![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
I'll do my best to answer any questions directed at my predecessor and will post today.
Appeal to NewbnessPhate wrote:For crying out loud, look at my join date.
I think it is against the spirit of the game.Fiasco wrote:Yes -- there's no reason not to encrypt your role at the start of the game, which is usually a breaking strategy. We discussed this in an earlier thread (named "ethics: codes", I think). There should be a rule against this stuff, but it's hard to say where to draw the line.Thoughts?
Throwing out various ways his '2 scum on the wagon' could be way off. I didn't even look to see if Y was on the wagon, but just threw the scenario out there.destructor wrote:Y and his partners? What are you saying here?
Each section, in sequence, weaves all over the place. Is he scummy for what he's done or not? Is it enough to have him at -2 or not?thinktank, parsed for emphasis wrote:i will give Phat ethe benefit of the doubt that he didn't know what the safe claim was and its definetly not enough to vote him.
True its scummy
but considering he admitted he didnt know what it was and his join date implies this as well, I don't think he has enough strikes on him to lynch as ryan stated.
But seriously, stop coming up with these oddball ideas, they aren't helping town at all: safe claim and the encrypted claim? really?
Phate's actions are definetly scummy,
being new or not is besides that point however don't hammer him yet
His initial claim.Phate wrote:Closed setup. The scum will all claim lettuce (vanilla).
@tdp when she questioned his claim.Phate wrote:So you're scum, or more likely, I was wrong in my assumption that all vanillas got lettuce.
After tdp claimed.Phate wrote:So NOW, any vanilla townie who's not lettuce or cucumber (and evidently, rolenames are unique) will know that we're both confirmed vanilla townies. *grins*
Phate wrote:I don't get it. The scum don't have a safe claim. If they did, the way I'd know it would be to be a vanilla, in a game where all vanillas have the same rolename.
.Phate wrote:I meant that if all the vanillas were lettuce, that would be giving the scum a safe claim... but I also couldn't know that unless I was vanilla
This is coming up everywhere, it seems. Sort of like the old square/rectangle line:ryan wrote:Not being pro town IS anti town Phate no matter how you spin it.
But hethinktank wrote:I said he was worthy of being at lynch-2. If I had voted him then he would have been at lynch -1, which he was not worthy of at that point.
Can you back that up with something substantive?Crub wrote:Wow chill pill's needed all around methinks.
vote Phate
you're way into negative townie points now.
Like what? Without looking back, I'm drawing a blank.destructor wrote:But that's not to say other things Phate has done aren't questionable.
Yes and yes, but they need to be considered with other stuff before they are labeled scummy. Anything anti-town can be scummy, but not all of it is.ryan wrote:gorckat: Do you believe that anti town is bad for town? Do you believe distracting is anti town?
Perhaps there's mafia peppers, thus the color specification. Same for the bean.soup wrote:i also find the green bean(s) suspicious. it was slightly less troubling than the pepper because a green bean is not just a bean that is of the color green. in other words green beans and other types of beans are different morphologically whereas a green pepper and a yellow pepper differ only in color.
Had you voted him after the fake-vote earlier? That was certainly water muddying, although I think it was useful.destructor wrote:vote destructor
I find that to have been an anti-town move. Muddying the waters is not a good thing in my view.
A borderline semantics thing would be "if I was town, would I have done X" or something like that. What soup said is more significant- it implies an involvement in selecting think.destructor wrote:This is semantics and is almost as much a reach as the 's' argument. Points 1 and 2 you raise were good enough to base a vote on. Was 3 really worth bringing up?
The claims also fit with things planted in January, per a quick Google.Peter Cundall wrote:JANUARY
PLANT:, Broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, capsicums, cauliflower, celery, cucumber, eggplant, leek, lettuce, parsnip, pumpkin, silverbeet, late sweetcorn and tomato.
One of the reasons I didn't vote you. What you did was, as said before, water muddying, and could have drawn Oman out. Looking back to see if he dropped clues as to whom he looked at night one, there were a few times he strongly hinted at being a unique role (such as saying he knew why his name wouldn't match anyone else's).destructor wrote:gorckat and tdp seem to have forgotten at that I admitted I wasn't the cop, too.
I refuse to say QFT, but that's what I mean.destructor wrote:Also, I'm not liking the way you seem to be cleaning up the edges of your claim in each post. First you didn't mention the restriction of 2 posts per page or the 150-word limit, then you didn't mention the three strikes rule. You also only mentioned being investigation proof in 680 but in your last post expand that to all night actions besides nightkills.