Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Squill]

I may have to quit. I feel like I'm not grasping this at all.

[Rolepgeek]

Griffinpup: I went back through the thread and read over your case, and how IG interacted with him. And to be honest, I do disagree with your case.

Dave:
You have stated that you found IG scummy, so you left your vote on him.  You also said that you left your vote on him as incentive to remove his.  Which is it?

I lost suspicion for one, and gained one for another.
- snip
I did, and still have suspicion.

In your latest post you offer a contradiction.  These are both about IG, and you say that you have lost any and all suspicion for him in your first statement.  You then say that you still have suspicion.  Which is it, and why the contradiction?
Why am I suddenly so suspicious? Is it because I voted you?

Here for example, you are putting words in his mouth. 'I lost suspicion' and 'lost any and all suspicion' are not the same. Having suspicion, and losing suspicison, are also not contradictory. I lost suspicion for birdy51, but still have suspicion. It's simply overshadowed, much like how my suspicion of IG had been overshadowed by my suspicion for him. Similarly, it's easy to have multiple reasons to vote someone. Poor reasons, but reasons nonetheless.

From what I can tell, he didn't look scummy(or to clarify, once all was said and done, looking at the entire day 1, he didn't look scummy), he looked like town who had no idea what he was doing or, in all honesty, how the game was played. He also misinterpreted a huge number of questions, leading to more confusion. With IG continuing to pressure him and not let him stop playing an emotional game, and your more reasonable assistance(in comparison to the way IG was acting, you were putting more reasoned cases together, and in a more logical fashion, even if I disagree with them.)

To be honest, I even disagree with Powder Miner's case, now that I look at it. When he made it, it was a decent case, but before the day ended, I think it would've been made obvious that he was just really bad at the game. Tying the vote up on purpose though, which means he should probably be lynched anyway as that's just dangerous behavior for town, but still.

Going back to your case, a short time later, you say he hasn't answered your questions, and tell him to once again. Yet, his reasoning in his response to Nerjin, did answer the question(s). And it was a measly two posts above your own. Granted, the first, about 'which one was it', he did not answer. But you then asked him for answers to the others, not just that one. Which makes me wonder if you were purposefully ignoring it in hopes that other would skip over it and find him more suspicious.

But, in combing through the thread for this information, I find something else.

IG: You are a Rolecop, D1. Who do you target N1, and why?

New evidence has come to light. Specifically, evidence that IG was a Rolecop. He'd asked, and been asked, questions about Rolecop before, as well. This is unlikely, to say the least, to be a coincidence. Combined with other factors(such as the relative low post count of Chink, the points you've brought up about him subsequently interacting very little with IG, and , this raises the suspicion factor on birdy51.

And then, it swings back around to you, griffinpup, with this post.

griffinpup: Why, do you think, are you second in the running for being lynched? What scumtells do you think you've been giving?

Because people have been voting me for fallacious reasoning. 
I haven't been giving off any scumtells.  Dave merely panicked, OMGUS'ing and bandwagon voting me to avoid being lynched.  In fact, he still hasn't given a reason for voting me other then a  vague accusation of scumminess.
TheWetSheep, on the other hand, has voted me on mistaken assumptions, and I believe that that misunderstanding will be sorted out promptly.

So... you been deliberately giving off no scumtells?  What about the one where you carefully give off no scum tells?

I wouldn't say deliberately, but I haven't given off any scum tells.  The scum tell of giving off no scum tells is a little silly, but isn't applicable either because that implies both intentionally avoiding scum tells, (which I haven't) and mainly deals with cases in which the player in question has been acting scummy, but has avoided every generic 'scum tell'.  I, on the other hand, emulate town play.

You say you haven't given off any scum tells. But...that would mean you were carefully watching yourself for scum tells. Otherwise, how would you know? You should be trying to find scum, not caring about whether or not you're giving tells. That is. If you're town. The fact that you brought it up makes me think your mind was on it. Which makes me think you were purposefully trying not to give off scumtells. Which is what scum do.

And then, a bit later, you notice the answer Dave gave, when TheWetSheep brings it up. But you somehow think it was directed to IG. While I would have been confused as to who it was directed to, at all, I wouldn't assume it was IG. Particularly since he wasn't the latest recipient of DavetheGrave's vote. Whether that's something scum would do...I don't know. But the other townies might, so I bring it up.

But now I realize. Your playstyle hasn't changed with Griffionday. The less pleasant side of you simply came out, as can be seen by your reaction to Gunin and your ways of dealing with Dave.

And I would continue this post but it's already taken the better part of an hour to type and my brain is exhausted.

[notquitethere]

Squill

I may have to quit. I feel like I'm not grasping this at all.

Mafia can take a little getting your head around but it's very rewarding if you stick with it. One tactic to use when you feel confused by the game is to look at things people have written that seem odd and ask them what they meant. Feel free to ask me or Nerjin, the ICs, any mafia-related questions.

[Squill]

Squill

I may have to quit. I feel like I'm not grasping this at all.

Mafia can take a little getting your head around but it's very rewarding if you stick with it. One tactic to use when you feel confused by the game is to look at things people have written that seem odd and ask them what they meant. Feel free to ask me or Nerjin, the ICs, any mafia-related questions.

I think I'll devote some time today to rereading the beginner's guide, maybe look at the wiki, and reread everything that's happened in this game. If I still feel so clueless, I'll probably drop out.

[Squill]

Not-edit: It might help if at some point I'm asked more difficult questions, as that would force me to go back, and give me something specific to look for.

[webadict]

Not-edit: It might help if at some point I'm asked more difficult questions, as that would force me to go back, and give me something specific to look for.

I'm dead and all, but I can certainly help you out.

Look at the cases that have been brought forth. Since you haven't been in for a while, these are good indicators of what's happening. You should ask questions about them, anything that doesn't look right, or you feel is wrong. You haven't been in this game long, so I don't really think you should look back. It's helpful if you have time, but... You probably don't. But, you have a plethora of information to look at, so don't feel like there's nothing you can do. Mostly, though, ask questions. W questions work well here, if you can't think of anything specific. Who are you voting for? Why? What did they say? Where/when did they say that? How does that make them scummy?

Basically, try to integrate yourself in slowly.

[Nerjin]

Bah I'm having a real hard time focusing on this for some reason.

So, I'm very new to this, so I'm probably wrong, but if I had to guess I'd go for Nerjin first, as he's been very quiet, or so it seems to me, or griffinpup, because as rolepgeek has pointed out, griffin's been very argumentative.

Squill I don't have a lot to base off of but this seems a little "Too Easy" to go for. Please state YOUR case on one of those two people. Point out some scummy things they have done as well please. Simply saying that I have lurked [which is only partially true. I've also posted a lot and have put several reads on the table.] and that GriffPup is being argumentative [which seems like a meta argument.] isn't enough.

It's not too uncommon for some players, myself included, to feel lost at times. Just reread from the start in sections [a day at a time, or a page or something like that.] and try to keep notes. A real easy thing, I find, is to just rewrite what they said in your own words. If you can't do that ask them to specify [as long as it isn't too far away]. That'll make it all very easy as you'll be able to breeze through rereads. Instead of paragraphs you'll be looking at sentences. Works for me most of the time anyway.

[birdy51]

Rolepgeek: Lean Town. I don't have that much to say against Rolepgeek, aside that it took him a surprisingly long time to get around to my questions.

FAKEEDITSERIOUSLYIT'SFAKE: I hadn't noticed those questions, actually, birdy. I'll answer them now.

For Griffionday's question, I would think it would be easy if you pretended you were town. That sounds ridiculous, but basically, if you act the exact same way you would as if you were town, then you're indistinguishable, right? This is my first game, so the only thing I can see that would make it easier or harder is other people screwing up the DavetheGrave did, or cops getting lucky.

For yours, I'm thinking Powder Miner kept his vote on him for the same reason everyone else voted him in the first place; he was acting really scummy. Or at least we thought he did. Considering that IG was the one who voted him, and griffinpup and him started pumping him and sending him into a panic, which at least for me, casts some suspicion on griffinpup. But yeah, I think he kept the vote on because he thought it was the best idea to do. Probably. I'm not him. I could PM him, if you like.

You would actually be surprised how difficult it can be to play the scum role. If you are a Townie, you don't have to be afraid of death. Scum players however have to protect themselves from their own lynch, since there is only a small handful of players on their side. This makes them afraid of death and accusations, which causes their gameplay to change as a consequence.

I can live with your explanation of Powder Miner's actions. It strikes me as genuine.

Also, as per your request, I am addressing everyone in this post, so I'm going to include my reads of them as a I go through my responses.

But, in combing through the thread for this information, I find something else.

IG: You are a Rolecop, D1. Who do you target N1, and why?

New evidence has come to light. Specifically, evidence that IG was a Rolecop. He'd asked, and been asked, questions about Rolecop before, as well. This is unlikely, to say the least, to be a coincidence. Combined with other factors(such as the relative low post count of Chink, the points you've brought up about him subsequently interacting very little with IG, and , this raises the suspicion factor on birdy51.

Also… Good catch on the RVS question between Chink and IG, but I am not certain what to make of it. But, if I had to wager a logical guess, I think this probably one case where the scum decides to taunt a townie.


Squill: Leaning Towards Town. I have no real reason to suspect Squill, based on the actions of his Griffionday and his response to my question. Newscum might have panicked a bit more, and would have potentially written a larger argument as to why they cannot possibly be scum. The outrightness of his answer gives some indication of his alignment.

Squill: Welcome to the game. Are you scum?

No, but if I was, I see no reason to say so.
Also, I feel confused. I have a vague idea of the ongoings, but the specifics are beyond me. I don't think the personal feud helped, but it seems to be a little bit clearer.

The reason I asked you if you were scum is actually relatively simple. Newer scum players have a liability to panic when the chips are down, which may cause them to say much more than they need to. But, sometimes a simpler answer is the best.

To counter Nerjin's advice though, I suggest you start looking at what people have been saying and go. Find a comment that just doesn't sit well with you and apply pressure.


Nerjin: Lean scum. Nerjin has been lurking quite a bit this game, whether on account of his own volition or if his life simply has been a bit busier as of late. The slightly dismissive manner by which he told Squill to go look at the front page for advice bothers me. At this late of a junction in the game, someone coming into this game is going to need a lot focused advice, as opposed to general scum-hunting tips.

Squill: Welcome to the game. Are you scum?

[...]

Nerjin: Yesterday, you came into the vote very late and was not given any chances to give in your insight on the situation as a whole. How do you plan on addressing Day 3?

Your first question is kinda... Wasted. But I suppose it's a fair enough one. As for the question addressed to me: I'm going to reread days 1 and 2 and then get back to you on that one. After every day you should re-read the previous ones. Even if it's just a quick re-read to refresh your memory.

Believe it or not, the "are you scum question?" was one the first I had answered coming into this game. I spent a good thirty minutes trying to figure out how to respond to it, panicking and going through different options and scenarios. However, the easiest answer was right in front of me. I'm not scum, so why should I be worried about that question? So I ended up writing something much similar.

Captain Ford would then go on to explain the question's significance as I have for Squill. It's by no means a wasted question, just an unorthodox one.


Now, as for your answer to my question. I don't feel very confident in your answer. Rereading only does so much, and I believe Griffionday has a point in that we have to keep moving forward with our arguments. There comes a point where we have to stop rereading the entire thread cover to cover, and starting acting today. Especially given a player of your own position.

So far, you've been very, very quiet. I didn't see you much on Day 2, until you joined the bandwagon on IG and you've yet to post anything significant yet today. Optimally, Day 3 should be a day where you make your way back into the game, and yet you choose to spend a good portion of your time on rereading. This bothers me a lot, considering you are our IC, the player who should be  To quote someone, "The game does not run on idle wheels." As of right now, you are lurking heavily. I realize you have your reasons, but come now. There comes a time where you just have to stop making excuses and just go. Live in the present. There is a time for rereading and there is a time for creating new material to work off of.

I think relying too much on past material is what has stagnated this game in the past, because we become incapable of moving forward.


Griffinpup: Scum. I have come to believe that Griffinpup is not  playing with the Town's survival in mind. There a few things that he has said just today that do not sit right with me.

3.  I never insulted Griffionday's playstyle, only Griffionday as a person.

First I want to bring up this. Here Griffinpup admits to the use of Ad Hominem, a deceptive technique by which you insult your rival in order to discredit their opinions. He couldn't counterclaim against his logic, so Griffinpup opted to attack Griffionday directly instead. I hate to tell Griffin, but "You're wrong, because you're stupid." is not an acceptable counterargument when you are trying refute someone under any circumstances.

I find the idea that Griffinpup relied on the principle of Ad Hominem to counter Griffionday scummy. There is no conceivable point in attacking other players, other than to dishonestly discredit both them as players and their arguments. If disagree with someone, present a counter argument. The resulting conflict has far more value than if you were to simply insult another player and call it a day.

Griffinpup: 1. The person I think is most likely to be scum, as he may have been building the arguement between him and IG to make it seem like they were at odds and thus neither was scum. 2. Also, for whatever reason, he got really pissy with Griffionday, 3. in addition to insulting his playstyle whilst simultaneously telling Griffionday to stop doing the same to him. 4. And yet he's been the one to continuously comment about people being 'emotionally-driven'.

1.  WIFOM like none other.
2.  Not a scumtell.
3.  I never insulted Griffionday's playstyle, only Griffionday as a person.
4.  "Emotionally Driven" and "Feels Emotion" are two separate and distinct things.

Then there is this juicy tidbit. The citing WIFOM in order to disregard another person's argument is also very scum move. Why? Because nearly everything in this game is WIFOM and reading the other players.

Look around, and you'll see WIFOM everywhere. Making a character judgement? That is affected by WIFOM. Determining who's scum? More WIFOM. Determining who did what in the night? Even more WIFOM!

Performing character judgments based upon their words and actions is a natural and inevitable part of the game. Rolepgeek just made an accusation against you. Griffinpup right. That is WIFOM. But instead of addressing the accusation, he called upon WIFOM as an excuse to hand-wave it, which is not at all a move a Townie would do. What he's done, is that he ignored the argument because he knew he couldn't defend against it.

There is more I want to say, but I need a bit more time than I have available right now. I have some singing to do!

[Squill]

Unvote

Squill I don't have a lot to base off of but this seems a little "Too Easy" to go for. Please state YOUR case on one of those two people. Point out some scummy things they have done as well please. Simply saying that I have lurked [which is only partially true. I've also posted a lot and have put several reads on the table.] and that GriffPup is being argumentative [which seems like a meta argument.] isn't enough.

Rolepgeek has been fairly active, as has birdy.
Griffinpup is fiercely defending his own innocence, but not doing much else but countering against those who vote against him.
Nerjin is also doing little but defend himself, but he's doing much less posting.

The way I view it, right now I think that either nerjin or griffinpup are scum. Suppose we lynch griffinpup, and he flips scum, and we win. If he flips town, another town is killed tonight, and we still outvote scum.

[Rolepgeek]

I'm going to have to vote Griffinpup then. The evidence myself and others have brought up is simply too damning. Your death will be informative, if you're townie, though.

[Okami No Rei]

10 Hours remain in the day.

Day Three will end on Tuesday, August 20 at 8:00pm.

griffinpup (3) - birdy51, Squill, Rolepgeek
Squill (1) - Nerjin
Rolepgeek (0) -
birdy51 (1) - griffinpup
Nerjin (0) -

Not Voting -

Extend (0/2) -
Shorten (0/3) -

Lurker Tracker

[griffinpup]

Birdy #2:

Griffinpup: Scum. I have come to believe that Griffinpup is not  playing with the Town's survival in mind. There a few things that he has said just today that do not sit right with me.

3.  I never insulted Griffionday's playstyle, only Griffionday as a person.

First I want to bring up this. Here Griffinpup admits to the use of Ad Hominem,

Wrong.  I admit to not insulting Griffionday's playstyle and to insulting him personally, no to the use of Ad Homenem.

He couldn't counterclaim against his logic,

3.  I never insulted Griffionday's playstyle, only Griffionday as a person.

Perhaps you should read the post that this quote is actually referring to.  I DID refute his logic.

So I don't have the literal right to ask someone to respond to my post after they ask for replacement?

You don't have a right to expect an answer until they're replaced. 

I disagree, but whatever.

1. I'm not saying explain to him why you aren't lurking, I'm saying only defending yourself based on posting frequency is stupid. 

2. So you're saying one should do heavy research before voting for someone based on a case?  I agree in theory, but in practice this means that votes like Nerjin's current one are going to be more common.  I prefer having a case on the person you wish to lynch over leaving your pressure vote on someone who hasn't responded.

That obviously wasn't going to be my whole case.  That was mainly my precursor.  The fact that he refused to respond even to this kinda put a damper on my follow-up.

Care to explain what your follow up was?  If it's real it shouldn't require you to do any work...

Sure.  I would of then pushed him on the fact that the time-period was substantially less then twenty four hours and that I posted every day.  I would ask him his definition of lurking and explain why it was wrong.

Griffinpup: Why are you focusing exclusively on the past in this game when you could be generating your own material to read?  Interact with everyone, and once you've a feeling for them, move on and talk to someone else.  Seriously.  Your emphasis on reads, events, and past oriented hunting is equally detrimental to the game as IG. 

Wow.  You're brilliant.  We should totally do RVS again and ask each other inane questions to generate new content.  Of course, pushing people on stuff that they did in the past to generate content is a terrible idea, so we shouldn't do that.

Your emphasis on reads, events, and past oriented hunting is equally detrimental to the game as IG. 

Lying piece of crap.  I asked someone to elaborate on reads I couldn't understand ONCE.  It's not an "emphasis" of mine.  I have no idea why this seems like such a big deal to you.  Also, please find me somewhere where I put an emphasis on an event and why it's been so absolutely detrimental.  I'm fairly certain it doesn't exist.  I also have no idea why you are so against pushing people on anything that happened in the past.

I'm glad you're focusing exclusively on easy lynches (it makes you kinda obviously scum though), but don't you think you should question the more difficult ones as well?  I can guarantee there's far more satisfaction to be found there.

Lay off Griffionday.  Either grow some balls and vote me with a case, or stop insinuating that I'm scum and insulting my play style.

As I hope you can tell by this quote, I DID RESPOND TO HIS POINTS.  I also insulted him.  I didn't insult him to dodge his points.  Hence Ad Hominem doesn't apply.

so Griffinpup opted to attack Griffionday directly instead. I hate to tell Griffin, but "You're wrong, because you're stupid." is not an acceptable counterargument when you are trying refute someone under any circumstances.

And that's not the argument that I made. 

I find the idea that Griffinpup relied on the principle of Ad Hominem to counter Griffionday scummy. There is no conceivable point in attacking other players, other than to dishonestly discredit both them as players and their arguments. If disagree with someone, present a counter argument. The resulting conflict has far more value than if you were to simply insult another player and call it a day.

I did disagree with Griffionday, and I did PRESENT A COUNTER ARGUMENT. 

Griffinpup: 1. The person I think is most likely to be scum, as he may have been building the arguement between him and IG to make it seem like they were at odds and thus neither was scum. 2. Also, for whatever reason, he got really pissy with Griffionday, 3. in addition to insulting his playstyle whilst simultaneously telling Griffionday to stop doing the same to him. 4. And yet he's been the one to continuously comment about people being 'emotionally-driven'.

1.  WIFOM like none other.
2.  Not a scumtell.
3.  I never insulted Griffionday's playstyle, only Griffionday as a person.
4.  "Emotionally Driven" and "Feels Emotion" are two separate and distinct things.

Then there is this juicy tidbit. The citing WIFOM in order to disregard another person's argument is also very scum move.

I didn't cite WIFOM in order to disregard another person's argument.  It WASN'T an argument.  It was a possible explanation for my actions, which is heavily affected by WIFOM.  If he had actually made an argument out of that point I would of refuted it.  Since he didn't, I merely pointed out the WIFOM involved.

Why? because nearly everything in this game is WIFOM and reading the other players.
Look around, and you'll see WIFOM everywhere. Making a character judgement? That is affected by WIFOM.

How?

Determining who's scum? More WIFOM.

How?

Performing character judgments based upon their words and actions is a natural and inevitable part of the game. Rolepgeek just made an accusation against you.

Rolepgeek didn't make an accusation against me.

Griffinpup right. That is WIFOM. But instead of addressing the accusation, he called upon WIFOM as an excuse to hand-wave it, which is not at all a move a Townie would do. What he's done, is that he ignored the argument because he knew he couldn't defend against it.

Wrong.  I read it exactly as he stated it.

as he may have been building the arguement between him and IG to make it seem like they were at odds and thus neither was scum.

If I had to summarize what this sentence means, I'd have to say this. 
"Griffinpup may have been building the argument between him and IG to make it seem as if they were at odds, and this would somehow make neither of them look like scum."
All I see is total speculation.  I don't see an accusation in here.  If I did, I would of refuted it.  But perhaps I missed it.  Please state what supposed accusation is in this sentence that you want me to answer.  From your point of view, this would be a great opportunity.  The majority of your case involves me avoiding this point because I couldn't adequately respond to this accusation.  So the next logical step for you is to TELL ME the accusation and see if I can respond to it.

[griffinpup]

I accidentally posted that other one.  This post was supposed to be above that one.  Hence, Birdy #2

Birdy:

Birdy12:
Your predecessor lurked incessantly.
He sat his vote on Powder Miner day one, and never really commented on the lynching of Dave.
Chink never actually interacted with IG in anything but RVS.  This is a classic newb scumtell.  Scum attempt to simultaneously avoid bringing attention to their partner and avoid any associative tells with said partner.  This commonly involves no interaction whatsoever between them.

This argument again... Yes Chink lurked. This is a fact that has been pounded down already. That is where your argument stops making sense.

If you could quote where this point has been "pounded down" and why that doesn't make this a scumtell, I'd appreciate it.

You say he never had any strong interactions with IG. While true, Chink also never had any interactions outside of RVS with NQT. Further you have tastefully neglected to mention that he also had nearly no interactions with two other players, TheWetSheep/ Guninanarunin, and Griffionday. Chink avoiding addressing just Imperial Guardsman. He just never took the opportunity to address anyone.

Fair enough.  Though not addressing anyone, (lurking) is scummy by itself.

And since you've replaced in, you've voted IG. 

Imperial Guardsman: Support your arguments. Preferably in something longer than single sentence groups. Beyond the flimsy reasoning on the basis of a mislynch, you didn't seem to have a single good reason for holding your vote on Griffonpup besides the fact that two other players had already voted for him. Do explain yourself.

But the interesting thing about this vote was how it was conditioned.
You never called IG scum.  In fact, you're not even voting him to be lynched.  No, you're voting him until he can explain his arguments.  This seems more and more like an attempt to go with what is popular opinion, but have a viable excuse to remove your vote if the opportunity presents itself and if your scumbuddy can be saved.  You continue this pattern with the rest of your posts.
more later

Finally something new.

Yes, I voted for IG. But I was not confident that he was scum, due to the sheer lack of content that he put out. So I pressured him so he could provide answers. When nothing came out of my vote, I was compelled to keep the vote there and lynch him for lurking. We've been through this. It's a pattern for a reason. I case you haven't noticed, this is a BM. My own goal is to see both myself and other players improve.

I'm not out to lynch everything in sight. If Imperial Guardsman had given a proper defense for himself, I would have unvoted him, even if not a single other player agreed with me.

If you didn't think IG was scum, what did you think about the huge bandwagon he did on me?  And who were your two scumpicks at the time? 

But all in all, your answers satisfy me, so Unvote.

Rolepgeek:

Griffinpup: I went back through the thread and read over your case, and how IG interacted with him. And to be honest, I do disagree with your case.

I think what you mean is that you disagree with this single post of my case.  What's your opinion on this one?
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=127764.msg4434735#msg4434735
This post actually contains logical reasoning for why Dave is scum.  The post you quoted was merely follow-up questions.

Dave:
You have stated that you found IG scummy, so you left your vote on him.  You also said that you left your vote on him as incentive to remove his.  Which is it?

I lost suspicion for one, and gained one for another.
- snip
I did, and still have suspicion.

In your latest post you offer a contradiction.  These are both about IG, and you say that you have lost any and all suspicion for him in your first statement.  You then say that you still have suspicion.  Which is it, and why the contradiction?
Why am I suddenly so suspicious? Is it because I voted you?

Here for example, you are putting words in his mouth. 'I lost suspicion' and 'lost any and all suspicion' are not the same. Having suspicion, and losing suspicison, are also not contradictory. I lost suspicion for birdy51, but still have suspicion. It's simply overshadowed, much like how my suspicion of IG had been overshadowed by my suspicion for him. Similarly, it's easy to have multiple reasons to vote someone. Poor reasons, but reasons nonetheless.

OK.  I acknowledge this point.  You are using a gradient measure of scumminess in your usage of the word suspicion, while I read it as an absolute usage of the word suspicion.  I read it as if suspicion was an object, and you either had it or you didn't.  It may be (and he later clarified that) that Dave simply meant suspicion in the usage which you assumed it was.

However, assuming that he was using an alternative usage of the term suspicion then the one he did use isn't scummy. 

From what I can tell, he didn't look scummy(or to clarify, once all was said and done, looking at the entire day 1, he didn't look scummy), he looked like town who had no idea what he was doing or, in all honesty, how the game was played.

I have to agree with this point.  After day one ended, he definitely looked like town.  Mainly because of his role flip.

Tying the vote up on purpose though, which means he should probably be lynched anyway as that's just dangerous behavior for town, but still.

So you agree with the lynch, but you disagree with most of the cases that were made?  OK.

Going back to your case, a short time later, you say he hasn't answered your questions, and tell him to once again. Yet, his reasoning in his response to Nerjin, did answer the question(s). And it was a measly two posts above your own. Granted, the first, about 'which one was it', he did not answer. But you then asked him for answers to the others, not just that one.

This has already been pointed out in this post

YOU HAVE NEVER STATED REASONS FOR VOTING ME.

3. Actually, he did. Right here.

3. Hmm.  I assumed that was about IG:

At this point, I didn't think that Dave had yet given a valid reason for voting IG, so I assumed that this was it.  Obviously, that wasn't popular opinion.

Which makes me wonder if you were purposefully ignoring it in hopes that other would skip over it and find him more suspicious.

Assuming I was scum, I wouldn't NEED to make him look more suspicious.  His play was horrendous.  You said yourself that he probably should have hanged purely because the large bandwagon vote.  There's little to no motivation from a scum standpoint to lie in such an obvious way purely because the potential benefit is minuscule. 

And then, it swings back around to you, griffinpup, with this post.

griffinpup: Why, do you think, are you second in the running for being lynched? What scumtells do you think you've been giving?

Because people have been voting me for fallacious reasoning. 
I haven't been giving off any scumtells.  Dave merely panicked, OMGUS'ing and bandwagon voting me to avoid being lynched.  In fact, he still hasn't given a reason for voting me other then a  vague accusation of scumminess.
TheWetSheep, on the other hand, has voted me on mistaken assumptions, and I believe that that misunderstanding will be sorted out promptly.

So... you been deliberately giving off no scumtells?  What about the one where you carefully give off no scum tells?

I wouldn't say deliberately, but I haven't given off any scum tells.  The scum tell of giving off no scum tells is a little silly, but isn't applicable either because that implies both intentionally avoiding scum tells, (which I haven't) and mainly deals with cases in which the player in question has been acting scummy, but has avoided every generic 'scum tell'.  I, on the other hand, emulate town play.

You say you haven't given off any scum tells. But...that would mean you were carefully watching yourself for scum tells.

Wrong.  It's fairly easy to remember if you've OMGUS'd, placed a bandwagon vote, or chainsawed.  At this point, the game hadn't been going on for very long and it was quite easy to remember whether I did anything particularly scummy yet.

Otherwise, how would you know?

I remembered.

You should be trying to find scum, not caring about whether or not you're giving tells.  That is. If you're town. The fact that you brought it up makes me think your mind was on it. Which makes me think you were purposefully trying not to give off scumtells.

"The fact you brought it up?"  I DIDN'T bring it up.  I was specifically asked what scumtells I was dropping.  I couldn't think of any.

And then, a bit later, you notice the answer Dave gave, when TheWetSheep brings it up. But you somehow think it was directed to IG. While I would have been confused as to who it was directed to, at all, I wouldn't assume it was IG. Particularly since he wasn't the latest recipient of DavetheGrave's vote. Whether that's something scum would do...I don't know. But the other townies might, so I bring it up.

I would think that this is a null-tell if anything.

[griffinpup]

Griffinpup is fiercely defending his own innocence, but not doing much else but countering against those who vote against him.

I'm not exactly made of time, and completely ignoring people's attacks on me so I could scumhunt would decrease the effective power of my pressuring and would guarantee me as the next lynch target, a decidedly bad thing regardless of alignment.

but not doing much else but countering against those who vote against him.

So finding and lynching IG (scum), isn't doing much?

The way I view it, right now I think that either nerjin or griffinpup are scum. Suppose we lynch griffinpup, and he flips scum, and we win. If he flips town, another town is killed tonight, and we still outvote scum.

This sounds exactly like planning lynches.  "We lynch X today, and then we can lynch Y tomorrow."  This is bad because it limits discussion similar to how policy lynches do. 
But Squill, where are your cases on Nerjin and I?  If you're planning on lynching both of us, you surely have more reason then what is attached to this paltry vote.

And Extend.
I'm not even sure if everyone will have time to respond to me by the end of the day, much less me responding back.

[Rolepgeek]

Extend

Well...shit. Those are good answers, griffinpup. I want to unvote you and try pushing someone else, but without an extend that will just result in a tie(which is just as bad or worse than a mislynch right now), or in you being lynched anyway.

I need to mull this over.