With 13 players alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.
Deadline is in
In post 86, Abaddon wrote:Eh. "It was a trap!" is a piss-poor way to walk back your on-a-limb positions. Granted, it's entirely possible that Toxic's for real here.
Try producing some actual content and we'll see which side you land on, Toxic.
In post 64, Abaddon wrote:Which, at present, does not include you. It's very easy to make a statement, then sit in judgment as others make your case for you.
I'm calling your bluff. I disagree with your premise, and want you to prove it.
In post 430, kwll wrote:this is getting scary guys...deadline is 2 days...
In post 434, kwll wrote:Your right....have a question...lynch all lurkers?
In post 432, toxictaipan wrote:@_Sherlock_: Does it not bother you that no one currently on that wagon has provided a good, solid case for why Abaddon is scummy? Why are you willing to abandon a scum read you feel pretty strongly about in favor of lynching someone you view as slightly leaning town? Before you hop on that wagon for no reason, take a while to really analyze it and make sure that's what you want to do.
I agree that it would be best if we could see a post from Kinetic before deciding on a lynch, but when it comes down to lynching scum reads vs. town reads, I think you have to take what you can get.
In post 444, _Sherlock_ wrote:Nope.
In truth, I would probably be making a case on absta if I had more time to make one.
In post 11, toxictaipan wrote:VOTE: Tommy
What a plain username.
Trufax.
@Cheery Dog: Are you going to participate in RVS?
In post 32, toxictaipan wrote:UNVOTE: Tommy
VOTE: Idiotking
RVS is pretty much over, dude. Why the seemingly random vote instead of something a little more substantial?
In post 61, toxictaipan wrote:UNVOTE: Idiotking
VOTE: Sable Tip
Does anyone else have a serious problem with Sable Tip's post, or is it just me?
In post 85, toxictaipan wrote:Alright, I was hoping to hear from Parama, but apparently that's not going to happen.
Spoiler: part1
This I follow
Spoiler: part2
I do not buy this though, there is NO WAY that post was a reaction test. Maybe it was retrospectively one, but there are so many better ways to reaction test than this. The question “does anybody else see…” means either (1) that he wants us to say, “no, show us” or (2) that he has a good reason to refrain info, or (3) that he isn’t actually sure there is something off. SO I have a few problems with this. First, if this was a reaction test, as he claims, then why is he able to so perfectly explain what is wrong below? If what he says below is true, then why would he find it scummy for someone to say “yes, blab la bla” Second, If Toxic wants to reaction test based on sable tip’s post, the way to do it would be to get sable tip to say something showing that he did not consider the issue that Toxic is bringing up. Something about his parama read, or even telling Sable tip what is wrong and seeing if Sable tip has a bad response to that.
Spoiler: part3
In post 17, Abaddon wrote:In post 15, Radelle wrote:VOTE: Toxictaipan
For randomly voting when he could have put down a more serious vote when questioning Cheery Dog.
^Fake. Overdoing it.
In post 16, Parama wrote:^Scum #1.
unvote, vote: Radelle
2 more to go. Who are your buddies, Radelle?
^Yep.
In post 29, Abaddon wrote:In post 27, Cheery Dog wrote:In post 21, Abaddon wrote:Eh, not convinced on that count. The chainsawing is TOO obvious to be real. More likely he's just an idiot.
So I'm an idiot for calling you out for doing something idiotic like leaving your vote in rvs while attacking someone?
So idiotic, whether I'm scum or Town, that the only plausible explanation is that it was a simple error, rather than intention. I practically said "I'm going to vote you for that, right now," then failed to bold my vote.
In post 62, Abaddon wrote:Just you. In fact, instead of prompting other people to explain what you found so bad about it, how about you man up and explain it yourself?
In post 66, Abaddon wrote:So he can estimate when people are failing to answer because they're likely asleep, and when they're failing to answer because they're intentionally dodging the question.
Made up my mind. Cheery Dog is probably new Town, making obvious inquiries he thinks are incisive. New scum probably would not be going this far out of their way to put their foot in their mouth, they'd probably be laying low at this point.
In post 82, Abaddon wrote:Radelle, I don't need to be unfair to find you scummy. Attacks on scum that are just plain bad only give you ways to worm your way out of it by calling foul.
You're still scummy, but I won't abide no-logic attacks just because they're aimed in the right direction. That's hypocrisy of the worst sort, and I won't put up with that.
In post 118, Abaddon wrote:Like I said, you're completely missing the point. The reaction test, as stated, has very little to do with Sable Tip's alignment, or with which alignment Toxic assigned to him. Toxic took a thoroughly neutral post and made a bold declarative statement, then refused to back it up. The reaction test was for peoples' reactions to Toxic's actions, not Sable Tip's post. He could have emphatically declared Sable Tip Town while refusing to explain why for a near-identical effect. The slight variance of whether Sable Tip was scum or not utterly pales in comparison to the far more distinct question of how people would react to Toxic's actions.
In post 120, Abaddon wrote:^This absolutely reeks of opportunism.
Seriously rethinking my NewTown position on Cheery Dog.
Bah, this thread has way too many scummy players and far too few Townie ones.
In post 298, Abaddon wrote:I'm really disliking a lot of what Trollie's had to say lately. It's coming off as really disingenuous. The two-faced hedging about CD (particularly 266) and the blithe manner in which he takes things that are not conclusive and makes definitive statements about them (such and such makes this person Town or scum, 283 & 285 contain good examples).
Unvote
Vote: Trollie