Print

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

[ToonyMan]

@Imp:

Toonyman:

@Imp:

I think Imp is too good a player to make that error

What are you basing this belief upon?

If you lack the self-esteem to see yourself as a skilled player I should say by my impressions you seem pretty competent or at least proactive.

...Really? I think its a bit too early to make the reference on 'too good to do [this] error' here. Imp is technically fairly new to Bay12 forum mafia..
I could say the same for myself as I don't see myself as skilled at all given...my whole history on this board.

True enough, I can't recall seeing a player mistake a typical game for a bastard but it's probably happened.  Although Imp is voting me now for some reason...?

I would appreciate an answer to my question instead of a dodge.  None-the-less, I will discuss the garbage you dish out in lieu of an answer, this time.

What??  What did I miss??

I do not lack self-esteem.  Nor am I unable to analyze my own experiences.  You have utterly failed to ask, or notice when it was previously mentioned, which it partially was in this thread.  This is my second Mafia game in any format.  My first is the currently unfinished Beginner's Mafia on this forum.  The next closest game I've ever played to Mafia is 'heads up 7 up' which I last played around 30 years ago - it's a very distant cousin which has almost nothing in common with Mafia.  I first noticed Mafia existed about three months ago, and did not start to try and learn its rules until the recent BM started, about a month ago.

You don't post like a newbie player, at all...

You have no time for any Scumhunting, yet.  This game has extension limits; the maximum possible D extension ends Thursday, the day before your 'best possible time' to actually be able to focus on the game.

I realized that today.  I should be okay Thursday evening but yeah that doesn't really give time since the day would be ending before then.

Also, I am scum-hunting.  The best a person can when they have two mid-terms back to back in oh, under 24 hours at this point.  I want to take the egotistical horse and go "be glad I'm even posting substance!".

However, you see perfectly fit to pick a single detail, give a single reason, and park your vote.  You ask no questions about my Scumminess, one of the few 'lessons' that was 'taught' in my not-yet-over first BM - you ask questions and actively scumhunt.  Not you - to you I'm Scum because you (don't even bother to really) say so.  You have no interest in verifying anything; you brush aside questions from multiple people (not myself) about your vote and its stated reason, one asking you repeatedly about your reasoning.  When I ask you for the basis of your thinking, you refuse to give it, instead providing a two-part single sentence of drivel, one part flailing to attempt an attack at my self-esteem, the second part saying that your impressions make me seem competent or at least proactive.

I was never attacking your self-esteem.  I was wondering whether you'd admit to being inexperienced or admit to acting oddly (aka possible scum suspect), but instead I get...yeah acting oddly would be a good way to put it.  Hence the vote!

Garbage.  I -asked- for the basis of your belief that I was too skilled a player to make what you consider to be that sort of mistake.

I've answered this!!

To my limited experience and understanding, your behavior looks quite textbook Scumlike.  Will you waste more effort on defending yourself than you have so far on your incredibly absent Scumhunting?  That would be rather textbook Scumlike too from what I've read.

So you're drawing the inexperienced card now?

I don't even care anymore.  Unvote Imp.


@Toaster:
For extended clarity, my vote on Imp was not meant to be a RVS at all.  I managed to have my first post late enough that there was already fuck shit tons of posts everywhere.  And of course I'm just totally stressed from school right now but I've never dropped a mafia game ever so there.  My concentration has been shot the last few days.


@Jim Groove:
Why are Cmega3 and Persus13 scum buddies again?  Also you seem pretty relaxed, are you enjoying yourself?

[Mephansteras]

The Scribe's Tally Sheet
Cmega3: Tiruin
Jim Groovester: ToonyMan
Max White: Cmega3, Nerjin
Nerjin: Caz, notquitethere
notquitethere: Max White
Persus13: Jim Groovester
ToonyMan: Imp, Toaster


Day ends ~5pm Pacific Wednesday

[Nerjin]

NQT

Why Nerjin, anyway? Suspecting him because he hasn't done his lip service to asking everybody questions strikes me as a weak reason for a vote.

No it's more than that. I wouldn't care if he didn't ask random/hypothetical questions at the beginning of the game. Functionally, that stuff is mostly just to get people posting. No it's more than that, he hasn't actively engaged more than three people in the entire game. I counted. He's playing almost completely passively, answering questions and pursuing a single case. Also, as I will go on to explain to Nerjin below, this behaviour fits completely with his recent scum-meta and is completely contrary to his recent town-meta.

Oh no! Has NQT used his superior intellect to pierce my brilliant scheme!?

Nerjin

Is it tunneling if I pursue the person who seems scummiest to me? Do I have to carry the whole game? Every other player is questioning everyone else. Me re-asking the same question would accomplish nothing more than inflating posts. Wall'o'texts aren't legible as a rule. I'm paying attention to everything everyone is saying and I do have a few suspicions and a moderately decent case for another player outside Max. But it's just that: Moderately decent. I don't feel that it's strong enough to merit mention. But as a whole: Yes, I do try to stick where I need to in order to not gum up the works of the game. No, tunneling [when it IS tunneling] is not helpful.

I just don't believe you. I took a moment to reflect and I thought, maybe Nerjin is really just quite lazy about scumhunting. There are such players (*cough* Ottofar *cough*). So I looked back at some of your previous games.

The last game you played town in you asked everyone questions in your first post. There were eight other players, and yet you have trouble when there are just two more? Well, thought I, what does Nerjin look like when he played scum, so I looked and lo and behold, in your first post you passively answer the questions posed to you and then press a single question.

Okay, maybe that was just coincidence, thought I, so I looked at another recent game where you played town and again there are eight other players and again you ask everyone questions. Hmm. Well, let's see how you play as scum in yet another game. Surprise surprise, your first post is passive answering of questions and the pressing of a single case.

This all isn't really very surprising: in general scum struggle to earnestly scumhunt and prefer to passively react. I've detailed all this elsewhere. Your whole play this game is screaming scum-Nerjin and the only way I'm going to be convinced otherwise is if you start upping your game and demonstrating that you've actually examined all the players and are genuinely hunting scum.

Hark! I admit it! I am scum! Your vote resting upon me for purely meta reasons that CAN NEVER CHANGE are 100% accurate. I knew only your experience and intellect could piece it together. Tis a sad day for-... Wait a second. Meta can change and has many factors. It's been over a month since I last played mafia. So do you have an actual in-game reason or just old stuff? Perhaps, has it occured to you, I find dealing with so many people, people who are already active, redundant?

Also the mere fact that you say that puts me into a bad position doesn't it? If I continue doing what I've been doing you will say "Look! Nerjin is being lazy! HE'S SCUM!!!" If I do what you say you will say "Look! Nerjin only does work when told to! HE'S SCUM!!!"

And yes, Nerjin, each town player does have to try to carry the game: they cannot rely on any one of their fellows doing it for them.

Do you see a lack of people working on other players? I sure don't. If no one was talking to anyone else, as is not the case, I'd be more inclined to question everyone with my utmost skill. However it looks like others are being questioned well enough without me. We have 10 people posting very actively. Having me throw walls of text at people I'm not particularly focused on just throws out chaff.

@Cmega: I, too, like to ask for advice from more experienced players.

[Imp]

Nerjin, I'm confused and I hope you can help me understand better.

From what I understand of your case against Max White, he's attacking NQT and badly; specifically for the wrong reasons, also absolutely drilling on NQT, and primarily just attacking NQT.  Is that the whole of your reasoning that he is likely Scum?  If there are other factors in your case, would you please state them now if you haven't before?  If you've stated them before, even unclearly, would you please point out the links?  I've tried to find and understand and if it's more than what I've listed above, I missed it.

Could you even give me a considered assessment of scumminess of all the other players?

As for wanting my assessment of the scumminess of all the other players... No. I think I'll keep that information to myself.

Also, what pro-town reason do you have for not revealing your reads?

I notice that you ignore that question in favor of responding to this:

So it's late D1, and you only have one suspect?  Interesting, because that's pretty weaksauce.  I'd like to see at least two more names of people you suspect.

It is pretty weak-sauce. I do have other suspects. One person, as mentioned, I have a moderately decent case on. Nothing to bring up because it's along the lines of "This seems scummy, but I also feel that it could just as easily be poor play." and the other is "Hm... I think something is up here."

I'll share their names when I have cases that bare sharing. If you MUST know the two are NQT and Imp. I won't go any further on them right now because, as I've said, my cases aren't particularly strong on them.

Am I understanding right?  You say to NQT that you won't answer about your other suspicions.  He asks you for a pro-town reason why not, which you also don't answer, but when Toaster asks you for at least two more people you suspect, you do answer, naming two people... one of them being NQT who you have spent a lot of time defending - not attacking his attacker over bad attacks - but actually outright defending with a great many of your sentences and in conversations with multiple people, not just his drilling attacker.

Yet you still give no reasons.  You say "One person, as mentioned, I have a moderately decent case on."  Is that one person Max White?  Or is it one of either NQT/Imp?  It seems extremely easy to give names of people you say you are suspicious of when pressed, but seems much harder to give context supporting that suspicion, which you give unasked-for reasons for not providing,

I'm asking you to help me understand because it looks to me like you're kinda jerking all around, almost as if you were an ice cube flung into a deep fat frier.  I'm hearing a lot of noise and seeing a lot of steam but I'm not understanding at all 'what's cooking', so to speak.

Why wouldn't you answer NQT's question about 'all players', even by saying 'I'll talk about two, but not all', instead saying "No. I think I'll keep that information to myself"?  Why, a very short time later, when Toaster asks you to name at least two, do you indeed name two, while insisting (unasked) that you won't explain why?  What happened to "No. I think I'll keep that information to myself"?  Why are you changing your stance, intention, and answers so fluidly and self-contradictorily?

Your most current post looks like pure defense to me - you mock NQT, then say that Meta can change and has many factors, then state, very clearly and directly... err, no, with uncertainty and not one but two qualifiers, which I'm going to bold in this quote:

Perhaps, has it occured to you, I find dealing with so many people, people who are already active, redundant?

Redundant means unnecessary, because it's already happening.  If that's your reason, then you must be getting tons of useful information from watching others interact with others.  That does sound possible to me.  But if you were, then you'd have a very easy time answering questions like "Could you even give me a considered assessment of scumminess of all the other players?" and would indeed be able to pick out easily discussed things that would less or not need to be hidden for whatever reason you find to "No. I think I'll keep [the rest of] that information to myself."  But you're not doing that.  So, if that's not your reason, why not give your reason?  Why give a 'perhaps' reason that 'perhaps' isn't true?

What are you doing?  Can you help me understand you/your play/your reasoning?

[Nerjin]

Nerjin, I'm confused and I hope you can help me understand better.

From what I understand of your case against Max White, he's attacking NQT and badly; specifically for the wrong reasons, also absolutely drilling on NQT, and primarily just attacking NQT.  Is that the whole of your reasoning that he is likely Scum?  If there are other factors in your case, would you please state them now if you haven't before?  If you've stated them before, even unclearly, would you please point out the links?  I've tried to find and understand and if it's more than what I've listed above, I missed it.

No, I'll admit that the entirity of my view of Max relates to his case against NQT being McCarthyism over nothing.

Could you even give me a considered assessment of scumminess of all the other players?

As for wanting my assessment of the scumminess of all the other players... No. I think I'll keep that information to myself.

Also, what pro-town reason do you have for not revealing your reads?

I notice that you ignore that question in favor of responding to this:

Just going to stop you right there for a second. @NQT, it'd appear I missed this question. My reason for not pointing out my cases at this time is that they are all too weak to be considered much of anything. If I tip my hand too early people will realize what I'm watching for and will go out of their way to avoid those things. People behave differently when they know they're being observed.


Now back to Imp.

Am I understanding right?  You say to NQT that you won't answer about your other suspicions.  He asks you for a pro-town reason why not, which you also don't answer, but when Toaster asks you for at least two more people you suspect, you do answer, naming two people... one of them being NQT who you have spent a lot of time defending - not attacking his attacker over bad attacks - but actually outright defending with a great many of your sentences and in conversations with multiple people, not just his drilling attacker.

I'm going to take this part bit by bit to make it easier. I refuse to mention EVERYONE at this point or to elaborate on fetal stage cases. Toaster just asked me to point out who I'm most suspicious of. Not knowing what I'm looking at creates fear. Fear creates mistakes in people who have something to hide.

My defending of NQT doesn't mean I don't think he's not scum [I don't, but I am leaning towards it] it just means that I think Max's case is very poor and the best way to demonstrate that is to point out alternate takes on his "evidence".

Yet you still give no reasons.  You say "One person, as mentioned, I have a moderately decent case on."  Is that one person Max White?  Or is it one of either NQT/Imp?  It seems extremely easy to give names of people you say you are suspicious of when pressed, but seems much harder to give context supporting that suspicion, which you give unasked-for reasons for not providing,

The one person is Notquitethere. As I just explained I won't give out fetal stage cases.

I'm asking you to help me understand because it looks to me like you're kinda jerking all around, almost as if you were an ice cube flung into a deep fat frier.  I'm hearing a lot of noise and seeing a lot of steam but I'm not understanding at all 'what's cooking', so to speak.

Fair enough. I'll admit I sometimes get ahead of myself. I'm willing to try to help.

Why wouldn't you answer NQT's question about 'all players', even by saying 'I'll talk about two, but not all', instead saying "No. I think I'll keep that information to myself"?  Why, a very short time later, when Toaster asks you to name at least two, do you indeed name two, while insisting (unasked) that you won't explain why?  What happened to "No. I think I'll keep that information to myself"?  Why are you changing your stance, intention, and answers so fluidly and self-contradictorily?

NQT was asking me to talk about everyone in some detail which I don't feel comfortable with at this time because I don't have enough to justify showing my thoughts on everyone. Toaster was just asking me to do something entirely different. He just asked for names of people I suspected. I insisted that I wouldn't explain why because when you say "I suspect A and B" people will ask "Why?" and I don't feel like I have strong enough cases to justify answering the why question. I figured I'd put a stop to that line of questioning before anyone asked. I WILL go into the people I suspect when I have more to say on them. I'm not changing anything. My feelings towards my reads hasn't changed once. The questions people ask me change though and that changes the answer they get.

NQT and Toaster were asking different questions. Similar maybe but different none-the-less.

Your most current post looks like pure defense to me - you mock NQT, then say that Meta can change and has many factors, then state, very clearly and directly... err, no, with uncertainty and not one but two qualifiers, which I'm going to bold in this quote:

Perhaps, has it occured to you, I find dealing with so many people, people who are already active, redundant?

Redundant means unnecessary, because it's already happening.  If that's your reason, then you must be getting tons of useful information from watching others interact with others.  That does sound possible to me.  But if you were, then you'd have a very easy time answering questions like "Could you even give me a considered assessment of scumminess of all the other players?" and would indeed be able to pick out easily discussed things that would less or not need to be hidden for whatever reason you find to "No. I think I'll keep [the rest of] that information to myself."  But you're not doing that.  So, if that's not your reason, why not give your reason?  Why give a 'perhaps' reason that 'perhaps' isn't true?

I've talked about that already. I am getting information BUT I don't feel that giving out a huge list of Why I think Jim is town/scum, Why I think Max White is town/scum etc. is helpful right now. Also, as I've said before, I don't think my cases are strong enough for me to bring them up yet. "Why not ask questions to them then?" Because I get the feeling that some people questioning them are hitting the points I want hit and if I were to jump in they might change their behavior because now TWO people are picking up on something instead of just one. I don't know what you mean by the 'perhaps' cthing.

What are you doing?  Can you help me understand you/your play/your reasoning?

I hope I already have.

[Persus13]

@Jim Groovester - What do you think is suspicious about Persus asking me if I would unvote NQT? I'd not posted for a while, he could've thought I wasn't gonna unvote or was undesicive.
I don't know how someone asking another person a question could be scumtell for both of them. Especially if it happened nine pages ago and nothing else particularly suspicious happened.

Why are you buddying me Cmega3? Why should you care so much about a question I asked? It won't have much effect on you and will have a big impact on me. Are you scum that thinks buddying a newbie town will get him lynched?

And for your information, looking back on statements after water's been under the bridge is a perfectly town thing to do. I believe Toaster's #1 is looking back on promises that weren't fulfilled. And scum have other ways to communicate.

NQT: Nerjin seems to be walking straight into your number 1 scumtell fully aware of that. That make you more or less sure of how scummy he is?

[Nerjin]

Woah! No editing posts!

[Toaster]

Double (or more) posting is totally okay here, since editing is a big no-no.

[Toaster]

Like this.

Toony:

No.  I do not make RVS votes, you misinterpret and I am severely lacking the time and energy to be more coherent.  I find Imp scummy for being verbose and misleading and try to figure out what they are even saying to me in this WoT.  And in the very post you quote me giving reasons on other suspects like Tiruin or Nerjin who I would easily vote if I wasn't particular to Imp right now.

Well, if you're incoherent, expect to be misinterpreted.  You know, pretty much what you're accusing Imp of.

--

So now you're backing off Imp.  Hrmph... your frustration seems pretty genuine.  Unvote Toony for now, but I'm keeping an eye on you.


Nerjin:

It is pretty weak-sauce. I do have other suspects. One person, as mentioned, I have a moderately decent case on. Nothing to bring up because it's along the lines of "This seems scummy, but I also feel that it could just as easily be poor play." and the other is "Hm... I think something is up here."

I'll share their names when I have cases that bare sharing. If you MUST know the two are NQT and Imp. I won't go any further on them right now because, as I've said, my cases aren't particularly strong on them.

So what are you doing to strengthen those cases?

Oh... so you're watching and waiting.  How much time do you need to watch and wait, exactly?  The day's almost over.

I'm going to take this part bit by bit to make it easier. I refuse to mention EVERYONE at this point or to elaborate on fetal stage cases. Toaster just asked me to point out who I'm most suspicious of. Not knowing what I'm looking at creates fear. Fear creates mistakes in people who have something to hide.

What if I say I don't believe that, and instead say you're pointing fingers with nothing to back it up?  I think you're doing that, Nerjin.


Imp:  I missed the connection you made, and I was the person you were "quoting," so I don't think Jim not connecting those is unreasonable.

And now I guess I see what you meant.  NQT wanted initial reflections, and that was something that was in my head at the time, so onto text it went.


Persus:  Max hasn't played in quite some time.  Trying to use his elderly meta is pointless, so just go for the throat and vote his ass already if you suspect him.  If not, find someone else to vote instead of letting it go to waste.


NQT:

Toaster

These are two separate possibilities.  You could be scum, AND Max could be overreacting to a minor tell.  It is totally possible that both claims are correct- they are NOT mutually exclusive.

If Max is right for the wrong reasons, then again, both arguments can be correct.  Don't try to set them up as opposites when they are not.

A fair point given my specific wording. Not actually being scum, I had already discounted that possibility, but I can't expect you to take that on faith. A clearer way of formulating it is: Max claims that my actions thus far have been enough to mark me out as scum. I know this is incorrect, but I'd much rather players appraise his arguments and come to the rational conclusion on their own.

You're voting Toony and I agree his case on Imp is weak. Do you think other people should follow your vote? (I only ask because Day one often ends with the vote split between half a dozen candidates, a situation that makes it easy for a mislynch to occur.)

I suppose.

My vote is more pressure than lynch right now, so I encourage people to do their own homework right now.  Once I have something more solid and want to convince people, then I'll present a full case.

[Nerjin]

Oh fuck off. This late in the day there is no such thing as a pressure vote. If you're not voting the person you think is scummiest you're wasting everyone's time.

[Tiruin]

Ooohhh man all these pages and text x_x
PFP - post coming up later due to RL stuff and emotions.

Imp: Sorry if I misaddressed you or something along the lines of lacking respect! D:
^{...Errm, it's more of a cultural thing but I feel like..well, since I..get the idea that you're 30+ or such..I just don't want any disrespect to follow if I did something...It's really happy-ing to see that you look up to me as a mentor..}

Totally off-Mafia.


Totally in-Mafia:
Toaster

I'm going to take this part bit by bit to make it easier. I refuse to mention EVERYONE at this point or to elaborate on fetal stage cases. Toaster just asked me to point out who I'm most suspicious of. Not knowing what I'm looking at creates fear. Fear creates mistakes in people who have something to hide.

What if I say I don't believe that, and instead say you're pointing fingers with nothing to back it up?  I think you're doing that, Nerjin.

...You're basing this on which part exactly? A holistic poke on Nerjin's actions?

Browsing back before the extend posts. Excuse my absence.
NQT

Oh fuck off. This late in the day there is no such thing as a pressure vote. If you're not voting the person you think is scummiest you're wasting everyone's time.

D: Calm down!
This was addressed to Toaster right? Why attack the person (I get it could be anger but I'm asking to be sure) instead of asking the reason behind the vote?

[Tiruin]

Persus

@Jim Groovester - What do you think is suspicious about Persus asking me if I would unvote NQT? I'd not posted for a while, he could've thought I wasn't gonna unvote or was undesicive.
I don't know how someone asking another person a question could be scumtell for both of them. Especially if it happened nine pages ago and nothing else particularly suspicious happened.

Why are you buddying me Cmega3? Why should you care so much about a question I asked? It won't have much effect on you and will have a big impact on me. Are you scum that thinks buddying a newbie town will get him lynched?

And for your information, looking back on statements after water's been under the bridge is a perfectly town thing to do. I believe Toaster's #1 is looking back on promises that weren't fulfilled. And scum have other ways to communicate.

NQT: Nerjin seems to be walking straight into your number 1 scumtell fully aware of that. That make you more or less sure of how scummy he is?

...Buddying suspicion + a vote? Buddying in this scenario is that much of a tell to place your vote on?

[Mephansteras]

Woah! No editing posts!

Why?
I had to post in a hurry, so I edited with more time.

Editing posts isn't allowed in Mafia games because it makes it much too easy to go back and mess with things, which causes problems when people go back to reference something you said or see who you voted earlier.

Basically, it's incredibly scummy and we learned early on that games are much better and more fun if no one edits their posts during the game (other than the mod, of course).

[Imp]

Tiruin:

Imp: Sorry if I misaddressed you or something along the lines of lacking respect! D:
^{...Errm, it's more of a cultural thing but I feel like..well, since I..get the idea that you're 30+ or such..I just don't want any disrespect to follow if I did something...It's really happy-ing to see that you look up to me as a mentor..}

Totally off-Mafia.

Spoiler: This is... like a public... PM to Tiruin I guess?  Anyone is welcome to read it, of course, but to my knowledge it contains nothing of import to this game. (click to show/hide)

Fear not.  You've done nothing wrong, here or elsewhere.  I'm still as fond of you as I was before.  I expect sometimes we're going to be on different sides in these games; I expect sometimes we're going to kill each other, even when we are on the same side that'll probably happen by accident sometimes.  Kinda goes with the game, right?  Just, I'm going to stay 'in character' inside of a Mafia game, except for this one time, alright?  Or maybe other times if really needed.  But you've done -nothing- to damage my 'as a person' opinion of you.

However I will point out that inside of a game where we are both players, I refuse to consider you my Mentor.  That's the totally wrong mentality for me to try and play from, thus you are/are not my mentor to me based on our game status at the moment I am thinking about you.  So feel free to not try to be my mentor when we're both players in the same game, if that's any part of what bothers you.  If you need to hunt me, lynch me, or in any other way 'get me' - do it.  I love the game, and don't want the game hurt, nor will I hold your actions as a player playing with skill against you.  Promise.  And I promise to play my best too, even when that means you're gonna get it because of what I do.  I know you'll understand too.

[Max White]

Ok I'm going to need to split this into more than one post, otherwise I'm going to mess up the formatting somewhere...

notquitethere

You said I'd made a mistake, I acknowledged the mistake and then made a comment about the early game in general. Still failing to see how this makes me scum...

I'm getting tired of this little strawman that you keep knocking down that I'm voting you because you made that single comment early game. Go see that multi point explanation I gave to Jim, I'm not calling you scum for that single reply, I'm calling you scum because when questioned on it you got less and less consistent in why you were providing this context (From you are bad to everybody is bad to you are bad), you decided that it was better to just clarify again rather than actually answer a question, and finally you assumed that I thought you were scum because of my questions, thus asking me to vote you (Paranoid behavior).

I don't see anything wrong with my answer. Obviously I don't think you should ignore what you take to be scumtells and so I took that part of your question to be rhetorical. Did you actually want me to spell that out?

Yea, that is why I specifically asked it. Heck I even reworded it for you just in case.
Now that I have finally got a reply from you, if you think it doesn't make any difference weather you are playing well or not, what sort of a defense if claiming you aren't playing well? Why make that claim if you yourself think it is irrelevant?

You mischaracterise what I'm doing. You explicitly stated that I am scum. I deny this. I fail to see how we can both be right about this! I'm trying to get town to appraise your arguments and make a decision. I don't think they should lynch you if they disagree with you: I think you're wrong about me but you're hardly the scummiest player.

Try rereading exactly what I said but instead of thinking 'we' means you and I, try to keep the context of the statement in mind and realize I was talking about Nerjin and myself. I pointed out that you were trying to make it seem like between us either I was correct or Nerjin was, and that 'we' (Nerjin and myself) could still both be wrong.

What did you forget there are other people in the game for a second?

As well as myself, who else do you have a read on?

To some degree everybody, with the exception of Toony who is somewhat inactive right now, but apparently for meta reasons. I really wish he was here, but things are what they are.


Imp

How much focus, over the last three days or so, would you say you have put into finding Scum other than notquitethere?  You have said that he is Scum; can you explain your reasoning for your ongoing Scumhunting of him without compromising your purpose?

I'm not sure how to answer that question... Does focus come in a finite supply?
I think he is scum, my purpose is to lynch scum, as such as things are right now, my purpose is to lynch NQT.

Did you misread Nerjin's words of "very little evidence" as "very little experience"?  If not, where did Nerjin say this?

Yes, you are correct. I totally misread his comment.

Anyway to address his actual question then, I have much more evidence on NQT that he has on me, yet he still votes for me. If he thinks insufficient evidence is a scum tell he is a pretty big hypocrite.

Toaster

NQT bought it up to try and justify having an especially good wincon.

This is false.

What do you make of reply number 107? I would like it but I apparently am unable to link to specific posts right now..

He just said he was optimistic and that his wincon wasn't impossible.  How is that "an especially good wincon?"

He also listed several other wincons he had in the past claiming they were unwinnable, including a lot of town roles. If in a single post he is willing to say he has a winnable condition, and in the same post he lists several town roles, including some cop roles that are apparently unwinnable, it stands to reason he has a better wincon than then a town player, even one with a good ability.
Yes, he goes on to correct himself that those are actually winnable, but the implication that his is especially good, being better than the average ones, is still there.

I disagree.  NQT has enough experience to know what he's getting in to by risking a "Not To Be Done" town maneuver.  Sure, there are some terrible, terrible things to do (worst offender that comes to mind is a non-cop townie fakeclaiming a guilty inspect to push his agenda) but there are some lesser things (like this) that could be worth a risk.  That said, I don't even see his claim as a bad thing in the first place.

Attacking him because he dares ignore the "norm" is a poor reason.  In fact, what exactly is your case on him?  Could I get it in a concise and neat package, because it's really murky.

How concise do you want it?
Getting defensive about a series of questions posed at him, especially in regard to implying that just by questioning him I thought he was scummy enough for a vote.
Making what I at least consider an anti town movie to try and justify saying something that could be scummy.
Trying to force the town into a false dichotomy of either I'm right or Nerjin is.


So that was questions directed at me, give me a little time to read everything carefully.