Let's not mix things up here. Yes I tend to correct people about roles and answer questions of new players when they ask about x or y role. That's just being nice and helping out new players get into the game, actually when you first mentionned parenting that's what I thought you were talking about but then you posted a link of me pointing out flaws in NotStan's logic and asking for an answer. Which is what townies are susposed to do remember?

Your main point here is that I'm part of the Mafia with dsister, radish, NotStan and MetalGear (if I believe some of your quotes) and that I'm acting like a nanny to all of them correcting them when they make the slightest mistake.

I've played around 15 games of Mafia and I've gotten more than my share of scum roles. Do you really think I'd be dumb enough to go around correcting my troops like that? In broad daylight? Repeatedly?

I know you think you've struck gold here but you're finding all those connections because you're reading the thread with the intention of linking me to the Mafia. Take a moment and look at the bigger picture and you'll see me being a Mafia member doesn't make any sense.

you have no backbone, wonk.

You know, I can tell you til I'm blue in the face all the tells of scum.

Wishy washy posting, chainsaw defenses, etc etc, and you won't believe me until you actually see it.

You have no idea how hard I fought to get "lynch all lurkers" to be a valid point. MG and many others fought with me, saying they were just as likely to be townies. I also had to fight to prove my 4th voter theory. 4th voter is very often scum. This game, there have been three times a fourth vote has been made. 2 of them were scum, and one of them is trucks.

I always get argued with, and people always say, "I'm not convinced". You aren't convinced because you don't understand.

Or how about earlier this game, when I said, "people who talk about the structure of the game rather than the game itself, are usually mafia"? Do you not remember people shooting me down for that? Look who turned up scum. And look at truck's post when he defends dsis.

Look at trucks' post when he makes points against people by using the game structure, saying, "if there are 2 families, that would make sense for x to be scum".That is scum logic. Instead of analyzing the player, attack them using the structure.

I think that you think it's inconspicuous, and normally it is. But when you do it almost singularly toward the mafia it changes things.

In fact, I bet the ratio of you making a post directed to, regardign, or concering a scum in relation to others is quite high. I'll bet it's something like 40-50%

Nice tunnel vision you've got here, I've addressed situations as they arrose:

MetalGear voting ABC, theories on the two deaths, Gnizmo's theory on name vs alignment, hatmoza claims, darth's absence, NotStan's contradictions, MetalGear's lack of posts after being critized, ABC seeming to setup hat for today, I questionned outlaw about his choice of actions and the possibility of him pretending to be a tracker and now I'm commenting on you seeing what you want to see in my posts when there's nothing more to see than me searching for scum.

how about your defend/accuse tactic.

The one where you go, "I've been looking at metal gear as well, but I'm really not seeing the point that you're making. I don't think he's doing what you're saying makes him scum. But I don't know for sure, maybe I'm wrong and you've hit a scum who's now getting defensive, I would interpret such and such as him really trying to get out of the situation, and this other such and such thing he did is extremely suspicious as well"

You've done that exact thing with just about everyone EXCEPT for the players who have flipped scum.

What are you trying to say here? That I voiced reservations about people's scummy moves EXCEPT for those who are scum because it would make me look good when they turned up Mafia?

don't know why my post didn't go through...

To respond, I would say that instead of voicing reservations, it looks more like you are sowing the seeds of suspicion without outright saying so. You haven't fosed anyone except dsis as a joke, and the only votes you have had were on abc and darth. 

In fact, when I was looking at darth and thinking that it was improbable that he could be scum again, someone said that it would be mg's 3rd time in a row, to which you responded "don't mess with prof's head". I think you push people to continue on their path, and contrastingly, anyone who's gone after flipped scum, you've undermined or countered their points.

When you counter their points you say something like, "I don't think that's true. That doesn't make sense, etc etc" This has happened every single time with flipped mafia.

But when you're defend/accusing, you say, "I don't think that's true. That doesn't make sense, etc etc HOWEVER, X,Y,Z and he could very well be scum." This has also happened every single time with flipped townies.

I've outlined it all perfectly in my post analysis.

Furthermore, you've countered that you've been scum hunting, but I would retort by asking you exactly what scum you've been proactive against. Not dsis or radish. With notstan, you only said anything AFTER he was pretty much confirmed scum, and just previously he was neutral to you, and you responded to accusations against him with saying just that, "I don't think he's scum, he seems pretty neutral to me".

Additionally, when you went after notstan, it was the only time where you've been directly aggressive. You had no reservations at that time. Although, one counter-example would be with abc, and I'd have to look at that interaction again, but I could also reason that due to losing so many allies, you've had to become a bit more aggressive. That's just reasoning that may exist if i DO find a counter-example in abc.

First of all I was gone for much of the time the NotStan situation unfolded. I made one or two quick posts on Sunday afternoon and then came back on Monday after NotStan went from voting No Lynch to voting hatmoza, etc.

@underlined: That's not true, I left the door opened for him to provide a reasonable explanation why a pro-town roleblocker would have acted the way he did. This is even reinforced with my post to you saying that I somehow consider roleblocker to be a pro-town role by default when I really shouldn't.

About ABC, if you looked at it with non-biased eyes, you'd see I reacted to his post because he said something like "What happens if NotStan turns out town?". I thought it could be a move from him because he knew NotStan would turn town, I attacked him on it because only scum would know how NotStan would flip. So as you see I was willing to consider the option of NotStan being town up until the point where he was revealed as scum.

I'm not dumb enough to believe that you will "slip" under pressure like notstan did. Therefore, there is no reason to continue arguing the point. 

This is up to everyone else to decide if the evidence I've found warrants a vote. 

a vote probably not as I don't agree with the parenting point, but there is enough to be highly suspicious of him. (and I have my own points that I'm willing to check out by lynching him)