I love it
VOTE: Frozen Angel for admitting she shouldn't be trusted, crazy or not.
I love it
lilac wrote:For all we know he may be trying to take the spotlight off himself by spilling the beans on his self-voting shenanigans.
In post 47, lilac wrote:Or we could continue focusing on word sneak, and just wait for this to go bonkers.
In post 64, Wednesday_ wrote:Didn't you say you loved it? You realize only several people said they didnt understand the logic. Whats with hoppig on the popular opinion bandwagon?
In post 102, Frozen Angel wrote:In my opinion your still trying to stay in RVS. seems fairly scummy in my opinion.
In post 114, Frozen Angel wrote:you wanna interact with your scum read anytime soon ?
In post 122, lilith2013 wrote:Which bizarre issue was Postie pressuring about? Are you talking about lilac?
Frozen Angel wrote:In post 121, vandergeist wrote:In post 114, Frozen Angel wrote:you wanna interact with your scum read anytime soon ?
Is this meant for me? In which case, what?
yes about your parked vote on me....
can you help me understand why are you scum reading me?
That's just false and misconstrues lilac's question. It's you jumping the gun.In post 81, Frozen Angel wrote:and if you think Davasto is scummy why your Not pushing him yourself?
More attention/tunnelling on a player early in the game, made stranger considering the fact that she isn't the only player guilty of this. Why all the lilac attention?In post 84, Frozen Angel wrote:lilac! why your not doing anything contributive to girl and wondered (scumreading?) someone who said the same thing to you.
This odd suffix to your vote on lilac that I don't understand. I asked you about this in 113 but still don't have an answer.In post 102, Frozen Angel wrote:In my opinion your still trying to stay in RVS. seems fairly scummy in my opinion.
In post 126, lilith2013 wrote:Can you explain why Wednesday's reason for jumping on the wagon was better than FA's?
lilith2013 wrote:And I'm not sure why vandergeist is calling me out for my vote on TMWSTW because my vote was based on his delayed vote on me, not the self-voting itself.
Wednesday_ wrote:@lillith. It was very self aware. Town don't worry about how they are perceived as scum hunting will show that you are town
In post 147, Wednesday_ wrote:@vander what is your read on lilac and explain please.
In post 147, Wednesday_ wrote:Vander reminds me of franklin from the peanuts unless I am misremembering.
In post 148, TheManWhoSoldTheWorld wrote:The Lilac has so many touches of scum activity, that I do hope many people follow me with a vote.
In post 134, Postie wrote:Yeah, I'm uncomfortable with pretty much every single person who has gotten on the lilac wagon's reasons for getting on the lilac wagon. Not a good sign.
UNVOTE:
In post 157, Davsto wrote:Between who? If you're saying lilac then what they have a joindate of 2011
I phrased what I meant very poorly. I wasn't referring to two separate players, but the two possible alignments of Lilac as a counter to the hard stance you took against her 144.In post 155, TheManWhoSoldTheWorld wrote:I'm going to highlight this as a statement I don't like, the rest of the post is good but this gets me. From my experience, these kind of statements are made much more often by scum than town, and all they do is seed distrust in both players, with little effort on the part of the excuser. Also scum would know if we're both town and could easily set up a double mislynch with things like this.
Lilac's experience can still be called into question, considering she only has 100 posts from those 3 games.Postie wrote: I was the one who said this was lilac's second game, but I just checked again and it appears I messed up somewhere because she actually has 3 completed games. Either way, her join date is irrelevant.
Ew meta accusationsIn post 167, Postie wrote:Davsto usually obvtowns himself pretty quickly and I'm not feeling it this game so I'm a bit concerned on that front. I'll go into more detail tomorrow but right now my lynchpool consists of lilith, Wednesday, and Davsto.
Is our logic flawed or reaching? Call me a green-elbowed orangutan, but has any player denounced or even commented on the logic that you're a relatively new player?In post 176, lilac wrote:In the case that she's scum it explains why she's got the strongest town read on me at this point. She's been referring to my position as a newbie quite a lot recently. The only other person really using that to defend me is Vander.
No it wasn't that I liked your 144 more, it's that I'm not a fan of beating dead horses. Call me a pink-hooded cobra, but TMWSTW's 149 was of more interest for me to comment on at the time, considering anything I'd of wanted to say about 144 had already been said.In post 176, lilac wrote:Vander said my 144 made him cringe but was more upset with TMWSTW's 149; Postie had no comment.
So 144 was an elaborate ruse to catch scum? Call me a friendly blue weinerdog, but are you not addressing anything you've said prior to 176 and dismissing all of your prior suspicions/posts/reads just because you have a "super duper gut feeling" about a possible scum team?In post 176, lilac wrote:For my points listed above, namely the fact that she out was the only person to completely ignore my outrageous 144.
You honestly believe that's a "very solid argument"? I like the direction it's headed, the use of logic is more in line with what we've come to expect from these games, but the vote was the only thing that I think was solid in about that post. Call me a raging purple orthodontist, but the point against the meta accusation could have been explored and discussed more than the fact that Postie defended her.In post 180, TheManWhoSoldTheWorld wrote:The buddying by town reading and complimenting the people voting them, and also not even trying to defend post 144 just giving up and saying it's bad. On the other hand I actually really like Lilac's ideas against Vander and Postie, I think it's a very solid argument, and the vote is good.
Argh, you can have more than one suspect or scumteam in mind. You can have a whole slew of suspects. Call me a tanned angry winchester, but why would you discredit everything you said beforehand about FA or any other player without even addressing it?In post 183, lilac wrote:Just to clarify, all of my townreads are based on the assumption that I've correctly identified the scum team.
I appreciate that you're trying to get discussion going, but if you're seriously asking me to defend Lilac, I can only offer this Postie quote:In post 209, TheManWhoSoldTheWorld wrote:Especially Vander and Postie, if you guys don't want Lilac to fry shouldn't you be here defending him not sitting idly by while it happens?
It's not even a real defence, because you can't defend Lilac's plays. All I've been calling for is a consideration into Lilac's actual experience with the game. A lot of energy has been put towards pressuring her in this first day, so it's unlikely we're going to get another lynch, I can concede that. Call me a aqua marine Fallout 7 raider, but I believe lilac's going to flip town, and I'm looking at her wagon right now.In post 204, Postie wrote:I'm conflicted about lilac. I really didn't like the tone of the last paragraph of 144. A lot of her posts come across as really bad play, which I don't like, but bad play doesn't make her scum. GL also made some good points for town!lilac. Something that I think looks off about the lilac wagon is that it seems the playerbase is pretty split, with everyone except me either defending or attacking her, rather than anyone being kinda null or unsure on her. I'm not really sure what conclusions to draw from that though. I'm still unsure what to make of lilac so I wouldn't be happy with her being hammered right now.
In post 330, Expedience wrote:And that's L-1, Intent To Hammer, Wednesday please claim.
In post 342, Wednesday_ wrote:In post 339, Davsto wrote:Basically what I'm saying is Wednesday please claim thanks
I'm not claiming. I'm taking it with me.
So wednesday's either scum or anti-town at this pointIn post 342, Wednesday_ wrote:In post 339, Davsto wrote:Basically what I'm saying is Wednesday please claim thanks
I'm not claiming. I'm taking it with me.