Karma Mafia (Game Over!)

[dybeck]

I really have nothing to say until we lynch Pom.

I really have nothing to say until we lynch Pom.

Why is it that I'm SIGNIFICANTLY happier with ABR saying this than I am with Richard saying this?

Just because ABR has decided to take this stance, it does NOT make it a Lurk Out Of Jail Free card for everyone in the game.

[Seraphim]

I have a question that I want everyone to answer: do you think Pom is lying about her claim? I don't want to hear "maybe"s or "let's wait a night"s, I want to hear what everyone's black and white opinion is.

[dybeck]

I have a question that I want everyone to answer: do you think Pom is lying about her claim? I don't want to hear "maybe"s or "let's wait a night"s, I want to hear what everyone's black and white opinion is.

Sorry. I have to say "maybe".

But then, I think she's acting scummier than bv was, and bv was scum, so that shows what I know.

[RichardGHP]

I have a question that I want everyone to answer: do you think Pom is lying about her claim? I don't want to hear "maybe"s or "let's wait a night"s, I want to hear what everyone's black and white opinion is.

Yes.

[Albert B. Rampage]

and nobody's really put a case that there's a real drawback in keeping Pomscum alive for a night - to see if a tracker or cop can confirm her one way or another tonight, and to get some further usable info from her night action tonight - usable info which will be confirmed fact if we decide to lynch her tomorrow.

So let me get this straight. You want to leave someone you think is scum alive, and to waste a cop and a tracker power on top of that for someone that everybody agrees is scummy? Forget that she could be a roleblocker or a scum power role that can cause some major damage in one night, your idea of risk and reward is seriously warped.

[Patrick]

Votecount

Pomegranate (6) -- RichardGHP, Seraphim, Espeonage, Anon, Amished, Albert B. Rampage
Porochaz (1) -- Javert
Espeonage (2) -- Pomegranate, Sando
NickF227 (2) -- Ojanen, Jahudo
Sando (1) -- curiouskarmadog
Faraday (1) -- dybeck

Not voting: farside22, Faraday, boberz, NickF227, Porochaz
18 alive, 10 to lynch.

Deadline: 1st of May

[Albert B. Rampage]

Listen, Dybek. I'm going to give you the same life-changing advice that Michael Scott gave to Dwight Schrute in The Office: Don't be an idiot.

[dybeck]

I have a question that I want everyone to answer: do you think Pom is lying about her claim? I don't want to hear "maybe"s or "let's wait a night"s, I want to hear what everyone's black and white opinion is.

Interestingly, while Pom may not in my top three favourite lynches, none of those who ARE in my top three are actually voting for her.

[Jahudo]

No, I don't believe the claim. Hiding behind farside makes no sense, since she was a top townie from her BV wagon involvement. It would have been safer to not use the power at all if you don't have town reads not most likely to be NK'ed for catching scum.

The other evidence points to her as scum also, but I still say the test sounded fun. I feel like I'd know how Pom-scum would go about "confirming townies" by hiding behind them.

unvote;
Vote: Pomegranite

[Pomegranate]

I dont like Pom tryin to attack someone for rolclaiming when basically they didnt. It doesnt make any sense, it proves Pom is reading the thread but demonstrating she is scraping the bottom of the barrel to find anything to do.

Yes, I am reading the thread, but obviously you aren't, because I never did any such thing. Dybeck criticized him for roleclaiming, while I criticized him for something else. Wrong answer, try again.

[Sando]

I basically don't believe the claim anymore, but I don't really see the danger in leaving her alive.

Will reread and vote Pom tomorrow if I can see peoples arguments as to the danger to town. Stupidly busy atm, promise I'll be around tomorrow.

[Espeonage]

FoS: Sando

[boberz]

Pom you said

Maybe. But don't act like you should be off the hook.

in response to a defence of an alledged roleclaim. Dont change hikstory. You were clinging to the coattails of something you would hope would stick.

I dont like dybeck either there, but you were the one who was worst there. So I was not wrong, so you try again.

[farside22]

Prod received. I was out most of the day yesterday celebrating my anniversary. I still need to analysis the wagon from day 1. I will try and do that today but don't expect it till Monday.
Please do not hammer.

[Pomegranate]

Pom you said

Maybe. But don't act like you should be off the hook.

in response to a defence of an alledged roleclaim. Dont change hikstory. You were clinging to the coattails of something you would hope would stick.

I dont like dybeck either there, but you were the one who was worst there. So I was not wrong, so you try again.

No. Wrong again. You're the one changing things. I said that in response to this:

And its wrong to criticize me if you are not going to criticize everyone else who does it?

And though it's possible I'm mistaken, it seemed to me that that was in response to this post of mine:

And why am I criticized for looking like I lurk when there's people like Amished who do it about the same as I do?

Why would you be off the hook for that? If you admit that it's bad enough to criticize Amished, why is it wrong to critcize you, if you're lurking the same as him?

So even if Nick

was

talking about roleclaim, that's not what I was talking about. Yes, it's possible I made a mistake and referred to something incorrectly. But I didn't mean to agree with dybeck at all.

But I think it's obvious that you just can't read things right.

[Albert B. Rampage]

There's nothing more to talk about. Lynch please.

[boberz]

Pom, we are discussing your #1082; I presumed that #1081 was in reference to #1080 and seeing as it doesnt reference your post I dont see how I was to know any better. I await clarification from Nick by what he was refering to in post #1080.

[Pomegranate]

Okay, I agree that it's best for Nick to clarify. But looking at the wording, it seems to match the post I had directed at him, aka 1079. Let me quote 1079 and 1080, so uou can see how it flows:

And why am I criticized for looking like I lurk when there's people like Amished who do it about the same as I do?

Why would you be off the hook for that? If you admit that it's bad enough to criticize Amished, why is it wrong to critcize you, if you're lurking the same as him?

And its wrong to criticize me if you are not going to criticize everyone else who does it?

[Porochaz]

Will post something within the next 2 hours (or will at least be in thread about to post something)

[NickF227]

In that post, I was referring to the post Pom thinks I'm referring to. Why is that an issue?

[Porochaz]

Fail, sister needed the computer. Looking over the pages since my last post now.

[Porochaz]

1.=Nick/Richard
3. Espeonage
4. ABR
5. Numerous

My opinion of Espeonage hasn't changed much, he is still spouting shit and is fairly anti town at best.

ABR has been relatively quiet most of day 1 and although he has improved in day 2 with more frequent posts its filled with crap about Pom, and how he doesnt need to speak until Pom is lynched and crazy hypothetical situations which dont really make much sense. There kind of situations which I would have thought ABR would have discounted being one of the top 4/5 experienced people here.

Richard is the person I want to vote for most. However I am still undecuded. I am sick of the VI reasoning behind not voting for him when he is inherrently scummy. Its not just the similar reasoning to esp and sera, it's the unjustified cocky attitude and what is now surmounting to parroting other players. Its not good.

Nicks the exact same and I am more inclined to vote for him because he already has people voting for him. More than that, unlike the Esp or Pom wagons there are people on the wagon that I actually think are town.

Sera asked a question whoch surmounted to "Do you believe Poms claim? Yes or No? None of this "wait a day BS" but then it doesn't work like that. I don't particularly believe Poms claim but I think waiting a day or two when we have a list of players we find scummy to be okay. That way we get more information if she's telling the truth. Pom shouldn't technically be on there because once she claimed I felt a distinct improvement in the posts. Suffice to say the claim wasn't great and therefore has to be at number 5 along with others I feel uneasy about like Seraphim (see my top 4 for day 1 and thequestion he asked above) and Sando, (not 100% sure why)

Its a choice between Nick and Richard. I think Richard edges it scumminess wise but Nick has the established wagon...

vote Richard

- going with the scummiest, will try fleshing this out more when I have a moment. Anyone who says "But Prozac... Richard is just the VI!" Will get a good hard smack and I will shart in your face. Whilst there is such a thing as a "VI" there is a difference between scummy behaviour and skitzer behaviour. Allowing the scumminess of Richard to pass off ass him being stupid is scummy in itself. Secondly, Pom shouldn't be lynched today. If she is telling the truth then we can get more info out of her if we keep her alive and I don't feel the case is strong enough to lynch her any more.

[boberz]

Now you have cleared it up it is not an issue, and it makes sense. I thought Pom was making some attack on whoever it was for claiming when they quite simply didnt claim.

[Pomegranate]

[boberz]

thought - past tense.