Do me a favior, and I mean this sincerely, in any game we play together please refrain from using STU. I find that phrase very offensive and mean spirited. The word I don't like is useless and the context it's used in.

I'll do you one better [emphasis added]: I don't see any of this supporting any notion that the dead player has first to return as a Spectre. If it supports anything related to our miscommunication, I'd say it's the exact opposite of what you're arguing if the dead player is selected the Night they die, or the Night immediately following the Day they were lynched.

I don't understand where you're getting at with your 2nd question. If the Exorcist picks a dead player, that player leaves the game for good before the next Day break. What would be the point of picking them again? Make extra sure they're dead and gone?
I'd say the Exorcist can't pick them again, as they're no longer part of the game.
But your question... Do you know something about reviving dead-dead Spectres, JMich?

Honestly? Pot - kettle - black?
You've never actually seen me as town, so what the hell would you even know?
Of course as scum my reads are shit, it's all lies and misdirection (plus I'm well known to be absolutely shit as scum)
Try reading Krypsyn's high school game, correctly guessed the entire scum team day 2, NK'd that night.
Or flub's ranch game. Same story (might have been day 3 then).
Try CSPVG's game (the only one I've lived till the end in), it took me a while but I think I played a reasonable role in winning it for town.

I'll admit my last town game (yog's first one as mod) wasn't a stellar performance, but other than that my hit rate is pretty good.
Can you honestly say the same? Not from where I'm sitting certainly.

You're really trying my belief that you're town here HSL...

One simple question, when did Bookwyrm find out he was a Spectre?
Beginning of day 2.
So his conversation with agent must (logically) have occurred after that.
So any message sent to scum because of said conversation must have happened mid day 2.
Any further questions?

I never encouraged Bookwyrm to keep us in the dark, I gave me opinion on whether he should share his info or not and left it up to his judgement.

Anyway, it's too late to try convince him to vote me as, unless there is more fishy business with the Spectres, his vote for HijacK stands for the rest of the day.

Just in case you simply misunderstood. I never said "we shouldn't lynch people unless we are convinced they are scum," not even close, really.

First, I only ever spoke for myself, there was no "we." Second, "convinced" is not the word, the phrase is "comfortable enough with the possibility that they could be scum." The word comfort is very important because it is, for me, what is most accurate with how I go about voting, I have to be comfortable to vote someone (I did explain this in great detail in regards to Ix and game #31, I'm really not sure how you misunderstood and your mis-representation of my position pings scum HARD for me.) If I only ever voted when I was CONVINCED someone was scum, you'd probably almost never see me voting (except bler in flub's last game! or if I am a cop/believe a cop's peek.)

I'm going back and reading dessimu now, before I was content with you and him leaning town for the time being, but, now, not so much. With your added non-existent case against HijacK and your push of me to vote him, you (dess) deserves more scrutiny. Today.

I can see what you mean, certainly, and I'm all about having a sincere conversation with you about it. Is there any way to squelch that feeling for you that it gives by telling you I say it with love and respect for the player, and intend it only as a criticism of their decided play-style?

Perhaps not in so many words, but that is how your attitude has come across to me game after game.

And my question was, if your just voting a lurker, why babark rather than HijacK?
They're both lurking, they're both not contributing, only in HijacK there is evidence to suggest that his doing so is a scum tell. With babark we have no basis to know whether this is a normal behaviour or not.

No matter how little you agree or like someone's play style they are not useless themselves and the statement of "slaughter the useless" infers that the person themselves are useless. If you want to lynch someone for their play style that's your decision and I have no issue with it, just don't call them useless.

The opposite actually. Prevent the dismissing of another townie's spectre.
Assume we do lynch someone today. That will be the exorcist's most likely target, since targeting Wyrm will mean town loses a voter. On N3, the exorcist could pick whoever we lynch on D3 (if we do lynch any), or one of the night kills (Wyrm or whoever may be killed on N2). That means a lynch target or two townies. But if he can pick the D2 lynch again as the target, that means he doesn't remove a vote from the table.

So no, not reviving dead-dead spectres, but keeping spectres around for the extra votes. Or do you not think that to be a good idea?

Sure thing. I think the phrase I most often use is non-contributory anti-town play style, I don't think I've used STU before this game (except in general when referencing the position, not directed at anyone), and don't see any need to as long as I can get the point across on how I feel about their play tactics. Would you be offended if I specifically said to someone "the tactic you are using is utterly useless for town" ? I hope not, as it is a direct criticism of the play, not the player.

Well since you can't hear my tone of voice to get a good sense of attitude and I've explicitly told you otherwise that there is an absolute and significant difference between your phrase and my position, can you please read my words and take them at their value instead of reading "attitude" into it which is entirely inaccurate? You aren't good at soul-reads, perhaps? And with that can you reconcile that my position and beliefs as not such a baffling turn-around as you seemed to think they were? I'm not okay "lynching any old lurker" either, only the 2 I'm finding to be most offensive with it, babark and a4plz, am I comfortable. No other lurker has me comfortable enough to vote them. I've already said why I'm not comfortable with HijacK, but that I am open to being convinced otherwise, if someone makes a good argument.

I would have no issue with that

I asked you before, I'll ask again, of course feel free to not answer, as it is opening you to some WIFOM, but, I'm curious:

Would you be able to objectively tell me how you would have responded/reacted if someone did the meta-switch claim that you did?

Soooo, not because he's your scum buddy then?
No?
Got you ;)
*wink wink* *nudge nudge*

I don't know, if it happens that someone else does it I'll let you know then. I totally see why it can be seen as a scummy play, but I think it accomplished what I wanted. Pretty sure I will not attempt it again, but if the results are lynching a scum I'm glad I did it this time.

right, and...

You think I'm scum? I thought you thought I was town? Unless you've changed your mind on how stupid I am? :þ

Maybe I'm missing something, but what evidence is there that Hijack is town? You mention in post 683 that you've said why you don't want to lynch Hijack; could you link where you did that for me?

I can't tell whether you are paying close attention or not, JMich.

I think you're town, I'm not ruling out you're stupid.

Anyway, new information is presenting itself which is changing my opinion.
You should try that some time.