Robert Walsh

Okay, thanks for clearing up a few things. Just stay concise and I won't bug you. Also try to stay this active. Lurking is unsettling in itself. You should think of doing that. Of course you should go back to the previous day and re-read posts. How do you expect to help Town otherwise, that's like swimming against the stream. Also implying Day 3 is where the game really starts is understandable, but also sounds iffy. Like you'd already know you will be alive and who dies. Most of all only scums would think that because if not lynched, nothing really will kill them. Even this is not entirely true, truly considering the possibility of a vig or serial killer around. If you're not playing, you are lurking. You may have your reasons but that won't build any trust. I'm still confused with this. If there's anything useful you really should clarify for everybody.

W:H.A.T? Okay, Zachary I'm asking you in the friendliest manner as I can: How is it not matter who killed Ansel? Why do you say there was not much to respond on Day 1? Don't you think this was not something that was not worthy to say or add? I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you saying you want to accuse me but don't have evidence for it? For what exactly, is this a soft claim or triggering suspicion? If you have any questions for me I'm at your disposal. * Don't you think this was not something that was worthy to say or add? * Sorry, no double negation meant.

I'm pretty sure he could have meant scum teammates. Still not what is written. Pretty sure for a scum, scum teammates just can simply mean "teammates". But okay, he said before he tought Morgan as scum. In this context it's really like saying scum teammates. But in this case: Why are you not saying it was in the context, but throwing in a total lie? There is the quote man. Specifically? Where? Do you even read your own post?

There is the quote showing you did not said "scum teammates". Do you meant to say he was warned by other scums to back down? One question: How would they've know Morgan was scum? Do you think it was truly such a tell? Then why are you saying you were not trying to lynch just to "move things forwards". You did not even reply ANYTHING to Morgan's second post. Not a single question. This is a joke. I'm not twisting your words, they're already twisted.

No one told Morgan to shut up. Just the contrary. Countless of times it was said that we are waiting for a response from Morgan. You either did not read carefully or you're twisting. You say you read everything from Reginald and you knew he was townie, but on Morgan you are still suspicious as he went pretty quiet. You are not the loudest person in the room yourself if I may point out... Me voting for Reginald is "starting a pile" according to you. The funny thing is that I was the first on Morgan as well. How come that was not starting a pile, but Reginald was. Can it be because you was on that one and not on the other one? This is what defines the "pile"? Morgan already had 3 votes when I changed it to Reginald. You just said you voted for Morgan not to secure a lynch on a bandwagon, but to keep it moving forward. This is your 2nd post in-game, you are clearly not trying to move forward anything. And this is racing for the most senseless contribution taken ever so far. I'm not sure I can actually believe you just said this. I'm sorry, but what? What do you think, why do we want to know the killer's identity? You just said we don't know anything about a vigilante being present. Then who was the killer in your opinion? The parrot? The only thing matters to you is that could there have been more kills? Why don't you tell us... could have been? Are you interested more in a town blocker than in the scum? This is hard to decipher to be honest. How do you know of this swap? Also how do you know it must have been a scum bus driver? If this is true it can mean the end of us. I can't think of anything more potent in creating chaos then a scum bus driver lingering around. How do you know the scum driver wants to buddy up with you? This has to be cleared up, because this is a mess as it is now. Also I'm not sure how the vig or even a SK is deduced from this. Also I'd be very vary of taking any blocker's claim in private anything useful. Even with public claims there are no guarantee on its own whether they are town or scum, only if they're contradicting each other or someone else in certain ways.

Stop spying on me!

Okay. How about calming down for a minute here. I'm trying to be reasonable. Yes, I did not like you were paraphrasing, thanks for admitting that. Why would you do anything like that? I wasn't communicating in an antique iambic verse from 600 BC. I have written down the whole thing from my perspective and you did not respond to this. This was after our debate where, thus I'm saying you've been silent on me. Nononononono. No. Nope. I won't vote yet. At gunpoint, being forced at the spot I'd choose you, that is true. That is what suspicion for and I brought it from the previous day with myself. But this is not Day 1. There were night actions yesterday. And you may be surprsised or not, I would not give my vote for you yet, knowing it shall mean death for you. I've never said I have proof or anything. Day 2 is still an early phase but we all now this is another game right now. I'm completely aware of other questionable things going on. I've just addressed them. I can and should wait out to get these answers I want. There is always a chance from now on that someone gets into such a contradiction that it'll mean the end of them. Since you called me a turd, I have to say I will be glad if it turns out to be you. But if not you won't have me on you. I'll vote, don't worry. About me being scared that focus may turn on me? Well hell yeah I'm scared, why would I not be. I don't want to die. If it makes you happy, this is the first thing you said since Day 1 I actually take as a useful notice. I think there is a possibility that we have some kind of friendly blocker or protector working with us. On the other hand I doubt Ansel would've not been a Scum kill. There's simply a higher chance to block a Townie. But if there were more kill attempts, or more actions you might be just as well right. We have to think about this, and you pointing this out is already an advancement in my eyes.

I wanted to ask him the same. Because I want to be clear here: I still think Paul is scum. I do. And I had my arguments in this matter. But considering Paul is quite silent towards me after our debate and he has not add any questionable statement to feed my suspicion since, I'm very interested why Elijah just swooped in at the end of the day. Why did you vote Paul? I want to know this, because it seemed no one has voiced my concerns on Paul very much before. If Paul and I were doing some shady things deliberately together why not voting for me? I already had 3 votes. Well for your own defense, you did voice your disagreement against the Reginald lynch. But again then why not voting for me this case? That'd be 4 votes already. Maybe some lurkers would have jumped on that option and you get no Reginald lynch. So Elijah, I think you should just clarify the whole post. What was your overall opinion on Day 1 lynching, on Reginald, and why Paul and not me? As for now it seems you've just made a convenient neutral stand without the need of saying anything.

I have the same suspicion as you on him, but I think you did not point out the most ping-worthy thing about this post. Whilliam says Ethan makes business by creating chaos - which is quite an oversimplification without exact examples, considering Ethan was active to give arguments - but one sentence later he says he totally agrees with him, he goes "This is a very good point". Why would you say someone spreads chaos, even give him a vote so sudden after you're just going to give us an example of their good points in the very SAME post? Holy monkeyballs, if you are Town you should stop throwing around self-contradictory stuff ASAP. This is exactly how we lynched the sh** out of Reginald. Since I'm eager to learn the moral of that story, I'm waiting for explanation William.

I meant losing Ansel was not good opposed to Reginald, who I think was almost useless Town, but still both Town. Those are the facts. But as I've said taking another look on Ansel's yesterday knowing his innocence is a good piece in the puzzle at least. I can't say a scum would surely do it to implicate you. I say this is what I was thinking at first. It was the first thing that popped into my head, remembering you were the only one voting for him at first. But to be clear I'm tottaly not trying to implicate you, on the contrary. I just wanted to point this intention possibility out before someone would jump on this. This is what I wanted to say, yes. This is why I think it was not you. That would be too direct and obvious. Meh, a bit circular but I hope you get it now.

Pfff, would be a total lie saying I am sad. ActualIy was hoping we were on a good track, but now I say he was just simply incoherent in the head. Under warning what do you mean? Liam please, if you have any exact argument to say about your thinking just say it, otherwise let it go, this is what lead us to lynch Reginald. Not so happy with losing Ansel on the other hand, but I'm sure we should reread both of their yesterday contributions. Observing Reginald first hand tells me nothing at the moment, but Ansel is now totally an other narrative this way. Really start to feel on a second thought that Flag - with a capital F all the time - should be some hidden message Liam can not tell. Either this or he is totally nuts. Ansel was a middle ground player whole Day 1, that would have been some super mindread from a scum to know it for sure. Don't forget that you were quite onto him, so this might have been also an intention to direct suspicion towards you.

♪ ♫ ♪ Oooooooh, don't take us as some froggie, Cos we're brave lads of the Georgie, Well gov' drinks up all the groggie, Cap'n pinges the pongie with the Paulie, Rob trumping yakkie it's all groatie. Ol' Ethan still guardin' on the dutie, While Ben takes the flag from the phonie There's one thing we're on all comfie That Sarge is quite a handsome squashieeee ♪ ♫ ♪ Yeahh, keep up the beat you rascal Kendall me best friend!

Point noted, I think this would be a kind of policy lynch indeed. Also it is not going to happen as for now. We seem to manage a lynch but not with Liam. What's your opinion on that?

Saying too many words. Not more like being incosistent and non-factual as hell? Also give me a break. Your words are not twisted. You are not answering directly to questions. Give us examples of foolish votes and reasonable votes taken here. Tell us why are they also random. Lastly you are quoting a prediction from yourself which you were playing into quite swiftly. What do you mean under defending yourself more? Answering questions maybe? Then you shall start doing it.

For their defense, this was the very reason you got the first vote: From me. At that time that was the best lead (in my opinion) we got. But so much has been said since I find it very suspicious to hold onto that and being silent about it.

This is not what you've said before. Reginald, let's be honest: you are very inconsistent. You are keep saying that vote can be foolishness but see the reasoning for taking a vote. Now which one is it? And why? You are saying nothing. Voting is not just for the vote itself, it is to show your remarks and demand clarifications. Ethan's first random vote was a joke, according to him at least, which you either believe or not. You had two votes at this point. A random one, and the one you are still taking on me, which is only not random because it was an offended respone for my vote against you. That's your whole contribution to Day One. You started to plant the idea that voting is not helping town and now I think all of your answers are just weak efforts to talk you out of this nonsense in the very same manner which has started it all.

Town lynches a fellow townie whose bad play just hurts further town causes. I think this is what Louis were implying. However I do not want to give words into his mouth, he should clarify this, because imho policy lynch is at the minimum debatably scummy.

I'd be interested in Zacarhy's and Kendall's view on Morgan. We were voting him only for his first post and for the questionable absence. Do you think his reasons were not good enough, his absence is just the part of removing heat or you are just trying not to give a clear statement on lynching this day? Lastly you may think Reginald is not scummy. So which is it I must humbly ask. True. Unless Louis meant a policy lynch. But he should explain this to you.

This is a bit of obfuscation. Exactly the ones who vote for someone with single votes should swap if they want a lynch. Just as Arthur did. I mean if you're into a first day lynching at least. I totally okay if you're not, but might be more correct to say that instead. I'm not sure where to put this, I think you are trying to stay in middle ground, trying to show action while practically being passive. That warns me about Ethan's concerns about you to be honest.

You are till sneaking around in my opinion. I think you are not addressing the issue that you were just quickly throwing in a fast circular logical answer without any meaning while you not realizing the query was not mine but Pauls. You were saying 'your query'. I think you were so eager to sound neutral and innocent that you even skipped that. You say it is a fish hook. I say I had no suspicion against you, because your reasoning was not out of context. Yes, I think Paul is nitpicky and at the moment I think he is an observing scum. But since you are here you may reply to my answer for you vote: Because you did not address anything to it, you just asked an openended question now. Also you were quite inactive too. Don't you think your argument could not be used just as validly against you?

Have you started the counting from 30 barrels?

That change was just a vote for me 2 hours later, having proof of me being a traitor.

Now, now Morgan is here. I've read what you just said and since I've voted you first I must say you clearly had a lot of time to think of the best return answers. Talking about scum-o-meters and suspicous-o-meters in your first post when it was quite obvious to point out was overly cheeky. Then disappearing when heat is coming in was just as so. But you've stated your cause and I really cannot say anything to it now. They're concise.

That was not my problem. Let me clear up that first vote again. I thought Morgan was pseudovoting and warning. I wanted to point this out, but pointing this out that time without action would have been just another pseudovoting. So I said I'm going to vote this out for this reason and get things started. I was expecting something from Morgan from that pressure, maybe to give us a better tell. Being absent might be a good tell actually. Anyway, if this pinged Paul then he was just also not pseudovoting with that one. Okay. I had no problem with that. I did not like his reason tough. There was already talk about Morgan and I was doing it too. It was not me creating something out of thin air to jump on somebody and I did not push anybody on it with more accusations. I just said the same thing as I'm saying now: I'm eager to see a response from Morgan. More like a test. He DID take me out of context at first, putting the Morgan quote aside. I tought about it, took a look at Paul's other pesky comments and I tought: this is might be a scum tactic so let's ask after this. I was waiting for a response, but got nothing. Instead got a feeling that Paul is not being inactive, just following the conversation and waiting for random moments to strike in. Picking on somebody and disappearing for quite a long time is suspicious: like you would not even care about the answer only searching for a different angle to confuse. So my idea was nothing complex just to quote something else from him, to check it out: is he lingering around or just truly away not able to answer? I've also realized his picky question for Reginald was aggressive, but Reginald ignored it sneakily. So I asked about that one. I also appended the same post my question to Paul again to compare which one will he respond to if he bites on it. Reginald answered saying he did not want to defend against ME, while it was clearly a quote from Paul so I tought 'Now.. this is interesting'. I think he was so tryhard to BS around for couple of posts now he just quickly threw in something logically incontestable thing, not even checking the quote out. Now this is not an evidence, but the bests thing I've got so far by interacting with people so went with it immediately with a vote. He said he is under no pression because he is not guilty. But being under pression has nothing to do about your guiltiness. He was obviously under pressure because I made it so. This felt tryhard again. (You Ethan are pressuring me too now for example, because you have valid questions, this is how it goes). His revenge vote and whole behaviour did not loose me on this catch. All he would have to say that he forgot. Everyone could have mislook something. But he panicked and that's just feeding my tells in my eyes. I think scums are poking around but under pressure they are gettting inconsistent more easily. And Reginald already made some inconsistent statment about voting around randomly. I did not even understand where he wanted to go with that. Anyway Paul DID come to respond almost immedietaly and he did not respond to my question for the Morgan context thing, but gave me a picky oneliner again instead and jumped on my thing with Reginald, saying "oh yeah, Reginald is scummy, but Robert YOU are still more scummy'. Why am I stilly more scummy if I had a totally valid question already waiting for him for the second time and he just ignored that again? Why not answering the question, but poiting out my scummieness instead? Clearly his ping for me was not the strangest thing on the table at this moment, and a "context is irrevelant" thing which I got after pushing him for answers. So he kept voting me while Reginald also gave the revenge vote for me. I was not going after 'my votes', more likely I earned them. So I thought 'okay, this is maybe not a coincidence'. I just wanted to ask my questions and I think they did not like this at all. You see I've got another vote from Warren, but nothing twisty was about it. His idea about jumping on a majority was no far-fetched at all. More of us were talking about the Morgan thing. Only I was the first to give it a vote. I pointed this out to Warren, he made no response, but I did not felt he was nitpicking me like a scum would have done. Maybe I'm being just tunnel visioned here. I have to admit that. But if someone goes around saying inconsistent things only to behave cheeky when questions follow it is a tell for me.