Mini 611a - Troy, Meet Helen (Restarting)

[Netlava]

Walnut's post sounds like a joke vote.

I was more asking him to stick to his guns and expand on his meager posts.

The thing is, the blackberry issue looked pretty insignificant. "Obviously it can't be very odd, or even odd enough to raise much suspicion." I'm thinking that you (as scum) may have overestimated the situation and tried to encourage a bandwagon while avoiding responsibility.

[Acidmix]

I see we are already on page 3, cool.

currently I'm not sure who I want to vote for right now cf riot and blackberry some pretty pro-town to me, I find charter a little suspicious and walnut's posts do seem confusing. The rest I'm still unsure about.

[Acidmix]

pfft . . haha page 4 now, I guess thats what I get for submitting my post so late.

[CF Riot]

The thing is, the blackberry issue looked pretty insignificant. "Obviously it can't be very odd, or even odd enough to raise much suspicion." I'm thinking that you (as scum) may have overestimated the situation and tried to encourage a bandwagon while avoiding responsibility.

I just cannot convince you can I? You seem to not pay attention to my responses either. I've already told you, the BB issue

was

insignificant, just like every other issue at that point, but it was the only thing that stood out to me. I didn't care about him accusing BB and I didn't care about him not voting BB. I wanted to see

why

. It was all the ways Charter got shifty afterwards that kept me on his trail. And just to be clear, it wasn't a bandwagon when I started. I was the first to accuse Charter of anything, and I didn't even vote him yet. I've yet to avoid any responsibility, so I don't know where you get that. I explicitly asked for questions in my logic, and obviously the fact that you're voting me means I'm catching at least

some

flack for my actions. So explain that please.

While I've got your attention, why don't I ask you a few things too? Like why on day one with such a small read, you're so avidly defending Charter? Or if Charter isn't mafia, and simply for argument's sake I'm not mafia, who do you have a read on?

Acid, thanks for joining us. It's getting exciting. Battousai, I don't know what you're doing right now, but I can't get a read on you and it's making me nervous. You seem pretty fickle, but at this point I don't know what to do about it yet.

Just to be clear again, my main FoS is still Charter. I've backed off you for the last few posts, but the way you're acting now doesn't make up for how bad you set off my scumdar earlier.

I don't know when the lynch will come, but assuming we vote Charter and he flips town, I'll have to rethink what's gone on, but my most likely target will be Batt. If he hangs and flips Mafia, I don't know yet who may be with him. Maybe a better guess if more people post. Mac, Near, either of you still with us?

[Netlava]

I'm not defending Charter. I think his reaction was justified, but I don't think he's necessarily innocent or guilty.

However, I do think you're guilty, so that implies that Charter isn't scum, unless you are bussing him, which doesn't seem as likely.

Being the first to accuse Charter doesn't mean much, because that's not why I think you're scum. For now, I'll take your word on what your intentions were though.

My other suspect at the moment would probably be Mac.

I don't know when the lynch will come, but assuming we vote Charter and he flips town, I'll have to rethink what's gone on, but my most likely target will be Batt. If he hangs and flips Mafia, I don't know yet who may be with him. Maybe a better guess if more people post. Mac, Near, either of you still with us?

I don't like how you're setting up links Charter flips town. Setting up links if someone flips scum, I can understand (with some caution), but not if someone flips town. This suggests that you are scum who knows whether Charter is town, and are thus taking precautions or setting up future votes. It also suggests that you may not be too convinced whether Charter is scum, even though you entertain the idea of a Charter lynch.

@ Mac and Had, your votes would seem to indicate that you guys are suspicious of Charter and would support a Charter lynch. How guilty/suspicious is Charter in your opinion?

[Mizzy]

Vote Count:

charter: 3 (Tinsley, Hadhfang, Macavenger)
Macavenger: 1 (Near)
CF Riot: 1 (Netlava)
Near: 1 (Walnut)
Hadhfang: 1 (Blackberry)

Not Voting:

Acidmix, CF Riot, Battousai, ShadowGirl, charter

12 alive, 7 to lynch!

[Hadhfang]

Well I felt that Charter was being rather too defensive at the start, so fairly scummy. But I can't see how Battousai's vote on charter made him any more defensive than he actually was, it looks like Battousai was trying to give his vote some meaning, but he's removed it now it's come under a little fire.

I'm thinking now that Charter may be an overeager town player or have a power role which might account for his defensivness. Still, I'm going to keep my vote on him for now, becuase I'm not entirely convinced he isn't scum.

And mod, didn't Blackberry vote me in his last post?

Thank you! With all of the bolds in there, I didn't see the vote.

~Mizzy

[Walnut]

To explain my previous post, I had confirmed in thread. Next time I logged in, the game was already in page 2. Unlike various others, who as a policy did not want to random vote, I took the other reasonably common option and random voted. I had thought that I had chosen a reason so absurd that no one could possibly take it seriously, but somehow Macavenger wanted an explanation, Blackberry didn't like it and thought it sounded silly (a random vote being silly? oops, my mistake), CFRiot had a problem with it and honestly didn't understand it, and Acidmix thought I had posted multiple confusing messages.

Aside from my head-smacking disbelief at the reactions to my first post, much appreciation to all the people who are posting- much better action than some previous games I have been in.

And Battousai- might be time to update the sig, as q21 owned us in Newbie 595, unless you want to claim that you were a late replacement and not involved in the loss

[CF Riot]

I'm thinking that you (as scum) . . . tried to encourage a bandwagon

. . . just to be clear, it wasn't a bandwagon when I started. I was the first to accuse Charter of anything,

Being the first to accuse Charter doesn't mean much, because that's not why I think you're scum.

You're being totally inconsistant in why I'm a suspect, yet you do think I'm guilty. Okay wait, now that I think about it, not

totally

inconsistant.

Netlava post 33: (In response to the scale question) "Scum tell!"
Netlava post 58: (After quoting scale question again) "This post is scummy . . . it's a loaded question."
Netlava post 58 continued: (After quoting another post by me) "Pretty convincing. However, "On a scale of 1-10 rank his scumminess" does not seem like a question you would ask if you were suspicious of charter in the first place. Vote Riot

Is that one scum tell from page 2 really the only reason you're voting me? Because you would interrogate a suspect differently in my situation?

About me thinking ahead to day 2, if I knew what Charter's role was for sure, I wouldn't need precautions. I'd know I was right or wrong ahead of time. Your logic doesn't make sense. I think Charter's actions give off a very strong scumminess, but I'm not convinced of anyone. It would take a lot to totally convince me of anyone's role at any given point in the game. All I know is I'm putting a lot of my credibility on calling out Charter now that I've started this wagon, and as such I've considered what may happen in the future if I'm wrong.

Walnut thanks for clarifying I guess. What do you think of everything going on in the town currently?

[charter]

CF, your last post is flawed.

Netlavas post 33 was pretty clearly (at least in my eyes) a joke. When I, according to you, couldn't think for myself and said the same thing, serious in my saying it this time, you used that to create a whole ton of evidence against me. This coupled with my vote with a dumb reason at the beginning to make the argument that I can't think for myself, it almost seems contrived.

He's not being inconsistant, you're just twisting words with the posts you quoted. That was what he said in post 75 but he never says that's why he thinks you're scum. You seem to have gotten it in your head that that's why he thinks you're scummy, but he never said that, so I don't see how you can assume it, unless you're just looking to fabricate an argument. There is really no inconsistancies in anything Netlava has so far, he's never said that your questioning me is scummy. He just gives a scenario, not his reasoning on why he finds you suspicious. Then you defend your reasoning. He even tells you this explicitly in his next post, saying he has other reasons for finding you scummy, but you choose to ignore it.

I also don't like how you said "I've yet to avoid any responsibility". Coupled with your last post worrying about your future, it seems like you're in this all by yourself. You are so focused on the wellfare of yourself right now and want to stay free of responsibility but you also want whats best for you, not the town.
Another thing, if you're so sure I'm scum, why haven't you voted me? You are going to great lengths to avoid the fallout if I'm lynched.

That aside, I'm still waiting for battousai to do one (or more) of the following:
- say an original idea or thought
- respond to questions asked of him and not blow them off
- post something about someone other than me

[Macavenger]

Wow, this game really took off quickly. Nice to see.

To explain my previous post, I had confirmed in thread. Next time I logged in, the game was already in page 2. Unlike various others, who as a policy did not want to random vote, I took the other reasonably common option and random voted. I had thought that I had chosen a reason so absurd that no one could possibly take it seriously, but somehow Macavenger wanted an explanation, Blackberry didn't like it and thought it sounded silly (a random vote being silly? oops, my mistake), CFRiot had a problem with it and honestly didn't understand it, and Acidmix thought I had posted multiple confusing messages.

I've seen people vote for reasons they thought were too absurd to be serious before also, and get questioned about it. Keep in mind humor doesn't carry nearly as well over the internet as in person, since we can't read vocal inflections and stuff, just the text. If you're going to do that in the future, I recommend adding smilies or something to make it more clear it's a joke.

I can accept the fact that that was a joke. I'm a little curious why you have nothing else to say about all the posting that's happened to this point, though. Surely you could have found something to comment on in all this stuff swirling around charter, in addition to answering questions about your random vote?

Blackberry - why the read of protown on Tinsley, while you're fairly neutral on everyone else? I don't really see much justification for that read in your post.

This post is scummy because of the way you force charter to take a stance on Blackberry this early in the game while placing the responsibility entirely on him. Charter says Blackberry's actions seem odd? What do they like seem to you? I would consider that a loaded question.

How is this in any way loaded or scummy? Getting people to take positions is a good thing for town; it will help us analyze connections and such later when we find scum. There would be very little attached to such a position given how early in the game we are, and honestly anyone attacking over a reply to that would just make themselves look stupid and scummy.

I'm not defending Charter. I think his reaction was justified, but I don't think he's necessarily innocent or guilty.

However, I do think you're guilty, so that implies that Charter isn't scum, unless you are bussing him, which doesn't seem as likely.

Being the first to accuse Charter doesn't mean much, because that's not why I think you're scum. For now, I'll take your word on what your intentions were though.

None of this makes a lot of sense to me. Charter's reaction was certainly not justified in my opinion, although that by itself certainly doesn't necessarily make him scum.

I can't see how you're so sure of CF Riot already. You're being pretty selective in your accusation against him, to me - he posted a lot of reasoning that looks fairly protown to me that you didn't even touch on.

I don't like how you're setting up links Charter flips town. Setting up links if someone flips scum, I can understand (with some caution), but not if someone flips town. This suggests that you are scum who knows whether Charter is town, and are thus taking precautions or setting up future votes. It also suggests that you may not be too convinced whether Charter is scum, even though you entertain the idea of a Charter lynch.

Not seeing this. I get no implication that he's scum knowing charter is town from that. Stating how your opinions might change if someone is lynched and flips town is not unreasonable. Trying to disconnect yourself from the wagon if they come up town is the scummy action, and he's not trying to do that with that statement.

The possibly legitimate thing to attack him over here would be overeagerness to lynch - speculating that we may lynch charter at this point is a bit premature, I think. Interesting that you don't bring this up.

FoS: Netlava

My other suspect at the moment would probably be Mac.

Reasons? I see no justification for this in any of your posts.

@ Mac and Had, your votes would seem to indicate that you guys are suspicious of Charter and would support a Charter lynch. How guilty/suspicious is Charter in your opinion?

My vote on charter was mainly a pressure vote; I wanted to see how he'd react to a wagon. More on that a bit later.

Another thing, if you're so sure I'm scum, why haven't you voted me?

Charter brings up a good point here - why haven't you voted him? I get a bit of a disconnect between you not voting him and speculating on what would happen if he's lynched.

Acidmix - how about some reasons for why you read people that way? Comments on the charter wagon?

Too much is being made of Battousai's coming in and voting charter, in my opinion. He's here as a replacement before all the original players had even posted; just coming in and "random" voting isn't unusual. I also see nothign wrong with his reasons for voting charter immediately - I've used similar strategies in the past. I don't really have much of a read on him either way yet, but calling him scummy over the way he stepped in and voted is stretching a bit, I think.

Since the wagon built on charter, he seems to be doing a pretty decent job of scumhunting it. I don't agree with all his conclusions, but it looks reasonably genuine. At one point I felt like he was just attacking everyone who got on the wagon, but post 64 reassures me somewhat.

Unvote

, though I'm going to keep watching charter carefully.

[Battousai]

- say an original idea or thought

See post 74

- respond to questions asked of him and not blow them off-

I've answered every question that I know of. The only one I missed was in post 60 which I answered in post 74...

- post something about someone other than me-

Why should I? I don't like to say who I think is pro town as that helps the scum to some degree, and I don't like shotgunning everyone in the game. The only reason YOU are saying this is because my focus is on you right now.

Damn you Mac! You just made my next part of my post as "not original"

Netlava: What he, (Mac), said. But seriously, I don't get why you voted CF. Is it because he jumped on a bandwagon, or was it because he asked Charter a loaded question (which I don't find loaded at all, and in fact helpful to town)?

Walnut: I don't add replacement games to my list unless I play for more than half the game, but I have a feeling I'm going to have to add a loss pretty soon.

[CF Riot]

I love this little game you and Netlava have going on where you answer all of my questions for each other instead of for yourselves.

1

Netlavas post 33 was pretty clearly (at least in my eyes) a joke.

2

That was what he said in post 75 but he never says that's why he thinks you're scum.

3

he's never said that your questioning me is scummy.

4

he has other reasons for finding you scummy, but you choose to ignore it.

1 Wrong. He was serious.
2 His exact words are; "I'm thinking that you (as scum)..." That's why I had to defend myself. I didn't say "If I disprove this, you have no other reason to suspect me."
3 Beyond obviously wrong. He quotes me questioning you 3 times and tells why it's scummy every time.
4

Is that one scum tell from page 2 really the only reason you're voting me

?

That last thing there Charter is a question mark. I'm asking him what his unannounced "reasons" are.

Netlava I still expect you to answer my questions, despite the fact that Charter has tried for you.

The reason I haven't laid down a real vote for Charter is the wagon originally got 4 votes onto Charter really quickly. This was too soon to lynch him because no one else had been questioned, so I held my vote. After that, I got really caught up in this side attack from Netlava, and on top of that Charter didn't do anything after the wagon stalled to really confirm my suspicions. His scumminess peaked early, so there was no point in the game later that made me think, "Okay now I'm sure." I think everyone here knows my stance on Charter, so whether or not I vote wouldn't distance me from any fallout later. The real vote wouldn't carry any more weight than my posts and FoS.

[Battousai]

1) I gathered he was serious as well when he said scum tell, but the latter of his post was a joke.

2) While I agree, you defended yourself because he called you scum, but what he wrote implied he already thought you were scum from previous post(s). I agree with Charter that you misread purposefully or unintentionally that netlava contradicted himself, and it actually looks like your twisting his words (which you seemed to have ignored from Charter's post)

[Acidmix]

Acidmix - how about some reasons for why you read people that way? Comments on the charter wagon?

The reason I think cf riot and blackberry are pro town is because they are doing alot of scum hunting or at least thats what it seems like to me going posts: 54, 60, and 61. They also seem to have a very aggressive play style.

The Charter Wagon:

I find charter suspicious for post 37.
The one thing I've learned from my first game is that its never a good idea to post that your refusing to answer question seeing as that as how player get information.

[Hadhfang]

Acid, just because they appear to be doing a lot of scumhunting doesn't mean they are pro-town necessarily.

I also agree that CF riot was twisting netlava's words. Riot, i can't see how netlava contradicted himself within the evidence you presented, would you care to point out what it is exactly that is a contradictory statement?

[Netlava]

You're being totally inconsistant in why I'm a suspect, yet you do think I'm guilty. Okay wait, now that I think about it, not

totally

inconsistant.

I think you're guilty, but I do try to give you the benefit of the doubt for some of your claims.

Is that one scum tell from page 2 really the only reason you're voting me? Because you would interrogate a suspect differently in my situation?

The question, "On a scale of 1-10 rank his scumminess," is scummy because it's not a question one would ask when suspecting someone, which makes me doubt your earlier claim that you suspected Charter when asking that question. What info did you hope to glean from such a question?

I suspect you had ulterior motives with that post i.e. egging on a bandwagon without looking suspicious. I think this quote from post 38 explains it pretty well:

You were the one to say it was odd behavior in the first place, not me.

About me thinking ahead to day 2, if I knew what Charter's role was for sure, I wouldn't need precautions. I'd know I was right or wrong ahead of time. Your logic doesn't make sense. I think Charter's actions give off a very strong scumminess, but I'm not convinced of anyone.

It's a scum tell because baddies know who is scum. So when accusing a player, they know their alignment beforehand and the fact that they'll inevitably be "wrong." Your posts seem to indicate this by trying to shift the blame already in the case of a mislynch. Usually when townies try to get someone lynched they are at least reasonably convinced that the person is guilty. Granted, nothing is certain, but if you aren't convinced whether someone is guilty why lynch?

Not seeing this. I get no implication that he's scum knowing charter is town from that.

The "tell" here is that he considers the idea of a Charter lynch while he speculates what would happen if Charter were to flip town. Contradictory.

My other suspect at the moment would probably be Mac.

Reasons? I see no justification for this in any of your posts.

Firmcon

But mostly because of the timing of your Charter vote, which looks off.

Netlava: What he, (Mac), said. But seriously, I don't get why you voted CF. Is it because he jumped on a bandwagon, or was it because he asked Charter a loaded question (which I don't find loaded at all, and in fact helpful to town)?

The question he asked was scummy and also because of his recent let's lynch Charter-is Charter innocent? post.

Post 33 is serious. I think it's a legit scumtell.

[Walnut]

I've seen people vote for reasons they thought were too absurd to be serious before also, and get questioned about it. Keep in mind humor doesn't carry nearly as well over the internet as in person, since we can't read vocal inflections and stuff, just the text. If you're going to do that in the future, I recommend adding smilies or something to make it more clear it's a joke.

Mac, you are trying to be helpful and what you are saying does make sense. But... if people are that dumb, I would have to stop and think if it is worth playing. It is like "Someone said /firmcon instead of /confirm- better lynch them quickly!".

I can accept the fact that that was a joke. I'm a little curious why you have nothing else to say about all the posting that's happened to this point, though. Surely you could have found something to comment on in all this stuff swirling around charter, in addition to answering questions about your random vote?

Seeing the trouble that Charter got into for not answering, I am tempted to add annoying to my current reputation of confusing and silly and just say "No". To elaborate, usually I am helpful, logical and constructive... and get lynched night one for my efforts (see my sig, and Newbie 595 and 616 for evidence).

But it is too hard to resist, so here goes.

CFRiot- For me, the question of "rank scumminess on 1-10" can be seen as a conversation progressing tool, but also can be a bit scummy, as it was devoid of any personal input. As Netlava initially said, it put all of the pressure on Charter to explain his opinions without CFR having to voice his.

Charter- As many people have pointed out, simply answering the question would have got him straight off the hook, but a refusal to answer stood out as being inappropriate for such a minor issue. That said, I think he has done a good job of dealing with all of the fuss around it, and I am not getting a big scum feeling from him.

I am impressed by Netlava and Hadhfang seeing the key points of the arguments to date. Most of the rest have not posted enough for me to have much of a read on. Speaking of that, I will leave my vote on Near, if only to remind myself and others that he has a grand total of one post so far.

[Macavenger]

The reason I think cf riot and blackberry are pro town is because they are doing alot of scum hunting or at least thats what it seems like to me going posts: 54, 60, and 61. They also seem to have a very aggressive play style.

Why would an aggressive playstyle e indicative of pro-town motivations?

The Charter Wagon:

I find charter suspicious for post 37.
The one thing I've learned from my first game is that its never a good idea to post that your refusing to answer question seeing as that as how player get information.

I also meant what you thought of the people voting for charter. Do you view all the votes for him as legitimate, or do any look out of place or opportunistic to you?

The question, "On a scale of 1-10 rank his scumminess," is scummy because it's not a question one would ask when suspecting someone, which makes me doubt your earlier claim that you suspected Charter when asking that question. What info did you hope to glean from such a question?

Justify. This early, why wouldn't you ask that of someone you have a tiny suspicion of? Asking questions and seeing how people react to them is a good way to get the game out of the random stage.

I've yet to see any explanation of why this is a loaded question - how would he be building a case on any answer to it? This goes for both charter and Netlava.

It's a scum tell because baddies know who is scum. So when accusing a player, they know their alignment beforehand and the fact that they'll inevitably be "wrong." Your posts seem to indicate this by trying to shift the blame already in the case of a mislynch. Usually when townies try to get someone lynched they are at least reasonably convinced that the person is guilty. Granted, nothing is certain, but if you aren't convinced whether someone is guilty why lynch?

Townies lynch townies. It sucks, but it happens. We have to deal with it. It's precisely because townies can never be sure that we have to, to some extent, plan for all possibilities. How is he trying to set himself up an out from the wagon by those comments? I see no shifting of blame or disconnecting going on by his statements about what could happen.

But mostly because of the timing of your Charter vote, which looks off.

Explain why the timing of my vote is off, but Hadhfang's or Battousai's isn't.

Post 33 is serious. I think it's a legit scumtell.

I think your case is full of crap.

Vote: Netlava

[charter]

His scumminess peaked early, so there was no point in the game later that made me think, "Okay now I'm sure." I think everyone here knows my stance on Charter, so whether or not I vote wouldn't distance me from any fallout later. The real vote wouldn't carry any more weight than my posts and FoS.

That's not true. If you were to vote for me, and I happened to be lynched, you would get a lot more questioning tomorrow that if you just built the case against me, but never actually voted for me. You'd still have the out "well I wasn't sure!" Votes certainly carry more weight. If everyone just FoS'ed everyone, there'd be nothing to stop rampant scummy activity since you'd just earn yourself another FoS. If you're getting votes piled on you, even if you're not neccessarily about to be lynched, it will impact what you do in this game.
You were the one person I thought was absolutely a townie until your post 83. This one only helps in making me way less sure.

The reason I think cf riot and blackberry are pro town is because they are doing alot of scum hunting or at least thats what it seems like to me going posts: 54, 60, and 61. They also seem to have a very aggressive play style.

Why would an aggressive playstyle e indicative of pro-town motivations?

He doesn't say aggressive playstyle is indicative of pro-town motivations. You've jumped to that conclusion all by yourself. He just says they also seem to have an aggressive play style, not that that makes them pro-town.

I've yet to see any explanation of why this is a loaded question - how would he be building a case on any answer to it? This goes for both charter and Netlava.

First, I'd already expressed my opinion (that it was odd) before he asked me a question. Odd has only a very slightly suspicious connotation, nothing like if I'd said "Oh, that's suspicious" or something of another degree. For him to ask me a question to which I've already given my thoughts makes me think he's fishing for some ammo to go after me with.
If I'd told him 1 (or another low number), I thought he was going to say that I was subtly pointing suspicion to BB, with my saying his change of play is odd. This subtly steering us towards someone I would have found to be scummy, because the whole goal of the scum is to point to innocent townies while not appearing to. Hence, why I refused to answer.
If I'd said a high number, I would have been expected to pursue my suspicions. BB's change in play this game can't influence how I think of him in terms of scum or not scum. Basing a decision on something like that is pure WIFOM.
If I'd said a middle number, I would have gotten more questioning for my 'lack of taking a stance' on anything.

It's a scum tell because baddies know who is scum. So when accusing a player, they know their alignment beforehand and the fact that they'll inevitably be "wrong." Your posts seem to indicate this by trying to shift the blame already in the case of a mislynch. Usually when townies try to get someone lynched they are at least reasonably convinced that the person is guilty. Granted, nothing is certain, but if you aren't convinced whether someone is guilty why lynch?

Townies lynch townies. It sucks, but it happens. We have to deal with it. It's precisely because townies can never be sure that we have to, to some extent, plan for all possibilities. How is he trying to set himself up an out from the wagon by those comments? I see no shifting of blame or disconnecting going on by his statements about what could happen.

Townies don't worry about the fallout they will recieve if they honestly think someone is scum. They aren't as concerned to come out the next day looking clean. Scum however will prepare for the fallout because they know it's going to be a mislynch. Townies don't know, so they can't prepare, especially this early. If you're a townie and you're voting on someone to lynch them, then you genuinely think they're scum. Riot has already started preparing to distance himself if I wind up being the lynch today. It makes it seem like he knows I'm going to turn up town and is preparing. Notice how no one else who suspects me is the least bit concerned of their image tomorrow. This suggests that they actually think I'm scum.

Other notes, Near, what are your thoughts on various people? Please don't pull a battousai and just post them on one person though.
Battousai, you're alleviating my concerns on you, thank you for posting thoughts on others.
@All, this is unquestionably the best participated game I've ever been in, it's pretty nice not waiting a day for each new post.

Also,

unvote

this isn't the random vote phase anymore.

[Macavenger]

The reason I think cf riot and blackberry are pro town is because they are doing alot of scum hunting or at least thats what it seems like to me going posts: 54, 60, and 61. They also seem to have a very aggressive play style.

Why would an aggressive playstyle e indicative of pro-town motivations?

He doesn't say aggressive playstyle is indicative of pro-town motivations. You've jumped to that conclusion all by yourself. He just says they also seem to have an aggressive play style, not that that makes them pro-town.

I think it's implied, given that he said it in the context of discussing why he found them pro-town. I'd like to see him answer the question himself.

I've yet to see any explanation of why this is a loaded question - how would he be building a case on any answer to it? This goes for both charter and Netlava.

First, I'd already expressed my opinion (that it was odd) before he asked me a question. Odd has only a very slightly suspicious connotation, nothing like if I'd said "Oh, that's suspicious" or something of another degree. For him to ask me a question to which I've already given my thoughts makes me think he's fishing for some ammo to go after me with.
If I'd told him 1 (or another low number), I thought he was going to say that I was subtly pointing suspicion to BB, with my saying his change of play is odd. This subtly steering us towards someone I would have found to be scummy, because the whole goal of the scum is to point to innocent townies while not appearing to. Hence, why I refused to answer.
If I'd said a high number, I would have been expected to pursue my suspicions. BB's change in play this game can't influence how I think of him in terms of scum or not scum. Basing a decision on something like that is pure WIFOM.
If I'd said a middle number, I would have gotten more questioning for my 'lack of taking a stance' on anything.

I can see where you're coming from here, but I think you're being unreasonably paranoid. I would have seriously laid into anyone making the type of accusations you allude to in response to you giving a low number, as would most townies, I should think. I also think an accusation of "not taking a stance" for a middle number would be seriously silly, since giving a number is pretty much by definition taking a stance.

It's a scum tell because baddies know who is scum. So when accusing a player, they know their alignment beforehand and the fact that they'll inevitably be "wrong." Your posts seem to indicate this by trying to shift the blame already in the case of a mislynch. Usually when townies try to get someone lynched they are at least reasonably convinced that the person is guilty. Granted, nothing is certain, but if you aren't convinced whether someone is guilty why lynch?

Townies lynch townies. It sucks, but it happens. We have to deal with it. It's precisely because townies can never be sure that we have to, to some extent, plan for all possibilities. How is he trying to set himself up an out from the wagon by those comments? I see no shifting of blame or disconnecting going on by his statements about what could happen.

Townies don't worry about the fallout they will recieve if they honestly think someone is scum. They aren't as concerned to come out the next day looking clean. Scum however will prepare for the fallout because they know it's going to be a mislynch. Townies don't know, so they can't prepare, especially this early. If you're a townie and you're voting on someone to lynch them, then you genuinely think they're scum. Riot has already started preparing to distance himself if I wind up being the lynch today. It makes it seem like he knows I'm going to turn up town and is preparing. Notice how no one else who suspects me is the least bit concerned of their image tomorrow. This suggests that they actually think I'm scum.

I mostly agree with the theory you cite here. The part I'm not seeing is where he's trying to disconnect himself from your theoretical lynch. Simply stating how he would feel if you happened to turn up town does not carry any connotation of distancing to me. Where are you getting that from his statement?

[charter]

I think it's implied, given that he said it in the context of discussing why he found them pro-town. I'd like to see him answer the question himself.

Regardless of his answer, it's still a leap I don't think a townie should (or would) make without clarifying first. But I'd like for him to clarify as well.

I mostly agree with the theory you cite here. The part I'm not seeing is where he's trying to disconnect himself from your theoretical lynch. Simply stating how he would feel if you happened to turn up town does not carry any connotation of distancing to me. Where are you getting that from his statement?

The end of his post 83, he basically says it himself.

All I know is I'm putting a lot of my credibility on calling out Charter now that I've started this wagon, and as such I've considered what may happen in the future if I'm wrong.

He's worried how he'll look tomorrow if I get lynched.

[CF Riot]

What info did you hope to glean from such a question?

My whole suspicion of him at the time came from the fact that he was blending in to the crowd too well. I hoped by asking him to commit to what he'd hinted at, I could see if he was legit or if he was only making the statement to seem like everyone's best friend.

The way Lava was being inconsistent is he states evidence against me, I give reasoning for it which helps prove my innocence, and then he comes back and claims the detail is now unimportant.

If it will help prove my township and prove I'm willing to take responsibility for my own actions, so be it.

Vote: Charter

I post too much. Number of times and length of each post. =/

[Acidmix]

The reason I think cf riot and blackberry are pro town is because they are doing alot of scum hunting or at least thats what it seems like to me going posts: 54, 60, and 61. They also seem to have a very aggressive play style.

Why would an aggressive playstyle e indicative of pro-town motivations?

He doesn't say aggressive playstyle is indicative of pro-town motivations. You've jumped to that conclusion all by yourself. He just says they also seem to have an aggressive play style, not that that makes them pro-town.

I think it's implied, given that he said it in the context of discussing why he found them pro-town. I'd like to see him answer the question himself.

To Clarify I never meant for that last sentence to mean that it was a reason I thought they where pro-town. It was just part of my analysis of those two characters.

[Acidmix]

Vote: Macavenger

For Strawmanning info in post:89.