I voted for Pleonast a few Days ago, and I’ll dig up what I can as soon as I get the chance on why. I am still convinced (without logical reason, I’ll admit) that the list of FOSs** Kat** first posted includes one scum at least, and out of that list I find Pleonast the most worthy of suspicion. I’ll have to fish around for more dirt before casting a final vote.
This is a continuation of my posting analysis of HazelNutCoffee. The first episode, covering Day 1, went up Yesterday in post number [post=8801361]2043[/post]. It looked at her first 55 posts. At the time of writing this, the thread has 2,100 posts. HazelNutCoffee has made 107 of them.
Today I will carry it through to the dawn of Day 5.
Day 2 : 8 posts.
[post=8739082]984[/post] : Farewell zuma.
[post=8740286]1018[/post] : Reviews the Malacandra/zuma exchange in the light of the latter’s status.
[post=8742736]1080[/post] : Why the Mtgman bandwagon wasn’t Cult-driven. [post=8742971]1093[/post] : The bandwagon may have Cultists in, but they’d not do something so obvious as bandwagon a townie en masse on Day 1.
[post=8749358]1174[/post] : Still umming and ahhing about Malacandra.
[post=8749466]1180[/post] : Is female.
[post=8753188]1243[/post] : Apologies for being quiet.
[post=8753950]1254[/post] : Discusses suspicions, votes for DiggitCamara1.
Night 2 : 2 posts. (I’m counting 1298 as Night2 even though technically it was made before Nightfall. It was in the twilight, and not concerned with Game).
Day 3 : 17 posts.
[post=8764411]1359[/post] : Reaction to the Nightkills.
[post=8764735]1374[/post] : Avatar’s revenge kill is a daykill.
[post=8770150]1482[/post] : Analysis of her own Day 2 posts.
[post=8770258]1484[/post] : Remembers that she found MadTheSwine fishy and asked him to explain his reaction to Clockwork Jackal’s suspicion.
[post=8770976]1495[/post] : Some notes. Among others asks whether ArizonaTeach and Autolycus staged their argument, speculates on Kat’s response to Sachertorte pointing out inconsistencies in her argument and peers a bit at Kyrie for several reasons…
[post=8771177]1498[/post] : Develops a discussion with Kyrie (see post 1497) on her suspicions.
[post=8772283]1521[/post] : Gets response from MadTheSwine (see 1484) and asks follow-up.
[post=8772328]1522[/post] : Concedes Kyries defence against one point.
[post=8773373]1538[/post] : Found it helpful doing her own post tally as it helped refresh memory.
[post=8777278]1589[/post] : Tries to clarify what she was thinking about an earlier post by Kyrie. [post=8777587]1596[/post] : Settles remaining differences with him.
[post=8778198]1613[/post] : Asks why DarkCookies treated her agreeing with DiggitCamara1 as suspicious, but not DiggitCamara1’s initial suspicion.
[post=8779456]1627[/post] : HazelNutCoffee’s second post trying to clarify why she found DarkCookies inconsistent.
[post=8780742]1652[/post] : Denies defending HockeyMonkey; rather she is attacking DarkCookies’s logic.
[post=8780746]1653[/post] : Ooops, didn’t vote.
[post=8780837]1654[/post] : Keeps coming back to 1020, when Kat spread suspicion around. Really believes one is Cult, and votes Pleonast.
[post=8781714]1684[/post] : Finds MadTheSwine’s vote for Scuba_Ben scummy.
1684 was after the Day 3 deadline but before BM posted the Nightfall. I’m counting it with Day 3, but all subsequent posts until Day 4 dawn as Night 3, even if made before the Nightfall post.
Night 3 : 6 posts.
Day 4 :
[post=8791004]1779[/post] : Initial reaction to the news of the death of the Oracle.
[post=8791121]1783[/post] : Speculation that Hal may have investigated Malacandra, promises to look again at MadTheSwine.
[post=8792736]1818[/post] : No suggestion that Hal investigated MadTheSwine.
[post=8793270]1829[/post] : Notes that the surge of votes on MadTheSwine has made her wary of voting him.
[post=8793588]1843[/post] : Reacts to a post by FlyingCowOfDoom asking people to keep quiet if they have nothing to say, pointing out that it’s still a game. Also notes all power role deaths have been Night kills.
[post=8793681]1850[/post] : Catches one of MadTheSwine’s scummy statements.
[post=8793685]1851[/post] : Notes simulpost.
[post=8793925]1856[/post] : Asks MadTheSwine why he’s contradicting himself.
[post=8794011]1858[/post] : Explains the contradiction in response to a question.
[post=8794132]1862[/post] : Challenges Mad’s assertion that all cultists would claim in his position.
[post=8794712]1873[/post] : Votes MadTheSwine for the “roleclaim is scum tell” assertion.
[post=8796691]1921[/post] : Thinks aloud about MadTheSwine’s claim that he’s trying to draw out Cultists.
[post=8797153]1930[/post] : BM is evil and sadistic.
[post=8798489]1960[/post] : Finding things odd is odd.
[post=8799491]1984[/post] : Compares MadTheSwine’s behaviour to Autolycus in M2.
[post=8799785]1990[/post] : Points out what she sees as a flaw in MadTheSwine’s master plan.
[post=8800233]2006[/post] : Says she understands Mad’s plan, and is trying to find a way round the flaw she perceives in it.
[post=8800237]2007[/post] : Prefers not to be called Nut.
Night 4 : No posts.
That’s it folks. All of HazelNutCoffee’s posts up to and including Night 4.
So what are we to make of this very prolific lady?
I don’t get a significant Cult feel from her. I’ll freely admit to not being the most perceptive person in the world, but my read is probably non-Cult. The posts are there now for others to do the research.
I’m going to keep the reviews for those people I’ve studied in detail going on a Daily basis – that is, each Day I’ll review the previous Day’s posts and see if it changes my mind. That means I’ll be looking back at DiggitCamara2 at some point Today. Realistically it’ll be done by Thursday evening.
Once I’ve done that I’ll do my own scrutiny of Pleonast, assuming I have sufficient time before Nightfall to do so and still get a vote in.
Quiet day today.
Posting summary contains Day One now.
I’m new to the google spreadsheet goodness. I “published” this spreadsheet instead of “shared,” which is what I did with the first one. I’ve been importing from Excel, so each time I think google makes a new spreadsheet. I don’t know how to cut and paste from one to the other.
Anyway: Days 1-4 posting numbers are here.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p3Jlg8mWT6DwiUAVS0oqJeQ
Wow…slow day or what? Seems like a lag in the game the last two days…
Still color me dubious and suspicious.
Yes, but the reasons, as I remember, were weak and not based on much.
But see, I’m not talking about fluff posts. I’m talking about weighing in with your two cents on current "FOS"s and debates, saying and giving reasons who and why you’re suspicious of people (something you just replied to NAF in this post that you think everyone should do), and actually giving something to actual town to look over and read if and when you’re gone from the game. I’m not talking about posting just for the sake of posting.
True. And you’re consistent, at the very least.
I dunno, the way it read to me was just giving yourself an out, seemingly. Yeah, Mad didn’t say anything yet until after you said you’d be changing your vote. But why, then, not vote for Mad in the first place?
You know, you’re right. I probably would have still anyway…although thinking about it right now, I can honest say I don’t think I would have been AS hard up on suspicion of you right now as I am otherwise. You giving in and switching your vote after he details his plan looks more shady then “I hear what you’re saying but I’m keeping my vote where it is”.
This is also true. Nava hasn’t made a post for ages and I’m wondering what BM is doing on that front since someone asked about her awhile ago.
But I cannot fathom that the suspicions against you are flimsy. There are more than just me and FCoD that have them, and while you could make the arguement “but you and him could be scum” what of the others? Just on the last Day alone and building up since then, I seem to have noticed more and more noticing what I’ve noticed and apparently FCoD had since Day One. Usually when three people tell you you’re drunk, you should sit down.
In any case, you are my top player with the most and biggest suspicions and I think they all have warrant.
Snipped some.
Well, again, speaking only for myself, I was very tired at the time and ready to hit the hay. I had just checked in for my regular “last post before I go” and saw that Day had just began. Really, rather than start on all the reasons again (which I had explained many times the last four Days) and get started on a post that I KNEW would probably be a million miles long if I started it (because I know myself, see. :p) I decided, then, to just vote and, if wanted (which apparently it was–by you), later recap all my reasons again. Although I hoped that the ones as current as near the end of yesterDay would have sufficed…since they were still on the same page.
[offgame]OH, and my game starts in about 45 minutes for anyone who wishes to get in at the last minute (heh, hopefully).
No worries. This is the last time I’m mentioning this. :p[/offgame]
I have seen and read the re-hash supporting analyses from Idle and FlyingCow. Thank you. I hope that it is relatively clear that the issues I raised are limited to the period of time surrounding their votes being cast and my FOSes, and that I have no beef (that I am currently aware of) with the content of their analyses.
You know, trying to sort through this thread for specific posts is an excersize in extreme frustration.
So before I post the super anylytical recap of “why zeriel” (which I have been working on for over 4 hours and may not finish for another day or so) let me at least get in here with a short version.
-
AZ’s odd first day vote and unvote for him and his decision to use my picking up on AZ behaving in a scummy manner and using it to deflect attention back to me. Voting for a “scum buddie” on D1 is a common distancing tool used by scum. It would seem likely to me that AZ would choose another scum to place his “look at me I am voting” vote, rather than a townie who might react with suspicion.
-
His reaction to being placed on a list of people that I wanted to hear more from. He reacted to this by voting for me. Everyone else I mentioned reacted by either saying sorry I will post more analysis, or by actually just posting more analysis.
-
His fair weather voting pattern. He seems to have, as scuba_ben put it “on again off again suspicions”. Now this one is just an impression, as I will admit that I haven’t had time to do the hard analysis yet. But I will in one of my upcomming posts. But he seems to have lots of suspicion, but almost always votes with the crowd, and is usually late to the bandwagon.
-
He seems to be constantly spinning facts to make them reach the conclusions he is looking for rather than the conclusions they actually point to. I have called him out on this at least once (when he said that it was scummy that I didn’t have AZ on my list. Ignoring the fact that AZ and MGTman were in the middle of a rather obvious argument at the time I posted said list) Others may have called him on it as well.
And YUP this is the short version. I have quotes and everything comming…eventually 
ArizonaTeach Day One (no linky-linky because I’m feeling lazy-lazy):
Early on, ArizonaTeach’s posts largely center on **Mtgman **(294). With some peripheral discussion about lurking, **storyteller **v. **MadTheSwine **(355). But mostly Mtgman (355 and 501).
First vote by ArizonaTeach (555) against Zeriel.
very next post by ArizonaTeach is 580 where he unvotes Zeriel.
The 555/580 combo is what triggered suspicion and votes from **NAF **and Mtgman.
{sachertorte’s conclusion: Zeriel is not scum. NAF is an unknown, but Mtgman, confirmed town, explained the scum tell as scum is trigger happy but lack resolve and will fold easily. Since Mtgman is town and ArizonaTeach is scum, Mtgman’s thesis on ArizonaTeach makes Zeriel look pretty townie to me. According the Mtgman’s theory, ArizonaTeach flipped his vote on Zeriel because ArizonaTeach knew Zeriel was town.}
Following NAF’s vote for ArizonaTeach there is some arguing (590, 594, 606, 620) {observation: ArizonaTeach seems frustrated, even at this early juncture}
First salvo against **Autolycus **occurs in 688 and is quite mild [1:08AM]. Second post regarding Autolycus is much more forceful (691)[1:55AM].
Third post (693) [2:00AM] is a continuation of post the second and has ArizonaTeach voting for Autolycus.
ArizonaTeach continues to needle Autolycus through the next day, though at that point Autolycus hadn’t voted for ArizonaTeach yet. So really, it was ArizonaTeach driving the argument (733).
Autolycus votes for ArizonaTeach in post 767.
ArizonaTeach retorts in post 807.
Mtgman explains the ArizonaTeach scum tell in post 808 where he votes ArizonaTeach.
ArizonaTeach responds to Mtgman in 812, 813
More defense 821
More protest 826
845: the big one. mostly response to posts by Autolycus, but concludes with the sub request.
ArizonaTeach quit with three votes against him. One of those voters we know to be town (Mtgman). The other two (NAF and Autolycus/now DiggitCamarav2) are unknowns. My theory, which I stated before but repost here, is that ArizonaTeach’s frustration makes more sense if ArizonaTeach was getting sandbagged by fellow scum.
ArizonaTeach ‘picked a fight’ with Autolycus, so I don’t see how the ensuing argument would have frustrated ArizonaTeach so, yet it did. Could ArizonaTeach simply be frustrated because he gave himself away so easily? I suppose that is possible, but not particularly sportsmanlike (Does anyone have experience with ArizonaTeach that would indicate a proclivity to ‘sore-loser’ behavior?). Also, why would Blaster Master assent to sub ArizonaTeach? If town found ArizonaTeach fair and square, then all the accusations against ArizonaTeach were true.
In my mind, a scum pile on is the most logical reason for ArizonaTeach getting so frustrated as to leave the game.
The loose threads:
ArizonaTeach voted for Autolycus first.
Autolycus voted for NAF before switching to ArizonaTeach.
Autolycus persisted into Day 2, voting for ArizonaTeach/Kat.
NAF did not pursue ArizonaTeach into Day 2 (subs get one day free policy).
My personal feeling is that Autolycus strikes me as having sufficient game-selfishness (totally unsubstantiated on my part, its just the ‘vibe’ I get) to throw fellow scum under a bus; but the evidence shows ArizonaTeach picked that fight.
I have other suspicions on NAF that I presented before and will now research further.
Oh, and by “now” I mean tomorrow.
I’d actually be interested to see how you make this accusation work, since I’ve voted for
Day1: Mtgman, mostly an admitted guess, since I saw him as most scummy of the frontrunners. In which I was the vote that pushed him into the lead, and therefore wasn’t late to the bandwagon.
Day2: fluiddruid, not bandwagon, not voting with a crowd (the crowd was doing Malacandra vs. Kat)
Day3: Hockey Monkey, third voter in the group, voted due to HockeyMonkey voting differently than her stated preferred analysism, stuck my neck out to try to extend the day after her roleclaim and protect Scuba_Ben, who I thought was being lynched on flimsy evidence. Not a bandwagon, not seeing a crowd.
Day4: CaptainKlutz, only voter, based on pushing Scuba_Ben over the top, not a bandwagon, not a crowd.
Never mind, I’m not interested. There’s no coherent way you COULD make it work.
So then we get this
So of your four points,
- is based on assuming you know for sure a scum’s motives, when said scum had a breakdown later that same Day.
- is based on the semantics of what exactly your damned list was supposed to represent.
- is flat out wrong in every possible way
and - is calling me out for spinning facts to fit a pre-ordained conclusion. I’d accuse you of doing the same thing in your 3rd point, but we don’t call it spin when you make “facts” up out of whole cloth, we call it making stuff up. Or, less charitably, lying.
I think my original gut feeling about you toDay was wrong. And I think you’re right on one specific point.
Couldn’t agree more. dunk NAF1138
This is not a full record of your votes. This is a record of your final votes. From Hal’s spreadsheet, your actual voting pattern looks like this:
Day 1: NAF, [del]NAF[/del], Kyrie, [del]Kyrie[/del], mtgman
Day 2: fluiddruid
Day 3: Hal, [del]Hal[/del], Hockey,
Day 4: Cap’n Klutz
This does show on-again, off-again voting on Days 1 and 3. I agree that NAF is going to have to show why he thinks you stick with the crowd/bandwagon, though.
A workup of MHaye’s posts, in case anybody is interested:
– Early posts: a lot of general game chatter: objects to grudges, random voting, and pressure-voting; clarifies Prophet’s role; objects to any way of town’s steering power roles; clarifies that no one can get a false read on the Avatar and that both the Oracle and Apprentice can be converted.
– First big post discussing suspicions is 851. Hedges a lot, but mentions that some things FCoD, Malacandra, Mad, NAF, and Pasta have said don’t sit well with him. Says that if he had to vote now, it would be Mal or zuma. By 874, has decided to vote Mtgman; also suspicious of, in descending order, zuma, Malacandra, Pasta, storyteller, and sachertorte. Mtgman already has six votes – does it make sense for a Cultist to jump on now?
Day 2: In 996, says he’s less suspicious of Mal now that zuma has been cleared, but it’s not going to disappear. At 1225, suggests that zuma may have been a random kill; says townies need to get their suspicions out there. At 1258, responds to accusations from Pasta; says his style is to read, think, then post a vote with an explanation. Notes that disagreement between players is not a sign that one of them is Cult. A few posts later (1261), says he suspects sachertorte, Cookies, USCDiver, and Idle Thoughts, particularly sachertorte; in next post, adds Mal and storyteller to list. Votes sachertorte at 1263, but says he does so reluctantly.
Day 3: Responds to further accusations from USCDiver at 1481; says he suspected USCD for failing to show his work. Works up own posting history at 1549. At 1635, cautiously suspicious of Hockey Monkey – yet points out that Cultists would surely avoid using the same vote-switching strategy twice. At 1639, works up Auto’s posts, but doesn’t come to any conclusions. At 1655, decides he’s not happy with voting for HM so is not going to vote anyone at all for now. Reviews posts of DC v.2 at 1657; finds his vote for HM suspicious and says he’d vote for DC v. 2 if he had to vote now. New suspicion list at 1660: Sachertorte, Malacandra, Idle Thoughts, and DC. Votes DC. Unvotes at 1678.
Day 4: Minor feud with sachertorte at1816. Not happy with Mad’s lynch; at 1933, says his gut feeling is that Mad is town because he’s behaved strangely to provoke a reaction before. Decides to abstain at 2040. Works up HazelNutCoffee’s posts at2043; sees nothing suspicious. At 2050, objects to being called a non-participant.
Day 5: Continued analysis of HazelNutCoffee at2122. Says she’s probably not Cult. Intends to do another workup for Pleonast.
Conclusions: This is a cautious player who avoids bandwagons and doesn’t like to place a vote unless he’s absolutely sure. He’s done a lot of non-voting or apparent throwaway voting. Taken in isolation, these attributes of his posting style could indicate a Cultist. However, he’s not afraid to buck trends and draw attention to himself, and to me, that’s the mark of a townie. I think a Cultist would have hidden himself in the crowd voting for MadTheSwine or simply not posted at all rather than making a show of abstaining.
That wasn’t the really damning part of the accusation, in my opinion. Even if that were the case, is voting for someone early and then changing your vote midway through the day when more evidence is in something we want to discourage? I’d think dogged stick-to-itiveness is more scummy than being open to change.
To be fair, I did say that point 3 was just an impression and that it might not hold up to analysis. This is what I mean when I say that you are spinning facts. I placed a disclaimer in there that you quoted.
Also, regarding Sach’s point. Normally I like the analysis you are doing sach, but this time I have to say your theory is stupid. I can’t believe that AZ would sub out because he honestly thought that one of his own team mates was trying to dunk him without ever having spoken to him. I am sorry, but this is dumb on many levels.
I’ve been trying to find someone else besides Mal to put on my List of Suspicion. We need to develop a larger of list of suspects to consider dunking.
First, there seems to be a number of players who’ve given little to no input. Here are the ones who I’ve given me little impression, one way or another:
USCDiver
Nava
zuma [Ver. 2]
DiggitCamara [Ver. 2]
Other players who haven’t said much recently:
Hockey Monkey
Malacandra
Kyrie Eleison
fluiddruid
These are lists are totally artifacts of my opinion, I haven’t done searches to verify who’s actually been posting. Nevertheless, I call out all of these players to put a little more effort into the game and propose two to three candidates for dunking. Preferably with explanations.
You all need to help us out. Yes, you put yourself in jeopardy by speaking up and accusing others, but it’s a necessary part of the game for Townies. The Cultists are happy to let a few Townies dominate the discussion and argue among themselves about who to dunk. The Cult can sit back, putting minimal effort into the game, and slowly eliminate the Town. Don’t make it so easy for them.
Aside from the layabouts, I’m finding two players more suspicious.
Idle Thoughts for his statements when switching his vote to me (2025) "I have a feeling this is going to come back and bite me on the ass the next Day or sometime but since I can spare no more thought or minutes in this Day’s game and it’ll be Night when I return…Unvote Mad and vote Pleonast. It doesn’t seem to matter at this point but if Mad IS TOWN and (and here is what I’m thinking) some sort of trip wire or bomb or Avatar for the good side (and he’s certainly acting like it), well, I’m not taking any chances.
I don’t mind so much that he voted for me, since he’s been marking me for quite a while. Instead, he wonders if Mad was some sort of anti-Avatar on the Town’s side, and changes his vote to protect himself. That seems like very selfish act and makes me doubt his Townieness. Considering the current clash between us, it’s better that someone else look at Idle carefully, since who’s going to listen my complaints about him?
Also triggering my suspicion is Zeriel. Both Mad and Hockey voted for him. Obviously, Mad was going to vote for someone other than Mad, but why pick Z? I don’t think Mad’s crazy tactic is useful in my case, because of my consistent voting pattern, but it may apply to Z. And Hockey, a provisionally confirmed Townie, thought it reasonable enough to follow Mad’s vote. This increases my suspicion of Z.
And then we have NAF’s case against Zeriel. I’d like to see the full case, with links/quotes etc. It’s starting to seem convincing to me. And Z’s defense post and counter-vote, I find extremely unconvincing. Especially the vote. I’ll be happy to vote Zeriel as an alternative to Mal.
sachertorte, I’m not getting what the point of your analysis of AZTeach is. If it’s to incriminate NAF, I’m just not seeing it. Please expand on it or present your other suspicions.
Now I am not disagreeing with you here (I would actually tend to agree, which looks bad for me I know, but you look damned scummy) But before you say something like that. Maybe you should remember you already said this
You said that toDay. Watch those contradictions.
You know, it’s all the little slips like this that make the project of going back and collecting all the quotes such a daunting task.
I agree with this. I can’t possibly imagine **AZTeach **getting upset because a fellow Cultist voted for him. It makes absolutely no sense. It doesn’t make sense that he’d get upset that a Townsperson voted for him either, by the way.
I think it’s pretty obvious that whatever AZTeach’s reason for quitting was, it was not because he got three votes on the first day. Anyone who has played this game before would never sub out because of three first day votes.
–FCOD
Let’s continue my review of DiggitCamara[sub]2[/sub]. The purpose is to take this from where I left off in Day 3 to the end of Day 4.
Before I start, I apologise for not bolding names in my post history for HazelNutCoffee - I was a bit daunted by the number and let it slip my mind.
I started with a review of Autolycus’s participation in post [post=8779867]1639[/post] and followed this up with a review of the early posts by DiggitCamara[sub]2[/sub] in post[post=8781015]1657[/post]. Up to that point I had no real feeling either way whether Diggit holds a Cult role or not.
Onward!
[post=8781615]1673[/post] : Unvotes HM to allow time to test her role claim. Contends that 1627 was a defence of HM and not a discussion of DarkCookies inconsistency.
[post=8781626]1676[/post] : Votes Zeriel on the grounds that the latter is trying to see HM dunked in a hurry.
Night 3 : 5 posts.
Day 4 : 6 posts.
[post=8792062]1804[/post] : R.I.P. Hal.
[post=8792766]1819[/post] : Considers who Hal may have investigated.
[post=[8796659]1919[/post] : MadTheSwine probably is not the Psychopath.
[post=8799653]1986[/post] : Part i : Votes MadTheSwine speculating that Mad may be a sacrificial lamb for the Cult. Part ii : Speculates on why he (as the Crusader) was killed.
[post=8799815]1991[/post] : The value of the Crusader to the Cult. Stresses that what caught his attention was that the discussion on the Crusader died after he (DiggitCamara[sub]1[/sub]) joined in.
[post=8800398]2012[/post] : Argues with Kyrie Eleison who had attempted to show that the reason posters had missed some of the possibilities wasn’t because of a trap by the Cultists.
Not as many posts as I had anticipated.
As far as Day 3 is concerned, I had similar reactions to Diggit; I tend to allow time for claims to be tested, and I found Zeriel’s desire to force a tie a little odd – but maybe it’s just a different way of doing things.
One thing started sounding an alarm. It’s probably a mistake, and certainly very slender. In 1991, DiggitCamara[sub]2[/sub] claimed that discussion on the nightkill possibilities died after he chimed in with his post [post=8739880]1012[/post]. Well, both Idle Thoughts and HockeyMonkey responded to his post – Idle in [post=8739899]1013[/post] and HM in post [post=8739975]1016[/post]. Idle acknowledged that he missed out the Alchemist, and HM said that she’d used “block” to include any reason that the kill might have failed.
I don’t consider it significant, now I’ve taken the time to chase it down; I did think the follow-up posts were more significant than they turned out to be.
On to Pleonast. I’ll try and get it done by Thursday evening,
What do I see here? More spin from the spinmaster–but you’re cutting down on the lies, that’s at least good.
The complete in context quote–you quoted the italics, I highlight the NEXT SENTENCE with bolding:
In other words, I already said I thought your suspicion of me might run counter to the “normal situation”, because I’m a consistent suspicion but have so far never been in any danger of being killed and thus confirmed town. Thus, you look good for having a consistent suspicion without the danger you’d face if you were constantly suspicious for someone more likely to get dunked.