FFS, I never said it was beneficial to townIn post 3392, Iecerint wrote:It could be that you were paranoid that someone has a problematic track on you some day or other, so you were leaving open a back-door to explain any weirdness that people challenged you with.
You can almost always come up with a reason why vagueness might benefit scum, but it's rarer that it's clear why vagueness would benefit town.
Early game I thought he was goodposting. I stopped looking at him closely as the game went on.Pedit: Why did you think Vollkan was pro-town? O.o
Bitch all you want. The facts are that my role was already confirmed. I was V/LA.In post 3393, dramonic wrote:In post 3390, Zoidberg wrote:No, the difference is that roleblocker actually has an effect on the game. Fruit Vendor by definition does not.In post 3387, dramonic wrote:That's just as stupid as saying "I claim roleblocker, you got roleblocked N1 and he got roleblocked N3, therefore I dont need to tell you who I targetted N2, 4 and 5.
Information is being withheld, even if you're "confirmed"
Action interaction means anything you do that produces a result of some kind is a source of information, even if the individual action does seemingly nothing.
Why is this so hard to understand.
Yes, from your perspective I suppose that's valid.In post 3396, DrippingGoofball wrote:Or maybe <insert any completely fabricated reason here>?
I did until you tried to paint me as scum with completely faulty logic (which you then twisted into a defence of SPBs) and then shrugged it off with an "oh lols i wasnt reading the thread silly me"In post 3397, DrippingGoofball wrote:I'm asking because I don't remember you finding me all that "pro-town."
I would think it would be obvious.In post 3401, DrippingGoofball wrote:Why did you target the claimed cop on NIGHT 4, given that rationale?
In post 3314, Sir Elton Hercules John wrote:Kawaii [David Bowie], Mod Mason, was handcuffed to the bed and skullfucked to death N5
In post 3507, TheTrollie wrote:i find the way this was claimed to be more town oriented.
In post 3630, dramonic wrote:... You havent been paying attention
In post 3631, DrippingGoofball wrote:Zoidberg's alias was well-chosen.
In post 3697, DrippingGoofball wrote:In post 3696, Zoidberg wrote:Voteless today.
Really. I did get your message...
In post 3699, DrippingGoofball wrote:I'm surprised that Trollie pickpocketed your vote, and I did get your message. What point do you think I'm trying to make?
In post 3702, DrippingGoofball wrote:
But now that you've cast a vote:
We can see if the vote is counted by the mod.
In post 3703, DrippingGoofball wrote:I expressed surprise that Trollie stole Zoidberg's vote,
YepIn post 3707, dramonic wrote:Zoid, confirm that ALL you do is fruit vendoring.
Damn it, wish I'd thought of that.In post 3716, DrippingGoofball wrote:And now, for a teachable moment:
It's too bad that Zoidberg didn't hide his votelessness. He could have put someone at fake L-1, and the scum would hammer, and then Zoid would say, "sorry my vote don't count" and we'd lynch the hammerer for glory.
MESSAGE TO THE DEAD QT: Trollie you should have stolen my vote!
I think we already established like 50 pages ago that your silly numbers are both useless and worthless. Please stop relying on them; they don't work.In post 3720, DrippingGoofball wrote:And I've been quietly running the scumputer in the background. You're the point leader.
267 zoraster
192 Zoidberg
83 Iecerint
33 dramonic
Just for today, apparently.In post 3724, zoraster wrote:Zoidburg: Is your voteless thing just a today thing or is it for the rest of the game?
A claim that's yet to be substantiated. Still waiting on dram to clearly outline what this "lie" was.In post 3766, DrippingGoofball wrote:Dram says he caught zoraster in a lie.
I very much want dram to claim first. Of the four of you I find him the scummiest.Zoraster is refusing to fully claim.
In post 3784, dramonic wrote:ive said i might have evidence, the same way a doc might have an innocent the night after no-kill. For all he knows, there's also a roleblocker in the setup. My evidence depends on others, as such i CANT use it if i dont claim last
In post 3796, dramonic wrote:i am Anderson Cooper, reporter.
im informed if my target used an action, nothing more, nothing less. i targetted OD nights 1-2-3, iece night 4, kawaii night 5 and zoraster night 6.
My result has been that my target actionned each time, except night 5 (kawaii obviously having no active)
now, if iece here had not confirmed ive been fucked with, it WOULD have incriminated Zor, but since i apparently targetted trollie my action had no impact. We kinda already knew that trollie actionned.
@iece: you think zor is confirmed then?
In post 3865, zoraster wrote:so couldn't he have redirected and killed last night? i guess it'd be pretty weird to have a mafia fruit vendor, but not unheard of.
In post 3949, Zoidberg wrote:Bleh. Nice win, Iece, you had me fooled.
In post 3977, zoraster wrote:DGB had BP anyway, iec. best you could get would be a draw redirecting dgb at herself over and over and over.
