Two weeks isn't short; it's normal.Spoony 11 wrote:early nights andshort deadlines?
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
Two weeks isn't short; it's normal.Spoony 11 wrote:early nights andshort deadlines?
*quickly changes first vote of VINDICTIVE HATE on charter*Juls 25 wrote:VOTE: Vi
We only vote the ones we love.
That's part of it.Sloth 37 wrote:I think it's the wagoning at the first sign of a semblance of a reasonable vote, Vi.
Then it should be okay for you to give me YOUR opinion about the wagons right now, right?Sloth 39 wrote:Never said I was. I've only been asking about RVS wagons.
you didn't say anything in this post that empking didn't say in his post above yours, why quote so much if you're not going to say anything usefulhiplop 45 wrote:you didn't say anything in this post, why quote so much if you're not going to say anything usefulLooker wrote:pappums rat wrote:Unvote
Vote: Sloth
- You're doing it wrong.
Sloth wrote:Never said I was. I've only been asking about RVS wagons.
- In reference to your wagon question, I think we should have three legitimate wagons before killing anyone.
charter wrote:The bigger, the better.Sloth wrote:Charter, what are your thoughts on RVS wagons?
- I agree.
- Your Empking vote's hilarious, by the way.
Empking wrote:Vote: Sloth- He looks like scum pretending to be useful.
- And you look like scum. VOTE: Empking
And what are you going to do about that?Teaspoon 64 wrote:surely saying a vote is for pressure negates the point of it.charter wrote:Right now I could pick any of Looker, TS, or Pappums as people that need to get more pressure. So I pickVote Looker.
Time zones don't have anything to do with it.Sheepy 69 wrote:Let's see - the game starts and in the 1st 24 hours I've posted my RV, and a reply to a question from Sloth. - hardly prod material yet. 10 hours later (while I'm asleep), Vi posts the above. Folks, please try and remember we are all in different time zones.Vi wrote:I definitely think my Neuky vote is best right now. More than anyone else it seems like he's trying to hide.
Actually, in this case I didn't. I felt kind of slow afterward. <.<le sheep 69 wrote:I also see no reason for[Sloth]to confirm your thoughts to you (presumably you already know what you meant).
I do that to everyone; no offense is meant. You should be worried when I STOP doing that.Neuky 71 wrote:Name calling from Vi? - I'm a bit disappointed if indeed that's what it is. (We could all do that, but it'd end up a bit of a barney..)
You're overstating it quite a bit.Neuky 71 wrote:Anyway, as you are also online at the moment, what do you think of Sloth's comment on the shortened nights?
Is there any reason you're still only talking about one person at a time?Sloth 90 wrote:Also, Vi,[hiplop]just read the scummiest to me at that point. Maybe it's just noobishness but his lack of any sort of opinion about the game is weak - however, I feel like his openness about his apathy is leaning towards a town tell.
No, I was calling Neuky a sheep because... he is a sheep.Quilford 93 wrote:Wait, weren't you just calling someone names for sheeping?
+Annoying NeukyFaraday 98 wrote:Vi how much are you enjoying this game so far?
Half the game is under the radar. Scott B. just decided to show up and say "hi, I'm under the radar! I like my on-wagon vote btw" and think he can get away with it.Neuky 101 wrote:@ Vi (and Quilford) I've noticed other players under the radar as well as Scott Brosius - is there any particular reason for voting him and not pursuing the others?
Empking 103 wrote:Vote: Vi - Gut
If they're the ones I'm thinking of, mostly humor.Empking 103 wrote:Vi: Those sheep comments. What was the point of them?
hiplop 108 wrote:is quilford at l-1? i don't want to hammer but im sort of suspecting him now
Sloth's questioning makes more sense coming from someone who isn't interested in scumhunting.Faraday 115 wrote:I'll get back to you on the sloth/ts reads, if I can work them out. I think Sloth's questioning makes more sense as a townie but i don't know
Hey, I was supposed to be the first person to call Lurker... Lurker.Faraday wrote:@ Mod Prod Charter and Lurker
Elephant in room: The reasons for voting Qwilfish don't exist, at least not from anyone voting himSloth 123 wrote:Vi, why pick Hiplop over the others? Same question.
charter 122 wrote:Oh, Vi's vote on Scott was terribad as well.
Would you like to discuss the merits of those votes? I'm sure I'll come out on top.charter 124 wrote:Wow, Vi's hiplop vote was bad too, this is a disturbing pattern.
...Quilford 126 wrote:Yes, I am nervous scum.
1) That would require me to speak in a straightforward and non-circuitous manner. :vi:Quilford 126 wrote:1) Why would you not just state that you think I'm being defensive?
2) Why did you sheep my vote on Scott?
It bothers me - I know I've been tempted to pull the sarcastic "yes, you're right, I'm scum" line when it was actually true.Quilford 129 wrote:Why would you feel the need to quote this?Vi wrote:...Quilford 126 wrote:Yes, I am nervous scum.
And it still doesn't exist.Vi 128 wrote:Elephant in room: The reasons for voting Qwilfish don't exist, at least not from anyone voting him sans charter.
If hiplop can tell me how and when he started finding Quilford suspicious enough to jump on a wagon he thought was high enough to be around L-1, I will buy a hat so I can eat it.
Ignoring Faraday, it's probscum or better all the way down. I don't see myself voting anyone who ISN'T on this list Today.Neruz 188 wrote:Scott Brosius, Faraday, Sloth, charter, Empking, hiplop
Lynch one of these people. If your vote is on someone other than one of these people, you're doing it wrong.Neruz 188 wrote:Scott Brosius, Faraday,Sloth,charter, Empking, hiplop
I was unsure on Sloth, and kind of still am.charter wrote:Sloth and Quilford had serious votes. Looker was/is scummy.Vi wrote:You say that the Scott vote was a deflection from people who are "actively scummy"... like whom, at that time?
And if I was voting people for lurking that would be a problem.Doesn't make sense at all. Scott wasn't the biggest lurker then or now.Vi wrote:When someone I actually wanted to vote popped up, I moved my vote to him. This recent post from Scott B. pretty much demonstrates why again.
eh wotHiplop did say why he thought Quilford was suspect.Vi wrote:charter, cont.; hiplop- I'm sure I explained the hiplop vote somewhere and it looks very different from how you pictured it... Oh, it's right here in my last post.And it still doesn't exist.Vi 128 wrote:Elephant in room: The reasons for voting Qwilfish don't exist, at least not from anyone voting him sans charter.
If hiplop can tell me how and when he started finding Quilford suspicious enough to jump on a wagon he thought was high enough to be around L-1, I will buy a hat so I can eat it.
That's actually what happened in one of my recent games (Of Rogues and Curses). We lynched scum D1 and D2, and the two or three or howevermany players who soft/claimed V. Townie early D1 were fairly obvTown from then on. That one troll who begged for us to stop claiming D1 was scum.Ok, lets just massclaim then. Then we can lynch whoever. But YOU know that running up three people to claim day one is a terrible, terrible idea.Found Sloth 248. This is :goodposting: and charter's rebuttal in 249 is awful - it's not that you want to lynch claimed power roles, but that you specifically force yourself into lynching the first sap who claims. This is, again, something charter should know better than to do.
Faraday 259 wrote:will get back to this when i get over the fact quilford isn't scum.
I'd ask why, but the ensuing argument would be pointless so etc.charter 261 wrote:At that point, Looker was much scummier.
I've certainly pushed for power role lynchescharter 263 wrote:I can tell that you all won't have the balls to lynch someone who claims a power role today, so getting more people to claim is a bad idea.
On second thought, go back to not taking your time.Vi 275 wrote:Faraday 259 wrote:will get back to this when i get over the fact quilford isn't scum.Don't take your time.That is indeed one of the more disturbing V/LA posts I've seen.
How so?the wanting to lynch a vanilla thing isn't scummy, it's something i'd expect out of him regardless of alignment.
How so?I actually like his position w/r/t the quilford wagon before the claim very much.
I think Quilford can answer that.Why do you think Quilford didn't vote me?
I refuse to believe you are this pedantic.You were making an absolute stament about "all" my posts. Surely its a null tell to want to unambigiously disprove that?
I doubt it.~Empking wrote:Quilford can read your mind?Vi wrote:I think Quilford can answer that.Why do you think Quilford didn't vote me?
You can figure it out yourself.Of course not. That's why I asked you to clarify the period time your "all" refered to.I refuse to believe you are this pedantic.You were making an absolute stament about "all" my posts. Surely its a null tell to want to unambigiously disprove that?
I think Quilford can see that remark in passing.Empking wrote:Yet you make no attempt to get Quilfish to say something?Vi wrote:I doubt it.~Empking wrote:Quilford can read your mind?Vi wrote:I think Quilford can answer that.Why do you think Quilford didn't vote me?
I know what my answer is, but I'd like to see what Qwilfish says.
Isn't your vote on quilford just for pressure anyway?Empking is definitely being scummy, though im not prepared to switch my vote from quilford yet, need a tad bit more convincing i suppose.
What IS hiplop's scum meta?Twistedspoon 300 wrote:Sure, the L-1 reason for Quilford was horrendous by Hiplop, but I know his scum meta and this doesn't seem to follow suit :/
FTFY. Mostly on your end.Faraday 302 wrote:Vi/Faraday intereactions are so fucking awkward.
Everyone already knows what I'm talking about. Consider also the futility of convincing scum they are scum.Yoshi 309 wrote:Vi's #285: Why don't you feel the need to formalize your accusations of Emp?
Example please.hiplop 305 wrote:In your eyes, hip, what is the reason you're voting Quilford?
Hes scummy, everything he types seems forced
Teaspoon #21 wrote:Sure, the L-1 reason for Quilford was horrendous by Hiplop, but I know his scum meta and this doesn't seem to follow suit :/
So what you're saying is that this meta reason doesn't exist.Teaspoon #23 wrote:so yeah, I guess his meta is similar, however since I have no hiplop town meta, I can't make a conclusion as to if it is solely scum hiplop who posts fluff
Faraday 322 wrote:I'm not saying it's the strongest town tell ever, but I think it's pretty lgit.
Oh really.Faraday 316 wrote:and charter looks v town. his early play is strongly town
That's an odd choice of smiley. I'm assuming you have a Town read on Faraday?Sloth 347 wrote:Faraday, you calling all my scumreads town is starting to get a little annoying![]()
It would be really sweet if you thought that much of me. ♥Empking wrote:So you're voting me because I'm avoiding the thread.Vi wrote:That was quick.
*I have a Town read on pap-ratAnd the reason you are of the opinion that I'm avoiding the thread is because you find me scummy.I'm pretty sure there's a flaw in your logic somewhere.
It verifies the accusation, yes.So the reason you said I'm avoiding the thread is because after saying that I asked why I was getting picked on?*He isn't trying to ask why he's getting picked on (let alone only saying that)
I called pap-rat Town a long time ago and he hasn't done anything to shake that read.Yes but you most definitely weren't calling out PR for some reason.*He would read my post enough to know he's not the only one getting called out
Explain.Yeah after seeing your response I'm pretty sure that whole comment "While Scott B.'s post physically hurt to read, I can't disagree with the accusation on Quilford. Three days gone (but not from the site) and comes back to show us what active lurking really looks like.
I thought about switching my vote but Empking is avoiding this thread as much as Quilford." was just distancing from your budddy.
His name starts with 'h' and ends in 'iplop'.Empking 374 wrote:Who were you planning on changing your vote to?
Wait wait wait. I'm all for a hiplop lynch but not on policy grounds.Teaspoon 377 wrote:either way, Hiplop will have to be lynched eventually, and I don't see why not now. He's a lylo hazard to say the least
I'll compromise by adding you to Zdenek's invitation to the sushi bar.Faraday 385 wrote:god damn it I don't even know. he fooled the fuck out of me last time. but I REALLY don't think he's doing that here.
:fail:Faraday wrote:Empking ( 3 ) - pappums rat, Vi, Faraday
The stuff you can find in a university cafeteria is pretty good, if expensive and possibly not even sushi to begin with.Faraday wrote:I fucking hate sushi though. Actually, lying, never tried it, just assume I'd hate it.
I'm undecided. His posts are bad, but they're blatant enough about it that I knowDarthYoshi wrote:@Vi: What's your current read on Scott?
That doesn't answer the question.Twistedspoon 397 wrote:at the worst, scumVi wrote:Wait wait wait. I'm all for a hiplop lynch but not on policy grounds.Teaspoon 377 wrote:either way, Hiplop will have to be lynched eventually, and I don't see why not now. He's a lylo hazard to say the least
Is hiplop scum, or is hiplop useless?
at the least, a LyLo hazard
both of which merit a lynch before LyLo at the very least. I highly doubt scum will kill hiplop if He's town, unless he is a strong, revealed PR :/
Was it the pushing of the Quilford wagon while it was easy that changed your mind, or the FoSses on easy targets?pap-rat 414 wrote:After reviewing your iso, I have to agree with you. I was mistaken, it seemed to me that you had been more defensive than you actually were. You have asked a lot of questions, but they have not been pointless. So I will unvote and re-read the thread with this in mind.
I was ADD-high when I read through Quilford's reaction; I'm more interested in his terrible wagon.Scott B. 418 wrote:I still don't understand why Quil's reaction to being at L-1 has everyone running. As I said earlier, the fact that his participation collapsed after the wagon disappeared is more telling than any "WELP THOUGHT HE WOULD CLAIM PR" baseless thought.
Optimistically, if Scott B. is Town and is having trouble getting into the game, it's a good place for him to start.DarthYoshi 420 wrote:The reason I ask is because I wonder about the benefit to be gained of asking scummy-ish looking players for town reads. If Scott doesn't have suspects, then he's probably either scum and won't be NKed (unless we have a vig/SK in the setup) or won't be NKed anyways if he's town because he isn't showing much interest in scumhunting. I'm not sure why you think he'll come out in the wash, then, and asking him to give out potentially unfounded towncred sounds like a dicey proposition.
Ithoppip 422 wrote:thats not the case though,i had a scumread on Empking, i asked for further explanation on him as i wanted to know if others were thinking the same as me
Gammagooey isn't in this game and it's not "literally", but basically this.Faraday 449 wrote:vote twistedspoon
literally claimed scum in twilight, gg.
Faraday 450 wrote:if there's a miller in the game they should claim now IMO.
I have a major problem with this.Sloth 459 wrote:I have a major problem with this.DarthYoshi wrote:Vote: TwistedSpoon.
What Faraday said.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Vi 457 wrote:Convincing of what?Sloth 456 wrote:Faraday you're gonna have to do an awful lot of convincing.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone distance themselves from a lynch THAT much while still validating it in what Qwilfish bolded.Teaspoon 462 wrote:is the reason because I'm not scum? Has anyone given a reason why my post in twilight was terribad?
Faraday 476 wrote:[drawn-out Cop charade]
>_>
Oh, that makes sense. Carry on then.
No, especially with the post that came afterward.Faraday 477 wrote:Is this a townie reaction?It sort...sort of looks like one but I really don't know.
You're not talking about Twistedspoon where possible (although you're implying that the votes on him are bad), and I'd like to know why.Sloth 467 wrote:Convincing me that Charter is town.Vi wrote:Convincing of what?Sloth 456 wrote:Faraday you're gonna have to do an awful lot of convincing.
DarthYoshi's sheep vote is much much worse than Vi's or Faraday's because I honestly don't think he knows why he's voting for Twistedor why Twisted is confirmed scum.
Nobody said "confirmed scum" until you did. Someone said "claimed scum", which is something entirely different.Sloth 487 wrote:Anyways, the "confirmed scum" should have been in quotes.
Sloth 487 wrote:I don't think the votes on him are bad - stop putting words in my mouth.
so etc.Sloth 467 wrote:DarthYoshi's sheep vote is much much worse than Vi's or Faraday's
No, but that doesn't answer the issue I had long before you made that post.Sloth 489 wrote:And Vi, did you miss 479?
Not to plow a dead horse but you're saying Twistedspooncharter 493 wrote:Vi wrote:charter - Why no vote?
charter wrote:TS's jumping on Faraday's "guilty" on Hiplop gives TS loads of scumpoints.That's where my vote would be going, but if TS gets to L-1, his buddies will quicklynch him.
1) I'm willing to stop arguing over this. (The phrase "much much worse" btw)Sloth 494 wrote:1) Where in there does it say that you and Faraday's votes are bad?Sloth 467 wrote:DarthYoshi's sheep vote is much much worse than Vi's or Faraday's
2) And about spoony I didn't think much else needed to be said. I wanted to focus on my target.
Um... yes?Teaspoon 509 wrote:does anyone understand how I claimed scum in twilight or<etc.>
If hiplop claims Miller or yelps about a Framer, then Teaspoon is already in position to disbelieve it. If hiplop doesn't do any of the above, then clearly hiplop is the lynchTeaspoon wrote:you got a guilty on hiplop did you?
then I am pleased my suspicions were correct
VOTE: hiplop
*expects hiplop to claim miller or yelp about a framer*
Scott B. #9 wrote:Vi, spoon appear town.
Scott B. #10 wrote:Spoon, charter, quilford top scum reads now.
Maybe I should rephrase.charter 524 wrote:It looks like this will be the case, but unfortunately I don't get all the say in who gets lynched, just a small part.Vi wrote:Not to plow a dead horse but you're saying Twistedspoon is definitely getting lynched Today, correct?
Qwilfish 527 wrote:Also, a hammer would be bad considering how far away from deadline we are.
Both of you - why?Zdenek 529 wrote:If I was voting, I'd be voting Twistedspoon, but I see no reason to end the day quickly, so I'm happy to leave him at L-2.
Sloth 526 wrote:Claimed scum is obviously an exaggeration - I thought what he did in twilightwas scummy, yes, but thatdoesn't make him 100% scum in my eyes.
"He's not as scummy as advertised" (keeping in mind what everyone has been saying) to "I think he's scum, just like you do"?Sloth 533 wrote:When did I ever say that I think TS is town?I think he's scum, just like the rest of you.
Actually, I think it's time for YOU to start talking about last words and so forth. Your claim doesn't matter at this point.Twistedspoon wrote:uh have you been reading the thread?Zdenek wrote:Since there's not much else to talk about since my last post:
Vote Twistedspoon
not much to talk about?
my claim for starters maybe?
Most of the time, no, scum don't have daytalk in Normals.Faraday 555 wrote:Hey Vi do you think the scum have daytalk? I think that'd make DY far more likely scum.
Faraday wrote:what
Faraday wrote:VIG AND SK AND MAFIA
All of the above. I didn't think three-kill games were allowed in the Mini queue, and I review them. We can probably also bank on three Mafia instead of two if there are three kills - otherwise the entire Mafia can be wiped out in one Night. If nothing else, it's better to prepare for the worst.Faraday wrote:someone look for a charter breadcrumb thing or something.
wait, the most probable set-up is 8/3/1 isn't it so we've got like fucking 3 scum left mad.
I'm sure it has to do with my ridiculously awesome performance right now. 8)Faraday 570 wrote:so like this was me wondering why the fuck Vi isn't dead yet.
There's a point and you're missing it.DarthYoshi wrote:Vi--I actually disagree re: massclaim and town PRs. With two kill factions (presumably) plus a vig, there's gotta be 1-2 protective/RB roles in the setup methinks.
That's pretty much NOT the response I've gotten in my last few games, please and thank you. (and I played about as well in them as I have in this one)Faraday 579 wrote:and i think people would be like OMG Vi too.
Is that so.DarthYoshi 572 wrote:BTW, FWIW, charter opened D2 with saying that he "re-read" me and found me to be less scummy. That might be as close to a breadcrumb as we're going to get.
Then... a Track on you wouldn't clear you of anything at all. There would be no point in breadcrumbing that kind of investigation.DarthYoshi 583 wrote:I'm pretty dumb. What point am I missing?Vi wrote:There's a point and you're missing it.
PEdit: Fine. I'm VT.
Somewhat, yes.Faraday wrote:oh now, it lowers his odds of being scum as scum have a roleblocker and guy that commits a nightkill.. i thought you had something juicy.
Penn and Teller would disapprove of me saying "impossible" but that's the general idea. An extra killing role on top of a full Vigilante wouldn't be allowed.Faraday wrote:what if I told you I thought the set-up was 5/2 still. do I sound insane? is it likely?Vi wrote:@Faraday: We're at seven players. Either 4-2-1 or 5-1-1. Or knowing my luck there's something else I'm overlooking. In the former case we're actually in trouble. In the latter case we're one worst-case from Prisoner's Dilemma. Either way if we miss Today we're pretty much reliant on crosskills.
Wait a minute, that just brings me back to where I started.Vi wrote:Penn and Teller would disapprove of me saying "impossible" but that's the general idea. An extra killing role on top of a full Vigilante wouldn't be allowed.Faraday wrote:what if I told you I thought the set-up was 5/2 still. do I sound insane? is it likely?Vi wrote:@Faraday: We're at seven players. Either 4-2-1 or 5-1-1. Or knowing my luck there's something else I'm overlooking. In the former case we're actually in trouble. In the latter case we're one worst-case from Prisoner's Dilemma. Either way if we miss Today we're pretty much reliant on crosskills.