Newbie 694 (over)

[Xtoxm]

Happy new year btw guys!

[ClockworkRuse]

What do you mean by "not on the wagon?" CarnCarn voted for _over.

Westbrook did not vote for _over, though. Westbrook also has not voted since day 1. Why did you focus on CarnCarn and not Westbrook?


I wrote a macro to go through the games for me, so it's not as much work as it looks like.

I thought I saw that he unvoted and wasn't voting at the hammer yesterday. That was my mistake. My main point about that is I am slightly suspicious of anyone who wasn't on the wagon yesterday, thinking that it may have been an attempt for scum to say "I didn't vote for a town player! I'm not scum."

My apologies CarnCarn, I just misread the vote history.

Looking forward to Xtoxm detoxing and getting to our questions.

[GIEFF]

What do you mean by "not on the wagon?" CarnCarn voted for _over.

Westbrook did not vote for _over, though. Westbrook also has not voted since day 1. Why did you focus on CarnCarn and not Westbrook?


I wrote a macro to go through the games for me, so it's not as much work as it looks like.

I thought I saw that he unvoted and wasn't voting at the hammer yesterday. That was my mistake. My main point about that is I am slightly suspicious of anyone who wasn't on the wagon yesterday, thinking that it may have been an attempt for scum to say "I didn't vote for a town player! I'm not scum."

My apologies CarnCarn, I just misread the vote history.

Looking forward to Xtoxm detoxing and getting to our questions.

Why did you answer the part of my question about CarnCarn, but ignore the part about Westbrook? Are you slightly suspicious of Westbrook?

[Xtoxm]

Xtoxm, if this is really why you find hambargarz pro-town, why didn't you say so in post 407 (when you said the exact same thing about me), instead of implying you had already given different reasons, when you had in fact given no reasoning at all?

Well, I knew i'd already discussed my thoughts on Ham. I thought there was no need to say more. I guess there was.

Is your point just that you haven't seen him do anything scummy?

No, certainly not. It is that he looks town.

Xtoxm, do you have any comment on the points I have brought up about ham?

I have to admit that I have not read them. You post a lot...I'll take a look at them (probably after this post) and see if I have anyhting to say.

Xtoxm, if you feel that neither player has shown much scummy or pro-town behavior, why are you so sure ham is town and CR is scum?

My answering of previous question should clear this up.

Xtoxm, could you look back at CR's posts again, and try to link to (via quoting) the things you saw that convinced you he was scum?

As I recall, I became "convinced" with the way he responded to my expressing suspicion of him.

Waiting for Xtoxm, checking to see if he is being active in other games at the moment.

I'll have you know this is fairly null for me (well with my current alignment spread, or lack thereof, in my current games). I post more in games i'm enjoying more.

The IC thing - Yeh, it's possible. In reality, the chance of an IC pair (in a 2-IC game such as this) is less than 1/81, I would think, but it's all pretty meaningless. Any pair can happen.

[Xtoxm]

It looks to me like you are trying to lead the town here; you tell the town to decide for itself, but in the very next sentence you tell the town that not all my questions were valid.

Are you saying leading is scummy?

You're next point. There's a big difference between thinking someone is pro-town, and pro-town play. I can totally see where he's coming from. Just because you are talking lots and posting all these vote analysis etc, doesn't mean you can't be scum. I would, however, say you wouldn't be a good lynch until lylo, if you were to be considered, as active players are always better to have around.

and in post 490, you FOS'd Xtoxm for defending you, stating that this isn't the first time he has done so. Am I supposed to believe that Xtoxm went from "low on your scumdar" all the way to an FOS simply because he defended you again? If he's done it before, and you find it scummy, why was he low on your scumdar in post 457?

Very often the way I work is by finding small things, often just one line, that makes me think they're scum. Sometimes one small thing can change my look on a game. This is not scummy. I'm not liking what you have to say about Ham.

Another question, ham; why did you wait until recently to vote for Westbrook? It looks to me like you didn't want to be the first to do so, because you voted in your next post after another player voted for him. As in day one, you used the words "I agree" shortly before your vote statement, and were again the second on the wagon. Your implication that you are doing so to get him back into the game strikes me as an excuse, does not change the fact that you could have done this pages ago, and will not have its intended effect as Westbrook is V/LA until the 6th.

Well this may be a fair point, if you've applied correctly. I don't recall the situation you are referencing, so I don't know. Not wanting to be a certain position to avoid looking scummy is a scum thought process, generally.

ham expressed very little disagreement with Xtoxm and had very little interaction with him throughout the thread (see the middle of Post 471 for examples.

So? How much interaction are you expecting between 2 players that think each other are town?

ham found militant's failure to specify what was scummy about ham suspicious, but not so for Xtoxm's failure to specify what was scummy about CR

A couple points. I did specify. Also, it's often natural for a townie to find someone more suspicious for an attack against them, rather than an attack against someone else, especially if the case is poor. However, I do not feel the cases are comparable. I think Ham responded to this pretty well, anyway.

ham has voted/FOS'd in a similar manner to the only other game he's played on this site, in which he was scum

I may be reading things in the wrong order here, but this has been defeated. I do not wish to see this brought up again.

ham followed Xtoxm's vote to a mislynch on day one

Incorrect. I hammered. Also, why are you saying that this, in itself, is scummy? A townie cannot be lynched with several townie votes on him. This on it's own means nothing. Why did you feel the need to say it?

ham recently voted for Westbrook without presenting any new reasoning; why didn't he vote pages ago?

If anything, i'd call this a town-tell. Scum are happy to sit back and wait, town want to move forward towards getting scum lynched. There can be any multitude of reasons for the pause. I've certainly done similar as town in the past.

Not impressed, Gieff.

Oh, and, yeh. I totally spent 20 hours reading through and constructing this post...

[Xtoxm]

Oh, there was the one point you brought up I submitted on - However I supect it is not as you say it is. Maybe you could reference what you mean?

[hambargarz]

I'll let the town decide on how to take a few of your points raised. Some were valid, but some were "on the edge"

It looks to me like you are trying to lead the town here; you tell the town to decide for itself, but in the very next sentence you tell the town that not all my questions were valid.

I'm entitled to my own opinion just as you were when you stated you're case against me. Give the town some credit GIEFF, they can make their own minds no matter what I say. Again, I find it interesting that you interpret me stating my thoughts as me manipulating the town, presumably, against you. You're attack kind of betrays you're train of thought. It is as if you are worried about the town being swayed by my arguments. Arguments, I might add, that you alone have solicited. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be worried about from the other players scrutiny.

--------------------

(which implies I am the second-most-scummy in your eyes). If my play has been "very pro-town," why have you shown so much suspicion towards me?

I've explained every instance of suspicious behaviour from you. I believe I've explained them all quite clearly so I don't understand the question. The question shouldn't be WHY am I suspicous of you, it should be WHY have you given me reason to be. If you are referring to my conflicting points concerning arguments for you pro and anti town as they relate to me suspecting you of being scum, the correspondence isn't so black and white, anti-town and pro-town player doesn't directly correlate to scum and town. It's true I have points swaying back and forth, I'm leaning town at the moment and haven't voted you, as you know, but that doesn't stop me from having suspicions against you. Things aren't always so black and white and opinions change as discoveries are made.

If your question is actually you refuting any of my points you should be a bit more specific, rather than just ask "why have I shown suspicion towards you?"

-------------------

and in post 490, you FOS'd Xtoxm for defending you, stating that this isn't the first time he has done so. Am I supposed to believe that Xtoxm went from "low on your scumdar" all the way to an FOS simply because he defended you again? If he's done it before, and you find it scummy, why was he low on your scumdar in post 457?

I IGMEOU'd the first time he did it, and FOS'd the second time. People defending other people unsolicited is suspicious to me. Xtoxm has done some questionable things, but overall, he doesn't fit my profile for scum. Everyone has their own profile for scum. Everyone has their own list of scum and town tells. It's not productive for them to always explain all of them in detail as this nullifies the tells. Without giving too much away, Xtoxm simply doesn't match my criteria, Asking me to go into more detail and explain my process helps scum more than the town.

I can relate this also to you're line of questioning that asks players to address points on other players. You've done this with me and I've spoken up about it, and you appear to be doing it with Xtoxm. It is as if you are manipulating me and Xtoxm into defending each other's actions, possibly setting up a scum pair. Wouldn't it be more constructive play to let each player defend their own case rather than pressure other people to?

---------------

Another question, ham; why did you wait until recently to vote for Westbrook? It looks to me like you didn't want to be the first to do so, because you voted in your next post after another player voted for him. As in day one, you used the words "I agree" shortly before your vote statement, and were again the second on the wagon. Your implication that you are doing so to get him back into the game strikes me as an excuse, does not change the fact that you could have done this pages ago, and will not have its intended effect as Westbrook is V/LA until the 6th.

I've always had suspicions on Westbrook, I think I had been clear that he was my top suspect, it was pretty much a vote for him. I probably should have voted earlier but got caught up in the Xtoxm thing. Amished post reminded me of the bigger picture, that their are other suspects (more suspicous suspects). My vote is partly to express this as well.

-----------------

And in summary, here's my responses to GIEFF's summary of "valid" points

I will summarize the points I brought up against ham that remain valid, in general order of what I feel is scummiest:

ham expressed very little disagreement with Xtoxm and had very little interaction with him throughout the thread (see the middle of Post 471 for examples.

There are many points that I disagree with Xtoxm, you are referring solely on the fact that I don't see him as number one scum suspect, ie, disagreeing with YOU. Alot of my defence for Xtoxm has come from you asking it from me. (And I've already expressed my reluctance to do so.) And even if I HAD always agreed with Xtoxm on everything, what does that prove? It simply would mean that I agree with Xtoxm on everything.

[*]ham found militant's failure to specify what was scummy about ham suspicious, but not so for Xtoxm's failure to specify what was scummy about CR

Please read my posts carefully, I've explained this alot of times. Militant did not specify anything, Xtoxm was specific.

[*]ham has voted/FOS'd in a similar manner to the only other game he's played on this site, in which he was scum

Why is this on the list of "valid" points?? This is a null tell and you know it.

[*]ham followed Xtoxm's vote to a mislynch on day one

I was one of the earliest to vote, after CR did. so this point is NOT "valid"

[*]ham recently voted for Westbrook without presenting any new reasoning; why didn't he vote pages ago

I'd say this is the only really valid thing to mention, I've already explained this however in this post.

[hambargarz]

I missed part of this post the first time round in my answer. I have something to add regarding the (second-most-scummy) part that I missed originally when replying.

I believe I already have an FOS on you. I haven't voted for you because you're summaries smell townie to me making militant the more likely scum, but I can't ignore things like this, coupled with you're defending of militant. militant should answer for himself, only scum have a reason to defend someone.

(which implies I am the second-most-scummy in your eyes). If my play has been "very pro-town," why have you shown so much suspicion towards me?

You're a bit jumpy here and taking that post a bit out of context, that post was from day 1. If I was implying you were 2nd most scummy, the situation is quite different now. Despite some suspicious behaviour on you're part you appear to be actively scum-hunting, so you are actually pretty low on my list of top suspects to lynch for now.

[ClockworkRuse]

What do you mean by "not on the wagon?" CarnCarn voted for _over.

Westbrook did not vote for _over, though. Westbrook also has not voted since day 1. Why did you focus on CarnCarn and not Westbrook?


I wrote a macro to go through the games for me, so it's not as much work as it looks like.

I thought I saw that he unvoted and wasn't voting at the hammer yesterday. That was my mistake. My main point about that is

I am slightly suspicious of anyone who wasn't on the wagon yesterday,

thinking that it may have been an attempt for scum to say "I didn't vote for a town player! I'm not scum."

My apologies CarnCarn, I just misread the vote history.

Looking forward to Xtoxm detoxing and getting to our questions.

Why did you answer the part of my question about CarnCarn, but ignore the part about Westbrook? Are you slightly suspicious of Westbrook?

That was addressing your question, but I should have made it more clear.

Xtoxm, what about the way I reacted convinced you I was scum? I still don't see any case and you certainly seem certain I'm scum.

[Xtoxm]

Because all you did was kick back at me, and vote me, and I have already explained beyond that.

I checked up West, he appears to be active on the site in another game.

[Amished]

Happy new year, and all that jazz. Sorry I haven't been around for a bit here

Anyways, I'll start with the recent posts and such.

CR, in 526, you stated you're suspicious of people not being on the wagon. First of all, only 5 people *can* be on the wagon (unless people keep voting after the hammer vote, which I wouldn't think would ever happen), so 3 people not voting for him instantly gives you a non-scum vote if by chance no scum vote for a wagon. Seeing as the objective of the scum is to try to build wagons and make them go through, I think that no scum voting for them is even more unlikely, making your supicious attitude towards non-voters even more irrational in my eyes. Why would you think that people who aren't voting for the person you are/were are scum, especially since who you voted for was known to be town to them at the time.

Hmm, a lot of back and forth, not much I feel I'm able to comment on as it's accusations between GIEFF, CR, ham and xtoxm.

Was CarnCarn v/la around this time too? Hopefully West will come back in and contribute as well, as nothing anybody else has said yet makes me more suspicious of them over WOU.

As this is still my first online mafia game, is it typical to have people say who their most suspicious is from top to bottom, or is that more of a stupid move to allow the scum to know where they stand? Obviously voting shows exactly where that one person stands, but I don't know if the IGMEOY's/FOS's/HOS's really mean anything. From my point of view, it's more of a warning to scum to not do what that person did, and therefore stay off that particular radar. It also could be just a stylistic thing too...

[CarnCarn]

Was CarnCarn v/la around this time too?

For a little while, yes. After that, I've been here and just observing the quote wars and waiting for Xtoxm to answer the questions outstanding. I see he's done this, so I think it's time to reread the last few pages or so and refresh myself on the context of everything. However, I'm going to be V/LA until Wednesday, so this won't happen too soon.

[Xtoxm]

Mod: Can we have alive list updated please

[hasdgfas]

Mod: Can we have alive list updated please

yes, you also get:

VOTE COUNT:

Xtoxm(2): GIEFF, ClockworkRuse
ClockworkRuse(1): Xtoxm
Westbrook_Owns_U(2): Amished, hambargarz


Not Voting: CarnCarn, Westbrook_Owns_U
7 alive, 4 to lynch



Prodding Westbrook, even though he's V/LA for a couple more days.

[Westbrook_Owns_U]

Sorry, I have been, and still am, V/LA. It's very hard to read up on this game, that's why I have not posted. It's active and I haven't been keeping constant watch on my games. I'll try to read up and post some analysis tommorow. I really don't have the time today.

[GIEFF]

Been out wedding planning this weekend; I will try to catch up on everything by tomorrow.

[GIEFF]

Well, I knew i'd already discussed my thoughts on Ham. I thought there was no need to say more. I guess there was.

Please link me to the post where you did this.

I was unable to find it after three re-reads of the entire thread.

ham expressed very little disagreement with Xtoxm and had very little interaction with him throughout the thread (see the middle of Post 471 for examples.

So? How much interaction are you expecting between 2 players that think each other are town?

It's clear you didn't look at Post 471. It goes beyond the level of just limited interaction.

ham followed Xtoxm's vote to a mislynch on day one

Incorrect. I hammered. Also, why are you saying that this, in itself, is scummy? A townie cannot be lynched with several townie votes on him. This on it's own means nothing. Why did you feel the need to say it?

You were first to vote militant. ham was second, using the same reasoning you did. This, in itself, may not be scummy, but coupled with the odd behavior you two have shown toward each other throughout the thread, it becomes more so.


If you could try to do this, Xtoxm, it would be a huge help to the town:

Xtoxm, could you look back at CR's posts again, and try to link to (via quoting) the things you saw that convinced you he was scum?

What specifically about the way he reacted to your vote made you think he was scum? Show me the post. Also, show me a post that made you vote for him in the first place. I need to see SOMETHING. Even if you can't explain exactly why you find CR scummy, just the post that gave you the gut reaction would be helpful.


---------------------------------

Again, I find it interesting that you interpret me stating my thoughts as me manipulating the town, presumably, against you. You're attack kind of betrays you're train of thought. It is as if you are worried about the town being swayed by my arguments.

Not at all. You told the town to decide if my points were not constructive, and in the very next sentence you told the town that my points were in fact not constructive, in essence deciding for them. Also, this is not an "argument," this is an attempt by you to wriggle out of my questions.

I'll let the town decide on whether or not hambargarz was attempting to wriggle out of my questions by appealing to the majority. He didn't at first, but in the below quote, he did:

I'll let the town decide on how to take a few of your points raised. Some were valid, but some were "on the edge"

If your question is actually you refuting any of my points you should be a bit more specific, rather than just ask "why have I shown suspicion towards you?"

I saw an inconsistency, and pointed it out. You claim I am "very pro-town," yet have IGMEOY'd AND FOS'd me TODAY. TODAY. The only reason I can see to FOS someone you feel is pro-town is to get them to back off. Here are some things you have said about me TODAY, the same day you aside that you agree my play is "very pro-town":

1. This is obviously true for all town, No one has to say this, why would you mention this about yourself?
   

   IGMEOY: GIEFF

2. I should ask you why you DO regret you're vote, would you have voted differently? why didn't you say anything, why DID you place that vote? In fact, I would say it's somewhat of a scum tell to talk about you're previous votes that way. +1 FOS: GIEFF

3. It is as if you are manipulating me and Xtoxm into defending each other's actions, possibly setting up a scum pair.

4. I wouldn't drop the possibility that GIEFF is scum trying very divert attention to other players.

5. "on the edge" as in those last points were pushing it (towards scummy sensationalisation). I'll let the town decide on how to take a few of your points raised. Some were valid, but some were "on the edge"

6. You're attack kind of betrays you're train of thought. It is as if you are worried about the town being swayed by my arguments. Arguments, I might add, that you alone have solicited. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be worried about from the other players scrutiny.

Wouldn't it be more constructive play to let each player defend their own case rather than pressure other people to?

I have asked you to discuss Xtoxm to discuss the points I brought up about you (and vice-versa) because I have found your lack of interaction suspicious, as I mentioned in Post 471.

I noticed something in the post before the quoted one that I didn't like. I am going to re read tommorow but I am also going to adress the thing I noticed.

Here we have the reason, but it's important to note the context. This reason was given AFTER his reread, and AFTER he was pressured to answer for himself.

What??? He says in that very post that he is going to re-read tomorrow. Why did you say this reason was given AFTER the re-read? You are misrepresenting the situation.

I will repeat a point I raised that I don't think you answered, ham:

In post 457, you said:

To be honest Xtoxm is low on my scumdar.

and in post 490, you FOS'd Xtoxm for defending you, stating that this isn't the first time he has done so. Am I supposed to believe that Xtoxm went from "low on your scumdar" all the way to an FOS simply because he defended you again?

If he's done it before, and you find it scummy, why was he low on your scumdar in post 457?

CarnCarn: Can you tell me why Xtoxm is you're number one suspect? is it only because of his delayed answer to GIEFF/CR's question?

Why do YOU feel Xtoxm is suspicious? Is it ONLY because of his delayed answers to questions? If not, why did you assume this was CarnCarn's reason? Why would you even phrase the question that way?

Unvote

Vote: hambargarz

[hambargarz]

You told the town to decide if my points were not constructive, and in the very next sentence you told the town that my points were in fact not constructive, in essence deciding for them. Also, this is not an "argument," this is an attempt by you to wriggle out of my questions.

I'll let the town decide on whether or not hambargarz was attempting to wriggle out of my questions by appealing to the majority. He didn't at first, but in the below quote, he did:

I can see what you're saying here, but I don't really agree with you. In my opinion the town makes up their own mind and chooses for themselves wether or not to put any value on what I say. If you've chosen to interpret it your way, there's not really much I can do about that except state my own interpretation again and again.

I saw an inconsistency, and pointed it out. You claim I am "very pro-town," yet have IGMEOY'd AND FOS'd me TODAY. TODAY. The only reason I can see to FOS someone you feel is pro-town is to get them to back off. Here are some things you have said about me TODAY, the same day you aside that you agree my play is "very pro-town":

Ok, I'm beginning to see why you're confused here. Having pro-town play doesn't mean you are not suspicous. Scum can play pro-town just like townies can play anti-town. In fact, players that go out of their way to appear very pro-town is somewhat a minor scum tell I look out for. You'll note, that I'm careful to say "pro-town" rather than words like "town", "innocent" etc. There's a big difference.

I have asked you to discuss Xtoxm to discuss the points I brought up about you (and vice-versa) because I have found your lack of interaction suspicious, as I mentioned in Post 471.

I thought I did answer you, anyway I'll answer again. Xtoxm is a bit low on my priorities as he's not acting that scummy in my opinion. My only interaction with him is to IGMEOU and FOS him when he looked like he was defending me. Whilst I don't agree with some points raised, I did agree with others, which indirectly pressured him to answer. Xtoxm's answers (to the original points) were pretty much what I expected and are verging between null-tell and suspicous, but not enough for me to suspect him over CR and Westbrook.

In fact, Xtoxm has continued to express his belief that I'm town, even after the suspicion it's drawn. A scum player would be careful to avoid behaviour that was looking scummy as they would like to appear town. This is consistent with Xtoxm's early play which I can't help but get town vibes from.

Here we have the reason, but it's important to note the context. This reason was given AFTER his reread, and AFTER he was pressured to answer for himself.

What??? He says in that very post that he is going to re-read tomorrow. Why did you say this reason was given AFTER the re-read? You are misrepresenting the situation.

I don't understand why you don't see it, other players expressed agreement with me on this point. I can't really explain it any clearer. Obviously I can't say for sure as I'm not standing next to him, but his play highly suggested it. Actually I would go so far as to say it was pretty much certain.


I will repeat a point I raised that I don't think you answered, ham:

In post 457, you said:

To be honest Xtoxm is low on my scumdar.

and in post 490, you FOS'd Xtoxm for defending you, stating that this isn't the first time he has done so. Am I supposed to believe that Xtoxm went from "low on your scumdar" all the way to an FOS simply because he defended you again?

If he's done it before, and you find it scummy, why was he low on your scumdar in post 457?

And, I'll repeat my answer, Xtoxm is suspicous sure, but there's other more suspicous players. You can't start voting everyone in every direction you have to prioritise.

Xtoxm's first unsolicited defense earned him an IGMEOU. I could have FOS'd him sure, but his play read town to me. unsolicited defense is somewhat a minor tell anyway. Now later, Xtoxm does it again. Remembering his past IGMEOU, I turn my IGMEOU into an FOS because it wasn't a one off thing. My play is consistent and logical. I don't see any weight in these points you're making.

CarnCarn: Can you tell me why Xtoxm is you're number one suspect? is it only because of his delayed answer to GIEFF/CR's question?

Why do YOU feel Xtoxm is suspicious? Is it ONLY because of his delayed answers to questions? If not, why did you assume this was CarnCarn's reason? Why would you even phrase the question that way?

Xtoxm is suspicious, just like every other player here. He wouldn't be my most suspicious though. I assumed this was CarnCarn's reason because I re-read all his posts and saw that this was the only thing he could have. And I've phrased the question that way to both confirm if I'm right or not, and to express suspicion of CarnCarn if it was indeed the case. It was kind of a scum-hunting poke to fish for CarnCarn's reaction, which you've kinda destroyed here, for reasons I'm not clear (ie, are you making a point here against me or are you protecting CarnCarn?).

[GIEFF]

OK, I think I'm satisfied for now, hambargarz. I was leaning back toward town on you a couple of posts ago, but wanted to see how you would react to a vote. While I don't agree with you on all your answers or summaries of past action, I do believe that what you are saying is truly your opinion.

Also, the fact that nobody came to your defense (not even Xtoxm, until I prodded him to) or posted much of anything else at all while we were going back and forth makes me think the scum were content to let me continue to burrow in on a townie.

Unvote

Re: CarnCarn and your question for him. It looked odd based on the phrasing, and the word "only," as if you were suggesting more reason was needed, which looked like a defense of Xtoxm. I did not perceive this as a scum-hunt poke to CarnCarn, and I'm sorry if I ruined it.

In any case, CarnCarn, can you answer the question? Why you are suspicious of Xtoxm?

I am going to try to tone down my post lengths for now; I think all these posts and "quote wars" (as CarnCarn put it) are making it tough for others to follow the game (or at least giving them a valid excuse to lurk, which is also bad).

I would like to hear some original thoughts from other players. I don't feel like much has been accomplished in the last week or two, which is partly my fault due to taking so long to be persuaded by ham's defense, but I hope we can pick it up from here on out.

[CarnCarn]

I'm suspicious of Xtoxm for a number of reasons. The delay to answer questions is only one part. Here are the other ones:

1. Quick hammer before people had a chance to react to the Dipstick claim.

2. Blatant buddying/defending of hambargarz (Note: this is suspicious regardless of whether ham is scum or town).

3. Deflecting suspicion onto the other IC by suggesting the NK "suits him," without offering any semblence of an explanation until it was dragged out of him tooth and nail (this one could be tunneling on my part, though).

4. Major lurking while active in other games.

5. Calling CR scum for voting him (looks like OMGUS, more attempts to deflect suspicion onto anyone other than him).

And I'm sure I'm missing some other things, too.

[Xtoxm]

I've thought a little about this game, and I think what we may have is either a W-CR or W-CC pairing. Either way, W appears to be trying to lurk by, and I think him being lynched today would be useful.

CC raises suspicioun with his "Major lurking" accusation on me, which is nothing but a blatant lie.

Unvote Vote West

[ClockworkRuse]

Re-reading/posting to come tomorrow. I just found out that the site was back up.

[CarnCarn]

CC raises suspicioun with his "Major lurking" accusation on me, which is nothing but a blatant lie.

I believe there were long stretches in this game where you did not post while you posted in others. True or False? Is that lurking or not?

And why do you think W_O_U is

trying

to lurk?

[Xtoxm]

False.

[GIEFF]

Xtoxm, at one point I counted a stretch of

40 posts

in other games while we were waiting for your answers in this one.