It occurs to me that if me and septimus were both Lords of Slaughter, we probably wouldn’t have been busy formatting the data in two different ways at the same time.
Boring, tedious work for one scumbag is plenty, making it *redundant *and having two teammates do it is absurd.
Of course I probably wouldn’t have been trying to lynch him all game either.
Or you could have done it and given it to him to post.
I am very comfortable with my **base one **format without fancy schmancy tables, thank you very much.
Only Lords of Slaughter use the number two or above. 
No.
Just kidding!
Septimus (5): Hirka T’Bawa [885], Inner Stickler [888], Stanislaus [893], gnarlycharlie [959], Mental Guy [968]
Choie (2): Askthepizzaguy [905], Weedy [923]
ShadowFacts (1): Hirka T’Bawa [885]
pedescribe (1): Weedy [923]
Normal Phase (1): Choie [930]
Mental Guy (1): gnarlycharlie [959]
gnarlycharlie (1): Mental Guyu [968]
With these votes, Septimus would be lynched. Day ends in 3 days on July 28th at 6pm central time. As always, please check for errors.
I have to say I do like the questions SP is asking today. They seem to be the right ones to ask.
Ok, here’s some quick things I jotted down while doing my name count.
Now I have to go and see what these posts were.
Now I have to figure out exactly what I was thinking when I wrote these down. Not all of them are because I find them scummy, but because there seems to be an interesting thing to note happening, like one of my suspects is accusing another.
IIRC this is where I began to think about Stanislaus as more suspicious than others.
Jan and Kelly both flipped townie, but what I really feel was happening here was Stanislaus attempting to get suspicion on Jan voters, hinting that they were probably trying to save Kelly. While what he’s saying doesn’t work in the long term as both of them flipped townie, at the time, it could have been a useful tactic to keep suspicion on folks, by bringing up an idea that could have distracted them into accusing one another of being Kelly or Jan’s partner.
I don’t really believe Stanislaus feels that there’s a serious attempt to save a scumbag by their partner here. I think it’s just a short-term tactic to keep the town divided while also appearing to be thinking tactically for the town side.
There’s also a hint of lecturing. One of the things a scumbag likes to do when town is shooting themselves in the foot, or they’re under no real suspicion, is play the helpful townie and suggest certain courses of action are mistakes. And he’s right, voting both kelly and jan doesn’t do much except ensure one of them gets lynched, it doesn’t decide between them.
The problem is, that speaks more of a townie who isn’t thinking about the tactical ramifications of their actions, than a calculated move by a scumbag. It doesn’t even speak of a mistake by a scumbag either. The wording used here “Calling out” Diver feels Stanislaus is clucking his tongue at behavior I’d identify as a townie who isn’t paying close attention. I really don’t buy that he finds it in any way scummy.
The way things are going, why would Stanislaus as scum make any waves by changing votes? Both Kelly and Jan are a bad lynch, so he feels comfortable to just comment on some of the obvious mistakes townies are making and wax philosophical about the double-vote option.
I don’t get the feeling he’s seriously hunting scums or giving an effort. I think it’s acting. At least, that’s the impression I got from reading that post. Let’s move on to the next one that catches my eye.
TexCat pipes up to cluck her tongue at me for making an ill-advised move.
If you imagine TexCat is scum, and she was just sitting there watching the discussion, making a comment here or there, and then pizza double-votes Koldanar (now Hirka) and feels the need to take advantage of this. So, out she comes, and points out that I can’t take it back, that I was being hypocritical, and drops a sack of rhetorical questions on me.
Scoring easy points, is how I read this. I also noted in the last sentence “care to tell us”, it feels like she’s appealing to the crowd. I’ve got to explain myself to the crowd, not to her.
She might as well have been telling the crowd to “sic” me. I feel there’s opportunism afoot.
Scoring easy points, while trying to appear impartial. The argument is I’m a bad townie at the very least.
I’ve noticed Suburban Plankton’s overall strategy toward me has been to just paint me as a bad townie and wash his hands of the matter. It could indicate he’s eager to discredit someone, and eager to get others to agree that I’m a bad role model, thereby dividing the town.
He doesn’t even need to get me lynched, just discredit everything I’m doing, thereby rendering me ineffective.
It’s scummy because if he really found me anti-town or scummy, his first reaction (as a townie) should have been to kill me, not cluck his tongue at me.
Instead, he’s just trying to take advantage of a bad move I made, and thus, make me look bad and make himself look better.
Remember what I said earlier- the primary strategy of a scumbag is to make themselves look less bad than everyone else. It’s not a matter of behaving perfectly, it’s a matter of making fewer mistakes, and being a less easy target to make cases against. That way, they have ammunition on townies and the townies don’t have much they can hook onto in response. Meanwhile, the strategy divides and discredits the townies that do live.
It’s not as simple as killing/silencing or lynching ATPG. Here, I’m being far more useful as a distraction, and I’m being further declawed by being openly chastised and discredited.
That’s the sense I get from these moves. They’re calculated.
The above quote makes little sense unless you click the arrow and read it in-context with special ed’s quote intact.
I’m already raising an eyebrow at Stanislaus, and for the moment, I am assuming special ed was innocent. Here, I find that Stanislaus is smudging special ed.
He’s content to make these sorts of posts and then fade into the background, not raising any hackles or causing much of a disturbance in the force.
Yeah, this would be a better example of Snrubbing than what choie was doing, simply because with choie, that’s her whole personality. She seems to be habitual in her behavior to compliment and make a point of stating an agreement with someone who states ideas she agrees with.
Here, ShadowFacts is "me-too"ing the growing consensus against myself. Just feels slimy and opportunistic.
This feels like pure acting.
I think Stanislaus figured special ed wasn’t being lynched anytime soon, and later, he winds up dead via murder.
He doesn’t appear to be hunting very hard for suspects.
I’m already suspicious of Suburban Plankton, why I noticed this post was because it did appear as though SP was demonstrating that he wouldn’t be averse to Koldanar dying. He’s not making a big show of it, but he is actively trying to convince LightFoot to continue to consider Koldanar a suspect, thereby revealing potentially his true motives.
If SP is scum, Koldanar probably is not.
So, look at the names being dropped.
septimus has a rather good claim for his behavior, maybe 50/50 he’s scum or not. ASSUMING he’s town, that’s Jan, Pizza, septimus, and choie that TexCat is smearing all with a couple of strokes.
I noted this post because it does appear to distance TexCat from each of these candidates, and potentially reveals true motivations to see all of them die in one form or another.
I already suspect TexCat because very few people are talking to her or mentioning her, and my theory is that she could be scum and her teammates are avoiding the subject.
Viewing things from that angle, she’s lobbing rotting cows at several townie targets all at once, and then vanishing back into the shadows. The deliberate attempt to paint a whole swath of people scummy at once is lazy, non-specific, and indicative of a scumbag not wanting to give concrete reasons why people should die, yet “me-too” anyone who suggests they should be lynched.
I don’t like it, it raises the hairs on the back of my neck. It’s subtle and manipulative, and most of all, SAFE behavior for a scumbag.
I really feel the Lords of Slaughter could be playing things very safe, given the town’s apparent early game collapse in-progress.
It’s a lot of words which reveal not a whole lot of thoughts, motivations, or intentions. It straddles the fence a bit, and does not make waves.
Here, he distances himself from Mental Guy and Diver.
From my perspective, pizza is definitely townie as that’s me, and Diver, I’m getting the impression is another easy target to pick on because he’s voted for me on bad reasoning. That feels like a real attempt to sow suspicion on Diver, indicating they’re probably not on the same team.
Mental Guy and Stanislaus are also probably not on the same team, as Stan’s attempts to void Mental Guy from existence also appear genuine. We’ll see if that holds up in future rounds.
CONTINUED IN PART II
I’ve already quoted this post multiple times. It reeks of wanting me dead without having any of his own fingerprints on it.
There’s a lot to get into here, but briefly, it was nearing the end of the day and TexCat has no other votes. I have to check and see if there was any follow-up whatsoever.
What I’m saying is that TexCat could be scum with Suburban Plankton, and this was pure distancing. Or, if TaxCat is innocent, that still doesn’t clear Suburban Plankton, because there’s no way TexCat gets lynched here, and I don’t see any pressure on TexCat as it stands.
I’d be interested to challenge Suburban Plankton on this point, and see if he REALLY wants TexCat dead or not. I’d like to see where he stands if TexCat was nearing the vote lead. Would he push her over the edge, or find a way to weasel out of it and change the subject?
pedescribe is similarly not going to be lynched. I’m not feeling the same suspicion on pedescribe as I was before.
I don’t feel that this vote was a serious attempt to find scum.
“I did notice a couple other things, though. First, he “vows” not to use his double vote on Day One, but then promptly uses it on ATPG on Day Two. This locks him onto someone I would consider an easy target for scum (assuming ATPG is Town). Slight scum read there.”
Attacking hypocrisy is a scum’s best friend.
And, since pede isn’t anywhere near death, he’s not going to flip town or scum anytime soon, and therefore, ShadowFacts won’t have to answer for it. In fact, he’ll get a chance to follow up on pedescribe in future rounds, thus giving himself something to do.
I got a sense from reading this that I should pay closer attention to ShadowFacts over pedescribe. I think pedescribe is being used as a safe whipping post for Shadow to direct his not-useful scum vote against, so he can claim to be looking for scum while not attracting attention or causing damage he has to answer for.
That’s how I am picturing it.
Suburban does seem to approve of choie being a suspect, and possibly, her death. I currently find Suburban more scummy than choie. I think I have it backwards, choie could be townie and Suburban is launching missiles at her with intent to either waste the round on choie, or keep her in the spotlight and discussion so that we keep missing Lords.
Normal is under zero pressure from me whatsoever and she knows that I am her lifelong snuggle bunny. Here, she could be very much using the inside joke for her own amusement, as a scumbag. That’s not evidence of scum, but…
I feel she’s actively encouraging me to go get some townies dead.
I can’t read Normal Phase very well at all, I’ve let her slip through my fingers many a time, but on re-read, I felt that if she were scum, she just revealed herself and her motivation with this post. She’s happy watching pizza accuse townies here.
Maybe
Still not sure on Normal. I think she could be the active scumbag in the group.
My personal request: ***DO NOT LET NORMAL PHASE SURVIVE THE GAME.
Let her live a little longer, hope I’m incorrect, and hope she bags some scumbags. I’m willing to adopt wait-and-see. But I don’t think she should legitimately survive the game. She’s gotta die, hopefully she will get murdered and prove me wrong, but if she doesn’t, she must eat a lynch.
She’s too prosecutorial and aggressive. If she doesn’t die that obviously indicates the scumbags don’t find her to be a threat. If she’s townie, SHE IS A THREAT TO SCUMS.
She cannot be allowed to survive this game. End of Story.
I wanted to prod Red Skeezix to review his stance on ShadowFacts given the events that followed.
I think ShadowFacts is a good candidate presently. I wanted to hear Red Skeezix’ thoughts on the subject.
Okay, so here’s what I’m going to do.
Benefit of doubt for a round or two: choie
Needs to be scanned, can’t be allowed to survive the game: septimus
unvote: choie
vote: Stanislaus
vote: TexCat
Finger of Suspicion: Suburban Plankton
Prove yourself, demonstrate you really think TexCat is scummy.
Finger of Suspicion: ShadowFacts
Powerful you have become, shadow. The *dark *side I sense in you.
I hope this post hits you like a punch in the face, “my Lords”.
@ **Askthepizzaguy ** I find your recent analysis reasonable and (to me) helpful.
I’m unable to track your vehemence (not the right word) at ** Normal** Why are you so adamant that ** Normal **should not survive ?
On the one hand I see where a player that ‘sounds’ uber Town helpful and sane and wearing a LoS costume under the Townsperson hat is a threat to us.
On the other foot if ** Normal ** is a townsperson (I have not seen her undergarments) your request for death could be counter-productive.
I “get” some of what you are saying but this last question I would like a bit more information about.
Lightfoot-
Like yourself, I find Normal Phase extremely helpful, dangerous to the scums if townie, and an excellent ally when you need to lynch someone. She’s not one to just ignore the game.
That said, I detected a whiff of a hint of malevolence behind her brilliant mind and ravishing good looks. I think she wants me to cause some destruction and mayhem before she puts me to bed for good.
It could just be my imagination. I’d like to see her go all wrecking crew on the Lords of Slaughter, and if she continues on this pace, she’s gotta hit some of them. But if the Lords of Slaughter leave her alive, over and over and over again, and she isn’t a top candidate to be lynched soon, then they don’t find her to be a threat.
I just don’t buy that. She is a threat and a damned good one. I’m essentially proposing a game of “chicken” with her life. Should the scums never kill her off, okay lynch her. But while she lives, if townie, she’s probably going to tear them a new corn chute.
I think if you observe her carefully over the course of the game, you’ll be able to make that determination and judgment call for yourself.
I don’t want to go after her now. But if I die, and she doesn’t die, keep your eye on her especially. Question her, see where she votes, don’t let up. When the time comes, peek under her skirt, even if it costs her her life.
That’s my recommendation.
You do know better than I what’s going on because of your one successful scan, so overturn anything I say if it goes against what you know. Hopefully I’m picking correctly enough that it shouldn’t be an issue.
PizzaGuy, you can add my rolling eyes :rolleyes: to your case on me. Good grief, you’ve gone from some one who voted with no apparent reasons to the Berlin wall of words and charts. What caused the drastic change?
I’m not sure that I disagree with your stance on Normal:
However, I find most of that statement to be more true about you than about her.
Yes, I am generally a quiet player. I pop in and add my two bits when I see something of note, whether or not that’s worthy of a vote. So, yes, I’ve come in to “cluck my tongue” at you a few times. Surely that’s not a surprise; you must think some of your actions worthy of a tongue cluck or two.
Not as true about me as Normal, because I’ve already soaked up tons of votes and come close to being lynched every day, and caused averse reactions from townies and scumbags alike.
Normal is more likely to be a threat to the scums than me, if townie. The only way that’s not true is if my votes and big accusations land on actual scumbags.
Could you do me a big favor, o quiet kitten, and tell me if you think Stanislaus, ShadowFacts, or Suburban Plankton are vote-worthy?
Or was rolling your eyes at my case the only purpose for your dropping in?
You can say this for what I’ve done, it’s gotten your fingers typing and graced us with your presence. Don’t be shy, point some fingers, discuss.
Something that just recently occurred to me ( duh moment) My comments could be taken sometimes like I know more that the average Tom Dick or Hairy Townsperson. Most of the time I don’t.
I know of ONE living Townsperson. My attempt to scan one I thought could be a LoS was blocked (I really wanted to pop in here and say----near EOD) “ Look what I found!” No such luck.
I’m contemplating revealing who I did try to investigate near EON IN case my point #3 was valid but if they are Town that would be counterproductive so I probably won’t.
My other observations are purely with the glasses that everyother Townsperson was fitted with.
I don’t wish for them to be given too much weight (experienced players know that but I wanted to be clear- I’m new to a lot of you folks.)
I am doing my utmost to be as productive as I can be here. And I will admit (again I think) that the format makes it difficult for me to research the way I am accustomed to…
Wait until just before end of night, if possible… that way the information leaks even if you die, but not swiftly enough for the LOS lonely boys to take advantage.
If you cannot be at your computer at the time, it depends I guess on if this person is a power role or not. If this person is a power role, let the scums have to go hunt for this person on their own; if they’re up for a lynch, you can stop us before it gets too far, or they can claim. It’s still early enough where I wouldn’t press the issue; the longer you leave it ambiguous the better the chances they have to stay alive at night.
The day is not the threat, as there’s a fair chance anyone could die any day, but at night, the lords of slaughter aren’t going to kill themselves and they’re probably going to avoid hitting known NPCs unless they’re a pain in the buttocks.
That’s my suggestion. Nothing is served by revealing during the middle of the day except to void a lynch on them, don’t do it if you don’t have to. Revealing at night should be done only if you’re concerned you’re going to die.
We haven’t seen a dead doctor yet, so I wouldn’t be so concerned.
My issue is… a doctor and a bulletproof; that would seem to be a lot, unless the one-shot bulletproof is the extent of that power. Especially when there’s also a claimed detective. That implies 4 lords of slaughter most likely, or one of these claimed power roles is really scum.
Time should tell on that. I give claimed power roles the benefit of the doubt because they’re such high priority murder targets. It gives the scums a chance to kill them for us, instead of wasting our time lynching em. Later on we can determine if that was a wise idea or not.
I’d like to see some more detective scans from you; if you get another one off successfully, maybe reveal both scans during the earliest part of the day so we can discuss, absorb, and accuse.
That means whoever is blocking you should only continue to do it if they’re a paranoid doc. And even so, at some point, they should relax and let a second investigation through. But that’s a guessing game and I don’t want to publicly discuss strategy there; make up your own minds about that.
If they don’t stop blocking you at some point, to let you scan again, they aren’t a paranoid doc. That indicates a scum roleblocker. Let them waste time blocking you if so, instead of killing you. You’re obviously not getting lynched anytime soon, and that means that you pose a threat to them during the day by narrowing down our lynch choices while adding to the vote.
I think best play for you is to keep attempting to scan, and I’d scan anyone you think is likely to not be lynched anytime soon. The reason being, you’ll have a detective scan on someone who is alive, and you won’t have to claim their innocence to spare them from death. But choose the scans yourself.
Then, spare your votes for making decisions near the end of the round, it reveals less about who your scanned townie is. You’re not going to vote for the scanned townie, so just use your vote to decide the lynch against someone you DO feel is scum.
My 2 cents.
OK, I had this half-finished before I had to leave work last night so I’m going to finish it off now before I address Pizza’s vote on me.
[spoiler]
There’s a lot of fence-sitting and equivocation in a short post: he sees both sides of the argument about double votes, but to be fair, does pick a side; goes both ways on pede; instantly disclaims all these thoughts pending a re-read.
Three things here: The speculation about scum levelling up. This could go both ways: it’s probably worth us remembering that scum will level up, so it’s pro-town to bring it up. But, it’s all empty speculation. We don’t know how they do it, so we can’t guard against it. What we could do is worry fruitlessly about it, and second-guess ourselves and each other. But more to my concern, is that Mental Guy is visibly and pre-emptively distancing himself from scum. “Look how I know nothing about how scum level up. Nothing, I tell you. Why, how could I, good townie that I am?”
Second: A list of people he might also vote for, at the same time as a vote. It’s more caution and fence-sitting.
Third: The vote: Kelly did accuse Normal of mis-reasoning. But itself isn’t a good reason to think Kelly would be scum. Even town can make bad arguments against cases. It looks like Mental Guy was looking for any reason to put a vote down, not a good reason.
Here we’ve got more in the “See how I have no idea whatsoever about scum” vein, which is the rationale for the unvote. The unvote is also basically following someone else’s lead - and the same is true for the vote. There’s a limited amount of responsibility being taken.
More “Scum? Who can say what may or may not be the case with scum? Not I!” stuff.
This is another very equivocal post: 1) His vote for Koldanar was following others’ accusations. 2) “I just felt” is very soft language to support a vote. 3) Voting for Silver Jan while not really being opposed to a Kelly lynch - very equivocal. 4) Both of them should die not for being scum, but for having received suspicion. As Pizza pointed out to Suburban Plankton, this is a *terrible *reason to lynch someone. And to set up both lynch leaders for that treatment toMorrow is unbelievably bad logic.
In any case, he immediately unvotes Silver Jan, having not seen the vanilla claim on preview. This somewhat contradicts his immediately earlier statement that she should be lynched for being suspicious (which is actually good). But he still said that stuff before he realised he was posting in the teeth of a backed up vanilla claim. The unvote itself is a null tell.
A few things here: 1) This is the second snuggle of Pizza (1st being the “I won’t quote but I agree” over Kelly’s handshaking.) 2) But he then immediately equivocates by saying that he agrees with SP’s problems with Pizza’s early double vote. It smacks of trying to be friends with everyone. 3) The case against gnarly is weak. Especially the analysis of his vote: it might be good or it might be scummy. 4) Mental Guy double votes. Earlier he had said:
It’s not a close vote. We don’t have an investigator results. Yet he double votes. Double votes are a boon to scum. That’s why I made a big deal about it earlier - it’s way too easy to muddy your vote record when you get to spread votes about. And Mental Guy seemed to agree - until now.
Not one but two players who Mental Guy doesn’t think are scum, but against who’s lynch he can’t really argue. It’s equivocation again, coupled with setting up players for the lynch. He also joins in having a go at Pizza, as others are at this point. His point against Red seems like a good one, but he doesn’t follow it up, then or later.
Two interesting things here. 1) I had a vote on Mental Guy by this point, but he doesn’t mention it - nor has he. He does, however, snuggle me a little. 2) There’s a slight defense of septimus.
Mental Guy offers further clarification on septimus, pointing out that septimus never actually voted “for obvious reasons”. This is true, but it’s his second mentino of the case against septimus, and how he thinks it is weak.
Third time he clarifies the septimus case. This could be a townie just trying to keep everybody on the straight and narrow, but given my own suspicion of septimus I find it suspicous in it’s own right. If septimus flips scum, I will find this vote-worthy.[/spoiler]
So in sum: Lots of equivocation, lots of protests about how little he knows about scum, lots of condoning of lynching people for being suspicious or noisy. Some defense of septimus which I am quite suspicous of, but will wait for a role-flip before judging.
I am voting for septimus; if I were to use a second vote, it would be on Mental Guy.
You’re right - I wasn’t sure whether there was an attempt to save Kelly. (I was voting for him, remember, so I rated it is a more likely possibility than other people would have.) I brought it up precisely because I wasn’t sure. If scum were adding their weight to the Kelly bandwagon then a) a post calling this out might stop them from pushing SJ over the edge and b) even better, it might cause them to feel exposed by their presence on the SJ wagon, and react by backtracking in some way. As it turned out, SJ and Kelly were both town, but at the time I thought it was a possibility worth bearing in mind, and potentially a good way to flush out scum.
I prefer the phrase “offering useful advice” to “tongue-clucking” but yeah, that is what I was doing. I thought that was pretty clear. I’ve played in a game with multi-voting (forced multi-voting, no less!) and found it a massively anti-town mechanic. So I’m very keen that it doesn’t become one in this game. Diver might be town who was being a bit careless in his votes, or he might be scum who saw a way to vote without making waves. My point in calling out his vote was to highlight how ineffective the vote was, and to show that I was looking out for poor multi-voting, in order to dissuade town and scum both from doing it.
Smudging? Obviously this means something different to you than to me. I had a vote on special ed. It wasn’t a smudge, it was a good faith case. As it turned out…
…it was a rubbish case. Let me give you the background: My case against ed directly followed a post in which I called for people to make more effort to make cases. So kind of feeling that shouldn’t say that unless I meant it, I picked special ed on the grounds that he can be a very dangerous scum, and had a look at him to see what was there. I started writing that case immediately as I clicked send on the last one and it took me two and a half hours till I posted it. But it wasn’t a very coherent 2.5 hours. I was at work, and flicking back and forth between my actual job and making the case. I should have spent longer at it, because it gradually became less coherent as I went through his posts. But I realised that I wasn’t get anything done, and even though I wasn’t completely happy with the case I decided to post it as it was because a) I couldn’t spend any more time on it then, b) I didn’t want to lose the work I’d done and c) I figured if I made the case and the vote, I’d get a reaction from ed and that would be valuable in itself. But I should have held back, because I missed a pretty crucial post from ed which blew a damn big hole in my case.
You said my unvote was acting. It was a bit. I was kind of embarrassed that I’d made such a howler, so I tried to make a bit of a joke out of it - a sort of “Yep, I got nothin’” moment. At the point where ed quoted the very post I was saying he should have made but didn’t, there was nothing to do but unvote, and try not to feel too foolish. For what it’s worth, the way ed reacted did make me lean town on him, so there was some marginal benefit to having poked him.
Also, you imply that scum killed ed because I (as scum) failed to get him lynched. I don’t follow the logic here. If I were genuinely wanting him bumped off why not discreetly NK him rather than trying to do it publicly? Especially if I’m going to back off and kill him anyhow - it just doesn’t make sense. You’re taking two facts: 1) I voted for ed and 2) scum killed him and leaping to conclusions.
Your first point I just don’t agree with at all. I don’t know how you can read that fairly long post, plus vote, and say it doesn’t have thoughts, motivations or intentions. You and SJ were tied for the vote (5-5, I think). I read over both of you, and concluded that I didn’t want to vote for either of you. I could have just left it at that, or posted a one liner to that effect. But considering you were vote leaders, I wanted to leave something on record showing my thinking about you both. Because as we’d discussed, close votes are where we can catch scum: if I’d voted, my opinion would be on record - which is what helps us analyse the situation in future Days. Not voting doesn’t leave a record - unless you detail why you’re not. I wanted to be transparent about my thoughts, motivations and intentions particularly *because *my vote wasn’t going to say anything about my thoughts on the lynch leaders. I am just stunned that you can read that post and think that I wasn’t saying anything when my whole purpose in making it was to be explicit about what I thought.
Finally, I’m slightly suspicious of Driver, and more suspicious of Mental Guy. That’s as true then as it was when I wrote that in as many words. I reallly don’t see what your point is here, unless you think we shouldn’t say when we’re suspicious of someone. Which you clearly don’t.
Everyone, sorry about my relative lack of participation Today. I’m in the middle of a sting of night shifts which makes it difficulty for me to do much writing/analyzing. I’m doing my best to keep up but there is a lot of material to digest. I have one more night tonight and then hopefully I’ll have a chance to make some contributions. For now, I’m going to sleep.
Frowny face at Pizzaguy. If I do my job right that is unlikely to be an issue. But still. Since when do you advocate prophylactic lynching?
TexCat, I have a question and an observation for you in post 951 that have gone un-responded to.
Stanislaus, about Septimus you said that previous experience with a PFK was affecting your decision making but I can’t place what you might be talking about. The last game’s PFK was me, but I didn’t win, and I went essentially unsuspected all game. I don’t see the relevance to Septimus right now.
It’s my experience with a PFK claim: Zeriel’s. I was suckered by it, whereas if I’d stuck with thinking of him as a wrong 'un, I might have actually contributed to a successful lynch. (I realise that this case is different in that septimus hasn’t claimed PFK - rather you’ve concluded he is through analysis: my position is still that it’s better to lynch someone you think is anti-Town now than try to distinguish between the two flavours).
Mainly, of course, I do think he’s scum - but the possibility that he might be PFK doesn’t make me hesitate to lynch him.