Mini 1698: MDCXCVIII [C'est fini!]

pisskop · Post Post #50 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:21 am

In post 49, implosion wrote:I wanted to do this earlier but there was no one else voting him so it wasn't really worth it

Why wait?

vote: Implosion

RVS literally requires no reason and D1 requires only a weak one.

dragonspawn · Post Post #51 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:25 am

In post 49, implosion wrote:
Unvote

VOTE: GrayFoxxxx
I wanted to do this earlier but there was no one else voting him so it wasn't really worth it. Thank you, KK.

Yeah I
Dont like this. Town doesn't need cover for a vote.

VOTE: implosion

dragonspawn · Post Post #52 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:27 am

Sorry about the sentence structure. Not sure why it posted like that.

Kublai Khan · Post Post #53 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:41 am

In post 47, dragonspawn wrote:
In post 45, Kublai Khan wrote:VOTE: GrayFoxxxx
Scum found.

And how do you know this?

His vote was deliberately not random.

Shazam · Post Post #54 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:42 am

In post 51, dragonspawn wrote:
In post 49, implosion wrote:
Unvote

VOTE: GrayFoxxxx
I wanted to do this earlier but there was no one else voting him so it wasn't really worth it. Thank you, KK.

Yeah I
Dont like this. Town doesn't need cover for a vote.

VOTE: implosion

Agreed. I'm not going to vote him yet because he has a bunch of votes already, but FoS for sure.

WoodyWoodpecker · Post Post #55 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:46 am

In post 53, Kublai Khan wrote:
In post 47, dragonspawn wrote:
In post 45, Kublai Khan wrote:VOTE: GrayFoxxxx
Scum found.

And how do you know this?

His vote was deliberately not random.

He wasn't the only one though so what else you got?

WoodyWoodpecker · Post Post #56 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:49 am

In post 54, Shazam wrote:
In post 51, dragonspawn wrote:
In post 49, implosion wrote:
Unvote

VOTE: GrayFoxxxx
I wanted to do this earlier but there was no one else voting him so it wasn't really worth it. Thank you, KK.
1. Aren't you already voting him? 2. Got to get you a dictionary, cause he had like 3 votes and 3 isn't a bunch

Yeah I
Dont like this. Town doesn't need cover for a vote.

VOTE: implosion

Agreed. I'm not going to vote him yet because he has a bunch of votes already, but FoS for sure.

dragonspawn · Post Post #57 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:49 am

In post 53, Kublai Khan wrote:
In post 47, dragonspawn wrote:
In post 45, Kublai Khan wrote:VOTE: GrayFoxxxx
Scum found.

And how do you know this?

His vote was deliberately not random.

And that makes him scum because...?

WoodyWoodpecker · Post Post #58 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:50 am

Wtf?I was trying to quote shazsm

1. Aren't you already voting him?

2. Got to get you a dictionary, cause he had like 3 votes and 3 isn't a bunch

WoodyWoodpecker · Post Post #59 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:51 am

Nvm, shazam change to bulba

MarioManiac4 · Post Post #60 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:58 am

In post 51, dragonspawn wrote:
In post 49, implosion wrote:
Unvote

VOTE: GrayFoxxxx
I wanted to do this earlier but there was no one else voting him so it wasn't really worth it. Thank you, KK.

Yeah I
Dont like this. Town doesn't need cover for a vote.

VOTE: implosion

I don't paticularly like this vote from Dragonspawn. It seems rather oppurtunistic with a wagon on Implosion starting.

Bulbazoor · Post Post #61 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 6:59 am

In post 59, WoodyWoodpecker wrote:Nvm, shazam change to bulba

He did change to me afterwards.

GrayFoxxxx · Post Post #62 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:02 am

In post 60, MarioManiac4 wrote:
In post 51, dragonspawn wrote:
In post 49, implosion wrote:
Unvote

VOTE: GrayFoxxxx
I wanted to do this earlier but there was no one else voting him so it wasn't really worth it. Thank you, KK.

Yeah I
Dont like this. Town doesn't need cover for a vote.

VOTE: implosion

I don't paticularly like this vote from Dragonspawn. It seems rather oppurtunistic with a wagon on Implosion starting.

Implosion did the same thing.

dragonspawn · Post Post #63 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:04 am

What is opportunistic about voting for someone who is behaving scummy? Aren't we supposed to be scum hunting?

MarioManiac4 · Post Post #64 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:06 am

Yes, but 3 votes had already been placed on Implosion. I think he should have been trying to find another possible scum at that point.

dragonspawn · Post Post #65 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:09 am

I'm the third vote unless I've miscounted.

dragonspawn · Post Post #66 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:12 am

I did count right.

And since you're vote 1, why are you still voting implosion and not me?

Shazam · Post Post #67 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:27 am

In post 64, MarioManiac4 wrote:Yes, but 3 votes had already been placed on Implosion. I think he should have been trying to find another possible scum at that point.

Scummiest thing yet. Not only are you wrong about how many votes were on implosion, but what townie would suggest that we need to find two scum before putting pressure on one? Definitely seeing a Mario/Implosion team as a possibility.

dragonspawn · Post Post #68 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:38 am

In post 64, MarioManiac4 wrote:Yes, but 3 votes had already been placed on Implosion. I think he should have been trying to find another possible scum at that point.

Shouldn't we find one before we look for another? How do we do that without pushing and getting reactions?

We've barely had any posts from implosion. Let's put some pressure on him and get a better idea of whether he is scum before we start going hunting a partner.

MarioManiac4 · Post Post #69 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 7:43 am

In post 67, Shazam wrote:
In post 64, MarioManiac4 wrote:Yes, but 3 votes had already been placed on Implosion. I think he should have been trying to find another possible scum at that point.

Scummiest thing yet. Not only are you wrong about how many votes were on implosion, but what townie would suggest that we need to find two scum before putting pressure on one? Definitely seeing a Mario/Implosion team as a possibility.

If spawn was the 3rd vote, then I retract what I said

3 is not actually bad and we can keep this on Implosion.
And I was thinking that we already had 4 votes on Implosion. What's more, it is good to have pressure on more than one player, as otherwise if we're wrong we have nothing to fall on. And I don't like how you said that being wrong is scummy.

Necessary Evil · Post Post #70 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:31 am

In post 64, MarioManiac4 wrote:Yes, but 3 votes had already been placed on Implosion. I think he should have been trying to find another possible scum at that point.

In post 69, MarioManiac4 wrote:If spawn was the 3rd vote, then I retract what I said
3 is not actually bad and we can keep this on Implosion.
And I was thinking that we already had 4 votes on Implosion. What's more, it is good to have pressure on more than one player, as otherwise if we're wrong we have nothing to fall on. And I don't like how you said that being wrong is scummy.

This idea that we need multiple suspects is awfully strange. We can only lynch one person per day.
VOTE: MarioManiac4

MarioManiac4 · Post Post #71 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:33 am

Is that RVS?
If not, then since when have we only had one suspect on D1?
We do not have to lynch every suspect.

WoodyWoodpecker · Post Post #72 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:39 am

In post 70, Necessary Evil wrote:This idea that we need multiple suspects is awfully strange.

Hi, have you played mafia before?

Necessary Evil · Post Post #73 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:41 am

WoodyWoodpecker wrote:
In post 70, Necessary Evil wrote:This idea that we need multiple suspects is awfully strange.

Hi, have you played mafia before?

Yes. Something the timing seems strange, especially since he is still voting for Implosion.

In post 60, MarioManiac4 wrote:
In post 51, dragonspawn wrote:
In post 49, implosion wrote:
Unvote

VOTE: GrayFoxxxx
I wanted to do this earlier but there was no one else voting him so it wasn't really worth it. Thank you, KK.

Yeah I
Dont like this. Town doesn't need cover for a vote.

VOTE: implosion

I don't paticularly like this vote from Dragonspawn. It seems rather oppurtunistic with a wagon on Implosion starting.

What makes you think dragonspawn's vote was opportunistic? He gave a fine reason for it, I think. Further, why are you voting Implosion when the first suspicion you have is towards dragonspawn?

In post 71, MarioManiac4 wrote:Is that RVS?
If not, then since when have we only had one suspect on D1?
We do not have to lynch every suspect.

I think we're better off focusing on one at a time. It creates more pressure and keeps the town from becoming splintered. However, I am not necessarily opposed to having multiple suspects at a time. What you specifically suggested seemed suspicious to me so I am investigating you.

Kublai Khan · Post Post #74 (ISO) » Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:53 am

In post 57, dragonspawn wrote:
In post 53, Kublai Khan wrote:
In post 47, dragonspawn wrote:
In post 45, Kublai Khan wrote:VOTE: GrayFoxxxx
Scum found.

And how do you know this?

His vote was deliberately not random.

And that makes him scum because...?

Think about it. Random voting is done to elicit some reactions and voting is done based on what reactions seem dishonest. GrayFoxxxx's vote was the opposite. He votes in a way that says "hey, don't be upset, I'm just random voting because I have to. Don't take it personally, the choice is out of my hands."

He's not looking to generate a reaction. He's looking to avoid one.

Therefore scum.