Egruntz wrote:
Knew Xyl was scum >.>.
Good for you! I agree with hasdfas that this looks like trying to score points.
Skruffs wrote:
It all depends on the mod. Some mods only have Guilty results - a "No result" can mean that the player is innocent, or that the investigation failed.
Of course, BooKitty could also be a Neutral player, like a survivor, or whatnot, and sometimes those dont' show up.
I think the most likely explanation would be RB. If "No Result" is what happens for neutral players, then that is a possibility, but RB is more common.
PBPA of egruntz
0: Pushes NL. He seems to think that the random votes are intended to push a random lynch. Given the fact he is inexperienced, this is feasible to come from newbtown or newbscum. Interestingly, he doesn't vote for NL - saying he wants it to be discussed. This looks like he is trying to avoid potentially going against a consensus.
1: Continues pushing No Lynch, says his experience on other sites has it as a good thing.
2: More about his past experience
3: Shifts his position to say that we just shouldn't be voting or lynching randomly - which isn't the same as pushing NL.
4: Keeps opposing random votes. Says "Sure random voting helps stir up discussion, but otherwise I see no use for it" This is pretty stupid, since the only point of random voting IS to stir up discussion. He's basically admitting that random voting does exactly what it is meant to.
5: Corrects someone who voted for Liam instead of himself due to quote mux-ip
6: Says that he personally thinks NL is good, despite having also been opposed on other sites. Now he says that he doesn't think there is any need to NL, just that it is a good option. Again, his position varies since it was initially that he thought NL was best.
7: FoSes Xyl. This is interesting. The reason for the FoS is that he thinks Xyl wants to rush a lynch. However, egruntz makes it clear that "Not a scummy move, but something that grabbed my attention." Trying to make an attack, but also downplaying its significance. Smells like distancing.
8: Rejects that he is either newb or scum
9: "As I mentioned before, it would be best to not lynch at all if we all can't come up with a final and positive conclusion that a certain person is mafia." Actually, what you mentioned before has now varied several times.
10: Typo
11: Now says that D1 doesn't give enough evidence on which to base a lynch (and, of course, then you get to D2 with nothing and make a crappy lynch so you are actually worse off)
12: Says that you should be as sure as possible before lynching
13: Advocates getting rid of idiots.
14: Votes DS for BWing and being "too defensive". This was sixth on the wagon and is not very much substantiated.
15: Suspects (in order) DS, Mills, Xyl. The fact Xyl is in third place smacks of distancing (put a scumbuddy in your top suspects).
16: Promises content
17: "Knew Xyl was scum" Yeah, I bet you did
18: Says it wasn't trying to get points and was just "a friendly note." It might well be a "friendly note" (WTF is a friendly note?) but that doesn't rule the brownie-point seeking out.
19: Apparently he initially raised NL only against random lynching and later started to adapt to our playstyle. He was, in fact, consistently pushing NL, albeit for ever-changing reasons, and only cast a vote when it got him onto a cushy BW.
20: Says that he chose DS over Xyl since DS was doing more wagoning. First up, what about Mills? Secondly, you only had Xyl as a third suspect (you weren't expressing conviction that he was scum) and gave no explanation for that professed suspicion.
21: "Time to go eat"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm a little wary of how much suspicion this guy merits, because he seems to be immensely naive. Nonetheless, his shifty advocacy of NL, his lack of scumhunting (apart from a slapdash DS vote) and what looks an awful lot like distancing to Xyl make him very suspicious in my eyes.
Egruntz, you have some explaining to do.
