Ah, arguing semantics - the height of every mafia game. I figured you were going to take that path.

So, using your handy-dandy definitions, we can roughly paraphrase "It reads like a call to lynch lurkers to me" to "I interpret it as the same or nearly the same as a call to lynch lurkers", no?

(The above quotes are all from Stuart's #339, I've just listed them as separate quotes to make sure they all show up. GOG's forum software isn't the most quote-friendly I've experienced. I've also changed the italics in Stuart's quotes (which didn't show up due to those parts being shown as quotes in his own post) to bold, to keep the emphasis. If you quote Stuart's post you can see the italic tags as they were intended.)

Since we're arguing semantics... Two relevant words: "to me".
"It reads like a call to lynch lurkers to me" is not equivalent to "[...]it is possible to interpret [it] as Zchinque calling for lynching lurkers."
The first says something about how you yourself interpret something, while the second is a general statement about how it is possible for someone to interpret something. In the latter you leave yourself the possibility - or should I say wiggle room - to claim that you personally didn't interpret it in that way.

Oh, nice backtracking by the way.

I'd hardly call it "carefully edited", but let's roll with it.
It was part of a question to Rob, yes, the first part of which I omitted in my original quote. As such you are technically correct to claim that I took the quote out of context. The part I omitted was this:
Which I didn't, and still don't, consider relevant to my use of your quote. I'm sure most will agree that there is a difference between taking something out of (any) context, and taking it out of relevant context.
In other words, I don't see how that part of the question that I omitted changes the meaning of "It reads like a call to lynch lurkers to me" in any significant way. If anything, I'd say it further shows that you meant I was calling for a lurker lynch, when you say "Zchinque is at the very least complicit in this [lurker voting]. calling for any voting at all.".
Also, if you felt I quoted you out of (a relevant) context, why didn't you bring that up in post #308, where you respond to my quote?
In the very same post you even say:
(emphasis mine)
which seems strange, considering you now claim to find the quote which, I iterate, you responded to in the very same post so very scummy?
Or are you perhaps just grasping at straws?

I assume you here mean how I allegedly took your quote out of context.
I feel I have answered to that.

How have I misrepresented you? Or is this the one about taking things out of context? If so, then how have I misquoted you?

This doesn't even mean anything.

Unvote, vote Stuart. If someone wants to misapply OMGUS here, go right ahead.

@Vitek: This is what I meant by the two peas in a pod. In a flash of soothsaying I foresaw us both voting for Stuart in the near future.

Also, unless I'm very mistaken, that puts Stuart at 5 votes (CrazyBear and Red Baron according to the votecount in #312, Vitek in #330 itai in #337, and now me), with 7 to lynch, so I think it's time to ask for a claim. I'm guessing he won't do it to my asking though, so if anyone else feels it's time, please ask.

I hope all the quote tags come out okay... :/

I concur with the claim request, with as many people still not reponding as we have I can easily see you going very quickly now.

Generally, I am against claiming as it puts the town at disadvantage.
I say, claim only if two more people say they are going to vote for you.

Actually, according to that guide thing for beginners: claim only if it will be really bad for town if you die and claim with good reason (like if you die we'll have 2 nights in a row or something.... hint to earlier game eh?). I remember discussions about it being bad play when people automatically claimed when they hit L2/L1.

I say instead some more explanation from Stuart in regards of Zchinque's argument.

I agree with Red_Baron. Claim as soon as someone gets to L-2 shouldn't be automatic thing. I don't like when someone is pushed to L-2 only to get claim even when people don't intend to lynch him.
My vote is not firm one so you can count yourself at L-2.5 if you want.
I would like to hear more explanations, though.

it's 11:06 here now, so the deadline is 36 hours away. Hopefully the timestamp on this post will help those in different timezones.

I'd rather not lynch Stuart (because it seems to me that a contradiction is more of a mistake than a scumtell - I can't see why anyone would think it's a good idea to purposefully lie about whether or not they said something; especially something as trivial as 'it reads like a call to lynch lurkers'. That he admit to a mistake makes me doubt but still, it seems trivial and overblown) in favour of lynching Orryyrro on principle.
I'd prefer most of all to lynch NMillar but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

Trivial I say! And Overblown! that's my stance on the current affairs.

it's 11:17 on the clock.

Votecount:

5 - Stuart9001 (Zchinque, Vitek, Crazybear, Red Baron, Itai.sharim)
2 - Orryyrro (Muttly, Pazzer)
2 - Zchinque (Orry, Peanutbrittle)
2 - Muttly13 (Robbeasy, Nmillar)
1 - Crazybear (Stuart)
1 - Nmillar (JoeSapphire)

Not voting:

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Deadline is 11pm GMT 6 January.

That is indeed 36 hours from now.

"That he admit to a mistake"

This is a quoted portion of my most recent post.
It should read 'That he didn't admit to a mistake'
Sorry to cause such chaos.
(But there you see it: EVEN I can make mistakes. EVEN I.)

I'm very against lynching Stuart out of principle. Everyone here keeping going on about how they don't want to punish an active player, yet suddenly we have five votes on one of the most active players out there. Seems a little hypocritical, and a little bit like an old boy's club (against lynching vet players for one reason, pro lynching newbies for the same reason).

If you read all of his posts, not just the one where he made a contradiction, you see that he''s A) new and B) trying very hard to find scum. I just don't think a new player would be quite masterful enough to pull off a double cross that well. Maybe I'm underestimating him, but that's how I roll. I'm firmly in the he is town camp.

That being said, he really needs to get in here and explain himself, and when he does do his best to no sound hysterical. Unfortunately, I'm worried that won't happen.

If we must lynch a lurker, I'm only for Orryyrro based on post 343 period. But not stuart.

No further explanation forthcoming, I doubt anyone will take anything a noob has to say as comparable to the opinion of Zchinque, not when that opinion has turned a trivial matter into an issue that will save a few sorry lurker asses.

My final comment, just to show how selective you all are.

Are you aware of the timezone issue? Not to mention that some of us have families, and have to work to feed them. You may have 24 hours a day to play this I don't. Whats that you say, "I voted him because he didn't respond and stalled the game", who else has done that - for three days, with obtaining the Vitek vote of approval, Mmmmmm I wonder. Hypocrite..... Self contradictory hypocrite.

Thats just a recent example of others making blatant self contradictory statements.

@Joe: thank you for at least noticing that a trival issue is being made into the bandwagon that ensures a lynch occurs.

There will be no claim made because I can't be bothered.

Oh stop... There is only so far the newb/master thing will take you. I for one think Zs posting is horrendous as he never puts anything straight out and you have to pry it out of him. Playstyle or not it certainly seems scummy at first glance to me. And you final comment makes it seem like you have already retired, not exactly prompting people to care about reconsidering their vote on you. Dont just lay down and die because some votes have piled up.

I will not be voting on Stuart not because I think he leans town per say, but I find the "contradiction" argument in general to be weak in the face of someone like Orry and now CrazyBear who still say virtually nothing and silently smirk as someone else gets lynched.

That said, combined with your "cant be bothered" attitude and refusal to claim I really think you have to claim now. You are almost inviting people to dare to vote you.

Yes, but just before this game started the general mafia admin thread posted the Beginner's Guide to Claiming. Claiming shouldn't be done unless at L-1 with someone stating that they're willing to drop the hammer, or in situations where it will bring information that helps the town.

I don't like your attitude, stuart.

You are just begging to get lynched.

I am unsure about this, though, as I have bad feeling about some people just letting this (mis?)lynch happen while just observing it.

Care to say anything about, you know, the game?