Until you popped in today to criticize my lack of scum-finding, here is your ENTIRE contribution to the Day:
Physician, heal thyself.
Now who’s misrepresenting someone else’s words?
I’ve not criticised your lack of effort. I’ve pointed out that you’ve spent a whole lot of effort trying to look like a helpful townie, and drastically less effort trying to catch scum.
Here are my posts toDay after voting for Drain Bead:
Post 540 - Criticizes NAF’s (non-existent) reasons for voting for me. Given that I am the leading candidate to hang, I daresay it’s relevant to today’s lynch.
Post 550 - Continues to engage NAF about his vote on me. Relevant to today’s lynch.
Post 551 - Trying to explain to MentalGuy why his reason for voting for me is mistaken. Relevant to today’s lynch.
Post 552 - Detailed analysis of what I saw happen in Wellington, including my scum/town leanings. Not relevant to today’s lynch, but helpful for the Kiwis later on (I hope).
Post 553 - Another question for NAF about his suspicions of me (which was prompted by my review for the previous post). Relevant to today’s lynch.
Post 555 - Questioning a blatant contradiction in MentalGuy’s reasoning. Relevant to today’s lynch.
And then all this fun with you.
You did, however, say one thing that is correct, which is that I have not pressed my case against Drain Bead, so I should address that. The reason is simple: DB has been replaced and Rysto has not made any effort to defend/justify Drain Bead’s vote. I was hoping that DB would come in and discuss her actions, but the replacement makes that impossible, so… there’s nothing more to say about it.
Just to be clear, the risk is that any scum can and did investigate Astral. Scum can talk to each other.
Pointing at flaws in others’ arguments is trying to find scum.
I can understand using one’s limited playtime to analysis only your own location, but you’re way out of line complaining about others who do take the time to look overseas.
In fact, it makes me think that perhaps Shadowfacts’ analysis is on target for at least one scum in Wellington and you’re trying to divert attention from that.
And now you’re completely out there. Criticizing players who spend the time to post their thoughts on others is totally anti-town. We want players to do what Shadowfacts is doing. No matter if we agree or disagree with what he says, it’s helpful for town to have it.
vote Mrs McGinty
(Yeah, it doesn’t count, but their active anti-town play looks worse than the passive anti-town play of Rin Twisted.)
Um, I know you haven’t criticized my effort, you’ve criticized my scum-finding, which is exactly what I just said:
YOU: “The ratio between your trying to look innocent and your trying to fund scum is all wrong for a townie.”
YOU: “…figure out who’s scum, and vote for them.”
ME: “Until you popped in today to criticize my lack of scum-finding…”
YOU: “I’ve not criticised your lack of effort.”
(bolding mine)
Those are all actual quotes. How did I misrepresent you? It’s quite obvious that you’ve hypocritically called me out for my lack of scum finding efforts while having done far less than me. Sorry you don’t like having that pointed out, but there it is.
I haven’t criticised anything. I’m saying you look scummy, because you’re more interesting in acting like a good townie than you are in finding scum.
@Pleonast
I’m sure this runs contrary to received wisdom around here, but I’d find it easier to catch scum if people weren’t quite so willing to share their every thought. Nevertheless, I’m not trying to discourage anyone from doing so, given that most people seem to find it so useful. But since when did posting tons of other crap whilst ignoring the real business of the day count as pro-town behaviour?
Now you’ve gone and hurt my feelings 
See my post list just above. Please be so kind as to identify which of those posts qualify as “crap” and which ones qualify as “acting like a good townie.” Be specific - all the posts are right there, won’t take you more than a minute.
Correction: saying ‘tons of other crap’ in reference to ShadowFacts’ posts was inaccurate and unfair. Sorry for that. I still feel quite comfortable with my vote, but it’s wrong to exaggerate.
Yeah, I posted that last one before seeing your last post. Again, sorry.
It looks to me like you are try to discourage Shadowfacts from expressing their thoughts. They voted and posted reasons for the vote. And then moved on to the other business we have: finding scum in Wellington.
It’s the fact that you’re trying to undermine the analysis of Wellington players that is so scummy.
Why aren’t you[u/] looking at Wellington players? You’ve apparently placed your vote and now have more time to post.
[I’m entirely too slow. This post should be considered as a response to Pleonast’s earlier comment and ignoring the 4 or 5 posts between ShadowFacts and Mrs McGinty since then]
I said I would withdraw my vote if it looked like Rin Twisted wasn’t going to show up, and that I commit to someone that looked like scum.
unvote Rin Twisted
Mrs McGinty just took that distinction and yes I’m aware that I am copying Pleonast. (vote Baffle, vote Rin Twisted, you see where this is going).
However Mrs McGinty copied her ShadowFacts vote in day 1 from Astral. She was almost apologizing for the vote. “It’s got to be somebody and I like this argument marginally more than this pile of shit.” (231)
Earlier in day 2, her argument was something like “Astral Rejection is innocent, so his suspicions about ShadowFacts are more likely to be true.” That would be accurate if Astral was killed for some canny observation, analysis, or some other related reason. But that wasn’t the case, Astral was apparently killed so that he couldn’t confirm peekercpa as mason.
But her biggest argument for continuing to vote ShadowFacts is that
That’s a great strategy :dubious:. Instead of looking for scum, we’ll just arrest somebody with flimsy arguments solely to find out their town allegiance.
vote Mrs McGinty
I realize that I am not infallible. Heck, I voted for Baffle yesterDay and Astral would have been my prime suspect toDay if he was still around, so obviously I don’t have some perfect scum detector.
I enjoy playing mafia, but I do get frustrated sometimes that if you don’t make clear black and white comments that people think you are trying to hide something. I view the game as more of making the play with the highest probability of a good outcome. For toDay, that means voting for you, since I think you are the most likely candidate to be scum. I do realize, though, that not everyone voting for you necessarily has the same motives and that it is perfectly possible for me to make mistakes.
I am going to be leaving to pick up my mother so she can spend Christmas with us in a couple of hours and I will be without internet access for at least 24 hours once I leave.
Did ShadowFacts identify anything about the Wellington situation that won’t occur to anyone who gives yesterday’s events a cursory reading? If so, I can’t see it.
I could conduct a similar exercise, of course, but the only value would be to make me look more townie in the eyes of people who buy that kind of thing.
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be a nudge (noodge?), but I don’t understand what you are saying here, and it doesn’t really seem to address my question. If you have time before you leave, can you try again?
Sure. Shadow, your post jumped out at me and Mental’s didn’t. I voted for you partially to see how you would respond and I didn’t think your response gave me any reason to unvote you.
To your earlier question, if I am wrong, and I might be I am not perfect, I will blow up my preconceptions and take a look at the past two Days with fresh eyes if I can. And yes, at that point maybe some people that I have currently marked as leaning pro town will move in a different direction.
Shadow, have you claimed anything yet?
You are about to swing I think, do you plan to claim before the Day is done?
Also vote count?
What I meant is that Astral being innocent tells us that his argument wasn’t scum-generated BS designed to throw us off the scent of the real villains.
If ShadowFacts turns out to be scum, it would give us some interesting data to chew over. If anyone had anything better than ‘flimsy arguments’ at this stage, then we could vote on that. But, as it is, I’m voting for the guy who strikes me as scummiest, and whose lynch would seem most likely to help inform future decisions.
Maybe, maybe not. That’s why it’s helpful to post those sort of thoughts. What’s obvious to one player may not be so to another.
So, you don’t want to do something because it’s the townie thing to do.
It’s hard to imagine anybody not grasping that peeker looks innocent, that Guiri has some town cred, or that some other people look more suspect based on their votes.
It’s not the townie thing to do. It’s the trying-to-look-like-a-townie thing to do.
I claimed Vanilla Town yesterDay. Not planning to change that.