Not sure what this means. If anything, I feel like I have to stop myself from questioning so much. If I haven’t been “chiming in”, I need you to point to a specific situation of what that looks like, and where I didn’t do it. I keep feeling like there’s too much Yog in this game as it is.

Well, yes, guilty. But gee… I wonder who else does that kind of thing? Can you think of anybody?
Usually on purpose. Can you figure out why I kept omitting your bit about “I still think he needs to be lynched”? How about because it’s WIFOMy nonsense, to say this and then refuse to vote. A statement like that is not material to my argument. Ergo, I ignore it and point out the facts instead.

What on earth does this mean? Can you give me an example of what “bothering to discover info” looks like? Is it sitting on the fence, posting bland drivel, making vague allusions to a future play that may or may not happen?

Please directly quote my overly complicated theory. Because right now, my main theory is that your behavior is scummy due to specific, factual voting behavior in day one and intentional lack of decisiveness (and change in information gathering method) in day two. It is true that if I present a scum-hunting theory, it’s my responsibility to effectively convince others of my findings. If I fail at that, it’s on me. But thus far, I find your defense as bland and non-specific as everything else you’ve posted on day two. If I had to guess, I would say your current strategy is to let me swing wildly and impale myself on my own sword, without ever having to construct a coherent defense. Possibly this will work – I don’t know.

Again, bland and meaningless. I never prove what I say? What does that mean? What does “proof” look like in a game of Forum Mafia… where even you were so totally “fooled” by adalia on day one? If we wait for iron-clad, forensic proof, this game will take a long time to play, indeed.

Bad play? Perhaps. I give my day one an A-. I ID’d adalia early, made efforts to further draw him out, and once two players I considered town-leaning voted, I felt even more confident. When he role-claimed, I thought it through very carefully and constructed a very logical argument on why he should be lynched. And I still voted for him. He flips scum, and I’m feeling pretty good about things.

Day two, OK, not so much greatness to be had. But I’m trying like hell, unlike half the players in this game. I take risks, I yap a lot (hope this doesn’t become a catchphrase, ha ha!), I bump into other players to see what shakes loose. If we all played like mrk describes as the “old-timers” posting once every 24 hours, this game would be unbearably boring.

I stand by my assessment that HijacK and trent are the scummiest players right now. Telika requested we start voting, so I placed my vote on my #1 candidate, and continue to believe it’s where it should be, given the limited information we have available to us. If I see HijacK begin to actively engage in what looks like scum-hunting behavior, then perhaps I will be forced to reconsider. But for now, I believe his total reversal on adalia and lack of insight on day two are painting his behavior as too inconsistent to not be deliberate.

Fair enough, and I hope this post goes some way to alleviating your concerns.