OK, here’s where the misinterpretation come from. When I said, “Hockey Monkey’s traits on the other thread” I meant the thread other than the game thread. I had no idea at the time that there were two “other threads”. I was refering to the 2 truths and a lie thread as “the other thread”.
You are simply taking my statement the wrong way.
(bolding mine)
Nice Try. But you acknowledge the “other thread” in post 522 which occurs before post 596 where you refer to “Hockey Monkey’s traits on the other thread.” By 596, you had already acknowledged existence of the “other thread.” And now you’re saying that in post 596 you had no idea about the other thread?
My vote stands.
Shit. You are right. I misread the quotes.
The truth is that I was referring to the 2 truths and a lie thread as the other thread.
I really do need to examine things more closely before posting them.
The real bitch of it is that I can’t really blame you for thinking my behavior is suspicious. I someone else had done what i had, I would probably think them suspicious as well. What can I say? I suck at this.
I don’t have an opinion on brewha at the moment but I feel the need to point out the following(bolding mine):
As all of us who’ve played this game before know all too well, poor logic does not necessarily equal scummy logic . This could be the case of scum fabricating a case against Town, or it could be a simple case of confirmation bias. Lord knows I’ve fallen into the latter far too often in this game.
I just got done looking at sach’s case against brewha regarding the meaning of “the other thread”. My initial reaction was that his explanation sounds reasonable to me. However, when re-reading the events of his day 1 accusation against me, I noticed something else.
brewha, you accused me based on none of my traits being in “the other thread”, which you’ve now stated is the Two Truths and a Lie thread. However, 4 of my traits (1 public, 3 private) are in that thread… 3 on the first page alone.
Yes, your traits were in that other thread. I thought we’d been over this. I did a quick ctrl+F search of the thread based on key words. They didn’t show up. I jumped to conclusions. I later went back to check again more thoroughly and found that they were indeed in that thread. I was still waiting to see you reaction to my accusation in case I may have just stumbled on something.
brewha seems pretty defensive…That’s kind of making me suspicious. Then again, so was our dear friend Idle of the gigantic letters 
sooo…he may yet be a townie. And okay, maybe he does “suck at this” or maybe that’s just a cover for the mistakes he’s been making. Still ruminating.
1.storyteller0910 - 5
2.HazelNutCoffee - 0
3.Freudian Slit - 4
4.brewha - 14
7.sachertorte - 6
8.Hawkeyeop - 10
11. Pleonast - 1
13. Rysto - 1
14. Hal Briston - 2
15. faithfool - 0
16. zuma - 3
17. Hockey Monkey - 5
18. Kat - 0
19. Diomedes - 2
Zero Posts:
HazelNutCoffee
faithfool
Kat
The Day ends on SUNDAY. Weekends tend to be very slow, so we need to get posts and votes up now.
HazelNutCoffee: What are your thoughts on faithfool?
faithfool: What are your thoughts regarding Diomedes and his vote on you?
Kat: What are your thoughts on brewha?
brewha: As the most active player today, what are your thoughts on the players who have posted little or not at all?
I think that it is typical of these types of games to want to pound the nail that sticks out. I think it is impossible to get any kind of read on players that don’t post. I think that the easiest way to hide as scum is to say nothing at all.
Based on dossier analysis (at which I suck) I would vote for Pleonast (not in blue - not a vote) because if he may have copied my public trait.
Based on posting analysis, I would vote for anyone with a 0 or 1 post count.
We’ve only got two more days and we have 5 people that have said little or nothing. There’s no way to determine anything from those people - especially if we ignore the dossiers.
Personally, I still feel that Dio is trying to deflect any attention from himself and on to an available target. However, since there’s been no consensus on that, I’m pretty much at a loss right now. I’ve agreed with many of the points mentioned, pro and con, yet I believe I’m sort of reaching to throw my support behind a particular lynch. Except for Dio, everyone seems to weigh off against one another. It’s like everything’s a wash.
So after probably not saying much, the reason I haven’t posted since SF bit the dust is because I’ve all of a sudden got tons of personal stuff going on. I’m haven’t stopped reading along or trying to figure things out, it’s just that most of my energies have been diverted by the current crisis in my life. So very sorry. I’m hoping that it clears up soon and I’ll have a more useful opinion.
** Vote Brewha**
For all the reasons I have previously mentioned, along with his desire to point the finger at anyone and everyone, without backing up his opinions with evidence or a vote.
His case on Pleo seems to be particulary ridiculous.
Brewha: (Paraphasing) Pleo could of stole my public trait. Therefore he could be scum.
Me: Okay then how did Pleo copy other people’s traits before they were revealed?
Brewha. What?! I didn’t accuse him, I just suggested as a possibility, so I don’t have to defend my argument.
And then in his last post he says again "Based on dossier analysis (at which I suck) I would vote for Pleonast (not in blue - not a vote) because if he may have copied my public trait. "
So he will keep putting a FoS on Pleo without dealing with the inconsistencies of the argument. But I’m sure he will argue since he didn’t vote he doesn’t have to defend his case.
Regardless to your opinion on dossiers I think we can all agree that Brewha is suspicious.
I’m not going to defend a case that I don’t have. I didn’t vote for him. I don’t plan to vote for him based on what I know.
How do I explain how others share his traits? I can’t. That’s why I haven’t voted for, or cast a FOS against Pleonast.
I willing to wager that the main reason I’m getting voted for is because I’m talking. Pretty impossible to try to poke holes in the stories that aren’t told.
Hey, Hawkeyeop! Whattya think of Kat’s analysis? Or Hazelnut’s? Since they’ve said nothing suspicious today, does that make them innocent? Or just silent?
The thing that really sucks about this situation is that while you who voted for me are pouring over my posts trying to find inconsistencies and scum tells, the real pigs are sitting silently in their corner and laughing. While people are focusing on me, the real scum are going completely undetected.
Hey, can we get a recent vote count here, NAF? Thanks…
Only 4 votes out there. Remember it takes 8 votes to make a lynch happen. 10 of you still haven’t voted.
3 - brewha (sach, HockeyMonkey, Hawkeyeop)
1 - faithfool (Dio)
About 44 hours left in the Day. Tick tock people.
Last time we did a post count, Kat had two posts. This time, zero. That’s the best I got to go on - unless she anounced a reason that she couldn’t post much and I missed it. Like I said before, it is easy to avoid suspicion if you say nothing.
Vote Kat
I think I’m a go with faithfool. If only because her interactions really remind me of mine with Idle last game. The defensiveness when being called on scumhood…for some reason, that’s making me trust Dio and making me think that faith is disgruntled, and just not doing as good a job hiding it. Newbieness is not an excuse, and while I’m tempted to excuse her for that, it might just bite us in the arse if we do.
Vote faithfool
Boob talk? Dio, you say “boob talk” like it’s a bad thing!
C’mon guys. I know it’s the weekend and all, but the Day ends very soon and we haven’t made much progress. Anyone who hasn’t voted needs to do so ASAP.
I’m still leaning toward faithfool’s townliness based on being provided with her dossier. As storyteller pointed out, it’s very unlikely that I would have been provided with info on scum, so I’m keeping her filed under “innocent” for now.
As for brewha…sigh…I see the case, but as he mentioned, it just smacks of him being hunted because he’s one of the most vocal ones out there. I’ve been in that position myself, and it’s frustrating as hell. That certainly doesn’t exonerate him, but I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being.
Now, since it fully stands to reason that one of the silent players is also a Silent Pig, I’m going to toss my vote that way. Kat already has one on the table, so barring some analysis and observations from her, I’m comfortable taking a shot in her direction.
Vote Kat
You see the case against brewha, yet vote **Kat ** based on nothing more than lurking? That just smacks of scummy opportunism.