Open 337: Twin Trap (Game Over)

[Collyer]

/confirm

[Collyer]

Vote princesskdw

for confirming third.

[Collyer]

I didn't agree with bv310's case on pinkfloyd but he seemed to switch from it very quickly in post 46.

I wasn't attacking Bv initially, I was defending pink

. I don't like stupid suspicion being cast. Stupid suspicion leads to stupid cases, which leads to stupid lynches and very rarely are those lynches scum on the end. My goal is to win as town, and if I let someone that could potentially be town, be led down a dangerous road that isn't fair for anyone... that's not playing to my win con is it?

So I'll defend those I think are innocent and attack those I think are guilty

. I had no suspicion originally on Bv, until he made that response. Usually it's only the scum that need to be so defensive...

It wasn't him I was arguing for, it was the faulty case I was arguing against. I never came to HIS defense personally.

There appears to be a contradiction between these two posts. In the first you say that you were defending Pink, while in the second you deny defending him

personally

? I'm sure you'll have a smart answer as to the fact that you didn't mention his name and therefore didn't defend him personally, but that still doesn't match with the fact that you said you were defending him.

[Collyer]

Oh my, that absolutely does appear to be a contradiction. Hopefully this will help you understand my line of thinking. The above post that you quoted (the first one) was as a response to someone who accused my original post as "an attack on Bv." That wasn't it's purpose, nor did I have any desire to just attack Bv. I was coming at it from a defensive standpoint, not an attacking standpoint. I hope that makes since? If not, here... I think you underlined the wrong parts.

Oh my, what a delightful tone you have, I feel like little red riding hood. I'm afraid however that I'm not satisfied. I never disputed the fact that your post wasn't supposed to attack Bv. You say you were coming it at from a defensive point view, what is it? It doesn't make sense because you didn't read my post or intentionally tried to mislead me. I suppose you'll tell me again, in your patronizing manner, that you were attacking the stupid suspicion and so on (which I don't object too, and I happen to think that bv's case is silly). That's not what I asked you about though. I agree that the parts of your quotes that you underlined do prove that you attacked the case in both instances, but changing the subject and the ignoring the question looks a little strange. You claim not to have defened pink personally, and then say you did defend him?

[Collyer]

Prodding Collyer...

I've had a rough weekend, and went to the dentist this morning. I'll post something resembling a worthwhile post when the numbness resides. Sorry.

[Collyer]

A debate? It wasn't really much of a debate...

Is that why you have ignored my post? You're not making yourself look too good, you've gone awfully quiet since I started asking you questions. Perhaps that's a coincidence though.

I can see the point about the pedantic nature of my questions, however they're a place to start, and from them reads have been read.

In the mean time, anyone have any direct questions for me?

Yeah, did you ever believe in your case on pink enough to see him lynched today?

Isa, all you've contributed to the game is some RVS meta on pink, and non committal posts (most of which are to encourage the other players to contribute more), perhaps to appear to be contributing. I presume Post 40 isn't serious?

As for the Collyer/Neil debate, I don't like Neil's attitude after Collyer pointed out the contradiction in Neil's posts whether it was a contradiction or not. I do think that Collyer is picking apart posts too much though.

Thomas, you've contributed very little as well. Three of your votes are RVS votes, two are about pink's early claim, and this is the last; which I don't like. I might be picking apart too much, but I'm asking questions. The irony is that your taking your reads from the answers that I'm getting, or at least trying to get. What do you mean by Neil's attitude?

[Collyer]

Yeah, did you ever believe in your case on pink enough to see him lynched today?

Absolutely not. It's page 4. If anything, I wanted to put enough pressure on him to try and get reactions from everyone else, then try and find scum that way. That's why I hated when Neil jumped in and white-knighted him, and then when I turned to Neil, his reaction read to me as really scummy.

The question seems silly now since you are so forceful in your answer, although I also think that you were a little too aggressive. I couldn't quite tell at one point as to whether you really wanted him lynched. You say you hated Neil jumping in and 'white knighting' him, but you were drunk when you voted for him (I'm not attacking you about that by the way); did you continue your attacks on Neil because you really thought him to be scummy or because you didn't want to have to unvote and look weak? I suppose what I'm asking is whether or not you beleive in this case too? Do you want Neil lynched today? I notice you want everyone to give their view on your discussion, which is good (especially as Neil tried make it exclusive to you), but is this another search for reactions, or is it genuine?

[Collyer]

Post 111 is very strange indeed. Isn't it a bit reckless to tunnel on someone and be willing to get lynched as long as they are lynched, just because you are confident of their scumminess (especially considering that you began arguing with bv in post 43)? I don't understand how that helps the town at all, because you have very little evidence, and are willing to jeopardize today's lynch because you've became so confident of some one's scumminess on the second page. You also admit that having reread with a clear mindset, you're less sure? It sounds like backtracking to me. That's not to say that you can't change your mind, but you've changed it very quickly, and at a time when Isa has been questioned about a possible connection between you two, and you're wish for the discussion to remain between you and bv has also been mentioned (which doesn't make sense since you could still tunnel him with other players discussing it to). Neither of these look particularly town like.

Well, I'm not lurking there just isn't much to comment on

This is ridiculous. As for Fakinha and Shinki, I wouldn't go as far as saying that one is oppurtunistic scum (at this very erly stage, yet again Neil), but I certainly think there is something fishy about them. RVS votes are not helping anyone at this stage, and voting without any reasons isn't too helpful either.

[Collyer]

It's my birthday today, and I was at a freind's house all weekend, so I'll post tomorrow. I promise.

[Collyer]

Sorry for the beyond delayed response.

Addressing the cases (or attempted cases) against me:

Fakinha, my dear scum friend. Stop trying to buddy up with Thomas.

I know you go on to talk about chainsawing, but do you not think that Isa has been buddying up to you, and therefore worthy of the same criticism? If you read just his posts it certainly looks a little strange. You talk about trying to start conversations (in post 127) but it's a little hypocritical because you've ignored questions and attempts to engage conversation when I tried, however I'm not criticising you for trying. About pink, I haven't known for players to just be a jerk because of their alignment, it's usually because they're jerks, so am not really convinced about that you think him more likely to be scum, although that's just my experience. Thanks for the birthday message though

Fakinha, it would be good if you explained a little more what you write. Not explaining why it's invalid that scum try to prevent conversation isn't very town like.

I have a null read on Fakinha right now and null-slight scum read on neil. I can't get good reads on many others though because this game is slow. I would like to hear more from bv and Collyer.

Not even Isa? Who by the way has voted the same as Neil, what a surprise.

Fakinha, you've posted twice and still haven't address my question to you. Does asking questions normally provoke responses from people? Or no? Fairly simple question to answer..

This is what I'm talking about. Neil, you haven't exactly been great at answering simple questions either: In post 64 I asked you some questions yet you have never answered them, and even disregarded them as not being a debate in your next meaningful post. They might have been semantic (and you might have thought them unimportant, yet you could have told me that, and at least acknowledged them) but it's still hypocritical to reprimand others for something you are guilty of. Isa came to your defence too.

[Collyer]

I can see buddying used to FURTHER someone's suspicion but I couldn't see it used as the basis for it.

I agree. About ignoring my posts, you seem a little too apologetic, especially when you consider your tone in some of your other posts. Perhaps I'm nitpicking again.

I'm not "buddying" neil - especially not today, but I was indeed very supportive of him yesterday.

What's the difference?

We don't need to replace half of everybody, but it's going to be a massive uphill struggle since nobody has any vested interest in the game any more.

That's okay for you to say, you're last meaningful post was post 87. I'm not counting post 125 because you jumped on the bandwagon, using the excuse that pinkfloyd was refusing to say anything, yet you didn't say anything and haven't since post 87.

[Collyer]

Thomas, is neil's quickhammer on pinkfloyd after his questions really the only thing you could think of?

bv, you still haven't told us what you were waiting to see unfold?

Everyone voting Neil should take a look at Fakinha's opening of day 2 and tell me how that is pro-town.

I agree with this, especially DeltaWave, take a look at anything else and I'll be grateful.

[Collyer]

It's been a busy weekend but I don't need replacing, don't worry. I'll post more tomorrow.

[Collyer]

I'm posting tonight. DeltaWave, I didn't like how you didn't give your opinions on any other players when you replaced in. You decided Neil was scum and voted for him, but it would have been good if you could have written a little more. I think when Neil accuses you of tunneling, he isn't so far off the mark. This sort of epitomizes my first argument:

I'm still analyzing D2 so I'll pick that apart in more detail before voting.

Oops I didn't vote for Neil

VOTE: Neil1113

You never did analyse day 2. Also, you don't think Fakhina is scum then?

Neil, I think it was scummy that you quickhammered Pinkfloyd yesterday. Even though you asked some questions and pinkfloyd was being a jerk, you could have said something like, I'll vote pinkfloyd nearer the deadline so the town have as much discussion as possible to go into tomorrow with; just because you thought pinkfloyd was a nusiance it doesn't mean you had to lynch him right at that point. DeltaWave makes a good point about your tendency to use OMGUS as a basis for an argument. I'm surprised you're still voting for Fakhina, not DeltaWave, why is that? Especially as your vote would take DeltaWave to L-1...

Both of your continual ad homiens are becoming tiresome.

Thomas, I asked you whether or not you had any more arguments for your pretty confident vote on Neil and you gave some okay reasons from day one. However, from a very quick read of your posts, I don't get the impression that you made much of a fuss about it yesterday. Also, why do you have a null read on Isa when he's been buddying Neil an embarrassing amount? I don't understand about how Neil could be buddying Fakhina or you, could you explain?

Isa, post 204 is laughable. The question to Neil is cute too, to make it look as if you're not

completely

on his side. It is made even more ridiculous by the fact that you defend him on the issue you were questioning him on in post 207.

Wow, no response. What a surprise from someone who apparently dislikes discussion so much that he's willing to hammer a townie to prevent it! If we don't kill you today then this will seriously be a fail game.

Yep. Why is he still alive? Srsly, guys... we lynch neil and isa and good game.
I don't have nor need to do anything else.

Seriously? What do you think of this DeltaWave?

I'm sorry I've been so quiet but I don't need replacing, I won't need to be prodded again. I'm still unsure about who I want to see lynched. bv needs to write some, I'd be interested to see what he has to say.

[Collyer]

@Collyer - There wasn't much in D2 to analyze. I don't see why Fakinha is suspicious for anything they did before I replaced in. I find their unquestioning agreement with me to be suspect but I strongly think that Neil is scum so I don't know what to make of that. If Neil is town then it could be that Fakinha is just jumping on board. If Neil turns out not to be scum then I'm heading straight for Fakinha. If he is scum, then Isa.

So if Neil is town, you're going to push for the lynch of the players that jumped on the bandwagon that you led on a town player. I know you aren't going to lynch yourself, even though you'd be the most heavily implicated, but that's a little strange. Presuming Neil is scum, you haven't considered the possibility that Fakhina might be bussing? Throughout the game I've been the one who's pointed out Isa's persistant buddying, yet you've come to the conclusion that Isa must be scum with him. Suppose Isa is scum, and he knows Neil is town, if Neil is lynched, Isa can claim to have been on his side all along, and have a very good excuse to build a convincing case on the players that lynched him (tunnelling perhaps?). I know they could be scum together, and I'm not ruling it out, but would they really make it that obvious? I don't like the way you're so sure about everything, especially as I'm guessing you've already thought about all this I've written.

I'm really not satisfied with your answers on Fakhina. I admit that the player he replaced wasn't scummy and Fakhina can't be held responsible for any of that. However don't you think it's strange that in his first post, he attacks a player for voting bv, then says he has a town read on him (without giving a reason). He votes for pink, and then switches to Neil without reasons again. From that point on he's posted very little, and not much of which is content. Since Post 182 (nearly a week ago) he's done nothing, and has refused to participate in discussion, apart citing the validity of a case that he has never really supported with anything other than Neil hammering pink. I don't think that's enough. Do you?

You're so scum it hurts. You're leading the town into a mislynch even though I've said consecutively that we're at L-2. Seriously guys? Let's lynch scum here.

I agree with DeltaWave that you're appeals to emotion are a bad sign, especially when you consider that you've already ignored accusations against yourself (Post 202) and hammered a townie yesterday, without good reason. That's not to mention how you were sure bv was scum on day 1 (so much so that you were willing to be lynched as long as he was) and then the dropped the case to attack Thomas on a relitatevely minor point, and then drop the hammer on pink (oppurtunistic perhaps?). Thomas mentioned this breifly in post 219 but you completely ignored it with the above post (perhaps because Thomas was talking to me, and we know how you like conversations to be exclusive).

Also, as a final observation, don't you think it's interesting to read Cav's posts, in light of his nightkill? He was arguably the most pro active player towards the end of yesterday, and raised some good points about Isa's and Neil's behaviour.

[Collyer]

@Collyer - I'm considering the possibility of some bussing going on here. I'm not setting up tunnels for tomorrow, just speculating on future events. Unless something really definitive happens, I won't declare anyone to be definitely town or definitely scum. Everyone's going to get considered.

At the moment I'm pretty confident that Neil is scum, but it's hard to make judgements in this game because there isn't a lot of activity. I've still got my eye on Fahkina.

What do you mean by something really definitive? How is everyone being considered? I mentioned this in passing in post 198, yet throughout this game you've concentrated almost exclusively on Neil, aside from a breif conversation with Isa, and saying that you have a null read on Fakinha. I don't think you have your eye on everyone, besides you say 'everyone's going to get considered' as if you haven't done it yet (you could have said 'everyone has been considered, and I still want to lynch Neil'). You also completely ignored the part of my post where I ask you your opinions on the dubious actions of Fakinha, why is that? Don't you think it's important? If you concentrated on the actions of other players then perhaps it would be easier to make judgements.

I'm sorry Fakinha. I never said I don't think Neil is scum. I was talking hypothetically to Delta, and it's quite clear throughout this game that I've attacked Neil. I happen to agree with some of DeltaWave's points about Neil, but am attacking him for not considering anyone else.

I appreciate that Cav made only four posts, but they were insightful. I'd say that in his four posts, he made a more productive contribution than you have in your twenty three. It's not the number of posts that's important, for example, I'm sure everyone would agree that Cav was more use than pinkfloyd ever was, despite pinkfloyd posting twenty five times. I thought it was intersting to see that he replaced into the game, made good points not only about Isa's buddying but also Neil's desire to make his discussion with bv exclusive, then Neil hammers pinkfloyd (therefore preventing Cav from posting again) and Cav dies in the nightkill. Why did you misrepresent and attempt to downplay it? Also, why didn't you comment on my thoughts about you bussing Neil?

[Collyer]

You know, a really definitive scumslip or an investigation or something. Some event that really seals the deal. Like I've said before, I haven't seen anything with Fakinha that would warrant my vote right now. It's hard to get reads in a game that's this inactive.

You've ignored the part of my post where I accuse you of not concentrating on any other players. What do you think of that? I'm not asking or suggesting you vote for Fakinha, I'm merely asking you what you think of his actions. The ironic thing is you say that you're struggling to get reads because of inactivity but it must also be hard if you refuse to critically examine anyone unless you're voting for them. The strange thing about this is it only started out as a question to you, but your persistant ignorance of certain parts of my post or your meager attempts to confuse what I've asked, are actually making me even more suspicious of you.

Frankly, you're tunneling more than I've done, by far.

You admit that you've been tunnelling?

Collyer - it seems to me that you're saying that "If Neil is town, Isa is scum" - consider a scenario where Neil is lynched and flips scum. Would you still pin me down as scum for the same reasons as if he'd flip town? You seem to be speculating a lot in Neil-town but you're not really giving out your thoughts on what happens if he'll flip scum.

Why aren't you questiong DeltaWave? He was the first person to say that if Neil flipped scum, then he'd come after you. I did breifly consider the implications of Neil flipping scum:

I know they could be scum together, and I'm not ruling it out, but would they really make it that obvious?

You make a good point, but you've brought my suspicions upon yourself. If Neil flips scum, then it won't look good for you (DeltaWave has already said he'll want you lynched). I also think that you may be buddying him so hard that it's a sort of double bluff, and if he does flip scum you'll say 'if I was really scum with Neil, would I make it so obvious', and use that as an excuse to support him throughout the game. If Neil flips town then I still don't see why you'd buddy him so hard; you could be town, but I don't think your that naive or impressionable. You could be scum, and as I said before, use his proven towniness to use the excuse that you couldn't be scum, because you'd agreed with a town player, and therefore build a case to lynch the players who lynched Neil (whom in this situation aren't scum). Besides, I wouldn't say I'm specualting a lot, not anymore than DeltaWave at any rate, whom you didn't mention. Why have you been buddying him so hard? I remember you denied it in post 165 when I asked you about it, and then you ignored me when I asked you about it further (post 170).

[Collyer]

I didn't ignore it. I said, it's hard to get reads in a game this inactive. I have a hard time concentrating on players who don't (or rarely) post. If someone's going to engage in a conversation with me, I'm going to spend more time thinking about them. It seems you acknowledged this later in your paragraph, so I have no idea why you would claim that I'm ignoring you. Also, I'm examining people who I'm not voting for, despite your insinuation that I'm not. I'm suspicious of your misrep here.

That's rubbish, and you know it. Fakinha isn't inactive, nor is Isa, or Thomas, or me for that matter. Why don't you criticise our behaviour? Why do you concentrate more on players who talk to you, are you really telling me that if a player lurks then you don't concentrate on them? That's ridiculous, surely the players who lurk deserve your attention. I didn't misrep you either, I was being sarcastic, my point was that it doesn't matter that these players aren't active, because even if they were, you wouldn't concentrate on them; I didn't think that that was so complicated. There is clear evidence for this too, you replaced in on page 8, and since then, Neil isn't the only player to have been active, yet you've hardly mentioned any one else.

I'm becoming quite frustrated with this. I've clearly asked you to comment on what I think is scummy play from Fakinha, and you refuse. Why?

Isa, just because I speculate more that a player is town than is scum, it doesn't mean I know he is scum, that's a massive reach. When you talk about whatever Neil flips, I'll think you're scum, I think I'll find it hard to see a logical way not to suspect you. Of course, if Neil flips scum then it doesn't mean I'm going to tunnel on you until you're lynched, but I can't logically or reasonably justify your actions from a town perspective. Can you? Go through the same process and see how incriminating your actions look. I just can't see how a town player would buddy so hard on a player without having at least some sort of ulterior motive. If you could explain how your buddying is town like then I'll be very interested to see it. Besides, I did consider both the spectra, and you concede it in your post when you say 'Whatever Neil flips', meaning I've considered both. I feel I may have misunderstood this point though, what spectra haven't I considered? I'm sorry if this is obvious.

[Collyer]

I'm saying that I'm going to concentrate more on active players. Why is that surprising?

You can't be serious? Are you serious telling me that we shouldn't concentrate on players who aren't active? I always thought that the town thing to do was to try and instigate conversation, or seek their replacement, or something. Not just ignore them, like you seem to be suggesting.

Anyway, I already described my impressions of Fakinha's early D2 actions as possibly the result of someone who doesn't have much information. I also explained that I find Fakinha's buddying odd. So I've already explained what you're talking about.

You also said you had a null read on him. However in post 230 I asked you about more than just his lack of reads and his buddying, yet you didn't comment on any of the other stuff once again. It's taken three more times of me asking for you to give this meager answer. What do you think of all the observations I've made of Fakinha, and why do you seem so set on not answering? You also conviniently missed out the parts of my posts where I disprove your weak argument, and ask why you don't comment on the actions of active players other than Neil? Isn't it also true that you misrepped me when you accused me of misrepping you? This isn't the first time that this sort of thing has happened with you either.

[Collyer]

In what crazy world does saying "I'm going to concentrate on more active players" = "We shouldn't concentrate on players who aren't active"? Surely you can see the difference between these two statements.

Anyway, point me to a specific post or something that you want me to address so we can quit it with this back and forth stuff.

In saying 'I'm going to concentrate more on active players', you're implying that we should concentrate less on inactive players (incidentally, I don't understand why you can't do both, instead you insist on one only). The choice of the word 'shouldn't' perhaps was wrong, but I still think this stance is anti town.

Great, I paraphrased Fakinha's actions in this post in the second paragraph. However, you can obviously see his actions for yourself; it's interesting that you mention in post 244 your impressions of Fakinha's D2 actions, when most of the incriminating actions I highlighted were on D1.

[Collyer]

Yeah, change what I'm saying, add some assumptions, create some implications I never intended, and you come to the conclusion that it's anti-town.

Anyway, you've shown yourself to be crappy at paraphrasing. You add implications and assumptions that were never in the original statement. I can't trust you to accurately describe what anyone else is doing, so show me the originals if you want me to respond to something particular.

It isn't anti town then? I don't care whether or not you intended the implication, that doesn't mean you didn't imply something does it? You need to be more careful with what you're saying because it will incriminate you. What assumptions did I add? If you mean I assumed that you implyed what I thought you implyed, does that mean no one should ever infer something ever again, since it's an assumption, and it might not be what the author had intended when he hastily wrote it? That's ridiculous.

1. In post 101 he attacks malpascp for a random vote on bv, and then claims to have a town read on bv in the same post (without giving any reasons).
2. In post 104 he votes for pink, without reason again.
3. In post 136 he votes for neil, without reason again, and seemingly with no thought for his vote on pink. On both of these occasions he says 'discuss' or 'I want comments' as if that's a justification for voting without reason. He also questions shinki in post 113 for the same thing that he himself is guilty of.
4. Since voting for Neil, he's hardly contributed anything of merit, and he didn't before voting for Neil anyway. The only resembelance of a case is his post 138 where he regurgitates the argument about Neil hammering; stating one thing that another player did that is scummy isn't enough to not contribute any more, and it isn't very town like.

All I wanted was your thoughts on this, since you said you had a null tell on all of this. Your response was that Fakinha's actions are the result of someone who doesn't have much information, but that just doesn't work does it? Look at his posts and tell me that he isn't being lazy and unhelpful. Incidentally I didn't ask you about his buddying (I presume you mean to you, despite the fact that you joined him on the Neil bandwagon) but it's interesting you mention it.

Fakinha, here is a definition for bussing.

Neil it's hypocritical to attack Fakinha and DeltaWave for buddying when it's a null tell when it happens to you. The argument that it only contributes to a case if you think the person has a 'scum mindset' is far too convinient.

Isa, your post is complete rubbish. I wasn't willing to lynch Neil yesterday, and I don't know where you got that idea from. Lastly, you encourage others to start a wagon now so there is enough time to see it through, as if your willing to accept any wagon as long as it results in a lynch.

Again, if you discredit a case for whatever reason, you're not playing to your win condition. Null-tells do not always equal scum people.

I don't get this at all. How does discrediting a case act against your win condition? What if you discredit the case of someone who is the opposing faction, surely that works in your favour?

[Collyer]

Isa, why do you want to guess anyway? I didn't vote yesterday because I was undecided and Neil shortened the day anyway, so I probably would have. But how am I the one who looks like I'm willing to lynch anyone when I'm not voting? That makes no sense at all. I'm still asking questions and getting better reads so when I do vote, I'll have considered it. It's what town players do.

DeltaWave.
1. Just because it's your prefernece, that doesn't mean I don't think it's anti town.
2. The commentary is implicit. Why would you say that you do something if you don't think it's a good thing.
3. This is the same point as 2.

(Post 101) He isn't attacking mal for his sarcasm, because he says 'I dont care if its sarcasm or whatever'.
(Post 104) Read post 28. That is not a reason to vote for someone.
(Post 136) Do you think that just putting a link to a post is good enough?

Read Fakinha's posts in isolation and tell me that he isn't being unhelpful (I've had to ask you a second time now).

Neil. To the top post:

Isa has been buddying you. You said it was a null tell and not a basis for a case in of itself. It only contributes to a case when you think the person has a scum mindset. My point was that you accuse Fakinha and DeltaWave of buddying, and it's okay because you think they are scum. However, when Isa is accused of the same thing, you brush it aside because you don't think Isa has a scum mindset. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're town, in which case I think this is a naive thing to do. If you are town and Isa is scum, you're screwed beacuse you've decided Isa doesn't have a scum mindset and therefore scummy things he does are disregarded. The only way that you'd be so sure of the mindset is if you knew he was scum or town. My argument is similar to the one that DeltaWave uses here.

To the bottom post: I clearly don't have that much sense. You're talking about ignoring cases, which is admirable of you, since it's not what I asked you about. I asked about discrediting cases. I'm afraid, as I'm so dumb, you'll need to explain what you mean.

As town, it makes no sense to skip over or discredit a person's case, despite your reads on them.

This makes no sense at all. Surely if you are being attacked and you're town, it works in your favour to discredit the case against you, becuase you can't play to your win condition if the case stands and you're lynched.

Fakinha:
1. That's not a reason. You also had a town read on bv, which was the point.
2. That's not a reason either, if you read post 28, then you'll realise that it was a joke, and not worthy of your vote. I'm not saying you shouldn't have voted for pink, but I am saying you should have provided some actual reasons, otherwise it's anti town.
3. I don't mind that you voted for Neil, I'm just annoyed that you only gave the link to his post, rather than writing some arguments or building a case. It's anti town to just do that. To have to prompt players to give reasons for their votes doesn't help the town.
4. If pink is the only option for day one, why then did you reconsider day one and decide to vote for Neil on day two?

[Collyer]

I think a no lynch will be bad for town. If Neil and DeltaWave go into the night alive, I doubt either one of them would die, which would leave us in the same position tomorrow with this unending back and forth on the same points. Both of the cases make good points, but I'm not convinced completely by either one, and therefore can't answer your question Neil, about who I think is scum. However in light of bv's absence and it being good for the town to lynch someone today, I think I'm going to ensure that a lynch does take place.

VOTE: neil1113

[Collyer]

DeltaWave: 2. I see, which isn't to say that I approve.

Neil, it probably wouldn't have made sense because even at L-1 there was a chance that you weren't going to be lynched, which is why you were still pleading with me and bv until the end.

[Collyer]

DeltaWave: 2. I see, which isn't to say that I approve.

Neil, it probably wouldn't have made sense because even at L-1 there was a chance that you weren't going to be lynched, which is why you were still pleading with me and bv until the end.

EBWOP: I'm still thinking you're scum, sorry. I meant to say: if you were scum you still would be pleading me and bv like you did.

[Collyer]

Why would I lie to you now? It would do neither of us any benefit...

I know, I typed it without thinking.

[Collyer]

I don't know, it's fairly common for scum to insist that they're town all through twilight.

Why?

[Collyer]

oh yeah, I was watcher, forgot to mention.

mod told me:
Night 1 he watched Neil, and saw Collyer target Neil.
Night 2 he watched Collyer and received No Result.

I targeted Neil on night 1 and Delta on night 2 with no result with either, although I died on the second night anyway. Good game. I enjoyed it. Well done to Isa and Thomas, now I know you are scum it seems so obvious, which sounds a little silly. Thanks to the mod too. Apart from the absence, I think you did pretty well.

[Collyer]

Collyer, you were absolutely amazing as town and really scary to play against. Take that as a compliment.

Thanks. However I can't get away from the fact that I was so obvtown that I made my self a target as a power role, a capacity in which I gained no advantage for the town. You guys, who had never been scum before on this site, get a perfect win. I may have been amazing but it didn't pay off