I didn't say he had 5 when MG voted. In my rush I didn't have the time to explain. Yes MG voted scottie when nen only had 3 votes. SAK was next to vote(for nen)then radish for scottie and scottie for MG. Finally Zex got onto nen to make it 5 votes.(So yes he very much did have 5 votes at once) FINALLY, nord votes for SAK.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3825061 is MG's post shortly after nord's vote, which is when I'd say MG was really trying to get the lynch onto scottie.

Ok nen did have 5 for a while but then it got no momentum.  I'm thinking there were two scum in the vote on nen but with it only 5 they didn't put more.

So you're saying that MG was working harder to lynch scottie after SAK was a suspect? 

A quention for you not on the SAK matter.

If we only have one mislynch whose body would tell the most if they turned out town?

Well that's where we disagree. Don't get me wrong, I could make a case against everyone, including radish or myself if I were some sort of nutjob. However, I feel like at the very most there was a single mafia vote on nen. It goes without saying that ST and prof were town. I've already said SAK is clearly town to me. I feel zex is town too, despite every post since his return making me cringe a bit. Lastly, I'm mostly neutral with FF but lean slightly town. If FF is scum though, I think his votes make more sense if nen is scum than if SAK is scum: why leave a townie lynch for a scum lynch only to return to a townie lynch?

Everyone was a suspect, SAK had one vote on him. So no, I don't find it likely that MG tried harder to protect SAK considering he roped a townie(radish) into voting for scottie already. It makes far more sense that nen was still gathering votes, and only one player jumped on board scottie before an additional suspect was found.

Is that a trick question? The biggest information gained from a townie lynch is the voting, which for the most part can be considered independent of the actual victim as far as scum goes. Since townies undoubtedly had a hand in the lynch, the vic's actions are far less revealing than if chosen as a night kill.

That being said, there is still some differences in who's pushed for a lynch or thrown suspicions at players. If I was forced to lynch someone I thought was going to turn out town, I think it'd be between yourself, FF, or hat. 

It wasn't a trick question.  It's more along the lines of the fact since you think I'm scum you'll be less likely to believe my arguments.  If you lynch me now to see that I'm town would you actually consider those arguments more.  I was wondering if there was anyone else who if they turned up town from a bad lynch that could point us anywhere.

The thing with SAK not just saying he's town is that IIRC i didn't say last game I was town.  I tried to word things in a way that wouldn't be a lie, yes it's small and doesn't mean much yet I would have felt more accomplished if I had gotten away with being scum without lying.  If he's town there really isn't a need to say if he turns out town.  It's a small detail but one I think just adds a bit more to suspcion instead of taking it away.

MG could have voted nen but then there would still be no focus on anyone who was lurking leaving that open to the focus being on a lurking scum and had he voted nen it could have gotten attention to him bandwagoning.  FF left the nen lynch when it wasn't going anywhere was on a scum lynch that could make him (ff) look clean or he could move his vote latter if there was someone else who could take the fall.  I also think that Stefl voting SAK the next day was done to get people to think he's town. 

With the current votes there will need to be vote changes to get anyone lynched.  So this is going to be interesting.

On the contrary, I may disagree with your basis and some of the connections, but the logic is mostly sound.

Well with SAK, he's already said "I think one of [prof and Gnizmo] is scum" which is a lie. I'm sure I could find more, but the point is he's either already lied as scum or has been telling the truth as town. "I am town" is a completely null issue for me, no suspicions given or taken if it's said and same if it isn't.

MG was undoubtedly the biggest lurker of whatever the group is.(considering who is left) It really was unwise that he brought attention to scottie, because a half-decent defense would've brought the spotlight heavily upon MG. Also, looking at prof's potals, since I don't have mine broken down to days(next round I plan to) and don't care to go over that many posts AGAIN, I'd say plenty of townies were lurking. It would've been simple for mafia to blend in.

I think Stefl was pushing for SAK to cause another mislynch and then focus on the voters for scottie and SAK to push some more mislynches. Remember, at the time of the vote we were still at 17 players. It would've been quite risky and unnecessary to sacrifice a scummate at that point.

Regardless, I think it's time for others to say their piece. I know I'm still waiting to hear back from hat and zex.

Frankly the impression I got is that zex is uninterested in anybody's posts that don't involve the words "Vote" and "SAK", but maybe he'll deign to talk to you about why you think he's innocent. 

But even though I really hate the way he's acting, it doesn't feel that scummy to me.  I just voted him to try to get a reaction out of him (to see if it felt more/less town-ish) or maybe prompt him to share thoughts he may have had that he somehow decided not to share; I also wanted to see how others reacted to my vote.  Big fail all around.  "I don't need to scumhunt as long as SAK still breathes!" 

Oops, I meant to

Unvote zexen.

Current votes (5 required to lynch):

[1, L-4] J0: NEN

[2, L-3] WONK: HAT, RAD

[2, L-3] SAK: ZEX, WONK

[0, L-5] ZEX: (FF)

[2, L-3] NEN: J0, LINK

(It looks like Link's vote got put on J0, but it was never there in the first place as far as I can see.)

true enough with the SAK comment.

If SAK is scum he's lurked more than MG.  It was unwise but it worked. 

I don't think it was a push for a mislynch the scum have taken risks this game.  Several of them have paid off. 

I agree we do need more people talking.  We'll also need people to change votes.  I'm considering voting for a time limit to get people to show up but at the same time a time limit often makes people less rational.

ANAFWG. I am opposed to deadline's because I also feel it makes people less rational, but it's passed time for any amount of rationality to be used.

Vote: Deadline