Mini Normal 1888 - TwoFace Mafia - Game Over

[mozamis]

aorngrundy's answers seem honest.
dogwatch looks like nervous scum.

[TwoFace]

Vote count 1.02

FireScreamer - Pants98, Transcend,FankJaeger, aronagrundy (L-3)

aronagrundy - FireScreamer, Barleycorn, DogWatch (L-4)
Dogwatch - mozamis, Shadow_step (L-5)
Eddie cane - Eddie Cane, (L-6)
Transcend - NorskaBlue (L-6)
gerryoat - Keyser Söze (L-6)

Not Voting: gerryoat

With 13 alive it takes 7 to lynch

Day 1 ends in (expired on 2017-03-06 16:51:40)

[mozamis]

oh, and fire's responses look town. he seems measured and questioning his attackers in a "i dont care, i'm innocent" kinda way.
time to stop voting fire.

[Eddie Cane]

**ignores every question asked to it**

what questions has dogwatch ignored?

This.

Also in what world is building alternatives to yourself something that only has scum incentives?

You'll know with experience.

"I don't have an answer to this. Quick his forum title says goon, discredit him!"

More like I'm not the IC and this is not a newbie game so I'm not gonna waste my energy on explaining basic mafia stuff that everyone should know.
Scum are survivalistic, town are less so. As town you're not as worried about getting lynched as you are as scum. As scum you quickly want a CW. As town you're more relaxed.

I don't know what kinda townie you are, but I try my ass off to not get lynched regardless of alignment. this is utter bullshit.

[Eddie Cane]

in fact
VOTE: shadowstep

[Eddie Cane]

**ignores every question asked to it**

**let me create a counter wagon to my wagon**

Basically scum who's scared of getting lynched.
Everyone pile on Dogwatch

**ignores every question asked to it**

what questions has dogwatch ignored?

You just quoted it in your previous post.

**ignores every question asked to it**

what questions has dogwatch ignored?

You just quoted it in your previous post.

So by every question you meant one question that could easily be read as rhetorical?

Seems like you are misrepresenting things in the face of pressure on grundy's awful logic. Don't worry. Once she flips i'm coming after you.

I don't care about aromagrundy. Dog watch is scum.

**ignores every question asked to it**

what questions has dogwatch ignored?

This.

Also in what world is building alternatives to yourself something that only has scum incentives?

You'll know with experience.

"I don't have an answer to this. Quick his forum title says goon, discredit him!"

More like I'm not the IC and this is not a newbie game so I'm not gonna waste my energy on explaining basic mafia stuff that everyone should know.
Scum are survivalistic, town are less so. As town you're not as worried about getting lynched as you are as scum. As scum you quickly want a CW. As town you're more relaxed.

**ignores every question asked to it**

what questions has dogwatch ignored?

You just quoted it in your previous post.

it looked rhetorical. are you saying that you wanted dogwatch to answer the question: "concerned townie much?"

how would one answer that anyway?

By why is he asking reasons for rvs votes ? What is the point of asking reasons for RVS votes ? How does one person being on 3 votes on day 1 such a big deal?

VOTE: Wdog

This is scum.

since when is ignoring a RHETORIC question scum indicative? this is blatantly misrepping a situation. also in reply to 71: it isn't scum afraid of getting lynched, i5s nai newb afraid of getting lynched. I'm really annoyed how you're trying to push a lynch on a newbie for awful reasonig this early. you're right, you're not an ic, but that doesn't mean you should be an asshole. he's new, I called him out a bit for the rvs vote questioning too. that's not scum indicative at all. but actually, viewing your iso, you've been tunnelling him from your first post.

[aronagrundy]

oh, and fire's responses look town. he seems measured and questioning his attackers in a "i dont care, i'm innocent" kinda way.
time to stop voting fire.

What do you make of his 180 on dog?

[FireScreamer]

oh, and fire's responses look town. he seems measured and questioning his attackers in a "i dont care, i'm innocent" kinda way.
time to stop voting fire.

What do you make of his 180 on dog?

I think you should read that again.

[aronagrundy]

Ok I reread it, now what

[FireScreamer]

Ok I reread it, now what

In which post do I townread dog?

[aronagrundy]

You go from scumreading him to defending him, that's a 180

[FireScreamer]

You go from scumreading him to defending him, that's a 180

I go from saying that I understand how X can be perceived as a possible scumtell to going after some bad logic and clear misrepresentation from Shadow_Step. I'll go after those things wherever I see them regardless of who they are on. Do you think Shadow_step's arguments were well founded?

[Eddie Cane]

You go from scumreading him to defending him, that's a 180

I go from saying that I understand how X can be perceived as a possible scumtell to going after some bad logic and clear misrepresentation from Shadow_Step. I'll go after those things wherever I see them regardless of who they are on. Do you think Shadow_step's arguments were well founded?

sheep me?

[FireScreamer]

You go from scumreading him to defending him, that's a 180

I go from saying that I understand how X can be perceived as a possible scumtell to going after some bad logic and clear misrepresentation from Shadow_Step. I'll go after those things wherever I see them regardless of who they are on. Do you think Shadow_step's arguments were well founded?

sheep me?

Yeah I probably will once I resolve this with Grundy.

[FireScreamer]

@TwoFace

can you confirm how many more vote need to be cast on gerryoat for him to be lynched please? The recent vote count has him at L-1 with 1 vote.

VC fixed

[aronagrundy]

VOTE: gerryoat

[aronagrundy]

UNVOTE:

jk

[aronagrundy]

You go from scumreading him to defending him, that's a 180

I go from saying that I understand how X can be perceived as a possible scumtell to going after some bad logic and clear misrepresentation from Shadow_Step. I'll go after those things wherever I see them regardless of who they are on. Do you think Shadow_step's arguments were well founded?

Fair enough.

I agree that shadow's arguments rely on misreps but I think he's town. If he was scum I think he wouldn't have pushed the question thing. At least when I'm scum I double check the things I'm claiming.

[aronagrundy]

I'm going to figure out who to vote now

[FireScreamer]

You go from scumreading him to defending him, that's a 180

I go from saying that I understand how X can be perceived as a possible scumtell to going after some bad logic and clear misrepresentation from Shadow_Step. I'll go after those things wherever I see them regardless of who they are on. Do you think Shadow_step's arguments were well founded?

Fair enough.

I agree that shadow's arguments rely on misreps but I think he's town. If he was scum I think he wouldn't have pushed the question thing. At least when I'm scum I double check the things I'm claiming.

Fair enough. We cool then. While I feel your logic earlier was very flawed, for now at least I am willing to believe it was not malicious.

I also think normal guidelines mean that the vote count thing is jsut a typo and you didn't just quickhammer some sort of weird role. Don't believe in the too bad to be scum argument on shadow_step though so I guess it's time to put on my wooly jumper for eddie.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Shadow_Step

[aronagrundy]

VOTE: eddie cane

His case on shadow seems opportunistic. And he basically just repeats what others have said.

[aronagrundy]

You go from scumreading him to defending him, that's a 180

I go from saying that I understand how X can be perceived as a possible scumtell to going after some bad logic and clear misrepresentation from Shadow_Step. I'll go after those things wherever I see them regardless of who they are on. Do you think Shadow_step's arguments were well founded?

Fair enough.

I agree that shadow's arguments rely on misreps but I think he's town. If he was scum I think he wouldn't have pushed the question thing. At least when I'm scum I double check the things I'm claiming.

Fair enough. We cool then. While I feel your logic earlier was very flawed, for now at least I am willing to believe it was not malicious.

I also think normal guidelines mean that the vote count thing is jsut a typo and you didn't just quickhammer some sort of weird role. Don't believe in the too bad to be scum argument on shadow_step though so I guess it's time to put on my wooly jumper for eddie.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Shadow_Step

Eh it's part because he seems experienced, part because I can see why he's focusing on dogwatch. A 180 now on my part but I can see the "inexperienced scum getting towncred" logic about dog.

[aronagrundy]

the vc was 100% a typo lol

[FireScreamer]

VOTE: eddie cane

His case on shadow seems opportunistic. And he basically just repeats what others have said.

Why is starting a wagon on someone at 0 votes opportunistic?

If someone has pointed out the logical flaws in someone's posts and you agree with it, why shouldn't you vote them?

[Eddie Cane]

VOTE: eddie cane

His case on shadow seems opportunistic. And he basically just repeats what others have said.

where have I repeated what others said?