bgg1996 - 1 (CryMeARiver)
Andrew94 - 2 (curiouskarmadog, bgg1996)
CryMeARiver - 1 (subgenius)
curiouskarmadog - 1 (Andrew94)
Maxous - 1 (Regfan)
Not voting: (Haylen)
With 10 players left it’s 6 to lynch.
subgenius and CryMeARiver have been prodded
Then why don’t we? Tru was scummier??....dont think so…it is posts like this that I have problem seeing coming from town…but you have SC vouching for you…so blah.bgg1996 wrote: Anyway, since nobody seems to be at L-"got home from school and he was lynched", I'llunvote
And put a pressure vote onvote:CryMeARiver.
I still would very much like to lynch Andrew, but I don't think that having my vote on him will have much effect on him, other than contributing to his lynch.
so is it true that you want to shorten the day? It is lower because I didnt like the rush to lynch him...however, it is moot at this point (at least in regards to SC) because of the soft claim.....do I need to explain why it is moot too?Maxous wrote:Why is Yura lowered by this?curiouskarmadog wrote:noted, Max and SC want ANOTHER FUCKING SHORTENED DAY....
this fact lowers Yura's scum factor in my mind...there is no point...
Apologies if you have already answered, I did'nt really catch on to a direct answer.
why not?..you dont think there is an SK anymore?Surprise_Carcinogen wrote:. There can't be two scum-teams(we've already gone over why, you'll get there eventually, I just dont' want to repost it). .
OK......actions > wordsbgg1996 wrote:If I had to lynch somebody right now, it would most definitely be andrew.
where did he say that?andrew94 wrote:alright. so bgg your saying im the Sk, and you made random points (1 2 3 4 etc) basically your reasoning is that tclawren died by a stab that i must be a sk? right?
Seriously? You yelled at me for like 2 pages about what I did, yet you did the same damn thing. -_-S_C wrote:And while I'm not yet very sure about a regfan lynch, I think some pressure should be put in his direction.
That is the absolute worst claim I've ever seen. Instead of outright claiming miller, you are testing the waters to see if you'll be scummy for it?S_C wrote:In other news, out of curiosity, if I were to cop to being a Town Miller, what would general reaction be?
S_C wrote:I also notice that his own answers are slightly suspect, since he has an "I'm so town, lookit me scumhunt", and this has rarely boded particularly good. It screams of either 'newbie town' or 'nervous scum' though given how he feels about rvs he must be at least a little bit experienced.
The reasoning for wanting to lynch Yura then, was not because I have a liking for shortened days.curiouskarmadog wrote:
so is it true that you want to shorten the day? It is lower because I didnt like the rush to lynch him...however, it is moot at this point (at least in regards to SC) because of the soft claim.....do I need to explain why it is moot too?
Did'nt want to put someone through the trouble. Too late now however. :/curiouskarmadog wrote: Wait, why is Haylen doing a ISO of yura?....that is ridiculous and a waste of time….the end is always going to be scummy, but I am not scum…or newbie.
I posted that as I read. If you kept reading what I said, I clearly realized it wasn't a claim later in the post.subgenius wrote:If you believe this is the claim that people keep mentioning, you are mistaken.CMAR wrote:That is the absolute worst claim I've ever seen. Instead of outright claiming miller, you are testing the waters to see if you'll be scummy for it?
Alright, well I look forward to hearing your opinion on the reason why nobody else is voting for bgg when you reach it in your catch up.CryMeARiver wrote:I posted that as I read. If you kept reading what I said, I clearly realized it wasn't a claim later in the post.subgenius wrote:If you believe this is the claim that people keep mentioning, you are mistaken.CMAR wrote:That is the absolute worst claim I've ever seen. Instead of outright claiming miller, you are testing the waters to see if you'll be scummy for it?
Which isn't a scumtellbgg wrote: The first thing that sticks out is that he doesn't seem to be reading the thread very well.
My recollection is that spammy stuff hasn't been the bulk of his play though...bgg wrote: The second thing that sticks out is that he seems to be posting unrelated information. Usually, I would disregard this, but he mentioned that Yura talked like a man at least twice. When you start repeating useless things like that, it's more because you want to fill space in your posts than goofing around.
This I agree with. It makes no sense to me. Not in a scummy way - but in a VI waybgg wrote: ISO#9 is fairly strange as well. After attacking S_C about deflecting the conversation away from day 1, S_C makes a post saying "Well, what would you like me to refer to about day 1?". ISO#9 quotes this exact post, and says "again, you are pointing to my lack of posts to suggest that i am lurking and to discredit my case." He then goes on to attack him more for deflecting. I can't make heads or tails of it.
I suspect that the sense of something being 'amiss' is really just a reaction to his poor play. As a point of contrast, Yura was probably worse at the game, but she was much easier to read. Whereas, Andrew is not as bad as Yura (or, at least, prone to weird outbursts), but also much harder to pinpoint any alignment on. Since his play hasn't been objectively pro-town (in the sense that he has made no contribution - not in the sense of being scummy), the common inclination is to think his play is scummy (this is a pattern that is common in respect of VI-ish players)bgg wrote: Finally, there's something off to me about his votes and suspicions, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Help me out?
This is a frankly ridiculous position to take. If you believe SC, then you ought to believe it is more likely that bgg is town than not. If you don't believe SC, well explain why.Andrew wrote:@bgg, well surprise soft claimed and it concluded you in the 'innocent' list, so ill wait till he claims.
Wha?SC wrote: Also, I've noticed that, in spite of us wanting to lynch yura not too long ago, lo and fucking behold, Haylen has kind of managed to convince you all that YURA WAS TOWN. This is, to say the least, unnacceptable. I'll ACCEPT and Andrew lynch, but I'm 90% more likely to think that Yura was SK then that ANdrew was, and at this point, it is in EVERYBODY's best interest, scum and town alike, to kill the SK. ANYTHING we can do to peel it back to 1 death a night rather then 2 is INCTREDIBLY beneficiel.
nice 'trying to trap me into a corner' but bgg just misunderstood.Surprise_Carcinogen wrote:No, he didn't because you made an answer that was entirely incorrect for the post you quoted, which means one of two things. Either you misquoted, or you were making up whatever you thought might work. Now, since you have already stated that you did not, in fact, misquote, then there can only really be one logical conclusion.
WTF is your point?andrew94 wrote:also i find surprise's mumbling of lynching the sk = peeling back 1 death = good etc
how about if there is a sk and we fail to lynch it = cross kills?
think about it
10 ppl now
9 ppl lynch, if sk lynched
8ppl at next day (5:3 ratio MYLO)(assuming 3 scum)
so yea i just decided i didnt believe you surprise, claim plz and i have conclusions depending on what u claim
After the last post, went back and looked at this:andrew94 wrote:@bgg look at these
geez
post 237 i accused surprise
post 244 surprise defends himself
post 245-246 surprise says i have low posts (AND THAT IS WHERE I SAID WAS THE DEFELCTING)
post254 i say he is deflecting
and so on
You're seriously arguing that it's better not to lynch a SK because there 'might' be a cross-kill?andrew wrote: did you not see my 'crosskills' part before commenting?
Actually, "mumble" means "to speak quietly or inaudibly". And, as for your argument, see my previous post for why it's rubbish (again, it's absurd to argue that eliminating a scum faction is not the best use of a lynch)Andrew wrote: lol i have alrady made a case agianst surprise, i dont need to downgrade surprise by saying he 'mumbles', do you know what mumble means? im pretty sure it means speaking retardedly.and thus i said that that point is wrong, not a 'discredit' dumbass.
Your argument against him was a speculative conspiracy that he voted for Yura to divert attention from him being the hammerer. It has no proof, relies on an assumption that SC would be dumb enough to think that the rest of us are dumb enough to think hammering is scummy, and ignores entirely the strong case against Yura. Against such a bad case, 244 is fine. Frankly, I wouldn't have even taken your 237 seriously if it had been directed against me.Andrew wrote: also, did you even read 244? are you saying that is a good defence?
Regardless of whether or not you agree with his defence in 244, he responded to your case - so you can't argue that he was trying to deflect.andrew wrote: in the next post surprise basically just pointed out my lurking, which i explained on day 1 'going to tourney' to DEFLECT MY CASE.
I don't even remember who my slot is... -_- And when I'm doing a reread, I do it as if it was happening, so I address all players.subgenius wrote:Alright, well I look forward to hearing your opinion on the reason why nobody else is voting for bgg when you reach it in your catch up.CryMeARiver wrote:I posted that as I read. If you kept reading what I said, I clearly realized it wasn't a claim later in the post.subgenius wrote:If you believe this is the claim that people keep mentioning, you are mistaken.CMAR wrote:That is the absolute worst claim I've ever seen. Instead of outright claiming miller, you are testing the waters to see if you'll be scummy for it?
I find it strange that you feel compelled to proclaim how townie your slot is during your catchup. Also, why are you addressing dead players (tclawren)?
1) That 'mumbles' expression was shown to be a misunderstanding about what it referred to.vollkan wrote: For starters, SC didn't "mumble" the theory about lynching SK. The fact that you characterise her remarks that way only suggests that you are trying to discredit her on emotional grounds. SoAndrew+5on that count.
As for the substance of your argument, the only thing I can see you saying is "even if we lynch a SK, it might be MYLO tomorrow". Obviously, that's true - but the situation is pretty clearly worse if we lynched mafia rather than a SK. So, your argument is BS. The fact that you are using such a patently stupid argument to try and make SC claim merits a furtherAndrew+5
You're right. His position is still wrong, but his "I thought it meant retarded" explanation really just means he was making a standard rhetorical attack soMaxous wrote:1) That 'mumbles' expression was shown to be a misunderstanding about what it referred to.vollkan wrote: For starters, SC didn't "mumble" the theory about lynching SK. The fact that you characterise her remarks that way only suggests that you are trying to discredit her on emotional grounds. SoAndrew+5on that count.
As for the substance of your argument, the only thing I can see you saying is "even if we lynch a SK, it might be MYLO tomorrow". Obviously, that's true - but the situation is pretty clearly worse if we lynched mafia rather than a SK. So, your argument is BS. The fact that you are using such a patently stupid argument to try and make SC claim merits a furtherAndrew+5
I haven't done the math on this, but if we go on the assumption that eliminating one NK altogether is better that weakening one by half or one-third, then it stands to reason that lynching SK is better. In any event, this is really distracting from the central point - which is that, no matter how debatable this issue is, it's patently ridiculous for Andrew to suspect SC, to the point of demanding a claim, based on the theory (when the theory appears to be against him - certainly, he hasn't shown any understanding to the contrary - and at best is ambiguous)Maxous wrote: 2) If we don't lynch the SK today, to realisticly win the game the SK has to take out a mafia. He will almost certainly be aiming for one.
How is the situation worse if we lynch a mafia? The mafia are the greater of two evils to the town (i.e. the biggest threat against the town winning the game). Who the SK is the biggest threat to is the mafia, not the town. The mafia will likely be aiming for the SK as well.
How is this thought BS?
Well, atm you're voting for someone who several people consider to be at least provisionally clear without showing any interest in why other people think he's cleared. At your current reread pace, you might be caught up in a month. To a certain extent, I feel like you're dragging your feet in an effort to avoid posting any content that's meaningful to the current game. Your stream of conscience posting style seems to lend itself better to creating an appearance of activity than actually presenting useful cases.CMAR wrote:I don't even remember who my slot is... -_- And when I'm doing a reread, I do it as if it was happening, so I address all players.
Okay that's fair.vollkan wrote: In any event, this is really distracting from the central point - which is that, no matter how debatable this issue is, it's patently ridiculous for Andrew to suspect SC, to the point of demanding a claim, based on the theory (when the theory appears to be against him - certainly, he hasn't shown any understanding to the contrary - and at best is ambiguous)
I have an absolute interest in his claim. I see no reason to inquire about it as I'm sure I will see it in my reread. It shall not take a month, it just takes time that I don't currently have with college at my doorstep.subgenius wrote:Well, atm you're voting for someone who several people consider to be at least provisionally clear without showing any interest in why other people think he's cleared. At your current reread pace, you might be caught up in a month. To a certain extent, I feel like you're dragging your feet in an effort to avoid posting any content that's meaningful to the current game. Your stream of conscience posting style seems to lend itself better to creating an appearance of activity than actually presenting useful cases.CMAR wrote:I don't even remember who my slot is... -_- And when I'm doing a reread, I do it as if it was happening, so I address all players.
And still, it blows my mind that you haven't inquired more deeply about S_C's claim, which has been mentioned several times. The fact that you display no interest in this leads me to think you really don't give a damn about who you're voting for since you're clearly not interested enough in seeing new evidence to either ask where this claim happened or to read more than 2 pages of the thread in the week or so since you've joined the game. This has scum written all over it. A town player would have a keen interest in assessing a claim that may or may not clear some players.