Open 86 - Lovers Multiball (Game Over)

[Adel]

Unvote: Vote: Raging Rabbit

With Crazy & Farside claimed lovers. you seem to be defending them more than anything else... You give plenty of reasons to vote Crazy in your posts, yet at the end of several you say your happy with where your vote is... please explain?

this sounds like a copherent case, but it totally breaks down when I look at RR's post record which does not support your case.

Now that you are under questioning, your posts are making less and less sense.

[Adel]

copherent = coherent with a law enforcement background. (joke)

unvote

reality check: why is Crazy -2 to lynch?

Are there no other wagons worth exploring?

I think it is lovely that you voted for someone besides Crazy, but your case does not hold water. I still think you were looking for a good place to drop your vote.

[Firestarter]

If I were to make a case, I think you'd find I would have put alot more effort into my post, rather than just a reactionary vote post, similar to yours...

Thanks for fucking that up however....

unvote

reality check: why is Crazy -2 to lynch?

Are there no other wagons worth exploring?

[destructor]

.::] Vote Count [::.

*

Crazy (9)

- icemanE, cerebus3, OpposedForce, charter, Erratus Apathos, sekinj, pwnz, SleepyPanda, somestrangeflea

Raging Rabbit (1)

- dybeck

IcemanE (1)

- Raging Rabbit

sekinj (1)

- Alabaska J

Raffles (1)

- DarlaBlueEyes

Alabaska J (1)

- ThAdmiral

pwnz (1)

- neko2086

charter (1)

- farside22

Raging Rabbit (1)

- Firestarter

Firestarter (1)

- Adel

Not Voting (6) - Harvey Pew, pacman281292, Raffles, WaltWishbone, Crazy, Cephrir

Thirteen

votes to lynch.

[Adel]

If I were to make a case, I think you'd find I would have put alot more effort into my post, rather than just a reactionary vote post, similar to yours...

Thanks for fucking that up however....

unvote

reality check: why is Crazy -2 to lynch?

Are there no other wagons worth exploring?

so you thought you would explore a RR wagon without posting a case?

How was that supposed to work?

Are you saying that the reasons you gave for voting for RR were not sincere?

Do you have a secret case against RR that has evidence that won't evaporate once light is shown on it?

[Adel]

I'm calling the Firestarter + IcemanE scum team.

Glory onto me when I'm proven correct.

[Firestarter]

No... skimming through, this caught my eye.
As I stated, reactionary vote. Just like yours.. without a case.

[Adel]

IN

3 succesive RR posts

, and before the post Adel quoted, he gives enough reasons to vote Crazy, imo, during and after Crazy got his scumtell wrong....

Let us look at RR's last 4 posts before Firestarter made this post:

I also don't like Crazy and Farside's attack on Charter. They're too united and OMGUSy, looks to me like they just chose a wagoner and attacked him in unison.

It's not that I think he knew it wasn't valid; I don't see anything pointing one way or the other in that regard. It's that I think he was more concerned with using the tell to clear himself than to catch scum. I believe this because of:

1: His insistence that scum couldn't come up with the tell
2: His "it's better that I get lynched as town than reveal the tell" post, followed by revealing the tell once people started doubting him.

1 isn't scummy if he truely believed the daytalk tell, but I agree with 2 and find Crazy scummy for numerous other things. The reason I'm not voting for him is that it really seems to me that he earnestly believed the daytalk tell, and if he did he has to be town. This for me is stronger then all my suspicions of him, and I encourage Crazy wagoners to take this into acount.

If you also think he honestly believed the tell, I can't see why you're voting him.

Cephrir & Iceman - You claim that Crazy believed his daytalk tell was valid, but is still scum. But scum have their own daytalk forum, and thus scum-Crazy would

know

townies aren't the only ones with daytalk and thus

know

his scumtell isn't valid. I'd like you to explain how this is possible.

But you have to believe he was making the daytalk stuff up if you think he's scum, otherwise he can't be.

Which were the 3 succesive posts in a row you were referring to?

[Adel]

No... skimming through, this caught my eye.
As I stated, reactionary vote. Just like yours.. without a case.

my vote for you is based upon catching you making a bullshit case and then lying about it.

Why is your vote on RR?

[Firestarter]

If I were to make a case, I think you'd find I would have put alot more effort into my post

, rather than just a reactionary vote post, similar to yours...

[Adel]

If I were to make a case, I think you'd find I would have put alot more effort into my post

, rather than just a reactionary vote post, similar to yours...

so if your vote isn't based off of a case that required effort, what is it based off of?
Why did you vote for RR?
Why is your vote still on RR?

[Firestarter]

No...

skimming through, this caught my eye.

As I stated, reactionary vote. Just like yours.. without a case.

Heres an idea.... why dont I get the feedback Ive called for from RR... thank you!

[charter]

Ok, I realize I might be getting too focused on just two people (crazy and farside), but from my point of view, they've acted horribly scummy with their tag-teaming me with terrible cases. I'll do a reread when I get a chance and post more objective thoughts hopefully. My vote will stay on Crazy for now though, as I don't want to let him off the hook anytime soon.

[Adel]

No...

skimming through, this caught my eye.

As I stated, reactionary vote. Just like yours.. without a case.

Heres an idea.... why dont I get the feedback Ive called for from RR... thank you!

he allready clearly explained it in the posts you obliquely referred to as the basis of your vote on him.

Your stated reason for voting for him do not stand up, and now you want to leave your vote on him until he repeats the explaination that you somehow missed in the posts you want an explaination for. WTF!

I'm not buying it.


You voted for nonsense reasons, and once the stated premise behind your vote is shown to either be incorrect if not fraudulent you try a transparent stalling technique.

Not in my town.


~~~

@carter: you can't expect lovers not to cooperate or defend each other. That just isn't a scumtell in this setup.

Any case against Crazy needs to explain why his scumtell + quote daytalking scheme doesn't go a long way towards clearing him.

In the meantime Firestarter just made a really scummy vote on RR who had just voted for icemanE. I think icemanE is the player, other than Crazy, most likely to be lynched today. I would suggest taking a particularly close look at RR, icemanE, and Firestarter during your re-read.

[Adel]

@somestrangeflea: I almost forgot, here is your brownie:

[neko2086]

unvote; vote: firestarter

First, I don't see how RR has done much different than I've done, or others. Clearly, Crazy has acted scummy. Logically, however, it doesn't add up for Crazy to be scum, all things considered (see my last posts for reasons). So why, then, would it be scummy to acknowledge somebody's scumminess but not vote them because the argument for them being town is much stronger? (whew)

Additionally, you're attacking RR for defending somebody who you believe is town when, looking at the votecount, it clearly wasn't popular to do so.

And, the quoting of Adel's call for other bandwagons while saying you're not trying to make a case... I'm also wondering what the point of your vote is, as you're sending very mixed messages.

[cerebus3]

unvote; vote: firestarter

First, I don't see how RR has done much different than I've done, or others. Clearly, Crazy has acted scummy. Logically, however, it doesn't add up for Crazy to be scum, all things considered (see my last posts for reasons). So why, then, would it be scummy to acknowledge somebody's scumminess but not vote them because the argument for them being town is much stronger? (whew)

Additionally, you're attacking RR for defending somebody who you believe is town when, looking at the votecount, it clearly wasn't popular to do so.

And, the quoting of Adel's call for other bandwagons while saying you're not trying to make a case... I'm also wondering what the point of your vote is, as you're sending very mixed messages.

I think me and neko are on the same wavelength. I was gonna say that!

unvote, vote: firestarter

Continuing to push a wagon when the wagon is proven false is pretty weird.

[Raging Rabbit]

Heres an idea.... why dont I get the feedback Ive called for from RR... thank you!

Well, Adel had to go off saying everything and spoil my fun (:P), just for the record I'd be all over you even had she not attacked you first. What she said is absolutely true - you attack me on something that's been explained in the very posts you refer to, and after being called up on it you basically say that it's not actually a case (huh?) and that voting for bad reasons is ok since Adel asked to explore other wagons. Bascially, a load of very scummy crap logic.

My vote on Iceman isn't doing much, so

unvote

(but IGMEOY),

vote firestarter

.

Firestarter, I noticed you haven't supplied as with even a word of your thought about the actual Crazy wagon. What do you make of it? Also, what's your read on Iceman?

[icemanE]

There's no reason for a Townie to use "I think he's scum" as a stand-alone reason for someone's lynch in the manner that Iceman did.

I don't understand how you could possibly interpret saying "I think he's scummy" as scummy behavior. It wasn't a standalone reason, either - it was grouped with three other reasons.

I want to see icemanE to explain this.

I already did - I think it's just as plausible for scum to have noticed the possibility of a scumtell as it is for a townie. People were arguing that "he either made up the tell, or he's town", and I disagree.

@ RR on the same topic -

Cephrir & Iceman - You claim that Crazy believed his daytalk tell was valid, but is still scum. But scum have their own daytalk forum, and thus scum-Crazy would know townies aren't the only ones with daytalk and thus know his scumtell isn't valid. I'd like you to explain how this is possible.

My point is that Crazy could still have thought his tell was valid

and

know he could beat it, as I've said a few times. It's not that he thought simply

having

a daytalk forum

to

quote was proof of being town, it's that scum would have to make stuff up to make their daytalk seem believable. Thus, why he said QUOTE the daytalk.

I'm calling the Firestarter + IcemanE scum team.

Glory onto me when I'm proven correct.

Lol. First things first, where does this even come from? There's nothing in your posts that suggests you have any reasoning behind that statement.

Second of all, no.

Third, your reason for voting me was apparently:

I want to see icemanE to explain this.

Got anything else?

[Adel]

these posts constitute part the reason why I voted for you

Additionally, crazy, unless you received some kind of special message after your role PM, the generic townie PM is available for all to see on the first page of this thread. It's the PM is received, so unless you got something extra, you're full of crap. Please vote and eliminate crazy-scum, it's clear now he's full of shite.

The role PMs on the first page say everyone gets a daytalk forum.

Ah, but reading over them again, it seems the scum each get a forum where they're allowed to talk to their entire team at once instead of just their lover. This changes things. I'm going to review with that in mind.

Crazy's tell may not have been as crazy as some people (like icemanE) would like for the rest of the town to believe.

[icemanE]

these posts constitute part the reason why I voted for you

OK, so what's the rest of the reason?

Additionally, can you elaborate, as I don't see anything wrong with either of those posts.

[Raffles]

This game is moving too fast and thick for me and I'm afraid I can't keep up with what's going on. Sorry to everyone else, but

I need to request replacement

. I'll think a bit harder about number of players in the game next time I join.

[destructor]

dybeck has also requested replacement. Searching for two right now...

[Harvey Pew]

Crazy's play has been.. erratic, but firestarter's mistakes seem worse:

Vote: Firestarter

[somestrangeflea]

There's no reason for a Townie to use "I think he's scum" as a stand-alone reason for someone's lynch in the manner that Iceman did.

I don't understand how you could possibly interpret saying "I think he's scummy" as scummy behavior. It wasn't a standalone reason, either - it was grouped with three other reasons.

"I think he's scummy" isn't what you said.

"I think he's scum" doesn't

mean

anything. It should be obvious. It's not really a reason because it should apply to everyone you want to lynch. But by having it as an entirely separate reason, you've drawn attention to that obvious fact, something which I think is the behavior of scum attacking a scum non-buddy.