Print

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

[Leafsnail]

I didn't shorten the day, any more than the dozen people who didn't request an extension. It ended when it was scheduled to end. I didn't extend for the reasons I listed: The result seemed settled and discussion had died down, so let the game take its course.

You blocked anyone from extending the day, and made it end even though there was a fair chance other people also wanted it to extend.  Tomato, tomato.

...You could bring up a previous game in which I did the same thing, but bear in mind I was scum then .

I didn't acknowledge wuba's post because it didn't merit one, it was a patently ridiculous reading of my post. And every game has a possibility of an enchanter; I didn't know one existed any more than you did (but maybe I assume to much? Did you?)

Several people mentioned enchanters though, so you can't say you didn't consider it.  Simply extending could've probably got you one more vote on Janus.  So... why not?

That's not what I said. I didn't vote for Ottofar, and never advocated chainlynches. If you read the last comment of the day, you'll see I say it would be interesting, but that I wouldn't vote for it. If one of the kook claimants happens to die, though, and does indeed flip kook, then by wuba's numbers the other one does have a 67% chance of being scum, and should die next. If a claimant dies and flips scum, the other one would be pretty much confirmed. Do you agree with Wuba's numbers?

I think Wuba's numbers are about right.  However, you have fundamentally made the wrong calculation with them.

If we were having a bet about the number of kooks in a game before it started, and we already knew there was one, then yes, there's a 33% chance that there's another kook (according to webadict's rough estimate).

However, that's not the scenario we've been presented with.  We know that two people have claimed kook.  The only chance we can weigh up is "the chance of scum claiming that", which I think you'll agree is basically impossible to quantify.

I mean, under the logic you're using, if there's a role with a 20% chance of appearing, someone claiming it should immediately be lynched because apparently there's an 80% chance of them being scum.  Hey, if someone claims a role in a closed setup game, there's probably a less than 0.1% chance of that role being in the game!  Therefore anyone claiming anything in a closed setup game should be lynched instantly since there's a 99.9% chance of them being scum.

Once again, you agree with wuba's pantently ridiculous and disingenuous interpretation of my post, putting words in my mouth that I never said.

The fact that you can't even be bothered to come up with original points is even more troublesome. You try to use his points to make a retarded spurious case based on falsehoods so you can jump on a bandwagon. I'm now pretty sure you are scum, Leafsnail.

Man, it would be so great if some mafia members had the balls not to OMGUS immediately.  I mean, just for variety.

Webadict's case seems fair, and you haven't done anything to get rid of it (except continuing to spout an incorrect statistic).  Instead you decide to just OMGUS someone else, because they're very scummy for having been convinced by an argument that you haven't refuted.

Your objection to an extension was fundamentally the same as a shorten.

You advocated lynching Toaster:

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.

Annnd lynching someone who has this "67%" chance of being scum:

Thank you for admitting that either your numbers are bunk, or that you don't want to lynch a person that has 67% chance of being scum.

Which is, to me, advocating a chainlynch.

[Jokerman-EXE]

Jesus, I've never had someone act so ungrateful for my saving them. Yes, I'm the Enchanter, and I saved Janus for two reasons yesterday (well, three technically).

1. I didn't believe he was scum. I had suspicions of him before, but after the last few posts of the day I decided that I didn't think it was him.

2. The way Book was shortening the day struck me as odd. He was somewhat suspicious before, but his pseudo-opposition to extending seemed weird. Maybe I took away from the information that we could have gained from a lynch, but I also stopped any plans the scum might have made from looking at how things were. I feel that's a worthwhile trade.

3. I uhh...didn't sign on soon enough to make a real post, ask for an extension, or anything. I could only check from my phone, and it was already locked.

Now, going back to my first point: Janus, you seem really bummed that I didn't let you die. You're a Spore Spreader, aren't you?

[Argembarger]

Uh, Janus is dead, bro.

Tay appension.

[Jokerman-EXE]

...dorp.

I'm gonna just...come back to this when I'm not retardedly tired and having just failed a math test. kthxbai

[Mr.Person]

Book, let's start with you. I notice you haven't been doing any scumhunting since you started arguing with Webadict about stupid shit. Why is that?

Book

Heh. Toaster, where are you? Are you going to vote me too? I find it funny that I'm voted specifically by those I mentioned on my scumpicks yesterday:

You are scum. Unvote Toaster, vote Webadict. But I still think Toaster is scummy. My next picks, for those keeping track, are Mr.Person, and Org.

What's your point, exactly?

But yeah, I agree I didn't hunt as much yesterday after wuba started his tunnel... those walls of text are distracting and take a long time to read and write. Still, I'd dispute that I didn't do any.

This is no excuse. You spent so long arguing with Webadict about things that have no possibility of showing him scum or town. You can prove his numbers are wrong but that doesn't prove he's scum. So why were you spending so much time fighting with Webadict instead of scumhunting?

My suspicions from D1 remain, though:
- Toaster: I still don't trust your claim, and according to wuba's numbers, it has a 67% chance of being fake.

What makes you think Ottofar is town? What makes you think Toaster is scum? You can't say something like this without backing up your opinion.

- Person: Your participation has been limited to two bloody enormous walls of text, and endless "arguing about stupid shit", as you put it. You are not committed to finding scum, and your arguments and lurking are suspicious as well.

What? Lurking? Of all the things you can call me on, you say lurking? Buddy, I'm probably the fourth most active player in the game right now behind you, Webadict, and Jim. Claiming I'm lurking is borderline scummy, that's how factually wrong it is.

I also find it odd you're saying I'm scummy for arguing about stupid shit when that's what you spent half of Day 1 doing. And my argument with Jim was far from a waste of time. I've gained valuable insight on Jim from my discussion. Have you learned anything about Webadict when you started arguing with his numbers?

Are you trying to imply I'm scum because I make WoT's? That's insane. Don't even start with that shit, just don't. A WoT is several posts lumped together. I would of posted the same amount of content if I was here, it just would of been spread out more.

I'm not trying to find scum, I've already found 5 scumpicks. At this point I'm questioning them to try to figure out their alignments. That's what happened with Jim, I already thought he was scum when I walked in questioning him. No, at the time I did not have 5 scumpicks, I had 1.

Person: Why do you push for a mass claim? If you are so sure, shouldn't you start? How would a medium be so helpful? The wardens don't know their target's alignment, certainly didn't block the dopp kill, and wouldn't know their killer. At most we could get something useful from MBP, though, but if he has the information and posts it in deadchat, I'm sure the medium will claim without your prompting. Please justify your request. Also, what are your current reads on Toaster, Wuba and JimG?

I push for MC because I think it will help. I don't start since nobody else has talked yet. I don't want to be the only one to claim, nor do I want to force the rest of the town into MCing by guilting them into it if they don't want to. I'm not Webadict, I'm not doing something good for the town against their will.

The wardens could confirm at least one and probably two players who aren't vigilantes or the killing dopp. If we find out there were 3 blocks last night, we know one dopp is a warden. Thank goodness we can both agree the telepath info is worthwhile, but I disagree that the information of one telepath and 2 wardens is useful enough for a medium to claim over. It's good information, but it doesn't prove anything. And besides, telepath information is the kind of thing you want to claim after the person you have the information on so you can catch them in a lie.

Toaster: My read is fairly neutral, leaning town, but Toaster is town by proxy of Ottofar being scum. Short story on Ottofar: Lurking, really passive. I'm dealing with you right now, Book, so Ottofar comes later.
Webadict: My reads on Webadict are always wrong, so I don't even bother trying anymore. I'm thinking town for some reason, though.
Jim: Scum. Don't ask about players I've already explained my stance on to death. Definitely lower chance of him being scum than I thought yesterday, though.

PPE: Well, there's several claims right there.

I guessed Jokerman was the Enchanter during the night, by the way. Your last post seemed to be the kind of actions a player unsure of what to do in the situation as an Enchanter would do. Here's a hint: you should of unvoted at least. No lynch is worse than a lynch of a townie, doubly so if the lynch at least had a chance of hitting scum. But ok, if you thought Book was being odd, why didn't you vote him at the time?

[Pandarsenic]

As you can see, he was NOT a vig dopp and I probably should've shot Ottofar instead, but there you have it.

I CAN WRITE STUFFS

And Argembarger, I gave you my scumpick: Ottofar.

[Book]

I didn't shorten the day, any more than the dozen people who didn't request an extension. It ended when it was scheduled to end. I didn't extend for the reasons I listed: The result seemed settled and discussion had died down, so let the game take its course.

You blocked anyone from extending the day, and made it end even though there was a fair chance other people also wanted it to extend.  Tomato, tomato.

Bullshit. If people wanted to extend, they would have said "extend". They didn't. Two of them doing it would have been enough to extend in any case. I blocked nothing, the day would have ended at exactly the same time without my objection, because no one else extended (it was still one short). By your reasoning, everyone who didn't extend, also shortened it.

I didn't acknowledge wuba's post because it didn't merit one, it was a patently ridiculous reading of my post. And every game has a possibility of an enchanter; I didn't know one existed any more than you did (but maybe I assume to much? Did you?)

Several people mentioned enchanters though, so you can't say you didn't consider it.  Simply extending could've probably got you one more vote on Janus.  So... why not?

Got "me" a vote on Janus? I wasn't voting him. I didn't find him particularly scummy, or I'd have voted him. If people wanted to make sure he hanged, they should have extended or moved their vote. I was not involved. Note that your "simply extending... so why not" is not attacking me for shortening, but for not extending. Are you going to attack the other ten people who also didn't extend? As to why I didn't, I explained already. Day would have been extended to today, we'd still be discussing Otto vs. Janus right now. No, I'm glad the day ended when it did.

Again, I wasn't the only one who apparently didn't take enchanters into account, so why are you not going against the ones not making a decisive vote? Hell, you were voting for Native, if you were so worried about enchanters, and had noticed people mentioning them, why didn't you vote Janus to ensure there would be a lynch? You have as much responsibility for the nolynch as I do (or MBP, Janus, Ottofar and Native).

I think Wuba's numbers are about right.  However, you have fundamentally made the wrong calculation with them. [...] I mean, under the logic you're using, if there's a role with a 20% chance of appearing, someone claiming it should immediately be lynched because apparently there's an 80% chance of them being scum.

No. You also fail at statistics. If it's a 20% chance of the role happening, there's a 0.2*(number of players) for the role appearing, in your example case, 2.6 expected players with that role. If two claim it, it's perfectly likely they are both truthful. If four claim it, there's a 35% chance one of them is fakeclaiming (1-2.6/4).

Webadict's case seems fair, and you haven't done anything to get rid of it (except continuing to spout an incorrect statistic).  Instead you decide to just OMGUS someone else, because they're very scummy for having been convinced by an argument that you haven't refuted.

No. I vote you because your argument is bunk, unoriginal, and based on lies.

You advocated lynching Toaster:

Yes, I found his claim scummy, as I said from the beginning.

Annnd lynching someone who has this "67%" chance of being scum: Which is, to me, advocating a chainlynch.

Not at all. The person to whom the 67% chance quote refers to is Toaster, not Ottofar:

By your own numbers, there are 4/3 expected kooks, yes? So if we lynch Ottofar, and he does indeed flip kook, then it means there's a 2/3 chance that Toaster is indeed flakeclaiming. But no, I'm not going to vote Ottofar

At most, I advocated lynching Toaster twice, I guess? And I explicitly, in the post I quote but you didn't requote clarify that the percentage-based advocacy is if, and only if, a) wuba stands by his numbers, and b) if Ottofar happens to die and flip town.

I never advocated lynching Ottofar. Where's the chain?

So, there you go. Your case is utter bunk, based on placing words in my mouth that I never said, disingenuous reading of my posts, and recycled arguments to justify your jumping on a wagon. I already refuted your statistics, your claim that I didn't consider enchanters (neither did you!), your claiming that I shortened the day (I didn't; it ended as scheduled, and would have without my objection. If people wanted to extend, they could have), and your (and wuba's) false notion that I proposed chainlynching anyone.


Think for yourself, scum! Just because your scummaster says stupid tripe like this, it doesn't mean it's true!

Thank you for admitting that you wish to chainlynch the Kooks.

Never happened.


PPE: Response to Person in a few...

[Leafsnail]

Bullshit. If people wanted to extend, they would have said "extend". They didn't. Two of them doing it would have been enough to extend in any case. I blocked nothing, the day would have ended at exactly the same time without my objection, because no one else extended (it was still one short). By your reasoning, everyone who didn't extend, also shortened it.

There's not much point in attempted to extend when someone's already cockblocked it by objecting.

Got "me" a vote on Janus? I wasn't voting him. I didn't find him particularly scummy, or I'd have voted him. If people wanted to make sure he hanged, they should have extended or moved their vote. I was not involved. Note that your "simply extending... so why not" is not attacking me for shortening, but for not extending. Are you going to attack the other ten people who also didn't extend? As to why I didn't, I explained already. Day would have been extended to today, we'd still be discussing Otto vs. Janus right now. No, I'm glad the day ended when it did.

I don't see any fundamental distinction between "shortening" and "not extending" (except that to shorten you need to be in agreement with other people, wheras for not extending you're in disagreement).  And if you did extend, we might not have wasted yesterday's lynch.

You were there.

Not after you blocked the extension.  And I was voting for it.

Again, I wasn't the only one who apparently didn't take enchanters into account, so why are you not going against the ones not making a decisive vote? Hell, you were voting for Native, if you were so worried about enchanters, and had noticed people mentioning them, why didn't you vote Janus to ensure there would be a lynch? You have as much responsibility for the nolynch as I do (or MBP, Janus, Ottofar and Native).

I asked for an extension, and I didn't expect someone else to block it like that.

No. You also fail at statistics. If it's a 20% chance of the role happening, there's a 0.2*(number of players) for the role appearing, in your example case, 2.6 expected players with that role. If two claim it, it's perfectly likely they are both truthful. If four claim it, there's a 35% chance one of them is fakeclaiming (1-2.6/4).

I meant a 20% chance to appear over all the players, duh.  Misinterpreting one element of what I said and drawing a ridiculous conclusion from that doesn't stop the fact that the statistics you're using are fundamentally wrong.

No. I vote you because your argument is bunk, unoriginal, and based on lies.

So, why not vote the person who made these lies rather than someone who got fooled by them, in your view?

Not at all. The person to whom the 67% chance quote refers to is Toaster, not Ottofar:

...Even though they obviously end up in the same spot under your crazy statistical analysis?

I never advocated lynching Ottofar. Where's the chain?

Sure, not directly.  But you're clearly saying "If one kook dies then other kook is likely scum".

[Leafsnail]

Actually, this statistics thing is really bothering me because you WILL destroy games if you think like that.

Let's say I run a game where there's a 20% chance of there being a doctor (in the whole game) and a 20% chance of there being a cop (in the whole game).  A cop or doctor claims.  Do they have an 80% chance of being scum?

[Book]

Bullshit. If people wanted to extend, they would have said "extend". They didn't. Two of them doing it would have been enough to extend in any case. I blocked nothing, the day would have ended at exactly the same time without my objection, because no one else extended (it was still one short). By your reasoning, everyone who didn't extend, also shortened it.

There's not much point in attempted to extend when someone's already cockblocked it by objecting.

Sure there is. One person doing it would completely undo the cockblocking, returning to the status quo, yes? Again, there were almost ten people not extending. If they wanted to extend, they would have. There's no cockblocking, just one of them would have been enough to cancel my objection.

I don't see any fundamental distinction between "shortening" and "not extending" (except that to shorten you need to be in agreement with other people, wheras for not extending you're in disagreement).  And if you did extend, we might not have wasted yesterday's lynch.

Bullshit. There was clearly a larger agreement to not extend, since more people didn't request an extension over those who did. And quit saying if I extended, go bug the other bunch of people who also didn't.

You were there.

I never said "you were there". Quit putting words in my mouth, scum.

[...]the statistics you're using are fundamentally wrong.

I agree the numbers are bunk. We don't know what weight Meph uses for kooks and other roles, and there's not enough data points to say it's 33% or whatever. They are Wuba's numbers, which I've disputed numerous times, and asked him whether he still stands by them, to which he won't answer. I use them when arguing with him to prove the point to him that they are indeed bunk. But if he insists they are solid, then he must agree with the conclusions that can be drawn from them.

No. I vote you because your argument is bunk, unoriginal, and based on lies.

So, why not vote the person who made these lies rather than someone who got fooled by them, in your view?

He's also on my list, but you're scummier for now because you recycled them, insist on them, and want to add weight to the same tired lies by repeating them.

I never advocated lynching Ottofar. Where's the chain?

Sure, not directly.  But you're clearly saying "If one kook dies then other kook is likely scum".

I told wuba that either a) his numbers are bunk, or b) if one dies and flips town, the other has so and so chances. He failed to acknowledge, so I drew the conclusion in that same post you're so attached to but won't quote that either he admits his numbers are bunk, or is against lynching a person with 2/3 chances of being scum. My point being not "chainlynch the kooks", but "either wuba's numbers are wrong, or he doesn't want to hang scum".

Actually, this statistics thing is really bothering me because you WILL destroy games if you think like that. Let's say I run a game where there's a 20% chance of there being a doctor (in the whole game) and a 20% chance of there being a cop (in the whole game).  A cop or doctor claims.  Do they have an 80% chance of being scum?

Do your own math homework scum. The point here is the chances of fakeclaiming versus an increase over expected numbers, where a role can happen multiple times within the same game, and has (wuba claims) a historically predictable probability greater than one of appearing. This is the case we're discussing.

In your example, if there's a less than one chance of a role, and only one can be in a game, the strategy is entirely different. If 20% of games will have a cop, then four in five games won't, but over a number of games it's almost certain there'll be one, so there's nothing necessarily suspicious about the claim. With those weights, a scum fakeclaim is a very viable scum tactic, as they only have a 20% chance of a counterclaim. This is why it's a 50% chance in BM games. If there's a counterclaim, and only one could be rolled, there's a certainty one of them is faking it. But I guess what you want me to say is "if there's 20% chance of any cop, then whoever claims has 80% chance of being scum"; yes, by the numbers alone that's true, but it's not sound strategy. What we're discussing here is an entirely different case, for multiple instances of the same role and a probability greater than one.

But that's enough of that. They're not even my numbers, they're wuba's, and I disputed them.

[Mr.Person]

@Book: You seem to be justifying not extending by saying everyone else didn't extend either, so it's ok for you as well. Either that or you're attempting a "don't look at me, look at everyone else" campaign, which is, of course, scummy. Point is, you need to justify why you objected to an extension in the first place.

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.

[Book]

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.

[webadict]

I REALLY think we should mass claim. With a little luck at this point, we might catch a scum. And with a claimed Medium, we can learn more about the dead player's actions.

Book, let's start with you. I notice you haven't been doing any scumhunting since you started arguing with Webadict about stupid shit. Why is that?

PPE: Very eloquently worded, Webadict. Would you like to at least bring forth a reasoning? It would be a rehash, sure, but I want to see your #1 reason for voting Book.

First, are you serious? I gave plenty of reasoning! The biggest being HE STALLED THE LYNCH!

Second, claiming now is probably going to get us all killed, but I'll go in a bit.

I remain against Ottofar, presently.

Webadict, has anything changed between yesterday and now in your vote for Book?

How about your flippin' double vote?

- Wuba: I find your tunnel suspicious, and your numbers suspect. Your failure to defend them is also suspect, as is your entirely unreasonable reads of things like this, which Janus called you on, to cite one of many examples. I don't buy it. You are scummy.

Wuba: Do you or do you not stand by your earlier numbers? If you do, would you or would you not vote to lynch someone who has a 67% chance of being scum?

My numbers aren't flawed. They are given by evidence. You're using them as an abuse of the system. And YES YOU ARE SETTING UP A CHAINLYNCH. You just admitted that you would lynch someone based on statistics, meaning that once either Ottofar or Toaster die, you will lynch the other due to a "67% chance" of them being scum. So, you are setting up a chainlynch.
Secondly, you stalled the lynch. Yeah. You did. You wasted a very nice lynch. You already figured you were scummy anyhow, so you decided to tell us to screw off.
Thirdly, you were fretting about how you'd look before you shortened.
Fourthly, you're still trying to use the Kook claim as a scumtell, which you claimed was a nulltell, and then claimed was a scumtell.
Fifthly, you backtracked: the Kook tell.
Sixthly, you didn't want to cause a fight with Jokerman, concerned about your image, again.
Seventhly, OMGUSing.
Eighthly, because you're scum.

I'm going to claim now, however; to make up for my failure to move my vote and to prevent today from getting locked on Janus again, I shot him to lay the matter to rest. As you can see, he was NOT a vig and I probably should've shot Ottofar instead, but there you have it.

Why would you shoot Janus instead of Ottofar?

I'll be back in a bit.

[Book]

This is no excuse. You spent so long arguing with Webadict about things that have no possibility of showing him scum or town. You can prove his numbers are wrong but that doesn't prove he's scum. So why were you spending so much time fighting with Webadict instead of scumhunting?

Dude asked me a question, it was only polite to respond. By your argument, I just spent an hour and a half also arguing with Leafsnail about stupid shit, and yet they are the reasons of our respective votes, as was the case with wuba yesterday.

But yes, both the argument with wuba then and Leaf now do have the potential of proving they're scum. That's the point of getting people to talk. Indeed, I did find a number of important points on wuba that make him probable scum:

Webadict: These are the arguments against you:
- You assert, with certainty that Toaster is town. You have not explained this, and have no way of knowing with certainty, unless you know his alignment because he's on your scum team.
- You said earlier the claiming is "a slight town tell", so how do you jump from "a slight town tell" to the certainty you are spouting? You defend Toaster vigorously, without giving any reason or evidence in his favour other than his claim.
- Since you are attacking his attacker, you are also guilty of Chainsaw defence.
- You lie when you claim I voted Jokerman for attacking Toaster.
- You lie when you claim I backtracked on Jokerman.
- Your arguments have plenty of volume and insults, but little reasoning and evidence.
Therefore, you are scum.

Also, these are not scummy, merely dumb:
- You lie when you claim there must be at least one kook.
- You lie when you claim your numbers show that it's better not to lynch the scummier one.
- You lie when you claim I'm the worst player in the world!

Since these came up during that conversation with him, it was scumhunting, and was successful at that. He has since utterly failed to respond to these charges, which only makes him scummier in my mind. Since he didn't dare go against me again on them, he sent his minion Leafsnail to repeat the same lies and hoping this time they stick.

My suspicions from D1 remain, though:
- Toaster: I still don't trust your claim, and according to wuba's numbers, it has a 67% chance of being fake if Ottofar dies and flips town.

What makes you think Ottofar is town? What makes you think Toaster is scum? You can't say something like this without backing up your opinion.

I have never said Ottofar is town. It's merely that Toaster seems scummier to me than Ottofar, but they both could be either. Toaster's scummitude I mentioned yesterday, but it's mostly based on the circumstances of his claim, and meta reading over the breadth, timing and tone of his posts, no major scumtells so far (though I need to reread). Since I don't have a strong case on him, I've moved my vote to where I do, but my gut still screams that Toaster is scum.

- Person: Your participation has been limited to two bloody enormous walls of text, and endless "arguing about stupid shit", as you put it. You are not committed to finding scum, and your arguments and lurking are suspicious as well.

What? Lurking? Of all the things you can call me on, you say lurking? Buddy, I'm probably the fourth most active player in the game right now behind you, Webadict, and Jim. Claiming I'm lurking is borderline scummy, that's how factually wrong it is.

False. You are factually wrong. At the time of this wall of text to which I'm responding, you had a total of six posts in the entire game, the least of all players. Now that you've posted again, you are tied at the bottom with Dariush at seven posts. Numbers from the LurkerTracker (which I'll post later today). Sure, yours were large, so that's an extenuating circumstance, but still, Toaster, Native, and even Pandar have been more active overall. So, since you said something factually wrong, is it "borderline scummy"?

And my argument with Jim was far from a waste of time. I've gained valuable insight on Jim from my discussion. Have you learned anything about Webadict when you started arguing with his numbers?

Yes, I list them above.
PPE: Since he seems to stand by his numbers, he is also guilty of not wanting to lynch someone he perceives as having a 67% chance of being scum. That's scum protecting his buddy.

I'm not trying to find scum, I've already found 5 scumpicks. At this point I'm questioning them to try to figure out their alignments.

Which are they? Why are they your scumpicks? Where are you questioning them? I see you only questioning me so far.

The wardens could confirm at least one and probably two players who aren't vigilantes or the killing dopp. If we find out there were 3 blocks last night, we know one dopp is a warden. Thank goodness we can both agree the telepath info is worthwhile, but I disagree that the information of one telepath and 2 wardens is useful enough for a medium to claim over. It's good information, but it doesn't prove anything. And besides, telepath information is the kind of thing you want to claim after the person you have the information on so you can catch them in a lie.

Fair enough. Still, if they're reading this, they should be spilling their guts over deadchat, and a medium should think about claiming; it probably is useful enough, but it's his decision.

[Pandarsenic]

I remain against Ottofar, presently.

Webadict, has anything changed between yesterday and now in your vote for Book?

How about your flippin' double vote?

I'm going to claim now, however; to make up for my failure to move my vote and to prevent today from getting locked on Janus again, I shot him to lay the matter to rest. As you can see, he was NOT a vig and I probably should've shot Ottofar instead, but there you have it.

Why would you shoot Janus instead of Ottofar?

I'll be back in a bit.

Double-vote was claimed by Jokerman-EXE. Take that up with him.

I shot Janus because:
1) If he was not shot and was town, we would probably accuse him of being a Doppelganger, screened by a Doppelganger Enchanter, and waste ANOTHER day on him.
2) If he was not shot and was a Dopp, he would probably accuse him of being a Doppelganger, screened by a Doppelganger Enchanter, and lynch him, then start trying to root out his Enchanter.
3) If I shot him and he was a Dopp, awesome. It's like 2 but moved one day ahead.
4) If I shot him and he was town, we at least won't go through any of the above scenarios. We can progress to day 2 as if he'd been lynched.

It was the right move.