Newbie 1607: Ferytales GAME OVER

[fferyllt]

Vote Count 1.4

'Tis silence on the enchanted lake,
And silence in the air serene,
Save for the beating of her heart,
The lovely-eyed Evangeline.

She sings across the waters clear
And dark with trees and stars between,
The notes her fairy godmother
Taught her, the child Evangeline.

As might the unrippled pool reply,
Faltering an answer far and sweet,
Three swans as white as mountain snow
Swim mantling to her feet.

And still upon the lake they stay,
Their eyes black stars in all their snow,
And softly, in the glassy pool,
Their feet beat darkly to and fro.

She rides upon her little boat,
Her swans swim through the starry sheen,
Rowing her into Fairyland-
The lovely-eyed Evangeline.

'Tis silence on the enchanted lake,
And silence in the air serene;
Voices shall call in vain again
On earth the child Evangeline.

'Evangeline! Evangeline!'
Upstairs, downstairs, all in vain.
Her room is dim; her flowers faded;
She answers not again.

- Walter de la Mere

SloppyJoe

(3): Nachomamma8, Servanto, RadiantCowbells

Servanto

(1): Kerma

Bisanu

(1): Dierfire

Nachomamma8

(1): Argos

RadiantCowbells

(1): Hostile Intent

Not Voting

(2): SloppyJoe, Bisanu

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch

Deadline: May 31, Midnight US Eastern Time.

Countdown: (expired on 2015-05-31 21:00:00)

Mod Notes:

-

[RadiantCowbells]

Despite my SE status, I'm not effective at generating content.

Nacho pls.

[Bisanu]

@Bisanu

I noticed that you haven't posted anything other than a joke and multiple defenses of that joke. What are your thoughts on some of the other players? Of which player(s) are you suspicious?

No. I don't have any suspicious, by now.

[Hostile Intent]

Why not?

[Argos]

UNVOTE: Nachomamma8

Time to start getting a bit more serious, though I'm kind of at a loss for real tells at the moment. Hostile Intent is being as aggressive as befits their name but I think their full-throated defense of Bisanu and seeming willingness to come off as abrasive puts them on the right side of town for me at the moment. I also felt that the initial piling on due to the 'confession' was a bit odd, though I can understand it as something to get us talking and out of RVS as soon as possible. RadiantCowbell's comment about being willing to lynch even if they weren't scum caught me as being incredibly wrong if not scummy, but his response to pressure has been fairly good I think, though that's more of a gut tell than anything else.

[Hostile Intent]

What are your current scum reads?

[Argos]

What are your current scum reads?

No-one's especially stood out to me on a surface read-through, to be quite honest. Will have to comb through the thread with more care.

[RadiantCowbells]

You planning to address Sloppy Joe?

[Argos]

Oh damn, I had forgotten Sloppy Joe's bizarre vanilla townie claim (is that what it was?) at the beginning of play. He's been acting a bit strangely, kind of trying to put out votes and see what sticks. Not nearly enough for me to put a vote on him though.

[Hostile Intent]

I'm willing to vote/lynch Sloppy Joe or RadiantCowbells almost for all the same reasons.

[RadiantCowbells]

I'm sorry to hear that, Hostile Intent.

For my part I think Argos's last post was been really weird and it would be interesting to see a flip on one of them to get a basis to form some associative tells.

[RadiantCowbells]

That grammar doe.

[Hostile Intent]

You're willing to lynch Argos for associative tells?

[RadiantCowbells]

Oh gee that's a viable option but maybe there's some other person we could lynch who is much scummier in general and already has several votes but would give us the exact same information assuming that my theory is correct.

[Hostile Intent]

I thought "on one of them" included Argos. Who are you talking about lynching for associative tells in 110?

[RadiantCowbells]

Oh damn, I had forgotten Sloppy Joe's bizarre vanilla townie claim (is that what it was?) at the beginning of play. He's been acting a bit strangely, kind of trying to put out votes and see what sticks. Not nearly enough for me to put a vote on him though.

Now, who do you think I was talking about lynching for associative tells involving Argos?

[Hostile Intent]

But you said "on one of them" so who was the second person if you're not talking about Argos?

[RadiantCowbells]

Yeah, it would be great if one of either Argos or Sloppy Joe died so we could see the flip.

You're willing to lynch Argos for associative tells?

This is a blatant misrep of that statement, however I do feel obligated to note that I would be willing to lynch Sloppy Joe for that associative tell, as well as his general scumminess.

Do you comprende, madame?

[Hostile Intent]

Its not a misrepresentation. That's literally what you said. Associative tells from a lynch "on one of them" meaning you think you can get associative tells from Argos. How is that a misrepresentation?

[RadiantCowbells]

I said we'd get associative tells from the flip.

I didn't say I'd be willing to lynch them.

[Hostile Intent]

How else are you going to see to their flip?

[Hostile Intent]

Moreover, what associative tells could you get from an Argos flip?

[RadiantCowbells]

1) If X, then Y.

Where X is an Argos flip and Y is receive associative tells.

2) I'd be willing to X in order to Y.

Where X is an Argos flip and Y is receive associative tells.

These are clearly not equivalent statements, therefore you are misrepresenting me.

How else are you going to see to their flip?

Oh I don't know... It's not like I just finished explaining that to you in 113.

Moreover, what associative tells could you get from an Argos flip?

From an Argos OR Sloppy Joe scumflip I could get a strong reason to scumread the other because Argos is like sorta agreeing with the case but simultaneously not voting and casting doubt on it.

The kind of thing Newb!Scum do to their partners.

[Hostile Intent]

Aha.

UNVOTE: RadiantCowbells
VOTE: Sloppy Joe

You're town. This is my only other scum read.

Sloppy Joe is L-1. Do not hammer without claiming intent.

[SloppyJoe]

Cool.

Also Argos and I aren't on a team.