Lol! You just did it in that post while explaining that you couldn't ;)

As far as the current state of things...my vote still stands. I need to do a bit more in depth reading, but till then, I think JMich is the scummiest that I've seen.

Well that's because I only replied to a small section of those two posts....as such I didn't need to section anything off in those posts/my replies to them. ;)

"I would do something entertaining," explains Sapphires Marone, "but ain't feelin up to all this clownin on account of bein ill alla sudden."


THE GAME IS FIRST-TO-SEVEN-VOTES

1 - JMich -------------- A_Future_Pilot,
0 - GameRager ------
0 - Twilightbard ------
0 - Not-French-Yet -
0 - drennan -----------
0 - Rodzaju -----------
1 - SirPrimalform ---- Vitek,
0 - Red_Baron -------
1 - Robbeasy -------- Red_Baron,
0 - A_Future_Pilot --
0 - flubbucket --------
4 - Vitek --------------- GameRager, Rodzaju, Robbeasy, JMich,
0 - NoLynch ----------

Twilightbard, flubbucket, SirPrimalform, drennan, Not-French-Yet,

Please.

Oookay... no. That's not true. Often even day 1 lynch have good reasoing and nobody would call it shallow (except maybe victim). And even when it's town lynch.
You are basically saying, we should lynch me, beacuse it doesn't matter anyway and we won't find anyone else. You don't even care for finding someone else. You just want to lync me, openly adimitting there is no real reason to.

Yes exactly, as valid as others. Not more valid than other (why exactly it is in your opinion?), if something then it's less valid as I proved by statistics. Yet you used it as evidence, presenting it as only option, and after I proved it incorrect through numbers, you proceeded by acknowledging it and then ignoring it and still using it as evidence for my guilt. Quite interesting ignoring of facts to achieve desired result.
Hmm, I don't like this. I don't like this at all. Unvote. Vote Robbeasy.

To which facts are you referring??

Is it your statistical info, or something else I'm overlooking??

Apologies for my absence, but I've been a rather grumpy sick person. Thoughts are still a bit jumbled but I've tried to keep up.

The case for jmich is an interesting , and I can see where it comes from. Still not really convinced of anything regarding Vitek's guilt or innocence as far as his alignment goes, but deciding it based off of that argument doesn't feel like it will get us far.

What Vitek brought up for Rob is kinda interesting. It does paint his reasoning in a suspicious light. Vitek isn't the only possible lynch, any one of us could make a mistake or a slip.

Will try to be more active soon, I hope.

Tried to post yesterday during a lesson but the internet conked out before I could hit "post". Serves me right I guess...?

At this point I could get behind the lynch of JMich, Robbeasy, GameRager, flubbucket, or Rodzaju.

So to liven things up:

Vote Robbeasy

Out of interest, since GameRager seems to be pushing the idea that I (and possibly Primal) went overboard on flubbucket earlier, does anyone else have a comment on that sequence of posts? I still find it bizarre play to deny mentioning claiming at all and ignore direct questions about it, and I find Rager's continued defence of flubb very strange - he wasn't pointing out why my argument is flawed, he was literally suggesting excuses for flubb -
I'm not sure why Rager's so upset about it, frankly. It's not like I voted for flubb based on the argument. Combined with two attempts so far to push suspicion onto me, it reeks of a scum trying to stir up trouble...

Quote fixing (hopefully).

Thank you.

Here is where the logic jumps the tracks. You assume what I'm thinking and assign motive to what is posted. There are other possibilities and I have stated such. I told you what and why with regard to the role claiming thing. I also made reference to a previous game to show my inclination. You jumped to an assumption and then stayed with it based on no information from me. Your statement of denial is not based on facts, but assumption.

That is not logical, and not wise play.

Much of the post you quotes reeks of deflection on Vitek's part and his defensiveness level seems unusually high. He keeps asking for info/explanations that have already been provided to him/his supporters by those he asked & others, and acts purposefully dense while trying to paint himself the picture of innocence.

I also see that he's trying to form a bandwagon against Rob.....I was guessing this would happen(one of Vitek's supposed suspects would get a vote[from him or those who supported him the most so far] and then others who shared his views would join in).

(Also: I just noticed NFY also voted for Rob[I guessed she might after seeing Red_Baron/Vitek cast their votes on Rob, and oddly enough I was right.]......I wonder who else will join in next?)

I'm guessing you're one of Vitek's scum-buddies and you were using Flub's "role claim stance" explanation to shift the focus off of Vitek and onto anyone you could to get him away from being lynched. It seems to have worked...bravo. *claps*

The fact of the matter(imo) is thus: You kept pushing Flub even after he provided a clear explanation as to why he said what he did about role claiming, and you kept calling his initial replies to your query(about his earlier mention of role claiming) "denials" even though they don't seem to have been such.

As such, I will be voting for you after this night is over and the next night begins(if the lynch of Vitek is successful and he is found to be scum). If Rob is instead lynched(and found to be town) I will be coming after the both of you with equal force, and I heartily recommend everyone here keep an eye on the events/words of the both of you(and to a lesser extent everyone else) leading into/coming out of the upcoming day phase.

Yeah, those. Robbeasy claims something, numbers proves otherwise, he acknowledges it and continues to claim it anyway.


"Oh, noes. He got 6 votes and he tries to defend himself. That's totally scummy. He should just accept his fate and die."

How is it deflecting? Robbeasy is using untrue assertions to lynch me and I shouldn't point it out?
(Maybe I really shouldn't. When I pointed out nmillar's obvious lies in previous game nobody cared at all and all were fine with him voting me. :-/)

Trying to form bandwagon? I put 1 on vote on someone who does very untown (you know town, the uniformed majority part of game usually called this way) things. Have I said soemthing like, "come one my followers (I have followers?), let's vote Robbeasy?" Is JMich more suspicious because after his vote you and others added yours?
And are you really trying to paint vote against one of my suspects as scummy thing?

What a loaded ehetorical question.
+10 scum points.
In fact this whole post is really loaded and with its mocking attitude it reeks of trying to dissuade people from making "mistake" of leaving me alone and focusing on Robb or someone else.
Whole post creates "we" or "them" dichotomy, with everyone voting me being good guy and everyone on my side scum and if anyone else "joins my camp" he becomes scum as well ("I wonder who else will join in next?").


I am guessing GameRager is one of Robbeasy's scumbuddies he is trying to deflect from Robbeasy to NotFrenchYet. Luckily I discovered it... bravo to myself.
*claps*

As such, I will be voting GameRager after next "night" begins and I urge everybody to be wary of him and read his words carefully.

See, it's easy? :-p

(I am not saying they are really buddies and I'll be voting him. He got a bit more scummy in my eyes after this post, but I did it to mainly ilustrate how easy it is to connect 2 people and set up some chain lynching.)

Actually, it's more the fact that you seemed to be alleging that you were being voted for no good reason....imo, many of us have a good reason & you seem to be trying way too hard to paint your opposition as being suspicious(instead of concentrating on proving your innocence as best as you can and/or convincing us someone else is more deserving of the votes we've cast on you) & paint yourself as a victim.
-----------------
It's deflecting in that(as I said above) you seem to be focusing more on painting your "attackers" in a bad light and less on proving your innocence/convincing us to possibly remove our votes. You seem to be trying to delect attention from you by painting others(mainly those who voted for you, atm) as suspicious without much real proof against us(while also ironically complaining about our votes being silly/unfounded & how some/all of us are suspicious for doing so.).


And you can call them untrue....that doesn't make it so. ;|
-----------------
I don't think scum would announce they were trying to form a bandwagon against someone......as such, your question is invalid(imo). As for JMich's vote: He voted for you because he had a strong reason for doing so.....I did as well(for reasons I stated earlier), and so I followed suit. NFY/etc started to paint us as suspects because we voted for you and then Red_Baron voted for Rob. You then followed suit, and then NFY adder her vote in as well. To me this stinks and imo proves one of you is mafia. My bet is currently on you atm.
------------------
No, i'm trying to state that I believe that your vote for one of the people voting against you is a scummy thing in my eyes.
----------------
Call my question "loaded" and feel free to add all the scum points you wish................I feel you're scum and as such I will work tirelessly until either I see you lynched or someone else becomes more of a suspect in my eyes.

(Btw I was asking that "question" to also illustrate that some/all those siding with you may be scum as well and that it would be a good idea to keep an eye on who votes for Rob as well because of this.)
-----------------
Keep on the defensive.....you're just digging yourself a deeper hole.

Well JMich is still my prime suspect, however since it doesn't look like that lynch will happen, I'll have to vote for another person I think is scummy (that apparently is more likely to be lynched): Unvote, vote Robbeasy.