Death's Diner -Game Over-

[StubbsKVM]

Titus, you didn't give me your reason to vote for oriole.

Post 184.

Yeah. That post says: "my vote was not without reason"

So I ask, What is the reason?

[Titus]

Can one of you fine gentlemen be a dear and lay out the case on Titus for Jabarkas?
I'm not quite seeing it as compelling that this moment, and I'd hate for you all to have a ball and for me to miss out it.

-V

Translation: I want to get on this wagon, but I don't have a case, so can somebody make this easy for me to sheep this wagon.

Other Translation: There's no real case on Titus and I am being polite as fuck. Fine gentleman was likely sarcastic.


@Stubbs, The oriole vote was an RVS vote, a random vote to get the game going. I have said this many times in the thread.

[elvis_knits]

I don't know what's happening with this series of events:

Tiphaine thinks somebody tried to dayvig him.
Tiphaine realizes something.
Unvotes Titus.
Votes jabarkus.

I guess I don't understand what Tiphaine realized. Voting jabarkus seems good though.

Also Radioactive wolf is scum.

[StubbsKVM]

However, my votes seem to get the game going and scum are likely thinking easy mislynch. Well, not this game. Scum will pay if y'all lynch me. I'm not afraid. Bring it on.

Show me where one of your random votes achieved something.

RVS is a method of getting the game going. My vote in this game tells me Stubbs isn't reading with any sort of eye for detail.

You're doubting my reading ability after you missed my double vote after just half a page?
Haha!

[StubbsKVM]

Titus: Your post is wrong on so many fucking levels.

You ignored my question like 20 times just to answer Slandaar. You're defending someone out the ass without the balls to call them town.

Ps, reasonless rvs votes are not even remotely scummy, but that's probably not alignment irrelevant, just so wrong it hurts.

VOTE: Titus

There is no such thing as a reasonless RVS vote. RVS votes have a reason by definition.

I also did answer your question. I'm not DEFENDING Jabs. I'm saying he should be analyzed before we act.

If there is no such thing as a reasonless RVS vote, what is the reason?

[elvis_knits]

I don't understand what happened with tiphaine/titus and why they are saying I can't VOTE: jabarkus

[Amrun]

Can one of you fine gentlemen be a dear and lay out the case on Titus for Jabarkas?
I'm not quite seeing it as compelling that this moment, and I'd hate for you all to have a ball and for me to miss out it.

-V

Translation: I want to get on this wagon, but I don't have a case, so can somebody make this easy for me to sheep this wagon.

Other Translation: There's no real case on Titus and I am being polite as fuck. Fine gentleman was likely sarcastic.


@Stubbs, The oriole vote was an RVS vote, a random vote to get the game going. I have said this many times in the thread.

Suggesting there's no case on you when you were run up to some sort of claim thing because you panicked is ridiculous.

You're still scum btw.

[Titus]

@elvis, Sorry but that's deliberate. I would rather have two confirmed town than one. If one dies, the other will be near conf-town. Note: This is not masons.

@amrun, there still is no case. I don't trust players to be smart day 1. I am not a very seasoned player. However, I am logical and know when something's illogical. I have zero sway with illogical players.

[Titus]

@Stubbs, RVS votes can be reasonless.

[Titus]

RVS votes have a reason to get the game going, not a you're scummy reason.

[StubbsKVM]

allow town to ignore you too because the people that matter have already townread me

That's bullshit.

My vote on oriole was RVS, thus not reasonless like I defined. Third and forth votes are not random and thus need a reason to be done.


Also Slandaar, who voted who first has no bearing on whether your reaction to my comment about paranoid people might find you as scum was an overreaction or not. I didn't say you OMGUSed.

@Jabs, that was a good case against Rofl

VOTE: Roflcopter

@Stubbs, RVS votes can be reasonless.

Can you stop dodging this question?

VOTE: Titus

[Titus]

Not dodging you are having a major comprehension and game theory fail.

[StubbsKVM]

You're saying your RVS vote is not without reason and you don't want to give me the reason.

[4nxi3ty]

Titus (2) - Amrun, StubbsKVM
StubbsKVM (1) - oriole
roflcopter

(3)

- ArcAngel9, Zoidberg, Titus
Zoidberg (1) - PeregrineV
Amrun (1) - Jabarkus Mayonnaise
Jabarkus Mayonnaise (2) - Baezu, elvis_knits
Slandaar (1) - TiphaineDeath
EddieFenix (1) - BROseidon
Baezu (1) - Slandaar

Not Voting (6) - Ghostly Penguin, EddieFenix, Metal Sonic, Radioactive Wolf, Rift Adrift, roflcopter

With 19 alive, it takes 10 to lynch.
(expired on 2013-08-09 10:28:34)

[Rift Adrift]

Slandaar's unvote worries us. Titus is being a scumfuck and Slandaar is like one of MS's top tier tunnellers. What do you think?

O RLY

Syryana's scum read is based on experiential meta about Slandaar's tunneling tendencies. When he's online, I'll ask him to throw some game link your way.

His unvote pinged to me simply because it went against the flow of the thread and in a different direction from the stance changes of other players at the time.

[Titus]

You're saying your RVS vote is not without reason and you don't want to give me the reason.

RVS IS THE REASON!

[Slandaar]

RVS is a method of getting the game going. My vote in this game tells me Stubbs isn't reading with any sort of eye for detail.

Your vote did not do anything it was the votes on Jabs getting a reaction from you/jabs that actually 'got the game going'

However, my votes seem to get the game going

You made a completely random vote with no reasoning, so show me where a vote like that has accomplished something.

[Titus]

Sometimes RVS succeeds. Sometimes it fails. The original Jabs vote was likely RVS. RVS is a method. A single RVS vote doesn't likely move the game from RVS by itself.

[elvis_knits]

@elvis, Sorry but that's deliberate. I would rather have two confirmed town than one. If one dies, the other will be near conf-town. Note: This is not masons.

You want us all to believe that three of the players who are highest in suspicion are town for reasons you can't explain?

[Amrun]

You're saying your RVS vote is not without reason and you don't want to give me the reason.

RVS IS THE REASON!

But you argued up and down that rvs votes aren't reasonless, and making reasonless votes was scummy according to you.

You can't define something with its definition. You can't say, "the reason for an rvs vote is rvs, and that's fine, but your rvs vote had no reason neener neener neener!"

Trying to discredit me and my case by calling it illogical is pretty farcical. Most of the game agreed it was logical, but you are obviously the only arbiter of logikz round these parts, right? Still not trying to control the conversation, right?

[roflcopter]

vote: titus

[Amrun]

Sometimes RVS succeeds. Sometimes it fails. The original Jabs vote was likely RVS. RVS is a method. A single RVS vote doesn't likely move the game from RVS by itself.

Holy shit, and you seriously attempt to contend that you weren't stopping the game from being productive?

You just admitted to openly attempting to keep the game in rvs.

Wtf am I reading

[Titus]

@elvis, Sorry but that's deliberate. I would rather have two confirmed town than one. If one dies, the other will be near conf-town. Note: This is not masons.

You want us all to believe that three of the players who are highest in suspicion are town for reasons you can't explain?

I don't really care about Jabs. If you don't believe me lynch me today. I have done a day event to Tiphane. It wasn't a shot. I don't know why he thought that. Too many games?

If I answer directly, it will neuter half of my role. I will claim directly at L-1.

[Titus]

You're saying your RVS vote is not without reason and you don't want to give me the reason.

RVS IS THE REASON!

But you argued up and down that rvs votes aren't reasonless, and making reasonless votes was scummy according to you.

You can't define something with its definition. You can't say, "the reason for an rvs vote is rvs, and that's fine, but your rvs vote had no reason neener neener neener!"

Trying to discredit me and my case by calling it illogical is pretty farcical. Most of the game agreed it was logical, but you are obviously the only arbiter of logikz round these parts, right? Still not trying to control the conversation, right?

Naked sheeping is bad and should be called out. That is moving the game forward, not backward. The third and fourth votes aren't random.

[StubbsKVM]

You're saying your RVS vote is not without reason and you don't want to give me the reason.

RVS IS THE REASON!

But you argued up and down that rvs votes aren't reasonless, and making reasonless votes was scummy according to you.

You can't define something with its definition. You can't say, "the reason for an rvs vote is rvs, and that's fine, but your rvs vote had no reason neener neener neener!"

Trying to discredit me and my case by calling it illogical is pretty farcical. Most of the game agreed it was logical, but you are obviously the only arbiter of logikz round these parts, right? Still not trying to control the conversation, right?

THANK YOU!