NY 174: Oldy Mafia 2 (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
UNVOTE:
So STD can't self-hammer, if you're really worried about 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
as;dljas;dlfjkasdl;fj
Seconds."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
Well, just beat Patrick to the thread.
"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
Well, ABR, at least you've upgraded to your big boy britches.
Shame you're just 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
Back from gym break.
Thought ABR was vig. Part of my all-in on him being town. Apparently I'm not good at picking up PR tells.
In post 3395, chamber wrote:In post 3393, DrippingGoofball wrote:I'm not sure about MBL. He's always some kind of non-participant, he's hard to tie down. Plus at the end of today I felt he was pretending to start to suspect me. I found his posts made up of names and numbers without interpretation REALLY SKETCH
His post that tied STD to LML really got the STD wagon going initially. Your POE helped drive it home, but its hard to see a scumbuddy doing that. I've been trapped too many times to write someone off completely on any single event but this makes me want to write him off.
But see:
In post 3162, Green Crayons wrote:As for your question "what does MBL thinking LML buses have to do with" my original question of why isn't MBL already voting STD? Because MBL was one of the biggest proponents of "LML has a compulsion to bus his partners." Who did LML bus? Let's go to the best post that summarizes LML's feelings:
In post 759, LoudmouthLee wrote:Here's who I currently think is town: Chamber, DGB, Shanba, Glork.
Here's who I am leaning town on: MBL, Undo, ABR. inHim (or any incarnations)
Here's who I have null on: Porochaz, CTD, CES, VitR, GC, Yos2, BooKitty (I feel like that wagon is incredibly manufactured... similar to mine), Kublai Khan
Here's who I am leaning scum on: UT,Mathcam,STD, Sotty
Here's who I have strong scum feelings for: PJ
Only mathcam and STD are the "unknowns" w/r/t who LML could possibly be bussing.
But who was LML suspecting hardcore all D1 -- the more visible and actually credible "bus"? That's right: STD.
The masons weighing in on how they feel about STD doesn't have any relation whatsoever on whether MBL actually believes his own LML meta claim. So the question to ask is: (1) why was MBL pushing a meta theory about LML that he now apparently doesn't have much confidence in, (2) why is MBL refusing to comply with a meta theory that he does have confidence in, or (3) unknown third option."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
Yos your questioning of DGB is still really bad and I don't actually understand how you gleaned anything from 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
Which I think was, in part, frustrated by chamber's jumping in."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 3412, DrippingGoofball wrote:One of MBL/SpyreX is scum.
lol you mean Spyre, the other player I wanted to lynch back when he was inHim/Zorblag?"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 3395, chamber wrote:
His post that tied STD to LML really got the STD wagon going initially. Your POE helped drive it home, but its hard to see a scumbuddy doing that. I've been trapped too many times to write someone off completely on any single event but this makes me want to write him off.In post 3393, DrippingGoofball wrote:I'm not sure about MBL. He's always some kind of non-participant, he's hard to tie down. Plus at the end of today I felt he was pretending to start to suspect me. I found his posts made up of names and numbers without interpretation REALLY SKETCH
Actually, I'm curious what post you're talking about. MBL was big on the "LML busses" back in D2, but I don't recall him bringing it back up since then."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
Ugh. 3461 was in response to chamber's 3457."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
DGB, maybe, like, an updated list of your scum suspects in descending order?
Since you're thinking this through in real 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
(And there are so many lists out there already.)"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 would (and have) qualify him as an active lurker. The content of his posts have struck me as good, but I am willing to reassess with critical glasses on."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 see that you've pitted us against each other. Which wagon were we on together that aligned us as such?"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 have so many posts, I'm being lazy."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 3398, DrippingGoofball wrote:Glork (6)-- Green Crayons,Sotty7,MafiaSSK/mathcam,CrashTextDummie, Cogito Ergo Sum,Porochaz
Glork (11)--undo,KublaiKhan/OGML,VitaminR,Green Crayons, Yosarian2,Albert B. Rampage, Untrod Tripod, DrippingGoofball, chamber,CrashTextDummie,mathcam
GreenCrayons looks superbad here.
If GreenCrayons is town, Porochaz is scum.
On the second wagon... there's at least two scum on this... pushing on three. That's my gut feeling.
This, DGB?"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 Spyre's ISO is not highly populated with posts, but it's basically (1) STD is scum and we should lynch him and (2) DGB is cool and we should not lynch her.
Not what I was expecting (I didn't remember anything abotu Spyre's play except his post about OGML)."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've upgraded to green.
Suck it, ABR."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 3519, Albert B. Rampage wrote:Juls, there's no way that Yosarian is scum.
Pick someone inside this group please:
[Porochaz, CDB, mathcam]
If this is the voting pool, my gut reaction (based on my memory of each player's/slot's play) is Poro > mathcam > CDB."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
VOTE: Porochz
Wanted to skim his post history before committing. Comfortable with this."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 3524, Juls wrote:I'll elaborate when I get home. I'm on my phone and my notes are on my PC.
Though I don't think we're going to get five more votes for an actual quicklynch (as opposed to a "quick" lynch relative to this game's pace), I do want to see this."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 3223, Yosarian2 wrote:Basically, I was setting up a situation where the play pro-town DGB would make was different then the play scum-DGB would have made.Once I made it clear that I think that either DGB or STD is probably scum (which, by the way, I actually do), then hypo-scum-DGB (who presumably would already know STD was town) would probably derail the whole STD bandwagon; stop voting for him and vote for me, or change the focus to someone else, or something.If she did then, then I'd know she was scum. (On the other hand, in the situation where scum-DGB was bussing a partner, she would have said she was confident he was scum right away; I expected town-DGB to be more then a little paranoid about my fairly bizzare question.)
The fact that she's still willing to lynch STD, even knowing that she's likely the lynch tomorrow if he's town, means that DGB is most likely town who actually believes he's scum.
Was this expectation of blatantly scummy behavior coming from DGB-scum based on your previous experience with DGB?"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
@Juls:I think I can do a quick breakdown as to how we're looking at either Poro, mathcam, or CDB. Some mindreading involved.
Masons
8) undo
9) Sotty7
11) Juls (replacing petroleumjelly)
Not Viable Lynch Candidates(I don't think these players are on anybody's radar for today.)
1) Chamber
15) Albert B. Rampage
Lynch Pool
2) Porochaz
5) MrBuddyLee
13) mathcam (replacing MafiaSSK)
16) Green Crayons
17) SpyreX (replacing inHimshallibe who replaced Zorblag who replaced Natirasha, who replaced farside22)
18) VitaminR
20) Yosarian2
21) Bookitty (replacing Seol)
22) ChannelDelibird (replacing OhGodMyLife who replaced Kublai Khan who replaced Tigris)
So, going from the lynch pool, DGB matched up the following players so that if one's scum, the other is likely town, and vica versa (all according to her bandwagon analysis, which still makes me somewhat skeptical in terms of being used solely to lynch a player, but which I think is of use to help narrow the focus in light of the fact that there is some sense behind it that has led to previous success):
- Porochaz v. GC
- MBL v. Spyre
- mathcam v. Bookitty
Although I find myself going back and forth on MBL, I must admit that MBL and Spyre look good with STD's flip. ABR apparently agrees, but with much more gusto. So he picked one player from the other match ups (Poro and mathcam), presumably the one he thinks is scummier of the particular match up.
Who else is left?
- Yos: his badge of townieness has been fading since D1, but I don't think there has ever been serious rumblings as to him being a lynch candidate
- Vitamin: has weathered some serious suspicions, but is hard to read for players
- CDB: replacement station
CDB -- setting aside the fact that ABR is convinced the slot is scum -- is the best go-to third option as a practical matter. Yos and Vitamin are known quantities, we have a steady arc of their play, we can evaluate them based on other players actions, etc. CDB is none of those things.
So that nets us Poro, mathcam, and CDB."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 3577, mathcam wrote:I'm not even sure I'd put him at townish.
Well, I would like to see your explanation for this."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 caught my eye because it's a feeling that I entertained a two game days ago, and, since then, has been resolved into likely town, will seriously reevaluate if chamber's still alive in end game.
In post 3580, mathcam wrote:I'm aware that there's some pro-chamber sentiment floating around, but there's been a lot of that toward porochaz also that I've felt is unfounded, and there's always been this ABR-Chamber-VitR-CES-Porochaz clique thing (from playing together so much, not necessarily related to scumminess) happening that makes me uncomfortable. So I've been trying to ignore the vibes coming off that clique, and without it, I just don't see that much townly to find with respect to chamber.
Apart from ABR's most recent "we knew CES because we've played together" spiel earlier today, how have you picked up a we're-all-town-together clique vibe from these five? I can think of a few examples of suspicions/votes that specifically cut against such a clique."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
Also, there's a wide gap between not even "townish" (your position) and "obvtown" (false alternative you made up)."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 3544, MrBuddyLee wrote:1.5) Also note the wagon STD attacked was:
petroleumjelly, Seol, Porochaz, Green Crayons
STD wrote:Thus that leaves Seol, Porochaz, Green Crayons, and LoudMouthLee. I believe one of them is likely to be mafia.
Would STD really home in on a small list of players with TWO scumpartners in it and try to focus attention there?
I think you have good points in this post except for the one I'm quoting. I don't know if there's any basis to believe that STD picked one or two scum partners to highlight attention on.
Further, if we accept that STD was attempting to look protown by attacking the wagon on (assuming for argument) town-mafiaSSK/mathcam, then STD would be required to pay attention to all people on said wagon, and not obviously leave out one 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
@Juls:
In post 3576, Juls wrote:At the lake. Will post later.
I, too, am interested in seeing how your read on Yos develops as you continue through the game. I thought his strong anti-LML drumbeat throughout D1 played well in his favor as I was living the game (particularly immediately after LML's flip), but you appear to not view that as being an as-favorable quality in your after-the-fact review.
Is that correct, and I would be interested in any further thoughts you might have on that particular aspect of Yos's D1 play?
-----
@mathcam:
(1) Your perception of the reaction to your chamber-stance appears to be overblown. In 3580, your position "raise<d> so many eyebrows," and now in 3585 there is "shock" to your position. I mean, there were two people who responded: chamber himself, and me. chamber's response is a bit severe ("smells wrong"), but that's understandable because it's you commenting on him. My response is reads neutral, because it is neutral: I just want your insight as to the matter. I don't think the combination of chamber's and my posts constitute eyebrow raising and shock.
So, I'm commenting on this because you're being overly sensitive to your non-alignment-indicative position that chamber is a completely null read. Now that I have pointed that out, do you disagree? Care to explain? Thoughts/feelings/reactions?
(2)I'm aware that there's some pro-chamber sentiment floating around, but there's been a lot of that toward porochaz also that I've felt is unfounded, and there's always been this ABR-Chamber-VitR-CES-Porochaz clique thing (from playing together so much, not necessarily related to scumminess) happening that makes me uncomfortable.So I've been trying to ignorethe vibescoming off that clique, and without it, I just don't see that much townly to find with respect to chamber.
If the clique's vibes have nothing to do with alignment, then I misunderstood what you were saying here. And, in light of 3585, I don't really understand what you're saying here. What are these "vibes"?"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
addendum: "shock" was stated in 3584, not 3585, as a quick look up the page will reveal"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
Recognizing that I can be pedantic, I don't think that this conversation is about semantics. (I don't really care about your "obvtown" comment, it was an off the cuff observation about a probably off the cuff use of the term.)
- I'm trying to understand your position w/r/t chamber because I am comfortable with thinking that you are town, and I thus want to delve into where you're coming from to see if it has merit or if there's something you've missed or if we're just on a point of disagreement.
- That led to your comment about there being a clique. <I had a response here that I deleted in light of your immediate follow-up post.> I now understand what you're saying. I don't recall there being much of that "just trust me due to experience" to justify players' town reads of chamber? (shrug)
- Word usage is very important, because it reveals how a player perceives another player's actions. I think your word usage is disproportionate to the chamber/GC reaction, which makes you look defensive. Which can be scummy. However, with your history of being suspected, it's not unreasonable to attribute such defensiveness to town, and so I wanted your reaction as to my observations. Having them, I now understand your justification for using those terms."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 3591, mathcam wrote:Completely null-read is uncharitable. My elaboration makes it more explicit that I don't have anything particularly towny in chamber's column, and that there are even some points against him. I don't think this elevates him to the top of the scumminess pack, but it's in notable contrast to at least several people who seem pretty convinced of his townliness. If I have to boil it down to a quick phrase, I think "at most neutral" better describes my stated stance than "complete nullread."
I equate neutral and null in terms of alignment descriptors. Language!
But, more importantly: I looked at your posts, and I don't really see what points against chamber you have made.
This?
There's not a particularly strong stand against either STD or LML, and his defense of DGB is more anti-Yos than pro-DGB."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
3603 reads like scum using excuses and shock to explain away his wrongness and to stall on providing scum hunting material.
Town will be wrong. It's not the end of the world if you're town and you're wrong. It's inevitable. But 3603 reads as if we should believe Prozac's wrongness w/r/t DGB and STD has shaken him to his core or something. It looks like scum overselling town regret."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 3621, Yosarian2 wrote:Poro, I donno; I'd like to see him respond to your 3601.
You mean apart from Porochaz's 3603, which was his response to 3601?"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 know who was also certain in their reads: DGB.
Oh wow what a great indicator as to who is scum let's argue about which players were relatively more certain in their reads than others."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 3674, Porochaz wrote:I am up to page 90, there are a few things Im noticing, one, I am still finding it hard to drown DGB, two, there is still the weird DGB/ABR relationship, three, the masons need to contribute more, sotty because when she does, its usually useful and undo because well, what the hell has he done? 4, the yos and vitr discussion is slightly more interesting, its one in which yos's focus on the masons comes off badly for him, 5, MBL and GC are still obvtown
Scum version of scumhunting. Safe and unobtrusive."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
@Yos:you have been pretty confident in calling Poro town throughout the entire game up until post 3713. And I do mean this literally -- for example, most recently you derided Vitamin for suggesting a Poro scum in 3709. You posting Poro-is-town meesages occurred throughout the game, and it has not diminished at the end of yesterday/beginning of today.
But now in 3715 you're going to be "pretty surprised" if he flips town?
I have whiplash."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 3717, Yosarian2 wrote:Do you disagree with any of my reads?
Not particularly. (Though I did notice that you didn't include yourself in the list at all.) I just wanted an explanation.
-----
I assumed Yos's positioning of chamber as "confirmed town" derives from Yos picking up that chamber is the vig based off of yesterday's twilight conversation. I don't think that chamber actually claimed vig, it is purposefully ambiguous as to who is the vig, and I'm fine with that and don't see the need to draw attention to the issue."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
Which part don't you believe?"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 find Juls's posts interesting and useful, though I do not necessarily agree or disagree with every observation she makes, so I'm fine with the day lingering for her to get her thoughts down out in the thread.
I don't find the usual back-and-forths to be interesting or useful (e.g., Yos-versus-Vitamin). So I have begun to skim these posts.
I find it interesting that new back-and-forths have not arisen. In particular, Porochaz's willful failure to address anything about his wagon has not escaped my notice, even though his posts this game day make clear that he has kept an eye on the here-and-now, not just on 50 pages ago. Feels like scum hoping that if he does not bring attention to the votes on him, that will minimize the focus of such votes, and therefore those votes might drift away to more actively discussed 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
Nah. Your post speaks for itself.
Sorry to hear about your IRL troubles."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
Yeah, but just imagine how bad I get when Itryto be an asshole."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 chamber said.
UNVOTE: Poro
VOTE: Yos"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 discount fatigue as being a part of my Yos vote, but it's also motivated by factors I consider legitimate:
(1) His playing up of his role in getting STD lynched (scummy vibe);
(2) Confirmed town Juls, who has the added benefit of approaching the game from a different perspective of everyone else, thinks his play is scummy;
(3) MBL's points against him w/r/t immediate post-crash-recovery.
I'm still super happy with a Poro lynch, so if we're going that way, let's do it. UNVOTE: Yos, VOTE: Poro.
Also, lol @ MBL not even sticking to his "my votes are sacred" schtick."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
3946 reads like someone who has been calling Yos town all game, but has been reading people he knows (Juls) or is pretty sure (ABR, MBL) is town say that Yos has been scummy, and finds that those reasons are credited, but still would prefer his more preferred 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
And 3946 reads as someone who is saying those things in not so many words in response to Bookitty's post specifically addressing the recent Yos votes."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, not so much "guilty conscience," but someone who is happy to find a reason to vote for his more preferred option."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
And finally:In post 3848, Albert B. Rampage wrote:I started this day with the intent of getting a quicklynch as we had agreed with DGB yesterday. Instead, we lurked, we derped, and we talked each other in circles without actually lynching anyone, and it's getting boring. I've lost interest. I told you this would happen."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
Also: at this point I have no idea what points you and Yos have against each other, and I have 0.00% interest in wading through the muck that is y'all's epic poem's worth of posts going back and forth.
Seriously, if you two are scumbuddies together (MBL's hypothesis), hat tip to you because my god your spat has grown so insipid I can't be bothered to muddle through 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
Oh, disapproval? No, I'm pretty confident that my townness is apparent. This is just my self doubt in full force."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
Intended response: MBL is more "convincing" because my eyes didn't instantly glaze over his posts. So, not that your points against Yos aren't necessary unconvincing, it's just that they've become muddled and confusing. Because of the ample post history on the subject and the back and forths.
I didn't take your post as a dig at anyone. Did my post come across as a dig? I suppose it could have. I was just throwing some commentary onto the bonfire that is today. Extra, Extra: Vitamin/Yos back and forth reaches new depths of keen insight!
Hah, another dig. I joke out of love. It's the only way I know how to.
Nah, you two are fun to play with. These spats between individual players are inevitable. Without them, and the bruised egos that they produce, where would the glorious game of mafia be? It's just that it's been a while since I've been on the outside looking in. I forgot how distancing these spats can be to the rest of the town.
But seriously I don't know what specific points you two have against each other any more. If you wanted to do a quick bullet point list of Reasons Why You Think Yos Is Scum, I'd be happy to tell you whether you are, in fact, less convincing than MBL."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 3984, Yosarian2 wrote:I really don't get why anybody is actually voting me here. MBL's entire argument has already been confirmed by the masons to be wrong; the masons night-talk apparently happens on-site, which means that the scum's almost certanly is as well, and that means that his entire absurd conspiracy theory of day-talking scum was proven to be impossible long before he even finished making it. You can even see MBL's entire thought process; it's the typical tin foil hat thing of "what if I was wrong about everything and the scum group is the one that makes the least sense" that townies do late game when they get paranoid. It happens all the time. The problem with that is, the thing that makes the least sense usually isn't actually true.
Someone (chamber?) said that Patrick has a history of not making game mechanics symmetrical."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
Lies and damned lies."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 3519, Albert B. Rampage wrote:Juls, there's no way that Yosarian is scum.
Pick someone inside this group please:
[Porochaz, CDB, mathcam]
lol
-----
In post 4007, Patrick wrote:Final Votecount
ChannelDelibird (1) -- SpyreX
Yosarian2 (8) -- Juls, Albert B. Rampage, chamber, MrBuddyLee,VitaminR, undo, Porochaz, mathcam
Porochaz (4) -- Sotty7, Bookitty, Green Crayons, Yosarian2
From bolded on down are players with big question marks by their alignment (undo notwithstanding), and made the major push happen for a Yos lynch -- they jumped on to a Yos lynch as soon as I jumped off relative to Patrick's Post 3943. When Porochaz was the obvlynch all damned day, you'll have to excuse me if I'm only a lot suspicious about the fact that Porochaz wasn't yesterday's lynch.
VOTE: Porochaz"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
Also Bookitty and I are the only non-confirmed town on the Porochaz final vote count, and I'm 100% certain of my alignment (duh) and 80% certain about Bookitty being 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
If Porochaz flips red, Vitamin looks really bad in his shift from Porochaz to Yos."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
@MBL:have you ever made a "how long does it take to type a post" argument 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
@MBL:also, what was this about:
"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).