Battle of the Bulge - CLOSED

[Some7hingCLEVER]

survivor and doctor are both decently easy fake claims.
if you do it right. the real survivor wont say anything if he wants to win and the doc wont say anything if he is smart.

The funny thing you all miss is that I soft claimed Doctor because I did not want to out right claim it.
FOS Clever, and Chuck, not because they question if I'm the doctor, but because they are now making things up. I wouldn't of claimed if Doom kept his mouth shut. So don't go around saying "Oh he claimed this and that" Well I soft claimed and was forced to fully claim when I got outed publicly. Go back and reread, also Clever, stop copying what the person above you says, I don't know about anyone else but it's actually sort of drawing my attention.

you soft claimed it. meaning it had the chance to be outed. which would mean you knew the risks so to me its the same as fully claiming. so, what am i making up? i said you claimed it. and you did. as highlighted in red. and is it not easy for mafia to post one line making it seem like your doc so you can say "oh im not fake claiming i dropped hints seee" ? im just pointed out posibilites im not voting or anything cause for now i believe you i just like to point out all the possibilities.

[jgordon1111]

jgordon: Chucks play has been a little off but he is new so I am going to give him a bit more leeway than players like doom and saf who know what they are doing.

Also at the risk of going off topic I don't think that claiming early is smart at all. I will fight to the bitter end no matter what my role to not claim and if you are survivor then it is even more silly.

I tried the bitter end strat once and it caused alot of problems pmc, got called a bunch of nasty stuff for my effort,dropped hints all over the place, I was the vig and tried to keep it from coming out. it ended up with skill lynched and saf night vigged. thats why I claim quick when it starts,better to let those that just have to know, have what they want lol.

And each time I have found that scum either backs it repeatedly or pushes the hardest for it.

fastposted by NG1, I suspect there are more than me in this game as a survivor. have from the minute I read my role alot of roles to fill,figure 3 mafia,2 survivors and the rest town with possibly 1 VT. If I am right town has a good chance with the survivors making it to day 3. The odds will be heavy in their favor as long as at least one mafia gets tagged. If town can get one of them then it will most likely easy to pick the others out.

Super balls to fakeclaim doc, especially that early in the game. way to much can go wrong with that play. Who outed the docs claim for all to know?

and if the claim was fake,at this point the real doc would know that the fake one was screwed and claim knowing that those that were protecting him were scum. GAME OVER. So with that in mind I am still going to back jak,he is the doc.

Damn fastposted by almost everyone.

[thechuck51]

But again you supported you post with viable reasons,your trying. reason it out, see what you think if you forget me for a minute and look at what some of the others are doing and saying.

I will do that. Though I don't believe you or jak I am realizing that there will not be any breakthroughs on that front today. And in the event that I am wrong I need to make sure I have another trail to follow.

[safariguy5]

jgordon: Chucks play has been a little off but he is new so I am going to give him a bit more leeway than players like doom and saf who know what they are doing.

Also at the risk of going off topic I don't think that claiming early is smart at all. I will fight to the bitter end no matter what my role to not claim and if you are survivor then it is even more silly.

I tried the bitter end strat once and it caused alot of problems pmc, got called a bunch of nasty stuff for my effort,dropped hints all over the place, I was the vig and tried to keep it from coming out. it ended up with skill lynched and saf night vigged. thats why I claim quick when it starts,better to let those that just have to know, have what they want lol.

And each time I have found that scum either backs it repeatedly or pushes the hardest for it.

fastposted by NG1, I suspect there are more than me in this game as a survivor. have from the minute I read my role alot of roles to fill,figure 3 mafia,2 survivors and the rest town with possibly 1 VT. If I am right town has a good chance with the survivors making it to day 3. The odds will be heavy in their favor as long as at least one mafia gets tagged. If town can get one of them then it will most likely easy to pick the others out.

Super balls to fakeclaim doc, especially that early in the game. way to much can go wrong with that play. Who outed the docs claim for all to know?

and if the claim was fake,at this point the real doc would know that the fake one was screwed and claim knowing that those that were protecting him were scum. GAME OVER. So with that in mind I am still going to back jak,he is the doc.

Damn fastposted by almost everyone.

I disagree with that reasoning. People are going to protect a claimed doc unless it's really poorly executed. Plenty of people are protecting the claimed doc here, and I doubt all of them would be scum. Doc and cop are those roles which both town and mafia will protect because questioning them (like chuck) will draw attention and possible vote heat.

[chapcrap]

jgordon, you're still waiting? Really? You mean, since I asked you and you hadn't answered yet, I didn't respond yet? What were you expecting? This:

1. jgordon asks question
2. chap asks for clarification of false accusation
3. chap answers without clarification

Obviously you were going to be waiting!! Think about it!

pmc,

Finally lets move on to chap, who has now changed his tune to say that he does have good reasons behind his waggoning. So lets take a look at him and some of the things I pointed out earlier that he never addressed.

Well, first of all, I never changed my tune. When did I ever say that I mindlessly bandwagoned or didn't have reasons for my votes? The answer is never. Boom, point 1 shot down.

Gi..give me till tomorrow afternoon to post guys. My friend just.. I'll be a day or two...

Is this trying to make fun of someone? I don't know.

However, I agree with was saf said about jak. More than anything, I think it's ridiculous that jak tries to guide the doctor for absolutely no reason. Guiding the doctor to a specific person is scummy in itself, because you need to guide the doctor on day 1 by giving them information to go on in general.

Not only is it ridiculous to guide the doctor to a specific person, it's even more ridiculous when the person in question is in no way proven to be town or be helpful to town.

AND, the reason given for saving him is even more absurd. If you have no idea what pmc's role is, how can you say that you need him to answer question about night intel? The whole thing is preposterous and makes me think that you are scum who is trying to guide the doctor into doing something predictable.

unvote vote jak

Through IMO faulty logic and repeating safs point three or four times he forms part of his first BW.

It was faulty because guiding the doctor can end in a double protection AND it wasn't even his own original thought he just copied sarifguy.

It was faulty logic because jak's idea might work sometimes... That doesn't make it faulty logic. That means what jak did isn't completely dumb all of the time. And just because someone said the same thing before doesn't mean my thought isn't my own thought or isn't valid. Boom, points 2 and 3 shot down.

On to jgordon, the case seems ok, but not overwhelming to me. I do agree that his activity has been scummy though. After looking back at it, he seems to be waffling back and forth about everything and being very non-committal. That is scummy. For now, my vote stays on jak until he responds to my questions.

The bold and underlined part here shows how poor his reasoning has been. You can say a great number of things about jgordon but "non-committal" is the one thing he is not.

Umm, at that point jgordon was being non-committal. You can go back and look. I wasn't the only one who said it. Of course then you would have to admit that others don't agree with this awful point. Number 4 bites the dust!!

I want to get more information for town to work with, but if we don't have someone who is inherently scummy at the end of this day, I will say that we need to lynch jgordon.

This seems reasonable, but in reality it is just copying other peoples reasoning again. For example:

If we really don't have anything else by the end of this day, then I'm willing to follow a survivor lynch over a town lynch.

Still, lynching someone who we believe to be scum is better than lynching the survivor, so I won't vote for jg yet. After all, we have a week left.

So, if you aren't the first to say something, it's scummy and doesn't count. Sounds like you're just trying to repeat point number 3 again. And I think I already shot that down.

As far as my vote goes, I don't really see that Doom pointing out the soft claim was all that scummy. However, I will pressure him because someone needs pressured for more information. If he wasn't already being pressured, I would pressure Rodion. I don't like his level of activity in this game. I have played a few with him and this behavior on Day 1, I don't like from him. vote DoomYoshi

My vote will stay on Doom. Yes, I agreed with what you had to say about you fully exposing jak's claim. However, that doesn't mean you can't be pressured. As stated, at that time, I didn't see anyone else compelling and as I am still looking for scum, I went ahead and pressured someone for information, not for a lynch. My vote will stay until you claim.

One case that was not mentioned in jaks vote summary was dooms. At one point he looked like a decent BW target due to his outing of jaks soft claim. This for me stands out as the most scummy one he was involved in because he openly admits that he thinks doom is not scummy and he can even explain why, but he votes him anyway just because other people are pressuring him... BW much?

I see chap offered no defense to one of my central points, I clearly stated here that he appeared to be bandwaggoning on someone with no good reason.

I defend this my making my arguments in posts that I already made. It's easy to make people look scummy if you don't read everything they say. And you help people skim by only making large the parts you want people to see.

You basically have no case. You are just trying to manipulate my words when they aren't even bad. I'm like a freaking pyrotechnical expert with all of these points of yours that I just blew up.

[everywhere116]

Ok, top 3 lynches. (Note: Very subjective and loose, not confident in analysis at all)

jgordon: claim survivor, could be scum. Hasn't really acted like a survivor.
new guy, jak: Don't really like the case on chap. Doesn't make much sense, seem to be pursuing it with gusto that would make more sens ein later stages of the game.

[Ragian]

If we are to get another claim, it might also be worth considering players that haven't posted for a very long time... Of course that would push any presented case in the background. Still, I don't see any case on the background of which I feel comfortable voting.

Rodion's last post was:
- by Rodion
Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:25 am

Dazza's last post was:
- by dazza2008
Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:10 am

While that's a long time to go without saying anything, I do sometimes catch myself reading everything and still not posting. Often, it's because I don't feel like I have anything new to add to the conversation, and I've seen players accusing other players of not contributing when they agreed with others. It's a double-edged sword:
- You suck if you don't post.
- You suck if you just agree with others without bringing anything new to the table even if you haven't got anything new to bring to the table.

(And I think someone even said this too )

[pmchugh]

Oh wow chap, you totally blew my argument out of the water... KABLAM.

Finally lets move on to chap, who has now changed his tune to say that he does have good reasons behind his waggoning. So lets take a look at him and some of the things I pointed out earlier that he never addressed.

Well, first of all, I never changed my tune. When did I ever say that I mindlessly bandwagoned or didn't have reasons for my votes? The answer is never. Boom, point 1 shot down.

I didn't say that your original tune was that you had no reasoning behind your votes, you just put words in my mouth. Your original defence was that you like to BW on day 1, which is a whole different defence than that you had good reasons for all of your votes.

It was faulty logic because jak's idea might work sometimes... That doesn't make it faulty logic. That means what jak did isn't completely dumb all of the time.

Actually yes it does. You FOSd him for using a "ridiculous" tactic, making it sound like it could never work and would only benefit scum. If you admit the tactic is viable, which the above post does then your logic was indeed faulty.

I defend this my making my arguments in posts that I already made. It's easy to make people look scummy if you don't read everything they say. And you help people skim by only making large the parts you want people to see.

No you didn't. Why did you vote clever? You have given no reason. The only reason you gave for voting and asking for a claim off of doom was that "someone needs to be pressured". Please quote where you have defended these points. I highlighted the large parts because it seems some people are too lazy to actually read how poor your voting reasons have been.

You basically have no case. You are just trying to manipulate my words when they aren't even bad. I'm like a freaking pyrotechnical expert with all of these points of yours that I just blew up.

You should be a politician. You are so good at squirming away from explaining why you made your votes. For all the points I have made against you, you have not once explained how any of your votes reasoning was good.

[Ragian]

Alright, so I read your argument as a dispute of why chap voted for various players.

- pmc says there is no reason behind the votes.
- chap says there is.

It seems pmc has brought forward quotes that indicate what in his eyes are lacks of arguments behind chap's votings. He is, however, dissatisfied with chap's response.

Wouldn't it be easily solved if we just ask: "Chap, what were your reasons for voting x, z, and y?" If he doesn't answer, the case is easy. If he does answer...well...we should decide if those answers are adequate.

@chap, what were your reasons for voting for the players, you voted for?

(And I do apologise if you have already stated this clearly. I'll be the first to admit that I have a hard time arranging all the various posts and quotes and what not. If you already answered, could you just link to the post?)

[dazza2008]

I'm struggling to keep up here. I can't really read a lot through the day and at night I am too tired to read all this. I will try to catch up tonight. No promises though.

[Some7hingCLEVER]

Alright, so I read your argument as a dispute of why chap voted for various players.

- pmc says there is no reason behind the votes.
- chap says there is.

It seems pmc has brought forward quotes that indicate what in his eyes are lacks of arguments behind chap's votings. He is, however, dissatisfied with chap's response.

Wouldn't it be easily solved if we just ask: "Chap, what were your reasons for voting x, z, and y?" If he doesn't answer, the case is easy. If he does answer...well...we should decide if those answers are adequate.

@chap, what were your reasons for voting for the players, you voted for?

(And I do apologise if you have already stated this clearly. I'll be the first to admit that I have a hard time arranging all the various posts and quotes and what not. If you already answered, could you just link to the post?)

dude you took the words right out of my brain.
chap every person you (serious) voted for can you give a reason? if you can and there good i wont vote you.

[jgordon1111]

Alright, so I read your argument as a dispute of why chap voted for various players.

- pmc says there is no reason behind the votes.
- chap says there is.

It seems pmc has brought forward quotes that indicate what in his eyes are lacks of arguments behind chap's votings. He is, however, dissatisfied with chap's response.

Wouldn't it be easily solved if we just ask: "Chap, what were your reasons for voting x, z, and y?" If he doesn't answer, the case is easy. If he does answer...well...we should decide if those answers are adequate.

@chap, what were your reasons for voting for the players, you voted for?

Guys I have already asked chap twice what criteria he is using for his votes and he hasnt given a reason as of yet.

(And I do apologise if you have already stated this clearly. I'll be the first to admit that I have a hard time arranging all the various posts and quotes and what not. If you already answered, could you just link to the post?)

[jgordon1111]

sorry for double,put my answer in the wrong place when i quoted raigan.

I have already asked chap twice what criteria he is using for his votes,so far no response as to what it is exactly.

[chapcrap]

So, the only point you still contend in your case against me is that you think I should list reasons for all my votes? This case is looking more and more like swiss cheese every minute.

First of all, it's Day 1. You don't need scummy reasons to vote someone. If you do have a scummy reason, then it's a plus, but it's not necessary. All you are looking for is information, which I have already stated. I'm looking for people to claim and make scum slips.

Who do you want me to explain? These votes:

• jak: He tried to direct the doctor. To me, that shouldn't happen. Already explained why.
• jgordon: He was acting scummy. Everyone thought so. He continued acting scummy even after his claim. He claims survivor and then votes himself and says he wants town to win. The whole thing doesn't make any sense. He should be lynched if no one else is definitely scummy. That looks more and more like what will happen today and I am fine with that.
• Doom: He was already being pressured and I was trying to force more pressure.
• newguy1: It seemed like he was trying to deflect pressure very quickly. He hadn't been posting a lot and then after Leehar voted him following jak's list, he all of sudden was available for a lot of defensive posting very quickly. Seemed a little strange to me that all of a sudden he was paying extra attention to the thread.

To those who were trying to agree with voting me if I don't give a great reason for all of my votes: After pmc made a giant post for a case, the only thing he really has left is that I have to have a 100% awesome reason for every vote I've made on Day 1. Please. If that's the basis of why you are voting, then whoever votes needs to get with it.

Moving on...

I'm struggling to keep up here. I can't really read a lot through the day and at night I am too tired to read all this. I will try to catch up tonight. No promises though.

So, as soon as Ragian posts something about you being inactive, this is what you come back with? Weak.

And I agree about Rodion being inactive and it being odd for him. I already posted about that.

[jgordon1111]

So, the only point you still contend in your case against me is that you think I should list reasons for all my votes? This case is looking more and more like swiss cheese every minute.

First of all, it's Day 1. You don't need scummy reasons to vote someone. If you do have a scummy reason, then it's a plus, but it's not necessary. All you are looking for is information, which I have already stated. I'm looking for people to claim and make scum slips.

Who do you want me to explain? These votes:

• jak: He tried to direct the doctor. To me, that shouldn't happen. Already explained why.
• jgordon: He was acting scummy. Everyone thought so. He continued acting scummy even after his claim. He claims survivor and then votes himself and says he wants town to win. The whole thing doesn't make any sense. He should be lynched if no one else is definitely scummy. That looks more and more like what will happen today and I am fine with that.
• Doom: He was already being pressured and I was trying to force more pressure.
• newguy1: It seemed like he was trying to deflect pressure very quickly. He hadn't been posting a lot and then after Leehar voted him following jak's list, he all of sudden was available for a lot of defensive posting very quickly. Seemed a little strange to me that all of a sudden he was paying extra attention to the thread.

To those who were trying to agree with voting me if I don't give a great reason for all of my votes: After pmc made a giant post for a case, the only thing he really has left is that I have to have a 100% awesome reason for every vote I've made on Day 1. Please. If that's the basis of why you are voting, then whoever votes needs to get with it.

Moving on...

I'm struggling to keep up here. I can't really read a lot through the day and at night I am too tired to read all this. I will try to catch up tonight. No promises though.

So, as soon as Ragian posts something about you being inactive, this is what you come back with? Weak.

And I agree about Rodion being inactive and it being odd for him. I already posted about that.

So in essence you are just voting and commenting on peoples playing. You tried to claim I was scum because I was commenting on playstyles and not contributing. hmmmm chap you keep contradicting yourself,just a few more please. UNVOTE VOTE CHAP for consistently contradicting himself when he is feeling pressure.

[chapcrap]

So in essence you are just voting and commenting on peoples playing. You tried to claim I was scum because I was commenting on playstyles and not contributing. hmmmm chap you keep contradicting yourself,just a few more please. UNVOTE VOTE CHAP for consistently contradicting himself when he is feeling pressure.

So, in essence you're making things up again?

I didn't claim you were scum because all you you were doing was commenting on people's game play. I just said that's all you were doing. I said that a day or two ago. I voted you over a week ago, so those were completely separate instances and they weren't even contradictory.

Please provide me with a contradiction I made. Use quotes instead of made up thoughts from inside your own head.

[jgordon1111]

So in essence you are just voting and commenting on peoples playing. You tried to claim I was scum because I was commenting on playstyles and not contributing. hmmmm chap you keep contradicting yourself,just a few more please. UNVOTE VOTE CHAP for consistently contradicting himself when he is feeling pressure.

So, in essence you're making things up again?

I didn't claim you were scum because all you you were doing was commenting on people's game play. I just said that's all you were doing. I said that a day or two ago. I voted you over a week ago, so those were completely separate instances and they weren't even contradictory.

Please provide me with a contradiction I made. Use quotes instead of made up thoughts from inside your own head.

Not true at all chap,as soon as you go ahead and validate the criteria you have been using for how you decide to vote I will be glad to tie it together for you. You are just about one step from getting uncovered as scum chap,take the plunge. Quit avoiding the question I have asked you 3 times now and others are also asking. Exactly what criteria are you using to vote.

[pmchugh]

Before I answer this I am getting a bit worried at how quiet everyone else is going. I agree with rag and chap on the inactives.

First of all, it's Day 1. You don't need scummy reasons to vote someone.

You claimed you did though, that was your defence... remember?

Who do you want me to explain? These votes:

• jak: He tried to direct the doctor. To me, that shouldn't happen. Already explained why.
• jgordon: He was acting scummy. Everyone thought so. He continued acting scummy even after his claim. He claims survivor and then votes himself and says he wants town to win. The whole thing doesn't make any sense. He should be lynched if no one else is definitely scummy. That looks more and more like what will happen today and I am fine with that.
• Doom: He was already being pressured and I was trying to force more pressure.
• newguy1: It seemed like he was trying to deflect pressure very quickly. He hadn't been posting a lot and then after Leehar voted him following jak's list, he all of sudden was available for a lot of defensive posting very quickly. Seemed a little strange to me that all of a sudden he was paying extra attention to the thread.

Your reasoning here on doom is incomprehensible. You cannot gain information from someone unless you make a specific accusation against them. You are criticising the people who are voting for you for having poor reasons, imagine we had just been saying "well you are already being pressured.. so why not?". Would you agree with that approach? Of course not. Would it cause you to divulge information? Don't be ridiculous.

Your faulty logic on jak has been explained so many times I am bored of it and where is the explanation for your scummy clever vote? You seem to have swapped it in for a more recent vote on newguy.

[chapcrap]

So in essence you are just voting and commenting on peoples playing. You tried to claim I was scum because I was commenting on playstyles and not contributing. hmmmm chap you keep contradicting yourself,just a few more please. UNVOTE VOTE CHAP for consistently contradicting himself when he is feeling pressure.

So, in essence you're making things up again?

I didn't claim you were scum because all you you were doing was commenting on people's game play. I just said that's all you were doing. I said that a day or two ago. I voted you over a week ago, so those were completely separate instances and they weren't even contradictory.

Please provide me with a contradiction I made. Use quotes instead of made up thoughts from inside your own head.

Not true at all chap,as soon as you go ahead and validate the criteria you have been using for how you decide to vote I will be glad to tie it together for you. You are just about one step from getting uncovered as scum chap,take the plunge. Quit avoiding the question I have asked you 3 times now and others are also asking. Exactly what criteria are you using to vote.

Umm... I just gave my reasons and you quoted them. Grow a brain. Can anyone decipher what the crap jgordon actually wants?

Well, pmc, if you said you were voting me to pressure me, I would accept that. I would let everyone vote me and claim and L-2. You can continue to vote me if you want, you just don't have a scum case on me. And you can call my logic on jak faulty if you want, but I thought it was good logic and I still do. I'm not the only one who thought so.

And, I didn't give an explanation for a vote on CLEVER because I don't think I ever voted CLEVER.

Any more questions?

[dazza2008]

I'm struggling to keep up here. I can't really read a lot through the day and at night I am too tired to read all this. I will try to catch up tonight. No promises though.

So, as soon as Ragian posts something about you being inactive, this is what you come back with? Weak.

And I agree about Rodion being inactive and it being odd for him. I already posted about that.

Yes I saw that as I skimmed through. I'm not going to contribute much after skimming but I thought I should address something I noticed.

I am a single dad with 2 young kids. If I don't have time to read the thread then I don't have time. If it is a problem I will drop out. Hopefully I won't be busy tomorrow and can read up what I missed.

[jak111]

While Chap did not vote for Clever here's what I find interesting over the past 2 pages or so.

However, I agree with was saf said about jak. More than anything, I think it's ridiculous that jak tries to guide the doctor for absolutely no reason. Guiding the doctor to a specific person is scummy in itself, because you need to guide the doctor on day 1 by giving them information to go on in general.

Not only is it ridiculous to guide the doctor to a specific person, it's even more ridiculous when the person in question is in no way proven to be town or be helpful to town.

AND, the reason given for saving him is even more absurd. If you have no idea what pmc's role is, how can you say that you need him to answer question about night intel? The whole thing is preposterous and makes me think that you are scum who is trying to guide the doctor into doing something predictable.

unvote vote jak

Through IMO faulty logic and repeating safs point three or four times he forms part of his first BW.

It was faulty because guiding the doctor can end in a double protection AND it wasn't even his own original thought he just copied sarifguy.

It was faulty logic because jak's idea might work sometimes... That doesn't make it faulty logic. That means what jak did isn't completely dumb all of the time. And just because someone said the same thing before doesn't mean my thought isn't my own thought or isn't valid. Boom, points 2 and 3 shot down.

do you want me to explain? These votes:[list][*]jak: He tried to direct the doctor. To me, that shouldn't happen. Already explained why.

Yes, I'd love for you to dig yourself a deeper hole Chap. Let me point out what I highlighted.
Blue: Chap says that he agrees with Saf that there was NO reason for me to guide the doc (Doesn't give examples for what reason I could).
Orange: He then turns around and says my idea is still faulty but it might work sometimes...? (Admitting that he knew that there WAS a reason, also how can it be faulty AND work sometimes?)
Red: Wait a minute, did he NOT just point out it was faulty and now he says it's not faulty logic. Then he goes and tries to make a personal attack. "Not dumb all the time" In no way do I see that referring to game play, that's referring to my intelligence personally and that's not cool bud.

So "BOOM" I just blew you out of the water with your contradictory speech. First you say I have no reason, and then admit to that I did, and then immediately turn around in the same post to say I'm not stupid all the time. Nice mate, real nice.

Also, the more I look at "It's faulty logic but it might work... That does not make it faulty" What the hell? Can you explain this for me? How can it be faulty, but not be faulty, while making sense and not making sense?

Fastposted by Dazza, no worries mate, Chap is just being a douche (as I pointed out in red) lately to anyone who questions him and trying to put the pressure on someone else -.-.

[jgordon1111]

I'm struggling to keep up here. I can't really read a lot through the day and at night I am too tired to read all this. I will try to catch up tonight. No promises though.

So, as soon as Ragian posts something about you being inactive, this is what you come back with? Weak.

And I agree about Rodion being inactive and it being odd for him. I already posted about that.

Yes I saw that as I skimmed through. I'm not going to contribute much after skimming but I thought I should address something I noticed.

I am a single dad with 2 young kids. If I don't have time to read the thread then I don't have time. If it is a problem I will drop out. Hopefully I won't be busy tomorrow and can read up what I missed.

Remember what you saw and bring it to the table next post dazza. doesnt matter what, if its something you think everyone needs to think about bring it.

Whatever chap you say you have reasons for voting, I ask for your exact criteria due to you saying me commenting on playing style is not helpful and I am scummy. What criteria do you use chap? break it down for me exactly beings I am, uh brainless. You are now resorting to that other scum tactic when in a corner do what?

Damn fastposted by jak, I have to agree he is now close and throwing out anything he can think of,not remembering what he has said previously.

[new guy1]

So, the only point you still contend in your case against me is that you think I should list reasons for all my votes? This case is looking more and more like swiss cheese every minute.

First of all, it's Day 1. You don't need scummy reasons to vote someone. If you do have a scummy reason, then it's a plus, but it's not necessary. All you are looking for is information, which I have already stated. I'm looking for people to claim and make scum slips.

Who do you want me to explain? These votes:

• jak: He tried to direct the doctor. To me, that shouldn't happen. Already explained why.
• jgordon: He was acting scummy. Everyone thought so. He continued acting scummy even after his claim. He claims survivor and then votes himself and says he wants town to win. The whole thing doesn't make any sense. He should be lynched if no one else is definitely scummy. That looks more and more like what will happen today and I am fine with that.
• Doom: He was already being pressured and I was trying to force more pressure.
• newguy1: It seemed like he was trying to deflect pressure very quickly. He hadn't been posting a lot and then after Leehar voted him following jak's list, he all of sudden was available for a lot of defensive posting very quickly. Seemed a little strange to me that all of a sudden he was paying extra attention to the thread.

To those who were trying to agree with voting me if I don't give a great reason for all of my votes: After pmc made a giant post for a case, the only thing he really has left is that I have to have a 100% awesome reason for every vote I've made on Day 1. Please. If that's the basis of why you are voting, then whoever votes needs to get with it.

Moving on...

I'm struggling to keep up here. I can't really read a lot through the day and at night I am too tired to read all this. I will try to catch up tonight. No promises though.

So, as soon as Ragian posts something about you being inactive, this is what you come back with? Weak.

And I agree about Rodion being inactive and it being odd for him. I already posted about that.

So in essence you are just voting and commenting on peoples playing. You tried to claim I was scum because I was commenting on playstyles and not contributing. hmmmm chap you keep contradicting yourself,just a few more please. UNVOTE VOTE CHAP for consistently contradicting himself when he is feeling pressure.

Im not going to lie nor dull this, but I laughed my ass off when I read this. What the hell JG? He posted what you asked for which was his criteria on voting who he did, and he posted a list of who and why. What did you want if you didnt want this? I have to say Chap crap definatly won this one, and he even gave me a reason for why he voted me that was enoguh for me to understand and was good enough for a day one vote in my eyes. Sure I dont agree with the people he voted but he had good enough reasons for who he voted.

fastposted- he might be being an ass to some people because he is now a father, therefore he could you know, be tired?

fastposted again- well JG if you read this post then you will see why.

[pmchugh]

So in essence you are just voting and commenting on peoples playing. You tried to claim I was scum because I was commenting on playstyles and not contributing. hmmmm chap you keep contradicting yourself,just a few more please. UNVOTE VOTE CHAP for consistently contradicting himself when he is feeling pressure.

So, in essence you're making things up again?

I didn't claim you were scum because all you you were doing was commenting on people's game play. I just said that's all you were doing. I said that a day or two ago. I voted you over a week ago, so those were completely separate instances and they weren't even contradictory.

Please provide me with a contradiction I made. Use quotes instead of made up thoughts from inside your own head.

Not true at all chap,as soon as you go ahead and validate the criteria you have been using for how you decide to vote I will be glad to tie it together for you. You are just about one step from getting uncovered as scum chap,take the plunge. Quit avoiding the question I have asked you 3 times now and others are also asking. Exactly what criteria are you using to vote.

Umm... I just gave my reasons and you quoted them. Grow a brain. Can anyone decipher what the crap jgordon actually wants?

Well, pmc, if you said you were voting me to pressure me, I would accept that. I would let everyone vote me and claim and L-2. You can continue to vote me if you want, you just don't have a scum case on me. And you can call my logic on jak faulty if you want, but I thought it was good logic and I still do. I'm not the only one who thought so.

And, I didn't give an explanation for a vote on CLEVER because I don't think I ever voted CLEVER.

Any more questions?

OMG you are making me rage lol. Yes I have a question:

Have you, or have you not been voting people for no reason other than to get them to claim?

p.s. it doesn't strictly matter if you voted clever or not, you still supported his BW. Note that you explained your reasoning for jgordon even though you never voted for him either. I explained this in my initial case against you.

[safariguy5]

Just a clarification here, from what I understand, chap's vote on doom was the only one that was bandwagonning "for sake of getting a claim". Does one vote constitute a case? I don't think so. Something to be noted maybe, but not a case.