Open 81 - The New C9 - Game Over

[StrangerCoug]

Rofl hammered quickly before anyone else could speak. Still against testing the masons? If he flips scum I will laugh my ARSE off and I'll spam the post game with so many I told you so posts it'll be a new record for # of pages in a game.

Again, not my job. If it comes down to lynch-or-lose, I'll consider, but not before then.

[Muerrto]

Rofl hammered quickly before anyone else could speak. Still against testing the masons? If he flips scum I will laugh my ARSE off and I'll spam the post game with so many I told you so posts it'll be a new record for # of pages in a game.

Again, not my job. If it comes down to lynch-or-lose, I'll consider, but not before then.

Shrug and I'll still laugh if I'm right.

[The Fonz]

Sorry I haven't posted in a bit. Relatives came in and stuff.

Greasy suddenly dropping his constant vote on iamausername was quite odd, considering how hard he was pushing it. Even if it was a while since his last vote, he was pretty persistant. IF he and username were distancing though, that would pretty much clear the other if the other ended up dead. ting though hasn't been really suspicious though, but I am gonna FoS: ting =) also.

See stuff I said to Fonz.

Him dropping his vote wasn't odd because, like he said, there was no point leaving his vote on IAU. It accomplished nothing.

I've already refuted this. The biggest wagon had just broken against a claim. No-one had more than one or two votes, and several different people had expressed suspicion of IAAUN, such as, for example, strife. The IAAUN wagon

was

100% viable, and the armlx one only had one person on it at the time GS switched.

@fonz.
Okay, I want to check - your case on GS is:

1. He did not give reasons for his unvote

when

he unvoted, not that he didn't give an explanation, ever.
2. You expected him to tunnel vision IAU, but he didn't. You think that because he acted like 'tunneling townie' but didn't fit the profile, he must have been distancing.

Did I miss anything? Misrepresent anything?

I just want to clarify before making a defense because I think we've been arguing about slightly different things.

I'm kind of waiting for a reply to this question.

The way in which you phrase the case feels misrepresentative to me, like your tone is overly dismissive, though nothing you actually say is untrue.

My case, as I've said repeatedly, is that Greasy Spot's attack on IAAUN doesn't feel genuine. Reasons for this are:

1. His claiming that he is being 'misrepresented' but refusing to say how, and insisting it is obvious and accusing me of being lazy and failing to look it up when I pressed him on it. If you're town, and you feel someone is misrepping you, it shouldn't be too hard to explain why. See, as a good example, me here.

2. The dichotomy between the way he represented his suspicions, and the ease with which he dropped them, whilst not even acknowledging that he was doing so, without giving even half-decent reasoning on the person he was moving to. His repeated confirm votes give the impression of someone who is absolutely convinced IAAUN is scum, to the extent that he's not willing to listen to anything else. See, in particular, his PROMISE that he would NEVER move his vote until one or other of them was dead.

He then moves off, as if he'd never made that declaration, giving the impression of someone for whom IAAUN is just one of a handful of acceptable suspects. There's a clear contradiction there. It suggests to me that his earlier 'IAAUN IAAUN IAAUN AND NO-ONE IS EVEN CLOSE' attitude was merely posturing, and not genuine. If you say you will not move off a person ever, and then go back on it, it indicates you didn't mean it in the first place.

The 'it was rational' argument doesn't make sense- as I noted, IAAUN was perfectly viable at that point, the deadline was not impending, and he doesn't even explain why it is that armlx was apparently scummy in his eyes.

See my behaviour in BM's Judgement Day Mafia, where I was town and adamant ABR was scum, misrepresenting me, and so on, and compare it to GS' play here.

Bah, if you're convinced someone's scum, it's your duty as a pro-towner to do everything in your power to get 'em lynched.

I wrote this there, and I firmly believe it. GS clearly did not do everything within his power to get IAAUN lynched. Therefore, he's either not town, or was not really convinced IAAUN was scum. Problem is, the repeated confirm votes very much do seem to suggest GS was convinced IAAUN was scum. Hence, there's a contradiction there, which implies to me that Greasy Spot was not being 100% genuine. If someone's not being genuine, it makes me think there's a decent chance of them being scum.

[The Fonz]

Except I used it as a descriptor of his actions in thread.

to what end?

and, also, why do you want to wait for a final analysis from Muerrto, when you seem to be his top suspect?

BM

It's protown to allow players to get all the analysis they can out there, in case the victim is town. I don't see for a second why armlx being his top suspect should stop armlx doing what he usually does as town.

You summed up my only defense right there. I wouldn't do what you're claiming I did. I'm not that stupid. Your whole case is either 'Vamp did this' or 'IAUN's actions can be seen like this'. Do you even have a case on me or was I screwed before I even read the thread?

Muerrto- sometimes replacements are just screwed before they even read the thread. See dcorbe replacing Oman in Open 60. Everyone thought Oman was scum, rightly, and there was nothing dcorbe could say or do. I've replaced in for a scum who'd been counterclaimed by a player who had an innocent on him from an uncounterclaimed cop in an open setup in the past. It happens. There's nothing wrong, at all, with lynching a player based on predecessor's actions. I've done it plenty of times, and usually as town.

If you are town, self-preservation should be an important enough issue in itself. In fact, that applies regardless of affiliation. Which is why i find your behaviour odd. As far as an explanation goes, i can wait until tomorrow, as it seems the consensus for today is with Muerrto anyway.

BM

That self-preservation

matters

doesn't mean it should take precedence over doing things that are important for town success. Your entire side of this argument with armlx is, frankly, ridiculous, BM. I don't see where armlx assumed Muerrto was town, anyway.

[armlx]

You are voting for him, and seem content enough with his lynch today. Why then would you want his comments UNLESS you thought he was town?

Why wouldn't I want his comments if he is mafia? I see no loss here if he comments.

As i pointed out earlier, blindly encouraging participation is certainly scummy.

How so, assuming it is not used as a cover to avoid participating yourself?

I still think it's Muerrto. I haven't decided on a vig target, but I think it's a better idea to pick one based on the alignment of the eventual lynchee.

Beating a dead horse here, but no one besides you should be picking a vig target at this point (though its ok to agree with someone's analysis as your reasoning behind the vig, don't just listen because a group says so).

Fonz's last post is pretty much what I want to say about the BM thing.

[ting =)]

I've already refuted this. The biggest wagon had just broken against a claim. No-one had more than one or two votes, and several different people had expressed suspicion of IAAUN, such as, for example, strife. The IAAUN wagon was 100% viable, and the armlx one only had one person on it at the time GS switched.

Again, GS had has vote on IAU for nearly two weeks, and the wagon hadn't gone anywhere. It was clearly going nowhere. Also, there was never as much conversation on IAU as there was on the other people who were also viable lynch targets. I don't agree with GS's choice of armlx, like I already said.

You can argue that IAU would have been a possible lynch, but the fact that his vote count never even rose to half the needed amount kind of speaks for itself(I'm not going to check now, but it topped at two votes if I'm not mistaken).

The way in which you phrase the case feels misrepresentative to me, like your tone is overly dismissive, though nothing you actually say is untrue.

Did I miss anything?

(Did I) Misrepresent anything?

I just want to clarify before making a defense because I think we've been arguing about slightly different things.

I wasn't trying to represent your case in any way, I was asking for a summary of your case, which is why I asked if what I thought was your case - was your case. I don't think my tone was dismissive, it was just me typing what I understood to be your case and asking you if that was it.

His claiming that he is being 'misrepresented' but refusing to say how, and insisting it is obvious and accusing me of being lazy and failing to look it up when I pressed him on it. If you're town, and you feel someone is misrepping you, it shouldn't be too hard to explain why. See, as a good example, me here.

Look up some of GS' games. I hate people who use meta defenses, and I don't like the fact that I'm having to pull one, but this is just how he is. I really can't say any more on this.

The dichotomy between the way he represented his suspicions, and

the ease with which he dropped them,

whilst not even acknowledging that he was doing so, without giving even half-decent reasoning on the person he was moving to.

His repeated confirm votes give the impression of someone who is absolutely convinced IAAUN is scum, to the extent that he's not willing to listen to anything else. See, in particular, his PROMISE that he would NEVER move his vote until one or other of them was dead.

Again,

He's been calling for an IAU lynch since early day 1. His switch happened two weeks after. He would have had to had been really dense to not pick up by then that IAU was not going to get lynched.

...

He's was harping on and on about IAU from July 3 until July 16 - nearly two weeks. I would have stopped attacking someone way sooner than he had if it was clear that a wagon was clearly not going to build.

Note, that he's not the only player in this game, or in mafiascum, who are very vague with regards to their actions.

...

I agree with this one. I would not vote/unvote someone without saying why, and I would be suspicious if someone did this without giving reasons. Skimming through some of GS' games point to this being standard GS play though.

Would you have rather he kept on voting IAU all throughout the game? Really? How is that optimal play? I get annoyed by people who don't want to switch their votes because of how 'convinced' they are. I don't agree with tunnel visioning. He chose not to tunnel.

I already gave my explanation why he unvoted IAU. You ignored it and chose to highlight instead on the fact that he previously said he wouldn't but did. Again, I think he was smart not to stick to the whole, 'not going to unvote IAU' thing.

...

I think being unwilling to make compromises is not the best play in a game that obviously involves working with other people.

--snip to prevent long post. continuing in next.--

[ting =)]

He then moves off, as if he'd never made that declaration, giving the impression of someone for whom IAAUN is just one of a handful of acceptable suspects. There's a clear contradiction there.

It suggests to me that his earlier 'IAAUN IAAUN IAAUN AND NO-ONE IS EVEN CLOSE' attitude was merely posturing, and not genuine. If you say you will not move off a person ever, and then go back on it, it indicates you didn't mean it in the first place.

No... it gives the impression of someone who's realized that there's no point in what he's doing.

Well obviously it seems like no one else holds the same feelings about iamausername as I do so my single vote won't do much good.

See earlier posts about compromising. Would you feel better about him if he'd kept tunneling IAU? Again, how would him leaving his vote on IAU have helped the town, given that a wagon wasn't building on him. There might have been people suspicious of IAU, but IAU was never at the top of the suspicions list of those people.

The 'it was rational' argument doesn't make sense- as I noted, IAAUN was perfectly viable at that point, the deadline was not impending, and he doesn't even explain why it is that armlx was apparently scummy in his eyes.

Again, I don't agree with the armlx vote either, and also - no, IAU was not going to get lynched. I can troll through the people's posts at that time if you want, no one bar GS had listed IAU as their top suspect. People mentioning suspicions of IAU does not necessarily lead to IAU getting lynched.

Like I've repeated a lot of times already, GS had his vote on a person on whom a wagon was not building. We could go back and forth over this if you want, but it's pretty clear that IAU was never the top lynch candidate, and that GS had already been calling for his lynch for two weeks to no avail. There was no point to it.

See my behaviour in BM's Judgement Day Mafia, where I was town and adamant ABR was scum, misrepresenting me, and so on, and compare it to GS' play here.

I can see how this might lead you to believe that GS is scum, but GS is not ABR. I played in a game where GS was scum and I was town, and I can link you to it if you want. GS-scum plays differently from this.

Bah, if you're convinced someone's scum, it's your duty as a pro-towner to do everything in your power to get 'em lynched.

I wrote this there, and I firmly believe it.

GS clearly did not do everything within his power to get IAAUN lynched.

Therefore, he's either not town, or was not really convinced IAAUN was scum.

Problem is, the repeated confirm votes very much do seem to suggest GS was convinced IAAUN was scum. Hence, there's a contradiction there, which implies to me that Greasy Spot was not being 100% genuine. If someone's not being genuine, it makes me think there's a decent chance of them being scum.

GS

did

do what he could to get IAU lynched.

I point to the fact that at least 10 of his 29 posts have anti-IAU sentiment, either by attacking him, or calling for his lynch.

I point also to the fact that he's voted IAU... five times. Which is, you know, five times more than anyone else has.

How you come to the conclusion that he wasn't trying to get IAU lynched, when he's clearly tried, and tried harder than anyone in this game, is beyond me.

You're ignoring the third possibility, which I've been mentioning, that he just no longer saw any point in his IAU vote. You keep bringing up that IAU was a viable lynch option, but I really don't see it, given that hardly anyone had him listed as their top suspicion, much less voted him.

Yes, he probably was convinced of it. Again though, he's already followed up on his suspicion for a long time, to no point.

[The Fonz]

I've already refuted this. The biggest wagon had just broken against a claim. No-one had more than one or two votes, and several different people had expressed suspicion of IAAUN, such as, for example, strife. The IAAUN wagon was 100% viable, and the armlx one only had one person on it at the time GS switched.

Again, GS had has vote on IAU for nearly two weeks, and the wagon hadn't gone anywhere. It was clearly going nowhere. Also, there was never as much conversation on IAU as there was on the other people who were also viable lynch targets. I don't agree with GS's choice of armlx, like I already said.

And again, that

just isn't true.

Sure, there hadn't been much progress on IAAUN (though there may have been more if GS had, YOU KNOW, GIVEN REASONS- which is part of why I think GS wasn't genuine). But there were plenty of people expressing suspicion of him, as much as anyone else who wasn't StrangerCoug- so immediately after SC claimed is pretty much the last time i'd expect anyone to think the IAAUN wagon was viable. And again, there is no more reason to believe the armlx wagon was viable at that point than that the IAAUN one was.

You can argue that IAU would have been a possible lynch, but the fact that his vote count never even rose to half the needed amount kind of speaks for itself(I'm not going to check now, but it topped at two votes if I'm not mistaken).

No! *HEADDESK HEADDESK HEADDESK*

Greasy Spot unvoting

made

the IAAUN wagon unviable. Again, at the time he unvoted, the only wagons which had EVER gotten more than two votes were on players who had made strong claims, which had caused those wagons to subside, and Korts. Plus Vamp, who was a) inactive and in obvious need of replacement, and b) the guy most people were saying should be vigged.

If he'd gone to Korts, I could have seen the point- he went to armlx, who had never had more than one vote on him. You could argue that rofl's vote on armlx was far more hopeless than Greasy's on IAAUN. Are you purposefully ignoring all the people who jumped on IAAUN for suggesting GS was a good vigging? Not only was the wagon not unviable, he jumped off at

precisely the point where it might have started to gather speed

if he hadn't.

Misrepresent anything?[/b] I just want to clarify before making a defense because I think we've been arguing about slightly different things.

I wasn't trying to represent your case in any way, I was asking for a summary of your case, which is why I asked if what I thought was your case - was your case. I don't think my tone was dismissive, it was just me typing what I understood to be your case and asking you if that was it.[/quote]

No one ever thinks their tone is dismissive. It sounded it to me- it's not a major point anyway. It seemed like an oversimplification. My case on GS is that his pattern of behaviour fits perfectly with a bus.

Look up some of GS' games. I hate people who use meta defenses, and I don't like the fact that I'm having to pull one, but this is just how he is. I really can't say any more on this.

But this is precisely it. I feel like GS is playing contrary to his meta. The GS I'm familiar with is not only stupid, but incredibly stubborn and bullheaded, ala early Battle Mage. It's why i feel your 'rational thing to do' defence doesn't work- I've never known GS to be rational when he's got a bee in his bonnet.

He's been calling for an IAU lynch since early day 1. His switch happened two weeks after. He would have had to had been really dense to not pick up by then that IAU was not going to get lynched.

He is very dense. But even so, that's just not true. At the point where he unvoted, the chance of an IAAUN lynch was as high as it had ever been. Have you ever been in an OMGUS war, Ting? People get angry, they get stubborn. Greasy Spot indicated this kind of mindset, but then took an action completely contrary to it. Which is why i think it might have been faked. Roflcopter pushed armlx for longer than that. Why was it 'obviously not going to happen' here, but viable enough to reconfirm his vote

He's was harping on and on about IAU from July 3 until July 16 - nearly two weeks. I would have stopped attacking someone way sooner than he had if it was clear that a wagon was clearly not going to build. [/b]

Two weeks in a large is not that long. Posting in general was in a lull for a lot of that time. And again, what made the wagon so much less viable than at the time of his previous post, when he confirmed his vote again? That's a big turnaround for one post, no?
[/quote]

Would you have rather he kept on voting IAU all throughout the game? Really? How is that optimal play? I get annoyed by people who don't want to switch their votes because of how 'convinced' they are. I don't agree with tunnel visioning. He chose not to tunnel.

Do you not think it's better play for townies to keep their word? He broke a promise. Which indicates either he wasn't taking the promise seriously, in which case he's dishonest, or he felt he had strong reason to shift- but he NEVER GAVE ANYTHING REMOTELY APPROACHING A GOOD JUSTIFICATION. This is what I'm getting really chuffing annoyed about. You're saying it might have been a better, more rational move to unvote IAAUN there. You're probably right. But nothing about Greasy Spot's earlier play was good or rational, so why would we expect him to start there all of a sudden?

I already gave my explanation why he unvoted IAU. You ignored it and chose to highlight instead on the fact that he previously said he wouldn't but did. Again, I think he was smart not to stick to the whole, 'not going to unvote IAU' thing.

And again, I've already told you why i don't buy it. 'It wasn't going anywhere' is like THE most obvious, scum unvoting scum without good reason, excuse there is. And it's not true.

I think being unwilling to make compromises is not the best play in a game that obviously involves working with other people.
[/u]

Yes, but THAT'S NOT WHAT GREASY'S LIKE.

Also, do you honestly believe Greasy did everything in his power to try to get IAAUN lynched?

It cuts both ways btw. See my comment on day one:

A rather more pertinent point, I think, is why Iam is suggesting a vigging, and not using his vote and tryin to convince people to wagon greasy.

[strife220]

This again?

[forbiddanlight]

Isn't Muerrto supposed to be dead now?

[Muerrto]

I thought so. No comments on my post after I'm dead saying you're all wrong and I'm town?

And no one even once did what I asked and assumed I was town so they could do some real scum hunting.

Some real poor scumhunting this game. Anyway, good luck town.

[ting =)]

@strife.
Well, I'm being attacked. I kind of have to say something.

@mue.
I thought you were town you know. =(

And again, that just isn't true.

Sure, there hadn't been much progress on IAAUN (though there may have been more if GS had, YOU KNOW, GIVEN REASONS- which is part of why I think GS wasn't genuine). But there were plenty of people expressing suspicion of him, as much as anyone else who wasn't StrangerCoug- so immediately after SC claimed is pretty much the last time i'd expect anyone to think the IAAUN wagon was viable.

And again, there is no more reason to believe the armlx wagon was viable at that point than that the IAAUN one was.

You keep bringing up that IAU was a viable lynch option, but I really don't see it, given that hardly anyone had him listed as their top suspicion, much less voted him.

Greasy Spot unvoting made the IAAUN wagon unviable. Again, at the time he unvoted, the only wagons which had EVER gotten more than two votes were on players who had made strong claims, which had caused those wagons to subside, and Korts. Plus Vamp, who was a) inactive and in obvious need of replacement, and b) the guy most people were saying should be vigged.

I figured you'd say this.

No.

IAU was never going to get lynched to begin with. Again, no one ever had IAU as their top suspect except for GS, and again there was never as much conversation on IAU as there was on any of the other players. GS would have had to have been really dense to not realize after two weeks that his vote wasn't going anywhere.

If he'd gone to Korts, I could have seen the point- he went to armlx, who had never had more than one vote on him. You could argue that rofl's vote on armlx was far more hopeless than Greasy's on IAAUN.

Are you purposefully ignoring all the people who jumped on IAAUN for suggesting GS was a good vigging?

Not only was the wagon not unviable, he jumped off at precisely the point where it might have started to gather speed if he hadn't.

Again, I don't agree with the armlx vote either

Are you purposely ignoring all the people who weren't even talking about IAU? Or the fact that there were less people jumping on IAU as there were jumping on other people?

See earlier bit of this post.

My case on GS is that his pattern of behaviour fits perfectly with a bus.

My defense on GS is that his pattern of behaviour also fits perfectly with exasperated townie. [Insert quote here mentioning two weeks, number of posts.. yadda yadda]

-snipping-

[ting =)]

But this is precisely it. I feel like GS is playing contrary to his meta. The GS I'm familiar with is not only stupid, but incredibly stubborn and bullheaded, ala early Battle Mage. It's why i feel your 'rational thing to do' defence doesn't work- I've never known GS to be rational when he's got a bee in his bonnet.

I point you to newbie 548, a game I played with GS, and the game from which I'm basing my meta on him. In this game, he makes a number of logical cases, gives reasons for his votes, that kind of thing. He is also scum.

This is my second game with GS, and he's playing drastically different from what I'd expect from GS-scum, I've never seen him this stubborn.

Which game did you play with him?

---

He is very dense. But even so, that's just not true.

At the point where he unvoted, the chance of an IAAUN lynch was as high as it had ever been.

Have you ever been in an OMGUS war, Ting? People get angry, they get stubborn. Greasy Spot indicated this kind of mindset, but then took an action completely contrary to it. Which is why i think it might have been faked.

Roflcopter pushed armlx for longer than that.

Why was it 'obviously not going to happen' here, but viable enough to reconfirm his vote

See earlier bit about IAU never being at the top of anyone's suspicious list.

What you've done,

and this also applies to the last quote I quoted

- is lump him in a pre-defined group, 'tunneling townies,' and then said that his actions don't match that of a tunneling townie.

I don't agree with lumping people into groups, simply because we're people. No one fits into rigid categories, and no one should be expected to behave in particular ways. I think he did the right thing not tunneling.

If everyone thought this way, it'd force everyone to behave in certain ways all the time just simply to fit with people's conception of their townie meta.

It would have seemed viable enough to GS early on in the game, which is when he was doing all his reconfirming. After two weeks though? No.

---

Two weeks in a large is not that long.

Posting in general was in a lull for a lot of that time.

And again, what made the wagon so much less viable than at the time of his previous post, when he confirmed his vote again? That's a big turnaround for one post, no?

I told the Mod in the beginning I didn't realize this was a 20 person game. I wouldn't have signed up for it. I don't do well in large games because I can't my head around all the different people. It is hard enough on the smaller games. That is why I have requested replacement.

Long enough for a mini though, which I'm assuming is what GS thought he signed up for, and which is what I'm assuming GS is more used to.

Well, his 'turnaround post' came

6 days after his reconfirm.

Not so big a turnaround given that he had that much time to change his mind, no?

---

Do you not think it's better play for townies to keep their word? He broke a promise. Which indicates either he wasn't taking the promise seriously, in which case he's dishonest, or he felt he had strong reason to shift- but he NEVER GAVE ANYTHING REMOTELY APPROACHING A GOOD JUSTIFICATION. This is what I'm getting really chuffing annoyed about. You're saying it might have been a better, more rational move to unvote IAAUN there. You're probably right. But nothing about Greasy Spot's earlier play was good or rational, so why would we expect him to start there all of a sudden?

This is what's irking me too. You're being suspicious of my predecessor for doing something which you've admitted is both good, and rational. You're basically saying that you're not going to accept GS' behaviour as townie behaviour unless it's accompanied by stupidity.

You've created a false dichotomy that GS can only be either stupid townie, or bussing scum, and you're unwilling to accept the possibility that GS might have actually been a rational person.

And again, I've already told you why i don't buy it.

'It wasn't going anywhere' is like THE most obvious, scum unvoting scum without good reason, excuse there is.

And it's not true.

See earlier bit about why I don't think IAU would have been lynched day one, and about why his wagon really just wasn't going anywhere.

I've seen people buss as scum, and I've bussed as scum - if this is bussing(which it isn't), then it's the most horribly executed buss ever.

----

Yes, but THAT'S NOT WHAT GREASY'S LIKE.

Also, do you honestly believe Greasy did everything in his power to try to get IAAUN lynched?

It cuts both ways btw. See my comment on day one:

Which game are you basing this on?

You're asking me to accept that my predecessor is scum

because he behaved rationally.

?!@?@!

In one breath, you're telling me that GS has to behave irrationally in order to fit with your meta of town-GS, and here, you're telling me that you expect rational cases from him.

A rather more pertinent point, I think, is why Iam is suggesting a vigging, and not using his vote and tryin to convince people to wagon greasy.

For the same reason people called for vamp/k7 vigs? I'm getting slightly miffed that people expect GS to behave stupidly, and also expect me to point out rational things that he's done. That's.. holding the same person to a double standard.

[roflcopter]

given that muerrto is probably telling the truth about being town (no reason to lie post mortem) i think that makes fonz and armlx much more likely to be scum.

dear iron man,

please don't ignore me tonight. it makes me sad all day.

love,
roflcopter

[armlx]

given that muerrto is probably telling the truth about being town (no reason to lie post mortem) i think that makes fonz and armlx much more likely to be scum.

Why?

[Korts]

given that muerrto is probably telling the truth about being town (no reason to lie post mortem) i think that makes fonz and armlx much more likely to be scum.

Why?

This, and also, I have seen scum lie continually until death scene, so Muerrto isn't confirmed dead town yet.

[Rogueben]

Vote Count 14

Muerrto

- (7) {Korts, strife220, StrangerCoug, forbiddanlight, orangepenguin, armix, roflcopter}

armix - (1) {Muerrto}

Not Voting: {Iron Man, ting =), silence, The Fonz, Battle Mage}.

With 7 votes Muerrto is lynched. He was an innocent townie.

I apologise for the delay, I have had no access to the net for the last few days.

The deadline for night choices will be 96 hours from this post.

[Rogueben]

You awake from your peaceful slumber with not so much as a yell. Walking down the street you think that finally people have come to their senses, the killing seems to have stopped.

A scream echos through the street and you follow it to it's source where you find the body of armix, blood spewing out of his back.

He leans over and says "I don't understand, I was just a regular citizen. Why would someone kill me." Blood spatters your jeans as he coughs for the last time.

The deadline for day 3 will be 15th of September. With 11 players left alive it is 6 to lynch.

[armlx]

Bah, go town.

[strife220]

Farside, you killed Armix, correct? Meaning scum didn't get a kill off.

[Muerrto]

Ditto, go town.

[StrangerCoug]

Farside, you killed Armix, correct? Meaning scum didn't get a kill off.

How on planet Earth did you mistake me for farside22!?

But yes, I did kill armlx.

[strife220]

Farside, you killed Armix, correct? Meaning scum didn't get a kill off.

How on planet Earth did you mistake me for farside22!?

Because I'm an idiot.


Fonz and Korts are at the top of my re-read list right now.

[Korts]

Farside, you killed Armix, correct? Meaning scum didn't get a kill off.

How on planet Earth did you mistake me for farside22!?

But yes, I did kill armlx.

Well then, it seems we have a second doctor.

[forbiddanlight]

Well then, it seems we have a second doctor.

Aye.

Fonz and Korts are at the top of my re-read list right now.

This as well. Korts pushed hard on armix, and I really didn't like Fonz case on Ting.

How on planet Earth did you mistake me for farside22!?

I kinda wondered that myself, but it was worth a laugh . Thanks Strife