So the operative word now is "convenient"? I don't think we have a matching understanding of what the word means in this context, then.
People started voting for Ix, then other people latched on to that vote "conveniently".

Similar to my wagon, as an example. One person voted for me, then another, then another, to the end where Stan (as an example) simply said "I'm good at following rules", and voted for me as well. It is all very "convenient".

For what it's worth, my understanding of what she said, would be something along the lines of "Lots of people are voting for Ix now, it seems to be a very convenient wagon to place oneself on. I would even go so far as to posit, with the large number of players playing here, scum could join the wagon and afford to throw one of their own under the bus (for later town-cred I guess? Or to not appear scummy?)"
But that's just from a casual reading without obsessing over specific words and how they could be distorted to mean something scummy. But what do I know, we've been discussing for the past couple pages something the author of which self-identified as "probably a bunch of gibberish".

@bler: I'd say pushing flimsy reasoning insistently isn't a very town activity. And while I don't disagree that every single person on my wagon may not be scum, 4 (or is it 5 now? Or maybe even 6 is SirCrimson was one) out of 17 is a reasonable size for a scum team. I can only call them as I see them, if someone did something else that was scummy that I saw that was unrelated to my wagon, I wouldn't hide it away or anything. The others aren't doing anything significantly affecting my opinion of them. Yog is weird, yog was always weird, you're posting long and detailed analyses of every person here every couple pages (something really not on my level, but kudos to you), Ix is still recovering from his wagon and doesn't seem to have elaborated on his role yet, but I don't expect him to, Stan is trying to push attention away from himself, etc etc etc.

"modkills" will be specifically denoted as such and are not likely to be in the form of a death but rather some other hopefully anti-climactic exit - don't hold me to that - but hopefully we don't have but the 1 modkill...

You're missing reams of context.

You think the case on you is flimsy? Case someone else and we'll compare.

Good, a bump. I strongly believe Compulsive and "unspecified" are true because those would be hard to make up. What I'm not so sure of is whether he is correctly giving us his faction. So he wouldn't exactly be fake claiming. He might have flavor indications of what his role might be. But I wouldn't put it past anyone to spin their role as town, heck maybe even an Arsonist might try it! (Nah, how could that make sense).

@Babark You are the one calling it flimsy. I think enough people have chimed in on how they find that quote suspicious, even those who don't find it voteworthy or suspicious themselves see what we are saying. As to your assertion I was on Docbear's wagon because it was easy or convenient...There was no real wagon until i voted Doc/you. Quad had an early vote there. I was the 2nd vote. I'm doing what i do every game. I see something i don't like. I make a direct post (sometimes voting) to apply pressure.

And if the Docbear wagon became so easy all of a sudden, doesn't that imply there was something seriously wrong with her quote?

So dayvig then?

...hmm.

Probably town.

If that is what she meant why did she word it the way she did? The way she presented it l makes it seem as if she possesses knowledge that a town player would not. I'm looking for scum not a convenient wagon to be on, and stating that a wagon is convenient to me implies you know more about the person in question than a town player would.

Hope enough time has passed since my last reply. It was mostly as a response to trenton, if that wasn't obvious. Anyhow...
How is it misspeaking? It seems a very valid assumption that we have a lot of scum this time round, considering the total number of players (which is the exact argument docbear made). I certainly don't believe there is just 3 scum.

But interesting how in your attempt to appear the nonchalant seeker of answers, you've dodged twice what I've laid at your feet as pretty suspicious behaviour on your part. Currently you're very much focused on how docbear's statement implies she knew how many scum there are. Trenton in an attempt to defend you suggests that this is simply a natural evolution from your previous position. I really don't see how it can be, though.
Lets see, your original suspicion against docbear's post was was
And now it is "evolved" to:
Personally, I think there are far far far too many "missing links" to make this a viable evolution. Care to explain yourself? Do you no longer believe that docbear's statement implied scum had decided to give up one of their own, and there might be a daychat, and THAT is why docbear's statement is suspicious?

THAT is an example of what I call a "convenient wagon". Someone latching on (or even trying to create suspicion) with a slipshod reason, and then when others latch on with a different reason, switch to that reason as if that was it all along.

vote count / votecount / vote-count

Nathaniel (Nathan) Smith ........ -- 0 --
Sean O'Donnell (Sean-O!) ....... -- 1 -- Fergus (Nachomamma8)
Laura Jennings ......................... -- 4 -- William (QuadrAlien), Adam (RWarehall), Emily (trentonlf), Justin (Stanari),
Emma Hess ............................... -- 0 --
Adam Johnson .......................... -- 1 -- Laura (babark),
William (Bill) O'Brian ................ -- 1 -- Emma (Ixamyakxim),
Craig Adams ............................. -- 1 -- Eric (yogsloth),
Daniel (Dan) Evans .................. -- 0 --
Claire Dwyer .............................. -- 0 --
Eric Barton ................................. -- 1 -- Marie (bler144),
Fergus (Fergie) Perkins .......... -- 0 --
Sarah Matthews ........................ -- 0 --
Emily Barton .............................. -- 0 --
Marie Thomson ........................ -- 0 --
Justin Dawson .......................... -- 2 -- Sean (Lifthrasil), Craig (Bookwyrm627),

not wanting to kill anyone ....... -- 4 -- Sarah (TammyTown), Nathan (Dessimu), Dan (Brasas), Claire (cristigale)

*********************************************************
if I don't have your vote where you want it to be, say so, and I'll change the vote count

Interesting.


Perhaps I'm not asking clearly, but that's still not what I'm asking.

Assume Ix is compulsive & (scum or neutral). Why, do you think, in claiming to town, he includes the "compulsive"? That's the question to you.

It looks worse the way he did it, right? You're faking a claim anyway, so why not conveniently leave that part out and just claim "Town PR"?

And now, why would "unspecified" be hard to make up? It's a dictionary word and everything. It could simply mean he knows and just won't specify to us.

It doesn't seem that hard a question. IDK. Sure, he might be non-town. Sure, he might or might not be compulsive really.

Anywho...changing topics since you're either still not following or don't want to understand for some reason.

What's your read on Dess?

Word it what way? I didn't perform any vocabularic gymnastics to get the understanding of her post that I did. I simply read it. When I read it, that is what I understood it to say. I still don't see how her post implies that she possesses knowledge that a town player would not. Simply claiming someone is scum or not scum, or whatever, isn't "knowledge that a town person wouldn't possess). Every town vote placed here is an implicit understanding that the person who voted believes that the person they voted for is scum. That doesn't mean they have insider knowledge.

Actually, Stan was the one who called it ("it" here being the argument that docbear's post was suspicious because it implied she knew how many scum there were) flimsy.

Anyhow, I'm off to bed now. Will try for another post tomorrow before I leave, but I'll be travelling on a bus most of the day, and whether or not the bus wifi is working is never a sure thing.

What I see is someone trying to desperately dig himself out of a hole.

I certainly did consider that Docbear might be trying to help her scummate by calling the wagon convenient to get pressure off him. The situation has evolved "somewhat" because Ixam has claimed and I find him less likely to be scum now than I did then, but this situation does leave me a little room to doubt him tomorrow if Doc/Babark flips like I suspect he will.

Overall, I don't think you know the meaning of "flimsy" or "slipshod" but maybe you have gone to the Fox News school of repeating the same thing enough times maybe people will start to believe it.

There are no "missing links". There is nothing to explain. The only one who seems to completely not get it is you. Seems OMGUS is all you know...

THANK YOU! Not sure why, but I finally understand why ya'll are making such a fuss about this. I've read that multiple times and not seen it. Still not convinced it was a slip, the reaction (getting a sub) concerned me a lot more. Still processing...

Quick reply to a quick reply!
But that is not what you said originally. What you said originally was that (and I repeat exactly from your quote) was that docbear's post was an implication that "scum have decided to give up on one of their own". So now you have 3 theories you jumped around in? Was this "docbear trying to relieve pressure" one before or after the "scum has decided to give up one of their own" theory?
And after Ix claimed, are you saying there was a period that you DIDN'T suspect docbear? Or did the suspicion automatically jump to "Oh, so it isn't that, then it must be this, because docbear MUST be scum!"

Hey RWarehall, I know you to be a nice guy from interactions outside of here, and I wouldn't like to think that this game is affecting you enough to give personal attacks. Suffice it to say, please believe me that none of my accusations against you (or anybody) in this thread are attacks against your actual charaters, or are anything more than a progression of this game!

Agree with that point, despite sometimes being guilty of aggressive phrasing myself. I try and focus it on the behavior and not the person (I raged about doc's post, e.g.), though am not perfect about it. And try to apologize when I feel like I've crossed the line, or the person I'm talking to/at says I've touched a nerve.

But I'm pretty serious that I want you to talk about shit other than your wagon or I'll probably vote you too.

No strong idea which of you to believe, but continuing just on this singular road is actually about the worst way to establish your towniness to the people not on your wagon, or at least to me, I guess.

What do you think of Dess?
What do you think of Nacho?
What do you think of Lift?
What do you think of ...someone killing Sushi? Do you agree that person is probably town?

You know, talk about the field and the game and stuff. If you are town and bound to die anyway, we can all see who's on your wagon and can judge for ourselves. We can't see what else you see.

I don't really completely get it. I mean, I get that you get it.

Just like I've suggested he talk about other stuff, I'd say that continuing to hammer on him on 1-2 points from here doesn't likely advance the conversation.

Give him space to actually talk about other stuff. Either to demonstrate towniness in some fashion, or y'know, give us something possibly useful if he's not. If all he talks about is you and he flips scum, well, that's not very useful now, is it?

And if he talks and looks suspicious, more people will come on. If he doesn't talk and deadline grinds closer, more people will come on.

Worst case you two are v/v and consuming all the oxygen in the room as time runs shorter.