Open 778: Nightless Vanilla [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 #3182 (isolation #400) » Mon May 18, 2020 3:13 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

You’re getting pretty nihilist early on. You just laid out your thought process. People have their preformed notions.

I mean, you haven’t engaged with my explanation for why I think Isis isn’t scum. You don’t see me moping.
"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 #3185 (isolation #401) » Mon May 18, 2020 3:19 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I’m on phone so this isn’t super easy. But the below post is the last time on page one of Isis’s ISO where she’s vouching for Elements. She started out super strong on Elements-is-town, waivers a little bit, and then got here.

In post 1415, Isis wrote:playing to his town meta?

He's playing townier than his town meta and I'm confused. I mean maybe that's a bad thing because I felt like to some extent his scumwin featured him adhering to orthodox play people want to see. He's convincing me it's organic here, though.


Did she about face at some point on Elements? I certainly don’t remember it, HME. She’s been calling Elements likely town since forever.
"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 #3186 (isolation #402) » Mon May 18, 2020 3:21 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3183, humaneatingmonkey wrote:If all game, you have the information that Isis has played the bus-distance game,
She jumped from Cycle to Norwegian with you and Ali. So she was willing to abandon the lazy scum (Cycle) for another, not lazy scum (Norwegian)?
"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 #3187 (isolation #403) » Mon May 18, 2020 3:23 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3184, humaneatingmonkey wrote:You expect me to believe that town won't normally find themselves on a mislynch wagon in a nightless? You know this is not the whole story.
Is Isis so bad at being mafia she can’t bring herself to kill a town? So bad that she becomes good by escaping lynch scrutiny?
"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 #3190 (isolation #404) » Mon May 18, 2020 3:24 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I mean, my point with engaging you is let’s accept Isis is scum! You’re not getting folks on board today with that.

But if true, who do you think is her scum friend? I’m hoping we can find common ground there.
"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 #3192 (isolation #405) » Mon May 18, 2020 3:26 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

My point is that she’s vouching for Elements, which means they are not likely a scum pair.
"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 #3194 (isolation #406) » Mon May 18, 2020 3:30 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I don’t understand that response.
"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 #3195 (isolation #407) » Mon May 18, 2020 3:32 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Looker who is scum team.
"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 #3199 (isolation #408) » Mon May 18, 2020 3:37 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3196, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Also, I don't believe associations are as simplistic as that. Scum can afford to hide behind layers of WIFOM. I prefer to catch scum through POV and motivation.
I don’t think it’s simplistic? I think it’s the very nature of being scum. You are *hyper aware* of who your scum teammates are. You make a conscious decision about when to mention them or interact with them because it will instantly tie you together.

Claiming a fellow scum is town based on the magic voodoo of meta is a huuuuuge risk. Not impossible but just not likely.
"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 #3202 (isolation #409) » Mon May 18, 2020 3:40 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Like. Is there any way I can get you to opine about who might be an Isis-scum teammate other than Elements, or is that your final answer?

I’m not trying to be difficult I was just trying to see if you had thoughts beyond those two as potential 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 #3242 (isolation #410) » Tue May 19, 2020 11:27 am

Post by Green Crayons »

No thank you.
"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 #3244 (isolation #411) » Tue May 19, 2020 11:36 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Okay?
"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 #3245 (isolation #412) » Tue May 19, 2020 11:37 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Like. I’m not sure what to do with that information.

You have a baseless fear that I’m going to want to lynch you at some point.

Okay.
"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 #3246 (isolation #413) » Tue May 19, 2020 11:39 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Do we know how long Deimos’s exam season lasts?
"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 #3247 (isolation #414) » Tue May 19, 2020 11:41 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3236, humaneatingmonkey wrote:#659 - Elements - E - Voted Clemency for their 'atrocious entrance'. Note that this wasn't the general suspicion about Clemency around this part of the gamestate.
#674, 675 - Elements - S - Flailing
#787 - Norwee on GC - E - I think this is Norwee framing GC, which likely makes GC town. He didn't do this with Deimos, Elements, Firebringer. Just GC.
#792 to 807 - GC vs Norwee - TvS - Not a puppet show. Each posts attempts to expose the other further, and it's happening outside the scum agenda to bus Cycle Men.
I mean, I’ll take the town points but this just looks like you’ve already come to a conclusion about alignment and you’re just viewing posts with that alignment assumption taken as a given.
"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 #3248 (isolation #415) » Tue May 19, 2020 11:45 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Well I guess that really only applies to your flailing characterization.

How is 659 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 #3302 (isolation #416) » Thu May 21, 2020 6:45 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I'm waiting for Deimos and FB.
"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 #3303 (isolation #417) » Thu May 21, 2020 6:46 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3195, Green Crayons wrote:Looker who is scum team.
"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 #3305 (isolation #418) » Thu May 21, 2020 8:30 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Why tho?
"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 #3365 (isolation #419) » Sat May 23, 2020 1:45 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: Looker
"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 #3366 (isolation #420) » Sat May 23, 2020 1:45 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Basically POE.

If Looker flips scum, I'm afraid it's FB as his partner.
"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 #3367 (isolation #421) » Sat May 23, 2020 1:47 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3336, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Maybe if he flips scum, y'all can give me a solid and lynch Isis. If she flips town, you can lynch me. I don't expect you to agree, but I'm gonna come back with a case anyway.
Also, can we not?

You already said this about Ali.

"If so and so flips town, you can lynch me." is (1) bullshit and (2) anti-town if you're actually 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 #3368 (isolation #422) » Sat May 23, 2020 1:50 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3327, Deimos27 wrote:
In post 876, Alisae wrote:Monkey vote Norwee or Cycle Men
GC vote Norwee, you know you want to
Isis vote Norwee

VOTE: Norwee
This wagon is super possible people just need to use their fucking votes
In post 879, humaneatingmonkey wrote:VOTE: NorwEE

Let's go.
Slightly town-AI for HEM. If scum decided against bussing Cycle, it's counterproductive to swap into bussing Norwee.
In post 881, Isis wrote:but he's cute!!!
In post 882, Isis wrote:this doesn't even sort monkey because monkey is town no matter what norwee is
In post 883, Isis wrote:you guys are lame
VOTE: Norwee
Isis's positioning is anti- Norwee lynch so she can easily stay off that wagon without catching any flack. Switching onto Norwee contrary to the scumteam's apparent strategy and contrary to her positioning in the game makes limited sense for a bussing meta and not much sense at all for this gamestate. Probably slightly town-AI.
HEM and Isis get big town points for this. I don't know why you're being so miserly with your town points.
"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 #3369 (isolation #423) » Sat May 23, 2020 1:50 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

(Everything's made up and the points don't matter!)
"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 #3370 (isolation #424) » Sat May 23, 2020 1:54 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3055, Green Crayons wrote:VC 1.31: GC drops from Cycyle to Norwegian, but in my defense I went from one scum to another.

Another thing is that Elements picks up two votes: Cycle (scum) and Ali (town). Flash forward to VC 1.34, and Norwegian (scum) joins to make Elements a competing wagon to Cycle. Suggests Elements isn’t scum, as now Cycle is actually playing so presumably Norwegian is trying to save a buddy.

VC 1.36: Elements comically moves his vote off Cycle (scum), to Ali (town), which makes his wagon tied with Cycle. He then shifts back over several hundred posts later in VC 1.37, only to go back to Ali in VC 1.38.

I say comically, because if he’s town this isn’t a good move just in terms of numbers. If he’s scum? Maybe. No sense in trying to push town to kill a friend on D1 if you can avoid it. So he’s testing the waters on other lynches. Or maybe he’s just town whose befuddled!

I’m really not sold on what to make of this, as for as AI goes for Elements.


VC 1.38 through 1.41, though, I think is very interesting. The competing wagons essentially come down to Elements versus Cycle, with two scum votes on Elements. My reaction is that this would make Elements town.

I mean, of course town can wagon two scum on D1, so it’s not impossible that Cycle and Elements are both scum. It happens! But we already did that with Cycle versus Norwegian. Not to mention, we have two scum on the Elements counterwagon, including Norwegian who tried to put momentum there (VC 1.34).
Elements votes are hella dumb.
"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 #3381 (isolation #425) » Sat May 23, 2020 2:24 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3371, Isis wrote:Isis-Hem-Elements could win the game except it doesn't because hem just wants to do nothing but lynch townies in exchange for his life
yeah I'm pretty okay with this town block
"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 #3382 (isolation #426) » Sat May 23, 2020 2:26 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3372, Firebringer wrote:
In post 3365, Green Crayons wrote:VOTE: Looker
why is looker scum instead of bad town? also why am i his ally?
You've gone out of your way to not vote him.

First it was laying the burden on Ali's (dead) shoulders of trusting her town read.

And now it's "Looker is a bad town, he's now playing bad, ergo he is town" which is logic that cannot be defeated because any attempt to try to show that he's scum is "no that's just him being bad 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 #3383 (isolation #427) » Sat May 23, 2020 2:28 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Also I don't know how to distinguish "bad town" from "scum" when the play is "not actually help find scum."

He makes most sense to vote.
"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 #3386 (isolation #428) » Sat May 23, 2020 2:43 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3384, Firebringer wrote:
In post 3382, Green Crayons wrote:You've gone out of your way to not vote him.
just did lol
yup. you did that after i came up with my theory, so I'm telling you why i thought you'd be a good Looker partner as of the time of my original 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 #3387 (isolation #429) » Sat May 23, 2020 2:45 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 0, northsidegal wrote:humaneatingmonkey
Deimos27
Elements
Green Crayons
Isis
Looker
Firebringer
basically deimos, looker, and FB are ?s in my mind so the only thing that really matters is order so that we don't go on a two town roll and everyone starts shitting themselves thinking we're going to have to revamp our entire thought process
"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 #3388 (isolation #430) » Sat May 23, 2020 2:47 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

but if it's really 2/3 out of deimos, look, and FB then actually we'll hit one scum within two lynches so i guess that's not a real worry
"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 #3390 (isolation #431) » Sat May 23, 2020 4:08 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3389, Looker wrote:Green Crayons voting me was a blow to the stomach that I didn't see coming
:(

I *did* list you as second in my POE after my VCA. This shouldn't be a surprise.
"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 #3399 (isolation #432) » Sat May 23, 2020 4:24 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

So not to be completely lazy, I ISO'd Looker.
In post 690, Looker wrote:
In post 648, Alisae wrote:i must have been seriously stoned when i saw that post then
You're not bussing Norway are you?
This comes out of left field. Why are you assuming Norwegian was scum here?
In post 690, Looker wrote:
In post 687, Cycle Men wrote:bit harsh to whoever this clemency guy is
Are you purposely not doing anything so that you don't leave any associations to your partners after you're lynched?
This is a very weird statement when Looker never voted for Cycle.

Spoiler: abrasive
In post 701, Looker wrote:
In post 692, humaneatingmonkey wrote:I got a tone of abrasiveness in this one and this one. I don't recall you missing any of my questions. I think your reactions cater more to posts and not situations, and that strikes me as... inorganic.
This strikes me as...full of shit. What situations are occurring that are not accurately reflected in people's posts?
In post 706, Looker wrote:So you have no situations as examples. Got it.
In post 710, Looker wrote:You were right the first time.

Also...
In post 712, Looker wrote:...I'm not pathetic enough to accuse me for you. I'm holding my tongue, because "do some legwork" is a stupid thing to say and I'm hoping most of you idiots will putter yourselves out. If you have a question, ask it, if you have an accusation, accuse. Otherwise, fuck off.
In post 713, Looker wrote:...I'm not pathetic enough to accuse me for you. I'm holding my tongue, because "do some legwork" is a stupid thing to say and I'm hoping most of you idiots will putter yourselves out. If you have a question, ask it, if you have an accusation, accuse. Otherwise, fuck off.
In post 715, Looker wrote:Oooh, twice, the site must really want me to be heard. Or to up my post count (high post count = town, right?) fuckin amateurs
In post 747, Looker wrote:
In post 745, humaneatingmonkey wrote:
In post 738, Looker wrote:
  • @humandevouringamonkey: Do
    you
    think that I'm town or are you saying that there are posts of mine where it looks like I'm begging to be townread?
    • Also, do you feel that Green Crayons and Elements just coached you away from pursuing my lynch D1?
Are you done with your tantrums?
Was that your attempt to frame me as a child...? You don't seem to be very good at this.
In post 751, Looker wrote:Also, re:abrasiveness, since I'm here...

...in the first post, I called Deimos's remark pretentious, because it was.
...in the second post, I said that you had a self-centered perspective, which you do.

Your responses and categorization of me are peculiar.

p-edit: So it's an attempt to discredit my logic? Okay, we'll see how effective that tactic is.
This all seemed to take things up a notch. I didn't think that the original Looker post that HME called abrasive was actually abrasive, but these posts really kick it into high gear. Being needlessly antagonistic is anti-town at best, but I can also see it as a scum tactic (scum wouldn't want attention --> make attention by being combative --> doesn't look like scum).
In post 1738, Looker wrote:
In post 1734, Alisae wrote:Looker
talk to me
why am I scum
I don't trust you hinging your alignment on me. That was a totally different game with different mechanics.
And these shifting voting blocks are suspicious
.
Have you ever built on this?
In post 3232, Looker wrote:
  • Whether the scumteam is FB/HEM or FB/Elements, FB is still the best move
  • I take back what I said about "legwork". I trust people when they mention their meta because I don't want to read their old games. Like Isis. HEM you were right; I just didn't like that you called me abrasive. I'm sorry.
Have you every said *why* FB is 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 #3402 (isolation #433) » Sat May 23, 2020 4:25 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3397, Isis wrote:I don't actually want to lynch you to sheep your reads per se. I feel like the possibility space where you are scum is the only one I feel worried about losing? So I need to lynch you. Like it has to do with a lot of associative patterns amongst the slots with scum potential. If you're not scum, I feel like I'm going to win anyway, I think GC scum really couldn't afford to amplify Deimos's voice a second ago, and then it's just like 2/2 in Looker Deimos (doesn't clear Deimos the way it clears GC because Deimos is more hailmary positioned).
this is some convoluted shit
"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 #3411 (isolation #434) » Sat May 23, 2020 4:29 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3408, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Lynch Isis omggggggggggggggggg
why would Isis-scum switch from Cycle to Norwegian as part of HEM/Isis/Ali push?
"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 #3417 (isolation #435) » Sat May 23, 2020 4:36 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3414, humaneatingmonkey wrote:the answer is they've planned the bus streets ahead. Isis dragged Norwegian along up until Day 4 (or Day 5?) despite scumreading her.
That doesn't actually answer my question. Your theory is that, on D1, Isis helped momentum turn from Cycle-scum (worthless at the time) to Norwegian-scum (not worthless at the time) because Isis was planning on bussing Norwegian several days down the road? Even on its own terms, the theory (bus late game) doesn't match what happened (bus D1).



Also, FB, Ali, and at least one other player said "yeah Norwegian is totes scum" on D1. So there are lots of folks who would fit the definition of dragging Norwegian along.
"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 #3418 (isolation #436) » Sat May 23, 2020 4:38 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3415, humaneatingmonkey wrote:
In post 3411, Green Crayons wrote:why would Isis-scum switch from Cycle to Norwegian as part of HEM/Isis/Ali push?
She is also self-proclaimed Queen of bus so I don't know why you would read into her associations, and not
literally everything else
Because the only information I have, apart from my own alignment, is the alignment of two dead scum. How they interacted with people, and how people interacted (or didn't) with them, is first rate information.

All other information is second tier.
"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 #3419 (isolation #437) » Sat May 23, 2020 4:39 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3418, Green Crayons wrote:only information
only mod-confirmed information
"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 #3423 (isolation #438) » Sat May 23, 2020 4:47 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3422, humaneatingmonkey wrote:and my reads will be bussed
lol
"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 #3424 (isolation #439) » Sat May 23, 2020 4:48 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3420, humaneatingmonkey wrote:and bussing doesn't undermine that information at all?
I'm not blind to the concept of bussing, but bussing generally has a strategy behind it.
"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 #3538 (isolation #440) » Mon May 25, 2020 12:08 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3532, Elements wrote:yea fire is scum
VOTE: fire
Por que?
"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 #3543 (isolation #441) » Mon May 25, 2020 12:14 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3541, Isis wrote:VOTE: green crayons

Why did you stop townreading green crayons, fire?
You’re really the worst.
"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 #3544 (isolation #442) » Mon May 25, 2020 12:14 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3542, Firebringer wrote:lack of pressence since we lynched Norwee.
This game is boring.
"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 #3546 (isolation #443) » Mon May 25, 2020 12:16 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Did you not see the VCA I did? More work than the totally of effort I put into 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 #3548 (isolation #444) » Mon May 25, 2020 12:18 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Well whatever. I put few hours into the game at one single time so I call that effort. And then the thread did a wet fart apart from HME’s Isis 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 #3549 (isolation #445) » Mon May 25, 2020 12:19 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: Deimos
"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 #3561 (isolation #446) » Mon May 25, 2020 2:42 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3552, humaneatingmonkey wrote:
In post 3549, Green Crayons wrote:VOTE: Deimos
What's your lynch order?
Whatever order, let's lynch:
Deimos27
Looker
Firebringer

Probably should never lynch:
Isis
humaneatingmonkey

Never lynch:
Elements

And how would Deimos flipping scum influence your reads on all the other players? How would Deimos flipping town influence your reads on all the other players?

Please do this to the other people in your lynch order as well.
You want me to write up how my view of other players would change based on BOTH a scum AND town flip for EVERY SINGLE PLAYER.

lol, no sir.
"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 #3562 (isolation #447) » Mon May 25, 2020 2:47 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3552, humaneatingmonkey wrote:And how would Deimos flipping scum influence your reads on all the other players?
But, since I'm voting for Deimos, I won't be lazy and instead say if Deimos flips red I would instantly go back to look at FB and Isis, as those two players are the ones I recall (from those still living) who have had the most interactions with Deimos. I don't know if that would change my read on FB or Isis, but it's where I'd start.
"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 #3564 (isolation #448) » Mon May 25, 2020 2:52 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

But there's nothing really new to address. We need a flip.
"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 #3566 (isolation #449) » Mon May 25, 2020 2:54 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3065, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1058, humaneatingmonkey wrote:unless it's scum!NorwEE and scum!Cycle. He's more willing to get lynched and make up a reason for an alternative vote (me) than to bus NorwEE
In post 1153, humaneatingmonkey wrote:A counterwagon opens around NorwEE. He doesn't take it.

An argument can be made that he is town because there's no reason. But there is.

Clemency is always at a high risk of a lynch, as town or scum. Scum!Celemency knows that he's not getting away from a lynch, regardless of what the town thinks about him.

With that in mind, Scum!Celemency will make town!NorwEE look better and risk a potential mislynch for his scumteam by switching to his wagon. When he is a strong lynch potential at anytime, why would he help town!NorwEE here?

Scum!Clemency will also prefer to not aid the lynch of scum!NorwEE, who has a better fighting chance than he has.

At least town!Celemency has a reason to pursue a NorwEE lynch. He has no idea here what NorwEE will flip and he'll be game to see where the wagon leads to — bonus points for scumreading the slot in the firstplace.

Instead he doesn't take it.
Pretty on the nose, there, HME.

I'm really not sure what to make of the Cycle-Norwegian-HME mashup from page 36 to 43.

It's just so damned weird that Cycle and Norwegian focus on HME out of the Ali/HME/Isis trio who try to push a Norwegian counterwagon to Cycle's wagon.

I keep vacillating between seeing the Cycle/Norwegian/HME interactions as legit, and completely contrived.

If we take it that Cycle attacked/voted the Ali/HME/Isis trio who press for a Norwegian-wagon to help Norwegian, then Cycle's goal is to help scum (by defending Norwegian-scum). You don't help scum by singling out and attacking yet another scum from that trio (assuming one is there). Like, I have this really big paranoia that Cycle/Norwegian/HME were doing this big scum gambit to get mad at each other, but it doesn't have the greatest of scum benefits for two of them to gang up against one. And then for HME and Cycle to keep going at it for several pages after 43.

I guess the simplest answer is that HME is town, and Cycle/Norwegian ganged up on him to see what would stick. That just feels *too* simple. Bah.
Past GC *really* wanted HME to be scum for some reason, so I was fighting the obvious HME = town.

HME is 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 #3568 (isolation #450) » Mon May 25, 2020 2:55 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3370, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 3055, Green Crayons wrote:VC 1.31: GC drops from Cycyle to Norwegian, but in my defense I went from one scum to another.

Another thing is that Elements picks up two votes: Cycle (scum) and Ali (town). Flash forward to VC 1.34, and Norwegian (scum) joins to make Elements a competing wagon to Cycle. Suggests Elements isn’t scum, as now Cycle is actually playing so presumably Norwegian is trying to save a buddy.

VC 1.36: Elements comically moves his vote off Cycle (scum), to Ali (town), which makes his wagon tied with Cycle. He then shifts back over several hundred posts later in VC 1.37, only to go back to Ali in VC 1.38.

I say comically, because if he’s town this isn’t a good move just in terms of numbers. If he’s scum? Maybe. No sense in trying to push town to kill a friend on D1 if you can avoid it. So he’s testing the waters on other lynches. Or maybe he’s just town whose befuddled!

I’m really not sold on what to make of this, as for as AI goes for Elements.


VC 1.38 through 1.41, though, I think is very interesting. The competing wagons essentially come down to Elements versus Cycle, with two scum votes on Elements. My reaction is that this would make Elements town.

I mean, of course town can wagon two scum on D1, so it’s not impossible that Cycle and Elements are both scum. It happens! But we already did that with Cycle versus Norwegian. Not to mention, we have two scum on the Elements counterwagon, including Norwegian who tried to put momentum there (VC 1.34).
Elements votes are hella dumb.
Elements will be and is forever 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 #3569 (isolation #451) » Mon May 25, 2020 2:56 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3567, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Also do my question
In post 3561, Green Crayons wrote:You want me to write up how my view of other players would change based on BOTH a scum AND town flip for EVERY SINGLE PLAYER.
God no.

That would require rereading/skimming the thread to look at both SCUM and TOWN hypotheticals for those players.
"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 #3571 (isolation #452) » Mon May 25, 2020 3:01 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3055, Green Crayons wrote:Okay, back to the competing wagons. The breakdown of the Cycle Men wagon as FB started getting votes is interesting.

VC 1.24: FB (last to vote for Cycle) shifts from Cycle over to votato. I read this as null. Shifting away from a wagon is not great, but he was last on, was barely there, and decides to vote someone who isn’t being voted for.

VC 1.25: Two things.

First, Elements shifts from Cycle over to FB. This vote puts FB at 4, and at the time of the vote (but not the time of VC 1.25) Cycle Men was left with 4. This leans scum as it takes momentum away from Cycle and adds it to FB (unknown alignment)

Second, Isis shifts from Cycle over to Norwegian. This actually reduces Cycle to 3, and makes Norwegian a competing wagon with FB with 4 votes each. As we know Cycle and Norwegian are scum, it would certainly be a weird for Isis-scum to simply trade out one scum wagon (Cycle) for another (Norwegian), when they both are competing against the FB wagon (unknown alignment). This gives Isis town points.


I say unknown alignment, but the likelihood that we were wagoning three scum at the same time in D1 is stupid unlikely. With the competing wagons being Norwegian (scum), Cycle (scum), and FB (unknown), FB is likely town, which makes Elements look not good in VC 1.25.
Ignore my stupid ramblings about Elements and FB.

The bolded is what I keep coming back to for Isis. She was voting for poorly performing Cycle-scum, and then shifted to help a wagon against the adequately performing Norwegian-scum. This is a really big hump that I can't get over.
"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 #3574 (isolation #453) » Mon May 25, 2020 3:10 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

So I reread and , while looking at the posts you were referencing.

Did you have other posts you'd like me to review?
"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 #3575 (isolation #454) » Mon May 25, 2020 3:11 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3573, humaneatingmonkey wrote:she wanted her to live out until the later days.
So did FB

I assumed this was a current site thing.
"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 #3581 (isolation #455) » Mon May 25, 2020 3:18 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

You mean like switching from Cycle-scum to Norwegian-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 #3582 (isolation #456) » Mon May 25, 2020 3:18 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

FB, who was your golden group? And did it ever change up until Norwegian was lynched?
"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 #3584 (isolation #457) » Mon May 25, 2020 3:19 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3579, Firebringer wrote:i said i didn't want to lynch norwee at one point because i enjoyed his posts.
If this is what my mind is latching onto, then lol x2 at HME wanting shoot-from-the-hip associative assessments based on hypothetical scum & town flips for every player.
"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 #3585 (isolation #458) » Mon May 25, 2020 3:24 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3583, Firebringer wrote:
In post 3582, Green Crayons wrote:FB, who was your golden group? And did it ever change up until Norwegian was lynched?
the first group was alise/GC/HEM/Isis
So if FB is scum, he (1) would have needed to hope that either he gets enough cred to survive and graduate into the golden group, (2) GC/HEM/Isis is scum that he's hiding in the golden group, or (3) he hopes it goes nowhere but that the idea gets him town points (and the golden group is really all town).

(1) is hella dumb and wouldn't happen.

(2) is unlikely. also if FB is red and flips early, the golden group are going to get incredibly scrutinized by town. not the best of strategies.

(3) is speculation about whether it's true or not.

BUT what this means is, is that if FB is scum, he's not likely scum with GC/HEM/Isis.

I was hoping this was going to be more helpful for *me*, but I already don't think GC/HEM/Isis is scum. But something to chew on for those who think FB is a serious scum contender.
"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 #3588 (isolation #459) » Mon May 25, 2020 3:29 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1139, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1115, Firebringer wrote:I think norwee is actually probably scum here and buddying up to some peeps. I don't care about lynching norwee day 1. I like his posts and attitude in general. Gives the game a fun atmosphere.
:neutral:
actually probably scum

but likes his posts and attitude


I'm not crazy.
"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 #3590 (isolation #460) » Mon May 25, 2020 3:32 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

And doesn't want to lynch D1 because of it.
"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 #3591 (isolation #461) » Mon May 25, 2020 3:32 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Which is what Isis said 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 #3593 (isolation #462) » Mon May 25, 2020 3:33 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3587, humaneatingmonkey wrote:You really want me to do my own VCA, don't you? Is that the only way you're going to consider my Isis case? Because I'll fucking do it.
I already asked for what other posts where you created an Isis case. I reviewed your first two.
"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 #3600 (isolation #463) » Mon May 25, 2020 4:02 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I'd like for Deimos to actually have an opportunity to say something before he's lynched within the span of a few hours.

UNVOTE:
"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 #3601 (isolation #464) » Mon May 25, 2020 4:03 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3597, humaneatingmonkey wrote:GC, let's buddy. Do you accept this friend request?
Sure.

I'm not reading any more mafia tonight though.
"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 #3611 (isolation #465) » Tue May 26, 2020 1:36 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3602, Firebringer wrote:and here i could have self hammered and washed my hands of this.

#regrets
:roll:
"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 #3612 (isolation #466) » Tue May 26, 2020 1:39 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3610, Firebringer wrote:u realize u defeat ur own argument about playing to win condition by saying u would rather lose than not lose by draw. Right?
Ew on the no lynch tie option.

Ew x100 on this 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 #3628 (isolation #467) » Tue May 26, 2020 4:45 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Only scum would want a draw, if town has legitimately secured a town block. a draw is better than a loss.

Town wouldn't push for a draw because, even if things are going against them, they lack the knowledge to know whether a draw is better than the alternative.

So a draw isn't playing against a scum's win condition, given the right circumstances.

This is just game theory, not whatever the site's rules are.

So congrats, FB, on netting some scum points I suppose.
"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 #3629 (isolation #468) » Tue May 26, 2020 4:48 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3594, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Isis changed her votes at MACH 20 speeds for nothing. If you think it's a serious vote, you're wrong. If you think that town!Isis thinking scum!Norwee is scum there and then moving to Cycle Men who in her head was "hard to read" you're reading that interaction badly.
I mean. You were first to vote Norwegian (879). She followed (883). You just as quickly switched over to Cycle (902). She followed (904).
"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 #3630 (isolation #469) » Tue May 26, 2020 4:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 588, Deimos27 wrote:5. Cycle Men
Woah what why is Cycle Men on my list of wagoners?

In post 421, Cycle Men wrote:
does it have merit though? i feel like that's a really narrow, forced angle to look at things
when something forms a story way too conveniently i think its time to rethink


Because I read this as a very unnatural defense. Instead of thinking critically about the arguments offered he vaguely states that the perspective is "narrow" and "forced" and needs to be "rethought", without elaborating or expressing any other care for whether I'm lynched. It comes off as scum wanting towncred in case of Deimos mislynch but not actually wanting to prevent a Deimos mislynch. His tr of me in 309 combined with his unwillingness to respond to my 334 gives me a similar sense of lacking paranoia about my alignment.

I have two other concerns as well.
Firstly,
I read his tone shift from initial indifference to sudden frustration/defensiveness in 215 as rather faux, unless he has some explanation to offer as to why he's suddenly getting frustrated when that's not his predisposition earlier on (e.g. against Norwegian's vote in 155)
.
Secondly, I think his confidence in calling Crayons town is inconsistent with his prior beliefs that early reads are all pretense and uncertain, especially since his read of Crayons can basically be summarized as a toneread (he has an "aura", 326). Which leads me to think that read is also probably fabricated.

Yes, there's a possible world where this is town!Cycle Men who somehow felt so pressured that they ended up inadvertently faking their reads. There is a world where this is town!Cycle Men who has zero trust in my scumplay. There is a world where this is town!Cycle Men and some issues irl meant that they were in more capricious a mood than usual and got frustrated.


But I think each of those cases are less likely than their respective denials.
Finally got around to reviewing this.

Bolded seems like AKing.

VOTE: Deimos
"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 #3637 (isolation #470) » Tue May 26, 2020 6:03 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Huzzah.
"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 #3642 (isolation #471) » Tue May 26, 2020 6:55 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3641, Isis wrote:If I can garcia, AKing is "Answer Keying" and it means knowing the correct answer due to being mafia and working backwards.
"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 #3643 (isolation #472) » Tue May 26, 2020 6:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: FB
"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 #3651 (isolation #473) » Tue May 26, 2020 7:10 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Alas.
"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 #3653 (isolation #474) » Tue May 26, 2020 7:12 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I'll do some work on this tonight or so.
"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 #3667 (isolation #475) » Tue May 26, 2020 8:23 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3658, Looker wrote:Are you just tired of playing?
No. I was feeling good and was hoping you were town and FB was 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 #3669 (isolation #476) » Tue May 26, 2020 8:25 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Tbqh it’s looking like Looker then Isis is my lynch order.

Looker if you want to explain why it’s Isis and not you please lmk.

I’m still going to do real work tonight.
"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 #3672 (isolation #477) » Tue May 26, 2020 8:27 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3654, Isis wrote:Elements-HEM, but I want to give thought to whether GC to move in amongst them.
Kinda weird for this, now.
"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 #3674 (isolation #478) » Tue May 26, 2020 8:29 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Because Elements and HME are my most solid town reads.
"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 #3677 (isolation #479) » Tue May 26, 2020 8:32 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Well that’s an unfortunate order.
"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 #3680 (isolation #480) » Tue May 26, 2020 8:38 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Oh right town never get scared and go wonky because they hit 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 #3681 (isolation #481) » Tue May 26, 2020 8:39 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Also I would like to actually get it right. Seeing what Looker has to say would help.
"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 #3684 (isolation #482) » Tue May 26, 2020 8:40 am

Post by Green Crayons »

You’re allowed to be wrong as town. Dust yourself off.
"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 #3686 (isolation #483) » Tue May 26, 2020 10:47 am

Post by Green Crayons »

The journey is just as important as the destination.

How do you feel about Elements?
"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 #3716 (isolation #484) » Wed May 27, 2020 1:21 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Soooooo.

One thing that I take comfort in is, is that I can trust everyone’s town read. It’s either a legit town’s town read or it’s a stupid scum legit town read.

My problem is that I’m town reading everyone. Just in varying degrees.



HME has been super volatile. Like. He would be comically gutsy scum in this game. The amount of “lynch me if I’m wrong” and other for sure ness. I just don’t see it as scum.

Elements seems like he’s a fuck it and these people who discount me town. Plus there’s the D1 VC. I mean, I’m starting to get paranoid that he’s scum who saw me go all in on Elements-town and has been like “fuck, let me dig my claws into THIS sucker” but that’s also a little bit FB seeping into my reads.

Isis reads true but I keep getting super paranoid vibes that this is precisely how an Isis-scum would play. I feel like her play has been really well choreographed movements of a town player: the initial fake gambit; the takedowns of various cases; the late game despondency; and now a renewed sense of purpose. The problem is that I was more suspicious of her in her “oh no this game is hard” phase and am digging what she’s producing before and after that.

Looker just feels right. I don’t know what a player like looker would look like as scum, tbh, and that’s making me wonder if that means I just don’t see the scum. Like, I ~*~know~*~ that his style of play is lynch bait, but I still am feeling like I need to clear it off the table just so we can check that box to make sure scum isn’t 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 #3717 (isolation #485) » Wed May 27, 2020 1:22 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Thoughts in lieu of rereading. I tried revisiting some VCA and wasn’t having much success.
"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 #3718 (isolation #486) » Wed May 27, 2020 1:22 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I think my all in is HME as 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 #3719 (isolation #487) » Wed May 27, 2020 1:30 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Also HME’s “teach me to be town” schtick is the biggest BS if he’s scum.

It’s scum taking victory laps. Like. I’d hate HME forever for being that spicy.

For real hate. HME. I’m being serious. You better not be 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 #3748 (isolation #488) » Fri May 29, 2020 5:35 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I'm a bit unsettled by the significant whiplash in Elements, Isis, and Looker in the past two 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 #3749 (isolation #489) » Fri May 29, 2020 5:35 am

Post by Green Crayons »

That's my contribution for the day. A quiet unease.
"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 #3750 (isolation #490) » Fri May 29, 2020 5:36 am

Post by Green Crayons »

(I'm basically taking a semi break to reset my feelings and thoughts, so I'm not up to my eyeballs in town reads.)
"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 #3766 (isolation #491) » Sun May 31, 2020 2:55 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3752, Looker wrote:
In post 3749, Green Crayons wrote:That's my contribution for the day. A quiet unease.
People are rioting in my neighborhood.
Yeah man they’ve been rioting a few blocks from me.
"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 #3767 (isolation #492) » Sun May 31, 2020 2:56 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I might get to this game tomorrow. Just not really in a headspace for it.

I’d lynch HME last. Elements second to last. Isis is probably scum because this is so hard.
"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 #3802 (isolation #493) » Tue Jun 02, 2020 10:23 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Okay I promise to actually play this game tomorrow.
"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 #3803 (isolation #494) » Tue Jun 02, 2020 10:23 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In the meanwhile,
In post 3799, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Happy birthday GC!
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 #3822 (isolation #495) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:03 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Well maybe I don't want to lynch Isis.

I'm really quite bad at closing games out.
"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 #3823 (isolation #496) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:04 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

If I trust past-GC, I want Looker --> Isis --> Elements --> HEM.
"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 #3824 (isolation #497) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:05 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3810, Isis wrote:In his iso he seems to give reasoning when he voted townies and just vote when he voted scum. I think it looks like level zero poor associative play even if his independent play looks pretty townish this game.
This sounds like what FB was saying.
"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 #3825 (isolation #498) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:06 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3810, Isis wrote:I don't think he voted me here as town when looker is so easy to lynch and I've "pocketed" him. It seems like he needed game acceleration badly enough that he'll break character because he was utr for a moment in his life.
I don't get this.
"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 #3826 (isolation #499) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:11 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 895, Cycle Men wrote:
In post 874, Cycle Men wrote:
humaneatingmonkey wrote:whos scum in your wagon?
elements and norwee probably
oh that's right.

was cycle super spicy?
"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 #3827 (isolation #500) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:12 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Spoiler: elements pushes FB counterwagon vs cycle
In post 852, northsidegal wrote:
Votecount 1.24


TargetWagon
Cycle Men
(5)
NorwegianboyEE (), Deimos27 (), Isis (), Elements (), Green Crayons ()
Firebringer
(3)
Cycle Men (), votato (), Albert B. Rampage ()
NorwegianboyEE
(2)
Looker (), Alisae ()
Elements
(1)
humaneatingmonkey ()
votato
(1)
Firebringer ()
Not Voting
(0)

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch. The Day 1 deadline is in (expired on 2020-05-08 06:42:59).
In post 853, Alisae wrote:VOTE: fire
for now mostly to try to make EoD more interesting
In post 854, Elements wrote:VOTE: fire
now we got twoooo wagons

scum points.
"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 #3828 (isolation #501) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:15 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3826, Green Crayons wrote:was cycle super spicy?
I think maybe he was. If Isis isn't scum, he was calling out his team by challenging HEM:
In post 913, Cycle Men wrote:
In post 907, humaneatingmonkey wrote:NorwEE, GC, Elements, Looker

But I want you out of the game after the last page. You prove that you're impossible to sort, and I think you're better flipped than alive.
so you're saying half my scumteam was already on my wagon before your troupe turned back on me
"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 #3829 (isolation #502) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:28 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I'm sorry but page 40.

Elements jumps off his stale FB vote, votes Norwegian (puts wagon at 3 when leading cycle-wagon is at 5); when wagon loses a vote he votes HEM saying it's HEM-or-Cycle (putting HEM-wagon at 3); and then a few posts later says nevermind it's not HEM its cycle and votes cycle (putting cycle-wagon at 6).

That doesn't look like scum play.

As Ali observed:
In post 1001, Alisae wrote:also we have elements literally lolcatting atm with his vote and Isis from memory defended that but im not sure thats correct
"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 #3830 (isolation #503) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:36 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 895, Cycle Men wrote:
In post 874, Cycle Men wrote:
humaneatingmonkey wrote:whos scum in your wagon?
elements and norwee probably
In post 1134, Cycle Men wrote:im cool voting human, elements, fire, or possibly isis this day
Dropped the known scum Norwegian. Maybe he wasn't as spicy as he wanted to be as the day was ending.

If he wanted to bus, Norwegian wouldn't have been a bad option:
In post 1125, northsidegal wrote:
Votecount 1.35


TargetWagon
Cycle Men
(4)
Deimos27 (), humaneatingmonkey (), Isis (), Elements ()
Elements
(3)
Cycle Men (), Alisae (), NorwegianboyEE ()
Firebringer
(2)
votato (), Albert B. Rampage ()
NorwegianboyEE
(2)
Looker (), Green Crayons ()
votato
(1)
Firebringer ()
Not Voting
(0)

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch. The Day 1 deadline is in (expired on 2020-05-08 06:42:59).
So if he got scared about naming names, doesn't look good for Looker.
"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 #3831 (isolation #504) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:40 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1182, Cycle Men wrote:
Elements wrote:remind me who you're claiming the scum team are cycle
you, human, firebringer, a mystery wildcard
Dropped Norwegian completely.

Finished D1. Feeling good about Elements again.
"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 #3832 (isolation #505) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:44 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

One thing I want to say about the D1 final VC:
In post 1275, northsidegal wrote:
Votecount 1.41


TargetWagon
Cycle Men
(6)
Deimos27 (), humaneatingmonkey (), Isis (), Firebringer (), Green Crayons (), Elements ()
Elements
(5)
Cycle Men (), Alisae (), NorwegianboyEE (), votato (), Albert B. Rampage ()
NorwegianboyEE
(1)
Looker ()
Not Voting
(0)

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch. The Day 1 deadline is in (expired on 2020-05-08 06:42:59).
Looker looks bad. Not because he isn't on the cycle wagon. But because vote is from a 400s post on a scum.

Why? Because:
In post 456, Looker wrote:
In post 273, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Wait... so i’m the mafia?
Okay. VOTE: NorwegianboyEE
Looks like an early vote on a buddy, and then just sort of left it there as the thread zoomed on and he had trouble wading through the gallons of posts. Never felt comfortable to move the vote because didn't have a good enough grasp to find a plausibly good vote against a 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 #3834 (isolation #506) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:46 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1301, northsidegal wrote:
Votecount 1.Final


TargetWagon
Cycle Men
(7)
Deimos27 (), humaneatingmonkey (), Isis (), Firebringer (), Green Crayons (), Elements (), Alisae ()
Elements
(4)
Cycle Men (), NorwegianboyEE (), votato (), Albert B. Rampage ()
NorwegianboyEE
(1)
Looker ()
Not Voting
(0)

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.


Cycle Men was lynched. He was a
Mafia Goon
.
Sorry, this is the final.
"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 #3836 (isolation #507) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:47 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Nah I want to lynch Looker atm. brb let me read D2.
"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 #3838 (isolation #508) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:50 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: Isis

Don't be such a baby.
"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 #3840 (isolation #509) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:52 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I hope we win because D2 is b o r i n g.
"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 #3842 (isolation #510) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:57 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Yeah I've decided I'm not super keen about nightless. It's harder when you don't have NK analysis to go off of.
"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 #3843 (isolation #511) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:58 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1434, Albert B. Rampage wrote:Remember that after day 1 scum lynch, majority of towns will mislynch next day and go on to lose the game.
ABR was a jerk this game, btw.

Boo, ABR. Boo.
"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 #3848 (isolation #512) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:06 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

:)

You did a good job, though.
"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 #3851 (isolation #513) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:07 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Hey did I really see the scum slips outing their daytalk 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 #3856 (isolation #514) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:09 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1445, Green Crayons wrote:Like, the thing that I keep coming back to is that

Cycle first said that Ali/Human/Isis were a scum team switching from Cycle to Norwegian

ONE MINUTE LATER Norwegian in the very next post says that Ali/Human/Isis were a scum team, but doesn’t reference Cycle’s theory

Cycle later seemed to make it look like Norwegian’s idea
In post 1446, Green Crayons wrote:I know it’s tin foil hat but it looks like a scum thread strategy accidentally revealed.
Did y'all decide in daychat to say that Ali/Human/Isis were looking like a scum team?
"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 #3858 (isolation #515) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:10 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Don't be mean, isis.

:(
"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 #3863 (isolation #516) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:12 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Ugh.

Looker, elements, HME, yeah Isis?
"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 #3867 (isolation #517) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:14 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Well now back to D3.
"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 #3870 (isolation #518) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:20 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1594, NorwegianboyEE wrote:
In post 1301, northsidegal wrote:Cycle Men (7) Deimos27 (588), humaneatingmonkey (902), Isis (904), Firebringer (1234), Green Crayons (1240), Elements (1245), Alisae (1289)
Elements (4) Cycle Men (1002), NorwegianboyEE (1101), votato (1187), Albert B. Rampage (1251)
NorwegianboyEE (1) Looker (456)
This is a surprisingly polarized vote count. And ABR flipping town makes me wonder if 2 if not all of the scum were voting Cycle Men as a planned buss. Looker could be scum as well though. Idk how i feel about him sitting out the major wagons. Theoretically this could mean something completely different if Elements was scum too. But i'm not really going to consider that too much atm.
Norwegian wanted to look at the cycle-wagon. Acknowledged but didn't want to pursue Looker or Elements being scum. And we know nobody else on his Elements wagon was scum.

Scum points for Looker & Elements.
"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 #3871 (isolation #519) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:23 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1601, NorwegianboyEE wrote:
In post 1599, Alisae wrote:So why did I not want to bus him earlier in the game?
I think the late joiners on the wagon are more likely to be scum bussing. That includes you. You were defending him at first, before switching to voting him with a slightly awkward hammer when he was L-1. That's not a good enough reason to suspect you? You seem to be shading the people voting you more than you are actually trying to solve atm.
So who is he trying to aim at?
In post 3834, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1301, northsidegal wrote:
Votecount 1.Final


TargetWagon
Cycle Men
(7)
Deimos27 (), humaneatingmonkey (), Isis (), Firebringer (), Green Crayons (), Elements (), Alisae ()
Elements
(4)
Cycle Men (), NorwegianboyEE (), votato (), Albert B. Rampage ()
NorwegianboyEE
(1)
Looker ()
Not Voting
(0)

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.


Cycle Men was lynched. He was a
Mafia Goon
.
Sorry, this is the final.
FB, GC, Elements, Ali

We definitely know 2 of those are town, and I'm town. Looks good for Elements.
"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 #3872 (isolation #520) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:32 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Spoiler: oh damn, Ali
In post 1691, Alisae wrote:
In post 879, humaneatingmonkey wrote:VOTE: NorwEE

Let's go.
In post 883, Isis wrote:you guys are lame
VOTE: Norwee
This is where it all starts.
In post 897, Cycle Men wrote:VOTE: humaneatingmonkey
im keeping this here for the day
Cycle Men votes Monkey and in return, Monkey OMGUS' Cycle Men.
In post 902, humaneatingmonkey wrote:VOTE: Cycle Men

Okay bro
In post 904, Isis wrote:VOTE: Cycle Men
In post 943, Alisae wrote:Like when you post and come with theories maybe turn on your brain a little bit, yeah?

pedit: My arguement against it is that it is stupid, not realistic, and excessive, and I am questioning if you are either scum or just bad.
and honestly
this makes me lean towards bad the more I think about it because this whole fucking take on me is just stupid unless you genuinely believe it.
Then I have a huge interaction with Clemency at the end of it, I come to a townread on Cycle Men.
I'm not quoting the whole interaction because it doesn't matter. What is relevant is that after an interaction, I am townreading Cycle Men and during this time, I am still trying to push Norwee

In post 947, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Alisae, why is Mr. Inorganic and Mr. Sheeps-a-lot town?
I'm still trying to push Norwee and monkey is not at all interested in it. He wants to bus Cycle Men as seen in his next post.
In post 961, humaneatingmonkey wrote:I want to be clear. I'm not finding Looker, GC, Elements, and NorwEE as hard to sort. I am sorting them as likely scum. But I can be very wrong, and I think a flipped Cycle Men will help me be more right.

The only reason I didn't have Cycle Men as my primary lynch option earlier was the lack of counterwagon during that period. However, I can see merit in Deimos' push against him. But now I see that the paranoia around it is outweighed by the uncertainty Cycle Men will bring me later in the game.

So Cycle Men it is.
In post 977, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Yes, Alisae, I can be on the NorwEE wagon. But I also want this Cycle Men wagon to happen.
Now, I feel like Monkey made the decision to bus Cycle Men over Norwee because its just easier to bus the weaker player on your team.

However after this post, I tell him to vote Norwee here
In post 982, Alisae wrote:
In post 977, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Yes, Alisae, I can be on the NorwEE wagon. But I also want this Cycle Men wagon to happen.
vote
norwee
and at these next posts, he flat out just doesn't care about my Norwee scumread or acknowledge this post.
In post 985, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Okay I can buy that thank you for that
In post 987, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Although isn't sheeping exactly like voting based on trusting that the person you're following is town?
In post 1002, Cycle Men wrote:
In post 994, Alisae wrote:you know what
i hate you norwee (not actually just ur making this frustrating lmao)
i am going to admit
that i probably do not know how you play this game at all
i don't think i agree with it but this is giving me flashbacks to the normal where I had issues reading you and you reacted similarly
and now there is this seed of doubt that was planted

I think its Isis if ur town
VOTE: Isis
In post 997, Elements wrote:if you do that it's just going to be an inevitable cycle men lynch. Everyone wants a lynch and cycle men has the most so the people on it are most likely just gonna leave their votes there adn wait for everyone to panic move onto him.
I'm happy for a cycle or human lynch but i'd prefer the latter
VOTE: human
In post 999, Elements wrote:scrap that, human is pretty locktown for me now
VOTE: cycle
?????? how does this happen in a human brain
VOTE: elements
This is where Cycle Men decides he wants to push Elements and because I was scumreading Elements for his vote movements, I join him here
In post 1012, Alisae wrote:unless we gonna flashwagon Elements
Im down for that
In post 1036, humaneatingmonkey wrote:I'm evaluating whether or not Elements is town for the solve that no one has really took me up on the wagon I made around him, or scumread him because by his own admission he's been lynchable and yet no one other than me has really pushed him.
In post 1040, humaneatingmonkey wrote:okay i like Elements now
Now look what's happening.
I am pushing a cw on town!Elements while scum!Cycle is still being wagoned.
The best play that monkey could make here is to continue to push Cycle.
This is the best play for monkey because its at this point that the Cycle Men flip makes me look bad since we're both trying to mislynch town!Elements together. If he continues to push Cycle Men here, he can use the cred he got from the Cycle Men lynch as well as the fact that the Cycle Men flip makes me look terrible to try to lynch me after he lynches Cycle Men.
Lynching town!Elements here doesn't yield the same result. It doesn't boost his chances of winning aside from the fact that they need 1 less mislynch.
Lynching Cycle Men over town!Elements here boosts his chance to win the game because now he can use that flip to try to discredit me and lynch me.

In post 1052, humaneatingmonkey wrote:
In post 1043, Alisae wrote:there is no town motivations in your actions.
town does not play this way.
this isn't really true
So now you have him defending Elements and getting me to lynch Cycle Men in these next posts.
In post 1088, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Ali, why is Cycle Men town? You missed my question.
In post 1118, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Cycle Men > NorwEE

Let's just get the flips, man.
This post was made after monkey interact with Cycle Men where he still maintains a scumread on Cycle Men.
When scum make the decision to bus, they will not get off track and they will not hop off. They want the bus to go through and they will do everything in their power to make it go through.
The rest of these posts are just him trying to push Cycle Men through
In post 1142, humaneatingmonkey wrote:no i recognize what you've done and i truly thank you for that. unfortunately i'm reading you as scum
In post 1167, humaneatingmonkey wrote:nah. i don't buy that. i think town!you would recognize that it's very easy to scum to hammer you there and get away with it.

i think the more reasonable explanation is you're not worried about scum, because you're scum.
In post 1190, humaneatingmonkey wrote:what do you think about my vote on cycle men? why do you like the elements wagon better than cycle men?
In post 1223, humaneatingmonkey wrote:Don't you guys find it weird that like days ago, the L-1 wagon who no one hammered, is now very hard to push in deadline? Clemency is scum. Flip this slot.

Okay so whats the takeaway.

The takeaway is
- Elements is likely town based on Cycle Men pushing them and if Monkey flips scum, Monkey defending them. Its just the best position to take here.
- Monkey made the conscious decision to bus Cycle Men and is just doing the best they can to push the bus through. from 902 till lynch, he never gives another lynch the consideration or the light of day.
- Also, he made the decision to bus Cycle Men because he did not want to vote Norwee for whatever reason. Like, after 902, he doesn't even consider the lynch.


Now the rest of this post is going to be dedicated to Norwee scum and mostly talking about my interactions with him today.
In post 1591, Alisae wrote:
In post 1588, humaneatingmonkey wrote:anyone out there think alisae will flip town?
In post 1589, NorwegianboyEE wrote:
In post 1585, Alisae wrote:Norwee why are you voting me
Because scum was bussing Cycle Men and you look suspicious.
Why do I look suspicious


In post 1590, NorwegianboyEE wrote:
In post 965, Alisae wrote:okay but Cycle Men is town so just lynch Norwee with me, yeah?
I mean, this is the kind of shit all over your ISO. And then you switch over to Cycle Men when he's close to getting lynch and hammer for the towncred.
I did not lynch and hammer for towncred.
I lynched and hammered because in mafia games, there is a deadline, and using a no lynch on day 1 is not optimal.

If you are associating me with Cycle Men, why are you only reading my ISO by itself.
Why are you not taking into consideration Cycle Men’s posts?
In this post, I want Norwee to elaborate on his read on me because he's not really explaining himself and just saying general statements to just hide behind.
I also notice that he is only making comments about my ISO, and he is using associations to scumread me here.
The issue with that is, he is only considering half of the story. When you look at associations, you also have to consider the person who flipped scum as well.
And Norwee isn't doing that.
In post 1598, NorwegianboyEE wrote:Also consider that Cycle Men was mostly afk and doing fuckall at the beginning. So it was a obvious teammate to buss since he really didn't up his game until he was put into L-1.
In post 1599, Alisae wrote:So why did I not want to bus him earlier in the game?
Norwee is talking about how he was doing fuckall nothing but before I came around to townreading him, I hardly even talk about him. And I'm certainly not pushing Cycle Men and saying "CYCLE MEN IS DOING FUCK ALL NOTHING HE NEEDS TO DIE" and this is what Norwee is trying to describe me doing.
So I ask him to talk about why I didn't bus him earlier in the game to see what he would come up with.
If he's town here, he would look at my ISO and realize that what he's saying doesn't make sense.
Instead he writes 1601 and I respond to it.
In post 1603, Alisae wrote:
In post 1601, NorwegianboyEE wrote:
In post 1599, Alisae wrote:So why did I not want to bus him earlier in the game?
I think the late joiners on the wagon are more likely to be scum bussing. That includes you. You were defending him at first, before switching to voting him with a slightly awkward hammer when he was L-1. That's not a good enough reason to suspect you? You seem to be shading the people voting you more than you are actually trying to solve atm.
It’s not a good enough reason Norwee, and let me tell you why.
When I started to townread him was when he started playing the game.
You are taking this moment and this particular moment only and trying to suggest that I was defending my scumbuddy and decided to take an awkward hammer when he was at L-1.

Thats not a good enough reason because you are only evaluating that particular moment and nothing else.
You are not evaluating my read on him before he wanted to play the game, only after.
Also you are not taking into consideration that if scum decides “Hey, I wasn’t doing much earlier, but now I am invested into the game and actually want to play it,” that since they’re starting to play the game and take it seriously, that they CAN trick town into townreading them.
In the post I'm responding to, he basically doubles down on his theory and says that "WELL, THE LATE JOINERS ARE LIKELY TO BE BUSSING AND THAT MEANS YOU" and just doubling down on the fact I defended him and even tries to make the hammer just sound bad, completely leaving out the circumstances around the hammer (It was end of day and its better to lynch Day 1 then not lynch).

In this point, I am basically trying to describe how unnatural this take actually is.
He is also not taking into consideration that it is possible for me to just be wrong on Cycle Men.
In post 1606, Alisae wrote:
In post 1604, NorwegianboyEE wrote:You townread him when he was at the scummiest, and scumread him when he was at the towniest. That's not a natural progression Alisae.
When did I scumread him?
In post 1607, Alisae wrote:Quote the posts Norwee
in 1606 he says at some point I scumread Cycle Men after I townread him.
I tell him to quote the posts in which I actually scumread him because the truth is
I don't even scumread him
and he can't
instead he just doubles down on the read
In post 1613, NorwegianboyEE wrote:
In post 1606, Alisae wrote:
In post 1604, NorwegianboyEE wrote:You townread him when he was at the scummiest, and scumread him when he was at the towniest. That's not a natural progression Alisae.
When did I scumread him?
In post 1607, Alisae wrote:Quote the posts Norwee
Alright, call it fence-sitting. Call it whatever, you went from TR on Clemency, to changing your stance a lot, to deciding to TR him again and saying "he will probably flip town" after the hammer. Which is a typical scum way of appearing ignorant of the flips.
At this point, I have asked him so many questions that are aiming to try to show Norwee that his take on the events that happened in the game are just flat out wrong and I keep on asking him questions that challenge his views, but instead of re-evaluating and realizing that maybe he's fucking wrong, he comes to this conclusion.
He doesn't want to re-consider his point here because he as scum, sees me as lynchable and wants to keep on pushing it. He just changing his stance to suit his narative. The read itself is unnatural and Norwee is likely just scum trying to push someone he views as lynchable.
"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 #3874 (isolation #521) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:36 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1703, Alisae wrote:Looker is a very easy read
when I was scum with him he didn't even make any real attempts to solve or play the game and when we were town together he correctly identified scum!noms in a way that was confident and he believed in himself and was actively trying to poke other slots and try to find the motivations of others.
I see the exact samething I did in that game in here.
I'm sorry but this suggests a Looker-scum to me.
"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 #3875 (isolation #522) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:38 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1719, Firebringer wrote:I could go for norwee, but im not lynching HEM.

my all star end game group is still:
u/hem/gc/isis
gotta pour two out for our homies.
"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 #3876 (isolation #523) » Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:42 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Spoiler: looker shifts momentum away from Norwegian-cw by voting Ali for bad/no reasons
In post 1732, Looker wrote:
In post 1727, Looker wrote:
In post 1451, Alisae wrote:like looking at VCs a bit more, it does seem like ABR just didn’t want to bus Cycle Men.
In your opinion, how AI is a hammer?
In post 1629, Alisae wrote:What I am trying to get across is that Looker knows how I play as scum and should be able to identify the difference between that game and this game.
I know how you play with a single, shitty scum partner (hurling thinly-veiled insults at me in thread :lol: ), and with no daytalk.
In post 1642, Alisae wrote:no you're not
I want you to actually explain why that is scummy
Game aside, some players are
extremely
frustrating
In post 1703, Alisae wrote:Looker is a very easy read
when I was scum with him he didn't even make any real attempts to solve or play the game and when we were town together he correctly identified scum!noms in a way that was confident and he believed in himself and was actively trying to poke other slots and try to find the motivations of others.
I see the exact samething I did in that game in here.
I'm very susceptible to ego strokes.

  • It's nearly impossible to keep up with all this

  • @Green Crayons: I like the way you think. My signature's that way for a reason. You're validating my suspicions of Amrun, skitter30, nomnomnom, and so many other players that V/LA or get "angry" conveniently. You're definitely not alone on that one.
  • @Firebringer: Are you taking into account individual players' post counts as either alignment?
EBWOP: VOTE: Alisae
In post 1750, northsidegal wrote:
Votecount 3.6


TargetWagon
Alisae
(4)
humaneatingmonkey (), votato (), NorwegianboyEE (), Looker ()
NorwegianboyEE
(3)
Elements (), Alisae (), Firebringer ()
Not Voting
(3)
Deimos27, Green Crayons, Isis

With 10 alive, it takes 6 to lynch. The Day 3 deadline is in (expired on 2020-05-15 23:33:59).

Looker scum points.
"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 #3888 (isolation #524) » Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:22 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Why would I vote HEM.
"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 #3889 (isolation #525) » Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:22 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Elements.
"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 #3890 (isolation #526) » Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:23 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: looker
"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 #3891 (isolation #527) » Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:25 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 3887, Looker wrote:What changed
Y’all were interchangeable in my vote order.
"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 #3892 (isolation #528) » Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:26 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

How about this.

HME. If I were to vote you, and you’re town, who should I vote between Looker and Elements?
"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 #3896 (isolation #529) » Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:57 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Yeah I don’t want to lynch you. Vote looker.
"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 #3898 (isolation #530) » Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:59 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Word. Elements HMU. Why is looker town? Why is HME 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 #3934 (isolation #531) » Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:10 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Hurrah.

Nice work everyone!

In post 3923, Isis wrote:This game was modded well
x2
"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 #3952 (isolation #532) » Sun Jun 07, 2020 9:38 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Life lessons this game:

- I couldn’t read Deimos and thank you FB for sticking to it.

- FB felt weird once Norwegian was lynched and I thought he was trying for a long term gambit, hence my hope for a quick win. Whoops.

- I couldn’t read Elements so the only reason why I was super convinced he was town was scum D1 treatment, which underscores my pet theory that D1 is the single most important day in the game

- hat tip to Norwegian for suckering me into the votato lynch. Also hat tip to four(?) ppl scumreading him yet surviving for several days.

- I think I ultimately dislike nightless setup. I think it’s unfair to scum, as day talk is no substitute for a NK. Plus the threat of a NK adds layers to gameplay not only in NK analysis, but also in how town will act (to attract or detract NK attention).

- I don’t understand Isis’s initial gambit, so am curious what the thinking was behind that.

- HEM, please never ever pull a “if I’m wrong you can totally lynch me guys” tactic again. That phrasing/tactic didn’t originate with you but you don’t need to propagate it. It’s frustrating to have to waffle on whether it’s town bluster or scum trying to mask their mislyches.

- ABR why were you no fun 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).

Return to “Completed Open Games”