Why not include it if you think you can pass yourself off as town? If he's neutral, he may think everyone has roles with adjectives and not including one would give him away. If he's scum, and they had a N0 chat or a day chat, he may know whether others have adjectives or not. And the biggest reason he might have included it, Ixam seems to have a tendency to post without consideration how others might view that post. He is a train-of-thought poster more than a carefully worded poster. I really don't think it's that big a deal. I don't think including that word proves he's town at all (WIFOM). But I do appreciate his reveal.

Frankly, I don't really see much of a point in this discussion at this point. i don't see myself voting Ixam today. I have him about 45%/35%/20% town/neutral/scum. His claim came off well to me.

As to Dessimu, my initial read through, nothing struck me as exceptionally off. This whole Docbear/Babark thing is trying up my game time. I was hoping to get a few ISOs in this weekend but I have Yogs and the MU players (and probably Quad) on my ISO list ahead Dessimu. Although from what I recall he may fall in the "active lurker" category which I've discussed earlier, but I'd have to do an ISO and I only have so much time for this game. So unless he becomes a serious lynch candidate, I'm not sure I'll find the time to get to him with 14 other players alive.

Is there a reason you feel the need to provide shade like the part I bolded above with your posts? I'm beginning to see why you are gathering a bit of suspicion. I'm not being obtuse, I don't think including the word or not is necessarily alignment indicative. Your insistence on bringing up "Unspecified" is starting to worry me like you are trying to pry out information about it.

Thank you for the explanation.

As for the other stuff, you could have bolded my first sentence which was "Perhaps I'm not asking clearly." I don't know which of us is responsible for the seeming miscommunication.

Aren't you the one who brought up "unspecified'? I asked you why he included compulsive. Pretty sure that was in your response, not the question. So I followed up.

Who's throwing shade at whom?

I'm having trouble parsing the RW/Barbark argument but I'm attempting right now. Bumps are appreciated but a bump from one of those two would be as exciting as what the good widow Marie did to me last page.

lulz.

Bump

Hey! I'm bumping him!

@Barbark, earlier you stated this, implying that you thought that people pushing the wagon against you were pushing a flimsy case. RW pointed out that you were the one calling it flimsy, which I took to mean that he was pointing out that saying "I'm not OMGUSing, all the people pushing a case on me are pushing bad ones" (which was not exactly what you said but I'm too distracted to look back now and you get my point I hope) on its own is not only entirely subjective but also something you're sort of supposed to say regardless of alignment (an innocent person usually doesn't agree with theories that have him as evil). Why are the cases against you flimsy? What makes you think the reasons people are pushing you aren't reasons they believe in?

Still appreciate bumps, it just makes me feel like people are reading my posts and want to see more for some reason.

I'll let you bump him, I feel kind of awkward bumping him ;-)

Let's see, maybe I brought up unspecified after you all of a sudden called me out for not answering your question in post 824 about the word unspecified, or the fact you brought it up yet again in post 970.

Let's see how this transpired, shall we?

We discussed Ixam back on post #824 and before...

You make about a dozen posts over the next two days and then this morning on #927 you write how I'm "pinging you hard" and mysteriously bring up an unanswered question from earlier in post #824. I don't think this is an accident. Sure seems to me you are trying to gauge support for my lynch and throw out a sideways accusation I was evading your questions.

We have a back and forth and in post #970 you even talk about unspecified yourself.
Yet now you are trying to twist it as if I can't shut up about "unspecified" when you merely want to talk about "compulsive".

It sure seems like an attempt at a subtle set-up to me.

And all this over two words that are part of the same claim...

----------------

@Babark Maybe I can look at all the possibilities. I was simultaneously considering the options...
1) Docbear/Babark is scum buddies with Ixam and that statement was meant to take pressure off him.
2) Only Docbear is scum and is trying to cast shade on all those voting for Ixam.
3) Docbear is town and the statement came out all wrong somehow.

I don't know which is which. Why? Because I am Town and almost by definition I am uninformed. And Drealmer won't let me use my God power until tonight when I can learn the faction of every player in the game in one shot. I don't look at the game as black and white. I'm trying to look at all the possibilities and figure out what is most likely. It would be far easier to be scum, then I'd know which is which and could probably make a clearer argument. It would be nice if I somehow knew you were scum for sure. I was more evenly split between #1 and #2, but after Ixam's claim, I more convinced its option #2. Either way, I think your lynch is the most likely to nab a wolf.

I was just teasing. Actually kinda needed to go do other things. ;)

But it appears he's not posting anyway.

___

Side note/general thoughts, I actually agree, despite the flavor, that town dayvig is probably the best explanation, particularly after the clarification that it wasn't a mod-kill. A few things about it are intriguing.

Among other things, it does tend to suggest we'll see flips from lynch, and hopefully also NKs.

Adultery is already happening so it's not like we have to be careful about who is currently bumping who, you know.

Barbark's argument about RW suspecting him for the daytalk and then for the slip and pushing that into a read where he suspects him for "evolving" seems kind of ridiculous; the problem with those arguments is that slip arguments kind of suck in general not that he found two things that were questionable with one statement.

I apologize. When I go back and read what I wrote with care you are 100% correct.

I wanted to ask about the compulsive part, and had it in mind that's what I had asked. Even went back intending to cut/paste the quote at you.

It wasn't a trap or an attempt to throw shade - why would I intentionally do that on something that could be easily disproven with my own words?

It was seriously an honest misunderstanding/recollection that I had asked a different question - the one I wanted to ask but failed to. Your reaction is wholly understandable. Will reassess with that cleared up.

Mea culpa.

"It appears he is not posting anyway".
In my heart I knew you weren't the one and that I'd reconcile with Mary, but I didn't think that you would bore of me THAT quickly.

To look at you I would say yes humour is VERY important in a relationship ;-)