don't be sourIn post 1172, PenguinPower wrote:mmhmmmIn post 1170, Battle Mage wrote:I was going to - then I changed my mind because I was already convinced of you being scum.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol2.gif)
don't be sourIn post 1172, PenguinPower wrote:mmhmmmIn post 1170, Battle Mage wrote:I was going to - then I changed my mind because I was already convinced of you being scum.
In post 1173, Superb Subtlety wrote:Anyone else gonna claim shit? Lol
winnerIn post 1174, PenguinPower wrote:I AM THE GREATEST LISTMOD!
lol what?In post 1179, Smoke and Mirrors wrote:VOTE: Battle Mage
Maybe MHTP just got a false result on us but BM jumping on us is definitely scum.
ah maybe i shouldnt have said that. just wanted to demonstrate my own claim is also legitIn post 1180, Mad Hatters Tea Party wrote:I am indeed NAR 1. I was unsure if I would be permitted to proclaim that part of my role.
My understanding of the loyal modifier is that my action only succeeds when I target someone of the same alignment, my claim therefore enforces a 1vs1 scenario which is such a suboptimal play to the point of a potential game throw as scum.
I know whatever their reason is, it’s wrong but no way you jumping on us like that ever comes from town.In post 1181, Battle Mage wrote:lol what?In post 1179, Smoke and Mirrors wrote:VOTE: Battle Mage
Maybe MHTP just got a false result on us but BM jumping on us is definitely scum.
In post 142, Mad Hatters Tea Party wrote:Interesting, blazing the trail, and yet not lighting the way.In post 139, mastina wrote:Hey in this game I've extra incentive to.In post 133, Mad Hatters Tea Party wrote:Rather early for a locktown read isn't it, Mastina? Though I do admire your commitment to a read.
But, if it makes you feel better, I'm not gonna be lighting the way for you; I'm more interested in lighting the way and guiding Smoke/Mirrors, working with them side by side.
Personally, I am going to take a rather less urgent approach to the day. My loyalty is hard earned, after all.
In post 631, Mad Hatters Tea Party wrote:Even then, it would still be around a 27% impact in my estimations.
You say nowadays as though this isn't just an alternative account I'm using, and a character I am portraying to ensure no connection is made back.
I have been back on site for a while.I am fully aware it is far to early to begin clearing slots on mechanical information, I am aware there is possible drawbacks to create balancing. My own role allows some good shenanigans and I full expect there to be further shenanigans that interact with my role. My loyalty to my reads will be truly tested and tomorrow will bring forward an entirely different gamestate - barring "Koalawang" of course.
In post 120, Mad Hatters Tea Party wrote:Oh my goodness, this is certainly not polite conversation! I may have to take somebodies eye out!
For what its worth, our first pick was granted.
In post 753, Mad Hatters Tea Party wrote:I will go back to VOTE: Rathe, and I will be keeping an eye out for S&M; and the other will be kept upon SS.
so you're saying you think the player claiming a guilty on you could be misguided town, but somebody following the claimed guilty is scum? hope you've got a long list of scum then as I'm sure I won't be the last oneIn post 1183, Smoke and Mirrors wrote:I know whatever their reason is, it’s wrong but no way you jumping on us like that ever comes from town.In post 1181, Battle Mage wrote:lol what?In post 1179, Smoke and Mirrors wrote:VOTE: Battle Mage
Maybe MHTP just got a false result on us but BM jumping on us is definitely scum.
it's not really a 1v1 now I'm vouching for your role, and also why would you fakeclaim there as scum anyway? unless you really hated pandasIn post 1185, Mad Hatters Tea Party wrote:I dislike the attempt to disengage the 1vs1 the setup has engineered for myself and Smoke and Mirrors.
I don’t understand then because there’s no way that shouldn’t have succeeded. Something weird is happening. Maybe similar to DnD where Wisdom had this crazy role that subverted things.In post 1180, Mad Hatters Tea Party wrote:I am indeed NAR 1. I was unsure if I would be permitted to proclaim that part of my role.
My understanding of the loyal modifier is that my action only succeeds when I target someone of the same alignment, my claim therefore enforces a 1vs1 scenario which is such a suboptimal play to the point of a potential game throw as scum.
There has to be. I’m not lying here.In post 1188, Superb Subtlety wrote:Sorry Nancy, but it's actually a very plausible guilty and I'm still not sure of your alignment here
If you're town, just sit and hope there's an explanation someone is willing to give because nothing else can realistically be done
If nothing changes I can see myself voting you when I've had more time to use the day phase
I don’t care if you’re purposely being stupid here or what. I’m literally fucking telling you there is no fucking way in hell we’re scum here and I will fucking do whatever’s fucking necessary to prove it because I’m not fucking lying.In post 1193, Superb Subtlety wrote:Well, if it was town who interfered with it then that's cool as they will claim it
I'm not one to leave a guilty hanging, though