New York 180 (Endgame)


User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5771 (isolation #0) » Thu Apr 09, 2015 7:56 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Uh. So.

What do I need to know?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5774 (isolation #1) » Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:19 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 5772, Kitz wrote:ABR gamethrew.

I was going to ISO ABR but there are 300 posts in that alone.

What do you mean by this?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5775 (isolation #2) » Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:20 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Is there a thread consensus on fairly town folks that I can ISO?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5812 (isolation #3) » Fri Apr 10, 2015 8:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I haven't read anything except what you people have posted since I joined in, and I agree with Shinobi.

I know that's gotta be worth at least a "hmm" and maybe a "mmhmm."
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5813 (isolation #4) » Fri Apr 10, 2015 8:17 am

Post by Green Crayons »

To point:
In post 5806, Cheetory6 wrote:Bussing is a thing?

Though, I kind of forgot that you specifically were the counterwagon >.>
I don't see why that makes Ozgin town though.

Yes, bussing is A Thing, but I don't know why the default assumption would be that "bussing occurred" rather than "scum tried to have their buddy not get killed."
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5814 (isolation #5) » Fri Apr 10, 2015 8:18 am

Post by Green Crayons »

(I haven't reviewed the actual Ozgin hammer, so I don't know what it looks like.)
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5820 (isolation #6) » Fri Apr 10, 2015 8:33 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 5816, Cheetory6 wrote:
Green Crayons wrote:Yes, bussing is A Thing, but I don't know why the default assumption would be that "bussing occurred" rather than "scum tried to have their buddy not get killed."
I'm more just trying to understand why Shinobi thinks it's worth discounting Ozgin as scum just because he hammered especially since intent had already been given before the hammer had actually happened.

Gotcha.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5843 (isolation #7) » Sat Apr 11, 2015 5:52 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Has this game always been this slow with votes, or is today special for some reason?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5845 (isolation #8) » Sat Apr 11, 2015 5:53 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Also, I'll actually be putting forth effort into reading this upcoming week.

Limited ISO reviews and such.

I'm basically a warm body until then. Sorry.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5846 (isolation #9) » Sat Apr 11, 2015 5:53 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Gotcha, Shinobi.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5886 (isolation #10) » Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:18 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I am out of town this week for work, and I thought I would have more free time than I actually have had.

Apologies.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5917 (isolation #11) » Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:28 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Hi.

I don't really know how to read a game that I'm not going to be reading all 237 pages.

I've tried ISOing a few players, but without actual context, it's... just posts.

Does someone have a list of all the claims people did back whenever that happened?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5918 (isolation #12) » Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:29 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

FWIW, I am actually reading everything that's posted since I replaced in, so I'm not being completely worthless.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5919 (isolation #13) » Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:32 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

And is there a list of anyone/everyone GM has neighborized?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5926 (isolation #14) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 1:54 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Alright.

I'm the town 3-shot vig.

TSO is lying and is the SK.

VOTE: TSO
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5928 (isolation #15) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:08 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Uh, I probably wouldn't claim now except (1) I don't really have any context as to what the hell is going on, and (2) I see a lot of people townreading my slot + 2 dead docs, so I might as well be productive while alive.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5929 (isolation #16) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:10 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Also, lol

You want to kill the person who is counterclaiming, who should be autolynched if TSO isn't SK?

Like, how does me lying make sense outside of LYLO?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5930 (isolation #17) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Oh, you're also the player who thinks that scum are just lying about being neighbors, so that scum are employing the excellent strategy of "if any of us dies, we all get revealed."

Nevermind.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5932 (isolation #18) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:25 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I don't even know what things you're referring to regarding TSO.

Further proof that I don't know what the hell is going on. I just know that TSO is SK and I am 3-shot vig.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5934 (isolation #19) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:33 am

Post by Green Crayons »

"3-shot vig with no basis" = I have no idea what you're saying
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5935 (isolation #20) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Also, I'm not going to read 231 pages of other people arguing. Throwing that in as if I'm falling below the appropriate standard of play is pretty absurd.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5937 (isolation #21) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:39 am

Post by Green Crayons »

N1 target was pisskop
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5938 (isolation #22) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 2:40 am

Post by Green Crayons »

There was also a N4 target who is still alive.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5960 (isolation #23) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:07 am

Post by Green Crayons »

elusive was N4

Figured that we wouldn't want the BP player to be revealed to be BP.

But whatever.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5961 (isolation #24) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:08 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Hey tell me the strategy of SK revealing himself outside of LYLO.

Literally if TSO is not SK, then thread would turn on me and lynch me tomorrow.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5962 (isolation #25) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:08 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 5960, Green Crayons wrote:elusive was N4

Figured that we wouldn't want the BP player to be revealed to be BP.

But whatever.

To be BP and having that BP used up.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5964 (isolation #26) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:10 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 5952, dragonspawn wrote:Btw did you tell ozgin about you bring a 3 shot vig?

???
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5965 (isolation #27) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:10 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 5963, goodmorning wrote:elusive got modkilled in the same decision that led to you replacing innnnnnnnn

Oh.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5967 (isolation #28) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:10 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Well first post still has him listed as alive. So that's the mods' fault for not updating.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5968 (isolation #29) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:11 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 5964, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 5952, dragonspawn wrote:Btw did you tell ozgin about you bring a 3 shot vig?

???
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5969 (isolation #30) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:12 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Oh, is it out that I'm neighbor with Ozgin?

Then yes, SW and Ozgin discussed the 3-shot vig.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5972 (isolation #31) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Well to make it abundantly clear.

I've been neighbors with House/Ozgin since the beginning of the game. They have a nice 18 page PT where they talk about things.

I was neighbors was goodmorning from March 23 until April 3. I am uncertain if those dates coincide with a night/day cycle or something, and if it was a one-time thing or if goodmonring and I are still neighbors.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5973 (isolation #32) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:21 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 5953, dragonspawn wrote:Seems to me that of tso was a serial killer abr would have been killed night 1. A claimed cop is no threat to a SK. A claimed tracker is.

This doesn't make sense.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5974 (isolation #33) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:21 am

Post by Green Crayons »

But you people think that SK would put himself in a 1v1 position outside of LYLO, so I guess y'all love not making sense.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5987 (isolation #34) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:05 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Hey, I agree that we shouldn't No Lynch.

I claimed specifically so we would avoid lynching poorly.

Vote TSO, Marquis.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5990 (isolation #35) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

lol get angry why don't you
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5992 (isolation #36) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 5179, SilverWolf wrote:Ozgin-The SK thing will resolve itself tomorrow. Try not to spend too much of what time we have left fighting about it today.

I don't know what SW was referring to here, specifically, but she must have thought that dealing with you later was better than sooner.

Possibly ego, because she liked not having a target on her back, and wanted to stay in the game longer.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #5998 (isolation #37) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:24 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Okay, or maybe you're just scum and not a SK?

The neighborhood PT theorized SK. That's what I'm running with, because they obviously have a better handle on the game setup than I. I just know that a 3-shot vig and a whatever type of vig you're claiming cannot both be town in light of the setup spec in the PT.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6000 (isolation #38) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I had no reason to fake claim today.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6001 (isolation #39) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Ergo

I'm not fake claiming.

lol
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6002 (isolation #40) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:27 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Saturday April 4th was when 3-shot vig was mentioned in the PT.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6005 (isolation #41) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:29 am

Post by Green Crayons »

So... literally your defense is that my only reason to do this is if you are actually not-town alignment?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6006 (isolation #42) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:29 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6003, T S O wrote:If you're SK and you believe I'm scum fakeclaiming vig, yes you do.
If you're scum and you believe I'm a Bulletproof SK because you tried to shoot me last night, yes you do.

You're doing your best to claim you have no reason to do this, but you have any amount of reasons to do it.

hoooooooly shit everyone

vote self-proclaimed not-town TSO
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6015 (isolation #43) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 8:46 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6012, dragonspawn wrote:
In post 5960, Green Crayons wrote:elusive was N4

Figured that we wouldn't want the BP player to be revealed to be BP.

But whatever.


elusive is dead. You said it was a living person.

and she wasn't bp

elusive isn't dead per Post 1, that's my bad for thinking it was updated when I was telling who was targeted

PT speculated that elusive didn't die because BP
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6018 (isolation #44) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:41 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Jesus, y'all dumb.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6019 (isolation #45) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:44 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Ozgin is the 3-shot vig. His discussion in the PT looks super genuine, and I believe him 100%.

I claimed so scum would kill me tonight so I can get out of this game. And so you lot wouldn't lynch Ozgin today. But I'm not going to suffer a mislynch because town lynches a counter-claimer WHO HAS NO REASON TO FAKE COUNTERCLAIM.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6020 (isolation #46) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:44 am

Post by Green Crayons »

You lot are really the worst town.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6021 (isolation #47) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:46 am

Post by Green Crayons »

So everything I said is true, just reverse who is actually the 3-shot vig between Ozgin and I.

Not only does Ozgin's discussion look super genuine, but the fact that:
In post 6002, Green Crayons wrote:Saturday April 4th was when 3-shot vig was mentioned in the PT.

That is true means Ozgin claimed 3-shot before elusive was modkilled and revealed to be 3-shot.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6022 (isolation #48) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:46 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Like, I don't know what the hell is wrong with SW and Ozgin, but I can't believe it took until now to CC this BS.

Lynch the SK or scumbag or whatever the not-town alignment TSO is.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6070 (isolation #49) » Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:17 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6053, dragonspawn wrote:Did oz tell wolf he was the vigilante or house?

Oz, not House.

Here's a quick synopsis of the relevant discussion:

On March 30, SW asked Oz if he believed TSO's claim.

On April 1, Oz made it very clear that he did not believe TSO's claim, with various and sundry reasons, but did not actually CC. He did say that he was 100% certain that TSO was the SK.

On April 4, Oz asked SW to help everyone think TSO was the SK. Oz acknowledged that SW was unconvinced, but Oz continued to play coy as to why. In a subsequent post, SW asked Oz directly as to whether he was the vig. In yet another post, Oz confirmed that he was, in fact, the vig.

There was additional chatter about SK having BP and worry about wasting the last vig shot because of TSO's BP.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6088 (isolation #50) » Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:29 am

Post by Green Crayons »

It was one of the things floated in the PT.

Appears to be speculation based in part in how TSO claimed? Not sure, as I haven't gone back and checked the circumstances surrounding TSO's claim.

Also appears to be speculation based in part of how PR heavy this game is.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6108 (isolation #51) » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:18 am

Post by Green Crayons »

That information has been posted twice.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6189 (isolation #52) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:35 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I'm a dude.

And I don't really know how to react to Oz's self-vote then claim of scum.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6190 (isolation #53) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:35 am

Post by Green Crayons »

We ARE neighbors, bro.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6191 (isolation #54) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:36 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6189, Green Crayons wrote:And I don't really know how to react to Oz's self-vote then claim of scum.

Like, I guess Oz is scum? SW was completely convinced in the PR, and so was I after reviewing it.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6193 (isolation #55) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:38 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Moreover, I was thinking that Oz was 85% town, 15% SK based off of PR; and then when the 3-shot thing came out AND when Oz didn't just straight up lie to get me lynched, I was 100% convinced Oz was town.

Now I'm just sort of stunned by how wrong I was.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6194 (isolation #56) » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:38 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I keep saying PR, but I mean PT.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6275 (isolation #57) » Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:14 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6225, ika wrote:
kitz: goodmornign
ozgin: Cheetory6, kitz, dragon, T S O, ozgin
T S O: Marquis, green crayons [l-2]

9 alive, 5 lynch

(expired on 2015-04-21 21:00:00)

Who isn't voting in this VC?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6276 (isolation #58) » Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:14 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I count 8, but there's no "not voting" category.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6277 (isolation #59) » Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I don't think Marq is lynch worthy based off of yesterday's play.

There's probably a bit of "she and I did the same thing" involved, but her rapid-fire jumping back and forth between TSO-GC-Ozgin looks too un-calculated for scum.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6278 (isolation #60) » Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

her / him ?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6306 (isolation #61) » Wed Apr 22, 2015 6:05 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Can someone explain to me what the reflexive modifier is, and how it relates to N1 and what Kitz said or didn't say?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6343 (isolation #62) » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:40 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I don't read italics.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6344 (isolation #63) » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:42 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I disliked Kitz yesterday. But I don't think scum would figure out the N1 kills and then boast about it, which is more likely to gain negative attention from town. (As is what happened.) While I'm not giving Kitz townpoints for it, I think it's something less likely to come from scum.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6345 (isolation #64) » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:45 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I'm more inclined to think GM is town rather than scum.

I don't know why two scum would neighborhood me.

Well, a strategy does come to mind: scum wouldn't neighborize the same town player!

Like, that's a pretty flimsy strategy inandof itself. And then add to it that SW/myself would need to also reveal the double neighbor situation.

@GM:
did you ever state why, in thread, you neighborized SW?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6346 (isolation #65) » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:46 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6345, Green Crayons wrote:I don't know why two scum would neighborhood me.

Clarification: I don't know why a scum-neighborizer would neighborize a town who is already in a separate neighborhood with a different scum.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6347 (isolation #66) » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:47 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I liked shin yesterday but only in his theory arguments. Shin hasn't done anything affirmative, and was the only person not voting yesterday. He's in the vote pool.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6348 (isolation #67) » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:48 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I don't know how to feel about dragon.

And Cheetory is in this game?


Those two can also go into the lynch pool.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6371 (isolation #68) » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:53 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Agreed.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6383 (isolation #69) » Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:36 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6372, goodmorning wrote:@Marquis: dragon post is 4518.

What is it about this post that makes you think dragon is town?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6386 (isolation #70) » Sat Apr 25, 2015 3:25 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6384, dragonspawn wrote:What reason is there to think I'm scum?

In post 6348, Green Crayons wrote:I don't know how to feel about dragon.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6413 (isolation #71) » Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:25 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Shin, why didn't you take a side in the TSO/Ozgin debate?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6415 (isolation #72) » Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:55 am

Post by Green Crayons »

He didn't vote either TSO or Ozgin.

+

I recall him saying something to the effect of "both TSO and Ozgin are bad."
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6416 (isolation #73) » Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:55 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6413, Green Crayons wrote:Shin, why didn't you take a side in the TSO/Ozgin debate?

Let me rephrase:

why didn't you do act during the TSO/Ozgin debate?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6448 (isolation #74) » Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I trust GM the most out of the lot of you.

VOTE: Kitz
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6470 (isolation #75) » Sat May 02, 2015 7:41 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6467, Cheetory6 wrote:I've seen GC play as a town replacement before and basically turn the tides of a game around. This kind of resigned "meh I'll go with the flow and sheep GM" when we're getting pretty close to endgame seems like a pretty far cry from what I expect from him.

I'm not reading 200 pages.

That's the difference between this game and any other game I replace into.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6471 (isolation #76) » Sat May 02, 2015 7:46 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Uh, thoughts, so I put some effort into this game.

I personally think Shin is the best vote. He just sat on the sidelines in the TSO/Oz debate, which was probably the safest place for scum. Nobody appears to agree with this, so whatev.

I think GM is the most town person playing. I liked the PT he shared with SW. Plus I don't think a scum-neighborizer picked the town who was already neighbored to a scum neighbor. I'm therefore willing to sheep GM because he has a wider grasp on the game than I do.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6472 (isolation #77) » Sat May 02, 2015 7:47 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Everyone is just coasting, so I don't have strong feelings about others. Shin and GM are my extreme feelings.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6479 (isolation #78) » Sun May 03, 2015 4:46 am

Post by Green Crayons »

As a default, scum are disinclined to bus or defend a buddy. A 1 v 1 situation requires them to do one or the other. Simply opting out of taking a stance on the 1 v 1 allows scum to avoid bussing or defending, while allowing to see how the situation develops (and potentially jumping on at the right moment, in either direction, depending on how the situation develops).
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6481 (isolation #79) » Sun May 03, 2015 6:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

It's pretty basic.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6482 (isolation #80) » Sun May 03, 2015 6:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

"What is preferred scum play in this scenario."
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6487 (isolation #81) » Sun May 03, 2015 8:44 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Oh yeah forgot that I read that you said you were a counterwagon on D5.

That's a pretty good trump card.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6490 (isolation #82) » Sun May 03, 2015 11:18 am

Post by Green Crayons »

D1 is its own special bird. Scum usually don't have their claws sunk into the town, if that's going to be a thing that happens.

Competing scum bandwagons late game is probably more rare.

I DON'T KNOW, though. Just shooting from the hip on this bit.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6494 (isolation #83) » Sun May 03, 2015 12:43 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

marq, dragon, and GM: how do you feel about the D5 counterwagons in relation to Shin's alignment?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6500 (isolation #84) » Mon May 04, 2015 4:22 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6499, Cheetory6 wrote:Why wouldn't you use the same level of energy to ISOdive 3-4 players who are still alive? It just seems like there's a discrepancy in effort and this excuse just seems weird. :/
Also, could you link a game that you replaced into where you took a scumslot? If it's not too much trouble.

I tried ISOing a few players, and without greater context of what's going on, it's pretty worthless.

My level of effort on replacement isn't alignment indicative. Past five games I have replaced into, separated by alignment:

GC-scum-replacement from Mini 1647: replacement case 1; replacement case 2

GC-scum-replacement from Open 584: replacement case 1; replacement case 2; replacement case 3

GC-town-replacement from Micro 452: replacement case 1

GC-town-replacement from Open 587: replacement case 1

GC-town-replacement from Open 579: replacement case 1; replacement case 2
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6501 (isolation #85) » Mon May 04, 2015 4:23 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6499, Cheetory6 wrote:Also also, I'm not sure if you've answered already, but what're your thoughts on Marquis atm?

In post 6277, Green Crayons wrote:I don't think Marq is lynch worthy based off of yesterday's play.

There's probably a bit of "she and I did the same thing" involved, but her rapid-fire jumping back and forth between TSO-GC-Ozgin looks too un-calculated for scum.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6502 (isolation #86) » Mon May 04, 2015 4:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6499, Cheetory6 wrote:See, I'd agree with you if it didn't seem like Shin has been being super reserved with his vote like all game.
Like, I feel like getting him to vote someone/anyone at times has been like pulling teeth and iirc it hasn't been just during times when scum has been getting run up. It's come across as more of a playstyle thing.

This type of information is useful, and is the type of information I have been consistently asking for.

In post 6499, Cheetory6 wrote:Actually, or are you kidding? :/

Actually. GM's redic effort post shows that late game bandwagons competing against a mafia lynch are usually, but not always, against town.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6578 (isolation #87) » Thu May 07, 2015 1:51 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Agreed. Shin is most confirmed town.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6579 (isolation #88) » Thu May 07, 2015 1:52 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Inclined to vote Kitz for the reasons stated by GM yesterday. Also because GM was, in fact, town.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6580 (isolation #89) » Thu May 07, 2015 1:53 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6573, Marquis wrote:so this pretty much confirms one scum left i think
otherwise night wouldn't be less than 24h without warning

Has the length of nights been variable throughout the game?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6581 (isolation #90) » Thu May 07, 2015 1:54 am

Post by Green Crayons »

6573 + vote = GC is apprehensive
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6594 (isolation #91) » Fri May 08, 2015 4:58 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Super busy at work + moving + no internet at home = limited access for the weekend.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6596 (isolation #92) » Sat May 09, 2015 5:20 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6580, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 6573, Marquis wrote:so this pretty much confirms one scum left i think
otherwise night wouldn't be less than 24h without warning

Has the length of nights been variable throughout the game?

Anyone can answer.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6635 (isolation #93) » Tue May 12, 2015 1:24 am

Post by Green Crayons »

This is a post.

I will vote Kitz or whoever Shin votes for, depending upon how good I feel about Shin's case relative to my knowledge of the game.

This is the end of my post.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6661 (isolation #94) » Wed May 13, 2015 6:27 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6636, Kitz wrote:GC, why don't you make a case on me instead of saying I'm scummy with no own basis?

Because, as with all things relating to this game, my knowledge of this game is limited. I have been acting based off of what people have done since I have joined in + based off of the judgment of players I am currently reading as town, or who have flipped as town.

No, I'm not going to change that because I would have to read 200 pages and lol @ anyone suggesting I should do that. I think this style of play is sufficient and up to par of what should be expected of someone who replaces into a game this lengthy.

In post 6636, Kitz wrote:Will it remain with "basis on GM"?

Yes.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6662 (isolation #95) » Wed May 13, 2015 6:28 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I only recall Marq saying we have 1 scum left. Is that the consensus given the setup + ika's sense of balance (which I don't know anything about)?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6669 (isolation #96) » Wed May 13, 2015 9:39 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Oh lol is today deadline?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6670 (isolation #97) » Wed May 13, 2015 9:39 am

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: Kitz
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6673 (isolation #98) » Wed May 13, 2015 9:43 am

Post by Green Crayons »

^^^ Sorry I didn't realize that it was a quick deadline + that a whole week has passed.

It's refreshing to have a quick day deadline.

Anywho, thoughts:

Marq is probably scum only if there are two scum left.

Assuming 1 scum left:

Kitz: ???
Shinobi: town
dragonspawn: ???
Green crayons: town
Marquis: town
Cheetory6: ???


I think I told myself that dragon is likely town, so I'll double check my ISO for that later. Which leaves Kitz and Cheet by POE. And GM was legit, so Kitz.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6674 (isolation #99) » Wed May 13, 2015 9:44 am

Post by Green Crayons »

uuuugh
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6676 (isolation #100) » Wed May 13, 2015 9:45 am

Post by Green Crayons »

because that effort post GM did
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6677 (isolation #101) » Wed May 13, 2015 9:46 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Hmmm.

Self vote gives me pause.

However, Kitz jumped the gun and didn't self hammer.

This is the all-in on the gambit if Kitz=scum.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6678 (isolation #102) » Wed May 13, 2015 9:46 am

Post by Green Crayons »

UNVOTE: Kitz
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6683 (isolation #103) » Wed May 13, 2015 9:50 am

Post by Green Crayons »

The GM effortpost is literally "statistically, based off of other normal games, shin is 90% likely town based on being a late-game wagon competing with a scum-wagon," not things he should or shouldn't have done in this game.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6685 (isolation #104) » Wed May 13, 2015 9:59 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 5595, ika wrote:
Shinobi: ,
goodmorning
, kitz,
Aeronaut
, [l-3]
Aeronaut
: Marquis,
TSO
, dragonspawn, shinobi, Cheetory6,
Ozgin
[LYNCH]

Not voting:
elusive
,
silverwolf


With 11 alive, it's 6 to lynch

(expired on 2015-04-06 00:00:00)


I was hoping this would help establish that Shin is town, but it doesn't really.


That said:
In post 5417, Ozgin wrote:VOTE: Shinobi

Because I think Aero is townier than Shinobi, and I don't understand the wagon startup on Aero. That's making up my mind, Wolf.

In post 5473, Ozgin wrote:UNVOTE:
Consider this my intent to hammer Aeronaut.


Aero, Shinobi got you here and here and here.

What do you have to say for yourself?

In post 5501, Ozgin wrote:Fine enough. I just wanted to wait for him to get home, but I guess it's time.

VOTE: Aeronaut

Cross your fingers, ladies and gents..

Looks like scum jumping on smaller Shin-wagon, hoping it will push momentum to smaller Shin-wagon, unvoting when that fails, and then doing a really lame bus. Which would support Shin being town.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6686 (isolation #105) » Wed May 13, 2015 9:59 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Look at that. I'm looking at things that happened before I replaced in ALL ON MY OWN.

Effort.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6691 (isolation #106) » Wed May 13, 2015 10:11 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Reduced to phone posting.

Yeah Marq I don't disagree but I still think it makes Shin look more like town, rather than Oz doing a bus of one buddy to deflate a this buddy's lunch and then swinging to the bus of that third buddy.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6692 (isolation #107) » Wed May 13, 2015 10:12 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Oh lol then yeah dragon is totes town guys!
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6703 (isolation #108) » Wed May 13, 2015 1:30 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Sorry I have phone internet access again.

Where's Cheet?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6708 (isolation #109) » Wed May 13, 2015 3:15 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

So. Self pity/vote gambit?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6711 (isolation #110) » Wed May 13, 2015 3:36 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Right.

I'm going to bed. Because it's late.

VOTE: Kitz
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6792 (isolation #111) » Thu May 14, 2015 1:45 am

Post by Green Crayons »

It was fun force claiming for Oz. Though tbf I thought a cc of TSO would get TSO lynched, not myself/Oz, so initially I was going to play it as bumbling replacee just trying to help out his good neighbor pal upon TSO's flip.

Yay, replacements having no context of timing!

---

I thought Oz was vig or SK. And an Oz-SK flip would make me look good, and an Oz-vig flip would at least make me helpful to scum.

An Oz-scum flip was lol and was probably the best possible outcome.

---

Also, persuading Oz to give up Cheet's name in the PT during twilight was awesome and made the game much easier on my end. tbf, I took the plunge first and outed myself as traitor, so it probably wasn't hard for Oz to believe me.

On a completely unrelated observation, Oz was lynched on 4/20.

---

I put in as much effort with this game as I would in any game where 200+ pages existed, regardless of my alignment/role. I enjoyed the fact that folks were complaining about my play based on how I replaced in, because I could make a lot of indignant noises about How Dare They Question My Replacing Strategy.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6793 (isolation #112) » Thu May 14, 2015 1:46 am

Post by Green Crayons »

As for the setup: it's not what I would have expected from a Normal game, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Large games are weird anyways, so you get these multi-faceted roles, which just makes things even more complex. So (shrug), it's a learning experience.

Uh, drama abounds, but I've got no complaints on my end. Ty ika and Titus for modding. I enjoyed myself.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6797 (isolation #113) » Thu May 14, 2015 2:45 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 6795, dragonspawn wrote:How did you out yourself as a traitor?

"I am the traitor."
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6800 (isolation #114) » Thu May 14, 2015 2:51 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Spoiler: Neighbor PT Talk
In post 428, Ozgin wrote:Since I'm dying, I might as well drop this bomb:

TSO is the SK. We have a rolecop, and that rolecop is one of these three: {Kitz, Dragon, Shinobi}

Good luck claiming that, though.

Also, I know you're BP, I tried killing you the other night. That or you were protected.

In post 429, Green Crayons wrote:Do you have daytalk with your scum team?

In post 430, Green Crayons wrote:Buttface. Answer me.

In post 431, Ozgin wrote:Can't let you know that, Starfox. I've already said a bit much, don't you think?

Consider it a gift to my favorite slot in this game. Apply what you learned from my manipulation of you and SW to TSO's manipulation of dragon and the rest of town.

In post 432, Green Crayons wrote:I'm traitor, fool.

In post 433, Green Crayons wrote:Let 'em know.

In post 434, Green Crayons wrote:Let me know who they are.

In post 435, Ozgin wrote:You have GOT to be kidding me.

In post 436, Green Crayons wrote:Spill.

In post 437, Green Crayons wrote:Take a leap of faith.

<3

Do it for SW.

In post 438, Ozgin wrote:Then I'll tell you this: I lied about all of those names in the list I gave you. They're all town if you're traitor. TSO is really the SK, we have rolecop. No day talk. Night talk only. I can't tell you 100% because I don't know if you're lying or not.

In post 439, Green Crayons wrote:Alright so you didn't just loud me out in the thread, so you're not BSing about being scum.

In post 440, Green Crayons wrote:Kitz, Dragon, Shinobi

Dammit I thought Shin was scum.

In post 441, Green Crayons wrote:Other scum know TSO is actually SK?

In post 442, Green Crayons wrote:I guess so if you know and aren't rolecop. Hrm, Hrm, HRM. Don't know what to do.

In post 443, Ozgin wrote:Nope. Gah, I wanna trust you, but I don't want it to bite my ass.

Shin is town, Kitz is, and Dragon. I think dragon is a roleblocker/bodyguard/some protective role.

TSO is SK yes, rolecop'd.

In post 444, Ozgin wrote:He might have blocked me, hence why he said something like, "I have good reason to believe Oz shot TSO and missed last night," I think he blocked me and saved you.

In post 445, Green Crayons wrote:Well poop. I had hoped that you were actually town or SK, not a scumbag. Hence the forcing you to claim.

Well, hopefully your role actually has neighbor in it.

In post 446, Green Crayons wrote:No, your kills fail on me per my traitor mechanic. I just won't be recruited.

In post 447, Green Crayons wrote:Though that doesn't mean dragon
isn't
a PR of some sort.

In post 448, Ozgin wrote:Good to know.

Fuck it, I'll take the leap -- This game is gone crazy anyway. It's Cheetory.

Good luck. I hope this doesn't bite me.

PEdit: You're right. The town was crazy powerful this game. Do you have any other roles?

In post 450, Green Crayons wrote:Just Cheet?

Dang it he's going to get strung up.

Nope. Just Traitor/Neighbor. If Cheet dies, and I'm all that's left, I get the power to kill.

In post 452, Ozgin wrote:Good to know. Cheet is freaking out about TSO, he might shoot him. DAMNIT I WISH I COULD CONNECT THE TWO OF US NOW, This is literally every Shakespearean tragedy setup ever.

There's the good stuff. Pretty much my only activity in the PT. Everything else is 18 pages of SW and Oz.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6801 (isolation #115) » Thu May 14, 2015 2:53 am

Post by Green Crayons »

The good stuff relative to the GC/Oz interactions.

Other good stuff is undoubtedly in there with other players' interactions. :)
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #6803 (isolation #116) » Thu May 14, 2015 2:58 am

Post by Green Crayons »

No need to needlessly bus!
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Return to “Completed Large Normal Games”