Open 291 Frenenemies (+ other guy) - Game over: Wolves win!

[Crazy]

/confirm

[Crazy]

Yay!

Vote: Jerbs

obv-scum for not confirming yet. Who agrees with me?

[Crazy]

K > C

True. I would prefer fake Crazy than real Crazy. Get it?

Unvote

Vote: Crazy

There can be only ONE.

I was Crazy first, srsly.

[Crazy]

Jerbs' OMGUS through an RVS filter is something to note, though.

Why? And what does "something to note" mean? Scummy? Slightly scummy? Neutral, but interesting?

[Crazy]

Now, which comment is more odd - Quaroath's choo-choo comment without him actually being on the wagon or the fact that Glass felt it necessary to point out the obvious? Neither. They're both dismissable.

Saying something's dismissable doesn't do anything except kill a possible discussion point. Why'd you feel the need to point that out?

[Crazy]

RQS answers:

-How screwed is the town?

Not too badly.

-Which are cooler, werewolves or mafia?

Werewolves, definitely.

-How lurkerish are YOU?

Expect me to post a lot in this game.

-Rate the following on a scale of Very Scummy to very Noobish to Totally Pro:

-1. Asking questions about role mechanics (Is this always role fishing?)
-2. Talking about No Lynch
-3. Talking about theory in the first few pages
No Lynching is usually bad for the town but talking about it is a null-tell.

1. Neutral, and it's rarely rolefishing.
2. Neutral, but usually bad for the town.
3. It's scummy if that's all you're talking about.

-Why haven't you voted Crazy yet?

Because he's obv-town and I'm afraid to get on his badside.

[Crazy]

I was getting to you. Krazy's RQS was just easier to answer right away.

It could only kill the discussion if everyone has the same opinion I do... which I highly doubt. I felt the need to point it out because, to me, at that current moment, it's not worth much; NOW, however, it strikes me that Quar still felt the need to elaborate.

This doesn't make sense. Quar's elaboration happened after your earlier post. WHY, at that moment, did you feel the need to mark something as "dismissable?"

[Crazy]

7] He's seemed pretty pro-town to me so far.

I'm immune to buddying attempts, btw. But thank you.

[Crazy]

How is saying that something is "dismissible" supposed to start discussion?

"OMG everyone look at what that guy did!! Now let's dismiss it!"

[Crazy]

How is saying that something is "dismissible" supposed to start discussion?

"OMG everyone look at what that guy did!! Now let's dismiss it!"

The same way it already has.

Unvote
Vote: chkflip

[Crazy]

Glass has a good point. I don't want the fact that I was talking to chkflip in particular cause everyone else to be off the hook.

@park, TBL, and Jerbs - Why did you completely ignore the exchange between me and chkflip and instead just post answers to Krazy's questions?

[Crazy]

I thought that the conversation was over.

I don't understand why that would matter.

[Crazy]

Quaroath, do you think Krazy's random questions were the only notable thing to happen so far in the thread?

[Crazy]

I'm gone for over 24 hours and there are only 5 posts?

Krazy, your last post sucks. Explain yourself, please. Just because you openly admit that you're a hypocrite doesn't make it any better.

I don't agree with the wizrak wagon, but at least park is doing SOMETHING, which is more than most people have done.

Unvote: chkflip

but still IGMEOY

Vote: Quaroath

There was no excuse for him just posting his RQS answers and nothing else, despite there being plenty of stuff on Page 3 to comment on. And the fact that it's been almost 48 hours since then and he still didn't follow up on anything doesn't help his case.

Yes, there are other lurkers, but my focus in on Quaroath right now.

[Crazy]

Okay, Quaroath. I'll keep your schedule in mind; that's totally fine.

My issue with you really wasn't with you not posting; it was more about your choice of what to respond to. Posting answers to Random Questions (and nothing else) at that stage was kind of pointless; there were more interesting things to talk about.

I'm just wondering - if you had limited time and couldn't respond to everything in the thread, why was Krazy's RQS the thing that you chose to comment on?

The reason I'm asking is because posting RQS answers and nothing else made you

look

like you were contributing, but in reality, nothing you gave in that post was substantial at all. It's essentially active lurking.

Though I do thank you for providing us with Post #85.

[Crazy]

@park - Here is the main reason I voted chkflip. I eliminated all unnecessary information from the argument to make for easy reading. If you think I'm trying to chainsaw this, feel free to go back and read the actual posts.

Now, which comment is more odd - Quaroath's choo-choo comment without him actually being on the wagon or the fact that Glass felt it necessary to point out the obvious? Neither. They're both dismissable.

Saying something's dismissable doesn't do anything except kill a possible discussion point. Why'd you feel the need to point that out?

Now, why did I feel the need to mark it as dismissible? Not only to play Devil's advocate for a moment, but to get discussion flowing. I cannot clearly express my utter disdain for RVS.

How is saying that something is "dismissible" supposed to start discussion?

"OMG everyone look at what that guy did!! Now let's dismiss it!"

The same way it already has.

To which I *eyerolled* because it's clear that the discussion came from me pointing out his scumminess. I'm sure that's the kind of discussion he was looking for, lol.

Is there any reason to call something dismissible? No. But that's not why I voted him. I voted chkflip because of the pathetic way he tried to justify his actions. A townie is way more likely to admit that they made a mistake than a scum is. If he had just said "Okay, I see your point," then I probably wouldn't have voted for him. But then he proceeded to argue some ridiculous point that he was starting to start discussion, so I voted him.

As for Quaroath or wizrak, they may have other reasons for voting chkflip; but this was my reasoning.

[Crazy]

Re-stating my case makes me want to put my vote back on chkflip. Quaroath definitely earned an unvote from me with his last post.

UNVOTE: Quaroath
VOTE: chkflip

[Crazy]

Glass, you may need to reread the thing about chkscum and Quaroath. Quaroath wasn't misrepresenting him; he was making fun of chk's nonsensical argument.

Wizrak, whom are you suspicious of?

[Crazy]

It could only kill the discussion if everyone has the same opinion I do... which I highly doubt. I felt the need to point it out because, to me, at that current moment, it's not worth much; NOW, however, it strikes me that Quar still felt the need to elaborate.

I'm taking "it strikes me" to mean that chk found it suspicious, which is silly, because Quar only really "elaborated" because you (Glass) pointed his choo-choo comment out to him.

I also dislike the way chk phrased that. I don't like when people avoid using the words "suspicious" or "scummy" and instead say crap like "noteworthy," "interesting," "odd," or in this case, "it strikes me." It's just really wishy-washy; either he's afraid to say "scummy" or he's just trying to fill up his posts. Bleh.

[Crazy]

Thin-skinned much?

Guys I'm really feeling this wizrak wagon.

I'm curious; why does thin-skinned = scum?

[Crazy]

Okay... but why does wizrak having thin skin make you feel better about the wagon?

[Crazy]

Honestly I was laughing so hard when I realized Aaah had voted for the same person twice without an explanation either time that I didn't deem it worth responding to.

But you

did

respond to aaah! Obviously you just made up this excuse on the spot.

UNVOTE: chkflip
VOTE: Krazy

[Crazy]

Another reason to lynch Krazy:

Thin-skinned much?

Guys I'm really feeling this wizrak wagon.

It's clear from this context that Krazy was intending to use wizrak's "thin skin" as a reason to lynch him. The way Krazy started backpedaling on this when I questioned him about it reeks of Krazy-scum. See posts #111 and #114 where he insists that he

didn't

intend it as a scum-tell.

[Crazy]

@park - Even though I disagree with the wizrak wagon, you get town cred for showing initiative there. Krazy just piggy-backed on your case in a very opportunistic manner. His "I'm really feeling this wizrak wagon" post and his lame backtracking that followed really rubs me the wrong way.

@aaah - That doesn't answer the question of WHY you voted Glass in the first place.

***

The lurkers either need to post or get replaced. Smash's V/LA ended yesterday, so he's due for a post. Chkscum and TBL seem to have totally disappeared, so they probably just need replacements. As for Jerbs, I'm awaiting his promised catch-up post.

[Crazy]

So aaah and wizrak were banned for cheating in another game... now what?

[Crazy]

Extreme disappointment about the wizrak/aaah/park situation.

[Crazy]

First off I think that the crazy-krazy exchange from last night is rather ridiculous on crazy's part. Don't think that needs any more covering.

Tell me that Post #104 does not look like opportunistic scum.
Tell me that his posts that follow that do not look like lame backpedaling.
Tell me HOW you can possibly think that.

[Crazy]

Chk, you definitely have a way with stuffing a lot of words in your posts yet still saying nothing at all. So you're basically denying ever having a stance on anything?

I don't care what you find "interesting" or what "strikes" you. Tell me what you find scummy!

What I find scummy is when someone tries to pass off the notion that calling something "dismissible" was part of an elaborate ploy to start discussion.

[Crazy]

You're welcome to look at Open 289 for a game where I get emotional and advocate a policy lynch in my first post. Unfortunately I haven't flipped yet in that game, but it's hardly new behavior for me

This is very much on par with something I've said as scum before, in an old game that I just looked at the other day.

A townie wants to play well and be helpful to the town. A scum just wants to look like town, even if it's

bad

town. So Krazy pointing out "Hey, look in this game where I also played badly" just seems like an argument scum would use.

[Crazy]

Okay, I should work on some other reads, too.

[Crazy]

I agree about your assessment of wizrak - that was a pretty bad wagon.

As for park, uhh, I just don't quite feel it. Wizrak's actions were kind of scummy according to traditional tells, so even though I disagree with the wagon, I

can

kind of see where it came from. IMO Krazy's attitude towards the wagon was way worse than park's, and I think initiating a case on someone is almost always more pro-town than bandwagoning on that case. Eh, I dunno, I'll probably have to get a read on park's replacement. I'm just not as confident with park being scum as I am with Krazy or chkflip.

[Crazy]

I kind of don't want to make this comment in fear that it might derail the Krazy wagon, but this just "strikes me" as "odd."

Glass, why did you go from defending Krazy from my case in Post #148 right into voting him in Post #150? Is Krazy's one comment of "Why can't it be all of the above?" the only reason you're on this wagon?

[Crazy]

Ooh, and the plot thickens!

FoS Glass

; I'll say why later, but right now I don't want to interfere in this Krazy vs. Glass debate until we get more information out of it.

[Crazy]

Quotewalls ugh. Focusing on the main points FTW!

So Glass, I can't exactly figure out what you think Krazy's post #180

is

. Do you

think

it was a scumslip? Krazy just not reading your post? Or do you buy his current excuse that he was commenting on how your points about him seemed mutually exclusive?

[Crazy]

FoS Glass

You are voting for krazy though...
What's up?

I find both of you suspicious. Especially with 2 scum-teams, it's entirely possible that both you and Krazy are scum.

@Krazy - if you weren't sure whether Glass' original vote on you was a joke or not, why didn't you just ask him about that earlier?

You also seem to have a pretty well thought-out case on Glass, which makes it significantly worse that you didn't bring it up earlier. As a townie, why the heck would you keep your suspicions hidden like that?

[Crazy]

LOL what are you talking about, that's not a good case against Glass. I didn't ask because it was meaningless to ask if it's a joke or not; whether he pursued it later on once the lurkers became more active would make clear whether it was a joke or not and also the intentions behind it.

I actually didn't say it was good; I said it was "well thought-out." Honestly, this feels like just another lame excuse, since there really was no reason NOT to call Glass on it immediately. Just like your other lame excuses that I called you out on earlier:

Like this: "The thin-skinned overreaction of wizrak makes me not want to play with her, so I want to lynch her. Thus I want her to be scum, so I feel better about wanting to lynch her." Does that make sense? It wasn't really a funny joke to begin with, and is just dreadful when I have to break it down. Was it really that hard to follow?

and

Honestly I was laughing so hard when I realized Aaah had voted for the same person twice without an explanation either time that I didn't deem it worth responding to.

I didn't say your earlier post was a scum-slip btw; I was asking Glass what he thought it was.

[Crazy]

Call him out on it? I'm all for my cases being "well thought-out" but that wasn't a case, that was a discussion. You'll notice my vote was not on Glass. That's because I wasn't calling Glass out. I was engaging him to clarify a point of murkiness. It seems that you want to not cast blame on people yourself, but instead characterize other people as casting blame to do your dirty work for you.

Okay, so it wasn't a "case;" I don't care what you call it. It was a point that led to discussion; there was no pro-town reason to delay it. It's pretty dang obvious that you found post #148 from Glass at least

mildly

suspicious, so why did you totally ignore it at that time and wait until Glass attacked YOU in order to bring it out?

I'll explain my FoS on Glass once he answers my question.

[Crazy]

On a total random tangent:

@Jerbs

- If you take any random person in the game, they will have a 40% chance of being scum from your perspective (assuming you're town). What are the odds of Krazy being scum?

[Crazy]

Totally "interesting" fact right here:

In 10 posts, chkflip has posted

1,049

words. In all that wordiness, he has posted exactly

zero

reads on ANYBODY. And this is the guy that was stressing out about starting discussion in the RVS...

So is this "notable" or is this just "dismissible?"

[Crazy]

Don't really feel like answering this question since you totally ignored my last one to you, but whatever:

What question are you referring to?

This one?

You are voting for krazy though...
What's up?

I answered that, in that I was suspicious of both of you, and I didn't see it that if one of you was scum then the other was automatically town.

Or this one?

Why wait until now to bring this point up?

Which I might not have directly answered but I thought I implied that it was because I didn't want to derail the Krazy wagon.

[Crazy]

My FoS on Glass was because of his reaction to Krazy's post #191.

Glass' reason for voting Krazy was pretty weak to begin with, and then in post #191 Krazy basically destroyed that reason entirely. When I saw Krazy make that post, I immediately wondered how Glass would react to it. I expected a townie to at least be

slightly

taken aback by it.

Needless to say, Glass wasn't taken aback at all and instead he just mindlessly started going after Krazy more than he ever had before.

And the fact that Glass is still sticking by THIS argument after all this makes me even more suspicious of him.

I don't even get why krazy would bother to leave a single "What if I am scum?" line, so I would have to opt that he did not reading my post sufficiently

For the rest of you that don't understand my point here, see Krazy's posts #191 or #194. It's blatantly obvious to me that Krazy

did

read Glass' post #148.

So what am I saying, exactly? Glass' reason for voting Krazy was weak to begin with, and yet he still stuck by it even when Krazy totally proved him wrong.

[Crazy]

@Krazy - You either missed or ignored my question:

Okay, so it wasn't a "case;" I don't care what you call it. It was a point that led to discussion; there was no pro-town reason to delay it. It's pretty dang obvious that you found post #148 from Glass at least

mildly

suspicious, so why did you totally ignore it at that time and wait until Glass attacked YOU in order to bring it out?

[Crazy]

Um, okay, fair enough. Honestly, my scum read on you isn't as strong as it used to be. I mean, you're still in my Top 3, but now I'd prefer a chk lynch over anybody.

[Crazy]

@Glass - Krazy's big long explanation for his comment:

The first is that he gets emotionally involved in the game and that influences his decisions (granted, this happens for everyone, but I mean more so than the average joe). The second is that he is open to policy-lynches, he sees wizrak as being a hindrance to town even if he is town. The third is that he was being an opportunistic scum trying to lynch wizrak for being thin-skinned.

It seemed like no matter which option you chose above, you were going to be positioning yourself somehow:

If you opted for possibility one, then I am, if not trolling, then 'emotionally involved.' This is your null-read that leaves open the most possibilities, but can in any situation be used to attack my ethos or credibility should I turn my crosshairs toward you.

If you opted for the second possibility, then you could use that as a "mostly town" read, which you could use to explain a town-read of me to help you "buddy" me.

If you opted for the third possibility, you could begin making a case against me.
It seemed like the most profitable for you at this point in the game probably would have been possibility two, which is why I raised the possibility that it might be more than one: why can't I be both two and three; opportunistically lynching the player that I can say that, even though they might be town, were still being a hindrance? I mostly just didn't like how you were setting up possibility three as a stand-alone possibility. Perhaps you could claim possibility two today, but then after wizrak flips or later down the line, begin a "but maybe I was mistaken... maybe it was possibility three all along!"

Whether you agree with Krazy's logic or not, it's pretty obvious to me that Krazy thought this out ahead of time. since it's

very

verbose and it does fit in with his question in Post #149. To say that "OMG KRAZY DIDN'T READ MY POST SCUM!" after the explanation here doesn't make sense to me. It sounds to me that at some point during the day you *decided* that you were going to vote Krazy and then you had to continue to justify your case rather than look into future developments.

[Crazy]

@chk - I didn't vote you because you called something dismissible; that's just what caught my interest. I voted you because you tried to justify that you calling Quaroath's choo-choo train comment "dismissible" was an elaborate play in order to start discussion. Yeah, well, all you managed to do was make yourself look like scum. If that was your goal, congrats on starting discussion.

Reaction fishing is great - I've probably done it like 17 million times this game. But if you're calling something dismissible, then you're not reaction fishing, or at the very least you're doing it very poorly...

Bad reaction fishing: Quaroath's choo-choo comment is dismissible!
Good reaction fishing: @Crazy - What do you think about Quaroath's choo-choo comment?

I'm interested in hearing your case on Krazy, though.

[Crazy]

(Btw, I empathize with your problems in real life. I hope you don't find my general sarcastic manner inconsiderate; this is just how I play mafia.)

[Crazy]

I don't have time to read chk's and Krazy's cases on each other right now. I'll look later, but I don't think I'd be terribly disappointed with either of them getting lynched.

[Crazy]

After reading the chk's and Krazy's cases on each other (i.e. chk's case and Krazy's defense of it), I feel slightly better about chk since now he's actually posting valuable information, and I feel about the same towards Krazy.

The only thing that bugged me about chk here is that he failed to understand the sarcasm in Krazy's "hammer before replacements can catch up" post. In context, I thought it was pretty obvious. Note: I'm not saying that misunderstanding sarcasm is scummy; I'm saying that I don't entirely buy the notion that he actually misunderstood it. But that's a small point.

[Crazy]

And thanks for putting links in your posts, chk. That helps quite a bit; I should start doing that.

[Crazy]

Aww, disappointment. I seriously thought you were scum.

Holding on to a small margin of hope that you're scum and you're just messing with us right now.

[Crazy]

@Mod

Was the back-up mason determined at the start of the game or will the role just go to a random townie that's still alive whenever one of the masons die? If it's the former, then what would happen if the back-up mason died before he became a mason? Would he be revealed as a "Back-Up Mason" or as a "Townie?"

Also, if both masons died in the same night, would the back-up mason still be notified and get a link to their QT?

[Crazy]

Thinking it over, I want to VOTE: LlamaFluff for trying to take us on a mafia-hunt. I think he's a werewolf trying to force the spotlight on finding mafia rather than finding werewolves or just finding scum in general. Honestly, a werewolf lynch isn't

that

bad, and I'm pretty sure in most cases it will actually be

better

.

Lynching mafia today will put us in a 4-2 endgame tomorrow. Lynching a werewolf today could lead to a bunch of possibilities. Most of them are better than a 4-2 endgame. If we lynch the other mafia today, we destroy the possibility of crosskills on Night 2 AND Night 3.

Also, a mislynch in 4-2 will lead to a werewolf win. A mislynch in 3-1-1 means the game still continues with a Prisoner Dilemma-like problem where the town still has a chance to win.

The only way a werewolf lynch would be

worse

is if both scum-teams ended up killing different masons (which is why I asked that question in my last post). But I don't feel that that's a strong enough possibility to focus all our efforts on specifically lynching Mafia.

[Crazy]

There are 8 people alive right now. A 2-1-1 is impossible. With a werewolf lynch we get 3-1-1, 4-1-1, 4-1-0, or possibly even an instant win. And you can't say "If we lynch town today" as part of your argument - that has nothing to do with anything. What do you mean by "the sure thing," btw? Tclawren isn't confirmed mafia.

Also, if we mislynch in 3-1-1, the game isn't over. If we mislynch in 4-2, it is over.

[Crazy]

I'd rather have a 3-1-1 than a 3-2, since if we accidentally mislynch in a 3-1-1, the game's not over. The "two confirmed townies" thing is silly and not even true. We'd be guaranteed

one

confirmed townie in a 3-2, AS WELL as in a 3-1-1. The logic you're using is akin to this:

Llama: Would you rather have a burger and fries or a hot dog and fries?
Crazy: I'll take a burger.
Llama: But with a hot dog you get fries!

[Crazy]

*sigh* This is going to be the last time I'm going to talk about this crap, since it's totally going nowhere.

Llama, please stop using the number of confirmed townies in your argument! Both mafia and werewolves are equally capable of killing masons! We're just as likely to go into a 3-1-1 with 2 confirmed townies as we are to go into a 3-2 with 2 confirmed townies. Note my burger and fries reference. That's what you're doing.

A mafia lynch will lead us into a 4-2, with a NL after that leading us to 3-2. That is the ONLY thing that can happen.

A werewolf lynch could end up leading into a bunch of possibilities. The absolute worse is a 3-1-1, which is STILL better than a 3-2 due to the chance of a Prisoner's Dilemma scenario. In addition, there are better things that could happen after a werewolf lynch. If one scum team kills the other, we have a 4-1. If both scum teams kill each other, we get an instant win. None of that is possible if we go mafia-hunting today.

At the very worst, a werewolf lynch is approximately equal to a mafia lynch. At the best, it is much much better.

@Other people

- Is Llama a likely werewolf due to his insistence that we go mafia-hunting today?

***

And yeah, I didn't like that avatar very much either, Glass. I changed it back.

[Crazy]

Seeing how you stuck by the idea that a mafia lynch is better makes me think that you do sincerely believe that and that it is not indicative of your alignment. So I'll abandon that for now, and if I suspect you again, it will be for different reasons.

If you end up being a werewolf, I'll probably kill myself, though.

I probably need to examine a few things to figure out which one of you guys I should tunnel next.

[Crazy]

UNVOTE: LlamaFluff
VOTE: Glass

My case is here and a little bit here. Feel free to ignore that epic Krazy quote in my second post - the fact that it is so long and detailed is pretty much my whole point.

[Crazy]

Quick defense from me. I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on this, because the fact that you actually made a case against me gives me a town feeling about you. I think scum would search out one of the numerous easier wagons, or if they genuinely thought I was scum, just NK me.

-I didn't address your vote for me originally because I was waiting for your case. I assumed you were going to explain yourself later. If you hadn't, I would have voted you after a certain point.

-If I ignore certain posts, it's because I don't care about them at that time, and I don't want my posts cluttered with useless information that will go nowhere. If there's something specific you want me to address, point it out to me.

-If you think I'm leading the town, that's your perception, but I don't see how that has anything to do with my alignment.

-I wasn't really "werewolf hunting" so much as objecting to Llama's "mafia hunting." I really have no idea how "werewolf hunting" would be much different from general scum-hunting, anyway, since no werewolves have flipped yet.

-I wasn't attempting to "hide behind numbers." If you noticed in one of my recent posts, I even addressed that the debate between Llama and me was going nowhere. I asked other people to comment just to gain some possible insight, but then I ended it. My overall opinion of the thing now is that Llama is slightly more pro-town for it. I still disagree with him, but I have a hunch that scum would have backed down more in that situation in fear of looking horribly scummy, and Llama didn't back down. My main goal in that argument wasn't merely to debate theory, but to better deduce Llama's alignment. As for the lynch today, I'm satisfied if we lynch

either

type of scum.

[Crazy]

Meh... he's not really "searching those out" though; his priority was on me.

***

@chk - Why did you assume that Llama was a mafia instead of a werewolf? And why didn't you comment at all on the Glass wagon? Put that together with your interactions with Glass on Day 1 and something definitely seems "odd" here.

(Sorry, couldn't resist. )

[Crazy]

Glass, what is your opinion of chkflip? Do you think he will chkfliptown or will he chkflipscum?

Another terrible pun that I had to use, I'm sorry. It's way past my bedtime.

[Crazy]

Crazy- If we were to acually mafia hunt, who would be your no. 1 suspect.

I dunno. I pretty much have town reads on singer, Llama, and Furculow. I have scum reads on Glass and chkflip. That leaves you and smash. Both of you sorta seem "town-ish" but there's nothing specific that I can say makes me think "Wow, that guy is totally town."

Glass is my top suspect, and he could be either type of scum, easily. My hunch is that he's a werewolf with chkflip, but I don't feel strongly about that; I just feel strongly that he's scum in general, and since I think lynching a werewolf is slightly better than lynching a mafia, that's all I can really go on at this point.

[Crazy]

Wizrak's reaction-fishing on Day 1 was a town tell to me. Singer lecturing Krazy after the lynch helped strengthen my read. That just

really

didn't seem like something scum would do, especially since Llama basically told everyone not to post, anyway.

The more I think about my recent argument with Llama, the more I think he's likely town. Even if he was scum and

didn't

agree with me, I still think he'd probably be like "Woah, all this arguing in favor of mafia-hunting might make me look bad; perhaps I should tone it down a little."

[Crazy]

I'm bored. Can we lynch Glass now? If not, why not?

[Crazy]

For me, it's because of Glass' abrupt jump on the Krazy wagon using poor reasoning (top of page 7). Then when Krazy refuted that reasoning, Glass didn't budge.

I'll admit that Krazy

was

scummy, after all, I was pretty much the one that started the wagon, but Glass' reasoning seemed like it was just any excuse to get on the wagon, and then he couldn't really back it up.

You can check my ISO if you want more detail.

[Crazy]

Yes, he did, Glass. Your argument against Krazy was that he didn't read your post. His later posts

about

your post were so long and detailed that it was obvious that he

did

read your post. But don't bother arguing with me about it, my vote's staying where it is. You'll have to convince these other guys.

Only question for me is if you're mafia or werewolf, and if you're a werewolf, who your partner is. Chk/Toast is my best guess atm.

[Crazy]

Only question for me is if you're mafia or werewolf, and if you're a werewolf, who your partner is. Chk/Toast is my best guess atm.

Because I think llama is obvwolf and would rather have him lynched than glass? okay...

My feeling is based on Glass' flip-flopping towards the chk wagon Day 1 more than anything. Goes straight from weak distancing into chainsaw defense by attacking Quaroath. Eh, maybe I'm wrong.

The one thing that's tripping me up about a Glass/chk team is that I can't figure out why they'd kill DRK instead of me.

And then there's that annoying voice in the back of my head saying "Hey, Llama would kill DRK," ugh.

Anyway, if Glass isn't a werewolf, I'm pretty sure he's mafia. But if he DOES flip Werewolf, then that probably means Llama isn't a werewolf, too.

[Crazy]

Is Llama a likely werewolf due to his insistence that we go mafia-hunting today?

I don't think it makes him any more likely to be a werewolf than mafia personally.

Llama has voted me and let his other reads rot for no explained reason. Clearly only a wolf would be looking for a single scum when the rest of us (minus mafia) should be looking for 3 scum. This alone should be getting him lynched.

Yeah...

(I do agree that Llama's restatement of my case could have been better, though. I'd like to hear his defense on that.)

[Crazy]

Eh, at least I got 1 right.

My case on you was just based on the differences between scum and town mentality, Glass. Every once in a while, townies have a tendency to consider whether what they're saying makes any sense at all. Perhaps you still would have pursued the case on Krazy even if you were town, but maybe not in the same exact way.

Or you can argue that mafia is all luck and I just got lucky in guessing you as scum.

I'm also glad you're a werewolf over a mafia.

[Crazy]

Both of you rotten mason-killing scum need to DIE!!!

BAH.

[Crazy]

Lol, I wasn't expecting that. A Llama/Glass pairing just seemed so absurd to me, plus with the Furc kill, I was totally convinced that tclaw was the scum. I was actually thinking along the lines of "How has smash not killed tclaw yet?"

So, I guess I was right on some things and wrong on other things. *shrug*

[Crazy]

Mason QT:

http://www.quicktopic.com/45/H/NAHxmnTsnHZW