- Saulres is V/LA until Thursday
- Klick is V/LA until Saturday
Deadline is
In post 74, Rubick wrote:Trolled Ascetic Psychic Redirector
I chose no action N0. I was so concerned with confirming Hated status I am "trolled" by any player I target and acquire their negative component.
Being a Redirector also means there is no Vote Thief in the game.
In post 74, Rubick wrote:I chose no action N0. I was so concerned with confirming Hated status I am "trolled" by any player I target and acquire their negative component.
In post 73, Guy_Named_Riggs wrote:Okay, reads so far
Town
MoI
Ice Guy
Null
Salamence
Saulres
Klick
drmyshotgun
Scum
Rubick
MoI and Ice Guy and Rubick are mainly gut because I don't see a whole to go off of. The difference is MoI and Ice Guy's post seem way more townie than Rubicks.
drmy and Saul there isn't a whole lot to go on
Klick, I'm just not sure
Sal... who knows. I need more time to figure him out
My biggest issue with Rubick is his vote on drmy just to test it, when earlier he was voting Sal as a serious vote (and then goes back to it). Why would anyone leave a serious vote, just to test a claim? I don't like it.
This is an intent to hammer. Would you like to claim now or post game?
Rubick wrote: And again, L-2 never bothered me because I was aware there was not a Vote Thief present in the game.
In post 69, Rubick wrote:Ididn'thave a problem with you voting Klick untilafterIceguy made a similar statement about L-2, which you found to be non-indicative of alignment. This wasafter the clarity surrounding loved/hated. If I had a problem with it before Iceguy's post, I would have spoken up.
In post 63, Rubick wrote:Perhaps I have a little more reason to be skeptical about negative role claims than the rest of you.
In post 73, Guy_Named_Riggs wrote:This is an intent to hammer. Would you like to claim now or post game?
In post 86, saulres wrote:@Salamence: You still haven't answered my question. Have some L-2 motivation to do so:
VOTE: Salamence
In post 86, saulres wrote:Given your claim, why would you be skeptical about negative role claims?
In post 92, Rubick wrote:You think I'm scum but don't want me hammered? And you assume I'm telling the truth about my claim but you think there's a vote thief in the game?
In post 87, MagnaofIllusion wrote:We aren't lynching Sala today so you should probably remove that vote.
In post 94, Rubick wrote:GNR is not scum with Iceguy, otherwise instead of admitting a mistake he would've rationalized that the pseudovote put me at pseudo-L1.
GNR also doesn't seem like scum with MoI.
In all likelihood, GNR is probably town.
In post 24, saulres wrote:Huh?
You have scum reads on the two people on your wagon who are sandwiching your town read. How did you come to any of those reads?
Also no, didn't notice you were loved because the wagon on you didn't hit lynch threshold.
pedit: With a wagon building up on him so fast I thought it would be important to know if he has a chance of being scum.
In post 87, MagnaofIllusion wrote:In post 86, saulres wrote:@Salamence: You still haven't answered my question. Have some L-2 motivation to do so:
VOTE: Salamence
We aren't lynching Sala today so you should probably remove that vote.
In post 97, Rubick wrote:Nah. Iceguy/Salamence seems reasonable though.
Rubick wrote:GNR is not scum with Iceguy, otherwise instead of admitting a mistake he would've rationalized that the pseudovote put me at pseudo-L1.
GNR also doesn't seem like scum with MoI.
In all likelihood, GNR is probably town.
Saulres wrote: @MoI: why did you unvote Rubick in 66? Also LOL at that Think Twice game.
Iceguy wrote: I don't want a quickhammer (directly by Klick, or indirectly by the vote thief). No point in ending the day right now.