as long as you take the positive things and think...
i personally think dice = a reason to hide your vote reason.
How is anyone going to pick something that's 'not there' if it'sSpencer Remmington wrote:
By having someone pick something that's not there and start an argument about it, like in every game.
You don't know people didn't dicerandom vote secretly. In fact, as scum i usually do. But to make it clear your vote isJaime Marcelle wrote:. It's just another random vote thats in reality not any more random then any other. In fact, how do
you know no one else voted on random.com or something but just wouldn't tell any of us? So no, I do not feel it is anti-town
or policy lynch worthy.
Also, how is this question helpful to the town?
How can anyone who votes truly randomly be scummy or not, if the very act isn't scummy?Jaime Marcelle wrote: Well I doubt there would be no discussion... Scummy people get voted. Simple as that. ?
Bleeping hell, this post is the strawman to end all strawmen.Igor Schultz wrote:/comfirm in.
LEON. Are you saying that people think they know who is scummy before they first post? and that every vote has good logical
reasons this early in the game? Thus you are impling that we are all supper cops have esp, and never vote in RV. RVS is to
start an early band wagon not to toss real votes on scummers around. However the scum will most likly not vote for one of
their buddys, but other then that rvs votes are as good as that.
This post makes me think it's somewhat more likely that one or other is his scumbuddy.Gerhard Krause wrote:You guys are going in circles. Leon is saying that there is some sort of reason for any vote someone
places, even if that reason is subconscious, andmaybeyou can draw something from that.
Jaime's point is equally valid, that the vast majority of the time judging a player based on an RV is stupid.
Seriously, what did you think the votes on Jaime were? A bicycle?Igor Schultz wrote:start a wagon like in most games... That most of the time gets the game ball rolling.
This makes me feel actually ill.Emile Buchard wrote:Okay, it's later. Here's some more:
Otto was the one who started the whole dice deal. While you could make the argument that it was just as random as the otherotto 17 wrote:It was close between two people....while I hate twilight and new moon references, and wish to vote for the
one who made them, someone else deserves my vote more:
vote:Jaime Marcelle
For using a dice to determine your RVS vote to avoid responsibility for your actions.
Dice = anti-town
votes, he still gains some scum points.
WTF? That was the most protown vote made to date! How in God's name can you say it causes someone to GAIN scum points?
Further in the same post, how is trying to spark discussion on an in-game issue scummy?
Stuart is awesome.
In 76, Emile then hedges like a mofo.
There's nothing wrong with not explaining your vote straightaway.Jaime Marcelle wrote:Sry I wasn't on much yesterday but I'm really busy so i have to make this post short.
Sigh... Please explain your votes before you put them on please. Why are you voting stuart? Smells like scum is not a good excuse. I have no idea what the heck you are doing.Stuart wrote:vote Emile Buchard
.
*SIGH*Tracey Morris wrote: I would think that the time for unexplained and baseless voting has passed.
Vote: Stuart Whyte
Why the hell are people assuming that because a poster doesn't give a reason, he doesn't HAVE one?
IDIOT. (Or scum, I'm not sure yet- but you've been wrong on every issue). Why would you assume it's random? It clearlyJaime Marcelle wrote:I comepletely agree with Tracy. I will probably be voting for Stuart pretty soon because of his random vote out of the RVS and his horrible horrible reasoning. Stuart- How does he "Smell like scum"? However, before I put a (serious) vote on anyone I want to hear more about Edwards plan.
isn't.
Top suspects so far- Spencer, Jaime and Emile, easily. Stuart is totally town.
So, so wrong.Emile Buchard wrote:Okay, I've re-read, and the people who seemed to try and further the discussion without furthering the game are, in no particular order:
Stuart Whyte
And, oh look, the dead scum decides to jump this wagon. How utterly unsurprising.
Yeah, all the reasons Igor cites in 104 are crap.
LOl, I just went back to the first post and noticed Stuart ends up getting lynched off this. I mean, WTF? He was the most protown player.
Also, people are deliberatelt misreprensenting the earlier version of me.
He asked 'If I did this, how would you react?' To which the possible answers would be, a) I'd go along with the plan b) I'd think you an idiot or c) I'd think you're scum. Which of these positions someone took would be interesting. He didn't actually SAY 'vote me please.' A lot of people said 'this is akin to selfvoting' without thinking why selfvoting can be scummy in the first place.
How the fuck does that work? Fishing to find out if someone has a role is scummy if he does have it, but not if he doesn't?Jaime Marcelle wrote:
That post was just to show him how rediculous it was to not explain his vote. I wasn't trying to rolefish. in fact, I think the only way that could truely be considered rolefishing is if he actually is a secret daycop.
Also, I will put this in caps for the hard of thinking:
NOT EXPLAINING YOUR VOTE DOES NOT MEAN YOU DON'T HAVE A REASON. THERE ARE PLENTIFUL PROTOWN REASONS FOR NOT EXPLAINING THINGS, FOR INSTANCE, YOU WANT TO SEE WHO SEES WHAT YOU SEE. YOU WANT TO SEE IF PEOPLE WILL BLINDLY FOLLOW YOU. PERHAPS YOU WANT TO SEE IF THE VOTEE GIVES THEMSELVES AWAY BY SAYING 'WHY ARE YOU VOTING ME? IS IT ZOR, YOU WANT TO SEE WHO WILL SCUMMILY CLAIM THAT NOT GIVING REASONS IS SCUMMY.
Stuart posted his vote in response to a particular post from Emile, that I also thought was very scummy. However, no one actually bothered to look at that, and think about why someone might find it scummy. They just stupidly assumed he had no reason just because he didn't give one.
This was simply untrue. Whyte was not antitown in any way. He was clearly a better player than all of Schulz, Marcelle, Buchard, and Remmington. Unfortunately, this game seems to have a critical mass of stupidity to ally with the scum.Emile Buchard wrote:Sorry for not posting guys. Nasty weekend. Anyway, right now, I think we could do a lot worse for a Stuart lynch. His play his flat out anti-town, whether he's scum or not. Even if he does filp town, having him dead will certainly help us down the road.
vote: Stuart
162 would be rolefishing, if not made by a dead cop.
Nope, but the amount of armor characters have varies enormously. Some have none, some have massive power suits that let them take multiple shots and survive.Gerhard Krause wrote:Bullet proof? Ok, 1) I don't buy that at all.
@Those who have played X-Com is there some invincible hero? I doubt it.
Spencer is coming across as more of a sincere but wrong type than Emile is.
Claude Lefevre wrote:. In this case, why on earth didn't you just invent a reason for calling Emile scum? A vote with hidden reasons and the refusal to explain is always dangerous to the voter and to his team.
You're REALLY splitting hairs now. I said you assumed it was 'random.' You're saying I'm wrong because you weren't saying it was 'random' you were saying it was 'baseless.' The two are synonymous- you were accusing him of voting without a reason, no?Jaime Marcelle wrote:The point of that was not weather it was random or not. The point behing that post was because of his baseless vote.Edward wrote:IDIOT. (Or scum, I'm not sure yet- but you've been wrong on every issue). Why would you assume it's random? It clearly
isn't.
Contradict yourself much?Jaime wrote:will probably be voting for Stuart pretty soon because of his random vote out of the RVS
Someone wasn't reading my post... I wasn't rolefishing. I never said it wasn't scummy if he didn't have that role, I was using a rediculous role as an example.[/quote]Edward wrote:How the fuck does that work? Fishing to find out if someone has a role is scummy if he does have it, but not if he doesn't?
The only way it could be considered rolefishing is if he actually was a daycop. That's what you said. Now, clearly a person who is rolefishing doesn't know whether the other player has that role in the first place. My point is that whether or not someone is rolefishing clearly isn't dependent on whether the person being fished (or not) actually has the role that may or may not being fished for.I wasn't trying to rolefish. in fact, I think the only way that could truely be considered rolefishing is if he actually is a secret daycop.
Well, yeah. But if you're getting attacked over something you're doing that you think is good and protown, it's human nature to dig your heels in over it. The 'fuck you guys, i'm protown, this is protown, and if you're dumb enough to lynch me over it, you get what you deserve' attitude. He was standing on principle. Standing on principle at the expense of risking lynch is townish- he clearly wasn't playing to survive. I don't think it was smart, but it wasn't scummy either.Jaime Marcelle wrote: Yet none of the reasons you gave work if he kept his vote on all day with no explanation even when he was at L-1 and would definately die if he didn't...
Well, of course a lot of people 'thought' he was acting scummy. I read him as hugely protown, and i'm not going to shy away from sharing that because someone might try to smear me over it. It would be a rather stupid scum to think he could get protown points by pointing out the townieness of an already dead town player, i think.Anyway, just to point something out: If Edward is scum I can easily see him using this post to protect himself "After rereading I think Stuart is pro-town" can be used to get town points for saying a confirmed townie was acting townish (especially since a lot of people thought he was scummy)
Jaime Marcelle wrote:Pretty much. But the point of my vote is to try and find scummy people. And yes Leon it is easy for me to back out on it...Claude wrote:Is your reason for voting Leon just his alleged lack of contents?
Edward wrote:You're REALLY splitting hairs now. I said you assumed it was 'random.' You're saying I'm wrong because you weren't saying it was 'random' you were saying it was 'baseless.' The two are synonymous- you were accusing him of voting without a reason, no?Oh snap. I guess I wasn't reading my own post. My bad . That was bad logic on my part but still, the main reason of why I was "Rolefishing" was to show him how redicious he was acting.Edward wrote: The only way it could be considered rolefishing is if he actually was a daycop. That's what you said. Now, clearly a person who is rolefishing doesn't know whether the other player has that role in the first place. My point is that whether or not someone is rolefishing clearly isn't dependent on whether the person being fished (or not) actually has the role that may or may not being fished for.
Here's the thing. He never even statedwhy he couldn't tell us the reason behind the vote. that just confuses people and doesn't contibute anything to the game. While this may have been confirmed as just him not being smart now. It was a very scummy play at the time.Edward wrote:Well, yeah. But if you're getting attacked over something you're doing that you think is good and protown, it's human nature to dig your heels in over it. The 'fuck you guys, i'm protown, this is protown, and if you're dumb enough to lynch me over it, you get what you deserve' attitude. He was standing on principle. Standing on principle at the expense of risking lynch is townish- he clearly wasn't playing to survive. I don't think it was smart, but it wasn't scummy either.
I think this is the replacement. Didn't you read the mods latest post?Igor wrote:I tend to want to vote edward to get him out of the way. We had some good town players talking about real issues and then we get this joker around. didn't he get replaced out...
Also, I'm probably going to reread Emile and Leon in iso sometime in the near future and post what I find.
No, no it isn't. I would take a player like Fritzler, BabyJesus or JDodge who has the confidence to vote without needing to spell out everything they're thinking every day of the week over the newb who feels the need to justify every little detail of their argument.Emile Buchard wrote:Edward, do you realize how anti-town not explaining reasons are? Seriously, he flat-out refused to give any sort of reason what so ever. That is A1 anti-town play.
And this is precisely it. If other players are playing decently, they will take a look at the player being voted, and try to figure out why the vote was made. It encourages other players to think about the game more, in other words, which helps the town.The way the game moves is that you state your reasons for a vote and then other people debate those reasons. How are we supposed to validate his case if it's just "because he smells scummy"?
Criticizing someone's civility is the resort of someone who's losing the argument. Also, I haven't sworn at anyone.And Edward, how are we supposed toknowhe has a reason if he didn't tell us his reason. Also, please refrain from directing obscenities at other players--it ruins the spirit of the game.
Note the word 'virtually.' I would not go so far as to say that it is never a good idea to make a case. But he is correct in that dicerandom voting is antitown, he is correct in that you were a good target for a vote at that point, and he is correct in that not giving reasons is not scummy. That's 'virtually everything' at least as far as this game is concerned.Emile wrote:Also, you saidWhyte said that vote reasons were "anti-town", so using deductive reasoning, if Whyte was right on everything, then he was right when he said that vote reasons were "anti-town", no? Yet you gave reasons for suspecting other people. The word for that is "contradiction".Edward wrote:Whyte was in the right on virtually everything.
???Now how the hell can you say that you would have voted without explanation as well if you don't know why Whyte voted without explanation or even if he had an explanation to begin with. Crap logic.Edward wrote: I think I would have voted without explanation there too.
Thankyou for your patronizing tone. I agree with the definition entirely, but I absolutely disagree 100% that Stuart hurt the town by not explaining his vote.Jaime Marcelle wrote:Edward, I think you need a referesher on what scummy is. Being scummy is something that either a. helps scum more than town or b. hurts town more than scum (Well, there are some conditions that break this but whatev). Stuart fell right under letter b. He hurt town a lot by not telling us what he was thinking and he didn't hurt the scum at all.
Well, I don't know, but I can be pretty sure. I mean, imagine you see someone commit a crime. Then you see them getting arrested. It's likely the two are related, isn't it? Emile makes a scummy post, and immediately Stuart votes him.Edward wrote: Alright, I guess I can agree with you that Emiles post was scummy but how do you know that that was the reason for his vote?
This is the thing- if he were scum, what does he stand to gain from standing on principle? That's what i mean by a 'fuck you guys' attitude. He believes 100% that not giving reasons is not scummy, and he will refuse to be bullied into it. I think a townie is far more likely to stand by a game theory position that is bringing him heat than a scum is. When town interrogates someone, they're usually looking for sincerity. Stuart came across as very sincere in his belief that not revealing his reasons was the best play for town. Whereas y'all went 'He disagrees with me on game theory! SCUM!'If that post was the main reason he voted Emile don't you think he would tell us that instead of hide it all day? How hard would it be for him for tell us that that post was the reason for voting him. Also, you say that there are plenty of reasons someone would hide their vote (they want to see who would follow them, want to see what their reaction is etc.) yet now you say it is because of this post which has nothing to do with the reasons stated.
It's relevant, because it impacts on how many scum were on his wagon. If the Stuart wagon was, as you contend, essentially reasonable, then reasonable townies would support it, and so Gerhard might be the only scum on it. If it is, as I believe, a crock, then it's more likely to have been pushed with heavy scum involvement, and have another scum or perhaps two on it. It looked from my pov like a wagon that KNEW it was wrong at the time.Anyway, we're not going to get anywhere by talking about wether Stuart was townie or scummy.
Note scum on wagon directing attention away from wagon.Dead Scum wrote:However, if he does flip town we need to be careful not to let the people off the wagon off the hook, since at this point I think that that would be an even easier place for scum to hide.
A very mealy mouthed bit of attack on Gerhard, could well be distancing. Especially since we hadn't seen the flip yet, and Igor seemed to think Stuart was scum, given that he was voting him.igor wrote:I think gerhard might (repeat might) be scum on the wagon from a very mild read, that is his fishing early on and mid way. Not good for a vote yet.
Please don't speculate about what town power roles might be out there. It's antitown.Jaime Marcelle wrote: Also, to snyone that knows about XCOM (since I don't know to much abot it) are there multiple alien races and if so are they at war with each other or something (if there aren't multiple alien races the kill is probably more likely to be a vig kill then an SK kill).
Just to remind Jaime (and everyone else) of this.Jaime Marcelle wrote: Also, Gerhard seemed to be a VERY opportunistic scum: voting both Edward and Stuart when they were the most scummy people. He also attacked Orski (Edward's replacement) which leads me to beleive that whoever the replacement is for Orski is town.
Erm, your listing me on some list or other has nothing to do with you being my third most likely suspect on the Stuart wagon. Read the reason I actually gave- that you give me the impression of 'middle of the pack' scum. It wasn't a counter-FOS.Claude Lefevre wrote: 2) Ok Edward, I would not vote you for external reasons or for reasons depending on the behavior of Ed I and Ed II, but I do not like the way you put me as a third possible FoS just because I included you in my list. You are free to FoS me whenever you want and however you like, but you want to give some more reason than a counter-FoS.
By middle of the pack scum, I'm referring to a phenomenon i've noticed, where the scum are neither the people who are being aggressive, forcefully pushing cases, nor the people who are doing the strange or erratic things that often result in early lynches. They tend to be people who blend into the crowd- playing the cautious townie, if you will. Being polite, measured, and not distinctive in any way. That's the impression i get of you. You post a lot, but you don't say very much- but not to the extent when your active lurking would stick out.Claude Lefevre wrote:sorry, English is my second language and I must have turned really stupid these days... I misunderstood your post, and I would like to ask you, for future reference, what a middle-of-the-pack mafia is. I am not familiar with the word.
Get a dictionary. Look up 'civility.'Emile Buchard wrote:Which is exactly why you should stop calling people "idiots".Edward wrote:Criticizing someone's civility is the resort of someone who's losing the argument. Also, I haven't sworn at anyone.
Yes, it does matter, and I've explained why earlier. Most people think that dice voting is antitown. They happen to be right. The dice vote was the scummiest thing anyone had done to that point, and pressuring people who do antitown or scummy things is what town should be doing, no?So if it isn't incontroverted issue, why are you making it such a big deal? Seriously, die or no die, does it really matter? The answer, is no, so long as it really is a die. Since we cannot verify this, then the case cannot really be proven either way--null point.Edward wrote: Now, dice voting is antitown, for the reasons i and others have given earlier in the thread (and the recent MD poll agreed by 2-1, so it's a majority opinion but not an uncontroverted one).
No, you need to say less.Is proven by:Emile wrote:Now how the hell can you say that you would have voted without explanation as well if you don't know why Whyte voted without explanation or even if he had an explanation to begin with. Crap logic.Edward wrote:I think I would have voted without explanation there too.
Need I say more?Edward wrote:Well, I don't know...Jaime wrote: Alright, I guess I can agree with you that Emiles post was scummy but how do you know that that was the reason for his vote?
Well, it's kinda anti-own alignment. I can't point out any specific word or phrase, it's the tone of his post. Town and scum self-destructing tend to do so in different ways- town tend to lash out indiscriminately, whereas scum are more... measured- they tend to direct their anger at their partners, or at a specific townie who they think is MoSing them.Andrew Lemarchand wrote:I don't know, I usually see this kind of act as a scumtell or, at best, anti-town. Defend yourself, don't just tell us you're a townie and that we're making a mistake. Is there anything specifically that you can cite about Igor as townie frustration?2. The 'I am town, you will be sorry if you lynch me' thing doesn't normally impress me any, but... I dunno, I'm getting a sense of frustration off Igor that normally comes from townies who think they're being misrepresented.
Oh, COME ON! This is just a blatant dodge. I've said it's compelling. IE, you believe it correct.Emile Buchard wrote:Depends on how compelling the said case is.Edward wrote:@Emile: If a protown player sees another player make a compelling case against a third party, what should he do?
You are assuming that you are town yourself, something that I highly doubt. [/quote]Igor wrote:emmy have you noted that you have only voted for town players thus far? I voted for ger way back in the day.
To avoid an inevitable lynch.Otto suicided.
OH. MY. GOD.Jaime Marcelle wrote:I wouldn't know. From what i've seen he hasn't been saying anyone else is solidly town (the best I think he's said was that some people were leaning town) and I don't think there's anyone that thinks he's town.Edward wrote:I would like everyone else voting Emile (or for that matter, Igor) to answer this: Who is your best guess for that player's partner?
Uh, no, clearly I did not imply anything of the kind. Discussion has been 'elusive' because to speculate on what kind of roles could have caused the twilight results is antitown. This question just looks like rolefishing to me.Claude Lefevre wrote:
@Edward:this is important:in post 504 you imply once again that scum knew Gerhard's identity and killed him anyway? Or you think some other player killed him? Please articulate your answer: discussion has been way too elusive on this point, imo.
Initial wagon builds on Emile. Counterwagon builds on Igor. Jaime switches at a crucial moment, giving the Emile rather than the Igor wagon the momentum to lynch.Leon Dreyfus wrote:Hahaha, flailing scum buddy.Jaime Marcelle wrote:I'm beginning to get a little sucpicious of Claude for hammering before we even got a claim out of Emile. Anyway, if I see that Emile flips town I will definately be voting Igor while if he flips scum I'll probably vote Leon (maybe Claude. I dunno. But still, probably Leon).
Edward: Explain how you say he looks town by the timing of his vote?
A page later, we have this:The First Vote Count of Day 3 wrote::
Igor Schultz:1 (Andrew)
Emile Buchard:3 (Igor, Edward, Claude)
Not Voting:4 (Jaime, Emile, Spencer, Leon)
So, the Emile wagon is comfortably leading. Then Leon votes Igor, turning Andrew's lone vote into a wagon, and Claude jumps FROM EMILE-SCUM TO IGOR-TOWN, putting Igor in the lead, 4-2. At this point, it's looking solidly like Igor will be the lynch.The Second Vote Count of Day 3 wrote: Emile Buchard:2 (Igor, Edward)
Igor Schultz:3 (Andrew, Leon, Claude)
When the chips are down, Leon takes the action most likely to save Emile (wagoning Igor) whilst still saying he suspects Emile. Also, with the revelation about Gerhard, the townie points I'd given Leon for that disappear.Leon Dreyfus wrote:Present.
I still dislike Jaime, Igor looks a bit better. Still not a whole lot, so I'm leaving my vote there.
I never have liked Emile, so I wouldn't be sad to see him go today.
This was a quick hit, more will come.
Oh wow. Did you suddenly decide to enrol in the Igor school of logic?Leon Dreyfus wrote:
And, not to be rude, but are you serious Edward? Your post is beyond laughable. You just skidded in your own backtracks. I have been in support of an Emile lynch.
I have been scarce this game, I'll admit that. I guess I'll read more than get back.
Edward gains a nice look for his brake slamming and nailing reverse.
Exactly my point. You said you were in support of an Emile lynch, but you took the exact action most likely to save his ass. Surely you can see how saying you support someone dying, but never actually doing anything to bring that about, the guy getting lynched in spite of you and flipping scum kinda looks bad?Leon wrote:I have been in support of an Emile lynch.
Pre suspicion of you, you 'like' me.Leon Dreyfus wrote:
I'm liking Andrew, Edward and Claude.
Post suspicion of you, I 'get a good look.' What is this 'brake slamming and nailing reverse?' I've started suspecting YOU. That's the only thing that's changed.Leon Dreyfus wrote:
Edward gains a nice look for his brake slamming and nailing reverse.
I couldn't disagree more. Town players tend to react much, much worse to really bad accusations than they do to reasonable ones.Claude wrote: perhaps it wasn't all that useful, and perhaps wasn't even a great trap, but a town-aligned figure should not react that bad to an accusation they can easily deconstruct.
I wrote:I take your point, but I'd also like to point to (x, y and z) who did the exact same thing. Why are you singling me out?Some other player wrote: I think Edward looks quite scummy. Although he was on that scum wagon, I think that's a bus the scum could easily afford to make.
Get a grip. There's no evidence for that other than rampant paranoia, or you being scum trying to discredit me. How the hell can you manipulate 'behind the scenes' in a game like this? Everything's in thread, dumbass.I wrote:Some other player wrote: I think Edward could be playing the reasonable townie, whilst manipulating everything behind the scenes.
As you can see, I would be more annoyed, less civil, and more determined to utterly destroy the accuser, the less reasonable the attack was. I suspect most people would be the same.I wrote:'TOO DEFENSIVE' IS NOT A SCUMTELL, YOU F***ING TOOL!Some other player wrote:I think Edward is being too defensive.
Leon Dreyfus wrote:And claiming now because it's endgame, and it's worthless to try and hide roles at this point.
No, you can't. BECAUSE WE CAN ONLY LYNCH ONE.Leon Dreyfus wrote:
And Edward, you are grasping at straws hard. I can't support two peoples lynches right?
It's not so much that you *stayed* on Igor's, as it was you and Claude who made there be an Igor wagon in the first place. What changed between you saying 'Emile can die today, the iso doesn't look pretty' and saying Vote Igor?I found both of them scummy. Easy as that. You're acting as if the world ends because I stayed on Igor's.
That I'm currently finding it very hard to see a scumgroup where there's more than one person left which doesn't include Claude.Spencer Remmington wrote: But only if my assumption is right. However, if my assumption isn't correct, we have another day to play with, ne? Odd are, one of Jaime or Leon is scum. Jaime is more likely to be last remaining scum. Leon, however, fits as part of a scum group. So, honestly, we should either lynch Leon today or tomorrow, and if by some stretch of the imagination he flips town, lynch Jaime, quite likely for the win.
What are the flaws in this plan?
The bolded part is funny, because that's exactly my view of you.Leon Dreyfus wrote:
You keep talking up Jaime's vote switch, but one pro-town thing the entire game does not justify the rest of it. I'm calling it a cleverly timed vote jump.
He is either VI, or the more than likely blatant obvious scum.
Did saying that make Igor scum, Jaime?Jaime Marcelle wrote: However, something else I'm seeing. Leon is trying to play with our emotions as he sees that hes the most likely death tomorrow. Stuff like "If you lynch me you'll lose!" will get you nowhere!
And if he's town, he probably has the same feeling about you. You're saying he's 100% scum, after all. Quite apart from the fact that the case for you being scum is better than the one for him.Leon Dreyfus wrote: Also, I'm not playing with your emotions. It seems like your trying so hard to falsely incriminate me.
No, really, I'm not. I'm serious. I think any reasonable, impartial observer looking at this game being asked 'Who is the VI?' would be at least as likely to say 'Leon' as 'Jaime.' After all, if you're not deliberately playing dumb, then you appear to be completely unaware of why saying you want to lynch one player whilst pushing the counterwagon makes it look like you don't really want to lynch that player.Leon Dreyfus wrote:Your bolded part is funny as well, Edward, as you are essentially just trying to annoy me.
Again. I don't see an 'entire game of scum.' If you think this, i'd like you to explain why.And just so we're clear, one town thing in an ENTIRE game of other town actions does not make up for a game of scum. I have NO idea where you are getting this from.
I didn't accuse you of buddying up, I suggested you were buddied, ie you are mutually aligned. He came in, screaming for Jaime's head, then started considering Leon after I flagged up a few things. He's basically ignored you. That's why i think you're a more likely Spencer buddy than either of the others.Claude Lefevre wrote: I honestly do not see where I and Spencer buddied.
Possibly. But who the hell cares? You can't play town worrying about what it will look like if you're wrong. Make your best guess and let the chips fall where they may.Claude Lefevre wrote:
3) Edward: if Jaime were scum, do you think we would suspect you to be his buddy?
Scummy, scummy question. Hey guys, why not tell us exactly how you will react to every possible nightkill so scum can best plot the kill that leaves them able to cause a town lynch tomorrow!Spencer: who would be your main suspect if Edward were night-killed?
Uh, it's a MASSclaim. Not everyone but one player claims.Leon Dreyfus wrote:No one else claim for the moment, we have enough to work with right here.
I call bullshit. When Leon claimed, you said that 'perfectly average aquanaut' did not sound like it came from a real role pm. If you really were a VT, that would be in your role PM as well. Care to explain?Jaime Marcelle wrote:Same here. Vanilla Townie aka Able Seaman.
The thing that intrigues me here is the balance. Of course, we don't know what Otto's role was exactly. 9-2-1 with cop seems overpowered for town. 8-3-1 with cop seems insanely swingy, since an early cop death makes the town WP drop like a stone.Claude Lefevre wrote:Okay, sorry for the delay, here come my comments.
First, I don't see it as very unrealistic that all of us except scum -who are obviously lying- are actually nilla's. In fact, we lost enough PR's to make this possible.
Makes zero sense as a scum thought process. 1) Knock on wood, but i'm hardly in the firing line today. 2) If I hypothetically were this mystery power role, and got run up, well pretty sure I could claim it then.Claude wrote:Moreover, I do not like the fact that he proposed to interrupt the massclaim. "Oh my, we all claimed nilla! If the last player claims uncounterclaimed PR he will be almost clear " thinks Scummy Scummson "let's try and stop the massclaim". This argument I can use against Leon, but also against Jaime, who, to my surprise, agreed in interrupting the massclaim.
A question: In what scenario do you see a scum trying to build a case on a townie on the grounds that said townie's flavor doesn't fit? The more I think about it, the more that sounds like it would require a greater degree of stupidity than the protown explanation.First part: "I forgot the content of my own PM" --> I think any townie who tries building a case on a misquoted PM would go check his own.
Though if you go back and reread the actual comment, as I just did, it does give the impression that Jaime thinks that is the actual rolename Leon claimed. (Yes, Leon, THIS is backtracking. Like I said, on deeper reflection, Jaime's actions make even less sense for scum than they do for town).Second part: "I though he meant it was his name instead of able seaman" --> this sounds like a not very convincing excuse to me.
Well, quite. Why would a scum who is almost certainly not going to be lynched today bother coming up with something like that? I mean, it's wifom, but in my experience scum tend not to try to pull wifom when they're not in any danger.I bet we all are leaning towards believing you are town, because "come on, who would invent such an incredible and pointless story?"... .
There's absolutely no reason to think you town.Claude Lefevre wrote: Since I do not understand the case on me - even if I can see a couple of dumb moves I did back in game, and namely my "trap" and the questions I asked yesterday - I would like to have a summary of it. Would it be okay if I called an order for you guys to post it? It could be useful tomorrow if I do end up dying.
You can never clear anyone 100%. However, given that we actually have to lynch someone, lynching someone we don'tJaime Marcelle wrote:
Even though Spencer is highly likely not scum you can't rule him out comepletely just yet.
Nice of you to drop in from lurking to say that. Any reason in hell we should see that as a 'slip?'Leon Dreyfus wrote:Yet another slip by Jaime and we get nothing? /facepalm
I'm almost tempted to policy-lynch anyone who ever says this. It's the single scummiest thing a player can do.And lurking=/=scummy, there's nothing really to reply to except tunneling and speculation. No one has even as much as mentioned you really, besides Edward.
Massive pile of WIFOM and you know it.Claude Lefevre wrote:
(besides 2: if I were scum, I would have killed Edward, not Andrew: me and Edward never got along very well during the game, and he was bothered by my allegedly scummy questions as much as Andrew)
Why would you assume that Leon, who says Jaime is PE No1, would countervote you instead of voting Jaime? Why would he be happy leaving it down to Jaime and Spencer to decide?Unless you have any further questions, I have said all I had to say and I suggest to consider this situation as a crossed vote. Leon votes me, and Spencer and Jaime will be free to decide how and whom they will hammer.
I'd kinda like to know why the idea of voting Jaime fell off Claude's radar so quickly, if I'm honest.If Emile flips scum, Jaime is my vote tomorrow If Emile flips scum, Jaime is my vote tomorrow .