Newbie 1052 - Endgame

[Workdawg]

I can see missing the questions, especially since Mute has already said he only reads parts of the game, but I've referred back to the questions multiple times and they still go unanswered. Even when he replies to the very post the question is in.

[theplague42]

@Nacho

@Stels - you did say earlier that when you give advice its generally for everyone - can you explain how this post is in the interests of town?

@Stels: I haven't lied yet, and I don't intend to start now. Certainly not to claim to scum for no reason.

With this, you can't claim a PR anymore, if there are any. Just saying.

I had thought this was suspicious, but I don't think that Stels would communicate so blatantly. Of course, that is subject to WIFOM, and I'm not even going to trying to outguess anyone. Although the "just saying" definitely seems like he's trying very hard to make it appear as SE-talk to a newbie.

Why?

I'm going to answer with a question. Why is it necessary to put in the phrase "Just saying"? To me, it seems like a pre-emptive defense against any accusations. Just putting the advice there seems unnecessary (I explained this earlier), so why add yet another unnecessary phrase to that? Lots of "unnecessariness" going on. What is your view on it? Is it necessary (perceived or not) or unnecessary?

PS. I just realized that Neuky had already asked the question about how that advice can be pro-town.

For right now, I think its just newbie-jumpiness and inexperience dealing with reactions to votes. If it was an experienced player, then I would be really suspicious.

In games like this, people are usually recommended to defend themselves and not others, unless the attack is absolutely terrible or scum-motivated. Do you feel Stels's attack was either? If so, why? If not, why did you respond?

I'm confused. This comment was in reaction to asano's vote and subsequent unvote. What attack of Stel's? I'm not aware of any that were related to the vote/unvote. Obviously I think Stels is scum, so the argument would obviously be scum-motivated, but I just don't know what argument you're talking about. It could just be a very reasonable and logical argument from a player who happens to be scum.

Alright, so. Ty's exit-post looks very towny to me. I would imagine (for the most part) that scum would be more inclined to stay in the game as everyone gets to play as scum less often than town. His continued analysis and information-giving is also towny, as scum would definitely want to go out quietly.

These are the types of assumptions that get you burned.

Alright I can accept that. It's definitely a can of WIFOM. But what do you mean by "burned?" Is it scummy or is it just a weak scumhunting try?

What if Naben's super-late confirming was gaining time to talk with his buddy? Naben disappeared afterward, and my last game (yes, more single game meta-ing) had a scum-slot with a total of three players in it.

This theory shouldn't have made it past the RVS. Even if it's true, it's not a big enough point to push a lynch on.

It's just a crazy theory that I thought of. I agree with Workdawg that crazy theories should be published. They might just be right, although this one is definitely completely wrong.

If Stels is town, I would consider that clearing Workdawg. If he is scum, then I would be suspicious of Workdawg.

Why?

Because my main suspicion on Workdawg is Stel's comments. I strongly believe Stels to be scum, and Workdawg is guilty by association. If Stels is actually town, then my suspicions on Workdawg aren't as numerous anymore.

Mute's calming-down-ness has definitely pushed him back towards null tell for me. Townie with some definite tunneling issues. But apparently he can see reason, so I'm happy with that.

Mute backed down immediately after Workdawg did. Does this make him townie for finally backing down, or scum for unvoting at the same time his main aggressor did?

I think that its townie to do that. The argument sputtered out instead of Mute going "Okay, I'm done, unvote!" If it was quick like that, I would have been suspicious. But it seems to me that they agreed to end the wall-war as it wasn't really going anywhere. Plus, that last little spat of arguing doesn't look like scum trying to get a mislynch.

So Nacho - why do you think it would be pro town to have a player, any player at L-1 with the chance of 2 newbies coming into the game, when we still have 5 days before deadline?

It would be a clear, decisive action. I'm not overly worried over accidental hammers on Stels because I think that he's scum. And think of it- the only really interesting discussion that's taken place in this game thus far has resulted from Workdawg's "accidental" hammer, so it's not like having a complete and total newbie waltz in here and hammer would be a complete waste.

Parroting an earlier question (Stels IIRC, rather ironic), I assume that you don't think anything will come up in the last few days until the deadline? I agree that getting the game moving is a good idea, even with 5 days left, but I'm just wondering about the reasoning behind that.

[Neuky]

Why didn't you vote when you realized he wasn't at L-1?

Still not rethinking that Stels vote, I see... Are you scumbuddies with him or something? If so, promising content on him and then ignoring him immediately afterwards is not a good strategy.

I post my first post of the day at: 10:21 pm
Nacho posts at: 10:24 pm

Neuky, you have questions to answer.

So you read and digested my post Nacho, before posting this? No? Why not? Why not address my question to you first and then end your post with that line?

OK, I called it a bullying attitude, (you're obviously going to say its reasonable pressure), regardless of the label, I'll be making my own mind up as to when and where I cast my vote.

Anyway, for the record we are basically on the same track - I happen to believe the Stels/Dawg scum-team theory, it is well documented in my posts, to the point I have tried to purposely look at other players to stop myself tunnelling (hence that post quoting veridis - which led me back to you, stels and dawg..)

Anyway, remember this, and call me up for it if I suddenly vote elsewhere.

P.S. It just occurred to me that, while you were surprisingly calm about Dawgs fail-hammer, it strikes me as odd about this aggression you've shown to me about my refusal to put Stels at L-1, I don't know what to make of that as I'm too tired, and too closely involved in the situation - I'd welcome others' comments though..

[theplague42]

P.S. It just occurred to me that, while you were surprisingly calm about Dawgs fail-hammer, it strikes me as odd about this aggression you've shown to me about my refusal to put Stels at L-1, I don't know what to make of that as I'm too tired, and too closely involved in the situation - I'd welcome others' comments though..

Hmmm that's interesting. I had completely forgotten about Nacho's unusual reaction to Workdawg attempting to hammer. I'm not sure about what it says about the Stels-Nacho-Dawg relationship, but it's an interesting contradiction. Maybe "contradiction" isn't the right word, but I think it makes my point.

Not much else to say really. I will comment that Neuky seems to be doing a good job of honestly defending himself. His admitted reluctance to even put Stels at L-1 is also townie to me.

[Mute]

I can see missing the questions, especially since Mute has already said he only reads parts of the game, but I've referred back to the questions multiple times and they still go unanswered. Even when he replies to the very post the question is in.

If I've missed a question, it's because I wasn't aware there was one.
If I haven't answered a question it's because I'm forgetful. Which have I not answered yet?

[Stels]

First off, sorry, for not posting yesterday =/

For future references to my name: Although I don't really dislike my name being twisted into all shapes and forms, I want to say that the English language is a marvelous language, where you can put apostrophes without putting an 'S' after it, say the plural form of Stels being Stels' and not Stel's. Thank you.

Look at all my posts Nacho - I've already made my case for Stels. I haven't put my vote down because of the player situation.

Ho~ You made a case against me? Really now? Your ISO proves otherwise. All you've been doing now is saying that "Oh, I wanna vote Stels" without doing so. The posts that came from you from my ISO was just the shattering of some of the flaws that I had, not a case though. You haven't found anything scummy, you just go with the go about passively and stay under the radar. You're probably the only town that I can think of here that is under the radar (for me). From what I gather, you haven't been voted a single time in this game (Drench's VC). How about I explore what you really are?
VOTE: Neuky for not sticking to his suspicions and voting his current scum suspect, almost like he's afraid of the result. No actual case from what I can see except for his mistrust in me.
Let me ask you Neuky: How did you feel about me giving advice and encouragement to Workdawg? How do you feel about it now?

P.S. Your question about Nacho's reaction to the 'hammer' by dog which he was cold towards and you going to put me at L-1.
The lynch didn't happen, why worry about it? The fact that if you vote me now, We already know that you'll be putting me at L-1, meaning that if someone hammers, there won't be any escaping from their fates after that point.

[Workdawg]

@Mute

#252 - You never responded to the rest of my counter case, but I'll give you that since you decided to reconsider your thoughts against me instead of keeping up with the case.

I have to ask, what was the idea that caused you to get off my wagon like someone lit it on fire? There was certainly quite a bit of posting going on between your previous post and the one above, but you were 100% convinced that I was scum before, and you haven’t yet said what it was that changed your mind.

Right now, I say that to progress the game, it'd be better to lynch the single most detrimental player, the one who did nothing, and the replacement that was forced to enter and provided little as well. That slot is doing nothing this game, and if it's a scum-slot then more the better reason to add to lynch it.

@Mute

There's still a week left to simply lynch the "most detrimental player" in the game. We can all agree that either asano or veridis has provided little to no content for the thread and either of them would be a legitimate target for a last minute choice, but I don't think either of them are "the most detrimental". Certainly someone we can identify as likely scum would be better, and hopefully a week will be an adequate amount of time to find that person.

You still didn't answer my question about what has occurred that has taken me down from 100% scum to "less scum than a lurker." Certainly I

should

be a better target than either of them, unless something has changed.

Dawg: I grew tired of our back and forths that led nowhere.

@Mute:

So... either you never thought I was scum and was just setting up a case at me for a mislynch, or you still think I'm scum and you want to lynch a lurker for fun?

Neither... or rather, the latter in partial.
I don't rule out a possibility you could be town but I won't drop my suspicion on you yet. I want to lynch a slot whose occupants thus far have done little to advance the town. Call it over-aggressive if you must, I stand by that.

Frankly I want to advance the game to D2 so we can start using more than just speculation based on words to find someone to lynch.

======
So, I guess you did reply to my questions, but is there really an answer in there?
Is it neither or the latter.
Is it lynching a lurker better than lynching scum?

[Mute]

@Mute

-snip-

======
So, I guess you did reply to my questions, but is there really an answer in there?
Is it neither or the latter.
Is it lynching a lurker better than lynching scum?

There was.
It was the latter, which I further explained.
Lurking is not good for town, so one point for lynching lurkers; the lurkers could very well be scum, so another point for lynching the lurkers. There is only speculation towards a person being scum so "lynching scum" is a matter of proper investigation, guesswork, and luck. It's not until a flip is a person confirmed scum, even further "lynching scum" is an open-ended thing to say as anyone can be scum.

[Nachomamma8]

I'm going to answer with a question.

That, my friend, is what we call a copout.
Insert 25 cents and try again, please.

I'm confused. This comment was in reaction to asano's vote and subsequent unvote. What attack of Stel's? I'm not aware of any that were related to the vote/unvote. Obviously I think Stels is scum, so the argument would obviously be scum-motivated, but I just don't know what argument you're talking about. It could just be a very reasonable and logical argument from a player who happens to be scum.

This one.

Alright I can accept that. It's definitely a can of WIFOM. But what do you mean by "burned?" Is it scummy or is it just a weak scumhunting try?

By "burned", I mean you're going to regret making that assumption. In other words, just a weak scumhunting try.

It's just a crazy theory that I thought of. I agree with Workdawg that crazy theories should be published. They might just be right, although this one is definitely completely wrong.

I'd agree with that as well, I'm just reinforcing the fact that it is a crazy theory with no basis in fact.

Parroting an earlier question (Stels IIRC, rather ironic), I assume that you don't think anything will come up in the last few days until the deadline? I agree that getting the game moving is a good idea, even with 5 days left, but I'm just wondering about the reasoning behind that.

Do I think we would benefit from a day that's prolonged just a little? Yes.
Do I think that we should worry about the day ending early? No.

So you read and digested my post Nacho, before posting this? No? Why not? Why not address my question to you first and then end your post with that line?

Nope. I skimmed your post and saw you didn't answer the question that you still haven't answered. That's because I was responding in another topic at that time, saw you posted, and decided to see if you answered my question since I was interested in the answer. Now, my turn. Why does it matter?

Anyway, remember this, and call me up for it if I suddenly vote elsewhere.

Why would you say something like this? It limits your options quite drastically...

P.S. It just occurred to me that, while you were surprisingly calm about Dawgs fail-hammer, it strikes me as odd about this aggression you've shown to me about my refusal to put Stels at L-1, I don't know what to make of that as I'm too tired, and too closely involved in the situation - I'd welcome others' comments though..

Read closer and you'll see heightened aggression in general and not just towards you. But since you want to dance this dance, tell me something: what does it mean? As a scum IC, what's my motive for being calm with Workdawg's attempted hammer and aggressive with you?

[Nachomamma8]

Mute, Workdawg: Opinion of Stels. Also, why are you letting this lynch slide through so easily?

[Workdawg]

@Mute

If it was "the latter in partial", than you are referring the bolded part of my question, correct?

So... either you never thought I was scum and was just setting up a case at me for a mislynch, or

you still think I'm scum and you want to lynch a lurker for fun?

Which part of that is the "partial" that has defined your actions?

When I said lynching scum I meant someone who was 100% scum. So the proper investigation, guesswork and luck are not a factor. And for purposes of the question, it's not an open-ended thing. It's the first lynch in this game, the end is when the 5th vote is cast for one player.

[Workdawg]

Ahh, Nacho ninja'd in on me again! I'll read that in the morning.

[Mute]

@Nacho: I've said my opinions time over on Stels I believe. If not, then I feel suspicious enough of Stels but not enough to put him into L-1.
Also I'm not letting it slide, I want to lynch the right person. Right now I want rid of the one slot that's provided nothing useful/substantial to this game.

@Dawg: all of the bolded minus the "for fun."
also:

When I said lynching scum I meant someone who was 100% scum. So the proper investigation, guesswork and luck are not a factor.

Again, there is no "100% scum" until a flip. The questioning of people, interpreting the answers, and "investigation" are entirely paramount. Guesswork and luck come into play when deciding on a person to lynch, with the hope that due to the events that unfold, they turn out to be scum.
Why are you saying that they are irrelevant? The only people who need not do any investigation are scum as they know who is town from the get-go. You dismissing the investigation process is alarming.

FoS

Belated hello to Sundy, and I hope the walls aren't too much to sift through.

[Drench]

The Eleventh Vote Count - Yeah.

theplague42
Neuky - 1 - Stels
Mute
Workdawg
Sundy
veridis
Stels - 3 - Nachomamma8, Ty, theplague42
Ty - 1 - veridis
Nachomamma8

No Lynch

Not Voting - 4 - Sundy, Neuky, Workdawg, Mute

With nine alive, it's five to lynch!

Day One's deadline expires on the

10th

of February at 11:07am AEDST (GMT+11).

[Workdawg]

@Nacho

I'm not letting anything "slide through." I've been paying attention to the argument going on around Stels, and I'm not impressed by it. You, Ty and TP42 have all voted for him, but haven't provided any good reason to do so as far as I can tell. Neuky is suspicious, but won't put him at L-1, and hasn't provided a good reason either. None of you have actually built a case against him, it just looks like pressure voting to me.

@Mute

Firstly, the original question is: What happened to drop me from 100% scum to lower on your list than a random lurker? Maybe it's me misreading your posts, but I don't see an actual answer to this in any of your posts yet.

To your most recent post: Do you have some sort of magical ability to misinterpret my posts? I thought it was clear that it was a hypothetical situation in which you were 100% certain that a person was scum. If that is the case, THEN you don't need to bother with investigation, etc. I guess you can twist around my post to turn it back into an FOS though.

[Neuky]

I've got a few points to address, so I'll make a start:
@Nacho

My vote would be Stels as well - but that would be a hammer.
Nacho and veridas have been prodded, so I'd rather we wait until we hear from them..

I'm assuming you are querying why this was my stated reason for not fail hammering, which is different to my reasons for note voting at present? The answer is that I was thinking about it and I decided that the etiquette should be for new players coming into a game to give them a chance to catch up, without the danger of them putting their hammer down and not realising it. - If I'm still not addressing what you want to know, please clarify.

Now, the Stels issue. (It's combined with Dawg - there's no avoiding that in my eyes).

Here's a list of things that alerted my scumdar - some are more important than others of course.
1. The coincidence that Stels and Dawg confirmed within 4 minutes of each other.

2. The coincidence that Dawg's first vote was on Stels during RVS - I've seen scum do this before in a few games - maybe Nacho can comment?

3. Dawg in post 26 makes a point of unvoting Stels while only FOS'ing mute. I also thought the way he layed it out looked iffy - "FOS: Mute also UNVOTE: Stels"

4. Post 46 - Stels votes Ty (3rd on wagon) - I don't like his reason. (Nacho voted Ty to pressure him to answer his questions, Stels voted Ty because "provide me with a reason why I'm scum" and "why aren't you voting me?" - weak reasons for such a close vote to a lynch, considering that it seemed clear to me that Ty had said "Why is Stels scum?" early in the game to get conversation going, and wasn't trying to convince us he had some magical scum-tell he had discovered. I also couldn't see the scum motivation for saying this. Remember this is to put him at either L-1 or L-2 depending on if you think he knew about TP42 unvoting.
Then in post 47- 10 minutes later - Workdawg does his terrible fail hammer - with no reason than finding him "pretty suspicious too" and wanting to move the game along. (still makes my stomach queasy that one..)

5. Post 62 - two points. "Sure you don't want to be lynched for looking scummy, but trying to appear to be something you are not, isn't helpful at all. " - still reads to me as a slip. Also, the unvote - again it seems like trying to be too townie for me. "UNVOTE: Ty Just to be safe for the night"

Post 80 was where I declared outright the Stels/Dawg scum-team idea - "yes I'm thinking currently of a Dawg / Stels partnership - and I've just seen Dawg's post 77"

6. Post 148- A neat looking bit of formatting, however I picked major holes in his ISO about me which he later accepted and agreed with me about. (Post 215) It just made me think that scum know who town are and have to make things up in these big ISO posts, maybe hoping folk don't get back to them to correct stuff. I also note Mute had similar issues with Stels regarding what he posted about him - especially the buddying up accusation.

At this point Stel votes for Mute - again the 3rd on the wagon. Now it's no secret that Mute is on Dawg's wagon with me and is invloved in a bit of heated discussion. Stels' reason is " for hypocrisy/nitpicking/buddying/trying too hard to lynch one idividual." My opinion - his scum buddy.

Post 153 was my Stels ISO - my conclusion being that "there is a distinct possiblility of coaching Dawg here, although I know stels would argue that he was just providing SE advice, although I did sense anger/frustration at Mute for continuing to attack Dawg"

7. Post 182 - he unvotes mute - "just in case" - this is picked up on and challenged by TP42 and even Dawg asks about it.

8. Post 254 - "With this, you can't claim a PR anymore, if there are any. Just saying." - Well there's been a lot of arguing over this, but I personally cannot see this as pro-town advice. I said it at the time. I maintain why would anyone say that? If Dawg had later claimed anything other than townie, we would have known he was scum. Why warn him?

Ok - I'm out of time for now..

Now that I've re-visited this, I'm even more reinforced in my view.

finally,

and lets not forget...
Until recently, I was, in Stel's own words, "Neuky: Townish-vibe, weird gut feeling though. Posts at regular intervals. Not too much information, but he does post some content. Generally, I think, the person who is under the radar for the most part." - to scum that he is now voting for. Why? Because of the fact I refuse to vote him until at least sundy gets back to us and we hear what the veridis situation is? That strikes me as quite a big jump in opinion...

[Workdawg]

@Dawg:

The other thing is this - @Dawg, you posted directly after seven posts about Stels warning/advice to you, but you didn't comment on it at all. Care to share your thoughts?

I know you have now shared your thoughts on what Stels said, but I maybe worded it badly, what I actually meant was did you have an explanation for not joining in the discussion at the time?

Sorry, looks like I forgot to answer this one...

I didn't think (and still don't) it was that big of a deal. I chose to let you guys have the chance to dig and Stels defend himself rather than clutter the discussion with simply saying that. Not to say that my commenting would have stopped you, as I certainly hope it wouldn't have, but I don't feel the need to defend other people when I'm not a part of the discussion.

[Sundy]

Sorry guys, only made it to page 5 yesterday but I'll finish up today. This game is absurdly active--well done!! PS are there any girls playing? RQS never got there

[Workdawg]

Not that I know of, but there is a gender tag in your profile that displays under your avatar... are you a girl?

[Ty]

Ho~ You made a case against me? Really now? Your ISO proves otherwise. All you've been doing now is saying that "Oh, I wanna vote Stels" without doing so. The posts that came from you from my ISO was just the shattering of some of the flaws that I had, not a case though. You haven't found anything scummy, you just go with the go about passively and stay under the radar. You're probably the only town that I can think of here that is under the radar (for me). From what I gather, you haven't been voted a single time in this game (Drench's VC). How about I explore what you really are?
VOTE: Neuky for not sticking to his suspicions and voting his current scum suspect, almost like he's afraid of the result. No actual case from what I can see except for his mistrust in me.
Let me ask you Neuky: How did you feel about me giving advice and encouragement to Workdawg? How do you feel about it now?

I don’t agree with this vote, and I’m curious as to what the motivation for a town-Stels would be to do it. We SHOULD make sure Neuky doesn’t fly under the radar as much as he does, but quite frankly I don’t think any of us think he’s currently a candidate for D1 lynching. In fact, you just said that Neuky was “the only town that I can think of here that is under the radar (for me)” right before voting him? So you acknowledge voting for a player that you believe is town in the same post you make the vote.

That’s why I fail to understand the rationale behind your vote. Is to apply pressure to make Neuky vote you? With a deadline a week away the time for pressure voting is being replaced with finding a lynch target. Neuky has mentioned several times he was holding off from voting to let the replacement have a chance to post. As someone who doesn’t throw around votes (as noted by the dissatisfaction to some), I tend to agree with Neuky’s reasoning. I would like to hear Sundy speak first, the Asano and Veridis spots have been quiet for far too long (read: almost the entire game).

@Nacho
I'm not letting anything "slide through." I've been paying attention to the argument going on around Stels, and I'm not impressed by it. You, Ty and TP42 have all voted for him, but haven't provided any good reason to do so as far as I can tell. Neuky is suspicious, but won't put him at L-1, and hasn't provided a good reason either. None of you have actually built a case against him, it just looks like pressure voting to me.

@Mute
Firstly, the original question is: What happened to drop me from 100% scum to lower on your list than a random lurker? Maybe it's me misreading your posts, but I don't see an actual answer to this in any of your posts yet.

To your most recent post: Do you have some sort of magical ability to misinterpret my posts? I thought it was clear that it was a hypothetical situation in which you were 100% certain that a person was scum. If that is the case, THEN you don't need to bother with investigation, etc. I guess you can twist around my post to turn it back into an FOS though.

Seriously what the hell. You say you don’t like the current wagon and instead of trying to find a better lynch YOU GO BACK TO ARGUING WITH MUTE.

Is Mute the scummiest player right now? If not, who is, and why aren’t you voting him?

[Workdawg]

@Ty

I've been reading through the thread and ISOs slowly looking for a better target, but I'm having a hard time picking out anyone worthy of voting for. You said yourself above that the time for pressure voting is over (ironic, since it seems like that's what you did when you voted for Stels), so I'm reserving my vote until I see a good reason for casting it against someone.

Right now you and Mute are still my top two picks. I posted my thoughts on you already and no one commented on them at all. I'm not sure if that's because people think I'm bananas, or if they are just too focused on Stels to bother with it.

Mute has been responding, but I still have questions, so I keep asking them.

[Workdawg]

@Nacho

I'm curious about what reads you are getting from all of the questioning you've been doing. I notice most of your questioning seems to be focused on TP42 and Neuky; are they your top suspects right now?

[Mute]

@Mute

Firstly, the original question is: What happened to drop me from 100% scum to lower on your list than a random lurker?

Maybe it's me misreading your posts

, but I don't see an actual answer to this in any of your posts yet.

To your most recent post: Do you have some sort of magical ability to misinterpret my posts? I thought it was clear that it was a hypothetical situation in which you were 100% certain that a person was scum. If that is the case, THEN you don't need to bother with investigation, etc. I guess you can twist around my post to turn it back into an FOS though.

*sigh*

Okay, first point: You did misread something.. I said why I was dropping my vote, as I was tired of our back and forths that led nowhere and decided it was better to go after a slot that's provided nothing this game.

Second point:
...
Okay what? In a hypothetical situation... huh? It's D1, there is NO 100% scum. There is only speculation towards that end of finding scum.

...I looked through my posts in ISO and I couldn't find anything where I gave any sort of scenario where a person was 100% scum. If you can find in my posts somewhere where I say something like that I'll concede I suck at finding things. The only thing remotely close to that was me adding in my two cents with ISO post #54, along with my initial standpoint, but even that was never a definitive thing.

And yes I will tear your posts apart if I so deem. I made the FoS as you said that investigation's needless. This never applies to town. I am calling you out for even saying that.
A part of me feels like saying "uh that second part seems kinda role-fishing-y," but that part of me is stupid and I don't listen to it. It does make sense but I don't listen to it. The main reason it thinks that between picking it's ears is this line:

I thought it was clear that it was a hypothetical situation

in which you were 100% certain that a person was scum

. If that is the case, THEN you don't need to bother with investigation, etc.

Especially for the text in bold is what makes me think that and that part of me draw that conclusion. If it's not then please clarify/explain and I'll take that part of me out behind the mental shed in my imaginary back yard and put it down. (...boo, bad joke. boo.)

[Workdawg]

@Mute

Yes, you said why you dropped your vote, to progress the game (a week early?), to focus on lynching a lurker instead of me (easier target to get a mislynch on?), "you grew tired of our back and forths that led no where" (curious, your 5-hour-to-write wall post against me and tiny response to my defense led no-where?), and you "decided it was better to go after a slot that's provided nothing this game." (what's the town motivation for doing this instead of lynching scum, I'll get to that at the end...)

It's interesting that once I connect the dots for you, you start refuting my points. In two of my previous posts, I said that you thought I was 100% scum, and you never argued that. (Feel free to refer to the post above where I laid out our argument in ISO... Post #356)

But once I actually narrow in on the point I'm trying to make, you refute it.

Did you ever say "Workdawg is 100% scum"? No.
Did you deny you thought I was 100% scum when I brought it up? No.
Is non-denial an acknowledgement? Also no... but it is something. I could go through your previous posts and point out a couple of times where you seem absolutely convinced I am scum, and not denying it when I bring it up says a lot, I think.

Also, you seem confused on the definition of a hypothetical situation. By very definition, a hypothetical situation is one based on something imaginary rather than fact. In reality, it is D1 and there is no way for anyone to know 100% who scum is (except for the scum themselves, of course). But in my hypothetical situation, it is possible, simply because I said so.

I am confused about your role-fishy-ness proposal. While I'd be happy to have you "take that part of me out behind the mental shed in my imaginary back yard and put it down" (lol, btw), I'm not really sure I follow... does my explanation of hypotheticals make it more clear?

============

I already posed this question before, a bit differently (post 323), and your response was (post 324):
You still think I'm scum, but want to lynch a lurker

for fun

.

A copout answer if I've ever seen one, so now... to be direct:

Can you elaborate on one of these:

A) Why you are unsure I am scum now?
OR
B) What motivation a town player has to lynch a lurker instead of someone whom you are sure is scum?

Now, the above may look like a False Dilema, but I would be more than happy to entertain an option C if you can come up with one. I can't, so I am presenting only those options.

[theplague42]

@Nacho

I'm going to answer with a question.

That, my friend, is what we call a copout.
Insert 25 cents and try again, please.

Basically, the advice is unnecessary. Workdawg knows that town doesn't lie. So Stels shouldn't need to give that advice to him. The "Just saying" is a pre-emptive defense against anyone who might say that Stels was giving advice. If anyone accused Stels of giving advice, then Stels could say "Well, I did say that I was just giving advice!"

@Asano234: 16/23 Posts are all fluff.
No input for 12 pages. Jumps onto the Mute wagon for little reason, except that his reasons for voting was: 1) & 2) [To cause a reaction]. Jumps off the wagon when Mute puts a

FoS

onto Asano. Personally, I don't see the reaction that was made by Mute that made you jump off someone you had no read on whatsoever. Care to elaborate? @Mute:

Stels: recently has caught my attention.

Care to elaborate this from a bit back? With this, I leave for the night.

I'm confused. This comment was in reaction to asano's vote and subsequent unvote. What attack of Stel's? I'm not aware of any that were related to the vote/unvote. Obviously I think Stels is scum, so the argument would obviously be scum-motivated, but I just don't know what argument you're talking about. It could just be a very reasonable and logical argument from a player who happens to be scum.

This one.

I do believe this was scum-motivated. Although it was an honest point against an experienced player, it's a rather weak argument against a newbie. Many newbie players have trouble judging what is suspicious or not, and tend to post fluff. Would you agree with this from your personal experiences? Anyways, I think that it's an attempt to direct attention away from Stels, as is the vote against Neuky.

@Mute

*sigh*

Okay, first point: You did misread something.. I said why I was dropping my vote, as I was tired of our back and forths that led nowhere and decided it was better to go after a slot that's provided nothing this game.

So you're implying that you no longer think Dawg is scum?

Did you ever say "Workdawg is 100% scum"? No.
Did you deny you thought I was 100% scum when I brought it up? No.
Is non-denial an acknowledgement? Also no... but it is something. I could go through your previous posts and point out a couple of times where you seem absolutely convinced I am scum, and not denying it when I bring it up says a lot, I think.

I would argue that there were certain points where Mute did indeed say that you were 100% scum. His post where he said "Workdawg, you are scum" after his 7 or so points were refuted seems pretty definite in him thinking you scum.

I already posed this question before, a bit differently (post 323), and your response was (post 324):
You still think I'm scum, but want to lynch a lurker

for fun

.

A copout answer if I've ever seen one, so now... to be direct:

Can you elaborate on one of these:

A) Why you are unsure I am scum now?
OR
B) What motivation a town player has to lynch a lurker instead of someone whom you are sure is scum?

Now, the above may look like a False Dilema, but I would be more than happy to entertain an option C if you can come up with one. I can't, so I am presenting only those options.

I second this question. And it's really not a False Dilemma IMO. Basically it boils down to: If Mute thinks Workdawg is scum, why does he want to lynch a lurker instead? Mute wanting to lynch a lurker implies that he no longer thinks Dawg is absolutely scum, or even a likely scum. Lynching even a more-than-even scum is probably more useful than lynching a lurker, except if the lurker has seemed irrefutably scummy in his few posts.