And RC, will you listen there? This is a gaping inconsistency - not the type I expect from "one of the better scum hunters on this site." I think a vote on you is fair for this along with your baseless push on me.In post 1378, Ranger wrote:My attitude is that I'll listen to any read NOT Smithereens.
Really? Really? Really.. I don't fish like that at all.. how could I possibly know your supposed roll? Really I am disappointed.In post 1445, Titus wrote:I'm not opposed to voting LQ. I think LQ was fishing on if I had a guilty or innocent on Ranger anyway...
Could you explain how this post ends with a ranger vote? It appears to be rather non sequiter as it's addressed to RC.In post 1450, LicketyQuickety wrote:And RC, will you listen there? This is a gaping inconsistency - not the type I expect from "one of the better scum hunters on this site." I think a vote on you is fair for this along with your baseless push on me.In post 1378, Ranger wrote:My attitude is that I'll listen to any read NOT Smithereens.
VOTE: Ranger
FYI it's not abnormal nor scummy for players to vote co-operatively with other players. In context, the behaviour adds up imo.In post 1444, Zachstralkita wrote: maybe we've been magnifying glassing the wrong fire ant this entire time
Ranger previously mentioned that they would not be reconsidering their read on RC. This time its you. Now I have a bone to pick with Ranger because they don't reevaluate their reads. I also have a bone to pick with her because reasons and the fact that they are so wrong on me. Honestly I don't get people thinking Rangers early day 1 reads are gods gift to mafia. I have played a measly 2 games with Ranger that were played in 2015.. If ranger is relying so heavily on their meta of me they should have 5 times that many games played with me for it to mean shit.In post 1453, Smithereens wrote:Could you explain how this post ends with a ranger vote? It appears to be rather non sequiter as it's addressed to RC.In post 1450, LicketyQuickety wrote:And RC, will you listen there? This is a gaping inconsistency - not the type I expect from "one of the better scum hunters on this site." I think a vote on you is fair for this along with your baseless push on me.In post 1378, Ranger wrote:My attitude is that I'll listen to any read NOT Smithereens.
VOTE: Ranger
In post 1277, Smithereens wrote:There are people wanting to strangle Ranger rn as we speak. The Ira mislynch is certainly fuel for that. However don't discredit the points of someone you believe to be scum simply because you think they're scum. I think this post by Ranger carries a decent point regardless of her alignment. LQ was one of the players bashing on the Ira wagon because he appeared to know that Ira was town. Next minute, he goes and votes Ira, simply because he doesn't think he can kill anyone else. The point being that LQ was the only person town reading Ira on the wagon, he knew Ira was going to flip town. Therefore why did he kill Ira?In post 1246, Zachstralkita wrote:In post 1234, Ranger wrote:^This was a scum vote, by the way.LicketyQuickety wrote:I don't see another train happening like the ira one at this point so: VOTE: ira
VOTE: LicketyQuickety.
All of {Umlaut, texcat, LicketyQuickety}.Titus wrote:Hey Ranger, who should WE lynch?
I meant it yesterday. Obviously, with four names it was near-impossible for literally all of them to be scum. So I knew I was likely wrong about one. I see nothing in the flips that makes me thing I was wrong on the others.
This is full of no.
LQ is gonna be town so you're wrong twice. AND NO ONE'S GONNA SCRUTINIZE YOU FOR IT.
Re Ranger, town don't become scum because they get things wrong. It's quite normal to be wrong in mafia, that's how the game is played. You look like you're getting fustrated with Ranger when Ranger was simply one name on a wagon of people who were incorrect, and not even the more suspicious of names.
Buddying the IC. This kind of talk is not common for Titus.In post 1335, Titus wrote:*hugs in advance*In post 1334, Zachstralkita wrote:ya LQ you're taking a very laid back position on this you could just assist your handy-dandy IC! not to mention compared to your very forward stance on the ira wagon
misquote sorry.In post 1458, LicketyQuickety wrote:In post 1277, Smithereens wrote:There are people wanting to strangle Ranger rn as we speak. The Ira mislynch is certainly fuel for that. However don't discredit the points of someone you believe to be scum simply because you think they're scum. I think this post by Ranger carries a decent point regardless of her alignment. LQ was one of the players bashing on the Ira wagon because he appeared to know that Ira was town. Next minute, he goes and votes Ira, simply because he doesn't think he can kill anyone else. The point being that LQ was the only person town reading Ira on the wagon, he knew Ira was going to flip town. Therefore why did he kill Ira?In post 1246, Zachstralkita wrote:In post 1234, Ranger wrote:^This was a scum vote, by the way.LicketyQuickety wrote:I don't see another train happening like the ira one at this point so: VOTE: ira
VOTE: LicketyQuickety.
All of {Umlaut, texcat, LicketyQuickety}.Titus wrote:Hey Ranger, who should WE lynch?
I meant it yesterday. Obviously, with four names it was near-impossible for literally all of them to be scum. So I knew I was likely wrong about one. I see nothing in the flips that makes me thing I was wrong on the others.
This is full of no.
LQ is gonna be town so you're wrong twice. AND NO ONE'S GONNA SCRUTINIZE YOU FOR IT.
Re Ranger, town don't become scum because they get things wrong. It's quite normal to be wrong in mafia, that's how the game is played. You look like you're getting fustrated with Ranger when Ranger was simply one name on a wagon of people who were incorrect, and not even the more suspicious of names.Buddying the IC. This kind of talk is not common for Titus.In post 1335, Titus wrote:*hugs in advance*In post 1334, Zachstralkita wrote:ya LQ you're taking a very laid back position on this you could just assist your handy-dandy IC! not to mention compared to your very forward stance on the ira wagon
In post 1335, Titus wrote:*hugs in advance*In post 1334, Zachstralkita wrote:ya LQ you're taking a very laid back position on this you could just assist your handy-dandy IC! not to mention compared to your very forward stance on the ira wagon
buddying the IC. This kind of talk is not common for Titus.In post 1404, Titus wrote:*tries to pull Zach back from ledge*
My actions should make themselves clear. If you can't scumhunt, come back after LQ is due to post. If he misses it, I will just announce anyway and will really want to lynch him.
This is coming straight out of left field. What the hell is this analysis dav?In post 1216, davesaz wrote:Probably the reason that Dunnstral was killed.In post 1101, Dunnstral wrote:Zach you're not dying n1 just chill
We aren't fucking lynching Umlaut. What the hell is wrong with you?In post 1234, Ranger wrote:^This was a scum vote, by the way.LicketyQuickety wrote:I don't see another train happening like the ira one at this point so: VOTE: ira
VOTE: LicketyQuickety.
All of {Umlaut, texcat, LicketyQuickety}.Titus wrote:Hey Ranger, who should WE lynch?
I meant it yesterday. Obviously, with four names it was near-impossible for literally all of them to be scum. So I knew I was likely wrong about one. I see nothing in the flips that makes me thing I was wrong on the others.
After a forthright complaint from you about unexplained and immovable reads from other players, surely you would be more inclined to provide explanations for your own?In post 1461, LicketyQuickety wrote: We aren't fucking lynching Umlaut. What the hell is wrong with you?
In post 1462, Smithereens wrote:LQ, what makes you so sure that Titus:
A) Is buddying the IC?
B) Doesn't normally buddy (the IC)?
Could you link for my convenience? Some research on the Trans slot would help my own reads.
In post 1463, Smithereens wrote:After a forthright complaint from you about unexplained and immovable reads from other players, surely you would be more inclined to provide explanations for your own?In post 1461, LicketyQuickety wrote: We aren't fucking lynching Umlaut. What the hell is wrong with you?
Why are we trying to remove players from the lynch pool? Imo it's far better if everyone remains accessible to lynch unless they have proven town utility. From what I've seen, there is absolutely nothing spectacular or interesting about Umlaut. Why are you treating him differently to everyone else?
No, you are both wrong here.. Titus doesn't use word choice that is touchy feely/AtE type sentiments. This whole "oh I feel bad for the IC, lets be friends" thing is way out of character for her.In post 1464, Titus wrote:@LQ, I was wrecking Zach's lynch choice and knew it. Of course being nice about it is getting them something. Announcing at start of day denies information. Second, I don't have to be a dick when I know I am ruining the IC's plans.
VOTE: LQ
Little early for that don't you think? I mean we have <10 days left.. why the rush to pick just 2?In post 1467, Titus wrote:Texcat LQ
Let's just suggest everyone pick one unless expressly townreading them both.
Something seems off to me when he says that Ranger doesn't know his alignment. If LQ were town, wouldn't he assume that there are quite a few people (mafia) who do know his alignment.In post 346, LicketyQuickety wrote:How is talking about the IC AI? Do you think I have been bringing it up a lot or something? I'm pretty sure that is not the primary thing I have been talking about. Explain.In post 344, Dunnstral wrote:By the way the more you talk about the IC the more I believe you're mafia
BTW, you have fair points on that you are sheeping Ranger. Ranger doesn't know my alignment, but the point is seen nonetheless.
I use the narrative that people are Town. You're not the first person to see that I do this. I should prolly stop doing it because its part of a reason I got lynch in that other game I was in. Its weird that people think if you use a way to talk about people assuming they are Town that it means you are Scum. *shurg* its a dumb reason to lynch someone IMO. Like I HAVE to use a narrative where I don't know what alignment people are and when I talk about people assuming they are Town or Scum everyone loses their minds.In post 1470, texcat wrote:I just had a brief skim of LQ's ISO. This was before his scumslip:Something seems off to me when he says that Ranger doesn't know his alignment. If LQ were town, wouldn't he assume that there are quite a few people (mafia) who do know his alignment.In post 346, LicketyQuickety wrote:How is talking about the IC AI? Do you think I have been bringing it up a lot or something? I'm pretty sure that is not the primary thing I have been talking about. Explain.In post 344, Dunnstral wrote:By the way the more you talk about the IC the more I believe you're mafia
BTW, you have fair points on that you are sheeping Ranger. Ranger doesn't know my alignment, but the point is seen nonetheless.
VOTE: LQ
What does it mean when someone tells a conftown (an obvious possible kill choice) that they won't be NK'd?In post 1460, LicketyQuickety wrote:This is coming straight out of left field. What the hell is this analysis dav?In post 1216, davesaz wrote:Probably the reason that Dunnstral was killed.In post 1101, Dunnstral wrote:Zach you're not dying n1 just chill