[Lucifer]

Let's lynch Idle today, then tomorrow look at who came in to defend him.

I think our second scum is Romanic, and my evidence is the fact that Romanic has come to Idle's defense. If you're town, especially on Day 1, you don't know who else is town, so you don't know who to defend. The only way you know who to defend is if you're scum, and you're going to defend a scum buddy that's taking some early heat. Scum wouldn't bother defending a townie like this on Day 1,because it's too easy to sit back and let the lynch happen.

Couple that with trying to cast suspicion on whomever is bringing the heat (namely, me) and you've got a pretty obvious, iron-clad scum tell.

Originally Posted by Romanic

@ Lucifer, moody mitchy & zuma

Did it cross your mind that Idle may not be claiming because he has a pro-Town role rather than a Scum?

I'm not seeing why not claiming makes him Scum, even if he often claims early.

In Dr. Seuss, Idle wrote:

Claiming 8 times out of 10 is different than claiming every time..

And it seems we're hearing about Day 1 claims in every game, even when there is no claim. It's so easy to bring up.

So which one of you is the scumbag trying to hit on Idle Thoughts with this weak argument?

-and-

Originally Posted by Romanic

Between the three players voting Idle, I'd say that zuma is less suspicious than the other two, for throwing the first vote.

moody's post is almost a smudge on Idle. He doesn't state his arguments against him (although it could be argued that they are implied/obvious), nor does he vote for him.

Lucifer's me too vote is suspicious, but I've seen Lucifer do similar things in 2 games (1 scum, 1 town), however it doesn't excuse the fact that his only post so far was this vote.

But again, this is just too easy. It's unlikely to me that three townies came up with the same behavior, with none apparently considering that Idle could have a pro-Town role and that it would be foolish to claim immediately.