TiruinFirst thing, my non-vote-based reads are alongside my vote reads. I've highlighted them in green for your convenience:
Following my patent pending multi-vote scum hunting technique we should turn our gaze now on Tiruin and Dariush. But first a general comment: we've lynched four of our own so far, which is a pretty lousy track record. I want to be a bit more careful before throwing around any accusations. There are eight of us left. I want everyone's reads on everyone else.
Tiruin - I don't know what game he's playing. If he's mason and completely telling the truth then we're doomed. Vote record suggests scum.
Toaster - Vote record leans scum, crypto-lurks with short posts.
Dariush - Vote record leans scum (or taking into account voting blocks, mason), post record show angry strong scum hunting tendencies.
ZU - Vote record suggests town. Legacy arguments from Ford might be worth considering as he was convinced ZU was scum.
Hapah - active playing but standoffish in votes or applying pressure. Essentially a null read, leaning mason.
Obo - Lurker up for replacement. Voted consistently for DS, initially with good reason then later out of laziness. Could be anything.
DS - used to think was scum due to his irrational witch hunt on Ford. Could be mason, if Tiruin is telling the truth.
So, for the third time, can you give me your reads please?
Why did you take my claim point blank? I believe it's pretty obvious where it was coming from - but something seems wrong here.
I'm not taking your claim at face value, I'm just saying
hypothetically if you're telling the truth, it was a very bad move for you to make (which I'll explain for everyone below).
"Vote record suggests..."
How do these suggest anything?
Ugh, do I
really have to explain this point every time I post? OK one last time and I hope everyone is reading this because I'm not going to repeat myself.
1. Scum have an interest in lynching team town (i.e. masons and townies, hereafter referred to as 'the good guys')
2. Scum know who the good guys are.
From the lynch vote record we can see who has tried to lynch confirmed good guys. While most lynchers will be innocent, we can spot a pattern in the voting.
3. Only scum have an interest in consistently lynching good guys and the ability to know who is good to lynch
4. Consistently lynching good folk looks suspicious
5. Voting patterns show who looks suspicious
This method got it's first small confirmation with ZZ's lynch. Before I had voted for him, but then I went and had a look at the vote records and they showed that there were much more likely targets than ZZ and so I changed my vote. Low and behold, ZZ was town, as predicted.
I don't what crypto-psychological method you use for hunting scum but I've presented a concrete way to show suspicious activity.
If you don't agree with this method, then tell me
how do you hunt scum then? Because all I'm seeing you do is hunting town.
DSAlso, you love saying my vote on Ford was irrational. How so? Quotes, evidence, examples. You are not going to convince anyone without those.
That's a fair point I guess. Well, I had a look back and here we have some evidence:
On that note, I'm a mason. 
You're town, aren't you, Captain Ford?
Still makes no sense why he'd joke around as a Townie.
Yeah, I can see you still don't get it.
fa·ce·tious
Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant.
I didn't choose that word arbitrarily to describe it. It was deliberately and blatantly inappropriate. But I was also making a point when I said.
It was not "just a joke". It was not a serious claim, but I was making a serious point.
Here you claim your "I am a mason" wasn't a joke. Which you repeated quite a bit. Instead you claim you were making a serious point. Tell me, what point would that be.
Here you grill Ford over his (false) mason-claim. His serious point, that Tiruin is proving right now, is that a mason-claim is a null-tell. He made this pretty clear.
I won't judge you overly for questioning Ford's motivations at the time, you weren't to know he was town. Maybe jumping on him wasn't so much irrational, but over-zealous. Ford was just an honest townie trying to defend what he saw as a ridiculous attack on someone who he read as a fellow townie. That was all back on page ten so I think we can all probably move on from there. I'm sorry for calling your vote irrational, I should have said 'misplaced' or 'wrongfooted'.
Stop hiding behind Ford's actions, cases and lynches and do something yourself.
This is unfair: I've been the most active scumhunter out of everyone here by providing a logical basis for choosing targets. How do you think we should be hunting scum? Because however you've been doing it so far has been pretty lousy.
The danger for team town if Tiruin is telling the truthBy popular demand, here is a logically sound argument proving that if Tiruin is telling the truth then the good guys have lost:
Either we day-lynch masons, scum or townies. If Tiruin is telling the truth and people vote accordingly, we don't have the numbers to day-lynch masons, so we'll either try to lynch scum or townies. If we try to lynch scum, they will try to assassinate all the masons and if Tiruin is telling the truth, they will succeed. If they succeed, then it's a 3:2 town/scum game where scum decide ties: in this scenario, town are bound to lose. If we day-lynch town, then only masons will survive, and scum will kill the surviving masons. No matter who we try to lynch, if Tiruin is telling the truth and scum rely on this fact, then team town has lost.
Is that clearer now? I hope for all town's sake you're lying, Tiruin.
