Newbie 1143 - Game Over

[Thor665]

I personally believe, logically, she was a top suspect. Here's my breakdown of the "facts"

1. I think you'll agree to me he mentioned them both and said he was really sure one of them was scum.
2. He then voted Thomith - personally, I don't believe this means assurance of making lizk into town.
3. Your head asplodes.

Here's another view of the same structure;

I want to eat hot dogs or hamburgers tonight. I'm planning to eat hot dogs.

Does this mean I no longer want to eat burgers? Or does it just mean I'm edging towards hot dogs as more likely. That's the same breakdown he gave using different words. Personally - if I had two people and I was sure one of them was scum, even if I voted one of them it would not mean I had given up all possibility of the other one being scum. Clearly you disagree with this - but it is not a factual failure on my part, it's an interpretive disagreement.

Am I still dodging?

Also, could you address my last question - do you think even believing that lizk was absolutely positively town in his eyes that it defeats my case? Because there's still a giant question mark about what his manuvers at the start of Day 2 turned out as considering he was of the belief one of lizk or Thomith was scum.

[Gen_Wolf]

Off to work! Will answer later for you both!

@Raceman: Why are those your two top suspects, some reasoning please?

[Haylen]

The way Quilford has taken my post really frustrates me. For example, I vote somebody and ask a rhetorical question (when voting Gen_Wolf for L-1ing someone) and that's scummy?

In post 28, Haylen wrote:
Vote Ozzie72 Not a random vote.

In post 85, Haylen wrote:
My vote wasn't OMGUS, actually. It was because I can't stand numbers You're numbers were more difficult to type than any of the others.

Contradiction.

Incorrect. What I was suggesting was a policy vote against people who had numbers in their usernames. That is neither OMGUS, nor a random vote.

These questions are pointless and a classic scum distraction tactic - if they weren't, I would have expected Haylen to explain why she asked them after everyone had answered.

*headdesk*
I always ask those questions as IC. I use them to make sure everybody knows the basics of the game. Here, I'll show you.

1. Is there any time coming up where we can expect you to not be very active? I'm v/la at the Weekends but I will pop my head in.
2. Have you familiarized yourself with Mafia Discussion and the Wiki? Duh. Wiki admin.
3. Have you read at least one completed game on site? I like to think so.[/i]
4. What is your experience level? How many games have you played? Are there any complete newbies in the house? Does everyone know how the game in general works. Played roughly 75 games, modded 14-ish now - the majority of which were newbie games.

1. So we know when somebody is going to be inactive in advance and thus don't accuse them of lurking or get them force replaced. It's common curtesy.
2. It's useful to encourage newbies to learn site meta by reading what we discuss and the important information found on the wiki.
3. Helps players learn site meta.
4. To make sure everybody knows the basics of the game. For example, day and night phases.

Still not proof enough, go research my town and scum IC games. I've asked the same questions in every one of them.

It's interesting that Haylen doesn't selfvote in this post considering she completely fits her description of 'active lurker' in this post -- which was made on August 10th, 130 non-mod posts into the game of which only nine were hers

At this point, I'm just going to assume Quilford is picking and choosing what posts to take any notice of. I've explained multiple times that for the past 3 months, I've been working 48hrs a week when I usually work 16. So I wasn't active lurking, to me making an IC post was far more important than the other stuff.

I'll answer the rest in a bit. The amount of wrong in that post is amazing.

[Quilford]

In post 28, Haylen wrote:
Vote Ozzie72 Not a random vote.

In post 85, Haylen wrote:
My vote wasn't OMGUS, actually. It was because I can't stand numbers :P You're numbers were more difficult to type than any of the others.

Contradiction.

Incorrect. What I was suggesting was a policy vote against people who had numbers in their usernames. That is neither OMGUS, nor a random vote.

Why didn't you say this in the first post? Saying "Not a random vote." pretty clearly indicated you find that player scummy for some reason or another.

These questions are pointless and a classic scum distraction tactic - if they weren't, I would have expected Haylen to explain why she asked them after everyone had answered.

*headdesk*
I always ask those questions as IC.

Conceded.

It's interesting that Haylen doesn't selfvote in this post considering she completely fits her description of 'active lurker' in this post -- which was made on August 10th, 130 non-mod posts into the game of which only nine were hers

At this point, I'm just going to assume Quilford is picking and choosing what posts to take any notice of. I've explained multiple times that for the past 3 months, I've been working 48hrs a week when I usually work 16. So I wasn't active lurking, to me making an IC post was far more important than the other stuff.

At that point you hadn't mentioned anything of the sort. In fact only five days prior you had said

1.

Is there any time coming up where we can expect you to not be very active?

I'm v/la at the Weekends but I will pop my head in.

More votes for Haylen, please.

[Quilford]

Gen_wolf [3] (Thor665, Lunitawolf, Haylen)

Thor665 [2] (effortless, racerman13)
Haylen [2] (Quilford, Gen_Wolf)

Not Voting [1] (lizk000)

So here are the votes as they stand.

As deadline hits in about 4 days, I'd like to get a lynch sooner or later. For now, VOTE: Gen_Wolf (L-1) but I'll gladly switch back to Haylen if racerman does.

[Quilford]

EBWOP: I'd like to get a lynch sooner rather than later.

[Lunitawolf]

@Racerman

What makes Haylen one of your top two? Or Thor for that matter? I found your predecessor suspect, and your lack of support for your suspicions doesn't help the slot much. You say that Haylen is inconsistent... which part? Are you agreeing with every point Quilford made? Or only some of them, and if only some, which?

Re: Thor/Effortless back and forth

- The back and forth starts off because Thor wants to lynch Gen, and Effortless, although suspicious of Gen, is also suspicious of Thor.
- Effortless becomes slightly less suspicious of Gen here because Gen voted for Thor as an "OMGUS fueled with indignation" ...

or perhaps Effortless is more sympathetic to Gen because Gen's joining his desired bandwagon

- Thor defends himself against Effortless' reasons for suspicions, which were initially based on what happened Day 1, and argument ensues. To me, Thor satisfactorily addressed Effortless' original comments, but Effortless kept pressing ... not sure why.

Discussing some of the points raised:

Point: Effortless finds Hazard's Lynch All Liars policy scummy.
Counterpoint: Thor challenges Effortless' thinking that only scum would have that policy.
My view:

This doesn't make HazardThor suspicious to me. I'm town, and I would have likely gone after someone if caught in a lie. In a game where town are at a disadvantage because we lack information, and scum have information, additional gambits that obfuscate what's going on are harmful. I've read the wiki articles on scum tells trying to learn how to effectively play here, which has definitely shaped my views. I'm slowly learning that it's an imperfect guide that requires more experience to know when to apply.

Point: Effortless says Thor is "misreading or misrepresenting some of the stuff that happened on Day 1." The only example provided in Effortless' initial post on it, however, was's Thor's running commentary he posted when he replaced in which says "Meh...methinks I can guess how Thomith eventually gets lynched." Effortless takes issue with this because Thor didn't post what that thinking was.
Counterpoint: Thor says there's nothing there that's misrepresenting/misleading. He then explains what he was thinking then (Thomith got lynched because of his standoffish attitude)
My view:

I agree with Thor that there is nothing misreading/misrepresenting about the example.

Point: Effortless appears to concede that the example didn't show that Thor misread/misrepresenting anything, as he shifts his argument to say that it's besides the point, the Thomith lynch was an important event and Thor should have wanted to state what his guess was without being asked and that it is an example of ignoring something that's significant.
Counterpoint:

Point: Effortless brings up Hazard's comment right after Day 2 began as a scumtell.
Counterpoint: Thor agrees it can be a scumtell when paired with other tells, but that it can is a newbietell.
Point: Effortless says "there's no reason to point this out" because he has other tells on Thor
My view:

Until I saw Effortless' follow up post, I wasn't even going to comment on this point because Thor said it could be a tell and there didn't seem to be a debate. But I find it odd that Effortless would question why Thor would "point this out" ... he's being attacked, of course he'd defend. To me it read like Effortless was arguing just to argue.

- After that exchange is when Effortless casts his vote on Thor.

I just don't see it. Thor is reading very town to me.

[Lunitawolf]

Re: I'm currently null on Haylen. The active lurking thing would bother me more if it wasn't for her work schedule. I don't think she's using work as a ploy to be able to active lurk. I didn't find the comments on Haylen's random questions or initial vote to be convincing, seemed more like a stretch.

[Flameaxe]

Votecount 2.6

Gen_wolf [4] (Thor665, Lunitawolf, Haylen, Gen_wolf)

Thor665 [2] (effortless, racerman13)
Haylen [1] (Gen_wolf)

Not Voting [1] (lizk000)

Deadline:

September 17th, 9PM EST
Prodding: No one. Searching for a lizk000 replacement.

With eight players alive, it will take five votes to lynch and four votes to no lynch!

[effortless]

Lunita: Thor keeps on lying about what Gen did and did not say. And you and the rest of the town are letting him get away with it.

His first lie was saying that Gen said he would reread and then just voted Thomith in his very next post.
It's lie because Gen's next post was about why he found Thomith suspicious. He voted him in the post after that.

His second lie was claiming that Gen said lizk was his top suspect when he voted Thomith.

[effortless]

So my question is why would a townie lie about these things? Doesn't it make more sense that Thor is scum and he's trying to manipulate us into a mislynch?

[Lunitawolf]

@Effortless

Part of my problem with your attack on Thor is that the basis keeps changing, and, as I explained earlier today, I didn't buy into your suspicions that you originally laid out that led to you casting your vote for him. You two didn't discuss what Gen said/didn't say until

after

you had cast your vote on Thor.

Why are you pushing so hard on Thor? Is it because he pushing so hard for Gen's lynch? It's really making me suspect that you and Gen are the scum team, like I considered earlier:

@Everyone

What do people think about a possible effortless/gen team?

@Everyone

Can people please weigh in on this?

As to the latest points you raised, here's my analysis:

His first lie was saying that Gen said he would reread and then just voted Thomith in his very next post.
It's lie because Gen's next post was about why he found Thomith suspicious. He voted him in the post after that.

Thor never lied. His notes said:

If you’re ever curious who has the most suspicion on them all you have to do is look for whoever Gen_Wolf is voting for – he’s always there.

Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:09 am “Ya, sorry ive confused myself,let me reread and then repost” (this is after being called on attacking effortless for starting a bandwagon on Thomith…which lizk pointed out she was doing, not effortless)
Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:16 am – his next post, no rephrase…just a vote for…effortless…no, wait, that would make sense, instead he votes Thomith! Obv. Scum is obvious.
^^^ I’m still waiting for him to become the obv. Town I understand he apparently is – when does that happen?

Thor never said anything about whether Gen gave a reason for his Thomith vote (hence, it's not a lie). Based on my reading, especially considering the bolded part, Thor is saying that Gen moves around a lot. He said that he was suspicious of you for thinking that Thomith wasn't town:

I'm a little suspicous of Effortless, why are you thinking that Thomith is no longer town?

He also says that he isn't sure about Lizk and that she could be scum.

Yet, he then turns on Thomith, who you and Lizk are voting for, and votes for him, without addressing whether that means he no longer seems suspicious. It's like he was just fake scumhunting and that's why he doesn't address his changing opinions of people - only makes new accusations.

His second lie was claiming that Gen said lizk was his top suspect when he voted Thomith.

I wasn't just saying he's lying, I gave an example. He lied about Gen saying he found both liz and Thomith suspicious. Gen said he

used to think

that

one of them

was scum and after reading through their conversation decided it was probably Thomith.

Eh... I'm not reading Gen's words as him saying that he no longer thought Lizk was possible scum. Gen said:

I also thought that either Thomith or Lizk was scummy but didn't know which one! After re-reading

i'm starting to suspect you

Thomith and depending on how many votes you have I will be voting for you (Just need to check quickly)

He leaves wiggle room that it's not Thomith afterall. Given Gen's lack of clarity, at worst Thor misunderstood what Gen meant -- though any after-the-fact explanation from Gen would be rightfully suspect as opportunistic recasting of history.

In summary

: I don't see evidence that Thor is scum.


This post also makes me suspicious of a Gen/Effortless team:

I know you are all going to think im defending him because he defended me, as was pointed out earlier by someone

Why was this necessary to state? Guilty conscience?

Necessary because if I hadn't stated it someone would of been like "Effortless defending Wolf, Wolf defending effortless... I think scum" where as i stated it because I don't mind answering questions about it, so rather than beat around the bush, just be honest and to the point...

However, Effortless wasn't protecting me, he was just stating his opinion which someone thought it was him defending me

Doth protest too much?

[effortless]

Eh, if Gen was my scum buddy I would have just bussed him.

Especially with Thor having me as confirmed townie and Gen refusing to defend himself the best play would be to just cut him loose.

His first lie was saying that Gen said he would reread and then just voted Thomith in his very next post.
It's lie because Gen's next post was about why he found Thomith suspicious. He voted him in the post after that.

Thor never lied.

Thor said Gen's next post was just a vote. Gen's next post wasn't a vote. Therefore Thor was lying.

[Gen_Wolf]

Effortless, dont stress, when the hammer is dropped, Lunita will lose all thought of a possible Gen/Effortless scum team! And hopefully see the Haylen/Thor scumminess!

As for your two questions:
1. If I was to accuse you of having no solid basis for any vote you make, and your votes changing more than a traffic light - what would be your answer to this?

I would agree that my vote would change frequently, however, there is always thought behind my vote! If its not to pressure someone into talking its because I genuinely believe they are scum and I provide my reasons for it!

2. What, specifically, do you think was a good point effortless made against me? (feel free to pick more than one, just as long as you describe why they're good points).

Well, the one that stands out most to me is the one where he accuses you of manipulating peoples words and choosing only half a sentence to make them look scum! You look over all the stuff and choose the evidence which makes a subjective case against your scum target... Also when people respond you ignore there answers and just carry on accusing without taking into account what they had to say.

Honestly, if you read what I said from a mutual, objective basis i think you would clearly see im town, however you ignore that and look at all the posts for there scuminess and might find one sentence in a long post but because of that one sentence im completely scum! Its subjective!

[Lunitawolf]

Eh, if Gen was my scum buddy I would have just bussed him.

Especially with Thor having me as confirmed townie and Gen refusing to defend himself the best play would be to just cut him loose.

Good point.

His first lie was saying that Gen said he would reread and then just voted Thomith in his very next post.
It's lie because Gen's next post was about why he found Thomith suspicious. He voted him in the post after that.

Thor never lied.

Thor said Gen's next post was just a vote. Gen's next post wasn't a vote. Therefore Thor was lying.

Two points (well three, really, although this first one is more just a feeling). It seems like you're clinging really tightly to this notion that Thor is scum even though your arguments aren't as strong as you seem to be thinking. Why is that? And if Thor is scum, who is his buddy?

Regarding the vote, yes, technically there was a post between the "I need to re-read" and the vote actually being cast. However:
- Gen's post saying he needed to re-read was written on Thursday at 8:09 am. His next two posts were written only three minutes apart the next day on Friday at 6:16am and 6:19am.
- And, importantly, in the first of those Friday posts, Gen expresses his plan to vote for Thomith after checking the vote count, and he does vote after so checking:

After re-reading i'm starting to suspect you Thomith and

depending on how many votes you have I will be voting for you (Just need to check quickly)

So... yes, technically you're right, but substantively you're wrong. This doesn't show that Thor was "lying" in his notes.

My other point that you have still failed to address, which I would like you to, is that the question of whether Gen immediately voted after saying he needed to re-read wasn't raised by you until

after

you had voted Thor. Why? Why did you continue to go after Thor when the original points of suspicion were shown to be wrong?

And, let's assume for a moment that Thor intentionally left off mention of Gen's middle post during his note-taking, which came 3 minutes before the vote and which expressed the intent to vote for Thomith after doing a quick vote check, do you think that's enough of a basis to think Thor is scum?

[effortless]

His first lie was saying that Gen said he would reread and then just voted Thomith in his very next post.
It's lie because Gen's next post was about why he found Thomith suspicious. He voted him in the post after that.

Thor never lied.

Thor said Gen's next post was just a vote. Gen's next post wasn't a vote. Therefore Thor was lying.

Regarding the vote, yes, technically there was a post between the "I need to re-read" and the vote actually being cast. However:
- Gen's post saying he needed to re-read was written on Thursday at 8:09 am. His next two posts were written only three minutes apart the next day on Friday at 6:16am and 6:19am.

Cool. That's the reaction I hoped for from Thor. Instead I got a speech about how he "never said anything about Gen not explaining his vote on Thomith", which just ignored the direct question.

And, let's assume for a moment that Thor intentionally left off mention of Gen's middle post during his note-taking, which came 3 minutes before the vote and which expressed the intent to vote for Thomith after doing a quick vote check, do you think that's enough of a basis to think Thor is scum?

That's a very good question. He could have just thought it wasn't important and that Gen's explanation in that post wasn't convincing anyway. But if he did why didn't he say so when I brought up the issue?
Instead he's acting like he doesn't understand what my problem is.

My other point that you have still failed to address, which I would like you to, is that the question of whether Gen immediately voted after saying he needed to re-read wasn't raised by you until

after

you had voted Thor. Why? Why did you continue to go after Thor when the original points of suspicion were shown to be wrong?

I said he was misreading or misrepresenting what happened on day 1. And I gave an example. It wasn't the greatest example so I gave others later.
I went after Thor because I felt he was giving a story of day 1 that was misleading.

To summarize:

Thor's saying Gen's scum because he's hunting for easy lynches.

I disagree, I think Gen's town.
I also think Thor's trying to make Gen's posting worse than it actually is. This makes me think he's scum.

[Thor665]

@Wolf - Well, you clearly don't always provide reasoning for your votes. I mean, today you have gone from effortless being obvious scum to obvious town and it seems totally based off his defense of you rather than any functional change in his actions. If there's always thought behind your vote could you explain to me the return to the Travis vote after the "pressure" L-1 on Hazard Day 1?

Also, as asked repeatedly - could you explain the thought process behind the lizk/Thomith opinion shift.

@Lunita - I appreciate the backup, but I don't like the Wolf/effortless pairing. Yeah, they've had awkward defenses back and forth, but I find it unlikely newbie scum ould do that. Also, if you read effortless with the idea he's very pedantic and exacting all of his issues make microcosm sense and don't feel attack oriented for the sake of attack. I still am not sure what he's driving at, but I am sure he's town. This drive makes no sense as a scum drive, and consequently your pairing is not one I suspect to see happen.

@effortless...seriously? If I'd just pointed out the two posts were three minutes apart and obviouslly all one and the same post you wouldn't have had an issue about it? Instead I make a valid dismissal of it even being an issue and that sets you off? I had presumed you were aware they were adjacent in location and time and had issues with me beyond that because it was too silly to presume that was your boggle. Also, I never raised issues with him not explaining his vote on Thomith - I raised issues about him not explaining his vote on you at the start of Day 2 outside of sheeping and the thoughts as regarding you and liz that shifted on Day 1, which though in the realm of what you're discussing is not what you're specifically citing. I had issues with how he timed and maneuvered his Thomith vote, and have said as such. Does this mean you're lying now?

Yes, I still don't understand what you're on about. I've shown repeatedly that my "lie" is a difference of opinion on interpretation and that your "fact" is your interpretation and not mine. I'm fine with that except for how you keep calling it a lie when it's clearly an opinion and was stated as such, and also that you keep calling it lieS when you've only, functionally, presented one. And now look at Wolf lap to it in the most vague way possible using your exact language.

[racerman13]

Filing for V/LA until tomorrow.

Will post content tomorrow. Hopefully.

[Flameaxe]

Noted.

Porochaz replaces Lizk000, effective right now. Votecount/prods in the next post.

[Flameaxe]

Votecount 2.7

Gen_wolf [4] (Thor665, Lunitawolf, Haylen, Quilford)

Thor665 [2] (effortless, racerman13)
Haylen [1] (Gen_wolf)

Not Voting [1] (lizk000)

Deadline:

September 17th, 9PM EST
Prodding: No one.

With eight players alive, it will take five votes to lynch and four votes to no lynch!

[Porochaz]

I should point out, Im V/LA Friday to Sunday this week.

[Lunitawolf]

Welcome, Porochaz!

Our lynch deadline is 3 days from now on Saturday, so hopefully you can get up to speed and let us know your thoughts before the weekend.

[Haylen]

Hi Prozac.

@ Mod - Any chance I can be cheeky and ask for a deadline extension due to replacements?

Response to Quil's response.

Why didn't you say this in the first post? Saying "Not a random vote." pretty clearly indicated you find that player scummy for some reason or another.

Because I often see people use it to generate discussion and get people out of the RVS stage and wanted to give it a go myself.

At that point you hadn't mentioned anything of the sort. In fact only five days prior you had said

My sudden V/LA's are none of your business. I'm not going into it. If I had known I was going to disappear, I would have said.

Back to the other post.

t's not true that "town wouldn't think about trying to find the other scum". Of course they would; associative tells are great evidence and saying "X is scum with Y" is far more convincing than just saying "X is scum", especially in an open setup with a two-man scumteam.

It took me a long time to figure out where you had drawn your conclusion on this post to the point of confusing me; you've focused on one part of what I was saying and completely blown it own of context. Congratulations:

Thomith seems to be being very specific about the 'their partner bit' almost as though he knows the person Effortless is voting for is scum.

THIS was the important part. I was suggesting that Thomith had slipped up and announced the person Effortless was voting for was his partner.

Scum like to blow things out of context.

I'm not seeing distancing from Thomith and Effortless, unless one of them flips scum. (i'm not suggesting we lynch them).

That's the definition of trying to find the other scum!

Incorrect. The definition of storing information to be used later at such a point when one of them had been lynched/killed as I clearly say in my post I wasn't suggesting lynching anyone.

Explained, schmexplained. Anyone can explain their reasoning well; it's whether or not the points have any merit.

If something is well explained, that tends to mean that those points have merit.

I also take issue with the statement 'scum wouldn't draw attention to themselves like that so early in the game'. Scum wouldn't want to draw attention to themselves at

any time, whether early game or not -- and scum don't purposely draw attention to themselves (unless they're WIFOMing). If they did, then why post? It would be defying your win condition.

Optimum scum play. GO. Actually this is quite interesting now I've found a recent scum [url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 11&t=17782]newbie game[/quote] of yours. You lurked through it as scum and yet here you say scum would never do that?

Haylen, if I'm vocal in wanting you lynched, will you say it's unlikely I'm scum?
Well, if this is the content and evidence you're going to provide when being vocal about my lynch, then I would say you're pretty likely scum.

FoS Quilford

[quote"Quilford"]Trailing off ('...') leaves the reader to make their own minds up as to whether the player is scum or scummy town and effectively absolves responsibility.

The content in that post I made clearly implies my thoughts on the matter. I'm not arguing grammar with you.

Why are you complaining about my lack of content when I've explained at least 6 times that I was V/LA, in fact, I think for the majority of the time I wasn't around much I did have my V/LA banner on.

We never see the results of this reread.

That's most likely because I didn't bother doing one.

The last phrase pre-empts any possible attack.

Catch 22. You'd have attacked me for that phrase anyway. You're reaching.

This is very opportunistic. If she didn't 'know', why not read over Hazard's posts and then come to a conclusion?

Another misrep. I was saying I didn't know if he was being sarcastic or serious. I policy vote anybody who claims scum, it either discourages poor play or calls someones bluff. Now why don't you do the same?

Also opportunistic; you would think that with a 'PhD in Newbie', Haylen would realise that both town and scum can fall prone to forgetting that roles are randomised.

Taken out of context again. Randomization is not the point I was making. Go back and re-read.

"I thought he was sheeping everyone in the game but actually he wasn't. ... ... ... I'm going to vote him because I don't like his reactions.

HUZZAH! Quil's actually taken something I said, read it and hasn't tried making any weird crap up about it.

How long have you been playing on this site, Quil? Are you seriously telling me that you don't see the logic in voting somebody for how they've reacted to the tiniest bit of pressure?

A repeat of something he's already said...

The whole indepth analysis thing? I was stealing words and using them. Someone else said I had an indepth analysis on them, their opinion not mine.

No, the definition of fluff is "To make (something) appear fuller and softer, typically by shaking or brushing it: "I fluffed up the pillows"." Fluffing in the context of Mafia applies to inserting unnecessary content in a post in an effort to make it look like your posting more. Definitions aside, it's pretty clear what Gen is referring to and Haylen transforms it into a semantics argument, in which she basically admits to not scumhunting or generating discussion:

I'm going to pretend this part never happened because it's going to be some sort of blown up thing again.

This contradicts with an earlier statement of Haylen's, which she uses in an attempt to build a case on Gen:

Not getting this. Not sure I want to. Will grit my teeth and ask 'how are those two posts in any way similar?'

"and a" what? It looks like something was hastily edited out here.

It's scummy to make typo's now? Or if something was editted out of there you expect me to remember what it was now? I'm going to explain this because I'm nice. I proof read my sentences to see if they could be worded better, if that's what happened it's because it made absolutely no sense to my grammar checker.

Over-reacted? Seems to be part of his playstyle, and nobody likes being bandwagoned as town.

Blowing up because somebody asks everyone for their opinions on that person isn't overreacting?

[quote"Quilford"]At no point in the game has Haylen produced any evidence to back up her Ozzie-sheeping claim,[/quote]
Assumed I didn't need to, Thor had already mentioned it and I was seeing if anybody else was getting what I did or if I was being oversensitive when I asked everyone's thoughts on him.

Dear Thor - I thought this post was long enough so will be answering the Lizk question in the next one.

[Thor665]

Gen_wolf [4] (Thor665, Lunitawolf, Haylen,

Gen_wolf

)
Thor665 [2] (effortless, racerman13)
Haylen [1] (

Gen_wolf

)

@MOD ^^^

@Haylen - thank gawd I hope you and Quil are getting a lot out of that debate.

[Flameaxe]

@Thor: Fixed. Somehow I read a vote from Quilford and type it as Gen_wolf. Derp.

@Haylen:

I'll bump the deadline back to the 22nd.