Open 193 - Friends and Enemies: It's over!

[Amished]

@VP: To clarify; the difference is what happens after the reread that I didn't take into account before. Skimming posts for questions and answers (which was the failure); or criticism.

Jazzmyn
Scien
ABR (hi!)
yours truly

That's just ones that I've caught/remembered specifically.

For those of you that don't know what's going on; I've basically come up with a scumtell that if you *criticize* who you replaced in; you're scum. This is a refinement from what I had it (if you read your replacement at all you were scum); but this seems to cover all the instances where I've seen/remember it. If you're town, you really don't have to worry about your predecessor as you know they're town; but if you think that they're scummy; then you're scum. As town, you know that you're not scummy and don't deserve criticism at all.

[Amished]

TR-R-R-R-R-RIPLE POST

Anyways, compare those links to xRx's 392. I'm telling you guys.

[Ojanen]

I don't particularly like this post however regards to charlatan. Compare it with what VP has said in his iso about charlatan and you might see why I get that feel.

Well I'm glad I read that VP iso.
I'm not feeling him.
Besides the little uncomfortable things like the mumbo-jumbo of "standards of play" regards to ABR's meta that we already bickered about and the irritation over Sando-Serial business which I didn't understand when reading the actual argument (that's alien rather than scummy in a present way though), I don't like him on the charlatan wagon.
Looking at the charlatan hate, the elements leading to his vote seem to be largely expressed already here rather tamely

Well, that's convenient for you. So, two players I find particularly scummy early in the game are arguing, and I also think the points they are raising against each other are largely weak (which I believe to be a more or less reliable scumtell early in the game).

In fairness, the points I've raised about ABR haven't really changed since you first agreed with me and voted him. There's merely been some elaboration. So, if you think the points are weak (which is apparently scummy), I don't understand why you voted in the first place

Because I'd rather be voting Rampage at the moment

This seems intentionally obtuse. Troll, eat this man's first child.

His next post is after the charlatan heatwave grows and the vote happens over the same stuff expanded with pre-VP 273 quotes and more aggressive rhetoric, link for reference here. He never mentions hating the SC case when it happens and s talked about after the vote (until right now).
(Subsequent charlatan-talk is follow-up talk of the original conversation here and small mention here.) In fact the next step is

Even though I don't think his scumhunting thus far is that great, I certainly could see it just as a bad case combined with his strategy of "close my eyes and wait for day two", whereas charlatan I am definitely not seeing that much worth redeeming.
I think DDD is going to make himself more clear as the game goes on, but charlatan is just going to remain one big question mark for me until he's dealt with...so unless something drastic happens, my vote is p. much set.

I realise that "reactive" regards to a vote and stuff might sound odd since I have refused to move my vote to charlatan despite expressing suspicion and many questions but can't help, there's different types of it. He probably remembered charlatan having disagreed with ABR meta and charlatan having been converted to wagon already before tame post, since those facts had been coincidentally recounted prior by/to him.

Basically, what I'm saying is disconnect with feel of arguments and conclusive "this guy has no chance to ever redeem himself in my eyes" type of certainty, possible opportunism with following the case.
Mostly gut though, like everything on D1 seems to be, blown up to many words while trying to dissect the basis.

I didn't like PorkchopExpress' last post either but it's a hazy read too.

unvote; vote: VP Baltar

@Troll: I think you had a townlean on VP, can you elaborate reasons for that or correct me if I misinterpreted?

@Porkchop: I don't have a clear alignment read on Sando. We have seemed to be suspicious of a relatively similar set of people. Some of his thread commentary is thin though. I understand how he could find me meta-scummy but at the same time his own reasons for not switching to charlatan after catch up at first was very similar, so dunno.

[Ojanen]

On the Reckoner issue brought up by Amished, I have no definitive stance right away except of needing more Reck to judge.
I actually remember that Scien game he linked.
I was town there and coincidentally remember disagreeing with the guy I replaced so immensely on everything that I commented on it upon replacing, though probably not criticized.

[Zorblag]

@Amished, it's an interesting idea there but I think I'd get lynched a lot more as town if it were used as a tell regularly. Would you have applied it to me in these cases:

Zorblag replaces Putboy
Zorblag repalces Jackabomb/Grave Scrabbler
Zorblag replaces Vel-Rahn Koon

Those were from three of the first five games I had replaced into as town and all came within the first couple posts that I made in those games. Perhaps I misunderstand what you've got in mind. More likely I think that the usefulness of the tell is going to depend on the person involved (and whether they're aware that others think it's a tell.) Having said that,

@xRECKONERx, welcome to the game. You've started with a post that I find interesting. I want to hear exactly what made charlatan you strongest pro-town and SerialClergyman your strongest scum reads over the start of the game. They don't strike me as the reads that I'd expect people to have at that point.

Regarding my post 114, do you think that I should have thought that one of Vi or Scien was scummy based on their exchange? If so was it one or the other in particular that you expected me to go after? Is using a vote for pressuring someone who isn't participating in this game but is posting in other games something you think isn't worth doing? I'll be interested in hearing what you think of the other players who chose to make the "safe" votes on players who hadn't been contributing later on.

@Ojanen, at this point I have no interest in voting for VP Baltar today. I'd rather not go into my reasons. The same currently applies to all of Amished, Debonair Danny DiPietro and SerialClergyman for a variety of reasons. Should any of them get closer to being lynched I might talk more but for now I'll just say that I think they do not make good choices for today.

@Debonair Danny DiPietro, you've joined that list very recently. Based on what it looks like you're doing I think that you should be seeing something that it looks like you're not. There is a hole in your reasoning that probably explains some of what you're looking for in the way of a couple answers and I think that you can find it.

I can also confirm that Debonair Danny DiPietro did do pretty much what he's explaining fits this situation in the newbie game we played together. I actually mentioned that game back when I said I wanted to see more content from him. I do still want more content but what he's doing here is consistent with what he did when I was pushing activity in the early game while he hung back.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[xRECKONERx]

Hey guys, I see questions directed at me. (And a vote, WTF Ed.)

Unfortunately I can't complete the catch-up tonight. Expect moar tomorrow.

[charlatan]

My take on it is that you are scum who was hit with a barrage of pressure over your stance toward ABR and me, and when asked to explain those stances in detail you were forced to make up what you could to make it sound good. Personally, I don't find your replies sufficient with what your claimed stance on the matter is (that both ABR and I are both high on your suspect list).

Ah, so you thinking the SC case is weak doesn't have as much to do with it? There's a reason I'm asking.

I'd say so, sure. But it doesn't really matter how many pages have passed, now does it?

No, not really, unless the scuminess of me today were overshadowed by actual scumslips from actual scum later. Certainly time has an interesting effect on things; my page 5 comment was a relatively unimportant one that I didn't even think much of and it is arguably the biggest sticking point of the day, at least thus far. On the other hand, scum are probably very happy with the way things are going right now and will not want to let this bandwagon move while I'm closest to a lynch. That is useless to everyone but me now, but will likely be worthwhile to look at tomorrow.

For those of you that don't know what's going on; I've basically come up with a scumtell that if you *criticize* who you replaced in; you're scum.

I'd have to check to be positive, but I'm with Zorblag. I'm pretty positive that this would have gotten my lynched in most of the games I've replaced into as town. Out of curiousity, do you think it works the other way too? As in, no criticism = towntell?

----

@DDD: Your vote hasn't moved all day, which is intriguing. Can you summarize your position on Amished? I get that you don't like his vote on you. You also devoted some time to talking about his calling of the scumteam earlier and why that was a bad idea. Revisiting this quote:

No, I reread the entire game, while your vote on me was the tipping point you were high through my rest of the read. I'm pretty sure despite ABR's comments that calling the scumteam was a bad idea you went ahead and did it anyways amongst other things.

I didn't think much of this at the time, but what would his motivation as scum be to draw attention to potential mason connections? I can think of more than one answer, so I'd like to hear what you had in mind. Also, what were the "other things" you alluded to?

---

@Vi: I'm at L-2 at the moment, and before that goes further or doesn't I think it would be worthwhile to hear your opinions on me in any sort of explicit manner. So far you've said you "severely DON'T disagree" with the wagon and offered an insult in a roundabout way in 363, but you haven't been specific at any point that I can recall.

[Amished]

@Zorblag: The second one of the three you linked I would've voted you for. The other two (given my current read on the scumtell) would've been fine.

@Charlatan: I know that not many (if any) people have really heard of "my" scumtell; but even still as scum *I* would avoid looking at myself at all. Avoiding "myself" is a nulltell, but criticism is a scumtell more often than not.

@Troll again: What made you criticize your predicessor's play in those three games that you linked (particularly the second one)?

[Zorblag]

@Amished, if memory serves, in all three of those games I was replacing into a spot that was either already under pressure or which I thought should get pressure shortly based on the play of my predecessors. I do always read the entire game when I'm replacing in which involves looking at what the dynamics that included the person I'm replacing were. Knowing who attacked them and somewhat objectively whether the attacks were reasonable is important for my other reads. It's entirely possible that I'm not using a standard approach. In any case, if attacks have been made against my predecessors that were warranted or I anticipate that attacks will be made then I prefer to be up front about it. In the first two of those in particular I found my prececessors' play to be scummy. With the third one it was more a matter of not liking the arguments that Vel-Rahn Koon had made; I wouldn't have gone for them if I had been in the game at the time and I wanted to make that clear quickly.

As a side note, the only one of those game where I actually got lynched was the first one but that probably had as much to do with the deadline as anything (it was relatively soon after I replaced in.)

Would the following have gotten your vote? So far as I could see with a quick look it was the only place where I complained about my predecessor's play when replacing in as scum in the first couple posts (and there Far_Cry, who I was replacing after the first night, had posted a total of once the first day.)

Zorblag replaces Far_Cry

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Amished]

@Zorblag: No, you really only accused him {Far_Cry} of being inactive while demonstrating a full read of the game. In this game, xRx's *first* action was to assess and criticize his replacee as being *scummy* (xRx really said that his predicessor's pressure was a stupid place to put it, but with him {xRx} mentioning it first and making a point to defend himself (without pressure, I want to point out) I believe that my scumtell applies in this case.

This really had only taken place for you {Troll} in the 2nd of the 4 you linked to. Granted, before an ongoing game I would've been highly suspicious of you because of that (and only that) reason in all 4; it actually ended up taking til ABR's post (which was the last of the 4 that I've seen and recognize) in Hellsing Mafia that I started actively attacking those that reviewed their predecessors seriously first and foremost then hounding them until they got lynched/shot. In this type of outlook it's 50% accurate (out of two); but before that I've linked to all 4 of the games where I specifically remember it coming up and noticing it; so 5/6ths of the time it's hit scum (just talking about the predicessor in any manner).

Now that I understand what I did wrong (I believe) with the 1/6th that was innocent, it's back up to 100% if you exclude my own personal bias and mistake.

Finally, I ask you {Troll}: what pressure what xRx really under before he replaced in?

Charlatan had (and still does) have a ton of votes. I was voting for DDD. As far as I know there was not a single person that really suspected Scien most (or even 2nd most) out of anybody. xRx had absolutely 0 pressure on him when he replaced in. Not that it changes my outlook on xRx's actions, but it will prolly affect how you look at it.

[VP Baltar]

Ah, so you thinking the SC case is weak doesn't have as much to do with it? There's a reason I'm asking.

It's not my main focus. It was something that was brought up that has some merit, but I think your explanations about your stance on ABR/VP are far more scummy. However, even those stances end up relating to your SC vote eventually because of how that vote came about after you unvoted ABR.

Since it's been a bit, let's try and clear this up: who are your top three scum suspects? If ABR and myself have now gone from that list, what is your current read?

On the other hand, scum are probably very happy with the way things are going right now and will not want to let this bandwagon move while I'm closest to a lynch. That is useless to everyone but me now, but will likely be worthwhile to look at tomorrow

Well, if I'm wrong then we'll look at that tomorrow I guess.


@Amished-Yeah, forgot about Jazzmyn there, so that's true. You do make compelling points and I like that you explain why you think you went wrong in the other game. Also, Reckoner didn't have any pressure at all, so I take that as a point in your favor.

I'm still hesitant about it because it seems like a big gamble since we have actual scummy behavior from charlatan to lynch on, but it's also day 1 where we have a little more leeway for error. I want to hear more from Reckoner (how he came to his early reads and what his reads are once he's fully caught up) before I make any final decision.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Vi - we have to lynch someone. Do you prefer charlatan, DDD, or neither as of yet?

[charlatan]

It's not my main focus. It was something that was brought up that has some merit, but I think your explanations about your stance on ABR/VP are far more scummy. However, even those stances end up relating to your SC vote eventually because of how that vote came about after you unvoted ABR.

Really? Because I would think that if it were the most important thing to you, you would have done more digging in that direction. The only thing you've asked about or commented on in regards to "my explanations about [my] stance on ABR/VP" is the OMGUS question, which I have answered in full (and which you did not reply to or signal you had a problem with at all, actually, unless I'm mistaken.)

What problem did you have about the way I unvoted ABR?

The crux of most of the votes against me is a blown-out-of-proportion quote from the very early game. Some people add the SC vote for flavor (though nobody has bothered to argue why it's scummy, just unconvincing.) I'm thoroughly unimpressed. Usually when I screw up enough to attract a lot of votes I at least relate to the attacks being made; in this case I feel like it's players talking as if my overwhelming scuminess were so self-evident when they're not really making cases, just going with a flow that has picked up steam little by little.

Like, for instance, you recently remarked that you understand the clarifications I've made and you did not try to refute the points, you simply "don't believe them". That's different from calling them scummy, and the former I can't really defend against. I'm not sure what, as town, you get from assuming I'm lying without basing it in the arguments, nor do I know how you'd come to that conclusion since it apparently isn't based on the content in the thread. Overall it seems a way to dismiss outright any defense I make and continue to push for the lynch of a guy you've never actually built a case against.

Since it's been a bit, let's try and clear this up: who are your top three scum suspects? If ABR and myself have now gone from that list, what is your current read?

ABR is not gone from that list. In fact, just two pages ago (post 374) I said he was a top suspect. That hasn't changed, especially since he hasn't been present the last few pages. SercialClergyman is obviously a top suspect as well, and I will post more about him soon to make him respond to me instead of brushing me off. My top picks have been swirling about and changing with each page, and you had become less important to me, but that has changed in the last few pages. I think you think you've got today in the bag, but I don't really like going quietly.

I'm still hesitant about it because it seems like a big gamble since we have actual scummy behavior from charlatan to lynch on, but it's also day 1 where we have a little more leeway for error.

How is it a gamble? We're not up against a deadline. We have plenty of time to talk to Reckoner and make an informed decision.

Your recent posts have a vague urgency to them, like it's really important that everyone hurry and lynch me before something scummier comes along to steal the spotlight.

Unvote.

Vote: VP Baltar

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

@Ojanen, at this point I have no interest in voting for VP Baltar today. I'd rather not go into my reasons. The same currently applies to all of Amished, Debonair Danny DiPietro and SerialClergyman for a variety of reasons. Should any of them get closer to being lynched I might talk more but for now I'll just say that I think they do not make good choices for today.

@Debonair Danny DiPietro, you've joined that list very recently. Based on what it looks like you're doing I think that you should be seeing something that it looks like you're not. There is a hole in your reasoning that probably explains some of what you're looking for in the way of a couple answers and I think that you can find it.

Troll, you're obviously trying to obscure your reasoning so that I have a good shot of decoding your idea and no one else for whatever reason, but in doing so you've completely lost me as well.

~~~

Unvote; Vote: xRECKONERx

I have yet to see someone burn their own tells by abusing them as scum. Amished's point does seem valid, I also don't think Troll's personal counter examples hold up terribly well as Troll is almost always a unique case.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I can also confirm that Debonair Danny DiPietro did do pretty much what he's explaining fits this situation in the newbie game we played together. I actually mentioned that game back when I said I wanted to see more content from him. I do still want more content but what he's doing here is consistent with what he did when I was pushing activity in the early game while he hung back.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

I need you to elaborate on that.

[Head_Honcho]

Votecount:

SerialClergyman(1): xRECKONERx
charlatan(5): SerialClergyman, Zorblag, Albert B. Rampage, VP Baltar, Sando
Debonair Danny DiPietro(2): Vi, PorkchopExpress
xRECKONERx(2): Amished, Debonair Danny DiPietro
VPBaltar(2): Ojanen, charlatan

With 12 alive it's 7 to lynch.

[xRECKONERx]

K, I'm back from work. Gonna try and do a quick catchup before multiple drunk motherfuckers show up at my apartment.

[PorkchopExpress]

@Ojanen: DDD’s repeated claims of being a pro-town lurker without actually doing anything to earn the pro-town part of that label strike me as more palpably scummy than Charlatan’s shenanigans at the moment. You haven’t really mentioned DDD as of yet, I’m interested to know what your take on him is.

Re: Amished’s tell.
I saw Amished use this to catch Jazzmyn as scum in Last Man Standing, so the tell can be deadly accurate. Also not criticising your predecessor fits how I replace as town, for what little that might be worth. Still, without more from Reckoner, I’m not sure that the bandwagon is deserving of more support. It would be worth looking at games where Reckoner has replaced in as town and scum to see if the tell applies here. Care to help us out Reckoner?

I guess what is old is new again with Charlatan’s return to voting for VPB.
@Charlatan: Is it just the sense of urgency that pushes VPB ahead of SC on your suspect list?

[xRECKONERx]

Nvm, didn't get anything done, now im drnku bbl

[Sando]

@Sando: If he {Charlatan} can intelligently defend himself (therefore I'm assuming that he's defending himself adequately if it's an intelligent defense), why does that make him scum?

This is similar to what Charlatan asked, so I'll just answer yours.

It's the differential between his defence of himself and his attacks. I obviously didn't express myself clearly enough. His defence being intelligent and well articulated obviously isn't scummy in itself, but neither does it make him town. However, when I see someone who has intelligent and well articulated defences of their actions, yet their attacks and cases on others lack this, it says to me that the person is spending a lot of time on their defence, and just trying to give a semblance of attacking.

Ojanen, while our play might be similar this game, my meta is different from yours. Actually, I don't have a scum meta since I've never played as scum (in a completed game at least) other than our hydra. Your play matches your scum-meta, and the claim that you're trying to influence your meta by playing differently seems odd, why would a townie try and act like their scum-meta?

I don't like him on the charlatan wagon.

I think this is referring to ABR, is this correct?

[charlatan]

I guess what is old is new again with Charlatan’s return to voting for VPB.

I have not cast a vote for VP Baltar in this game until now.

@Charlatan: Is it just the sense of urgency that pushes VPB ahead of SC on your suspect list?

No. That is only a small thing, though I do think it worth noting. Baltar has now expressed himself to be at the point where my lynch is the foregone correct conclusion; I am "iredeemable" and regardless of anything I may or may have said, he will not be swayed.

He has in some cases not expressed dismay at or contested points I've raised along the way, but now later in the day reserves the right to say he's thought they were scummy all along. Scummy enough, in fact, that they cannot be explained. And, even if I do explain them, and even if those explanations are understandable and clear, they do not matter to him, because he simply does not believe them. (Hopefully he will clear that point up.) It all feels pretty convenient, very much like riding the tide without doing a whole lot to contribute to it (except to occasional remind others to Vote Charlatan 2010).

He himself only investigated one point in particular, the wording of one line where I used "OMGUS" in a confusing manner, which he dropped after I explained it. So when I hear him say that it's really important that I be lynched now, because I'm so dangerously scummy and everyone might accidentally forget about it tomorrow, I'm not only surprised -- I'm extra suspicious.

---

DDD - In case you missed it, please see 406.

---

In regards to Reckoner, Porkchop might be on the right track. I'm not inclined to outright dismiss Amished's theory because it does make logical sense, but in my case it's not true either, so I'd suspect it depends entirely on the player being investigated.

[Amished]

WRT xRx: I've looked through all (town and scum) games that he's linked to in his wiki and isolated those that he replaced into. Unfortunately he's only replaced into like 2 games outta 20; one as town and one as scum that I saw. (Come on, replace into games, help out moderators for crying out loud!)

In the two replacee games, he didn't talk about who he replaced at all.

[VP Baltar]

First, I'll address charlatan's bundle of bogus (and by extension Oj I suppose):

What problem did you have about the way I unvoted ABR?

Hmm, perhaps its the fact that he was apparently your top suspect, but once you started catching flak over it you felt the need to unvote and change to SC seemingly out of left field.

The crux of most of the votes against me is a blown-out-of-proportion quote from the very early game.

This is pretty much an exaggeration. It wasn't even one of the first major things to come up in the game. Yes, we've been talking about it for awhile now, but you putting it like this seems like you're trying to make it sound like something trivial from RVS, which it is not.

Like, for instance, you recently remarked that you understand the clarifications I've made and you did not try to refute the points, you simply "don't believe them". That's different from calling them scummy

No, you're wrong. Me saying I don't believe the explanations you've given is equivalent of me saying they are scummy. I think you're making shit up to cover the sand dance you're doing.

Overall it seems a way to dismiss outright any defense I make and continue to push for the lynch of a guy you've never actually built a case against.

What? You seriously think you haven't been fairly questioned over it or I haven't explained where I'm coming from?

To the quotes!

Do you think I agreed with every point you've raised the entire game? I agreed with you on one point early in. (The point that I mentioned at the time and also again in my last post.) There are others I do not like. Again, these are available for you to read in my last post.

Well, I want to look specifically at your vote:

It wasn't that. My ass can be the center point of multi-page discussion for all I care.

I was more focusing on why he would transition from an RVS vote on me to legitimately accusing me of being scum after I said he was such. Could be a mountain out of a molehill, but it's early game.

Ah, yes, I do agree with that. Actually, it's even a stretch to call it "legitimately" accusing you of being scum, since there has never been any indication from Ramp as to why you're scum aside from the fact that you like drugs, and I think we all know that drugs appeal to those from all walks of life regardless of criminal persuasion. I wouldn't think twice about it if he hadn't called for others to pile on votes. Come to think of it:

Unvote
Vote: Albert B. Rampage

So, in that vote you are agreeing about ABR OMGUSing me over really no reason whatsoever.

However, when you are clarifying most recently you say:

Obviously, I agree with him in regards to the disconnect between Ramp's stated intentions for his votes and what they actually accomplish (and, as such, what his real intentions might be, as surmised surmised using -- get this -- my mind.)

I do not agree that Ramp is playing apart from him meta style-wise, in terms of being OMGUS-y, the cockiness, etc. In fact, those are my fave parts about him.

I don't really understanding you saying the bolded portion when the quote you cited before your vote (the first bolded line) is me directly talking about him OMGUSing me.... so, yeah, you can see people's confusion over your stance that you think one of ABR or I is scum.

Please. I push on one guy and mention that I think another's scummy, and suddenly have to answer for not voting for the secondary guy, when I never stopped questioning the first?

When the clearly implied question is 'what differentiates these two enough that you want to vote one over the other', yes you need to answer the question in a non-obtuse manner.

^Here, I explain very clearly using your own quotes what the problem is.

Then you did some sand dancing and I again pointed out why I didn't believe you based on your own actions:

One is a question of style meta, one is a question of the vote-morphing justification. Ironically, this is what I misunderstood in your quote way back when, only now reversed. When I said "OMGUS-y, the cockiness, etc." I was referring to what you called him being "personally reactive" and "touchy". I do not think these are legitimate reasons to attack him over, but I do think revisionist history is.

Well, I was pushing them as related, but even moving past that, let's look again at the quote you cited and voted after:

charlatan wrote:


It wasn't that. My ass can be the center point of multi-page discussion for all I care.

I was more focusing on why he would transition from an RVS vote on me to legitimately accusing me of being scum after I said he was such. Could be a mountain out of a molehill, but it's early game.

Ah, yes, I do agree with that. Actually, it's even a stretch to call it "legitimately" accusing you of being scum, since there has never been any indication from Ramp as to why you're scum aside from the fact that you like drugs, and I think we all know that drugs appeal to those from all walks of life regardless of criminal persuasion. I wouldn't think twice about it if he hadn't called for others to pile on votes. Come to think of it:

Unvote
Vote: Albert B. Rampage

The portion of my quote that you cited is very clearly talking about OMGUS ("accusing me of being scum after I said he was such"), so I don't see how you are now saying you don't agree with that when that appears to be exactly what you were agreeing with in that passage.

Subsequent to this you try to get in a semantics argument with me (which I take to be scummy from an experienced player such as yourself):

I think you're sticking on the one word quite a bit. There's a difference, especially with Rampage, with him simply calling you scum and insulting you (you're a scummy cocaine addict, bla bla har har) which is mundane and unimportant, and actually trying to build an active wagon on the basis that it has a clear pro-town goal, which he only decided to claim later, after he'd unvoted and seemingly moved on by dismissing you with "do I suffer fools like you? Nah." These are two different OMGUS-y kind of actions, one of which I couldn't care less about, and one of which was vote worthy.

Which I don't even feel is worth arguing with you about because I was very clearly referring to a single definition of OMGUS and now you are trying to squirm your way out of it. I'm not going to waste time having the same argument with you over and over when I feel you had a chance to explain yourself and failed to do so. This is why you need to be lynched.

Moving on to more charltan stuff:

ABR is not gone from that list. In fact, just two pages ago (post 374) I said he was a top suspect. That hasn't changed, especially since he hasn't been present the last few pages.

I wasn't saying for sure that he was gone from your list. I was asking for a clarification. This seems like an overly defensive response to the question I posed.

SercialClergyman is obviously a top suspect as well, and I will post more about him soon to make him respond to me instead of brushing me off.

Looking forward to it.

How is it a gamble? We're not up against a deadline. We have plenty of time to talk to Reckoner and make an informed decision.

Your recent posts have a vague urgency to them, like it's really important that everyone hurry and lynch me before something scummier comes along to steal the spotlight.

Major bullshit alert! Where is the sense of urgency? I'm not rushing anybody to vote you. I have simply stated my opinion on the matter, which is that I feel you are the best lynch for the day. Nowhere in any of my posts am I saying "hurry up everyone, you have to vote immediately!".

I would also like to know why you think me wanting your lynch is scummy, but ABR essentially doing the same thing (and with far less explanation) apparently does not register on your radar. My general impression is that you saw Oj's vote as an opportunity to bail from the SC vote, which was also garnering suspicion on you when you realized you had nothing of substance to push.

As far as Reckoner goes, I hope everyone notes your super selective quoting above. It's a gamble because we'd be lynching on Amished's "scumtell" pretty much alone. I'd hope you as town could understand hesitence over this. And I'm not even putting that option completely off the table, which is what you are saying. Had you cited my full quote, that would be obvious:

I'm still hesitant about it because it seems like a big gamble since we have actual scummy behavior from charlatan to lynch on, but it's also day 1 where we have a little more leeway for error.

I want to hear more from Reckoner (how he came to his early reads and what his reads are once he's fully caught up) before I make any final decision.

Scummy enough, in fact, that they cannot be explained. And, even if I do explain them, and even if those explanations are understandable and clear, they do not matter to him, because he simply does not believe them. (Hopefully he will clear that point up.)

Here's your clarification: misrepresentation full-tilt! Just because your words are understandable, which is what I was saying, does not mean your explanations are good or believable by me. That point is not difficult to understand in the least.

WRT xRx: I've looked through all (town and scum) games that he's linked to in his wiki and isolated those that he replaced into. Unfortunately he's only replaced into like 2 games outta 20; one as town and one as scum that I saw. (Come on, replace into games, help out moderators for crying out loud!)

In the two replacee games, he didn't talk about who he replaced at all.

So, if he didn't do that as scum before are you still inclined to follow the tell here?

[VP Baltar]

Sorry about the mega post. I normally try not to do that, but most if it's past stuff anyhow.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

DDD - In case you missed it, please see 406.

Is 406 really relevant any more given 413?