Micro 71: Lucid Dreamers - Night 4

[ProHawk]

The fact that the mod stated that he wouldn't be able to police the forum makes me believe he wouldn't be so keen on allowing actions that would require policing to accomplish properly (abnormal votes, etc) but I could be wrong.

[screamlampost]

Sorry, it doesn't really makes sense, I'm not conf-town at all. I forgot about godfatherizing and etc.

Is there any chance that only one of Mit and Emp is scum?

Vote: qwints

for vote-testing stuff

[Mitillos]

We don't need to wait on the votecount to actually discuss and scumhunt. Just because your vote would be placed somewhere doesn't mean you can't think about who is scum. In any case, sparse VCs doesn't mean none. And we can always PM him for an urgent VC, when everyone places a vote.

[qwints]

VOTE: Siv
For testing purposes. My top lynch target right now is Empking.

[Empking]

Empking has been high on my scum list since D1 and his anti-town night actions aren't helping me see any differently. Making himself untargetable is an extremely self-preservationist type of attitude, but it could be just how he plays town.

Last night all scuim needed to do to win was two kills. You don't seem to know what a "self-preservationist" type of attitude is. Don't be bitter because you keep on failing to kill.

Vote: Zorb

- Testing 123.

[Mitillos]

@Emp: Do you mean Zoid? There's no Zorb. If so, Zoid, could you vote scream to get this out of the way?

[Empking]

Vote: Zoid

[qwints]

2 kills would make scum 2/5. That's lylo, but it's not a win. Lynch scum and 1 scum kill and scum are 1/3.

[Empking]

2 kills would make scum 2/5. That's lylo, but it's not a win. Lynch scum and 1 scum kill and scum are 1/3.

Ah, thought it was an eightb player game.

[ProHawk]

Don't be bitter because you keep on failing to kill.

This is comical at best.

[Zoidberg]

@Emp: Do you mean Zoid? There's no Zorb. If so, Zoid, could you vote scream to get this out of the way?

VOTE: scream

[Zoidberg]

Like to do an iso on everyone. Reads incoming tomorrow.

[Mitillos]

@Mod: Can we get a vote-count real quick, please?

[T-Bone]

Vote Count

Empking - 1 (Mitillos)
Mitillos - 1 (ProHawk)
Qwints - 1 (screamIampost)
ProHawk - 1 (Siveure DtTrikyp)
Zoidberg - 1 (Empking)
ScreamIampost - 1 (Zoidberg)
Siveure DtTrikyp- 1 (qwints)

Not Voting - 0

Activity Check - Not great, but it's a holiday so it'll slide

Deadline is Wednesday November 28th, 2012

With 7 Alive, it Takes 4 to Lynch

[Mitillos]

So, we have Siv's vote being on qwints, instead of Pro and qwints' vote not counting.

Shenanigans, or Mod error?

[ProHawk]

T-Bone, correction on the Vote Count?

[T-Bone]

Fixed.

[Empking]

That was a red herring.

Unvote, Vote: Pro

[ProHawk]

Where's the red fish?

[Mitillos]

I think Emp was talking about the vote count being wrong.

@Emp: Do you have a case on Pro, or are you OMGUSing him for suspecting you?

[Empking]

I think Emp was talking about the vote count being wrong.

I was.

@Emp: Do you have a case on Pro, or are you OMGUSing him for suspecting you?

The case is in his actions; not one is confirmable or even risky. They're clearly fakeclaims. Read the first three posts of today if you're in any doubt of Pro's alignment.

[ProHawk]

This is coming from someone who does absolutely nothing with his actions but covers his balls. My actions are just as confirm-able as yours Emp. They are not clearly fakeclaims because none of them are fake.

I have solid evidence that three of the same people are found on two mislynching wagons. Qwints has solidly pointed out that the number of seering claims are improbable and you say my claims are fake?

[Empking]

This is coming from someone who does absolutely nothing with his actions but covers his balls. My actions are just as confirm-able as yours Emp. They are not clearly fakeclaims because none of them are fake.

It is true that by bad luck our actions are equally confirmable, but the

riskiness

of the claims if fake are clearly different.

Your IIOA and qwint's argument of improbability is nothing compared to the raw stuff of the first posts of today.

[ProHawk]

So if I am understanding you correctly, I am scum because my actions aren't risky?

You do realize that lynching someone based off of the decisions they made as to what action they took already lead to a mis-lynch because it seemed like it wasn't a "town" action. Or do you just not care if another townie gets lynched?

[Empking]

So if I am understanding you correctly, I am scum because my actions aren't risky?

Claiming the actions you have claimed is hilariously non-risky and non-confirmable. I don't buy the Bomb and redirect story, your actual actions may or may not have been risky I don't know.