Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[tubby216]

i'm sorry i was away emergancy tripp,, give me a few to catch up

[Caboose]

awaits another bright idea from bm

What do you mean by this?

BM

I'm interested in seeing tubby's answer to this.

I am interesting to see if you have anything to contribute to the game.

I know you only replaced a few weeks back... But you have lurked. You have had almost a month to catch up on the game and shared no thoughts.

Post something relevant to what you think.

TM, I'm still getting my bearings here. First of all, I'm trying to wade through the first 60 pages of postage still (I didn't think it would take me nearly this long; my attention span is short and I cannot read more than a few pages at a time). Also, it feels like we have a bunch of conversations going on at once between different people (which I've never seen in a mafia game before).

But I must say that the way this game started has been the oddest thing I've ever seen. Starting the game off with a pact?

[Cyberbob]

PBP on Tom Mason coming right up. Won't be every single one of his posts, only those of significance.

• Post 1322
  - Kicks off with a vote on Cass and a backing of Netlava. Not too sure about this post; I would have liked a bit more elaboration on why he thought Netlava was town. The reasoning for the vote itself was kind of weird, but I suspect that might be have more to do with how he worded it. It's kind of odd too that he felt the need to stress the fact that he has been around for a while when anyone can see that for themselves with a glance at his join date.
  
• Post 1344
  - In his defence of his labelling of Netlava as town he's giving points that I would consider scummy behaviour... the only difference that I can tell in the way he saw Cass and Netlava is one of magnitude - which I don't think is enough to form such a strong stance over.
  
• Post 1402
  - Defends SC against hasd. I disagree with this position; SC obviously knew how bad his vote was going by how quickly he withdrew it. Also not liking the way he tried to misrepresent hasd's position by describing it as "jumping on [SC] and pointing fingers to rally a voting wagon." That's not what he was doing at all.
  
• Post 1404
  - If this is sarcasm, it's very poorly done. If it's serious... it's self-contradictory.
  
• Post 1491
  - More anti-Cass sentiment, possibly a touch of buddying up to Lowell?
  
• Post 1517
  - Yeah, I think it's safe to call it buddying now. Also can't come up with a reason for calling Netlava town beyond his gut, which allows him to not have to rebut the (valid) points against him. Bit of a cop-out, I think.
  
• Post 1542
  - Noticeably moderates his position on Netlava, says there are "valid points" against both players but tries to compare Cass' FOS blitz on
  Day 1
  with Netlava's flailing. Refers to his gut again.
  
• Post 1569
  - More pushing of the case against Cass (which, now that he's put it in clearcut terms, does make some sense)... but the part about Netlava is atrocious. Cass isn't allowed to flail around but the wagon against him excuses the same sort of behaviour (only worse) in Netlava? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but to make a call like that at the time requires either psychic powers or knowledge the rest of us don't have. I would like a more in-depth explanation of this post.
  
• Post 1583
  - Makes a decent point against SC, which could have turned into something more if SC hadn't been able to explain his forgetfulness.
  
• Post 1685
  - Lays an FOS on SensFan due to his replacement of Cass, which I think is a bit timid considering how sure he was of her before. Being replaced shouldn't lessen one's scumminess.
  
• Post 1717
  - More pressure on SensFan, but still no vote. I think he's giving him too much of a free pass from what he thought of Cass. Also agrees with EGL about Skruffs.
  
• Post 1751
  - Admits to his rather massive slip when voting for Skruffs. Nulltell in my book; WIFOM or not, nobody would make that kind of mistake deliberately.
  
• Post 1765
  - More pressure on SC, possible minor buddying with BM.
  
• Post 1788
  - Jab at raider8169, which I agree with 100%.
  
• Post 1809
  - Ramps up the pressure on SC and votes him. What I find fascinating about this post is his treatment of SensFan. This is the first time he's mentioned him at all in quite a while, and once again he just completely lets him go. Strange.
  
• Post 1841
  - Brings up a point against armlx and goes back to attacking Skruffs.
  
• Post 1850
  - Gets shut down by armlx, falls back to his "real" point that he should have made more clear in the first place.
  
• Post 1897
  - Ew, ew, ew. Tries to take credit for his suspicions of armlx and SensFan despite having to retroactively clarify his argument against the former and the latter having been
  given a completely free ride through the previous day
  . This post smacks of "yay dead scum (see how town I am?)" to me.
  
• Post 1917
  - In elaborating on his previous post, he says nothing about how he virtually completely ignored SensFan. He also reverts to the original argument against armlx despite the quantity-of-posts part at least having been proven wrong.
  
• Post 1952
  - "if ONE lurker was a dirty scum they ALL must be amirite?" Also, the bit about how he would have voted if he was really following BM is WIFOM.
  
• Post 1972
  - Casts suspicion on Citizen Karne.

[Cyberbob]

Given the above (particularly 1569 & 1897)... I'm happy to

Unvote, Vote: Tom Mason

.

Raider is scummy, so I'm still watching him, but Tom has made a few too many slips for my liking.

[Cyberbob]

Dammit, triple post:

I will be V/LA (link to thread) for a week starting on Saturday.

[raider8169]

Still, I do like raider and little to nothing has changed since the last time I posted about him.

Raider is scummy, so I'm still watching him, but Tom has made a few too many slips for my liking.

What has changed within your last couple of posts to change your opinion of me?

[Cyberbob]

Nothing. My opinion of Tom has changed such that I find him more worthy of my vote than you.

[Tom Mason]

I never voted for SensFan because there was nothing new on that case to work with. If barely anyone was behind lynching Cass in the past and there was no new posting or telling info to quote and decipher, I felt there was no reason to vote for SensFan. I wanted to hear something substantive and there was nothing that could provide a case against SensFan.

If you want to grill me for SensFan, start grilling a lot of other people who downplayed Cass's play for the two days prior. I came into the game on Day Two, and almost immediately disliked what I was seeing from her.

My issue with armlx was about the way he posted, not his number of posts. He would casually drop one-liners and slide away. I did not like how that looked. I have never played a game with armlx before so I had no way to gauge his style or anything of the sort. I went off an instinct.

You ask for more explanation on my Cass vs. Netlava post... I will summarize from what I think was happening. The two of them did FOS/vote for the same number of people officially, I believe, when searching their posts. The difference was that Cass continually would FOS someone through the game, then hop to another person as soon as she saw nothing coming of the prior target. Netlava bounced around the same few people through his stay in the game. I thought Cass was being more opportunistic. Netlava was already being backed into a corner when I jumped into the game and anything he was saying about Cass or anyone else was being played off as a distraction by the people with tunnel-vision on lynching him.

What I find interesting is your play, CyberBob. You are calling me out for pressuring Cass/SensFan but ultimately backing off, which occurred because SC's situation came around while nothing new built on SensFan. All this game you have been hassling raider, threatening that you might drop a vote because you disliked his play... But I have yet to see a vote on raider from you.

When it came to anything dealing with Cass... You distanced yourself. You said you disliked the votes on her and the possibility she was scum, solidly stood by your vote for Netlava, and until your rundown above have mentioned nothing about Cass/SensFan.

As I sit her now, I think about how convenient it is that you strayed from commenting on Cass/SensFan's situation in the midst of the Netlava lynch. You barely scratched the surface and the most you would say was she was a "singularly useless target" (when justifying a vote on Netlava). But now that she flipped scum, it is OK to use that against me because I backed off a target which you were not even going to support lynching, much less pay attention to at the time.

As a town, we left a huge gaping hole in the wall when we never asked for your direct opinion on Cass.

[skitzer]

Vote Count Two of Day Four

(2) BlakAdder: Battle Mage, EGL
(2) Tom Mason: Lowell, Cyberbob
(1) springlullaby: Skruffs

(10) Not Voting: Caboose, killa seven, raider8169, Tom Mason, Citizen Karne, BlakAdder, tubby216, springlullaby, Surye

With 14 alive, it takes 8 votes to lynch!

Last Post Count Two of Day Four

Key:
Green - posted in last 24 hours
Blue - posted in last 48 hours
Olive - Posted in last 72 hours
Red - Posted more than 72 hours ago, prodded
Dark Red - Requiring Replacement
Dark Blue - Vacation/Limited Access

tubby216

Caboose

Cyberbob

raider8169

killa seven

EGL

Citizen Karne

BlakAdder

Tom Mason

Battle Mage

Lowell

springlullaby

Skruffs

Surye

Prodding Skruffs and springlullaby.

[Cyberbob]

I never voted for SensFan because there was nothing new on that case to work with. If barely anyone was behind lynching Cass in the past and there was no new posting or telling info to quote and decipher, I felt there was no reason to vote for SensFan. I wanted to hear something substantive and there was nothing that could provide a case against SensFan.

You had a case against SensFan; it was the same one you had against Cass. For the purposes of the game itself they are one and the same. You might or might not have attracted much interest, but did you try?

Besides - you had no problems with trying to get a wagon against Cass going right up until the end despite lack of interest. Don't try and use the "it would have been pointless" argument, because pushing Cass' wagon was equally "pointless" with all the votes on Netlava.

If you want to grill me for SensFan, start grilling a lot of other people who downplayed Cass's play for the two days prior. I came into the game on Day Two, and almost immediately disliked what I was seeing from her.

That's not the same thing and you know it.

My issue with armlx was about the way he posted, not his number of posts. He would casually drop one-liners and slide away. I did not like how that looked. I have never played a game with armlx before so I had no way to gauge his style or anything of the sort. I went off an instinct.

If you'd read my post properly you would've seen that I acknowledged this, but you ruined your credibility with your clarification that looked a great deal like a change in your message.

You ask for more explanation on my Cass vs. Netlava post... I will summarize from what I think was happening. The two of them did FOS/vote for the same number of people officially, I believe, when searching their posts. The difference was that Cass continually would FOS someone through the game, then hop to another person as soon as she saw nothing coming of the prior target. Netlava bounced around the same few people through his stay in the game. I thought Cass was being more opportunistic. Netlava was already being backed into a corner when I jumped into the game and anything he was saying about Cass or anyone else was being played off as a distraction by the people with tunnel-vision on lynching him.

The whole point of an FOS is to indicate suspicion without committing to a vote; I see no problem with throwing them around a bit on Day 1.

I find it hilarious that you didn't find Netlava at all opportunistic. Yes he was being backed into a corner, yes he panicked, but that doesn't change the fact that he voted for whoever he thought would get the pressure off him. That is about as opportunistic as it gets.

What I find interesting is your play, CyberBob. You are calling me out for pressuring Cass/SensFan but ultimately backing off, which occurred because SC's situation came around while nothing new built on SensFan. All this game you have been hassling raider, threatening that you might drop a vote because you disliked his play... But I have yet to see a vote on raider from you.

That's right, I haven't yet. My last FOS would have been a vote except that I wanted to have another read of his posts before committing to it. I didn't get around to it before having a look at you, however. I might do so tomorrow (I have my last exam later today), but I doubt it will change my vote.

Besides, the two situations are different. You spent the whole of Day 1 pushing very heavily your case against Cass before dropping it as soon as she was replaced. Raider has always been in the back of my mind, but there has usually managed to be someone a little scummier around.

When it came to anything dealing with Cass... You distanced yourself. You said you disliked the votes on her and the possibility she was scum, solidly stood by your vote for Netlava, and until your rundown above have mentioned nothing about Cass/SensFan.

That's because the reasons for those votes were somewhat crap. She and Netlava might have done similar things, but he was doing them far more wildly and was actually using votes as opposed to FOSes.

As I sit her now, I think about how convenient it is that you strayed from commenting on Cass/SensFan's situation in the midst of the Netlava lynch. You barely scratched the surface and the most you would say was she was a "singularly useless target" (when justifying a vote on Netlava).

That's because she was? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the points against Netlava were far stronger than those against Cass and I stand by my decision to back his wagon over hers.

But now that she flipped scum, it is OK to use that against me because I backed off a target which you were not even going to support lynching, much less pay attention to at the time.

Yes, that's right. If you were truly as strongly convinced of Cass' scumminess as your Day 1 posts seem to indicate you should have had no problems with going after SensFan. Give him a bit of a chance to speak for himself, sure, but you ignored him for the entire day. The difference between you and me in this case is that I was never strongly pushing against the player he replaced.

As a town, we left a huge gaping hole in the wall when we never asked for your direct opinion on Cass.

lol

[tubby216]

i like cyber's case here,,

but what about those we have not heard from,,, killa seven comes to mind,,, and did he even vote last lynch???

[killa seven]

No i dont think so.

[Tom Mason]

I never voted for SensFan because there was nothing new on that case to work with. If barely anyone was behind lynching Cass in the past and there was no new posting or telling info to quote and decipher, I felt there was no reason to vote for SensFan. I wanted to hear something substantive and there was nothing that could provide a case against SensFan.

You had a case against SensFan; it was the same one you had against Cass. For the purposes of the game itself they are one and the same. You might or might not have attracted much interest, but did you try?

Besides - you had no problems with trying to get a wagon against Cass going right up until the end despite lack of interest. Don't try and use the "it would have been pointless" argument, because pushing Cass' wagon was equally "pointless" with all the votes on Netlava.

If the case against SensFan/Cass changed no where from where it was the previous day, which drew new substantial interest from other parties... Where was the incentive for me to push the idea again?

I had no new information to work with. Without anything new that would supply a more convincing case, I had no reason to harp on the situation. THAT was why I wanted to wait and hear from SensFan.

You ask for more explanation on my Cass vs. Netlava post... I will summarize from what I think was happening. The two of them did FOS/vote for the same number of people officially, I believe, when searching their posts. The difference was that Cass continually would FOS someone through the game, then hop to another person as soon as she saw nothing coming of the prior target. Netlava bounced around the same few people through his stay in the game. I thought Cass was being more opportunistic. Netlava was already being backed into a corner when I jumped into the game and anything he was saying about Cass or anyone else was being played off as a distraction by the people with tunnel-vision on lynching him.

I find it hilarious that you didn't find Netlava at all opportunistic. Yes he was being backed into a corner, yes he panicked, but that doesn't change the fact that he voted for whoever he thought would get the pressure off him. That is about as opportunistic as it gets.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

Who said I did not find Netlava at all being opportunistic? All I said was that I thought Cass was being more opportunistic than Netlava.

Why? Because Cass was openly shifting her attention all around when ever there was the opportunity. If something did not stick, she went with another approach that was gaining popularity. That was opportunistic. If Netlava were not under the scrutiny and the pressure of voting, then you could call his play opportunistic like Cass's. His play was more desperation.

And can you blame him? He was being backed into the corner and anything he said or did was being used against him. It is just like you are trying to do with me. You ask me for clarification and I give it... But you do not wish to accept it. You have your mind made up and like when you pushed the vote against Netlava are not willing to fully think the situation through.

What I find interesting is your play, CyberBob. You are calling me out for pressuring Cass/SensFan but ultimately backing off, which occurred because SC's situation came around while nothing new built on SensFan. All this game you have been hassling raider, threatening that you might drop a vote because you disliked his play... But I have yet to see a vote on raider from you.

That's right, I haven't yet. My last FOS would have been a vote except that I wanted to have another read of his posts before committing to it. I didn't get around to it before having a look at you, however. I might do so tomorrow (I have my last exam later today), but I doubt it will change my vote.

Besides, the two situations are different. You spent the whole of Day 1 pushing very heavily your case against Cass before dropping it as soon as she was replaced. Raider has always been in the back of my mind, but there has usually managed to be someone a little scummier around.

It was Day Two that I came into the game, not Day One.

And I already said I did not drop anything against SensFan. I asked for her to post and give some sort of thought on the game. I wanted more information to work with because there was nothing new at the time to influence the case.

And the cases are not different. Right now, you let Raider slip because you turned your attention to me. Talk about how you are going to go back and read him all you want. But you just admitted to the fact that you took up an interest in me, pushed him to the side, and focused on a new idea -- no longer attached to your previous.

That is the same thing you accused me of doing with SensFan when I took up an interest in SC.

When it came to anything dealing with Cass... You distanced yourself. You said you disliked the votes on her and the possibility she was scum, solidly stood by your vote for Netlava, and until your rundown above have mentioned nothing about Cass/SensFan.

That's because the reasons for those votes were somewhat crap. She and Netlava might have done similar things, but he was doing them far more wildly and was actually using votes as opposed to FOSes.

It was not going to matter what he did. Your fixation on him caused his wild behavior to only become more irrational. I do not blame him. There was tunnel-vision on the part of yourself and several others to lynch him.

But now that she flipped scum, it is OK to use that against me because I backed off a target which you were not even going to support lynching, much less pay attention to at the time.

Yes, that's right. If you were truly as strongly convinced of Cass' scumminess as your Day 1 posts seem to indicate you should have had no problems with going after SensFan. Give him a bit of a chance to speak for himself, sure, but you ignored him for the entire day. The difference between you and me in this case is that I was never strongly pushing against the player he replaced.

I did not ignore SensFan. I mentioned in response to Lowell's vote on SF that I agreed with an FOS for the play that Cass had contributed over the last two days. I asked twice for SF to add thoughts. I noted when I voted for SC that I found it strange SF still had not responded. I never let go of my suspicion. But when there was nothing new and no one else supporting any pry for information from SF, a cry for action was not the right move.

And you are right, the difference between you and I is that you never pushed against Cass. You barely acknowledged her existence in the game... Until you want to use it against me. And you can still maintain that Netlava was a better lynch decision.

I find this situation to be rather strange in itself for those reasons.

[Cyberbob]

If the case against SensFan/Cass changed no where from where it was the previous day, which drew new substantial interest from other parties... Where was the incentive for me to push the idea again?

I had no new information to work with. Without anything new that would supply a more convincing case, I had no reason to harp on the situation. THAT was why I wanted to wait and hear from SensFan.

You waited too long.

Who said I did not find Netlava at all being opportunistic? All I said was that I thought Cass was being more opportunistic than Netlava.

I disagree.

Why? Because Cass was openly shifting her attention all around when ever there was the opportunity. If something did not stick, she went with another approach that was gaining popularity. That was opportunistic. If Netlava were not under the scrutiny and the pressure of voting, then you could call his play opportunistic like Cass's. His play was more desperation.

Desperation does not change the fact that he was trying to cast attention on anyone he thought he could.

And can you blame him? He was being backed into the corner and anything he said or did was being used against him. It is just like you are trying to do with me. You ask me for clarification and I give it... But you do not wish to accept it. You have your mind made up and like when you pushed the vote against Netlava are not willing to fully think the situation through.

Appeal to emotion.

It was Day Two that I came into the game, not Day One.

Did you read Day One at all?

And I already said I did not drop anything against SensFan. I asked for her to post and give some sort of thought on the game. I wanted more information to work with because there was nothing new at the time to influence the case.

When he failed to do so you should have ramped the pressure up and used that failure as your "new information".

And the cases are not different. Right now, you let Raider slip because you turned your attention to me. Talk about how you are going to go back and read him all you want. But you just admitted to the fact that you took up an interest in me, pushed him to the side, and focused on a new idea -- no longer attached to your previous.

I am not focused on you, you just happen to be the one posting right now. When raider posts I will pay just as much attention to him.

It

is

possible to have more than one target of suspicion at once, you know.

That is the same thing you accused me of doing with SensFan when I took up an interest in SC.

The difference being that I do not intend to ignore raider. If you wanted to make this argument you should have waited until it became clear that I was, but it's too early for you to point that particular finger.

It was not going to matter what he did. Your fixation on him caused his wild behavior to only become more irrational. I do not blame him. There was tunnel-vision on the part of yourself and several others to lynch him.

In a game this size a certain degree of tunnel vision is required to achieve

anything

. Besides (and like I have said already) - even in hindsight I still like the case on Netlava better.

I did not ignore SensFan.

Effectively, yes you did.

I mentioned in response to Lowell's vote on SF that I agreed with an FOS for the play that Cass had contributed over the last two days. I asked twice for SF to add thoughts. I noted when I voted for SC that I found it strange SF still had not responded. I never let go of my suspicion. But when there was nothing new and no one else supporting any pry for information from SF, a cry for action was not the right move.

It

was

the right move. You're not going to get anywhere if you have such a fatalistic attitude. Voicing the suspicion, rather than keeping it close to your chest, makes things much easier on the town (assuming for a second that you're a townie) later on in the game.

And you are right, the difference between you and I is that you never pushed against Cass. You barely acknowledged her existence in the game... Until you want to use it against me. And you can still maintain that Netlava was a better lynch decision.

And? I don't see what you are trying to get at here.

[Tom Mason]

i like cyber's case here,,

but what about those we have not heard from,,, killa seven comes to mind,,, and did he even vote last lynch???

There are a number of people who have been less than helpful to anything in this game recently:

- killa seven (king of the lurkers in this game right now with 8 posts)
- Caboose (only entered the game just before the Night 3 phase)
- Surye (has been in the game since late September)
- Citizen Karne (active since start of game)
- springlullaby (only entered the game just before Night 3 phase)

So, I am willing to lay off Caboose and springlullaby a little after seeing their start dates in the game. I know there is a lot to familiarize themselves with. They started the last week of October, which was only a week before SC was lynched.

killa seven has been in this game since the first week of October but has only posted EIGHT times.

Surye only has TEN posts. He seems to post at opportune times to say he has not been around and that he needs to catch up. Voted for Netlava without much to say, disappeared for two weeks... Came back and said he would read up on SC before he thought about a vote. Never happened as SC was lynched pretty much the next day. Nothing really to work with at all. He has been a rather silent party.

[Tom Mason]

Bob, you can disagree and voice your opinion... But do not pin words in my mouth and do not assume my intentions, especially when you ask for my reasoning and I give it but you choose to make your own assessment even afterward.

I read day one. I know the meaning of opportunistic, which does not really apply to what Netlava tried to accomplish while being lynched. I did not intend to nor did I ignore SensFan. And I was not going to push a lynch because SensFan was inactive. As noted in the above post, several others fall into that category.

If we lynched on inactivity, we would get no where. It seems the mafias have been active, so what intelligent decision comes out of lynching someone who cannot even post in the thread? If they cannot remember that, I find it hard for them to remember to submit a role to the mod.

I feel like you and I can argue in circles making no progress. And I hate being redundant. So, I am going to focus elsewhere for the time being and let everyone else soak up the words between us and weigh the entirety of the game.

[BlakAdder]

In answer to EGL's question (sorry it took me so long, meatworld issues):
Three things went through my mind:
1. I took his apparent love of his speedhammers (from looking at his avatar and sig) into account in my thoughts.
2. I thought that he could have just overlooked Raider's request to allow StrangerCoug to speak.
3. After taking this time to calm down a bit, I came to thinking that the hammer was not that big of a deal. In hindsight, StrangerCoug was pretty scummy, even if I didn't think so at the time.

[springlullaby]

Caboose, again, what do you think of Skruffs?

[Tom Mason]

Caboose, again, what do you think of Skruffs?

What do you think of Skruffs?

What do you think of anything for that matter?

You have posted a handful of times in the game and your brief thoughts suggest you are OK with Skruffs but not fine with raider.

Give some details/reasoning, please.

[Battle Mage]

awaits another bright idea from bm

What do you mean by this?

BM

I'm interested in seeing tubby's answer to this.

I am interesting to see if you have anything to contribute to the game.

I know you only replaced a few weeks back... But you have lurked. You have had almost a month to catch up on the game and shared no thoughts.

Post something relevant to what you think.

TM, I'm still getting my bearings here. First of all, I'm trying to wade through the first 60 pages of postage still (I didn't think it would take me nearly this long; my attention span is short and I cannot read more than a few pages at a time). Also, it feels like we have a bunch of conversations going on at once between different people (which I've never seen in a mafia game before).

But I must say that the way this game started has been the oddest thing I've ever seen. Starting the game off with a pact?

The pact was awesome. Quick dissing the pact!!

If you haven't seen a game before where different conversations can happen simultaneously- welcome to the so called 'Large Game'!

BM

[Battle Mage]

i like cyber's case here,,

but what about those we have not heard from,,, killa seven comes to mind,,, and did he even vote last lynch???

No offence to Cyberbob, but it's very hard for me to take him seriously, when he hasn't done the same to me. Blakadder is scum, and i'm sure enough of this that my vote shall not be changing today.

BM

[Battle Mage]

In answer to EGL's question (sorry it took me so long, meatworld issues):
Three things went through my mind:
1. I took his apparent love of his speedhammers (from looking at his avatar and sig) into account in my thoughts.

rofl. You were swayed by his avatar? What does it say? "I speedhammer regardless of affiliation...honest!" ??

2. I thought that he could have just overlooked Raider's request to allow StrangerCoug to speak.

Did you not think to ask this? It seems a valid question, but why would you not want to find out for sure from him?

3. After taking this time to calm down a bit, I came to thinking that the hammer was not that big of a deal. In hindsight, StrangerCoug was pretty scummy, even if I didn't think so at the time.

Wait. So, at the time, when you had just dropped the L-1 vote on SC, you didnt think he was very scummy? After seeing him come up town, you suddenly decided he DID look scummy?

IS NOBODY ELSE READING THIS BS!?!?

BM

[BlakAdder]

I forgot that I had voted him. I remembered fence-sitting until that point, and I still kind of was.

[Battle Mage]

I forgot that I had voted him. I remembered fence-sitting until that point, and I still kind of was.

Lol, you cant keep your story straight can you? You were fence-sitting but decided to put SC precariously close to a lynch. You put him at L-1, and you were surprised and aggreived at the hammer? And you claiming SC looked scummy after knowing his affiliation is utter crap. It's simple logic that when you know something is true, you naturally look back at it leaning towards that perspective. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

I'm as close to 100% sure you are scum as is possible without any rolebased information.

BM

[BlakAdder]

So a person with an unusual process is automatically put at the top on your scum list, BM?