Print

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

[Jim Groovester]

They are, in no particular order:

Ottofar, because he's not contributing except for nonsense crap solely to keep people off his back.

Mr.Person, because Day 1 stuff and being full of crap.

You, because you're not really doing anything, making passive jabs at people, not voting anyone (oh, your vote's weight is double, who the fuck cares), and then you want credit for saving JTF even when you weren't around to do anything about it, which seems paradoxical to me so I figure you're scum for it.

Pandarsenic, because he waved his town flag over killing JTF. And then he appealed to authority over it when I brought it up instead of his own arguments.

Book, because he's full of crap.

If you think Book is scum, why aren't you voting him?

[Ottofar]

I'm gonna do that thing tomorrow, when I'm not having migraine.

My head is hurting a lot still, even if I can see properly now.

[Jokerman-EXE]

I meant to vote Book in my last post, sorry. I was eating breakfast at the same time.

And this:

You, because you're not really doing anything, making passive jabs at people, not voting anyone (oh, your vote's weight is double, who the fuck cares), and then you want credit for saving JTF even when you weren't around to do anything about it, which seems paradoxical to me so I figure you're scum for it.

means you don't ever get to bitch about my vote again. I'll also point out that I don't "want credit" for saving JTF; I saved him, I pointed it out, that's the end of it. I don't really care if that gets me brownie points or not - I thought he was town so I was happy I saved him, period.

As far as I recall, Mr.Person never answered my accusations against him, no? I'm still curious to see that.

[Book]

Dariush: I asked:

Dariush: I refer to them to prove they are bullshit, as I've explained above. Question for you: what's your read on Mr. Person? How would you have voted yesterday if you had known Jokerman was an enchanter?

You replied:

How would you have voted yesterday if you had known Jokerman was an enchanter?

Leaving out the fact that there're not many ways that can be used to determine someone's role on day one, there're two possibilities - either I alone know his aligment or everyone does. In first case, I make this fact known in attempt to get someone who was voting JTF to vote Ottofar; in second, I would go all WTF as to why everyone allows a no lynch to go through.

What about your read on Mr. Person? You clearly saw the question, you even quoted the paragraph, but snipped that part. Why did you not answer? What's your read on him?

As to the enchanter question, your point is fair, but you didn't answer: who would you have voted? To remove knowledge of the role from the equation, say there was no enchanter, but the vote was tied; then you'd have known that leaving your vote on Ottofar would result in a no lynch. Would you have allowed the no lynch or would you have moved your vote? If the first, why? If the second, to whom and why?



Ottofar:

Ottofar: Please weigh in with your thoughts on Wuba vs. me, your reads on Leafsnail, Toaster and Person, and your top scumpicks.

Leaving aside your amusing FoS'ing of a corpse, you didn't answer the question about Leaf, Toaster and Person.

Sill waiting on answers from Person, Leafsnail, and Argembarger...

[Jim Groovester]

And this means you don't ever get to bitch about my vote again.

Not a chance. I'll bitch about your vote as much as I think it shows you as scum.

[NativeForeigner]

Jokerman: Yes, actually, I can.

Could you try making even more passive snipes while you yourself have not cast a vote at all or even declared who you found suspicious?

^^

PFP

[Leafsnail]

Please cite the "actual scummy points" I haven't refuted.

Basically all of them, but the ones you haven't really addressed are
- You say you'd want a shortening but don't want to look like you're shortening.  Webadict calls you out on this, but then you quietly change to objecting to an extension (functionally the same as shortening) without addressing webadict's post.
- The kook thing.  You've defended yourself by saying you weren't really agreeing to chainlynch the kooks and were instead suggesting a bunch of random impossible things.  Well... why write so much about how great it would be to chainlynch kooks if you don't want to do it?  Why take do so much over something that has nothing to do with scumhunting?
- The actual shortening itself.  You say you were objecting to extension, which is a totally different thing, and that I should instead be attacking a bunch of people who couldn't've done anything about it.  The thing is, you still haven't really said why you objected to the extension, and have merely tried to attack my premise that you "shortened the day" instead.  That isn't the root of the problem.

That's what wuba claims, a higher than 100% that there's a kook. He says it's certain there's at least a kook, so at least one of them is a confirmed townie just by virtue of claiming. But yeah, let's not rehash.

Still not over 100% then.  That means there's an 100% chance of one kook and a something% chance of another one.  But yeah, whatever.

They're a scumtell because he uses it as justification for his defence of Toaster, and his certainty that kook claims are genuine. It's his position on this that is scummy, and he uses bullshit statistics to "prove" it.

His point is basically that most paranormal games have kooks, as far as I can tell.

One interesting thing you seem to be suggesting (as far as I can tell) is that the ENTIRE SCUMTEAM is on you.  Is that... really likely in the slightest?  I mean, scum all have to vote the same way, right?

What in the heck is this?  You seem to miss out you're stuff on Book for some reason, mark 2 random people as town (you don't even seem to have any towny tells... for me it's just "lack of scumminess" and for Argembarger it's... what?  Why put it on your list if you can't explain it at all?

I would be eternally grateful if someone could clearly state the current case on Book without use of WoTs. I'd prefer to read A Song of Ice and Fire, it is shorter...

Doesn't answer the question.  The question was why you didn't write anything about Book in your post in spite of putting his name there.  Your other points are still pretty weird and unbackedup.

He uses them constantly. A couple of meta referrings are okay; an attempt to base a game around them is bound to fail.

Ok, let's accept that it's "bound to fail".  Why would that be scummy?

Personally, I don't think Ottofar's accusation of a dead body is scummy.  Sure, it shows a staggering lack of attentiveness, but lack of attentiveness isn't a scumtell.  Definitely needs to say more tomorrow (realtime tomorrow), though.

@NativeForeigner: Uh, what??

[NativeForeigner]

Personally, I don't think Ottofar's accusation of a dead body is scummy.  Sure, it shows a staggering lack of attentiveness, but lack of attentiveness isn't a scumtell.  Definitely needs to say more tomorrow (realtime tomorrow), though.

@NativeForeigner: Uh, what??

I'm just bothering Jokerman.

As for Ottofar, while the accusation of a dead body might not be scummy on it's own., there's been a few other things that he's done that has caused red flags to shoot up.

PFP.

[Book]

- You say you'd want a shortening but don't want to look like you're shortening.  Webadict calls you out on this, but then you quietly change to objecting to an extension (functionally the same as shortening) without addressing webadict's post.

False. Please cite where I say I want a shortening. Note the context of the conversation, we were discussing with Meph the general game mechanics of 24 vs. 48 hour extensions, and I say:

I meant real tomorrow.  I thought we'd already agreed to a 48 hour extension.

No, it was simply agreed that 48 hour extensions should be possible.
Having both 24 and 48 hour extensions is getting annoying to track, though. So maybe I'll just make all extensions 48 hours and save myself the headache. People can always Shorten if they think a day is dragging.

I prefer the 24 hour extensions, and get rid of the doubles. Maybe just have more than the current maximum two possible. If the extension is needed is because people are posting, if they are posting, they can request another one. Extension to lurk? Hell no.
I prefer agile games. If people extend 48 hours and then conversation dwindles 12-24 hours in, no one will request a shorten, as it would be seen as scummy, they will just let the game drag on for a useless day.

I said, and I stand by it, that 24 hours extensions are better, and that people (not me, players in general, in any game) are reluctant to shorten even if conversation dies, as some other people latch onto such a thing as being scummy. I'm not saying I want to shorten D1 on this game, I'm saying that 24 hour extensions make for more agile games, and that I like agile games. As far as addressing wuba's "point", Janus did it for me first:

So, you're saying you want to request a shortening, but don't want to be seen as scummy?
I'd call that protecting your image, pal. Be scum less?

Is that really how you're going to read that?

It's clearly out of context and intended to conjure scumtells out of his imagination. At no point I said I wanted to "request a shortening" or that I didn't want to "seem scummy". I said, in response to Meph's "People can always Shorten if they think a day is dragging" that it wouldn't really happen, as people would, in principle, latch to it as a scumtell whether true or not. The fact that you are discussing this proves me right, but still does not apply to D1 at all, it was merely meta discussion on game mechanics.

As to why I objected to the extension, I already explained in my last post to Person (spoilered/quoted below for your reference): Janus asked me to take a stance either for or against, and after typing my reasons (not "quietly") I judged it as not really helpful, so I objected. Still, if people wanted to extend, they still could; the day ended as scheduled, and would have without my objection. I did not change the deadline.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Point is, you need to justify why you objected to an extension in the first place.

Sure: Janus asked me "Do you think an Extension specifically now is helpful? Why / why not?"

I replied thusly:

Not particularly, people seem pretty set on lynching either you or Ottofar, and both seem sensible choices to me (though Toaster or Wuba would be better, it doesn't seem like it'll happen today). If that's what's going to happen anyway, let it happen sooner rather than later. We don't seem to have much discussion going at the moment either. I also agree that if you do manage to survive, this will be hashed and rehashed to a pulp tomorrow...

After typing that, I realised an extension didn't seem helpful, plus the suggested 48 hours seemed excessive, so I objected to the extension instead of letting the question linger. Janus indirectly asked me to take a stance for or against it, instead of silence (like the majority did), so I considered the pros and cons, and decided against it.

Seems straightforward enough to me...

I'm also still waiting on a response to what I've said, or at least you saying you have no response if that's the case.

Dude, I can only handle so many walls of text at a time. But I'm working on it, don't worry.

- The kook thing.  You've defended yourself by saying you weren't really agreeing to chainlynch the kooks and were instead suggesting a bunch of random impossible things.  Well... why write so much about how great it would be to chainlynch kooks if you don't want to do it?  Why take do so much over something that has nothing to do with scumhunting?

It does have to do with scumhunting: I put it as demonstration that Wuba's statistics were bunk, which demolished his case on making Toaster a confirmed townie, and proved his defence of him was scummy and based on knowledge he didn't and couldn't have.

You list this point as being one of "the ones you haven't really addressed", but I think I've addressed it at length. However, I can put it briefly like this: Wuba proposed bullshit numbers; I pointed out that his numbers would mandate a ludicrous action (the chainlynch), with the intention to ascertain wuba's alignment: if he was town he'd say something like "oh, yeah, let's not do that then" (therefore abandoning his certainty of Toaster's alignment), but if he was scum, he'd say "well, the numbers are right! I am convinced by them that Toaster is town regardless of the conclusions they imply!" He did the latter, therefore I conclude he's scum (when put together with the rest of his bullshit that I've already described elsewhere).

However, you're right in saying that both of us "wrote so much" about it and called each other scum over the discussion of it. We're both verbose, argumentative, and unafraid of monstrous walls of text, so it was kinda inevitable, but the entire thing can be distilled to the paragraph above.

- The actual shortening itself.  You say you were objecting to extension, which is a totally different thing, and that I should instead be attacking a bunch of people who couldn't've done anything about it.  The thing is, you still haven't really said why you objected to the extension, and have merely tried to attack my premise that you "shortened the day" instead.  That isn't the root of the problem.

Again, this is not only not a point I hadn't addressed, but a rehash of your first point above. Please read the spoilered quote for detailed reasons for my objection, and keep in mind the context: the discussion over extension length, there being insufficient votes for an extension anyway, and Janus's prompting question to me.

They're a scumtell because he uses it as justification for his defence of Toaster, and his certainty that kook claims are genuine. It's his position on this that is scummy, and he uses bullshit statistics to "prove" it.

His point is basically that most paranormal games have kooks, as far as I can tell.

No no no. His point is that all paranormal games must have at least one kook. There's a world of difference, as he's using that bullshit argument (directly contradicted by Meph!) as justification for turning kook claimants into confirmed townies, which is awful scummy.

There has always been at least one Kook. there will always be at least one Kook.

One interesting thing you seem to be suggesting (as far as I can tell) is that the ENTIRE SCUMTEAM is on you.  Is that... really likely in the slightest?  I mean, scum all have to vote the same way, right?

I have never suggested such a thing. I do think both you and wuba are scum, and that's half of the scum team voting me, yes. Person and Toaster are next in my scumpicks, but I have not asserted certainty that they are scum, and their scumminess is independent, nor are they the totality of the people I find suspicious, just the highest on the list. I may be right on some, wrong on others. Jokerman is also voting me, but I don't think he's scum.


This is the third or fourth time you've jumped in with recycled lies to justify your bandwagon vote. You said I had multiple unaddressed points, but the only really new one you mentioned was my not replying to wuba's ludicrous "so you're saying you want to shorten, but won't", which is out-of-context bullshit. The fact that you can only quote wuba, question why his statistics "would be scummy?", and insistence of pulling a scumtell out of the end of D1 just as he did, tell me that you are his scumbuddy.


Questions for you: who else is on your scumlist and why? You clearly were concerned about enchanters at the end of D1, and yet weren't voting for the top contenders, why? Don't say that it's because you expected an extension, your last post was only a few hours before end of day, and there weren't enough votes to extend, so you couldn't make that assumption. Also: What's your read on Toaster, Argembarger and Jim G?

[Argembarger]

Argembarger, Ottofar: Please weigh in with your thoughts on Wuba vs. me, your reads on Leafsnail, Toaster and Person, and your top scumpicks.

Hrm.

Well. Statistics, right?

You can think I'm coming on way too strong, but there are people saying we shouldn't call people claiming Kook Town. Sure. That goes without saying. But the problem is that they don't want them to be considered more likely to be Town. I do. They are more likely to be Town. And it's due to simple statistics. I'll use the last three games as evidence:

There is a 100% chance of at least 1 Kook. This is surely more like 90%, but using empirical evidence, it's 100%.
33% of those games have had 2 Kooks. So, we'll assume that 66% chance of 1. 33% of 2. All on empirical evidence, of course.

1(2/3) + 2(1/3) = 4/3 as an expected value. That means in every game, there is likely to be 1.333 Kooks. They can only be Town. That means .5(2/3) + 1(1/3) = 66% chance to be Town at the lowest. As opposed to the 4 scum + 2 third parties in a group of 14 people. That means 8/14 = 57% chance to be Town on average. So, yes, they are more likely to be Town.

If you accept the empirical data there, as far as I'm concerned, Webadict's conclusion is valid. I don't like how small the sample size is, though.

Bastard Paranormal, there was a kook claimed, but IIRC, that kook never got confirmed or denied, right? The game just ended with "Humans win" and MBP's role in that game was never explicitly stated by Meph. So I suppose that one should get disregarded.

Para 17, 16, 15 were covered by Webadict.
Para 14, kook = 0.
Para 13, kook = 1.
Para 12, kook = 2.
Para 11, kook = 1.
Para 10 and earlier didn't have kooks as a thing.

Unless I screwed up, Para 14 proves that the possibility of 0 kooks is possible, but for the most part, with this expanded sample size, Webadict's estimate of 2/3 of games having 1 kook and 1/3 of games having two is correct.

The possibility of this game being like Para 14, and there are no kooks, and we have 2 fakeclaimers right now, is pretty much impossibly insane in my opinion, so I'm not gonna consider that. It is safe to say that we have 1 or 2 kooks in this game. Since kooks have to be town, Webadict is correct; people who claim kook are more likely to be town than scum.

From that premise, that what Webadict is saying is generally true,

Focusing on the Kooks is a nowhere road, as at least one of them is Town. You've got better odds of hitting scum by shooting randomly into the crowd of non-Kook-claimers.

Again your statistics are bunk. If at least one of them is town, and you have independent scummy reads on the other one, you have better chance of hitting scum by lynching the possible-fakeclaimer than randomly lynching one of the other dozen players.

NO YOU DON'T! YOU'RE MAKING THINGS UP! HOLY GOD!

Statistics really isn't your strong point, is it? Say you have a even-odds certainty of one of the two kooks fakeclaiming (because, as I said, you have independent scummy reads on him). If you lynch him, you have a 50% chance of hitting scum. If you lynch at random one of the other 13 players, you have a 30% or so chance. Your statistics are bunk.

But there's a 66% chance for the second kook claimant to be telling the truth. And there's roughly 57% chance for a randomlynch to come up town.

57% is better odds for a mislynch than 66%. And, of course, those odds are even better now that three townies have died. Chance of lynching scum is now something like 6/11, right? So now there's a less-than-50% chance to mislynch.

Webadict is right. It's better to not attack kook claimants just for claiming kook.


Now, the question is, are you aware that Webadict is correct? He certainly thinks so.

There's always the chance that you're just making a mistake in misinterpreting Webadict's statistics. Webadict seems to be attacking you (statistics-wise) based on the idea that you're purposefully corrupting his theory and trying to attack him with it. I don't know which is true because I can't read your mind.

From my point of view, I'm not even going to consider the statistics debate in terms of deciding who is scummy here. I wrote everything up to here to state that I think Webadict's statistics are pretty much accurate. However, the statistics argument is, by and large, besides the point. It's something to consider when going to vote a kook, i.e. maybe you should have reasons to vote that kook other than their kookiness, but the statistics don't really have anything to do with you or Webadict's scumminess, do they?

Something I think is wierd is Webadict's hyper-srs-bsnss mode, claiming using humor as scumtells. This, I don't understand. I don't see it as evidence on it's own. Maybe, humor + lack of content can amplify the lack-of-content bit, but Webadict not-random-voting Janus for a joke and using you joking as evidence of your scumminess is rather contrived.

Also wierd, because I can certainly find examples of Webadict joking. Maybe not horribly explicit jokes, but stuff like

You've shown it by bringing up a whole list of points about Org's style and pushing Org to bother.

Ah, I'm sorry. That wasn't any of the things you did.

I think that's pretty funny. I think it was probably meant to be comical, perhaps in a threatening way, but comical nonetheless.

Point is, I don't think jokes on their own are scumtells.

Now for some actual real things that matter, at least to me.

Webadict is being extremely aggressive. This seems to me to be more townlike behavior from him in his meta, but it gets a little extreme. He appears to be shoving words into people's mouths, or assuming connotation that seems a little forced sometimes, and using it as evidence.

Exhibits:

I meant real tomorrow.  I thought we'd already agreed to a 48 hour extension.

No, it was simply agreed that 48 hour extensions should be possible.
Having both 24 and 48 hour extensions is getting annoying to track, though. So maybe I'll just make all extensions 48 hours and save myself the headache. People can always Shorten if they think a day is dragging.

I prefer the 24 hour extensions, and get rid of the doubles. Maybe just have more than the current maximum two possible. If the extension is needed is because people are posting, if they are posting, they can request another one. Extension to lurk? Hell no.

I prefer agile games. If people extend 48 hours and then conversation dwindles 12-24 hours in, no one will request a shorten, as it would be seen as scummy, they will just let the game drag on for a useless day.

So, you're saying you want to request a shortening, but don't want to be seen as scummy?

I'd call that protecting your image, pal. Be scum less?

I enjoy arguing with Book right now. I feel like I can show he's scum as well. Since I'm alive today, I can do that. I might not be alive tomorrow.

Here's hoping.

And you're kicking up enough crap that, even if you are town, I'm guessing the scum will leave you just for that.

Are you saying Book is Town?

Aggressive web = town meta, unnervingly in-your-face web = still town meta? It kind of makes his case look more crazy than logical, though.

In short, I think he's town more than you are, Book. All you've talked about is Web. All you've said to other people is Webadict-related. Ironically, you're tunnelling him harder than he is on you, and that's pretty scummy.

On Leafsnail.
He's on the Bookwagon, but he seems to have good reasons for it.

However, yesterday, he kind of passively voted NativeForeigner for active-lurking and didn't really do anything about it. Didn't back up his vote, didn't question NF, just sort of sat back and let the day end. That's fairly scummy.

So, leans scum.

On Toaster.
Had his vote on MBP for... uh, a reason. Kind of passively questioned MBP. Boarded the JanusWagon quickly, but seemed to have decent reasons for it. Kinda wierd behavior.

But he's been active with questioning and appears to give a care about scumhunting, so I think that overpowers the wierdness and puts him slight townish on my scale.

On Mr. Person.
Lurking punctuated by walls of text. The content in the walls of text makes me think he's neutral.

Scumpicks.
Still keeping my vote on Ottofar. For lurking and a general no-content don't-care attitude. Also, votes Dariush for lurking? For jumping on his "bandwagon" (back when it was just me and Pandar)?

Bullshit; that's an OMGUS, or as close as he can make from his phone.

Next, Dariush. Passive, lurky. His vote on Ottofar is lazy. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a bandwagon like Ottofar does, but it's not very well supported. He hasn't been hunting, just throwing down votes and observations.

Finally, you, Book. Your constant tunnelling of Webadict and hyper-defensive attitude is scummy.

Wow this took a long time to write.

[Book]

Well. Statistics, right?

Oh gods, no. I think that point has been overdone to death, and I certainly dispute your numbers as I did his. However, this is very important:

Para 17, 16, 15 were covered by Webadict.
Para 14, kook = 0.

This alone, the existence of a game with zero kooks, disproves wuba's entire argument: that a kook claimant can become a confirmed townie because there's the certainty of there being at least one kook. I'm not saying we have zero, one, or two kooks or fakeclaimers, I'm saying that I don't know and wuba doesn't either unless he's scum, so he's making this shit up:

There has always been at least one Kook. there will always be at least one Kook.

But the last point is easily decided: Mephansteras: is the presence of at least one Kook guaranteed in Paranormal games?

Of course he's not going to say yes, because that would be against rules. But, there is at least one Kook.

The only thing that is guaranteed is that there will be town and doppelgangers.

Told you he'd say this. Of course, that just a formality. I, however, know the truth.

How, wuba darling, do you know the truth? I'll tell you how: you know exactly how many kooks there actually are, because you are scum. Otherwise you can't know, and you know it. You made this shit up so you could defend Toaster with a straight face. You use your bullshit "knowledge" as backup of your case, your attack on me, your defence of him, and your strategy recommendations.

Webadict is being extremely aggressive. This seems to me to be more townlike behavior from him in his meta, but it gets a little extreme. He appears to be shoving words into people's mouths, or assuming connotation that seems a little forced sometimes, and using it as evidence.

Before using his aggressiveness as town meta, I remind you of P17, where he was scum and was just as aggressive, vitriolic, and prone to wall-of-texts as now. Sure, he took a bit to get going, as he posted he'd be busy early, but he was full-on like here by mid-late D1.

^{(I would also remind people that I was onto him from the start and no one listened to me, but I was right, dammit....)}

[Pandarsenic]

Pandarsenic, because he waved his town flag over killing JTF. And then he appealed to authority over it when I brought it up instead of his own arguments.

We were in agreement that the move was correct. Your only argument was that I claimed vig to clear up any ambiguity about the kill, which was so pro-town it was scummy. I simply cited why that was stupid.

Leafsnail, why does Ottofar get a free pass to do nothing? He's becoming for lurking what Org is for playing stupidly.

[Toaster]

Ottofar:

Unvote MBP

Argembarger: Ok, seems townish to me.

Book+Webadict: Seems to me that Book might be scummier.

Dariush: Lurk, Bandwagon.
MBP, for the thing I voted him for earlier.

Migraine- gonna go to dark room now.

You unvoted your vote from the previous day then FoSed a dead guy.

You know what?  I could almost get past that if you would answer the burning question on everyone's mind...

WHY?

Why do you think those things?


Native:  You commit the same sin- you attack Ottofar without elaborating, specifically here.


Argembarger:  Why did you use so many words on statistics then dismiss the whole subject as useless?


Jokerman:  What's your take on Web's statistics?  Assuming Book flips town, who do you think the scum would be?  What's your read on Pandar?

[Argembarger]

Argembarger:  Why did you use so many words on statistics then dismiss the whole subject as useless?

They're not useless; they're reasons why we shouldn't lynch the kook claimants just for claiming kook.

I was asked for my opinion on the Web vs. Book thing, and the statistics question is there and should be addressed, but in my opinion, it is beside the point for determining scumminess.

I gave the statistics thing a lot of screentime, yes, but I haven't addressed it at all up until now, either. I'm just playing catch-up in that regard. I figured I could help put it to rest, but looking at Book's reply, I guess not.

Webadict, does Paranormal 14 having no kooks affect your thought process?

Jokerman-EXE, what's your list of suspicions look like?

[Jim Groovester]

Pandarsenic, because he waved his town flag over killing JTF. And then he appealed to authority over it when I brought it up instead of his own arguments.

We were in agreement that the move was correct. Your only argument was that I claimed vig to clear up any ambiguity about the kill, which was so pro-town it was scummy. I simply cited why that was stupid.

It's not so much what you did. It's the reasons you gave. You said, "I did this for you." instead of, "I did this for me." There are several very good reasons for why you did what you did, and I don't question them. But it's your generous attitude towards the rest of the town over it that personally makes me suspicious.

Regardless, it's not an actionable suspicion, since it's something I might've done for the same reasons were I in your position. Same thing with Toaster's kook claim yesterday. I know where to draw the line between actionable and inactionable suspicions, and you're on the inactionable side.

WHY?

It's not like you to get worked up over, well, anything. And you've done it twice this game. I'm not sure what it means, since you've played perfectly calm scum and town games.

What's going on? Why are you getting frustrated?