-->
-->
Patrick asked me something about my questions to OGML a week ago. With PJ it was less a matter of scumminess than a matter of woah-PJ-did-something-weird-I-can't-just-not-ask, but with OGML, it felt opportunistic and his responses implied that he wasn't actually trying to read and check up on me. (And his inactivity last week obviously doesn't help; it's not like he hasn't been posting elsewhere. I continue to dislike him and Elvis, whom Sarc shouldUnofficial votecount (top of the page, bitches) wrote:5 DrippingGoofball (petroleumjelly, bluesoul, Sarcastro, Patrick, elvis_knits)
1 bluesoul (DrippingGoofball)
1 Elias_the_thief (MrBuddyLee)
1 elvis_knits (chamber)
1 Sarcastro (OhGodMyLife)
3 Unvote (Elias_the_thief, Ether, IH)
12 alive; 7 to lynch.
Deadline starts doing weird stuff on Tuesday, July 29th at some time (Eastern).
I, uh, totally see what DGB was getting at on that one. (Having said that--I was thinking MBLtown at that point between his PJhate and me sheeping on people, and think it more strongly now between his doing stuff and me sheeping on people.) Bluesoul's defense was a strawman that didn't get at the spirit of her words at all, and Sarc's question only tossed that further off-course.Bluesoul/Sarc argument thing, Page 8ish wrote:DGB: Bluesoul's 30% spat with MBL couldn't possibly be real. Contrived and planned.
Bluesoul: So you're saying we decided to 30% ourselves pregame?
Sarc: There was talking pregame?(Later explained in 224 as a speculation tangent. Below point still stands.)
DGB questioned MBL about FoSing Bluesoul--the person she was voting for--which is why I wanted the clarification.Post 221, Elvis wrote:But to be fair, Ether forced that by asking the loaded question of "DGB, what are your thoughts on Bluesoul, and MBL's interactions with him?" So I think Ether is guilty of drawing connections too, and perhaps in a more underhanded way, because she's prompting people to re-affirm any mentions of connection.
Post 236, MBL wrote:I agree with Patrick's suspicions somewhat. I was expecting to get a much cleaner read off him, but he seems a bit on his heels and possibly a tad nervous. I wouldn't lynch him today. I think he will be a rich reservoir of alignment info in the days to come.
Post 239, DGB wrote:MBL, while reading your case on Patrick, I was exclaiming, in my head, "brilliant!" "OMG!" "I could never catch so many tells in a million years! What a stellar string!"
Post 249, PJ wrote:Patrick, are you scum?
He's town.Post 253, Elvis wrote:[...]
Explain.
This post is scummy. One of the only scummy posts Ive seen you make but scummy non the less. Its basically a scare tactic to stop others from attacking you without actually saying anything.DrippingGoofball wrote:Who has considered the possibility that I have a power role?
More often than nitpicks, I just see them as plain stupid. But to answer what I think you're asking, it's probably fairly rare. What's the purpose of this question?PJ wrote:2.) Patrick, how often do you think points against you are something other than nitpicks?
The rules say only that a deadline might be imposed after 3 weeks, and it can be avoided by staying active. All we have to do is simply (heh) stay active. I definitely favour the day going on a while longer, because I have very little read on several of players. And Elias missed posting at the weekend, again.Ether wrote:Speaking of which, what are people's thoughts on the deadline versus hypothetically having to hold out for posts from IH and OGML? (I'm assuming getting Elias on weekdays is a lost cause anyway. Do we know how long he's at summer camp?) I'm waffling between thinking, "Ooh, activity-based" and worrying that it couldn't possibly be more than a week.
I'm getting bored here. Anything I do or don't do is interpreted as scummy. It's getting old.Patrick wrote:Please respond. I should probably explain that I found Post 239 fairly opportunistic, and I don't see how it's a townie thought process. It strongly implies you'd have voted me if MBL had, and didn't because he didn't. The follow up soon after which says you only find bluesoul even slightly suspicious baffles me more than I find it scummy, but I want to understand the thought process there too.
I have not considered the possibility. If we go around afraid to vote or lynch people because they might have a power role, then nothing would ever happen.DrippingGoofball wrote:Who has considered the possibility that I have a power role?
I don't have a problem with him. I haven't played with him in a long time, so there I'm not really going on meta at all. I just haven't read any of his posts and thought it was BS, or thought he was trying to be manipulative.Patrick wrote:Elvis, what do you think of PJ?
I'm not interpretting everything you do as scummy, I'm trying to work out what the hell is going on in your head. You know, what mafia is all about. Your boredom is of no interest to me right now.DGB wrote:I'm getting bored here. Anything I do or don't do is interpreted as scummy. It's getting old.
I've already explained how it wasn't a case against me, it seemed clear even from only those recaps he'd done that he found at least one player scummier than me. He even made a point of saying that he wouldn't lynch me today. So no, it didn't surprise me at all that he didn't vote me.DGB wrote:I'm still not sure what to make of that incident. MBL makes a case against you, does not vote you, I found THAT to be scummy. So no, I wasn't going to vote for you. That didn't jump at you as being scummy??? And then you react by claiming this was not a case against you at all. I've never seen that kind of behavior and I don't know if you're townies caught in your own pointless verbiage, or if you're scumbags trying to set up false trails for later confusion.
The fact that you vaguely agreed with his points without getting your hands dirty with any specifics, mostly.DGB wrote:And what's OPPORTUNISTIC about it, Patrick???
I didn't vote. I didn't trust MBL. Show me the opportunism.
What is it with so many people questioning the purpose of my questions lately? The best questions are the ones that don't have an apparent purpose, precisely because people don't know whether they're answering how they "should" answer it or not.Patrick wrote:More often than nitpicks, I just see them as plain stupid. But to answer what I think you're asking, it's probably fairly rare. What's the purpose of this question?
I'm sure you would.chamber wrote:Id be happy with dgb claiming after that post of hers.
Argh, just lynch me already. Heres's a good reason: I now I want the scum to win. Really. The scum is walking all over us.bluesoul wrote:278 ("Who has considered the possibility that I have a power role?") irritates me on several levels.
Right. Brilliant suggestion, MBL. There isn't a single thing I said that people haven't jumped on as being scummy, from my second post onward. You want me to "find you scum" or "get lynched." Like any of you have given me one inch of wiggle room to hunt scum. And having a role where a good strategy is not to draw mega-attention to oneself.MrBuddyLee wrote:My ass we deserve to lose. Find us the scum and explain why they're the scum, and you won't get lynched.
Lynch me and find out.elvis_knits wrote:elvis_knits wrote:what is the point of soft-claiming like that?
Lynch me and find out.bluesoul wrote:elvis_knits wrote:elvis_knits wrote:what is the point of soft-claiming like that?