Snake's WWE Invasion 'Royal Mafia Rumble'

[Retro Red]

First, to save me mentioning it dozens of times each time bristep "calls me out" on it. There's three reasons to not post every tiny piece of information from your previous posts (four in fact), 1 - Some of the post was not relevant to the case (because the point I was making stands regardless), 2 - it would turn a wall o' text into a Berlin Wall o'text, 3 - I could not include that many quotes into the post without splitting it up into about 4 seperate posts just for a single case. (and number 4 being that I included the post numbers so that everyone could quite easily hop over and view them, if I was trying to deliberately prevent people seeing the full post, not only would it be stupid because someone would call me out on it, but secondly, I'd not have given everyone a nice easy way to go and find them).

 

So... with that said, let me refute your points bristep.

 

"Hi, I'm Mike Castle and I'll take snippets from posts and present them out of context to fit my argument". That is my initial thought reading this post.

Then I would like to change your initial thought and point out that what I did right there is the exact definition of scum hunting. Except I didn't take anything out of context. As I will now prove.

 

HOWEVER, be wary rumble participants of being misdirected by potential scum. There are those here who have accused Mike of twisting words and avoiding questions so far in this game, and his gameplay of 'wall 'o text' coupled with his apparent self imposed leader status can let him influence the game if he wants to (i.e if he is scum).

Right off the bat, rather than responding to points, you're posting fluff to try and act like my opinion doesn't count. This is meaningless unless your intent was to set everyone's mind into "Mike's lying" before you began arguing your case, same applies to your line above too.

 

Mike's accusation that I flip-flopped on my opinion of TripleA/bandwagon hopped :

 

in post #74 I said that TripleA's roleclaim wording was similar to the one I received, my point there was to say that I felt Mike and Nexus had reacted in a scummy way to it (And I conceeded later that I misread Mike's post, rather than just skimming the thread. Mike failed to mention that, a lie by omisson?)

 

in post #116 I did say that it was possible that TripleA lied about his roleclaim, but this was posted out of context. Firstly Mike has taken the two sentences and presented them side by side which makes them look bad. He doesn't however state that there were 32 POSTS between the statements and a lot of conversation. Second, Mike also plucked this sentence out of a longer post, and again without the rest of the context of the post it looks worse than it is. Here is the original post IN IT'S ENTIRETY.

 

Mike Castle, unless I missed it, you haven't posted who you are.

 

Who are you?

 

Having had a quick look back it appears that Mike has indeed not told us who he is. With Mike's penchant for text walls and the fact that he does everything for a reason, it does look a little suspicious.

 

However, it could also be an honest oversight. Worth remembering though.

 

I agree that statistically at least one of the people who vocally stated that they believe TripleA is town must be scum. With that said though, I don't think it's for the reason TripleA has stated. While I think it's possible that it could have been organised, I just don't think that it was.

 

It's also possible that TripleA lied about his role, after all the win condition wasn't exactly a big reach. He might have taken a gamble and had it pay off. He might have been in on the plan with Nexus and A.N.OTHER if you extend it

 

1) TripleA lies about his role

2) Nexus condemns it

3) someone defends TripleA, which while pointing FOS at Nexus all but confirms (wrongly) that TripleA is town letting him work under the radar for the rest of the game.

 

Again, not that I think that this is likely, but much like TripleA's theory it IS a possibility.

 

Right now the strongest case for being scum is Nexus, he should really speak up soon and defend his actions as I think the lynch will end up in his direction otherwise.

Okay, so you've posted the entire quote there. Tell me how that changes anything. Yes, I only took out the bolded line. Because that's the relevant line. You originally stated that TripleA's statement was accurate, and now you're saying he was lying. The two CANNOT work together. Either his statement wasn't accurate, or it was. If it was accurate, he cannot have lied, and if it wasn't accurate and he did lie... why did you say it was in the first place?

 

Note that everything else in that post doesn't contribute to anything worthwhile in regards to what I was saying. Therefore it was removed from what I was quoting for ease of showing what I was pointing at.

 

Slightly more to go on there, I'd say. It's also worth noting that I mentioned my thoughts on Nexus, which leads nicely onto

 

POINT THE SECOND

 

That I weakly votehopped onto Nexus. Firstly, my vote on RandySavage to begin with was only there because of start game bollocks. He posted NSFW pics of Vickie and incited a bad rap from R-Truth so I put a vote in. I changed it to Nexus because at that time he hadn't defended his vote on TripleA yet. He actually did so while I was posting that, but it was still unsatisfactory in most eyes including mine.

 

Again, since the rest of post #116 made mention of Nexus, did Mike leave it out because it harmed this argument?

"The rest of post #116" you mean that last line that is throwaway? Yeah, I left it out to help my case... or because it was meaningless, though I could have pulled you up on stating it with no basis of anything and making it nice and easy to swing onto a Nexus lynch later... which you still did.

 

It doesn't matter where your vote was previously. It matters where your vote went and HOW it went, and you voted Nexus in an exceptionally weak way. Normally a weak vote onto someone isn't an issue. But then, most things aren't an issue by themselves. Add them together and that's when you get scummy playing.

 

Again, you've sidestepped my point about the TripleA statements to try and negate my argument. I said quite clearly that it was A POSSIBILITY that TripleA took a gamble and guessed the win condition when roleclaiming. I didn't say that he DID or DID NOT. I merely said it was a possibility, and gave a scenario in which it could have happened. I also said that I didn't think it was the case but that it was worth considering. NEVER ONCE DID I SAY THAT I HAD CHANGED MY ORIGINAL OPINION. I presented a different scenario for consideration, plain and simple no matter how you want to read or skew it.

 

I also see that you again used the word attack when referring to my question towards ChrisB. I asked a question to get an answer, I did not 'attack' him.

 

Lastly once again on votehopping, you are calling my reasoning weak but I dispute that. I voted for him because he displayed scummy behaviour and hadn't defended himself well. In that day phase I made 3 votes. RandySavage which was nothing more than fluff, Nexus and Dan. I had good reason to do both of those, given the game scenario at the time. Just because I didn't repeat all of it when I posted doesn't mean I wasn't justified to do so.

[Retro Red]

POINT THE THIRD

 

That I made the argument that "Every possibility should be raised, so that it can be put in the public eye to be considered/accepted/refuted" (I'm paraphrasing, but Mike didn't get it the first time so there's a chance others might not too) Then I 'attacked' ChrisB for doing the same.

 

See I don't see that there's a point to answer here. I answered ChrisB's question, then RAISED THE POSSIBILITY THAT HE HELD ONTO THE QUESTION TO MISDIRECT IF NEEDED. If anything I validated my point that I think every point should be raised. We'll come back to that at the end.

You've either deliberately avoided my point, or just didn't get it.

 

My point is that originally you attacked Chris for raising a point in your direction. You then (quite quickly afterwards) said you believe every possibility should be brought up. Why would you say such a thing if, when that possibility is brought up in your direction, you attack someone for it?

 

POINT THE FORTH

 

That I tried to make Buggsy look scummy.

 

This again was a valid point worth raising (I thought) at the time. AGAIN it's out of context though, the point was that Dan said he trusted you and TripleA and suspected Ron and Nexus. Buggsy chose to ask why he supported the two of you, rather than asking why he suspected Ron and Nexus. I felt that it was a pertinent point worth raising.

Fair enough, I'll buy that as your thought process, but it's worth noting that asking why someone finds someone else to be town is a good idea in general as long as you don't go overboard with pressuring someone.

 

POINT THE FIFTH

 

That I votehopped from Nexus onto Dan.

 

Yes, I moved my vote from Nexus, and onto Dan. And all in the space of 277 POSTS!

 

Again, posted with no context or sequence. This time he failed to alude to what I was responding to, that being a very well structured post from TripleA which mirrorred my own thoughts. Since TripleA is all but confirmed town in most people's minds, was this left out so as not to dilute his argument?

You quoted TripleA's post, and then posted what I quoted. That's a wagon hop. I don't care if there were two posts between it, 277 posts between it, or 1000 posts between it. All you did was say "that case looks good" and voted someone who's wagon was increasing at a good rate, without ever backing up your reasons for it, and hoping to just slide by without having to back them up.

 

IN CLOSING

 

I think I've answered Mike's case fairly well, however others may debate that. I think that his points were skewed, and that he took my words out of their context to support them.

I think I've proven I didn't once take them out of context, if anything, you are claiming that to try and discredit my case. However I implore everyone who still thinks I took them out of context to take a good look at each of bristeps posts (explicitly the ones I've pointed out of course) and ask me if I took them "out of context" or just "quoted the relevant bits".

 

Be honest, would people have rather me quote every tiny piece of text, including the fluff, or would they rather I quoted the relevant bits and got to the point?

 

Again, I didn't attack Chris, I asked a question after answering his. Amazing how when you "attack" people it's scumhunting, when other people do it it's "OMG U SCUM" (I'm paraphrasing here, you wouldn't never be so brief).

 

And once again, I was the second person to vote for Dan on the basis of TripleA summing up pretty much what my thoughts were at the time. I said that at the time, I said that in response to you and I'm saying it here again. After I voted, Dan then voted for himself and then YOU voted on the basis that he had voted for himself. Sorry, but but if you're really going to call me out on this, then really I have to say pot kettle black.

[Chris B]

I'm torn now. Bristep has given some great defences of himself, but I'm not convinced Mike's scum either. It could be town attacking town. That said, I'm really not happy with the way Mike took what Bristep said so out of context, especially since he didn't link to the original posts either - I know he gave the post numbers, but he could have copied and pasted the quotes themselves with the links back rather than copying and pasting lines from the quotes. It makes it more work to go back and check.

 

Corey's posted nothing, but it's not a pattern of pretending to have content - as opposed to Lawz, who it feels like he's posted far more than he actually has, which has to be pretty unique.

 

So, I'm likely to go one of three ways. Dan, who my vote is still on at the moment, Nexus, who's been a concern from early on in the game, or Mike as my current third suspect. After that, it's Family Guy and Triple A.

[Carbomb]

I haven't got much time to post, as am going out in a few minutes, but I'd just like to say this:

 

bristep123 is a SCARY PLAYER. Seriously, that's some fucking dynamic play right there. I really hope, if he's back in the game for regular now, that he's WWE, because we risk being royally fucked if he's Nexus.

 

Anyway, I'll try and post later in the evening to address some further points, but before I go:

 

Ron - thanks for addressing my earlier post, but just as I mentioned in the first part of it, it wasn't an accusation of Nexusdom, just an iteration of potential scum-tells; as things are, I really don't think you're Nexus right now. But everybody (including myself, I'm sure) has said something at some point in this game that needs mentioning or looking at, methinks. As bristep mentioned, it's good to have these things brought up, discussed and put on record.

[FLips]

I'm torn now. Bristep has given some great defences of himself, but I'm not convinced Mike's scum either. It could be town attacking town. That said, I'm really not happy with the way Mike took what Bristep said so out of context, especially since he didn't link to the original posts either - I know he gave the post numbers, but he could have copied and pasted the quotes themselves with the links back rather than copying and pasting lines from the quotes. It makes it more work to go back and check.

 

Corey's posted nothing, but it's not a pattern of pretending to have content - as opposed to Lawz, who it feels like he's posted far more than he actually has, which has to be pretty unique.

 

So, I'm likely to go one of three ways. Dan, who my vote is still on at the moment, Nexus, who's been a concern from early on in the game, or Mike as my current third suspect. After that, it's Family Guy and Triple A.

 

Whilst i'm in agreement that it could be a case of Town vs Town, i'm more convinced it could be Town Bristep vs Scum Mike. In my opinion I don't see why town would skip over points and edit quotes accordingly to condemn someone else.

Either way, i'm happy to take Bristep as Town for now, and with Carbomb, will be gutted if he ends up scum.

 

In the case of Corey and Lawz, i'd say at least Lawz is trying. Sure it's not the most in-depth posting ever, but after being on his side in a previous game where we were both scum, it was apparent in the quicktopic that he's honestly trying. Corey however is just a breeze of hot air that blows through the game enough to stop getting replaced. I couldn't judge if he was scum or not though, but if he is that's dreadful.

[Mike Castle]

Again, you've sidestepped my point about the TripleA statements to try and negate my argument. I said quite clearly that it was A POSSIBILITY that TripleA took a gamble and guessed the win condition when roleclaiming. I didn't say that he DID or DID NOT. I merely said it was a possibility, and gave a scenario in which it could have happened. I also said that I didn't think it was the case but that it was worth considering. NEVER ONCE DID I SAY THAT I HAD CHANGED MY ORIGINAL OPINION. I presented a different scenario for consideration, plain and simple no matter how you want to read or skew it.

Fair enough, I'll accept that one, however it didn't read that way in either the first time, nor when you mentioned it the second. Now you've explained it better, I'll accept that reasoning.

 

I also see that you again used the word attack when referring to my question towards ChrisB. I asked a question to get an answer, I did not 'attack' him.

You were aggressive in the questioning, which is what I was more pointing out, but fair enough, I'll accept that it's likely more along the lines of "style of play" than "scummy behaviour" at this point.

 

Lastly once again on votehopping, you are calling my reasoning weak but I dispute that. I voted for him because he displayed scummy behaviour and hadn't defended himself well. In that day phase I made 3 votes. RandySavage which was nothing more than fluff, Nexus and Dan. I had good reason to do both of those, given the game scenario at the time. Just because I didn't repeat all of it when I posted doesn't mean I wasn't justified to do so.

My issue with the vote hopping is that you gave no reason for either vote. You just followed on someone elses lead. Once isn't so bad, twice if you have investigation results on at least one of them isn't bad, but day 1 looks fishy. However I'll accept that as a fresh player you would feel it fine to do as much. I just suggest in the future you try and supply reasons for your votes then, because otherwise it will stink of scummy behaviour.

 

Again, I didn't attack Chris, I asked a question after answering his. Amazing how when you "attack" people it's scumhunting, when other people do it it's "OMG U SCUM" (I'm paraphrasing here, you wouldn't never be so brief).

It wasn't really scum hunting though, it was more getting at him for his accusation of you, but I've accepted your previous comment on it anyway.

 

And once again, I was the second person to vote for Dan on the basis of TripleA summing up pretty much what my thoughts were at the time. I said that at the time, I said that in response to you and I'm saying it here again. After I voted, Dan then voted for himself and then YOU voted on the basis that he had voted for himself. Sorry, but but if you're really going to call me out on this, then really I have to say pot kettle black.

Not really "pot kettle black" though, as I gave a reason behind my vote when I cast it, and you quoted TripleA, still, as I say above, I'll accept it for now. You've made a good response to my case, it doesn't outright get you off the hook (As nobody should be fully off the hook, even when you have the strongest of a read on someone they may still be scummy, hell, even with an innocent result they could be a Godfather). But my suspicion has lowered for now.

 

I'm torn now. Bristep has given some great defences of himself, but I'm not convinced Mike's scum either. It could be town attacking town. That said, I'm really not happy with the way Mike took what Bristep said so out of context, especially since he didn't link to the original posts either - I know he gave the post numbers, but he could have copied and pasted the quotes themselves with the links back rather than copying and pasting lines from the quotes. It makes it more work to go back and check.

Like I say Chris, it's not out of context, just removing the non-relevant pieces of information. At this point I'm thinking me and bristep clash in style rather than him being scummy. But may I point out, to everyone, that not quoting entire posts does NOT mean something is quoted "out of context" if it's not the full post that is required for it to be in context. Otherwise everybody on MafiaScum is scum, not just the scum players. (and before anyone says "this isn't mafia scum" I don't care, it doesn't change that what I was doing good play).

 

Corey's posted nothing, but it's not a pattern of pretending to have content - as opposed to Lawz, who it feels like he's posted far more than he actually has, which has to be pretty unique.

What are you getting at here Chris? Corey's four posts so far have little to no actual content in them, at the point in the game of his fourth post, he should have much more of a read than being unsure between me and you. With the stuff regarding Dan, Nexus, Me, You, Ron, TripleA, to name just 6 players who have said and done a lot (or been accused a lot in Nexus' case) how is it he is unwilling to make any comments on any of it beyond sitting on the fence with us? Especially when it's entirely possible we're both town and just were at odds with each other.

 

And TripleA, can you please start using your head rather than your gut? Seriously, you have this terrible ability of just spewing forth things without thinking them through. Why would town not post entire quotes? I answered that, I'll also point out that I'm yet to meet a decent level player who will post entire quotes when there's only a single line in it relevant to what he was saying.

 

What's more, if you go and look over the points I made, if I had included the full posts from bristep it doesn't once change what I was saying. If you don't wish to go and check it yourself, then you can't use it as a reason to call me scummy.

[Retro Red]

Again, you've sidestepped my point about the TripleA statements to try and negate my argument. I said quite clearly that it was A POSSIBILITY that TripleA took a gamble and guessed the win condition when roleclaiming. I didn't say that he DID or DID NOT. I merely said it was a possibility, and gave a scenario in which it could have happened. I also said that I didn't think it was the case but that it was worth considering. NEVER ONCE DID I SAY THAT I HAD CHANGED MY ORIGINAL OPINION. I presented a different scenario for consideration, plain and simple no matter how you want to read or skew it.

Fair enough, I'll accept that one, however it didn't read that way in either the first time, nor when you mentioned it the second. Now you've explained it better, I'll accept that reasoning.

 

I also see that you again used the word attack when referring to my question towards ChrisB. I asked a question to get an answer, I did not 'attack' him.

You were aggressive in the questioning, which is what I was more pointing out, but fair enough, I'll accept that it's likely more along the lines of "style of play" than "scummy behaviour" at this point.

 

Lastly once again on votehopping, you are calling my reasoning weak but I dispute that. I voted for him because he displayed scummy behaviour and hadn't defended himself well. In that day phase I made 3 votes. RandySavage which was nothing more than fluff, Nexus and Dan. I had good reason to do both of those, given the game scenario at the time. Just because I didn't repeat all of it when I posted doesn't mean I wasn't justified to do so.

My issue with the vote hopping is that you gave no reason for either vote. You just followed on someone elses lead. Once isn't so bad, twice if you have investigation results on at least one of them isn't bad, but day 1 looks fishy. However I'll accept that as a fresh player you would feel it fine to do as much. I just suggest in the future you try and supply reasons for your votes then, because otherwise it will stink of scummy behaviour.

 

Again, I didn't attack Chris, I asked a question after answering his. Amazing how when you "attack" people it's scumhunting, when other people do it it's "OMG U SCUM" (I'm paraphrasing here, you wouldn't never be so brief).

It wasn't really scum hunting though, it was more getting at him for his accusation of you, but I've accepted your previous comment on it anyway.

 

And once again, I was the second person to vote for Dan on the basis of TripleA summing up pretty much what my thoughts were at the time. I said that at the time, I said that in response to you and I'm saying it here again. After I voted, Dan then voted for himself and then YOU voted on the basis that he had voted for himself. Sorry, but but if you're really going to call me out on this, then really I have to say pot kettle black.

Not really "pot kettle black" though, as I gave a reason behind my vote when I cast it, and you quoted TripleA, still, as I say above, I'll accept it for now. You've made a good response to my case, it doesn't outright get you off the hook (As nobody should be fully off the hook, even when you have the strongest of a read on someone they may still be scummy, hell, even with an innocent result they could be a Godfather). But my suspicion has lowered for now.

 

I'm torn now. Bristep has given some great defences of himself, but I'm not convinced Mike's scum either. It could be town attacking town. That said, I'm really not happy with the way Mike took what Bristep said so out of context, especially since he didn't link to the original posts either - I know he gave the post numbers, but he could have copied and pasted the quotes themselves with the links back rather than copying and pasting lines from the quotes. It makes it more work to go back and check.

Like I say Chris, it's not out of context, just removing the non-relevant pieces of information. At this point I'm thinking me and bristep clash in style rather than him being scummy. But may I point out, to everyone, that not quoting entire posts does NOT mean something is quoted "out of context" if it's not the full post that is required for it to be in context. Otherwise everybody on MafiaScum is scum, not just the scum players. (and before anyone says "this isn't mafia scum" I don't care, it doesn't change that what I was doing good play).

 

Corey's posted nothing, but it's not a pattern of pretending to have content - as opposed to Lawz, who it feels like he's posted far more than he actually has, which has to be pretty unique.

What are you getting at here Chris? Corey's four posts so far have little to no actual content in them, at the point in the game of his fourth post, he should have much more of a read than being unsure between me and you. With the stuff regarding Dan, Nexus, Me, You, Ron, TripleA, to name just 6 players who have said and done a lot (or been accused a lot in Nexus' case) how is it he is unwilling to make any comments on any of it beyond sitting on the fence with us? Especially when it's entirely possible we're both town and just were at odds with each other.

 

And TripleA, can you please start using your head rather than your gut? Seriously, you have this terrible ability of just spewing forth things without thinking them through. Why would town not post entire quotes? I answered that, I'll also point out that I'm yet to meet a decent level player who will post entire quotes when there's only a single line in it relevant to what he was saying.

 

What's more, if you go and look over the points I made, if I had included the full posts from bristep it doesn't once change what I was saying. If you don't wish to go and check it yourself, then you can't use it as a reason to call me scummy.

 

I'm glad that we've kind of put this to bed, but one thing I need to make the point on is that an hour earlier, after my initial rebuke of your post, you stated that you wanted to lynch me (but that someone else was a more pressing target) but now, after I rebuke for the second time I'm now no longer a prime suspect, and that I'm likely town (although not totally off your list, and nor should I or anyone be) and our styles just clash (bolded in the quote for reference).

 

NOW, if you are scum then your attack on me was an attempt at misdirection and that your initial response to my initial response was a further attempt. Given the reaction from the other players, you have realised that you are losing support on the theory and have backed down to in turn take yourself off the radar. Again, IF you are scum.

 

Just a possibility, at this stage I don't have a clear reading on you but something to consider if you do start to seem scummier.

[insert_name_here]

I'd like to start by saying well done to both Mike and Bristep. You've both done well with your arguments and i really hope this is just an unfortunate case of Town vs Town.

 

My suspicions are still on Nexus and Dan for various reasons that i've covered earlier on but there's a few others that are starting to crop up on my radar. I think it's too early on to cast a vote yet so i'll give it another day or two before i make a choice on that.

[Mike Castle]

I think my issue more bristep was in the initial attempt to respond to my cases you were simply going "you didn't quote the whole thing, so you deliberately misquoted me" while in the second response you gave a better response to the case on you. Had you continued to just go "No, you misquoted me" then I'd still be calling for your lynch. As you gave honest responses, and I can see where you are coming from with them. I'm willing to trust you are likely town at this stage.

[Ron Simmons]

Dan, I think you posted earlier saying you weren't going to be about till later in the week, so for your benefit I'd like you to answer this question I asked earlier:

 

Interesting. So there's no double voter voting yet. I don't think it's me given the fact there was a double vote in place before I placed my vote yesterday, but when there's purpose in another vote count I'll place my vote on someone with none to see what happens.

 

Question time!

 

Dan Williams - Do you still "actively want the scum to win"? Also you made this statement earlier:

Owing to Chris B's last post, SMS has made only 6 posts so far where as Nexus has made around 30,

Chris B responded:

What are you on about? Nexus has made 7 posts, SMS has made 5.

Then you replied:

You are right I appologise I think I had nexus confused with yourself when I glanced at the list of posts, sorry if anyone found this misleading.

This kind of got overshadowed earlier, but why did you get nexus confused with Chris B of all people?

 

I know I haven't questioned everyone here, but there are so many players right now I've been selective. And please don't take any question of a dodgy action as an accusation, it's not - I'm just trying to create discussion.

 

And Wolfvinson, made any firm opinions yet?

[Dan Williams]

Dan, I think you posted earlier saying you weren't going to be about till later in the week, so for your benefit I'd like you to answer this question I asked earlier:

 

Interesting. So there's no double voter voting yet. I don't think it's me given the fact there was a double vote in place before I placed my vote yesterday, but when there's purpose in another vote count I'll place my vote on someone with none to see what happens.

 

Question time!

 

Dan Williams - Do you still "actively want the scum to win"? Also you made this statement earlier:

Owing to Chris B's last post, SMS has made only 6 posts so far where as Nexus has made around 30,

Chris B responded:

What are you on about? Nexus has made 7 posts, SMS has made 5.

Then you replied:

You are right I appologise I think I had nexus confused with yourself when I glanced at the list of posts, sorry if anyone found this misleading.

This kind of got overshadowed earlier, but why did you get nexus confused with Chris B of all people?

 

I know I haven't questioned everyone here, but there are so many players right now I've been selective. And please don't take any question of a dodgy action as an accusation, it's not - I'm just trying to create discussion.

 

And Wolfvinson, made any firm opinions yet?

 

Sure, The wanting scum to win was out of frustration as we couldn't come to any consensus at the time with who to vote off despite being into the last 24 hrs.

And the second point at the time I was skimming through the vote count it was quite late and just seemed to get chris and nexus mixed up, it actually happens to me quite abit when im scrolling through games with them 2 not sure why though as I say genuine mistake.

 

and

 

Unvote

 

Mod Request vote count

[Dan Williams]

Dan, I think you posted earlier saying you weren't going to be about till later in the week, so for your benefit I'd like you to answer this question I asked earlier:

 

Interesting. So there's no double voter voting yet. I don't think it's me given the fact there was a double vote in place before I placed my vote yesterday, but when there's purpose in another vote count I'll place my vote on someone with none to see what happens.

 

Question time!

 

Dan Williams - Do you still "actively want the scum to win"? Also you made this statement earlier:

Owing to Chris B's last post, SMS has made only 6 posts so far where as Nexus has made around 30,

Chris B responded:

What are you on about? Nexus has made 7 posts, SMS has made 5.

Then you replied:

You are right I appologise I think I had nexus confused with yourself when I glanced at the list of posts, sorry if anyone found this misleading.

This kind of got overshadowed earlier, but why did you get nexus confused with Chris B of all people?

 

I know I haven't questioned everyone here, but there are so many players right now I've been selective. And please don't take any question of a dodgy action as an accusation, it's not - I'm just trying to create discussion.

 

And Wolfvinson, made any firm opinions yet?

 

Sure, The wanting scum to win was out of frustration as we couldn't come to any consensus at the time with who to vote off despite being into the last 24 hrs.

And the second point at the time I was skimming through the vote count it was quite late and just seemed to get chris and nexus mixed up, it actually happens to me quite abit when im scrolling through games with them 2 not sure why though as I say genuine mistake.

 

and

 

Unvote

 

Mod Request vote count

[The Icon]

Is it bristep or bugsey we are fingering for having two votes, via process of elimination? Whichever it is, can you put a vote in somewhere so we can work out where the town's double vote is applicable?

[Retro Red]

Is it bristep or bugsey we are fingering for having two votes, via process of elimination? Whichever it is, can you put a vote in somewhere so we can work out where the town's double vote is applicable?

 

I don't think it was me, I've not seen any anomolies in the vote count where I've been included. Buggsy maybe?

[The Icon]

Is it bristep or bugsey we are fingering for having two votes, via process of elimination? Whichever it is, can you put a vote in somewhere so we can work out where the town's double vote is applicable?

 

I don't think it was me, I've not seen any anomolies in the vote count where I've been included. Buggsy maybe?

 

Upon closer inspection, yes it is bugsey (or at least his spot) that by logical deduction holds the double vote. It's no use to us in the hands of someone not playing the game, so come on bugsey, sort it out and clear this up.

 

 

Unvote

 

Vote Bugsey713