5) I am not trying to protect him. I am attacking you.

should i assume that Empking is no longer my bff? If you want to make a case on him, maybe you succeed more.

[CrazyQuestions]

Fugitive, MS and Saporo I felt needed to post more but given that D1 was fairly short and D2 was a speedlynch it wasn't enough for me to call any of them lurkers.


But I would now rather lynch saporo.

I am fine with you forcing people to post. I wanted you to be more clear on strike, as your only comment came from one emotional reaction. You seem to favour a town view of strike and you have explained your views, which as i mentioned above are not correct to me. Fair.

I would rather lynch Strike. It is a pity that Simio left coz he was highly scummy. Strike, your alpha is not going to come to protect you now, did you yet consider ElSimio "difficult to read" even he had written close to 50 posts?

[CrazyQuestions]

EBWOP: the last quote is Erratus

May someone read post 577 and tell me where I have manipulated Strike?

I think he just believes that faking an emotional tunelling response is saying nonsensical things one after the other.

[CrazyQuestions]

unvote

I don't believe your claim, but MS is so damn scummy, it seems a shame to let his actions pass

unanalysed

before we lynch you, Strike

.

which is why I figure

you're number one

, and

MS/saparo is number two

. Given your recent interactions with MS, I would hazard a guess he's your scumbuddy and is trying to distance himself.

Analysis Time:

a) Erratus makes a detailed argument on the participation of MS
b) Crazy makes a detailed argument on the participation of MS
c) Nexus makes a ....?? no, he does not.

I'm willing to lynch

saparo, MS

,

and then Substrike.

Fun comment: Obey Empking. After IS' lynch and ElSimio's replacement, we are scarce of alphas....

[CrazyQuestions]

Where the hell are you?

[CrazyQuestions]

Saporo, I see your name in the people online.
Also, it is ridiculous to see ElSimio in the list.

If somebody does not hammer, I plan to ask for replacement. I thought this was a serious game.

[CrazyQuestions]

@MOD : If deadline was at 5 p.m. I ask for

replacement

. I did not write so many posts and dedicate so much time for realizing later the game is like this.

I apologize to the mod for the inconveniences, but I think you can perfectly understand it. Looking for more active players/games. Enjoy the game all of you. It was a pleasure to share the game with the non-responsible ones.

[CrazyQuestions]

Why replace out??

Because several players did not post or announce their position on a no lynch or about their lack of posting in the last moments. Since all cannot be scum, I assume some players do not take the game as I like the game. I just simply prefer to leave the game. I enjoyed it up to now, I do not regret what I played and it was a nice experience. But now is time to change game/experience.

Thanks for the game.

I don't even understand why you're replacing out. Surely the time's more wasted if you don't see the game til the end?

No. It was a nice experience. Thanks. Deadline finished 1 hour ago.

[CrazyQuestions]

The deadline is on Sunday, February 20th at 5PM EST.

The rest is dreaming with divine gifts.

FYI, you'll be screwing the game over by replacing out as well. That means two replacements will be needed, and it's hard enough to get replacements as it is.

I know. I also sincerely apologize to those players who think/believe their play is adequate. Thanks for understanding, too.

[CrazyQuestions]

I am not going to personalize, not even after explanations/flips. I have enjoyed the game and the experience, and I am very serious when saying this.

But I have observed this is not the game I want to be playing. Nothing harsh, just a personal decision. Indeed, I realize the mod's decision is quite irrelevant to my view. The deadline was today 5 p.m. for every player's mind. Thus, no matter mod's decision, my view of the game would remain.

Also, I am realizing that I do not want to bias Mod's decision on an extension. Thus, I ask for replacement unconditionally. Otherwise, he might decide to give an extension and favour one of the teams for a non-gameful reason. I apologize again.