Mini 1521: The Fall - Game Over

[Hopkirk]

/confirm

[Hopkirk]

Yes his username just conforms (p10).

Anyway VOTE: jake from state farm because i think he's a communist.

[Hopkirk]

"/conform"
"for total uncreativity In username creation."
"Yes his username just conforms (p10)."

What have you got against very poor jokes?

I hope your post wasn't serious though as your reasoning is worse than me not liking Stalin's collective farms.

[Hopkirk]

Considering the "reason" itself is a joke/random vote (you can't think someone's scum based on name only) then if he was serious i would feel sorry for anyone he's ever played with.

[Hopkirk]

@The duck: He asked in post 16. Check 17 and you'll see the response that you missed.

@Jake: Why are you Stalinist?

Also why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side. (Btw this is a bad joke, not a scum claim as everyone in this thread already knows).

"The Hopkirk vote is not silly in as much as it is not humorous."
Explain why the vote is not silly or random.

[Hopkirk]

Who's there?

[Hopkirk]

So are you voting me because i voted you or because i have poor humor?

If you don't work for the secret police why are you trying to lynch people hm? (In fact we may all be in the secret police).

[Hopkirk]

The central point of your argument:
Whoever the chicken is going to visit is scum.
I am scum because the chicken is visiting me.

This is a fallacy as you are basing your conclusions with an argument that can only be there because of your conclusions. It's the same as saying "you are scum because you're scum". It's poor circular logic at best.

@Duck: The central point of my response: Nobody smart would seriously consider that as a good basis for a vote (by basic mafia theory) so anyone who was considering that to be a good basis for the vote must be very bad.
I'm waiting for him to follow up before any read.

[Hopkirk]

@The duck: What do you think about your own reasoning?

Slandaar is obviously just going to slandar (slander) me.

@Emo: What’s wrong with starting the game off, how would you like to do it? It seems what you’re saying is you’ll wait for someone to say something scummy then jump on them for it.

VOTE: Emogirl123

[Hopkirk]

My point is that what emo said was “Call me when you post real content.”
This implies that they want to avoid (possible scumslips) by taking part in anything at the start-where most d1 lynches come from in some way.

The question I’m asking is that if nobody did rvs or anything like it then how would

you

start the game? (@Emo)

@Slandaar: So you think there’s a magic-chicken-daycop in the game? Wow you have great reasons for you vote when we’re getting out of rvs.

[Hopkirk]

@Iama:
31=I wanted to see what he'd say in response to alduskkel. His reason for vote was obviously rvs vote but he was attempting to justify it.
45=The thing here is that emo did wait as opposed to actually helping start things. The questions were something they wanted to hear while my question i wanted to hear/still want a little more on.

[Hopkirk]

Ald said /62 it's because of the amount of posting with a lack of content rather than the look of genuine inactivity that others may have.

@Jake: Yet your vote lacks substantive/any reasoning.

@Grey: Why? Btw considering i'm still semi-random atm i don't think i'm leading the town at all. Helpful hint: Generally if you accuse someone with the biggest wagon on them as leader the town then you probably don't understand what leading the town is.

@Emo: So could you answer my q so i can vote someone else?

[Hopkirk]

Trying to position self as leader =/= having 4 votes on me with nobody else agreeing with my current vote (including me since it's there for info)

@Ald: You’d already answered it- bringing attention to that fact isn’t the same as stealing the q.

“damn I was right about you? awesome. more votes on hop please. Attacking a person for not RVS'ing is like scumtell numero uno”
So why is that scummy at all? I’ve already asked for emos alternative so what is yours.
If you accept rvs stage is where the d1 lynch usually comes from (generally from those rving or responding poorly) then it’s logical to assume avoiding rvs is an attempt to avoid getting any pressure thus scummy as you want to not be pressured and stall the game.

The question emo asked are based on rvs. Saying this shouldn't take place (rvs) is totally attempting to remove any chance of getting pressured if other people use qs as if you don't rvs then people can't get any reads until later.

[Hopkirk]

Where am i trying to lead village then?

On the emo/ more clearly.
-Rvs is where people vote at random /true
-Anyone then uses what is said here to make cases/reads based on what is said /true
-Refusing to ever do so is thus an attempt to not have anyone analyzing you /logical conclusion
-Asking question on the other hand puts you in a position where you are less likely to be read as scum. /logical conclusion
First people to talk in the thread are obvscum according to their logic.

[Hopkirk]

You're already being extremely forceful in the RVS: My rvs was about soviet russia/not there anymore-it's good to get out quick.
polarizing the game around them: Hm i have 4 people voting me and I'm talking about myself...i wonder why? I'm also asking questions, as I want...answers to them.

@86: Then why would you vote someone already being pressured if there's opportunity to do the same to someone who isn't?

@Jake: “his reaction to my joke was bad
him attacking a person who didn't want to rvs is bad”
Saying who’s there in response to knock knock is bad? Take a good long+hard look at yourself man.
Attacking non-rvs person: I’ve explained this in 81/83

@I am a user name: Firstly 1411: Rqs also generates stuff. Obviously there are other ways to scum hunt but saying “two posts don’t sound the same as the rest/why” aren’t the best things to get stuff moving.

“emogirl came in after a page of random voting had already occurred, said "rah rah I'm far too sophisticated for random voting, plebs" and you think this was an attempt to retroactively erase the existence of the random voting that had already occurred and thus prevent the town from being able to find scum because all scum hunting must necessarily stem from random voting? that's your argument?”

No I’m saying she did it so that people wouldn’t pressure her. Random voting is where the scum reads start. Not taking part in anything means you are actively trying to avoid getting read as scum.

She effectively says: Tell me when you have scum reads -so she can wagon them probably and SO THEY AREN’T HER.

@Jake: Why is posting fluff for half your posts good? It makes isos harder/makes it harder to analyse you/helps you hide info from us.

tl/dr=avoiding rvs is an attempt to avoid being read as scum.

[Hopkirk]

Ah yes @Forceful: Yeah Stalin was a pretty nasty fellow. Post rvs i have my vote on someone and I'm barely pressuring them as it's only there while i get my question answered (and i don't take it off until i do as a matter of principle/unless i get a major scum read on someone)

[Hopkirk]

You mean the bit where I prove it’s a fallacy/random then go on to ignore it? Yes that’s me ignoring it in a (humorously) wordy way.

You also said ½ would be fluff- this means the point that it helps you hide is still relevant.

[Hopkirk]

@97: Says the person who is voting me for what he has said is pretty much that he's taking my jokes literally/87.

[Hopkirk]

87: "his reaction to my joke was bad"
Does my response to the chicken look really serious considering what i was saying in 15-17? Answer=no so stop trying to misrep me while accusing me of misreping you as you're the misreper.

[Hopkirk]

@Slandaar and emo:
I’ll try and respond to both qs here:
-Random vote stage with little happening
-aldusk votes me for something that he can obviously see is a joke which I then explain is a joke, here I was worried (and still find it a little scummy) why someone would think the comment was serious.
-Chicken- jake votes me for random vote stage vote but attempts to justify it with regular rvs joke logic.
-I respond with a typical rvs response joke (a little wordy) and respond to what I’m being asked.
-Slandaar votes me for another joke reason.
-I find emo’s next post to be an attempt to avoid getting anyone to put pressure on them.
-I am not very satisfied with their response, as they don’t respond to the key point of my q so vote me.
-Username votes me. First person claiming to have a reason though I find his reasons of poor quality as I’ve explained/I then explains.
Grey doesn’t seem to have a reason for the vote; his vote is based on a misconception.
-General questioning and responses.

I think the key problem is the difference of opinions. I hold the view, as I’ve explained many times before, that emo’s attempt to distance themselves from any kind of pressure by their opinion of rvs. What she says is basically:

“I’ll let people form scum reads, say nothing until they have so that nobody forms one on me then I’ll wagon”.
I seem to be the only one who considers that logic scummy, jake seems to consider it very pro-town which I totally disagree with. Although emos lack of opportunist voting seems good/townish.

What votes shouldn’t be there: Slandaar and Aldusk don’t have good reasons. Grey seems to be there to be on a wagon. Jake is trying to badly misrepresent me and username has slight reason.

1) He reacted poorly to the knock knock joke: It’s random vote stage justification. It’s exactly the same as if someone said “people who wear black hats are scum” where it isn’t true. But jake tries to “prove” that it is true and that’s the point it becomes scum-motivated.
2) I’ve explained why this is scummy
3) If this is me trying to lead the town then every other twon must be totally anarchic. I don’t like leading towns, If you think I’m leading the town that must mean you think what I’m saying has good logic behind it-but then dispute it?

Scumreads atm: Jake-emo (semi, depends on their justification for their opinions)-Random person who has said nothing-grey.
Would like response from emo to my charges on her.

[Hopkirk]

Generally B as attacking the argument thus proving the conclusion is false is better than attacking the conclusion with no reason why it isn't true other than an absolute assumption. (see hierarchy of argument for a little more on what i mean).
Although in that case it was random vote stage where arguments aren't serious therefore arguments against arguments are not serious.

@Emo: The "opening" is only possible for you to do if others started it off and your method means that the people who started it off will look the scummiest/you won't look scummy at all from rvs. I maintain that the d1 lynch usually presents itself in rvs so actively avoiding it "call me when it's done" is scummy. Thus you played like that (imo) to avoid being read as scum. The scummy part was saying "call me when done"this has yet to be addressed.

@Jake: Or I'm just a wordy person and you don't like my humor.

[Hopkirk]

Random question however are offensively constructed and give less opportunity for people to form reads based off of. You were still saying to call you later but leaving small activity so it didn't look like it was lurking but also meaning people wouldn't think you were scum.

[Hopkirk]

How would you know he'd vote you for being inactive?

Hey I'm the only one walling and i don't like walls.

[Hopkirk]

"I wanted to induce action from BolteAltamonte without revealing why": Aren't you saying here you didn't do rvs bc you thought he'd vote you

[Hopkirk]

But you didn't do rvs. He voted you later on. You imply you didn't rvs because you knew he vote you.

[Hopkirk]

"I wanted to induce action from BolteAltamonte without revealing why": Implied to me that was a response to my questions about rvs to you.
Logically a vote for inactivity will vanish if your reveal it was due to lack of access thus how would you follow that up?

[Hopkirk]

I was asking a question and thought you'd responded fully. You were actually responding to a different q. Mine had nothing to do with access.

[Hopkirk]

could you explain why, in Newbie 1411, you didn't make a random vote, if random voting is the only possible way to start scumhunting? could you explain why you didn't vote for Nobody Special in that game when he pointedly refused to make a random vote in much the same way as emogirl did here?

Hopkirk, you never answered the second question here, and it's kind of the more important one. there is a huge inconsistency in your reactions to someone refusing to participate in random voting between that game and this one, why?

Alduskkel, what is your opinion on emogirl's alignment?

Slandaar, stop being wilfully obtuse. how did you reach the conclusion that JKLM received a scum pm?

"@I am a user name: Firstly 1411: Rqs also generates stuff. Obviously there are other ways to scum hunt but saying “two posts don’t sound the same as the rest/why” aren’t the best things to get stuff moving."
See my post a couple after his question for where this comes from.

[Hopkirk]

@Ald: Read on emogirl?

[Hopkirk]

"i think he actually thought she was literally saying "i'm not going to do anything until later" even though she immediately followed that up by doing something.": No i've said this already several times, what she did next was the kind of thing that would be expected from someone who was trying to avoid any pressure (questions that couldn't be used against her while avoiding doing anything that could even if it would help).
Also rvs=random vote stage and rqs=random question stage. Both can provide content. (Emo wasn't doing rqs either.)

@Ald: How don'y you have a read on her after a few pages of just you two talking? Why didn't you try and form a read then as that should be your priority there.

And slandaar: Yep i believe everything you say with no explanation needed (except this). (/why)

[Hopkirk]

@Yiley: p184: What did you find about ald/ anything in old game(s) that is relevant here?

@Ald: So you didn't seem to be pushing her much to be not ambiguous.

[Hopkirk]

Most of your stuff was defensive but not the kind of defense you'd do against someone you didn't have a read on.

@Slandaar: So isn't being wooden/unnatural itself a cause for someone to look scummy iyo?

[Hopkirk]

329/emo: This can apply to a lot of people but I think I see where you’re coming from. His behavior (when arguing with you) doesn’t ever seem to be in a way that would get him a read on you when this should be his priority for the discussion.

Username is active… he’s made one post so far that helps find scum at all. However he does seem town. Funny how emo defines active as agreeing with her (“stance on ald”).

@Jake: Really now you think giving your reads is bad…

Emos nk list is poor and useless. If something is a secret… Keep it to yourself instead of wasting space and trying to give the impression you know something that we’ll want to know.

Emo maybe if you give your case there will be more votes on ald.

VOTE: jakefromstatefarm

[Hopkirk]

Explain your vote(s). Just saying you are scum isn't enough.

Town read for voting self in that way is a dreadful reason.

[Hopkirk]

And both of you ignore my questions/comments on you in my previous post.

[Hopkirk]

You don't have a read on her.
You aren't trying to get one.
You should have been trying to get one.
Why didn't you.

Why is switching between votes quickly a town read, she's already said she has more than one scum read and it, like sving, seems like a cheap tactic.

[Hopkirk]

@Jake: I don’t see how you are even trying to argue that giving a list of what you think everyone in the game is +why, is anti-town.

It’s better for the town if we know what other people’s reads are- we can miss stuff and coordinate- you can’t honestly say that keeping reasons for reads/scum reads secret is good.

“Your vote on me for saying that is exactly what I'd expect from scum”: Aka I’m scum for voting you.


“An incredible waste of time which could be better spent scum hunting,”: Helping coordinate+share information/reads is good. It’s not a waste of time compared to your kind of “x is scum but I’m not saying why” garbage which is totally uselss.

“they don't show examples of scum hunting which you should be doing if you are town.”: Lists should contain why each of those reads are as they are so this point is just wrong.

“if you happen to be town they give scum more information and since they already have the advantage, it's incredibly stupid to give them more.” So it’s okay for other members of the town not to know anything. The scum know who is scum already so sharing reads and reasons is benefiting the town, not the scum.

“If you happen to be scum it gives the impression that you are town cause idiots townies ooh and ahh at people who do list reads and immediately assume they are town.”: This is directly challenging the rest of what you’ve said.

You even have the audacity to say that it stops scum hunting/wastes time when you yourself have done no effective shing…yeah

[Hopkirk]

So your opinion is that saying who you think is scum + why Is scummy…wow.

The town being random chaos with nobody saying why they think anything or whom they think is scum helps the scum. Discussion of this is…most of the game. Are you saying playing mafia helps the scum.

“I disagree”: Not giving reasons for your reads helps promote mislynches.
“I have already said why i think you are scum and I even added to it. Why the misrep?”: Want to make a case against me here then as opposed to various poor comments that have been dismissed due to uselessness.

Fully explained lists are the best ones (slandaar want to do this?). Normal lists can however provide a bit i.e. how are they worse than nothing?

People can miss scummy things. This is why I think people should make cases and explain votes as that gets people lynched. Town discussion of who is scum + why is a good thing/central to the whole thing.

Yes it does as you just said it’s a scummy thing then you say doing a “scummy thing” is generally considered a town thing to do/with reason.

You haven’t found any scum bc you’ve been (lightly) saying a couple of random unsupported things about me, not even trying to get me lynched, and nothing else. Aka nothing of any value whatsoever. You have not been looking for scum.

[Hopkirk]

If you think making a list of who is scum/why is anti-town you’re saying it’s scummy as you seem to also deny.

“Just cause I am against list reads doesn't mean I want people to stop looking for scum”
“it's actually better for scum. Hand them a list of unified town reads so they know where they stand”

You think it’s good for scum to know people’s scum reads and don’t…ok.
“It’s not a waste of time compared to your kind of “x is scum but I’m not saying why”
“I disagree” (you)
You then change your mind on this.
“we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this list read thing. You aren't going to change my mind and it's clearly obvious I am not going to change yours.”: If you think I’m scum then what I’m saying should be scum motivated rather an opinion you disagree with.
Scumreads are generally given WITH reasons in read lists. Your opposition to giving a list of reasoned reads (not what slandaar was doing) is scummy.
Your case addressed:
“his reaction to my joke was bad”: Seriously what kind of fool interprets what I was saying as serious when it’s said IN DIRECT RESPONSE to joke. Work on looking at context.
“him attacking a person who didn't want to rvs is bad”: I’ve fully explained it wasn’t just this but your case here seems to be because we disagree about emo’s position being scummy-which I think it is. Not a reaction test but a scummy play.
“I added 371. Voting me because I don't share your opinion.”: Consider the emo thing. THIS IS YOUR INTIRE CASE. I on the other hand dislike your complete lack of doing any scum hunting and poor reasoning/opinions. Your opinions are scum motivated.
You don’t follow up with any serious attempt at a lynch because…you know you have no case and are just giving the manic ranting of the scum in the corner.

[Hopkirk]

That format is horrible. I think I'll directly quote bigger stuff.

[Hopkirk]

I was kind of arguing for more detailed ones as i saw you as talking about the standard kind of list.

Want to respond to my response to your case or admit none of it is valid (see 399)?

[Hopkirk]

The "Addressing the case" part is.
(and i know it's entire not intire)

[Hopkirk]

Because needs to have something following it.
I've made my case about emo's non rvs being scummy. You're voting me because we disagree on someone else being scummy here.
I didn't attack an easy target. The point is emo was trying to make them self the hardest target/to stop anyone reading them as scum by: i.) Not taking part in the thing where initial reads come from and ii.)) Instead making false activity (easy qs) that couldn't make her look scummy. The thing i dislike is her motivation- instead of looking for scum only defending herself in the first stages.
You are voting me for not sharing your opinions on emo being scummy and nothing else.

[Hopkirk]

You're ignoring my entire point/rvs.
"she was immediately called out for her comment": By me.
That is what a reaction test is IMO: You call it a reaction test,she doesn't, i call it really scummy. You're saying "she's scummy and you voted someone scummy so you're scummy" which is a pathetic attempt.
Much like my joke did. : I responded with my joke and NOBODY mentioned it (or reference you) again/for a while.

[Hopkirk]

"Doing something that looks scummy", same principal: Voting people for being scummy is a good thing not a scum tell.

[Hopkirk]

So jake’s whole case is that I disliked emo’s attitude to rvs…whatever.
Grey hasn’t made a case and said he didn’t want to.
^ People actually listen to people like that…Lol

424: Saying not to claim d1 is very scummy, claim if being lynched. If you plan on lynching me though do it well before deadline, as it won’t be happening.
I dislike how jake ignores obviously scummy things from emo.

Btw don’t you think lynching actual scum is a good idea? Go do that.

[Hopkirk]

Jake hates me already. I guess I’ll just give him another reason…yes I’m making a…LIST READ!

Hopkirk is town
Username is town
Yiley is town
Sadly jake is probably town
The-duck is town
Grey could be town
Slandaar is town
Bolt is inactive
Peregrine is inactive
Ald is scummy
Zeus is hm
Jklm is scum
Emo maybe scum
Zeus and ald may be a scumteam

VOTE: JKLM
This feels right

[Hopkirk]

Scummy is what i have in between neutral and scum when used as an alignment in a list like that.

[Hopkirk]

Do you think I'd have a separation between scum and scummy if they were both meaning exactly the same? (Although scum on the list isn't 100%)

" because of that he isn't obvious town to me anymore"
After he posted a list read you say he is neutral
The list read has changed your read on him from town-neutral which is towards scum which is weird if it's neutral-which would mean it shouldn't change your read.

[Hopkirk]

Beginning+Catching up useless as slandaar said.

220: Heavily implies he has read it but isn’t responding on purpose or even trying, timing is at the kind of time slandaar mentions him.

241:Firstly his view that voting him for doing little/purposely not attempting to contribute (scum motivated) isn’t a just reason to lynch. Secondly his “non random vote” is a bad omgus with him not having any better scum reads than slandaar (with poor reasoning for it) by post 241. His not doing anything could be his tactic here-aka why’s he avoiding saying anything, being active elsewhere and trying to stop people who want him to contribute.

427: So he “forgot it existed”, excused for not saying anything? Oh wait, in the same post he implies he has scum reads (probably in the group quoted) but doesn’t say anything about what they are.

429: Attacking him=You are town despite him claiming not to know what’s happening-more inconsistency. Then the “Can’t blame for voting me” when that’s the only reason for his current vote.

He doesn’t bother to share any scum reads, make a comment on anything that’s happened all game and doesn’t even switch his vote to someone he thinks is scum.

That is my case on him.

[Hopkirk]

All that despite having reads, he doesn't try and give any scum reads aka doesn't vote anyone he thinks is scum when he has multiple chances. He also has no proper reason for his initial vote or if he doesn't he doesn't follow it up at all, say anything else about who he's voting or change it to someone else implying slandaar is still his top read-for no reason/still not doing anything/semi-active lurking to try and not be voted (he only responds when there's any pressure on him).

And jake:
"If I didn't already have a strong scum read on Hop and now Slandaar"
"I could probably go along with a JKLM policy lynch"
Why would you consider following a lynch that is mainly being suggested by both of your top scum reads?
By scum reads here i mean of course people who disagree with you on mafia-theory.

[Hopkirk]

Recently/today when i was looking over the posts made by several people and realized I'd missed something big.

Why do you think he's lurking as town rather than lurking as scum@jake?

[Hopkirk]

Peregrine's lurking is literally nothing.
JKLM [bold]heavily[/bold] implies he has read through it, knows what's going on and has reads which he is holding back for no reason. Also his responses all seem to come right after he is challenged.

@Jake: So you're style of posting is something that encourages lurking (too much to read/volume) yet you dislike lurking?

[Hopkirk]

Not really game related but you said at the start you'd post high content with 1/2 being useless. If there's lots of posts people may be less likely to read than if less posts.

Doy you see the difference I'm saying about (in my case on jk)

And I'm not saying the other two in actives were scummy, they're neutral but jk is actually scummy.

[Hopkirk]

@Jake: A big part of your "case" on me seems to be you taken a joking response to you joke as literal.

Suddenly- I read through isos of everyone who i didn't have a good read on.

[Hopkirk]

@Ald: I was making a list of reads (!) so i thought it would be a good idea to look through isos, when i looked at aj he looked very scummy.

[Hopkirk]

Ignorant and terrible how

Lol at zeus saying jake thinks I'm town. Hey zeus got any scum reads?

@Emo: You could always make a case on ald.

[Hopkirk]

"nothing i say now would make a difference"

Despite me saying exactly the opposite. Make a case for him being scum, if you just say "oh he's scum" that's far less effective than saying why. I'm not sure why you'd say "saying why scum is scum won't help them get lynched but just saying they are will".

[Hopkirk]

I would consider an ald lynch.

[Hopkirk]

@Son of zeus “Hop/slandaar are scum” seems like a town read to you how?

I dislike emo's "don't let prs claim ever" attitude.

“I will never give reads until Atleast day 3. I don't like to make scums job easy.”: You’re not going to try and lynch scum for 3 days as that will “make it easier for them”. Scum.
Then the post contains contradictions, untrue things and tries to stop us lynching him and tries to justify his future lurking.
@JKLM: Why did you vote someone you didn’t thing was scum (ald). You can’t say if you thing someone’s scum and they flip town that you’re auto scum as …town doesn’t know scum.

Ald doesn't like explaining himself though.

[Hopkirk]

Jklm continues to get worse.
Grey should be claiming.

[Hopkirk]

@Ald: I assumed you were still open to lynching him but were weary of a quick hammer.

[Hopkirk]

@Jake: My read on grey was scum around the early hundreds which gradually fell to null/slight town as he wasn't very scummy.

I still support a vote on jklm, he should claim.

[Hopkirk]

I thought jk was on l-1 when i was saying for him to claim, nvm then.

[Hopkirk]

Do more today.

VOTE: JKLM

SonOfZeus: Eh
JKLM : Yes
PeregrineV : Hm
emogirl123:yeah
Slandaar:Hm

Three scum probably on the list, (including emo and jklm as the top two).
Though i will need to reread.

[Hopkirk]

/confirm

5=nothing.

VOTE: the duck

I hate ducks.

37=standard rvs.

My internet went out yesterday

Catching up

103=prod dodge, nothing yet.

v/lA until Saturday

Thanksgiving is busy, that should have started two days ago.

I like this game a lot.

220=He has read through it but it purposely choosing to keep his rvs rather than doing anything, even giving a single scum read- if he likes the game he should have a reason/have an idea about scum.

Duck's vote is probably wrong.

OK Townies we all need to start working together. I suggest we do this by voting JKLM until he is dead. If there are any objections to this they need to be made very clear with the reasoning for said objection.

VOTE: slandaar

Guys this needs to die, pushes for easy lynch and I've literally done nothing this game. Given that could warrant a goo policy lynch, I feel like I may as well make my vote a non random one.

241= He’s kept his vote on a random place up to here. It changes because somebody votes him/says that someone who does nothing should contribute. Sole reason for the vote is trying to stop someone who wants him to do something/make reads-notice he still has no proper reads by 242 posts in.

Also, scum would absolutely not kill outside of iamusername, jake, emogirl123, slandaar, and the-duck. Whoever left alive in that list should be the list to pick a Day 2 lynch from.

I don't like this post at all^

I forgot this game existed, and I can't find a recent vote count. Where is it?

427=Oh look he “forgot it existed” again after his constant prod dodges, lurking and v/la. But the one post he picked out is 80 before his-thus he has read stuff at least once/twice and that’s the best thing he can find-effectively nothing (more attempts not to make any reads or do anything).

Oh really? Well that might be convenient then. I reckon you're town^

Yeah I can't blame anyone for voting for me, I've completely abused this games existence.

429= Firstly he drops a town read on the first person to try and pressure him. He’s reading someone with about 5 posts as good town-quite weird considering 2 posts before he says he doesn’t remember it-so how does he have a town read on someone with very few posts like that. Vote is still on slandaar- he seems to have read despite pretending not to but still has no scum reads. He also directly challenges what he says in 241. The only reason for his vote that he still has is because the person votes him to encourage activity-something jk says jk should be policy lynched for.

1. Still waiting for vote count, I'm refusing to do anything until one, you can policy lynch me for that and I would understand.

That's about it. I will never give reads until Atleast day 3. I don't like to make scums job easy.

I'm town and nothing else, I don't mind sitting as live scum bait so I've simply decided to see how things play out

VOTE: ald

Because I'm lazy and don't care, I don't even remember signing up for this game, you can policy lynch me tomorrow if you want, but town deserves better than a pointless lynch

562= More excuses for inactivity. He doesn’t share scum reads as he thinks that helps scum… He really thinks that trying to find scum is good for the scum/makes an awful policy to try and not do anything/help the mafia. He still thinks the scum is going to lynch someone who does nothing but be scummy. He votes for ald with no reason/implies he has no reason and is only doing it as he wants to try and lynch someone who is being pressured.

I love how Ald assumes that I'm scum purely to argue his way of it being impossible for him to be scum since he hates bussing. Him doing something like that is indicative that he isn't scum. Why? I'm town. If he was REALLY scum, he would know that. The fact that his defense relies on me being scum would result in his lynch tomorrow if I were to be lynched. In other words, if he was scum, he would have never said that as scum so he doesn't screw himself over when I flip.

Yay for logic! Although everyone that thinks I'm scum won't beleive me but whatever.

Thanks grey for the vote count, now I can get things off the ground...

Oh look I found scum!
557

VOTE: Grey

Please drop the garbage and vote him. Ald is town. Grey isn't. Just read his ISO, it wreaks.

581= A little straw manning- about alds defence, when he really says that he thinks jk is one of the scum on the wagon-pretty logical when you consider jk has no reason for his vote other than wagoning and refusing to be pro town-trying to discourage his lynch with constant mentions of policy lynches with the “you can lynch me” attitude that he seems to think sounds town. His whole logic here is very bad, a mis-rep of alds defence and doesn’t seem to understand that town reads aren’t 100% sure.
Then comes the vote change. He changes from his “scumread” of ald to grey because of this:
”I was ignoring emo's tunnelly push because I was suspicious of her and tunnelling is garbage, but he's then I started to notice all the things he's doing. The non-comittal posts, asking for prods, and then he goes and hops on the other big wagon.”
Firstly what grey says his is ok reasons for the voting. Jk’s vote is “his iso is bad” and that “he’s doing what I’m doing”. He spends a while saying ald is bad…for no reason, then he votes grey and decides not to give a reason.

It's hard to explain.

If you were scum trying to push mislynch, you'd be doing something stupid by incorporating me beig scum as pivotal to a reason as why you couldn't possibly be scum.

You know, the last half of post 569.

If you were scum, you would know I would flip town and would refuse to pin me down as the reason you're not scum in order to protect yourself after my lynch.

I'm other words, you could only possibly be town logically from my side.

585= His whole reason that someone is town is that he thinks if town is lynched then the people pushing it are 100% scum… Ald doesn’t even say that’s pivotal to his defence.

You're okay, though obviously I'm a bit paranoid about you.

Son-of-Zeus seems genuine but I could use more content from him.

I'm Town.

JKLM I'm still suspicious of but greygnarl is a more suspicious.

So the wagon on greygnarl is pretty good

except JKLM's presence is something of an enigma to me.

By contrast, my wagon has some rather questionable people on it. greygnarl first and foremost. Yiley might be scum but I don't have scum meta on him and he could easily be bad town (unfortunately). Still, I'd lean scum on him. emogirl I'm weary of because she seems like tunneling town BUT I have no idea how good she is as scum.

iamausername is the person on my wagon who is most probably town, though he's just sitting on his vote right now mostly. I could also use more content from him.

Join the club.

Checking my ISO to see if I said anything about Ald before my vote...

667= OH look he doesn’t know why he’s on the wagon, refuses to say why he is and conflicts with what he said earlier about having reasons.

VOTE: jake

Lazy scum has been caught, let's go go go, I have ever said anything about Ald before my vote so great going. Flail harder btw.

Also I see either greygnarl is really oblivious to all this. Or is sum. Prob the latter.

668= More votes with no reasons- he hadn’t even mentioned jake until then.

Whoops my point on grey is null then, sorry I posted from my ISO page so I was going off of my memory. My baaaaaaad sowereee

VOTE: slandaar

Although I'm uncomfortable that you're on this wagon but that was just such a lazy slip of him to say that of me.

672= He says his case on grey is invalid despite “his whole iso reeking”. He switches to the next big wagon for no reason.

actually no fuck it

VOTE: ald

Same.

VOTE: grey

Let's deal with sladaar tomorrow since everybody would rater lynch you first.

674= Joins a wagon on someone who he just said he had no reason to scum read. Wants to lynch slandaar (no reasons again) but instead votes someone he seems to think is town-null because…other people want to lynch his nonscumeads…

I'm only useless day 1, I promise, so no I won't replace out. But let me catch up, with all this crap

861= Poor light claim in an attempt to not be lynched. I wonder why a claiming pr wasn’t killed.

@Jake: My read on grey was scum around the early hundreds which gradually fell to null/slight town as he wasn't very scummy.

I still support a vote on jklm, he should claim.

Why should I claim

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy I thought you were smarter than this

862= Eh my mistake there. But why did you think i was smarter? I haven't really agreed with you, i've said you are scum and you haven't responded to anything i've said (or played with me before).

[Hopkirk]

Well jklm is inactive.

Say jake, what's the difference between lists of scum reads (reveals who they think is town as much as general lists)(you want this from slander) and list reads which contain scum list (which is what you read him scum for in the first place).

[Hopkirk]

You're still giving the top scum then it's pretty easy to determine their other reads. But anyway i don't want a 4 page argument on list reads again and that's pretty much what this would become.

[Hopkirk]

At the minute you are both being anti-town.

[Hopkirk]

@Jake-your top 2 scum reads are on a lynch/first-two, why do you join it?

[Hopkirk]

Emo thinks only slandaar or username would killer don why? I know i would. This isn't something to base the lynch on.

[Hopkirk]

Lots of good content (alignment doesn't matter here) and no scum read on me (applied to about half the game)-anyone can frame. Emo's actual argument isn't that the situation could only apply to username but that only username would try and frame someone.

[Hopkirk]

Although i am considering the possibility of slandar+username team if jklm flips town.

[Hopkirk]

So peregrine: Who on the wagon do you think is scum?

Also lol @Emo saying "You don't get to make statements and not explain why" to anyone.

[Hopkirk]

Yiley is more town than you emo. If you want others to give reasons then do it yourself...Or you'll end up like Jake and Slandaar.

[Hopkirk]

-Don had good content and showed he was capable of doing a lot more- this suggests scum were worried about where he was going next/in the later pages. Maybe he just read grey and found him scummy.
-Username had little content and his death couldn't even be very useful to scum. You are also really overestimating yourself.
-Don didn't look like he'd be getting mis-lynched ever.

The whole "username is 100% scum bc he didn't die".
-Then why is everyone else still alive.
Why are you alive if you're not scum then!
It's because neither of you look like good kill targets (from here).

[Hopkirk]

Because i haven't seen anything scummy@Peg's q

@Emo: Your argument is totally that he's scum as he wasn't killed. He doesn't even look like a decent kill choice. From what i remember everyone townread don-pretty good kill choice there for anyone-much better than a pretty inactive person.

[Hopkirk]

Nobody scumread him or really flagged up anything he said.
I see me and yiley at least town read him. If everyone else did then your entire case is based on false logic.

[Hopkirk]

1.) You make a joke. I make a joke. You say my joke is the basis for a scum read. You’re hypocritical and bad.
2.) My activity has slowed down as I have reads and thus people I want lynched now.
3.) I agree with list reads. You say I do it to earn town cred when the only opinion on them seems to be your “they are scummy”-that would gain the opposite.
4.) If someone has a “reaction test” that involves them being scummy I’m going to push them on it and not just let them say, “Everything scummy I’ve done was for other reasons.”
5.) My reasons for voting you were not due to slandaar, I gave my reasons for it.
6.) Nobody ever votes without reasoning behind it you mean? … Jklm was scummy in what he’d done to then (very little) so it helped him say more, he gets worse as he posts more.
7.) People on L-1 should claim. This is my policy regardless of how I read them-you see other people have votes too. I still read him as town but nobody else did therefore he should claim to avoid town being lynched.
8.) Attack on a scummy target*. If you’re saying bad/scummy people can’t be scum then…

Jklm is not a policy lynch. Why do you insist on defending him.

Jake- why is jklm town?

[Hopkirk]

1.) You make a joke. I make a joke. You say my joke is the basis for a scum read. You’re hypocritical and bad.
2.) My activity has slowed down as I have reads and thus people I want lynched now.
3.) I agree with list reads. You say I do it to earn town cred when the only opinion on them seems to be your “they are scummy”-that would gain the opposite.
4.) If someone has a “reaction test” that involves them being scummy I’m going to push them on it and not just let them say, “Everything scummy I’ve done was for other reasons.”
5.) My reasons for voting you were not due to slandaar, I gave my reasons for it.
6.) Nobody ever votes without reasoning behind it you mean? … Jklm was scummy in what he’d done to then (very little) so it helped him say more, he gets worse as he posts more.
7.) People on L-1 should claim. This is my policy regardless of how I read them-you see other people have votes too. I still read him as town but nobody else did therefore he should claim to avoid town being lynched.
8.) Attack on a scummy target*. If you’re saying bad/scummy people can’t be scum then…

Jklm is not a policy lynch. Why do you insist on defending him.

Jake- why is jklm town?

1. no I used the joke to rvs vote you, if you seriously thought i scum read you because you played along with my joke then you sir are the one who is bad. As I said I was going to vote whoever said "who's there" as a reaction test. I vote you and you start tailspinning
2. not a good enough reason, plus I haven't even seen you make a solid case on anyone until you attempted to make one day 2 on jklm, day 1 you didn't really do that so I'm not buying it.
3. anyone who does a list read is doing it to earn town cred, that is my firm belief and what I felt you were trying to do
4. what she did wasn't scummy or even bad. There is no rule that says people have to participate in rvs. I agree the point of rvs is to start the game off and occasionally you catch someone doing something scummy which generates discussion, that happened this game with you but there is no rule that says each person has to. The fact that she made a point to say she wasn't going to participate immediately drew attention to her, which is something scum isn't typically going to do. Thus she is probably town and your attack on her makes you look bad.
5. You voted me because I thought list reads were bad, this came out when I dropped my town read on slandaar. It's absolutely related to slandaar and it's a horrible reason to vote someone.
6. Please explain how jklm was scummier than the other people lurking. Username/peregine/Zeus. 4 people basically doing the same shit.
7. people at L-1 should claim when someone gives intent to hammer, not just because they are at L-1 because there is a chance someone can change their mind or the player can convince someone to remove their vote. You asking someone you think is "kind of town" is bad.
8. I am saying bad/scummy doesn't automatically mean scum, but if someone does enough bad/scummy things they should be lynched. Without having role related information you can't ever been 100% sure of someone's alignment. All you can do is make a case and show why their repeated bad/scummy actions makes them possibly scum. someone doing 1 scummy thing doesn't guarantee they are scum. But way to try and trist my words Slandaar Jr


If JKLM is not a policy lynch please explain to me and everyone else why he is scummier than Peregine/username/zeus as all 4 of them have lurked and played like shit. What specifically has JKLM done that makes him more likely to flip scum then those 3.

JKLM is probably town because of slandaar's horrible attack on him and I am pretty sure slandaar is scum and I don't see this as bussing.

1.) Your joke has no humour, mine does, yet you think only yours is a joke…
2.) I have a set of reads now, not making a big case doesn’t mean I don’t.
3.) The only person with an opinion about lists being town/scum rather than null is you. Posting a list read would thus increase how scummy I looked on average. Though I’ve gone through why they are null
4.) It was scummy. It was bad.
5.) Wrong again.
6.) I’ve gone through everything already.
7.) People hammer people on L-1 a lot. When you get to L-1 you claim.
8.) They have done enough bad or scummy things. Everything they have done looks scummy.

You acknowledge I’ve gone through everything he said then want me to explain why he’s scummy? Read what I said about every post he made and why it appears scummy.

Why did you vote jklm then?
And you’re saying jklm will be what if slandaar flipped town?


This whole jake-slandaar thing is getting painful to watch. I expect both to flip town atm.

[Hopkirk]

Anyone would kill don. You yourself have the biggest reason to do it as you've done nothing but night kill spec all day because of it. Username could do it, me or yiley could do it, that's already 4/4 would do it out of the people who have commented on it so yo need actual reasons.

Jake and Slandaar can you both just do a one paragraph summary of why the other is scum then stop going on at each other. It's poison to the game.

@Yiley: Well i see that slandaar is banned from jake's games or something, i think due to another game they played.

[Hopkirk]

Did that game involve 10 pages of you two arguing? There's multiple scum here so who else do you think is scum slandaar?

And where is jklm? He says he'll post "tomorrow" during his prod dodge. He hasn't posted for over 5 days since then. He appears to be attempting to avoid pressure/make people forget him- and your argument is allowing that to happen.

Emo how confirmed is this? Maybe someone with an odd night action should claim ona (not the action though).

[Hopkirk]

Basically what's going on:
Slandaar says: "Jake sub out"
Jake says: "No you sub out"
Everyone else subs out.

Why do you think continuing doing this is helpful to the game? This is @both of you, if you haven't convinced everyone the other is scum now then you aren't going to right now.

[Hopkirk]

Well can you try and get your other scum reads-like me-lynched? This whole slandaar thing isn't helping, you both seem like you're town.

[Hopkirk]

The thing is I'm asking for you to develop point on other people. Going from one extreme (10 pages) to another (4 words) isn't what I'm saying you should do.

[Hopkirk]

If you think you're a great kill target and you're softclaiming already... Why don't you just say if this is a guilty result or not.

[Hopkirk]

Emo: Do you have a guilty result on username due to a night action.

Jklm trying to escape with a sub now.

[Hopkirk]

Then talk about someone other than just jake.

Hey Yiley why no voting?

[Hopkirk]

Yiley why

Right is one of the following going to happen.
-Someone with an odd night action claim that they have an odd night action.
-Emo actually says if her username vote is due to an insp/stalk or w/e.

If not I'm going to vote slandarr since his even night action should be accompanied by someone else with an odd night action.

[Hopkirk]

mass claim day two?

[Hopkirk]

Why do we need to mass claim. Only one needs to claim to confirm/deconfirm scum.

[Hopkirk]

I also did nothing last night.

Ok so emo has confirmed username wasn't a guilty result.

[Hopkirk]

You vote me for soft claiming a power role?

The object isn't to lynch the village prs, it's to lynch mafia. If your only reason for your vote is that-which it seems to be-then your vote seems to be an attempt to lynch/force a claim from a village power role which seems pretty scum motivated.

[Hopkirk]

Slandaar why would i claim just bc you say so...

Peregrine's "you can't get scumreads without scumflips" feels bad.

[Hopkirk]

@Angry: She implies she had a guilty result on username.

My vote is ok where it is.
Emo+username possible?

[Hopkirk]

Hey emo “On the off chance that username flips town, this means Slandaar was lying about his role, and we should go ahead with a lynch tomorrow.”- Still think this?

“Hopkirk would be my vote if he doesn't pull his shit together soon.”- Then why did you townread me around this time?

The reason for thinking you were hinting at something is stuff like “I am certain username is scum.” For what seems like no reason.

Also this sounds like a scum slip: "username is conftown." then "Unfortunately, I'm not on his team."

[Hopkirk]

So angry says claiming pr means he won’t be lynched while he recognises my claim but still wants to lynch me. Btw I’m not odd night action.

Hopkirk is town.
Yiley is town.
Jake and slandaar was town on town. Slandaar is town. Jake is town.
The duck is town
Iamausername is town.

So the scum is somewhere in jklm, emo, peregrinev and sonofzeus.

I think for now…

Of my scumreads peregrine and zeus one doing nothing.

I consider jklms subbing out scummy- can the person who subbed in for him respond to my case on them that jk subbed out right after I made?

My response to you:
32: HOW. Why is a joke scummy?

942: Very interesting you actively ignore my entire case on you and try to discredit irt instead.

1057: That was theory I didn’t follow up on due to dismissing it fully.

1259: Which isn’t scummy as scum know the scum. Also following up on my reads (quite rightly) isn’t scum. What about this is scummy?

1339: You said it’s sbad to vote you since you softclaimed. I had softclaimed and slandaar votes me. So why do you think it’s bad for me to question the vote he made on a pr in full knowledge I claimed pr?

Your case is more like an omgus than a case.

[Hopkirk]

So angry doesn’t respond to anything.

1466- I made my case on him, he said he was going to respond, went afk for a while then subbed out saying “Sorry guys I promised I'd get to hopkirk and since I missed that promise it's a personal policy to replace myself for the games sake.”

1469- I wanted an odd-night pr to claim. That was kind of an empty threat considering I don’t think he’s scum. (But the jake slandaar stuff I just want to stop.)

[Hopkirk]

Emo logic
-Thinks I’m town
-Votes me
-Thinks that if your scumreads vote you then your doing something wrong (despite them not saying you’re scum before you scumread them). This is the very definition of an omgus.
Yeah 1474 is bad.

“He also said something about if there was no odd phase PR, he would vote slandaar, and now evidence of that comes up, he ignores what he previously thought.” –Empty threat, see this recently completed game where I say the same kind of thing.
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=33707

“I don't suspect Pidgeon nor Jake, and they have both voted for Hopkirk during today” You think someone’s scum because two of your town reads vote them? How well did that work out when “town” lynched grey yesterday?

My case on jklm is not a policy lynch. Constant scumminess and scum motivated play means someone is very likely scum.

Emo and pidgin are very hypocritical about pr claims.
I would not be surprised by a pid+emo scum team, their exchange recently fits this.

What are your reads then emo?

[Hopkirk]

So disagreeing with reaads=scum.
You mean i'm scum for not helping your mislynch on grey (someone you thought was scummy and i didn't) earlier?
I consider you poisonous too. Your logic is misnamed as that implies it would be logical.

[Hopkirk]

Hey emo you know ad hominemisn’t going to make my case disappear? There has been nothing said in relation to my actual cases and your only responses to what I’ve said have been things like “he’s an idiot, ignore him.” I did make a case against you. If nobody actually addresses any of what I’ve said I’m not jst going to forget it. I do not view what I’m saying about jklm to be a policy lynch and nobody has said WHY it would be. Hence it must not be.

People haven’t been responding directly to what I say. You for example emo haven’t addressed any of what I’m saying only saying, “oh it’s bad dismiss it”. For the quote you used I clearly said twice that the random question stage is a valid alternative to random vote stage but username didn’t seem to read…

“I provide him proof”. Seriously how much can you overestimate yourself? The “proof” amount to you saying that there isn’t one despite the fact you have no way of knowing this without knowing everyone’s role. There is no proof. Generally odd night pr is accompanied by even night and vice versa. I would like to have slandaar cleaned by the claiming of one.

Scum-scum: Pidgin made lots of remarks which emo could use to make weak comments on then dismiss him as not being scummy by the end making others think he wasn’t. It goes from could be scum to oh no he isn’t with unconvincing arguments.


I’m a mason (night talk only); I’m not giving out my partner, they will claim when and if they feel like it.

Emo: A few question for now:
Why does claiming to be a pr make pidg look town but me scum in your opinion?
Why do you think ad hominem is going to make people’s arguments vanish more effectively than actually addressing arguments?
Why do you think you think disagreeing with someone or other town voting them makes them scum?
Why do you not want to say any scumreads/tell me who you think is scum.

[Hopkirk]

“i don't know what ad hominem is, let me google that. it's because multiple people dismissed your arguments and in fact responded to them, which you yourself end up ignoring”: This is the problem. People are dismissing it by saying the argument+me are bad instead of addressing the argument. Basically avoiding and trying to discredit me.

The scum motivation for switching between the major wagons… To find an easy lynch d1. Then there are options for d2. She also seemed to base most of day two on focusing on the scum kill- trying to distance herself from it. She now seems a little annoyed that nobody is commenting on her not staying on username. The vote away from username seems a bit like scum trying to get towncred. Though she is a more minor scum read atm.

Pidgin why are you being so vague? If you want to lynch a claimed pr (slandaar) while being one of the scummiest people then just saying that you have reasons that you won’t tell us isn’t good enough. Any why are you only trying to lynch prs, your last post tries to make it sound like one pr claimer is bad for no reason.

If no jklm lynch (I still want this) then how about a zeus lynch today? (If not peregrine then).

Emo how do you know for sure there is no odd-night pr?


I think my case on jlkm has been misinterpreted. Some points are:

-Attempting to avoid all pressure, eg omgus on first person to pressure him, townreads next for no reason.

-Implies he’s read but keeps rvs vote instead of actually voting someone scummy.
-Joins wagons quickly and refuses to give ANY scumreads.

-Helps the grey wagon despite not thinking grey is scum at all. Changes from “his whole iso is bad” to “oh there’s nothing wrong with him” then votes them off.

-Votes without reason and doesn’t vote his scumreads preferring easy lynches.


Now duck said “oh and hopkirk, Your case on JKLM seems to be based on the policy that people who keep making promises about activity but fail to deliver should be lynched.”: This makes it clear he didn’t read the case he referenced/misrepped it on purpose as the case I made didn’t say that was the scummy bit.

[Hopkirk]

The three lynches i would consider today and pidgin, zeus and peregrine.

[Hopkirk]

The problem, as i have explained, was not the lurking. My vote isn't switching until you respond anyway.

Who is goat, do you mean duck?

Slandaar i don't want to lynch today.

Pidgin how do you think anyone is going to follow you when what you want people to follow you on is based fully on information you are deliberately concealing? Aka claim or you can't say anything about slandaar.

[Hopkirk]

So being an even-night watcher don't you think an odd-night watcher is pretty plausible if it was claimed independently of your role?

[Hopkirk]

Odd night town pr+even night town pr seems reasonable to me.

UNVOTE: Pidgeon
VOTE: zeus [/unvote]

@Pidgeon: Goat is duck?

[Hopkirk]

VOTE: zeus
oops

I believe your claim and slandaars.


http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 0#p5174389
This game had: Neighbour, neighbour, roleblocker, tracker and even-night vigilante.
It is not unheard of to have 5 prs. We have even and odd night tracker/watcher, a compulsive vigi and 2 masons. It doesn’t seem impossible.

By elimination zeus is probably scum.

Maybe we should massclaim.

[Hopkirk]

I just feel like odd watcher and even tracker look like they'd go together, remember he claimed basically the opposite role to yours before you did and scum tracker doesn't seem needed vs town watch and compulsive vigi. Our prs seem powered down (odd/even and compulsive) so it doesn't seem infeasible that we have 5.

I find peregrine's lack of reads disturbing. He seems mainly to say things about what's happened or that we know then not actually say if he thinks they are even scummy.

I feel zeus or peregrine lynches are the best picks for today.

I read duck and jake and username as town. I don't want to lynch the pr claimers or emo atm.
This leaves zeus and peregrine so at least one will be scum.

[Hopkirk]

[vote Peregrine v [/vote]
This is also very likely scum.

[Hopkirk]

VOTE: peregrine v

[Hopkirk]

I think that's L-1 btw.

[Hopkirk]

The main problem with Aps case is that what he's saying about prs also applies to him however his argument makes him much more likely scum than slandarr. Whose more likely scum- the person who claims they are even night x or the person who later claims odd night x- the first would be less likely faking.

[Hopkirk]

Slandaar is there a reason other than the whole pr thing that you want AP lynched?
If not then why vote him as you are probably both prs.

[Hopkirk]

Can we have a mass claim here. We won't have anymore pr claims (or if we do we find scum) and it'll stop future problems around tracker/watcher.

Peregrine what are your actual scumreads?

Slandaar is there a reason other than the whole pr thing that you want AP lynched?
If not then why vote him since your main reason for doing so seems to be that there can be 5 prs- and by that logic both of you are town.

[Hopkirk]

Assume 4 here means not 5.
Pidgeon says there are 4 prs.
Slandaar says there are 5 prs.
There are 5 claimed prs including both of them.
Pidgeon says Slandaar is scum because he thinks he must be faking being a pr.
Slandaar says Pidgeon is scum because there can be 5 prs.
If one is wrong the other must be right.
---
So the only possibility where there are 5 prs and slandaar is town is:
Both town and 5 prs: Then Ap is wrong but still town. Slandaar voting AP here for being wrong about 4prs is a bad move as they are both town.

---

Slandaar is disputing that there are 4 prs and scumreads AP for saying there are 4 prs. However if there are 5 prs, as slandaar argues, then they are both town.

Slandaar please explain.


@AP: Your main case is based on pr numbers but you don't want to know pr numbers?

[Hopkirk]

He is only scum if he is right.
You are voting him because you think he isn't right.
You are voting him because he isn't scum?

[Hopkirk]

There is a problem with his logic for voting/scumreading you, i would like him to explain it.

[Hopkirk]

Well i was right on zeus, didn't think jake would be scum though.