What case? I don't recall myself or Tajo stating any reason for voting Jebus.scotmany12 wrote:I'm not so much defending Jebus as I am attacking the validity of your case against him. My comments about Jebus are directed to everyone, including tajo.
That would require a full roleclaim, which I'm not giving.scotmany12 wrote:You already came out and said that you have information to believe that he is town. If you have said information, you not releasing it is hurting the town. Call it rolefishing, but no one is going to believe you until you explain it fully.
You not stated shows your vote has no validity, hence it being mindless. And I was assuming that your vote was in agreement with DGB's assessment.camn wrote:What case? I don't recall myself or Tajo stating any reason for voting Jebus.scotmany12 wrote:I'm not so much defending Jebus as I am attacking the validity of your case against him. My comments about Jebus are directed to everyone, including tajo.
Despite me not stating a reason, you called my vote "mindless". Seems like an overreaction, considering it was the first vote on him.
Maybe you are locked into your conversation with DGB, though, and aren't minding these details.
Which is sad, because I love attention.
Unless Zwet is scum, in which case the "scum agenda" would be to stall and delay the lynch until the waters are so muddy that the town's short attention span wanders and someone else gets lynched instead. Which is already starting to happen.DrippingGoofball wrote:What is believable is that scum will do everything in its power to reduce discussion and ensure the quickest, least informative mislynch possible. Thanks for helping the scum's agenda.scotmany12 wrote:We fucking serious people? Seriously, stop unvoting. I do not get what makes this claim so believable; and after reading about William Wallace, I really don't see how martyr (or bodyguard for that matter) fits for him. And we should not be letting him get away with his OMGUS on shea.
Although this is pretty much just wrong; lurking is a great scumtell, and day 1 is a great time to go lurkerhunting, or even lurker lynching if it's absolutly necessary.scotmany12 wrote: And it is still a null-tell. Attacking someone's activity, regardless of his activity in other games, is ridiculous to do on day 1.
Huh? Do you seriously believe this? You seriously would discuss 'alternative lynches' to a 100% bona-fide scum player on day one just to "get more information?" Are you trolling?DrippingGoofball wrote:Lynch him or not, I will not tolerate a QUICKLYNCH on day one, and we must discuss alternative lynches. Day 1 is the most informative day of all. We're not letting the scum rob us of it. Not on my watch.
Disagree; town members lurk just as much as scum. Unless you have say a solid meta on someone who only lurks as scum, which I don't think people have on Jebus, I view lurking as a null-tell.Yosarian2 wrote:Although this is pretty much just wrong; lurking is a great scumtell, and day 1 is a great time to go lurkerhunting, or even lurker lynching if it's absolutly necessary.scotmany12 wrote: And it is still a null-tell. Attacking someone's activity, regardless of his activity in other games, is ridiculous to do on day 1.
DGB is making sense here. When Day 1 turns into a quick lynch, we have almost nothing for Day 2. You can always look at the lynch wagon, but that's about it.sam.samhorn wrote:Huh? Do you seriously believe this? You seriously would discuss 'alternative lynches' to a 100% bona-fide scum player on day one just to "get more information?" Are you trolling?DrippingGoofball wrote:Lynch him or not, I will not tolerate a QUICKLYNCH on day one, and we must discuss alternative lynches. Day 1 is the most informative day of all. We're not letting the scum rob us of it. Not on my watch.
Because that's a really stupid way to think. Who cares about "information" on day one?What does that even mean?
sam.samhorn wrote:Huh? Do you seriously believe this? You seriously would discuss 'alternative lynches' to a 100% bona-fide scum player on day one just to "get more information?" Are you trolling?DrippingGoofball wrote:Lynch him or not, I will not tolerate a QUICKLYNCH on day one, and we must discuss alternative lynches. Day 1 is the most informative day of all. We're not letting the scum rob us of it. Not on my watch.
Because that's a really stupid way to think. Who cares about "information" on day one?What does that even mean?
I don't need or want a roleclaim from you, but it would be useful to know if you mean, say, you believe his role flavor for reasons related to your role flavor, or something.Caboose wrote:That would require a full roleclaim, which I'm not giving.scotmany12 wrote:You already came out and said that you have information to believe that he is town. If you have said information, you not releasing it is hurting the town. Call it rolefishing, but no one is going to believe you until you explain it fully.
No, not releasing the info is not bad for the town, it's bad for the scum's ability to decide if I'm worth nightkilling or not.
Appearance can be deceiving. You'll have to start thinking a layer deeper.zwetschenwasser wrote:TSQ seems logical to me.
Sorry, I didn't prepare one, doc. Can we use the blowtorch? It will cauterize and sterilize as it 'cuts.'zwetschenwasser wrote:Scalpel please.
From zwet's precise choice of words when responding to questions about his role, I am about 99% certain that he's telling the truth and that he's town.Yosarian2 wrote:I don't need or want a roleclaim from you, but it would be useful to know if you mean, say, you believe his role flavor for reasons related to your role flavor, or something.Caboose wrote:That would require a full roleclaim, which I'm not giving.scotmany12 wrote:You already came out and said that you have information to believe that he is town. If you have said information, you not releasing it is hurting the town. Call it rolefishing, but no one is going to believe you until you explain it fully.
No, not releasing the info is not bad for the town, it's bad for the scum's ability to decide if I'm worth nightkilling or not.
Zwet: You know, you still haven't really explained the vote on TSQ, and now you're making another OMGUS vote without any reasoning? If you do have some kind of pro-town reason to suspect Sam, I'd like to hear it.
zwetschenwasser wrote:TSQ seems logical to me, just a little too trigger-happy. Sam's last post is why I voted him.
Did you not just call TSQ scum three pages ago? And did you not just vote him last page because he "knew your meta?" Seriously, what the fuck is going on in your mind. Did you just happen to forget that you called TSQ scum?zwetschenwasser wrote:I don't see the case on Jebus or TSQ, but Sam's post is definitely at the very least a Freudian slip.