ZOMG YOU ARE RIGHT.foilist wrote:If that's the case then we're back where we were yesterday. Socrates could have been blocked by nhammen (which is much more likely now that we know nhammen really was a roleblocker) or there could have been a doc save.
No explain. The two most obv town players in the game being killed isn't a surprise in all honesty.I am sure one of either the monk or the masons are mafia seeing how the kill goes.
Nachomamma8 wrote:Vote: Socrates
I used my one-shot vig to kill nhammen last night. My existance makes me think that there isn't another vigilante loose (and probably not an SK because 4 kills a night is freaking ridiculous), so I think it's extremely likely that Socrates is scum at this juncture. You guys can argue your bullshit mislynch theory tomorrow, but I honestly believe we've hit scum today.
...Nikanor wrote:No, I'm not. The evidence against Socrates is no longer concrete with Nacho's claim. It is now circumstantial evidence. I'm saying that the evidence before WAS concrete, and that Unsight is scummy for not following that evidence.Parama wrote:Hmm. While I agree with this, then by your logic shouldn't you be voting Socrates? You're doing the same thing you're accusing Unsight of. Like you yourself said, there's concrete evidence that Socrates is likely scum, so uh why aren't you voting him?
Unsight wrote:That theory hinges on my now ignoring "evidence" that you and Nikanor are now trying strongly paint as "circumstantial" and "fake." I've been suspicious of Socrates since I ISO'd his slot's previous player (SGR) on Day 2 in response to a comment made by Faraday. It wasn't nhammen's dubious Day 2 claim of a roleblock that made me suspicious of the slot in the first place but now nhammen's town flip proving his roleblock claim is the nail in his coffin as far as I'm concerned.
UNVOTE: Midnight's Sorrow
VOTE: Socrates
I wanted to find out why Dr. Robotnik was Nachomamma8's top suspect at the time. I asked him a few times. Finally, he made a deal with me that he would provide a case on Dr. Robotnik under one condition: I would either have to refute the argument or vote Dr. Robotnik. After seeing his case on Dr. Robotnik, I voted him.Unsight wrote:If he's so scummy then why did you spend the last half a dozen pages voting Dr. Robotnik?
I find this post scummy. So you're basically admitting that you could be scum? I don't like it.Socrates wrote:I might be town
Are you telling me that you forgot the main point against Socrates, yet still put him second on your suspicion list?Unsight wrote:The logical chain of "nhammen said he blocked Socrates" and "nhammen just flipped town roleblocker" therefore "Socrates is confirmed to have been roleblocked on a night missing a scum kill" didn't click for me last night.
I don't think Nacho's vig claim invalidates that logic train.
I have never used the word "fake." And if you know the definition of circumstantial evidence, you'll agree that this fits the category. Where's Netopalis when you need him?Unsight wrote:That theory hinges on my now ignoring "evidence" that you and Nikanor are now trying strongly paint as "circumstantial" and "fake."
I thought you were supposed to be "working with Socrates".foilist wrote:I get the point against unsight, but the evidence against Socrates is still quite strong.
He hasn't made a significant post yet. He has promised a significant post. Why didn't you wait for him to make a significant post, if you were waiting to see what he would come up with? If you were so want to work with Socrates, as you said in your post, why didn't you?foilist wrote:I was pretty sure I had proved he was scum, but i recognized there could be holes in my logic, so I waited to see what he could come up with. He did, and I have now included that in my latest post which still leads me to believe he is scum. Therefore I voted him now that he's had his input.
Unless there is a doctor or some other protective or blocking role (like a jailkeeper, but I find that less likely once a roleblocker has flipped), you are scum. And even then, you still have a good chance of being scum. Soooo... I think that you're most likely scum.Socrates wrote:People using Nhammen's flip as further evidence against me is crazy. I mean, people actually doubted that he was a role blocker yesterday?
Anyway, unsight is a good vote.
vote:unsight
I think the scum are afraid that their mislynch is slipping away from them, which is why some people have started to pile onafterevidence in my favor comes out.
I was responding to the part of your post aimed towards me. The parts I didn't quote that you point out here were not parts of your post directed specifically at me. So that's your fault.Unsight wrote: I explained before the part of my post you quoted and after the part of my post you quoted. You selectively left those out. Why is that?
First of all, his vote on me stunk. The fact that the way Nhammen's block on me looked bad "didn't click with him" until just now even though it has been discussed at great length in this thread since the start of day 2? Bullshit.Nikanor wrote:What about his iso convinced you to vote for Unsight, Socrates?