Open 54 - Basic 12 Player (over) before 529

[Shanba]

Vote:sikario8

I can't think of a humorous reason for it right now. Call it arbitrary.

[Shanba]

I'm amazed you were able to make that statement about his alignment from his two posts.

Unvote Vote: elmo

[Shanba]

I have a question of Glork, Patrick, and Shanba. Do you think that this is particuarly telling of Elmo's alignment? If so how?

If not, is it just to get out of the random stage?

Eh. I thought it was odd enough to deserve a vote and at the same time get out of the random voting stage. I don't really think that a pro-town player would have a read on someone that early, but he does seem to have some logic behind it. I don't think his logic really makes sense, but eh. It's possible that it made sense to him, and that's the important thing when discerning his alignment. In other words, it could have been telling and that's enough for me to probe it.

[Shanba]

I'm trying to decide if it's indicative of anything... hence the probing questions.
Shanba pretty much answered what I was going for... you ask for explanation to get a sense of motive or thought process. His declaration was obviously not-random, so you have to seek further information yourself.

I like this answer from Glork.

I want to

FoS Shanba

since thats what I figured all three of them had done, just leaped on someone for proclaiming it odd.

I'm personally of the opinion it wasn't indicative of anything in the long run. I would consider it a null tell, unless you really consider it buddying up, or bolstering a scumbuddy... I think Shanba was just attacking someone insitinctively. Not actually sure if this is THAT suspicious of Shanba.

How do you feel my reply is substantially different from Glork's?

[Shanba]

So you've intentionally posted stupid things so someone wouldn't listen to you?

Never played with a Village Idiot?

You know, that's not something you're supposed to feel proud of :\

[Shanba]

Unvote vote: Andycyca

[Shanba]

Simple - I want him to respond to IH. Perhaps more concise than was asked for, but no point beating around the bush.

[Shanba]

Oman?

[Shanba]

Unvote

Reasonably happy with Andy's response.

IH, I'm not seeing what you're getting at with wank.

Glrok, curious as to what you think of Sikario.

[Shanba]

I'm reasonably happy with your response because it makes some sort of sense. I'm not more than that because the comment about gut feelings not being good enough to wrok with (or something like that) irks me. But I was voting you to respond to IH, and you have done so.

[Shanba]

That's the second time Patrick has done that.

Vote Patrick

[Shanba]

That's the second time Patrick has done that.

Done what?

Jumped on a wagon just as it's taking off.

[Shanba]

Urk. Got prodded. As you might be able to tell, haven't had a whole lot of time to post recently + I've been sick.

@Patrick: You say my statement is not true. I say it is. When you vote for appleof88, Ripley had been grilling him and Elmo had his vote on him. It wasn't a bandwagon yet, but it definitely had the potential to become one. Then, when questioned on it, you just back off, but you don't unvote. You sort of defer to Glork adn say that your vote was weak, but you don't go anywhere with it. Then, on Andy: Andy had had a little wagon against him earlier, but you don't vote him (despite you admitting your apple vote was weak). Then, when there's a slight resurgence, with wank and crub indicating they don't like Andy's last post and then you vote for him. You say that there was only one vote and a few drabs of suspicion on him - yes, that's true, but there had been a wagon against him before and it's not inconceivable that it would pick up again. Basically, I just hate the timing of your two votes. Also, you never mention the apple vote.

Ripley - you accuse me of following Glork. I think thjat's quite difficult when Glork is completely failing to make any assertive statements. But that's beside the point. Glork mentions that he migh move back to Patrick, but he also mentions that he was satisfied with Patrick's response to his probing earlier and he also mentions that he finds Andy scummy (Andy would be a much easier target at that point anyway). Not to mention, the post I voted Patrick for happened after the post where Glork mentions he might move back to Patrick. Finally, you seem to be assuming I am voting him for the reasons Glork outlines... which is clearly not true.

Glork - I mean what I said there. You aren't being as definitive as I would expect. I'm as yet unsure whether this is a town sign or a scum sign. Is there a reason you're being... well, noncomittal, frankly. Also, you state that you think JD is not a good wagon, but then you move onto him a couple of pages later.

FoS: Glork

Andy - why do you believe Patrick and I are distancing? That seems to come out of nowhere.

[Shanba]

Shanba, I'd

REALLY

like you to explain how labeling half of the players as definitively protown is "noncomittal."

Pending your explanation, I will assume that you mean the fact that I've been cautious with my vote indicates noncommitance. As I stated earlier, no clear lynch candidate stood out to me, and I've simply chosen to be a little less headstrong in this game. My boldness has gotten me in trouble recently, so I'm trying to tone it down just a notch or two.

Also, I did not say that I thought the JD wagon was not a good wagon. I said I was apathetic towards it, meaning that I did not lean one way or another. Obviously, the discussion since then has convinced me otherwise.

What do

you

think of JD, Shanz?

There are two things. First, you called them pro-town, yes I agree with that. However, since then you've said:

Apple's play strikes me as being fairly protown, and the reactions (i.e., bandwagon) in response to his play have further led me to believe that he's probably protown.

Will I be wrong in some of my opinions? Certainly.

Eh, when I list the protown players, there's always a chance that one scumbag sneaks onto the list.

So uhm yah. You called them pro-town, but since then there's been a current of comments undermining that position. On top of that, I know you like to seem more sure than you are (in fact you've said that in this very thread), so I'd expect you to be more vocal than that about finding them town. Or something like that. I strongly suspect that didn't make as much sense as I wanted it too.

But that's not all. While you've stated who you think is pro-town, you haven't actually said who you think is scum - to be sure, you've pushed Patrick somewhat, you've voted Jdodge, you've said you would lynch me, you've voted Ripley, but there's been nothing like what I've come to expect from you.

My boldness has gotten me in trouble recently, so I'm trying to tone it down just a notch or two.

Hrm. I suppose that makes some sort of sense. I don't see why it would be a scum behaviour especially, it just feels so weird from someone I've come to expect to be definitive about everything that it needed an answer. But how does that fit with this:

Regarding my confidence level: That's just how I think the game should be played. I feel that, as early as possible, you should try to get definitive reads on as many players as possible. Present your findings with confidence and assurance, be prepared to defend them as necessary, and investigate where you find yourself lacking in information. It's an excellent way to begin and to promote meaningful discussion, and as players respond to you, it forces more interactions and opinion-forming. All of these things are good for the town, because it means that players' actions are highly traceble (which, in turn, means one can find patterns among scums' play much more easily).

?

On Jdodge: TBH, I have no clue. I haven't been paying attention to him.

Would you like to admit you got it wrong anytime soon? 358 is full of lose. What do you hate about the timing of his votes?

If you'd read 358, that would be pretty clear. He voted for apple after apple received two votes. He voted for Andy after two people expressed suspicion on Andy. It stinks of opportunism. I don't think I'm wrong about this. My gut is agreeing with m head for once that Patrick is scum. That doesn't happen too often.

Patrick: How are bandwagons started? To be sure, no one was calling for his head. But what if Andy had reacted badly to your vote? The residual suspicion on him was such that it could very eagerly have become a decent wagon. Hrm, how to explain. Imagine a forest. Imagine that you have just flown in from somewhere far away and you don't know what the weather has been like recently. However, a few of the branches on the outside look fairly dry. Now imagine that you want to burn down the forest, but you want to do it in a discreet way and you're with lots of friends. As such, you light a cigarette and discreetly throw the burning match on the ground. It might catch, it might not, but it's still a decent indication that you wanted the thing to go up in smoke.

Now obviously there are flaws here, and obviously there could be other reasons for you to throw the match. But the fact you'd done it before was what made it more interesting. Fool me once...

@Shanba: OK, I admit I'm awful at scumhunting on D1, I always move at a slow pace in the beginning. But you said Patrick moves "on a wagon just as it's taking off" Unless my memory, my english or my maths are wrong, you were in my wagon earlier. Several people unvoted and when Patrick voted, my "wagon" was (oh my!) 2 votes long, (see votecount on 255) I don't think that's jumping on a wagon just as it's taking off. Besides, he gave a somewhat reasonable reason (duh) behind his vote. Also Patrick strikes me as more protown than you, as he's encouraging good discussion (and before I knew you were sick, I thought you might've been lurking)

So, lessee. Because people had jumped off your wagon, there was no hope of a resurgence, despite the fact that the main pusher (IH) had returned and a couple of people had just expressed suspicion of you? Oh, and also, you agree with Patrick then that you were copying people a lot, and you're not looking for scum. Because of that, Patrick is pro-town because of this and I am therefore scum who is trying to make it look like I'm distancing. Honestly, I can only hope I've misunderstood something, because that logic is insane.

Also, I never said you and patrick are distancing, I commented that you might be trying to frame him on a "distancing" scene. Now I admit that suspicion is wearing off, but still IGMEOY

I cannot believe you honestly think this. I'm seriously wondering whether you are Patrick's scumbuddy or something. Of course, that would invalidate my whole argument against Patrick. Bleh. You make little sense to me.

Again, I'm not very good on D1, many of my thoughts are gut-based, that's why I prefer to be extra-careful with my votes.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but take it as noted that I dislike your disclaimer about not being very good.

As confident? Yes and no.

Confident enough? Sure, why not.

What the heck is this supposed to mean?

This post is a mess.

[Shanba]

Ok, mostly satisfied with Glork's response. About the quote, I wanted to know what was yes and what was no.

No kidding. Glork's gotta be 100% certain about who the scum are by the middle of day 1, otherwise he's scummy!!!

Actually, I took care not to make a particular joke about that, because I imagine that kind of thing really grates after a while.

-_-

Did you even read my posts? Like I said, I'm not sure it makes him scum. But it's not a pattern of behaviour I'm used to seeing from him. It's not that he hasn't caught scum, that would the burden of proficiency fallacy, it's that he seems to be weighting his opinions less than normal. There are multiple explanations for Glork's behaviour and not all of them make him scum, but until I understand how he's playing, there's little point analysing his behaviour.

I think you're full of badness. Find a recent game where the contrast would be most striking. I'm fairly neutral towards Glork at the moment, but you're making a big deal out of something that's obviously null. Glork's responses make perfect sense to me, thus far. It's been a slow game, why does he have to have strong suspicions? I didn't until yesterday, and I don't think anyone else did.

This entire line stinks, honestly. Glork has to either argue that he's not a brilliant scumhunter or that he has 100% confidant found scum. This is incredibly unreasonable. I also think he gives you too much leniency because he's had so many people say it before, but I think you're scummy for posing it, because there's no way he can answer right.

You've completely misunderstood where I'm coming from. Read Glork's posts in this game. Looking back, closest finished applicable game from glork is Shrek Mafia. Read his posts in that game. Do you see the difference? The other finished gma e in between in communique, but that's a bad example as it was limited reveal with bizarre mechanics. If you want further evidence, you can read what he himself stated in this thread - that he has toned down his boldness. It's not something I'm making up. It doesn't necessarily make him scum. It does need an answer though. And it's got one. And now I drop it, because it's no longer interesting to me.

This is failure, too. He's on four votes and you devote a single line to him and can't be arsed to reread his all of 20 oneliner posts? Opinions, please, NOW.

You may have noticed I have limited access right now. This has not been a priority game, and jdodge has not been a priority player for me to look at this game. In addition, I have great difficulty reading jdodge anyway. Of course, I could read his posts, but I'm not going to just because you threaten me. And I have read the thread, but I skimmed through what didn't interest me. Hence missing the discssion leading to Glork's vote on Jdodge. I'm sorry if this offends your sensibilities, but I simply don't have time to be thorough right now.

I do, in fact, read things, including 358. When he votes apple, apple has my vote (random), and Ripley's vote (why'd apple move his random vote? a very very weak case for a lynch), and apple could use a little more pressure, in my view. It's not looking at all like a lynch-bandwagon. Guess who's originally poking Patrick a little about his vote, here? You're not only wrong, you're BASICALLY PARROTING GLORK WHILE ACCUSING HIM AT THE SAME TIME. His vote on apple is fine.

If I were parroting Glork, I would be reapeating his argument, which clearly isn't true as you're not attacking Glork. Think man.

Yes, I agree it's not looking like a lynch wagon. So what? It's still a wagon. If Patrick's intention had been to wagon for pressure, maybe I'd understand. Instead, it just looks like an easy move on to a wagon that won't draw too many strange gazes. And if it did take off, Patrick being early on the wagon would be a benefit to him as scum. I don't think this is a difficult concept. Yet, this isn't scummy alone - it's the fact that he does it again that worries me.

A wagon forms on Andy with the third vote at post 73. I put the forth one on in 86. Patrick posts without voting at 88. Guess who jumps onto the Andywagon next, in 98? One Shanba, to bring it back up to four. Patrick doesn't vote Andy until 247. What are you smoking? His vote on Andy is fine from the view of jumping on a bandwagon that's just taking off. Your accusation is intensely hypocritical. Your quiet no-reason vote looks worse, on that note, as it was when Andy could have been moving towards a lynch.

My vote being the fourth means it's quite difficult for me to be moving onto a bandwagon that's just taking off, I would say. Also, my vote had a clear purpose that Patrick's lacked. Yes, perhaps it was an exaggeration to say that they were wagons that were just taking off. But it wasn't a large one. They both folllowed the mood of the last few posts pretty much exactly, and they were both on players who had been under scrutiny. I don't think what I said is as much of a stretch as you make out.

I think your argument is terrible, bluntly. 372 gives me really scummy vibes.

I would totally dayvig either JDodge or Shanba. Or both.[/quote]
-_-

[Shanba]

Uh, quote tag failure.

[Shanba]

I'm still happy with my vote on Shanba, as his play is still closer to the scum meta I described before than how I've seen him play as town. I'm also wary of how he appeared during his VLA time (which I think is over now), and posted in pretty much every other game except this one, and I still don't think his attacks on me look like genuine scumhunting.

I think you need to back this up, the stuff about V/LA especially. I don't think I spent more time in other games at all.

Seems pretty certain that some people are town, and really not liking the "Glork didn't catch scum, therefore Glork is scum" argument. Glork may be scum, but that's a pretty unfair argument. I'm leaning toward scum on Shanba.

Did you read my posts? Urgh. Read my discussion with Elmo.

[Shanba]

My attempts to read Sikario8 are being severely hamepered by my inability to understand what point he's even making most of the time. That said, I don't see any particular reason to think he's scum.

I still quite like a Patrick vote, but I do need to have a look over yesterday's lynch before I vote.

[Shanba]

Shanba, I remember a day when I saw you come online and post in a bunch of other games and distinctly avoid this one. A quick look at your recent posts suggests that date was the 9th of December. I'm not really sure how you can deny spending more time in other games, up until post 490 you hadn't posted at all today despite the fact that the day has been going nearly 2 weeks.

Oh. You're right. So I did. I didn't avoid the game deliberately though, but I guess that's impossible to tell.

[Shanba]

But you know what? I'm done with that. I think he is deliberately unhelpful, plays games, provokes, mocks and taunts because he's the kind of person who enjoys doing those things. I think his persistent singling out of the most articulate players in the game for attack is because those are the people most likely to and most able to stand up to him. I think the poor scumhunting is because he's not scumhunting. I think he's scum.

Pheh. I'm not sure I buy this. As I pointed out, he hasn't really felt like I would expect Glork to, but I tihnk it's a stretch to say he's done no scumhunting. I also don't think he would deliberately single out articulate players. As scum, it's much easier just to kill the articulate ones at night than get your hands dirty pushing for their lynch. Maybe that's just me. Oh, and also, Glork was pro-Elmo who is an articulate player, so he's not just singling out articulate players.

I think Glork's argument against Ripley has some merit. Defending someone under attack is something I've often done as scum. I do it as town too, though. It may simply be more of a playstyle thing. However, Glork has other games to show the meta (and also a more specific parallel than just defending someone under attack).

I've read the Jdodge wagon now, and I'm not sure what to make of it. Sikario is the first vote, but Elmo had been pressuring JD prior to Sikario's vote. Sik never really explains why he voted, but he seems genuine in his conviction that JD is scum. The Ripley votes. I'm not sure I like his vote

For persistent refusal to post content for the whole of the day; consistent neglect over a sustained period that can't be put down to exams, holidays, illness etc etc. In a game where there's been a general feeling that nobody's been all that scummy, and people are struggling to find good reasons to vote, I think we might as well use the opportunity to ditch some deadwood. There's no reason to expect his play to change and the problem he presents will become ever more acute as numbers lessen.

Also, while I haven't played with Glork before he clearly has a fine reputation as a scumhunter, and has already listed half the players as protown: Crub, Elmo, IH, Glork, Andy, apple. If you put your faith in Glork here and believe he's protown, the chances of JDodge being scum look encouraging.

mostly because I disagree with his assertion that there's a general consensus that noone looks very scummy. By that time I hda been pressured, Andy had been pressured, I had attacked Patrick, Glork had declared lots of people pro-town and thus narrowed down his list dramatically and so on. Indeed, in that very post he had said he had indicated a suspicion of IH. I'm not sure what he would be trying to gain as scum, though. Meh.
Then Elmo votes and provides some nice reasoning. Glork hops on the wagon. Hard to say whether this is Glork just wagoning or Glorkscum trying to take advantage. Put it down as neutral for now. Finally, Andy adds a weird vote just at the end of the wagon

Now I don't definetly like JD's reaction

UNVOTE, Vote: JDodge

I really hate this vote. Given the way the deadline rules work, Jdodge's lynch was not guaranteed, and Andy's vote changed nothing if a deadline hit. But if people had started being active, then it might have been more significant.

FoS: Andy, Ripley

I'm wavering a bit on Patrick. I still think he's the most likely to be scum but I'm getting more vibes going back. SCumlist currently reads Patrick, Ripley, Glork, Andy

[Shanba]

*taps foot idly*

[Shanba]

I believe so. That clears you, and by extension, Glork.

[Shanba]

OK, I've reread the game. It occured to me to look to see who could have posted but didn't at the deadlines. The first deadline, the only uncleared/living players who posted were Patrick and Andy. It's certainly possible that if no one else was posting, the scum might not try to avoid the thread and instead try and draw points for being active. Because I like Andy/Patrick as a scumpair right now, especially re-reading this:

@Patrick: I mean that Shanba accuses you of jumping wagons as soon as they start, but I don't think you're scum, so a nice possibility could be that Shanba is trying to pull off a framejob by "Distancing" with you. More when I get home

It's so weird.He thinks I'm fake distancing with Patrick? Huh? It's like, he's trying to lynch me but trying to do it so that it doesn't cast suspicion on Patrick. It's also such a convoluted explanation for my actions.

Also sticking out to me is his poking of Crub without ever really attacking him. There's some of this from Crub to Andy too, though I note that Crub also lists Andy as getting town points. I'm not sure how much guts Crub has as scum, but the link is stronger Andy<-Crub than Crub<-Andy.

Anyway, on to the day 2 deadline:
Three people posted, Glork wank and Boo. Sikario gets replaced overnight, and indeed had gone generally inactive by that point. IH is pro-town. That leaves Patrick, Andy and Crub. Hrm. It stretches the imagination that all three scum were deliberately avoiding, but eh, that is a remarkably nice fit. Patrick posted a votecount elsewhere that day, Crub also posted elsewhere and Andy posted too (though to be fair, they all only posted once elsewhere. Hrm.)

Individually, Andy reads somewhat scummy, Crub neutral and Patrick scummy. So I'm most convinced of Patrick, but Andy is the better link between the two. Hrm.

[Shanba]

This is mostly for completeness's sake, but Shanz: What makes you think that avoiding the thread during deadline makes someone more likely to be scum?

The deadline rules of the game. By lurking through the deadlines, the scum can force a mislynch much easier than jumping on and quicklynching and much less obviously too. It's a way of wagoning without wagoning.

I think my clarity levels are dropping.

[Shanba]

Tricky. Do you want individually scummy or most scummy by association? Because the two give vastly different tables for me.

[Shanba]

In which case:

Patrick
Andy
Bookitty/TSQ/Crub


Associations: well, obv IH and Glork are cleared. IH would be high on my suspect list apart from that, and Glork would be with the neutrals (crub boo tsq). As for the link, I think there's a strong Crub/Andy link and a weak Andy/Patrick link, making me think that Andy is more likely to be scum than he would be normally. Crub also moves up by association, and Patrick drops a little bit. So it then looks like this:
Andy/Patrick
Crub
Tsq/Bookitty

[Shanba]

Hrm.

My big problem with the quicklynch theory is it means that we can't have a Crub-Andy pairing. I like a Crub-Andy pairing. It makes sense. But eh. That post...
it's kinda hard to describe my reaction. My first thought was not that he was priming for a quicklynch. I've seen the argument he used used before, and in that case it was correct. It actually didn't cross my mind that it could be that.

That said... I see where IH and Glork are coming from. Thinking back to my second game where I was scum with Glork, day 2 we needed a mislynch to win (newbie game). One of the townies had voted for the cop and I only needed Glork to log in and we had won. At that point I got very antsy, including making a post simply to bump the thread. Eventually Glork logged on and we won. So I see why the post might be a scum primer, and indeed, given the timestamps that seems the most likely explanation.

In which case, who is the third scum? It can't be Andy, or he wouldn't be trying to set up a mislynch. The connection with Patrick is weakened - the big connection I felt there was Andy-Patrick, not Crub Patrick. Still, I think Patrick is scummy individually. Tsq or Bookitty then for the final scumbuddy. Ugh. If I had to pick, I'd pick TSQ. Bookitty's recent posts read town to me.

TSQ-Crub-Patrick? Even that doesn't feel quite right. Bleh.

[Shanba]

Hrm.

The argument between tsq and Bookitty reads as largely academic and I didn't get a whole lot from it. The things I did get were this
-I am not reassured by TSQ. The whole "debunking the obvious lie" thing seems somewhat of a stretch to me. Bookitty's case was logical and made a degree of sense.
-TSQ's point about whether Patrick/Me are distancing or whether Andy/Crub are distancing seem largely irrelevant. While it's true that she cannot be sure this is the case, she can have a reasonable degree of certainty. That said, he does make a decent point here:

I have given 3 reasons why you cannot be sure that they cannot be scum buddies, and you have responded to exactly none of them, and are now attempting to attack the time at which I make my arguments, rather than the arguments themselves, since you know you can't beat them.

It is true that she has dodged answering

Bleh. I have this horrible sense that come tomorrow I'm going to be wearing a noose around my neck.

[Shanba]

Bleh. I have this horrible sense that come tomorrow I'm going to be wearing a noose around my neck.

Maybe that's because you keep making posts that don't really address anyone, present any detailed cases, or come to any strong conclusions.

That's... not really true. My day 1 attacks on Patrick, for example. My post today where I outlined my case about the absent at deadline thing. Hell, I even came to a conclusion at the end of my last post about tsq, despite thinking I wouldn't originally.

Or it could be because you end every post you make with a "blah, this sucks" type of comment.

I'm not really enjoying this game, and I don't have a great grasp of what's going on. I'm finding it difficult distinguishing between the players, with the exception of Patrick. If I'm brutally honest, I'm simply cherrypicking the bits I like from other people's arguments. This is not doing a whole lot of good for my confidence that I'm right.

Also, we're in lylo, I'm town and I'm under heavy suspicion. Yes, it does suck.

Or, huge stretch here, it could be because you're scum.

I hate it when people use rhetoric against me.

Personally, I hope it's all three. [/Cox]

You're going to be disappointed, then. I may have a fairly defeatist attitude, but this is not indicative of my alignment. What would I, as scum, have to be defeatist about right now? We're in triple lylo. I'm probably not going to be lynched today. Unless you believe it's because I'm scum with Crub? That would follow. But even then, I would still have a very good chance of winning as scum.

I'm not about to argue it makes me town, but I don't think it's a good argument for me being scum.

[Shanba]

Bzzt.

First of all, re: "Unless you believe it's because I'm scum with Crub" made me laugh and cringe. I think I've stated no less than three times in the past two pages that I think both you and Crub are scum.

Now, you have every reason to be defeatest. The Cop is outed and has an innocent result (yours truly), with no counterclaims. That narrows the field of suspicion down significantly. If I happen to be the Doctor, it's all gravy for you. Kill me tonight, IH probably outs one more person, kill him tomorrow night. Pretty solid chance of mislynch in LyLo. However, if you believe that I am not the doc (75% chance, from the scumbaggo's perspectives), you're in trouble. Kill me and IH is guaranteed two more investigations. Poke elsewhere, and there are still two confirmed innocents tomorrow. Now, if we are not taking reads into account, your only viable play would be to kill me and hope that I am the Doctor. However, if you read me as Not-Doc, you're definitely in quite a pickle.

It would appear that I made my point badly.

What I was trying to say is that the defeatism that all your points characterised were not inherently scummy. Yes, if you were entirely correct, then you would be entirely correct. But that's kind of circular. To complete my point - as town, I have every reason to be defeatist. My scumdar has been off all game, I'm under eventual threat of lynch in a lylo situation and I can't seem to get my head around what's happening.

Now, regarding the rest of your post: I will concede that you did make a point way earlier today about the "inactivity towards end-of-day" thing, but two things:
1) An assload of discussion has happened since then, and you have been distinctly lacking in analysis of said discussion.

Bollocks. We've had everyone agreeing that Crub is probably not scum with Andy and we've had tsq and bookitty attacking each other (which I did comment on) and the rest has just been jockeying around saying "I think it's x, y and z" "Yeah? Well I think it's v, y and z". That sort of discussion does not leave a whole lot to comment on.

2) You yourself are now becoming one of those "inactives" that you griped about earlier. When I asked for the last set of prods, I decided that I'd look to see who posted and then disappeared for 72 hours. You were the only such person. Like I said, definite minus points.

This point was specifically referring to deadline periods, where lack of posts could force a premature end to the day.

[Shanba]

Vote: Crub

This was tough, but I think he's more likely scum than Patrick/TSQ.

[Shanba]

Crub's vote on Andy. That made it very unlikely than Andy was scum. If Andy isn't scum, then the whole Patrick-Andy connection is gone, which makes Patrick less likely scum. I still think he is individually scummy, but Crub's vote also reads scummy.

[Shanba]

@Patrick:

A "reread" implies that TSQ has read the thread in the first place. As of two days ago, he stated he had not read the thread the first time. As in, at all. Which is a significant part of my reasons for voting him. This lack of curiosity and helpfulness during LYLO seems scummier to me even than what Crub has done. I was not aware that he had agreed to read the thread, but I might have missed that.

I meant read instead of reread, used the wrong word. The bit where TSQ said he'd read the game was In this post. I've been curious to know what he thinks of Crub especially, though just some general commentary of everyone wouldn't be bad.

If Crub is town then we're pretty much screwed at this point because a scumbag will be able to hammer him, but I think the chances of that are very slim. If it is happening though, don't keep us in suspense.

Is there any point to this or are you just posting for the sake of posting?

[Shanba]

He had already done that here:

Waves hi.

TSQ, you going to post anything at all?

Besides, you are scum with him, so it changes nothing.

[Shanba]

bullshit.

Hrm.

My big problem with the quicklynch theory is it means that we can't have a Crub-Andy pairing. I like a Crub-Andy pairing. It makes sense. But eh. That post...
it's kinda hard to describe my reaction. My first thought was not that he was priming for a quicklynch. I've seen the argument he used used before, and in that case it was correct. It actually didn't cross my mind that it could be that.

That said... I see where IH and Glork are coming from. Thinking back to my second game where I was scum with Glork, day 2 we needed a mislynch to win (newbie game). One of the townies had voted for the cop and I only needed Glork to log in and we had won. At that point I got very antsy, including making a post simply to bump the thread. Eventually Glork logged on and we won. So I see why the post might be a scum primer, and indeed, given the timestamps that seems the most likely explanation.

In which case, who is the third scum? It can't be Andy, or he wouldn't be trying to set up a mislynch. The connection with Patrick is weakened - the big connection I felt there was Andy-Patrick, not Crub Patrick. Still, I think Patrick is scummy individually. Tsq or Bookitty then for the final scumbuddy. Ugh. If I had to pick, I'd pick TSQ. Bookitty's recent posts read town to me.

TSQ-Crub-Patrick? Even that doesn't feel quite right. Bleh.

You'd have to stretch quite hard to not realise that this means I am suspicious of you.

[Shanba]

I

hate

cops

TBH, we got horrendously lucky this game. The only one of us who looked at all clean was andy - some of my logic had been shaky (although the patrick thing I did believe in, fwiw) and I had lurked like crazy and had made some very obviously opportunistic votes/posts. It's quite funny though, because we never really had a large hand in putting the candidates up for lynch - each time, another candidate would suddenly appear and we'd just push him over the edge

[Shanba]

/agree with Shanba

Me clean? I think I hit L-1 once or twice (once on D3) and my argument about you trying to frame Patrick was indeed a bad move on my part.

Eh, perhaps. Still, though, you were clean until d2 - both me and patrick messed up day 1 :D

There's nothing quite like being nailed by the whole town and basically let off the hook. It's surreal as an experience.

[Shanba]

All in all, I don't think this was a particularly well played game. Both sides made mistakes, scum played worse but were able to capitalise on the town's mistakes better.