Mini 934 - Troubles at Smiths&Catharts (Game Over!)

[Pie_is_good]

SK's points against massclaiming are:
-It outs our power roles, which is bad because scum will know who to kill.
-Scum will just claim vanilla.

The first point is legit and I think basically everyone has acknowledged it. With a gunsmith already outed, the point is much weaker - scum doesn't stand nearly as much to gain - but sure, this is the obvious drawback to massclaiming.

The second point is silly. Of course scum are going to lie about their roles, and if you're saying we shouldn't massclaim

because we haven't given them the time to prep a power role claim

you might need to think about that one again.

That said, I don't necessarily agree with Fate that opposition to massclaim is scummy. In my experience, opposition to massclaim is typically indicative of dumb, not necessarily scum.


...and I would venture to say that the "disparity" between my SK suspicion and unwillingness to vote is a bit silly as well. I'm obviously not willing to lynch you right now, else I would be voting for you.

You

said that you weren't going to vote until you had a better handle on the game. That's exactly what I'm doing right now; I'm just allowing myself to have suspects in the meantime.

[Pie_is_good]

Oh man I am eating the GREATEST Buffalo Chicken Sandwich right now. I mean, this thing is freaking

unbelievable

. I have no idea why I don't order this more often.

[Thor665]

The scum who claim as vanilla will be in the easy suspect pool of the vanilla townies and won't be able to falseclaim as a power role later in endgame situations.

Do you think the scum don't have any power? What's to stop them from then just making sure that whatever power roles town-sided are taken out?

I do not know how much power the scum have - but I tend to see worst case as likely a roleblocker or maybe some scum investigation role. I do not see them having multiple kill powers in a game of this size. That means worst case is one dead power role (investigative) and one blocked power role (defensive). If we have multiple defensives then we get our investigatives off, and if we have multiple investigatives we get them off instead. Also, since I believe in a roleblocker as a reasonable possibility - Sotty isn't giving us any more info at this point anyway. Plus we'll be in a situation to not waste time maybe lynching a power role which can narrow our field some more and hopefully provide more accuracy in this Day's lynch.

That said, there is a clearly large portion of the group who are against the mass claim (I have it as 4-5 against and even if Cyberbob goes pro Massclaim I don't see that as a ratio to demand it at) - so I am content to drop the assertions that we should at this time.

@Thor: Ah, I missed your "Ray is grasping at straws" post. If you felt two out of three votes were poorly reasoned, I can understand why you felt against the bandwagon as a whole. That does remove part of my suspicion against you. What do you think about Locke's argument that Kthx overjustified his vote though?

Since you identified me as someone who often posts up large amounts of info before making a vote I think this won't come as a surprise - I considered the "tell" neutral at best. It didn't seem an unreasonable case for Kthx to make and I didn't see the inherent scum tell of providing 'too much information for a vote' Also, as further discussion with Kthx showed, he was very big into his lynch for info concept - I disagreed with it, but I considered it safe to believe it was a regular part of his meta and thus wasn't a scumtell as Locke believed it to be.

@Thor: As SK said, what points?

As I have already said to Kerrigan when she asked - getting you talking, making a stance, and I personally do see energy scored when you admit you're okay with a wagon but have no real scum read on the wagonee in question.

The scum who claim as vanilla will be in the easy suspect pool of the vanilla townies and won't be able to falseclaim as a power role later in endgame situations.

Why is claiming a vanilla townie putting oneself in the "easy" suspect pool? I fail to see where you draw this conclusion. In my mind, trying to deduce the alignment of an alleged vanilla townie is harder than trying to deduce the alignment of an alleged power role, since we can't use role information to potentially trip up someone.

Switch 'easy' to 'obvious' and I believe my sentence will hold the same intent I had wished it to have and will also answer your question. I feel that Scum claiming PRs will be under a lot of pressure to maintain that claim, and scum who choose to go for the quick hide in vanilla will receive more immediate scumhunting upon them which will help us find them. Does this grok with you?

"If I did something different, would you still think I'm scummy?" What purpose does that serve? SK, did you hope to find some telling reaction from Thor to this question? Hmmm I see Thor hasn't even answered this question. So I'd like you to hold off on answering me until he responds, but I want to hear your thoughts on his response.

As Kerrigan pointed out, this was directed at Copper, not me. If it makes you happy my response would be; no, it wouldn't have affected my current vote if she had maintained her activity levels but had also voted. I can accept the game is difficult to read, but the inability to have added anything at this point seems exceedingly sketchy to me.

[SaintKerrigan]

-Scum will just claim vanilla.
<snip>
The second point is silly. Of course scum are going to lie about their roles,

and if you're saying we shouldn't massclaim because we haven't given them the time to prep a power role claim you might need to think about that one again.

Where did you infer that I was saying we shouldn't massclaim because we didn't give scum enough time to cook up a fakeclaim? Why on earth would I say something to that effect as a member of either faction?

One of the main points of massclaiming is to lock people in on their claims, and then analyze them brutally in light of their claimed role. This is why it's much simpler for scum to claim vanilla in a massclaim; it gives them a lot less to live up to. It makes town's job that much harder, because we can't use slips in power role information and the like to ferret out the lying scum.

...and I would venture to say that the "disparity" between my SK suspicion and unwillingness to vote is a bit silly as well. I'm obviously not willing to lynch you right now, else I would be voting for you. You said that you weren't going to vote until you had a better handle on the game. That's exactly what I'm doing right now; I'm just allowing myself to have suspects in the meantime.

A SaintKerrigan lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but for reasons other than lurkitude.

The latter quote is what you said earlier, and it implies that you would be willing to lynch me, but for reasons other than "lurkitude." Later, when asked to provide those "other reasons," you gave them, but with a tag stating that you weren't willing to lynch me over them. This is where the disparity arises. You state that you have reasons that would suffice for being willing to lynch me, but you later give those reasons and say you

aren't

willing to lynch me over them. Looks contradictory in my eyes.

Also, your attempt to equate the actions above with my unwillingness to vote until I have sufficient data is duly noted.

[SaintKerrigan]

Switch 'easy' to 'obvious' and I believe my sentence will hold the same intent I had wished it to have and will also answer your question. I feel that Scum claiming PRs will be under a lot of pressure to maintain that claim, and scum who choose to go for the quick hide in vanilla will receive more immediate scumhunting upon them which will help us find them. Does this grok with you?

I grok.

...

...we grok God.

[Thor665]

I can see SK and Pie as scum, will say why later.

So far though I find SK scummy.

I can see a Soc/Charter/Pie team.

I'm as dumb as a stump so I have to ask...buh? I really can't tell where you're going with all this. Please expound.

[Pie_is_good]

I personally do see energy scored when you admit you're okay with a wagon but have no real scum read on the wagonee in question.

I don't know what "energy scored" means. I also don't know where you're getting that impression. I've been saying that I do have a scum read on the wagonee in question, but that this could very easily be overruled when I actually, y'know, read the thread.

Where did you infer that I was saying we shouldn't massclaim because we didn't give scum enough time to cook up a fakeclaim? Why on earth would I say something to that effect as a member of either faction?

I inferred it from the fact that no scum in their right mind would all claim townie, so I thought

you

thought they were doing so out of panic and discoordination. I now realize that that's not your argument, although your argument isn't much better (if scum all claims townie, we know our power roles to be clean).

Also, as I've said before, the massclaim debate is completely divorced from me finding you scummy.

The latter quote is what you said earlier, and it implies that you would be willing to lynch me, but for reasons other than "lurkitude."

My quote was "An SK lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world." You seem to be reading that as "I WANT SK DEAD RIGHT THIS INSTANT." I was voicing my feelings on the emerging SK wagon. It 0% implies that "I would be willing to lynch you." It implies that if I had to vote right then it would be for you, but obviously I didn't want to vote at all, otherwise I would have.

Also, your attempt to equate the actions above with my unwillingness to vote until I have sufficient data is duly noted.

Err ... yes? That's

exactly

what I'm saying! We're both unwilling to vote until we have more information, yet somehow it's not okay when

I

do it.

[Pie_is_good]

Actually, SK, let me throw the question back at you. You're clearly suspicious of me, yet you're not voting for me. Why is that not a disparity?

[SaintKerrigan]

(if scum all claims townie, we know our power roles to be clean)

If the scum all claim townie, that does

not

mean that the town knows the power roles are clean, as they don't know whether the power roles are fakeclaiming in the first place.

My quote was "An SK lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world." You seem to be reading that as "I WANT SK DEAD RIGHT THIS INSTANT." I was voicing my feelings on the emerging SK wagon. It 0% implies that "I would be willing to lynch you."

It implies that if I had to vote right then it would be for you

, but obviously I didn't want to vote at all, otherwise I would have.

That's still a willingness to vote for me (even if you stated you preferred not to vote at that time). What I've been trying to get at is that you've invalidated all the reasons you said you had for considering the prospect of lynching me. You ruled out lurking, and later on you ruled out the "other reasons" you said you had for saying "An SK lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world..."

So why am I even on your suspect list, much less near the top?

Actually, SK, let me throw the question back at you. You're clearly suspicious of me, yet you're not voting for me. Why is that not a disparity?

This is a misrepresentation of the situation. The issue is not with you having me near the top of your suspect list without a vote; the issue lies with you having me

on

your suspect list when you've ruled out the reasons you gave for considering the idea of my lynch. In other words, I don't see any reason why I should be on your suspect list.

As such, my answer to your question is that having a top suspect and not voting for him is perfectly fine. Not having any reasons to have a top suspect and putting him on the list anyway is the problem.

[Pie_is_good]

If the scum all claim townie, that does not mean that the town knows the power roles are clean, as they don't know whether the power roles are fakeclaiming in the first place.

True, but if not very many people claim PR we know the ones who do are more likely to be clean.

That's still a willingness to vote for me

I'm getting tired of this argument. I have explained for like 5 posts straight that yes, I found you scummy, but no, I wasn't willing to vote for you (or anyone, for that matter), no matter how hard you insist otherwise.

and later on you ruled out the "other reasons" you said you had for saying "An SK lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world..."

What? Where do you think I ruled out my "other reasons" (impression that you were saying things people wanted to hear)? I'd say those still stand. I read back over and I haven't a clue where you think I said "wait nevermind."

[Cyberbob]

Alrighty, this actually more "the next morning" from my last post but I was just too tired to focus on anything. I've got limited time today so we'll see how far I get.

Starting from Post 590:

- Copper analyses the Cheshire wagon quite well - even though I wouldn't disagree with her lynch I can still agree that her wagon was a fairly poor one - but in doing so I worry that he might be taking even more pressure off.
- Yeah, I think Locke is reaching a bit with his "you padded your vote too much!" line of attack. Actually I'd say this about most of the people he's attacking.
- I like charter's entry to the game in Post 608.
- Is Post 609 the first time Copper's had to fall back on the "I just feel" line?
- Seems like Sotty's on the same wavelength with regard to Cheshire.
- Ah, Thor jumps off the Cheshire wagon as well and hops onto the Pomegranate one.
- Copper's position on the Pomegranate wagon is a good one. I straight-up don't know about the CSL wagon, I see it almost as a regular lurker lynch so I'm not sure if I'd be rushing to vote him over everyone else either.
- Continued skirmishing between Thor and Copper doesn't feel particularly genuine to me.
- Zorblag's Post 625 is v. good.
- Wow, really don't like Kthxbye's hammer promise. It takes all the responsibility out of his hands and places them on whoever put the person at L-1.
- Don't like Locke's Pomegranate vote, at this point she's basically completely inactive (unless someone's seen her posting elsewhere) so to suddenly up and say that she's dodging questions is a bit lame.
- Oh Ray. Really don't like this new style of play.
- Aaand Thor's right back into pro-Copper mode in Post 638. Why is nobody else picking up on this at the time?
- Absolutely agree with charter's criticism of Copper's reasoning for declaring Cheshire town, it's what I was trying to say but couldn't find the words at the start of this list.
- Ahahahah Copper's sudden declaration of Pomegranate as lynch bait in the same post as his vote is just gorgeous. Particularly as "voting to avoid No Lynch" would have been more than sufficient on its own.
- Thor has what is basically a neutral read on Copper. This is significant as I've found that scum are often more likely to give neutral reads on their partners to give themselves room to then go whichever way town opinion does later on.

And that's the end of Day 1 as well as the end of the time I have for posting right now. It shouldn't take too long to get the rest of the way up to speed the next time I'm at a computer.

[Thor665]

I personally do see energy scored when you admit you're okay with a wagon but have no real scum read on the wagonee in question.

I don't know what "energy scored" means. I also don't know where you're getting that impression. I've been saying that I do have a scum read on the wagonee in question, but that this could very easily be overruled when I actually, y'know, read the thread.

She has a Scumcannon RX (built at Smith & Cathart's I believe) and it fires scumhunting energy. Instead of easily blasting the energy away you are instead absorbing it.

We can call energy points again if you like. Or change the phrase to, I think she's scoring scummy reads on you for me if that makes you happy.

I do have to say - in the debate you and Kerrigan are having the Saint's points make more sense to me then yours and I see the discussion her way. This suggests either you are scum and are wavering around because you got caught out, or at the very least are phrasing things in a very odd way. I'm feeling more of the former.

[Pie_is_good]

I do have to say - in the debate you and Kerrigan are having the Saint's points make more sense to me then yours and I see the discussion her way. This suggests either you are scum and are wavering around because you got caught out, or at the very least are phrasing things in a very odd way. I'm feeling more of the former.

I'm sorry, but we're having a language barrier here. Are you saying ...

-That you agree with Kerrigan that my suspicion of Kerrigan without willingness to vote for Kerrigan is scummy?
-That you agree with Kerrigan that my "I suspect Kerrigan but don't want to vote for anyone yet" argument is contradicted by something I said earlier?
-That my opinions/story have been "wavering" and that's a scumtell?
-That my posts are phrased weirdly and you can't understand what I'm trying to say?

I legitimately didn't understand your post, so if your intended point is none of the above let me know. If it's #1 or #2 I'd like to hear why. If it's #3 I'd like to hear where you think I was "wavering" - I feel like I've been pretty consistent. If my posts are phrased weirdly I'll try and clear up my message for you.

[MichelSableheart]

If massclaiming is not an option, how does everyone feel about claiming "gun" or "no gun"? That should allow most protective roles to remain hidden, while also allowing Sotty to find scum by detecting liars.

I don't think this would be a problem, and I'm much more willing to do this. Given one kill last night though, I'm not entirely sure how beneficial it would be. Moreover, the fact that there even is a Gunsmith should give us all doubts at to whether all scum killing roles solely have guns in their possession.

It's using flavour argumentation in a normal game, but given that we are in a gun factory, I believe it's far more likely if the scum actually have guns then knives or poison, for example. And not everyone who owns a gun uses it to kill every night. I think you'll see a number of "gun" claims.

Fate, it seems to me you are suffering from tunnelvision. Socrates vote of Kthx and subsequent unvote does not feel like distancing to me, simply because there was no pressure behind it. The explanation of "Sorry, Fate is more scummy then Kthx" is far more likely then distancing. Both scum or town could have made that vote, regardless of the two of them being scumpartners. Also, as others have pointed out, being against a massclaim does not automatically equal scummy.

As for claiming "gun or no gun," I'm not sure I really see the point in doing this. Scum are highly unlikely to claim that they have a gun (unless they wish to fakeclaim a role that has a gun), and if a town player has a gun, they must either explain why their role has a gun (which will likely mean claiming), or they must lie about having a gun to try and stay hidden (and hope Sotty doesn't check on them and discover the lie). The only people we can catch with this technique are the liars (as was already stated), and I believe both scum and town would have motivation to lie about having a gun. If the town gun chooses not to lie, then we have outed a power role that has a gun, giving the mafia another potential nightkill target.

In other words, I don't see us gaining much useful information by claiming gun or no gun, and the drawback of potentially outing another power role makes the idea even less appealing to me.

You know, that is pretty poor reasoning.

First of all, Lynch all Liars exists for a reason. If we decide to massclaim gun or no gun, town definately shouldn't lie. The main reason for this claim would be to force scum to take a stance now: are they going to claim they have a gun, making some future fakeclaims impossible? Or are they going to claim they don't have a gun, and risk being outed by Sotty?

Secondly, where are you getting the idea that town would have to explain why they have a gun immediately? The whole idea of claiming gun or no gun is that we don't have to claim actual roles, and therefore are able to keep scum doubting about the type of role the player claiming gun actually has. That can vary from pure vigilante who failed to kill last night for some reason, to what effectively boils down to a miller.

Furthermore, if townplayers who own a gun claim so now, they avoid Sotty the trouble of having to investigate them. Sotty would be able to focus on actually detecting the liars. If she would receive a gun result on someone who claimed not to have a gun, that player would be guaranteed scum.

I really believe we should massclaim gun or no gun. Pie, Thor ignored and Fate were in favour of massclaiming, so I think they are in favour of this claim too. Cyberbob completely ignored the question, so I must assume he has no serious objections, just like Copper. We don't have much time left anymore, especially if we want to do this popcorn style. That's 4 in favour, 1 against, 2 neutral. Only if Sotty, Socrates and charter all are against this could we end up in a tie. Fate, if one of them doesn't object in their next post, you should claim whether you have a gun or not, and state who should claim after you.

Also, SK is probably making too big a deal over the perceived contradiction in Pie's behaviour. There is no inherent contradiction between "I am not opposed to an SK bandwagon" and "I don't want to vote SK at this moment in time". Still, the fact that Pie mentioned there were reasons to not be opposed to an SK bandwagon is unusual. Usually, "I am not opposed to a bandwagon" means that you have no significant reasons to believe that player is town.

[Fate]

First of all, the question was directed at Copper, not Thor. Second, I was gauging Copper's reaction to my question. All it would take, apparently, is a vote from my slot to turn his attention somewhere else. It makes me wonder just how many other people are posting with the same content level that I am and getting away with it by slapping on a vote...

This deserves a post of its own. I guess I assumed it was directed at Thor because @Copper makes no sense.

Why are you trying to guage reactions from Copper? Do you believe Sotty and him are scum together?

You're backing yourself into a corner. First I point out the lack of town motivation in your question. So you concoct some, "oh I was gauging reactions from Copper" aka scumhunting. But why are you "scumhunting" Copper?

Unvote:

Vote: SaintKerrigan

Posting the rest now. Also as a preview spoiler I'll admit that the replacements ***Ed the hell out of my previous posts. I thought SK replaced Kthxbye, but then later corrected it to Pie being in that slot. But I didn't change my reads accordingly. Therefore my Soc/Pie/Chart scumteam should read Soc/SK/Chart.

Charter case coming soon as well. It is high time someone mentioned his absence and lack of content.

[Fate]

"Both you and Socrates are against MC." So, not going for a massclaim is equated with being scummy? Does that mean Copper and Sotty are scummy as well? They were against the massclaim, too. I really don't like where you're going with this. It's ill-reasoned and basically looks like a cheap shot at two of the more suspicious players on the board.

I've already explained my issue with massclaiming today in Posts #854 and #859. I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.

Yes, not going with for the massclaim is anti-town at the moment with all the claims we have out there. (Kthx claimed VT before he left.) And yes you explained your reasoning behind this. I find intelligent scum can always come up with sound reasoning to support their position. So I look for the motivation behind that position. Why would town not be for a MC? Why would scum?
The answer is obvious and has been mentioned by myself and others.

Your play has been scummy thus far. I always make it a point when I replace in to read the whole game, make posts as I catch up, or one huge one based off the whole game. Why have you been putting hits off?
You have just came in, and started discussing the things at hand, MCing, votes on you, etc. Since you don't have a view of the whole picture, I can safely say you aren't providing content. How can you? Like you say, you don't have enough information yet to throw down a vote. Why are you stalling?

Also, while you're "skipping straight to my ISO" (love to hear the results of that btw), I'd like your thoughts on Charter please, who will be the subject of my next post.

[Fate]

Also most of the things I've said to SK apply to Pie as well. (The whole not contributing because you haven't caught up, and not voting or taking stances for the same reasons). That said, Socrates', "well I'm up for that Pie vote again" is a shitty as shitvotes can get, and makes me not like the Pie wagon at all.

What was your case on Kthx/Pie again Soc? One post you quoted from him? God I wish I could convince people you're scum.

Charter

<- wait this guy is in this game? Yes. And he's had less posts than both SK and Pie who just replaced in (post-wise, not content, but still.)

Summary of his play:
-Suspicion of Copper D1
-Agrees with his predecessor that TCC is scum. Never says why (just mentions that the speed of the wagon is not indicative of alignment.)
-Votes pom before deadline

D2:
-Jumps on Soc after I do, "trying this number again"
-Still believes Copper is scummy, doesn't have much questions for his "main" suspicion (where his vote is at) Socrates
-

When I switch to Copper

he says:

Ok, 774 is really bad as well. Fate, is there any reason other than wagoning you have for voting Copper?

As if to scold my vote on Copper (if the Copper lynch went through he could point to my vote as weakest D3). Later in that post he goes on to say I look "pretty good" with my posts on that page. Slight buddying, egging on a town on town fight (me and Copper)?
-

If Ythan was still in this game, I would not be doing anything but pushing for a lynch on him. His playstyle needs to be punished with a swift lynch in every game he's in until he stops doing it.

Thats a nice useless fluff post. Oh and pushing an imaginary PL while you're at it. Awesome.
-

I said the case on Fate has merit. The case on Fate is his inconsistencies with regard to his opinion on Socrates. He pretty much did that himself, no one did anything to get it out of him. I dunno, it just seems weak.

Wishy-washy stance on me. Looks like he could go either way with my lynch/not today.

Last post he hasn't had time for mafia. Understandable, but we've had A LOT happen. I'd really like to see this slot's input and Cyber's analysis finish. Scum are usually lynched D2 in minis and I'm pretty sure we can nail one today after everyone catches up.

To be clear-
Would lynch:
Socrates
Charter
Saint K

Might Lynch (Neutral):
Pie
Cyberbob

Happy tax-day folks.

[Col.Cathart]

Votecount 2.5

With 10 players alive, it takes 6 to lynch

If you'll encounter any kind of mistake in the votecount, please point it out.

Saint Kerrigan (3):

Copper, Thor665, Fate
Pie_is_good (2): MichelSableheart, Socrates
Fate (1): Sotty7
Socrates (1): Cyberbob
Copper (1): charter

not voting (2): Saint Kerrigan, Pie_is_good

The current deadline is on

Monday, April 19th 2010 at 6:30 PM GMT +1
Modified Countdown

No prods at the moment, though some of the players are getting close to to it.

Deadline in 3 days (+2 hours).

[Thor665]

-That my opinions/story have been "wavering" and that's a scumtell?

The closest one you listed is thus. I think your initial commentary on Kerrigan (not a bad lynch but not for lurkitude) was then challenged successfully by Kerrigan (what are those other reasons?) and responded to weakly by you (you're saying stuff that others want to hear, but I wouldn't vote for you on it) and then hit home by Kerrigan (then why am I not a bad lynch?)

The whether or not you are voting Kerrigan thing is meaningless to me, the above makes me believe you were implying there was more on Kerrigan then you were willing to stand behind and looks like an attempt to help soft sell the wagon.

I'm intrigued by Fate's movement to the Kerrigan wagon and also his clarification that Pie=Kerrigan in his initial scum chart. This could simply be confusion due to replacements (I know I've had some) but it could also be scum happy for the new wagon to pile on to avoid his own potential lynch.

I like Fate's points on charter as they make a lot of sense.

Though I disagree with some of his conclusions, I'm liking the energy from Cyberbob at the moment as he's clearly working hard to slog through what he's missed.

I'm feeling Fate or Kerrigan as the lynch today. I'd like to hear more from Sotty and charter.

I'll make Michel happy and clarify that I am pro gunclaim (though will also say I'm not sure if it's worth trying to push through without majority consent - and I don't take Cyberbob's silence on the issue as neutrality, I take it as he's not reading the new pages right now - otherwise I doubt he'd be pushing Copper as part of a scumteam in light of Sotty's claim.)

[Pie_is_good]

@Michel: Yeah, I'll support a massgunclaim. I'd obviously much rather have a general massclaim, but if that's all we can get going today so be it.

@Thor: I don't think you completely understand what I've been saying. I am in 100% agreement that the "you're saying stuff that others want to hear" read is a pretty weak one that can easily be later overturned. So I didn't vote Kerrigan based on it, although I decided to voice the opinion for make benefit the glorious nation of the town. Now I guess I'm being accused in tandem of having weak reasons and not voting Kerrigan based on them, which is silly because both are true but neither are scummy.

[Thor665]

I am in 100% agreement that the "you're saying stuff that others want to hear" read is a pretty weak one that can easily be later overturned.

Then why is Kerrigan 'not a bad lynch' if all you have is a weak scumtell? Do you have only weak or no scum tells on everyone else?

I will again state my issue with whether or not you are voting Kerrigan isn't an issue for me at all. My issue is how the reasons make Kerrigan, as stated by you, not a bad lynch, but are also then self stated by you as being weak.

[Pie_is_good]

The quote was "A Kerrigan lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world," and it was my way of weighing in on the emerging Kerrigan bandwagon. Having only read (the most recent) 2 pages of the game, my read on Kerrigan was weak but also the strongest one I had at the time. Rather than lurkin' around until I got a chance to reread, I decided to voice my thoughts.

This is getting ridiculous.

[Socrates]

I'm in a bitter mood.

Pie, Yes it is the player slot. I stated why I was suspicious of your slot a few pages back.

Figures that Fate would take a contrarian stance to whatever I say. I seriously considered claiming to be for massclaim just because I knew he when then be against massclaim.

Now he is also attacking the lurker who is not around to defend himself. Why did it take you so long to come out against Charter, Fate?

[Thor665]

The quote was "A Kerrigan lynch wouldn't be the worst thing in the world," and it was my way of weighing in on the emerging Kerrigan bandwagon.

The quote continued with (paraphrasing) 'not for lurkitude but for other reasons.'

You then admitted 'other reasons' were weak.

Why was a Kerrigan lynch 'not the worst thing?'

Now he is also attacking the lurker who is not around to defend himself. Why did it take you so long to come out against Charter, Fate?

On a related note - do you believe charter is lurking? (and if so is it of the scummy or non-scummy variety?)

[Socrates]

On a related note - do you believe charter is lurking? (and if so is it of the scummy or non-scummy variety?)

*shrug* He's not posting. Whether or not it qualifies as "lurking" is more a question of definitions.

As to whether it is scummy, he has stated that RL issues are getting in the way and the last time I suspected him of tactical lurking he flipped town. So I am going to file it firmly under the not scummy heading.