Print

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

[Org]

Just saying.

[dakarian]

@SirBayer

Org has a point actually.  It is up to the host to keep watch over the activity of the players.   Also inactivity always calls for a replace, NOT a modkill.

Although, to put it back to Org, the host won't always show that they ARE already dealing with the situation: I know I tend to keep my prodding hidden from the town unless they specifically ask (so they can't read into it). 

Lastly, though it is the host that handles inactivity, the town is free to request prods on inactive players.   In fact, it's better to request a prod rather than force a lynch: Only scum should get the noose.

[Errol]

I wanted to post yesterday, but I guess it is my fault if I forget about the post tab, and therefore get my point rendered moot because the three new replies said everything I wanted to say. And... um... I STILL got work to do.

Massclaim is kinda moot now, but just in case: I'm the second mate.

What happened... well, what Akigagak did could be attributed to either an inexperienced townie or a stupid scum. FoS Akigagak.
Therion's completely inactive, which is the reason why lynching him would be stupid. We are at lylo with 2 scum. The correct course of action would be scumhunting obviously, and finding the other scum. Provided Therion actually is scummy.

Let's see.

Akigagak is already detailed above. Final warning.
Inteuniso is trying to help. Doesn't look like scum. But he did some questionable things earlier on.
Therion... well, yeah. We can only wait.

Which leaves... Rolan.

Why were you so eager to get dorf lynched at Day 1? Overeager, even. It reads like an exaggerated personal vendetta.
On Day 2, you go on to lynch ExKirby due to... not doing his quote tags properly. Oh, and you went into straight-out lynching mode very, very early, perusing other people's arguments, too. This means you accuse him of using other people's arguments... while you are no better.
What you pulled there is called a "Toony Tunnel", and is not pro-town. Unless it hits scum, which is a large gamble. Scumtells don't mean anything if you don't regard them with a bit of distance, which is not given if you bullcharge your target that much.
You call it scumhunting, but it is mob justice. Finding a "witch" and then lynching him/her no matter what.
Day 3, you waste everyone's time with the highly sketchy idea of a "massclaim", which, in the form you gave us, has too many flaws to actually work. Time zones, unproven assumptions about the scum's role PMs, the fact it's close to impossible to get people to post at the same time, Therion lurking, and that the results are far from reliable in the very end.

So, the whole game, you have been a liability at best, and only succeeded in lynching townies with extreme prejudice.

This leaves me convinced that you are scum, Rolan7, and you must die.

[Rolan7]

I was worried that Therion was watching and laughing, but he last logged in on the 20th.  So you're correct, even if he is scum we should try to find the other one.

Why were you so eager to get dorf lynched at Day 1? Overeager, even. It reads like an exaggerated personal vendetta.

Did I really go after dorf too hard?  He was a liar, he even tried to justify lying instead of denying it.  I got mad and I'm sorry, but regardless my case was strong.  Do you disagree?

On Day 2, you go on to lynch ExKirby due to... not doing his quote tags properly. Oh, and you went into straight-out lynching mode very, very early, perusing other people's arguments, too. This means you accuse him of using other people's arguments... while you are no better.

Haha, what?
Look at page 17 people:
1)  Inteuniso made a strong case against ExKirby, accusing him of bandwaggoning without any real scumhunting. 
2) GlyphGryph also makes a strong case, additionally accusing him of buddying with me.  Which was true, he did.
3) You swing by and say "geee, those arguments look great, but I'm not going to support them with a vote because I don't want to look suspicious.  Don't suspect me guys!  Certainly don't expect me to help scumhunt, I'll just leave my vote on... someone..."
4) Akigagak votes me for inactivity, which was 100% understandable.  Lurking is scummy!
5) I stop feeling depressed about Day 1 and start contributing again.
6) I agree with GlyphGryph and Inteuniso's arguments against ExKirby, so I find and quote evidence that supports them.  ExKirby and I get into a back and forth.
7) Looking back, ExKirby's defence still looks scummy.  He just tends to lurk, his buddying with me was a while ago, and then he makes unsupported attacks.
8 ) In addition to supporting the strong arguments against ExKirby, I feel like I should add an argument, so I complain about his confusing misuse of quote tags.  They really did make things confusing.

In conclusion, "On Day 2, you go on to lynch ExKirby due to... not doing his quote tags properly." is completely incorrect.  Why'd you say it?

What you pulled there is called a "Toony Tunnel", and is not pro-town. Unless it hits scum, which is a large gamble.

I've completed my defense, but I want to respond to this because it's a pet peeve of mine.
My strategy, whatever comic name you assign to it, was either good or bad *in the context of what I knew at the time*.  I made arguments that are just as correct now as they were when I made them.  Dorf and ExKirby acted scummy.  I argued that they were the most scummy players at the time.  This is all true.
For example, if I made a random vote today and happened to vote scum, that doesn't change the fact that I'm stupid for random voting.
Sorry, pet peeve.

Scumtells don't mean anything if you don't regard them with a bit of distance, which is not given if you bullcharge your target that much.
You call it scumhunting, but it is mob justice. Finding a "witch" and then lynching him/her no matter what.

"Bullcharging" sounds like applying pressure, which is scumhunting rule 1.  I didn't lie, and I cited evidence for my claims.

I demonstrated that dorf was a liar.  No one else provided such a strong argument in day 1.  But I felt I was acting alone, so I waited for others to make arguments first in day 2.  When I heard arguments I agreed with, I added my support.  Support being citations and further arguments, not just a vote.

Day 3, you waste everyone's time with the highly sketchy idea of a "massclaim", which, in the form you gave us, has too many flaws to actually work. Time zones, unproven assumptions about the scum's role PMs, the fact it's close to impossible to get people to post at the same time, Therion lurking, and that the results are far from reliable in the very end.

At least I tried something, right?  "Wasted people's time?"  No one was posting!  At all!  Day 3, our most desperate hour, started two days ago and only now are you participating.

So, the whole game, you have been a liability at best, and only succeeded in lynching townies with extreme prejudice.

This leaves me convinced that you are scum, Rolan7, and you must die.

If I had been scum, I wouldn't have posted.  Like you and therion.  By your own logic you'd pass me over to scumhunt inteuniso and akigagak, right?

[Rolan7]

Inteuniso, this is desperate, so I'm going to assume you're town.
That leaves two out of Akigagak, Therion, and Errol, and me.
If I'm scum, I'd pick a townie out of that list to lynch.  So you pick instead, Akigagak Therion or Errol, and I'll vote with you.

[Akigagak]

Was that serious?

You're actually saying you're just going to go with whatever Inteuniso says?
I think you two are both scum now, and that you just ballsed it right up.
Rolan7.

[Rolan7]

Explain exactly how my reasoning is wrong instead of just throwing a vote out.

[Org]

buddying

[Rolan7]

*sigh*
I'll state it another way so people understand it:

All three town are going to have to vote for the same person, or else the two scum will screw the vote at the last moment.

I'm volunteering to *not* be the townie who makes the final decision.

WE HAVE TO BUDDY OR DIE.  Even then we lose if therion is town and doesn't get replaced.

[Org]

Rolan I am disappoint.

[Rolan7]

Ok I guess I'm wrong then ):
I don't see how yet though.

This day has to end with all 5 votes on one person, except that person's own vote.  Any other combination may allow scum to cause a tie.

Take this situation:
Players 1 and 5 are scum.
Players 1,2 and 3 vote for player 5.
At the last moment, players 1 and 5 vote for player 3.  No lynch, nightkill, game.

So we have to all vote for someone if we're going to have a chance.

We need Therion's vote too, if he's town.  Is the deadline just pushed back until there's a replacement?

I'm getting sick of this.

[Errol]

Why were you so eager to get dorf lynched at Day 1? Overeager, even. It reads like an exaggerated personal vendetta.

Did I really go after dorf too hard?  He was a liar, he even tried to justify lying instead of denying it.  I got mad and I'm sorry, but regardless my case was strong.  Do you disagree?

I agree dorf was an asshole, but you had clear tunnel vision. Focusing ONLY on him, from pretty much the beginning. If you pound someone long enough, he WILL crack, no matter if he actually is scum or town. Therefore, your course of action was not productive AT ALL.

On Day 2, you go on to lynch ExKirby due to... not doing his quote tags properly. Oh, and you went into straight-out lynching mode very, very early, perusing other people's arguments, too. This means you accuse him of using other people's arguments... while you are no better.

Haha, what?
Look at page 17 people:
1)  Inteuniso made a strong case against ExKirby, accusing him of bandwaggoning without any real scumhunting. 
2) GlyphGryph also makes a strong case, additionally accusing him of buddying with me.  Which was true, he did.
3) You swing by and say "geee, those arguments look great, but I'm not going to support them with a vote because I don't want to look suspicious.  Don't suspect me guys!  Certainly don't expect me to help scumhunt, I'll just leave my vote on... someone..."
4) Akigagak votes me for inactivity, which was 100% understandable.  Lurking is scummy!
5) I stop feeling depressed about Day 1 and start contributing again.
6) I agree with GlyphGryph and Inteuniso's arguments against ExKirby, so I find and quote evidence that supports them.  ExKirby and I get into a back and forth.
7) Looking back, ExKirby's defence still looks scummy.  He just tends to lurk, his buddying with me was a while ago, and then he makes unsupported attacks.
8 ) In addition to supporting the strong arguments against ExKirby, I feel like I should add an argument, so I complain about his confusing misuse of quote tags.  They really did make things confusing.

In conclusion, "On Day 2, you go on to lynch ExKirby due to... not doing his quote tags properly." is completely incorrect.  Why'd you say it?

Because that was your only original argument. And, again, tunnelvision.

You also should stop quoting my stuff out of context. The whole paragraph was my conclusion to your behavior at Day2.

What you pulled there is called a "Toony Tunnel", and is not pro-town. Unless it hits scum, which is a large gamble.

I've completed my defense, but I want to respond to this because it's a pet peeve of mine.
My strategy, whatever comic name you assign to it, was either good or bad *in the context of what I knew at the time*.  I made arguments that are just as correct now as they were when I made them.  Dorf and ExKirby acted scummy.  I argued that they were the most scummy players at the time.  This is all true.
For example, if I made a random vote today and happened to vote scum, that doesn't change the fact that I'm stupid for random voting.
Sorry, pet peeve.

The Toony Tunnel is called that way because of certain things ToonyMan did. Pay the name no heed. But "Tunnel" hints at "tunnel-vision". Which you should avoid.

Yes, both of them were scummy. But I've made my own experiences with blindly pressing "scummy" people. No good experiences.

Often those who don't look scummy at first glance are the real scum. Again, you need to double-think your actions.[/quote]

Scumtells don't mean anything if you don't regard them with a bit of distance, which is not given if you bullcharge your target that much.
You call it scumhunting, but it is mob justice. Finding a "witch" and then lynching him/her no matter what.

"Bullcharging" sounds like applying pressure, which is scumhunting rule 1.  I didn't lie, and I cited evidence for my claims.

I demonstrated that dorf was a liar.  No one else provided such a strong argument in day 1.  But I felt I was acting alone, so I waited for others to make arguments first in day 2.  When I heard arguments I agreed with, I added my support.  Support being citations and further arguments, not just a vote.

As said before... too much pressure makes any egg crack.

Day 3, you waste everyone's time with the highly sketchy idea of a "massclaim", which, in the form you gave us, has too many flaws to actually work. Time zones, unproven assumptions about the scum's role PMs, the fact it's close to impossible to get people to post at the same time, Therion lurking, and that the results are far from reliable in the very end.

At least I tried something, right?  "Wasted people's time?"  No one was posting!  At all!  Day 3, our most desperate hour, started two days ago and only now are you participating.

Yes, but your plan was absolutely harebrained - like everything you have done so far - no thought at all!

So, the whole game, you have been a liability at best, and only succeeded in lynching townies with extreme prejudice.

This leaves me convinced that you are scum, Rolan7, and you must die.

If I had been scum, I wouldn't have posted.  Like you and therion.  By your own logic you'd pass me over to scumhunt inteuniso and akigagak, right?

[/quote]

It is a scum tactic to lead the horde, so to speak. This evades suspicion, no?

Inteuniso, this is desperate, so I'm going to assume you're town.
That leaves two out of Akigagak, Therion, and Errol, and me.
If I'm scum, I'd pick a townie out of that list to lynch.  So you pick instead, Akigagak Therion or Errol, and I'll vote with you.

Blank check to vote whoever inteuniso, who you foolishly assume as town? AND THEN volunteering to not cast the deciding vote?

WTF is this?

[SirBayer]

Never said anything about a deadline-pushing, but I think it's only fair. Deadline will be pushed back until all replacements are fulfilled. I'm wondering if Inteuniso has posted recently either. Need to go check.

[Rolan7]

Why were you so eager to get dorf lynched at Day 1? Overeager, even. It reads like an exaggerated personal vendetta.

Did I really go after dorf too hard?  He was a liar, he even tried to justify lying instead of denying it.  I got mad and I'm sorry, but regardless my case was strong.  Do you disagree?

I agree dorf was an asshole, but you had clear tunnel vision. Focusing ONLY on him, from pretty much the beginning. If you pound someone long enough, he WILL crack, no matter if he actually is scum or town. Therefore, your course of action was not productive AT ALL.

I never called him an asshole.  He's not an asshole.  He just acted like scum, lying and OMGUS voting.  I guess that makes him a bad player, though I'm not much better.  This is *beginner* mafia after all.

On Day 2, you go on to lynch ExKirby due to... not doing his quote tags properly. Oh, and you went into straight-out lynching mode very, very early, perusing other people's arguments, too. This means you accuse him of using other people's arguments... while you are no better.

Haha, what?
Look at page 17 people:
1)  Inteuniso made a strong case against ExKirby, accusing him of bandwaggoning without any real scumhunting. 
2) GlyphGryph also makes a strong case, additionally accusing him of buddying with me.  Which was true, he did.
3) You swing by and say "geee, those arguments look great, but I'm not going to support them with a vote because I don't want to look suspicious.  Don't suspect me guys!  Certainly don't expect me to help scumhunt, I'll just leave my vote on... someone..."
4) Akigagak votes me for inactivity, which was 100% understandable.  Lurking is scummy!
5) I stop feeling depressed about Day 1 and start contributing again.
6) I agree with GlyphGryph and Inteuniso's arguments against ExKirby, so I find and quote evidence that supports them.  ExKirby and I get into a back and forth.
7) Looking back, ExKirby's defence still looks scummy.  He just tends to lurk, his buddying with me was a while ago, and then he makes unsupported attacks.
8 ) In addition to supporting the strong arguments against ExKirby, I feel like I should add an argument, so I complain about his confusing misuse of quote tags.  They really did make things confusing.

In conclusion, "On Day 2, you go on to lynch ExKirby due to... not doing his quote tags properly." is completely incorrect.  Why'd you say it?

Because that was your only original argument. And, again, tunnelvision.

You also should stop quoting my stuff out of context. The whole paragraph was my conclusion to your behavior at Day2.

It's still not the reason I voted ExKirby.  And I didn't "lynch" him, by the way, I participated in a lynch that I didn't initiate.
I didn't *need* an original argument to vote ExKirby, the existing arguments were strong enough, particularly after I supported them with quotes.

What you pulled there is called a "Toony Tunnel", and is not pro-town. Unless it hits scum, which is a large gamble.

I've completed my defense, but I want to respond to this because it's a pet peeve of mine.
My strategy, whatever comic name you assign to it, was either good or bad *in the context of what I knew at the time*.  I made arguments that are just as correct now as they were when I made them.  Dorf and ExKirby acted scummy.  I argued that they were the most scummy players at the time.  This is all true.
For example, if I made a random vote today and happened to vote scum, that doesn't change the fact that I'm stupid for random voting.
Sorry, pet peeve.

The Toony Tunnel is called that way because of certain things ToonyMan did. Pay the name no heed. But "Tunnel" hints at "tunnel-vision". Which you should avoid.

Yes, both of them were scummy. But I've made my own experiences with blindly pressing "scummy" people. No good experiences.

Often those who don't look scummy at first glance are the real scum. Again, you need to double-think your actions.

Maybe I focused too hard on dorf on day 1.  But I can't pressure everyone, and I shouldn't have to, because there are other townies doing their own scumhunting.  A majority of the town found my case against dorf to be stronger than the other cases.  You voted dorf too. Remember?

Did you complain about me being overzealous then?  No, you voted dorf without providing an original argument.
I scumhunted, you bandwagoned, and now you call me the bad guy.

Scumtells don't mean anything if you don't regard them with a bit of distance, which is not given if you bullcharge your target that much.
You call it scumhunting, but it is mob justice. Finding a "witch" and then lynching him/her no matter what.

"Bullcharging" sounds like applying pressure, which is scumhunting rule 1.  I didn't lie, and I cited evidence for my claims.

I demonstrated that dorf was a liar.  No one else provided such a strong argument in day 1.  But I felt I was acting alone, so I waited for others to make arguments first in day 2.  When I heard arguments I agreed with, I added my support.  Support being citations and further arguments, not just a vote.

As said before... too much pressure makes any egg crack.

Don't criticize me for scumhunting.  Perform a better scumhunt on someone else, so we have choices.

Day 3, you waste everyone's time with the highly sketchy idea of a "massclaim", which, in the form you gave us, has too many flaws to actually work. Time zones, unproven assumptions about the scum's role PMs, the fact it's close to impossible to get people to post at the same time, Therion lurking, and that the results are far from reliable in the very end.

At least I tried something, right?  "Wasted people's time?"  No one was posting!  At all!  Day 3, our most desperate hour, started two days ago and only now are you participating.

Yes, but your plan was absolutely harebrained - like everything you have done so far - no thought at all!

I admit it was desperate even before you and Akigagak sabotaged it by claiming individually. 
"No thought at all"... well, genius, what's your input on this:

Ok I guess I'm wrong then ):
I don't see how yet though.

This day has to end with all 5 votes on one person, except that person's own vote.  Any other combination may allow scum to cause a tie.

Take this situation:
Players 1 and 5 are scum.
Players 1,2 and 3 vote for player 5.
At the last moment, players 1 and 5 vote for player 3.  No lynch, nightkill, game.

So we have to all vote for someone if we're going to have a chance.

We need Therion's vote too, if he's town.

Org seems to think I'm wrong, what do you think? 

So, the whole game, you have been a liability at best, and only succeeded in lynching townies with extreme prejudice.

This leaves me convinced that you are scum, Rolan7, and you must die.

If I had been scum, I wouldn't have posted.  Like you and therion.  By your own logic you'd pass me over to scumhunt inteuniso and akigagak, right?

It is a scum tactic to lead the horde, so to speak. This evades suspicion, no?

Yes, right, I'm suspicious because I'm trying to mobilize this dead town.  Just like a townie would do, oh ho ho, little do you know I switched the glasses, give me a break. 
As I already said, if I was scum, all I had to do was shut up and wait.

Inteuniso, this is desperate, so I'm going to assume you're town.
That leaves two out of Akigagak, Therion, and Errol, and me.
If I'm scum, I'd pick a townie out of that list to lynch.  So you pick instead, Akigagak Therion or Errol, and I'll vote with you.

Blank check to vote whoever inteuniso, who you foolishly assume as town? AND THEN volunteering to not cast the deciding vote?

WTF is this?

As I have completely proven (try to prove otherwise) we all have to vote together.  A vote not with the majority is a scum vote, period.  As an act of good will I'm offering to not decide who we will all vote for, and I did that by offering my support to the least scummy player.

Ok look, everyone, I suck at finding scum.  Maybe inteuniso is scum.  So scumhunt!  Make a case against him!  I'm just telling you that we have to vote in unison or scum *will win*.

[Errol]

Why were you so eager to get dorf lynched at Day 1? Overeager, even. It reads like an exaggerated personal vendetta.

Did I really go after dorf too hard?  He was a liar, he even tried to justify lying instead of denying it.  I got mad and I'm sorry, but regardless my case was strong.  Do you disagree?

I agree dorf was an asshole, but you had clear tunnel vision. Focusing ONLY on him, from pretty much the beginning. If you pound someone long enough, he WILL crack, no matter if he actually is scum or town. Therefore, your course of action was not productive AT ALL.

I never called him an asshole.  He's not an asshole.  He just acted like scum, lying and OMGUS voting.  I guess that makes him a bad player, though I'm not much better.  This is *beginner* mafia after all.

The 'asshole' thing is my personal judgment intersecting, sorry 'bout that, late night settling in.

And yes, this IS Beginner's Mafia, you ought to have a certain tolerance of such behavior here. Not everyone who acts scummy is scum.

On Day 2, you go on to lynch ExKirby due to... not doing his quote tags properly. Oh, and you went into straight-out lynching mode very, very early, perusing other people's arguments, too. This means you accuse him of using other people's arguments... while you are no better.

Haha, what?
Look at page 17 people:
1)  Inteuniso made a strong case against ExKirby, accusing him of bandwaggoning without any real scumhunting. 
2) GlyphGryph also makes a strong case, additionally accusing him of buddying with me.  Which was true, he did.
3) You swing by and say "geee, those arguments look great, but I'm not going to support them with a vote because I don't want to look suspicious.  Don't suspect me guys!  Certainly don't expect me to help scumhunt, I'll just leave my vote on... someone..."
4) Akigagak votes me for inactivity, which was 100% understandable.  Lurking is scummy!
5) I stop feeling depressed about Day 1 and start contributing again.
6) I agree with GlyphGryph and Inteuniso's arguments against ExKirby, so I find and quote evidence that supports them.  ExKirby and I get into a back and forth.
7) Looking back, ExKirby's defence still looks scummy.  He just tends to lurk, his buddying with me was a while ago, and then he makes unsupported attacks.
8 ) In addition to supporting the strong arguments against ExKirby, I feel like I should add an argument, so I complain about his confusing misuse of quote tags.  They really did make things confusing.

In conclusion, "On Day 2, you go on to lynch ExKirby due to... not doing his quote tags properly." is completely incorrect.  Why'd you say it?

Because that was your only original argument. And, again, tunnelvision.

You also should stop quoting my stuff out of context. The whole paragraph was my conclusion to your behavior at Day2.

It's still not the reason I voted ExKirby.  And I didn't "lynch" him, by the way, I participated in a lynch that I didn't initiate.
I didn't *need* an original argument to vote ExKirby, the existing arguments were strong enough, particularly after I supported them with quotes.

What you pulled there is called a "Toony Tunnel", and is not pro-town. Unless it hits scum, which is a large gamble.

I've completed my defense, but I want to respond to this because it's a pet peeve of mine.
My strategy, whatever comic name you assign to it, was either good or bad *in the context of what I knew at the time*.  I made arguments that are just as correct now as they were when I made them.  Dorf and ExKirby acted scummy.  I argued that they were the most scummy players at the time.  This is all true.
For example, if I made a random vote today and happened to vote scum, that doesn't change the fact that I'm stupid for random voting.
Sorry, pet peeve.

The Toony Tunnel is called that way because of certain things ToonyMan did. Pay the name no heed. But "Tunnel" hints at "tunnel-vision". Which you should avoid.

Yes, both of them were scummy. But I've made my own experiences with blindly pressing "scummy" people. No good experiences.

Often those who don't look scummy at first glance are the real scum. Again, you need to double-think your actions.

Maybe I focused too hard on dorf on day 1.  But I can't pressure everyone, and I shouldn't have to, because there are other townies doing their own scumhunting.  A majority of the town found my case against dorf to be stronger than the other cases.  You voted dorf too. Remember?

Did you complain about me being overzealous then?  No, you voted dorf without providing an original argument.
I scumhunted, you bandwagoned, and now you call me the bad guy.[/quote]

There's intelligent scumhunting and mindless scumhunting, and what you did was the later one. But I already explained that.
My bandwagon was in a situation where it has been described in great detail that an action should be avoided. dorf promptly does it. I do what everyone would do. This is not bandwagoning.

Scumtells don't mean anything if you don't regard them with a bit of distance, which is not given if you bullcharge your target that much.
You call it scumhunting, but it is mob justice. Finding a "witch" and then lynching him/her no matter what.

"Bullcharging" sounds like applying pressure, which is scumhunting rule 1.  I didn't lie, and I cited evidence for my claims.

I demonstrated that dorf was a liar.  No one else provided such a strong argument in day 1.  But I felt I was acting alone, so I waited for others to make arguments first in day 2.  When I heard arguments I agreed with, I added my support.  Support being citations and further arguments, not just a vote.

As said before... too much pressure makes any egg crack.

Don't criticize me for scumhunting.  Perform a better scumhunt on someone else, so we have choices.

You first. You are, in fact, just defending yourself now. This is a rather scummy thing to do. I am, at least, scumhunting.

Day 3, you waste everyone's time with the highly sketchy idea of a "massclaim", which, in the form you gave us, has too many flaws to actually work. Time zones, unproven assumptions about the scum's role PMs, the fact it's close to impossible to get people to post at the same time, Therion lurking, and that the results are far from reliable in the very end.

At least I tried something, right?  "Wasted people's time?"  No one was posting!  At all!  Day 3, our most desperate hour, started two days ago and only now are you participating.

Yes, but your plan was absolutely harebrained - like everything you have done so far - no thought at all!

I admit it was desperate even before you and Akigagak sabotaged it by claiming individually. 
"No thought at all"... well, genius, what's your input on this:

Ok I guess I'm wrong then ):
I don't see how yet though.

This day has to end with all 5 votes on one person, except that person's own vote.  Any other combination may allow scum to cause a tie.

Take this situation:
Players 1 and 5 are scum.
Players 1,2 and 3 vote for player 5.
At the last moment, players 1 and 5 vote for player 3.  No lynch, nightkill, game.

So we have to all vote for someone if we're going to have a chance.

We need Therion's vote too, if he's town.

Org seems to think I'm wrong, what do you think?

You haven't accounted for scum bussing their partner in case things get too hot to handle. Don't forget this possibility. Ever.

Other than that, I see no logical fallacies, but... 

So, the whole game, you have been a liability at best, and only succeeded in lynching townies with extreme prejudice.

This leaves me convinced that you are scum, Rolan7, and you must die.

If I had been scum, I wouldn't have posted.  Like you and therion.  By your own logic you'd pass me over to scumhunt inteuniso and akigagak, right?

It is a scum tactic to lead the horde, so to speak. This evades suspicion, no?

Yes, right, I'm suspicious because I'm trying to mobilize this dead town.  Just like a townie would do, oh ho ho, little do you know I switched the glasses, give me a break. 
As I already said, if I was scum, all I had to do was shut up and wait.

If you were town, you would scumhunt by now. You are being passive.

Inteuniso, this is desperate, so I'm going to assume you're town.
That leaves two out of Akigagak, Therion, and Errol, and me.
If I'm scum, I'd pick a townie out of that list to lynch.  So you pick instead, Akigagak Therion or Errol, and I'll vote with you.

Blank check to vote whoever inteuniso, who you foolishly assume as town? AND THEN volunteering to not cast the deciding vote?

WTF is this?

As I have completely proven (try to prove otherwise) we all have to vote together.  A vote not with the majority is a scum vote, period.  As an act of good will I'm offering to not decide who we will all vote for, and I did that by offering my support to the least scummy player.

Ok look, everyone, I suck at finding scum.  Maybe inteuniso is scum.  So scumhunt!  Make a case against him!  I'm just telling you that we have to vote in unison or scum *will win*.
[/quote]

Look, as long as you cast no vote, I'll just assume you are the scum who will blockade at last minute. See my point? Don't delegate your scumhunting. You critizised that point on ExKirby, right? But, at the moment, you are anything but active, despite posting. You only react to my posts. You offer to react if inteuniso acts.

Please explain how this is town at all.