Mini Number 2195 | Brutalism | 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 #2129 (isolation #200) » Tue Mar 09, 2021 5:29 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2092, VP Baltar wrote:GC, did you assume I had some knowledge of your role when I was spouting off at the start of the game?
my role specifically? no

i thought there was a slight chance you also had neighborizer, as it's a role that's only as powerful as the player and plus we (right? at least I) were just in that game with a bazillion trackers (or watchers?) so i thought maybe you were fishing to see if there was something like that at play here. apart from that admittedly longshot, i thought you just by happenstance gave a good opportunity for me to crumb.
"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 #2131 (isolation #201) » Tue Mar 09, 2021 5:31 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2096, VP Baltar wrote:Question: if a neighborizers dies, does the neighborhood break up?
my role doesn't say, i'm asking for clarification
"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 #2134 (isolation #202) » Tue Mar 09, 2021 5:36 am

Post by Green Crayons »

oh i asked for it in the neighborhood pt but i'll ask again here

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

Post Post #2138 (isolation #203) » Tue Mar 09, 2021 5:55 am

Post by Green Crayons »

he was mid town, didn't think he was going to get NKed, also wanted him to discuss a thing about you because i was getting paranoid about my read on you for a couple of reasons but you and him were vibing hardcore D1 so figured he'd have some useful thoughts
"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 #2204 (isolation #204) » Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:39 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2181, Dunnstral wrote:Something to keep in mind is that GC would be locked into claiming neighborizer today since he targeted Datisi already.
idgi
"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 #2205 (isolation #205) » Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:40 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2185, Dunnstral wrote:
In post 2183, VP Baltar wrote:Suddenly then the uninformed majority becomes much closer to being informed.
That's not how neighborhoods work
are you and Andres reading from a script or?
"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 #2206 (isolation #206) » Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:42 am

Post by Green Crayons »

FYI what i'm referencing
In post 2072, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2068, Green Crayons wrote:it's like a masonhood where you have to actually work for it.
I’m sorry, what? No. A Neighborhood is most certainly not a masonhood. This is absurd. Unless your accuracy is 100%, your “perfectly curated Town block” is not better than anybody else’s unless proven otherwise. And I’m far from convinced you are even Town, let alone trustworthy enough to establish a Town core.
"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 #2207 (isolation #207) » Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:44 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2201, Andresvmb wrote:If I’m going wrong on Green Crayons, I believe this to be the reasonable alternative. I spent a little bit of time re-reading Duchess, and something didn’t seem to add up to me. They were highly critical of Italiano in , which they re-affirmed in , but then seemed intent on burying Green Crayons for their questioning there shortly thereafter (which we all know and I won’t rehash). I also expressed a lot of skepticism of how RLotus seemed to be pushing VPB (). I maybe didn’t pay enough attention to Duchess’ arguments against VPB in , , and , which seem to borrow a lot from them.

For example, RLotus argues that VPB’s reads are rather non-committal in . In that last string of posts I quoted, Duchess makes the argument that VPB has been consistently sitting on the fence and is “leaving every door and window open”.

Cookie Monster in their latest reads list has {Elements, VPB, Datisi} as Scum. I seriously doubt this is anywhere near correct. I have had my share of doubts, but I do think Datisi and VPB are simply trying to figure out the game. Interestingly enough, from looking back, Elements had a really good view of the game in , provided you make a few assumptions. I do really think Duchess v. Green Crayons was SvT. And perhaps Green Crayons was just getting annoyed at me for pushing them in the way that I did.
let's gooooo

VOTE: Cookie Monster
"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 #2278 (isolation #208) » Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:40 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2249, Andresvmb wrote:Cookie Monster’s reaction just on this page would be amazing coming from Scum. It would be fantastic theater from a player that hasn’t completed that many games. I think it’s genuine.
all of the posts on this page or any in particular?
"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 #2279 (isolation #209) » Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:41 am

Post by Green Crayons »

oh we moved to the nex page--was referring to page 91
"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 #2280 (isolation #210) » Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:42 am

Post by Green Crayons »

lol okay we actually moved two pages over. i was referring to 90. didn't realize i missed a whole set of pages
"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 #2281 (isolation #211) » Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:48 am

Post by Green Crayons »

happy birthday, Baltar

who are 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 #2282 (isolation #212) » Fri Mar 12, 2021 2:58 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Spoiler: quote wall from Andres
In post 2264, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 150, VP Baltar wrote:
As in, why specifically is GC town here, and do you think Duchess is scum?
In post 163, VP Baltar wrote:
In post 159, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:
In post 154, VP Baltar wrote:He isn't being cagey about his reads in that post. He is using a metaphor to explain his viewpoint
those were 2 separate points.
you just assumed they were one and the same.
Then explain specifically where he is being cagey about his reads. I don't see it and need an explanation
In post 182, VP Baltar wrote:
In post 173, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 167, Duchess wrote:I don't know exactly what kind of push I was expecting to see, but if I recall correctly there was some discussion just before that time of Italiano possibly being an easy early push, and what I saw pinged me, so I wanted to nip it in the bud.
This post is screaming TMI
Do you think Duchess and Italiano are scum together? Or that duchess was scum trying to pocket a low hanging fruit townie?
In post 222, VP Baltar wrote:
In post 221, Reformed Toxic Player wrote:
In post 219, VP Baltar wrote:
In post 212, Duchess wrote:Bring the smoke then, a vote puts about as much pressure on me as the bottom of a puddle.
Are you usually this combative as town? Or is this game pissing you off?
You call that combative?
As a reformed toxic player, I'm sure you wouldn't understand casual combativeness.

Yeah, I think Duchess had a bit of a bad faith response to GC
In post 227, VP Baltar wrote:
In post 226, Duchess wrote:VP, where did I respond in bad faith to GC?
You've called his posting strawmanning and loaded questions variously, which seems combative when you could just answer the questions.

You also seem to be telling RTP to bring it. Your overall demeanor seems aggressive. Just curious if that 'fight me' attitude is common to your town play.
You did. Trying to argue that you didn’t is laughable.

I never got the sense that Baltar was trying to instigate the GC/Duchess back and forth

I remember thinking it was like a lifeline that someone was actually vocalizing some rationality with the post or two Baltar made about Duchess's interaction with me (the last two you quoted)

The first two posts seem to be challenging RTP's read on me, which might push toward different alignment reads (first challenging why i'm town; second why i'm sus).

Just recalling off the top of my head, I think most of Baltar's relationship with my slot is asking others about me; not that he's been trying to actively instigate a read one way or another, but just trying to get an assessment on where others stand.
"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 #2283 (isolation #213) » Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:03 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2246, Andresvmb wrote:But then there seems to be some momentum against midwaybear (who btw they had near the top of their pyramid earlier in the game).
why are we getting bogged down on the momentum point?

Baltar, have you explained why you have changed your stance on midway? if yes, please link. if no, please explain. if you think it hasn't changed, please address it from that POV.
"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 #2378 (isolation #214) » Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:06 am

Post by Green Crayons »

If cookie clarifies that that was a legit claim I’ll switch my vote

Otherwise I disagree with Andres that the claim itself is AI
"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 #2379 (isolation #215) » Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:07 am

Post by Green Crayons »

The claim itself meaning the timing and ATE
"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 #2380 (isolation #216) » Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:08 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Now that I thought about it for two more seconds I suppose there’s only one likely answer regardless of cookies alignment but whatev
"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 #2386 (isolation #217) » Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I only skimmed the pst few pages so from memory:

Yeah I don’t think the claim absolves cookie and I’d still like to pressure an elim, but if we’re not going down that path anymore then okay

Baltar why were you focused on whether there was midway momentum?

Andres were you satisfied with Baltar’s explanation of his change on midway?

I’m good with a midway vote bc of the prior suspicions I articulated + his preemptive vote on me when I was working through them with Qs posed to him, but I saw someone (Andres?) say we’re E-1 already? So I’m claiming intent to hammer.
"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 #2391 (isolation #218) » Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:19 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Lots of people comfortable with voting Dunn and yet his wagon collapsed
"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 #2411 (isolation #219) » Sun Mar 14, 2021 11:04 am

Post by Green Crayons »

i don't even understand where that is coming from
"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 #2412 (isolation #220) » Sun Mar 14, 2021 11:04 am

Post by Green Crayons »

i'm not going to hammer until the weekend is over, i know folks have V/LA during that time
"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 #2561 (isolation #221) » Mon Mar 15, 2021 10:30 am

Post by Green Crayons »

i keep coming online and then shit blows up at work, and this thread grows longer

VOTE: midway
"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 #2581 (isolation #222) » Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:47 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2577, VP Baltar wrote:Who was neighborized last night?
still don' t see how this is optimal 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 #2583 (isolation #223) » Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:48 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2579, maxwell wrote:remind me again why Battle Mage was obvtown
BM's entry jumpstarted a dead D1 thread
"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 #2592 (isolation #224) » Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:58 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2590, VP Baltar wrote:GC, what did you and Datisi talk about if you aren't going to reveal who was neighborized? Are you confident those folks are town?
i was absent the first night

in the 24 hours or so, we talked about pressure on Baltar/Baltar's defensiveness, Andres's play, whether DGB is town or not town, datisi's midway push, cookie's claim, whether D1 on-wagon hunting is still correct POV, who to neighborize
"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 #2593 (isolation #225) » Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:59 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2586, maxwell wrote:Who cares?
it was super town

maybe you had to be there, i haven't gone back to reread it to see if it still has the same town oomph.
"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 #2678 (isolation #226) » Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:33 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Lots of dumb was posted on the last page about the neighborhood.

mom was a compromise pick.
"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 #2687 (isolation #227) » Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:40 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

There was talk about potential pocketing and so I permitted Datisi to select three candidates and I would actually choose.
"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 #2689 (isolation #228) » Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:41 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2685, Andresvmb wrote:Okay well Green Crayons is confirmed Town. The pick is so bad, it has to be Town. We can move on.
wow thanks
"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 #2691 (isolation #229) » Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:41 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Baltar, mom, DGB
"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 #2693 (isolation #230) » Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:41 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2690, Dunnstral wrote:
In post 2687, Green Crayons wrote:There was talk about potential pocketing
What does this mean?
Do you want me to define pocketing or?
"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 #2698 (isolation #231) » Wed Mar 17, 2021 4:47 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

We started talking about whether each was suspicious of the other maybe trying to pocket, I believe it was motivated by some comments in the game thread but I don’t recall precisely. My concern was the third person we’d add bc I wanted it to be someone who could bounce conversation off of to help suss out all three of our alignments from every POV, but also didn’t want Datisi to be paranoid that I’m stacking the neighborhood. So I offered him to select three candidates and then I’d pick one to neighborize.
"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 #2755 (isolation #232) » Thu Mar 18, 2021 3:46 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2754, Andresvmb wrote:Momrangal who btw went from a SR to screaming Scum to me
what does this mean


what is the mom case?
"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 #2761 (isolation #233) » Thu Mar 18, 2021 3:57 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2754, Andresvmb wrote:Momrangal who btw went from a SR to screaming Scum to me
In post 2759, Andresvmb wrote:See my 2747.
What am I leaving out? I asked you multiple times for the reasoning behind you SR me. The reasoning after your vote is the first time I can remember that you verbalized it. And it’s just so vague and nonsensical that it’s screams of bad faith. And do you just listen to whatever people tell you to do? Because that’s just a really bad way of covering a hammer for Town.
i still don't understand what 2754 means.

what does it mean that

mom went from a scum read to a screaming scum (idk what that is) to Andres?

is a screaming scum a scum that's screaming bad faith (pulling from 2747)? if so, i still don't understand what you're saying about SR to screaming scum to Andres.
"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 #2763 (isolation #234) » Thu Mar 18, 2021 3:59 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2759, Andresvmb wrote:I also, looking back, didn’t like Battle Mage’s push on RTP. You’ll notice that RTP SR there, and then backed off because it seemed to be veering in a toxic direction. I think Scum definitely pushed RTP as well obviously, and Battle Mage was the more obvious proponent of it. Ultimately it’s a bit hard to figure out because they replaced out, but that’s part of it.
i'll reread BM entirely but i remember being on that vote and it feeling right
"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 #2764 (isolation #235) » Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:00 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2762, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2761, Green Crayons wrote:mom went from a scum read to a screaming scum (idk what that is) to Andres?

is a screaming scum a scum that's screaming bad faith (pulling from 2747)? if so, i still don't understand what you're saying about SR to screaming scum to Andres.
From a player I SR, but maybe wasn’t all that focused on, to a player I think will surely flip Scum. Screaming Scum as in obvious Scum.
oh you're talking about how you were slotting her. sorry i wasn't following your phrasing. ty
"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 #2766 (isolation #236) » Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:01 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

since ive got your attention, why did you think you were the obv pick for the neighborhood?
"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 #2880 (isolation #237) » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:04 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2816, VP Baltar wrote:I know we talked about this a bit already, but what are the odds that GC would neighborize two people who you find very scummy? I will say that I find the momrangal choice weird from both Datisi and then GC on the follow up.

I don't think Andres was the OBVIOUS ONLY CHOICE or anything silly like that, but he certainly could have been a better neighborize than momrangal or DGB if the goal, as I believe it was stated, was to make a soft masons 'hood.
are you purposefully ignoring the agreement i had with datisi or?
"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 #2881 (isolation #238) » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:06 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2821, RLotus wrote:Compare that to yourself and Datisi who were driving forces in
every single town wagon
. Yes, it is very clear you two should be looked at. It boggles my mind that Datisi isn't seeing this.
is "driving force" something more than just votes from VD elimination?
"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 #2882 (isolation #239) » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:07 am

Post by Green Crayons »

^^^ oh you said wagon. were you referring to wagons other than the VD elim and the midway elim? (if you've already covered this you can link me to the 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 #2883 (isolation #240) » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:09 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2835, Andresvmb wrote:Green Crayons has a lot of votes on Town actually. Cookie Monster, obviously midwaybear.
and RTP. three votes on folks who ended up town. what's your success rate so far?
"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 #2885 (isolation #241) » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:12 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2847, Andresvmb wrote:RLotus Green Crayons is not very Towny. If they were, RTP would not have suspected them. And you can’t get away from all the bad votes. Some discussion around two slots is not good enough to outweigh all of that.
We should listen to RTP's D1 suspicions.
In post 2851, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2848, Momrangal wrote:Didn't Koba Express a scum read on you and well?
Yeah they placed me on their solve towards the end of the day.

Listen, if after everything I’ve been fighting for, you want to execute me first here, by all means. I’m so tired of this game, I won’t fight it too hard. You want to burn the Town to the ground with the worst mis-execution I would have ever been subjected to, go right ahead.
We shouldn't listen to RTP's D1 suspicions.
"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 #2886 (isolation #242) » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:14 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2884, VP Baltar wrote:
In post 2880, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 2816, VP Baltar wrote:I know we talked about this a bit already, but what are the odds that GC would neighborize two people who you find very scummy? I will say that I find the momrangal choice weird from both Datisi and then GC on the follow up.

I don't think Andres was the OBVIOUS ONLY CHOICE or anything silly like that, but he certainly could have been a better neighborize than momrangal or DGB if the goal, as I believe it was stated, was to make a soft masons 'hood.
are you purposefully ignoring the agreement i had with datisi or?
In the thing you quote, I say I find it a weird choice on both your parts. But given you said you wanted townies in your hood, that felt like the towniest choice?
i would've picked DGB if DGB hadn't declared that they were going to put in no effort.

mom actually posts and contributes, even if not frequent.

wasn't going to neighborize you since i already had datisi + your/Andres interaction be end of D2 had undercut my good feelings about both of your slots
"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 #2893 (isolation #243) » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:46 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2888, VP Baltar wrote:
In post 2886, Green Crayons wrote:atisi + your/Andres interaction be end of D2 had undercut my good feelings about both of your slots
Tell me more about this. I don't remember you weighing in, but maybe you did.
at the end of d2 baltar's theme of "suspicions against me are bad faith" (don't hold me to this being lodged against *every* suspicion thrown Baltar's way, but it certainly seemed that way) was not only tireseome but really strained credulity that baltar would really think 4(? i believe) folks who suspected him were all approaching his play with bad faith (which I see as another way of saying scummy)

at the end of d2 andres had sudden gone from a fly on the wall d1, first part of d2, to spewing posts left and right but also all over the place. hyper aggression in comparison to earlier play with nothing really setting it off. seemed potentially manufactured

globally, Baltar v. Andres bogged down the thread to the extent i don't think it was svs
"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 #2894 (isolation #244) » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:48 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2892, Andresvmb wrote:Interesting that now that you’re being pushed you come out of the woodwork to speak. But when Datisi/RLotus/VPB/Me are killing each other you do nothing to de-escalate.
everything you say about my play is offensive, dumb, or both
"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 #2897 (isolation #245) » Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:20 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2895, VP Baltar wrote:did you say any of this yesterday?
no. it's in the neighborhood thread from last night and today (from yesterday IRL, actually).
Do you think andres made a good case against me yesterday/today?
No. I don't think Andres has made a good cause against anyone.
"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 #2899 (isolation #246) » Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:24 am

Post by Green Crayons »

thinking Andres and Dunn

tbd on (Baltar, Datisi). Maybe one of them. I separately had problems with Datisi's midway push, which I think I've resolved after having reviewed twice now & discussed in neighborhood iwth Datisi and mom; but it still has lowered my estimation of him. i need to read rather than skim Lotus's case.

If not (Baltar, Datisi), maybe maxwell but his claim might clear him.

I think Lotus, DBG, mom are 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 #2900 (isolation #247) » Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

cool story.
"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 #2920 (isolation #248) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2902, VP Baltar wrote:GC, can you explain your thought process in landing on midway yesterday?
i thought he was lost scum who found it easy to do catch up posts when he first replaced in but then didn't really know how to act town so just drifted and was absent

Also, who do you most want to yeet today?
seriously considering Andres
"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 #2921 (isolation #249) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2889, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2885, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 2847, Andresvmb wrote:RLotus Green Crayons is not very Towny. If they were, RTP would not have suspected them. And you can’t get away from all the bad votes. Some discussion around two slots is not good enough to outweigh all of that.
We should listen to RTP's D1 suspicions.
In post 2851, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2848, Momrangal wrote:Didn't Koba Express a scum read on you and well?
Yeah they placed me on their solve towards the end of the day.

Listen, if after everything I’ve been fighting for, you want to execute me first here, by all means. I’m so tired of this game, I won’t fight it too hard. You want to burn the Town to the ground with the worst mis-execution I would have ever been subjected to, go right ahead.
We shouldn't listen to RTP's D1 suspicions.
I didn’t say we shouldn’t act on RTPs suspicions D1. If you want to rely on them to execute me, by all means.
this is stupidly LAMIST

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

Post Post #2923 (isolation #250) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:20 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2891, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2883, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 2835, Andresvmb wrote:Green Crayons has a lot of votes on Town actually. Cookie Monster, obviously midwaybear.
and RTP. three votes on folks who ended up town. what's your success rate so far?
Better than yours.
you've voted 2 players who flipped town, 1 player i know is town (me), and 1 player who is obvtown (Lotus)

so we're basically the same and this is a fake metric
"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 #2924 (isolation #251) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:22 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2917, Datisi wrote:so... why did you join my midway's push yesterday? and you said in hindsight it doesn't seem mailicous to you, so why's it lowering your estimation of me?
you've got it backwards, i suspected midway before your push.

because midway flipped green
"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 #2928 (isolation #252) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:31 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2925, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2921, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 2889, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2885, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 2847, Andresvmb wrote:RLotus Green Crayons is not very Towny. If they were, RTP would not have suspected them. And you can’t get away from all the bad votes. Some discussion around two slots is not good enough to outweigh all of that.
We should listen to RTP's D1 suspicions.
In post 2851, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2848, Momrangal wrote:Didn't Koba Express a scum read on you and well?
Yeah they placed me on their solve towards the end of the day.

Listen, if after everything I’ve been fighting for, you want to execute me first here, by all means. I’m so tired of this game, I won’t fight it too hard. You want to burn the Town to the ground with the worst mis-execution I would have ever been subjected to, go right ahead.
We shouldn't listen to RTP's D1 suspicions.
I didn’t say we shouldn’t act on RTPs suspicions D1. If you want to rely on them to execute me, by all means.
this is stupidly LAMIST

Andres would obviously kick and scream against his elim, regardless of alignment
I really won’t. It’s time that you actually commit to your nonsense and vote me.
scum gamesmanship
"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 #2930 (isolation #253) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:32 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #2931 (isolation #254) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2926, Datisi wrote:
In post 2924, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 2917, Datisi wrote:so... why did you join my midway's push yesterday? and you said in hindsight it doesn't seem mailicious to you, so why's it lowering your estimation of me?
you've got it backwards, i suspected midway before your push.

because midway flipped green
i know you did. but you joined when i was pushing there. therefore you obviously didn't have issues w it or you would've, idk, said something? and *after* midway flipped green, you said you reread and that you don't think my points were malicious. so how tf am i still getting out worse from it?
i joined because i wanted to end the day and i thought midway was a good elim. i don't remember being swayed by your reasoning, but it didn't strike me as wrong either in the moment.

if you don't understand how a push against a town is a negative point that i consider as part of the totality of evaluating you, i don't know what to tell you. i don't know if your intentions were pure. just because i didn't think your points were "malicious" (your word that you've chosen for this convo repeatedly, scum don't need to be malicious btw) doesn't mean that they couldn't come from scum
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #2932 (isolation #255) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:37 am

Post by Green Crayons »

like, i'm still town reading you (I've said this, right?) but you being defensive about me having concerns that you were a strong push on a green flip--which is an obvious "whoa that's a thing I should consider" moment--is really thin skinned. what are you worried about?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #2938 (isolation #256) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 5:49 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2933, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2928, Green Crayons wrote:scum gamesmanship
Why are you attacking me without a vote? If you really think I’m trying to psych you out, I can honestly tell you that I’m not. Here the way I see it is you’ve been quietly in the background executing Town without explaining yourself really. I will grant you that if I’m Scum here, my Partner is probably Dunn (since I’ve basically attacked everyone else).
i'm not on Andres' voting schedule, that's why. i want to revisit BM's posts and look at Lotus's Datisi case before i vote. which I've already said.

you saying that you aren't trying to be manipulative doesn't meant that you aren't being manipulative
But why am I specifically Scum? What convinces you I’m the best execution here? And what makes sense then as a holistic view of the game?
I don't see how you can be asking this question with a straight face when you have just accused me of "attacking" you. Those "attacks" are literally just points I've made about what I think is suspicious of your play.
Why have I defended (and at times really aggressively) every single Town member that’s been flipped?
This is something scum would do. It's TMI and you get town cred as scum. You calling it out as why I should read you as town is scummy too.
"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 #2939 (isolation #257) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 5:49 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2934, Datisi wrote:
In post 2931, Green Crayons wrote:if you don't understand how a push against a town is a negative point that i consider as part of the totality of evaluating you, i don't know what to tell you. i don't know if your intentions were pure. just because i didn't think your points were "malicious" (your word that you've chosen for this convo repeatedly, scum don't need to be malicious btw) doesn't mean that they couldn't come from scum
there's 2 types of players on a town yeet - misguided town who didn't know what they were doing, and shitpushing scum who very well knew what they were doing. right, ok. when i ask "do you think my points were malicious" i'm asking whether you think i fall in the latter rather than the former category. if you're town, you obviously agreed midway was scum or else you wouldn't have voted him. and i ask you if you think i was malicious and you say "no", then i take that to mean i wasn't shitpushing midway, i.e. i was genuine in my view of him. so when you come *from that claim* and say "but btw it still sunk my view on you" do you see why i think you might be pulling shit out of you ass?
this is such a simplified view of scum play that it's parody
"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 #2942 (isolation #258) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 5:52 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2935, Datisi wrote:
In post 2932, Green Crayons wrote:like, i'm still town reading you (I've said this, right?) but you being defensive about me having concerns that you were a strong push on a green flip--which is an obvious "whoa that's a thing I should consider" moment--is really thin skinned. what are you worried about?
don't think you did, doesn't sound like a townread to me. and i'm gonna be defensive because you're apparently sinking me without proper reasoning. you thought midway was scum, you said my points weren't shitpushing.
i guess i didn't explicitly say "i'm still reading you town." but my agreement in the neighborhood that i don't think your push on midway was "malicious" but me still voicing some concern with the ultimate push i think can be deduced that I'm still reading you as town but just not as strongly before
"hurr durr you were on town elim" is level zero.
Thank you for defending me against Andres' and Baltar's fake reasoning.
so what exactly are you ~considering~ then? also did you read the lotus case?
are you serious?
"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 #2943 (isolation #259) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 5:53 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2941, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2938, Green Crayons wrote:This is something scum would do. It's TMI and you get town cred as scum. You calling it out as why I should read you as town is scummy too.
This is just lazy.
Now everything is TMI?
What an easy way of minimizing the large volume of posts I’ve made. Why don’t you actually go look and show that I’m clearly arguing from a point of view of being informed instead of reducing all of my contributions to knowing what’s correct so I can brag about it now?
No? i never said that. holy fuck, you are manipulative.
"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 #2945 (isolation #260) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 5:55 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2936, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2930, Green Crayons wrote:gamemanship = trying to take control of the game
I’m going to say 2 things about this real quick.

(i) Why would I bother trying to take control of the game now when the game is so fractured? As Scum? What do I stand to gain? The Scum Team isn’t two of {RLotus, VPB, Datisi}, and me, you would agree right? So why do I have to take over from them if they’re doing such a bang up job of finding the Scum? Why get in heated debates with them about the next course of action instead of trying to say stay on their good side and either encourage some but not all of their pushes, and stay out of the fray? As far as I can tell RLotus has had me as Town for some time, and VPB and Datisi have expressed varying degrees of suspicion against me but nothing too strong (with VPB even proposing to give me their vote if I can agree with RLotus about a target). Why feed any of that? Why not simply calmly engage them as to why they’re wrong but not stand too much in their way? Does it really make sense to you that as Scum at this stage, after I’ve accrued immense Town cred from actually being right a lot (called Italiano Town EARLY in the game, never voted there, argued for Town, presented a balanced case, was looking for an alternative - go look it up; argued that Duchess after accruing a lot of early votes was more likely to be Town [and was correct, and then after pushing Cookie Monster realized AGAIN that the slot was Town, Unvoted]; also battled with my read on RTP a lot, concluded they were Town, did not participate in the shitpush; argued against the midway execution quite aggressively with VPB, to the point were my exasperation is OBVIOUS if you just read the damn game, and was AGAIN right), I would want to stick out like a sore thumb?

(ii) How do you explain the fact that none of my actual preferred pushes have succeeded throughout the game? If I had Scummates, and we were to some extent trying to coordinate what happens, why isn’t RLotus dead (D1)? Or you for that matter? Could it be that I’m not getting any support from anybody and convincing stubborn Town that they’re wrong is actually hard?
(i) you started taking control of the game halfwway through D2 when you decided to ratchet up your post count. you being manipulative by demanding that i vote you is just that same mindset but just on a smaller, 1:1 scale.

(ii) oh wow you haven't gotten a miselim through (presuming youre scum)? oh sad for you being able to say that you haven't had a preferred miselim.
"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 #2946 (isolation #261) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 5:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2944, Andresvmb wrote:And besides, it doesn’t explain the way I went about it either. You know what you could argue is TMI? The way Dunn plainly stated that RTP and Italiano were Town without arguing too much, and not really trying to stop those executions. I didn’t just state these points of view, I got into a lot of debates about them. For what? So that I could have a lot of TMI’ed Town still alive in late game? That makes no sense.
are you stating this as a real suspicion on Dunn (a first, right?) or are you just showing how you can make up a TMI suspicion?
"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 #2949 (isolation #262) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:00 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2936, Andresvmb wrote:The Scum Team isn’t two of {RLotus, VPB, Datisi}, and me
i've stated that Lotus is obvtown imo

it hasn't escaped my attention that on thursday i voiced suspicions of VP and Andres in the neighborhood, and then on Friday Andres and Baltar vote me, and on Friday/Saturday Datisi is pushing this really dumb "how dare you have reservations about the fact that i helped push an miselim"

what a coincidence

no i dont think it's all 3 but its got my paranoia at level 11
"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 #2951 (isolation #263) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:02 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2948, Andresvmb wrote:Leveling it against me doesn’t make sense unless you can also explain why I wanted those particular players still alive when I so obviously was openly hostile against the players pushing them.
defending a town is its own benefit to scum for a couple of reasons

"why I wanted those particular players still alive when I so obviously was openly hostile against the players pushing them" i don't understand what you're saying here
"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 #2954 (isolation #264) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:04 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2950, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2945, Green Crayons wrote:(ii) oh wow you haven't gotten a miselim through (presuming youre scum)? oh sad for you being able to say that you haven't had a preferred miselim.
And how could you know this? Like I said, the players I’ve most aggressively attacked towards the end of D1 and D2 are all still alive. Yeah obviously you’re going to say this dumb shit about yourself, but you couldn’t argue this without knowing for sure until one of my preferred executions actually goes through.
i literally fucking said presuming you're scum. this is a game of percentages. no i don't know if the poeple you've pushed are town or scum.

you not pushing a successful mis-elim helps you as scum if you are scum.

and I didn't say this is a reason to suspect you. but it certianly is when you try to make it a point about why i shouldn't suspect you as if it's some badge of towniness
"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 #2956 (isolation #265) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:08 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2952, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2943, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 2941, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2938, Green Crayons wrote:This is something scum would do. It's TMI and you get town cred as scum. You calling it out as why I should read you as town is scummy too.
This is just lazy.
Now everything is TMI?
What an easy way of minimizing the large volume of posts I’ve made. Why don’t you actually go look and show that I’m clearly arguing from a point of view of being informed instead of reducing all of my contributions to knowing what’s correct so I can brag about it now?
No? i never said that. holy fuck, you are manipulative.
And how am I being manipulative. You basically said that everything I’ve been right about this game so far has been because of TMI. It’s literally the heart of your argument.
we were talking about how you defended the 3 players who were mis-elim as potential TMI

if you think that is me saying "everything is TMI" you are purposefully misrepresenting me (manipulative) or just an illogical person
"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 #2957 (isolation #266) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:09 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2955, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2954, Green Crayons wrote:and I didn't say this is a reason to suspect you. but it certianly is when you try to make it a point about why i shouldn't suspect you as if it's some badge of towniness
Except you’re using a crappy argument to suspect me.
Oh you could just know that all those players were Town and decided to defend them all. But why? So that the wagon shifts onto potentially one of my Scummates? I don’t have to be loud and obnoxious defending every single Town that’s been flipped then. Like I said, I could just sit back and let the executions happen without me. And why NK RTP? They would have easily helped me execute you the next day. Or you think they would have turned on me before voting you? Because I really don’t think so.
no i'm not

you literally used it as a defense first as a reason why you're town

and im saying its not a defense to show tha tyou're 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 #2958 (isolation #267) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:09 am

Post by Green Crayons »

the fact that you used it as a defense to you being town IS ITSELF suspicious; not the underlying conduct
"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 #2961 (isolation #268) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:19 am

Post by Green Crayons »

If you don’t understand the difference between me saying that your defense of being town bc you defended the mis-elim town is NAI bc it’s something scum would do(what I did say), as opposed to me saying that you are scum bc you did it (what you are saying I said), then I don’t know why we are even speaking because you are refusing to listen
"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 #2966 (isolation #269) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:30 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2963, Andresvmb wrote:And you still have me as your top Scum and the person you want to execute. So if none of these points are actually why you think I’m Scum, then why is it?
Asking me repeatedly to quote myself is exhausting. I’ve already told you my suspicions were voiced in this thread literally from IRL yesterday. You are exhausting and you wearing people down by overwhelming them with words is scum tactic. I haven’t come down on who I want to vote yet and when I put my vote down I’ll lay out the reasons
"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 #2967 (isolation #270) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:31 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2962, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2961, Green Crayons wrote:If you don’t understand the difference between me saying that your defense of being town bc you defended the mis-elim town is NAI bc it’s something scum would do(what I did say), as opposed to me saying that you are scum bc you did it (what you are saying I said), then I don’t know why we are even speaking because you are refusing to listen
How is it NAI though? So all of the actual points in my favor are NAI because why? Because any reasonable person would consider them when thinking about my alignment? You can’t dismiss all of the potential good I could have done in the game as NAI and leave everything else as your base for arguing because nobody in the game knows anything else for certain. So that’s bullshit.
It’s NAI bc it can come from either alignment.


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

Post Post #2969 (isolation #271) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2964, Datisi wrote:lol sorry?
You really think scum have only one mode of mis elim? shit posting?
"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 #2973 (isolation #272) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 6:38 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2964, Datisi wrote: - yes. yes i'm serious. if you don't think the push is malicious then there's no reason to suspect me over it. yet you're *anyway* saying that you suspect em over it because again, "midway flipped town". so what the fuck are you considering then?
Oh I thought you were asking for my thoughts on who else to push for today, which both Andres and Baltar have asked and been answered.

Scum can push a mis elim without being shot posting about it. Town do anti town or suspicious stuff. Scum can identify it and exploit it. That makes their reasoning solid and not malicious but still from a scum mindset.

So no, just bc you didn’t push bad reasoning on midway doesn’t mean you’re vote on him doesn’t get factored in. You (and everyone else on the wagon) will have it as part of the totality of the circumstances analysis.
"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 #2980 (isolation #273) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:11 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2965, Andresvmb wrote:This btw is so obnoxious. It’s such a useless way of looking at the game. My metric wasn’t votes down for Town = Scum. It’s that you ACTUALLY argued against Italiano, you agreed about midway without making yourself super clear, you dismissed Cookie Monster’s claim, and got into a protracted argument with Duchess D1 who you consistently suspected until they replaced out of the game, on top of putting votes down on all those players (even if you didn’t necessarily end up on all of them towards the end of the day). I certainly am not comparable to you this game when it comes to bad arguments.
you didnt present your argument this way. you said "oh ho 3 votes on ppl who flipped town, must be scum" which is why i've been calling it out as BS
Spoiler: posts
In post 2835, Andresvmb wrote:Green Crayons has a lot of votes on Town actually. Cookie Monster, obviously midwaybear.
In post 2838, Andresvmb wrote:
In post 2835, Andresvmb wrote:Green Crayons has a lot of votes on Town actually. Cookie Monster, obviously midwaybear.
RTP, voted for Dunn in the early part of D2 which I have been pointing is a slight rehash of D1.


also your characterization of my play is inaccurate

i didnt vote VD and i didn't want him eliminated

i agreed with a midway elim sufficiently clear that Baltar used one of my reasons as why he suspected midway

As for Duchess/Cookie, yup. i was wrong. it happens. i thought Dutchess was scum, Cookie was a lurkerscum with a fakeclaim.
"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 #2981 (isolation #274) » Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:30 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2763, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 2759, Andresvmb wrote:I also, looking back, didn’t like Battle Mage’s push on RTP. You’ll notice that RTP SR there, and then backed off because it seemed to be veering in a toxic direction. I think Scum definitely pushed RTP as well obviously, and Battle Mage was the more obvious proponent of it. Ultimately it’s a bit hard to figure out because they replaced out, but that’s part of it.
i'll reread BM entirely but i remember being on that vote and it feeling right
well the push itself wasn't bad imo, as I could see where a just-replaced-in BM!town could be coming from, but i had forgotten that BM jumped off RTP to vote me because I responded to Baltar's question about RTP's emotion, but BM (wrongly) said my commentary was unprompted. that's certainly something worth considering.
"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 #3068 (isolation #275) » Sun Mar 21, 2021 9:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I see I’m the flip for today

So I’m not really doing any more work

I have a modifier. It’s two shot so I can’t do any more help PR wise anyway

GL
"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 #3074 (isolation #276) » Sun Mar 21, 2021 9:45 am

Post by Green Crayons »

bc I’m tired and don’t find joy in doing meaningless work

Bc it’s true? Idk
"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 #3076 (isolation #277) » Sun Mar 21, 2021 9:51 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Andres, Dunn, maybe mom after all
"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 #3077 (isolation #278) » Sun Mar 21, 2021 9:52 am

Post by Green Crayons »

But actually box on mom bc Andres was leading me tbere
"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 #3078 (isolation #279) » Sun Mar 21, 2021 9:52 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Nix
"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 #3079 (isolation #280) » Sun Mar 21, 2021 9:52 am

Post by Green Crayons »

So idk on third
"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 #3081 (isolation #281) » Sun Mar 21, 2021 10:00 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I didn’t think you thought I was lying? I’m saying I don’t see a reason not to say it bc it’s true.
"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 #3082 (isolation #282) » Sun Mar 21, 2021 10:01 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I mean fair point re NK analysis but my mind wasn’t there

My b
"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 #3112 (isolation #283) » Mon Mar 22, 2021 10:48 am

Post by Green Crayons »

oh i might as well get this in

VOTE: andres
"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 #3515 (isolation #284) » Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:53 am

Post by Green Crayons »

gg all

Dunn & Datisi are wildly different players, but they each brought some really amazing scum strategy to the table. was fun to play with 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).

Return to “Completed Mini Normal Games”