Mini 572 - Packrats (game over)

[Y]

vote: Y

Y not?

Cause I used that joke myself in some games, that's Y.

[Y]

Last time Capricious tried to get me killed he was scum, so...

Besides, felines (Which are not the same as canines, Capricious) are much better. I think we should have a cat instead of that missing mayor.

[Y]

Link.

Please note that it was a joke (About Capricious trying to get me lynched as scum). It was a good game though.

[Y]

But maybe they're newbies, and they don't know who the stronger players are...

You do know that in that game I was a good town player, but I turned out to be scum, right? I mean, you should, you were told so in your role PM...
By the way, my tactic on that game

was

"do stupid things and convince everybody it was some one else's noobish mistake". I won't fall for my own trap, you know.

[Y]

Zindaras:
Also, you obviously didn't recruit me, cultists can't recruit mafia, nyaah.

I'll take this as a claim. We have a confirmed cultist!

[Y]

@ Capricious: Scum tries to make as many kills as possible. Hitting some one who'll probably get protected helps them not.

[Y]

By the way, hinting at 546 was a joke, you shouldn't get so serious about it.

[Y]

It was a followup to the previous post (Where I talked to Capricious). I made a comment about the game insinuating he's scum because of that game, while in reality we were both scum in that game. It was a joke, nothing useful, but Capricious is actually starting to analyze it... He's meta-gaming, and he's doing a terrible job (He shows how I was very pro-town and saying scum should have noticed it, while I was scum in that game).

[Y]

"You" was Capricious, if it isn't obvious enough.

[Y]

The problem with your point, Mizzy, is that the votes in this stage are not meant to get people lynched immediately, they're there to put pressure and point to scummy behaviour. If I'm voting some one, it doesn't mean I'll try to convince the whole town to lynch him right now.

I do believe that three pages are more than enough to start looking for subtle things.

[Y]

I actually think this all meta-game analysis is leading us nowhere (It really bores me, actually).

[Y]

On the werewolves:

I still believe werewolves are scum and will continue to do so until we have reasons to suspect otherwise. The "For good" part of the flavor just sounds melodramatic. However, we might have reason to believe that power roles using wolfsbane are, in fact, ineffective.

After emphasizing that the wolfsbane kept the werewolves out for good, you say you don't believe this is the case. Do you have a role PM saying they are here again? Their names, maybe?
Furthermore, you say there are werewolves, but that power-roles with wolfsbane won't be effective?
I think you forgot the "Pro-town investigation roles, please don't target me" part.

[Y]

Why would investigative roles use wolfsbane?

You brought it up. You tell me...

When I said "Investigative roles" I was insinuating you're scum, if you missed it.

[Y]

I didn't say they use it. I said that you should've asked not to be investigated.

[Y]

Here:

I think you forgot the "Pro-town investigation roles, please don't target me" part.

I said it referring to you, after quoting your post and analyzing it.

[Y]

FoS Mizzy

for not making much sense (Except the last question).

[Y]

Sure, why not... Why do you think any one would even think about suspecting you due to Capricious' post, when he didn't even mention your name, nor the fact that some one posted something similar to his post already?

[Y]

It's happened to me before that I post some sort of question or logic or possibility or what-have-you and someone who's been in the limelight in a not-so-good way has used that post of mine to divert attention off of themselves and onto me.

1. He wasn't on the "limelight".
2. He asked for a discussion, not referred to your post and asked for a discussion.

[Y]

Am I the only one to notice Capricious was completely forgotten?

I don't know what to make of this Mizzy-RS fight. Each of them writes big posts, but there's very little, if any, new info.

[Y]

What was it based on then?

Seconded.

[Y]

I'm a bit curious about how Y and Skruffs effectively derailed the RS wagon, and it is noted.

In one hand I see no real progression in the RS case. On the other hand, we have Capricious, who decided to remain really quiet all of a sudden. I believe he's hiding while some one else is in the spotlight, hoping to be forgotten.

[Y]

Not really. Me and Zindaras have a history, a history in which he wwas factually scum every time but one. So I am trained to be suspicious of him now. I'm still posting out side of that suspicion, but as the number of players dwindle, the more likely i will be to push for his lynch.

Him being scum in other games makes no difference to this game. This post is completely irrelevant.
Is there anything productive you'd like to add?

[Y]

I don't have much time, so it'll be short. I hope I'll be able to elaborate later.

Skruffs is using meta-game info, but using only games they both played together. Although I understand that you can't know him without playing with him, you also can't discard all the games you didn't play together.

It seems like you're pushing a move that can't really be proven, especially if you have no concrete info from this present game.

You did the same with RS: You have accusations and theories, but none has any real connection to the game.

Vote Skruffs.

[Y]

You are voting me because my suspicions and theories are ... not connected to this game?

What are they connected to?

What are you getting at, exactly? I am working with the information I have: This game is not giving me enough so I am pulling in outside information to be discussed and used or ignored, and everything I am saying *is* based on the game, but like Mizzy and Zindaras, you are ignoring the parts that actually have to deal with this game, and focussing on the Deliciously Easy Scapegoat of Using Metas.

You're using outside, mostly irrelevant, information. By discussing it, we get to even more information not connected to the game. It's a circle.
We're at page 9. Remove all the metagame talks and see how you're left with almost nothing. Adding even more metagame information gets us less in-game information.

This coming from the person who suggested that the mafia might be newbies who didn't know who the stronger players were,

followed by your own suggestion that they would know strong players would be protected and so targeted a player unlikely to be targeted.

Is this a situation where you are acussing someone of doing the samae thing you did, aka a newbie mistake? Cuz I thought you only did that as scum.

I'd suggest you read the game before you start accusing people. The player who wrote those arguments is Capricious, and I confronted him about it. I remember what I said or not said, so please don't try to put words in my mouth. Thank you.

[Y]

I looked up and I know what post you're referring to (40). I said what I said not as a suggestion, but just to show Cpricious how easy it is to dismiss his argument (Which was based on metagame).

[Y]

Skruffs, last time I was scum, I really wanted to get a townie lynched. I believe most scum groups like townies getting lynched whenever they can.

What you're doing, actually, is to encourage a lynch, saying that whoever doesn't is scum, while the actual interest of scum is to get people lynched.
Nice one.

If there is a scum group of some sort, and only one (as compared to an individual or multiple smaller partners) then there are probably 3 of those scum.That meansa that out of 11 players, if scum decides to not post after deadline, 6 out of 8 of the town players HAVE to post EVRY 24 HOUR cycle to contin discussion.

What are you basing this numbers on, when we don't really know anything yet?

[Y]

Are you *REALLY* insinuating that because scum like to get townies lynched, I must be scum, because I am trying to avoid a no lynch?

No. I'm saying that your logic is somewhat flawed if you think that if any one isn't posting, he's definitely scum.
This theory has just what scum need - A completely arbitrary way to accuse people without a proved case.

[Y]

I played with Capricious once, and if I rely on that game, his logic isn't conventional (If he actually posts big, detailed posts). We were mafia together on that game and he was trying to bus me (Which got him killed), so I'm not sure how representative it is as an example of his style.

[Y]

Skruffs, I can't see the connection you're doing there. Care to explain?

[Y]

Am I the only one not having a holiday?

[Y]

I'm jewish and I live in Israel. I didn't know what holiday you were all talking about until some one posted it a few posts ago...

[Y]

We do, but they don't do whatever yours do with eggs...

[Y]

Skruffs is still my main suspect for trying to make facts about who must be scum without a real basis, but I'm not ruling Capricious out. I'll vote Capricious if needed for a lynch.

[Y]

The town needs a lynch and Capricious seems a good enough option.

Unvote, Vote Capricious.

I still think Skruffs should be looked at more carefully.

[Y]

Skruffs is still my main suspect for trying to make facts about who must be scum without a real basis

Examples?

Anyone who's NOT voting and DOESN'T post in the next fourteen hours is scum trying to push a nolynch.

Just considering things here:
If there is a scum group of some sort, and only one (as compared to an individual or multiple smaller partners) then there are probably 3 of those scum.

^- Translation "hope for nolynch"

Although she wrote the exact same thing in other games.

Are those enough?

[Y]

Unvote, Vote: Capricious

need a lynch, but come to your senses and lynch Andycyca day 2

I think this is a scum gambit. It's more effective in this game than others, because the scum can daytalk. They can orchestrate their votes/unvotes on the Capri wagon much more effectively than usual.
Also, for the record, I think self-voting in general reeks of scum. I'd lynch someone for it any day of the week.

Completely missed the daytalk thing. That's interesting...

[Y]

Can anyonew check to see if anyone's posting frequency before/after deadline has passed

It's a good idea. You're welcome to do that.

[Y]

Y, could you explain why he's your main suspect right now? (Also, re-reading Y's posts, that thing about easter was great. )

Happily...
At one point he started making up "rules" about who is scum. He wasn't suggesting nor sharing his thoughts, he was just claiming that is the case.
Now based on his own declaration, he just can accuse whoever he wishes without any one questioning it, and maybe get other people to follow.
He's also basing most of his play on meta-gaming, which isn't as helpful as he's making it look like (While accusing one of our best players. Convenient).
All in all, I get from him the feeling that he's trying to make opportunities for future lynches while being under the radar.

[Y]

HMmmmm.
Elmo: Think it's about Andy.

If you're referring to my post, it's about you.

[Y]

Oh, okay. ^.^

It's really easy to pick at other players without, you know, putting yourself at risk, isn't it?

I was attacked for attacking you. It's really easy to simply make up things to make your points stronger, isn't it?

[Y]

I do not think Skruffs is scum based on his attack on me. I personally see it as a null tell/slight town tell. I find Y scummy for attacking him over it (I felt it was a very opportunistic attack), and I'm somewhat disturbed by Mizzy's vote as well, but I need to re-analyze the game again.

And you weren't even nice to him this game...

[Y]

Skruffs, enjoy:

Elmo quietly goes through Capricious's wallet. There's a bit of money and a library card--that's it. You know that other towns sometimes have mafia problems, and mafiates can be identified by their standard concealable water guns.

But how do you recognize an enemy that uses its own body to kill?

At this point, the moon conveniently rises. Capricious's body doesn't change at all. You scatter before the real werewolves can change, 'cause then they'd probably eat you.

I also don't see the Zindaras-Mizzy pair you're mentioning.

[Y]

Here's why I voted Capricious. This is almost the same post I was going to write before the lynch, with a few changes made knowing his real alignment:

Posts 38-39:

Capricious tried to over analyze the N0 kill. Not only that, but he was implying that I should have been killed for being a strong townie (While using as an example a game on which I was scum). I also get from him the same strategy I used, as scum, in that game - "The choice is illogical, I wouldn't do that as scum".

Post 61:

Capricious answers eldarad's questions, but he's obviously avoiding real answers.

Post 98:

"Last time you voted me I was town, and I guessed right who the scum were, and no one believed me. The town will lose if you lynch me". Using emotions and completely irrelevant information as defence - Never good.

Post 103:

Admitting he used meta information, and not good info.

Post 104:

Quotes another player's suggestion for discussion (Mizzy), and leaves it as is. Just a "Look at me, you're just thinking I'm not really playing the game, but I do". That's plain-sight-lurking if you ask me.

Post 107:

Accuses hasdgfas for actually telling the town exactly that. Also he says he believes there are werewolves, but wolfsbane won't help. "I believe werewolves exist. I believe fighting werewolves won't help. Choose one". That's the same "I'm here! I'm doing things!".

Post 112:

Completely missing my point and accuses me for things I didn't say. He also contradicts what he said about wolfsbane in 107.

Post 114:

Completely contradicting his 107 by saying power-roles probably do have wolfsbane. I believed, at the time, that he either knew something, or was trying to lure some one to slip and say something about wolfsbane.

Posts 116-117:

Obviously accusing people without knowing what he's talking about.

Post 151:

Talks to eldarad and then votes for Andycyca. No reason given.

Posts 168-169:

Actually saying voting me had a good reason (It didn't). Remembers to actually say something about the Andycyca vote.

Posts 192-195:

Protecting Skruffs' irrelevant meta-gaming. Misrepresents eldarad's post. Discards Mizzy's post with no explanation.

Post 214:

"I'm stupid". Poor Capricious uses emotions again.

Post 227:

Feel is important, but he's completely dismissing everything else. That's understandable, for some one who ignores logic most of the time.

Post 262-263:

Self vote, to avoid a no-lynch (After saying we shouldn't do so in 194. Calling for an Andycyca's lynch D2.

Post 267:

Calling people pro-town. No explanation. Again.

Post 271:

Adding other people to the "good list". Same lack of reasoning.

Post 274:

"Elmo is town for defending me when I do something stupid".

Post 293:

"Town are creators, scum are concluders". Weird, I saw no real creations from Capricious.

Post 297-298:

Andycyca is no longer scum. Capricious uses the last post as an excuse to let it go. Defends the illogical statement from 274.

Post 316:

"I'm here". Doing nothing, but here.

Post 320:

Another list without real explanation. The two people he actually explains his thoughts about are me and eldarad. Both of us are "Maybe, maybe not" in his post.

Posts 364-366:

Glorifies Mizzy again. "She must be town for defending me". Of course, there's no possibility for her to be scum, getting confirmed for protecting a townie who's about to get lynched, right?
Suddenly attacks hasdgfas. Doesn't really care he's on his way to the noose.

Posts 368-370:

Attacks Zindaras too. Shooting in the dark?

Post 403:

"Everybody, just follow me".

Some meta:

Last time I played with him, he disappeared once he was about to get lynched as scum, not giving too much of a fight.

As a whole, I got the feeling that he's just trying to put suspicion on people, giving no importance to how or why. The way he accused and defended people seemed completely disconnected to the actual way those players played the game.

I played with Capricious and I know his logic might be off sometimes, and I think Skruffs is scum, so Skruffs was my better choice. When we got close to deadline and we needed a lynch, Capricious not being such a good player seemed to be much less important than all the other things he did.

As to Andycyca's hammer, I think he was just tired of the day dragging along. I actually hoped some one would do that already, since no real progression was being made. I believe it was a compulsive action. Not necessarily a good one, but not definitely a scum action. I also believe that it was obvious he'd be questioned about it, and would be the easiest target for the scum to push toward a lynch.

[Y]

What's "VI", exactly?

[Y]

According to Y's post, the major driving force behind lynching Capri was because he was doing some stupid shit. Not that he was doing scummy shit. What gives with that? If we lynched every moron, we'd have more ghost-towns than anything.

Lurking isn't scummy? Using wrong/baseless accusations to put suspicion on people isn't scummy? What about not adding real info for discussion, while trying to appear as if he does?

You can't say he wasn't scummy. I saw him doing the same mistakes he did here when he was my scum partner. What I got from his play style (And you can clearly see it in post 38), is that he tries to get rid of the stronger players and remain with the weaker ones. You can definitely see that in Newbie 546 (Post 106 on that game, in particular).

[Y]

I said it already, but I'll say it again: Skruffs, I have no idea what connection you're seeing between Zindy and Mizzy, besides the fact that they're both playing in this game. Again, I think you're making up whatever you can to put suspicion onto people.

[Y]

I don't know about RS, but Skruffs did get my attention for being weird and irrelevant.

[Y]

Don't expect too much from me for a bit, have important tests on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday.

Same. Got a big test (Israeli SAT) on Wednesday.

[Y]

RS: I really don't think Mizzy, Zindaras and Skruffs are scum together. It's very unusual for three people, all of them on the same scum group, to fight each other so badly. Worst case scenario - They're all lynched. Best case - One of them gets lynched. Bad either way. One, maybe two? Could be. All three? I don't think so.

Mizzy, you're saying you're attacking no one, yet you keep throwing accusations all over the place.

[Y]

Someone asked me for why I didn't like the Capri wagon, so I said why.

I also said

, in the same post,

that I'm not accusing anyone of anything

, just giving reasons why I stayed off of it.

That's my point: You're saying that, while doing the opposite.

Skruffs, I'm not "looking for proof before I vote", but I do tend not to vote people just for the sake of voting. I vote when I thing the vote should be placed on some one. I'm sorry to tell you that, but I see little connection between your logic and reality.
By the way, if I was voting, my vote would be on you, by the way.

[Y]

I actually wrote a big post, and it seems like everybody missed it. I did think, at the moment, that Capri was scum. I was just less sure about it than about Skruffs (Who keeps trying to make up accusations using some weird logic).

Zindaras, you keep me at the top of your list, yet you're the only one, and you're ignoring my responses. Why is that?

[Y]

Your post looked pretty time-intensive to check everything, and I'm currently trying to just respond to what's been posted since then, and then I can go and see what I think of your post.

You haven't read it thoroughly, yet you keep accusing me for things I explained in that post.

[Y]

If I'm not mistaken, deadline kicks in in less than 24 hours (It's actually the 19th already were I am).

I agree with Yos that we should at least try progressing somewhere.

Vote Skruffs.

Enough reasons were mentioned already.

[Y]

Yes!!! They started questioning each other!!!!!

What are you saying by that?

[Y]

Y: Skruffs is probably going to say that now he has accused us, we're quaking with fear and have decided to distance.

That's my guess too, but I wanted to hear what he has to say. A response like that is complete WIFOM. I wanted to see if he has something better to say.

Mizzy, you seem to overreact too much (Not necessarily scummy, but overreacting).

[Y]

I over-react sometimes, yes, but I do that in all the games I play...it's mainly due to the hormones, to be honest. I'm a terror IRL.

I never said it was just here, nor that it's scummy (In fact I said it wasn't necessarily scummy), just that some of your post are overreactions.

[Y]

Since they know each other in RL (That's what I understood), I wouldn't rule out the possibility of one of them being scum, knowing the other, making him do stupid, scummy, stuff.

[Y]

I anticipated a WIFOM response, but I wanted to hear what you say. I actually do try to hear what people have to say before I lynch them.

The way you just dropped the accusations you had on Zindaras and Mizzy looks as if you were just waiting for the opportunity to get out of the mess you got yourself into.

[Y]

So was it WIFOM, Y?

No, it was weirder.

The problem is that you didn't gradually moved from disbelief to belief, but "got convinced" just like that.

[Y]

Skruffs, I don't know if you noticed, but I said "got convinced" (Using quotation marks), meaning you didn't say it, but gave that kind of feeling. I don't know about you, but in Hebrew quotation marks are also used to write things, insinuating other things. I wasn't quoting you, but saying what was the feeling I got from your post.

I want you to quote the post on which I asked for proof. If you can't, please don't accuse me for it.
If there's some one who makes absolute declarations, it's you.

[Y]

I am questioning how you came to the conclusion, insinuation or otherwise, that I am "convinced" that they are not scum. I said my suspicions of them for clearing each other day one were allieved. That doesn't mean a dang thing about their alignment.

You were saying that you suspect Zindy and Mizzy for buddying up with each other, so when you said you weren't thinking so any more, I were under the impression they no longer look scummy to you. Was there any other accusation against any of them that wasn't "allieved"?

Why does this not apply to Zindaras and me, as well? Would you say that Zindaras is not baiting me, like you have admitted to doing, into saying stupid stuff that he can discredit later on without putting himself at risk?

Unless I missed it, you and Zindaras don't really know each other. I know that if a friend of mine was playing this game, I would know how to annoy him, make him respond in specific ways or could foresee his reactions. That doesn't apply in this case.
Furthermore, when did I admit I was baiting you? I never said such a thing. Saying that once you got them talking we might get new info, or that they might slip up, could be a good answer which wouldn't be neither WIFOM, nor would make you look like an idiot. You're getting my posts out of their context and than use them as if they were complete proof for your absurd accusations.

Guilt free: Meaning that you were trying to get others to present the case on me so you could agree and lynch. Once I turn up town then you can accuse the one who made the original case and get away guilt free.

I'd say he made too much noise about you to be able to actually make it happen.

[Y]

Doesn't PROOF = Factual evidence? What kind of proof are you looking for that does not involve some sort of role claim?

This was a responce to this:

Bullcrap. At no point have you been asked to provide absolute proof.

Care to explain?

Can you please show me an example of building a good case on someone day one or day two? You can refer me to another game, if you want, one that has already ended. Just show me how someone started off day one with an awesome case that led directly to scum being lynched, and then I will say, "OKay, this is what Zindaras and MIzzy and Y are looking from me, this is why they are being rude to me and making me want to not even sign into mafiascum, because my cases are not up to par with this case."

You want an example? Here's one. Don't say it can't be done. Buy the way, he was lynched for the same thing I'm accusing you - Making accusation that are not really related to game and for misrepresenting other people's cases.

Why are you so invested in figuring out what I Think of Mizzy/Zindaras?

Why? Because I see no case in your biggest accusation of the two. I think you're trying to accuse two people without real reason. Since getting more townies lynched is good for mafia, and that is what I thing you're trying to do, I'm really invested in figuring out what you think of Mizzy/Zindaras.

Yes, it does. You've missed a lot, apparently, because, well, as was repeatedly said in many games, me and Zindaras get a good feel for each other. I've said he's playing like Zindaras scum, he's said I'm playing like SKkruffs town. And now he's voting me, again.

And I should know it how? I wasn't in those games and haven't read them. I'm not really following you around, you know.

So, please reformat that answer with the new knowledge and answer the questoin again:

Why does this not apply to Zindaras and me, as well? Would you say that Zindaras is not baiting me, like you have admitted to doing?

Since that question is based on a comment made with lacking information, now that it is known, the question is irrelevant (And so you won't completely make a mess of this post: What I mean is that I would not ignore the connection between you two if I knew about it).

I anticipated a WIFOM response, but I wanted to hear what you say. I actually do try to hear what people have to say before I lynch them.

You said you wanted a WIFOM response from me so you asked a question that you would yhope I would get a WIFOMy answer to. Apparently, if I had answered WIFOMy, the bait would have worked, the trap would have been sprung, and I Would be being voted by you right now. You aren't voting me, so apparently I didn't take the bait.

I don't know where you're from, but even though I'm not an English speaker by birth, I do know the difference between "Wanting" and "Anticipating".
While the first means "I wish such would happen", the second one means "According to my knowledge, this is the most probable option".
While I said that I thought you would answer in a WIFOM way, I wanted to give you the chance not to (I usually don't accuse people based on my assumptions on what they're going to do, but on their doings). You decided to make it look like I was trying to get you to make a mistake.
And for the record, I've been voting you from page 25 (Post# 623), before this absurd "Baiting" accusation.

For the record, most of your attacks on me throughout the entire game is because they are 'baseless' and/or you can't see the reasoning for them. You said that I Am weird/irrelevant but that I was also flying under the radar and trying to set up future lynches. You don't see the connection between my logic and reality, but at least you are acknowledging that my logic is my own; that I'm at least speaking my own mind, which is something that some players, and some roles (scum), like to avoid.

Having your own logic says nothing to me. I use my own logic as town or scum alike. Using your own logic, or following other people depends mostly on the player, not the role.

IF you already knew the answer to your question, then you had no reason to ask it of me, except maybe to bait me.

Here's what you don't get:

I did not know the answer!

I could guess what it'll be, but knowing? Psychic course is next semester. I would not ask a question, unless I really want to see the answer.
And for you to really leave it alone, if I wanted to bait you, the question would be "So now you'll say they're attacking each other because of your accusations, right?". Then I could call it WIFOM, no matter what's your answer.

What I mean is, you are saying I am taking your posts out of their context

Right. And there's at least one example in your last post (As noted in this post).

I'll show you:

however, your 'context' is that you are trying to get me lynched,

in a subtle matter

(I'm trying to get you lynched in a completely blunt way)

.

You've already admitted that

(Admitted, yes. What you're referring to? No)

.

You asked a question hoping I would answer in a way that would allow you to guiltlessly place a vote on me

(I proved it wrong, again, in this post)

.

I'll ask you again: Please try to actually understand what I'm saying before you make up cases. At least you won't blow your cover out.

[Y]

I'm too tired to actually quote whatever I'm referring to, so I'll just point what it is and give you an answer.

Proof thing:

People keep telling you they weren't asking for proof, you keep saying that proof means evidence. You're right, but by not asking for proof, there's no asking for evidence, so your point is null.

Vegetable Mafia:

Please read it through. The ryan wagon was mostly abandoned, but then I started to see inconsistencies and got it back on and got him lynched (And he was the godfather).

Mizzy/Zindaras:

I never said they're not scum. I'm saying that I don't see your case. I'm not attacking most of the players right now, and they're not attacking me. That doesn't mean that we're all scum together.
I don't see your case, so I want you to explain it to me. That's reasonable.

You/Zindaras interaction:

I naturally assume that you know people better if know them in RL. Making that assumption isn't something I had to think about, it's my natural thought. Yes, I do believe that. I do not think that playing some games with a player make you know him as well as some one you know in RL. You're saying it is, so I'll take your word on it, but I would never think so unless you told me so.
I'm not "ignoring" your question about it, but do really think it's irrelevant if the situation has changed. Saying that a new situation doesn't change the relevance of a question is absurd.

If I am reading it correctly, you are implying that it is irrelevant if Zindaras is baiting me or not. Why?

You're not reading it correctly.

"Baiting"/Question thing:

You made a comment, I asked you what you mean by it. If you think the answer is WIFOM, why did you write it in the first place? If I wanted you to say something and call it WIFOM, I wouldn't have commented about it to Zindy, but waited for you to actually say it. You're accusing me for something I didn't do because you think I would've done it on purpose.

Having your own logic:

I do agree that not having your own thoughts is scummy, as well as just following people around, but being very active and drawing a lot of attention doesn't mean you're not scum. You can see it in Newbie 546.

Voting you:

You were saying that I asked you the question to incriminate you, but then didn't vote you. I showed you that I was voting, and that I had enough reasons before the "Question" in question, so now you're saying that I used the question to have something to make my vote stick. Which one is true?

You keep saying I said things I didn't really say and making up motives I didn't have. That's why I'm saying you're taking my words out of their context.
I'd really like to hear other people's opinion. I want to know if I'm really seeing it, or am being completely crazy.

[Y]

I think Skruffs is the best lynch. I really can't decide between Yos and RS. I'm not ruling out the possibility of both of them being town, fighting each other blindly.

[Y]

I really can't decide between Yos and RS. I'm not ruling out the possibility of both of them being town, fighting each other blindly.

You really think that's the most likely possibility here, Y?

Nope. I'm not sure about the situation, therefore I don't want to ignore that possibility, which I believe no one pointed until now.
You could also be two scum distancing, but it seems to me that if you were, you probably crossed the line attacking each other.

One of the things you seem to go after, Y, is to attack players for not contributing enough. You point it out exclusively, but again, I do not see you providing analysis of your own that is not based off of other people's analysis. IE you discuss other people's opinions, but you do not bring opinions of your own.

I've been saying that I see you misrepresenting other people's words (Including mine) to make up cases that do not exist and that you push things too far to get them to look as if there's a case were there isn't. That's my opinion of the situation. How can I find scum if I don't analyze based on other people's actions? I know I'm town, analyzing myself won't help anybody.

Yesterday, you were voting me, but then switched to Capricious to ensure a lynch. Today, you are voting me, and I am guessing I will eventually be the lynch.

Right now there's one vote on you. Mine. And there are four other people like you (Including myself). If you'll get lynched, it's probably because you're pushing it that way.

So after you've have lynched me, who are you going to go after next? Give two situations, one where I am town, and one where I am scum. You seem to be hedging your bets, keeping your 'I think this person is scum" limited to one person at a time throughout the entire game.

If you're scum, which I believe is the case, I'll probably be looking at RS. I'm not sure about him and Yos, but I don't like the way you two wanted us to not connect you from the beginning. When you show up scum, not looking at him because of you would be exactly what you two were trying to achive most of the game.
I'd also check Mizzy. While Zindaras did attack you back and accused you as scum, Mizzy made some counter-attacks, but not as much as I'd expect from some one who's your main suspect. Right she's mostly ignoring you. I also don't really like the way she was pushing the Capri lynch, left it at the end of D1 and then accused everybody for lynching him D2.
If you come up town, as unlikely as it is, I really don't know. I really believe whoever attacked you had a good reason to do so.

Earlier in the game you used my metaing of him based on games we played in as a reason to vote me. So which is it? Iz Zindaras not to be held accountable and I should be voted because we didn't play in games, or am I irreseponsible for using games we played in as a reason to meta Zindaras?

Or is it number three: I think the games you played are not enough for the two of you really knowing each other, therefore I accuse for using them as the basis of your attack. It all fits, it you don't ignore viable possibilities that don't add up with your goals.

You seem to pushing attention as far away from Zindaras as possible.

Wrong. I was at the top of his scum list until you decided to make some mistakes.

You are playing defensively - but ironically you are accusing me of trying to play under the radar, because I am bringing so much attention to myself.

Defensively? I'm the one attacking you.
You're taking two things I said in two different phases of the game and joining them as if I said them at the same time. You started with it one I disproved your other accusations. How far will you go?

I am pretty sure you are scum. I am voting you. Let it be known, after I am lynched, that my cold dead finger will be pointing accusationally towards Y. I have no doubt that since I am me, and I have a reputation of being senseless and ridiculous, that I am actually *helping* Y-scum by being suspicious of him; all of my thoughts are almost always discarded as soon as I'm sheathed in a body bag, but, it's something I can gloat over, privately, regardless.

You being a bad player is your fault. Not mine. I used to be like that, but I realised that the important thing isn't being right, but to kill scum. If you think you're helping scum by accusing them, why are you doing that? Zindaras was suspecting me, and he would've done a much better job attacking me if you didn't interfere. If you know your main suspect will live because of you, why don't you do a favor to the town and remain quiet?

[Y]

Skruffs, maybe I didn't phrase myself correctly, and that's why we're not understanding each other.

When I said I understand your way of play and that I was like that, I was referring to 'being right instead of being good' part. Insisting on things when other people don't get you is not good. That's a mistake you're doing. It seems like you care more about saying what you have to say and having 'original thoughts', than to actually get the player you think is scum lynched.
While this is a mistake that I made, that's not what I'm accusing you of. The reason I think you're scum is that the logic and ideas you share with us, are based on erroneous, lacking, or distorted facts. My attack doesn't lie on you wishing to express yourself, but with you using non-existing bases to do so.

I do think zindaras would do a better job attacking a player than you, because more people listen to him, and more people ignore you. You said so yourself. You actually said that you're helping me by attacking me.

Although I'm town and Zindaras getting me lynched isn't good, from your perspective I'm scum. If you're a townie, and you think I'm scum, you should want me dead. Knowing that usually people you attack don't get lynched, and knowing that some one else is attacking them, the best thing you can do is to have the other player get them lynched (That's what I meant when I said to shut up).
So, you're a player. You think some one is scum, but then you interfere with their lynch? That seems awfully anti-town. It seems more probable to me that you just need some one to get lynched, so you just do whatever you can.

By the way, I wasn't telling you to sit and shut up, but that this

would

be a better option for you, if you really thought I'm scum and you really wanted me lynched.

It seems like me and Skruffs are arguing for a long time, and there are more than enough posts, big posts, to read. It seems very odd that almost no one has anything to say about it.

[Y]

lately, I've actually had the feeling Y might be trying to protect Rotton Snitch.

Why?

[Y]

/post. Just found a micro contradiction in Y's posts from D1

I'd like to hear it. Was it so hard to actually write it, instead of just commenting it?

I don't like the people who just post to get the deadline requirement (RS, that's two in a row). The point of the requirement is to be active. We can postpone the deadline for months by writing '/post' all the time, but we need a lynch, so please add content.

Yos, I'm not saying that RS is town, nor that you're scum. I'm saying that I can understand both of you and your accusations, and I'm not sure yet who is scummier. If I had to make the decision right now, I'd probably vote RS over you (Mostly because of hid distancing from Skruffs), but it's too close for me to actually to make a good decision not based mostly on gut feeling.

[Y]

EBWOAP: That's three in a row for RS. Please add some non-useless content. Thank you.

[Y]

Yos, I'd like to know what you think about me and Skruffs. I was focusing mostly on him, so I payed little attention to the other players.

I've being accusing Skruffs for pages. I see him much more scummy than RS. Why should I leave it and vote your suspect?

[Y]

Andycyca, I'm waiting.

Mod:

Could all the lurkers please be prodded?

[Y]

Andycyca, I'm waiting.

I'll take this as "Sorry my mistake, no real point on Y".

[Y]

Ok, looking at a Y-only thread, I found him referencing a game with Capri (this one) which stroke me as odd, since he's against meta'ing.

And I already said it was a joke and I didn't use the info of that game as part of my attack.
I never said I'm completely against meta, but that building most of your case based on it isn't good.

Good try though...

[Y]

I'm really worried about the fact that no one had anything to say about me and Skruffs. No one has anything to say about it? No one cares? How can we progress if no one cares about other people's attacks?

[Y]

I noticed that too. Eldarad seems to have a weird way of putting things, and his interaction with RS is not to my liking.
There's also one thing I noticed about RS: Yos told him that he might leave him alone if he would show some one else is a better lynch. While at first RS said it was just a plan for Yos to get some other lynch candidate, he (RS) started poking other people. It feels to me like he's trying to get Yos off his back, pretending to do what Yos asked him to, but actually just trying to get some one else noticed instead of himself.

Y: About you and Skruffs: it seems to me to just be an extension of the way he's been playing so far this game. I don't think there's special significance here.

I seem to miss the meaning of this. Is he scummy, or is he not?

[Y]

No lynch, no kill... Interesting.

We're "back" to D2.

[Y]

Hey Y - do you think there is a connection between the lack of lynching and the lack of death? I'm curious about the way you phrased your statement, but don't want to start the day off the same way I have every other day, so I will let you explain.

I would like to politely correct both Y and Mizzy that we are actually in day three - Which means that if there is a cop, he got another investigation last night.

I would like to

Fos: Y

though for his choice of words. I am construing them to mean that he knows scum no-killed rather than the possibility that they were roleblocked or doc-protected. But since it's my interpretation, I am only

fos

sing.

Also: I thought that Saturdays and Sundays were both considered part of the same 24-hour block?

The problem with a no-lynch is that scum have an extra kill to get one step ahead of the town. In this case, we had no kill, meaning that we got away with it this time. That's why I said it's interesting.
I did actually think there might be a connection, but we had a kill in N0, and there was no lynch before it, so I ruled it out. I did not claim to know why there was no kill, just pointed out the lack of it.

About the D2 remark, we got no info because of the night, so we're in the same position we were then. It's true that there was probably some one who got something, but to the rest of us there's no change.

[Y]

While RS does seem to be a good option, it seems like we're on a panic lynch. That's not good either.

[Y]

Why do you think we are no further now than we were before? The scum had 48 hours to make a kill. Either they didn't get one in in time or there is a role that prevented it from happening. Why are you so quick to dismiss everything that happened between the missed deadline and today's morning while at the SAME TIME asking for answers from players who were not on the deadline block?

Actually, there is the possibility that those who didn't post at deadline are the ones missing the kill too. Scum killed up until now, and the first time we have a no-lynch, we have a no-kill too. It might not be a game mechanic, but it seems too much of a coincidence to me.

About "panic lynch", I'm not saying you weren't voting, but lynching some one in two days because we missed a deadline, isn't good either.

[Y]

RS: You're slipping and then trying, unsuccessfully, to get away with it.
Investigation? If you were investigated, then there's only one player knowing it. The cop. No reason for the town to react to an investigation.
You said that you purposefully didn't post, then you said you weren't sarcastic about that, and then that you didn't say it. Later you claimed again to miss the deadline post on purpose.
I was, by the way, the one to call you on the filler posts. Mizzy followed me. Is there a reason you're accusing only her? Would it be bad for your case against her?

I Also don't like the way eldarad protects him. I don't see RS play as a mad townsperson.
Skruffs, again, strikes me as linked to RS. First for distancing, and now he protects him, but with an escape exit.

Vote RS, FoS eldarad and Skruffs.

[Y]

Forgot about your unwillingness to give actual grounds to your suspicions.

[Y]

If you seem to think that there are three scum in a game this big then that puts us in a LYLO situation right now if I am right about my hunch.

Which is? Because unless I'm mistaken, we're not in a LYLO situation until D4, if there are three werewolves.

Skruffs, who is this Gabriel you're talking about?
I also don't thing we have a vig. A vig wouldn't kill on N0. Either that, or we have a lousy one. Either way, it seems unprobable. I can't believe that a doc actually prevented a death every day and two deaths last night. That would be a record (Even a combined effort betwen a doc and a RB wouldn't prevent so many kills).

[Y]

Skruffs, you were the one to suggest scum missed a kill because they weren't here (as Yos commented already), and you wrote a post agreeing, as a final conclusion, that three mafiosos is a reasonable bet.

You say things, and then accuse people for listening to you?

[Y]

There is no reason to think that there is more than one killing group, though. We don't know if that killing group is a mafia, an SK, or a vig. If it's a vig, than we are probably dealing with a cult. If it's an SK, then we probably don't have any power roles. If it's a mafia, and we don't have any power roles, then it's probably a two player one (based on calvin and hobbs mafia and other mountainous setups), but if there are, and a doctor or roleblocker stopped the kill, then yeah

it's a 3 player

.

Note, please, that I never said that you agree that there are three scums as a conclusion, but that you agree that it's a possibility.

[Y]

RS, again, why are you saying we're in LYLO?

[Y]

RS, you're definitely doing anti-town moves. Why do you want to be lynched? I'd like to hear an answer, and WIFOM is much better than no answer at all.

[Y]

I won't have access for the next four days or so.

[Y]

Andy, two days in a row? Care to explain?

[Y]

I reread the background story and I remember it right. There's no reason to think wolfsbane would kill a werewolf, but reject him.

[Y]

Skruffs, yet again you understand whatever you want to understand, no matter what I actually say.

You said that you think it would kill a werewolf. That was your assumption. I just made a different one. Do you have any reason to believe people think this claim is fake?

[Y]

Skruffs, sorry, I missed that paragraph (I looked for what I remembered). You're right on that one.

[Y]

There's one thing bothering me about Mizzy: D1 we lynched a townie, and she was all over the place, accusing everybody for it. Now that she was on the wagon herself, she says nothing and acts as if nothing wrong was done. Is one mislynch better than another?

[Y]

I didn't say I was HAPPY that a mislynch happened

Neither did I, but the completely different reaction bothers me.

[Y]

I'm sorry, didn't have much time in the last couple of days.

Andy hammered in a really scummy way. Twice. Two townies. As much as it may seem that no scum would be so blatant, some times they just are. Besides that, he did mostly nothing this game and lurked most of the time.

Mizzy and Yos seem too close to be completely unrelated. If I knew for sure that one of them is scum, I'd bet on the other to be too.

It seems weird to me that Skruffs decided to check Zindaras and not me, after I really voiced my suspicions against him. It could be me having trouble believing my mains suspect is mostly confirmed.

I don't know about Cow... I can't really remember anything he did.

eldarad seems weird to me. He protected RS, who was in fact town, but it seems like his reason was more "I know he's town" than "I don't think he's scum".

So, to your question, Yos:
I believe either a Yos-Mizzy-Andy or an Andy-eldarad-Cow is a plausible option. I'd say Skruffs, but that's probably me not letting it go...

[Y]

Andy, are you Mexican?

Anyways, it seems weird to me that once Yos points out the fact that he and Mizzy are always together either in or out of scum groups, Andy comes up with a different scum setup.

I tend to agree with Yos' thinking, the problem is that the four people I got are a different set than his.

[Y]

I see Andy as more suspicious than eldarad. I don't agree with his logic, but I can see where it comes from. On the other hand, Andy did mostly nothing this game but hammering two innocents with no real reason that we know of, plus, RS gave me the feel like he thought eldarad had an innocent on him, while being interested in an Andy lynch. Maybe he got one of those stones too and a guilty on Andy?

[Y]

I forgot: I'm not sure exactly what time will it be here when deadline strikes, so I'm posting now, and hopefully in less than 24 hours. That way I'll be sure to hit the day with a post.

I'd appreciate it if some one would post the thread's time somewhere, so I could compare it with my time zone.

[Y]

Andy: Lo pregunte porque viví en el DF de niño, y mi papá sigue viviendo por ahí.

[Y]

Why do you think there were FIVE ITEMS that had not been used yet in teh game? Stacking items makes perfect sense.

While it is possible, you can't rule out the simple idea of five of the eight players got one item each.

Assuming scum kill using items, and they've stacked them, using the one from last night and the one from the night before would leave six players alive at dawn, meaning an auto win if there are three scums. If there are two, then no-lynch means they can't win tonight either.
Neither of those seems too probably to me.

[Y]

That's true.. plus there'd have to be a mafia item giver for that to work..

I'm sorry, but I'm probably missing the point of this sentence. Who are you responding to, and about what?

[Y]

I just checked the first post, and it says that strappado is a Gaoler. While we all know that already, it gives us one piece of info we were not sure about - There are roles that probably work without the items.

[Y]

Option B is invalid. If there's 3 scum, then a mislynch here=scum win, so they don't care about day 5, 6, and 7.

That's true only if there's a NK, and we haven't got that for a while. It might not be the most probable option, but it is valid.

[Y]

Missed eldarad saying the same...

I already said that continued item speculation is a huge scum-hunting distraction...can we please skip the WIFOM item crap and get down to the scum-hunting, because seriously, we are running out of time.

I agree that this should not be the only thing we talk about, but I think ignoring it completely would be a mistake too.
So here's some scum-hunting: Mizzy, do you have any particular reason to shut down the items discussion?

[Y]

I'm not voting yet because we're probably in LYLO (Assuming 3 scum, of course), and I don't want to do anything until I'm sure it's the right thing to do.

While a no-lynch is bad, a mislynch could be far worst.

[Y]

I'm not completely sure about eldarad. I'm really torn between "Scared scum" and "Really bad player" (Note that RS was even less logical than eldarad is, and he was town).

The other reason I'm not voting yet is that I think Andy requires much more attention than he's given. He's been lurking the whole game, hammered twice with no good reason (Unless impatience is a good reason) and failed to address the questions he was asked or to actually write the content he promised about other players.

I'd prefer hearing some more from Andy before I help finish the day (Especially since we might lose if make a mistake here).

[Y]

I would like to hear from Andy's replacement before I can decide if he's scum or not.

MOD:

Is it possible to delay deadline because of the replacement?

[Y]

as opposed to a regular day, I actually think that a no-lynch won't be such a bad thing, if the alternative is to kill some one just for the sake of killing some one. Especially if the possibility of no NK is as real as in this game, after the last two nights.

Lynching scum, of course, would be much better.

[Y]

Remember how I had a list of 4 people, and said that 3 of the 4 of them must be scum? If we lynch every day, and the scum miss at least one more kill before the end of the game, then we have 4 lynches left, and are therefore basically guarenteed to win.

You're missing one very important thing: This list is based on you being town and so does TT, but we have no reason to believe that's true. So far you've been pushing a lynch every day and you pushed in a wrong way every time. Forgive me for not following your "great" logic for once.

Besides Skruffs and TT, who are more or less confirmed, we have

six

people. Our chances are probably 50%-50% in a LYLO situation. Those are not good odds to push a lynch just for the sake of avoiding a no-lynch. With all the missed NKs, it seems like mislynches are the best way for the scum to win, doesn't it?

You all wanted both a decision, and a good candidate for a lynch, so here it is:

Vote Yosarian2

.
I'm tired of you knowing exactly what the town must do while dragging us all down the drain.

eldarad, I see two options:
1. You're scum, you tried to score some "townie" points by protecting an innocent, but you weren't cautious enough, so now you're trying to lie your way out of it (You being scared of exposure makes you be too reckless).
2. You're so bad as a player, that you decided to keep important information to yourself, although you could have simply explain it to the town and avoid the whole mess.
While I tend to believe the first option is the right one, after I saw RS play I can't dismiss the second.
By the way, why Mizzy?

[Y]

I don't know about you, Yos, but I didn't see a NK for the last two nights, so I think the one so strongly in favor of a lynch, no matter what, is probably the scum, worried about the two nights he didn't kill and the no kill that will obviously follow.

What happened, Yos, you fail to kill during the night, so try so hard to kill during the day?

[Y]

Yos, I don't want a no-lynch, but to be sure we make the right one. At this point, a no-lynch is better than a mislynch.

My logic is this: scum-lynch>no-lynch>mislynch. Since making a mistake could mean game over, I prefer to be sure before I actually get a lynch. I never said I'm pro-no-lynch, but that it's not such a horrible outcome as you make it seem, if the alternative is to lynch at all costs.

While I do agree that eldarad's play is scummy, I'm starting to see a pattern here: Every day we choose a player who's been playing horribly and did some stupid mistakes, we lynch him, he comes up town.

I'd also like you to explain where did you get the number of chances we got. I can't seem to follow your logic on that.

[Y]

Ok...but how would waiting another day help us be any more sure then we are right now? I mean, if the scum kill, the scum will probably just kill off one of the confirmed, so that dosn't help us eliminate anyone.

I'll say it again: I'm not saying a no-lynch is the best option, but that not lynching wrong is crucial. If we end up in an unwanted situation, I'd prefer it to be a no-lynch than a mislynch, so delaying a vote here seems to me a better option that voting too soon.

[Y]

I made a re-read for eldarad, and I did find some posts where he says that werewolves might not be scum before the claim. That validates his point, although I still think the play was wrong. The town has the right to decide who to lynch, not the single person with info.

There was a post I didn't like though, so I just have one question, eldarad: If you weren't sure that RS is town, why did you protect him?
I'd like you to consider this:

eldarad seems weird to me. He protected RS, who was in fact town, but it seems like his reason was more "I know he's town" than "I don't think he's scum".

Exactly right.

On Night 2 I received a 'moonshine' - basically a one-shot cop.
It allowed me to identify a werewolf. RS is not a werewolf. Although I don't know who - if anyone - gave the item to me, or even whether the scum are werewolves (if they are not, then the item is basically useless.)

Be careful with your answer, since it's probably the one keeping me from switching votes.

[Y]

You either think some one is town, and you protect him, or you think he's scum, and you attack him. There's no "I'll protect him for not being a werewolf, but let him die for potentially being scum anyway".

In response to my post you said you were protecting him for knowing he's town.

If by the time deadline closes in tomorrow you have no good explanation - I'll be the one to hammer you.

[Y]

So, was eldarad a werewolf? He's marked only as "Alpha". If he's not, than that could explain where the whole non-werewolf-scum idea came from.

[Y]

Did yos go after anyone else significantly?

RS.

[Y]

TT, can you confirm being targeted with wolfsbane? Remember that eldarad used the item to confuse us (Or lied about it), there's always the possibility of him not being the first (Scum can day-talk, IIRC).

[Y]

TSPN, maybe it's not your fault, but you're far from looking townie enough to rule yourself out from being scum.

[Y]

I do like that Y waited until today to bring it up, though, presumably he's following cow's lead in trying to get suspicion on me.

Is this a good thing? I don't know about you, but I had no way of knowing eldarad was scum before we actually lynched him...

I think that if there's another player who received wolfsbane, he should claim. We're using it a semi-confirmation, and I'd like to know that it's not made up.

[Y]

No one has anything to say?

[Y]

Actually, the 'Item' was the answer to "Why did you defend RS as if you knew he was town, although no one else had any reason to think so?". To get out of that mess? It was a good gain.

[Y]

Even though I said I didn't think it was a lie?

That's the whole point. It seems pretty obvious that something's wrong with that claim, but you keep insisting that we should ignore it.

[Y]

He wasn't voting Eldarad but he seems to be saying that he helped lynch him. However, both of his posts were trying ot encourage eldarad to explain himself so as to give Y a reason *not* to vote.

Here's the other votes Y has made in the game, two of them on now-confirmed townies... <SNIP>

The town is a group. Whatever we do, we do as a group. We win or lose together. Me not casting a vote, doesn't put me out of the group. If the town, as a whole, decides to do something, we all get the consequences.
If we're really in LYLO and we kill a townie by mistake, we all lose, doesn't matter who actually voted or not.

Of those two, only one got lynched, and the person to push the hardest against him is the other one. So, what's your point there?

I hate to repeat myself, but I really think we should be careful about who we lynch. I know the deadline and all, but we got ourselves some time with the eldarad lynch, we should really think about what we're doing before we do so.
I can see TSPN as scum, but I want to be really sure. We don't have too many people to lose...

[Y]

Can I please ask you to call me Y, and not y? It bothers me. Thanks.

[Y]

TSPN, I can see other scum-groups, and you're on most of them, while Mizzy isn't.

[Y]

I think we're in a new block...

[Y]

RS was town, eldarad was scum. Eldarad claimed to have checked RS, but we now know he knew RS was a townie getting mislynched.

His whole item story just popped up in a weird way as soon as eldarad needed an explanation as to why he was protecting RS. He (eldarad) then gave a weird crap-logic explanation to cover the fact he knew RS was town, but did nothing about it.
So you tell me: Perfect timing, illogical behaviour and the obvious results of the lynch, and you still say there's nothing wrong about it? This is the second time I write this for you, yet you just ignored it.

I'm not voting you for the same reason I didn't vote yesterday - I don't want to do something stupid while in LYLO. You're pushing my buttons, though...

[Y]

We're probably in LYLO, probably two scum left, probably two people to vote TSPN to get him lynched.

My logic says that at least one scum is on that group.

[Y]

Sorry for not posting. Had a really busy weekend.

[Y]

I believe a new block has began.

[Y]

It looks like we're getting to close to ending the day with a no-lynch, so I'll

vote TSPN

, although I don't really like the idea of voting just for the sake of preventing a no-lynch.

[Y]

We know there are two inventors. One of them has not been killed. Ergo, instead of potentially ending the game with a mislynch, we allow the surviving inventor to hand out one more item, if they have one, which could potentially help the town.

We know this because?

[Y]

Skruffs, I'm not sure about the no-kills, but I see no good reason for the scum not to kill, and most people were active enough to assume they were active during the nights.

[Y]

I haven't claimed.

I still don't see Skruffs answering to the question: How do you know there are two inventors, and why do you think you know who's the other one?

It'll be funny if Skruffs turns out scum after I went after him all game alone...

[Y]

I'm sorry for not being arround much, but I have RL stuff to take care of.

Can some one please tell me what are the accusations against me?

[Y]

Any one?

[Y]

Besides my job, I started studying and got into a new relationship, so have much less time and don't get to post much. Sorry guys.

[Y]

As I already said, I didn't got here on time. The deadline hits at 6:00 am around here, and most of the time I'm out of town. I didn't hammer because being town, I see no good reason to lynch me.

[Y]

This all being said,

HOS: Y

I think a Y lynch is more certainly correct, and am not very afraid of a quick hammer. I'll likely vote soon.

Why?

[Y]

There were 3 people voting me. The scum could have been on that wagon already.

[Y]

Guardian, you're not cleared. Skruffs used an item he got from an unknown source with no way of knowing how exactly it works.

[Y]

I've been saying that I think TSPN is scum since yesterday. About you, I'm not saying you're definitely scum, but that you're not completely confirmed and we shouldn't ignore the possibility.

[Y]

I'm not voting him yet?

Vote TSPN

then.