Mini 424 - Game Over

[Elias_the_thief]

random vote: ancalagon

[Elias_the_thief]

wow this game is really slow.

unvote, vote:OMG

.
pressure wagon time.

[Elias_the_thief]

er, i didnt realize that shadow was at three. the vote count hadnt been updated. so i didnt see any difference between a vote for shadow or OMG.

[Elias_the_thief]

EBWOP: I'm in newbie 330 with shadow and he said he would be out thursday til saturday. so a vote on him doesnt seem necessary.

[Elias_the_thief]

its not a matter of addition, its a matter of me thinking that the one in betweem my votes was the second vote.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias-I find it hard to believe that you would not have been able to count that it was three votes on him being that it was right after it, and the fact you acknowledged three was a wagon, yet failed to realize that it was three on theshadow, not really anything serious, but I find it doubtful you missed something that obvious.

its fairly simple actually. i saw the post before mine, in which nocmen voted for shadow. i looked at the votecount, saw it said 2 votes for both OMG and shadow. since i knew that shadow was away until after today, because we're both in newbie game 330, i figured more would be accomplished by applying pressure to OMG, who as far as i know, is still active.

Elias-I find it hard to believe that you would not have been able to count that it was three votes on him

good job ignoring where i just said a couple posts ago that I was going by the votecount.

[Elias_the_thief]

actually, if you had read instead of scimmed, kilmenator, you would see that i stated both reasons originally in subsequent posts, and that i meant to say it in the same post, which is what EBWOP means (edit by way of post). since i thought they were both at two, i thought that it didnt matter countwise who i voted for, therefore i voted for OMG based on the second reason, that shadow said he would be back sometime today.

[Elias_the_thief]

why did i switch from my original random vote? because it was random so there was no reason to keep it, and because putting a vote on someone else would start conversation.

[Elias_the_thief]

Unvote: omg

Vote: Elias

Die, scum.

um... why am I scum?

[Elias_the_thief]

you believe attempting to start conversation in a game where there is none is scummy?

[Elias_the_thief]

ok. youre entitled to your opinion. but joining a bandwagon to start conversation is fairly common practice in order. it really starts the game up.
but moving on, i find it odd that you (ancalogon) would vote me. you totally ignored OMG's vote, for reasons unknown to me, and his vote has no warrant at all while mine at least had a purpose. to me this means one of three things:
1) you scimmed and didnt see it
2) youre scum and you wanted to blend in by jumping on the person who's being questioned already, or
3) you're scum with OMG and didnt want to draw attention to him.

any of the three are possible. I just want to know why you dont even comment on OMG's vote hopping, yet jump on mine as "the scummiest thing you've seen in your entire life"

[Elias_the_thief]

exactly. but if everyone just stuck on there random votes, would anything happen?

now, my first vote was my random vote. but when i saw that nothing was happening in this game, I switched it in order to get the game going again. If no one switches there vote, then no scum get lynched. if my vote is random, and I dont find who im voting for suspicious, whats wrong with attempting to start conversation by joining a bandwagon, as long as I dont have serious intent to lynch?
I'll admit that sometimes scum could do this too (though its definately not true that most of the time scum do it), but it certainly is not a scummy play.

and for someone who claims this is the scummiest thing they've ever seen, you really havent been showing much reason for it being scummy at all.

and finally, its true that you never said OMG wasnt suspicious, but you thats only because you never mentioned him at all. you completely skipped his vote jump which had no explanation, and targetted me instead, even though I explained myself. you never addressed my question as to why you would jump on me but ignore OMG. so far you've enforced my opinion that it was either option 2 or 3 that led you to attack me.

to me this means one of three things:
1) you scimmed and didnt see it
2) youre scum and you wanted to blend in by jumping on the person who's being questioned already, or
3) you're scum with OMG and didnt want to draw attention to him.

therefore,

fos: Ancalagon

, though this may turn to a vote later on. for now i'll keep my vote on OMG.

[Elias_the_thief]

If no one switches there vote, then no scum get lynched.

That is a fact. Random votes are there to see how people respond to pressure.

i'm not sure how anyone would see one random vote as pressure. 1) its obviously random, therefore not pressure, and 2) its only one vote. theres no serious threat. if you think that random votes are good, then why not random bandwagons? neither have intent to lynch, however bandwagons apply enough pressure to actually start the person talking.

if my vote is random, and I dont find who im voting for suspicious, whats wrong with attempting to start conversation by joining a bandwagon, as long as I dont have serious intent to lynch?

Bandwagons usually do have intent to lynch. Not always, but usually.

as you said, you're new to the game. I doubt you have a very good perception of what bandwagons are usually for. day 1 bandwagons are actually usually formed with the intent of starting conversation.

its true that you never said OMG wasnt suspicious, but you thats only because you never mentioned him at all.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

(i fixed the tags for you)
I'm sorry the message got messed up. what i'm saying is that it may be true that you never said that OMG wasnt suspicious. however, you never said he was suspicious. you just entirely ignored his posts, even though his made less sense then mine.
again, putting the third vote on a bandwagon isnt particularly suspicious. totally ignoring one persons random vote hop, then suddenly jumping on someone else for vote hopping is scummy, unless you just missed the first persons hop, which you said you didnt. if you had asked for both our reasons in the same post, or asked for his soon after, I wouldnt find it so scummy. but since no one else is going to do it, i will
OMG, what was the reason for voting kilmenator?

[Elias_the_thief]

i was going to make those same points about barroman, but javert has already done it for me.

And why you don't answer this?

now, my first vote was my random vote. but when i saw that nothing was happening in this game, I switched it in order to get the game going again.

How much time passed? Your post was at 5:00 on a Friday Night. Then there was another post, then your post again at 10:00 on a Saturday Morning. Hardly enough to call a slow game. That's weak reasoning there.

3 + -12, carry the 62... = ???
i can see why you have trouble figuring out the answer, barro . but luckily for us ancalagon gave the answer in his next post.

[Elias_the_thief]

I think Javert's kinda jumping it a bit on Barroman. He asked Elias a simple question. Regardless of whether it should have been fairly clear, that's hardly cause for a vote, I'm thinking.

I have to agree with this. while barromans questions were kind of dumb seeing as they'd already been answered, they dont really seem to be much of a scumtell.

and javert: i kinda see where OMG is coming from about you being annoying. its nothing about your posts, but your picture just looks really condescending. obviously im not suspicious about you for it, that would be dumb. but if theres anything i learned about OMG in my last game, its that he's an idiotic asshole. not much he says can be taken at face value

[Elias_the_thief]

I WANT ELIAS TO ANSWER IT. Thanks

ok. I will answer your questions.
my comment wasnt intended to imply that random votes are useless, it meant to say that random votes dont really apply much pressure. random votes are good at the beginning of the game, but not much after one's first or second post. this is also the answer to your second question. i used a random vote, because I do not think random votes are useless. so im not contradicting myself there.
as for the third question, I never said the game was dead, I said it was slowmoving. nothing was happening really besides random votes, so i wanted to start things moving faster. and i think 17 hours is enough time between posts to say the game is moving slowly. as for Javert, theres nothing wrong with defending a player from an attack that is based on nothing. i think its protown to make sure no one gets lynched for dumb reasons.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias, this may seem random, but what timezone are you in?

eastern standard.

[Elias_the_thief]

and before you ask i dont have any reason to think javert is scum, he is just annoying the hell out of me

by this logic youve been scum in all the games ive played with you.
but seriously guys, this is how OMG usually plays; like an idiot. unless we feel like lynching him for being irritating (tempting I know) then he's not really our best bet. Our biggest problem so far in this game is lack of participation. Anyways, I still feel that Ancalogon is the most scummy based on his immediate jumping on me without paying any attention at all to OMG who did pretty much the same thing as I did. I still stand by this post.

but moving on, i find it odd that you (ancalogon) would vote me. you totally ignored OMG's vote, for reasons unknown to me, and his vote has no warrant at all while mine at least had a purpose. to me this means one of three things:
1) you scimmed and didnt see it
2) youre scum and you wanted to blend in by jumping on the person who's being questioned already, or
3) you're scum with OMG and didnt want to draw attention to him.

since he admitted it wasnt the first, i am still inclined to believe his reasons were one of the latter two. in the absense of anyone better to vote, im gonna go ahead and put ancalogon at 3.

vote: ancalogon

[Elias_the_thief]

thanks for that post ac. youre really moving the game along.

[Elias_the_thief]

yes he does actually. its his main tactic.

[Elias_the_thief]

FOS:Barroman

for voting kilmentator, who appears to be town to me

i dont like that you would FOS someone just because they have different opinions about someone. if you were scum you could say the same thing about your scumbuddy and fos anyone who votes for him. it just seems like a dumb argument to me.

<3 elias

and its not a tactic of mine AT ALL in games when dealing with ppl with an IQ over 50

if you watched me in a game with semi decent players you would see that but its unlikely to ever happen here.

Ooh! am i a semi decent player? or is my IQ also below 50?

[Elias_the_thief]

I will be out of town and unable to post until Saturday.

[Elias_the_thief]

hmm. finally scum is back up. too bad we lost some data. i have limited accesss where i am, post more later.

[Elias_the_thief]

Vote: MeMe

Vote hopping.


Why did you vote me in the first place?
Why did you vote ac1983fan?
Why did you switch?

fyi, changing you vote is not necessarily vote hopping. especially when so much time passed between votes.

[Elias_the_thief]

yeah...I noticed that too. ac isnt looking too good right now. i'll

unvote: ancalagon

[Elias_the_thief]

nah. i dont care that much, as long as you dont try to screw the town over like last game. and i dont think we'll be losing everything agin, we only lost stuff because we were changing to a better server (though still bluehost i think)

[Elias_the_thief]

whoa! i thought that was ac's post for some reason. ok, so my mistake about that. im not going to put my vote back on yet though. id like a claim soon.

[Elias_the_thief]

Ancalagon was at -1 before I took my vote off. And no, its not when theyre at -1 persay, but when theyre very close to being lynched.

[Elias_the_thief]

sorry for my absense guys, ive been sick for a while and I still am. After I post this or a similar message in all my games I will return to bed. But you can expect me back in 1-2 days.

sidenonte: no analysis about me? or is your belief that i made a mistake it?

[Elias_the_thief]

I have to admit that this is the same way he acted in 417, and he turned out to be a protown roleblocker in that. Im mostly better by the way, so I'll probably start posting regularly soon.

[Elias_the_thief]

ac, could you elaborate? I didnt see an instance of SV using craplogic. could you quote it or something for clarification?

[Elias_the_thief]

As much as I dislike OMG's playstyle, there's something to be said for a playstyle that is consistent from game to game.

[Elias_the_thief]

overdefensiveness can be considered a scumtell if its out of a players normal style of play, or if the overdefense is extreme, such as launching triple post defensive in order to defend against a single random vote.

[Elias_the_thief]

AC, since you think everynoes done something scummy, could you please give us post numbers and reasons what they did is suspicious?

[Elias_the_thief]

you should add names of players who posted them...and reasons why the things said are scummy.

[Elias_the_thief]

man, I dont have the energy to go back and look at all those posts right now. ill reread tomorrow, stopping at those posts along the way.

[Elias_the_thief]

I will also send a PM. I tried to print this thread and do a reread on a hardcopy as opposed to reading ti directly off the computer, but my printer is acting funny. I am dreading doing a reread in front of my computer screen, but I will do it soon, I promise.

[Elias_the_thief]

It really is. ok, I dont agree with your plan to just lynch the shadow based on his lurking. What if we end up lynching the doc , or possibly a roleblocker? then we'd be screwed. Im sure a replacement would be possible. I just dont think we can lynch a random person, when we've already lost a cop. Im not confortable with it.

[Elias_the_thief]

Im not sure yet. We still have a little time, and perhaps we'll get an extension. I know I sent in my PM. I plan to reread tomorrow, and vote who i feel is scum. Thats really the best plan I can come up with.

[Elias_the_thief]

That worked out for the best. Anyways, on the topic of OMG's claim, its the same thing he did in my last game with him. He claimed power, then claimed scum then got lynched. (he was a roleblocker). I dont think you can take anything he says at face value. That being said, I think lynching OMG would have been a better idea as opposed to shadow. shadow was inactive, so he was replaced. Since OMG is active, we cant really justify replacing him, but its clear he's going to be no help to town. I think if we dont get the extension, I'd be much more confortable lynching him then I was with lynching shadow.
However, Im not going to vote for him unless its between him and a no lynch. Ancalogon, would you be willing to post something a little more useful than a post devoted to mocking OMG's claim?

[Elias_the_thief]

I still disagree with the near random lynch that meme was suggesting. My point was IF we made a near random lynch, I was saying we shouldnt lynch someone who isnt contributing, since they can be replaced (shadow), as opposed to someone that the mod pretty much cant replace because theyre being active, but who's equally useless to the town (OMG). Plus, when I made my post, the only claim OMG had made stated "im power as always". I didnt think that was serious, because of the "as always".

1) in response to the question, he claimed scum, then cop. he ended up being roleblocker. (he managed to get a counterclaim from the real cop, thus he was lynched)

2) I conclude this because OMG seems to be a player that tries to screw the town over if he's screwed (extracting a counterclaim from the real cop in that scenerio I mentioned). So I can see him possibly trying to do the same thing if he's vanilla. I dont think his behavior really reveals much about his role.

3)yeah, it would suck to lose a doc or a RB.

As for "what we know", I disagree with A.) for reasons I stated above.

I'm pretty sure you missed the conclusion I'm drawing from OMG's behavior, or perhaps you simply dont agree with them. I see OMG as someone that will attempt to screw up the game regardless of alignment (though I havent been in any completed games with him in which he is mafia).

[Elias_the_thief]

OMG, in option 2 youre missing the possibility of causing the real doc to counterclaim, and that makes it a decidedly anti town play. I dont like the claim at all, especially when it was so unnecessary.

[Elias_the_thief]

I hardly think you had much fine print to read, or that it would have taken you hours. More like a minute. Besides, have you honestly never heard of a mod imposing a deadline when there was no deadline listed in the rules? Its fairly common.

[Elias_the_thief]

why was ac's claim bad in the first place? it was much more necessary than OMG's, and i find it more believable the OMG's because ac lacks the track record of being a dumbass.

[Elias_the_thief]

Man, thats the first time I've seen OMG tell the truth about a claim. I dont have any insight about who he might have protected however.

[Elias_the_thief]

Well, I may have actually placed my vote in the middle of the wagon, but I was one of the first (i think the very first, actually) to express suspicions about him. So its not like I just "jumped on".

[Elias_the_thief]

I really dont like the "i wasnt thinking straight"...
Inconsistency is a major scumtell in my book.

[Elias_the_thief]

Im not sure about the logic against kilm. A scum represented two people as suspicious. one was town. why would the other be scum?

[Elias_the_thief]

Im going away for the weekend, til sometime monday. sorry.

I'll answer sweenys question when I get back and reread. honestly, I dont remember what the pressure was on ac for, so im not too suspicious of him beyond the fact that most other people seem to have him in their top 3 scum.

[Elias_the_thief]

back from my trip. I'm actually interested in hearing the case on me. I cant get to posting the way/length i wanted to in this game just yet, that will hopefully come tonight or tomorrow night.

[Elias_the_thief]

Hmm. Did a reread focusing on AC. From what I read, I'll agree he is one of the scummier players in the game. I apologize in advance for a lengthy post.

So basically in the beginning he is suspicious for being extremely noncommittal, and for blatantly lurking in plain sight. He claimed there was nothing to talk about when there was actually a great deal going on. His silent unvote near the beginning of the game caught my eye as well. Anyways, he was eventually pressured into posting *some* content. The content he posts is not in agreement with my own opinions in most places, but thats not much of a scumtell. Later he posts his amazing list of scummy posts, without a list of authors or any explanation. When they are requested, he refuses/complains then doesnt do it. From what I've heard, these posts werent very scummy, though I havent read all of the ones he mentioned (at least not under the lens of searching for his supposed scumtells). Im kind of confused why the numbers jump around so much. If he had been rereading, or taking them as he went throughout the game, they probably wouldve been in some sort of order. To me it seems he just picked random ones and hoped no one asked for an explanation. Another thing that seemed wierd was requesting the no lynch. As meme said, it seems as if he really doesnt care about finding scum. My favorite is when asked about some bad logic earlier on, he says he "wasnt thinking straight". I mean, it might be true, but i dont like it. Even if he were town, he sure isnt much use to us with plays like that. In answer to Sweeny's question, I havent been voting him because I didnt realize how scummy he was. I was only thinking based off of that "i wasnt thinking straight" post, which I made a post about. In addition to that, I'm not completely certain whether or not to believe the roleblocker claim or not. We already have two dead power roles, im not hankering to lose another. However, he only roleclaimed, and never clarified his alignment, though concern for his alignment was expressed around the time of his claim. Now that I have reread focusing on him, I realize he's either scum or really unhelpful town, and in either case, he's a better lynch than other candidates IMO.

On the topic of the mason claim, Im also not sure whether to believe it. I havent been getting a good read on Noc all game, though i had a very slight scum feel from him. Kilm I wasnt too sure about either. Im probably going to reread focusing on those two later on to determine whether I believe the claim or not.

In conclusion, Ive decided that AC is probably scum, and I think Im willing to vote him, despite my uncertainty about his claim.

vote: ACfan

[Elias_the_thief]

@ Kilm: Its hardly pressure if you tell me youre just putting pressure on me...

@Void: I think it's possible. Given a hypothetical situation where one scum is down and one is under pressure, its a feasible gambit. If theyre believed, they pretty much have the game. If they arent believed, theyve pretty lost it. Though I think its feasible, it doesnt seem likely. I was just throwing the possibility out there.

[Elias_the_thief]

ok. I retract my point about the numbers. But im still confident about the rest of my case.

[Elias_the_thief]

I suppose there may be something to the barroman case. Though I dont like the way discussion is between Javert and Barroman, when barroman obviously has some trouble speaking english while Javert is the opposite. Perhaps some trouble comes from the translation?

Anyways, reread the thread. Im not sure I really see much evidence for or against the mason pairing, besides the fact that they dont really attack eachother. As I said, the gambit I mentioned is pretty unlikely. In conclusion, the mason claim seems genuine.

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias's latest post has set a couple of alarm bells ringing, because it's completely non-commital.

As this point though, I'd still prefer a barroman lynch.

If my latest post was too noncommittal, check my post preceeding it where I outlined AC's play throughout the game, and my opinion of him.

Kilm, if youre going to vote me a bunch of little things, could you at least outline the little things so that I actually have something to defend myself against?

[Elias_the_thief]

Elias: I wasn't referring your discussion on ac. I was referring to the bit where you mentioned barroman.

I dont think I was noncommittal. I commented to the effect that the Barroman case brought up some good points, but I called

some

of the points into possible question because of a possible translation issue. I agree with the case for the most part, though I feel that AC is more likely scum than Barroman.

[Elias_the_thief]

I thought you promised concrete reasons for being suspicious of me, not clarification that you were voting me...

[Elias_the_thief]

huh. That doesnt really help his case much, though I'd like to give him a bit more time (a day or two) to show before I vote for him

[Elias_the_thief]

i was planning on waiting til the end of today to do that, but oh well.

[Elias_the_thief]

maybe the mod will be back by then.

*crosses fingers*

[Elias_the_thief]

Um, that does not at all make me believe your claim. Before I place my vote I'm also interested in SV's reason for believing AC innocent.

[Elias_the_thief]

Interesting developement. Why dont you want to reveal your result SV? I agree with Javert here, both the doc and backup doc are dead, as you pointed out earlier. Theres no way scum would let a claimed cop live through tonight.

[Elias_the_thief]

*hits head*
I believe SV's claim 100% now.

This confuses me.

/agree.

[Elias_the_thief]

I guess now is a good time to tell everyone that i will have extremely limited access coming up, probably only being able to post one day a week, or something like that. Im guessing our mod will choose to replace me, and I hope that it will be temporary (i could come back later and jump back in) but I'm not sure. In conclusion, I will probably be replaced.

[Elias_the_thief]

I guess now is a good time to tell everyone that i will have extremely limited access coming up, probably only being able to post one day a week, or something like that. Im guessing our mod will choose to replace me, and I hope that it will be temporary (i could come back later and jump back in) but I'm not sure. In conclusion, I will probably be replaced.

I explained I wouldnt have much access. I have to reread and such, I just spent the week out in nature and it will take a couple hours to get my mind into the game.

[Elias_the_thief]

What needs to happen is spectrum needs to come back, and needs to answer Javerts questions. I dont have much to add, although assuming the claim is genuine, I would guess that SV is naive.

[Elias_the_thief]

Mod

, could we please get some prods? Preferably on:

• Elias_the_thief (last post June 30)

I've explained several times that I can only post on weekends. Please, please, PLEASE, read this post at least and stop pestering the poor mod about prodding me. Even when I'm home I'm pressed for time, I'll try to make a good post tomorrow.

[Elias_the_thief]

I will be here consistently for this week, then I'll be gone for a week, then ill be back for a long time. (long enough to finish up this game)

[Elias_the_thief]

So are you suggesting a no lynch then? If not, we need some commentary on who you feel is scum, though I admit Ive been lacking in this category.

[Elias_the_thief]

... Did you not read my post where i picked out you and sweeny and the scummiest? did you not notice I said sweeny was scummier than you? did you not notice that in the post javert quoted, I voted sweeny?

fos:elias

I noticed all of those things. However in the latest post you stated a mindset that focused on waiting for other things to happen before making a decision, which is what I was referring to.

[Elias_the_thief]

*suddenly understands your name, sig, and offtopic joke*

[Elias_the_thief]

Good points Javert. It does seem more likely to me that scum would take out the confirmed players. Spectrums claim still seems questionable to me, but I'll hold off on the vote.

[Elias_the_thief]

Generally, I'm person who either makes an informed decision or no decision. N0 I randomly roleblocked because it was before day one, which is random time. N1 I blocked barroman and N2 I made no decision.

This doesnt make sense to me. You like to make decisions when you have info, yet you randomly blocked n0, blocked on little info n1, and then

didnt

block n2 when you had the most info?

[Elias_the_thief]

um....is that hammer? if so that was a little bit fast ac...

[Elias_the_thief]

Ok. I'm back.

1.

I dont believe Ac's claim. If he's scum then he could easily have sent no kill in order to make his claim believable and paint another as scum.

2.

I didnt like the speed of his hammer yesterday.

3.

If he weren't scum, I think he probably would be quicklynched by now.

4.

Finally, he's played scummily all game.

That being said, acfan is the most likely mafioso in my opinion.

vote: acfan

[Elias_the_thief]

if you could please tell me what it is in the reread that made me go from 50 to 90, id appreciate it.

[Elias_the_thief]

Hand banana, youre voting because of me because of a hunch. You realize you're turning your vote away from a player who has been scummy all game, hammered superfast yesterday, and who you claim to be faking a block of you? This makes no sense.

If he is not scum, then his block must be true. In that case, that proves that

you

are scum. However, if you are town, then the fact that he's claiming to have blocked you should lean towards his guilt. I'm starting to think the pair is AC + HB. Of course, given the fact that there are three main suspects, we'll all probably just indicate each other.

[Elias_the_thief]

I occured to me when I read javerts response, then read my own post, that HB is not actually voting me. but im still curious as to the 50 to 90 % jump, and I stand by all of the other points I made in that post.

[Elias_the_thief]

Response to Javert

I dont really feel like going through this whole thing and picking it apart to respond. I'll respond to some of the points tonight, hopefully more tomorrow.

Post 17 by Elias_the_thief pushes a counterwagon, when The Shadow had hit three votes

Oh god, please dont make me argue this one again. I misread the votecount and thought it was something it wasnt. And I still think that using this as evidence in a case is trying to make

it

something it isnt.

In post 58, Elias_the_thief says he was going to make the same points as I did about Barroman. But in Post 68 he suddenly agrees with The Shadow, and doesn't think what I pointed out was a scumtell. [This could also have been done to make it look like The Shadow had contributed something more noteworthy than he actually did]. Would you mind explaining this switch for me, Elias? I'm surprised I just now saw it.

I dont see this as much of a contradiction. I agreed with your points specifically about the questions, and agreed with your answers to them. I then agree that it is not a scumtell. I felt that since barroman is not the best at english, he could have misunderstood my points. And even if what you said is true, about him trying to incriminate me with them, if he's acting off of a previous suspicioun, (a hunch or something) I dont see it as that suspcious.

Post 142 by Elias_the_thief similarly has an unvote on Ancalagon – with reasoning that does not follow, and even then he does not replace his vote in Post 149.

I honestly got the names mixed up there. I said I would hold off on revoting. I never got around to it. Thats the only explanation I can give.

Post 250 by Elias is a fine sentiment, but when looking for connections it can't be ignored.

This has always been my opinion on lurkers. I have never been a fan of lurkerlynching.

Post 265 can show some relief that The Shadow was replaced, and at the end Elias asks if Ancalagon can contribute more (to be possibly read as: "Hey! Contribute something or be bussed.")

This seems to me to be a nontell. As I said earlier, Im not a fan of lurkerlynches. Likewise, I dislike modkills. A replacement gave me relief because LY was having trouble finding any.

Wow, I surprised myself and got around to all the points addressing my posts. I hope that helps javert, and sorry again for my absense recently.

Response to HB

1. Alright. I addressed this in a subsequent post. My point is that you became suddenly suspicious of me on a hunch. The fact that you ignore that I adressed this seems like a method of discrediting the points I make without actually addressing them.

2. Ok, youre right. youre not voting me. You're suddenly launching a multiple post attack on me based on a hunch, while there is major evidence towards ac, who you could be applying pressure to. I thought he was your "100%" suspect. Again, address my point, dont just sit there and act like you didnt make a complete turnaround simply because I said "vote" as opposed to "sudden opinion change".

3. Again, address the point please. It still does not make sense that youre launching a multiple post attack on your #2 suspect, based off a hunch, when you could be pressuring your #1 suspect, or trying to convince other town members of his guilt.

4. ...huh? i dont understand your response. please clarify.

5. No, youre not. Your directing all your attention to incriminating me. You have confirmed scum, (if youre actually town). Why not try to dig up evidence against him? Why attack your #2 suspect when you have plenty of time for that on the next day?

6. Actually, I will keep my vote right where it is, because I'm not going to turn away from my main suspect. I posted four reasons for my vote, and I stand by them. Your attacks on me now incriminate you just as much as your partner AC.

7. Alright. You accept my point. Whoopee. Now address the points I made, now that I've made them satisfactory for you.

[Elias_the_thief]

Response to HB

Hand banana, youre voting (*1) because of me because of a hunch. You realize you're turning your vote away from a player who has been scummy all game(*2), hammered superfast yesterday, and who you claim to be faking a block of you? This makes no sense.(*3)

If he is not scum, then his block must be true. In that case, that proves that you are scum (*4). However, if you are town, then the fact that he's claiming to have blocked you should lean towards his guilt (*5). I'm starting to think the pair is AC + HB.(*6) Of course, given the fact that there are three main suspects, we'll all probably just indicate each other. (*7)

1. not voting.
2. no, im not
3. you're right, i wouldn't make sense. and i'm not doing it.
however, i thing you're scum to.
4. yeah, right. it's just that it's the other way around.
5. and i am.
6. oh, i see.. and you will slowly move your vote away from your scumbuddy and vote for me.. saw that coming.
7. yes. only correct thing you said.

1. Alright. I addressed this in a subsequent post. My point is that you became suddenly suspicious of me on a hunch. The fact that you ignore that I adressed this seems like a method of discrediting the points I make without actually addressing them.

2. Ok, youre right. youre not voting me. You're suddenly launching a multiple post attack on me based on a hunch, while there is major evidence towards ac, who you could be applying pressure to. I thought he was your "100%" suspect. Again, address my point, dont just sit there and act like you didnt make a complete turnaround simply because I said "vote" as opposed to "sudden opinion change".

3. Again, address the point please. It still does not make sense that youre launching a multiple post attack on your #2 suspect, based off a hunch, when you could be pressuring your #1 suspect, or trying to convince other town members of his guilt.

4. ...huh? i dont understand your response. please clarify.

5. No, youre not. Your directing all your attention to incriminating me. You have confirmed scum, (if youre actually town). Why not try to dig up evidence against him? Why attack your #2 suspect when you have plenty of time for that on the next day?

6. Actually, I will keep my vote right where it is, because I'm not going to turn away from my main suspect. I posted four reasons for my vote, and I stand by them. Your attacks on me now incriminate you just as much as your partner AC.

7. Alright. You accept my point. Whoopee. Now address the points I made, now that I've made them satisfactory for you.[/quote]

I left out HB's post. This should make more sense.

[Elias_the_thief]

I dont think it was too town slanted. I didnt really play that well, but scum still won. Maybe this was due to the difficulty of getting a read on my partner, who was replaced three times. Good game all.

[Elias_the_thief]

i had time to check my box but had to rush out the door very quickly afterwards.

[Elias_the_thief]

>< Oargh.

Well, at least my first time of forgetting which account I'm under was after the game was over. Yeesh.

wait, who were you?

[Elias_the_thief]

yeah. Mainly because you seemed eager to lynch lurkers. Although, thats kind of your style. (post or perish and all that)

[Elias_the_thief]

im sorry again about my own absense, it was unexpected. But I definately dont like players who just decide to quit a game for no reason.