[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
<snipped>
#319
It may not seem very compelling to lead off with this seemingly innocent post, but it keeps sticking out at me. If they’re scum, they wouldn’t have had a chance to speak in private until that Night, and this post just keeps striking me as scum discussing scum strategy in broad daylight.
Similar deal with #329.
[/quote]
Um, yeah…pretty weak. There are several new players to the game and there was some brief discussion about scum voting patterns, and all I did was tell people not to get caught up in thinking that scum are going to vote strictly by party lines. Something most of us know already. I can see your point, but no, that’s not what I was thinking.
[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
#492
Casting suspicion on confirmed-town Diggit[ver1].
[/quote]
I called **Diggit ** on something I found fault with. I misunderstood, he explained, and I dropped it. Weak again.
[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
#730
If my theory is correct, and Hockey and Hal are in cahoots, this would be how I might phrase a water-muddying post if I were Hal. The potential implication of Hazelnut and Scuba is much weaker, but since they are involved in conversation in these posts that are sticking out to me, I think they are at least worthy of notice. They could, however, be innocent townie decoys.
[/quote]
Hate to burst your bubble, but I am not in cahoots with anybody. I asked **Scuba ** what he meant…he said he didn’t say it…I quoted where he said it…he said he must have made a mistake or been thinking about the psychopath. **Hal ** thought I was trying to out the secret role, and I explained that I only wanted clarification because there were so many nuances to the rules and roles that confusion was easy. I was satisfied by **Scuba’s ** answer and **Hal ** said he was satisfied with mine. It was dropped. You seem to have already decided I am scum and are reaching for evidence in any discussion I’ve been involved in.
[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
#884
Hockey’s “this bandwagon makes me uncomfortable, but I’m gonna jump on it anyway” dunk vote for the late, confirmed-town Mtgman.
[/quote]
I’ve said before that’s where I thought my vote should go. Bold (read stupid) move for scum to place a vote like that, on a bandwagon, when they didn’t need to. I commented on the bandwagon because it sure did grow fast, and I still think that a couple of the people involved in it swung the vote from **AZTeach ** to Mtgman. (I’m currently voting for one of those people.) If I were scum, I would have stayed far far away from that one.
[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
#1215
I get a general scum vibe from this whole post, topped off by her calling me out due to a comment I made about a town-killing bandwagon that she was on, and I was not on. Just doesn’t sit well with me.
[/quote]
Probably doesn’t sit well because I was commenting about you. I found it odd that you would post with only a comment about how we likely won’t find any scum on the Mtgman bandwagon. You normally post with more than one thought. Why won’t we likely find scum there? But you think I’m scum and I’m on it. I think you may know full well that I’m not scum, and that post was just what I thought it was…an attempt at redirection from one or more of your mates.
[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
#1252
I’ve already echoed the observations of others, but I just wanted to point out yet another dead townie post that I largely agree with. This is one of storyteller’s.
[/quote]
I very much respect storyteller, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t wrong sometimes. As a monk, he knew that I am not a monk. But that’s all he knew.
[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
#1405
I’ve previously stated my dislike of the logic used for this FOS list, see #1430
[/QUOTE]
You don’t like it ‘cause I FOS you. The logic is sound.
[QUOTE=Hal Briston]
Huh…FOS on me aside, that’s a very compelling argument you’ve put together there, Cookies. I had completely forgotten about the FOS I had leveled against Hockey Monkey in #730 until you pointed it out there.
You’re incorrect about she and I being in cahoots, but it all still fits anyway (perhaps even moreso from my perspective, knowing that I’m town). Hmmm…going to have to put some serious thought into a vote switch here…
[/QUOTE]
Yes, if by compelling you mean weak, then it’s very compelling. I already went back through the **Scuba ** thing.
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
Cookie’s analysis crystallizes stuff a lot for me, especially since she cites posts and reveals things that I can then catch.
For example, Hockey Monkey in two consecutive lines in post 1215 both says to suspect one-off votes the most and that the bandwagon (of which he is a part) potentially hides scum. Following that, he’s basing all the substantiative parts of his Day 3 analysis (I continue to be irritated by the spurious reasoning on the vote/unvote patterns of AZTeach/Kat) on my supposedly bandwagon-starting vote after agreeing in 1215 that the one-offs are what’s highly suspicious to him.
vote Hockey Monkey
[/QUOTE]
Expected. But I stand by my voting analysis. The reasoning there is sound. **Pleonast ** is second on my list because of his involvement in the **Mtgman ** dunking. I have been sticking my neck out and calling people on what I think is odd behavior and I’m catching a lot of flak for it. I really went out on a limb with my vote for **Fretful ** on day two. I’m just town trying to do what I think is right, and unfortunately for a lot of townies it comes off as scummy.
