Mini 1190: Game over

[TBuG]

I thought vollkan was obvtown.

[xvart]

I'll have a post tonight but I wanted to go ahead and ask panzer to provide us with the quotes where he shares his opinion of SleepyKrew's suspicious behavior. I only ask because I don't want him to accuse me of making a "complete and utter crap" case on him so maybe if he can provide me with the evidence himself I might not have a chance to spin it out of control. Oh, just in case, connection posts (i.e. Sleepy and xvart are scum together) don't count unless there is original content specifically discussing SleepyKrew's behavior on it's own merits.

Thanks.

re: vollkan - I didn't really have an opinion on vollkan either way up until he posted quotes and links to another on going game. I thought he was threading the discussion about on going games rule a little too closely and thought he should've been modkilled. I think a behavior like that, especially coming from someone of vollkan's experience, would be reckless coming from scum since a modkill hurts scum teams significantly more than town.

[Sunday]

@Sunday

: You seemed quite certain that SleepyKrew was town. How has his flip as scum changed your thoughts? Is that why you seem to no longer suspect me?

I seemed quite certain that SleepyKrew was town based on the three pages or so that I had enough time to comprehend. I believe I stated that somewhere before. I no longer suspect you because I managed to complete rereading (for the most part) during the night phase. Hence hiplop being my vig target.

[Sunday]

I like Panzer's case on xvart a lot.

VOTE: xvart

[xvart]

He then doesn't realize that Sleepy is l-2 and can't hop on, so settles for trying to force a claim.

Most townies know how many votes their number two suspects have

, and it just seems like he's trying to earn townie points by showing interest in waning moments of Sleepy's life.

This is a terrible argument and an even terrible scumtell. I'll ask the rest of the players if they know how many votes their number two suspect has at all times. Plus, a couple people talking about him being a L-1 on the previous page. Plus, what do you think about my immediate vote five minutes later once the lynch threshold was clarified?

Two more sleepy mentions here(1 more left). Insist that he read the cases on SleepyKrew and reread the entire game but isn't specfic(which clearly avoid the question I asked of him) about what changed his mind. Just says, I read the game and the cases, I'm convinced and essentialy admits that he's just coattailing other cases but doesn't say what specifically.

Yes. As I've said I was hard core tunneled for most of the day. Once I started questioning my read I went with my next biggest scum read (you) and starting going in that direction. I was hardly paying any attention to anyone else so when I said I went back and reread that's exactly what I had done. You asked me what I read and I said the cases, the entire game, etc. Had I come back and said "I think SleepyKrew is scum because of X, Y, and Z which has already been said" you would now be saying "oooohhh so scummy sheeping all the other cases." So damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Just questions the claim but not in the same aggresive manner he'd been playing. It's kinda passive and regrettful like he knows that Sleepy is gonna get lynched for the bad claim.

You are over simplifying the game progression as my aggressive manner was distributed over several day and hundreds of posts. I don't always play that aggressively but when I absolutely convinced I have found scum I go after them fighting tooth and nail, advocating for their lynch and lobbying for votes. Compared to SleepyKrew I came in at the end when the case had already been built so my tenacity wasn't necessary.

This on top of the fact that both his cases on me and Hoppster are complete and utter crap filled with fail logic and misinterpretations, I'm positive he's Sleepy's buddy.

This is what is especially ironic because you agreed with over half my observations on Hoppster were indicative of scum behavior, so you can't really honestly say that my case was

now

"complete and utter crap filled with fail logic." Can you explain this contradiction?

So it seems the only legitimate part of your case on me is that I didn't say anything about SleepyKrew all day until the end; but I must remind you that those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. So I'll let you quote your observations about SleepyKrew's behavior and where you stated how that behavior is indicative of scum. Just as a preview to everyone else I found one, which is a pretty weak meta argument but I'll delve into that more once Panzer gives us a point by point display of his commentary on SleepyKrew.

---

And going back to some unfinished business from yesterday:

So... No response to my comparison between basing scum reads off of unflipped town reads and basing scum reads off of unflipped scum reads?

I didn't think it needed one because it was complete and utter crap, and I'm just planning on igoring your ridiculous and garbage case, on the grounds of it being ridiculous and garbage obviously.

Again, calling something "ridiculous and garbage" doesn't make it so. I've asked you twice to explain why it is "ridiculous and garbage". I've pretty clearly laid out my thinking and asked why you believe this to be "ridiculous and garbage" and asked you if my logic was flawed. So I'll ask again, what is "ridiculous and garbage" about this line of thinking:

1) Now I understand why hoppster was frustrated with you. You realize that question was in response to you calling me Hoppster's buddy, right? Wouldn't that count as "projecting on flips that hadn't occurred setting up a lynch(in the future)"? I think it most certainly does, and you are far more guilty of it then I am, considering your entire case on me is based on Hoppster being scum(not confirmed) and crap logic. I was simply asking you based on you calling me Hoppsters buddy, if he flipped town, if you would see me as a town defending/in agreement with another townie. This clearly isn't the case since you have composed this whole case casting a fairly large net of suspicion.

The difference between the two (me calling scum based on a scum lynch versus you calling someone scum based on a town flip) is that yours has the worst possible result: two dead townies. Mine has, at worst, the death of one townie. Calling someone scum based on a town flip is exponentially more scummy for that very reason and the fact that it has more inside information than mine (unless I am scum with both of the two I proposed as being scum together).

In the suggestion of two people being scum together (one explicitly because the other flips scum) the best case scenario is we get two dead scum. In the worst case scenario we get one dead townie. In your scenario the best case scenario will yield you one dead townie and one scum while the worst case scenario yields two dead townies. In the event that Hoppster did flip town what would we have lost? One town member and the secondary case I had on you. That's why I wasn't big on pushing you in addition to Hoppster since the only read I had on you at the time was in relationship to him, so I was content to just throw the occasional thing out to you to see how you would respond.

This is pretty important, and if anything, a clear explanation might only strengthen your case on me. But I guess that is the fundamental difference between you and me: I actually advocate for getting others to lynch who I think is scum while you sit back and mud sling and don't try and build a case when an opportunity (apparently) arises.

VOTE: Panzerjager

[Twistedspoon]

Votecount2.2

Did you know: A 40000 novel contains only 2 sentences with the second sentence being only 5 words? The Novel is the Gates of Paradise by Jerzy Andrejewski

Captain corporal(1) - TheFool
TheFool(1) - Empking
Xvart(3) - Panzer, PBuG, Sunday
Panzerjager(1) - Xvart

Not Voting (4) - Thomith, Sundy, Hoppster, Captain Corporal

With 10 Alive it takes 6 to lynch, 5 to no lynch.
The deadline is 13th July GMT 08:00

[/size]

[PJ.]

This on top of the fact that both his cases on me and Hoppster are complete and utter crap filled with fail logic and misinterpretations, I'm positive he's Sleepy's buddy.

If you thought the Hoppster case was complete crap, why did you seem so confused as to which one of them was scum?

Because to be quite honest, I didn't fully read the cases until they pertained to me. I'm allergic to walls of post you see.

[PJ.]

He then doesn't realize that Sleepy is l-2 and can't hop on, so settles for trying to force a claim.

Most townies know how many votes their number two suspects have

, and it just seems like he's trying to earn townie points by showing interest in waning moments of Sleepy's life.

1

This is a terrible argument and an even terrible scumtell. I'll ask the rest of the players if they know how many votes their number two suspect has at all times. Plus, a couple people talking about him being a L-1 on the previous page. Plus, what do you think about my immediate vote five minutes later once the lynch threshold was clarified?

Two more sleepy mentions here(1 more left). Insist that he read the cases on SleepyKrew and reread the entire game but isn't specfic(which clearly avoid the question I asked of him) about what changed his mind. Just says, I read the game and the cases, I'm convinced and essentialy admits that he's just coattailing other cases but doesn't say what specifically.

2

Yes. As I've said I was hard core tunneled for most of the day. Once I started questioning my read I went with my next biggest scum read (you) and starting going in that direction. I was hardly paying any attention to anyone else so when I said I went back and reread that's exactly what I had done. You asked me what I read and I said the cases, the entire game, etc. Had I come back and said "I think SleepyKrew is scum because of X, Y, and Z which has already been said" you would now be saying "oooohhh so scummy sheeping all the other cases." So damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Just questions the claim but not in the same aggresive manner he'd been playing. It's kinda passive and regrettful like he knows that Sleepy is gonna get lynched for the bad claim.

3]/b]You are over simplifying the game progression as my aggressive manner was distributed over several day and hundreds of posts. I don't always play that aggressively but when I absolutely convinced I have found scum I go after them fighting tooth and nail, advocating for their lynch and lobbying for votes. Compared to SleepyKrew I came in at the end when the case had already been built so my tenacity wasn't necessary.

This on top of the fact that both his cases on me and Hoppster are complete and utter crap filled with fail logic and misinterpretations, I'm positive he's Sleepy's buddy.

4

This is what is especially ironic because you agreed with over half my observations on Hoppster were indicative of scum behavior, so you can't really honestly say that my case was

now

"complete and utter crap filled with fail logic." Can you explain this contradiction?

5

So it seems the only legitimate part of your case on me is that I didn't say anything about SleepyKrew all day until the end; but I must remind you that those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. So I'll let you quote your observations about SleepyKrew's behavior and where you stated how that behavior is indicative of scum. Just as a preview to everyone else I found one, which is a pretty weak meta argument but I'll delve into that more once Panzer gives us a point by point display of his commentary on SleepyKrew.

1: Kinda strawman, and I know exactly how many votes my 2nd choice had the entirity of D-1 and D-2. My D-2 choice(emp cause I still don't like the claim) has 0 votes.

2. Saying you were tunneled is not an excuse. Tunneling is indicative of scum.

3. Not really, you were moderately aggresive from the start and this is a pretty crap response.

4. Answered that to PBuG. I didn't fully read your case and was kinda bullshiting the agreement just to point out what i disagreed with from my skims

5. The burden of proof is on the accuser, I'm not doing work for you. Also I would like the other townies to note that Xvart didn't actually defend himself against the case at all.

[PJ.]

[quote="xvart]

---

And going back to some unfinished business from yesterday:

So... No response to my comparison between basing scum reads off of unflipped town reads and basing scum reads off of unflipped scum reads?

I didn't think it needed one because it was complete and utter crap, and I'm just planning on igoring your ridiculous and garbage case, on the grounds of it being ridiculous and garbage obviously.

Again, calling something "ridiculous and garbage" doesn't make it so. I've asked you twice to explain why it is "ridiculous and garbage". I've pretty clearly laid out my thinking and asked why you believe this to be "ridiculous and garbage" and asked you if my logic was flawed. So I'll ask again, what is "ridiculous and garbage" about this line of thinking:

1) Now I understand why hoppster was frustrated with you. You realize that question was in response to you calling me Hoppster's buddy, right? Wouldn't that count as "projecting on flips that hadn't occurred setting up a lynch(in the future)"? I think it most certainly does, and you are far more guilty of it then I am, considering your entire case on me is based on Hoppster being scum(not confirmed) and crap logic. I was simply asking you based on you calling me Hoppsters buddy, if he flipped town, if you would see me as a town defending/in agreement with another townie. This clearly isn't the case since you have composed this whole case casting a fairly large net of suspicion.

The difference between the two (me calling scum based on a scum lynch versus you calling someone scum based on a town flip) is that yours has the worst possible result: two dead townies. Mine has, at worst, the death of one townie. Calling someone scum based on a town flip is exponentially more scummy for that very reason and the fact that it has more inside information than mine (unless I am scum with both of the two I proposed as being scum together).

In the suggestion of two people being scum together (one explicitly because the other flips scum) the best case scenario is we get two dead scum. In the worst case scenario we get one dead townie. In your scenario the best case scenario will yield you one dead townie and one scum while the worst case scenario yields two dead townies. In the event that Hoppster did flip town what would we have lost? One town member and the secondary case I had on you. That's why I wasn't big on pushing you in addition to Hoppster since the only read I had on you at the time was in relationship to him, so I was content to just throw the occasional thing out to you to see how you would respond.

This is pretty important, and if anything, a clear explanation might only strengthen your case on me. But I guess that is the fundamental difference between you and me: I actually advocate for getting others to lynch who I think is scum while you sit back and mud sling and don't try and build a case when an opportunity (apparently) arises.

VOTE: Panzerjager[/quote]

I have built a case, also who's mudslinging now? This is the second time you accused me of doing something you have done yourself in this game. And for the record I'm sticking to my guns, I'm not gonna go on about how your logic is crap because it's obvious to most of the town and it would take far to much time.

[TBuG]

If you thought the Hoppster case was complete crap, why did you seem so confused as to which one of them was scum?

Because to be quite honest, I didn't fully read the cases until they pertained to me. I'm allergic to walls of post you see.

So you voted xvart based on something you didn't fully read and then unvoted him shortly afterwards based on something else you didn't read? ...laziness is actually a towntell, all things considered.

At least one of xvart/Panzer are scum. This is glaringly obvious to me. There's a possibility that it's both, but my money is on xvart for sure. xvart's interactions with SK are incredibly telling.

xvart is using a chainsaw defense. He's trying to compensate for the holes in his defense of himself by simultaneously attacking Panzer. He hasn't

really

addressed the points against him. Part of his defense is actually a scumtell - tunneling.

The most likely third is Captain Corporal. CC has been active lurking the everloving shit out of this entire game. There's been some questionable at best exchanges with SK. Oh, and this gem, when CC shared his reads on page 11:

Xvart: I like what I've seen so far. Your walls are understandable and ask some good questions. Of which I will answer.

[[blah blah blah incredibly pointless questions]]

Sorry, guise, the other reads will have to wait. I really don't feel up to posting much more. I will spend more time tomorrow outliming and going in-depth on my scumreads.

So, CC had enough time to form a town read on someone who had posted

twice

since replacing in and answer their questions, but not enough time to give the rest of his reads - including

scumreads that he never gave?

In fact, here was his next post.

I totally feel like hammering.
I'm kind of cautious about this vig-claim of Toro's. Couldn't he be a SK or something? Or just simply lying. Although I'm happy to let him live through the night, as long as we lynch him tomorrow.
Is Elfen being replaced or something? I have no idea what happened there... Although, I admit he sounds scummy, mainly throughout the last page, I would like to see what his replacement or Elfen has to say about it.
Nothing has really changed other than these town points.

This is such a disgustingly scummy post. Especially because I'm viewing Sunday as near-confirmed town due to a combination of Toro/SK interactions and rereading his posts with dramatically less bias.

[TheFool]

Fine, we let Toto live.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: jake
I'll just put that there while I read up on Hop.

Looks like an easy jump on a lurker when the old wagon didn't work to me.

[TheFool]

Not really feeling the xvart wagon; I've seen town tunnel like mad too often to think it's a scumtell, and it does help explain his D1 actions. His threat to hammer was out of nowhere, but Sundy's and Panzer's votes were pretty unprecedented too. It was really just a fast wagon.

For now, my money's on CC/Panzer.

[Empking]

Fine, we let Toto live.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: jake
I'll just put that there while I read up on Hop.

Looks like an easy jump on a lurker when the old wagon didn't work to me.

Looks like a vote designed to be jumped off of to me.

[xvart]

2. Saying you were tunneled is not an excuse. Tunneling is indicative of scum.

The difference between town tunneling and scum tunneling is intent. Look at the motivation and execution of my tunneling. Was I actively trying to get someone lynched whom I had expressed as scummy? What is the scum motivation for tunneling so hard and drawing so much attention to myself? When was the last time you saw tunneling of that tenacity? I'll tell you when the last time I saw it: this game, vs. quadz08.

3. Not really, you were moderately aggresive from the start and this is a pretty crap response.

Okay. Next time I'll make sure to stall out the wagon long enough for me to get a weeks worth of posting in ramping up in intensity when I'm playing like this.

4. Answered that to PBuG. I didn't fully read your case and was kinda bullshiting the agreement just to point out what i disagreed with from my skims

You didn't read it, yet you didn't read it in such a way that made you vote one of the people involved based solely on one side of the discussion that you didn't read? Plus, when asked to explain you couldn't ever provide a real answer. Scummy vote hopping and scummy justification at it's finest.

5. The burden of proof is on the accuser, I'm not doing work for you. Also I would like the other townies to note that Xvart didn't actually defend himself against the case at all.

I gave you the chance to get out ahead of this one (mainly for the reason I enjoy watching scum squirm). Here are the times you mentioned SleepyKrew and indicated that you might believe he is suspicious:

1. Post 103
   - says that SleepyKrew and Empking might be gambiting scum, yet Panzer votes Empking, the less ridiculous claim. He doesn't vote the miller mason recruiter?
   
2. Post 580
   - Votes SleepyKrew under the guise of a one game meta sample.

That's it. Like I said, those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. But delving into the sole reason he expressed for voting Sleepy:

I also just recent finished a game with him, He seemed to tunnel a lot harder. He essentially stayed on target the whole game. I didn't notice this but now that everyone is pointing it out, I want back and checked. I'd be willing to see if this is a meta trait.

Vote:SleepyKrew

The sole reason Panzerjager voted SleepyKrew (since he had said nothing else up until this point throughout the entire game) is because of a one game meta sample (plus the added benefit of knowing if it was a meta trait later on). His thoughts on meta:

@Hiplop: One game is not a meta.

A) i know, i had to search all your posts,
b) one was a mini-normal, not sure on the name/number, but it was near the end of your search history.

You can't meta someone from 2 years ago, people change

You can't meta someone from 2 games, Sample size.

You can't meta someone from a game that they made 10 posts in, sample size.

Meta in general is garbage.

FoS:Hiplop

He's is drawing conclusions mainly from garbage meta, and I happen to know that Hiplop, myself, and Sleepy were all in a game together that just ended and have the sneaking suspicion that because his "meta" is solely based of that game

, seeing as he doesn't have meta's on anyone else and normally Meta players will meta read everyone. I find drawing suspicions from irrelevent things scum because he trying to push the lynch of a townie based on fallacious statements and generally stir the pot.

So in post 449 Panzerjager votes solely because of meta in one game when he has made it painfully obvious how worthless meta is in case building. When questioned about it he says he wanted to see if it was in fact a meta trait.

1. Why does he care if it is a meta trait if he thinks meta is worthless;
   
2. The reason behind the vote is the meta argument (which he finds worthless) and not the intent to find out a meta trait.

If that isn't a not so subtle way to get on a wagon I don't know what is. His reasons for voting are inconsistent with what he has been telling us, which is very indicative of scum.

[xvart]

...laziness is actually a towntell, all things considered.

So, with this thought in mind, where do you fall on the "not knowing your second suspect's vote count" is a scum tell? Or do you think it is ridiculous and the other points against me stand on their own right?

[TBuG]

...laziness is actually a towntell, all things considered.

So, with this thought in mind, where do you fall on the "not knowing your second suspect's vote count" is a scum tell? Or do you think it is ridiculous and the other points against me stand on their own right?

I don't see what my quote has to do with your question, however I think that's a nulltell. I'm not voting you because of Panzer's points, though. I'm voting you for spending an incredibly significant portion of yesterday twisting Hoppster's words every which way and claiming he said and did things that he did not do only to suddenly jump on SleepyKrew who had been sheeping you all day. That reeks loudly of a bus. The connection with SK is there for you, but I don't see it with Panzer. That's the key reason why I think it's you.

[xvart]

I'll have several posts coming but I'll break them up and make them as concise as possible.

First, I just want to point out an example of Panzerjager's opinion changing over time that correlates with the momentum of the game, which is a scum motivated behavior (the red highlights are the important bits and bullet points follow at the end). In this example, his opinion of me throughout the game:

Also, REALLY liking xvart right now.

Whoa,

unvote,Vote:xvart

didn't even notice all that

I wanna see Toro vig Jakesh tonight.

Did I miss something? What did you notice Panzer?

Everything in Hoppster's post

Given the re-explanation I'm not so sure.

Just Hopps response seem really good, and I figured you were scum pushing his lynch

Unvote

for now.

Suspects:
One of Xvart or Hoppster:

The way they've interacted, I'd be willing to say one of them are certainly scum, not tame enough for distancing.

Right now I leaning toward Hoppster being scummier

because he has been kinda flimsy, and

Xvart has been much more assertative like he has nothing to hide.

@xvart: I didn't notice that most your case is based on things that hoppster has already covered(wall of relevent post), but

you do make legitimate points

(he's flimsy and seems to be content trying to work from a distance). They way you guys have been going at each other does seem like one is scum. I feel CC has much more damning stuff against him then either of you do.

One of the two(Xvart and Hoppster) are most likely scum because of the way they've gone after each other.

I'm not compelled by Xvart's arguement.

I'm sure one of the one hiplop's in the game(only one person in the game named hiplop, 1 of 1)is scum. It was a clever way to word, "I think hiplop is scum, far more than hopp.

I would be willing to bet that if sleepy flips that

Xvart is his buddy.

FoS:Xvart

For, blatantly wagoning Sleepy without reason, spouting some serious fail logic against both me and Hoppster, and generally seemimg like scum trying to make big deals out of nothing.

And I will repeat my statement, Seems like

xvart is bussing Sleepy.

Bullet Points:

1. The first time expresses suspicion at me is right after hoppster's repost of all of hoppsters quotes.
   
2. When questioned about his vote and his reasoning he responds with the non descript "everything in hoppsters post;"
   
3. When questioned
   again
   he said he thought I was scum pushing his lynch (nothing relative to the content of hoppsters post as he claimed);
   
4. Then, he says one of hoppster or I are scum, but he is leaning towards hoppster as being scum;
   
5. Referencing the hoppster/xvart argument, Panzer says I make legitimate points in the whole hoppster discussion;
   
6. Then he's not compelled by my arguments, even though he has agreed that many of the points I made are indicative of scum alignment (which coincides to when I started pushing on him independent of hoppster);
   
7. Finally, I'm scum buddies with SleepyKrew.

I trust I don't even need to point out the obvious contradiction between him saying I make legitimate points and then not being compelled by my arguments and how his view on me waxes and wanes based on how scummy I explain him to be.

How Panzer's behavior moves with the momentum of the game:

1. When I first started my big push on hoppster he votes me for being scum;
   
2. When called out for having a weak vote that he can't legitimately explain he backs off of me;
   
3. When I ramp up the pressure on hoppster and start getting some movement in the hoppster direction he agrees with my case (to a significant degree) and thinks I am less likely to be scum;
   
4. When I start pressuring him and calling him scum independent of hoppster he disagrees with my cases that he previously agreed with and thinks I'm scummy because of that.

Stay tuned for contradictions by Panzerjager!!

[Thomith]

I like Panzer's case on xvart a lot.

VOTE: xvart

liking is different than agreeing. i can like a case on someone but not necisseraly agree with it.

the vote seems like sheeping, do YOU have any scumtells on xvart yourself?

[Empking]

Sunday; How many people are you?

[xvart]

I don't see what my quote has to do with your question, however I think that's a nulltell. I'm not voting you because of Panzer's points, though. I'm voting you for spending an incredibly significant portion of yesterday twisting Hoppster's words every which way and claiming he said and did things that he did not do only to suddenly jump on SleepyKrew who had been sheeping you all day. That reeks loudly of a bus. The connection with SK is there for you, but I don't see it with Panzer. That's the key reason why I think it's you.

I asked for opinions on the tell he was pushing and nobody responded. Since you mentioned me allegedly attacking Panzer instead of responding to his points (the tell being one of the examples I assume) I wanted to ask you what you thought specifically of that. Because it looks to me like he is padding his "case" to make it appear more original and well thought out.

[TBuG]

I think that's a nulltell

I meant this both ways because I agree that it's a semi-viable tell but given that people had in fact just mentioned him being at L-1 the mistake is understandable. I was going to elaborate earlier but I was tired and forgot, my bad.

[Sundy]

vote: Captain Corporal

I am keeping an eye on the Xvart case as it develops. I found the earlier analysis of his interaction with SK persuasive, but a lot of the rest of the post feels like throwing things to the wall to see if they stick. And even though I have lessened suspicions of Panzer, I like the way in which Xvart defends himself against Panzer´s argument. Thus: conflicted.

CC on the other hand seems rather unambiguously scum. Until he has a really good solid read on players (at least enough to lay a vote down), he looks like scum who let the pot go too long without stirring it, and now is afraid to touch anything without it blowing up in his face.

[Thomith]

I like Panzer's case on xvart a lot.

VOTE: xvart

liking is different than agreeing. i can like a case on someone but not necisseraly agree with it.

the vote seems like sheeping, do YOU have any scumtells on xvart yourself?

Sunday i don't know if you missed this or are ignoring it but please answer the question here.

[Captain Corporal]

Alright.

Holidays just started, loads of time for MS.

If I don't have a set of reads up (with evidence) in 24 hours, lynch me.
Well.
I'd rather you didn't, but I'll have those reads. Going to sleep soon.

[TBuG]

If I don't have a set of reads up (with evidence) in 24 hours, lynch me.

Sounds good to me.