Open 193 - Friends and Enemies: It's over!
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Obvious joke vote, VP.VP Baltar 45 wrote:
que?Amished wrote:IT'S CAUSE HE KNOWS THAT VI IS TOWN. And that you're scum, VP... Either way, he's your partner then so therefore
Scien 46 wrote:VIScien 47 wrote:(Yes the double capitalization was intentional)Daykill: Scien-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Yes, I do; and no, it doesn't.Scien 49 wrote:So... do you always put the L-# on your votes Vi? Seems to take pressure off when you are early on a wagon... like now.
I find it dubious that you apparently consider PorkchopExpress a wagon when you put the third vote on me.
@VP Baltar: It makes sense in context, although it's a bit wordy.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
1. I'll come back to this later.Zorblag 53 wrote:1. What was your role in the aborted version of this game?
2. Did you know before the game started that Friends and Enemies is intended to be run with 3 mafia and 3 masons?
2. I wouldn't have noticed if you hadn't said anything. I did visit the wiki page for unrelated reasons a few days before this game started, but I was more interested in Friends and Enemies and Enemies and That Other Guy (for obvious reasons).-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
It's not, actually. I was concerned with whether you would hold to your earlier statement that my (L-5) call is anti-Town on policy.Scien 67 wrote:
Meh, not too scary if that is the point you are trying to make.Vi wrote:Scien, tell me what you think of this.
As we've seen, you didn't. This grounds the only halfway-meritorious part of your "case" there.
Yet your vote is still on me, indicating that you still think I'm most likely to be scum... or, given the strength of your case, that you're not interested in scumhunting.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Yes. I do.Scien 73 wrote:You really think that I would have a secondary case on someone this early?
Scien 73 wrote:You are attacking me for not having a case on you... what about VPs vote, what about Ojanens? What is different about my initial vote? Why am I different than other random votes. Just the fact that I alone asked you a question after my vote? One that later was explained satisfactorily.Your vote wasspecial
VP Baltar and Ojanen didn't bother to explain their votes. Your vote partially raised my "interest" becausedeliberate insults tend to do that, and partly because you then decided to push a reason onto your vote thatwasexplained, albeit not satisfactorily.
A similar question could be asked of you. There are now more people voting you than there were voting me. Why is my vote worth more attention?
And you'll notice I didn't reply to your trumped-up accusation. It was essentially the same thing you said earlier, but in a more menacing tone.Scien 73 wrote:You really thought that vote was due to a case? Why didn't I post a case with that vote? Only after mypressurevote did I ask you about an element of your play. Only after you told me I was not worth replying to did I trump it up to make you reply.
So we're on the same page, your position is:
*I'm not particularly scummy
*You don't know who else could possibly be scummy after two pages
*You think you're being "picked on" by me in particular, and three other people in general
Correct?-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Technicality, etc.Scien 76 wrote:
I didn't explain my vote until post 73. I did however question a play of yours after I voted. I hadn't used it in a case at that point, and I never said my vote was due to the suspicions my question was designed to investigate.Vi wrote:VP Baltar and Ojanen didn't bother to explain their votes. Your vote partially raised my "interest" because deliberate insults tend to do that, and partly because you then decided to push a reason onto your vote that was explained, albeit not satisfactorily.
Please show me where I said that the reason I voted you is because you place l-#s on your votes. You won't be able to. In fact, thisentirediscussion started after my vote. It didn't prompt my vote, or even relate to it until you all said that it was a case tied to my vote, which is incorrect.
My vote was no different than theirs other than it was later, and that I asked a question outside it as well.
Your vote became different when you pressed me for scum.
I'm pretty positive that wasn't what I was saying.Scien 76 wrote:
You are suggesting that I investigate myself since I have more people on me now? I don't need to, I know my role. However I don't know yours.Vi wrote:A similar question could be asked of you. There are now more people voting you than there were voting me. Why is my vote worth more attention?
There are four people voting you. What makes my vote so different that you're pressing me exclusively?
You DO realize I was voting someone for non-random reasons before I switched to you. In addition, I'm curious as to whether SerialClergyman is playing this game, or is posting in the wrong thread.Scien 76 wrote:You have cases on two people here on page 2? Holy crap you are good. You don't have to give the case if you think I am deflecting, but who is number 2?
Does that even matter?Scien 76 wrote:Did I say that I thought you were 'picking on me?'-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Wrong press. I'm talking about what you said immediately after voting me, about the (L-#).Scien 80 wrote:
Heh. I asked you a question. You said you didn't want to even respond. I pressed. You wanted me to what, just shut up?Vi wrote:Your vote became different when you pressed me for scum.
...after looking at it again, I don't think I was correct here. Apologies, etc.Scien 80 wrote:
You are the one that brought it up. I was just curious about the reasons why? I didn't recall acting like your attacks were unfair, I don't know of any reasons why you would ask me if I thought so. Were you just testing if I would add something ridiculous to my current concerns?Vi wrote:Does that even matter?-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
It could pass as an accusation, yes... and you DID make it an accusation soon afterward. Considering you had just gotten done saying DIE VScien 86 wrote:
So after a question that was pretty much a play style question, my vote's meaning changes? I made no accusations based off it yet. That was all part of the trump up to get you to respond to me.Scien wrote:So... do you always put the L-# on your votes Vi? Seems to take pressure off when you are early on a wagon... like now.I-SCUM, one would expect your next post to be in that same tone.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Your vote was not random, but the reason behind it wasn't quite solid. Did you have another reason for voting SerialClergyman?PorkchopExpress 94 wrote:@Vi: Apparently your first vote was non-random. Can we take this to mean it was serious? If so, your suspicions are based on what exactly?
There's someone else who hasn't commented on the exchange that you're missing.PorkchopExpress 94 wrote:I'd like to hear from DDD and ABR on the Scien/Vi exchange.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Votecount as of this post:
Vi(2): Ojanen, Scien
SerialClergyman(2): Sando, PorkchopExpress
Albert B. Rampage(2): SerialClergyman, Zorblag
Sando(1): Debonair Danny DiPietro
Scien(4): Amished, Vi, VP Baltar, charlatan
VP Baltar(1): Albert B. Rampage
With 12 alive it's 7 to lynch.
...in which case you would...?Albert B. Rampage 98 wrote:There's nothing for me to comment on until the two are willing to bet their life that the other is scum.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
I haven't played with Albert B. Rampage before. Please remind me, state the obvious, etc.Albert B. Rampage 103 wrote:Do I have to remind you all that I am Albert B. Rampage? To make me state the obvious is to waste my time.
You voted for SerialClergyman for a reason (specifically, he had not confirmed twice as far as you saw). That would be not-random; you had a reason for voting for him.PorkchopExpress 104 wrote:@Vi: How was my vote not random?-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
I was referring to PorkchopExpress himself here. (Yes, I forgot about you. If there's anyone else left out I forgot about them too.)Zorblag 114 wrote:Also, most people would take the following to mean that there's just one person you had in mind:
Was that your intent?Vi wrote:
There's someone else who hasn't commented on the exchange that you're missing.PorkchopExpress 94 wrote:I'd like to hear from DDD and ABR on the Scien/Vi exchange.
Good choice of words. For what it's worth,Ojanen 115 wrote:The Scien/Vi argument looked boring on the surface. Felt generally a little weary of mafia.
Would you like for me to break down how I read Scien's post and how I came to say what I did?Sando 110 wrote:I'm not sure how anyone else expected Scien to react, but I get pretty annoyed when someone is as condescending to a post of mine to say 'your post doesn't even warrent an answer'.
(Admittedly I went overboard on the condescension, but that's a terrible habit I need to work on on my own time.)
---
Unvote: Scien(L-5)
Vote: Sando-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Votecount as of this post:
Vi(2): Ojanen, Scien
SerialClergyman(1): PorkchopExpress
Albert B. Rampage(1): SerialClergyman
Sando(2): Debonair Danny DiPietro, Vi
Scien(3): Amished, VP Baltar, charlatan
VP Baltar(1): Albert B. Rampage
PorkchopExpress(1): Sando
Ojanen(1): Zorblag
With 12 alive it's 7 to lynch.
Frustration, ingame and otherwise. Feel free to ignore me when I get like this.Ojanen 121 wrote:
Why? What did you try to communicate with this comment?Vi wrote:
Good choice of words.Ojanen 115 wrote:The Scien/Vi argument looked boring on the surface. Felt generally a little weary of mafia.
Ojanen 121 wrote:
I didn't get this line, specifically the thought connection before and after when. What did you mean?Vi 51 wrote:I find it dubious that you apparently consider PorkchopExpress a wagon when you put the third vote on me.
Observe Scien calling my lonely vote on PorkchopExpress a wagon. Now consider that Scien put a third vote on me for "DIE VI-SCUM".Scien 49 wrote:So... do you always put the L-# on your votes Vi? Seems to take pressure off when you are early ona wagon... like now.
Also, thanks for using my post reference system
---
While I suppose I deserved the condescending response from Sando, it falls in line with the previously-seen active lurking.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
First paragraph: Yes.Sando 132 wrote:
Is that your response to my request for reasoning on your vote? Are you accusing me of active lurking and that's why you voted me?Vi wrote:While I suppose I deserved the condescending response from Sando, it falls in line with the previously-seen active lurking.
Porkchopexpress, it worries me because I do not believe it was random. You may claim that my assumptions are incorrect, but I cannot see how the vote and the reasoning can possibly be arrived at randomly.
Second paragraph: Considering that was the premise of my random vote 100 posts ago, I don't disagree... however, it looks like you're scavenging my point in an attempt to look like you have some purpose for being in this thread.
--
I don't -like- being frustrated with people, and I'm kind of worried that you consider it to be my default personality...Ojanen 133 wrote:That's the second time you've used a tangential positive tone regards to something I did...who are you and what did you do to Vi
I've no experience with WoW. I'll come back to this after I look some things up.ABR 138 wrote:Hey guys, unrelated but important question: if you were a horde race in world of warcraft, which one would you be? Orc, Tauren, Troll, Undead, Goblin, Elf, Dragon, Ogre? Please answer!
...ABR 138 wrote:Yeah I hate making useless posts-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
"All the way up until now" sounds good.Sando 145 wrote:Vi, accusing someone of active lurking on page 5 is utterly ludicrous. This seems like you've just come up with something that sounds good but requires literally no evidence (which you haven't provided), just to make yourself look town. Want to tell me where I've been lurking?
Isolated post #4: Useless spam.
Isolated post #5: Vaguely related comment to the Vi-Scien ordeal while pushing onto something completely unrelated (see charlatan's post) and unoriginal in an attempt to look like you're doing something.
Isolated post #6: Blustering reaction against an honest question of mine to attempt to make me look bad.
Isolated post #7: See #5.
At least ABR, SerialClergyman, etc. aren't trying to put up the pretense that they're interested in scumhunting. Your attempts to participate look entirely superficial.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Could I ask why? VP Baltar seems like the only sane person here.SerialClergyman 166 wrote:No, I'm serious about Baltar. I like a jovial atmosphere early D1 because I find if I get bogged down in irritable or prickly discussion it only serves to amplify confirmation bias. But out of everyone, I think VP's the scummiest so far.
Tying in somewhat with Amished's strongeness, what do you think of ABR so far?
@ABR: That... sounds like basic Mafia play. I'm not against it, but randomly voting VP Baltar doesn't serve that purpose very well at all.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
SerialClergyman, could you please elaborate on your meta on Sando?
First paragraph: While I acknowledge that VP Baltar was incorrect in Sando sayingSerialClergyman 187 wrote:See, it's rubbish comments like that one from VP that I don't like. He's not bitching about a lack of content, he's making a specific accusation against you. His argument said you are hypocritical for attacking someone for only having a gut reason when you yourself have used mostly gut so far to come to your reads. This is scumhunting, or what passes for it early on D1.
You also invoked lynch all liars for what barely passed for a 'lie', you were surprised Albert was touchy when being accused of scum, alluded to meta reasons for suspecting Albert but produced none when asked, Didn't join the Albert wagon until there was someone else on it.
So yep, you're the scummiest person around at the moment, just on the usual D1 straws.
Vi, expand on your VP read - what do you think of these issues I raise?in that postthat there was no content to be seen anywhere in the thread, and the point made by Sando here is worthwhile, it was an easy mistake to make because Sando was previously complaining aboutexactly that.
Second paragraph: The first point, I agree with; tacking "LAL" onto the vote to give it legitimacy rings false. I disagree with your second point, based on what little I know of ABR's meta. I'm leaning toward agreeing on the third point, as while VP Baltar was well within his boundaries to argue that ABR is an experienced player, he completely ignored that ABR has his own brand of meta working for him (see also Ojanen 197). The fourth point is true but not much of a tell in my experience.
There are a few reasons to suspect VP Baltar, but I very much prefer my Sando hate - especially when accusations like these are on the VP Baltar wagon.Scien 202 wrote:Pretty sure of yourself eh? Sure of one scum pairing on page 5... And sure that it is chainsaw defense instead of him buddying me... Dang you are good. Got information that I don't to help you be so good?
----Scien 202 wrote:Are you trying to do the tried and true 'everyone loves to try and lynch me in day 1' shtick?
In that case, I'll hang on to every word you say~DDD 193 wrote:I do play a reactive game and I tailor my style to the players I'm playing with. If I'm ICing a newbie game then I'm going to push the pace and be aggresive because most newbies don't know they need to contribute. But playing in a game with VPB, Vi, and SC (amongst others) I know I don't need to be the one to push the pace because they're very comfortable taking that role. We've had what, four days for this game?I'm just waiting to see something I view as scummy to start running with.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Re: DDD - I've heard "most helpful lurker" before... from DDD-scum in Appenine Mafia. Fool me once, etc.
Also, I didn't say "hang you on every word you say"
SerialClergyman's meta on you is becoming a big deal - and what's interesting is that it's not SC bringing it up.Sando 210 wrote:Vi - Just out of curiosity, why are you asking for SCs meta on me? I don't mean what you expect to get out of it, I understand that, but what has prompted you to ask, what posts etc?
I would like to hear the orange dino's take on your play and other people bringing up your interaction with him.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
That's strange. The first post where you said anything about VP Baltar beingAlbert B. Rampage 223 wrote:I find VPB unhelpful and more of a eyesore than anything else, so I won't be missing him once he's gone. Scien hasn't done anything to bother me.scummy(225) came after this one.
When did VP Baltar stop becoming a lynch of convenience and start becoming the scumlynch that you're pushing now?(I'm sure the English there is poor but etc.)-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
He didn't accuse you first thing. He only made things personal when you defended a point that he saw as blatantly wrong.SerialClergyman 237 wrote:What was weird to me about the exchange with VP was that, at least form my perspective, he made a bad point on Sando, I pointed it out and he went straight to 'you're full butt hurt for your friend'. No looking at other games I've played with sando where were town-town fought and scum accused, no acknowledgement that in the game he's drawing his conclusions off I was right and the wagon I was pushing instead was scum that was never lynched. And I barely said anything in sando's favour, my main point was that VP was deflecting with a shallow attack.
It doesn't feel right from him.
For what it's worth, I can gather from the linked game that you playing Sando's oracle can get frustrating quickly. Furthermore, it's not exactly VP Baltar's civic duty to research the history of your relationship with Sando if he hasn't played in those games.
--
@charlatan - Why aren't you voting VP Baltar?-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Regarding charlatan vs. VP Baltar+ABR: I understood your answer to my question, so don't worry about that.
In a similar vein, I particularly want to ask about what you're doing with your vote, but I think it would be better to wait and see what you do.
Could you summarize briefly your position on VP Baltar + ABR?
---
@Ojanen: As evidenced by your lurkervote, are you convinced that the "present" players are more likely Town?
---
@ABR - what is your read on Scien? (Of course there's a reason I'm asking.)
---
PorkchopExpress 296 seems intuitively scummy. I thought you were catching up, not egging on.
Unvote: Sando(L-4)
Vote: PorkchopExpress-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
@charlatan: Is ABR #1 on your scumlist, #2, or something else?
Troll, are you going to make up your mind on ABR in the next three hundred posts?
---
While I don't mind the charlatan wagon, I think I'm going to follow Amished down a different promising lane.
Unvote: PorkchopExpress(L-5)
Vote: Debonair Danny DiPietro-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Unless I've been misreading, you've been calling "undecided" at every opportunity.Zorblag 313 wrote:@Vi, are you unclear about my opinion on Albert B. Rampage now? He's doing nothing that I wouldn't expect him to as town, he is impacting the game in a way that I feel is helping us get reads on players and he's pushing at me in a way that he hasn't before. I think he's more likely town than scum at this point. The game is still young but I don't see the patterns that I expect him to follow if he's scum. I also don't think that any of that should be particularly surprising based on what I've been saying up till now.
After falling hopelessly behind in Appenine Mafia, DDD-scum adopted a strategy of "most helpful lurker" - resulting in him getting lynched in spite of basically every Townie wondering why on earth he was still alive at the beginning of each Day. After getting rightfully burned in that game, I'm not interested in letting DDD lurk another game away again, and I've been interested in what he would post ITT considering his promise to find something enlightening to base his vote on whenever that enlightening thing happens.Trollblag 313 wrote:I do wonder a bit about your most recent vote change though. It doesn't seem as though either Debonair Danny DiPietro or PorkchopExpress have posted since your previous vote. Was Amished's defense of his vote really enough to convince you that it was worth moving from one lurker vote to another or did you see something that you've failed to mention?
Now consider that apparently the most (if only) enlightening thing to occur thus far has been Amished voting for him. Excuse me if I have a hard time believing it.Everything you say and do matters. People will respond in ways you may never see. May those responses be what you intend.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
I recall saying quite a bit about DDD burning me once about being lurkerscum, and how the impetus for my DDD vote was his reactive response to Amished.Troll 317 wrote:If his lack of participation was a concern for you why start with PorkchopExpress rather than going right to Debonair Danny DiPietro who you had reason to be concerned about on the lurking front?Lurkingin and of itself wasn't my primary interest - especially since when people give RL reasons for being out of the game like PorkchopExpress did, they usually aren't lying.
Nonetheless, my QuickHam vote had a couple of elements to it.
*Virtually everything PExpress had said up until then was on defense - no leaving the random vote argument. Even during the post where he said "sorry I was out", all but one of his comments were on defense.
*In the post I voted him for, it seemed like he was trying to latch on to a popular argument in order to be counted without saying much of anything.
*I wanted to see how he - and others - would react to it. I didn't give the first reason when I voted, and I expected someone to see my jump as scummy. Like most of my plans, it only barely worked - it's only now happening with Troll.
I still don't have warm fuzzies about PorkE - partly because his vote is still on SerialClergyman - but I prefer my DDD angst more because there's less room for error.
---
You also said in Appenine Mafia that you change your playstyle in each game to avoid this kind of meta.Debonair Danny DiPietro 320 wrote:I on the other hand have a hard time believing that my vote on Amished is the most interesting or scummiest thing so far in this game. And bear in mind, that it was you people who decided that when I finally said something it would be some super terrific point; I never claimed to have any phenomenal insight only that when something did interest me I would pursue it. And you're one of the two people who should know best that after the apparently defining game that was Appenine Mafia I changed my playstyle to account for that, three words - Mafia of Order.
As far as "something spectacular" goes...
This wasn't you speaking?DDD 193 wrote:I'm just waiting to see something I view as scummy to start running with.
...words fail me. I love my vote right now. *hugs vote*DDD 321 wrote:
So you've lost too many games by lynching pro-town lurkers, so you begin to pressure and vote a pro-town lurker, okay that argument doesn't make any sense.Amished wrote:1) I've lost too many games because of lurkers (either lynching them if they're pro-town or not if they're scum)
I'm interested in what kind of case you have on Amished pre-DDDvote, because like SerialClergyman I think Amished is more likely Town.Everything you say and do matters. People will respond in ways you may never see. May those responses be what you intend.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Soitenly.Ojanen 343 wrote:
Can you rephrase what the "there's less room for error" actually means for me please?Vi wrote:I still don't have warm fuzzies about PorkE - partly because his vote is still on SerialClergyman - but I prefer my DDD angst more because there's less room for error.
I am more able to see PorkchopExpress's posts as being typed from a Townie perspective than DDD's. To that end, I'm all kinds of interested in seeing DDD post again, even if I have to wait.
Sando's two recent posts are self-evidently horrible.
Troll's post on ABR's M.O. resonates well with me, especially after ABR 331.Everything you say and do matters. People will respond in ways you may never see. May those responses be what you intend.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
SerialClergyman 355 wrote:Here is the link to the DDD game i referred to.
If you promise not to look at my reads, this is what's making me very hesitant about the DDD wagon. I made almost identical points to you, I think.
From what I can tell in multi-isolation, 1 doesn't relate. In that game, DDD bothered to participate at all. Here he only posted when his name was called to OMGUS and produce some charlatan-level reasoning (see below).SerialClergyman 290, elsewhere wrote:1. Lack of scumhunting.
2. Playing outside of town meta (in my reads I find him to be more active and more firm when town. Here he still hasn't placed a non-random vote until after Monkey claimed, without doing more than vague reads previous to that. His activity was also decidedly low until I specifically attacked him.)
3. A few AtE-style posts, like telling me his opinion of my ability was slipping or calling monkey 'clownshoes'.
2 is not entirely similar either. I havescummeta on DDD... and I also have Town meta on a helpful and fairly awesome DDD in Zachtown, although that was after he replaced in D3. While I may be willing to buy that DDD plays a reactive game D1 - which goes against what he told me elsewhere, but whatever - I'm not entirely naive enough to be burned by the same tactic twice.
3 is not really applicable in this game as far as I've noticed, and isn't really that good an accusation in the first place~
I will grant that his response to the quoted post (in that game) makes me wonder about my previously positive image of DDD-Town. I'm curious as to what DDD thinks of his own play in the game you linked.
---
Debonair Danny DiPietro 360 wrote:No, lurkers you can't get a read on hurt games. If you can get a good read on a lurker then there is no need to care about their activity status.
No, seriously, am I the only person who wants to scream right here?DDD 360 wrote:You couldn't get a read on me; sounds like the problem is on your end, not mine.
The case against Amished is trumped-up beyond what it's worth. If you're going to be suspicious of someone over calling the team, try Sando, who tried to sway ABR into "calling the team" by asking if char/DDD/Amished were group scum.
---
I'll read charlatan's post when I'm not on a time budget and I'm not getting whitescreened left and right.
Also, see V/LA in sig.Everything you say and do matters. People will respond in ways you may never see. May those responses be what you intend.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
@DDD:
Re: meta - Meta, Town or otherwise, is not a direct reason for my vote on you; and I'm fairly positive I made that clear in my previous post. I know you are capable of lurking through a game and getting away with it. Needlessly to say, I'm not interested in allowing that - regardless of whether that's your habit.
The level of scumhunting between now and when SC accused you in that other game is different. Your first (and basically only) public point after being told to produce content was to attack your attacker. Surely that's not the only noteworthy, voteworthy thing that has gone on up to this point?
While it's true that Amished didn't give you a direction in what to comment on when he voted you, I don't think that's particularly scummy considering he wanted to seeanythingfrom you. As it turns out, the point is moot now, as what you posted certainly allowed us to get a read on you.
The two quotes I posted are both false. Your alignment ismyour business; if you're not going to open yourself up to allow a read, the problem is most certainly on your end. Further, I would rather have someone who contributes versus a lurking Townie; anyone who has been in a game where someone gets Cop-investigated and then drops off the page entirely can relate.
Re: Zachtown - I think my perspective is colored by me being scum and you not being gullible.
Re: Replying to things - You were well within your ability to reply to Sando's post, but you claim it wasn't your responsibility until 1) I mentioned it 2) while posting toward you. Penn and Teller disapprove.Everything you say and do matters. People will respond in ways you may never see. May those responses be what you intend.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Now what was the purpose behind this?PorkchopExpress 373 wrote:[about Sando and PE's random vote]Make it relevant or move onto something with more punch to it. Allow me to get you started: The only way this could be a scummy move is if it was distancing from SC, or Vi I guess. So, which one is likely scum in your eyes?
---
@DDD 382, and later charlatan 389: I'm fairly positive I've mentioned this before, but lurking is -not- the core of my case against DDD; the case on Amished and subsequent badposting (brought out by playing activity police, yes) is.
---
Likewise.Ojanen 499 wrote:@xRx: Can you specify anyhow (by an example, or anyhow so that I could get anything more tangible out of it) how Vi feels so pro-town? Would be interesting because (s)he's been a completely impenetrable read for me so far.
Why should I believe you're Town, Ojanen?
---
What about the rest of Scien's play?xRx 392 wrote:Regarding my predecessor,all I could think during my re-readwas... holy shit, Scien is pressuring Vi on quite possibly the dumbest thing ever.[etc.]
xRx 392 wrote:charlatan is my strongest town read.
SC is one of my only scum reads. Vote: SC
Really? Wow.xRx 432 wrote:SCUMMEH:
charlatan
TOWNEE:
SC
---
Just "worthwhile"?charlatan 406 wrote:@Vi: I'm at L-2 at the moment, and before that goes further or doesn't I think it would be worthwhile to hear your opinions on me in any sort of explicit manner. So far you've said you "severely DON'T disagree" with the wagon and offered an insult in a roundabout way in 363, but you haven't been specific at any point that I can recall.
There are two major reasons I have not laid a case out against you. One, I wanted to stall joining your wagon (and possibly the Day itself) in hopes of getting a read on DDD. It feels terrible to land in D2 and havenoread on someone. Two, I simply didn't have time or energy to read through all of the walls. I still barely don't.
In brief, these are the things standing out. If you want more detail, I can provide; but considering my new schedule I don't particularly want to.
*You've used tricky semantic arguments to try to argue something opposite what everyone else has been reading.
*Your relationship with ABR seems like a giant catfight - awkwardly provoked by you, awkwardly dropped by you, continued by ABR after your awful SerialClergyman case, dropped by ABR somewhat suddenly recently.
*Your caricature of the wagon as "based on a quote from Page 5" is wishful thinking from a perspective of wishful thinking. A formal case is not necessary behind each vote, and a defense does not make the problem go away. Or more succinctly: Mafia is not a game of logic.
*Your time-sensitive argument in 481 (oh you didn't ask me about this a while ago, so this must be scraping for reasons to find me scummy) do NOT resonate with me in particular, considering I'm rapidly finding out how little Mafia time is in my near future, plus I deliberately kept mum in hopes of pressuring DDD.
I would lynch charlatan over DDD... in a few posts.ABR 411 wrote:Vi - we have to lynch someone. Do you prefer charlatan, DDD, or neither as of yet?
Scummy posting coupled with misrepresentation of case, frustrated by a claim that "he gets better after D1".Amished 468 wrote:@Everyone *not* voting Char: What is your main reason for voting for somebody else? (directed at
12. Vi (on DDD))
In a larger picture, I wanted to draw the Day out before jumping onto the charlatan wagon.
---
"Information" is always vacuously explained to me as a reason to do anything, so--ABR 480 wrote:I would go so far as to say that porkchop is a better lynch than charlatan because at least with the latter we will have a lot to play with in later days.
Please explain what you're talking about here.Everything you say and do matters. People will respond in ways you may never see. May those responses be what you intend.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
@xRx: Aside from the speed of his posts, did you find charlatan's early posts'content(through Page 8 or whenever) to be pro-Town? How or how not?
I like Amished's lynch list, although I would like for him to answer xRx's questions toward him.
Well that makes my decision even easier.H_H 507 wrote:charlatan(4):[lots of Town reads]
PorkchopExpress(4):[lots of neutral/scummy reads]
Unvote: Debonair Danny DiPietro(L-2)
Vote: charlatan-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
He awkwardly distances from ABR in transparent attempts to cause drama (see isolated post #9). His bad arguments are aiming at my better Town reads. His bad arguments seem to rely on loopholes in his own words. His top defender throws down the wordAlbert B. Rampage 515 wrote:Let me surmise the case on charlatan: he makes bad arguments. He doesn't read the game like everyone else.He changes his mind often.proofin attempting to refute the case, which by itself shows that he's reaching.
...so which mistakes has he made up until now, and why are they not enough to indict him?ABR 514 wrote:And I know charlatan, if and whether he is scum with PCE or not, he's going to make a lot more mistakes.
ABR 521 wrote:DDD, he was voting for you a minute ago, don't tell me you're against lynching pce now.
I think I understand where ABR 520 is coming from, but that doesn't change
*that ABR is the one saying it, and I believe ABR has a vested interest in getting the wagon off charlatan
*that the PorkchopExpress wagon is flooded with scummy people and I don't want to join them-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
This IS a butchery of the English language. Please try again.xRECKONERx 529 wrote:@Whoever asked me: content-wise, there's not a whole lot there in charlatan's early posts. It's just the way that he presented himself gave me a gut town read, I guess. Given the developments later in the game, though, it obviously made him a strong scum read.
There's something missing here... It's why you're not voting charlatan.xRx 529 wrote:On PCE vs char:
I feel like either one or the other is scum. I see no connections between the two to link one to the other, so I don't think they're going to be on the same scumteam. PCE has been coasting so far this game to the point where when I got done doing my scumlist I was like 'Who am I missing? Oh, PCE and Ojanen." Only difference is, when Ojanen does post, it's at least neutral, whereas PCE gets by without doing much of anything aka scummy.
Further, there's a difference between "one or the other is scum" and "they're not scum together".
...charlatan's fence-sitting?xRx 529 wrote:To be completely honest, at the risk of sounding like charlatan's fence-sitting, I only prefer a PCE-lynch like 50%, a charlatan lynch 35%, and a DDD lynch 15%.
---
Wait, I thought you said you didn't really understand how the Porkchop wagon startedTroll 531 wrote:I don't really understand how this PorkchopExpress wagon got going. Albert B. Rampage pushing for something is probably a good sign if anything; he's managed to create a second wagon out of very little and he's forcing people to take sides in a way that they weren't really forced to with the charlatan vs. Debonair Danny DiPietro or whatever else might have been competing wagons previously.Saying that he was trying to derail the charlatan wagon doesn't take into account how long that wagon was there as a serious contender.I also don't have any reason to like what PorkchopExpress is doing so I'm not going to argue against people joining his wagon even though it's not my plan to do so myself.
You don't think the PorkchopExpress wagon is scum-driven?
Could you explain the bolded?
----
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Vote: Sando(L-5)
Most sketchy stance about the charlatan wagon, especially considering the third quote below.
Sando #27 wrote:In general I think he's being defensive while throwing in token scumhunting that strikes me as poorly thought at and reasoned. Charlatan is obviously intelligent and well reasoned, his cases/attacks don't strike me as intelligent and well reasoned, only his defences.
Unvote, Vote: Charlatan(L-2)Sando #29 wrote:More than happy to swap onto PCE.
Unvote, Vote: PCE(L-4)
Charlatan: I'm not sure what you mean by that's more likely for another person? My problem with you is that parts of your posts are intelligent, well articulated and clearly well thought out, other parts aren't in my opinion. I think the fact that the difference falls along fairly clearly defined lines makes me extremely suspicious of your motives.Sando #31 wrote:
No it's not.SC wrote:
This is rubbish.ABR wrote:I agree with you that he made bad arguments. If you ask me, this is more a question of skill than alignment however.
Plus I still don't like his reasoning for joining the PCE wagon. ("random vote" blather plus the below)Sando #33 wrote:VPB, why does me voting PCE mean I have to think Char is town?Sando #27 wrote:
This is pretty funny, people like VPB are getting upset at Serial for saying I was town (which he didn't) and now you want to force him to say it.PorkchopExpress wrote:@SC: It's been made clear that you haven't stated that Sando is town this game, but what is your read on him?-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
In the sense that more people I'm leaning scum on were on that wagon versus the charlatan wagon in spite of the charlatan wagon being almost twice its size, yes.Ojanen 587 wrote:Vi, you implied earlier you thought the PCE wagon was scumdriven. Do you retain this belief, why/why not?
Your caution is unwarranted. Vote.xRx 590 wrote:Not sure I like three votes being played coming right out of the gate on D2, so I'm gonna hold off on voting quite yet until I have more time to feel out each player.
@ABR: So what now?-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
To echo SerialClergyman, this is rubbish.Ojanen 604 wrote:Here's what confuses me about your play: you don't like tunnelling on D1. You claimed to want to avoid confirmation bias at all costs. You switched off of VP because you don't want to have confirmation bias and got an impression you might be wrong.
You proceed to tunnel the shit out of charlatan,while the town collectively amplifies that tunneling.
In particular, the bolded seems to suggest that the Town (read: the others on the charlatan wagon) is at fault for SC's actions.
Question. How "legitimate" was the charlatan wagon?-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
I'm looking for how or why this is a scummy thing, considering everyone except maybe ABR agrees that there was a substantive case on charlatan.Ojanen 607 wrote:I was referring to the fact that Serial initiated/pushed hard on the case while being concentrated very much on it, and the suspicion for charlatan had caught on widely at the same time, resulting in the thread being very concentrated overall on charlatan. Both of which are self-evident facts.
What put PorkchopExpress over charlatan, if you agreed with both cases?-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
My reasoning is (appropriately) the flipped version of what ABR or whoever was saying. charlatan was doing lots of scummy things, as briefly outlined previously. I don't/didn't particularly like what PorkchopExpress was doing, but I believe that the case against him was being exaggerated. I'm not sure how I would find PorkchopExpress scummy as a result of charlatan's flip.xRECKONERx 610 wrote:Vi, same question at you, just flip it:
What made you put charlatan over PCE? Did you find PCE scummy at all D1? Do you find him scummy in light of charlatan's flip?
Plus as of right now I'm more interested in finding the scum who were actually voting on the major wagons at the end of D1.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Not particularly until here--Ojanen 612 wrote:Earlier during the day I thought there was quite enough pressure for my liking on charlatan without me voting him although I was asking questions and thus pushing the case somewhat too. You find that scummy about me like the others do?
I saw nothing of the sort in charlatan's post.Ojanen 567 wrote:Wow that is a real "I am holier" post.
Your next post feels like a waffle--
It seems like you were interested in finding reasons to gravitate toward the charlatan hammer.Ojanen 571 wrote:charlatan, you're a good player. Won the game to your team last time etc.
Well I was just thinking after the fake feeling holy post and the diametrically opposite hard-to-understand reads to mine that charlatan keeps generating again that I'm enthusiastic enough about seeing him lynched.
I'd still like a claim though.
---
I think I understand.ABR 613 wrote:He was doing things that were easy to paint as scummy, but anyone with an ounce of good reason could see that any player could make bad arguments, try to defend his previous actions, not admit he's wrong, not scumhunt with a head on his shoulders, appear odd to the others, etc.
I voted him out because I wouldn't want to be left in a situation with him with me and the scum in LYLO, his opinions were largely bull-headed and his reasoning was extremely clouded. If it could be any other way, say 1 of the 5 first players on his wagon joined a PCE push, I would have kept him because he provided a good amount of content. I feel as though I am a better player than him and if he were scum I could outplay him in subsequent days and find his partners while I'm at it.
There's a factor missing, but I think that will be answered today.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
@"holier": I'm not sure I follow, but there's no sense in arguing it out.
Re: waffle - Perhaps "waffle" was not the best of terms to use. It seemed like you were generating rationalizations for jumping over.
I'll grant that once ABR jumped over there was no chance of a noncharlatan lynch though.
You are thinking correctly in that last part. (Obviously, it's not true in hindsight.)Ojanen 623 wrote:There were 3 points relating to charlatan using a bad argument in his defence and one point which I think means you thought charlatan was scum with ABR (referring to a catfight between them).
Why are these bad/unsatisfactory?
Ojanen 623 wrote:This one was especially hard to decipher for me; why did this wishful thinking make charlatan scummy?
...which was patently untrue, and an attempt to whitewash the other concerns (i.e. pushing ABR to pointlessly and transparently stir up drama, awful SerialClergyman vote, etc.).charlatan #39 wrote:my page 5 comment was a relatively unimportant one that I didn't even think much of and it is arguably the biggest sticking point of the day-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
I don't do sarcasm. But I can buy the part about charlatan at least.Sando 628 wrote:Vi, your case on me is pretty stupid. The quote you want special mention made of is me fairly tongue in cheek having a go at Serial for lack of support of his statement. And just so you know, when I say 'this is pretty funny', I actually mean funny, not scummy. I know they rhyme and all, but most people can work it out, it wasn't part of why I was voting PCE.
The second question will be better answered when you explain more to me about why you're voting Porky beyondSando 628 wrote:Reasons haven't changed.-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
This.Ojanen 639 wrote:Why did you find charlatan scummy for the "fencesitting on VP/ABR" line of questioning when the same exchange felt originally like bussing to you and you seem to regularly think two arguing parties could be bussing? Like your top suspects PCE/Sando here now again?
Very much this.ABR 654 wrote:Just start from the moment you replaced in, what was going through your head
xRx: If you've dropped your suspicion of hitoExpress when PCE replaced out, why is your vote still on him?
---
Um... PCE didn't respond to "that", except to say that he was drunk. Unless I'm misreading again.Sando 632 wrote:I still find his response tothatscummy, I think he was active-lurking for much of D1, and I think he went out of his way to avoid the Charlatan issue.
A-lurking, well, etc. I didn't get the sense that it was particularly malicious though.
I take that to mean you find this scummy?
---PCE #14 wrote:It didn’t seem prudent to bring Charlatan to the brink of lynching when a new player was replacing in.
Ojanen. Has your opinion changed on SerialClergyman yet?-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
The point: You just missed it.xRECKONERx 667 wrote:@Vi: didn't realize it was.Unvote.
The point: We just found it.VP Baltar 665 wrote:Then in an attempt to understand whatever Reckoner's reasoning for staying on the PCE wagon even though he finds charlatan scummy,I ask him who he thinks could be the scumpushing the charlatan wagon. He says I am, butwon't comment on anyone elseand says that they are likely both scum being run up....which is about as ridiculous as one can get.
(Less cryptic version: I don't buy that you're interested in finding scum)-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Actually, I wanted to make sure I had everything right before I said what was on my mind.Sando 674 wrote:Sando wrote:Vi, what about me moving off Charlatan do you find scummy?
Yeah you're just avoiding the question now, I gave my reasons, you refused to answer what about me moving off Charlatan you found scummy?Vi wrote:The second question will be better answered when you explain more to me about why you're voting Porky beyond
Your reasons for voting PCE are more or less useless.
*While PCE's vote wasn't technically random - victory for semantics - seeing as it's not Page 5 anymore I don't see how it's scummy so much as "lol u did something wrong".
*Active lurking is fair as mentioned before, but it makes for good scapegoating - especially since you aren't applying your a-lurker search elsewhere, like DDD.
*Saying that PCE "avoided" the charlatan wagon is not altogether different from saying you're "avoiding" the xRx wagon, considering you're both giving the same reason.
Plus you had no discernible reason for jumping off charlatan after your late vote (to make a late vote on PCE, of course). So to answer your question,almost everything.
---
The point: You also missed it.Sando 674 wrote:Vi jumps on with 'well he's defending himself against this exhaustive case!'
About half of the xRx case is "you can't really be this wrong with a straight face" (i.e. pushing both PCE and charlatan as equally scum, except with %s attached) where defense isn't that important. The other half is how he's doing it again today. It's also worth noting (this beingthe point) that while xRx is trying to defend himself, he's not trying to scumhunt.You're apparently his top suspect, and while I like that there's no actual reasoning or even a vote behind that sentiment. Since PCE replaced out, he's got... nada. And he's not trying. I would expect a Townie on the verge of being lynched to at least try to point us in the right direction.
Cut by xRx. I'm not totally impressed.
To address the elephant in the room, yes, my vote put him at L-1. Do you (or anyone for that matter) expect xRx to be hammered prematurely?
---
Technically heOjanen 676 wrote:No. He hasn't done squat today. Why are you asking?hasdone squat. What do you think of his push on xRx?
I asked because I expected you to have something to say about him if he was near the top of your suspect list (plus at the end of D1 I had a Town read on him, and am curious about dissenting opinions).
Now that I've said that, I have a question for SerialClergyman.
This was your first post of D2. I can see a line about Ojanen before, but when did xRx or PCE come onto your suspect list?SC #44 wrote:As for lynch suspects, I think Ojanen, Reck or Porkchop are all there for me.
Ojanen: Do you still find hitochop to be scum? What is your opinion on Sando?
---
@mod: Please prod DDD and Trollblag
---
Cut by xRx:
How do you know?xRx 677 wrote:Scum-Sando would've just let me get lynched.
But this isn't about DDD. This is about you.xRx 677 wrote:For people to say I have no interest in doing any scumhunting is pretty hypocritical when DDD doesn't either-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to be the only person calling Sando scummy.xRECKONERx 682 wrote:Vi, think about it: Sando hammers me, he's already getting a ton of suspicion anyway, he's just basically a fall guy for the scum. I don't know why he'd try to start a complete counter-wagon (unless he's my scumbuddy) as scum. It's a far too laborious tactic to try and clear himself if he's scum. Plus, he pointed out DDD's weaksauce reasoning, which is a very nice catch.
Saying that Sando pointed out DDD's weaksauce reasoning is more than a bit of a stretch.
This is the first time Sando has seriously mentioned DDD throughout the game... and to frame this as an accusation is laughable.Sando 674 wrote:Not liking the way this lynch is happening on Reck;
DDD starts with 'well Reck was a good lynch yesterday'
Zorblag jumps on with 'pretty sure Reck is scum'
SC joins with 'hey let's lynch Reck and not post reasoning'
Albert jumps on with... nothing
Vi jumps on with 'well he's defending himself against this exhaustive case!'
The last 3are the ones that really worry me.
As for starting a complete counterwagon, speaking frankly it was either that or join your wagon. (Or keep his cheesy PCE vote)-
-
Vi Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Professor Paragon
- Posts: 11768
- Joined: June 29, 2008
- Location: GMT-5