Mini Number 2195 | Brutalism | GAME OVER
-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
In post 10, VP Baltar wrote:Also, what's a friendly neighbor?"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
because you're the competing bandwagon"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
so what i'm hearing is that VD is bad at being scum"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
suss on Elements but not RTP?"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
does Elements know you?In post 60, VP Baltar wrote:Elements, do you feel like you'll be able to speed read people you know?"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
In post 53, Green Crayons wrote:so what i'm hearing is that VD is bad at being scumIn post 54, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:nahIn post 55, ItalianoVD wrote:I’d say so."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
I think it's fairly obvious what I'm thinking, tbh, if simply because I'm not thinking Big ThoughtsIn post 73, ItalianoVD wrote:Care to elaborate what you’re thinking here?
In post 54, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:nah he just got meme hammered
so in your mind, VD, you're a bad scum player because you were meme quick-eliminated in RVS?In post 55, ItalianoVD wrote:Players don’t expect to get wagoned/hammered that quick within RVS and I actually lol’d when it happened."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Word.In post 108, ItalianoVD wrote:
Uh uh. That’s not directly correlated. To me, I’m a bad scum player because I don’t like being scum and have a hard time lying and generally get caught in some way because of it.In post 81, Green Crayons wrote:so in your mind, VD, you're a bad scum player because you were meme quick-eliminated in RVS?
Have you played with Duchess before?"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
In post 99, Harumi Ayasato wrote:I think I'll have to reread the game tomorrow, I'm in two because the first game was inactive, and I'm a little out of my depth right now. Maybe a reread of this game will help me regain my focus.
Did you miss or are you ignoring or did I miss a response to:In post 112, Harumi Ayasato wrote:Uh, I just isolated ItalianoVD and despite being relatively active they made like two substantial posts. For lack of any clearly better options, I'm going to VOTE: ItalianoVDVOTE: for now.In post 62, Green Crayons wrote:suss on Elements but not RTP?"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Where did I get that:In post 98, Duchess wrote:
Where did you get that? I'm not sure I like or understand your line of questioning.In post 81, Green Crayons wrote:so in your mind, VD, you're a bad scum player because you were meme quick-eliminated in RVS?
Did you read VD's post that I quoted?
Not sure you like or understand the line of questioning:
Neat. What goal did you have in trying to fence-sit (don't understand & "not sure" if like) undermine a line of questioning that just started?"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
didn't understand but now thinks it was a clear strawmanIn post 134, Duchess wrote:I feel no need to defend my undermining of a clear strawman."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Spoiler: GC, RTP, & VD
Both RTP and VD correlated their answer about whether VD is bad at being scum with why he was quick-eliminated.
I asked about that because VD's post literally strings "I'm a bad scum player" with "I was quick-eliminated in RVS" in the span of three sentences.
That you first didn't understand this, but also didn't like it, and so felt the need to attack my question before it was even answered, but now think it was clearly strawmanning (?), and also a loaded question (?), looks like you're either actively defending VD or trying to find a reason to shade me or both."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
lol
I *know* what VD said in 101, because he explained himself—including clarifying that he was not linking his quality at being scum with his quick elim. Which is a big nothing and why I dropped it. Like I dropped all any line of Qs that are nothingburgers.
That you are contorting basic Q&A logic by saying *I’m* stawmanning and asking loaded Qs when both RTP and VD’s entire response to my Q contained a y/n and then what clearly appeared an explanation for that y/n by referring to the quick-elim (rather than assuming the reference to the quick elim was a non-sequitur, which is not how normal conversation operates) is so incredibly disingenuous, that your vote-and-attack by being gently pushed on this seems AI defensive.
VOTE: duchess"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Is GC bad at baseball?
Yes. He struck out the first time he went to the plate.
So GC is bad at baseball bc he struck out the first time you went to bat?
Trying to shade me for linking the yes/no longer to the immediately following observation, that I’m twisting words, is just so scummy.
Trying to shade me for connecting the"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Yes/no answer*
Phone posting so formatting errors too. Wheee."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Mischaracterization.In post 166, Duchess wrote:Green Crayons. You are characterizing my push on you as a response to your suspicion of me, which is a complete fabrication you seem to have pulled out of thin air for the sake of your argument. My trajectory is very clearly laid out. To call me defensive is nothing but more baseless projection.
I said you were affirmatively defending VD and separately your attack on me when I questioned your defense of VD was suspicious. I have never said that you started pushing me solely in response to my suspicion of you, which is contradicted by my first engaging you based on your fence-sitting attack on my Q to VD. You first started pushing me to defend VD, and then started attacking me when I pressed you back.
Lies.I still entirely disagree with your interpretation of VD's response. The last two sentences are not full-on non-sequiturs, but they're not a justification for the first. I see them as Italiano adding his own thoughts to RTP's previous post. I am not interested in discussing theory of conversation or hearing your analogies, and I'm troubled by your refusal to address the post in question directly.
I haven’t refused to address any post.
To the extent you think I’ve missed some brilliant point, rather than shading me even further you could point it out rather than nebulously referring to it.
Also, love how slippery you’re being:
- Dutchess: “GC’s question is -clearly strawmanning-”
- GC: “no, here is what his response was and basic Q&A construction and the English language connects those ideas”
- Dutchess: “I don’t want to talk about that, which undermines my shading of your Q”
To cut through this back and forth about how I interpreted VD’s post differently than you: I specifically squarely asked VD a Q to clarify his response, which nullifies your entire supposed premise for why my interaction with VD is suspect. You (supposedly) have no idea what VD was going to say—for example, he could’ve said “yeah, I’m a bad scum bc I shouldn’t have let myself get quick eliminated.” Your premature jump to defend is just so suspect, and your attack-as-a-defense just underscores it."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
This post is screaming TMIIn post 167, Duchess wrote:I don't know exactly what kind of push I was expecting to see, but if I recall correctly there was some discussion just before that time of Italiano possibly being an easy early push, and what I saw pinged me, so I wanted to nip it in the bud."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Anyone play with Datisi before?"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Spoiler: datisi
Strike you out of the ordinary that he is this preoccupied with how others perceive him?"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Okay. Short of an official meta analysis, is him asking Qs re how others are reading him consistent with his personality or behavior from whatever games you’ve played with him, either scum or town or both?
Question is open to the floor for anyone whose played with Datisi, ofc."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Like, I feel not wanting to dig up old cases, but presumably since you raised your hand you have some sense of his personality/style of play as either scum or town or both. Curious if this is consistent.In post 178, Green Crayons wrote:Short of an official meta analysis,"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
I toyed with the idea of maybe s/s, but that post I was quoting specifically feels more like s/t. Also on the aggression scale my Q to VD was so benign that I don’t think a scum would have felt compelled to preemptively attack it on behalf of another scum who hadn’t yet responded. Couple that with VD-scum turning around to vote Dutchess-scum seems unlikely though not out of the realm of reasonable strategy (this doesn’t seem like a quick elim game, in terms of attitude and no players that I know of who will insta hammer).In post 182, VP Baltar wrote:Do you think Duchess and Italiano are scum together? Or that duchess was scum trying to pocket a low hanging fruit townie?"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Cool, thanks.In post 184, VP Baltar wrote:Datisi as town has asked me to justify my read on him a few times. I think he does it to guage genuine intentions vs. scum pulling reads out of their butts."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
I *am* getting all warm and fuzzy on the inside."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Post 229 is top notch. At first with the concessions ("I do understand what you're saying here", "That's true, you haven't refused, and that's my bad for the ambiguous choice of words") I thought I was maybe off base. But considering her points, it's clear to me that that tone presents a face of reasonableness to mask the lies she puts forward about my play to justify her vote.
I'm a bit torn because nobody reads long posts, or really likes in-the-weeds back and forth. I do try to avoid them. But 229 is truly top tier BS.
(I would spoiler but some of the quotes I'm using are also using spoilers, which messes up the formatting, so APOLOGIES but your scroll finger isn't broken).
1.
No, you don't get to just completely invent what I was saying to turn it around and say "of course it contradicts, that's why you're scummy." The "it" that contradicts is YOUR accusation, and it contradicts from reality. You said that I am "characterizing {Duchess's} push on {GC} as a response to {GC's} suspicion of {Duchess}" but I responded that that accusation is wrong and contradicts the fact that I first took issue with you attacking my Q to VD--which means your push on me was not a result of me suspecting you, but because you wanted to defend VD.In post 229, Duchess wrote:I know that contradicts, which is why I called it baseless and said you were pulling this out of thin air.
What Ihavesaid, repeatedly now, is that you acted suspiciously for two separate reasons: first because of your preemptive defense of VD, and second because of how you reacted to my pressing you on that defense. That's not baseless, not pulled out of thin air. It's based on your actions in this very thread.
2.
I cannot believe that Duchess has never even heard of the concept of defending someone by attacking their attacker. That is what my suspicions were of her attacking my Q to VD, which is facially obvious, but she turns it around to say I'm mischaracterizing her play because she neverIn post 229, Duchess wrote:I do understand what you're saying here, though, but this is the last time I will say I was not ever defending Italiano as town.directlydefended VD.
3.
Just rewriting history here. I literally pointed to the exact words by quoting my, VD's, and RTP's posts and then explaining how I interpreted VD's response that led to my Q asking him to clarify:In post 229, Duchess wrote:I mean to say your insistence on using theory and presenting examples rather than showing me exactly what words in that post led you to interpret it the way you did.In post 142, Green Crayons wrote:Spoiler: GC, RTP, & VD
Both RTP and VD correlated their answer about whether VD is bad at being scum with why he was quick-eliminated.
I asked about that because VD's post literally strings "I'm a bad scum player" with "I was quick-eliminated in RVS" in the span of three sentences.
That you first didn't understand this, but also didn't like it, and so felt the need to attack my question before it was even answered, but now think it was clearly strawmanning (?), and also a loaded question (?), looks like you're either actively defending VD or trying to find a reason to shade me or both.
4.
This is backed up by nothing (or a falsehood, see point 3 above), and is a great rhetorical tactic for someone who is being disingenuous. "Oh ho! that thing you accused me of actually you are doing as I said before!"In post 229, Duchess wrote:That said, these last two lines in tandem are funny to me. Nebulous references are exactly what was troubling me about your justification of that interpretation. This is the third or fourth time I have found you accusing me of doing something I have already mentioned about you, or something you are doing in the very same post. I'm not sure if I should believe that's a product of your alignment, or just your personality, but I'm keeping an eye out for it.
5.
First note discrediting jabs ("lazy schoolyard tactics"). Love it.In post 229, Duchess wrote:
I am not sure what to call these kinds of posts other than a textbook strawman. I very explicitly disagree with your interpretations of the English language. Here you are once again using lazy schoolyard tactics to discredit my suspicions.In post 172, Green Crayons wrote: Also, love how slippery you’re being:
- Dutchess: “GC’s question is -clearly strawmanning-”
- GC: “no, here is what his response was and basic Q&A construction and the English language connects those ideas”
- Dutchess: “I don’t want to talk about that, which undermines my shading of your Q”
Second I was phone posting, so wasn't putting up direct quotes, but it's almost a word-for-word sequence of events that she's now characterizing as "strawman." Here's what I was pulling from:
Spoiler: GC & Duchess (my bolding added to posts)
To characterize my paraphrase of this very short interaction not just as inaccurate, but as some sort of disingenuous strawmanning, truly is something to see.
The only part of my paraphrasing that is not something Duchess said was ". . . which undermines my shading of your Q"--which, no shit, that was obviously me editorializing your reaction, which is facially obvious to anyone approaching this in good faith.
6.
The bolded isn't town perspective.In post 229, Duchess wrote:
Italiano's response doesn't matter to me.In post 172, Green Crayons wrote: To cut through this back and forth about how I interpreted VD’s post differently than you: I specifically squarely asked VD a Q to clarify his response, which nullifies your entire supposed premise for why my interaction with VD is suspect. You (supposedly) have no idea what VD was going to say—for example, he could’ve said “yeah, I’m a bad scum bc I shouldn’t have let myself get quick eliminated.” Your premature jump to defend is just so suspect, and your attack-as-a-defense just underscores it.I think your question to him was scummy in a vacuum.I care less about it now because I think your pushback to my suspicion is scummier.
7.
You know VD is town which is why you preemptively defended him against a threat level 1 question.In post 229, Duchess wrote:I don't understand what this implies if it does not implicate you as my partner?"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
my bad. what game?In post 203, Datisi wrote:*you* have played with datisi before."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Harumi: do you think you suspected Elements and RTP differently for their same type of play? If so, why. If not, why not."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Blep. Wish you answered my Q earlier. Now this is just a stale suspicion that's quite a dud.
Moving on.
Curious how you see the bolded as AI, and what differentiates VD from me in terms of our interaction with Duchess.In post 245, Harumi Ayasato wrote:Italiano: Still didn't do much useful, andseems to have a fixation on arguing with Duchess? Scum lean."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
not in theory, but specifically as it relates to VD and DuchessIn post 256, Green Crayons wrote:Curious how you see the bolded as AI"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
If RTP is going to reveal his town tell for Harumi, can he also explain his thinking behind revealing the existence of a Top Secret reason to think she was town (which would seem to discourage additional votes on Harumi), but not revealing what that reason was because he wanted to see if the wagon would build:
In post 165, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:theres a reason i think pearl fey is town but i wanna wait to reveal it to see if that wagon builds cuz i wanna see game state before i out it cuz i think its relatively strong of a reason to townread them."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
heh, timing
I am seeing red with duchess, and am giving myself a few IRL days to distance and will revisit"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
In post 328, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:
i honestly do not feel i will be much trusting harumi for reads rather than just a town mindset - but the tell I had noticed was they were clueless. Like overtly clueless. With newer/not as skilled/assertive players, coming off as brazenly clueless is a towntell.In post 325, Duchess wrote:RTP, what do you think of Harumi's readslist? And are you able to share what your towntell was about earlier?In post 287, Green Crayons wrote:If RTP is going to reveal his town tell for Harumi, can he also explain his thinking behind revealing the existence of a Top Secret reason to think she was town (which would seem to discourage additional votes on Harumi), but not revealing what that reason was because he wanted to see if the wagon would build:"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Elements, RTP, and Lunar are the only players who have given unexplained reads (though yes I see some explanations once pressed). Did I kiss anyone else with this style of play in this game?"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Going to go and look and see if that’s how y’all usually play."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
I don’t really care why you’re doing it. I think it’s a perfectly acceptable style of play and I can usually glean where the reads come from via game context. Just also want to see that everyone that’s pulling this style has done it before, as I’ve never been in a game where it’s been more than one or maybe two players."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
No I would not make that assumption.In post 348, Lunar Martian wrote:
If we don't normally play that way you'd assume we are Mafia?In post 346, Green Crayons wrote:Going to go and look and see if that’s how y’all usually play."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
You’re asking if I’d assume. I wouldn’t assume anything. If someone is playing differently than usual I’d certainly start asking Qs."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
RTP you got prior games you want to own up to?"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
For anyone who cares, Elements did very similar no-explanation reads list in two games I saw when he was town.
I skipped over active games.In post 352, Lunar Martian wrote:What's the point in this meta check then?
Do you think your play here is consistent with your recent play in other games?
I think it's sufficiently close to be a non-issue, but your reaction seems jumpy about a quick meta check."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
not compelling to me either, because there was nothing there. just struck me as weird that two players had this style, and then you also joined in with a very similar style that I think scum might see as easy to emulate.
I thought there was someone else who did it as well but i did a quick skim of the thread and didnt see it so I guess not."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
am i being trolled?In post 366, Dunnstral wrote:
Because I didn't see it.In post 355, VP Baltar wrote:
Why are you posting regularly in other games but not here?In post 354, Dunnstral wrote:
Do you need something?In post 351, Lunar Martian wrote:Personally I'm more interested in Dunnstral and whether he always is this lurky and fluffy.
I'm down to wagon GC.
Why did you ignore my request for some reads?
This game isn't interesting right now
Reads: Green Crayons, Reformed Toxic Player for town
Scumreads: Not really sure, Elements was/is being weird, Testarossa I understand little of what is going on in her head despite her posts and it feels like she's said less than she has
VOTE: Testarossa"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
what is this referring to?In post 385, Datisi wrote:at the same time, it's the exact same feeling i was getting the last game. hell."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
In post 387, Harumi Ayasato wrote:and keep my vote on Italiano for nowIn post 256, Green Crayons wrote:
Curious how you see the bolded as AI, and what differentiates VD from me in terms of our interaction with Duchess.In post 245, Harumi Ayasato wrote:Italiano: Still didn't do much useful, andseems to have a fixation on arguing with Duchess? Scum lean."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Active elsewhere?In post 390, VP Baltar wrote:Tess is weirdly avoiding this game too, yeah?
Is she usually an active player?"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
^^^ or something else? Clarify "weirdly""This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
Can you explain this?In post 414, midwaybear wrote:It's interesting how three people decided to reply in some form to VPB's friendly neighbor comment. In general, I would expect scum to be more motivated to engage with that. It's still page 1, so it's possible it was just RVS fun but it is still a thought."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
palate cleanser. felt getting sucked into a duchess vortex and wanted to break my vote away to force my attention away.In post 413, Datisi wrote:talk to me about your vote on dunn?
Baltar had just mentioned something about Dunn acting like lurker scum from prior scum game, which is a good enough to vote for me rn bc 1. voting lurkers is good for the soul, 2. Baltar pings me town, 3. i assume the meta analysis isn't wrong otherwise Dunn would say so, and 4. it wasn't Duchess."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
I only see you explain why I'm in here. Want to explain the other three?In post 415, ItalianoVD wrote:Limpool {RLotus, Lunar, Green Crayons, Baltar}"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
I'm going to revisit Duchess, probably IRL tomorrow.In post 458, Datisi wrote:do you have anyone that actively pings you scum? (other than maybe duchess, i guess.)
I'm getting scum pings from RTP and Harumi. Not sure if they are tied together, but they have both repeatedly ignored my direct inquiries; even though they have starkly different activity levels, it feels like they have contributed the same in terms of pushing the game forward; and RTP's preemptive claim of a secret town tell for Harumi doesn't sit right with me (particularly bc he refuses to engage on it)."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
to clarify: I don't think either has pushed the game forward.In post 462, Green Crayons wrote:it feels like they have contributed the same in terms of pushing the game forward"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
after being called out by Baltar, it was like pulling teeth to get him to engage and provide any sort of content. tbh not entirely sure which way that cuts in terms of alignment, setting aside whatever meta argument about Dunn and activity levels, but it certainly isn't pro-town even if it doesn't qualify as scum, so atm I'm happy to keep my vote hereIn post 458, Datisi wrote:i've seen dunn lurk as either alignment, but he definitely hasn't impressed so far."This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
midway, andres, baltar
kiiiinda elements but more like not seeing a reason why he's scum bc his play here is pretty spot on with prior town games; so not really town points but more like the absence of scum points"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
In post 342, Green Crayons wrote:In post 328, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:
i honestly do not feel i will be much trusting harumi for reads rather than just a town mindset - but the tell I had noticed was they were clueless. Like overtly clueless. With newer/not as skilled/assertive players, coming off as brazenly clueless is a towntell.In post 325, Duchess wrote:RTP, what do you think of Harumi's readslist? And are you able to share what your towntell was about earlier?In post 287, Green Crayons wrote:If RTP is going to reveal his town tell for Harumi, can he also explain his thinking behind revealing the existence of a Top Secret reason to think she was town (which would seem to discourage additional votes on Harumi), but not revealing what that reason was because he wanted to see if the wagon would build:"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
ignoring direct inquiries means not having to explain your actions/readsIn post 466, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:And whats scummy about the actions youve stated, i.e. whats the scum motivation?
not pushing game forward means not potentially taking heat by pushing town vote, like lurker or active lurker status
your town tell with Harumi tbd I want to hear your response first"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
......In post 470, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:I already revealed it.
I'll quote it when im not at work
But discred me more will ya?
I think imma do trustfalls when i get home and analyze isos
what the fuck is with people not reading my posts"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
I *know* you revealed the town tell
that's not what I asked you for
JFC this game"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA
because first duchess and now you are lying about my play and it's bullshit"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).-
-
Green Crayons Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 7612
- Joined: September 21, 2002
- Location: Richmond, VA