Because it did not follow format per Rule 4. Not sure how tightly we are sticking to the rules.

Read back through the thread.
Is this the first time an unvote has been written in this manner?

See post 15, 160, 214, 215.
And that's just in day 1.

No, I thought not.

Kinda makes me wonder where you're going with this.
You seem to have decided I am guilty & struggling to find evidence, so trying to manufacture some...

Just the first time its been important.

I thought I have been pretty clear on where I am going. But if it needs further clarification... Yup, I am pretty sure youre scum.

As for manufacture, I also made it clear that I was asking and if it was not the case then it held no validity. Once again, I feel pretty clearly stated.

I haven't been voting because of the fact that it only takes 5 votes to lynch. If we have 3 mafia then all townies are essentially at L-2 without any votes.
Just because I didn't formally FOS someone (which has no real meaning) doesn't mean I haven't highlighted the people I find suspicious.
Xyem and Rod were my most recent scummy reads.

^ this^

No I won't.
You should vote. I am not saying right now but I started to doubt if you all ever intend to use it. That's why I "prodded" you. I am quite satisfied as it made at least muttly to post.

@muttly; yes I meant today as on D4. And no, I wouldn't vote pazzer if Rod was still voting him.

Yeah, but you have to use it eventually because we won't get nowhere without it and if you are afraid to vote, well, that's ideal oppportunity for FOSing even if you don't usually use it (I don't use it either) because if everyone will just observe we will be just staring at each other and won't find anything. You have to open your cards a bit.

I'm afraid the reads are not that useful, since the only time I got to talk to him was N1... He felt Orry wouldn't be lying with that claim, thought Vitek was probably town, and got a scummy vibe from baz. He was unsure about Pazzer and TwilightBard, and said Muttly was definitely playing like a lyncher. <_<

I looked up la li lu le lo and was alarmed to find you'd made a reference to a hidden force who secretly control people...

My role wouldn't be so harsh if the mafia hadn't picked off the poor old woman right away..! As it is, yes, it's kind of naff. I'm still playing with enthusiasm because I'm having a lot of fun and I don't want to waste my first time playing this, and it's the mafia's fault I can't win, so I'd really quite like to see them swing...

... o.o Alert. I can think of a situation which would explain why you've already seen the "Little Girl" phrase, and it's not encouraging. I'm beginning to wonder if this was a slip...

I dont trust the Rod/Rabbit claims... too cheery, with a faint hint of orchestration... I'm sceptical that a Fortune Teller would have a magical item like a wand.

@Rabbit, do you have any more detail on the wand? Did you go into Rod's home? If so what did you see?

Vitek: Unsure. Twice mentioned something without verifying his facts first - the character thing (it caught me out), but also Rabbit's 2-night rest restriction. Small issues, but distracting ones which could have snowballed if no one had paid attention...

Rod: Unsure. Is throwing out a LOT of slightly wild accusations and theories - looking to provoke a slip, or looking to distract us?

Leaving for home now, more later...

Oh blow it. I can't keep all this in any longer. I feel like this is a risk, but I'm not sure why. Here's my case against Xyem.

a) He's playing extremely defensively - posted more spontaneously towards the beginning of today, but tailed off. What posts there are are not that substantial, and give the impression of contributing to discussion without actually advancing any theories. E.g. post 516 gives no opinion on Pazzer while seeming to do so (my underlining) -
Either he's acting in town's interest, or he's scum. Aren't we all?
Another example is the contradiction in the power roles / experienced players question.
On the subject of the nightkills, he seems to share Muttly's opinion that the targets were chosen based on experienced players. The fact that two out of three had power roles doesn't seem to figure in his explanation. Both of them seem to be reluctant to consider the possibility of a mafia role cop, or similar -
However, this is a contradiction with his defence in #546 -
So it makes "the most sense" to NK the experienced players, but it's far more reasonable that those who didn't participate in the lynch didn't get NKed because they didn't have power roles?

b) I'm wondering if he could be faking the post restriction... Orry and Rod both broke theirs... I'm wondering if a bit more pressure might encourage xyem to be a bit more helpful. At the moment, these hints are causing a lot of confusion and needless argument (the "not a comparable analogy" moment for one...)

c) Speaking of which: he claims to want to avoid another argument:
... but pressured me in order to get a response to the mafia-warned-off-the-bandwagon issue, first by posting something I interpreted as quite rude and therefore ignored (#564), then by voting for me. I responded to the vote pressure, but didn't answer the question (#597). He removed his vote anyway (#581). I can only conclude that he was more after an argument than the information.*

d) Has not yet offered any real reads - Rabbit pointed out in her original case on D2 that this is supposed to be scumtell...

Everyone: Please tear this all apart and see what sticks! I already think a) is kind of tenuous and open to interpretation, but I'm leaving it in for transparancy's sake and to see what it provokes.

Unvote Pazzer

--

* Since I brought up the subject, here's the response I typed out :

... Here're the posts I'm talking about. First, Rod's original:

"jumped on" and "warned off".

And here are the subsequent references:

Conclusions:

1) I introduce the phrase "stayed off", and you introduce the phrase "jumped off". We're actually both interpreting Rod's "warned off". This is presumably what you describe as bending.

2) Following your interpretation of Rod's statements actually points at no one, since Rabbit didn't vote for Orry on D2 (she didn't "jump off" the wagon).

3) This leads me to wonder why you reacted so strongly to a post which was not only phrased in the conditional (IF Rod is right, a and b would be mafia), but was also not followed up. I even pointed out in #550 that Rod is targetting Rabbit, and I voted for Pazzer.

4) Furthermore, thanks to the interpretation in 1), you use the occasion to not only defend youself, but to implicate Rabbit.

I mean: Unvote Pazzer

-_-

You just completely ignored everything after 'and', didn't you?
I was advancing a theory.. that pazzer knows more about the game setup than anyone else which was suspicious to me. I threw the idea out there to see if anyone would agree that it was suspicious.

What? My "contradictory comment" wasn't even in defense. I was just pointing out that your reasoning was very flawed. It is far more reasonable that we were still alive because we didn't have power roles than because of our votes. It has nothing to do with being experienced players or not, it was just flawed reasoning.

Yes, because it is far more likely that I would mention my "fake" post restriction (#66) before finding out that other people had post restrictions which turned out to be real than it to actually be a real post restriction.

You ignored that because you thought it was rude? I thought you didn't respond because you didn't want to draw attention to the fact that you did exactly what you said you wasn't going to do.
Actually, I voted for you to get a response. You gave me a response, saying that you didn't comment on it because you wanted to focus on pressuring pazzer for information. I explicitly stated that I was removing the vote so you could continue your plan. If I was after an argument, I would have continued to pester you, not dropped it so we could get some information to use. Your conclusion is, quite demonstrably, miles off.

I don't have "real reads" because I'm new to the game and I haven't had any positive feedback on my suspicions. In game #7, pushing my own suspicion without feedback got a fellow townie killed. Guess what? I'm playing this one more cautiously because I don't want that to happen again!

Very simple explanation for this:

1) Your "bending" of this was to also include those that stayed off and because you explicitly said you were following his reasoning, it looked very much like you added it only to get the finger pointing at me too (with no explanation as to why you were adding it).
2) I didn't check (and still haven't) if littlerabbit had been on the wagon or not.. I took it that she had from Rods wording (warned off).
3) I reacted so strongly because 1) you seemed to be arbitrarily targeting me and 2) your logic didn't follow Rods when you claimed you were (taking into account the above). Ask anyone who has talked to me for any period of time.. I'm a pedant and I point out when people do illogical things :P
4) Any implication was entirely accidental (see #2) so sorry to littlerabbit for that.

Now a question to you (I'm taking your unvote on pazzer to mean your not pursuing that any longer).. why have you decided to wait until now to bring up this? I could have explained this (and been corrected) ages ago :/

Vitek, Muttly, Rodzaju, LittleRabbit and Xyem stand out the most for me.

Am surprised more of an effort wasn't made to lynch me. As i've provided plenty of ammo and it seems most people have doubts that i'm town. Could it be the mafia knew I needed an extra vote today.

NotFrenchYet's switch to Xyem is sudden. Saying only a few posts ago how wanted to keep pressure up on me and not get sidetracked. But now going after Xyem, unvoting me though didn't vote him.

@Rodzaju can you give an idea of the flavour for results and of your role

@NotFrenchYet did Violator give a reason he believed Orry's claim?
What do you think the situation that would explain where SirPrimalform saw little girl is?

Not sure why Vitek is trying to get people to vote. Surely if there posting and giving their reads it doesn't matter if they vote.

Role:
I'm old.
Apparently, the king & queen came to me seeking a fortune reading before ascending to the throne. I gave them both good fortune & this has been borne out by the many happy years they ruled before the current situation.

Night 1:
Theres a poem that I'm not going to type out (rule 9), but basically I ask the spirits of the air & land & ask about Frenchie.
I am told that she will not die today.
I should point out that I asked Joe about whether this meant the standard good fortune, or indeed that Frenchie could not be lynched.
He apologised for the misleading info & confirmed good fortune.

Night 2:
A very similar poem.
I am told that Xyem must take great care, for his future is clouded & his life could be snuffed.

Night 3:
That flippin' poem again.
I am told that you have happiness in your future.
Presumably a different result to avoid the previous confusion.

So no mention of any tools of the trade or wands.

None at all.
This is why I hadn't noticed it was gone....

Ah, I see where you are going.
Indeed why would rabbit be able to steal something that I never needed & didn't realise I owned?
On the other hand, (assuming that she IS telling the truth) Joe would have to give her something....