I didn't appreciate being killed. I found it rude and uncalled for.
In other news: I absolutely love this cast! I know 8/12 I believe. Fun fun!
LOL!DarkLightA wrote:No, because it seems like you had a non-random vote, and tried to "hide" it (so that you don't get the blame later) by adding an innocentkikuchiyo wrote:Unvote, vote: DLA
Chainsaw defense by Farside? Are you guys 2/3 of the mafia?
Please explain your vote.kiku wrote:In other news: I absolutely love this cast! I know 8/12 I believe. Fun fun!
Chainsaw defense is when one scum defends another scum by attacking the other scums attacker. To answer the question: There is no absolute answer. It depends on the intention. Saber's post read more like a joke with a serious undertone. i.e. DLA implied that I was scummy. Their post was not made clearly in jest(AEB 49). I think Saber may have been testing that out. Your reaction seemed like a defense of DLA. Is DLA incapable of defending themselves? In any case, I placed a question mark after my "chainsaw" comment. That means I am asking, not accusing. Are we done having fun?farside22 wrote:Explain how my comment is a chainsaw defense. Do you find it not scummy to put words that someone didn't say into their statement?kikuchiyo wrote:Unvote, vote: DLA
Chainsaw defense by Farside? Are you guys 2/3 of the mafia?
Mind you as I said just the post previously I understand better what saber was doing but I see scum put twist interpretation into peoples statement more often then not.
Technically it doesn't. If you and DLA are scum buddies then that would be a chainsaw defense. Hence the question mark.farside22 wrote:Oh I get that I just always felt confused whenever I heard the term but I wasn't defending DLA I was question saberwolf on his edit of DLA's post so I'm not sure how that qualifies as chainsaw defense.Shotty to the Body wrote:Chainsaw really isn't conclusive unless one party or the other is actually conf scum.
I do model lingerie part time, but no, that's not me. I don't post my pics on the internet without a decent paycheck. Right now I am in all paper catalogs.Albert B. Rampage wrote: kikuchiyo, is that you (or representative of you) in your avatar?
You failed to give any logical reasoning behind the two. I think Saber is scummier. Therefore you have tied yourself to him a slight bit. 106 is also interesting...Shotty to the Body wrote:QFTsaberwolf wrote:wtf? lolkikuchiyo wrote:107 makes me want to lynch saber even more.
I fail to see why in any light.
Please explain what is "fake" about the vote. If it is the "fakest" vote you have ever seen, please explain why it has not warranted your vote.kiku wrote:If DLA's vote is "fake", please show how. Neither you nor Hewitt has gone to those lengths.
What exactly do you want someone to vehemently disagree with? If you tell me, I will play the part of the person disagreeing vehemently and we can roleplay some discussion you hoped to achieve. Ok?hewitt wrote:Ugh yeah I know. I was hoping someone would vehemently disagree so we can start conversation somehow but apparently that didn't work.
Why are you going to retreat on Hewitt? Please explain how ABR went to far with this.DarkLightA wrote:
I'm starting to retreat on Hewitt.. I think ABR went too far with this.
ABR wrote:Like a bad father telling his son to do as he says and not as he does.
My detective skills tell me that neither of you have children. Good parents contradict themselves often. When multiple children are involved you will also learn to value "peace and quiet" over "fairness and equity". But that's another story.farside wrote:I hate parents that do it.
Hm. I was under the impression that CSL's scumminess was somewhat dependent on him being scum partners with hewitt. Which makes me wonder why the wagon was redirected to the "secondary" suspect. Seems like those who find CSL scummy should be perfectly happy with a Hewitt lynch, no? Maybe I missed something. I still need to catch up.Albert B. Rampage wrote:Mainly CSL's scumminess.kikuchiyo wrote:What killed the Hewitt bandwagon?
I would like this to be expanded upon. What are you concluding from a shotty scum-flip?SerialClergyman wrote:So then get on shotty's lynch and if it's town we'll deal with it then. If he's scum, we'll rip through this game and be home in time for tea.
I am a busy woman. I read as much as I can and try to stay current. In case you're wondering, this is my town meta.Farside22 wrote:kikuchiyo hasn't said much of anything this game. It's easy to forget her being in the game.
I hammered scum. What's the problem?SerialClergyman wrote:
Kiku - what gives?
I find it unlikely that both scum would bus on day 1. I find it more likely that scum would attempt to stall the wagon, or redirect it. Therefore, studying the players who made such attempts makes sense to me. I think if one read many games one would find that when scum is lynched on day 1, more often than not, both other scum are not on the wagon.DLA wrote:Why?
You weren't avoiding answering these questions, were you?kiku wrote:Who else are you suspicious of that was on the wagon yesterday? If you think both scum were on the wagon then who are they? If you don't think both scum were on the wagon, then you really shouldn't have a problem with my decision to go after the four who weren't.
Funny. Here's my timeline:SerialClergyman wrote:
The timeline goes..
Neto at L-1, talk of hammering but everyone decides to wait for Kitty and Ojanen.
Kiku jumps on the wagon and hammers.
--- Night ---
Kiku's first post says we should focus on those not on the wagon and goes through them all.
It seems possible to me that you pushed yourself onto the wagon and are now tryign to direct suspicion away from it.
SC 876 wrote:DLA - I'd hammer right now.
OJ 879 wrote:I'd like Kitty to chime in but won't ask you to wait for days for me, do as you will on the wagon.
SC 881 wrote:Neto - you have claimed vanilla townie. There is no reason to keep you alive. You're scummy, your cases have been bad (Albert remains town) and Ojanen has stitched you up completely.
Plus your wagon will give us plenty of info. Speaking of which, if you're town I would have expected that you'd have accepted your lynch and given us your scumreads and things to go by for when you were confirmed.
SC 882 wrote:You have 5 minutes for last words then I'm hammering. Last chance to be productive if you're town, or continue whining if scum.
Post 888. SC defends his hammer and hop on the wagon.SC 884 wrote:STOP.......................
Hammertime.
unvote, vote Neto
Please show where this occurred. You never returned after your "Kitty" engagement.SerialClergyman wrote:
I did disapprove of the hammer, I asked you to explain it before hte lynch scene was posted, which you never responded to.
I disagree. Only two players requested time, and one of them put Neto to L-1. If Albert wanted to stall for time then he shouldn't have revoted. See what you are doing here:Ojanen wrote: At the time you hammered there were several conversations going on, contrary to Serial's fake hammer time.
Again: no. He put Neto back to L-1. Neto could have self hammered to end discussion.Oj wrote:Albert had stressed not to hammer, modifying his stance from earlier.
Correct. Let's look atr that question:Oj wrote:Serial had even just asked a question.
Interesting question, especially when you place it besides mine:Serial wrote:Could you explain how a Neto scumflip or townflip would affect your reads?
So we should have waited around for Serial to get an answer to his question, but when I ask almost the exact same question, you say:kiku wrote: If Neto flips scum then SC is scum?
If Neto flips town then ABR is scum?
Yes, no, from everyone please.
What exactly are you implying here? I don't quite understand it, but my point is that you are giving Serial "town" points for asking the exact same question.Oj wrote:Beside being pointless post-lynch (as you thought) chaining, let's flip the last one to "if Neto flips scum the ABR is town". Ta-daa, we have the nightkill, and we have the person you seem to be attacking on a somehow more decisive way than your earlier actions are.
You're not voting yet either. Though I think SC is obvscum here, that doesn't mean we should pile on and finish him. He may very well be town. Interesting how you characterize my day 1 play as "hammering early", and now criticze me for being conservative.Oj wrote:The wagon stalling thing, I note it hasn't come up with any other wagons so far, thinking of hewitt being quite similar but would need to check this.
Also lack of consistency to not voting right now, even though she's agreeing on SC being obvscum.
Part of what makes this decision so tough. Let's not argue the semantics of a "reasonable chunk", but I'm not going to discoiunt the idea that Neto buddied townSC.Oj wrote:
Actually a reasonable chunk of it came also when Neto was under heavy attack leading to likely lynch. He was being connected to CSL/SC, it would make sense from scum to strenghthen that.
You are confusing me. I am suspicious because I am not voting, but you don't like my "manner of attack". Who have I actually "attacked"? I feel like I spent the beginning of the day defending myself from Serial, and the players I suggested we start filtering are those not on the scum wagon from yesterday. Same question to you as to the others: Even if you are suspicious of me, do you think that both scum were on the day 1 scumwagon? If so, who else is scum? If not, why try and use my theory against me when the odds are clearly in support of my logic(1/4 is easier to sift through than 1/6.)Oj wrote:I do not like the manner of the attack today by kiku.
This is difficult to figure out as well. Inactives are usually easy targets for scum, so going out of one's way to protect player slots that are nearly vacant just makes little sense. Wifom, and almost to me seems like a train of thought we should abandon.Oj wrote:"Don't hold replacement's actions against them" was weird from Neto. Slight wifom scumpoints to the Yarmond spot I think then, whoever's turn it is not to play it currently (Kise?).
I never argued this.Ojanen wrote: There wereconversations going on, as I already said.
Agree to disagree.Oj wrote:
MIGHTILY disagreeing that I'm unreasonable here.
There are obviously different ways of being on a wagon depending on timing, general situation, accompagnying persuasion of others etc. For the type of wagoning that creates momentum on scum you would get credit. For hammering someone who clearly looks like a inevitable lynch there is no reason at all to give extra credit. Me disliking you hinting to try and claim wagon credit is perfectly reasonable.
Hindsight is 20/20. I have not attempted to argue that me hammering "clears" me. I simply entered today pointing to the group I felt it would be easier to sift through. Albert placed Neto in the postition he did. Neto could have self hammered just as easily as a hypothetical scumbuddy could have.Oj wrote: This is just false, see the last quote from Albert above. Yes,he put Neto to L-1. And that got this interesting reaction from you.
Soooo, the lynch was "inevitable" after Serial's hammer, but not before? I am not following. The questions were the same with different wording. We were both asking questions of others in regards to how a flip was going to affect reads. Mine was a bit more specific in nature, but essentially the same. How was I "chaining" anyone? I was asking opinions.Oj wrote:As for you vs. Serial asking question of flip affecting reads, you asked in (false) twilight from everyone conclusions of a flip directly implying chaining Serial. Serial asked from one person with hyperlow content implying chaining noone (pre-hammer also, but that's not as relevant since lynch seemed inevitable).
The point of my questions was to see how players reads would be affected by the flip.Oj wrote:I note btw you are constantly saying variations of "Serial did it too". Can you tell what was the point of your questions instead?
Expand on "uncharacteristically hasty" if you can.Oj wrote:
How is me voting or not voting relevant at all? I haven't called anyone obvscum today. The whole point was that your hammer is uncharacteristically hasty regards to your other play, and your explanation at the time (liking excitement or whatever similar it was) doesn't fit rest of your voting patterns. Your last sentence misses the point.
Funny. If you are going to make an accusation, please back it up. I specifically started the day by saying we should hunt off the wagon. Serial was on the wagon. I am not attacking him and I have not voted him. I am remaining active and responding to everything. If you take the time to reread you will plainly see thatOj wrote:
I don't feel like rereading you right now again, but you have definitively attacked Serial, and you have attacked the non-wagoners.
By all means, grace us with your opinions of them when you're ready.Oj wrote:Off wagon I'm still looking at Shotty and Kise. I'm keeping an eye on 2 others. Yes, I find it rather likely there was scum off wagon.
No. I am saying that because Neto defended multiple players the way he did, that we might benefit from finding another way to scumhunt than simply trying to determnie who he defended most. Especially among inactive players.Oj wrote:
Wait wait wait. You agree with DLA that Neto going out of his way to give clean slate to CSL replacement is scummy, but in the case of Yarmond we should abandon the thought, when what he really did was express desire to give clean slate to everyone replacing in?
Because I think it is important we look at the whole picture and not just address who Neto defended, but see who he attacked and how he went about it. I don't expect much over the holidays from everyone, but this game is going to require some serious rereading if we are to make the right decision today. I accept that part of that is my fault, but again, hindsight is 20/20.Oj wrote: This means who he thought was scum? (insert compulsory "I have ESL" excuse here.)
Too impatient to iso right now. Off the top of my head he attacked ABR, shaped up to hammer hewitt, attacked Saber, vaguely attacked many really with not carrying that much out (expressed willingness to policy lynch DLA, CSL at some points for instance.).
What is the point of you quizzing me?
This escaped me. Please note that in 1041 this is not me asking this of you. It is residual from your post. In response: No, as of right now I do not think you are scummy. Your reasoning is logical, I just disagree with your conclusions.Oj wrote:Also, do you think I am scummy?
I am not disagreeing there were conversations going on, I am disagreeing with the assessment that there was some sort of "cooperative town decision" to wait. How am I supposed to know that the other players "stalling" are going to deliver? Could I have waited? Yes. Let's move on.Ojanen wrote:False! See:kikuchiyo wrote:I never argued this.Ojanen wrote: There wereconversations going on, as I already said.kikuchiyo wrote:I disagree. Only two players requested time, and one of them put Neto to L-1. If Albert wanted to stall for time then he shouldn't have revoted.Ojanen wrote: At the time you hammered there were several conversations going on, contrary to Serial's fake hammer time.
That's not what I'm arguing. I thought Neto was a good lynch candidate. The fact that noone was crossing over to hammer him suggested to me that one of those players was most likely scum if Neto flipped scum. I got antsy. I hammered. Sue me.Oj wrote: Honestly, after Albertjustcompletely explicitly saying it's important to get reads from everyone and KittyMo before hammer, I cannot see how you can argue he wanted to end the day right away.
Neto had been at L-1 before. Do you think Albert's unvote then revote changed in any way the inevitabitilty you claim to exist surrounding the Neto lynch? Hint: It didn't. There was no need to place Neto back at L-1. Don't blame me for Albert's mistake. Neto was scum. He could have self hammered.Oj wrote:Pressure can get interesting reactions, like your hammer. I guess we'll agree to disagree that L-1 vote always means "I am fine with a hammer". (if that would be the case, claiming for instance would happen on a different way to the standard culture)
No. I am defending myself by participating in excess on day 2, questioning my suspects, and responding to my accusers.Oj wrote:Fact is, you have attempted to defend yourself through the pure hammer itself.
The responses to my questions would allow me to see other players who "have a taste of chaining". How do you not see that as a relevant inquiry?Oj wrote: Your first sentence seems confused, both question occurences were after the Serial hammer.
You asked from everyone, Serial from the hyperlowcontent Kise slot.
You asked pre-flip from all if Neto scumflip makes Serial scum. That has a sidetaste of chaining.
This has been answered.Oj wrote: And why did you want to know this from every player in the game after the hammer?
Actually, Serial was on the wagon and started the day as my biggest suspect "on the wagon". I think my stances have been clear. Would you like a town/scum list? Off the wagon, Shotty is my biggest suspect. What is wrong with asking other players what they think of each other? How else can I determine who is willing to lynch who? How else can I garner information to use after another flip?Oj wrote:
You haven't voted anyone.
I guess I thought this was your position on Serial, correct me if I'm wrong:DLA wrote:So, what do you guys think. I think that SC is obv-scum..Also, on a skim, I can't see any content brought up on who from the wagoners is scum, except that you're not sold on Shotty. Just going rounds and rounds asking what they think of each other.kiku wrote:I tend to agree. the defense is so protracted, and I believe that most of it came when Neto was not on the table for lynch(though I'd have to see a vote analysis for comparison). I think ABR was the only one pressuring Neto for some time.
Perhaps you should look at the timestamps when you quote opinions. Based on Neto's defense of other players we have differing views on who among those defended are most likely scum. Therefore, we should change our tactics to help us determine who is actually scum. Or would you prefer we blindly lynch one of DLA/Serial?Oj wrote:Urrrrrrgh. Look at the quote above this one where you agree with DLA. I really don't get you.kiku wrote:No. I am saying that because Neto defended multiple players the way he did, that we might benefit from finding another way to scumhunt than simply trying to determnie who he defended most. Especially among inactive players.
You asked me "what is the point of you quizzing me?". I say, "because I think its important to look at the whole picture and not just address who Neto defended." What's the issue? I am suggesting that we work together to find scum by following a different line of thought than the one that seems to have led us to a disagreement over which one of Serial/DLA is scum. Lynching out of that pair may not be the best play. If it is, we can always come back to it.Oj wrote:I still don't understand the question, it was an interpretation/analysis-void "what" question.kiku wrote:Because I think it is important we look at the whole picture and not just address who Neto defended, but see who he attacked and how he went about it. I don't expect much over the holidays from everyone, but this game is going to require some serious rereading if we are to make the right decision today. I accept that part of that is my fault, but again, hindsight is 20/20.Oj wrote:What is the point of you quizzing me?
SerialClergyman wrote:Ugh, Christmas is owning my time.
Reading through Ojanen and kiku I'm liking kiku less and less. I don't get why she utterly refuses to acknowledge that her hammer cut off conversation,
kiku wrote: Could I have waited? Yes. Let's move on.
SC wrote:that her place on the wagon is at least partially opportunistic etc etc. I mean, if she'd come out and said 'yes, I didn't care about the conversation, scum was there to be hammered and I got it done, I don't care that I was late on the wagon, I wanted to make sure he was going down and anyone else can just deal with it. If you don't want to consider me part of the wagon, good on you'
That's strange, its almost like you're making shit up without even reading the thread. All of the things you describe me not saying seem to have already been said.kiku wrote:I thought Neto was a good lynch candidate. The fact that noone was crossing over to hammer him suggested to me that one of those players was most likely scum if Neto flipped scum. I got antsy. I hammered. Sue me.
You were one of my top two suspects coming into today.SC wrote:The next day she asks us to concentrate off the wagon. BY HER OWN ADMISSION, I call her on it and she starts to attack me.
Untrue. I was pretty solid on your connection to Neto. If you note, I even asked a question at the end of day 1 to see how many others saw the same connection.SC wrote:
As far as I can tell, kiku didn't find me scummy or want to push for my lynch until I attacked her.
Would you rather I lurk? Please note that I did not accuse you of anything without giving you an oppurtunity to explain and defend yourself. My engagements have all been pro-town and pro-discussion.SC wrote: This also corresponded to a massive rise in activity. She's already typed about as much today as she has the entirety of D1.
Anytime you want to point out a contradiction, feel free. I have been focused on the Shotty/DLA/SerialClergyman grouping from the start.SC wrote:There is much to be suspicious of in kiku's play. I've played with her twice before and I could see lurking, and I could even see unapologetic hamering, but her play today has been contradictory and bizzare.
^^^ Not a very protown statement here. Townies should be focused. This is poor play coming from you.SerialClergyman wrote:So where do I sit? Ugh. Not enough nooses.
Wait. I'm scum because I appear town? But Shotty is just too difficult to read? Am I misreading this? Funny how you choose me over Shotty.SC wrote:
So I'm on board for a kiku wagon. If the above hasn't convinced you, I urge everyone to read OJ vs kiku above, I think it's very clear who's scrabbling for ap osition and who is making sense. If it was anyone but Ojanen I'd declare them town but she's damn, damn good as scum. Call it a townly-indicator.
What vote? What's a "load"?farside22 wrote: I have to agree that post is a big load I don't like how you go off of your vote when SC pressures you right now.
You were his number one suspect. Please note 1071 is an intensely anti-town post. Townies should not be discouraging the idea that they are not masons with ABR. Both Shotty and SC are making it obvious that they are not masons. This is an entriely anti-town approach to day 2. I am thoroughly impressed that ABR nailed the entire scum team off of day 1.Shotty wrote:Funny how Kiku says follow Albert even though he didn't think I was scum
Geez. I wonder...Shotty to the Body wrote:Sorry, please point out where Albert said I was his #1 suspect.
You're not paying attention. Mostly because you are scum and are unable to approach this game as a townie should. Its not your fault, really.Shotty to the Body wrote:Also note that Kik can't point out where ABR said I was scummy, it's completely unsubstantiated bull that she's trying to smooth over and ignore by cutting deals with SC now.
Yes and yes. And it worked as far as I can tell. SC has done everything in his power to avoid voting you. Kind of odd.Shotty to the Body wrote:Lol fail so hard, you admit to waffling on me? We're supposed to believe that was some gambit now? Please.