Micro 66 - Robo's F11 (Game Over)

[Equinox]

Mine?

[Equinox]

• Oops. Please ignore the above post.

__________

:

|

Vote Count

|

:

• TraceyLyn11 [1] Violet
  
• Cheery Dog [1] Guy_Named_Riggs
  
• Guy_Named_Riggs [1] Thor665
  
• Malakittens [0]
  
• Mitillos [2] Malakittens, Cheery Dog
  
• Thor665 [0]
  
• Violet [2] TraceyLyn11, Mitillos

:

|

Not Voting

|

:

:

|

Amount to Lynch

|

:

• With 7 Alive it is 4 to Lynch.

:

|

Deadline

|

:

• 11:59 PM of December 15^th, EST.

__________

[Cheery Dog]

I feel like we were in a Newbie together where you were scum.

You were the one that was scum in a newbie game we've had together.

[Thor665]

Nope, I was confusing you with a different player - mah bad!

You were the one who never read posts though, right?

[Mitillos]

So, Thor. Why is Riggs scum? From my reads it's obvious that I don't disagree, but why do you think he's more scummy than Violet? Or is Violet not scum at all in your eyes, any more?
Also, I'd say Cheery is obv-town regardless of my alignment.

[Guy_Named_Riggs]

Sorry, finals and exams are coming up, and apparently everything else

I'm still a little uneasy about Mit's vote for Vio. That just seemed to come out of nowhere within the context of the posts before it. I see the reasoning behind it, but the post where th evote was made just doesn't seem right.

@Thor: I don't see where you are coming from with your vote. In the same post, you seem to be of the idea that Mit is scum, yet you place your vote on me. Can you explain?


Pedit: Mit, you say" regardless of your alignment" Why say that? You could've easily not said that and it wouldn't have changed your opinion on it

[Malakittens]

I'm quite worried about Mit's word choice in general lately. He's been making a lot of those posts. Not sure, but it's giving me a feeling that he's hiding something, to be quite honest.

[Thor665]

So, Thor. Why is Riggs scum? From my reads it's obvious that I don't disagree, but why do you think he's more scummy than Violet? Or is Violet not scum at all in your eyes, any more?
Also, I'd say Cheery is obv-town regardless of my alignment.

Riggs is scum because I'm wild and wacky. I'll just say I'm sheeping Nacho for lulz.
I didn't like the way the Violet wagon grew - it didn't feel like a wagon on scum. It was too easy and lacked any real discussion of her scumminess.
Violet may still be scum though, I would not call anyone town just for that reason, but...depending on some flips I may call her obv. town. I mostly just wish I could really grok the case Tracy with an 'e' has on her, because Tracy is basically obv. town and her suspicion comes from an honest place in that case, but I can't follow it. Feels maybe personal rather than logical, but needs more attention.

@Thor: I don't see where you are coming from with your vote. In the same post, you seem to be of the idea that Mit is scum, yet you place your vote on me. Can you explain?

I really just don't like your face - I'm a mean and cruel guy at heart.

Pedit: Mit, you say" regardless of your alignment" Why say that? You could've easily not said that and it wouldn't have changed your opinion on it

That would be because he was responding to me - where I said Cheery was town if Mitt was scum.

[Mitillos]

@Riggs: Exactly what Thor said; I was talking about his post 796. Nice to see the quick reactions insinuating a scumslip, though. Particularly the one from you, since you referred to that very post, when asking me about my choice of words.

[TraceyLyn11]

Other game came first today. If I have time tomorrow, I'll post in here.

[Cheery Dog]

I'm quite worried about Mit's word choice in general lately. He's been making a lot of those posts. Not sure, but it's giving me a feeling that he's hiding something, to be quite honest.

How long have you been feeling that? I take it that's why you're voting him (since he isn't avoiding the thread like the plague anymore)

[Malakittens]

Since my post 729. I labelled the fact I was going to unvote, but then when I kept reading I got unsettled.

[Violet]

Minecraft has taken my life away. Currently ingesting copious amounts of caffeine for enhanced neural function.

Processing...

Post incoming.

[Violet]

Is there a reason that you linked them for Cheery but not me?

If you were asked to

triple

or

quadruple

-source every single statement you made, and by scum who doesn't have to do anything but ask a bunch of questions to look town, you'd be pretty frustrated too. Cheery's town.

I also find it amusing that you keep saying that I'm buddying Thor. I've thought I've been pretty touchy and aggressive with him..

"Buddying". I've been using buddying and distancing interchangably, because you're doing both and it's almost impressive. Yeah, you've been touchy and aggressive to the point of looking like you two vehemently disagree which each other while actually agreeing and/or having a pleasant debate. Neither one of you is pushing a lynch against the other, not even close. It's like you don't even suspect each other

oh wait scum don't have to suspect each other because they're on the same damn team.

And you wanna look like you disagree. So you "argue".

Show me examples. You keep saying how we're asking each other questions and correcting each other's cases?

I don't even know what you mean by the latter, but I don't exactly see how the former is scummy.

To your second question: I mean you two are "disagreeing" because of invalid points and then never pursuing it past that. You argue back and forth a couple times and then drop subjects when they are sufficiently defended.

Examples are numerous, so I'm not going to list

all

of them as would be your preference. But here are a few:

Post #346 After Thor pointed out that your statement made no sense, you quickly defended it. Not once did he say it was scummy, though it could be argued it was weakly implied. This certainly

looks

like you're arguing, until you realize that the dialogue is friendly, calm, and explanatory.

Spoiler: Quote from you

"Well a) I haven't mentioned suspicion of him because I'm unsure of whether he is Thor-scum or Thor-town yet. I get bad gut vibes, but he seems to be moving the game along in a more or less pro-town way, so. And I have read over his scum QTs, and from those I glean that he's a much better town player than a scum player. That being said, I don't think it's an issue letting my read on him simmer until I can get a clear one."

You made it out so that you can get away without giving an actual read, yet still distancing. Not one of those statements was based in fact, it was all meta BS and gut feelings. If I did that you'd be on my ass like it's nobody's business. And you'd ask for five sources.

Here's the first post in the series, I refuse to post them all, just read the dialogue between you and Thor. Discussing metagame, strategy, generating a lot of you-Thor discussion that doesn't involve talking with anyone else, and quite frankly doesn't have enough game-specific information in it to include anyone else.

Why did you only look at Riggs' and Thor's meta?

GNR had no content, Thor is established and quite experienced, but I've never seen his play. Nacho I'm familiar with, you I know in real life. For everyone else, I wasn't uncomfortable not knowing anything about them from past games. I dislike reliance on meta.

I've recently read five of your past games (which I know are recent, I did the research this time) and though I wouldn't consider any of them excellent indicators of your playstyle, I did notice a general trend of you being heavily aggressive as scum (especially with your vote) and much more tentative as town. I understand 4/5_ths of them were newbie games, and I might be suffering from confirmation bias here, but that would suggest you're scum this game.

You didn't suspect Thor, though. You suspected Klick. And once Thor came in, you had him as a null-town read and then a town read. Today is the first time you've shown any indication that you thought Thor was scum.

I've been mixing up who replaced who since Nacho and Thor joined, and I spent the game night studying the game. Thor did replace Klick, they're the same slot, and they have the same behavior. Until this point I hadn't examined the similarities. Also, examining the PM lynch, three quick votes in a row is concerning, especially since Thor was voting right after you apparently without expecting Nacho in the middle (and within a timespan of nine minutes).

You also keep forgetting that Thor has voted you for night speculation. He has not clarified on anything more. So why are you freaking out about his vote?

Bravo, you've turned my calling him out on having no reason for his vote into attacking me. That must have taken some effort. *applause*

And b) HOW HAVE I BLOWN YOU OFF. I respond to everything you say, I refute every case you make, I challenge a lot of the things you say. I am most certainly

not

blowing you off.

If by "refute" you mean ask for half a dozen sources because you don't remember anything and then still hold your point of view and then

dropping the discussion

. Like my read on Mala. Since you forget I'll hold your hand and show you the light. And since you also don't remember your response, it's the one right below my post, saying "you should do this more often" rather than showing any sign you actually read the damn thing. And that's one example. Here's another one, more recent, an entire post devoted to that cause and asking me to ruffle through more garbage to try and find the exact used tissues and toothpicks I found the first time. And while we're looking at recent posts let's look at your post before that which dismisses my argument and redirects attention towards me (which by the way, that

is

manipulative, I don't care how you want to frame it).

Also, aggressiveness has nothing to do with it - I'm aggressive as both alignments. Confidence though, that could probably be more alignment-indicative.

You have both aggressiveness and confidence. And you really aren't aggressive as town, learn your own meta

it could one day save your life

.

Oh no you did not. DECEPTIVE? I've told you this before in real life. The thrill of being scum is winning

without

lying. You know I don't like lying, there's no point in using it as scum - especially when it's expected. Show me

one instance

of my being deceptive.

That post. I remember that conversation, you said the thrill of being scum was turning everyone against each other, and you're inevitably going to lie as scum, it's impossible not to. You can't call me scum while knowing I'm town and say that's not a lie or being deceptive.

As for the manipulation factor, what have I manipulated? List three things. I dare you. Go.

Ok, this is getting ridiculous to the point where I think you're trying to waste all my time so the only thing I can do is re-read for my responses to you, effectively taking me out of the game. You can use seven words to make me do half an hour's work, and you do that three times a post. And that's just responding to

you

.

How have my reads not been genuine? Again, show me examples.

Impossible. There is literally no concrete way to show that a read is genuine or not - you could just be crazy like me, or you could have legitimately slipped up, or you could be fabricating things in your mind because your brain can't process all of the information you have to take into account, and that all happens to everyone. This is further evidence that you just want to keep me busy - you can't possibly expect me to find a source for something that isn't ever conclusively provable.

[Violet]

Dunno - don't hunt scumpartners.
It would be someone on the wagon though - that's relatively certain.

I feel like this is an easy way to get out of actually saying something of substance. It is likely that scum were on the PM wagon, either one or both - that's usually what happens, with such frequency it's downright expected. Saying so adds zip to the info pool. By stating you don't hunt partners, you give yourself an excuse to ignore partner-tells as well.

Well...tell you what. Later on, in the game, when you spot where that information becomes relevant as anything besides a mewling claim of townishness from you.

It's moderately useful for statistical purposes and vote counts. And apparently also for catching scum-Thor red handed turning unscummy things into scummy ones.

I actually think most scum kill people for either looking quite town and/or for suspecting scum. The two are fairly connected and do not require scum flips to get info on them.
Also, by your own stated view - a scum flip would not make that situation any clearer, so...

What happened to what? You're mistaking 'dropping them' with 'not discussing them yet'. Again, it's day start, relax and be quiet if you have nothing functional to add.

I -usually- base kills off of who could be a PR. I've seen several others do so as well. I've also seen scum use a random generator to make their kill. Using night kill analysis as a supporting factor to a case on someone is okay I guess. Using it as the entire case is not, which is why I'm getting so frustrated - it seems as though that's what a lot of you are leading up to.

This is one of the things I forgot to list in my response to you. So you understand he has a baseless vote, you understand he's making a terrible argument, and what you respond with is "your case is looking a little weak, brah".

You have no qualms about people mindlessly sheeping you unless it's Thor - then you make him come up with reasons so that he looks better.

[TraceyLyn11]

See, I was all ready to make a post and stuff. But then Vio made a friggin' wall. TWO friggin' walls.

I'll go ahead and start on it today, though. But I won't be done until tomorrow or something.

Homework and stuff.

And sleep.

And yeah.

[TraceyLyn11]

In fact.

I'll do the stuff before Vio's walls.

And I'll get to his walls tomorrow.

Or something.

Yeeeup.

[Thor665]

"Buddying". I've been using buddying and distancing interchangably, because you're doing both and it's almost impressive. Yeah, you've been touchy and aggressive to the point of looking like you two vehemently disagree which each other while actually agreeing and/or having a pleasant debate. Neither one of you is pushing a lynch against the other, not even close. It's like you don't even suspect each other

oh wait scum don't have to suspect each other because they're on the same damn team.

You did note that I called Tracy with an 'e' a town read some time ago - yes, I've been not pushing a lynch on her. How duecedly strange!

I feel like this is an easy way to get out of actually saying something of substance. It is likely that scum were on the PM wagon, either one or both - that's usually what happens, with such frequency it's downright expected. Saying so adds zip to the info pool. By stating you don't hunt partners, you give yourself an excuse to ignore partner-tells as well.

You do realize I'd already given a list of people on the wagon I found suspicious - I just wasn't citing one of them as logically your partner.

It's moderately useful for statistical purposes and vote counts. And apparently also for catching scum-Thor red handed turning unscummy things into scummy ones.

It's actually useful for none of those things. A claimed intent to vote is not a real attempt to vote.

Want to vote GNR? Your Tracy with an 'e' vote is pretty blatantly useless right now as no one is buying what you're selling.

[TraceyLyn11]

Never mind, I lied. Got side tracked by my other game ending. And food. Of course.

Tomorrow I will post something of substance!

Hopefully. >_>

[TraceyLyn11]

@Tracey: Of course it was loaded. Needing more scrutiny is not the same as being scummy. In addition, Thor having less respect for other players is not the issue, in and of itself; the point was that Nacho died. The lack of context is a misrepresentation.

That wasn't what you said in your original post. You said,

"If anything, Thor should be put under more scrutiny

because

the only player he seems to have any respect for was Nacho."

That being said, the question was not loaded. It was something you said (whether there was other context to it or not is irrelevant; you still said it). I was asking a question about it. A loaded question would imply that you would look scummy regardless of your answer to my question. That was not the case. I noticed something odd (not necessarily scummy) that you said and asked you about it. You have chosen to cry wolf and say I'm misrepresenting you with a

question

. Your response itself was adequate and made sense; I wasn't understanding the word "respect" as you were using it (though I still disagree with your actual conclusion). However, you appear to be just trying to make me look scummy rather than trying to decide what my motivations or intentions were behind asking that question. Do you think I was wrong for asking a question given the context of your post? Regardless of context, do you think it was a bad question? Was I insinuating you were scum by asking that question? Did I give you no outs to the question?

Violet is scummy because from

how you talk about him

, I think he'd be able to make more varied and better arguments.

Why aren't you paying attention to how he talks about me? Or is that aiding in your reasoning for thinking I'm scum?

Also, it wasn't just 10 posts later. It was also 17 hours later. Not to mention I'd been holding off on my vote for quite some time, by that point.

I didn't realize seventeen hours was a large amount of time on Mafiascum. And I didn't realize sixty posts (four real-life days) was a lot, either. You made a pretty big deal about not wanting to rush another mislynch, about wanting to hold off on voting, but I certainly wouldn't call four days or sixty posts plenty of time. Especially considering the PM wagon happened within the span of seven days (could be argued five) or 300ish posts. This is your trying to avoid rushing a lynch?

As for your other questions, fine, I will look at them. What do you mean by "Uh?"? How about an actual question, there?

You had said that Mala and I would have been your main suspects had PM flipped scum. Because he didn't, you didn't know who to suspect. Forty-five posts later you said you thought I was scum trying to get a mislynch. Why the change?

Mala is prob-town and you are prob-scum, because her actions are less scummy than yours. This should be crystal clear.

I asked this because you paired us together when you said if PM was scum, we'd be your top suspects. What had I done since the start of the day that was so much scummier than anything Mala had done (let's say from the start of the day)?

Thor is my strongest town read despite the bout, because the bout only made me read Violet as more scummy; not Thor. This should also be very clear.

I misunderstood.

I also am potentially liking Militos as scum, in which case Cheery would be obv. town.

Why does Mit being scum make Cheery town?

I'm starting to think maybe this;

Vote: Guy_Named_Riggs

Riggs' question was valid. Why say Mit was likely scum but vote Riggs?

I mostly just wish I could really grok the case Tracy with an 'e' has on her, because Tracy is basically obv. town and her suspicion comes from an honest place in that case, but I can't follow it. Feels maybe personal rather than logical, but needs more attention.

Did you actually read my case, or did you ignore/skim it like usual? It is kind of personal, though. I'm having a very difficult time discerning what he would and wouldn't do as either alignment without delving into confirmation bias/meta. I keep considering on switching to a new wagon (Mit), but then Vio keeps saying scummy stuff...

Will respond to Vio stuff after I get some food!

[Robocopter87]

computer was working for a long time so I came in here to reclaim my game and my computer crashed...

Soon, my friends, soon.

[Thor665]

Why does Mit being scum make Cheery town?

You're saying you could see that relationship as a bus?

Riggs' question was valid. Why say Mit was likely scum but vote Riggs?

Because I'd also indicated that Riggs was likely scum and had done nothing to claim that I thought Mit's scumminess had eclipsed Rigg's scumminess.

As far as your Violet case goes - that link isn't to a case, that link is to evidence.
Could you tell me in 1-2 sentences why Violet is scum?

For instance, if I was to do Riggs I'd say - Nacho's push on him paired with Nacho's death, a lurking playstyle that spikes in activity as he is suspected, and running away from pushing this slot when a weak player was replaced by me.

Could you do something like that for the Violet case?

[Mitillos]

Oh, goody, more wall.

Your question seemed to be making an insinuation. It suggested that I was saying that Thor was scum for not having as much respect for the other players as for Nacho. Which was not what I was saying. I took that to be a scummy thing for you to do. And given the previous misreps you made of me in this game (and there were several of those), you can imagine why I'd snap at you after a while. Think of it as paranoia from you trying to attack a strawman repeatedly. In any case, I think we can move on from that discussion now.

I am paying attention to what Violet says about you. Why would you think I wasn't?

Maybe it's not long to you, but it seemed long to me. Is that a problem?

Me potentially suspecting you if PMyst flipped scum, does not imply you're indemnified from suspicion if he does not. That was a unidirectional conditional, not a bidirectional one. Your scumminess is not contingent upon PMyst's own; it stands proudly on its own. The difference with Mala was not just from the start of the day. I see her as more townish than you. You didn't do the same things. You are not equally scummy. And since PMyst didn't flip scum, that condition wasn't met, so it's not necessarily the case that you or Mala would be scum. But it's also not the case that neither of you is. Basically, what I'm getting at is, you're scummy. Most of the town doesn't seem to agree, so I'm willing to take their vote of confidence in you as indication that I might be wrong about you, but I still suspect you. Also, stop walling.

@Thor: Do you really consider Klick a weak player? But yeah, the Riggs case is good.

[Thor665]

I consider Klick on the weaker side as a player, yes.

[TraceyLyn11]

Spoiler: A lot of words to Violet

Currently ingesting copious amounts of caffeine for enhanced neural function.

BAD VIO

YOU SAID

If you were asked to

triple

or

quadruple

-source every single statement you made, and by scum who doesn't have to do anything but ask a bunch of questions to look town, you'd be pretty frustrated too. Cheery's town.

No. I wouldn't. I'd be prepared to follow up with the claims I have made. When I think someone is misrepresenting me, I make sure everyone knows why (well, usually. Unless I'm trying to teach the person a lesson...). If I think someone is being deceptive or manipulative, I show them why. If I bring up meta, I link to it, or I am prepared to link to it. If you're going to make these general statements, you better be prepared to own up to them. You should expect such a thing in a game that values information so highly. You're whining about it is silly. Your bringing up that I'm scum is ridiculous as well. Whether you believe I'm scum or not, this information benefits everyone in the game, not just the person asking the questions or asking for the sources.

Why do you think it's pro-town to ignore those you think are scum and do whatever the players you believe to be are town say? Looking at you from townVio's point-of-view, shouldn't you not be 100% positive who is scum and town? Shouldn't you have at least some doubt on players' alignments?

Yeah, you've been touchy and aggressive to the point of looking like you two vehemently disagree which each other while actually agreeing and/or having a pleasant debate. Neither one of you is pushing a lynch against the other, not even close. It's like you don't even suspect each other

oh wait scum don't have to suspect each other because they're on the same damn team.

And you wanna look like you disagree. So you "argue".

You can't be serious right now. As Thor recently brought up, explain where he's thought I was scum. The last time I remember was way back when he first replaced in. As for me, I'm not only attacking Thor. I've been attacking several (if not every) player in this game. I have managed to stay friendly with them as well, though. Why is it only Thor and I that you jump onto? Because we're the loudest players in the game?

Post #346 After Thor pointed out that your statement made no sense, you quickly defended it. Not once did he say it was scummy, though it could be argued it was weakly implied. This certainly

looks

like you're arguing, until you realize that the dialogue is friendly, calm, and explanatory.

I wasn't defending anything? Did you even read his post that I was responding to? He had said it didn't make sense to him...

So I explained it to him

. SHOCKER, RIGHT? I MEAN WHAT KIND OF TOWN WOULD EXPLAIN SOMETHING TO SOMEONE?! WHAT KIND OF TRICKERY IS THIS?!

You made it out so that you can get away without giving an actual read, yet still distancing. Not one of those statements was based in fact, it was all meta BS and gut feelings. If I did that you'd be on my ass like it's nobody's business. And you'd ask for five sources.

Why do you think he was at a null read? Because there was nothing of fact behind it! I'm sorry if you want a clear town or scum read on him from me, but I was unable to provide that at the time. I had null reads on other players, too, though. Why didn't you attack those?

Here's the first post in the series, I refuse to post them all, just read the dialogue between you and Thor. Discussing metagame, strategy, generating a lot of you-Thor discussion that doesn't involve talking with anyone else, and quite frankly doesn't have enough game-specific information in it to include anyone else.

The sad part is, I'm not even misrepresenting you when I ask, "So we're scum for not including others?" Anyone else could have jumped in if they had liked. I was getting my read on Thor, he was getting his on me. It's not my fault if others didn't want to chime in. And to say they couldn't is a blatant lie. Any player can

always

come into any conversation. Ask questions, challenge their responses, make yourself a part of the conversation. Not that difficult.

I've recently read five of your past games (which I know are recent, I did the research this time) and though I wouldn't consider any of them excellent indicators of your playstyle, I did notice a general trend of you being heavily aggressive as scum (especially with your vote) and much more tentative as town. I understand 4/5_ths of them were newbie games, and I might be suffering from confirmation bias here, but that would suggest you're scum this game.

WAT

No.

I had

one

scum game that you could have read (the other was almost lost entirely to the crash). I was

far

from aggressive. I didn't even start asking questions until Nacho pointed it out to me. That aside, over half of that game I was unable to post due to computer and real-life issues.

I think you're mistaking aggressive for confident. I am far more aggressive as town - of that I am positive. Confidence, though, I'm sure I'm probably more confident as scum for obvious reasons. Do you think I'm confident this game?

Also, examining the PM lynch, three quick votes in a row is concerning, especially since Thor was voting right after you apparently

without expecting Nacho in the middle

(and within a timespan of nine minutes).

Now this

is

a lie. Thor clearly made reference to Nacho's hammer.

NICE TRY THOUGH

Bravo, you've turned my calling him out on having no reason for his vote into attacking me. That must have taken some effort. *applause*

Dodging questions isn't nice.

Uh, no? That's not what you were saying. You said Thor and I were the main pushers of your wagon. And I was saying that Thor could hardly be considered a main pusher when his entire case against you is...

...

Night speculation.

And since you also don't remember your response, it's the one right below my post, saying "you should do this more often" rather than showing any sign you actually read the damn thing.

Pretty sure praising you indicates I read it... And approved of it... But okay, believe I didn't read it if you'd prefer.

And that's one example. Here's another one, more recent, an entire post devoted to that cause and asking me to ruffle through more garbage to try and find the exact used tissues and toothpicks I found the first time.

I'm not going to apologize for asking you to provide... SHOCKING... Evidence that supports your general claims.

And while we're looking at recent posts let's look at your post before that which dismisses my argument and redirects attention towards me (which by the way, that

is

manipulative, I don't care how you want to frame it).

Yeah, that one was kind of bad.

You have both aggressiveness and confidence. And you really aren't aggressive as town, learn your own meta

it could one day save your life

.

Do I sit back and let people find information for me (well, outside of memory reasons)? Do I shy away from people thinking I'm scum? Am I afraid of experienced players? Do I back down from an argument because it's getting "intense"? No. I'm the opposite of all of that. I know my town meta well. I've had nine games to get acquainted with and used to it.

That post. I remember that conversation, you said the thrill of being scum was turning everyone against each other

I don't have to lie to turn people against each other. But either way, no, that's not what I said.

and you're inevitably going to lie as scum, it's impossible not to. You can't call me scum while knowing I'm town and say that's not a lie or being deceptive.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Ok, this is getting ridiculous to the point where I think you're trying to waste all my time so the only thing I can do is re-read for my responses to you, effectively taking me out of the game. You can use seven words to make me do half an hour's work, and you do that three times a post. And that's just responding to

you

.

Maybe you shouldn't make claims that you aren't willing to back up. I'm not taking you out of the game if we're still very clearly talking about your scum read on me and the reasoning for such a read.

Impossible. There is literally no concrete way to show that a read is genuine or not - you could just be crazy like me, or you could have legitimately slipped up, or you could be fabricating things in your mind because your brain can't process all of the information you have to take into account, and that all happens to everyone. This is further evidence that you just want to keep me busy - you can't possibly expect me to find a source for something that isn't ever conclusively provable.

Thanks again, Captain Obvious. You can pretty easily show us where

you

believe I wasn't being genuine, though.

This is one of the things I forgot to list in my response to you. So you understand he has a baseless vote, you understand he's making a terrible argument, and what you respond with is "your case is looking a little weak, brah".

I've learned thinking people are scum for theory-based reasonings are bad - which is why I try to avoid it. I questioned Thor more than say, Mala, because knowing Thor, I find it unlikely that he places a lot of faith in night kill analysis. Mala, however, does - so it'd be pointless to argue it with her.

You have no qualms about people mindlessly sheeping you unless it's Thor - then you make him come up with reasons so that he looks better.

Well, this isn't true. I said in the post that I was getting frustrated by

everyone's

going along with a scum read against you based on night kill analysis. Not just Thor.

You're saying you could see that relationship as a bus?

Have they been very opposed to each other...? Mit's never voted Cheery, and Cheery's only voted Mit once. Within the last two hundred (yeahyeahyeah) posts, Cheery called Mit town. Explain to me what I'm obviously not seeing, please.

As far as your Violet case goes - that link isn't to a case, that link is to evidence.

Did you read it, though?