Mini 1080 -- txtMafia -- Game OVER

[Kast]

Confirming replacement.

I'll try to catch up by Wednesday.

[Kast]

VOTE: AV
Notes:
-Task wagon was crap. Vote pattern indicates AV-scum
-Eq argues trivialities
-Kor feels gut scum;Clears Task for points
-CW not contributing
1/5

[Kast]

-Fonz isn't fair/reasonable arguing w/AH*
-Hero had pro-T vibe til 648. Resigning to lose non-scummy player as an endgame liability or because he isnt pro-T
2/5

[Kast]

feels like Hero's scum-meta for mislynch.
-Prolly 1/5 of MS calls suspects obv-/confirmed-/definite- scum w/o really meaning it
-Assuming bad playstyle=>bad
3/5

[Kast]

town

is wrong; assuming bad playstyle=>scum is

also

wrong & frequently wastes lynches. I prefer lynching scum to both (fishy hits this point well).
4/5

[Kast]

*-Never played w/Fonz but people always quote/reference him & it's usually good. I feel let down. (pg23-24 are more reasonable)
5/5

[Kast]

@Mod- Yes, extend plz

kunk=neutral
No real "wagons", AV as viable as anyone
Crap wagon with prolly 1 scum. If I thought it was meant to lynch, votes -> Equi
1/2

[Kast]

AV was: parking/joining popular vote/appearing active
3 main pts:
misreping Task wasn't s/hunting
saying CW=lurker

was

arbitrary
theory talk to evade point
2/2

[Kast]

This

. He said RVS=spam & claimed slow start->increase
Case-potential excuse to lurk:
It isn't one
Actual behavior doesn't follow
Tasks S/Hing similar to others

[Kast]

Which link is confusing? Some points reference multiple quotes; reading context of link is necessary.

[Kast]

@Fonz-
S/Hing differs by person
Task reads/asks Qs/name&votes suspects. Activity is midrange; better than some worse than some
He phrased playstyle poorly

[Kast]

@Vi-
Your request requires more posts. I'll summarize links in question, but not gonna stop links
Suggestion: Tabbed browsing?
@Fonz-
OMGUS isn't a scumtell
1/5

[Kast]

L1-Chamber asked me to join a current wagon
L2-TF posited that I (& others) think Task wagon was an attempt at an early mislynch.
2/5

[Kast]

L3-TF asked where I thought he was unfair/unreasonable
L4-TF's Task vote is for not S/Hing based on a misprep of Task's playstyle. Misreping != S/Hing.
3/5

[Kast]

L5-AH's point that CW was not the only a/lurker was correct. TF pushing CW & passing other a/lurkers is unfair/arbitrary
4/5

[Kast]

L6-TF uses a broad definition for a/lurking & avoids addressing AH's point/current game state; there are other a/lurkers.
5/5

[Kast]

@Mod-

Thanks!
TF-Disagree, L-4 in response to a respectable L-5 is ideal for scum. At least equally if not more likely scum-vote

Sounds like you associate
1/2

[Kast]

"bad reasons" w/ "not S/Hing". Being irrational or wrong != scummy

RF-Scummy behavior = scum. Few posts showing explicit S/Hing is a poor measure of S/Hing
2/2

[Kast]

I've got responses for Fonz 1-6, but I'll refrain posting unless requested since I don't see it advancing the game much and it's long.

[Kast]

@RF-
Lulz. That

is

a full sentence. Clarify how you determine if someone has "little S/Hing".

[Kast]

TF-You initially claimed Tas had no S/Hing, but later admit he "bad reasons". That requires assuming "bad reasons" = "not S/Hing"
1/2

[Kast]

You blur the distinction btw playing poorly & playing scummy. This is similar to distinction btw lying & being incorrect. Lying=scummy. Being incorrect=null
2/2

[Kast]

RF- How does that compare to lurkers/inactives:
-in terms of affiliation?
-in terms of identification?

[Kast]

RF-Is Tasky a/lurker or regular lurker? How does his lurking compare with AV or CW (both have many more obviously game irrelevant posts in terms of # and %)?

[Kast]

Task: calls first pages spam & says will raise participation as game moves
TF: IDs possible scum-motive. (Baselessly) asserts the possibility as fact. VOTES
1/2

[Kast]

Task: Gets repetitive; sucks @defending self. OMGUS VOTE
TF's attack is BS
Task's response is mostly OMGUS, but that's null
None of this helped find scum
2/2

[Kast]

Hero, Vi, kunk, TF, AH- What do you think of AV?

Task, Equi, Fishy- Willing to re-vote AV?

RF- Why is AV town?

[Kast]

TF- I read Task response to your pressure as typical weak player. Initially he tried to explain; you misrepped his response, he got upset/stubborn then OMGUSed

[Kast]

Hero-I'm missing TF's comments, all I see in re-read is that TF thinks AV is not a/lurking.

[Kast]

AVs Posts
54 (39 adj. for multipost)
Game Specific:
49 (26)
Generic:
5 (4)
Fluff:
9 (9)

Tasks Posts
49 (38)
Game Specific:
31 (22)
Generic:
10 (8)
Fluff:
8 (8)

[Kast]

It's subjective, but they're similar levels on posts, contributions, and fluff
AV pushed BS on Tas
Tas pushed ? on AV
AV pushing ? on Equi
Tas pushing BS on TF

[Kast]

AV hasn't been S/Hing any more than Task.

AV's only contribution is BS about voting a V/LA person, then voting equi for potentially softclaiming (wtf?)

[Kast]

A BS vote is a BS vote, regardless of when it happens.

[Kast]

Lulz! Disagreement = scum?

[Kast]

"a reason good enough for a first vote" can still be BS. If you want to play by redefining things, fine AV's reason is insufficient for a first vote.

[Kast]

TF- Clarify what my "attack" on AV is.

[Kast]

Task is right that D1 is very hard to find solid cases and reasons. The push on Task is arbitrary BS based on a misrep of his playstyle claim.

[Kast]

Voting for a player because they voted for a V/LA person is hardly helpful, especially as a first vote. For that matter, a vote on a V/LA person is not complete

Truncated. ~~NS

[Kast]

Hero- Both have been extremely low utility. If there were a scale of utility 0-10, it's like both are 0.45 and 0.47. Does that make them scum? No. But Task is b

Truncated. ~~NS

[Kast]

Placing a vote vs. asking if he knew kunk was V/LA, the vote is completely unnecessary.

[Kast]

TF- Not particularly. What clinches him is the vote position on the Task wagon. Gut + past experience indicate it's an initial scum vote.

[Kast]

The pressure on Task though is way overhyped. You've convinced yourself he's scum based on a stretched interpretation of his post.

[Kast]

Agreed. Once again, your comment implies the assumption that sub-optimal play = scum. That's ridiculous.

[Kast]

AFAIK AV only voted Task once;not sure what you mean by 1st/2nd wagon
AV's vote is the prob-scum on the wagon.likely ~1 scum on wagon regardless of Task's affil

[Kast]

TF-We disagree on basic theory then (or you're using screwy definitions). Anti-town just means its net negative for town. Scummy means indicative of scum

[Kast]

2 wagons is irrelevant; I'm clearly referring to AV's vote and that's only on the first wagon. Unnecessary confusion...

[Kast]

Again, please substantiate that claim

[Kast]

It's hard to believe you don't differentiate btw anti-town & scummy. A cop claiming D1 for no reason in an open, 1-cop game is clearly anti-town but not scummy

[Kast]

AV-You're not paying attention or careless. I've been primarily discussing 2 targets with multiple players. Others are discussing single targets to exclusion
1/2

[Kast]

Not that that's inherently bad.
2/2

[Kast]

kunk reads neutral. He was under my radar in original catchup. On re-read I was surprised how much he had posted while staying under radar. Non-trivial contribu

Truncated. ~~NS

[Kast]

TF- In an open 1 cop game, any cop claim on D1 is obviously telling the truth and requires no unreasonable assumptions.

[Kast]

I've honestly missed any point where you showed Task's meta contradicts his claims. I asked you once to show where I missed this. I ask again & you refuse. WTH?

[Kast]

TF-Are you reading? Example scenario is an open setup game with guaranteed 1 cop. Unprovoked D1 claim is obviously stupid town in this case.

[Kast]

The scum gambit is a scum guaranteed 1-for-1 or 1-for-(0 & role info) trade with town. Sorry, any explanation that assumes scum will freely out selves for no ga

Truncated. ~~NS

[Kast]

TF-I've ISOed again and I still don't see it. Please link.

[Kast]

Please clarify, sounds like you are redefining scummy to mean negative effect on town instead of meaning indicating the person is probable scum.

[Kast]

TF-Thanks.
Tasky-I don't see any response to TF's quote. Quote shows preference for high activity in early game & contradicts your claimed playstyle. Explain?

[Kast]

TF-Scum being more likely to do something or having more motive to do something than town does not directly correlate w/whether something is pro-/anti-town.
1/5

[Kast]

Town cop outing himself in the hypothetical situation is anti-T, Scum doing the same is pro-T. Neither action is rational; it is a null tell. Town loses a
2/5

[Kast]

PR, but marginally improves lynch chances on D1. Scum lynches or IDs PR, but sacrifices a member (additionally town cop can optionally negate the scum gain)
3/5

[Kast]

In terms of motivation, neither have motive to do the action (some irrationality of subject is required), but scum are adversely affected to a greater
4/5

[Kast]

degree than town. Irrational nature of the act makes it impossible to show conclusively, but intuitively the townie claiming is more likely to happen.
5/5

[Kast]

Vi- wagon analysis says

Y

@People claiming AV is S/Hing:
-voted Task for voting V/LA kunk
-voted Equi for potentially softclaiming
What else has AV done?

[Kast]

kunk-Does your stance hold for votes with reasons that are withheld but promised later?
EBWOP: Posts after initial statement obv excluded

[Kast]

@Mod-

Network crapped out @work today. Should be fixed over wkend; if not my posting will be reduced until it's fixed. Also FYI, I'm V/LA weekends & Thanksgiving

[Kast]

LOTS of posts to follow, not around til Mon, but may not check in til 3-4PM PST, so getting this out now. Vote's gonna stay.

[Kast]

TF-Agreed timing doesn't match simple OMGUS rXn. Task's AV vote reads like gut & timing supports that.

Agree that his TF vote is mostly OMGUS.
1/2

[Kast]

Disagree that it's aimed at easiest target. AV is/has always been "easier" than you. It looks targeted @most frustrating person (ie person who "sucks" most)
2/2

[Kast]

AV-Confused? I am.

My discussion w/TF about a cop claim was clearly labelled hypothetical.

TF&Equi covered it.

[Kast]

Equii-If he's done more, I missed it despite multiple rereads & isos.
My point is that AV's contributions have been similar to Task. If people's
1/2

[Kast]

reads are so weak they're lynching based on useless players (eg. Task) instead of lynching based on scum tells, then might as well join the AV wagon.
2/2

[Kast]

@Mod/TF-It's crap sportsmanship @best and potentially rules violation for Task (or anyone) to post in MD about ongoing games (regardless of whether you were
1/2

[Kast]

"already going to post anyway"). I ignored it first time TF mentioned, but if it's impacting in game reads shouldn't something be done?
2/2

[Kast]

AV-To be clear
You thought Equi SoftClaimed
S/C was unprovoked => Odd
Odd => Scummy (?)
You voted
Also:
You thought Equi S/C vig
Youre not interested in S/C
1/2

[Kast]

You did not R/F for cop claim; you confused TF & Kast's discussion
You thought TF & Kast publicly speculated on Equi's S/C (& had no problem with that??)
2/2

[Kast]

I assume:
kunk will counterwagons for survival. L-2
Task prefers AV to kunk. L-1
Thats a viable lynch. I'm not moving my vote & prolly won't be around.
1/2

[Kast]

AV's confirmation of desire to lynch unprompted S/C D1 regardless of what S/C was should sway at least 1 person. That + strict majority to lynch.
2/2

[Kast]

VOTE: AV

Vi prob-buddy. Overjustified switch unnecessarily on weak basis.

[Kast]

Also V/LA tomorrow through Sunday.

[Kast]

TF-I missed the part where you explained how 2 people voting their top suspect guarantees 1 of them is scum.

[Kast]

Vi-No new cases to influence your decision. Only real change was Equi unvoting. Pretending it was anything other than that is laughable and unnecessary.

[Kast]

TF-I doubt you really think it is impossible/implausible for 3 townies to start D2 by voting the D1 runner up who has been their top suspect.

[Kast]

Vi-What was incorrect? Your unvote was obviously in response to equi unvoting. Your posts to the contrary are unnecessary overjustification.
1/2

[Kast]

Compromising to secure lynch instead of no lynch = pro-T. When you make up excuses to bolster that, looks like scum overly concerned with appearances.
2/2

[Kast]

Vi- Prolly not. Emotionally compromised; is bugged by prior disagreements with me and letting that impair his judgment.

[Kast]

I'm out- Happy Turkey Day All!

[Kast]

Vi-Your posts & context make your motives obv. Excuse me if I doubt BS claims from suspected scum
Implying that accusatory tone = calling someone scum is BS
1/6

[Kast]

Telling TF to wake up and stop letting emotional bias cripple his judgment is an accusation
Hero-Scum joining a mislynch to prevent a no-lynch aren't taking
2/6

[Kast]

risks. It's EXTREMELY safe because it's obv-pro-town. Chamber was honest w/his hammer. Vi's overjustification is suspect
Chamber makes sense
Hero meta-

[Kast]

Mislynched Claus instead of suspect Slicey
Mislynch attempt on nopoint instead of "suspected" buddy-Kast
This doesn't help the game. If you gave up, then
4/6

[Kast]

replace out. 1381+ are much better
chamber's attack on AV looks genuine. If AV is town, he's made some mistakes
Feels like nitpicking irrelevant nits
True,
5/6

[Kast]

Responding to multi-pages in txt is a pain
False. I announced here
Agree with AH and AV on RF
Vi-I'm not letting you slide, so might as well OMGUS me now
6/6

[Kast]

Unambiguous on AV-RFing-scum/K* inno up until Equi unvoted. Nothing was posted about K* except Equi saying he's null then switching. Despite no changes, you
1/4

[Kast]

completely disavow any reads on AV. In same chain, with no cases or points against K* (except that Equi called him null), you declare intent to vote K*
2/4

[Kast]

Unvote was obv a response to Equi switching. Claiming it was about never suspecting AV is a load of BS.Claiming it was a response to new arguments against
3/4

[Kast]

K* aimed at clearing up your misunderstanding is a flat out lie since there were

no cases

between your "lack of understanding" and your switch to K*.
4/4

[Kast]

Vi-1462 shows explicit suspicion of AV. I left out link w/your thoughts on k* (btwn which the only mention was Hero asking if your read included active S/H)

[Kast]

considering I was voting him over k*?

That is a lie/technicality. Link in 1463 is a 4post chain, post 4 contains the unvote. Claiming your vote is not for

[Kast]

suspicion but rather for deadline reasons is disavowing your suspicion. You unambiguously drop AV & setup for switch to k*.

To be clear, you admit your posts

[Kast]

meant to hide your real reason: you perceived (& believed) but wanted to hide a softclaim

RE:AV Claim-
If that was a softclaim (doubt it), then agree AV should

[Kast]

answer chamber's question.

Hero-offtopic
Given your return to my-wagon & thoughts in QT, I'm more confidant that 2nd link IDs a potential tell than 1st link.

[Kast]

@Hero-
If you're referring to the offtopic discussion, it's directly in response to your request. If not, no clue what you are referring to.

[Kast]

K:His scum meta includes

"resigning" to mislynch a non-suspect

H:No! Examples?
K:E1, E2
H:E1 is slightly valid, but E2 is 100% wrong
K:

Disagree, E2 is more dir-

[Kast]

ectly applicable than E1

H:

Maybe you're right but I don't understand you. Are you being intentionally confusing with references?

K:

You asked for the references!

[Kast]

"

Examples?

" is a request. E1 and E2 are the only "layered references" that I'm aware of. Everything else is direct links to referenced posts within this thread.

[Kast]

I'm amused by
H: Provide links to meta.
K: E1, E2
H: *Discusses links*
K: *Discusses links*
H: I don't get it. Are you trying to confuse town with your links?

[Kast]

Hero-Hero-It's not, you grudgingly switched ONLY WHEN obv townies pressured you. You KNEW nopoint wasn't scummy,implied it w/reluctance to switch, & confirmed in QT

[Kast]

AV-Cop/non-cop would be most relevant.
Hero-Did you miss where Vi asked me to clarify those posts?

[Kast]

Partial agreement, if AV is town, scum obviously know he's a PR. Type is unknown. If he's scum, it's all in the air.

[Kast]

AV-Thanks
Chamber-Since AV so easily and readily

believed

that Equi had claimed cop, I didn't think AV-cop was at all plausible. Did really think he was a cop?

[Kast]

Hero-You ambiguously called AV's "S/C" obv. From context, the implication is he obv. claimed cop already. How does his denial fit with that?

[Kast]

EBWOP 1519-
Did

you

really think he was a cop?

[Kast]

AV-To be clear, I no longer support claiming anything else, unless you think it necessary to prevent lynching a town PR. I supported to see if you'd false-claim

[Kast]

Hero- Btw, this:

voting a non-scummy player to keep them out of endgame

is a straw man dismissal. That is NOT AT ALL what I IDed as a meta-tell.

[Kast]

I actually ID'd your meta-tell as resigning to lynch someone you don't suspect. I listed 2 examples of non-suspects (endgame liability & non-pro-Town read).

[Kast]

It's a good strategy; it absolves you of most responsibility when the lynchee flips town.

[Kast]

[SCUMTELL]Resigning to lose non-scummy player[/SCUMTELL] as [EXAMPLE1]an endgame liability[/EXAMPLE1] or [EXAMPLE2]because he isnt pro-T[/EXAMPLE2]

Very

clear

[Kast]

You fixating on example 1 and ignoring example 2 as well as the scumtell is perplexing.

[Kast]

Nothing concrete.
He claimed non-cop
RFed Equi twice
He said IF he is going to be lynched, THEN he will explain why he posted something that looks like fishing

[Kast]

Hero-Please reconcile this and this. In context, the only role publicly attributed was cop. If you privately figured his role, that isn't obvious by definition.

[Kast]

RF-
K calls out Hero's for meta scum tell in this game
H Asks examples & posits Kscum lying about meta
K Gives 2 ex.
H Agree1 disagree1 admits K using meta=null

[Kast]

NET
H post is potential tell
K using meta is null

[Kast]

Vi-Lulz! Is that a joke? Clarify if you seriously believe

Towns ALL PLAY PERFECTLY

and never let emotion/bias/preconception affect them.

[Kast]

Hero- Clarify, this implies you really meant AV's role is obvious to Hero (not everyone).
-Why does that make other input unlikely?
--Clarify, despite thinking

[Kast]

AV non-cop-PR, you wanted AV to claim cop/non, but thought others wouldn't?
-Your current stance minorly contradicts this. TBC, are you claiming it was a trap?

[Kast]

Vi-No, there isn't. They aren't mutually exclusive; the former frequently manifests as the latter. You're also jumping ahead; neither exclusively refers to scum

[Kast]

If prob-T is "not being genuine", it's fully consistent to say so & think he's prob-T

Excuse me if I don't follow your arbitrary, self-imposed post restriction

[Kast]

Hero-Response still unclear. Are you saying AV=non-cop was sufficiently obvious or AV=<specific non-cop PR>?

[Kast]

--Clarify, despite thinking AV non-cop-PR, you wanted AV to claim cop/non, but thought others wouldn't?

^This & how does this require Chamber answering first?

[Kast]

Less than a week, AV lynch looks...unlikely
Preferred>>Acceptable>>Beats No Lynch
AV > Vi >> Hero > Chamber = AH >> RF > T = FtF = TF

[Kast]

Nah, you just don't understand it. Suggestion: read the definitions you linked.

False dilemma. Also, I've stated suspicion of you clearly and repeatedly.

[Kast]

Vi-You want to play word games & argue semantics, have fun. Emotional compromise often results in bias, that's why I called out TF.

[Kast]

AV's initial vote is likely scum
His rolefishing was blatant
The defense of likely includes a buddy

[Kast]

Vi-"initial vote"
AV Fished for vig/cop/other. No free pass for "potential weird role that justifies fishing"
? AV defense feels off, no clue what you're saying

[Kast]

AV's "S/C" doesn't read as 1; people read too much into it & gave him a "get out of jail free card". Also, he's already stated full/C only @L-1 (as he should)

[Kast]

Hero-Reconcile this and this, given your clarification. If you really believed AV had intentionally & obviously S/Ced non-cop ALREADY, then why would you think

[Kast]

there was ANY POSSIBILITY of him claiming cop? & how would sticking with an "obvious" S/C be indicative of alignment?

[Kast]

C-This seems odd. I agree that PRs might fish if someone soft claims their PR, but AV's fishing didn't seem in any way related to a counterclaim.

[Kast]

This is reasonable. This is silly. A non-JK, non-Cop PR who most trust is an obvious NK. Assuming scum will not NKing claimed & believed PRs is just bad play

[Kast]

Vi-I assumed you meant what you posted. Clarify if your objection is actually "Kast is scummy for not demanding a fullclaim from his top suspect" as implied

[Kast]

AV said he can explain why he RFed if necessary. AV-cop trying to nail Equi for a fakeclaim makes sense as a S/C, but context argued against & AV confirmed it

[Kast]

People believed it was an S/C & dropped suspicion. He had no option BUT to play along; if he said it wasn't a S/C he'd be back on the chopping block

[Kast]

You also missed half my post. I'm sure you'd love me to demand a premature fullclaim so you can graduate from craplogic and semantic attacks to substance

[Kast]

It's anti-town to press AV (anyone) to full claim @L-3 w/o additional support, regardless of affiliation. The cop/non-cop claim had a specific purpose.

[Kast]

Hero

AV-town

& scum

couldn't be a cop b/c they were okay with thinking Equi was a cop.

You treat a null as a not-scum

Your answer doesn't address my questions

[Kast]

Vi-Buying time. If Equi didn't unvote, it's unlikely k* wagon would have moved anywhere. TF & FtF (prolly others) are good enough players to compromise lynch over no-lynch.

[Kast]

EBWOP too long truncated portion:
over no-lynch.

[Kast]

Irrelevant, non of my suspects S/Ced.

Btw, your suspect "S/Ced" so you believed him & dropped suspicion. Hypocrite much?

[Kast]

AV bought time via posting that he'll explain later. No more, no less.

[Kast]

Vi-I doubt AV has any explanation; no standard PR explains his cop-fish. He gave an explanation that was doubted so he bought time to think of something else.

[Kast]

I agree that as scum he would claim Cop tho.

TBC, you agree

w/Hero

that AV-scum would claim cop. Implicitly you disagree w/Hero that AV S/Ced non-cop PR. Yes?

[Kast]

I

think AV's RFing made a cop claim implausible. This holds for AV-town non-cop & AV-scum. I agree if AV claimed cop => AV-scum. Claiming non-cop is null.

[Kast]

Was this unclear?

[Kast]

AV-Not directly. I had a scum read on Korts. Vi's switch from you didn't match his posts @the time, +scum. Vi later claimed it was due to perceived S/Ced which

[Kast]

mitigates, but doesn't fully remove scumpoints. Some posts from Vi feel like intentional misinterpretation & attempts to force facts to fit preconceptions.

[Kast]

Enjoy your weekends. UNVOTE:

RF should consider defending/claiming before deadline.

[Kast]

Skimmed & thoughts
-RF claim plausible
--Wasn't that "early", mountains of molehills
--Agree w/TF that VT claim shouldn't change preclaim beliefs

[Kast]

-Wasn't hyperbole, was flat out misrep
-ftf has been low activity, but reasonable when active

With 2 days we need to settle on a candidate.
VOTE: AH

[Kast]

Hero-note on ftf is unrelated to RF
RF was active until he forgot about game. After he remembered, he's been active again
Clarify what you mean by controversial

[Kast]

I meant what I posted; your ex reads too much into it. RF's claim doesn't contradict prior posts or sound fake.

[Kast]

Aside from that, RF's early day posts didn't

avoid

stances or controversy. People didn't engage him much, but same is true for most players.

[Kast]

Re-checked links, I misread 1855 as defense against 1843. The misrep chain is here.

[Kast]

flip that order...

[Kast]

TF-Are you talking about FtF or RF?

[Kast]

@Mod-

Extend if you're giving replacement a week. Don't bother if it's <2 days

Also, work got massively busy yesterday. Gonna be low activity next couple days

[Kast]

TF-The posts are unclear & can apply to RF
RF-Did you miss this? This sounds like appeasement...the posts themselves are easily misunderstood (but TF clarified)

[Kast]

TF-Never said FtF was strong-T. Few posts but they contain Pro-T reasoning & effective Qs to build understanding. Asking specifics=N/A; it's general behavior

[Kast]

RE: RF, point out his avoiding controversy. RF in iso takes positions & comments on all major issues while he was active in D1

[Kast]

Hero-Your post ostensibly sounds like an attempt to force TF to move his vote. Are you now claiming it's meant to form a new wagon?

[Kast]

Left out link:
"Your post"

[Kast]

@Hero-
Current game D2: Mislynch >> No Lynch
T / F ?

[Kast]

21) If the required number of votes is not reached by deadline, there will be NO LYNCH.

Your actions looks aimed at no lynch.

[Kast]

@Mod-

Btw, shouldn't extension questions be PMed? Generic public Groupthink trumps what might be best for the game.

[Kast]

It's unsporting because it takes my post out of context. Mod asked whether he should replace (& extend) OR not replace.

RF-D/L replacement often gets a free

[Kast]

pass if he can't catchup, moreso if the wagon is weak. It's a viable scum move; at worst you're lynched anyway, if not you get a free pass/clean slate/mislynch.

[Kast]

Lulz @Vi whining cuz he got caught & can't do anything about it.

[Kast]

Checking in, been busy.
TF-You assume too much
WW- welcome
H, RF, & TF are right, WW's

reasons

for voting RF are BS
No surprise, again Vi tries to supplicate

[Kast]

by offering to drop suspicion, & when I don't roll over he 180s & calls me scum.
Vi likes using links out of context. Half the links are unrelated to his claims

Truncated. ~~NS

[Kast]

Not around for the weekend, if we get another extension great. I'll check in later today. I'm leaving my vote on WW as thats at least a viable compromise wagon

[Kast]

Tasky-There's no support for AV wagon.
If there's support for a Vi wagon, I'll switch when I check in later. Doesn't seem likely {Chamber, Tasky, ?}

[Kast]

Just noticed/realized this was don. Dead player QT was just me and Equi, since equi said he's fine sharing it, here it is:
http://www.quicktopic.com/45/H/T3P2FL3dZnX

Hero-
Your investigation of Vi explains your behavior.

TF-
Agree that pretty much everyone accepting Tasky-VI-town seemed like a major point that killed us. Also agree that the MD thread about an on-going game seemed to imply Tasky-town.

Mod-
A Task modkill for a pretty cut-and-dry violation of discussing the game outside of thread would have been appropriate. I think even those of us who were townies and thought Task was town would have accepted/understood it. You had some incredible patience.

Tasky-
Good job fooling everyone.