I'm heading to work in a minute. I'm comfortable with my vote on Roy.

Better adamical post. This is where I realize quotes-within-quotes are not a thing.

Not sure why Darkstone felt the need to state the highlighted portion. I don't recall seeing anyone claim information against him, though the thread is a bit of a cluster and I could have overlooked something.

~~~

Taking a moment to state that I barely remember Afrcngy is a player in this game and was only reminded when my predecessor left him yellow in a rainbow list.

~~~

The Grinner vote looks like it should be viewed as a mislynch from the perspective of what the Mafia would have been doing. At a glance, Quebb' vote appears the least inspired because I have the least distinct memory of his justification. The others appeared more engaged in discussing their vote and communicating with Grinner.

~~~

Reminder to self to make a priority of checking Immortal_Raven's ISO to verify his posts show actual hunting effort instead of idle mechanical chatter.

~~~

Kind of ick for reasons I cannot clearly formulate. Seems like a mafioso blabbing his internal thoughts into the thread.

Okay, an explanation exists. Give KJ credit for producing this claim so quickly as he did, though I am less thrilled that it came on the backside of two votes for him. Have we determined whether this vigilante is infinite or finite shot?

What points? That he thinks I'm scum based on things I said day 1 that I've already defended? That's not a point that's a feeling that's tainted by votes that are already on me.

I understand you guys come from a different school of the game, but you're using logic that doesn't translate perfectly here. I play differently then you're used to and getting flack for it.

I have no idea who has voted for you or how many votes are on you. I am paying attention to the thread at hand as I read, not it's current position.

Why would you just assume that's my fallacy?

The last sentence can be applied to me as well.

But also, for the two of us, every player here is playing differently than what we are used to. So we have to look at the thread and judge everyone's behavior by our standards, and now it seems both us have determined that your posts look scummy. I wish I could stay here and discuss this further with you, but I unfortunately have to go to work.
If you feel you have adequately defended against Jay's points already, could you point us all in the direction of the posts where you've done so?

Generally the vigilante role here can kill every night.

Sloonei had about 8,000 posts at this point, so I am not thrilled that IR was unable to even start to take a stance. It's understandable to be unfamiliar with the new guy, but there was ample content available to work with by this point.

I appreciate that he went a bit against the grain with these reads even if I think half his "suspicious as hell" reads were incorrect.

"spidey sense tinglin'" is extremely vague. I haven't seen a good reason yet to worry about Sloonei anywhere in this thread, and the gradual increase in the pressure against him at this point appears more opportunistic than natural.

I am less concerned with Silver Lantern in this situation because he initiated the suspicion of Sloonei based upon concrete and fair logic -- even if I think he's wrong. RenegadeRoy has tacked on to that ride here in a way that appears significantly less authentic.

Willful ignorance of Sloonei's repeated discussion of the culture clash inherent to roleclaiming between The Syndicate and HCR. At this point I am starting to think Roy looks awful.

IR did you fail night 1?

WHAT POINTS?!

I've already given all info and defended myself multiple times. Even the person who started the vote against me (Silver) has since taken his vote off of me.

How so? So no one is allowed to add another vote? I didn't like how Sloonei responded to Silver's vote... that set off my "spidey-senses". I've since removed my vote. If I was trying to be opportunistic, I wouldn't have voted for Sloonei.

Another vague assertion tacked onto a vote. What is the something that "twinged you oddly" and why do I have to ask you that?

"makes me think you're scum"

Half-accusation without real investment. The mark of a player who isn't sure how to handle his accuser because he isn't sure how to look authentic. Another markdown for Roy.

~~~

I've read the thread now. That doesn't mean the entire thing is clear in my mind, because all of the claims make it a bit difficult to follow at points. I have a general idea of what's going on though.

Top scum reads at the moment:

RenegadeRoy, Quebbster, Darkstone, Afrfhdngsdfg

1. What didn't you like about Sloonei's response to Silver's vote?

2. What have you liked better about Sloonei since then allowing you to remove that vote?

3. I didn't say "no one is allowed to add another vote" or anything of the sort. Misrepresentation. Bad mark.

Jeepers creepers, you're reading waaaay too much into each of my statements for someone who literally knows nothing about how I play this game.

Roy, I regret that this must be our first meeting.

I don't care how you play this game. That's an advantage I enjoy: I'm not blinded by gallons of meta as are all of people who play here frequently, and I am able to read every single post (except Sloonei's) from a perspective of total neutrality -- everything is at face value.

I've also encountered numerous examples of getting a read quite like this one correct, only to be dissuaded by the accused or those who "know him better" because of meta. I don't care. It's not good enough.