Quite literally, CL, it seems like you're sitting on the sidelines throwing out sus at people.

Take Rag and I for instance yesterday. At one point I am certain you came in and pretty much said something to the effect, "Rag susing KoD for Amber's death? Yeah, seems like something KoD would do."

You have a lot of one-liners. That's it. It not only makes you hard to read, it makes you come across as scummy, to me, with how opportunistic it seems. Like, you just told Arrgh that you haven't lynched a townie. Are you wanting cred off that for something? Because you're not committing hard enough or ending up on a lynch that results in a townie being ejected? That's suspicious.

@aaarrgh
Check my voting history. D1 I said it was Rag and Tevish. I did not go with the dusky wagon.
D2 I redid my read due to the rag wagon. As Rag couldn't have been scum with Tevish. I wasn't sure on kod at that point, but I explained yesterday, Kod killing Amber is one thing, but rag killing Amber and making out to be kod is a step more complicated, so less likely. Tevish knows occams razor, he's pretty good player, that's kinda what does him in.

@kod


It has to with occams razor. I mean it pretty diabolical for rag to just come out with murdering Amber to set you up. Not impossible, but def less likely.

Yeah and I want cred for not lynching any town that's right. Lynching town not townie

That dichotomy is inherently flawed, CL.

Yes, Rag did push a case on me because Amber (as a lurker) was killed and Rag truly believed that I am more likely to kill lurkers (something that you, if you recall, maintained is not the case).

Yesterday's lynch on Rag wouldn't have happened if Zinger had gotten lynched, but when Zinger was avoided it put the square firmly back on Rag (or Naga as the alternate wagon that came up as per Tevish's post).

In any event, the choice isn't ***strictly*** Rag or I. As I've said once before, someone had made the comment that scum killing Amber could have been done so that when someone bit on it, it'd blow up. Rag not being scum means, to me, that scum sat back after that kill and waited to jump into what developed after. That'd be Skystone.

You make the natural second choice for his partner. While you are all over the place, you're certainly trying to clear yourself via pointing out how you didn't help kill a townie.

That doesnt prove anything about a dichotomy. And your also wrong.

Yeah and I'm not all over the place either you saying that is actually a scum tell I've heard it so much out of you. I've been very consistent.

And didnt say you werent likely kill lurkers either. I actually said you were. context matters

Look at all the attention rag wagon got. You can't act like I bailed on her wagon as a scum. Without admitting it looks bad on the people that voted her. See ur doing a double standard.

Yeah it does CL. You are asserting that it *has* to be Rag or I, and by virtue of Rag not being the impostor, than it has to be me. I will grant you that, if you were town, then the perspective you have for yourself is fine to an extent (the obvious problem being that you're ignoring a town v town scenario although given your thought progression from yesterday to today I have to wonder), but you'll have to excuse me if I don't treat you as town here.



Consistent how? Like I said, just yesterday you actually were disagreeing with Rag. Now you're pushing the agenda due to Rag flipping town. You are, in fact, all over the place whether it is with me or Rag or Zinger.



Hold that thought.

No ur all over the place. I can agree with players that flip town if I want. Nothing wrong about that

Rag made a point, in her argument, to stress that because it was a lurker death, it was me. Here, you're making a point against it. Rather than push me, with Rag, you sat that battle out and opted, instead, for Naga when he came up. Tevish already covered how that situation looks.

So when I say you're all over the place, what I'm saying is that you're the one sitting there playing it safe Mr. I didn't kill a town. Yeah. You didn't kill Dusky. You didn't commit to Rag or me either. And now that Rag is gone, you're pushing the notion that it has to be me because it wasn't Rag. That's how you're scummy here.


And there is no double standard here CL. By your own actions, that's how the events boiled down and where you stood was only apparent with the context of what you're arguing now. You were fine with Naga then because it wasn't Rag or me. Rag's gone, now you're fine with me.

Double standard indeed.

Notice that I'm not saying you ***can't*** agree with players that flip town. What I'm saying is that taking your actions all together, you're sus.

Lol

I really didn't sit the battle out as you say. I interrogated rag with no mercy and didn't find sufficient cause to vote her. And I brought Naga up, he did not just come up in conversation. Because as I said in the tier list of probability, a scum lurker was just just slightly higher than you meme killing amber

But you **** that up, by pushing so hard out of the gate on Naga today

Let me clarify something. Naga lynch was for the reads. It lurker lynch. So you get more read out of looking at the people on and off the wagon than you would from the flip.

So you should have been with the Naga lynch yesterday. Because probability is

Scum lurker
You meme kill Amber
Rag kills Amber to make it look like you meme kill amber

You really don't see how you're all over the place, do you?

Rag v me was a thing no different, than say, Skystone v Zinger that occurred on D1. Amber's death on the first night is what caused Rag to sus me because Rag believed I was more likely to kill a lurker than anyone else. The expectation that existed, for Rag, was that a majority of players who play as scum would kill an active player (in this case Zinger or Skystone).

So Rag pushed a case on me based on a lurker death (Rag tried to divorce her argument from being about the meme which, in hindsight, Rag truly believed). Do note that D1 ended with a death that wasn't Skystone or Zinger (it was Dusky). D2 did end with Rag's death which helped deal with part of the issue of that day. Had a Naga bandwagon been successful (as Skystone has mentioned in his responses and Tevish has replied to in full), then that would have left Rag and I alive going into today (after Zinger was killed for having been proven to be town).

There's no hard evidence to show that Naga is a scum lurker (or a town lurker), and lynching him yesterday wasn't necessarily the play to make (despite how much you seem to maintain that Naga was the right lynch that particular day). As for today, we're still dealing with an inactive Naga that, realistically given Tevish's opening points at the start of the day, should be removed prior to a full on LyLo.

However, as with Skystone, you're more keen on pushing me today. And that is despite your own assertion that "probability-wise" a scum lurker seems higher.

So, again, you are all over the place. Just as I've said and shown.

Correct. But as I noted back on D2, you have only ever pursued opinions that implicate players involved in high-profile scuffles. Day 1, you declared a vote on me despite agreeing that my Rag-cult stance was correct; Day 2 you placed a vote on KoD immediately after Rag implicated him, then switched back to Rag as soon as KoD fought back.

By your own admission earlier in this very game, it is tempting but dangerous to pursue only the obvious cases, and yet you have done exactly that. Even you now, it seems as though you have only turned against CL after I began to bring pressure against you and KoD.


A counter-wagon is suspect when it arises to preserve a player of dubious alignment. (Or, to a lesser extent, when it succeeds in rescuing a player whose alignment we cannot ascertain.) It is not suspect when it arises at definite risk to the participants for the sake of preserving a player they believe to be town. But Rag was town, Rag already had 4 votes, ergo there was no functional risk to CL and I if we were scum by jumping on (or immediately joining) what would have been an essentially unanimous decision.

Moreover, you confuse the notion of conviction. I stood very firm through the D2 with regard to my position on Rag, and I exposed myself to considerable risk by defying the supposed 'town' consensus. I voted Naga because the case was tolerable, because their death would not have been a true net loss to town, and because voting anyone else would have guaranteed the success of the anti-Rag wagon.


The safest place for scum to park their votes is certainly not on the anti-majority option. As you correctly note, Rag's positioning against her own lynch is obvious, so by joining her wagon scum would have exposed itself to the obvious association of being the only two non-Rag players to join the anti-majority. This is not safe. In fact, as you have so conveniently noted yourself, it is patently unsafe: it draws a correlation that no self-respecting scum player would ever want to draw to themselves or their partners.

Whereas, of course, the Rag wagon allows for a certain pleasant plausible deniability in that there are a) other potential fall guys and b) a confirmed but misinformed town (Zinger). Not only was it substantially safer given the ultimate 4-3 vote split, it would have been even safer as a 6-1 decision (or, even, as a 5-2 decision). There is no workable or reasonable motivation for scum to band together on Naga in such circumstances.

[quote You jumped for a wagon that was broadly acceptable and not particularly indicative of anything. [/quote]
You know full well that I didn't jump, Mr. Misleading Verbiage. I voted at the end of the day according to lines of play that had been laid out before me. You know this.


Ah, yes. Non-confrontational is exactly the word to describe my play this game.