Mini Normal 2148 (Post Game)


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 #1284 (isolation #200) » Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:59 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1282, Not_Mafia wrote:Scratchings and Maris are the only valid votes for the rest of today
Dunn's no longer on the table for 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 #1288 (isolation #201) » Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:41 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1177, notscience wrote:Farside I’m prettty sure she was right that I used to do it all the time and I actually want to try to work with her this game as evidenced in my iso so I didn’t wanna be brainlessly tunneling all game so I took a step back
What do you think of farside's case on mala?
Spoiler: farside's mala thoughts
In post 1160, farside22 wrote:
In post 1159, farside22 wrote:
Spoiler:
In post 90, Malakittens wrote:
In post 65, notscience wrote:I’m not voting you yet mala but I’m worried my fears are true :(
No, I’m town I’m just having a rocky start.
In post 107, Malakittens wrote:It will prob remain on me until he gets a solid scum read that he death tunnels

<3 ya
In post 161, Malakittens wrote:What the fuck is my reaction to the current battle Mages posts.

@Notty:

Right now scum wise I’m kinda getting some pings, but nothing solid as of yet. {Vot, Dunn, BM}
I have more town pings than scum pings. {HK, bob}
In post 641, Malakittens wrote:I hate to say it but I’m still ok with a Dunn lynch. As much as I didn’t like BM’s posts.. the SG flop is going to be a turn off right now in terms of voting there until I sort that out. Gera is off the table for today, but note I’m not sold on him being scum
Or town. He’s really null for me; the same with NM.
In post 691, Malakittens wrote:VOTE: clidd

Be willing to vote for Dunn.
In post 780, Malakittens wrote:I had a rough day, there’s no way I’m posting until Wed. :|

Mod: I’m VLA til Wed. Giving my vote as a proxy to nottyscience
In post 640, Malakittens wrote:Alright so my problem with SG is that he flipped so easily between BM and GC after he kept hounding that GC is scum because of similarities of tells between other players. Then stated that BM doesn’t feel like scum bc he wouldn’t sort out NM due to meta. Then just flops

It’s like an odd flop. That’s what bothered me is I’m like I read SG going after GC but why is he voting Bm?!?
So above is some quotes from Mala where she calls out notty, has a few town pings but never in any post did she call notty town, but gave her vote to him.
In a few post she says she town read both GC and BM back and forth but out of the blue and for no reason found she joined the BM wagon.
She's had very little follow through with her reads or reasoning on why she finds a player scum. That' s why I call it surface level scum hunting.
this was in my spoiler text.

So above is some quotes from Mala where she calls out notty, has a few town pings but never in any post did she call notty town, but gave her vote to him.
In a few post she says she town read both GC and BM back and forth but out of the blue and for no reason found she joined the BM wagon.
She's had very little follow through with her reads or reasoning on why she finds a player scum. That' s why I call it surface level scum hunting
"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 #1289 (isolation #202) » Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:41 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

apparently you can't double the spoiler.

so here's farside's post without my additional spoilers:
In post 1160, farside22 wrote:
In post 1159, farside22 wrote:
Spoiler:
In post 90, Malakittens wrote:
In post 65, notscience wrote:I’m not voting you yet mala but I’m worried my fears are true :(
No, I’m town I’m just having a rocky start.
In post 107, Malakittens wrote:It will prob remain on me until he gets a solid scum read that he death tunnels

<3 ya
In post 161, Malakittens wrote:What the fuck is my reaction to the current battle Mages posts.

@Notty:

Right now scum wise I’m kinda getting some pings, but nothing solid as of yet. {Vot, Dunn, BM}
I have more town pings than scum pings. {HK, bob}
In post 641, Malakittens wrote:I hate to say it but I’m still ok with a Dunn lynch. As much as I didn’t like BM’s posts.. the SG flop is going to be a turn off right now in terms of voting there until I sort that out. Gera is off the table for today, but note I’m not sold on him being scum
Or town. He’s really null for me; the same with NM.
In post 691, Malakittens wrote:VOTE: clidd

Be willing to vote for Dunn.
In post 780, Malakittens wrote:I had a rough day, there’s no way I’m posting until Wed. :|

Mod: I’m VLA til Wed. Giving my vote as a proxy to nottyscience
In post 640, Malakittens wrote:Alright so my problem with SG is that he flipped so easily between BM and GC after he kept hounding that GC is scum because of similarities of tells between other players. Then stated that BM doesn’t feel like scum bc he wouldn’t sort out NM due to meta. Then just flops

It’s like an odd flop. That’s what bothered me is I’m like I read SG going after GC but why is he voting Bm?!?
So above is some quotes from Mala where she calls out notty, has a few town pings but never in any post did she call notty town, but gave her vote to him.
In a few post she says she town read both GC and BM back and forth but out of the blue and for no reason found she joined the BM wagon.
She's had very little follow through with her reads or reasoning on why she finds a player scum. That' s why I call it surface level scum hunting.
this was in my spoiler text.

So above is some quotes from Mala where she calls out notty, has a few town pings but never in any post did she call notty town, but gave her vote to him.
In a few post she says she town read both GC and BM back and forth but out of the blue and for no reason found she joined the BM wagon.
She's had very little follow through with her reads or reasoning on why she finds a player scum. That' s why I call it surface level scum hunting
"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 #1292 (isolation #203) » Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:54 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Okay, that was a reread (where I skipped ~15 pages in the 20s/30s).


I just want to see Porkens' answers to my Qs, and then I'll vote someone.
"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 #1339 (isolation #204) » Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:26 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1320, Porkens wrote:Finally home from work and post office.

Thank you for the extra time all. In response to this:
In post 1254, Green Crayons wrote:<snip...>

Did you actually say why Dunn is worth your vote here? I don’t think so.


Also tell me more about these “clear associatives” that would come with a Dunn flip.

Dunn’s got a
very
good chance of flipping scum, and everyone has shared reads of him one way or the other, including a small group of defenders. That will tell us a lot.

I have a solid townread on HK and Dunn’s vote there is a safe non-starter, which I think he knows. His vote’s there, but he isn’t doing anything to make it happen, I’m guessing because he doesn’t really want to present an alternative to my mislynch, which seemed pretty certain after clidd ghosted.

Dunn’s commentary in also rubs me the wrong way. He’s casting shade on GC (and tato) without actually challenging him. (I also TR GC. I can understand the scum read on BM, and even though it's wrong I read GC as scum hunting and the votes there really don't make much sense to me.)

Finally, he’s been active lurking and trolling all day.

-----

I'd be ok lynching votato, but it really won't tell us as much as Dunn.
Okay. I think you're scum.

I commend the pivot to hard reading me as town. I instinctively don't want to lynch someone who does that.

But I don't think this Dunn suspicion is natural. Dunn was tied for the second bw (with me, who also had 2 votes), and I think you decided to try to push and focus on Dunn because he already had some votes and he hasn't nearly been a pain in the ass like I have. I say that because I don't think your suspicions are legitimate.

For starters, you didn't give suspicions originally for your Dunn vote.

And now it comes down:

- to pushing a non-starter wagon on HK--but it's no more of a nonstarter than farside trying to vote GC, as stun is happy with both a HK and GC vote but nobody else is
- picking one post (that conveniently defends me) with an okay theory, but would need some plenty more work to be a banner case
- uses buzzwords "active lurking and trolling," neither of which I think are accurate; he hasn't beetlejuiced and he isn't a troll player


I'm also not convinced that Dunn gives us great associative tells any more than other players who have been the thread's topic of conversation. You're pretty nonspecific on that point, which I admit is generally NAI, but I would think that if this was legitimate point you would have *some* specific examples in mind.

VOTE: Porkens
"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 #1354 (isolation #205) » Wed Jun 24, 2020 4:59 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1348, notscience wrote:
In post 1339, Green Crayons wrote:he hasn't beetlejuiced
Yes Dunn has I called him on it lol
I thought that was gerain you called out for that?
"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 #1399 (isolation #206) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:09 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1368, Porkens wrote:This is (was) farside’s town game and you are trying to compare her to Dunn. These pieces don’t go together.
I'm saying your suspicions of Dunn (voting HK as a vanity cw) are equally applicable to farside (voting GC as a vanity cw).

I'm not making the point to say you should read farside as scum.

I'm making the point because--as you read farside as town--it suggests your suspicion of Dunn on this basis manufactured rather than legitimate.
"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 #1400 (isolation #207) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:12 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1358, notscience wrote:
Spoiler:
In post 680, Malakittens wrote:
In post 661, bob3141 wrote:
In post 641, Malakittens wrote:I hate to say it but I’m still ok with a Dunn lynch. As much as I didn’t like BM’s posts.. the SG flop is going to be a turn off right now in terms of voting there until I sort that out. Gera is off the table for today, but note I’m not sold on him being scum
Or town. He’s really null for me; the same with NM.

My gut feeling is that dun is town. As i just can't see scum blatantly making blank votes on a player claiming to scum read him and the other going wagon. It feels too blatant for scum. Would have thought that if he is scum then he would have tried dressing it up, instead he simply posts a series of quotes and doesn't say why they lead him to scum reading not mafia.

Would scum real vote for someone when their last comment on that player was that he had in fact had no read on them. If he was scum i would have expected something along the lines of something between a few short sentences to several paragraphs.
I can totally see scum making blank votes. The fact he’s being cyrpitc and won’t explain his votes makes me think there’s no case to begin with and he’s hiding behind blank votes.
In post 681, Dunnstral wrote:My case is that his posts suck and he has no reason for his vote in the first place
In post 683, notscience wrote:Beetle juice
I stand corrected.
"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 #1403 (isolation #208) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:37 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1402, Porkens wrote:I understood your point but you missed mine. It’s about context. Farside was not a serious lynch possibility, and a vote on you aligns with a going theory. Dunn was, at that time, a candidate for lynch and there’s no steam (or good reason) to lynch HK.
I don't understand what you're saying.

You think farside is town. Why are you saying that she is "not a serious lynch possibility"?
"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 #1404 (isolation #209) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:38 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1402, Porkens wrote:WHY do you write about yourself in the third person?
When the conversation is about players interacting or moving about like pieces on the board, I sometimes think it's easier to keep track of who is doing what by just listing out names including my own.
"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 #1405 (isolation #210) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:40 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1403, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1402, Porkens wrote:I understood your point but you missed mine. It’s about context. Farside was not a serious lynch possibility, and a vote on you aligns with a going theory. Dunn was, at that time, a candidate for lynch and there’s no steam (or good reason) to lynch HK.
I don't understand what you're saying.

You think farside is town. Why are you saying that she is "not a serious lynch possibility"?
Oh I see, this isn't coming from your perspective about who is a good lynch candidate. You're speaking from the perspective of farside and Dunn.

How is going for a vanity bw AI depending on the pressure on that person pushing for the bw?
"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 #1406 (isolation #211) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:42 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Pork, what are your thoughts about Mala?
"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 #1417 (isolation #212) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:04 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1410, geraintm wrote:Yeah , I do think no lynch is better than a bad lynch. Odds for town tomorrow are better at 9/12 than 8/11
Wait.

What the actual hell?

Not only should you know better that no lynches are bad,

but also a no lynch
would specifically undermine your ability to be productive
, as you have said your bad/lazy in D1 because there is no flip to work off of.

If we no lynch, then there's no flip for D2. And you're going to be just as bad.
"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 #1418 (isolation #213) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:06 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I am shook rn.

I was reading gerain as townlean but that no lynch suggestion is scummy as hell
"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 #1420 (isolation #214) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:09 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 252, geraintm wrote:I have nothing at the moment. day 1 people talk but it doesn't mean anything. votes are the important thing and there just haven't been many so far. I'm very much the type of person who looks at people's voting patterns and trying to either spot inconsistencies or really, really bad logic used to justify them

when I say you all do you, it is just me saying I don't have the mental capacity to argue over perceived slights, misunderstandings or whatever
In post 271, geraintm wrote:DAy 1 means little at the time. on later days of the game there might be useful info.
you may well be able to catch scum teams on day 1, I am not that good a player to do that. as I said, you all do you but for me, Day 1 is just weird until some wagons form and I can see who is on them and who isn't.
In post 537, geraintm wrote:
In post 535, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 533, stungun0404 wrote:in the corresponding scum slot
Also, I cannot express enough how bad it is to try to fill up scum team slots in D1. Associative suspicions are practically worthless in D1 without flips.
I like this post
Okay looking back at your ISO, I see you never explicitly said that you needed flips to be productive.

But "needing wagons" + agreeing that pre-flip associative suspicion cases are bad = wanting a flip to start getting to work, in my mind.
"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 #1422 (isolation #215) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 4:12 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1419, Porkens wrote:Its the context that is AI. Dunn was parking his vote on a nogo wagon at a time when he was under scrutiny. That’s a “safe” vote, right?
I don't see how a scum under pressure is more inclined to vote someone that's not going to get traction (what's the benefit? people think it's *so* bland that it's town?), rather than voting for someone who will get traction (benefit being pressure shifting away).
"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 #1440 (isolation #216) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:08 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1435, geraintm wrote:
In post 1433, stungun0404 wrote:
In post 1410, geraintm wrote:
In post 1191, bob3141 wrote:
Germa we are at the eleventh hour of the day. With no lynch approaching and yet you are still on your vanity vote. You keep saying shogun is wrong but who do you think is the best lynch today. Because as it stands we are a poaching the deadline and porkens is the lead lynch. Followed by dun and green.

Do you see a no lynch as better than lynching Porkens?

As if you are town that what your lack of anything but vanity vote is contributing too.


As most of your posts have been about how you don't like shoguns pushes but you have not come up with any of your own. So who do you want to lynch today? That is a realistic prospect.
Yeah , I do think no lynch is better than a bad lynch. Odds for town tomorrow are better at 9/12 than 8/11
I think this together with your point of not claiming today is scummy. You are pretty high on my lynch list next day phase, and I hope others see what I am seeing here too. Both are anti-town perspectives.
It isnscummy to want more town to be alive on day 2?
How is that anti town?
With a 2006 registration date, you're telling me you've never had this theory discussion about D1 no lynches?
"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 #1458 (isolation #217) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:51 am

Post by Green Crayons »

What is the stalling theory?

The no claim theory was after Porkens claimed. That's NAI as he's just disagreeing on theory.
"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 #1459 (isolation #218) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:52 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1450, votato wrote:we dont have time to get a claim and properly evaluate gerain. ill compromise on the wagon if needed, but porkens is a good wagon.
I'm not going to flash bw gerain for this reason.
"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 #1464 (isolation #219) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:56 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1449, bob3141 wrote:In teh first game he kept saying. He was happy with any lynch. and that was big reason he got run up that game. So for him to say he wants no lynch is very out of character
What is this first game that you're referencing?

Did he say that in D1?
"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 #1467 (isolation #220) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1464, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1449, bob3141 wrote:In teh first game he kept saying. He was happy with any lynch. and that was big reason he got run up that game. So for him to say he wants no lynch is very out of character
What is this first game that you're referencing?

Did he say that in D1?
Also.

What.

"Gerain did X in another game as town. Doing X got him lynched."

"Gerain is not doing not-X. That means he's scum."

Wouldn't Gerain, regardless of alignment, not keep doing X that got him lynched 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 #1468 (isolation #221) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 5:58 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1467, Green Crayons wrote:"Gerain is
not
doing not-X. That means he's scum."
Fixed. I incorrectly put in a double negative.
"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 #1475 (isolation #222) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:08 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Okay by "run up" I thought you meant "strung up," as in lynched.

I still don't see how him changing his behavior to avoid doing something that got his a lot of votes as town is AI.

I mean, he's gone to the opposite extreme. So that's something worth considering. But I'm not keen on these last minute flash wagons.
"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 #1479 (isolation #223) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:13 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Because of the sudden excitement--again--at an anything-but-BM/Clidd/Porkens 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 #1483 (isolation #224) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:17 am

Post by Green Crayons »

my god you are painful
"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 #1485 (isolation #225) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:18 am

Post by Green Crayons »

his no lynch recommendation is AI. no lynch benefits scum, has no benefits to town.

his no more D1 claims isn't AI. scum and town alike can adopt that position.

his "stalling" position isn't AI. scum and town alike can adopt that position.

having ONE suspicious action, at the end of the day, isn't going to move my vote for a flashwagon.
"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 #1487 (isolation #226) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:22 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1485, Green Crayons wrote:his "stalling" position isn't AI. scum and town alike can adopt that position.
I view this differently from germain saying that he wanted wagons to analyze before voting, and then not really acting when there have been several actions--which, when you cut out the meta argument of bob's 1484, I think is what he's saying.

So that's TWO things I find suspicious.
"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 #1488 (isolation #227) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:23 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1486, stungun0404 wrote:It is antitown that his vote is still on NotScience and has not moved since RVS.
town are frequently paralyzed with trying to find a good vote to place

so can scum

NAI


still, that's different than not acting in the face of the game developing in a way that he said would trigger his ability to meaningfully scumhunt
"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 #1508 (isolation #228) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1501, Not_Mafia wrote:Let's lynch Maris
Because of farside's reasons or something else?
"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 #1521 (isolation #229) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:27 am

Post by Green Crayons »

How many times has the BM slot hit 4 votes and then just withered, or to hit 4 slots 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 #1522 (isolation #230) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:27 am

Post by Green Crayons »

only to*


And again. And 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 #1524 (isolation #231) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:29 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1519, notscience wrote:VOTE: votato

Sorry dude feel more confident in a geraintm green flip
why votato?
"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 #1525 (isolation #232) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1523, Dunnstral wrote:VOTE: geraintm

I'm not big on a votato lynch
Why gerain?
"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 #1533 (isolation #233) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1529, Not_Mafia wrote:VOTE: Porkens

This slot has to go
i cannot stress this enough.
"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 #1534 (isolation #234) » Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1532, stungun0404 wrote:my biggest TR Bob
I just don't understand 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 #1582 (isolation #235) » Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:58 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Thank
fuck
someone killed Porkens.
"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 #1583 (isolation #236) » Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:59 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Having to explain how his death would be necessary to analyze the gerain mislynch would have made me convulse.
"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 #1587 (isolation #237) » Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:09 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1577, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
Vote Count 1.18

geraintm
(7):
stungun0404, bob3141, votato,
Porkens
, Dunnstral, HK 50, Not_Mafia
Dunnstral (2):
DoctorPepper, Malakittens
votato (2):
farside22,
notscience

Porkens
(1):
Green Crayons
notscience
(1):
geraintm

Not voting (0):



Mod Notes:

Majority is 7 players.

A hammer has been reached.
[/area]
Basic rules of thumb wagon analysis without post/contribution context (so, all subject to change once going back through to analyze context):

- probably 1 additional scum was on the gerain mislynch, 1 scum was off

- if 4 scum, probably contextual to determine whether on or off

- scum usually don't like to vote back to back, so porkens' lynch neighbors (votato, Dunn) are less suspicious



And then, shooting from the hip about how I was remembering things at the conclusion of D1:

- out of non-gerain voters (DP, Mala, farside/maxwell, GC), my suspicion hierarchy is: Mala --> farside/maxwell --> DP

- out of the gerain voters (stun, bob, votato, Dunn, HK, NM), my suspicion hierarchy is: bob, HK, votato, Dunn, stun, NM
"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 #1589 (isolation #238) » Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:13 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I'm curious to hear from maxwell, as farside was a slot I seriously suspected until about 80% of the way through of D1, when I started getting town vibes.
"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 #1590 (isolation #239) » Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:13 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1588, Not_Mafia wrote:I'm looking at bob
good lookin'
"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 #1623 (isolation #240) » Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:07 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I need to reread which I'll do 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 #1655 (isolation #241) » Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:50 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Mala, weren't you V/La for several days on D1?

I think that's where the you've been missing feeling is coming from.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1656 (isolation #242) » Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:53 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1603, maxwell wrote:
In post 1599, Malakittens wrote:So I’m thinking that one of his scum partners might be someone he mentions quite often. I know he mentions Vot a lot, along with Dun.
I'm not sure why this is necessarily true? The logic seems very arbitrary.
It looks like an associative tell.

I don't think I agree with it, but it's not really arbitrary.
"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 #1657 (isolation #243) » Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:08 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Spoiler: first volley of interesting BM posts
In post 143, Battle Mage wrote:I'll catch up later, but for now:

VOTE: HK 50 - biggest wagon and he appears to have a horrible post restriction and needs to be put out of his misery. :lol:
In post 160, Battle Mage wrote:I'm bored and people love ambitious plays on Day 1, so I'm gonna go with:

Green Crayons, Malakittens, Notscience and HK50 for scum. :cop:
In post 162, Battle Mage wrote:OMGUS Malakittens? what is your reaction to my posts?
In post 163, Battle Mage wrote:at this rate I might actually have to explain my vote to get things moving... :yawn:

ugh. BM might be silly enough to throw in a scum buddy in his list of town suspects. If so, I'm going to say it's HK, since he made a point of voting HK and this the Mala/BM interaction looks genuine.

But honestly I'm leaning this to being all town.

-----

Spoiler: more BM + HK or Mala interaction
In post 180, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 166, HK 50 wrote:
In post 143, Battle Mage wrote:I'll catch up later, but for now:

VOTE: HK 50 - biggest wagon and he appears to have a horrible post restriction and needs to be put out of his misery. :lol:
[Definition:]
Efficiency: the ratio of the useful work performed by a machine or in a process to the total energy expended or heat taken in.

Known antonyms: Master Battle Mage
Damn robot needs re-programming again. :lol:
In post 184, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 168, HK 50 wrote:
[Statement:]
The lack of actual discussion is making my circuits moderately irritated. There cannot be ruthless slaughter like this.

VOTE: Dunnstral

Master Battle Mage feel free to explain the basis of your read.
Excellent, I thought you'd never ask!

Green Crayons Notes


He has played extremely safe and cautious, not really going out on a limb on anything, and only really focussing on either highlighting people's towniness, or criticising other's arguments for people's scumminess (which is generally easy for scum to do because they know who is actually scum). In his first 18 posts (all of them prior to my vote) he hadn't indicated suspicion of ANYONE. His only vote was a random vote on Farside - I know it was random because he made it very clear by saying "eenie meanie minie mo". The only other thing of note is that his 4th post was an apology (which incidentally was the thing which pinged me into doing an ISO) for being rude...only he hadn't really been that rude? by the standards of this site, it was about as courteous as a criticism gets. So the apology just seemed a bit OTT and like he was walking on eggshells. No meta yet, but an absence of town enthusiasm or active engagement - more of the commentating from the sidelines style. :cop:
In post 186, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 170, Malakittens wrote:
In post 162, Battle Mage wrote:OMGUS Malakittens? what is your reaction to my posts?
I’m trying to figure where your head is at with self voting and the woe is me with the other posts. IDK the last set of posts are just coming off strange.

The whole “I’m going to do a guess” doesn’t really strike me as a real case/vote.

Then why don’t you vote me and actually get a case? I’m not scared.
Yeah I can dig that, I'm a strange cat too, just having fun! :D

My suspicion on you isn't based on much, I was only playin'...but it's a good memory jogger for later so I can go back and see what pinged me if useful, and I like to get stuck in and get some reactions.

Your reaction for instance...is a bit defensive? "vote me and actually get a case? I'm not scared."? :giggle:

I listed you as an initial speculative solve (and if you paid any heed to my "woe is me" post, you'd recognise that my reads monumentally suck), so I don't know if this is over-keen town ready to do battle, or scum mobilising prematurely? Not sure on that right now...
In post 172, Malakittens wrote:
In post 165, HK 50 wrote:
In post 138, Malakittens wrote:Hm. I really did just like HK 137. But I want to see how that progresses
In post 144, Malakittens wrote:That post has a bad gut feeling, but will wait for redemption
[Interrogation:
Master Malakitten, you have made several posts showing a stance without explaining it nor fully committing to it. Please explain your pings. Has the interaction with master bob3141 reached a finite conclusion read wise considering you town ping both of us?
Right now I’m liking bob’s posts. The way he’s going about is very similar to the last game we played together. I’m starting to see you scum hunting while you’re using your gimmick. A lot of players that use gimmicks hide behind it and don’t actually scum hunt. So that give me town pings.

Where as Battle Mange is the post I was referring to that felt a scum ping IMO. That’s way before he even thought I was OMGUSing him.
Battle
Mange
? Ouch! :eek: No saucer of milk for you today... :lol:

idk, i just don't see this as scum talking to one of his buddies
"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 #1658 (isolation #244) » Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:15 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Spoiler: BM's first vote after GC
In post 290, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
As a new day broke out, Jake was found dead... asleep. Despite the wailing of the town to do his job, he stayed still all the same. Micc, the secretary, didn't do Jake's job for him, but instead woke him up.


Vote Count 1.6

Dunnstral (4):
DoctorPepper, farside22, HK 50, Green Crayons
HK 50 (2):
votato, bob3141
votato (2):
Malakittens, stungun0404
notscience (1):
geraintm
Malakittens (1):
Dunnstral
Battle Mage (1):
Not_Mafia
Green Crayons (1):
Battle Mage
Not voting (1):
notscience


Mod Notes:
Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-22 07:23:04).[/area]
And then here's the updated VC:
Dunnstral (4):
DoctorPepper, farside22, HK 50, Green Crayons
HK 50 (1):
votato,
votato (4):
Malakittens, stungun0404, notscience, bob3141
notscience (1):
geraintm
Malakittens (1):
Dunnstral
Battle Mage (1):
Not_Mafia
Green Crayons (1):
Battle Mage
At which point BM votes votato:
In post 343, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 315, Green Crayons wrote:Votato votes are lazy. I bet one of y'all are scum.
Challenge accepted!

VOTE: Votato

I like the meta analysis by stungun, clearly nobody is getting behind Green Crayons, and I think I'm townleaning Dunnstral. And seriously, voting BM on Day 1? This dude has run out of ideas... :lol:
That gets us to here:
In post 400, Micc wrote:
Vote Count 1.7

votato (5):
Malakittens, stungun0404, notscience, bob3141, Battle Mage
Dunnstral (4):
DoctorPepper, farside22, HK 50, Green Crayons
Battle Mage (2):
Not_Mafia, votato
notscience (1):
geraintm
Malakittens (1):
Dunnstral
Not voting (0):



Mod Notes:
Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-22 07:23:04).[/area]

So before BM voted votato, there was competing Dunn and votato wagons--both at 4 votes.

BM deicded to vote votato.

votato more likely to be town.

I think this is NAI about anyone else on the votato-wagon (Mala, stun ns, bob).

EITHER Dunn OR someone on the Dunn-wagon more likely to be scum (DP, farside/max, HK, GC).
"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 #1659 (isolation #245) » Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:21 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1658, Green Crayons wrote:EITHER Dunn OR someone on the Dunn-wagon more likely to be scum (DP, farside/max, HK, GC).
I'm a bit ambivalent about this, actually.

not about votato more likely being 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 #1660 (isolation #246) » Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:22 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 421, Green Crayons wrote:His vote on votato looks made up.

First, his vote:
In post 343, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 315, Green Crayons wrote:Votato votes are lazy. I bet one of y'all are scum.
Challenge accepted!

VOTE: Votato

I like the meta analysis by stungun
, clearly nobody is getting behind Green Crayons, and I think I'm townleaning Dunnstral. And seriously, voting BM on Day 1? This dude has run out of ideas... :lol:
He reads votato as scum only because of your meta analysis. But your meta analysis specifically said it was a wash on alignment, and so wasn't AI:
In post 334, stungun0404 wrote:While you may be fairly active in some of your scum games, this evidence does not suggest that in your town games you are always lurking at the start.
Thus, I don't think this initial analysis into your gameplay is very alignment-indicative, as it seems you are breaking pattern regardless of alignment.
So his votato vote pushes a wagon based on nothing AI. He does get in a sweet "lol ooOooOooOoo I'm teasing you with maybe I'm scum" jab, which is more likely to come from scum than town.


Then, this continued vote despite:
In post 404, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 391, votato wrote:i have a little but i cant talk about it. by day 2 or 3 ill probably give some more details. as for the association you're drawing between me and dunn, stun, you're right that we aren't scumbuddies, but i dont think your reasons why are all that strong. plus the only reason you know that is cuz you and i are scumbuddies.
In post 392, votato wrote:shit wrong thread.
:lol:

Last time I saw something like this it flipped town, but what can ya do!? :lol:
He points to non-player-specific meta that would suggest that votato is town. But just lols over it and keeps his votato vote. His decision to pick and choose "meta" to justify whether votes should move is particularly glaring when you consider he uses meta a few posts later in to argue votes on Dunn are misplaced.
oh also

lol

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

Post Post #1661 (isolation #247) » Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:32 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Spoiler: BM and Dunn
[quote="In post 189, Battle Mage"]
In post 176, Green Crayons wrote:VOTE: Dunnstral
This looks serious...what's the story here?[/quote]
In post 192, Battle Mage wrote:In other news, I've decided HK 50 is actually town, and figured out the most likely reason why Green Crayons voted Dunnstral. So that's something! :cop:
In post 344, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 236, farside22 wrote:
In post 228, Green Crayons wrote:^^^ I don't see how that makes farside town. It does strengthen Dunn being scum.
I felt the way I felt. I can't help my pings on players.

There should be more votes on Dunn too with your follow up spoilers post.


@NS: Who else are you suspicious of? I see a lot of filler coming from you but nothing stating a scum read. Or even following of anyone.
BM: Hey BM, how are you? Taking some lumps I see......would you mind voting Dunn and we can chat later about if you are scum or town and about play style later?
Thanks!!
Yep yep, usual fare! :lol:

I'm not so keen on Dunn
Maybe he's just not scum
Annie did tell me so
and scum is votato

:wink:

I'm worried about this "play style" chat...are you gonna bash me too? :cry:
In post 345, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 94, Dunnstral wrote:I don't want you to apologize, I want you to die
This is the only Dunnstral post that really townpings me, although his general tone is definitely one of not giving a crap and being abrasive which is more common in town than scum I think. Should be easy to meta later when I have more time.
In post 353, votato wrote:
In post 344, Battle Mage wrote: I'm not so keen on Dunn
Maybe he's just not scum
Annie did tell me so
and scum is votato

:wink:

I'm worried about this "play style" chat...are you gonna bash me too? :cry:
In post 345, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 94, Dunnstral wrote:I don't want you to apologize, I want you to die
This is the only Dunnstral post that really townpings me, although his general tone is definitely one of not giving a crap and being abrasive which is more common in town than scum I think. Should be easy to meta later when I have more time.
does anyone else see a contradiction here?
In post 355, Battle Mage wrote:re: 353 - you're definitely clutching at straws now dude.... there are some good reasons for lazyscum to vote me out there, but that? :facepalm:
In post 360, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 357, votato wrote:
In post 355, Battle Mage wrote:re: 353 - you're definitely clutching at straws now dude.... there are some good reasons for lazyscum to vote me out there, but that? :facepalm:
you say "im not keen on the dunn wagon, so im not gonna vote there"
and then "i have no real reason to think dunn is town"
yep, I can help you here:

1. I have 1 reason to think Dunn is town, and 0 reason to think Dunn is scum, therefore I townlean Dunn.
2. There is no 2. :yawn:
In post 367, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 361, farside22 wrote:
In post 344, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 236, farside22 wrote:
In post 228, Green Crayons wrote:^^^ I don't see how that makes farside town. It does strengthen Dunn being scum.
I felt the way I felt. I can't help my pings on players.

There should be more votes on Dunn too with your follow up spoilers post.


@NS: Who else are you suspicious of? I see a lot of filler coming from you but nothing stating a scum read. Or even following of anyone.
BM: Hey BM, how are you? Taking some lumps I see......would you mind voting Dunn and we can chat later about if you are scum or town and about play style later?
Thanks!!
Yep yep, usual fare! :lol:

I'm not so keen on Dunn
Maybe he's just not scum
Annie did tell me so
and scum is votato

:wink:

I'm worried about this "play style" chat...are you gonna bash me too? :cry:
Not a fun that 1 comment = town compared to his now lurking while votato takes pressure.

Your making me a sad puppy right now bm.
I'm sorry :(

I'll tell you what, if you join me in a righteous Green Crayons lynch today, we can lynch Dunnstral tomorrow. Pinky promise! :D


So I thought that BM's first point where he asks me what my Dunn vote is all about suggested Dunn is town--BM-scum is looking for real reasons to vote Dunn.

But then he changes Dunn to being town.

And then votes votato over the tied bandwagon on Dunn.

And then has this weird way of explaining why Dunn is town.

And then promises farside a Dunn lynch in the future if they could just do a GC lynch.


Not looking good for Dunn.

ALL OF THAT SAID:
In post 403, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 402, Dunnstral wrote:I saw battle mage playing similar to this as town.
And I saw Dunnstral playing completely different to this as scum. :cop:
Would scum meta each other to defend?


my goodness, maybe. i'm cringing just thinking of that possibility.
"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 #1663 (isolation #248) » Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:45 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Spoiler: Porkens enters the ring
In post 998, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
All the players shall ever hear are the whispers of insanity, as insomnia takes hold...


Vote Count 1.14

Porkens (5):
Not_Mafia, Green Crayons, [Malakittens], bob3141, votato
Dunnstral (2):
DoctorPepper, HK 50
Green Crayons (2):
Porkens, farside22
HK 50(2):
Dunnstral, stungun0404
notscience (1):
geraintm
Not voting (1):
notscience


Mod Notes:

Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-24 21:18:29).
HK 50 has been prodded and has (expired on 2020-06-24 05:39:29) to respond before I look for a replacement.

Malakittens is V/LA for (expired on 2020-06-24 00:00:00) and has given their vote to notscience.[/area]
[quote="In post 1021, Porkens"]
In post 1020, votato wrote:Bob, i still scumread bm/clidd/pork. Just couldn't do much while the slot was vacant
Tato be a gem and explain why this slot is so universally scumread pls?[/quote]
In post 1156, Porkens wrote:HOKAY!
I skimmed the shit out of the last 17 pages or so, as it’s getting late.

Here’s the deal:

The scumteam lies within geraintm, stungun, dunnstral, bob, and tato.

The push on GC that tato hopped on was literally pure garbage. Reads progression somehow becomes machinations. And despite the fact that GC fairly fought off the push, it keeps recurring. Stun and gerain both defend dunnstral. Bob has a TR on Dunn for some reason (also bob almost never expresses any reads, never commits). Gerain started playing and came in at a key moment, around

That being said, I have a real tinfoil hat read on an alternate universe team of DP, GC, and Malkittens.

Other stuff:
Farside, Crayons (ignoring my hat), notsci, and HK all read very town to me. I don’t see a universe where hk is scum.

Notmaf is being very notmaf.

So there you have it, you are welcome, I’m going to bed!


VOTE: dunnstrall

looks like Porkens saw that he was on the chopping block, and made a case for a scum buddy to throw off the scent

tbf, I ran across my old posts talking about how Porkens' vote on Dunn looked made up

at the time I thought it was made up because he wanted the town to vote elsewhere to save himself from a town execution

now I'm thinking he was accepting his fate and was trying to throw the scent off from his buddy if Porkens flipped


HRM Hard to know which of those is correct

Spoiler: GC ego posting
In post 1254, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1156, Porkens wrote:HOKAY!
I skimmed the shit out of the last 17 pages or so, as it’s getting late.

Here’s the deal:

The scumteam lies within geraintm, stungun, dunnstral, bob, and tato.

The push on GC that tato hopped on was literally pure garbage. Reads progression somehow becomes machinations. And despite the fact that GC fairly fought off the push, it keeps recurring. Stun and gerain both defend dunnstral. Bob has a TR on Dunn for some reason (also bob almost never expresses any reads, never commits). Gerain started playing and came in at a key moment, around

That being said, I have a real tinfoil hat read on an alternate universe team of DP, GC, and Malkittens.

Other stuff:
Farside, Crayons (ignoring my hat), notsci, and HK all read very town to me. I don’t see a universe where hk is scum.

Notmaf is being very notmaf.

So there you have it, you are welcome, I’m going to bed!


VOTE: dunnstrall
In post 1156, Porkens wrote:HOKAY!
I skimmed the shit out of the last 17 pages or so, as it’s getting late.

Here’s the deal:

The scumteam lies within geraintm, stungun, dunnstral, bob, and tato.

The push on GC that tato hopped on was literally pure garbage. Reads progression somehow becomes machinations. And despite the fact that GC fairly fought off the push, it keeps recurring. Stun and gerain both defend dunnstral. Bob has a TR on Dunn for some reason (also bob almost never expresses any reads, never commits). Gerain started playing and came in at a key moment, around

That being said, I have a real tinfoil hat read on an alternate universe team of DP, GC, and Malkittens.

Other stuff:
Farside, Crayons (ignoring my hat), notsci, and HK all read very town to me. I don’t see a universe where hk is scum.

Notmaf is being very notmaf.

So there you have it, you are welcome, I’m going to bed!


VOTE: dunnstrall
In post 1182, Porkens wrote:
In post 1172, stungun0404 wrote:And Mala's kinda right. It's time we start settling on a lynch, with 13 hours left in the day, and I don't think this day phase will go anywhere than Porkens, unfortunately.

Thus, VOTE: Porkens

Unless anyone has any reason to think this day phase could possibly lead to another lynch,


There is a 1 ONE vote difference between me and your biggest scumread but “unfortunately” that’s just insurmountable? Also, he says
nothing
about the substance.
In post 1176, notscience wrote:VOTE: porkens

Consolidating at this point
Consolidate elsewhere, the idea that there can’t be any other lynch is false. Again, Dunn has 1 less vote than I do.


Lynching Dunn will tell us a lot. There are clear associativas. BM tarnishes this slot so badly what do you learn about anything? Keep me around you won’t regret it.
Did you actually say why Dunn is worth your vote here? I don’t think so.


Also tell me more about these “clear associatives” that would come with a Dunn flip.
In post 1339, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1320, Porkens wrote:Finally home from work and post office.

Thank you for the extra time all. In response to this:
In post 1254, Green Crayons wrote:<snip...>

Did you actually say why Dunn is worth your vote here? I don’t think so.


Also tell me more about these “clear associatives” that would come with a Dunn flip.

Dunn’s got a
very
good chance of flipping scum, and everyone has shared reads of him one way or the other, including a small group of defenders. That will tell us a lot.

I have a solid townread on HK and Dunn’s vote there is a safe non-starter, which I think he knows. His vote’s there, but he isn’t doing anything to make it happen, I’m guessing because he doesn’t really want to present an alternative to my mislynch, which seemed pretty certain after clidd ghosted.

Dunn’s commentary in also rubs me the wrong way. He’s casting shade on GC (and tato) without actually challenging him. (I also TR GC. I can understand the scum read on BM, and even though it's wrong I read GC as scum hunting and the votes there really don't make much sense to me.)

Finally, he’s been active lurking and trolling all day.

-----

I'd be ok lynching votato, but it really won't tell us as much as Dunn.
Okay. I think you're scum.

I commend the pivot to hard reading me as town. I instinctively don't want to lynch someone who does that.

But I don't think this Dunn suspicion is natural. Dunn was tied for the second bw (with me, who also had 2 votes), and I think you decided to try to push and focus on Dunn because he already had some votes and he hasn't nearly been a pain in the ass like I have. I say that because I don't think your suspicions are legitimate.

For starters, you didn't give suspicions originally for your Dunn vote.

And now it comes down:

- to pushing a non-starter wagon on HK--but it's no more of a nonstarter than farside trying to vote GC, as stun is happy with both a HK and GC vote but nobody else is
- picking one post (that conveniently defends me) with an okay theory, but would need some plenty more work to be a banner case
- uses buzzwords "active lurking and trolling," neither of which I think are accurate; he hasn't beetlejuiced and he isn't a troll player


I'm also not convinced that Dunn gives us great associative tells any more than other players who have been the thread's topic of conversation. You're pretty nonspecific on that point, which I admit is generally NAI, but I would think that if this was legitimate point you would have *some* specific examples in mind.

VOTE: Porkens
"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 #1666 (isolation #249) » Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:58 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Spoiler: Porkens and bob
In post 1156, Porkens wrote:HOKAY!
I skimmed the shit out of the last 17 pages or so, as it’s getting late.

Here’s the deal:

The scumteam lies within geraintm, stungun, dunnstral, bob, and tato.

The push on GC that tato hopped on was literally pure garbage. Reads progression somehow becomes machinations. And despite the fact that GC fairly fought off the push, it keeps recurring. Stun and gerain both defend dunnstral. Bob has a TR on Dunn for some reason (also bob almost never expresses any reads, never commits). Gerain started playing and came in at a key moment, around

That being said, I have a real tinfoil hat read on an alternate universe team of DP, GC, and Malkittens.

Other stuff:
Farside, Crayons (ignoring my hat), notsci, and HK all read very town to me. I don’t see a universe where hk is scum.

Notmaf is being very notmaf.

So there you have it, you are welcome, I’m going to bed!


VOTE: dunnstrall
In post 1376, Porkens wrote:The scumteam lies within geraintm, stungun, dunnstral, bob, and tato.

part one is relationship between geraintm and stungun early day. There's a little banter, a little theory craft, and a little distancing. It connected them in my mind.

part two is stungun's terrible case on GC, which votato said "I AGREE VOTE" because it was in his favor to do so.

part three is Dunn does squat all day.

part four is that Stun and Gerain both (and fairly uniquely) defend (not just townread) Dunn. (bob is scummy on his own and also hops on the Dunn TR team)

part five is that Gerain only really started to play when Dunn was the leading wagon, and argued strongly against it at the expense of stungun. later, when Dunn was no longer likely to be lynched, grerain changed his stungun read to town.

It's a wide net, and I'm certain to be wrong on 2, I could even be wrong on 3, but I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong on 4 - there is two scum in this pile. Dunn is the worst of them.



p. edit it was just my read - you two had early beef it seemed to me, I thought you were scum reading him, nd then he called you town at some point. Since then things seem to be cool between you. very possible I'm reading too much into it.

Porkens makes a scum pool of: geraintm, stungun, dunnstral, bob, and tato

In the first post he says bob is in the pool because "Bob has a TR on Dunn for some reason (also bob almost never expresses any reads, never commits)."

In the second post he says bob is in the pool because "(bob is scummy on his own and also hops on the Dunn TR team)"


bob's just sort of thrown in there and forgotten about. If Dunn isn't scum with Porkens, I would think it's bob. nebulous "other" scummy suspicions.

Though, actually, if Dunn is scum bob is likely town. If Dunn flipped scum, Porkens had a basis to argue for a bob lynch (the only articulated reason why bob is scummy is him TRing Dunn).


FWIW I think this scum pool and the reasons for it confirm stun/cat and votato as likely 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 #1667 (isolation #250) » Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:02 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

okay i caught up on my ISO reads of the Porkens slot

VOTE: Dunn

I'm fine with this vote for now. I'd also be okay with a bob vote.

I should also go and ISO Dunn and Bob and actually reread the shift to gerain in full and not by ISO, but I've only got so much stamina to reread mafia each night
"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 #1668 (isolation #251) » Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:03 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1664, votato wrote:ill sheep that
^5
"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 #1703 (isolation #252) » Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1695, HK 50 wrote:
In post 1666, Green Crayons wrote:FWIW I think this scum pool and the reasons for it confirm stun/cat and votato as likely town
Can you explain the stungun/cat part of this more? Is it due to the lack of discussion from pork?
In post 1695, HK 50 wrote:
In post 1666, Green Crayons wrote:FWIW I think this scum pool and the reasons for it confirm stun/cat and votato as likely town
Can you explain the stungun/cat part of this more? Is it due to the lack of discussion from pork?
Scum isn’t likely to put all teammates in a lynch pool. Dunn/bob are the more likely team candidates so that bolsters town read on others.

also. According to Porkens, Stun is scummy bc defending Dunn, and votato was scummy for following stun. It’s associative tells when we had no flips, which doesn’t really make sense. I also don’t think scum would string out bald associative suspicions among their actual scum mates.
"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 #1704 (isolation #253) » Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:18 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1698, Malakittens wrote:Damn it. Why is this game so apathetic.

<<
You’re just voting the wrong 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 #1710 (isolation #254) » Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:28 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Yeah I can't really tell if HK is vomit posting to get his thoughts out on a page for him to review, or for him to look like he's contributing.

Honestly, HK, it hasn't been helpful.

Give me a HEADLINE (who you suspect, who is town).

Then give me BULLET POINTS (of why--primarily for who you suspect, but you can do it for town too).

Make the bullet points ONE OR TWO SENTENCES. Those sentences better be 20 WORDS OR LESS.
"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 #1711 (isolation #255) » Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:28 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1710, Green Crayons wrote:Yeah I can't really tell if HK is vomit posting to get his thoughts out on a page for him to review, or for him to look like he's contributing.

Honestly, HK, it hasn't been helpful.

Give me a HEADLINE (who you suspect, who is town).

Then give me BULLET POINTS (of why--primarily for who you suspect, but you can do it for town too).

Make the bullet points ONE OR TWO SENTENCES. Those sentences better be 20 WORDS OR LESS.
bob 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 #1712 (isolation #256) » Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:30 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1706, Not_Mafia wrote:
@mod
votato has been perma'd and needs replacing
btw votato slot is probably my second strongest town read so stop throwing shade at it

what do you think about Dunn and Mala?
"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 #1713 (isolation #257) » Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:31 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1705, Dunnstral wrote:Now they're back on me again because my read was wrong, or something to that effect
Who is 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 #1714 (isolation #258) » Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:32 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1712, Green Crayons wrote:stop throwing shade
btw this is in reference to the slot's scumminess/lack thereof, was not a comment on the ban
"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 #1754 (isolation #259) » Sat Jul 04, 2020 2:35 am

Post by Green Crayons »

DP is pretty town so don't know why people keep going back to this well.
"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 #1773 (isolation #260) » Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:54 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1770, Dunnstral wrote:Hey guys, I believe the above poster may be aligned with an anti-town faction
NPOM/votato isn’t likely scum. Who else you got?
"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 #1775 (isolation #261) » Sun Jul 05, 2020 7:37 am

Post by Green Crayons »

You tell 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 #1779 (isolation #262) » Sun Jul 05, 2020 2:09 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Mod what’s the VC? I want to yell at everyone not voting.
"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 #1793 (isolation #263) » Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:45 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1776, NoPowerOverMe wrote:I'm pretty sure you're town. I'm not so sure about the other two on the wagon.
In post 1789, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
Vote Count 2.4

Dunnstral (4): Green Crayons, DoctorPepper, NoPowerOverMe, maxwell

votato (2):
Malakittens, Dunnstral
bob3141 (1):
Not_Mafia
HK 50 (1):
Cat Scratch Fever
Not voting (2):
bob3141, HK 50


Mod Notes:

Majority is 6 players.

Day 2 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-07-08 08:05:34)
[/area]
?????
"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 #1794 (isolation #264) » Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:46 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1784, Malakittens wrote:Well that was a ping :/
In post 1789, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
Vote Count 2.4

Dunnstral (4):
Green Crayons, DoctorPepper, NoPowerOverMe, maxwell
votato (2): Malakittens, Dunnstral

bob3141 (1):
Not_Mafia
HK 50 (1):
Cat Scratch Fever
Not voting (2):
bob3141, HK 50


Mod Notes:

Majority is 6 players.

Day 2 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-07-08 08:05:34)
[/area]
?????
"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 #1795 (isolation #265) » Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:47 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1789, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
Vote Count 2.4

Dunnstral (4):
Green Crayons, DoctorPepper, NoPowerOverMe, maxwell
votato (2):
Malakittens, Dunnstral
bob3141 (1):
Not_Mafia
HK 50 (1):
Cat Scratch Fever
Not voting (2): bob3141, HK 50



Mod Notes:

Majority is 6 players.

Day 2 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-07-08 08:05:34)
[/area]
?????
"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 #1796 (isolation #266) » Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:48 am

Post by Green Crayons »

bob and HK's no votes are probably the most disgusting thing in this game.

Y'all have vomited a lot of words and then some more and then even more.

But haven't placed a vote down.

One of y'all are probably 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 #1797 (isolation #267) » Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:50 am

Post by Green Crayons »

HELLO WE HAD A FLIP

THE GAME GOT EASIER TO FIGURE OUT

TOWN DOESN'T GET PARALYZED ON D2 WHEN THERE IS A FLIP ON N1

vote, you scumbags
"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 #1798 (isolation #268) » Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:52 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1773, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1770, Dunnstral wrote:Hey guys, I believe the above poster may be aligned with an anti-town faction
NPOM/votato isn’t likely scum. Who else you got?
Your refusal to play this game is doing a great job and making me just want to kill you apart from the BM slot's interaction with you. It's making it impossible to suss out any alignment, so all I've got is someone who doesn't want to play and is being a

big

fucking

drag
"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 #1799 (isolation #269) » Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:53 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Your also at E-1 so govern yourself accordingly.
"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 #1800 (isolation #270) » Mon Jul 06, 2020 2:53 am

Post by Green Crayons »

YOU'RE

YOU ARE

NOT POSSESSIVE, YOU DON'T OWN THE ALSO
"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 #1802 (isolation #271) » Mon Jul 06, 2020 3:04 am

Post by Green Crayons »

what are you waiting for?
"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 #1811 (isolation #272) » Mon Jul 06, 2020 6:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1810, NoPowerOverMe wrote:
In post 1804, bob3141 wrote:I dont like the dun wagon as the way hk kept pushing it over porkens leaves me feeling that these two slots cant be s/s.

And since my gut keeps telling me that hk is scum, i cant see dun beign his partner.
Porkens was pushing town!Dunn though.
In post 1793, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1776, NoPowerOverMe wrote:I'm pretty sure you're town. I'm not so sure about the other two on the wagon.
In post 1789, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
Vote Count 2.4

Dunnstral (4): Green Crayons, DoctorPepper, NoPowerOverMe, maxwell

votato (2):
Malakittens, Dunnstral
bob3141 (1):
Not_Mafia
HK 50 (1):
Cat Scratch Fever
Not voting (2):
bob3141, HK 50


Mod Notes:

Majority is 6 players.

Day 2 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-07-08 08:05:34)
[/area]
?????
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"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 #1813 (isolation #273) » Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:03 am

Post by Green Crayons »

You called Dunn town but are voting him.
"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 #1814 (isolation #274) » Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:04 am

Post by Green Crayons »

You also said that you don't know about the two people on the Dunn wagon are town (post 1793), but I don't know who you're talking about (maxwell voted for Dunn after your (1793), and also you're voting Dunn so idk what the point is of your 1793.
"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 #1815 (isolation #275) » Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:05 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1807, bob3141 wrote:Do i look like some one that is on 24/7

serously i come on to cast my vote for hk. And i see green as had bit of whine that i dont agree with him on his dun push. My reads ar not his and i will not be pushed into voting for someone i dont think is scum. Over some i do think is scum.
when did you intend to vote HK

point me to the post # where i should see your intent
"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 #1829 (isolation #276) » Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:07 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1828, Cat Scratch Fever wrote:Why do we think Porkens was bussing his partner Dunn as opposed to finding a lynchbaity town player that had the best chance of being mislynched?
Directly in response to that hypo:
In post 1663, Green Crayons wrote:
Spoiler: Porkens enters the ring
In post 998, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
All the players shall ever hear are the whispers of insanity, as insomnia takes hold...


Vote Count 1.14

Porkens (5):
Not_Mafia, Green Crayons, [Malakittens], bob3141, votato
Dunnstral (2):
DoctorPepper, HK 50
Green Crayons (2):
Porkens, farside22
HK 50(2):
Dunnstral, stungun0404
notscience (1):
geraintm
Not voting (1):
notscience


Mod Notes:

Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-24 21:18:29).
HK 50 has been prodded and has (expired on 2020-06-24 05:39:29) to respond before I look for a replacement.

Malakittens is V/LA for (expired on 2020-06-24 00:00:00) and has given their vote to notscience.[/area]
[quote="In post 1021, Porkens"]
In post 1020, votato wrote:Bob, i still scumread bm/clidd/pork. Just couldn't do much while the slot was vacant
Tato be a gem and explain why this slot is so universally scumread pls?
In post 1156, Porkens wrote:HOKAY!
I skimmed the shit out of the last 17 pages or so, as it’s getting late.

Here’s the deal:

The scumteam lies within geraintm, stungun, dunnstral, bob, and tato.

The push on GC that tato hopped on was literally pure garbage. Reads progression somehow becomes machinations. And despite the fact that GC fairly fought off the push, it keeps recurring. Stun and gerain both defend dunnstral. Bob has a TR on Dunn for some reason (also bob almost never expresses any reads, never commits). Gerain started playing and came in at a key moment, around

That being said, I have a real tinfoil hat read on an alternate universe team of DP, GC, and Malkittens.

Other stuff:
Farside, Crayons (ignoring my hat), notsci, and HK all read very town to me. I don’t see a universe where hk is scum.

Notmaf is being very notmaf.

So there you have it, you are welcome, I’m going to bed!


VOTE: dunnstrall
[/spoiler]
looks like Porkens saw that he was on the chopping block, and made a case for a scum buddy to throw off the scent

tbf, I ran across my old posts talking about how Porkens' vote on Dunn looked made up

at the time I thought it was made up because he wanted the town to vote elsewhere to save himself from a town execution

now I'm thinking he was accepting his fate and was trying to throw the scent off from his buddy if Porkens flipped


HRM Hard to know which of those is correct

Spoiler: GC ego posting
In post 1254, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1156, Porkens wrote:HOKAY!
I skimmed the shit out of the last 17 pages or so, as it’s getting late.

Here’s the deal:

The scumteam lies within geraintm, stungun, dunnstral, bob, and tato.

The push on GC that tato hopped on was literally pure garbage. Reads progression somehow becomes machinations. And despite the fact that GC fairly fought off the push, it keeps recurring. Stun and gerain both defend dunnstral. Bob has a TR on Dunn for some reason (also bob almost never expresses any reads, never commits). Gerain started playing and came in at a key moment, around

That being said, I have a real tinfoil hat read on an alternate universe team of DP, GC, and Malkittens.

Other stuff:
Farside, Crayons (ignoring my hat), notsci, and HK all read very town to me. I don’t see a universe where hk is scum.

Notmaf is being very notmaf.

So there you have it, you are welcome, I’m going to bed!


VOTE: dunnstrall
In post 1156, Porkens wrote:HOKAY!
I skimmed the shit out of the last 17 pages or so, as it’s getting late.

Here’s the deal:

The scumteam lies within geraintm, stungun, dunnstral, bob, and tato.

The push on GC that tato hopped on was literally pure garbage. Reads progression somehow becomes machinations. And despite the fact that GC fairly fought off the push, it keeps recurring. Stun and gerain both defend dunnstral. Bob has a TR on Dunn for some reason (also bob almost never expresses any reads, never commits). Gerain started playing and came in at a key moment, around

That being said, I have a real tinfoil hat read on an alternate universe team of DP, GC, and Malkittens.

Other stuff:
Farside, Crayons (ignoring my hat), notsci, and HK all read very town to me. I don’t see a universe where hk is scum.

Notmaf is being very notmaf.

So there you have it, you are welcome, I’m going to bed!


VOTE: dunnstrall
In post 1182, Porkens wrote:
In post 1172, stungun0404 wrote:And Mala's kinda right. It's time we start settling on a lynch, with 13 hours left in the day, and I don't think this day phase will go anywhere than Porkens, unfortunately.

Thus, VOTE: Porkens

Unless anyone has any reason to think this day phase could possibly lead to another lynch,


There is a 1 ONE vote difference between me and your biggest scumread but “unfortunately” that’s just insurmountable? Also, he says
nothing
about the substance.
In post 1176, notscience wrote:VOTE: porkens

Consolidating at this point
Consolidate elsewhere, the idea that there can’t be any other lynch is false. Again, Dunn has 1 less vote than I do.


Lynching Dunn will tell us a lot. There are clear associativas. BM tarnishes this slot so badly what do you learn about anything? Keep me around you won’t regret it.
Did you actually say why Dunn is worth your vote here? I don’t think so.


Also tell me more about these “clear associatives” that would come with a Dunn flip.
In post 1339, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1320, Porkens wrote:Finally home from work and post office.

Thank you for the extra time all. In response to this:
In post 1254, Green Crayons wrote:<snip...>

Did you actually say why Dunn is worth your vote here? I don’t think so.


Also tell me more about these “clear associatives” that would come with a Dunn flip.

Dunn’s got a
very
good chance of flipping scum, and everyone has shared reads of him one way or the other, including a small group of defenders. That will tell us a lot.

I have a solid townread on HK and Dunn’s vote there is a safe non-starter, which I think he knows. His vote’s there, but he isn’t doing anything to make it happen, I’m guessing because he doesn’t really want to present an alternative to my mislynch, which seemed pretty certain after clidd ghosted.

Dunn’s commentary in also rubs me the wrong way. He’s casting shade on GC (and tato) without actually challenging him. (I also TR GC. I can understand the scum read on BM, and even though it's wrong I read GC as scum hunting and the votes there really don't make much sense to me.)

Finally, he’s been active lurking and trolling all day.

-----

I'd be ok lynching votato, but it really won't tell us as much as Dunn.
Okay. I think you're scum.

I commend the pivot to hard reading me as town. I instinctively don't want to lynch someone who does that.

But I don't think this Dunn suspicion is natural. Dunn was tied for the second bw (with me, who also had 2 votes), and I think you decided to try to push and focus on Dunn because he already had some votes and he hasn't nearly been a pain in the ass like I have. I say that because I don't think your suspicions are legitimate.

For starters, you didn't give suspicions originally for your Dunn vote.

And now it comes down:

- to pushing a non-starter wagon on HK--but it's no more of a nonstarter than farside trying to vote GC, as stun is happy with both a HK and GC vote but nobody else is
- picking one post (that conveniently defends me) with an okay theory, but would need some plenty more work to be a banner case
- uses buzzwords "active lurking and trolling," neither of which I think are accurate; he hasn't beetlejuiced and he isn't a troll player


I'm also not convinced that Dunn gives us great associative tells any more than other players who have been the thread's topic of conversation. You're pretty nonspecific on that point, which I admit is generally NAI, but I would think that if this was legitimate point you would have *some* specific examples in mind.

VOTE: Porkens
[/quote]

But also:
In post 1661, Green Crayons wrote:
Spoiler: BM and Dunn
[quote="In post 189, Battle Mage"]
In post 176, Green Crayons wrote:VOTE: Dunnstral
This looks serious...what's the story here?
In post 192, Battle Mage wrote:In other news, I've decided HK 50 is actually town, and figured out the most likely reason why Green Crayons voted Dunnstral. So that's something! :cop:
In post 344, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 236, farside22 wrote:
In post 228, Green Crayons wrote:^^^ I don't see how that makes farside town. It does strengthen Dunn being scum.
I felt the way I felt. I can't help my pings on players.

There should be more votes on Dunn too with your follow up spoilers post.


@NS: Who else are you suspicious of? I see a lot of filler coming from you but nothing stating a scum read. Or even following of anyone.
BM: Hey BM, how are you? Taking some lumps I see......would you mind voting Dunn and we can chat later about if you are scum or town and about play style later?
Thanks!!
Yep yep, usual fare! :lol:

I'm not so keen on Dunn
Maybe he's just not scum
Annie did tell me so
and scum is votato

:wink:

I'm worried about this "play style" chat...are you gonna bash me too? :cry:
In post 345, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 94, Dunnstral wrote:I don't want you to apologize, I want you to die
This is the only Dunnstral post that really townpings me, although his general tone is definitely one of not giving a crap and being abrasive which is more common in town than scum I think. Should be easy to meta later when I have more time.
In post 353, votato wrote:
In post 344, Battle Mage wrote: I'm not so keen on Dunn
Maybe he's just not scum
Annie did tell me so
and scum is votato

:wink:

I'm worried about this "play style" chat...are you gonna bash me too? :cry:
In post 345, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 94, Dunnstral wrote:I don't want you to apologize, I want you to die
This is the only Dunnstral post that really townpings me, although his general tone is definitely one of not giving a crap and being abrasive which is more common in town than scum I think. Should be easy to meta later when I have more time.
does anyone else see a contradiction here?
In post 355, Battle Mage wrote:re: 353 - you're definitely clutching at straws now dude.... there are some good reasons for lazyscum to vote me out there, but that? :facepalm:
In post 360, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 357, votato wrote:
In post 355, Battle Mage wrote:re: 353 - you're definitely clutching at straws now dude.... there are some good reasons for lazyscum to vote me out there, but that? :facepalm:
you say "im not keen on the dunn wagon, so im not gonna vote there"
and then "i have no real reason to think dunn is town"
yep, I can help you here:

1. I have 1 reason to think Dunn is town, and 0 reason to think Dunn is scum, therefore I townlean Dunn.
2. There is no 2. :yawn:
In post 367, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 361, farside22 wrote:
In post 344, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 236, farside22 wrote:
In post 228, Green Crayons wrote:^^^ I don't see how that makes farside town. It does strengthen Dunn being scum.
I felt the way I felt. I can't help my pings on players.

There should be more votes on Dunn too with your follow up spoilers post.


@NS: Who else are you suspicious of? I see a lot of filler coming from you but nothing stating a scum read. Or even following of anyone.
BM: Hey BM, how are you? Taking some lumps I see......would you mind voting Dunn and we can chat later about if you are scum or town and about play style later?
Thanks!!
Yep yep, usual fare! :lol:

I'm not so keen on Dunn
Maybe he's just not scum
Annie did tell me so
and scum is votato

:wink:

I'm worried about this "play style" chat...are you gonna bash me too? :cry:
Not a fun that 1 comment = town compared to his now lurking while votato takes pressure.

Your making me a sad puppy right now bm.
I'm sorry :(

I'll tell you what, if you join me in a righteous Green Crayons lynch today, we can lynch Dunnstral tomorrow. Pinky promise! :D
[/spoiler]

So I thought that BM's first point where he asks me what my Dunn vote is all about suggested Dunn is town--BM-scum is looking for real reasons to vote Dunn.

But then he changes Dunn to being town.

And then votes votato over the tied bandwagon on Dunn.

And then has this weird way of explaining why Dunn is town.

And then promises farside a Dunn lynch in the future if they could just do a GC lynch.


Not looking good for Dunn.

ALL OF THAT SAID:
In post 403, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 402, Dunnstral wrote:I saw battle mage playing similar to this as town.
And I saw Dunnstral playing completely different to this as scum. :cop:
Would scum meta each other to defend?


my goodness, maybe. i'm cringing just thinking of that possibility.[/quote]
"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 #1835 (isolation #277) » Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:06 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1834, Dunnstral wrote:
In post 1792, maxwell wrote:Give me reason to think you can't be. Or don't, that's fine too.

(doctorpepper, irritatingly, is probably more likely town after our recent exchange)
The only reason to think I'm scum is wifom from the guy who looked like he was going down
Well at least you're no longer completely wrong:
In post 1705, Dunnstral wrote:Now they're back on me again because my read was wrong, or something to that effect
But you're still halfway wrong. My main suspicion is how BM treated you, not Porkens.
"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 #1836 (isolation #278) » Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:07 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1833, Dunnstral wrote:
In post 1799, Green Crayons wrote:Your also at E-1 so govern yourself accordingly.
And for my next trick, I'll make these votes disappear
*meaningful stare*

*tear*
"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 #1852 (isolation #279) » Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:31 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Is max stun or farside?

If stun no

If farside ugggggh maybe
"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 #1895 (isolation #280) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: bob
"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 #1901 (isolation #281) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:29 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1896, bob3141 wrote:Pretty clear that nm is scum and has copped that im some kind of cop.
town move here would be to claim
"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 #1903 (isolation #282) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:30 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #1904 (isolation #283) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:31 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Any crumbs?
"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 #1916 (isolation #284) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:47 am

Post by Green Crayons »

NM, from your n1, can you clear someone who isn't

looker (hk/truth) or DP

?
"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 #1918 (isolation #285) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:50 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1900, bob3141 wrote:As i see it you must know my role or otherwise guessed it. As a gunsmith gets a false guilty on all cop variants. I flip and you try and use plausible deniability on your involvement in flipping a town pr.
NM's been calling you scum hard. not difficult to see his play in revealing you coming from town. and no real need as scum to prematurely blow a PR reveal, everyone might've piled on.
"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 #1921 (isolation #286) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:51 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1918, Green Crayons wrote:and no real need as scum to prematurely blow a PR reveal, everyone might've piled on.
everyone might've piled on to a bob-wagon without the PR reveal, and so a scum is less likely to just reveal it at the outset if trying for a mislynch
"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 #1922 (isolation #287) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:52 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Frankly, I'm inclined to believe both NM and bob.
"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 #1923 (isolation #288) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:53 am

Post by Green Crayons »

bob3141 - cop
Looker (HK 50 Truth ) - town (cop result)
DoctorPepper - town (cop result)

Not_Mafia - JOAT

Leaving:
Cat Scratch Fever (Ghost Ganster stungun0404)
Green Crayons
farside22
NoPowerOverMe (votato)
"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 #1925 (isolation #289) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:55 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1920, Not_Mafia wrote:another role which another player should know and I will let that player reveal
NM neighborized me. I received a single message at the end of the night that said we needed to lynch porkens.
"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 #1928 (isolation #290) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:58 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I don't know role names.

You ask so much 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 #1981 (isolation #291) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:48 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Wait vanilla cop is a role cop?
"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 #1982 (isolation #292) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:49 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: NPOE
"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 #1984 (isolation #293) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:50 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I’m still inclined to believe both bob and NM.

I have NM as basically confirm town. I don’t know why anyone sees this otherwise.

NPOE’s defense of bob and following bob’s attacks on NM look opportunistic. Makes more sense if bob is town than 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 #1986 (isolation #294) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:51 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1959, Not_Mafia wrote:You don't find bob's claim too convenient?
I mean, if bob is town, what exactly would be an inconvenient role for him to have in this situation?
"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 #1987 (isolation #295) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:52 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1985, Not_Mafia wrote:
In post 1981, Green Crayons wrote:Wait vanilla cop is a role cop?
A vanilla cop checks whether a role is a power role or vanilla, checking a VT or mafia goon would return a result of vanilla, checking a cop, doctor, mafia encryptor, mafia roleblocker etc... would return a result of not vanilla
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 #1988 (isolation #296) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:52 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

That’s some weak tea.
"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 #1989 (isolation #297) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:53 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1961, maxwell wrote:Also I'm still in the game last I checked.
My bad I copied from post 1.
"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 #1990 (isolation #298) » Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:55 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1985, Not_Mafia wrote:
In post 1981, Green Crayons wrote:Wait vanilla cop is a role cop?
A vanilla cop checks whether a role is a power role or vanilla, checking a VT or mafia goon would return a result of vanilla, checking a cop, doctor, mafia encryptor, mafia roleblocker etc... would return a result of not vanilla
Okay so this is a valid scum role too.

Yeah, I might be inclined if another town investigative role claims, like max said. But otherwise I’m disinclined.
"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 #2002 (isolation #299) » Wed Jul 15, 2020 5:17 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I thought votato was town, but I admit my ability to be monumentally wrong. I think NPOE's play has been scummy.
"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 #2006 (isolation #300) » Wed Jul 15, 2020 6:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I’m against a mass claim but favor a town investigator counter claiming bob if one exists.
"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 #2065 (isolation #301) » Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2055, maxwell wrote:Also, as an aside to everyone, the Malakittens shot is bizarre. She was lurky and wasn't particularly townread, so I'm wondering if this points to the scum being inattentive.
Was ruminating about this as well. Not sure why Mala of all people were shot.
"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 #2067 (isolation #302) » Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:24 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2060, Cat Scratch Fever wrote:
Spoiler: Day 1 VCs
In post 40, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
The players can see a fluffy wolf toying with some strings. After accidentally cutting one, someone unrelated died.
"Whoops."


Vote Count 1.2

notscience
(4):
DoctorPepper,
geraintm
,
Dunnstral
,
Malakittens

Malakittens
(2):
farside22,
notscience

Not_Mafia (1):
Ghost Ganster
HK 50 (1):
votato
Ghost Ganster (1):
Not_Mafia
farside22 (1):
HK 50
Not voting (3):
bob3141, Green Crayons,
Battle Mage



Mod Notes:
Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-22 07:23:04).
Battle Mage is V/LA until Sunday.[/area]
In post 55, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
"Anyone have some sand hanitizer? I need to hanitize my sands."


Vote Count 1.3

notscience
(4):
DoctorPepper,
geraintm
,
Dunnstral
,
Malakittens

Malakittens
(2):
farside22,
notscience

Not_Mafia (1):
Ghost Ganster
HK 50 (2):
votato, bob3141
Ghost Ganster (1):
Not_Mafia
Not voting (3):
Green Crayons,
Battle Mage
, HK 50


Mod Notes:
Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-22 07:23:04).
Battle Mage is V/LA until Sunday.[/area]
In post 100, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
"Morning everyone! I hope you enjoyes tour stay last night. Why is there red paint splattered on my walls?"


Vote Count 1.4

Malakittens
(3):
farside22,
notscience
,
Dunnstral

HK 50 (2):
votato, bob3141
notscience
(1):
geraintm

Not_Mafia (1):
Ghost Ganster
Ghost Ganster (1):
Not_Mafia
farside22 (1):
Green Crayons
Dunnstral
(1):
DoctorPepper
Not voting (3):
Battle Mage
, HK 50,
Malakittens



Mod Notes:
Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-22 07:23:04).
Battle Mage is V/LA until Sunday.[/area]
In post 125, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
"We at Jakethony Corporation Inc. would like to issue a statement: One of our employees has made a grammatical error in their previous statement. That employee has been fired. Coincidentally, they were silmultaneously cremated. Thank you for doing buisness with Jakethony Corporation Inc."


Vote Count 1.5

HK 50 (2):
votato, bob3141
notscience
(2):
geraintm
, Not_Mafia
Malakittens
(1):
Dunnstral

Not_Mafia (1):
Ghost Ganster
farside22 (1):
Green Crayons
Dunnstral
(1):
DoctorPepper
Green Crayons (1):
farside22
Not voting (4):
Battle Mage
, HK 50,
Malakittens
,
notscience



Mod Notes:
Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-22 07:23:04).
Battle Mage is V/LA until Sunday.[/area]
In post 182, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
"So we went from having a Ghost mobster to a sentient electricity gun? What kinda buisness are you running, Jake?"
"What's a buisness?"


Vote Count 1.6

Dunnstral
(4):
DoctorPepper, farside22, HK 50, Green Crayons
HK 50 (2):
votato, bob3141
notscience
(1):
geraintm

Malakittens
(1):
Dunnstral

Not_Mafia (1):
stungun0404
Battle Mage
(1):
Not_Mafia
Green Crayons (1):
Battle Mage

Not voting (2):
Malakittens
,
notscience



Mod Notes:
Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-22 07:23:04).
stungun0404 has replaced Ghost Ganster's slot.[/area]
In post 290, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
As a new day broke out, Jake was found dead... asleep. Despite the wailing of the town to do his job, he stayed still all the same. Micc, the secretary, didn't do Jake's job for him, but instead woke him up.


Vote Count 1.6

Dunnstral
(4):
DoctorPepper, farside22, HK 50, Green Crayons
HK 50 (2):
votato, bob3141
votato (2):
Malakittens
, stungun0404
notscience
(1):
geraintm

Malakittens
(1):
Dunnstral

Battle Mage
(1):
Not_Mafia
Green Crayons (1):
Battle Mage

Not voting (1):
notscience



Mod Notes:
Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-22 07:23:04).[/area]
In post 400, Micc wrote:
Vote Count 1.7

votato (5):
Malakittens
, stungun0404, notscience, bob3141,
Battle Mage

Dunnstral
(4):
DoctorPepper, farside22, HK 50, Green Crayons
Battle Mage
(2):
Not_Mafia, votato
notscience
(1):
geraintm

Malakittens
(1):
Dunnstral

Not voting (0):



Mod Notes:
Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-22 07:23:04).[/area]
In post 432, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
FLAVOR IS MANDATORY.


Vote Count 1.8

Dunnstral
(5):
DoctorPepper, farside22, HK 50,
notscience
, stungun0404
votato (3):
Malakittens
, bob3141,
Battle Mage

Battle Mage
(3):
Not_Mafia, votato, Green Crayons
notscience
(1):
geraintm

Malakittens
(1):
Dunnstral

Not voting (0):



Mod Notes:
Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-22 07:23:04).[/area]
In post 505, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
FLAVOR IS MANDATORY.


Vote Count 1.9

Dunnstral
(4):
DoctorPepper, farside22, HK 50, [
notscience
]
votato (2):
Malakittens
,
Battle Mage

Battle Mage
(2):
Not_Mafia, Green Crayons
Green Crayons (2):
stungun0404, votato
notscience
(1):
geraintm

Malakittens
(1):
Dunnstral

geraintm
(1):
bob3141
Not voting (0):



Mod Notes:
Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-22 07:23:04).
notscience is V/LA until Sunday, and has handed their vote to Malakittens.
farside22 is V/LA for (expired on 2020-06-19 13:49:13)[/area]
In post 603, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
"I'm telling ya, I don't know who who painted ya walls red, Jake!"


Vote Count 1.9

Dunnstral
(4):
DoctorPepper, farside22, HK 50, [
notscience
]
Battle Mage
(3):
Not_Mafia, Green Crayons, stungun0404
votato (2):
Malakittens
,
Battle Mage

Green Crayons (1):
votato
notscience
(1):
geraintm

geraintm
(1):
bob3141
Not_Mafia (1):
Dunnstral

Not voting (0):



Mod Notes:
Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-23 07:23:04).
notscience is V/LA until Sunday, and has handed their vote to Malakittens.
farside22 is V/LA for (expired on 2020-06-19 13:49:13)[/area]
In post 654, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
*w*


Vote Count 1.10

Dunnstral
(4):
DoctorPepper, farside22, HK 50, [
notscience
]
clidd
(3):
Not_Mafia, Green Crayons, stungun0404
Green Crayons (2):
votato,
clidd

votato (1):
Malakittens

notscience
(1):
geraintm

geraintm
(1):
bob3141
Not_Mafia (1):
Dunnstral

Not voting (0):



Mod Notes:
Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-24 07:23:04).
There was an error in the previous VC which has been corrected.

notscience is V/LA until Sunday, and has handed their vote to Malakittens.
farside22 is V/LA for (expired on 2020-06-19 13:49:13).
Doctor Pepper is V/LA for (expired on 2020-06-21 10:29:00).
stungun0404 is V/LA until Monday[/area]
In post 701, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
Twas a dark and stormy night.. the
cult leader
stroked his beard, a smile plastered on his face. He was thinking evil thoughts, wicked thoughts. In his thinking, an
assassin
took him out. Or so the story goes..


Vote Count 1.11

Dunnstral
(4):
DoctorPepper, farside22, HK 50, [
notscience
]
clidd
(4):
Not_Mafia, Green Crayons, stungun0404,
Malakittens

Green Crayons (2):
votato,
clidd

notscience
(1):
geraintm

geraintm
(1):
bob3141
Not_Mafia (1):
Dunnstral

Not voting (0):



Mod Notes:
Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-24 07:23:04).
clidd has been prodded, and has (expired on 2020-06-22 05:06:16) to respond before I find a replacement.

notscience is V/LA until Sunday, and has handed their vote to Malakittens.
Doctor Pepper is V/LA for (expired on 2020-06-21 10:29:00).
stungun0404 is V/LA until Monday.[/area]
In post 733, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
Incansecant Screaming


Vote Count 1.12

Dunnstral
(4):
DoctorPepper, farside22, HK 50,
notscience

clidd
(4):
Not_Mafia, Green Crayons, stungun0404,
Malakittens

Green Crayons (2):
votato,
clidd

notscience
(1):
geraintm

geraintm
(1):
bob3141
Not_Mafia (1):
Dunnstral

Not voting (0):



Mod Notes:
Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-24 07:23:04).
clidd has been prodded, and has (expired on 2020-06-22 05:06:16) to respond before I find a replacement.

votato has been prodded, and has (expired on 2020-06-22 11:38:47) to respond before I find a replacement.

Doctor Pepper is V/LA for (expired on 2020-06-22 06:06:00).
stungun0404 is V/LA until Monday.[/area]
In post 767, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
Incansecant Screaming


Vote Count 1.12

clidd
(6):
Not_Mafia, Green Crayons, stungun0404,
Malakittens
, bob3141, votato
Dunnstral
(4):
DoctorPepper, farside22, HK 50,
notscience

Green Crayons (1):
clidd

notscience
(1):
geraintm

Not_Mafia (1):
Dunnstral

Not voting (0):



Mod Notes:

Please do not vote players who have replaced out.

Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-24 07:23:04).
clidd has been prodded, and has (expired on 2020-06-22 05:06:16) to respond before I find a replacement.

geraintm has been prodded, and has (expired on 2020-06-22 19:49:43) to respond before I find a replacement.

Doctor Pepper is V/LA for (expired on 2020-06-22 06:06:00).
stungun0404 is V/LA until Monday.[/area]
In post 990, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
"These humans.. bore me. Instead of bloodshed and evil, they are trying to be cooperative and sensible. I must do something."


Vote Count 1.13

clidd
(5):
Not_Mafia, Green Crayons, [
Malakittens
], bob3141, votato
Dunnstral
(2):
DoctorPepper, HK 50
Green Crayons (2):
clidd
, farside22
HK 50(2):
Dunnstral
, stungun0404
notscience
(1):
geraintm

Not voting (1):
notscience



Mod Notes:

Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and is paused at 1 day, 15 hours, 39 minutes.
Currently looking for a replacement of clidd.
Doctor Pepper is V/LA for (expired on 2020-06-22 06:06:00).
Malakittens is V/LA for (expired on 2020-06-24 00:00:00) and has given their vote to notscience.[/area]
In post 998, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
All the players shall ever hear are the whispers of insanity, as insomnia takes hold...


Vote Count 1.14

Porkens
(5):
Not_Mafia, Green Crayons, [
Malakittens
], bob3141, votato
Dunnstral
(2):
DoctorPepper, HK 50
Green Crayons (2):
Porkens
, farside22
HK 50(2):
Dunnstral
, stungun0404
notscience
(1):
geraintm

Not voting (1):
notscience



Mod Notes:

Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-24 21:18:29).
HK 50 has been prodded and has (expired on 2020-06-24 05:39:29) to respond before I look for a replacement.

Malakittens is V/LA for (expired on 2020-06-24 00:00:00) and has given their vote to notscience.[/area]
In post 1166, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
Vote Count 1.15

Porkens
(3):
Malakittens
, bob3141, votato
Dunnstral
(2):
DoctorPepper,
Porkens

Green Crayons (2):
farside22, stungun0404
HK 50(1):
Dunnstral

notscience
(1):
geraintm

stungun0404 (1):
HK 50
votato (1):
Not_Mafia
Not voting (2):
notscience
, Green Crayons


Mod Notes:

Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-24 21:18:29).
DoctorPepper has been prodded and has (expired on 2020-06-25 06:12:59) to respond before I look for a replacement.
[/area]
In post 1243, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
Vote Count 1.16

Porkens
(4):
Malakittens
, bob3141, votato,
notscience

Dunnstral
(2):
DoctorPepper,
Porkens

Green Crayons (2):
farside22, stungun0404
HK 50(1):
Dunnstral

notscience
(1):
geraintm

stungun0404 (1):
HK 50
votato (1):
Not_Mafia
Not voting (1):
Green Crayons


Mod Notes:

Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-25 21:18:29).
1 day has been added to Porken's request.
Not_Mafia, please vote a valid player.[/area]
In post 1401, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
Vote Count 1.17

Porkens
(4):
bob3141, votato, Green Crayons, stungun0404
Dunnstral
(3):
DoctorPepper,
Porkens
,
Malakittens

votato (2):
Not_Mafia, farside22
HK 50(1):
Dunnstral

notscience
(1):
geraintm

stungun0404 (1):
HK 50
Not voting (1):
notscience



Mod Notes:

Majority is 7 players.

Day 1 has begun and will end in (expired on 2020-06-25 21:18:29).[/area]
In post 1577, Jake The Wolfie wrote:
Vote Count 1.18

geraintm
(7):
stungun0404, bob3141, votato,
Porkens
,
Dunnstral
, HK 50, Not_Mafia
Dunnstral
(2):
DoctorPepper,
Malakittens

votato (2):
farside22,
notscience

Porkens
(1):
Green Crayons
notscience
(1):
geraintm

Not voting (0):



Mod Notes:

Majority is 7 players.

A hammer has been reached.
[/area]
These VCs reasonably support votato as being a BM teammate.
"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 #2068 (isolation #303) » Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:25 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2066, Not_Mafia wrote:¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I guess we'll never know.
"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 #2089 (isolation #304) » Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:01 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2088, Looker wrote:We all know as a game now that votato/NPOM isn't town.
What about Max’s post brings you to this conclusion?
"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 #2102 (isolation #305) » Sat Jul 18, 2020 12:59 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2099, NoPowerOverMe wrote:Looker's comment that he's willing to be the lynch tomorrow if he's wrong is completely disingenuine.
This comment is NAI. Stupid town say it all the time.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #2103 (isolation #306) » Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:01 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2091, Looker wrote:The fact that this wagon is taking this long lets us know that scum is against it. Me being the counterwagon is also telling, but that's a discussion for post-flip.
I’m skeptical about these metrics. Yes, to an extent, scum won’t vote their own. But what about the other 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 #2105 (isolation #307) » Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:06 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #2138 (isolation #308) » Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:06 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I take that back.

Maybe I already went through this.

BM jumped on the votato wagon as vote five, which put votato at L-2. It was against the competing Dunn-town wagon (who was also at 4 votes). Doesn't make sense to push a buddy's wagon to L-2 when he could've jumped on Dunn-town's wagon to put it at L-2 instead (see and ).
"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 #2139 (isolation #309) » Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:06 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: bob
"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 #2140 (isolation #310) » Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:08 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2138, Green Crayons wrote:I take that back.
FWIW, I was looking at how votato was playing footsie with the BM/clidd/Porkens wagon when I said votato's votes reasonably supported a votato/NPOE scum. I glossed over what BM was actually doing with his 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 #2141 (isolation #311) » Sun Jul 19, 2020 3:16 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Spoiler: GC should always reread GC
In post 1658, Green Crayons wrote: So before BM voted votato, there was competing Dunn and votato wagons--both at 4 votes.

BM deicded to vote votato.

votato more likely to be town.

I think this is NAI about anyone else on the votato-wagon (Mala, stun ns, bob).

EITHER Dunn OR someone on the Dunn-wagon more likely to be scum (DP, farside/max, HK, GC).
In post 1660, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 421, Green Crayons wrote:His vote on votato looks made up.

First, his vote:
In post 343, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 315, Green Crayons wrote:Votato votes are lazy. I bet one of y'all are scum.
Challenge accepted!

VOTE: Votato

I like the meta analysis by stungun
, clearly nobody is getting behind Green Crayons, and I think I'm townleaning Dunnstral. And seriously, voting BM on Day 1? This dude has run out of ideas... :lol:
He reads votato as scum only because of your meta analysis. But your meta analysis specifically said it was a wash on alignment, and so wasn't AI:
In post 334, stungun0404 wrote:While you may be fairly active in some of your scum games, this evidence does not suggest that in your town games you are always lurking at the start.
Thus, I don't think this initial analysis into your gameplay is very alignment-indicative, as it seems you are breaking pattern regardless of alignment.
So his votato vote pushes a wagon based on nothing AI. He does get in a sweet "lol ooOooOooOoo I'm teasing you with maybe I'm scum" jab, which is more likely to come from scum than town.


Then, this continued vote despite:
In post 404, Battle Mage wrote:
In post 391, votato wrote:i have a little but i cant talk about it. by day 2 or 3 ill probably give some more details. as for the association you're drawing between me and dunn, stun, you're right that we aren't scumbuddies, but i dont think your reasons why are all that strong. plus the only reason you know that is cuz you and i are scumbuddies.
In post 392, votato wrote:shit wrong thread.
:lol:

Last time I saw something like this it flipped town, but what can ya do!? :lol:
He points to non-player-specific meta that would suggest that votato is town. But just lols over it and keeps his votato vote. His decision to pick and choose "meta" to justify whether votes should move is particularly glaring when you consider he uses meta a few posts later in to argue votes on Dunn are misplaced.
oh also

lol

okay votato is town y'all

NPOE please play up to your town slot.
"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 #2165 (isolation #312) » Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:29 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2146, bob3141 wrote:A player that when bm/clidd and dun were tied at l-3. Broke the tie and pushed clidd to l-2.
Give me post #s.
"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 #2166 (isolation #313) » Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:30 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2146, bob3141 wrote:Where as what ever i tried i simply couldnt get hk/looker slot to vote for clidd. We had endless resistance from him over it.
Post #s?
"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 #2167 (isolation #314) » Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:31 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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 #2208 (isolation #315) » Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I need to reread because, between replacements and the long delays, I really don't know anything.
"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 #2209 (isolation #316) » Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Is this really YOLO? If so, mass claim is optimal play, right?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #2255 (isolation #317) » Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:55 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2214, maxwell wrote:I am the Town Simple Doctor.
What were your night choices and why?
"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 #2259 (isolation #318) » Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:54 am

Post by Green Crayons »

NM and max, what are your ideal town blocks?

I hope to do some rereading 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 #2267 (isolation #319) » Wed Jul 29, 2020 3:35 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2264, NoPowerOverMe wrote:Either that or one of the pr's is lying.
You want to line up all the PR claims and players who claimed them for 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 #2269 (isolation #320) » Wed Jul 29, 2020 3:46 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1971, maxwell wrote:
In post 1962, NoPowerOverMe wrote:@maxwell, what makes you think there is another investigative role?
Normal setup power distributions. As it stands now if our only power roles are 2-shot simple vig + simple doctor + JOAT that's an exceedingly weak town and unlikely to pass review for balance.

Think it's very likely though that it's an all-goon scumteam because of this though.
You still think there's another investigative role?

NPOM, DP: either of you copping to 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 #2270 (isolation #321) » Wed Jul 29, 2020 3:47 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2268, NoPowerOverMe wrote:NM - Gunsmith
Bob - Vanilla Cop
Maxwell - Town Simple Doctor

AFAIK.
Ty.

And also a dead town simple 2-shot vig, and a dead odd-night roleblocker.
"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 #2277 (isolation #322) » Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:09 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2271, NoPowerOverMe wrote:I'm vt. Are you saying you have evidence of an unclaimed action?
Nope, I'm VT.



So:

NM - JOAT
Bob - Vanilla Cop
Maxwell - Town Simple Doctor

NPOM - VT
DP - VT
GC - VT

dead town simple 2-shot vig
dead odd-night roleblocker
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #2278 (isolation #323) » Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:09 am

Post by Green Crayons »

DP, who is your 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 #2281 (isolation #324) » Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #2282 (isolation #325) » Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:17 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Also, I've already quoted him soft-claiming on the prior page. Please factor that into your 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 #2289 (isolation #326) » Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2284, DoctorPepper wrote:Why is everyone so quick to accept his claim as fact.

In fact, why did NPOM and Bob just assume it to be true without question?

Are you aware of the game state?
It seems more likely true than not. A mod isn't likely to accidentally reveal a role that doesn't even exist in the game. They are more likely to reveal the wrong role with a flip.

Is accepting it as true supposed to be AI for NPOM and Bob? Spell that out for 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 #2290 (isolation #327) » Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:27 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I think it's fair to speculate that there is at least 1 scum in DP-NPOM-GC.

I'm not sure if I think DP and NPOM are scum. Which would mean there's also 1 scum in the claimed PRs.
"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 #2291 (isolation #328) » Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:30 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2263, NoPowerOverMe wrote:I have no way of proving myself over GC, but I know it's the truth obviously.
To clarify: you've cleared DP as town, then?
"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 #2293 (isolation #329) » Thu Jul 30, 2020 12:28 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

So then why do you think it's a NPOM v. GC situation rather than NPOM v. DP.
"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 #2295 (isolation #330) » Thu Jul 30, 2020 12:47 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Oh you're voting DP

You are weird NPOM
"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 #2300 (isolation #331) » Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:05 am

Post by Green Crayons »

So you agree that NPOM 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 #2301 (isolation #332) » Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I've got to say, this is obviously down to NPOM v DP for me, and I'm really wanting to vote DP.

Of the PRs, I think it's bob.
"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 #2302 (isolation #333) » Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

NM & max, yea or nay?
"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 #2303 (isolation #334) » Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

bob where are you and what are you thinking?
"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 #2306 (isolation #335) » Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:39 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Is your max suspicions solely because of his claim?
"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 #2311 (isolation #336) » Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:52 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

But I'm p sure you're town so let's not do that.
"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 #2317 (isolation #337) » Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2315, NoPowerOverMe wrote:GC isn't acting anti town but I would still pick him due to POE.
That would mean you have slotted everyone else 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 #2319 (isolation #338) » Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:40 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Max, you good with that?
"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 #2332 (isolation #339) » Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:47 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2330, DoctorPepper wrote:It's Bob/Maxwell/NPOM. I hope you guys see that.
...
"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 #2333 (isolation #340) » Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:49 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2321, Not_Mafia wrote:Please don't be Max and GC
I’ve gotten rid of the “NM is playing me hard” paranoia, please join me on the max/GC/NM I believe town train.
"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 #2334 (isolation #341) » Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:50 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2331, DoctorPepper wrote:Also lol, you're claiming I'm.scum because I said "bus" when it's clear that I thought both of you were scum?

Clownery
I’m suspecting you BECAUSE of your play today.

It’s seriously suspect.

Not the bus comment. Your pushing max out of nowhere. And hanging on to it. Doesn’t feel genuine.
"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 #2335 (isolation #342) » Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:51 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2333, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 2321, Not_Mafia wrote:Please don't be Max and GC
I’ve gotten rid of the “NM is playing me hard” paranoia, please join me on the max/GC/NM I believe town train.
That’s the

I Believe!

town train, btw
"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 #2345 (isolation #343) » Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:58 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2337, NoPowerOverMe wrote:Someone who is town should not be asking for town cred(2333)
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 #2346 (isolation #344) » Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:59 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2338, bob3141 wrote:So if you suspect pepper by your own logic shouldnt you already be voting Doctorpepper.


Only yesterday you were prodding maxwell to go for powers. If although wrongly you genuinely think its me plus one of dp/powers. Shouldnt you have been prodding maxwell to go for doctor pepper.
I haven't voted yet (and apparently won't get to) because I wanted to make sure I was on the same page as the town obvtown, NM and max.

I can't untangle what the second half of your post is 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 #2347 (isolation #345) » Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:02 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2336, DoctorPepper wrote:Why would I keep pushing max if I didn't think he was scum?

How is it out of nowhere when I was on max yesterday
this is a moot issue, but I don't recall you being on max yesterday because honestly I can't remember much of anything from yesterday because of delays and replacements, but I thought the focus was on NPOM before the shift.
"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 #2349 (isolation #346) » Sun Aug 02, 2020 11:46 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I was wanting DP over NPOM, so if NPOM is scum congrats he successfully duped 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 #2351 (isolation #347) » Sun Aug 02, 2020 11:59 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Fair. I just don’t see the NPOM.

Max: if DP is scum, do you have a feeling about whether NPOM or bob would be a teammate?
"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 #2352 (isolation #348) » Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:01 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2351, Green Crayons wrote:Fair. I just don’t see the NPOM.
But I don’t claim to be infallible hence why I’m willing to vote NPOM if NM and max thinks it’s a good idea.
"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 #2353 (isolation #349) » Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:01 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #2356 (isolation #350) » Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:33 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2354, Not_Mafia wrote:So you think bob is last scum?
Assuming we’re not wasting our time here and DP is scum, that’s what I’m leaning towards subject to thinking really 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 #2357 (isolation #351) » Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:34 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Fair enough max. I appreciate 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 #2364 (isolation #352) » Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:12 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I want to hear what Bob has to say.
"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 #2365 (isolation #353) » Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:13 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Before NM.
"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 #2367 (isolation #354) » Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:02 am

Post by Green Crayons »

bobobobobobobobob
"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 #2377 (isolation #355) » Fri Aug 07, 2020 3:12 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #2378 (isolation #356) » Fri Aug 07, 2020 3:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Oh I had misread bob's post. Now I understand 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 #2379 (isolation #357) » Fri Aug 07, 2020 3:20 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I'll read some stuff 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 #2385 (isolation #358) » Fri Aug 07, 2020 8:23 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2383, NoPowerOverMe wrote:i have no way to defend myself. All I can say is well done GC, well deserved scum win.
tempted to vote you on this post alone tbh
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #2386 (isolation #359) » Fri Aug 07, 2020 8:24 am

Post by Green Crayons »

my one reservation is why wouldnt NPOM do a hard bob push when i've already said that I'm leaning towards bob. instead NPOM has stuck with GC as main scum suspect.
"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 #2387 (isolation #360) » Fri Aug 07, 2020 8:24 am

Post by Green Crayons »

ofc I definitely want to reread DP, who I had comfortably slotted as town until yesterday.
"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 #2388 (isolation #361) » Fri Aug 07, 2020 8:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2386, Green Crayons wrote:my one reservation is why wouldnt NPOM do a hard bob push when i've already said that I'm leaning towards bob. instead NPOM has stuck with GC as main scum suspect.
I say this because, although NM has started playing with his cards close to his chest, he has largely seen me as town and wanted to lynch bob at one point, and thus NPOM-scum would have an easier time getting NM on a bob-wagon than a GC-wagon
"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 #2389 (isolation #362) » Fri Aug 07, 2020 8:27 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2385, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 2383, NoPowerOverMe wrote:i have no way to defend myself. All I can say is well done GC, well deserved scum win.
tempted to vote you on this post alone tbh

i mean
In post 2080, NoPowerOverMe wrote:I know how to play and win in lylo. Book it. My record says so. Mafia is obviously trying to get to lylo now by lynching 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 #2390 (isolation #363) » Fri Aug 07, 2020 8:28 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2370, bob3141 wrote:At the moment im leaning powers as being the town read that i was wrong about.
I'd like to hear your suspicions on both NPOM and GC.
"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 #2394 (isolation #364) » Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:02 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

hth after reading DP's iso, i want to vote NPOM


im too drunk to explain fully but basically he ignored votato, threw a couple of shade posts over to bob, and only started interacting with NPOM (who replaced votato) late in the game without any real buildup.
"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 #2395 (isolation #365) » Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:02 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2393, Not_Mafia wrote:I'll be voting NPOM in 24 hours unless he attempts prvcide some sort of case on GC
if you're down to NPOM v. GC, and bob is completely out of the picture for you, I'm going to vote NPOM.
"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 #2419 (isolation #366) » Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:30 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: NPOM

Hope you’re not town who has played this day just horribly.

If you’re scum kudos to votato for convincing me otherwise.
"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 #2422 (isolation #367) » Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:32 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

You’ve said that I’m scum bc it’s objectively true and haven’t made a case for why either myself or bob is scum.

Obviously I’d prefer a bob case but you’ve basically thrown your hands up and ATEd everywhere.
"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 #2424 (isolation #368) » Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:34 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

How can you say someone is objectively scum without explaining it? In fact, saying they there’s NO WAY to justify it. How does that come from a town POV?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #2429 (isolation #369) » Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:37 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2263, NoPowerOverMe wrote:I have no way of proving myself over GC, but I know it's the truth obviously.
Sorry, obviously not objectively
"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 #2432 (isolation #370) » Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:39 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

You also haven’t made an argument for why I’m scum.

Instead you e repeatedly said that I’ve been playing super town.

And you said bob has played anti 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 #2434 (isolation #371) » Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:41 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Like. Red alarms are going off. Town are hypocritical all the time. But this is just doesn’t feel legitimate. You’ve zeroed in on me being scum because ?????? And have stuck to that for no valid reasons hat you’ve shared. It feels like you’ve calculated that sticking to a GC vote looks better than switching elsewhere.
"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 #2435 (isolation #372) » Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:41 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2314, NoPowerOverMe wrote:Yep Bob and Dr are the one's acting most anti town. Bob has no sense of urgency and Dr is trying to discredit everyone.
"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 #2436 (isolation #373) » Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:42 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Followed immediately with:
In post 2315, NoPowerOverMe wrote:GC isn't acting anti town but I would still pick him due to POE.
"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 #2439 (isolation #374) » Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:44 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

He could really have that PR and still 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 #2440 (isolation #375) » Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:46 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2437, Not_Mafia wrote:I've only just noticed GC's join date, there goes my tinfoil "GC is Psyche's secret mafia-playing alt" theory.
I can only assume psyche is a kickass fiend and thus I can understand the theory.
"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 #2444 (isolation #376) » Sat Aug 08, 2020 12:50 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Have you missed me trying to figure that 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 #2454 (isolation #377) » Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:36 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I swear to fuck if NM 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 #2455 (isolation #378) » Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:38 am

Post by Green Crayons »

gg whoever it was, which I’m assuming bob
"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 #2458 (isolation #379) » Sun Aug 09, 2020 5:25 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2457, Not_Mafia wrote:Inb4 lock
You jerk.

With bob’s hammer I’m thinking bob scum. If bob didn’t hammer but posted I was toying with a no lynch, as that’d mean bob is town and NM possible scum. If NM-scum he’d then either kill me (thank you) or bob, and hth I’d probably have a breakdown trying to figure out who was playing me harder, NPOM or NM.
"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 #2460 (isolation #380) » Sun Aug 09, 2020 5:31 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Makes you think.
"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 #2467 (isolation #381) » Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:21 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2455, Green Crayons wrote:gg whoever it was, which I’m assuming bob
"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 #2468 (isolation #382) » Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:22 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 2466, callforjudgement wrote:I think I got the balance about right;
Agree.
"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 #2488 (isolation #383) » Sun Aug 09, 2020 3:45 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

tbh, I could've used shorter nights. made the game lull and couldn't get a rhythm.

other than that, I appreciate the modding.
"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).
Locked

Return to “Completed Mini Normal Games”