Open 809: Charge Me Up! [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 #14 (isolation #0) » Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:56 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #37 (isolation #1) » Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:16 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 27, flow trap wrote:My early game specialty is analyzing first votes, my methods only work when there are no pluralities
In post 35, flow trap wrote:I guess plurality on MS terms is Wagon
your specialty is analyzing first votes but only when there are no wagons?

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

Post Post #105 (isolation #2) » Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:14 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 94, Lukewarm wrote:But I also really don't like VFP immediately taking Flow Trap's word that they were confirmed town - joking or not, still unclear but kind of irrelevant to me after they dodged the question the first time tbh
what don't you like about it

what's irrelevant and why does that 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 #106 (isolation #3) » Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: yes
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User 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 #4) » Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:16 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #122 (isolation #5) » Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:43 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 120, DkKoba wrote:its a brain age exercise
sums me up, tbh
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #125 (isolation #6) » Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:50 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

having never played this setup before, and so not sure of the exact contours of the rule, i would be careful about talking about where this might be going given the no-n0-talk rule.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #130 (isolation #7) » Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:16 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #155 (isolation #8) » Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:30 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 135, yessiree wrote:
In post 106, Green Crayons wrote:VOTE: yes
In post 107, Green Crayons wrote:for whatever he's doing with Dragons
What about it, can you explain?
sure

it looks like trying to create suspicions over things that are not suspicious or even ai

that it's done to help support/protect DMG also pings

Spoiler: posts
In post 44, yessiree wrote:
In post 40, Save The Dragons wrote:
In post 36, Dark Magician Girl wrote:
In post 19, Save The Dragons wrote:how serious is that vote ^
this is a pretty weird post to drop then just leave
it's weird that i have a life outside of mafiascum?
Well, it sounded like you were trying to initiate convo by phrasing it as an inquiry, and then left them hanging :lol:
asking a question and then leaving the site to do ~life stuff~ isn't leaving anyone hanging
In post 51, yessiree wrote:
In post 45, Save The Dragons wrote:merely asking a question
ok but it looked like a serious question, to which she gave a serious answer. So I find it odd you chose to respond to her the way you did instead of just responding to her answer
how is this odd much less 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 #156 (isolation #9) » Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:33 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 138, Lukewarm wrote:I don't like it because Flow trap is definitely not confirmed town, so anyone taking their word for it is bad. That does not really seem like a scum thing to do, so I am not scum reading them for it, but I am pointing out that I don't like it lol
weird. i assume when people say "oh i don't like that player did x" that means they think it's suspicious.

are the other things you point out as not liking also you saying you think that it is just non-ai bad play? or just this one instance.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #157 (isolation #10) » Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 145, Dark Magician Girl wrote:Dk probably town, but if they're scum then lukewarm is definitely scum
wat
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #158 (isolation #11) » Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:37 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 152, yessiree wrote:I think the setup is 3 scum 11 town, thats all
is this the first time this setup has been played on the site?

if not, i'm sure someone who is in the pl has an encyclopedia brain and/or played it before to let us know if there has ever been a deviation of total scum/non-town roles
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #166 (isolation #12) » Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:22 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 162, DkKoba wrote:no there isn't - alignment was randed before we even got roles - setup explicitly says this.
perhaps we're using different vocabulary because i don't know what this is. i'm asking if prior runs of this game have different amounts of non-town slots, or has it always been the same ratio.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #167 (isolation #13) » Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 159, yessiree wrote:well, I found it odd how STD (...dragons? save?) chose to explain the reason for his lack of followup instead of just following up on dark magician, cause that seemed a bit too self-conscious for a townie
hm.

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

Post Post #210 (isolation #14) » Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:02 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 194, Lukewarm wrote:
In post 193, flow trap wrote:Why claim when you can just die?
I guess that works too

VOTE: Lukewarm

This thread is
wild
. The overall tone is way different then what I am used to lol
In post 186, Lukewarm wrote:I don't like it, because even if it is a town player doing it, it makes it harder for town to 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 #246 (isolation #15) » Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:51 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 226, Lukewarm wrote:But their last post has changed that view a bit for me. Moving them to the "leaning town" category
disagree. it reminds me of when i'm scum and it's hard to come up with bs suspicions, so i make a unoffensive observation post
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #249 (isolation #16) » Sat Apr 17, 2021 10:58 am

Post by Green Crayons »

no you didn’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 #250 (isolation #17) » Sat Apr 17, 2021 11:00 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 224, Dark Magician Girl wrote:lukewarm feels like they're just going through the motions

I don't really know why my partner is town reading them. Or DK for that matter.

I can barely tell when VFP is joking but I think their general demeanor is pretty towny. They feel detached from the thread in a way that makes me think they're just trying to solve and not interested in the rest

I wanna town read flea just cause I like faem but they need to give some more reads :( they have good tone at least

STDs nickname is pretty funny but every time I read their posts I just go what is this

don't particularly care to comment on anything else atm
none of this is “this player is scum”

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

Post Post #302 (isolation #18) » Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:19 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 290, Lukewarm wrote:
In post 264, VFP wrote: The VFP block doesn't need explaining, just trusted.
In post 268, VFP wrote: I'm trying to convince you all that I'm town so the VFP block actually works.
In post 277, VFP wrote: Of course it does.
As I said, follow me and the game is a win.
In post 283, VFP wrote:If I'm wrong, give me 6 more shots to be right. If I'm still wrong, then we can review where I was wrong and why.
You know what, you have managed to sell me on the power of the VFP block. So who are we for voting for, boss?

And if you are going to say we should vote for me, I have good news, because that is already where my vote is !!
VOTE: lukewarm
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #304 (isolation #19) » Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:20 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

just super scummy vibes from that post

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

Post Post #314 (isolation #20) » Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:23 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 307, Dark Magician Girl wrote:in case my post above wasn't obvious enough, Green, that's me calling you mafia
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 #315 (isolation #21) » Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:23 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 305, DkKoba wrote:so now that we have progressed a little - how do people feel about no limming so PRs can do their thing and investigatives can potentially give us some juicy info?
no thank you
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #317 (isolation #22) » Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:49 am

Post by Green Crayons »

so we give up an elim for the benefit of presumably not mis-elim a pr that might provide n1 info (or, really, outing that pr under presumption we don't mis-elim after claim and having it potentially nk'd n1)

i mean, there's a lot of ifs and buts in that scenario, but two assumptions that come to mind that undermine the usefulness of the plan is that 1) the PL actually picked a bunch of different, useful prs and not just a handful and 2) town got the n1-info-revealing prs rather than scum.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #318 (isolation #23) » Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:51 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 317, Green Crayons wrote:two assumptions that come to mind that undermine the usefulness of the plan
more accurately phrased:

two assumptions that i don't think have a basis to be made, but the likelihood of the plan's usefulness seem to hinge on
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #346 (isolation #24) » Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:29 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #347 (isolation #25) » Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:32 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 330, Flea The Magician wrote:
In post 304, Green Crayons wrote:just super scummy vibes from that post

also happy with DMG, who I also think is scum for reasons stated + soft attempt at pocketing yes
Please restate for the record.
dmg + dragons were doing their early d1 thing, and yes came in on dmg's side

i voted yes for his input into the dmg + dragons convo

later on when yes & I were talking through my yes vote, dmg votes me without a reason

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

Post Post #348 (isolation #26) » Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:33 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 330, Flea The Magician wrote:
In post 314, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 307, Dark Magician Girl wrote:in case my post above wasn't obvious enough, Green, that's me calling you mafia
lol
That all?
idk what this prompt is ("that all?")

but lol at dmg's clear misrep of 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 #349 (isolation #27) » Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:40 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 347, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 330, Flea The Magician wrote:
In post 304, Green Crayons wrote:just super scummy vibes from that post

also happy with DMG, who I also think is scum for reasons stated + soft attempt at pocketing yes
Please restate for the record.
dmg + dragons were doing their early d1 thing, and yes came in on dmg's side

i voted yes for his input into the dmg + dragons convo

later on when yes & I were talking through my yes vote, dmg votes me without a reason

looks like dmg beginning to pocket after yes already appeared favorable to dmg's slot
oh that wasn't the restatement

here is the restatement
In post 246, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 226, Lukewarm wrote:But their last post has changed that view a bit for me. Moving them to the "leaning town" category
disagree. it reminds me of when i'm scum and it's hard to come up with bs suspicions, so i make a unoffensive observation post
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #506 (isolation #28) » Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:48 am

Post by Green Crayons »

does jv always have a hair-trigger about how other people categorize/view their 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 #507 (isolation #29) » Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:49 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #509 (isolation #30) » Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:50 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #510 (isolation #31) » Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:51 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 508, VFP wrote:
In post 507, Green Crayons wrote:or, like, more generally. the blow up feels forced but idk if this is just how jv exists.
Forced or not, its NAI.
disagree

i used a similar "get exasperated and super defensive" response to koba's suspicions as scum

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

Post Post #512 (isolation #32) » Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:01 am

Post by Green Crayons »

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

Post Post #525 (isolation #33) » Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 513, flow trap wrote:Were your eyes in someone else's head or something? :shifty:
In post 522, Not_Mafia wrote:
In post 512, Green Crayons wrote:my eyes just fell out of their head
Your eyes have their own head?
???

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

Post Post #526 (isolation #34) » Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 517, MiniVirgo wrote:Also I fucking can't stand them as a person so there's that.
ty

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

Post Post #603 (isolation #35) » Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:17 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Koba if mini is town who are you voting?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Return to “Completed Open Games”