Mini 859 - Cleansing of Falls Church - Over

[semioldguy]

Checking in. Give me a day or two to get caught up with a good post.

[semioldguy]

Yes. I wish to continue playing. Have been sick, but will be reading to catch up later tonight and tomorrow, will have more substance by then.

[semioldguy]

This has been longer than I expected. Slowly but surely, I am trudging through my read of this game. Will finally be done in a couple hours (I hope).

[semioldguy]

So far Sanjay is my top suspect. On day one I really dislike how he seemed to mediate the argument between DeathRowKitty and ConfidAnon. To me it looks like scum trying to keep a fight going between two players while he doesn't really take a stance on the issue the whole time he remains a part of discussing it. When that issue was later he-hashed with replacements coming in, Sanjay did a little more fence-sitting on the issue. Sanjay also does a lot of parroting and following throughout the game.

Also not wanting to lynch the soft claim at the end of yesterday as well as not wanting the full claim?! Seriously?! (could say something similar about Looker, but have gotten better vibes from her thus far)

Furry seems a little bit scummy to me as well, but gets better closer to deadline except for the odd setup comment. (also land surveyor huh? ... I work in land use law and we are currently doing a lot of sewer work/study for several clients. This has nothing to do with my read, I just don't happen upon many people in a related work field too often... outside of work anyway.)

Wondering about BigBear since he was apparently on site near deadline, but not in thread (until hammer time). When I have been scum before with a buddy being the top wagon in a deadline crunch I feel like avoiding the thread as to not make matters worse for my team. This could apply to others in this game as well, BigBear was just pointed out as doing so in thread.

don_johnson was a pretty obvious lynch with such a horrible soft-claim and refusal to cooperate afterward. His explanation for not full claiming was also bogus.

Several players could use some more posting.

This is my read and opinions of suspects up through the end of day one knowing who the eventual lynch and flip would be.

[semioldguy]

In my read, no, you didn't. You were around and posting, but looked more like you were prodding the two involved in the fight rather than choosing a side. Eventually you kind of chose a side (only to fence sit a little bit on it again later). You were not taking a strong enough stand in my opinion in relation to your presence in the thread during that time. The side you eventually chose was the one I interpreted to be the wrong side... though I really don't want to unearth that monster and discuss why I think each side was right and/or wrong.

[semioldguy]

The reason don_johnson gave for withholding that role info was crap though. In one of his supposed reason he proposed that if there were a roleblocker then if he revealed that he was a cop he would then not get his ability. News flash to don_johnson... he claimed having a power role. If there was a roleblocker, he was getting it anyway regardless of which role he had/claimed.

I endorse full-claiming or no-claiming. I don't think soft-claiming ever outweighs the reasons town shouldn't soft-claim.

[semioldguy]

@DeathRowKitty
I had a scum read on him fairly early on. He was the first player I suspected in my read. I had my scum read on him before I even got to the end of day interactions. I didn't get a town read on him. I honestly don't see the towniness in him that others have said to have seen.

@Looker
The last large theme game you were in with me was a perfect game for town, not a single mislynch. We lynched scum every day in Percy's Stars Aligned.

[semioldguy]

When would you say you started to suspect me, semioldguy?

Early on in my read I was thinking to myself what exactly you had contributed. When I looked back, it looked to me as though you had contributed very little despite your large amount of posting. You don;t really bring much original content and most of what you do is ask questions with little to no follow-up as to reads on the answers (to be fair, a good portion of your questions didn't get answers due to flakiness this game so far). I see this behavior as scummy because it gives off the appearance of being helpful (asking questions) without really being all that helpful yourself.

Vote: Sanjay

ebwop:

@ Looker: they

haven't

done enough for me to have reads on them.

Without going into unnecessary detail, what do you read on either of our predecessors? A single line or two summary would be more than enough.

[semioldguy]

Looker, my problem with lynching Sanjay is that he is a rather costly mislynch. I think that this game is extremely convoluted right now, and we're going to be better off in the long run cleaning up the town than trying to hit scummy players who are active posters. I don't see Sanjay as scummier than KoC, but i see KoC-town as way more useless than Sanjay-town.

This makes little sense to me. Why evaluate a lynch candidate based on whether or not they are a costly mislynch? We should just lynch the players we think most likely to be scum because they are most likely to be scum. Worrying about whether or not they are a costly mislynch is potentially very hurtful to the town. Lynching scummy players is not bad.

Also what is this nonsense about cleaning up the town instead of lynching active scummy players? Is this seriously your advice?

If we narrow this game down to a smaller number of legitimately active players, it'll making catching up easier for us replacements, and give the town the focus it needs to actually scum-hunt in a meaningful way.

This will not have any effect on my ability to more easily catch up. Nor does it make any sense. How does more activity in the future help in catching up with the past? Nothing about what has already been contributed to this game is going to change, it never gets easier to catch up because nothing is going away, only more being added.

-less posters: narrows down the amount of players that the town have to go read in iso before they can have an opinion. decreases the chore of playing, and increases the motivation to play well.

Bad advice. Shouldn't disregard dead players and stances. Much is based on context. ISO reads are a bad way to get a feel for the game.

Lynching Sanjay, regardless of his flip, will contribute to an environment that favors scum, and not one that favors town.

Can you explain how lynching a player that flips scum can be helpful to scum and not favorable to town?

I think a policy lynch of the most useless player is justified.

Policy lynches are horrible and are not pro-town.

I iso'd KoC and I didn't see him once voice suspicions of EC (AB's predecessor) or AB. Very much an OMGUS reaction. It's even worse considering it was against an easy target and just looks like he was trying to divert attention away from the lackluster post after AB attacked him for it.

Does someone have to place suspicion on a player in order to suspect the replacement when he comes in? I wasn't suspicious of EtheralCookie, but I am now of archaebob.

[semioldguy]

What needs responding?

[semioldguy]

EBWOP:
Please just use post numbers. Don't quote it, I can look it up and will quote it if I need my response to make sense.

[semioldguy]

@Sanjay
Most of that, although being an explanation for your actions, did not alleviate my concerns. So you could say that I am voting for you in spite of your explanations rather than because of them. Question marks help. I will generally respond to things directed at me that have question marks at the end of them.

Also your assumption was correct, I was holding off my vote because I wanted to look at other people as well as let my completed read have more than an hour or two to settle.

@Looker
No. I requested he not quote them because it was something he had already posted in the thread and didn't want unnecessary clutter. Quoting is generally fine.

[semioldguy]

BigBear was my second suspect, and remains a top suspect behind you. I would prefer his lynch over Knight of Cydonia's lynch at this point in time. More recently archaebob has raised significantly in suspicion. Furry seems less scummy, but I will keep my eye on him.

[semioldguy]

Do you find the little spat between Sanjay and I as Scum-Scum?

I think it could be.

[semioldguy]

I am committed to a real vote.

[semioldguy]

I don't have a whole lot of posts this game. It isn't hard to find them and see what I find most suspicious about which players. If you want me to make detailed cases, then I won't.

I could make a overly-detailed case about suspicious activity about any player in the thread; but that's all it would be, a laundry list of things. As it stands I have outlined the few points that stand out the most to me and are most suspicious. I trust these points much more than going back through in search of more points that might not actually be scummy and weren't contributing factors to my original suspicion.

If I go through looking at a single player specifically in search of scummy things, I am going to find them whether they are there or not. Doing this is not helpful for the town. People see what they want to see. If I look at a specific player wanting to see him as scummy I am going to see it, but that's not a useful way to find scum. I'd rather just play the game and find things as I go rather than single out a couple players to look back at and drag up a bunch of dirt that does little other than bog the game down.

[semioldguy]

You are at L-1, two days before deadline... is there a reason you wouldn't claim?

[semioldguy]

Well, I know my case isn't BS.

What makes you think you might not be today's lynch?

[semioldguy]

Ignoring my question for a reason Sanjay?

The point that you don't know anything about danakillsu's opinions doesn't seem like a valid reason for why you think you might not be lynched today. If you think it is you'll have to explain it to me because I don't see it.

[semioldguy]

Ignoring my question for a reason Sanjay?

The point that you don't know anything about danakillsu's opinions doesn't seem like a valid reason for why you think you might not be lynched today. If you think it is you'll have to explain it to me because I don't see it.

Besides, get out of my face with that "ignoring my question for a reason" jibber jabber.

Even if you didn't understand my answer, it was still obviously an answer to your question.

Clearly by my follow up question it was not clear that it was an answer to my question. If it was I wouldn't of had to ask to make sure. I didn't see it as a valid answer and asked for either an answer had it not been an answer or an explanation for how it was an answer if it was. But, no, I did not see that as obviously being an answer.

[semioldguy]

Disbelieving his suspicions is one thing, disbelieving that he read the thread is another. It took me five hours-ish to read the thread in it's entirety, though that whole time I was at work and thus also had to be doing work so it didn't look like I was doing nothing. If I had just sat down to read it I think I could have gotten through it in a couple of hours. No reason to believe that danakillsu couldn't.

I am still happy with my vote and the way danakillsu's wagon is being haphazardly thrown together bothers me. For most people on the wagon he isn't even your top suspect, or doesn't seem to be. Its like most of you are settling for him, which smells really bad to me. I don't like that lynch at all based upon how it was constructed.

[semioldguy]

Also Looker, you essentially voted for him as well by your unvote, revote crap.

[semioldguy]

What doesn't make sense Sanjay?

[semioldguy]

Making a stupid move (or several) does not equate to being scum. Intelligence does not indicate alignment.

[semioldguy]

Why are you counting on that? Do you have control over whether we talk tomorrow? If not, why would you say such a thing? I have no reason to believe I'd live through any night.

[semioldguy]

Vote: Sanjay

[semioldguy]

Because the lynch looked bad by how it built up and I didn't see motivation behind danakillsu's posts as being scum motivation. I've already posted these reasons Sanjay if you don't mind reading them the first time.

I'd like people on that wagon to explain why they were on it. For most it seems like he was not initially their top suspect, but they voted for him anyway. Sounds really scummy to me, like trying to get a scum buddy saved from lynch by building up an alternative wagon.

I didn't come tell people before the hammer that I didn't like the wagon after all that nonsense because I (1) hadn't been in the thread during the time that I didn't post so didn't know what was going on until I returned; and (2) My vote was on you, which should have made it clear enough already that I liked your wagon and not danakillsu's.

[semioldguy]

@Sanjay
Also, why did you say yesterday that we'd discuss this tomorrow (actually today) instead of continuing the discussion yesterday? It seems that if you were interested in catching scum you should have tried to catch scum in a slip before the reveal. Waiting until after either allows scum time to think of things to say or allows yourself as scum to avoid defending someone you know not to be scum and make a slip yourself before the reveal. Either way, it is not pro-town.

[semioldguy]

What is that, the twentieth time you've dodged my request to back up your case against me?

You seem to be the only one who cares enough to request this.

Why weren't you keeping up with the thread? Was a deadline 5-5 split with one of the vote getters being your chief suspect not exciting enough for you?

I was very busy and had another game that required more attention, which is now over.

How come you think not voting for a soft-claimer is scummy, but fake claiming isn't?

Because context and motivation are more important in getting reads than an action by itself. Again, failure of reading on your part of previous posts of mine.

It seems like you are being very selective about which anti-town actions are scummy to you.

As should everyone. Just because an action is anti-town does not make it scummy. Players would be much better scum hunters if they looked for motivations for why an action is scummy rather than just pointing to anti-town actions and claiming scummy without proper dissection.

[semioldguy]

But no, here comes semioldguy, before danakillsu flipped, before KoC flipped, immediately trying to cast blame on people for the wagon.

I would have done it sooner, but my previous post only two days before was made when there were zero votes for danakillsu. How can I speak out against a wagon if I didn't see it until it was over? I spoke out against it at the earliest opportunity that I could. danakillsu's wagon went from zero to lynch in just two days.

Sorry, I misread. Just two other games.

MY BAD.

No, I meant one. That's what I wrote and that's what I meant. I am playing in three total games (now down to two), but didn't contribute to any but one in the whole two day absence in this game.

1) Him busting in yesterday after the lynch trying to cast blame on everyone seemed to imply to me he had foreknowledge of danakillsu's alignment. As far as I could tell, semioldguy was the only one who wasn't interested in the DKU case (Well, neither was KoC, but that's understandable).

danakillsu and his predecessors felt very town. The way the wagon had built up did not feel town at all. I also don't think it likely for a scum counter-wagon would have generated that quickly so close to deadline. I am certain that wagon was backed by scum.

2) He thinks I am scummy for not wanting to vote for DJ because I thought he was a townie playing anti-town and yet is totally comfortable assuming DKU was a townie being anti-town. I don't understand the inconsistency.

Because you look at events and not motivations or context. Or you do look at motivations and context but don't understand them from a town's perspective because you are not town. This has been explained. It has been noted that you continue to ignore the explanation and have yet to even attempt refuting the point, just merely repeating yourself will not make it true.

3) His ducking out when I asked him what he thought of DKU's reasons for lynching me and popping back in after the lynch was ridiculous and he had plenty of time to stop in here at some point.

The wagon went from zero to lynch in two days. Two days in which I had not opened the thread. When was this plenty of time exactly?

4) His reasons for not wanting to explain his reasons for voting me baffle me, and have not been consistent. This new "I'm not going to explain myself until someone else seems interested in the reasons" thing is entirely brand new and wasn't there yesterday.

I have explained my reasons. Just because you keep asking for them doesn't mean I haven't posted them. I have, and you can still feel free to go back and look at them. I don't need to drag up additional reasons when the existing ones are enough. It's like saying to me "keep bringing up points against me until you get to the weak ones and ones I can easily swat away." You haven't come up with reasonable pro-town explanations for doing what you've done in my existing accusations.

5) This somewhat repeats some of my previous points, but I don't understand where semioldguy's reads are coming from. He's the only one who wasn't at least interested in the DKU case. He had a gut scum read on me

before

he even read the end of day 1, something that really doesn't happen very much, regardless of my alignment.

Are you saying that if you don't know where someone's reads are coming from that it makes that person scummy? If not, then this isn't a valid point.

[semioldguy]

... I'm choosing to go against the grain, and vote for the person whose behavior i am least equipped to justify. Should you or he wish to equip me, I will gladly reconsider.

What about my behavior do you find not justifiable?

[semioldguy]

Check my ISO 3, 4 and 7 for my main points on Sanjay as well as why I find those points scummy.

[semioldguy]

@Sanjay
Why didn't you want to talk during twilight? You avoided answering this question by answering a similar question. I don't just want to know why you thought we'd both be alive today, but why you thought that it wasn't good to talk yesterday and talk today instead.

[semioldguy]

If you are scum, would you rather I fully explain exactly what I am going to come after you with before the night starts so you can talk about it overnight? That's silly.

If you are scum, would you rather you engage in talking about something before the night starts or would you rather wait so you can prepare/talk about it overnight? That's silly.

Throwing around "What ifs" is not productive or good for the town. It is both ineffective and distracting from scum hunting.

What else is silly is that you think scum would somehow not prepare for things that are likely to come up the next day, regardless of this or another situation. As town, your best chance to catch them is immediately and thinking anything other than that is foolish.

Also, this:

No, I meant one. That's what I wrote and that's what I meant. I am playing in three total games (now down to two), but didn't contribute to any but one in the whole two day absence in this game.

is straight-up false. You know we can look at the posts you made in that time period, right?

It is not false. I do know that you can all check. You will not find any content or participation in any game but Mini 857. If you want to have an argument over what content is, then go for it.

For example, take my first post from day three of this game. It included a vote and nothing else. There is no participation in the post, no content, no time commitment just a vote. Since night had been going on I wasn't needing to keep up with the thread to come in a make that post at the beginning of day. I knew who I wanted to vote when the day opened, it required no new reading of posts from players in this game.

Also... it is never a terrible time to scum hunt (I mean... unless you are scum, then all times are terrible for scum hunting. Twilight, being a time, falls under this).

[semioldguy]

I really don't understand why this game didn't deserve at least a cursory glance on the two days before deadline as it seems like you are claiming. If you aren't scum you are a surprisingly disinterested townie.

This isn't a very inetersting game. Considering this game specifically and looking at the amounts of replacements thus far, I'd say this game could be a breeding grounds for disinterest.

By the way, what was my scummy motivation for not scumhunting in twilight, semioldguy?

You who seem to care so much about motivation haven't really fleshed that one out.

I also haven't fleshed out town motivation to wait. I don't want to wait to talk about something because it gives time for scum to prepare if I do. No matter what it is. Maybe they dodge the thread anyway, but I'll take some chance over no chance of catching scum anytime.

The accusation you brought up against me was not mysterious enough to elude me or any other player from the previous night, and waiting wasn't going to keep anyone from preparing based on the situation. You waiting also gives scum able time to create attacks on such players. Waiting just flat out isn't good for town. Period. There was nothing you would have lost by not waiting in this situation and you had everything to gain as town.

The only times when you benefit from waiting is when you take someone by surprise. If you aren't taking anyone by surprise, then you only give that player more time to prepare the longer you wait. Unless you thought that this line of attack from you would completely blindside anyone, I don't see your town motivation for doing what you did. And if there is no town motivation, then it leaves non-town motivation.

Did you think that your attack would have taken anyone by surprise?

[semioldguy]

I am not ignoring the rest of your posts, I haven't read them all yet but I get off work in fifteen minutes and need to start closing down.

[semioldguy]

Also, surely you've seen a hastily created deadline wagon hit scum before, haven't you?

I have not. I don't find it to ever be anywhere near a likely scenario. That isn't to say that it couldn't happen, but the circumstances yesterday did not make that seem likely at all in my opinion.

What point would you like me to refute? That I tried to start a wagon to drive votes away from DJ day one? You got me. I did. I also explained my motivations behind doing that. What do you have a problem with exactly?

Currently what I am having a problem with is your deflection. Most of your most recent "answers" to my questions and the questions you pose to me don't have anything to do with my posts or the current conversation. Either you aren't reading them very carefully or you are deliberately trying to steer it in another direction while also ignoring much of what is being said now.

Are you saying that if you don't know where someone's reads are coming from that it makes that person scummy? If not, then this isn't a valid point.

If the person refuses to explain the reads, yes.

I'd like to inform you that you are wrong. It is not always pro-town to come forward with everything. For instance, if I have a very effective read to catch scum or tells on a certain player then I can continue to use it to catch scum. But if I share those read with the scum or that player, then they become aware of it making that read/tell much less useful. Other times it's helpful to build a wagon without giving reasons to get information about who hops on the wagon and how the wagon forms. Not giving reads could help to hide one's role as a cop so that they are not outed. I could go on if I need to. There are many pro-town reasons not to explain reads.

Fortunately for you, being wrong isn't a scum tell. Unfortunately for you, there are plenty of other things you are doing that are.

Whether I am town looking for a lynch or scum looking for a mislynch, I don't see your point here. Either way, I might have been better pressing and catching you off balance.

What's your case?

You asked for an analysis of motivation from me, and also expressed doubt that I had any at all. I provided that motivation analysis. If your response to me answering your inquiry is to question the fact that I am responding, then I suggest you use another tactic.

[semioldguy]

This is why I didn't claim role name yesterday and why I was reluctant to claim win condition today. It would auto-confirm me to anyone who had the vanilla PM if I said "Um, I'm not sure what the win condition is, it doesn't really say".

Uh.... scum much? Are you saying that the reason you didn't do this is because you didn't want to confirm yourself to other townies? You are either backtracking and making up a reason in hindsight and/or you are full or crap. How would it ever be a bad thing to auto-confirm yourself to town?

[semioldguy]

Which rule would that break?

[semioldguy]

It says

structure

of the PM, though it is noted that you chose to omit that. Structure indicates things such as there are ___ sentences in my PM, or the second line starts with ___, or the fifteenth letter is ___. That would be abuse of structure. The above sample quote from you has nothing to do with structure, but with content.

[semioldguy]

Then it seems we have a difference of opinion/interpretation and arguing about it is unhelpful. I willing to believe that you think the proposed scenario would be rule-breaking.

[semioldguy]

I said currently. None of those posts are what I would consider current. Much more recently you have been dodging the subject matter placed before you by either modifying or changing the subject, quoting text and asking a question not pertinent to the quoted material and/or giving answers that aren't applicable to the questions asked.

[semioldguy]

Someone who doesn't have it.

[semioldguy]

@archaebob
How about you make an attempt of finding your own case/suspect rather than waiting to follow in the footsteps of the cases others make to you?

[semioldguy]

semioldguy, PLEASE stop dodging my questions.

I'm not quite sure which questions I am dodging. Could I get a post with the post numbers where your questions are again?

I'll provide a reason a question wasn't answered if there are any or I can or why I thought it was answered if I didn't miss it (along with hopefully an elaboration upon my previous answer to make sense of it to you as an answer)

[semioldguy]

Three links and three posts (one for each link)

This is the first one.

danakillsu and his predecessors felt very town. The way the wagon had built up did not feel town at all. I also don't think it likely for a scum counter-wagon would have generated that quickly so close to deadline. I am certain that wagon was backed by scum.

Why? Which players, do you feel, acted inconsistently?

This is what i was referring to when I said you were asking things that didn't seem relevant to the text you quote.

Why? - I don't think a scum wagon is likely to build so quickly because the scum buddies aren't likely to move to a quick-deadline-wagon on their partner. Since it is a deadline situation it'd be easy for scum to avoid it, since there is so little time, they would not be at fault by any means by not getting on a scum wagon. This seemed fairly straightforward, so I didn't feel the need to elaborate previously.

Which players, do you feel, acted inconsistently? - I don't understand what this has to do with what was quoted. I wasn't talking about finding inconsistencies, nor has that been in my focus this game. I don't feel inconsistency from anyone, though I haven't been looking for it. Inconsistency is not a scum tell in my eyes.

I didn't answer this second one because I didn't understand the question, it's relevance or what it was getting at (I still don't).

Also, surely you've seen a hastily created deadline wagon hit scum before, haven't you?

I specifically recall answering this. Again, no, I haven't seen it.

Because you look at events and not motivations or context. Or you do look at motivations and context but don't understand them from a town's perspective because you are not town. This has been explained. It has been noted that you continue to ignore the explanation and have yet to even attempt refuting the point, just merely repeating yourself will not make it true.

This doesn't make any sense even as an accusation. I don't understand town motivations because I'm not town? What? By all means flesh this one out because it should be a laugh riot.

What point would you like me to refute? That I tried to start a wagon to drive votes away from DJ day one? You got me. I did. I also explained my motivations behind doing that. What do you have a problem with exactly?

I don't understand town motivations because I'm not town? What? - I was suggesting that scum don't consider town motivation because they have their own scum motivation to worry about. So when scum analyzes context, they do it from scum's perspective rather than town's perspective. This seemed obvious to me.

What point would you like me to refute? - If I provide an example of something or why I think it is scummy, and you think it isn't, you should be able to come up with a reasonable situation why scum wouldn't do it. Or why town would. Or prove my point wrong.

What do you have a problem with exactly? - Because I feel that my proposed scum motivations outweigh your explanations, or that your explanations do nothing to dissuade me from considering those scum motivations to still be there. Some things benefit both town and scum, but which do they help more? For example, lynching a Serial Killer is helpful to both town and scum, but I'd say scum have higher motivation to single out the serial killer. That doesn't mean town doesn't want to lynch him also, but scum have greater reason to specifically hunt the Serial Killer.

How are they unsatisfactory? - The above should explain this one as well. I felt they weren't strong enough reasons.

Why didn't you bring this up when I asked you about it earlier? - I felt that I had. Post 1284, seems to suggest this.

If the person refuses to explain the reads, yes.

This would undermine pro-town votes as well. Things such a pressure votes would become automatically scummy and cops might not have a reason to vote other than their "guilty" result which it would not be scummy to hide, as well s many other reasons and situations that benefit town. This is what I mean by analyzing context and motivation. (Also I feel that I've typed this response out already once before)

You are asking questions here that (1) have what I feel to be obvious answers; (2) do nothing to develop the game by being answered and are thus a potential distraction; and/or (3) have answers that are already in my posts.

If you want me to answer your question, try asking more useful questions.

[semioldguy]

@DeathRowKitty
I don't recall Sanjay being a popular suspicion when I came into the game. Though I wasn't looking for a popular suspicion. In retrospect it seems to me there were much more popular suspicions such as Knight of Cydonia. Wouldn't the other replacements at the time be just as if not more guilty of suspecting someone who was of popular suspicion? This seems like an odd accusation.

@Mod
V/LA from now through the 27th

We may be in LyLo/MyLo. I would like to throw out both suggestions of mass claiming and/or a no lynch for today to get back down to odd numbers (there are both upsides and downsides to this). Neither should be done until it is decided what we do about both, since doing one of the above will certainly affect our effectiveness of the other.

I'm for both, or either, but not neither, and I have no problem claiming first.

I also find it odd how almost every game I replace into as town I get lynched, but of the games I start from the beginning as town I rarely ever get lynched.

I'm out the door as soon as I attend to moderating duties... see you all in a few days. Happy Holidays!

[semioldguy]

Vote: No Lynch

[semioldguy]

You do realize his vote puts us at four people voting No Lynch and that this is now twilight until Kreriov comes by to check the vote count, announce that it is night and close the thread?

[semioldguy]

Wow, I just got back and am quite disappointed. Furry and DRK were very obvious to me once archeabob was gone, they were on all the lynchwagons. Yes, going against the Sanjay wagon on the day he wasn't lynched is a slight scum tell, and much more helpful to scum in a situation between two townies being lynched.

I also can't believe you wouldn't even wait for me to post!! Seriously Looker, what the hell?! How is that in any way ever a good move as town?

I'll post more thoughts later, I have other games to catch up on.

[semioldguy]

semioldguy, I waited all game for you to post.

I was actually going to go back and make a post about my initial read and highlighting the points where I got my reads from your play. I came back from a short V/LA to find that the day had already ended early. The two scum came to hammer you before I returned.