tubby216 -
DrippingGoofball -
dahill1 -
CoheedCambria09 -
DoomCow -
Korts -
farside22 -
Not voting: MafiaSSK, farside22, tubby216
With 15 alive, it will take 8 to lynch. The deadline for day 1 will be Saturday, December 6.
I'm fairly sure that I've mentioned previously that I'm suspicious of farside, starting early but occupying me starting around Vi 269. This dodging about isn't helping that at all. I'll wait for farside to finish reading before changing my vote, because two things Ihasdgfas 372 wrote:This is a terrible vote. Please explain.Vi wrote:Unvote: DrippingGoofball
Vote: farside22(L-7)
Go on, keep pushing that reread back.
And no, I don't count this as an answer--Vi 269 wrote:*So with The Internet offline, I'm interested in who you will place your vote on, since he is/was hardly the only noncontributory party ITT.[Since then farside has jokevoted DrippingGoofball, and is not currently voting for anyone]
*Meanwhile, why did you drop tubby when you seemed to disagree with most of the points brought up in his favor?
--because it does not answer my question of why she unvoted tubby in the first place.farside 278 wrote:Anyways as for Tubby which Vi wants an answer from me. I felt his first few post were bad. No hold bars bad. The vote for Crazy for defending him was terrible. Also I always, always feel suspciious when people defend others especially when something is scummy. Not oh he is a newbie type comment is unacceptable.
However I feel I need to reread again to really see a few things. I did not CC's vote on Tubby felt very opportunist.
it wasn't scummy that he was voting for CC, but more the fact that he switched so suddenly off of a case he had been pushing very hard.farside22 wrote:dahil: post 308: Why bring up CC comments then say Korts vote is suspicious?
no they do, but Korts' change of heart was too quick IMOdahill post 337: Do you think people dont' change there minds on who's scum based on actions they do later in the game?
Have you ever played with the internet? If so was he scum or town and did he seem different this game from that game?dahill1 wrote:it wasn't scummy that he was voting for CC, but more the fact that he switched so suddenly off of a case he had been pushing very hard.farside22 wrote:dahil: post 308: Why bring up CC comments then say Korts vote is suspicious?no they do, but Korts' change of heart was too quick IMOdahill post 337: Do you think people dont' change there minds on who's scum based on actions they do later in the game?
I saw you had jumped onto the wagon as well, but for a different reason (which you brought up in a few of your other comments). Those two were the ones I saw who were driving the case on tubby OMGrolefishing.Vi: Post 168 why only SpreX or Korts?
You, already covered.Vi: post 320: Have yet to seen a case against me or DGB. Seems out of the blue comment with nothing backed up.
I don't blithely ask whatever comes to mind (when I'm asking about the game, anyway). If I ask someone something, much more often than not I'm following up on something that could/should be perceived as scummy, and an unsatisfactory answer will have consequences.Okay Vi you haven't brought any case against me you are just asking questions. Question do not equal suspicion at all.
*watches back* 0.0Vi: You haven't given much as far as your own suspicion or reasons for who is scum. All you do is ask questions. It's something I did as scum once. I'm watching you.
nope, never played with himfarside22 wrote:Have you ever played with the internet? If so was he scum or town and did he seem different this game from that game?dahill1 wrote:it wasn't scummy that he was voting for CC, but more the fact that he switched so suddenly off of a case he had been pushing very hard.farside22 wrote:dahil: post 308: Why bring up CC comments then say Korts vote is suspicious?no they do, but Korts' change of heart was too quick IMOdahill post 337: Do you think people dont' change there minds on who's scum based on actions they do later in the game?
do you think i'm scum and/or deserving of a vote at the moment, and if so explain why?animorpherv1 wrote:I am giving what I think. If you don't agree, then well, I can't do anything to stop that, but I am giving my own opinion.
Then why the need to wait on me and why so vague when you talk about your suspicions?animorpherv1 wrote:I am giving what I think. If you don't agree, then well, I can't do anything to stop that, but I am giving my own opinion.
I'm not avoiding this game. Thats the honest truth. I've been busy so I just haven't been doing in depth reads on it. This game is still very confusing for me.Vi wrote:
CoheedCambria09- Useless. His vote in 257 is only made worse by his justification of it to ZazieR. Possibly avoiding this game; needs to exist more.
1.) The Internet was such a lurker I had no real read beyond lurker. Dahill doesn't give that bad vibration at this point.SpyreX: post 327: Why no beef with The Internet and then dahill replacement?
SpreX: post 332: The problem with lurkers. If they are posting enough the mod won't replace them. The scum love them and if they are town the town suffers. Usually with lurkers I find one or two scum in that group.
What would you like further explanation of about 327?SpyreX - Not useless; I just disagree with him. I'm still not confident in his reread in 327, but aside from what I've already said about it I don't think I can go forward with attacking it. Intuitively, I'm leaning toward anti-Town.
I meant it as a pun on The Internet's name, because of the huge amount of porn and such online. Why do you feel my comment was any more than random?farside22 wrote: Korts: Post 9 what do you mean too much filth comment?
I didn't really think it through, actually. I was making a mental note, but then it occured to me that it would be better to share with the town.farside wrote:Korts: Post 13 why point this out?
I could be taken as rolefishing because tubby's raised theory basically asked for confirmation or denial, both of which would've outed power roles. But I'm pretty convinced that that wasn't intentional on tubby's behalf.farside wrote:Korts: Post 19 how is that role fishing?
Korts: Post 22. I don't see it.
Again, I didn't realize that it would promote speculation, which was dumb of me. I brought it up because it could be important later on.farside wrote:Korts: Post 23 then why bring it up in the first place?
Because of SpyreX's post 119. DoomCow didn't profess undying loyalty to the tubby wagon.farside wrote:Korts: post 144: Why SpreX and not Doomcow?
Why do you deny the likely possibility that any reply to tubby's theory would've outed power roles easily?farside22 wrote:Korts: post 273: Not in this case
RL pressure. Don't have much time to be thorough...farside wrote:Korts post: 303: Why just skimming?
Wasn't weak when I made it; there just weren't any more points to back it up. And I acknowledged that when I went over it again.farside wrote:Korts: post 310: That's because your case on SpryX was weak.
Unfortunately that's how MafiaSSK operates every game he's in. He can only scumhunt in PBPA's and will only do PBPA's on the most suspected players. This is regardless of alignment. I can provide links if you want... (seriously though, SSK, don't you feel guilty that you don't contribute?)Natirasha wrote:MafiaSSK wrote:I seriously did. Not a newb tell this time.SpyreX wrote:A bad newb move that the only recourse is negative for the town is a bad newb scum move still.MafiaSSK wrote:Looks like Tubby's the main suspcious person. Will get working on a PBPA of him.? If it has to do with gut, just quote this post.
Phooey. *puts down the red-hot poker*SpyreX 391 wrote:No need to prod. I'm here.
SpyreX 330 wrote:Well, we've got 3 hardcore lurkers that I dont like but I'm nto one to jump on their ass day 1.
Do these statements conflict?SpyreX 330 wrote:Sometimes its fine to put pressure on the obvious targets - they ARE obvious for a reason, afterall.
I don't understand why this is an issue. There are other things that have happened, and the PR issue is ambiguous at best anyway.DoomCow wrote:I certainly don't like invented PR's, even if they're claimed to be false at forehand. Therefore I'm getting a bit suspicious about Animrpherv1 and Vi (especially the first fake PR he used, the one that wasn't anounced as fake at forehand).
I'm gonna be needing a reread soon, but I'm not sure when I get the time to do a full read. I'm still up with the game as it goes though..
animorpherv is lurking in plain sight again.animorpherv1 wrote:What can I say? I felt like it.hasdgfas wrote:Post 94 - morph: You're adding a fake PR too? ridiculous.
This whole post relies on the fact that me originally pushing the tubby case was scummy. Since it was entirely valid factually, I don't see why the switch could've been done in order to show myself in better light. I've already said this, haven't I?Crazy wrote:Anyone believe that Korts reallywasmaking a case against tubby just to gauge reactions? I don't. Saying "Nevermind about all that stuff I was doing; I didn't really mean it" is a scum-tell in my book.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
Vote: Korts
DGB coming in to say a vague statement about a minor issue implies that she's lurking in plain sight.DrippingGoofball wrote:I don't believe faking post restrictions is a null tell. At all.
Hardcore fence-sitting, if you don't mind me saying so...Vi wrote:Korts - I find myself agreeing with you about tubby being the most serious thing to talk about early on. I also agree that votes/lynches are good ways to discourage scumplay. However, by Korts 80 it sounded like he had made the jump to tubby being scum and extending it to Crazy being a scumpartner, which I don't agree with.
I think I'll err on the side of caution on this one and not vote Korts this time. But my (weak and usually incorrect) intuition is telling me I'm making a bad move on this one...
Hardcore fence-sitting, if you don't mind me saying so...Vi, same post wrote:farside - I'm not sure about this one. On one hand, it IS jumping on an easy bandwagon; on the other hand, she has defended her point a couple of times. I don't think I have enough information to move on here.
Admittedly he says he needs to reread, but I severely disagree with the analysis point. The stance he takes is so counterproductive to town win conditions that it's slightly scummy. More anti-town than scummy, though. The reasoning for the tubby vote is very vague, however, and seems like he doesn't want to properly justify it because he can't and was, in reality, trying to inconspiciously bandwagon.DoomCow wrote:I still need to reread, had some busy days but will eventually get to it though. As for that post, I clearly state my suspicions towards Vi and Animorpherv1.hasdgfas wrote: Post 149 - DoomCow: Wow, what a wonderful noncommital post.
Because of that scummy looking post he made about Crazy.hasdgfas wrote: Post 151 - DoomCow: Why do you think he's the option?
Wow! no analysis on day 1. Imagine that. It's just, what is there to analyse? Since nobody died as of now, we don't know the possible motives around anything that has happened. So any analysis made at this point would have to be revised later.hasdgfas wrote: DoomCow: Hasn't posted any analysis. Just information. I(and tarhalindur) find that scummy. High scumminess.
I dislike how the most animorpherv can come up with in the way of contribution is a vote rooted in the vote on him (a.k.a. OMGUS), and the reasoning is based on an entirely minor issue. The vote here is weak, and the contribution to the whole of discussion virtually nil.animorpherv1 wrote:DoomCow wrote:I still need to reread, had some busy days but will eventually get to it though. As for that post, I clearly state my suspicions towards Vi and Animorpherv1.hasdgfas wrote: Post 149 - DoomCow: Wow, what a wonderful noncommital post.unvote vote: DoomCow. Your a great suspect, the fake PR's are what we want to do. We've already talked abou tit. It's ocer. Stop brininging ti up. I ahve a new PR, bulit just for you.
*DoomCow sucks*
Happy?
CC's contribution levels are on par with animo's pretty much.CoheedCambria09 wrote:Seconded, I dont understand either.hasdgfas wrote:Could you explain this a bit better? I don't understand what you're trying to say here.animorpherv1 wrote:But I was annoyed at the fact he wanted to vote us both because of personal preference. If you can't take personal prefernce, then you have a problem.
What bugs me is that SpyreX refuses to acknowledge the possibility of tubby not understanding the consequences of his proposed theory. This does imply that SpyreX wants an easy lynch.SpyreX wrote:A bad newb move that the only recourse is negative for the town is a bad newb scum move still.
Again, he only vaguely indicates post 76 as a reason for his vote, but doesn't clarify what about that post is scummy.DoomCow wrote:Tubby: I don't like him following first Korts (post 18), the Crazy (post 47) and then Farside (76). I also don't like post 76 at all, it's the reason I voted him in the first place. After that not much that made him more or less scummy.
animorpherv1 wrote:Thoughts ATM:
Korts & Tubby thing: have no clue if their just angry, or Korts has a good idea behind it.
Yes, it would be nice to see more people post!
What kind of explanation are you expecting, exactly, other than the one that you already got?SpyreX wrote:Because tubby still hasn't explained his "play" to where I think its anything but bad news.
Korts 394, twice wrote:Hardcore fence-sitting, if you don't mind me saying so...
? I'm not sure what you're talking about re: "tubby's theory".Korts 394 wrote:Also in the same post of Vi's, he makes a jab against SpyreX on weak basis (doesn't acknowledge the possible downsides to tubby's theory).
I mean this:Vi wrote:I'm not sure what you're talking about re: "tubby's theory".
tubby216 wrote:i would think it has something to do with power roles that those that have them have the most votes to intice them to be more active but thats just pure speculationScattered wrote:Can you explain why you think that?Korts wrote:Note to town: I have a vague idea that this initial votecount has more relevance than just a starting point. It may outline connections or other information. As of now, I'm copying its current state into my notes, because if it contains any relevant information, Xyl is bound to change it eventually.
unvotesorry diddn't realize i had a vote out there
No. *bolt from heavens comes down and smites your locus*Korts 397 wrote:EBWOP:Yeah, sure. Is it okay for me to point out potential scum behaviour?Vi wrote:Is it okay for me to not know where to go with some people at any given time?