Pandora

Toki, your repeated questioning about what is or isn't going on with the town block is worrisome. It has been highlighted as fishing before, and still it continues. You say you are concerned there may be someone in the town block who is lying, which is why you keep asking, however anyone in such a town block would have to be utterly brain-dead not to wonder if someone else were lying. It is normal for people to worry that they are being manipulated, so I don't see why you feel the need to focus on it. This has afforded me the opportunity to review a few more of your contributions. I remember this at the time. I could not understand why you had apparently campaigned so vehemently in private (and then public) against Pudding without voting for him. You did indeed vote for Pudding, but then it all got better after a little chat and it was apparently Tarben's fault for "blowing things out of proportion". And again the comment "even if I WAS scum" is most unsettling. I completely missed this the first time, but this really reads to me like you knew he wasn't "full-fledged corrupted member" and therefore your only explanation was that he might be a neutral. That's scum perspective. That last point is enough for me to vote for you for alone, so I too will Vote: Toki (Trumpetking). That does not mean I don't expect responses to the questions and points I raised earlier.

I don't follow your logic. And neither did Lodmund yesterday: So now we know Lodmund wasn't trying to frame Dar, but you (Pudding) are saying that Dar must be town because Lodmund was? I must have missed it; what "sting" did Lodmund pull yesterday? How did you misread what Canute said? It looks like you're replying to him saying something like "you should have listed yourself", when he quite clearly didn't say anything like that, and it would be very odd for you to know what he was going to say in advance, so how did you originally read his comment? Back to the Big Book... I see.

So are you saying his vote is just an OMGUS vote, or was there more to it than that with your post?

Thank you for these answers, brief thought they are, but it seems you'd rather give the answer to my first question to someone else: That might sound reasonable if you had PMed Agnar to ask whether or not to reveal the information around your apparent wb in public (or whether you should wait until the next day), but I would hope that Agnar would have stated as such publicly if had happened. Are you saying you have no original thoughts whatsoever? Aha, I see you can muster at least one original thought. You're saying his vote is an OMGUS vote? Do you think anyone wouldn't want to get suspicion off themself? There are too many things around Lodmund that aren't making sense for me right now. The report from Agnar that he has seemingly stalled in providing the wb link, coupled with the fact that it takes several rounds of questioning to get an answer out of him, and also his seemingly disingenuous comment regarding him not knowing what had happened concerning "the blocker"; all these things make me very suspicious. Vote: Lodmund the Dwarf (Lord Duvors)

Why are you both speculating on what Mist might have done had she been town, considering we now know for an absolute fact that she was scum? She asked for both the scum and the traitor to contact her. It is likely one or the other was WIFOM, and even possible that in fact she was the traitor, should one even exist. Either way, she's still dead scum. It may have been overlooked by recent events, but Lodmund, I'd still like an answer to my questions from yesterday please.

is what pretty much sums it all up for me. This day has turned down weird street heading for crazyville. Now that we have this information, why did you feel revealing it should wait until tomorrow? (Emphasis added by me) How do you know he's not dumb? No offence meant to Lodmund, but he's certainly seemed a bit dumb so far. He apparently completely missed everything to do with "the blocker" yesterday and appeared unable to present his own opinions. Dumb does not automatically mean not scum, of course. (Again, emphasis added by me) I get that you are apparently reporting a conversation with the scum, so everything should be taken with a pinch of salt, but I looked back and couldn't see where Pudding had mentioned your name in the thread between Mist asking for traitor candidates and this point in the conversation where you apparently doubted her to be scum and unvoted her. Do you have any idea what they mean?

Not having any abilities is the same as claiming vanilla.

You've given no defence, you claim vanilla and you have been continually scummy, so claiming scum almost seems unnecessary. Vote: Mist (Mencot)

I've moved your comment here. The game thread is for players and the host only, so please do not post in it again. However, do feel free to tell the host (TPRU) how wonderful he is in this thread.

Considering he was scum, I don't think we can trust anything he did or said, or make assumptions based on that. The standard traitor role has no affect on investigator results, so I'm surprised this is your first point. If you were blocked, that implies you might well be the scum killer, and in the presence of your scumminess and your claim to be vanilla, the best way to test that is to lynch you rather than consider other means to test you. If you are the scum killer then you cannot be a traitor, as traitors do not have access to the scum kill unless they have been recruited by the scum, according to mafiawiki. Arguing you are not the traitor is therefore not the issue here. The issue is whether you are the scum killer, and as I've just said, under these circumstances the best way to test that is by lynching. Another person who hasn't looked up the traitor role. Brand could not have been a traitor as he was loyal. If he had been a traitor he would have shown up as scum on his death. They investigate as scum whether recruited or not. Here's the link again, although I believe you are familiar with the site. That's sounds pretty much like a bog-standard conversion not a traitor role, which is considerably more common than a traitor. There is a pool of potentially convertible townies (often, but not always, vanilla) from which the scum can recruit through a night action. This is common knowledge and an often employed mechanic in situations such as these in places such as this.

Hi Paul B, you could always host your pictures to an image hosting site, such as flickr or photobucket, and then you'd be able to post a suitably sized picture (or pictures) that everyone here can enjoy. I'm sorry that other forums have their own rules which may be different to ours, but we also have ours, which Jim has politely pointed out for you. I'm sure nobody wants to ban you because you haven't posted pictures, and we are trying to help you get the best feedback from members by helping you post suitably sized pictures to your post, so that people can easily see and respond to them.

You won't see it if you're typing in the "Quick Reply" box at the bottom of the page, but if you click on the "More Reply Options" tab, you'll see an option to add an attachment underneath the post window. There is limited space for attachments, especially for pictures (enough for your avatar only), however I believe LXF files are not a problem. Essentially, choose your attachments wisely and remember that Eurobricks isn't an image hosting site so you'd be better off using something like flickr or photobucket etc for images.

If you believe in a case you shouldn't fear the response you get from making it. I understand that he was involved because Brand PMed him about Tarben's odd PMs to him. I don't understand why you don't remember that. Why are all your quotes missing the authors? You'd have to manually take them out.

I might have to sit down, but you actually make two good points here. I agree with you that the intermediary makes this odd, but also possibly more convincing. The forum software is pretty nifty at saving unposted posts... Stuff, things, what everyone else said, wait? Who're we voting for? Oh, that guy. It worries me that you feel the need to point this out. I think we will, and believe we already have.

Fortunately Pudding replied to you earlier and pointed out where it came from for you. Do you have any thoughts? And now I notice I still haven't formatted my vote correctly: In case it really isn't clear: Vote: Jarl Name-Loser (jluck)

I know you're new, but asking someone to potentially reveal the identity of a town role in public is rather anti-town, and as such does not sit well. Good job you weren't holding your breath. He isn't. Are you actually being serious? That's rather abrupt. I could have edited the post for emphasis (and I see nothing wrong with that), but actually the emphasis here (to me) is that you don't really seem to have your own reason for voting. I don't understand why you're not voting for Pudding if you think he's "definitely scum". The way you talk about it makes it look like it's your strongest read, so I don't understand why you're not voting for him. And when you say you'd say the same even if you were scum it is quite unsettling. I still don't agree that publicly stating that you see someone (who isn't under pressure) is town is helpful; I see it as painting a target on their back. So how do you feel about people who (for no clear reason) make a case for why a townie (assuming Tarben's actually town) is town on day two? I'm happy to Vote: Jarl Noname (jluck) Bollocks, got his name wrong. Vote: Jarl Name-Loser

The end of that post reads a bit like 'Oh, look over there! A distraction!' If we give you the benefit of the doubt - you're saying you have a read on Tarben and you think he's town, right? So why the hell are you telling the rest of us? If you truly think he's town, announcing it to the world kinda makes him a target for scum. Assuming, of course, that neither of you are scum. You started off a conversation. About how you don't have an opinion on anything. Fishing is not cool. Unless it's for actual fish. And now I see Tarben isn't the first to be contacted. Why is Cranebeinn so keen to find the vig?

To bold something you need to add / before the b in the second bracket: [b]dark test[/b] That image is way too big. Please check the Site Guidelines on image sizes - link in my signature or through the tab at the top right of the forum screen. Also, I note that that image is an attachment. You have probably used up your attachment allowance with it. I recommend you find an image hosting site (eg flickr, photobucket, others you can find through search engines) if you wish to post pictures, as we are not an image hosting site.

A dead scum on day two is a much bigger deal than a lot of people are making out and I agree with Pudding that it’s weird some people are down-playing this. I'm not clear what you're saying here, as all you've done is make a statement and ask for other people's opinions. Are you saying you think Tarben was trying to bus Lambi, or are you saying he's a fool for not keeping his vote on someone we now know to be scum, or something else entirely? By 'The night kill' do you mean Lambi or Patrekr? Taken out of the Big Book of Stuff to Say in the Morning. Like Pudding said - what where you hoping for? I am really struggling to understand you here. Are you saying you think that Lambi thought Tarben might be a traitor after all and she claimed to him to try to recruit him? Or do you think that Lambi was a traitor and claimed to Tarben in hopes of being recruited by the scum? Surely in either case she wouldn't have wound up dead if Tarben were scum? Why does voting and unvoting a scum come close to clearing you? Munud thinks Lambi voted for a fellow scum on day one as part of a long con, couldn't the same be true for you? Along the same lines, by extension do you hold with Munud's view that Lambi was bussing Tarr? I was about to say "were you? " And then I went back and checked. Actually, a few people seemed to be suspicious of Lambi, so maybe her death wasn't all that unexpected after all?

Hi TheMayor, welcome to EB. I assume you're asking about starting a post with a poll in it? More information can be found in this post, under the section on 'Normal Ranks', but essentially once you have made 500+ posts on the forum and achieved the role of 'Knight' you are able to start a topic with a poll.

I am sure you could give your opinion without potentially being insulting. Please remember to remain polite and respectful to other members at all times. Thank you.

I think Munud now ties with Brand for the honour of ‘scummiest post of the day’ and I am sorely tempted to vote for him, but I keep coming back to Brand. He’s made the whole day a big confusing mess over who said what to whom and whether or not he thinks Tarben is scum. I don’t recall him having any input or opinion about anyone else other than those directly related to his argument(s) aside from what initially sounded like defending Cranebeinn, but apparently was 'throwing suspicion on him', just in a not-actually-throwing-suspicion-on-him kind of way. Despite his merry-go-round of crazy all day, at least quite a few of us have managed to bring other thoughts to the table, but he’s had nothing to say about any of them, instead perpetuating this unfathomable argument, and that just makes his scummy post, asking people to add to the discussion, look even scummier. I’ve said before that I don’t understand why he felt Pudding so trustworthy to start a conversation with. I mean, I get the whole ‘everybody wants to potato Pudding’ but he actually said he wouldn’t be potatoing him if he didn’t think he was loyal and I don't get why he'd think that so early on day one. He still hasn’t responded to any of this, and I'm now wondering if he's been told to just I'm a moron and not incriminate anyone. None of this makes any sense to me unless he is scum so I will Vote: Brand (Brickelodeon).

Gadzooks there's a lot to get through. There are some interesting bits and bobs here and there, though. So Brand etc. There's probably the most oddness around him. I know some of this will be repeating stuff others have said, but I'm trying to consolidate things a bit in my mind. So this happened. You said you weren't defending him but were trying to "throw suspicion on him", but the the bit where you say "it was probably just an honest mistake" sure sounds like a defence to me. So why are you telling Cranebeinn what he meant to say? And when asked about the throwing of suspicion, apparently it's so that others scrutinise him, not to... throw suspicion on him, as everyone else here would probably understand it. Then there's this: Which Agnar and Dragstyrr have also pointed out as being quite scummy, and I'm inclined to agree with them. I still wonder what you're doing contacting people; you said in the quoted PMs that you obviously wouldn’t be PMing Pudding if you thought he were scum - at this early stage? It’s pretty early to have such a confident read. Recently you mentioned that Lodmund was defending his "scumbuddy" (Tarben) and I can't keep up with whether you actually think Tarben is scum or not. Other stuff: Mist being metagamingly Commander Cuckoo Pants doesn’t explain away what appeared to be a slip of the tongue, and doesn’t get him off the hook. Or be doing a really bad job of it.

It is always possible. Welcome to the Reviewers Academy, I've added you.

Hold onto your donuts, I'm moving this to the Brick Flicks forum....