Open 790 | Purgatory | Game Over!


User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #92 (isolation #0) » Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:05 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

How are there four pages already and so many filled with a pretty awful black background text.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #93 (isolation #1) » Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:06 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: Isis

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

Post Post #94 (isolation #2) » Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:07 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 89, Hayasaka wrote:squeeze out any points of EV
What’s EV
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #96 (isolation #3) » Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:18 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 58, Hayasaka wrote:I think one of Isis or Cthylla is scum here, I think scum have the most incentive to open up the game with this much presence.

Similarly to the way scum tend to open up theme games strongly because they spent time getting hyped up already. I think scum would look and see their win con involves getting sent to heaven and would promptly decide to open up the game like this to try and achieve an early pocket.
I like this 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 #98 (isolation #4) » Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:22 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I’m not not going to read your posts over it. Put me in the crotchety “no but for real” camp that I don’t like it at all. We can just send you off quickly and everyone wins.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #99 (isolation #5) » Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:23 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Though you having to put in those tags each time is mildly endearing.

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

Post Post #102 (isolation #6) » Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:28 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 100, Isis wrote:
I have a macro, I type "pnk" and hit ctrl+spacebar for the front and do "knp" for the back. It's a google chrome extension. If I show you how do make your posts looks like green crayons in 5 keystrokes will you forgive me?
Some things are unforgivable but you’ve gotten my interest.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #103 (isolation #7) » Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:29 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 82, Hayasaka wrote:too many OOG posts
What does OOG mean
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #107 (isolation #8) » Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:38 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #108 (isolation #9) » Wed Aug 12, 2020 12:39 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Thanks, Hay.

Happy with my 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 #124 (isolation #10) » Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:36 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 115, Cthylla wrote:
Green Crayons has played with Isis before !
the "happy with my vote" bit i didn't like
don't know why but maybe cuz it feels like he's putting unreasonable confidence in something which doesn't warrant it?
i should know isis's early game play from playing one game with her = dumb take

also lol i forgot how she entered that game, and also it's not comparable to here so = double dumb take

"happy with my vote" as in, i'm happy to take hay's theory down the Isis chute in responding to why hay wanted to go the Cth route
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #128 (isolation #11) » Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:39 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 118, Isis wrote:
My entrance in Green Crayons's game is beautiful and deserves to be linked, I broke my new main in by trying to roleplay some weird cross site newbie.

I think knowing my meta or not GC's entrance seems scummier than rand, that perception is colored by Krazy bitching about my font on Purg1 as an excuse not to read my content. I don't think that's far from what GC did here. I posted like, a read and a half already, I think.
the black background is legitimately hard to read on my phone. it hurts my eyes.

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

Post Post #189 (isolation #12) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:03 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 171, Dannflor wrote:(sorry green crayons I'm sure you are very charismatic outside of this particular instance)
I won't abide this slander.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #191 (isolation #13) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:06 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 153, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:I am curious Isis, how much of a main thread do you follow in a game once you are eliminated?
I'd rather send to heaven a strong town player who has told us their final reads, and WHO WON'T keep up, and then will do a reread if we get to judgment day.

I think reading a mature game (like, actually reading the thing) without many preconceptions is probably the strongest town weapon. It's why town replacements into a game can be killer if done by a strong 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 #193 (isolation #14) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:09 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 191, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 153, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:I am curious Isis, how much of a main thread do you follow in a game once you are eliminated?
I'd rather send to heaven a strong town player who has told us their final reads, and WHO WON'T keep up, and then will do a reread if we get to judgment day.

I think reading a mature game (like, actually reading the thing) without many preconceptions is probably the strongest town weapon. It's why town replacements into a game can be killer if done by a strong player.
mmmm, slight revision. I think I would be happy to send a strong town player to heaven once we get at least 1 scum in hell. not send a strong town player to heaven before 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 #195 (isolation #15) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 160, Isis wrote:Is the difference between the Isis chute and the Cth chute font??
there's nothing more in your posts that i can find
what's the deal
I only figured out the "chutes" the second time
chutes and ladders
No, it's not the font.
In post 58, Hayasaka wrote:I should really play the game though as happy as I am to see Isis order my favorite card and would love to stay off topic.
I think one of Isis or Cthylla is scum here, I think scum have the most incentive to open up the game with this much presence.

Similarly to the way scum tend to open up theme games strongly because they spent time getting hyped up already. I think scum would look and see their win con involves getting sent to heaven and would promptly decide to open up the game like this to try and achieve an early pocket.
In post 82, Hayasaka wrote:The only read I am particularly happy about is my current vote. I think your
<GC note: "your" is "Isis">
energy is headed into way too many OOG posts for me to be able to think you are trying to actually pocket anyone.
Post 58 is a cute theory to pursue early D1. That means either Isis or Cthylla is voteworthy under this theory.

Note I was voting Isis before digesting Post 58, in an initial skim of the 4 or so pages that existed then, because of the font thing to register my annoyance.

Post 82 is Hayasaka explaining why she went the Cthylla-vote route rather than Isis-vote route. Once I figured out what she meant by OOG, I disagreed with that being a basis to discount an Isis vote under her theory, and was comfortable with keeping my vote where it is at this point.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #196 (isolation #16) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:22 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 194, clidd wrote:And it would be interesting to stop speculating about sending player X or Y to a certain place for N reasons. Discussion of mechanics is not useful in the AI ​​field and is the easiest thing to speculate as a demon (I will use this pronunciation now) ^
Discussing mechanics strategy is not the same as setup speculation. We should at least discuss how we want to maximize our use of the game mechanics to best position ourselves to a win.

If you think anyone is discussing setup or mechanics to avoid hunting, which I agree is suspicious, name names.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #198 (isolation #17) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:27 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 172, Dannflor wrote:I don't dislike his entrance on isolation but I dislike its placement on page 6 of the game
Can you explain 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 #199 (isolation #18) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:29 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 180, Cthylla wrote:word feels a little disingenuous in his opening
And can you explain 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 #203 (isolation #19) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:58 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 200, clidd wrote:I don't want to see boring, but this type of advice is generic in my opinion and seems to try to give the impression that you are trying to verbalize something pro-town, when in reality you are only emphasizing something of common sense.
Glad you think my strategy is common sense.

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

Post Post #204 (isolation #20) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:00 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Also, nobody should make AI determinations from strategy discussions. Nobody has a motivation to say anything that isn't what they perceive to be optimal strategy, or at least a moderately good one.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #207 (isolation #21) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:09 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 200, clidd wrote:seems to try to give the impression that you are trying to verbalize something pro-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 #212 (isolation #22) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I'm saying people should actively work against drawing AI conclusions from strategy discussions.

I can walk and chew bubble gum, and have fishing lines out waiting for some bites. You've been the biggest distraction that's keeping me talking not about mechanics strategy, but talking about talking about mechanics strategy. I think
that's
AI as it looks like you're hunting when you're not.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #213 (isolation #23) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 208, Cthylla wrote:clidd is an angelread
hard pass on this take
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #215 (isolation #24) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:29 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 211, NorwegianboyEE wrote:You usually seem less sure about people's alignments than you're letting on here.
In post 115, Cthylla wrote:the "happy with my vote" bit i didn't like
don't know why but maybe cuz it feels like he's putting unreasonable confidence in something which doesn't warrant it?
What are the odds that Cthylla misreading my comment as a show of "unreasonable confidence" was em telling on emself.


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

Post Post #218 (isolation #25) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

walk and chew bubble gum is a saying that just means you can do two things at once.

if you're trying to get AI from strategy discussion, you're doing it wrong for the reasons I've already stated. glad we've successfully gone full circle on this. want to continue to spin tires?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #247 (isolation #26) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 5:54 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 238, clidd wrote:I can't see why it would be invalid for me to take an AI impression of a mechanical post that looks like a filler to fill space
In post 241, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:Green crayons argued with clidd .
also changed his answer on my question
. Not sure what to make of just yet.
I'm taking crazy pills because I said neither of these things.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #248 (isolation #27) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 5:56 am

Post by Green Crayons »

232 indirectly responds to my earlier Q that was ignored. it's a big meh 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 #249 (isolation #28) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 5:59 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 238, clidd wrote:I can't see why it would be invalid for me to take an AI impression of a mechanical post that looks like a filler to fill space. By extension, this would also be hypothetically ignoring mechanical post spam, as I cannot draw AI conclusions from their presence (it doesn't work).
To be clear:

1. You SHOULDN'T draw AI thoughts from substantive recommendations about strategy. Nobody is going to give a bad strategy to hurt town--neither town (obviously) or scum are motivated to openly suggest bad strategies. If you start feeling like "oh Player X must be town because that's a good strategy," slap yourself and wake up. No AI.

2. You CAN get AI from whether a player focuses MOSTLY or ONLY on setup speculation or mechanics strategy, because like you said scum can use it as a crutch.

3. You CAN get AI from players who focus on whether other players are focusing on setup speculation or mechanics strategy, because it's a super easy "discussion about a discussion" that scum can use to look busy.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #250 (isolation #29) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:01 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Now that we've successfully had a two-page discussion about how we view discussions about strategy, what do you make of Cth and Norwegian's back and forth about Cth's alt status?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #253 (isolation #30) » Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:05 am

Post by Green Crayons »

oh lol i thought you meant after clidd chimed in and as part of our back and forth

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

Post Post #472 (isolation #31) » Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:51 am

Post by Green Crayons »

8 pages in 24 hours is silly. I'll have my work cut out for me in the morning, cup of coffee in hand.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #490 (isolation #32) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:11 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Hurrah. I read the thread.

---

clidd: lean scum. I don't like his fixation on me. After a page or two of plenty others talking about mechanics strategy, he focuses on me, draws us into a 1v1, later declares 1v1 likely to be tvt, and then calls it a day. This is a lean and not a full scum read because, upon seeing the Word-town flip, his discussion about still supporting the Word elimination before the Word-town flip seems town.

Cthylla: scum. Passing over his initial reason to vote me, on the basis that my perspective of that reasoning might be biased, I think he's more likely scum because his suspicions seem to wait until thread approval. For example, he seemed followed Dannflor's, Walter's, and Norwegian's suspicions to Word; he followed clidd's suspicion for onto and then away from GC; and then hammered Word in a pretty scummy hammer post that rushed the day to a premature end.

Dannflor: lean town. I think I saw one post early game that struck me as maybe scummish, but I read his Word justification posts are being pretty open. Overall Dann has been a nonentity relative to everyone else, and so only a lean read here.

Isis: lean scum. I think her push on Word was objectively bad. Town can be wrong but the 350s interaction between Isis/Word, ending with her vote in as being "way too dissonant" just looks manufactured. I also think Word had a point that her walls make her look more productive than actually being productive. it's hard to follow threads of conversations when people respond to walls. Also, some of her content towards me looks like make-work. Take , where she thinks my explanation "doesn't make sense," she essentially retypes what happened in a way that shows she understands perfectly. This is only a lean because I think suspicions based on posting style get half credit.

NorwegianboyEE: lean town. I view Norwegian as in the same basket as Dann. They're present, and have made substantive posts, but haven't rocked the boat for me to get strong AI feelings one way or the other. For both Dannflor and Norwegian, gun to my head I'd say town but I'm not comfortable enough to commit to beyond a lean read atm.

Hayasaka: town. This is a stupid little thing, but I think town are more likely to openly state their desire to be heavened rather than scum, and so on my reread jumped out to me. Hayasaka raises a perfectly good strategy to think up and follow on page 3, which nets town points. Her Page 14 posts are all open and town to me. And similar to the town pings I get from clidd's twilight commentary about Word, I think her support for the Word lynch before the Word-town flip is more likely to come from town.

Green Crayons: me

WaltertheDunce10: null. tbh I forget Walter is in this game until he posts.

--

Town

Hayasaka
Dannflor
Norwegian
Walter
Clidd
Isis
Cthylla

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 #491 (isolation #33) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:12 am

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: Dannflor

I think Hayasaka is our towniest, but she's more active than Dann, and so without a red flip yet I want our active town playing.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #496 (isolation #34) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:56 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #497 (isolation #35) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Cant agree = 180 opposite on each slot’s read, or the specific things I said, or both?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #501 (isolation #36) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:03 am

Post by Green Crayons »

lol, ok

He’s still lean for me

Yes she is

So you agree that she’s acted scummy but also acted town and you tip the balance toward town because of meta?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #502 (isolation #37) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:05 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 500, clidd wrote:The thing is: I had an impression that you were town after our 1v1, but you just disappeared after that and now came back with a scumlean on me.
I was absent for, like, 24 hours and the thread went and eliminated a player. Me dealing with work and spending time with my cohort family in a pandemic, which means I’m not in the thick of a rush to an elimination when deadline is days away, isn’t me “just disappearing.”

I had a scum read on you before I left. I tempered it to just a lean based on your twilight posting.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #503 (isolation #38) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:06 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Also, you throwing shade for me NOT reciprocating your tvt read from our 1v1 coincides with my suspicion of you for targeting me in the 1v1
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #506 (isolation #39) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:09 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Well then you should understand my Isis read because I don’t think those are compelling town points and I’m always skeptical of meta.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #507 (isolation #40) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:09 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 505, clidd wrote:
In post 503, Green Crayons wrote:Also, you throwing shade for me NOT reciprocating your tvt read from our 1v1 coincides with my suspicion of you for targeting me in the 1v1
Yes, if i think that the normal for town!you was agree and you disagree, I can see you as scum. That's how I work.
Is this too scummy to 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 #509 (isolation #41) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:13 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #519 (isolation #42) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:33 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 515, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:@GC
Why do you think town will be more open on their desire to be heavened than scum?
I don’t think that as a rule of thumb. Haya’s claim to get heavened either early or late, which was not joking, and which was made real early, just smacks of town. It seems too bold of a move for scum, not just because getting into heaven is good for scum, bad for town, but because presumably scum want flexibility to decide whether and when to push for their slot to go to heaven.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #520 (isolation #43) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:43 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 510, clidd wrote:
In post 507, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 505, clidd wrote:
In post 503, Green Crayons wrote:Also, you throwing shade for me NOT reciprocating your tvt read from our 1v1 coincides with my suspicion of you for targeting me in the 1v1
Yes, if i think that the normal for town!you was agree and you disagree, I can see you as scum. That's how I work.
Is this too scummy to be scum?
No, the premise I'm using is to imagine what you would think/do as town.
Seems to me that you’re holding hostage your alignment reading of my slot based of whether I reciprocate your town read on me. If I reciprocate and call you town, then you’ll say I’m town. But if I dont play ball, and suggest you’re scum, then I don’t get called 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 #521 (isolation #44) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:44 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #524 (isolation #45) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:52 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I don’t disagree with the second of those possibilities, but just because it’s possible in theory doesn’t mean it’s correct here. For example, maybe she has no experience with this game type. (Haya, care to share?)

As for the first point, it’s not a matter of does she really want to go to heaven or not. (I agree if she’s lying about it then she’s probably scum because no reason for town to lie. But there’s no way to ever figure out whether she’s lying.) the point is that she’s made her stand about what she does want to happen. That reduces her flexibility to change her position later on. That’s why I see it as more 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 #529 (isolation #46) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 10:01 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I'm shocked, just shocked to hear 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 #531 (isolation #47) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 10:02 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 527, clidd wrote:An example of how my thinking works:

viewtopic.php?p=12043695#p12043695

Both scums had me as scumread and the remaining two towns had me as townread.

By imagining what kind of impressions each player would have on me, at that time, I concluded that anyone who had me as a scumread would be acting in bad faith and whoever had me as a townread would have reasons for that, which would reinforce the idea of ​​them being town.
this looks like you have adopted the "if someone townreads me, they're town; if someone scumreads me, they;'re scum" mentality as if it's a good indicator of alignment rather than a knee-jerk bias everyone has, and you had the unfortunate (per the long term) experience of that actually panning out correct once and so you think it's a good guideline to follow
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #532 (isolation #48) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 10:04 am

Post by Green Crayons »

ugh and that probably means this is more likely a town perspective, unless if you've fabricated your adoption of this theory because of some actual game, which seems unlikely
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #537 (isolation #49) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 10:13 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Nope. Dann has been open and provided clear insight in terms of his GC, Word, and Walter reads. Just because he's wrong doesn't mean he's scum. His playing is straightforward and clear to understand (just like Haya I might add).

I'd like more Dann posts to settle into a solid town read, but he's a good vote rn at the beginning of heaven phase.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #538 (isolation #50) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 10:14 am

Post by Green Crayons »

i was going to wait for Dann to post, but since you bring up Norwegian's point:

it's a bad point. A reaction post to a flip is not going to be AI.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #542 (isolation #51) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 10:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

well i haven't called him a solid town read, so we're gravy
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #546 (isolation #52) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 10:24 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I didn't say it was all you're waiting for?

Voting for anyone = get reads and reactions

If Dann says something that warrants him not going to heaven, I do believe there's the unvote option
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #556 (isolation #53) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 10:39 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 550, Hayasaka wrote:GC I think the last 2 pages show that Clidd is probably town?
ugh. maybe.

I want some time to digest his explanation about his view of the 1v1
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #557 (isolation #54) » Sat Aug 15, 2020 10:42 am

Post by Green Crayons »

not seeing how anyone doesn't read Haya's past couple of pages of posts as not obvtown
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #616 (isolation #55) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 599, Dannflor wrote:hello?

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

Post Post #617 (isolation #56) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:17 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 600, Dannflor wrote:I'm very surprised to see heaven already
Also

Lol

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

Post Post #618 (isolation #57) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:22 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 584, clidd wrote:Ok, Hectic. From what I understand from your text, you are trying to give me the view that you can see that I am town and also see that I am wrong about you.

The problem is that as much as it is true what you said (about scum!You know how to trick me into having a townread on you), I really didn't feel anything that told me that you are town, and that's crucial to me.
I think this is what you’re saying in this post, but my interpretation is that Hectic’s post of “Scum me knows how to play town you, and I’m telling you how I’d do that, and so you should understand me to be town” seems like a scum who can’t generate town points some other way, so is trying to manufacture something he’d think town might like.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #619 (isolation #58) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:30 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 591, Isis wrote:GC might be a bad heaven (I guess I am randomly getting onto heaven topics like Narset wanted yay) for being good at mafia. NSG nommed him for a scummy after nightless vanilla and he did wagon analysis stuff that gave town lots of milage in that game. IDK if he is always good though or it was just one game. GC are you always good?
I like wagon analysis once there’s a flip and working backwards from there. It’s not great and I sometimes mess it up, but that’s probably my best mafia power.

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

Post Post #620 (isolation #59) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:39 am

Post by Green Crayons »

It’s very weird that after the thread either collectively suspected me or shrugged their shoulders at me, there is a bunch of “yeah GC is town enough to be heavened” posts. That doesn’t seem natural to me which makes me think my reads are on to something.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #625 (isolation #60) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:20 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Town

Hayasaka: obv-town from her play. that she wants to heaven me after I've apparently been the biggest champion of "hayasaka = town" means she's unlikely to be scum.

Norwegian: lean town. i switched Norwegian in the order above Dann, because his GC vote doesn't align with Norwegian-scum. I'm pretty sure I've been mum about his slot's alignment until my catch-up post, so looking to sideline me after that fact nets him some town points. he still hasn't done anything to rock the boat, though, so he maintains lean status.

Dannflor: lean town. he hasn't played today, so this hasn't moved, other than him slipping in the town ranks.


Scum:

Walter: lean scum. Walter was null, but he has been sitting on the fence about my slot all game. him deciding that I should be heavened today seems inorganic, which kicks him down from null to lean scum.

Isis: scum. I don't see anything from her posts today that changes my mind from yesterday. playing footsie with heavening me bumps her down from a lean to a full read.

Cthylla: scum for the reasons i mentioned yesterday and earlier today.


Null:

Clidd: ugh. I don't like how he's interacted with my slot. I do think some of his justifications for that interaction can be explained with reasons that show his interactions aren't AI. I would need to look at that game he linked and think hard about it, which tbh is a lot of mental work I don't really want to do. Both my town and scum reads are seeing him as town, which is frustrating because I can WIFOM it both ways. I think I'll be able to sort him out once we get a red flip or, short of that, his interaction with my scum reads.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #699 (isolation #61) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 8:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 641, Cthylla wrote:VOTE: clidd

I would heaven clidd or Dannflor today.
Cool, so either clidd of Dann is scum and I don't think it's possible to work out the WIFOM of it until a flip.

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

Post Post #701 (isolation #62) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 8:59 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 636, Cthylla wrote:I'm skipping ahead and talking about this reads list.
Cthylla's "i'm going to do a pbp catch-up" is scummy because oh my god those are easy to fake town reactions in.

his abandonment halfway through and skipping to my catch-up reads post suggests he's really concerned about how I have been suspecting 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 #716 (isolation #63) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:09 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 636, Cthylla wrote:
I'm skipping ahead and talking about this reads list.

In post 490, Green Crayons wrote:Hurrah. I read the thread.

---

clidd: lean scum. I don't like his fixation on me.
After a page or two of plenty others talking about mechanics strategy, he focuses on me, draws us into a 1v1, later declares 1v1 likely to be tvt, and then calls it a day.
This is a lean and not a full scum read because, upon seeing the Word-town flip, his discussion about still supporting the Word elimination before the Word-town flip seems town.

Why is any of the highlighted demonic? He's listed out what happened but explained why it's demonic in any way.
Because he targeted a specific player to have a 1v1, which means he was looking for a fight.
The result of the 1v1 fight that clidd created was HEY EVERYONE WE'RE TOWN 1V1ing!
That looks like scum trying to gin up town cred.
Cthylla: scum. Passing over his initial reason to vote me, on the basis that my perspective of that reasoning might be biased, I think he's more likely scum because his suspicions seem to wait until thread approval. For example, he seemed followed Dannflor's, Walter's, and Norwegian's suspicions to Word; he followed clidd's suspicion for onto and then away from GC; and then hammered Word in a pretty scummy hammer post that rushed the day to a premature end.

This is false. I express my concern at Word early in , and before there's any votes on him. When asked, I explain my reasons in . Rather than looking at my reasons and talking about whether GC thinks they're fabricated or not, he's reducing his reasoning to a surface-level "he voted Word only once there were other votes on him."
Nothing false about it at all.
Dann
, not you, first articulated Word suspicions in . You jumped on 8 posts later in 180. Then you dropped it, even ignoring my asking you to explain it. You only went back to the Word-suspicions well once others started voting Word and voicing suspicions of Word again.
Dannflor: lean town. I think I saw one post early game that struck me as maybe scummish, but I read his Word justification posts are being pretty open. Overall Dann has been a nonentity relative to everyone else, and so only a lean read here.

Isis: lean scum. I think her push on Word was objectively bad. Town can be wrong but the 350s interaction between Isis/Word, ending with her vote in as being "way too dissonant" just looks manufactured. I also think Word had a point that her walls make her look more productive than actually being productive. it's hard to follow threads of conversations when people respond to walls. Also, some of her content towards me looks like make-work. Take , where she thinks my explanation "doesn't make sense," she essentially retypes what happened in a way that shows she understands perfectly. This is only a lean because I think suspicions based on posting style get half credit.

He's saying it's hard for people to follow threads of conversation when responding in walls, this is only demonic if he thinks Isis is intentionally doing this with that intended effect, which seems ridiculous. He also has a lot to say about Isis here which feels a little TMI in some places. Could be a partner.


NorwegianboyEE: lean town. I view Norwegian as in the same basket as Dann. They're present, and have made substantive posts, but haven't rocked the boat for me to get strong AI feelings one way or the other. For both Dannflor and Norwegian, gun to my head I'd say town but I'm not comfortable enough to commit to beyond a lean read atm.

"haven't rocked the boat for me to get strong AI feelings one way or the other." should not equate to "lean town"
Interesting that you have nothing to say about Dann, but I put Dann and Norweign in the same boat of them being present and some town vibes, but nothing major.

Also haven't rocked the boat doesn't mean that I don't have lean feelings. lol @ you trying to police how I'm not allowed to have moderate town feelings at players.

As for Isis, I think walls upon walls is a good scum tactic but recognize that posting style isn't a sure-fire scum tell. Notably that's the *only* thing you focus on, handwaving my other problems with her actions as TMI. Mmmhm. Can't help but feel like trying to set the groundwork for pushing GC anew if Isis does in fact flip red.
Hayasaka: town. This is a stupid little thing, but I think town are more likely to openly state their desire to be heavened rather than scum, and so on my reread jumped out to me. Hayasaka raises a perfectly good strategy to think up and follow on page 3, which nets town points. Her Page 14 posts are all open and town to me. And similar to the town pings I get from clidd's twilight commentary about Word, I think her support for the Word lynch before the Word-town flip is more likely to come from town.

I openly stated my desire to heavened too, did he forget that? He's applying his reasoning selectively which is a very bad sign.
1. Where?
2. Just because I missed it doesn't mean I'm selectively reading shit. It means I missed it. This is supplying scum reasoning based on nothing more than you want it to be the reasoning.
3. I've already told Walter that the declaration in and of itself isn't a town-tell. It's all about context. thanks for ignoring that. Convenient.
Green Crayons: me

WaltertheDunce10: null. tbh I forget Walter is in this game until he posts.

--

Town

Hayasaka
Dannflor
Norwegian
Walter
Clidd
Isis
Cthylla

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

Post Post #718 (isolation #64) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:10 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 702, Cthylla wrote:
In post 699, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 641, Cthylla wrote:VOTE: clidd

I would heaven clidd or Dannflor today.
Cool, so either clidd of Dann is scum and I don't think it's possible to work out the WIFOM of it until a flip.

UNVOTE: Dann
VOTE: Hayasaka

This is so surface level again. He's making the level 0 read of "a demon would try and push their demon partner", and considering stuff like how I'm demonread and what it'll look for my teammates if I am a demon and get helled tomorrow etc. Green Crayons isn't like this as town.
"you're better this"

lol I'm 99% certain Norwegian-scum pulled that exact same shit on me in nightless
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #719 (isolation #65) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:11 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 712, Dannflor wrote:or to put that another way, GC, is your town read on me literally weakened by that or is this paranoia-esque-thinking talking
I'm looking for a heaven candidate who I'm not worried about being maybe scum

Cth muddied the water on you. would i want to hell you? no. do I want to heaven you now? no.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #721 (isolation #66) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:13 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 707, Cthylla wrote:This also requires a LOT of confidence on me being a demon, that this was enough for you to actually unvote someone I called town, and even then, I called two people town, and you have no way of knowing whether I'm actually trying to push to heaven a demon partner, or trying to appear towny, or trying to pocket people etc
yeah. I'm very confident that you're 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 #738 (isolation #67) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:29 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Cth, I already talked about your Word reasons back before I took a 24 hour break. They weren't impressive. So please stop misrepping what I do and don't do.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #742 (isolation #68) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:30 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I don't read Post 25 asking for you to be heavened, it looks like a joke, and could be interpreted to be serious or not. Which makes it completely NAI because it doesn't lock you in, which is the opposite of why I saw Post 32 being AI.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #747 (isolation #69) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:32 am

Post by Green Crayons »

i stopped complaining about the text because it's seriously annoying as fuck, but i'm not going to whine about it, and as I mentioned before I change to my laptop to read this thread instead of my phone because it only hurts my eyes on my phone and not laptop
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #758 (isolation #70) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:39 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 645, Cthylla wrote:Spinning this to look scummy is also demonic. Why don't I just do the things clidd likes to see come from town then? I've done it before, most recently in that 3 scum in one hood game, if you remember that clidd.
Because you aren't being read town. When scum can't play town, they say how they would and point out they aren't.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #760 (isolation #71) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:41 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 731, Cthylla wrote:What about the actual reasoning in the post?
Your reasoning is that I'm playing bad because I'm reading what you're doing as surface level.

the point you made is that "hey look guys GC is playing bad." I responded to it.

the surface level slight doesn't have legs. I think you're scum. I think scum would WIFOM a teammate into their heaven pool. Because I can't figure out who that'd be between clidd and Dann, the safe play is to not have either of them go to heaven. There are other good heaven candidates.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #761 (isolation #72) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:42 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 750, Cthylla wrote:
In post 747, Green Crayons wrote:i stopped complaining about the text because it's seriously annoying as fuck, but i'm not going to whine about it, and as I mentioned before I change to my laptop to read this thread instead of my phone because it only hurts my eyes on my phone and not laptop
Yeah, that wasn't a serious read. I was kidding around about Norwee's theory making both of us demons
Acceptable.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #769 (isolation #73) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:51 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 763, Dannflor wrote:
In post 760, Green Crayons wrote:the surface level slight doesn't have legs. I think you're scum. I think scum would WIFOM a teammate into their heaven pool. Because I can't figure out who that'd be between clidd and Dann, the safe play is to not have either of them go to heaven. There are other good heaven candidates.
I don't necessarily think heavening scum at this point is the end of the world

I think the last run of this setup started with a D1 town hell and a D2 scum heaven and town ended up winning

But it needs to be a slot that probably isn't getting helled otherwise

This is why I favor Isis but maybe more people scum read her than I realize?
That's fair.

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

Post Post #770 (isolation #74) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:51 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #783 (isolation #75) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 11:11 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 777, clidd wrote:GC doesn't seem like a very healthy person in the sense of "there are people who want me to go to heaven, so I'm going to collaborate with my reads".
I love ESL (no sarcasm) because this reads like you’re saying I’m mentally unwell.

Which. Fair.

I’m suspicious of folks who are pushing for me to heaven after I’ve called them not town for what I think are good reasons. Of course I’m not trying to collaborate with them. I am open to hearing what Dann and Haya 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 #784 (isolation #76) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 11:12 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #802 (isolation #77) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 12:26 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #803 (isolation #78) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 12:27 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I adamantly don’t want to be heavened. I think you’re scum and town needs serious fire under there ass to hell you. I also don’t trust clidd and think he’s possibly got folks fooled, which means I’ve got to maintain my paranoia alerts.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #804 (isolation #79) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 12:29 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I said early on that I wanted Haya but went Dann bc of activity. When you, obv scum acts, muddied the waters about Dann, the easy answer is Haya.

Nothing about that somehow gets me pushed into heaven. Like, I would’ve angled for it when people suddenly were like OMG GC HEAVEN PLZ. But I don’t want heaven because I want to be pushing you into 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 #805 (isolation #80) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 12:30 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #835 (isolation #81) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 1:24 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 821, Dannflor wrote:I think he's extremely serious this game
In post 824, Cthylla wrote:
In post 804, Green Crayons wrote:I said early on that I wanted Haya but went Dann bc of activity. When you, obv scum acts, muddied the waters about Dann, the easy answer is Haya.
But again: all I did was call Dann town in a throwaway post. The person I gave reasoning for being town and pushed was clidd. That shouldn't be enough to actually influence your read on Dann naturally.
Why are you ignoring how I responded to Dann and explained the difference between who I’m town reading and who I’m putting in the heaven pool?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #838 (isolation #82) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 1:25 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Also super love the lack of agency you put behind your Dann heaven pick.

Out of the entire player set, you spoke plenty of words about why clidd is super town but then threw Dann in there for funsies.

Uh. Yes. Quite obviously you’re screwing with town by tossing Dann into your 2-person heaven pool.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #840 (isolation #83) » Sun Aug 16, 2020 1:28 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Haya if you’re heavened can you read the thread anew if needed for judgment day? Preferably not actually reading as the game progresses?

That’s all I want from a competent player who I read as v 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 #898 (isolation #84) » Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Is Haya at L-1 for being heavened?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #899 (isolation #85) » Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:36 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Answer:yes

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

Post Post #900 (isolation #86) » Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:37 am

Post by Green Crayons »

UNVOTE: Haya

Haya's confirmed town by this point. She didn't self hammer into heaven. Her couple of posts don't look particularly WIFOMy and if she were to flip scum they don't really screw around too much with gamestate.

How about we keep confirmed town Haya in the game and instead test one of our second-tier town reads?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #903 (isolation #87) » Mon Aug 17, 2020 3:40 am

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: Hayasaka

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

Post Post #1026 (isolation #88) » Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:41 am

Post by Green Crayons »

going to reread the word lynch, probably 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 #1033 (isolation #89) » Mon Aug 17, 2020 10:56 am

Post by Green Crayons »

elimination*

my bad

Dann: weird Q. the answer is p obvious. I'm looking to see if I can figure out who on/off the mis-elim is scum. That phase already led me to suspect Cth and Isis, so I'm going to go revisit.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1202 (isolation #90) » Tue Aug 18, 2020 3:31 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #1210 (isolation #91) » Tue Aug 18, 2020 3:52 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

okay so maybe i'm not in a great mental space for it, and plus trying to glean AI information from a mis-elim isn't nearly as fruitful from a scum elimination, but rereading pages 10-18 didn't give me major feels. I still don't like Cth and Isis for their dance around the word vote, and also took umber with some of Walter's and Norwegian's back and forth on voting and unvoting and voting again.

I think the answer is that these actions are consistent with them being scum, but not necessarily indicative of it.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1220 (isolation #92) » Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:20 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

okay caught up from when i was last here

let's start with clidd, who will remain my wildcard.

I do not connect at all with how clidd plays this game. i'm talking about onward on page 42. I don't understand his "tone" justification. he seems to read Cth and Walter based primarily/entirely off of his own personal experience with them.

i don't know if this is a real AI thing, but it's making it difficult for me to assess his slot

that said, he's certainly acting with the certainty of someone who is being widely townread in the later pages (for example, [post=1108[post 1108[/post]), which canl point to more likely town than scum. it conveys a certain comfort level of being town read, which is not impossible for scum to do but isn't naturally aligned with the more cautious scum mentality.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1225 (isolation #93) » Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:37 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

next up is norwegian

going to ignore his GC vote

i don't like his series of posts where he throws shade on basically everyone who isn't in play for today. he went from being a pretty quiet player not rocking the boat, and now he's exploded with deep state theories, pointing to a somewhat consensus town block as where the thread should look for today (clidd/isis/dann/gc) rather than the "low-hanging fruit."

idk, Cth and Walter don't feel like low hanging fruit, they just look like the good candidates for scum. i don't know why town wouldn't focus our attention there, where there's a higher likelihood of scum in a fewer number of players. given the better chance at hitting scum between Cth/Walter, rather than looking at the other 5 players, i think it's AI to try to get the thread to look away from the smaller scumpool.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1231 (isolation #94) » Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:52 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

as for my good friend Cth:

votes walter because questions are busywork. i don't disagree that just asking Qs is busywork, but flimsy basis for a vote on D3

his is real conspiracy theory stuff. like, what i would consider to be a bastard mod territory theory. at best this is anti-town, at worst pro-scum, to invite convo to get paranoid about a heavening a town.

and then, for the majority of his play since yesterday, i don't like his interaction with walter. it feels *very* experienced-arguer-versus-novice-arguer, who is trying to win on technicalities on showing walter to be objectively wrong about A Thing, when that's not particularly AI (town are wrong a lot about a lot of things). this looks like scum trying to be active down a line of argument he can pursue.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1234 (isolation #95) » Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:55 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1224, clidd wrote:I don't think my reasoning is normal for you to analyze rationally, GC. Feelings/sensations/imagination are not tangible.
yeah

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

Post Post #1235 (isolation #96) » Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:57 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1232, clidd wrote:In my interpretation, but I believe it must be common in your language.
:)

it's not a reference to testicles

fruit that hangs lower on the tree is easier to reach

i usually see it used to mean that something's too easy/too good to be true or worthwhile
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1242 (isolation #97) » Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:11 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

okay, and for walter:

his questions on top of page 43 certainly can be considered busywork, but he threw in a position on norwegian in the meanwhile, and he isn't really interacting only through asking questions. NAI. that he provides substantive reads with some explanation later that same page (albeit after Cth called him out for asking Qs, but still) underscores that asking some Qs isn't very AI rn.

as for the rest of his posts today.... meh. I'm just reading them and feeling meh. i can't tell whether his frustration is genuine is manufactured ate. i don't like how in he does the scummy "if I were scum I would do X, and I'm not doing X so I'm not scum." but other than that, i'm not getting strong AI feelings one way or another in the past 10 pages or so, which leaves him at lean scum from past-GC's assessment.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1243 (isolation #98) » Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:12 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1239, Isis wrote:GC did you consider 1148 to be a serious post
Yes.
In post 1148, Cthylla wrote:
is interesting. Morning seems to be implying Hayasaka could've been deceiving us, contrary to her flip saying she was Town. Do we think there could be some demonic (I can't think of an alternative word for demonic, please help if you don't like it, Isis) flip manipulators in this game?
Do you think this isn't a serious suggestion?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1245 (isolation #99) » Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:20 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

i have no 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 #1246 (isolation #100) » Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:21 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

want to hear Cth explain humor to me vis-a-vis post 1148.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User 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 #101) » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:19 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1280, Cthylla wrote:
In post 1231, Green Crayons wrote:votes walter because questions are busywork. i don't disagree that just asking Qs is busywork, but flimsy basis for a vote on D3
It's not just the act of asking questions, it's the questions that he's choosing to ask feel forced and like he's struggling to naturally talk about relevant things.
could you provide an example/explain the forced Qs that aren't natural talk about relevant things?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1285 (isolation #102) » Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:25 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1248, Isis wrote:It's funny to accuse mods of bastard modding, proportional to how likely they are to be a good mod. Last I modded for Hectic he insisted I left a breadcrumb trail revealing the entire scumteam in the stray characters in the votecount. He also quoted one of my posts and editted it to be a public confirmation of a slot's alignment.
https://youtu.be/eWrKf5ik1i4?t=195
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1326 (isolation #103) » Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:00 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

can i interest anyone in VOTE: Cth

i'm being lazy rn, but because of all the things i've said before
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User 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 #104) » Wed Aug 19, 2020 5:13 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1329, clidd wrote:I'm kind of surprise that GC is voting Cth, but whatever.
his interaction with walter is sus
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1340 (isolation #105) » Wed Aug 19, 2020 5:14 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

like, as just the most recent +1 to the pile
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1347 (isolation #106) » Wed Aug 19, 2020 5:33 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1341, clidd wrote:Hey GC, does Norwergian make sense as a partner to Walter (if he's scum) ?
idk? i don't do associative reads before a scum flip because

my god 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 #1348 (isolation #107) » Wed Aug 19, 2020 5:34 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1346, clidd wrote:I mean, I can see you being scum and not being bussed.
fr walter is a perfectly adequate hell, but him not getting shoved down the stairs isn't AI
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1380 (isolation #108) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:50 am

Post by Green Crayons »

don't see how walter/norwegian is more pressing that cth/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 #1381 (isolation #109) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:53 am

Post by Green Crayons »

but if there are no takers

VOTE: walter

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

Post Post #1382 (isolation #110) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:54 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 909, Hayasaka wrote:
Spoiler:
Image


Hard Town Do Not Touch

Clidd - Make sure not to heaven this boi
GreenCrayon - This guy should Be heavened next

Idk (ordered)

Dann
Cthylla
Isis

Idk probably murder

Norwee

Murder Zone

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

Post Post #1386 (isolation #111) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:04 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #1388 (isolation #112) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:04 am

Post by Green Crayons »

maybe don't conflate a 7-page catchup with my total read on players so you don't misrep me again thanks
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1395 (isolation #113) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #1396 (isolation #114) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:35 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1393, clidd wrote:I liked a lot Dann's last posts, by the way.
dann should be heavened

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

Post Post #1412 (isolation #115) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:47 am

Post by Green Crayons »

judgment norwegian
heaven dann
hell cth


win
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User 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 #116) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:54 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1414, Dannflor wrote:I still think Cthylla's progression is a lot more natural and townier than GC's trajectory last phase / this phase. I also think the two bussing is a really weird strategy if Norwegian is their third.
i've been called a bad player and ignored, so my desire to play this game is pretty minimal
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1421 (isolation #117) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

no by clidd and haya and i'm preeeetty sure you but maybe not since you're asking
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1423 (isolation #118) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #1438 (isolation #119) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:09 am

Post by Green Crayons »

demons feel no remorse

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

Post Post #1445 (isolation #120) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:13 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1426, Dannflor wrote:ou don't think it's possible clidd is scum instead of norwegian or something, GC?
I think Cth is the most probable scum

i don't think haya is going to judgment cth

so next most probable scum is norwegian. that is based on his atrocious play yesterday + walter flipping town (norwegian calling him low hanging fruit is damning in my opinion)

after that, next level suspicions are clidd and isis. im putting them on the same level because i don't really want to expend the mental energy to sort them. because i don't need to. we only need to judgment 1 scum and hell 1 scum. that's done via norwegian and cth.


so it isn't a matter of swapping clid instead of norwegian. i think it's cth + norwegian + <isis/clidd>. dann and gc are town in my book.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1448 (isolation #121) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

yes dann is town over 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 #1454 (isolation #122) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:18 am

Post by Green Crayons »

it's not bravado it's nothing we say matters at this point

haya is going to reread and then might finally read what we're saying rn and then be like "okay this thing i was leaning towards anyway"
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User 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 #123) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:19 am

Post by Green Crayons »

then if we lose we lose.

if we win we heaven dann, and then we get to argue over whether to hell cth or gc assuming haya doesn't judgment 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 #1462 (isolation #124) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:25 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1459, Isis wrote:
In post 1454, Green Crayons wrote:it's not bravado it's nothing we say matters at this point

haya is going to reread and then might finally read what we're saying rn and then be like "okay this thing i was leaning towards anyway"
Mafia is always that though. You can be at E-1 and post your wallpost and the swing voter can read your whole post and go "yeah but actually this thing I was leaning towards anyway VOTE: Green Crayons"
That's a distinction without a difference.
It seems like you have a different grasp of your win probability than we do since the ability to plead is the same here
there's no two-way communication with haya

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

Post Post #1492 (isolation #125) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:44 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1484, clidd wrote:
so it isn't a matter of swapping clid instead of norwegian. i think it's cth + norwegian + <isis/clidd>. dann and gc are town in my book.
that was what broke my patience ^
hth you need to stop townreading people who are townreading you, and scumreading people who are scumreading you, and then calling players toxic for not reciprocating your town reads when you townread them
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1493 (isolation #126) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:44 am

Post by Green Crayons »

i say that as completely divorced from this game

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

Post Post #1495 (isolation #127) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:49 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #1548 (isolation #128) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 4:29 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #1549 (isolation #129) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 4:33 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #1551 (isolation #130) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:31 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #1552 (isolation #131) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:32 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I assume you have read every word of every post and took scrupulous notes. Let’s dive in to your thoughts and feelings.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1554 (isolation #132) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:33 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Cth
Norwegian
DoLittle
Dann



Scum—>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 #1557 (isolation #133) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:35 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Not correlated

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

Post Post #1558 (isolation #134) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:36 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Also I remember Isis posting a lot about Pokémon cards and man I don’t want to read through 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 #1559 (isolation #135) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:36 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Or MTG 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 #1560 (isolation #136) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:36 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #1562 (isolation #137) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:38 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Alas, the opportunity has passed by. Never to arise 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 #1565 (isolation #138) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:41 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Early game he was on the quiet side but fairly open with his reads. About halfway through first heaven phase he got more active, and his thought process was laid bare. Very town. Willing to consider and reconsider reads. He kept up his activity through heaven and then he’ll phase, which all looked genuine and good. Not Haya levels of confirm town but a solid town pick. Definitely most solid of remaining slots.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1566 (isolation #139) » Thu Aug 20, 2020 5:42 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Note that level of activity not being AI, but just made it easier to confirm the read with more material to work with.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1572 (isolation #140) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 5:53 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #1573 (isolation #141) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 5:53 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #1575 (isolation #142) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 5:55 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #1576 (isolation #143) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 5:56 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1574, Dannflor wrote:do you think Cthylla goes down the rabbit hole with my yesterday of throwing a lot of shade at the clidd!slot and making him our third scum if that's the case?
idk. scum could have been trying to muddy waters for Haya's judgment.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1578 (isolation #144) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 5:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

tbh i think we've won. we hell either Cth or Norwegian.

If we're wrong, we judgment the other.

then we're back in hell. dann, DoLittle, GC.

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

Post Post #1580 (isolation #145) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 5:58 am

Post by Green Crayons »

^^^ obv i would not like to be put in a 1v1 but i'm not oblivious to the thread's view on my play
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1581 (isolation #146) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:04 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1578, Green Crayons wrote:tbh i think we've won. we hell either Cth or Norwegian.

If we're wrong, we judgment the other.

then we're back in hell. dann, DoLittle, GC.

we then either hell DoLittle or GC. if we're wrong (e.g., hell GC) then just judgment DoLittle.
oh lol actually if we mis-elim today, then the first judgment will end the game either way

well i think there's 1 scum in Cth/Norwegian, so doesn't matter
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1585 (isolation #147) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:07 am

Post by Green Crayons »

yeah, so game is over this next judgment round

either Haya judgments a second scum (we win) or a town (we lose)

ofc if we hell a scum now we win

but the game doesn't go past next judgment round
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User 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 #148) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 6:45 am

Post by Green Crayons »

well here's to hoping that's a scum hell

my vote is for haya to judgment cth if it isn't
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1604 (isolation #149) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:58 am

Post by Green Crayons »

1. Thank you MT for modding. Well done.

2. Congrats to Cth for calling scum team on page 6 or whatever. lol. Also congrats on town on the win.

3. I don’t know why I had such a rough time in the beginning.

4. I seriously, legitimately hate that black background text. It hurts my eyes and Cth’s was very difficult to read. It is ugly and gross.

5. This setup is hellllllllla town sided. I think our best bet was the wrong judgment from Haya. Given the associatives that can happen from a heavened scum, I think this might actually be the best long-term play. But I never ever want to play this setup again even as town.

6. I personally wasn’t offended by people calling my play bad, because I was scum so whatever. I don’t think anything I did was toxic. And, legitimately, you should townread people who townread you, and scumread people who are scumreading you, based solely on how they are reading 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 #1605 (isolation #150) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:58 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Should not*

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 #1607 (isolation #151) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:00 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Oh I’m fine with scum PT being revealed.

FWIW It was hard for me to put in Real Effort after the heaven because of what a climb this game was for scum. Which was self defeating but that’s 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 #1612 (isolation #152) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:05 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Yeah, two different problems. Doesn’t hurt on my laptop but that green you choose was difficult to read.


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

Post Post #1613 (isolation #153) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:06 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

My complaints about the game setup aside, town should be happy with their win. It was well deserved.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1625 (isolation #154) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:30 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1620, the worst wrote:I am now willing to take critique of this setup a lot more seriously - scum played a solid mechanical game here, though town absolutely stomped via reads (cthylla shall appear in all of my scum nightmares henceforth).

Agree the white flag mechanic is probably too townsiding

Congrats town!
Oh man talking to *the* creator of the set-up.

I like the spin on nightless! It's what attracted me to sign up in the first place. I hope that there is a future for this setup with tweaks. :)
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1628 (isolation #155) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:31 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1623, clidd wrote:
In post 819, Cthylla wrote:
In post 816, clidd wrote:I don't know why you aren't worried about GC trolling in heaven. He's out of his mind in my opinion.
Green Crayons doesn't troll as town, clidd. He's a fairly serious player.

Any "trolling" you're detecting is scuminess, ya know, because he's a demon. You don't need to make excuses for him.
I wonder why I ignored that ^
Cth did lay its slimy little tentacle on the pulse of my playstyle.

I havn't been scum in years, so I was a bit rusty.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1629 (isolation #156) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:32 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1627, clidd wrote:Actually, you played on high level GC.

Low level was if you was town here.
:) I'm glad no hard feelings.

I didn't always follow your path, but your end conclusions were typically brutal (for 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 #1633 (isolation #157) » Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:34 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

that's precisely what the worst would say

bring Hayasaka back in here
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Return to “Completed Open Games”