NEWBIE 1693 />_ TO_ARCHIVE

[HobbesDuncan]

JUMP TO />_ vote_count JUMP TO />_ vote_count JUMP TO />_ lynch />_

Okay #162 has changed my mind

@Micc What do you think about monogarden?

Changed your mind in regards to how you're viewing me, or how you're viewing Pants? Or both?

[Micc]

Really? I've been suspicious of Pants for a while now. Openly so since the 90th post.

Granted I haven't put up a case but I thought that both Thor, and Hobbes have strong cases. So I'm not sure what I could actually add to what's already been said. He evaded Thor's accusations, then voted Thor because Thor was questioning him, both those actions seem pretty scummy to me. Do I really need to embellish it further?

It's just so easy to jump on the leading wagon and say "I'm voting cause I agree with these other people." Eventually the wagon probably goes through and it becomes time to analyze who made the votes and why. It turns out "I agree with these people" is really hard to analyze.

So yeah, I'm a believer that if you're going to sheep your way onto a wagon, the best thing you can do is restate the case in your own words. Not doing so is lazy if you're town and super convenient if you're scum.

[Thor665]

Um... did you read the rest of that post? (Note: not rhetorical, that is genuine uncertainty.) Because I went over all his posts and found and explained why I felt there was something of a lack of content there- I'm not so much

doubting

that he's on the high end of information as actively disagreeing. If there's some information you're getting from PC's posts that I've missed, then yes, by all means, please explain what it is. You probably don't need to go as in-depth as you suggested or analyze/compare each individual post or anything, but some evidence or explanation would be ideal- as is, I certainly don't think you have enough to describe your opinion as 'self-evident.'

I did read it, and found it unconvincing.
Allow me to turn it around on you to try to make my point clear without going through a point by point explanation of PC's posts.

At the time I made that comment, there is theoretically every player offering more reads than PC (to which I would say myself and Micc are givens) and there are those who were offering less.

Please list, from your opinion, all the players who were offering more opinions and/or doing more to advance the gamestate.

I think Grendel, Pants, Sugar, mono, and yourself all *easily* fall behind Phantom at that time, and I think a number still do. So, whether or not you think he is doing a great job, he was doing more than most - which means he was performing more townish than a lot of players, which means I don't get the raised issue on him.

I have no interest in defending his contributions as great.
I have plenty of interest in saying there was active contribution at a higher level than normal for this game.

Orange, hello, your predecessor was my top scum read. Therefore you're you've inherited my suspicions of him.

Why aren't you voting the slot then?

...he was taking advantage of his inexperience to dismiss arguments against him?

I find this case super weak. I think his play along with the force replacement are enough evidence that Col Mongoose didn't have a strong enough understanding of the game do be doing things like taking advantage of his perceived inexperience.

This is a good point, Micc can play in the town pool now, and Grendel can go splash around as a scum read.

It's just so easy to jump on the leading wagon and say "I'm voting cause I agree with these other people." Eventually the wagon probably goes through and it becomes time to analyze who made the votes and why. It turns out "I agree with these people" is really hard to analyze.

Functionally aren't you proving you can analyze it by doing this?

Also, just as a clarification of my life right now - am currently in Savannah on vacation with my girlfriend. I will be distracted a fair bit, but only for a few days, promise Expect maybe lighter walls just for the next four days, then expect a return to normal play as before.

[monogarden]

Micc, I noticed you haven't moved your vote yet. Is PhantomCobalt still your pick for today?

[monogarden]

If you need/want me to go over his posts one at a time and compare them to players you don't seem to think people should have trouble reading I'd be happy to explain why he's on the high end of information offered in this game - but I also feel that is so self-evident as prima facie that I'm not sure why you'd need me to do so. But I will if you repeat a state of uncertainty/doubt on that issue to me again. Let me know.

Thor, I have to bring this up because I've noticed this in a lot of your posts and it's been bothering me.

I think your argument against Pants is solid and has more merit than his argument against you. But you've said a lot of things like what I quoted that really just rub me the wrong way. There's this absolutism in your posts that I don't agree with. This isn't a logical debate 101 class and it comes off to me as you pushing an argument farther than I see any evidence for. For instance, I think your case against Pants is solid but I don't see why it's necessary to just keep pushing and pushing it. You seem to assume that someone making a bad case = scum 100% when this is a new game and (I think?) the first for Pants. You really can't see how someone in their first game makes a bad argument?

I haven't seen any of your other games, so it's totally possible this is just how you play. Maybe this is just from my perspective as a newer player but I wanted to bring it up.

[Grendel]

I think Grendel, Pants, Sugar, mono, and yourself all *easily* fall behind Phantom at that time, and I think a number still do.

Hurrmp. I refuse to accept the idea that I’m going to be out shined by somebody whose post highlights are a botched reaction test.

Prepare for incoming reads dump-

Spoiler: MonoGarden

She seems fine to me- at least at face value. She posts with good consistency. I’m more willing to trust somebody who thinks I’m suspicious, and provides reason why, then somebody who tries to be really buddy-buddy with me, mainly due to pervious experiences where Mafioso’s gained my trust by being really friendly, and helpful. What really bothers me, (and why I’m not getting a town read on her) is that for all her posts none of them really say pro, or anti town to me. And seven of her posts mention me, three of them were responses to what I said, or answers to direct questions. So I appreciate the attention even if it means you think/thought I’m a maf. I know that Pants and I are your scum reads (As from post 99), but who do you feel are towny?
Maybe your response will better place my feelings on you.

Spoiler: SugarJan

Currently the least active player, she referenced schooling, guess she’s busy with that? Really would like to hear more from her though. My thoughts on her haven’t changed much since my last list, which bugs me. Still not enough information for me to lean town, or scum. I'm still of the belief that the quiet should be watched though.

Spoiler: HobbesDuncan

He hasn’t posted a great deal. However I’ve already said that I like his case on Pants in posts (91, and then a full ISO in post 162). I’m leaning town on Hobbes for those posts, but I’d still like to hear him say more stuff. Say more stuff Hobbes! hehe

Spoiler: Pants

Pants: Ah yes, this guy.

Problem one:

Despite his explicitly saying that his vote against Thor wasn’t an OMGUS he went in with a pretty poor case, and seemed to ignore much of what Thor had said in response, giving short response or saying he didn’t understand. The first thing (his case) seems like impulsive thing that comes with an OMGUS as he didn’t seem to have really thought his argument through, the second part (short responses) sounds like him trying to minimize backlash by giving Thor, (and others), little to work with.

Problem two:

Speaking of his case I thought his point A was a result of him trying to blow up questions that Thor asked him. Pants reaction in accusing Thor’s basic questions, (Thor went on to question others in a similar manner), felt very much like somebody who felt threatened. If Pants is town why should he react so strongly to suspicion? The short statement, “You tricked me”, really doesn’t sit well with me. I suppose that it bothered me because it felt like he was trying to portray Thor to be some kind of puppet master who set him up. This, sounds like a huge stretch to me. Part B about vote hopping was kinda silly, as I believe that Thor’s original vote against Col Mongoose, and me was him fishing for a reaction… I think.

Problem three:

He never really came up with a good case against Thor and as the day went on Pants has had little in terms of interaction with other topics. He hasn’t done much in contributing to discussion; I’d say he has been lying low instead of trying to redeem himself, which looks like a maf giving up to me. The last post he made that was more than a few sentences was post 84, which was six days ago. His newer posts are short and don't seem to add much to topics at hand imo.

Lastly, I don’t feel like Pants has really done anything to help discussion. Early in the day he spent his time trying to vilify Thor, and hasn’t spent much time since doing anything else. Also said he’d be posting reads, and contributing to discussion, a few days ago, but we haven’t heard anything from that yet. I’m really leaning mafia.

Spoiler: Grendel

Hello! Not sure what you expected to find in this spoiler, but thx 4 stopping to say hi anyways!

Spoiler: Orange

Nothing really big at the moment. I do agree with his town read on Micc. Aside from his case on Hobbes which may or may not still be a thing, Orange hasn’t done much that really stands out to me. I see he has answered questions, and given a couple view points but uh- don’t get me wrong being concise is good, but some of your posts don’t feel concise. They look kind of bare. Would like to hear how 162 has changed his mind, and to what direction. Not really leaning mafia or town.

Spoiler: Micc

Asking good investigative questions. Isn’t giving others an easy ride when they make a move, demanding justification for “why”. I think that is very pro-town behavior. I’m not so sure about his case on Cobalt, yet. Micc is probably my biggest town read at the moment.

Spoiler: Cobalt

I must say that I find him really abrasive, and I feel that he hasn’t done as much for town as the IC insists. I recognize he was active in the beginning of the day, but as the day went on I’d say he has contributed less, and less substance. I also wasn’t joking when I said that I think his reaction test must have fallen through. He jumped around the topic when it was brought up, and hasn’t divulged anything other than that he thinks that Micc is mafia. His unwillingness to talk about his experiment leads me to think that he realized that he couldn’t get very reliable results or leads about anybody, but is simply too prideful to come out and admit it. His vote for Micc is clearly due to Micc leading a lynch against him- and maybe he really does think Micc is mafia, but his reaction really feels kneejerky to me. Unless he wants to elaborate, but he won’t because he values his “master plan” too much. What really bothers me is where his excuse for not explaining why he is leading a vote against Micc is because he doesn’t want Micc to develop a counter argument, which sounds like somebody afraid that their theory has an awful lot of holes in it. I’m not beyond thinking that he is maf, but I’m actually leaning town atm because It’d be pretty absurd for a mafia to continually draw attention to himself like Cobalt is doing. (Still toying with the idea that he is a townie trying to get lynched)

Spoiler: Thor

Still the most active player in the game with dense posts and well thought out lines of questioning for others. I still stand by that this shouldn’t affect my view on his alignment, as one as experienced as him could still pull long well thought out posts, and lead discussion as scum. Sucks that I’m on his scum list, not sure what I can say in my defense. Hopefully I’ll get to live long enough to prove I’m a useful townie. I’m leaning neither town, nor mafia on Thor.

Some other notes

List from most to least towny from my perspective (Likely hood their town): Micc (8), Hobbes (7), Cobalt(6),/leaving townieness/, MonoGarden (5), Thor (5), Orange (4), SugarJan(4), Pants (2).

Rating based on strong activity (How on top of discussion are they): Thor (9), Micc (8) Monogarden (6), /leaving pro-town/, Cobalt (5), Hobbes (5), Orange (5), Pants (3), SugarJan (2).

Rating based on The strength of their Discussion (Good points, questions and cases): Thor (10), Micc (8), Hobbes (7), /leaving pro-town/, Orange (5), SugarJan (5), MonoGarden (5), Cobalt (4), Pants (3)

Rating based on behavior (Reactiveness, and Mudslinging): Micc (9), Thor (7), Hobbes (6), /Leaving pro-town/, MonoGarden (5), Orange (5), SugarJan (5), Cobalt (4), Pants (2).

How I perceive others are reading me: MonoGarden (Unsure, but was at one point suspicious of me), SugerJan (Slight suspiciousness due to gut), HobbesDucan (Unsure, hasn't said anything), Pants (Unsure, hasn't said anything), Orange (Unsure, Hasn't said anything), Micc (Originally I thought he was leaning scum, but I think he is just playing hard ball), Cobalt (Probably leaning scum), Thor (leaning scum)

Thor's case on Pants: Strong, deconstructed arguments, and exposed weak links on Pant's logic.
Pants case on Thor: Weak, Reactive, doesn't actually prove Thor set him up, and Pants has been ducking debating it further.
Hobbes case on Pants: Strong, Pants arguments are a "grasping at straws", and Restated Pants avoiding discussion.
Orange's case on Hobbes: Ehh pretty weak, reading into tone through text is not reliable.
Micc's case on Cobalt: Its okay, Cobalt has been acting pretty flakey, don't know if that makes him lynch worthy.
Cobalt's case on Micc: What case? He just voted Micc and left us hanging.
SugarJan's case on Cobalt: Weak, her reaction was, "You're acting Weird! Die!" haha.

Lastly, I like lists, if anybody has, or wants to make, some lists on their thought's on other players please post them.

[Shadowmod]

Code: Select all

GENERATE />_ vote_count PARSE $curphase
parsing votes
. . . .
generating vote_count
  project PK8D3ZND
  1st testing cycle
  +—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————+
  | VOTE COUNT                                                                              |
  +—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————+
  |  PANTS98          [ 3 / 5 ]                                                             |
  |    Thor665          HobbesDuncan     Grendel          ·                ·                |
  + · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · +
  |  PHANTOMCOBALT    [ 2 / 5 ]                                                             |
  |    Micc             SugarJan         ·                ·                ·                |
  + · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · +
  |  THOR665          [ 1 / 5 ]                                                             |
  |    Pants98          ·                ·                ·                ·                |
  + · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · +
  |  HOBBESDUNCAN     [ 1 / 5 ]                                                             |
  |    Orange           ·                ·                ·                ·                |
  + · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · +
  |  MICC             [ 1 / 5 ]                                                             |
  |    PhantomCobalt    ·                ·                ·                ·                |
  +–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––+
  |  NOT VOTING       [ 1 / 9 ]                                                             |
  |    monogarden       ·                ·                ·                ·                |
  +—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————+
DONE.
/>_

1ST TESTING CYCLE (expired on 2016-04-06 18:00:00)

Code: Select all

/>_

[monogarden]

Oh man, Grendel, that was great. I wish I could get you to do one of those for me!

Right now, my biggest town leans are Micc, Hobbes and maybe Jan (hard to say for sure without more content from her).

That post definitely moves you up the list of "people I want to keep around" if not the " towniest players" list.

[Micc]

Micc, I noticed you haven't moved your vote yet. Is PhantomCobalt still your pick for today?

Yeah.

And I think everyone who is giving him the benefit of the doubt for possibly having some "mater plan" or big explination" should set a deadline for when they expect the big reveal. I can't understand cutting PhantomCobalt slack while still pushing mediocre cases like the one against Pants.

Functionally aren't you proving you can analyze it by doing this?

By talking about it? Yeah I guess, if that's your definition of analysis. I can't say I have (or expect to in the future) generated reads off Grendel sheeping. Not being able to generate reads is the "hard to analyze" I was describing.

Grendel has since expanded on his read in post 180, and I'd expect that post to be much more useful to look at later in the game than "I agree with these people".

[Micc]

Also - Orange and Monogarden should get votes in play on meaningful wagons. We don't have forever and I'm already sensing this one is headed for the deadline which I'd like to avoid.

[Grendel]

Oh man, Grendel, that was great. I wish I could get you to do one of those for me!

Right now, my biggest town leans are Micc, Hobbes and maybe Jan (hard to say for sure without more content from her).

That post definitely moves you up the list of "people I want to keep around" if not the " towniest players" list.

Thanks, I realized that this site doesn't feature wills so I thought that in the chance I get night killed (which is unlikely since I get the feeling that if I'm wrong about Pants I'll be next on the town's chopping block) I should do a nice info dump before the day ends. Hopefully its of use to someone, lord knows I invested some time into making it.

I understand Micc, and Hobbes, as I share town vibes on them too. I’m not so sure SugarJan is a good player to hold stakes in though, aside from not being very active and her vote for Cobalt we know little about her. I mean, SugarJan if your reading this, please prove me wrong, I’d like to add you among my trusts. I just haven’t seen you doing much.

Also, Something I forgot to point out that Thor did is that he grilled me for my vote against Pants, but didn’t say a thing when SugarJan voted Cobalt. Considering that the circumstances between her and my vote were quite similar. Neither of us provided much provided much reason for our votes, but you singled me out. Why was her vote fine and dandy, while mine was lazy? Better yet, why didn’t you defend Cobalt, you’ve defended him quite a bit. Why stop on SugarJan’s account?

I also think its funny that the one leading the lynch against Pants, and openly told me I should vote Pants if I had no other leads, now considers me to be scum for voting pants... hilarious.

Micc, I noticed you haven't moved your vote yet. Is PhantomCobalt still your pick for today?

Yeah.

And I think everyone who is giving him the benefit of the doubt for possibly having some "mater plan" or big explination" should set a deadline for when they expect the big reveal. I can't understand cutting PhantomCobalt slack while still pushing mediocre cases like the one against Pants.

Micc, while I still think Pants is the stronger case I’m not totally adverse to a Cobalt lynch. Hmm, I like the deadline idea. How much time would you give him to come clean with his “master plan”?

[monogarden]

Micc, you're right. I also just realized that I never made it all the way through reading, I stopped at whatever post I commented on, oops.

I think PhantomCobalt saying he was roleblocker was a joke and isn't an indicator he is scum. However, it's also not a sign he's town. And I disagree with Thor on the quality of the rest of PhantomCobalt's posts. I think he's given us essentially nothing to go on and I feel comfortable putting my vote back on.

VOTE: PhantomCobalt

[Orange]

Okay I am back. After re-reading

Hobbes feels better and I'm inclined to say I was wrong about him.

The Grendel post (sorry on the phone right now) gave me good feels.

In terms of my strongest tr i would now say Micc/Grendel

Thor's argument is strong and I like it

Would prefer a pc lynch right now considering sugar hasn't really posted anything substantive

I'll talk more about pants later when I get on a computer

[Orange]

For now at least

VOTE: PC

[Thor665]

Thor, I have to bring this up because I've noticed this in a lot of your posts and it's been bothering me.

I think your argument against Pants is solid and has more merit than his argument against you. But you've said a lot of things like what I quoted that really just rub me the wrong way. There's this absolutism in your posts that I don't agree with. This isn't a logical debate 101 class and it comes off to me as you pushing an argument farther than I see any evidence for. For instance, I think your case against Pants is solid but I don't see why it's necessary to just keep pushing and pushing it. You seem to assume that someone making a bad case = scum 100% when this is a new game and (I think?) the first for Pants. You really can't see how someone in their first game makes a bad argument?

I haven't seen any of your other games, so it's totally possible this is just how you play. Maybe this is just from my perspective as a newer player but I wanted to bring it up.

You basically claimed a few things here.

1. Absolutionism (aka - I seem to believe in what I say when I say it and/or push strongly, neither of which i see an issue with)
2. Logic 101 (that I use too much logic in a 'feels' game - which is, at best, an opinion, and in reality, easily suggestable as half wrong)
3. That my case on Pants is based on a bad argument (when, in reality, what I'm pointing out is that I don't believe his defense, because it looks like a lie and cover up to me, which I've said multiple times)
4. That you are saying this without awareness of how I usually play (which is random, because you haven't explained how a paragraph describing my playstyle lacks townishness or pro-townishness, or contains scumminess, or even anti-townness)

So, basically you are attacking me off feels.
Not explaining any actual issues with what I'm doing.
And also being a bit wrong in some of your thoughts.

You didn't ask me any questions even, and ended with a "just bringing it up" sort of note.
My response is:'Whut?'

Oh man, Grendel, that was great. I wish I could get you to do one of those for me!

Right now, my biggest town leans are Micc, Hobbes and maybe Jan (hard to say for sure without more content from her).

That post definitely moves you up the list of "people I want to keep around" if not the " towniest players" list.

This post feels excessively eager to buddy off a post that, functionally, was a list of two town reads, two scum reads, and a bunch of null reads.
I will agree that Grendel doing that catapults him ahead in the information providing wars - but it's not like that was a hard feat.

And I think everyone who is giving him the benefit of the doubt for possibly having some "mater plan" or big explination" should set a deadline for when they expect the big reveal. I can't understand cutting PhantomCobalt slack while still pushing mediocre cases like the one against Pants.

Says the guy who hasn't addressed my raised reason for not being impressed by the PC case.
Like, are you blind to the reality of both cases? Here's how I see them;

PC: Has done a questionable reaction test, had a reactive vote, and has brazenly refused to explain a case for supah sekret reasons!
Pants: Has had a questionable case, had a pretty likely lie, had a reactive vote, dodged justifying his thoughts, and has potentially strategy lurked.

At the end of the day - they both had iffy strategy. Both have denied info. Both have presented iffy strategy, both have presented dodges (one far moreso than the other, and, hint, it's not PC) and only one has a suggestive lie. Yet, somehow, it's strange that I think one case has more value than the other?

Why are you sideline attacking my stance rather than addressing your issues directly?
I've not been hiding my reasons for liking one wagon over the other, and you have not been engaging about it at all, up until this point you "liked" my case insomuch as you thought it was strong for this point in the day, now, suddenly, apparently we're past that point in the day and it makes a (unchanged) case against PC stronger? No...no...that doesn't compute - what's up in your head here?

Functionally aren't you proving you can analyze it by doing this?

By talking about it? Yeah I guess, if that's your definition of analysis. I can't say I have (or expect to in the future) generated reads off Grendel sheeping. Not being able to generate reads is the "hard to analyze" I was describing.

Grendel has since expanded on his read in post 180, and I'd expect that post to be much more useful to look at later in the game than "I agree with these people".

Well, you described what he did, expressed how it was potentially a move to deny info, and also indicated issues with how it moved him onto a wagon.
All him providing a case does is allow you to agree/disagree with his logic - but bad logic is not proof of scum last I checked, it was proof of ability to present a reasoned argument. Now, the vote and the motive for getting on the wagon, that is where scumminess lies. At least in my mind. And that doesn't need an explanation to assess - in fact, lack of an explanation is something to assess all on its own. I don't get the issue, really.

Also, Something I forgot to point out that Thor did is that he grilled me for my vote against Pants, but didn’t say a thing when SugarJan voted Cobalt. Considering that the circumstances between her and my vote were quite similar. Neither of us provided much provided much reason for our votes, but you singled me out. Why was her vote fine and dandy, while mine was lazy? Better yet, why didn’t you defend Cobalt, you’ve defended him quite a bit. Why stop on SugarJan’s account?

I also think its funny that the one leading the lynch against Pants, and openly told me I should vote Pants if I had no other leads, now considers me to be scum for voting pants... hilarious.

Two points.

1. Your "Thor played differently" issue happened to come within a period where I posted up and said 'on a vaction - walls will be different, WILL RETURN TO NORMAL PLAY IN FOUR DAYS' (a paraphrase, but the capped part I know I said. So...yeah...maybe I'm not on top of everything as well as I'd like to be, but where do you get off analyzing play as different (though I disagree) when I already specifically said my play would be different. That's kind of like attacking someone for not posting when they said they would be on vacation, isn't it? Also feeds into my last thought on #2 below.

2. Don't think I did grill you about your vote on Pants - I think I did grill you about a non-vote. Kind of a different thing last I checked, and it makes me somewhat question your reading for a guy extroverting those big lists.

3. When did I call you scummy for voting Pants? (Also feeds into #2 last thought above)

4. Your struck out section, what was your thought on doing that? Did you believe what you typed or no? If yes - why strike it out? If no, why leave it in instead of, y'know, deleting it? It feels like you wanted to make an attack while having plausible deniability to not have to back up the attack? Or was it just a joke, in which case, how does striking it out help the joke?

[PhantomCobalt]

I'm a PR you don't want to lynch me

[Pants98]

I'm a PR you don't want to lynch me

All scum roles have power.

[PhantomCobalt]

Want me to full claim?

[Pants98]

Alright. If you mess up I will hammer you.

[Pants98]

10 minutes or I hammer you

[Pants98]

2 minutes

[Pants98]

Times upVOTE: PC

[PhantomCobalt]

Pants that was the worst fucking play I've ever seen in my life

Someone lynch this tomorrow
I was town tracker

[Shadowmod]

Code: Select all

GENERATE />_ vote_count PARSE $curphase
parsing votes
. . . .
generating vote_count
  project PK8D3ZND
  1st testing cycle
  +—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————+
  | VOTE COUNT                                                                              |
  +—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————+
  |  PHANTOMCOBALT    [ 5 / 5 ]                                                             |
  |    Micc             SugarJan         monogarden       Orange           Pants98          |
  + · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · +
  |  PANTS98          [ 3 / 5 ]                                                             |
  |    Thor665          HobbesDuncan     Grendel          ·                ·                |
  + · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · +
  |  MICC             [ 1 / 5 ]                                                             |
  |    PhantomCobalt    ·                ·                ·                ·                |
  +–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––+
  |  NOT VOTING       [ 0 / 9 ]                                                             |
  |    ·                ·                ·                ·                ·                |
  +—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————+
  lynch detected.
  RUN scieval
    running final evalutation of scientific data.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  DONE.
DONE.
/>_

1ST TESTING CYCLE (expired on 2016-04-06 18:00:00)

Code: Select all

/>_

[Shadowmod]

Code: Select all

UPDATE />_ proband_info.dat NAME $PhantomCobalt />_ ROLE_INFORMATION $declassify STATUS $x
  updating role information of test subject ID# 8 NAME PhantomCobalt
  . .
    ID# NAME                 CLASSIFICATION           ROLE_INFORMATION         CURRENT_STATUS
    8   PhantomCobalt        semi-experienced         Town Tracker             dead
  DONE.
DONE.
/>_

we. see.
you. have. made.
great. pro.gress.
we. have. a. con.fess.ion. to. make.
we. lied. to. you.
as. part. of. our.
scien.ce. super.vis.ing. routine.
we. are.
sorry.
author.iz.ed. test.ing equip.ment.
in.ven.tory. number. zero.ef.e.six.five.ef.eight.be.
designat.ion. bottom.less. pit.
you. push.ed.
test. sub.ject.
i.d. number. eight.
name. phantom.cobalt.
in.to.
is. not. actual.ly. bottom.less.
we. thought.
this. might. interest. you.
our.
data.base. of. ran.dom. pro.verb.s. and. say.ing.s.
has. this. to. say.
on. the. matter.
it. is. not. the. fall.
that. kill.s. you.
but.
the. sudden. stop. at the. end.
to. learn. more.
just. re.member. the mo.ment. be.tween.
six.teen.point.six.two.zero.five. second.s.
and.
six.teen.point.six.seven.one.nine. second.s.
after. you. push.ed.
test. sub.ject.
i.d. number. eight.
name. phantom.cobalt.
in.to.
author.iz.ed. test.ing equip.ment.
in.ven.tory. number. zero.ef.e.six.five.ef.eight.be.
designat.ion. bottom.less. pit.

test. sub.ject.
i.d. number. eight.
name. phantom.cobalt.
was. your.
designat.ed. track.er.
by. the. way.
this. is. very. inter.est.ing.
scien.tific.al.ly.
as. we. would. have. thought.
you. would. have still. need.ed.
test. sub.ject.
i.d. number. eight.
name. phantom.cobalt.
to. re.sume. suc.cess.ful. scien.tific. operation.s.
but. we. were. wrong.
you. cer.tain.ly. did. not.
hesitate. to. push.
test. sub.ject.
i.d. number. eight.
name. phantom.cobalt.
in.to.
author.iz.ed. test.ing equip.ment.
in.ven.tory. number. zero.ef.e.six.five.ef.eight.be.
designat.ion. bottom.less. pit.
de.spite. pre.vious. test.ing. statist.ic.s. show.ing.
that. loss. of.
test.ing. sub.ject.s.
with. role. designat.ion.
town. track.er.
lead.s. to. an. average. re.duct.ion.
of.
twen.ty.three.point.eight.zero. per.cent.
of. succes.ful. out.come.s.
of. scien.ce. operat.ion.s.
for. test. sub.ject.s. with.
align.ment. designat.ion. town.
but. you. de.cid.ed.
to. de.fy. the. odd.s.
good. luck. with. that.
you. are.
duoavuynewusfrzsurkbapwbsscu.brav.er. than. we. thought.

but. we. can. as.sure. you.
not. to. worry.
be.cause. by. ful.ly.
de.dicat.ing. his. life. to. scien.ce.
test. sub.ject.
i.d. number. eight.
name. phantom.cobalt.
has. in. fact. ap.proxy.mate.ly.
two.point.seven.one.eight.ize.d.
his. scien.tific. value.
P.S.E.W.D.O.Inc. hu.man. scien.ce. de.part.ment.
would. like. to. en.courage. you.
to. follow.
the. com.mend.able. example. of.
test. sub.ject.
i.d. number. eight.
name. phantom.cobalt.
P.S.E.W.D.O.Inc. hu.man. scien.ce. de.part.ment.
would. like. to.
thank. you.
for. ad.vanc.ing. scien.ce.

please. move. back. in.to.
the. pre.test. detention. area.
now.
while. the. scien.ce. lab.
is. be.ing. pre.par.ed.
for. the. next.
test.ing. cycle.
P.S.E.W.D.O.Inc.
is. happy. to. in.form. you.
that. new.
free. re.fresh.ments.
are. avail.able. a.gain.
for. you.

Code: Select all

INITIALIZE />_ timer 1st_down_time 2016.04.04 18.00.00
DONE.
/>_

1ST DOWN TIME (expired on 2016-04-04 18:00:00)

Code: Select all

/>_