Print

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

[NativeForeigner]

I tried to say that you voted rather early today (a rather risky move for a townie), as if you were completely convinced, without a doubt, that I'm scum...or as if you were scum, who would already know that there wouldn't be a quicklynch.

Tiredness: Understandable.  Not going to try to use that against you.

For now, I'll just be awaiting Native's reply.

Okay, I can reply to this real quick.

Yes, I voted you early. And yes, I was 99.99% sure that you're scum, so yes, I wasn't worried about a quicklynch, duh. Now I'm 100% sure you're scum, because Argem hasn't quicklynched.

[NativeForeigner]

Pandar was using shitty arguments, but he wasn't lying, and Book was accusing Pandar of lying based on that.  And then Pandar was accusing Book of lying based on those accusations.  I was trying to get that utter stupidity to stop.

Yes, throughout day 1, I rather trusted Book.  I trusted him because he was actively scumhunting and because his arguments made more sense than Pandar's.  That trust turned out to be stupid, as we know now, but he was still more trustworthy-looking than Pandar during day 1.

So by that logic, you trust anyone that scumhunts?

Here you go.  One rebuttal:

And seriously, bringing up the explained "uninteresting" thing again as if I hadn't both made my opinion of Pandar clear over the previous posts, given my reasons in said previous posts, and explained the "uninteresting" thing today?  Really?

Just because you "explained" why you seemed uninterested doesn't make it any better.

*Everything you say about buddying, Native, seems to depend on me being a complete idiot as scum, who is constantly protecting his fellow scum at times when they're pretty much about to die no matter what.  Let's look at a recent game in which I was scum: Kingmaker 4.   In it, at the point where I actually got a chance to be active (Day 2), I was not exactly friendly with SaintDraze.  Much the opposite, in fact: Day 2 had some arguments against him from me and day 3 had a more massive argument against him than against the actual townie.  I may be new, but I'm not a complete idiot.
*I highly doubt that Book, an experienced player, would distance himself that much from his partner when he knows he's about to be vengekilled.  There's a reason why I pointed out the whole "Book probably wants to implicate a townie" thing.

I'm not saying you're stupid, not as town or scum. Anyone could have made mistakes, I've seen experienced players make the same ones. Sometimes it just happens, I've had my fair share of terribad mistakes as well. As for Book, I've been scum with Book in a few games, I know how he operates with his scumbuddy(s), distancing is all he'd want to be doing if he was about to get vengekilled, he was just either a little less subtle than usual or I was more observant of it. Your "Book probably wants to implicate a townie" theory is pure WIFOM and you just sound more like scum who's been caught when you bring that up.

Native: This is exactly what I needed: a good, solid, informative post from you that would allow me to actually have good evidence against you.  Thank you.  Thank you very much, NativeForeigner.  Hate to vote so early, but you've forced my hand.

No, you mean I've caught you and you're upset now. The most you can do now is OMGUS the guy who's found you out.

Oh, right, and your point about my questions still needs a rebuttal:

Native: Please explain to me how most of your day 1 questions weren't stuff like "What do you think of <insert thing here?", "What do you think of everyone and why?", and such.  Also, explain to me how getting people's opinions on things, one of the central methods of gaining information about people, isn't actually a real contribution to the game.  (Wasn't that Book's argument against me anyway?  You seem to like using common arguments against me.  I might as well use them against you.)  Also, explain to me how asking Book why he was telling me to question Arg is a "What do you think of <insert thing here>?" question.

Do you see any of those questions in this post?
Here's one of yours on the same page.
Here's another one of mine.
This one of yours is slightly better, but still the same general type of question, asking for reads.
Here's one of mine with a mix. It has a good questions directed at my focus, Pandar, followed by several generic questions towards everyone else. Those I will all grant you.
Another good one (though the answer was terrible).
One of yours that has little to do with the actual game.

Have I made my point yet? It's fine to gather opinions from people, but you never really pressed with them, you just kept with the same ol' generic questions which is why you seemed disinterested. It's like you didn't see a point in asking questions because you already know who the scum was (you and Book). Yeah, I'm using a common argument, I guess, but it's coupled with several different arguments. Yours isn't.

It isn't. I said most of your posts, not all. Blind squirrels and nuts.

[Jack A T]

Pandar was using shitty arguments, but he wasn't lying, and Book was accusing Pandar of lying based on that.  And then Pandar was accusing Book of lying based on those accusations.  I was trying to get that utter stupidity to stop.

Yes, throughout day 1, I rather trusted Book.  I trusted him because he was actively scumhunting and because his arguments made more sense than Pandar's.  That trust turned out to be stupid, as we know now, but he was still more trustworthy-looking than Pandar during day 1.

So by that logic, you trust anyone that scumhunts?

At that point in the game, he was the most active scumhunter and his arguments made sense.  He felt most trustworthy to me, compared to two fellow rather quiet observers who I couldn't quite get a good read on and Pandar.

Just because you "explained" why you seemed uninterested doesn't make it any better.

And what about my previously shown opinion of Pandar?

No, you mean I've caught you and you're upset now. The most you can do now is OMGUS the guy who's found you out.

...Listen to me.  I suspected you more than Arg from the start of the day, as I stated.  I stated, at the start of the day, that frankly, I needed more evidence to be sure.  Then you come along with a rather very early vote and a big load of stuff I could use as evidence, and Argembarger's refusal to immediately hammer proved to me that you're scum.  Of course I'm going to use your arguments against you.  And if pointing out the flaws in someone's arguments against you, especially when it's obvious to you that they're scum, is OMGUSing, then it's the weakest scumtell ever.  EVER.

I'm not saying you're stupid, not as town or scum. Anyone could have made mistakes, I've seen experienced players make the same ones. Sometimes it just happens, I've had my fair share of terribad mistakes as well. As for Book, I've been scum with Book in a few games, I know how he operates with his scumbuddy(s), distancing is all he'd want to be doing if he was about to get vengekilled, he was just either a little less subtle than usual or I was more observant of it. Your "Book probably wants to implicate a townie" theory is pure WIFOM and you just sound more like scum who's been caught when you bring that up.

Stupid mistakes: I'll give you this argument.
Pure WIFOM: And that is why I put it in my "this evidence is blatant WIFOM, and thus should not be taken as strongly as the rest of the evidence" category.  Also, mind giving a few links to Book behaviour of that sort?

Do you see any of those questions in this post?
Here's one of yours on the same page.
Here's another one of mine.
This one of yours is slightly better, but still the same general type of question, asking for reads.
Here's one of mine with a mix. It has a good questions directed at my focus, Pandar, followed by several generic questions towards everyone else. Those I will all grant you.
Another good one (though the answer was terrible).
One of yours that has little to do with the actual game.

Have I made my point yet? It's fine to gather opinions from people, but you never really pressed with them, you just kept with the same ol' generic questions which is why you seemed disinterested. It's like you didn't see a point in asking questions because you already know who the scum was (you and Book). Yeah, I'm using a common argument, I guess, but it's coupled with several different arguments. Yours isn't.

Let's look at this carefully.
*Slightly better post of mine: Explain how it was just "looking for reads".
*Explain how gathering opinions, while fine, isn't a real contribution to the game.  You're evading a request for a statement.
*The terrible "Why do you join during midterms?" question...Yeah, I'll readily admit that it had little to do with the game.  It was mostly me being somewhat annoyed by how Pandar's actions were so strongly effected by the amount of midterms he had at that point.
*Seriously, explain how the "Book, why are you pointing me towards Arg?" question is a "What do you think about <insert thing here>" question.  You're evading a request for a statement again.

...wait, no, you're not evading that last one...

It isn't. I said most of your posts, not all. Blind squirrels and nuts.

...you're just throwing in some utter nonsense that can be disproven by LOOKING AT YOUR ORIGINAL POST.

Really, any of the questions he asked didn't do much for the game, they were all essentially all "What do you think of so and so?" "What's your read on blank?" "Why did you join in the middle of midterms?", etc.

Emphasis added by me.  Does "all essentially all" mean "most, not all" these days?  Did I just catch you blatantly lying?

[NativeForeigner]

At that point in the game, he was the most active scumhunter and his arguments made sense.  He felt most trustworthy to me, compared to two fellow rather quiet observers who I couldn't quite get a good read on and Pandar.

You've ignored the point. Scum could have (and did) play on Pandar's mistakes just as easily as a townie could have mistaken him as scum (which we all did). My point is that you trusted Book with weak reasoning.

And what about my previously shown opinion of Pandar?

Links, plox. And then I'll say my piece.

...Listen to me.  I suspected you more than Arg from the start of the day, as I stated.  I stated, at the start of the day, that frankly, I needed more evidence to be sure.  Then you come along with a rather very early vote and a big load of stuff I could use as evidence, and Argembarger's refusal to immediately hammer proved to me that you're scum.  Of course I'm going to use your arguments against you.  And if pointing out the flaws in someone's arguments against you, especially when it's obvious to you that they're scum, is OMGUSing, then it's the weakest scumtell ever.  EVER.

And your point? You "suspected" me, sure, but you didn't have a real reason to. When it came down to the FoS, it was all "Gut-feelings" "You felt cold and distant" and "you didn't reply in a timely matter". Really? You couldn't do better than that? And yeah, I voted early because I had read all that I needed to find you out as scum. If I'm almost 100% sure, I'm going to vote you.
Right, proved that I'm "scum". Maybe I took it a little far with calling it an OMGUS, but you're not poking any holes, scumbucket, you're just trying desperately to save your ass and it's not working. Or maybe it is, I don't have a clue what Argem's thinking right now.

I'm not saying you're stupid, not as town or scum. Anyone could have made mistakes, I've seen experienced players make the same ones. Sometimes it just happens, I've had my fair share of terribad mistakes as well. As for Book, I've been scum with Book in a few games, I know how he operates with his scumbuddy(s), distancing is all he'd want to be doing if he was about to get vengekilled, he was just either a little less subtle than usual or I was more observant of it. Your "Book probably wants to implicate a townie" theory is pure WIFOM and you just sound more like scum who's been caught when you bring that up.

Pure WIFOM: And that is why I put it in my "this evidence is blatant WIFOM, and thus should not be taken as strongly as the rest of the evidence" category.  Also, mind giving a few links to Book behaviour of that sort?

I agree about the WIFOM.

Links: Book tries to get us to build some history (distancing) during Paranormal 18.
Book FoSs Pandar to create some distance.
Book FoSs Pandar and tries to "get information" from me.
And I don't really feel like pulling up any more examples, I have to dig too deep to reach them.

Book doing similar things with you:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=78028.msg2024355#msg2024355
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=78028.msg2023237#msg2023237
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=78028.msg2012719#msg2012719-first instance of distancing
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=78028.msg2013676#msg2013676-He's trying to keep suspicion from landing on you. He could have told you this in the scumchat, but he saw it as an opportunity to distance some more.

All of these are reasonably subtle and fit well into Book's meta. You're his scumbuddy.

Do you see any of those questions in this post?
Here's one of yours on the same page.
Here's another one of mine.
This one of yours is slightly better, but still the same general type of question, asking for reads.
Here's one of mine with a mix. It has a good questions directed at my focus, Pandar, followed by several generic questions towards everyone else. Those I will all grant you.
Another good one (though the answer was terrible).
One of yours that has little to do with the actual game.

Have I made my point yet? It's fine to gather opinions from people, but you never really pressed with them, you just kept with the same ol' generic questions which is why you seemed disinterested. It's like you didn't see a point in asking questions because you already know who the scum was (you and Book). Yeah, I'm using a common argument, I guess, but it's coupled with several different arguments. Yours isn't.

Let's look at this carefully.
*Slightly better post of mine: Explain how it was just "looking for reads".
*Explain how gathering opinions, while fine, isn't a real contribution to the game.  You're evading a request for a statement.
*The terrible "Why do you join during midterms?" question...Yeah, I'll readily admit that it had little to do with the game.  It was mostly me being somewhat annoyed by how Pandar's actions were so strongly effected by the amount of midterms he had at that point.
*Seriously, explain how the "Book, why are you pointing me towards Arg?" question is a "What do you think about <insert thing here>" question.  You're evading a request for a statement again.

...wait, no, you're not evading that last one...

It isn't. I said most of your posts, not all. Blind squirrels and nuts.

...you're just throwing in some utter nonsense that can be disproven by LOOKING AT YOUR ORIGINAL POST.

Really, any of the questions he asked didn't do much for the game, they were all essentially all "What do you think of so and so?" "What's your read on blank?" "Why did you join in the middle of midterms?", etc.

Emphasis added by me.  Does "all essentially all" mean "most, not all" these days?  Did I just catch you blatantly lying?

Slightly better post: You said "Does the same apply to your view of Argembarger and I?" which could have been said "Does the same apply to your red of Argembarger and I?" The part that made it better was because you were relating to a previous game and you asked how.

Because if you do nothing with those opinions, then there's no benefit to the game. You would ask the question, maybe take some mental notes if you were so inclined, but you never really followed up on anything, which is important.

I think you mostly just asked the question because we were in a lull, I'm admittedly putting little weight on that question.

I told you it wasn't-

Oh, wait, you're being silly again. I probably overlooked that during my reread, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's your only post you can fall back on to try to save yourself. No, I wasn't lying. It might not have been the best wording, but "Essentially all" means the same thing as "basically all". The point is that just even though you had one good question, that was ALL you had.

[Jack A T]

At that point in the game, he was the most active scumhunter and his arguments made sense.  He felt most trustworthy to me, compared to two fellow rather quiet observers who I couldn't quite get a good read on and Pandar.

You've ignored the point. Scum could have (and did) play on Pandar's mistakes just as easily as a townie could have mistaken him as scum (which we all did). My point is that you trusted Book with weak reasoning.

Ah, so that's what you were trying to say with your question.  I will say this, then: if, at any point, anyone outright states that they most trust the guy who turns out to be scum, no matter what, their reasoning will look weak, if only because it was reasoning that got a scum trusted by someone.

At that point in the game, he was the most active scumhunter and his arguments made sense.  He felt most trustworthy to me, compared to two fellow rather quiet observers who I couldn't quite get a good read on and Pandar.

You've ignored the point. Scum could have (and did) play on Pandar's mistakes just as easily as a townie could have mistaken him as scum (which we all did). My point is that you trusted Book with weak reasoning.

And what about my previously shown opinion of Pandar?

Links, plox. And then I'll say my piece.

Okay.  My three most explanatory posts:
*My response to Pandar's "My RVS hatred is good because people thought it was scummy, thus bringing us out of RVS, thus making it pro-town!" argument, along with a bit of other anti-Pandar stuff.
*I show a dislike of Pandar's RVS behaviour this game.
*I state my opinion of Pandar's defensive arguments: they suck.

I agree about the WIFOM.

Links: Book tries to get us to build some history (distancing) during Paranormal 18.
Book FoSs Pandar to create some distance.
Book FoSs Pandar and tries to "get information" from me.
And I don't really feel like pulling up any more examples, I have to dig too deep to reach them.

Book doing similar things with you:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=78028.msg2024355#msg2024355
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=78028.msg2023237#msg2023237
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=78028.msg2012719#msg2012719-first instance of distancing
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=78028.msg2013676#msg2013676-He's trying to keep suspicion from landing on you. He could have told you this in the scumchat, but he saw it as an opportunity to distance some more.

All of these are reasonably subtle and fit well into Book's meta. You're his scumbuddy.

Accep...wait, is that all from Paranormal 18?  The game in which the scum had two night kills, a scientist, a blocker, and an information-gathering role?  The game where two town blockers and an investigator all died N1?  In fact, all from day 3, the day in which Book was not taking the game seriously at all anymore?

To quote him on the 23rd,

Interesting idea: We could outright claim to be the scum, all four of us, even with honest actions and whatnot, and they'd still be screwed. We tie the vote (they can't prevent that), we drop Person and Leaf, block Dariush, and even if we lost both killers, it's stil 2 vs. 2 D4 and we still win.

Should we? It would be EVEN COOLER than the ballsy option from last night! Well, let's not yet, but we can talk about it later. I'd be madhouse fun.

And to quote Argembarger on the prospects of a Day 3 scum win:

I mean, the only thing preventing us from just claiming scum and strutting to victory is the mere possibility of a morningkill bot, right?

edit: wait, wouldn't a morningkill already have happened?

And we already killed one town military scientist.

I think the risk is low.

So, basically, would you mind finding something to support this from a game that more strongly supports standard scum play?

Slightly better post: You said "Does the same apply to your view of Argembarger and I?" which could have been said "Does the same apply to your red of Argembarger and I?" The part that made it better was because you were relating to a previous game and you asked how.

Because if you do nothing with those opinions, then there's no benefit to the game. You would ask the question, maybe take some mental notes if you were so inclined, but you never really followed up on anything, which is important.

I think you mostly just asked the question because we were in a lull, I'm admittedly putting little weight on that question.

I told you it wasn't-

Oh, wait, you're being silly again. I probably overlooked that during my reread, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's your only post you can fall back on to try to save yourself. No, I wasn't lying. It might not have been the best wording, but "Essentially all" means the same thing as "basically all". The point is that just even though you had one good question, that was ALL you had.

Slightly better post: Okay, not my intent, but I can see how it could be read that way.  In KM4 (ugh), Pandar confused Janus and Leafsnail because he considered them to be very similar players at the same basic level of experience.  I couldn't see too many similarities between myself and Arg, so I asked.

Uselessness of asking for reads: So, basically, gathering the information is useful but not a real contribution, while using the information is a real contribution.  Got it.  (not being sarcastic)  However, can it really be said that there is absolutely no benefit to the game if the information is brought out?  I would've thought that information about peoples' thoughts, even if not pushed on, would be good for the game.

Pandar question: That, and I was rather annoyed by how much he was depending on midterms for his defense.  So...uh...yeah.

Finally, the  last bit: Ah, so this is a place where "all essentially all", backed up with "any of the questions he asked didn't do much for the game", means "most, but not all", as opposed to "substantially, at the center of it, at heart, entirely, centrally, integrally, for all effective purposes, all".  A place where you can bring up a good-looking post of mine and then say that all I can possibly fall back on is a different good post.  Odd.  And mostly I pointed to the Arg question just to point out that, in essence, fundamentally, not all of questions fell within the categories you gave.

[NativeForeigner]

No time for a full post, but regarding the quotes, yes, those are from Paranormal 18. We were all taking it seriously at first and all of the posts I quoted were serious posts. The nonsense started only after we were almost guaranteed a win. I don't see what the scum team composition has anything to do with it, either. Scumplay is scumplay and paranormal happened to be the easiest to get to.

[Jack A T]

No time for a full post, but regarding the quotes, yes, those are from Paranormal 18. We were all taking it seriously at first and all of the posts I quoted were serious posts. The nonsense started only after we were almost guaranteed a win. I don't see what the scum team composition has anything to do with it, either. Scumplay is scumplay and paranormal happened to be the easiest to get to.

The quotes I got from the scumchat were meant to indicate that people (for example, Book at the time of the first in-thread quote) were already assuming a near-guaranteed win.  Meh.  Mostly, I'd just like to see a better example of Book's behaviour than something from the point of the near-guaranteed win in a heavily slanted game where people were preparing to stop taking it seriously in the scumchat.

Not denying Book's behaviour, but just saying that that really isn't, in my eyes, the best game to use as an example.

[NativeForeigner]

Okay, I've found some more. I haven't actually played in this game, but they give the same general idea. Book is a dopp (irrelevant) Agent and he's working with two other Agents (they all know each other).

He distances himself from Jim right off the bat with an RV. Very weak distancing, not really suspicious.

Makes a point to get Joker into the game. (Sound familiar?)

And that's pretty much the extent of that because it was a bastard mod.

Another (a Vengeful, in fact):

Scumchat where Zathras planned to question, but not push Toaster on a matter.

This time Toaster initiates and Book plays with it.

Book calls Toaster out for activelurking, but only follows up on Pandar.

Calls Toaster on it again but fails to follow up. Again.

That should be good for now, I'm going to bed.

[Jack A T]

Much better examples overall, but my original point was more focused on times when Book was scum and knew he was about to die (though I can see that being rather very hard to find).  Yes, he distances himself from his friends when he isn't about to die.  It makes him and his friends less likely to die.

But what about doing that when he knows he's about to die?  When he knows that everyone will know that what he did the day before was all evil scumminess?  I'm saying that I think - no, I know, based on my current predicament - that he would try to make sure that townies look scummy after he dies.  Actively distancing himself from his partner in a situation like this wouldn't look good for his partner, so why would he do that?

Oh, and hey, it looks like we have another day or so to talk.  Nice.

[Argembarger]

Oh, and hey, it looks like we have another day or so to talk.  Nice.

Not quite.

I'm ready now. I've been stressing out about this just a little bit, which is uncharacteristic for me: I'm usually pretty firmly emotionally unattached from Mafia games, though I still play to win.

I've reread the thread a few times. I've taken everything that both of you have said into account. I also read through Supernatural 3, a game where you were both town.

I'm not taking this decision lightly and I have thought about it.

Jack. If you are scum, I am very impressed. Your play this game looks just like your town play in Supernatural 3. Your words just SEEM like stuff town would say.

Native. You were uncharacteristically passive day 1, and now that the game is in the clutch, you suddenly spring to life and are hyperactive, dragging out tons of quotes and generally espousing Jack's scumminess.

I'm having a hard time buying it. Your arguments seem too much like... I don't know. My gut doesn't like them for some reason.

My gut says you're scum. I'm sorry if my gut is wrong.

Hammer NativeForeigner.

Good game, guys. Really.

Everyone played great. Except for me.

[NativeForeigner]

Bah, good call.

[Argembarger]

a happy guy is me

You were damn tricky though. If I hadn't been AGONIZING about it I probably would have voted Jack. It seemed the more obvious choice.

Good show.

[Book]

...and that's all she wrote! Great game, guys! I think it was much better after Pandar and I annihilated each other. Good show by all three of you.

It was a bit lurky at times, and there were times I think Elvis was walking up the stairs shotgun in hand, and one of you would spring into action to delay the massacre a little longer. But you pulled through and eventually did it.

Congrats Ottofar and the three of you for a fun game.

[NativeForeigner]

Argem: Would you mind explaining in a little more detail what made you choose me? I'd like to know so I can better my game.

Book: Good game to you as well, thanks.

[Argembarger]

Sure. A good deal of it was abstract. Gut feeling and the like.

Reading this game and Supernatural 3 side-by-side was a lifesaver, though.

That said, I can quote some specific things that bugged me.

Spoiler: Change in tone (click to show/hide)

Native: Please clarify if Pandar and I have answered your questions to your satisfaction, and tell us if you think if other players are playing in a way consistent with what you know of them from other games. Please point out the single most suspicious act you've seen from your top two picks.

Yes, both you and Pandar have answered my questions to a satisfactory degree, but Pandar has been quite a bit more lazy with his answers and stretching out information over several questions. I'm not as familiar with Argem's and Jack's meta because they're less outspoken about it than you or Pandar.

Pandar: He's fallen out of meta for his early RVS activity and a lack of sufficient scumhunting.

Hmmm, my second pick.... I think you might actually be my second scum pick, Book. I have a sneaking suspicion that this might be an early-game bus.

Do you think all of Book's reasons for suspecting you are terrible? Or just parts of them?

He has many parts, all or nearly all of which are awful or outright false.

Could you explain the most prominent parts?

Book: I feel it might have been an initial OMGUS that evolved into a true feeling.

versus

Thank you, mod.

My quick thoughts on those being voted:

Dariush is being somewhat of an idiot as usual, but that's not far from the norm for him. However, the way he's playing this game doesn't quite match up with how he's played as scum in previous games. However, that doesn't mean he's town, either.

JTF could be scum that skillfully got us to mislynch D1 almost scathe-free. But that's mostly just WIFOM.

Org is Org, but should not be disregarded.

Toaster is notoriously difficult to read.

Zathras is also a little difficult to read as he hasn't posted much D2, but he's being more helpful than I am.

Archangel needs to get his ass in here and actually do something. Or get modkilled. I'd be okay with either, but I would prefer him doing something useful.

The first one is from this game, the second is from Supernatural.

This is very meta, tenuous evidence. But for some reason it just stuck out to me. Your tone in Supernatural was sure and confident. You seemed like you weren't trying to step on anyone's toes in this game, but in Supernatural you were glad to call people idiots and blatant scum.

It COULD be just that you are much more cautious and ponderous in Vengefuls than normal, but hey, that's just what I noticed.

Probably the biggest thing was how quickly you jumped to the conclusion that Jack was definitely scum. You also buddied me a little, which almost worked. It made me feel like I dodged a bullet and got me subconsciously suspicious at Jack.

My primary suspicion has been waffling a bit, but after a reread of the thread, Jack is definitely scum.

Argem, you're a smart man not to have voted me. A loss by insta-hammer would have happened. Here's why:

As I said, if I hadn't derped around waiting so long, that could have been the closer. Then I stopped and thought, hey, that's strange. Why is Jack definitely scum? I was scummy as hell! and is this buddying??

contrasted to Jack's quote. I felt like it was much more townlike to admit that both sides are scummy and that you aren't entirely convinced, but that you're leaning such-and-such way.

It comes without the buddying, at least. Heh. I'm glad I attacked Jack or he might not have done that.

Hope that helps. I might be completely full of shit, but that's what I was basing my logic on, so if this was stupid and unhelpful, then I guess I just lucked out by picking you