MINI 1688 — BEES!!! — game over


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 #1371 (isolation #200) » Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:14 am

Post by Green Crayons »

But that's not a dealbreaker tbqh.

VOTE: RC

In BB I trust.
"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 #1374 (isolation #201) » Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I'm only semi joking. I've grown to townread your slot, and you're competent enough to see the situation for what it is based off of ETL's reads, which while I don't agree with fully, I do think ETL is town.



RC NM Kay
"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 #1376 (isolation #202) » Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:18 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Town Reads:

BBmolla (Tammy/Bella)
Fro99er
Sonic (Glork)
Chaos (Tere/BobLob)
SK (Kitty)
ETL (UT)
Green Crayons

Suspects:
KayP
ducks
RC (Shadox)
NM (Bulge)

RC - NM - Kay
RC - ducks - Kay

I guess I don't see NM and ducks together.
"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 #1379 (isolation #203) » Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:19 am

Post by Green Crayons »

If one of my townreads is wrong, I'm going to go with Chaos (Tere/BobLob), but damn BobLob felt obvtown to me.
"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 #1388 (isolation #204) » Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:22 am

Post by Green Crayons »

RC/NM team makes sense if RC is scum because of RC's really fabricated anger against Bulge, bad Bulge vote, and then super quick unvote.
"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 #1389 (isolation #205) » Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:22 am

Post by Green Crayons »

NM having replaced Bulge.
"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 #1407 (isolation #206) » Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:46 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

It isnt that scummy SK.
"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 #1422 (isolation #207) » Sat Jun 27, 2015 1:29 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I mean

That's bs

You claimed VT
"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 #1430 (isolation #208) » Sun Jun 28, 2015 2:22 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: NM
"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 #1433 (isolation #209) » Sun Jun 28, 2015 2:31 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Actually.


In post 1303, Marquis wrote:
VOTECOUNT 2.19
(0)
BBmolla

(0)
ChaosOmega

(0)
Fro99er

(0)
Metal Sonic

(0)
Green Crayons

(0)
KayP

(2)
SleepyKrew
EspeciallyTheLies, Fro99er
(0)
lalaladucks

(1)
RedCoyote
Not_Mafia
(5)
Not_Mafia
KayP, ChaosOmega, RedCoyote, Metal Sonic, Green Crayons
(L-1)

(0)
EspeciallyTheLies


(0)
(NO LYNCH)


(3)
(NOT VOTING)
SleepyKrew, lalaladucks, BBmolla

In post 1377, Marquis wrote:
VOTECOUNT 2.20
(0)
BBmolla

(0)
ChaosOmega

(0)
Fro99er

(0)
Metal Sonic

(0)
Green Crayons

(0)
KayP

(0)
SleepyKrew

(1)
lalaladucks
Not_Mafia
(5)
RedCoyote
EspeciallyTheLies, lalaladucks, BBmolla, Green Crayons, Fro99er
(L-1)

(4)
Not_Mafia
KayP, ChaosOmega, RedCoyote, Metal Sonic
(L-2)

(0)
EspeciallyTheLies


(0)
(NO LYNCH)


(1)
(NOT VOTING)
SleepyKrew

With
11
alive
, it takes
6
votes
to lynch.

In post 1423, Marquis wrote:
VOTECOUNT 2.21
(0)
BBmolla

(0)
ChaosOmega

(0)
Fro99er

(0)
Metal Sonic

(0)
Green Crayons

(0)
KayP

(0)
SleepyKrew

(0)
lalaladucks

(6)
RedCoyote
EspeciallyTheLies, lalaladucks, BBmolla, Green Crayons, Fro99er, Not_Mafia
(L-0)

(4)
Not_Mafia
KayP, ChaosOmega, RedCoyote, Metal Sonic
(L-2)

(0)
EspeciallyTheLies


(0)
(NO LYNCH)


(1)
(NOT VOTING)
SleepyKrew

With
11
alive
, it takes
6
votes
to lynch.

I'm the only asshole who jumped ship from the NM wagon.

I could've sworn - and certainly was thinking at the time - that more people who were already voting NM were moving to the RC vote.

Which means, at the very least, that scum didn't go from bussing NM to targeting RC.
"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 #1434 (isolation #210) » Sun Jun 28, 2015 2:32 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Hmm.

Dunno.

Nobody voted ducks at all yesterday? Would seem like an easy enough lynch to pursue 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 #1435 (isolation #211) » Sun Jun 28, 2015 2:33 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

UNVOTE:
"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 #1436 (isolation #212) » Sun Jun 28, 2015 2:34 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

NM, is BBmolla/Tammy/Bella 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 #1437 (isolation #213) » Sun Jun 28, 2015 2:35 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

@ducks:
why didn't you vote NM yesterday?
"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 #1441 (isolation #214) » Sun Jun 28, 2015 3:08 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1438, lalaladucks wrote:he probably killed ETL to set me up D:

oh do tell
"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 #1458 (isolation #215) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:45 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1450, BBmolla wrote:VOTE: KayP

no

Pick NM or ducks.
"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 #1459 (isolation #216) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:52 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1442, KayP wrote:I still haven't fully recovered from this weekend (I'm so sunburnt), but... why aren't we doing this?

VOTE: SleepyKrew

Did he not claim the same thing a dead person claimed? I haven't read in full yet but that seems very questionable to me.

Also no.

In post 1294, Green Crayons wrote:If there is an IC existing, there can't be two backup ICs.

In post 1295, Green Crayons wrote:Which means SK would be lying.

Which means SK would be scum.

In post 1298, Green Crayons wrote:Never have I ever heard of two backups for the same role existing in the same game.

I don't even think the mechanics work properly.

You kill the original role, and in its place two spring up simultaneously to replace it?

Even if the mechanics were to work, that's super powerful for town - especially something like IC. Having two backup ICs for a nonexistent IC role makes much more 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 #1460 (isolation #217) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:54 am

Post by Green Crayons »

^^^ You can either accept that SK is backup IC, and is therefore the closest confirmed town we have, or that SK is lying and is not a backup IC, which means he is scum.

But backup IC fits with the setup (role cop); a second back IC fits with the setup (no current, "original" IC for there to be a backup); and a second backup IC being scum alignment is too anti-town with the setup (see again role cop, making it effectively a godfather juxaposed with an already worthless cop variation).
"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 #1470 (isolation #218) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:31 am

Post by Green Crayons »

@NM:
In light of:
In post 1433, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1303, Marquis wrote:
VOTECOUNT 2.19
(0)
BBmolla

(0)
ChaosOmega

(0)
Fro99er

(0)
Metal Sonic

(0)
Green Crayons

(0)
KayP

(2)
SleepyKrew
EspeciallyTheLies, Fro99er
(0)
lalaladucks

(1)
RedCoyote
Not_Mafia
(5)
Not_Mafia
KayP, ChaosOmega, RedCoyote, Metal Sonic, Green Crayons
(L-1)

(0)
EspeciallyTheLies


(0)
(NO LYNCH)


(3)
(NOT VOTING)
SleepyKrew, lalaladucks, BBmolla

In post 1377, Marquis wrote:
VOTECOUNT 2.20
(0)
BBmolla

(0)
ChaosOmega

(0)
Fro99er

(0)
Metal Sonic

(0)
Green Crayons

(0)
KayP

(0)
SleepyKrew

(1)
lalaladucks
Not_Mafia
(5)
RedCoyote
EspeciallyTheLies, lalaladucks, BBmolla, Green Crayons, Fro99er
(L-1)

(4)
Not_Mafia
KayP, ChaosOmega, RedCoyote, Metal Sonic
(L-2)

(0)
EspeciallyTheLies


(0)
(NO LYNCH)


(1)
(NOT VOTING)
SleepyKrew

With
11
alive
, it takes
6
votes
to lynch.

In post 1423, Marquis wrote:
VOTECOUNT 2.21
(0)
BBmolla

(0)
ChaosOmega

(0)
Fro99er

(0)
Metal Sonic

(0)
Green Crayons

(0)
KayP

(0)
SleepyKrew

(0)
lalaladucks

(6)
RedCoyote
EspeciallyTheLies, lalaladucks, BBmolla, Green Crayons, Fro99er, Not_Mafia
(L-0)

(4)
Not_Mafia
KayP, ChaosOmega, RedCoyote, Metal Sonic
(L-2)

(0)
EspeciallyTheLies


(0)
(NO LYNCH)


(1)
(NOT VOTING)
SleepyKrew

With
11
alive
, it takes
6
votes
to lynch.


I'm all ears about your theory why you were not lynched yesterday.

Because to me it looks like scum didn't want to lynch you yesterday.
"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 #1482 (isolation #219) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:06 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

call me crazy

but ducks ain't scum

I'm not really seeing who would match up with her*


In contrast, I think NM is scum

Final D2 VC had KayP, ChaosOmega, RedCoyote, and Metal Sonic voting NM. The only questionable townread I have in there is Kay. So I think NMs wagon was most likely all town.

Final D2 VC had EspeciallyTheLies, lalaladucks, BBmolla, Green Crayons, and Fro99er voting RC. ETL & GC are town. I'm thinking ducks is town. That leaves BBmolla and frogger as strong candidates for NM-scum's buddies. Which kinda makes sense when you look at their play.



* Wild theory: NM and ducks are on the same scum team


VOTE: NM
"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 #1483 (isolation #220) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:07 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1444, Not_Mafia wrote:
In post 1436, Green Crayons wrote:NM, is BBmolla/Tammy/Bella scum?


Possibly, but they're not a priority

Explain "priority."
"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 #1485 (isolation #221) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:12 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

That's literally an outlandish theory that depends upon NM being 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 #1486 (isolation #222) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:12 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Also

like

the remainder 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 #1489 (isolation #223) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:18 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Also, NM's answer to why he wasn't the lynchee yesterday doesn't inspire confidence:

There wasn't really any clean opportunity for scum to hammer me yesterday,

Not true. NM was L-1 for a while. ducks even chose to not vote him.

maybe they weren't around,

Also not true. Everyone was voting by the end of yesterday except for SK.

maybe they saw me as more easily mislynchable in future days than RC

The best theory. It's a perhaps. But it's a theory that requires thinking scum went for the long game and actively chose to drum up ANOTHER town wagon to duel against the NM-town wagon.


Also, dang NM=scum just feels right in terms of how yesterday went down.
"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 #1492 (isolation #224) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:23 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1488, Fro99er wrote:@GC - So you're saying NM was at L-1 as scum, and came to SKrew's defense while SKrew was the other wagon? I guess so.

I note the irony that I will be repeating what ETL said about SK's play: it's something scum would do to trick town into thinking that they are town, yes!

Here's the thing. The "defending" NM did was simply point out the most likely role setup scenario. NM-scum could have fought against it, but it's really a calculated risk. If enough people (like myself) bought into SK being town based on likely role setup, then it makes NM look really bad. In contrast, if enough people took it at face value - whether they thought it to be the correct role setup, and especially if they did not (such as ETL) - then NM looks really darn good! He's not fighting tooth and nail for folks to go after the competing bandwagon! Must be town!

But, all it is is NM just agreeing with what I believe is the actual role setup. That isn't a big defense of another player. It's simply acknowledging the situation that we are most likely working with, and so it isn't some Big Thing that NM 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 #1493 (isolation #225) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:23 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1491, Fro99er wrote:I saw NM defend SKrew, and I've never played with scum!NM,

I just got out of a game where NM-scum hardbussed his buddy D1 & D2.

Defending a town is not outside of the realm of NM-scum's play.
"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 #1494 (isolation #226) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:24 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

If NM is town, I will be at a complete loss and will simply vote ducks because it's who NM wanted to lynch.
"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 #1495 (isolation #227) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:25 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

(Or whoever else NM directs me to vote for.)
"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 #1498 (isolation #228) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:27 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

No

I just got out of a game where all three scum were arguing that the other three scum were scum

and therefore I fucked up LYLO and voted for a fourth candidate

that's where my paranoia is coming from w/r/t ducks

the only reason why ducks would be scum with NM-scum is because she refused to hammer you, but then immediately voted you 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 #1499 (isolation #229) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:28 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1496, Not_Mafia wrote:And GC's hedging on lala scum and linking it to me looks like an excuse to still 'push' lala but gun for my lynch, and chain my lynch to a lala scumflip should my lynch fall through

also

this doesn't make sense

seeing as how I said I only see ducks as scum if you are scum

but if you are not scum, then I don't see ducks as scum

and would only vote ducks (if you are town) if your dying wish is for me to vote ducks 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 #1500 (isolation #230) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:31 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

oh I see

lynch ducks today, she flips scum, and then me push for your lynch tomorrow

I thought you were saying that you get lynched today, flip town, and then me push for ducks lynch tomorrow

which made no 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 #1511 (isolation #231) » Mon Jun 29, 2015 2:42 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

ducks has already claimed that was a joke
"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 #1541 (isolation #232) » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:29 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I've been shit all game

I'm sticking to my promise of being NM's proxy vote today

I'll claim when its my turn and then I'll vote when there's a 1 v 1
"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 #1542 (isolation #233) » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:32 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1539, Fro99er wrote:I guess GC won't listen to me because lolnewb

also

no

stop projecting
"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 #1545 (isolation #234) » Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I mean whatever issues you might have about being newb or whatever, that isn't why I haven't agreed with you on things.

Which as far I recall was mostly just NM but (shrug).
"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 #1546 (isolation #235) » Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1543, KayP wrote:
In post 1539, Fro99er wrote:KayP/Ducks/GC seems plausible. Metal seems plausible, his turn off of you and onto NM was pretty crap too. Hell, BobLob/Tere/Chaos seem plausible as well, but it's a distant third option because I've townread that slot all game. Going to need to ISO CO.

This isn't the team, I promise you...
but I'll admit, your argument went a bit towards getting me to just want to lynch ducks today.

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 #1547 (isolation #236) » Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:18 am

Post by Green Crayons »

ducks already claimed VT
SK already claimed backup IC

It's Kay's turn to claim.
"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 #1555 (isolation #237) » Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:38 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I'm the Town Encryptor-Enabler.

You're welcome scum.

Frogger, Sonic, and I think ducks mentioned or referenced daytalk at some point in this game for those who care.
"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 #1561 (isolation #238) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:02 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Unbunch your tail feathers, I'm about to go look.
"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 #1562 (isolation #239) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:05 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Sonic Referencing Daytalk:

In post 1207, Metal Sonic wrote:its a pretty memorable multiball off site game where scum's daytalk was controlled by a negative utility "daytalk enabler" who was town! aka me. I got myself policy lynched hoping that scum would no longer have daytalk, but each scumteam had their own "backup" encryptor which kept them going. I was very upset in the dead thread

me and marquis go back a really long way :]


now stop fooling around and vote NM


Frogger Referencing Daytalk:
(frogger's Bella/Kay suspicions were justified in large part if daytalk was a thing - I've bolded the relevant part)
In post 462, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 461, Fro99er wrote:GC, what do you make of the fact that Bella and KayP both pushed on each other D1, then both ended up on the Shadoxx wagon late D1, then both came on at the end of D1 to ask for a claim and hammer? Coincidence?

The fact that they pushed for each other is unhelpful until we get a flip from one of Bella/Kay.

RC Referencing Daytalk:

In post 718, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 711, RedCoyote wrote:I really don't think that's the most reasonable conclusion, GC. It is indeed a possibility (in fact, the Bella/Glork relationship on D1 is an even better indicator of an alliance between the two), but I find it far-fetched to want to come to that conclusion first.

Another thing to consider is what if the scumteam does not have daytalk? Tammy replaced in after N1 was over. Would she really taken it upon herself to go into superwallbus mode?

For me, you really have to suspend disbelief to get there. Not impossible, but not probable. I think they're both town, but I also think it's possible one of them could be scum. In either situation, I'd rather lynch someone else.

I didn't say it was the most reasonable conclusion in the abstract, but you asked why would Tammy-scum vote Glork, and that's your answer: because they'd both be scum.

I don't think scum have daytalk? You're the second person who has mentioned daytalk. If I were scum in Tammy's shoes, attacking my buddy on the wagon is not some convoluted, must-plan-in-advance type of strategy. And walls - oh god the walls - is just something Tammy does, so. (shrug)

I mean, I was just killing time to post. I'm not pursuing this as a Real, True Theory at the moment.



The fact that they both ended upon on the Shadox wagon is not much more helpful until we get a flip from one of Bella/Kay/Shadox; although I do see a somewhat credible suspicion in the fact that Bella/Kay cross-scumread each other than then agreed upon a single third party scumread.

Both coming at the end of D1 and simultaneously asking for claim-before-hammer might be something if there was daytalk.
"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 #1563 (isolation #240) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:07 am

Post by Green Crayons »

EBWOP

In post 1562, Green Crayons wrote:
Sonic Referencing Daytalk:

In post 1207, Metal Sonic wrote:its a pretty memorable multiball off site game where scum's daytalk was controlled by a negative utility "daytalk enabler" who was town! aka me. I got myself policy lynched hoping that scum would no longer have daytalk, but each scumteam had their own "backup" encryptor which kept them going. I was very upset in the dead thread

me and marquis go back a really long way :]


now stop fooling around and vote NM



Frogger Referencing Daytalk:
(frogger's Bella/Kay suspicions were justified in large part if daytalk was a thing - I've bolded the relevant part)
In post 462, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 461, Fro99er wrote:GC, what do you make of the fact that Bella and KayP both pushed on each other D1, then both ended up on the Shadoxx wagon late D1, then both came on at the end of D1 to ask for a claim and hammer? Coincidence?

The fact that they pushed for each other is unhelpful until we get a flip from one of Bella/Kay.

The fact that they both ended upon on the Shadox wagon is not much more helpful until we get a flip from one of Bella/Kay/Shadox; although I do see a somewhat credible suspicion in the fact that Bella/Kay cross-scumread each other than then agreed upon a single third party scumread.

Both coming at the end of D1 and simultaneously asking for claim-before-hammer might be something if there was daytalk.



RC Referencing Daytalk:

In post 718, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 711, RedCoyote wrote:I really don't think that's the most reasonable conclusion, GC. It is indeed a possibility (in fact, the Bella/Glork relationship on D1 is an even better indicator of an alliance between the two), but I find it far-fetched to want to come to that conclusion first.

Another thing to consider is what if the scumteam does not have daytalk? Tammy replaced in after N1 was over. Would she really taken it upon herself to go into superwallbus mode?

For me, you really have to suspend disbelief to get there. Not impossible, but not probable. I think they're both town, but I also think it's possible one of them could be scum. In either situation, I'd rather lynch someone else.

I didn't say it was the most reasonable conclusion in the abstract, but you asked why would Tammy-scum vote Glork, and that's your answer: because they'd both be scum.

I don't think scum have daytalk? You're the second person who has mentioned daytalk. If I were scum in Tammy's shoes, attacking my buddy on the wagon is not some convoluted, must-plan-in-advance type of strategy. And walls - oh god the walls - is just something Tammy does, so. (shrug)

I mean, I was just killing time to post. I'm not pursuing this as a Real, True Theory at the moment.
"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 #1564 (isolation #241) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:12 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Alright, I thought that there was a reference to daytalk before frogger back in D1, but apparently it went frogger --> RC --> Sonic.

I skimmed ducks and Kay's ISOs, but confirmed that neither said anything that caught my eye, so I misremembered that 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 #1566 (isolation #242) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:19 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1558, lalaladucks wrote:
In post 1555, Green Crayons wrote:I'm the Town Encryptor-Enabler.

what

do you have any results

In post 1559, lalaladucks wrote:wtf looked up encryptor on wiki

it's so scum-sided

scum PR? :/

In post 1560, lalaladucks wrote:who'd you use your encryptor thing on


I don't think you understand my role. (That's okay, I had to look both aspects of my role up as well.)

Here:
Encryptor Wiki Article wrote:An Encryptor is a role that allows people who can converse with it to talk during the Day phase. Otherwise, they are restricted to speaking during the Night phase.

While theoretically this role can be used for Masons and the like, in practice this role is usually Mafia-aligned and allows the Mafia to daytalk.

Enabler Wiki Article wrote:An Enabler has no active abilities, but are told what kind of power role they enable. If they die, that type of ability may no longer be used.

This effect applies to all players with the enabled ability. A Doctor Enabler's death will cause every Doctor in the game to become useless.

Enablers are usually, but not always, Town.

I don't have any active ability. However, for as long as I live, scum have daytalk.

I'll further note:
Enabler Wiki Article wrote:Some more creative uses have included Town Enablers for Mafia power roles and Mafia Enablers for Town power roles. Both of these (the latter to a greater extent) reduce the positive feedback Mafia naturally generates for a faction that starts to win by taking away their power roles.


You can read my ISO and see that I was trying to attract the NK. My theory was that if I was blatantly laying down PR hints, maybe scum would think I was a PR attempting to look like a VT who wanted to look like he had a PR. Regardless of whether that worked or not, my shitty reads undoubtedly counseled for keeping me 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 #1567 (isolation #243) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:22 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1565, Metal Sonic wrote:You point is that if someone 'assumed' or 'knew' that scum have daytalk, it would be a scum tell for you?

To the extent I was keeping an eye out for it to see if someone would slip.

Also, obviously, whether someone mentioned daytalk as a possibility is not, in and of itself, an automatic indication of alignment (e.g., RC).

I don't really think it means one thing or another in terms of how frogger and Sonic talked about it. But I thought I would give folks a head's up in case if they wanted to make their own opinions about 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 #1569 (isolation #244) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:55 am

Post by Green Crayons »

No I did not leave any crumbs.
"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 #1571 (isolation #245) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:07 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Hunh.

So either it is

Kay, Sonic, and Frogger

or

Chaos is lying
"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 #1578 (isolation #246) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

oh okay I thought vanilla meant vanilla townie but I'm dumb so let's not belabor the point
"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 #1583 (isolation #247) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:31 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Here's a thing.

In post 417, Marquis wrote:
VOTECOUNT 1.15 (FINAL)
  • (7)
    Bicephalous Bob
    Glork,
    Untrod Tripod
    , Fro99er, Green Crayons, lalaladucks,
    Bob Loblaw
    , KayP
    (L-0)

    (1) Glork —
    Bicephalous Bob

    (1) KayP —
    Shadoxx8

    (1) lalaladucks —
    Kitty Galore

    (1)
    Shadoxx8
    Bellaphant

    (1)
    The Bulge
    TellTaleHeart

    (1)
    Untrod Tripod
    The Bulge


In post 1423, Marquis wrote:
VOTECOUNT 2.21
  • (6)
    RedCoyote
    EspeciallyTheLies
    , lalaladucks,
    BBmolla
    , Green Crayons, Fro99er,
    Not_Mafia
    (L-0)

    (4)
    Not_Mafia
    KayP,
    ChaosOmega
    ,
    RedCoyote
    , Metal Sonic
    (L-2)


    (1) (NOT VOTING) —
    SleepyKrew


In post 1522, Marquis wrote:
VOTECOUNT 3.03
  • (2) lalaladucks —
    Not_Mafia
    , Fro99er
    (5)
    Not_Mafia
    lalaladucks, Metal Sonic, Green Crayons,
    BBmolla
    , KayP
    (L-0)


    (2) (NOT VOTING) —
    ChaosOmega
    ,
    SleepyKrew
"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 #1584 (isolation #248) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:33 am

Post by Green Crayons »

That sure is a post, Kay.
"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 #1589 (isolation #249) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:47 am

Post by Green Crayons »

frogger, Kay, and ducks claimed VT. While not impossible, I'm not keen on the belief that scum all claimed VT, so at least one of them is likely town.

Odd/Even Role Cops fit together well, so I think Chaos is cleared.
2x backup ICs without a real IC fit together well, so I think SK is cleared.

Non-consecutive doc and encryptor-enabler don't have a counterpart to "fit" into the scheme. However, if we lynch the encryptor, then that would establish that I'm telling to the truth. I don't see a way of going about proving Sonic's role. That pits me v. Sonic if all three scum didn't claim VT.

Based off of my proxy vote plus general sense of "holy fuck can I please do something right this game" my lynch preference is Kay for 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 #1593 (isolation #250) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I thought about asking to be policy lynched.

But then again, lynching a scum is better than getting myself lynched.

Also I fancied myself more useful to the town alive than scum lacking daytalk.
"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 #1594 (isolation #251) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:58 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1593, Green Crayons wrote:Also I fancied myself more useful to the town alive than scum lacking daytalk.

WELP
"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 #1716 (isolation #252) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:32 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I don't remember.

Probably?

Wasn't townreading either enough to not want to lynch one of them.
"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 #1717 (isolation #253) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:33 am

Post by Green Crayons »

also

what Tammy lynch?
"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 #1720 (isolation #254) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:35 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Right, I was suspecting Bella for weak reasons (voting only after pressured) and I was suspecting Glork for weak reasons (not pursuing his scum group on D2).

So I guess scumreading, but weaksauce, but also didn't have anything better.
"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 #1733 (isolation #255) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 7:56 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1731, SleepyKrew wrote:
In post 718, Green Crayons wrote:I don't think scum have daytalk?

:/
Why did you choose to hide the fact that you knew scum had day talk?

Because I wanted to be a NK, and I wasn't sure if scum knew that an enabler existed.
"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 #1736 (isolation #256) » Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:05 am

Post by Green Crayons »

No it isn't.
"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 #1825 (isolation #257) » Fri Jul 03, 2015 1:12 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1738, SleepyKrew wrote:
In post 1566, Green Crayons wrote:You can read my ISO and see that I was trying to attract the NK.

Please show.

Basically whenever I tried to make it look like I was purposefully trying to attract the NK (claiming in-thread mason, arguing that I should remain until LYLO), under the theory that I was trying to look like a PR who was trying to look like a VT who was trying to look like a PR.

In post 1740, SleepyKrew wrote:
In post 813, Green Crayons wrote:Still want to lynch the Bulge slot. Might be scum. Even if town, I think it semi-clears some folks.

Who would it have cleared any how/why?

In post 944, Green Crayons wrote:I think Bulge/NM remains the best lynch because I'm pretty sure RC is scum if NM is scum, and I think the folks who pushed for a Bulge lynch earlier today (yes, before I restarted the push, so not including me) are likely town if Bulge ends up 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 #1830 (isolation #258) » Fri Jul 03, 2015 1:22 am

Post by Green Crayons »

yeah obvjoke, but was going for "too ludicrous to be true, right? right?!" second guessing, in part by tapping UT as the mason because it strikes me as something UT would do because lolbored

In post 1828, SleepyKrew wrote:I'm gonna have a hard time believing that you expected anybody to take the in-thread masonry seriously.
Show me the remain until LYLO thing please?

.
"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 #1838 (isolation #259) » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:11 am

Post by Green Crayons »

This is a post, but not a vote, because I'm waiting.
"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 #1865 (isolation #260) » Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:48 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Wouldn't have gotten frogger I don't think, but yeeeeah sorry for being bad at 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 #1871 (isolation #261) » Sat Jul 04, 2015 2:09 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I really really liked the role setup, kudos to that.

I *gasp* think that maybe the short day deadlines were too short - for all my bitching about the unnecessary deadlines of other games. Maybe like a 10-day day/2-day night would be perfect.

I'm glad to see I got ducks right, and I could've sworn we were going to lynch Kay --> Sonic (I was waiting for SK to finish up his reread in my last post), but if I made it to LYLO with frogger and ducks I know hands down I would've voted ducks over frogger. So kudos to the whole scum team, this was a hard 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).

Return to “Completed Mini Normal Games”