See, and I approach this situation thinking Hat is running a weak push just to see who will jump on the train.

I play with Hat each and every time thinking that he's running gambits, but I never put a vote for that. I'm confident in my ability to see the goal beyond the actions. So, when I look at you voting for me, I have to question whether you're willing to put in the same effort that I do.

And look, even if that is not what he's doing, I can MAKE it so. In my mind, I just have to approach it as that is what he is doing, and then look at that evidence. See, I don't have to lie. I don't have to play gambits at all.

It's all around me. All I have to do is look at what people are doing and use that. You want me to stop "lying", fine. I said I would stop before last game, and it was just unfortunate that I landed a role such as I did that implicitly demands lies. I don't need to lie, because the information that I get is from what other players do. I just help it along.

Prove it, and you might have a case...and even if he does, I don't like it

Because frankly, you're basically saying "I don't want this guy to play in my game" because you don't like him, I fail to see how it's in the best interests of the town lynching for past games, we might as well say that you have a horrible tendency to bandwagon on town people and to be fooled by mafia (last game we played that very thing happened) and lynch you for that, or lynch me for being stubborn and not listening to what other people say (something I don't deny), or hat for being totally random,  or radish for that huge blooper he made on dunno-which-round where he misread his role PM.

What I'm saying is, you might very well be weary of prof, and we might even need to be weary of him, but leading a bandwagon against him (and yes, you lead one, "I feel it's in the town's best interest that we lynch today and that he be the one lynched." clearly implies it) just because for the fact that he's PLAYING, that doesn't suit me well at all.

On the other hand, if you found something in this game that might suggest he's scum, I'm all ears for that, but for now, I just see that you're trying to lead a bandwagon against someone without a reason

FoS: FF

And what do you think of this one where he asks for doc protection every night, doesn't claim, and says the longer he lives "the more confident" he is that scum will lose. Do you remember a roleblocker last round? Who's to say there isn't one now? And who's to say there is no undoc'able killer?

Why am I being targeted when Hat is in a very good position to fuck us with no lube? I'm not asking you to vote him. I'm asking why you'd be willing to take this chance on me, when there is someone out there who is trying to absorb the town roles?

Also, yes, I lied last game. And I'd do it again. I was in the position where I might be killed at night. I had a night-kill. If I claimed the cop investigation, I'd have to kill immediately or waste it. I did everything in my power to find the right targets, and defend the ones that were in danger. I understand your hesitation about my style, but I cannot agree with it about last game (specifically). Other games, I'd say you're right. I've made mistakes. I've fucked up.

And by the way, yes. This is my 10th game with you (or so). I've been scum ONCE, and I've been a cult once AFTER you died. In ten games, you've voted for me like this, or followed every one of my posts, contradicting me, saying, "That's just what he wants us to believe". Undermining me at every turn. At least 8 times, you've done that and been wrong.

How is Hat running the push if he was jumping on MY push?  Honestly curious. 

I like to be able to identify "this person is trying to deceive me" as "scummy behavior".  So whenever you lie to me and I realize it, my scum detectors go off.  I am not willing to shut that off. 

As for last game in particular, answer me this and I may let it go:  why did you buddy up to TOS when you suspected (w/o having investigated yet) that he was scum? 

It's not that I don't like him.  It's not that I want revenge for a prior game.  It's just that I figure, if I absolutely can't believe any single thing he says, even if I'm 100% sure he's town, what good is he as a town asset?  Isn't lynching him just as good as lynching a lurker? 

(And I have to admit, there is a purely pragmatic and personal angle to this that may be operating subconsciously.  prof says I always go after him and I'm usually wrong.  Well, if he's always going to seem scummy to me, why shouldn't I want to lynch him on the day that mislynches are the least detrimental to the town -- keeping in mind that I'm not intentionally mislynching; he may well actually be scum this time -- and remove that which will distract me for the entire game as long as both of us are alive?) 

But if I'm wrong, if the last game was a special circumstance as he says, I'll back off. 

"But I am kind of happy you opposed me. I was starting to get worried that people were going to suspect us from buddying up as I voted prof before I noticed your vote."

Because hat buddied up with him. I already wrote this as well. My theory was that Hat knew ToS was scum and was hoping for one of the mafia to bump him off. So, I read his posts after I saw Hat's List of awesome trust etc. and saw how wishy-washy/conservative all his posts were. I supported my buddying by deciding that if I want to survive the night and get the investigation, I have to appear, "safe" to trucks.

So, there were several phases. The first was to follow Hat's "direction" (note: I later learned that Hat wanted ToS to survive), the second was to continue doing so in order to avoid attention, and the third was after investigation to learn who he trusts, who he's after etc; to make him feel safe.

If you're going to be in my way all the time, why don't I vote you?

Don't you see how your reasoning fails?

Also, and this is something I told wonk too. It doesn't matter who says what. If you can't take the information and balance it with the thought that they could be lying to you, then you're only playing half the game. The difficult part is sorting the bullshit from the truth and figuring out the puzzle. It's not, "I don't trust you, so everything you say is bullshit".

A much as I would like to take credit for buddying with Trucks because I knew he was scum an' wanted to survive thinking he wouldn't kill me if he thought I trusted him. I only made that list to narrow down the options of people to protect and increase my odds of a successful guard.

 I thought if I made it clear that I trusted a couple of people that scum wouldn't touch them... since I lied about being a bomb.

Even after all that went down between you and trucks day 3, I suspected you more than him.

Unvote Prof

The difference is I put "scum" together with "deceiving me" and "town" together with "not deceiving me".  If you, as town, go around deceiving me, I'm liable to think you're scum. 

For instance, if you KNEW, for sure, I was town, you wouldn't have to be ever-vigilant for me lying to you.  Unless there are "special circumstances", I'm being straight with you.  Even if I have to deceive, like if I know something about the roles that I can't reveal because I would betray my own role, I'll be as straight with the town as possible. 

I realize that since I DON'T know you're town, I can't trust you.  But the idea that you're liable to be bullshitting me NO MATTER WHAT your allegiance is just destroys everything from my point of view.  If I catch you in a lie I want that to be evidence you're scum. 

If you can't take the information and balance it with the thought that they could be lying to you, then you're only playing half the game.

I mean seriously prof, do you honestly think I'm such an innocent lamb I don't take into account that any given person might be mafia?  I've learned that lesson, just ask hatmoza   But see above for the reason lies can get under my skin. 

But I'll give you another chance. 

Unvote theprof00.