I don't get around the thread for awhile, and when I do, large posts come out.
Lowell wrote:@Tony- without looking back, IIRC your post in response to user's miller claim was something like "Well, I personally am inclined to agree. But everyone should make up his or her mind. If anyone wants to
VOTE
for
IAMAUSERNAME
I wouldn't be opposed to that
VOTE
on
IAMAUSERNAME
, even though I, personally, would never dream of
VOTE
ing for
IAMAUSERNAME
."
@all- as for my post about wanting a lot of people dead, let me explain. I said that because I want a lot of people dead. Not
everyone
, mind you, just... you know.... most people. All the scum, and some of the more useless townsfolk. Just me and maybe one or two others remaining. Is Britney Spears (circa 1999) in this game? She can stay.
Lowell wrote:TonyMontana wrote:Well, I guess it's kinda redundant, whether we imagine he was investigated or not.
We really just have to decide for ourself if we believe user is a miller. Personally, I think he is, but it's a sticky situation, seeing as there's no way to confirm it other than a lynch. Or, heaven forbid, someone counter-claims.
Truth be told, this is the first game I've heard of the role, had to look up the wiki to find out what a miller was, so I don't know how usual the role is. The more frequent milllers appear in games, the less likely it would be for user to be a scum. (ie, doesnt have much risk of a counterclaim)
Nonetheless, I think claiming initially was a good move, if for nothing else than to kick-start the game.
The flavor seemed plausible as well..
Here is the post. It's dumber than I remember. He suggests, at various times: lynching, counterclaiming, fake-claiming, metagaming, flavor-testing.
This post reeks of tony trying to bait someone else into opposing the claim.
You have utterly misrepresented post 46. Let me review what I think Tony said there:
A roles is found out when someone dies (in this case because of a lynch)
A second miller claim, as had been worked above, would seem unlikely, so if there was a counter-claim, we'd be most likely lynching one of the "millers." If iamausername is scum, he would be fake-claiming.
If you missed it, several other people have been involved in the metagame discussion of claiming miller day 1.
I asked about the role flavor since I thought that if iamausername was scum, he had a chance to screw up his claim by doing it wrong.
TM's post was a summary of the points discussed until TM's post on page 2 to which he added his opinion. Your attempt to twist it into a baiting trap is not well-founded.
What do you think the rest of the town sees from your actions thus far? Why do you suggest we lynch unhelpful townies?
In my opinion, you haven't been helpful. I've been leaning to the explanation that it's because you're scum since the post defending iamausername's claim with craplogic.
***
Onto other matters (I'm going through the posts in order).
Ythill wrote:
Add to them the fact that wolf calls position changing a scumtell in #96 while she's doing it herself, as well as arguing that an FoS is not "pushing the wagon".
@wolf: If quickly changing stances is a known scumtell, why would you do it as town?
Mind telling me which part of 96 you think she calls a change of stance a scumtell?
Lowell wrote:##unvote, ##vote crywolf
. Bandwagoning. I don't think we'll get much of a read out of her unless she feels the pressure.
Bandwagonning on the other popular lynch candidate on the premise of getting a read when other people have cited crywolf's suggestion of the cop outting himself/herself and misrepresentations makes Lowell seem scummier to me.
May I ask if you (Lowell) suspect anyone else at the present?
Lowell wrote:@Tommy's94- iamausername claimed miller becuase he thought it was the right thing to do. When asked for flavor, he gave some. Generally speaking, those who at this point are STILL clamoring for more flavor are not doing the town any favors. More flavor only makes things easier for scum should they decide to fake-claim in the future. The way TM casually brought that up, implying he wanted to draw more out of the claim, is NOT pro-town.
For the record, who are you accusing of asking for more flavor after iamausername claimed Piano Teacher?
Darox wrote:##Vote: Lowell
Haven't liked his play at the start and this attack on tony is starting to look more and more of a stretch.
I'm not a big fan of posts appearing to change in meaning unless you can provide some outside support for such an assertion.
IGMEOY: Darox
===========================
Alright, Ythill has still not talked about what "option c" is in relation to the iamausername claim. The rest of the players seem content with focusing on this wolf/lowell situation, and while some players seem a little fishy in their particular reasons for joining the voting lists, by-and-large I agree that one of wolf/Lowell is scum.
Furthermore, I think only one of the pair is scum, and the other would like the village idiot defense to come in and save them from taking responsibility for his/her posts. It usually doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that the top two lynch candidates are both scum when the scum are given ample opportunity to not stick their necks out and also to bus associates suspected by the town, which may or may not be occurring by the present votes.
Lowell seems bent on asserting iamausername's claim to the rest of us, and then asserting Tony's reasonable doubt is baiting us into a trap. Lowell, if town, would seem to be deluding himself into trusting iamausername too much. If Lowell is scum, than he can be confident in his knowledge about iamausername, ie 100%.
I'm not liking the reasons on the wolf wagon (bandwagonning, the FoS on Tony, Ythill's voting before getting an answer to whether stance-change is a scumtell) with the exception of bionicchop's accusation of rolefishing.
My vote on Ythill was to get him to talk about "option C."
We can return to this at a later time.
##Unvote: Ythill
##Vote: Lowell
