Mini Normal 1609: The Case Of Doctor Pepper (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
Sup.
I'm replacing Rambler.
I got my role PM this morning. Not sure why DP didn't announce my replacement in 581. Jumping in now because we're L-2 or L-1 (I thought L-1 from a quick skim), and I wanted to say something before that went down.
Would appreciate some time to read the thread and put in two cents before a lynch."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
OH MAN, THIS GAME.
Here are my thoughts (subsequent posts will be shorter, because I will not be commenting on 24 pages) (yo I bolded names so at least skim for your name if you want I don't care whatever):
- w/r/tTTHversusBBT, the annoyed neighbors, I would perfer lynching TTH. But if we're only going off of the fact that they are neighbors, and TTH's third post in the QT, I don't want to lynch either.
- lol @ people getting suspicious of players voting/suspecting lurkers and active lurkers.
-AnatoleandFlubberlook and feel town.BoonandDoogal, too, maybe. I'm going to throwRuffliginto the maybe town bag, as well.
- lol @wakeversusAnatole. Wake comes out looking worse by being super active about things ranging from really inane points to bad theories to blatant misunderstanding of what Anatole is saying. Is this wake's "divisive" play style TTH went on about? Ultimately looks like town versus town, but ~*~ who knows ~*~ .
-----
-GreyICE's excessive hostility towards Boon (noted by Wake), and invoking a non-scum kill (noted by Boon), is slightly suspicious considering the time within the game it occurred.
-GreyICE's poorly done research on Anatole's history with neighbors is null, potentially slightly town. His Great Retreat from the thread after being called out may be embarrassed town.
-----
@Wake:
- Do you normally do these individual-player write ups, and so quickly into D1? Also, why'd you drop the practice so quickly?
- Your theory that both BBT and TTH are scum, and are quoting each other from a scum QT, was something I caught you suggest in a off-hand way at the very beginning of the neighbor business, and then several pages later you went all-in on the theory. Any basis for this suspicion other than pure speculation?
- You said:In post 174, Wake1 wrote:I do. I've played enough games over the years to know when something isn't quite adding up. Should TTH flip Scum, I would certainly suspect you of being her Scum partner because of your role in trying to get everyone else to stop digging at the discrepancy.
Why the appeal to (your) authority?
Explain the contradictory actions according to your theory: BBT/TTH first bring suspicion upon one another (so that when one flips scum neighbor, the other will look like the town neighbor), but then attempt to placate that suspicion andnotget each other lynched.
-----
@Csareo:
- In Post 294 you say wake "appears to be right," but then you recognize the mod actually undercuts wake's position. You also appear to have missed TTH's Post 283 and wake's Post 288 further undercutting your approval of wake's speculation.
Care to comment?
- Whoa calm down on your buddying with wake, you're making it so darn obvious. (Post 294, Post 296, Post300, Post 304, Post 305, Post 308.)
- lol, whoa you're really going whole hog on this buddying wake business. (Post 350.) Okay, whatevs.
- Appears to set up a one-two back to back lynch of BBT and TTH (Post 400, Post 401, Post 403), and doesn't seem to care if they're town so long as he finally gets to know the mechanics of the neighbor role (Post 403 and Post 407).
-----
And here is my vote: UNVOTE: wake, VOTE: Csareo.
If Csareo is scum, wake is likely town."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 607, Csareo wrote:I don't like the "If Csareo is scum, wake is town".
If I flip town, then what, you'll lynch wake.
It seems to "scum motivated", and in actuality, there's nothing to support this line of reasoning.
. . . .
My friend, that is the contradiction of the day.?If your case is built on me buddying with wake, why would wake be town if I flip scum
Obvious what just happened, you know I'll flip town, and will have a base reason to lynch wake tommorow.
Scum fuck ups are hilarious, aren't they
What supports my line of reasoning of if Csareo is scum, then wake is likely town? That would be your blatant buddying with wake.
If you flip town, that is a null on wake's alignment. Your buddying is you attempting to align yourself with another player, which is scummy.
The way buddying works is if you are scum, and the other player being buddied is town, then when the other player dies you look good for having not suspected a town player. If you flip scum, then your buddying attempts make wake look town. If wake flip scum, then your buddying attempts make you look town because scum wouldn't buddy their teammate (putting WIFOM aside). But if you flip town, then the entire buddying bit is null w/r/t wake.
Very basic scum play 101. Don't know why you're making convoluted and wrong extrapolations from that (that if you flip scum, somehow that means diddly about wake's alignment). Unless if you're scum, trying to be angry about something that isn't even a thing.
The rest of your post is hyper aggressive and defensive. Like, town can be those things, but they generally needed to be prodded about it. You just exploded from one post. Scummy."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 612, Green Crayons wrote:Don't know why you're making convoluted and wrong extrapolations from that (that if you flipscumtown, somehow that means diddly about wake's alignment).
Fixed."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
It's . . . as if . . . my basis for voting you . . . was not confined to only your buddying of wake. Heh.
I'm not reading wake as scum, so that's a cool misrep. (In 600 I said he looks like possible town.)
I'm not going to get into a quote war with you. A lot of your little snips about my post are misconstruing what I said, misunderstanding what I said, or are really not important."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
w/r/t justifying ALL my reads (thanks for the caps now I now you didn't mean only some of them):
Uh, no? It's not relevant or helpful to go into full detail about how I feel about every single player, and why. It makes for pretty good fodder for scum to make a big fuss about irrelevant discussion, though.
-----
w/r/t BBT:
In post 616, Anatole Kuragin wrote:
I would think it would depend on the player. He seemed genuinely upset he was outed by his neighbor and I thinkIn post 611, Flubbernugget wrote:
Wouldn't over excited town be less defensive and more tunnel-y?In post 586, Anatole Kuragin wrote:Everything about BBT reads to me as over-excited town so I don't plan on voting him unless some new shit comes to light. It's also unlikely if he's town that he has another role to claim besides neighbor so it's probably a dead end road.he thinkshe keeps seeing all of these scum tells and is going after 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
Man you're really trying to make this buddying thing harder than it actually is."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
@TTH:
- I don't happen to have a solid read on TTH or BBT (hence I don't want to lynch either one), and never claimed to. But simply from the neighbor discussion, TTH comes out worse than BBT and therefore IF that was what we were going to pit the lynch contenders as, I would prefer TTH over BBT.
Whoo boy the neighbor discussion took up several pages, but amazingly there's not much to glean from it in terms of TTH v. BBT.
- Wake may be town! Wake v. Anatole looks like town v. town. But then again, I asked wake a bunch of questions, in the hopes of further discerning my opinion of him. Stay tuned.
- You said:
Yup.When you think about the case and strip it to its core, it consists of: buddying Wake and "lining up lynches" of the neighbors.
- You said:
Csareo's Posts 350 through 407 read like scum trying to polish a turd of a reason to lynch BBT and TTH back to back. Other players who mentioned the possibility did so on the basis of a bad theory that was more in the abstract than a solid push (wake) or under the caveat that he is actually town (BBT) -- so not really the same thing.Csareo is hardly the only one guilty of advocating a lynch sequence. Off the top of my head, I recall BBT, Wake, and Anatole advocating a sequence lynch at some point ("if one of them flips town, lynch the other one" or something to that effect).
- Csareo's jumping in to defend wake at a time when the wake v. Anatole argument was a blood red boil looks opportunistic and suspicious, and reading through it caught my eye."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
Oh, w/r/t "excessive hostility" being alignment indicative -- it can be the easiest emotion to fake and therefore a scum can easily look like flustered/angry/annoyed town.
GreyICE's hostility towards Boon came out of nowhere, and looked manufactured. Someone later on talked about how GreyICE apparently just HATES FUN AND FUNNY GUYS and therefore this helped explain his adverse reaction to Boon's play, meaning GreyICE's hostility towards Boon was pretty minimal in terms of being insightful."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
Oh, further clarification:
In post 631, Green Crayons wrote:- You said:
Yup.When you think about the case and strip it to its core, it consists of: buddying Wake and "lining up lynches" of the neighbors.
That, of course, was simply for my vote as it then existed. Since that time, there's Csareo excessive hostility/defensiveness and his crazy wrong silver bullet about buddying.
Also this is downright adorable scum melodrama:
In post 608, Csareo wrote:That contradiction was so outright blatant.
Please lynch him tommorow, as I'll probs be NK'd"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 635, Csareo wrote:You're just taking things and saying they are scum
"Greyice is scum because his reaction was fake"
"Your buddying was scum"
"Downright adorable scum melodrama"
One of these things is not like the others.
(Hint: you're misrepresenting what I said about GreyICE by blowing out of proportion my suspicion of him, and the basis of that suspicion.)
(Hint x2: contrast that with: your buddyingwassuspicious, and your "woe is me I'm going to get NKed you guys!" melodramaisscummy.)"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 614, Flubbernugget wrote:CRAYONS IT'S A TRAP
Aw, man. I thought you were just referencing the pop culture phenomenon of a rubber suited crustacean, which is never not funny."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 649, Csareo wrote:The fact that greencrayons and ruffling refuse to elaborate on BBT show's he's being protected.
lol, I've elaborated on BBT, glad you're ~*~ READING THE THREAD ~*~.
In post 623, Green Crayons wrote:w/r/t BBT:In post 616, Anatole Kuragin wrote:
I would think it would depend on the player. He seemed genuinely upset he was outed by his neighbor and I thinkIn post 611, Flubbernugget wrote:
Wouldn't over excited town be less defensive and more tunnel-y?In post 586, Anatole Kuragin wrote:Everything about BBT reads to me as over-excited town so I don't plan on voting him unless some new shit comes to light. It's also unlikely if he's town that he has another role to claim besides neighbor so it's probably a dead end road.he thinkshe keeps seeing all of these scum tells and is going after them.
You also appear to now be complaining that Ruffling isn't answering on BBT's behalf. Kind of a Catch-22, because it's pretty poor play for someone (Ruffling) to jump in and address things before the player (BBT) to whom the comments/questions are addressed be able to respond.
Here, I'll add another reason to my vote: you're grasping at all the straws to vilify those who disagree with your BBT "suspicions." Yeah, the scare quotes are there on purpose, because your stated bases to lynch BBT are bad."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 658, Omph wrote:Now I'm not your typical lamer replacee who just waltzes into the thread making a big ass post complete with chronological boring commentary of no value on mundane things. *winks at Green Crayons*
*blush* You noticed?"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
(TBH I thought I was faulted for not including a whole bunch of mundane commentary.)"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 665, Flubbernugget wrote:Every time someone gets into an argument with Csaero, baby jesus gets smothered with a pillow in an alternate universe.
Blergh.
I take it you've played with him before, or are you just talking about within 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
@Omph:
In post 691, Omph wrote:Do you believe Csareo scum slipped?
No. I think actual slips are pretty rare, and his "when" instead of "of" is not a sufficiently clear indication of a slip, particularly in light of BBT just having said that he wanted to be lynched to show everyone that he was town (or something along those lines).
That said, I think that BBT's insistence on looking for scum slips (with TTH, Csareo) is further proof of:
In post 623, Green Crayons wrote:w/r/t BBT:In post 616, Anatole Kuragin wrote:
I would think it would depend on the player. He seemed genuinely upset he was outed by his neighbor and I thinkIn post 611, Flubbernugget wrote:
Wouldn't over excited town be less defensive and more tunnel-y?In post 586, Anatole Kuragin wrote:Everything about BBT reads to me as over-excited town so I don't plan on voting him unless some new shit comes to light. It's also unlikely if he's town that he has another role to claim besides neighbor so it's probably a dead end road.he thinkshe keeps seeing all of these scum tells and is going after them.
-----
In post 691, Omph wrote:1.Green Crayon, how did you go about commenting on the game and its players? Did you read the entire thread first and then make summaries of your thoughts and feelings? Did you do ISOs of everyone and then wrote about them? Did you write notes while reading through? I want to know your process. Be specific, please.
I started on Page 1, and read straight through until Page 24. No ISOing.
When I began, I started making notes as to my reactions to things as they were happening. Hence (this final result was the consequence of modifications, as noted below):
In post 600, Green Crayons wrote:- w/r/tTTHversusBBT, the annoyed neighbors, I would perfer lynching TTH. But if we're only going off of the fact that they are neighbors, and TTH's third post in the QT, I don't want to lynch either.
- lol @ people getting suspicious of players voting/suspecting lurkers and active lurkers.
-AnatoleandFlubberlook and feel town.BoonandDoogal, too, maybe. I'm going to throwRuffliginto the maybe town bag, as well.
- lol @wakeversusAnatole. Wake comes out looking worse by being super active about things ranging from really inane points to bad theories to blatant misunderstanding of what Anatole is saying. Is this wake's "divisive" play style TTH went on about? Ultimately looks like town versus town, but ~*~ who knows ~*~ .
My plan was to simply do a quick list of reactions, but that fell through because I started to have several observations about/questions for wake. So I pulled my wake observations out of the mix of sequential reactions, and made it its own section. Hence:
In post 600, Green Crayons wrote:@Wake:
- Do you normally do these individual-player write ups, and so quickly into D1? Also, why'd you drop the practice so quickly?
- Your theory that both BBT and TTH are scum, and are quoting each other from a scum QT, was something I caught you suggest in a off-hand way at the very beginning of the neighbor business, and then several pages later you went all-in on the theory. Any basis for this suspicion other than pure speculation?
- You said:In post 174, Wake1 wrote:I do. I've played enough games over the years to know when something isn't quite adding up. Should TTH flip Scum, I would certainly suspect you of being her Scum partner because of your role in trying to get everyone else to stop digging at the discrepancy.
Why the appeal to (your) authority?
Explain the contradictory actions according to your theory: BBT/TTH first bring suspicion upon one another (so that when one flips scum neighbor, the other will look like the town neighbor), but then attempt to placate that suspicion andnotget each other lynched.
I then went back to making sequential observations, which I put back in the sequential observation section. (Most of my wake-specific points were from basically the same time period of the game, before the great Anatole/wake fight.)
My next big segment of player-specific observations was Csareo, and so, once again, I segregated that out into its own separate section. Hence:
In post 600, Green Crayons wrote:@Csareo:
- In Post 294 you say wake "appears to be right," but then you recognize the mod actually undercuts wake's position. You also appear to have missed TTH's Post 283 and wake's Post 288 further undercutting your approval of wake's speculation.
Care to comment?
- Whoa calm down on your buddying with wake, you're making it so darn obvious. (Post 294, Post 296, Post300, Post 304, Post 305, Post 308.)
- lol, whoa you're really going whole hog on this buddying wake business. (Post 350.) Okay, whatevs.
- Appears to set up a one-two back to back lynch of BBT and TTH (Post 400, Post 401, Post 403), and doesn't seem to care if they're town so long as he finally gets to know the mechanics of the neighbor role (Post 403 and Post 407).
I made a few more notes in the sequential observation section, and then was done with the read through. I realized I had a few GreyICE specific observations that could be segregated out, so I made them their own section, then I thought about what I read, and added:
In post 600, Green Crayons wrote:OH MAN, THIS GAME.
Here are my thoughts (subsequent posts will be shorter, because I will not be commenting on 24 pages) (yo I bolded names so at least skim for your name if you want I don't care whatever):
And:
In post 600, Green Crayons wrote:And here is my vote: UNVOTE: wake, VOTE: Csareo.
If Csareo is scum, wake is likely town.
And that's how Post 600 came into existence.
As for the sequential observation section, there are observations within each bullet point that are not necessarily in sequential order to entire section. For example:
-Anatole and Flubber look and feel town.Boon and Doogal, too, maybe.I'm going to throw Rufflig into the maybe town bag, as well.
I made the bolded observation first, before the Anatole/wake fight. I made the underlined observation second, after the Anatole/wake fight. I made the italicized observation third, near the end of my reread. I put all of these differently timed reactions on the same line because they were basically the same type of reaction.
These second two observations, however, came sequentially after:
-lol @ wake versus Anatole. Wake comes out looking worse by being super active about things ranging from really inane points to bad theories to blatant misunderstanding of what Anatole is saying.Is this wake's "divisive" play style TTH went on about?Ultimately looks like town versus town, but ~*~ who knows ~*~ .
But even the three sentences within this bullet point were not made all at the same time. The bolded observation was made during the beginning of the Anatole/wake fight. The underline observation was made near the end of the Anatole/wake fight. And the italicized version came some time after the Anatole/wake fight was over."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
@Flubber:
In post 688, Flubbernugget wrote:Vi. BBT gets extra scum points for continuing to pick fights with him. The only thing that is going to get me to scum read Csaero is either lurking or one hell of a scum slip.
In post 689, Flubbernugget wrote:I think as more people play with him they'll get a sense of how to work with him to get good reads. But right now people are just going "look at this dumbass" and I'm not trying to filter through that to work with him.
So you're reading Csaero unless and until he makes a really stupid scum mistake or simply loses interest in the game? (Asking to make sure I have your position right.)
Have you witnessed Csaero's scum game before and that's why you're banking on that type of scumplay from 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
-
-
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 726, TellTaleHeart wrote:*sigh*
The most frustrating thing is, I think the core of the Csareo wagon is that:
1) Csareo's cases and reasoning don't make much logical sense (this was extensively covered by Ruffling, most recently in post 690)
2) Csareo hasn't made much of an effort to build up much goodwill to anyone else with the exception of possibly Wake, but even that's debatable
But when you think about Csareo's activity as a whole, it's very possible (and in my opinion, prettylikely) that he's town who doesn't necessarily think things through before posting them and, as a result, has public image troubles.
Whenever there is a player who has the personality as Csareo, it is entirely possible that his personality vomits actions that are really just anti-town, rather than scummy (because he is town and not scum).
That's why I was digging into the subject with Flubber.
My problem is that I have been burned both ways. I've lynched people who were acting suspicious because that was their playstyle, but who were town. I've also refused to lynch people who were acting suspicious because that was their playstyle, but who were scum. So that gives me pause to credit a "playstyle" defense, as it can be used pretty well by scum, but I'm still weighing what Flubber had to say. Plus, I don't think I'm entirely clueless about bad playstyles, and do my best to look through playstyles that are more foreign to me to determine whether I really think there's something scummy there at the core.
At any rate, because BBT is so incredibly town it hurts, I'm not keen on jumping from my Csareo vote at the moment without having another good thing to move to. So I'm waiting until I have the time to review some players that I have been wanting to lookin at, and then I will follow through (which may entail a vote switch, maybe not) at that time."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
@TTH:
Unless a scum is bussing, they have to make a bad case because they have to vote town. So when people make a bad case, I see that as an opening to evaluate them further.
(Obviously town make bad cases against players too, so unless there is something more than simply making a bad case -- such as refusing to critically reanalyze the case, or vilifying those who don't agree with the case -- simply making a bad case is not enough, in and of itself, for me to want to lynch someone. This caveat does not apply to Csareo because I think he's done more than simply make a bad case against BBT.)
If you think my continued vote for Csareo is based solely off of his buddying and his bad BBT case, you haven't been reading my other posts. I think his post-my-entry-into-the-game play has been scummy, which does not pertain to his buddying or his BBT case, and that's where Flubber's input becomes relevant for my purposes of voting Csareo.
To put it in your phraseology: Csareo is working towards a scum win condition by (1) pushing a bad case against someone who looks clearly town to me, thereby reducing the total town numbers, and (2) developing a persona that excuses a lot of his suspicious actions, thereby helping to protect himself against adverse actions."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
w/r/t the buddying aspect of Csareo suspicions, I think massive's point here is actually worthwhile and directly responds to your 762 comment:
In post 698, massive wrote:
3. The buddying of Wake, but really, the reaction to being called on it. It might have been a completely different story had you said, "yeah, I'm townreading Wake, I agree with this point," but you go straight into yelling at people for "bullshit associative tells" (hint: it's not associative since it doesn't rely on Wake's alignment) and claiming we'll lynch Wake if you flip town (607). Not only are you buddying him, but you're working extra hard to tie your alignment to his."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
@TTH:
In post 773, TellTaleHeart wrote:Alright, I understand that scum have to concoct bogus cases on townies to advance their win conditions. But I've seen cases where townies are stuck in confirmation bias. The very things you seem to think are scummy are reasons whyIthink this is the case for Csareo. How is "vilifying people who disagree" part of a scum response? To me, this kind of response you're describing seems to fit confirmation bias to a "T" (implying that the opinions are genuine).
(1) Mere disagreement with a case doesn't make someone scum. Csareo has called people suspicious for disagreeing with his case. Use of this indicator of scumminess is not alignment indicative (at least before any flip has come about), and it simply muddles up the thread's collective consciousness about who is and isn't suspicious. Adding confusion to the thread = scum tactic.
(2) Also, it allows Csareo to pull this "if I'm right, people who disagree with me are scum; if I'm wrong, people who disagree with me are scum" tactic:
In post 772, Csareo wrote:There are two possibilities that make sense to me now.
1. BBT is scum and two of the people voting me are reacting to my push
2. BBT is town, and scum are defending both me and him to be apart of a town bloc if we are mislynched
-----
In post 773, TellTaleHeart wrote:Number (2) requires more scrutiny. You think Csareo is feigning incompetence or stubbornness? That seems like an accusation that needs substantiation in the form of previous experience / other completed games.
There's a difference between "feigning" a playstyle and purposefully playing in a certain manner that is obtuse. Once again, this goes back to Flubber's comments, and whether Csareo's usual play aligns with what we see here, and whether that alone should suffice in excusing his suspicious actions."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 791, Jagged Appliance wrote:Ok, I caught up. I forgot to do this in my first post so UNVOTE:
I'm about to go to bed so I'll just say a couple of things. I don't like the Csareo wagon. His cases are bad but that just makes him an easy mislynch. Like Anatole said, he's not likely to be NKed too often. Here's something specific I don't like from post 766:
To put it in your phraseology: Csareo is working towards a scum win condition by (1) pushing a bad case against someone who looks clearly town to me, thereby reducing the total town numbers, and (2) developing a persona that excuses a lot of his suspicious actions, thereby helping to protect himself against adverse actions.
(1) Csareo is making a bad case, yes, but town does that all the time, not just scum.
(2) I'm here to win this game, nothing else. I don't care about his persona. This also makes it sound like this is a policy lynch. Is it?
It's like you didn't even read the anything of Post 766 except what you quoted."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
@Jagged:
Read 766 again. The answers are all right there in 766.
1) In 791, you took issue with me voting Csareo for making a bad case. But in 766 I explicitly stated this is not the only reason why I'm willing to lynch him, and that "making a bad case," standing alone, is not a valid basis to lynch someone because town make them too.
2) In 791, you attempt to characterize my Csareo vote as a policy lynch because of his personality. That isthe exact oppositeof why Csareo's playstyle is even relevant to my analysis. That is, I'm trying to determine if whether Csareo's playstyle excuses his suspicious activities, thereby exempting him from a lynch, rather than constitutes a basis for his lynch. (TBF, this is more clearly put forward in Post 749, and while I don't expect anyone other than TTH to be reading my posts directed at her with much care, I suspect you were reading our interaction more closely since you decided that one post within our back-and-forth struck you the wrong way, and you must have done your homework to at least see if Post 766 was part of some larger discussion.)
(Sidenote toTTHandFlubber: I think I'm giving Csareo plenty of leeway to compensate for his playstyle -- for example, his redic posting in the past two pages are unproductive, but not a valid basis to further solidify my vote.ThatI can attribute to playstyle. The particular suspicious actions I have noted in the past as justifying my continued Csareo vote just don't fit under the same protective umbrella.)
-----
In post 839, Jagged Appliance wrote:Your previous post says BBT is so town it hurts. That is a reason to vote Csareo for mistakes in his case but I don't see how BBT is so incredibly town. Could you explain?
I've repeated it before:
In post 692, Green Crayons wrote:In post 623, Green Crayons wrote:w/r/t BBT:In post 616, Anatole Kuragin wrote:
I would think it would depend on the player. He seemed genuinely upset he was outed by his neighbor and I thinkIn post 611, Flubbernugget wrote:
Wouldn't over excited town be less defensive and more tunnel-y?In post 586, Anatole Kuragin wrote:Everything about BBT reads to me as over-excited town so I don't plan on voting him unless some new shit comes to light. It's also unlikely if he's town that he has another role to claim besides neighbor so it's probably a dead end road.he thinkshe keeps seeing all of these scum tells and is going after them.
I think Anatole hit the nail squarely on the head. In short, BBT's actions read like an over excited town making a genuine attempt to look for 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
Thinking it over, Jagged, I think you may have confused what the quoted portion of 766 meant. TTH wanted a reason why Csareo-scum would be acting the way he was. I told her in the portion of 766 that you quoted.
However, why Csareo-scum would be acting in the manner that Csareo is acting in this game is is not synonymous with why I am voting Csareo. It just explains how Csareo's actions in this game are consistent with Csareo being scum.
I think that might clarify our miscommunication about 766."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
@wake, Anatole:you two, along with Jagged, are the only players who aren't voting for either Csareo or BBT. I'm curious as to your thoughts about both wagons, and why your vote is where it is (Anatole on Jagged (replacing GreyICE), and wake on nobody, as of last VC)."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
@Csareo:if you're on a mind to do so, please link to one (or, even better, several) of your scum games. I know you said that they have all been offsite, but I don't think simply linking to a completed, offsite game violates any MS rules."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
@Csareo:
In post 845, Csareo wrote:Unless it is on the grounds of inactivity, a policy lynch is usually a scum motivated lynch.
This is the second time in recent memory that you've mentioned favorably voting for players who are lurking. How do you feel about the pressure BBT got early in the game for wanting to vote for lurkers:
Spoiler: Full Back-and-Forth Conversation, Posts Cut Down to Relevant Portions"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 852, Csareo wrote:Yet I never actually pushed a vote, or even a case on lurkers, have I? BBT isn't scummy for wanting to lynch inactives, but it's the fact that he kept reverting back to policy lynches while undergoing a tunnel, which is what is really suspicous.
The point of my question was how do you feel about the players criticizing BBT for voting lurkers, not your well known feelings about BBT.
I'm not a fan of your selective quoting either, just to make that clear.
There's not a emoticon with a large enough eye roll for me to post."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
w/r/t your description of your scum play:
That doesn't really help me. You mention your strategies as playing scum, but I'm more curious in the general "feel" to your playstyle when you're scum.
Your reasons for not linking to a game are pretty thin. Your scum playstyle is pretty darn relevant for how I'm going to move forward with dealing with you, as has been mentioned countless times in the past day or two.
Also, you linking to offsite games is not going to somehow magically transform your meta on MS itself. This is also a strange hangup to have if you are town 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
It's easier for me to just quote myself as to why I'm voting you. So here you go:
Spoiler: My Basis For Voting Csareo
I don't respond to most of your posts because by and large they are so far off into left field territory, that the time and energy it would take to correct you about your misunderstandings/misrepresentations/irrelevant tangents just really isn't worth it to me."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 trying to pursue other suspicions while attempting to figure you out, so maybe if you have a little patience you'll see if I have suspicions of other players that I find worthwhile enough to vocalize."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, 863 is why I don't respond to you.
You've reduced suspicions against you to "buddying" (in a generic sense, ignoring the fact that your response to the assertion is even more damming of your alignment than the initial assertion itself) and "tunneling," (ignoring the fact that it's not even tunneling which constitutes my suspicions as I've never suggested that you're suspicious for failing to have pursued players other than BBT).
This, of course, which makes it super easy for you to dismiss my suspicions. Very convenient for you, you deserve a slow clap. Clap clap clap. But it's such a gross misrepresentation of what I have actually said that either you're scum just spewing BS or are so far gone that there's no way for me to even reach you.
Ah, yes. Then you're asking me three questions "that I keep putting off."
1) Why am I town reading BBT? I've responded to this question from you twice already. TWICE. And then an additional time to Jagged. READ THE THREAD.
2) Why am I saying that you are scum for scum reading BBT? lol. this question belongs in an alternate reality, as it does not pertain to the game we're playing here in the real world. Your position on BBT is bad and wrong, but that doesn't make you scum, and I never said it does. Theclosestthing I've said to that is that you've pushed a really bad case against BBT as part of attempting to set up a one-two back-to-back lynch with BBT and TTH.
3) Who else am I scum reading? Nobody. I have some inklings as to suspicions, but amazingly they are nearly as fully developed as my suspicions of you."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
Since you're around,, and have not addressed anything I have ever posed to you, I hope that you will at least answer this:wake
In post 849, Green Crayons wrote:@wake, Anatole:you two, along with Jagged, are the only players who aren't voting for either Csareo or BBT. I'm curious as to your thoughts about both wagons, and why your vote is where it is (Anatole on Jagged (replacing GreyICE), and wake on nobody, as of last VC)."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
@Doogal:
(1) Observation: You claimed ignorance about game mechanics in Post 40, going so far to make a joke (?) about whether TTH and BBT being "neighbors" is a game mechanic or a IRL aspect of their play. Then, in your very next post, Post 110, you appear very knowledgeable about game mechanics, including how a survivor role was implemented into a neighbor scenario.
Question: What explains this broad discrepancy in your knowledge about roles generally, and the neighbor role specifically?
(2) Observation: In Post 164, you faulted BBT for "randomly sheep<ing> instead of engage and pressure." It would appear that you are referring to BBT's vote for scrambles (Post 155), which BBT explained as being a vote for a lurker (Post 157, Post 159). I scrolled through the previous pages, and it does not appear that anyone else was voting for scrambles before BBT's post.
Question: How was BBT's lurker vote on scrambles "sheeping," and how did it not try to "engage and pressure" scrambles to provide substantive content to the thread?
(3) Observation: In Post 164 and Post 375, you mention your willingness to vote GreyICE, but only upon other people's approval of your suspicions.
Question (A): Why were you making a GreyICE vote contingent upon the approval of other players?
Question (B): What changed by Post 535, when you finally vote switched to GreyICE? (Only Anatole had voted GreyICE at this time, and a quick skim of the preceding pages reveals that GreyICE was not on anyone's mind.)
(4) Observation: You said:In post 375, Doogal121 wrote:BBT however is now pushing on a lurker when we have plenty of scuminess to deal with.
Question: What other players constituted this "plenty" of scum candidates at that time? How about now?"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 just read through Flubber's ISO, and confirmed what I thought from my first read through: his posts all read like genuine town reactions.
I would appreciate him having a more active role in this game, though."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
w/r/t Flubber:
In post 951, BlueBloodedToffee wrote:I don't see it.
You think his vote on me was genuine? He has contributed nothing and continues to do so. Just sitting back waiting for a lynch to go through.
His initial vote for you Post 193 was because you followed GreyICE's Anatole vote without double checking the game source for GreyICE's criticism. I personally don't do double checks all that much from other games, and allow other players to refute a mischaracterized game, so I don't personally fault you for not looking into the game GreyICE cited. That said, I also don't think his vote for you on that basis is unreasonable.
He "revoted" you in Post 547, but his vote was already on you.
I think Flubber's thinking out loud regarding Csareo, and going back and forth on that, reads pretty town.
His interactions with Anatole were not particularly insightful for me, with respect to either Flubber or Anatole, but it reads like an active player pursuing suspicions."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
Boon:I believe TTH said that this isn't her first game on MS."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 posting for two days -- two weekend days -- doesn't strike me as "going inactive.""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
As of my posting, the four players who haven't spoken up most recently:
massive -- last post: 1D 23H -- total posts: 23
Anatole -- last post: 2D 10H -- total posts: 132
Omph -- last post: 2d 19H -- total posts: 3
Doogal -- last post: 3D 10H -- total posts: 23
Anything under 2 days over a weekend, in my book, isn't a blip on my radar. People do stuff on weekends.
Anatole has been 100+ posts active up until the weekend hit.
Omph just replaced in.
And then there's Doogal.
(shrug)"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
@TTH:I read through your ISO and have no idea why you're still voting BBT.
Thoughts?"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 the theory is that scum would not want to jump away from the town wagon and onto their scumbuddy's wagon to bus, because it's still a possibility that town will defect from their current wagon on the scum and join the wagon on the town.
It's speculation that simply explains how the current game state is consistent with one of the wagons being on scum, but it does not provide evidence that one of the wagons is on scum.
For example, a potential scenario is that both Csareo and BBT are town. If that is in fact the situation we are facing, scum moving from one wagon to the other would seal in a lynch and bring a lot of attention to them: Why did they decide to switch wagons now? What was it about their previous suspicions that they were not only able to get over, but then to decide that the other wagon was actually more valid all this time? Etc. In that case, it's more advantageous for scum to stick to their wagon (or on no wagon) and simply let the town figure out who to kill, and hence, little movement."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
@TTH:
1) Was BBT scum or town in Chosen mafia?
2) What happened to your Ruffling suspicions? I came away from your ISO last night wondering why you hadn't voted him all 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
@Anatole:
How was GreyICE's LAL push scum motivated, particularly in light of Flubber's observation in Post 202: "But that's the thing. It's so easy for someone to just say "nuh-uh" and nothing would have really cemented into Dougal. Which is exactly what happened btw."
Like, I get how it's anti-town, but why would scum push a clearly verifiable misrep/lie about another game setup as the basis to vote/start a wagon push?"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
BTW I appreciate the responses to my questions.
*tear*"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 1087, Green Crayons wrote:@TTH:
1) Was BBT scum or town in Chosen mafia?
2) What happened to your Ruffling suspicions? I came away from your ISO last night wondering why you hadn't voted him all 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
wake wants to know if the neighbors have daytalk.Oh.
Jeeze, you could have just asked that instead of inquire in the most roundabout way possible."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
Oh man, I'm so glad we're going to retread this ground."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, wake, if you think me criticizing you're failure to articulate your questions in a manner that people can actually understand what you're getting at equates to "distracting from the discussion," then WELP sorry you're wrong."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
Pretty sure both BBT and TTH have said that they haven't gotten confirmation if quoting the mod's posts from the PT is acceptable."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 the only new thing I see on the horizon is Jagged's Doogal case.
And I guess if Omph wants to 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
In post 1103, Bert wrote:
BlueBloodedToffee(6)– TellTaleHeart, Flubbernugget, Csareo, Boonskiies, Doogal121, Wake88
Csareo(5)– Omph, The Rufflig, Green Crayons, BlueBloodedToffee, massive
JaggedAppliance(1)– Anatole Kuragin
Not Voting(1)- JaggedAppliance[/area]
If Csareo is town, BBT is scum: lol BBT isn't scum so I'm not even going to think hard about a scenario that isn't plausible
If Csareo is scum, BBT is town: TTH and Doogal are pretty high on my list of suspects, considering play and wagon timing.
If Csareo is town, BBT is town: TTH OR Doogal, Ruffling OR massive (OR maaaybe Omph -- I'm not digging his complete absence), and I feel like I should say Anatole OR Jagged, but I like their posting so it hurts me to say that
My "or" pairings in the town/town scenario do not necessarily exclude the other party, I just paired the players from each wagon who strike me as most suspicious in a town/town scenario based off of game memory of everyone's play.
Let's see. I didn't mention Flubber, Boon, Wake, or myself in the above, so I'm town reading those folks. (Feeling p solid about all of those except Boon, who appears to have have turned on a dime, and was convinced to such a degree by Csareo's single post summarizing his case against BBT that Boon began reading Csareo as town, is . . . questionable.)
Obviously from the above, I'm also town reading BBT.
I'm throwing Anatole and Jagged into the strong lean town category, because I like the town feel of their posting, but I also recognize that their posting feels somewhat safe."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 we need is a flip for additional scum hunting. (shrug)"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
@massive:
My initial reaction was to simply state that his posts "feel" town, because that's what I'm working off of from memory, but I'll try to give that read a bit more meat after doing a quick ISO and rejogging my memory of specifics:
- His early game hammer-troll back and forth, ultimately resolving not to be a hammer-troll, reads town.
- His SK spec was weird, but it was built up off of GreyICE actions that I thought were worth noting.
- His willingness to agree with a player who was getting heat (agreed with BBT that voting for lurkers was a valid way to look for scum).
- Although his sudden turn on Csareo is really weird, I credit the fact that his read of Csareo is still pretty nuanced (e.g., Post 352, reads Csareo as town but recognizes that his posting isn't something he agrees with).
- Then there's a bunch of active stuff that isn't particularly alignment indicative one way or another.
- Maaaybe some of the BBT/Csareo suspicion differentiation would give me pause, I would need to look through it more carefully."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
@TTH:I'm shocked,shockedto learn that you don't like my posting once I basically state that you're in my Top 3 scum suspects."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
@TTH:
1) (shrug) Some people are just easier to read than others. I have BBT being 90% likely town at this point in the game. Similarly, I'd put wake at being 80% likely town. I'm not going to waste my time and energy at this point in the game to speculate about scenarios where I'm required to think that they are, in fact, scum.
2) You said:
The townread on BBT isn't that well-founded in the first place andyour witch-hunting from the BBT wagon is bad at that.
The bolded portion is delightfully overblown nonsense. I stated who I would look at given certain scenarios. This should be apparent from the every day, sensical language I used in Post 1186. You're now suggesting thatif Csareo is actually scum and BBT is actually town, it is witchhunting to look at the players on the BBT bandwagon. I'll let that sink in and maybe you'll want to retract it. Or maybe not.
3) Dougal's on my radar because he's been fairly inactive, though apparently "quietly" active enough to catch posts addressed to him. So, if he's keeping up with the thread, where are his thoughts? Also, I have issues with his 3B and 4 responses to my questions from Post 1079, but that's something I would pursue on another day. (Because this day is too long as is.)
4) Ruffling is on my radar simply by process of elimination of who is on the Csareo wagon. (You know, which I would be required to "witch hunt" from if one of those hypothetical scenarios I posited -- where both BBT and Csareo are town -- is actually true.) Ultimately, I feel more like the GreyICE/Omph slot is somehow actually more town (super faint, admittedly, and somewhat based on my speculation about a few things) than massive/Ruffling, so they would be the players I would look more closely at from the Csareo wagon."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
@Jagged:I would posit that most, if not all, of everything wake asked BBT in the past 10 pages regarding the neighbor scenario has already been asked and answered in this game.
I don't know if that changes how you feel about BBT's willingness to be forthcoming."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
Out of curiosity, Rufflig (sorry I've been mistaking it as Ruffling): how in the world did you come to that single line of Post 801 -- a sentence from a wall post that's 400 posts in the past?"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