I get the distinct impression that Fruits is an alt. Let's say you're a complete newbie to mafia, do you sign up with an account that has a fruit-seller schtick? So I think we need to look at him as a non-newbie who's mucking around.In post 197, Vijarada wrote:I agree with accountant that fruit's vote is based not on his actually reading the thread and deciding; but I think he's just town with no idea how the game is played going with consensus. His "i'm so random lol fruit" posts are stupid but certainly reflect a desire to stick out; not something that scum, especially scum as clueless as fruit would want to do.
Okay, Even though if I look scum in this or whatever, But I do feel XX's frustration as town. But I don't, however, believe that Accountant is scum by it. I just feel like she's throwing suspicion in the way I disagree but I don't feel she's scummy in that way. She gave reasons, Which I understand. Also, referring to the unwillingness to interact, How come I don't ever feel that way? Accountant did explain everything to you why she scum reads you, How come is that unwillingness to interact? Could you provide more reasons before I town read you? And oh, yes, You were aware that you were acting scummy, How come you can't act town? So in that way, I could change my mind on you.In post 185, XnadrojX wrote: I was aware I was scummy, I just disagreed with the exccesive confidence Accountant had. I'm pretty sure 2 (3?) scumtells doesn't mean that someone is 100% scum, or scum enough to warrant their unwillingness to interact in any manner to me. To me, unwillingness to interact shows a gun to the head 100% confidence on me and I'm pretty sure that getting a vote in page 1 using RVS just when we're exiting RVS just to ego, and not voting a guy who I was pressuring doesnotwarrant such confidence on me. Which leads to me believing that Accountant is scum because the scum would want to get anyone lynched and their just shoving a scumread down my throat and refusing to interact with me, AKA no chances to show that I'm actually Town
There's a possibility: It depends on the player. I don't judge what's your perspective by that, but in my perspective, I think that it's NAI and depends on the player. Well, not to mention, I also did that thing. I, first, pressure or ask the player first before voting the player and maybe XX is just doing that.In post 186, Accountant wrote:If someone truly scum reads another player, what possible reason could there be for not voting them?In post 149, keyenpeydee wrote:No. Not voting your scum reads isn't scummy. I'm not defending Nadroj here but It's a player's play and you shouldn't say that's scummy.
Alright thank you for explaining. I understand your point but I'm disagreeing with your reason of this. I also didn't forget your other reasons (which I agree to) so I'm not suspecting you in just this reason.In post 188, Accountant wrote:I think that scum have more reason than town to continue making RVS votes after RVS has ended.In post 152, keyenpeydee wrote:Acutally accountant, I don't particularly agree with you when you voted Nadroj for the reason of him trying to go back to RVS. Do you seriously say that it is easy to go back to RVS when nn30 (as I think) have done scummy? Of course if someone acted scummy. suspicions will be thrown, Suspected person defends and everything continues and you still expected things to be going back to RVS?
Wiverynite is one of the topic we should also discuss.In post 189, Vijarada wrote:I'm actually hating wyvernite right now. All he's been doing is making very assertive statements. He doesn't seem to be engaging with other players and he isn't providing analysis, simply opportunism.
VOTE: Wyvernite with the caveat that I would still vote xnadrojx, and expect to do so soon.
I actually believe that nothing fruitsman has done so far is scummy. His play's been bad, but he seems to want to contribute, and lynching him would be a bad idea IMO.
Given that scum has strong reason to scumread a player but not vote them, I think that it's more likely that such behavior stems from a mafia role PM than from some random quirk of playstyle.In post 204, keyenpeydee wrote:There's a possibility: It depends on the player. I don't judge what's your perspective by that, but in my perspective, I think that it's NAI and depends on the player. Well, not to mention, I also did that thing. I, first, pressure or ask the player first before voting the player and maybe XX is just doing that.In post 186, Accountant wrote:If someone truly scum reads another player, what possible reason could there be for not voting them?In post 149, keyenpeydee wrote:No. Not voting your scum reads isn't scummy. I'm not defending Nadroj here but It's a player's play and you shouldn't say that's scummy.
However, I don't believe this reason I'm typing on comparing my case and XX's case. It's just I feel it's NAI (not referring to XX)
Maybe...In post 210, Accountant wrote:Given that scum has strong reason to scumread a player but not vote them, I think that it's more likely that such behavior stems from a mafia role PM than from some random quirk of playstyle.In post 204, keyenpeydee wrote:There's a possibility: It depends on the player. I don't judge what's your perspective by that, but in my perspective, I think that it's NAI and depends on the player. Well, not to mention, I also did that thing. I, first, pressure or ask the player first before voting the player and maybe XX is just doing that.In post 186, Accountant wrote:If someone truly scum reads another player, what possible reason could there be for not voting them?In post 149, keyenpeydee wrote:No. Not voting your scum reads isn't scummy. I'm not defending Nadroj here but It's a player's play and you shouldn't say that's scummy.
However, I don't believe this reason I'm typing on comparing my case and XX's case. It's just I feel it's NAI (not referring to XX)
You'd like us to get back onto that, while also keeping the attention off yourself!In post 212, nn30 wrote:It's very surprising to me that we've gotten off the XX train. What has he done to remove suspicion? Nothing. The conversation just moved past him.
Don't let him get away with that.
Yes, I think you did it right in that first sentence, good jobIn post 213, fruitsman wrote:You'd like us to get back onto that, while also keeping the attention off yourself!In post 212, nn30 wrote:It's very surprising to me that we've gotten off the XX train. What has he done to remove suspicion? Nothing. The conversation just moved past him.
Don't let him get away with that.
(Am I doing this right?)
Quite Opportunistic for you to throw shade on someone who is just as incriminating, you over-analytical scum!
I just had a quicky look at XX's iso, and prior to this postIn post 52, XnadrojX wrote:Of all the scummy things I did this is the one that asks you to lynch me? Me moving off my RVS vote after forgetting about you is scummy? What in that post suggests I had intention to vote you?In post 47, nn30 wrote:This definitely reads as scummy. Especially the part where you didn't put your vote on me...In post 43, XnadrojX wrote:Wait what I'm still on copper? oops lemme fix that real quick
UNVOTE: Copper
and yes I count that as stalking
PEdit: There was a cover up. You clearly stated "scum" in 10 followed by "newbie town" in post 12. There's nothing to clarify
VOTE: xnadrojx
where he refers to himself as doing 'all of the scummy things', I can't actually see anything scummy that he's done. 
In post 218, shannon wrote:I just had a quicky look at XX's iso, and prior to this postIn post 52, XnadrojX wrote:Of all the scummy things I did this is the one that asks you to lynch me? Me moving off my RVS vote after forgetting about you is scummy? What in that post suggests I had intention to vote you?In post 47, nn30 wrote:This definitely reads as scummy. Especially the part where you didn't put your vote on me...In post 43, XnadrojX wrote:Wait what I'm still on copper? oops lemme fix that real quick
UNVOTE: Copper
and yes I count that as stalking
PEdit: There was a cover up. You clearly stated "scum" in 10 followed by "newbie town" in post 12. There's nothing to clarify
VOTE: xnadrojx
In 26 he makes a quick point about NN (case is too strong a word), and then builds on it in 35 , clarifies it in 43.
In 47 NN calls 43 scummy, especially that XX didn't put his vote on NN. And then XX responds with his 'all the scummy things' line. This is the bit where I think we've gone wrong. I dunno if I can explain this clearly but let's have a go.
If say, the team was NN and XX, and *someone else* called out XX for scumreading NN but not voting him, then that's legit. We've identified that someone is faking a read or maybe avoiding voting a partner.
But for NN himself to say that it's bad for XX not to vote him... I can't see why that makes XX scummy unless it's bussing, and NN has been too pushy on XX for it to be that.(Like I think at the moment, if those two are a team then NN should be easing off XX and letting the conversation go away from him).I think it's entirely plausible that XX just wanted to ask more questions before voting, and I don't think that's AI.
Given the tone of his 212 I think it's actually possible that Scum NN has just distracted us by leaning on XX over bullshit.
VOTE: NN
