Mini 727 - Mafia in Standardville - Game Over

[LlamaFluff]

Vote count

Xdaamno (6) - Lynx the Antithesis, Danchaofan, Panzerjager, Charter, Lowell, Master Ruck
Lynx the Antithesis (2) - Darox, Tubby216
Artem (1) - BSG
Master Ruck (1) - Xdaamno
Darox (1) - Artifex
Lowell (1) - Artem

With twelve alive its seven votes to lynch.
Deadline for day one is still January 25th

Darox has been prodded

[charter]

Just to make things clear, charter, you are implying I tried to make it look like an accidental lynch?

No. You said you wanted an Artem lynch when you cast the vote. Now you're saying you voted for pressure. You're changing your story.

As I said above, your logic is circular. If I was scum I would be doing as you said (which is an implausable scenario, but I'll be generous and say it's neutral) and if I was town I'd be doing what I had said. What makes one scenario more likely than the other? It's certainly not because you have a kink for stating fallacy as fact.

What makes you scum more likely is that I don't see town changing their story (and having a really weak one to begin with). Why would you try and cover up your original reason for voting? I see it much more likely that scum would do that.

Here, I asked "what makes one scenario more like than the other"? This was rhetorical, but if your argument is not completely invalid you must have an answer for this, or you must point out the question is flawed.

Same as above.

Artem is right in 273.

[tubby216]

ok lynx i re-read the thread agian this time a lil more objectively and figure i was wrong.

so

unvote

the more i read xdaamo the more i see what you guys are talkin about.

@xdaamo it seems as if you are talkin in circles and your logic is hard for me to follow.

[Xdaamno]

The original attack on Artem was obvious BS, but I'm surprised Artem needed me to point that out for him.

After a re-read,

it's a good lynch right now.

Also, I thought I had already made it clear

I did not want an Artem lynch

. My vote was (primarily) a pressure vote.

So, it was a good lynch but you didn't want it? How does that work?

Heh, this kind of reminds me of one of Adel's links I read today:

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/0 ... obabil.php

"Good lynch" was ambigious, apologies for that. I did not mean I 'wanted an Artem lynch', but rather 'I would lynch Artem if I had to pick someone'.

ok lynx i re-read the thread agian this time a lil more objectively and figure i was wrong.

so

unvote

the more i read xdaamo the more i see what you guys are talkin about.

@xdaamo it seems as if you are talkin in circles and your logic is hard for me to follow.

That's an argument from ignorance, at best; if you do not understand my logic, please give me a reference and I will explain my logic for you. I don't know what you mean by "talkin in circles" - could you give a reference for this, too?

Just to make things clear, charter, you are implying I tried to make it look like an accidental lynch?

No. You said you wanted an Artem lynch when you cast the vote. Now you're saying you voted for pressure. You're changing your story.

As I said above, your logic is circular. If I was scum I would be doing as you said (which is an implausable scenario, but I'll be generous and say it's neutral) and if I was town I'd be doing what I had said. What makes one scenario more likely than the other? It's certainly not because you have a kink for stating fallacy as fact.

What makes you scum more likely is that I don't see town changing their story (and having a really weak one to begin with). Why would you try and cover up your original reason for voting? I see it much more likely that scum would do that.

Here, I asked "what makes one scenario more like than the other"? This was rhetorical, but if your argument is not completely invalid you must have an answer for this, or you must point out the question is flawed.

Same as above.

Artem is right in 273.

As explained above, you misunderstood my story. This explains why I would "change" my story as town. We go back to the original point (what makes A more likely than B), but weighted a little more towards your side; you are right, and it is now more probable I am scum.

*shrug*

Read the link I gave above, and tell me if you don't get what I mean by "wanting a lynch" being ambigious.

[Darox]

And now, back to your favourite show, 'Darox goes to town'.

@Lowell- I also have begun to think Darox's claim is genuine- but I dont believe he's sharing everything about it with us.

I realize my

main concern about Darox is not necessarily something that needs be addressed day one.

My

next scummiest

suspect is Xdaamno, for his unsatisfying explanations for the hammer-that-wasnt and also for what I wrote about it 123.

I would be willing to lynch Darox

or Xadaamno.

Wait, what?!

According to this, I am the person you find suspicious above all, and you would be willing to lynch me, but the reasons for this are "not something that needs to be addressed". Are you joking or something? I really shouldn't have to point out why saying "I think this guy should be lynched, I'll tell you why after we lynch him" is wrong.

The more I looked at these exchanges the more evasive they seemed to me. It's like you can't give a straight answer, or provide any insight into anyone you're ACTUALLY gunning for.

After Darox

, I find this behavior the most suspicious in the game.

I think we should hear about these mysterious concerns. After all, they seem to be so convincing that they still trump your documented thoughts on Xdaamno, so they must be impressive.

Lynx has led the attack on xdaamno

This is something I have to disagree with. Looking at his first post on Xdaamno...

The quick hammer by Xdaamno was extremely Scummy.

FOS:Xdaamno

Definitely want some answers on this vote. However, I am keeping in mind the fact that Xdaamno hasn't really been involved in the game. I think carelessness could be the major cause of his vote. He hasn't seemed to pay much attention to the game. Certainly doesn't excuse a vote of such magnitude though.

Sure, he calls him "extremely scummy" but also gives him several outs with the remarks about carelessness and really looks like lynx is keeping with his tradition of sticking a foot in both camps.
He further pushes the confused angle in his next post as well with this.

You haven't been paying to much attention to this game have you?

Really, I would say the first person to apply pressure to Xdaamno is charter for this post.

120- SCUM, explain Xdaamo

And he continues it as well as in his follow up posts, from #152 onwards.
It's only after this that Lynx finally picks a side and goes on to vote Xdaamno in #171.

Speaking of my good friend Lynx, lets take a look at his replies to what I said in the previous episode of 'Darox goes to town'.

his one was a fault on my part all led by the second reponse on the issue "denouncing" the first. In the second comment I adressed the whole BSG thing because I felt people were giving her too much credit as a townie because of her reaction to the wagon.I misplaced the fact that her emotions had already been displayed before I gave the earlier defense. Upon reread, I saw that her status as a rational townie under the wagon had been established already before my statement. Therefore I corrected my stance in the second comment. The second response comes from wrongly placed chronology of what happened earlier. Once I looked over it again, the proper order of the events were more clear.

The problem here is you're acting like a pendulum. You keep swinging from one extreme to another, while on average you're sitting squarely in the middle.

In the time between your initial defence and subsequent denouncement, one person (Artifex) stated that based on BSG's post which followed yours that she appeared to be a calm townie. Another (Lowell) came to the same conclusion, based on posts prior to your defence.
I'm sceptical about how much rereading you did, because this hardly shows that BSG's status as a rational townie had been established, much less that it had been established before your defence. The thing is, despite the fact your second comment disowning your defence completely ignored BSG's prior statements and the way it handwaved away anything that may have made BSG look town, it did have one correct point in that by defending her you did meddle in the way she reacted.

Which is why I was so incredulous when you suddenly turned around and disowned the entire comment and even disputed the reasons you had for issuing the comment in the first place. If as you claim you had read up on the events, what prompted you to take this stance? It really looks like you're just switching your position back and forth until you find something you hope I'll find acceptable.


Onwards.

I would only put someone at L-2 for the pressure aspect. And yes if Panzer had not said what he said it would not have been WIFOM whatsoever. The only scummy aspect of the vote was the WIFOM which I've stated numerous times already. The vote itself wasn't nearly as bad as the WIFOM that got mixed with it.

This is quite worrying. If Panzer had not said what he said the WIFOM would still be very real. It would have made it less confrontational, but in no way does it transform it from WIFOM-free to WIFOM-tastic.

Can you please explain to me in your own words why you think Panzer's comments make charters vote suspicious, in more detail than "It adds WIFOM", if you would be so kind.

Moving along, this set of posts really struck me as odd.

Incorrect wording on my part. I'll give you that. How about why do you think he's

scummy enough

to place your vote on him?

Asking Xdaamno for reasons behind his vote, fair enough, but...

I do imply such a declaration at this stage of the game.

For me, pressure votes are utilized more effectively earlier in the game. And to point out it's use for pressure basically nullifies its use for said pressure.

Basing votes purely off vibes is pretty impractical.

Also, didn't you say that while he was pressing you his questions came off scummy. Does that not make him somewhat scummy to you?

You're practically taking away any Value from your vote at this point.

The Value capitalization was a typo really. In regards to that sentence,

I feel your later explanation of the vote has taken away a large part of the usefullness of it in the first place

(largely the pressure business which was taken away by admitting that fact.

This really screamed out at me. First you ask him why he voted, and when he responds 50% pressure 50% vibes, you attack him for explaining that his vote was partly for pressure, on the basis that explaining a pressure vote kills it's value. Yes, it does, but

you asked him to explain it

. Come on, really?

Rolling on.
@Everyone who finds both Xdaamno & artem suspicious and also thinks that Xdaamno's vote was a failed hammer not a misjudged pressure vote: How does that work exactly?



And now, a word from our sponsors.

[Xdaamno]

Everyone who finds both Xdaamno & artem suspicious and also thinks that Xdaamno's vote was a failed hammer not a misjudged pressure vote: How does that work exactly?

That would only apply if they were declaring an Xdaamno/Artem scumpair.

[Artifex]

Wait, what?!

According to this, I am the person you find suspicious above all, and you would be willing to lynch me, but the reasons for this are "not something that needs to be addressed". Are you joking or something? I really shouldn't have to point out why saying "I think this guy should be lynched, I'll tell you why after we lynch him" is wrong.

It is interesting how if you take a few words out of a quote you can change its meaning entirely, isnt it? I dont get how you missed them, seeing as how you bolded them for me and everything. I said, "needs to be addressed day one." If I really have to spell this out further, I will: I dont think you have the same win condition as the rest of town. This issue MUST be addressed the closer we get to the end of the game. But that doesnt necessarily make you the right person to be lynched on day one. This is worlds away from the meaning you have ascribed my words. Did you genuinely not understand this?

I think we should hear about these mysterious concerns. After all, they seem to be so convincing that they still trump your documented thoughts on Xdaamno, so they must be impressive.

I'll say it again: I did not vote for you without making clear my concerns. I have stated in more than one posts my reasons:

As for Darox's claim, I find it incredibly suspicious. So, basically, the only value of that role was that mafia might off you and get offed themselves...and you've thrown that away with your first substantive post. And now you've left yourself in a position that tries to make you untouchable by both town and scum alike? ...this smacks of a seperate win condition to me, if not an outright false claim.

It may not be fair to judge Darox for Lunar Ticks actions in the game, but I was already suspicious of the player you stepped in for for clearly being present (even checking in quickly after the bluehost crash thing) but not contributing at all. I didnt know what to make of the fact that right after I FOSed him he requested replacement- the two may not be connected, but you bet the thought has crossed my mind that they are. And now you come in with a claim that intends to leave you invulnerable, while taking away the one valuable aspect to town about it? Vote: Darox

First, the claim. I'm not going to debate how likely the mod is to include a PGO because thats just playing with mod WIFOM and I already know the answer.

This is the type of thing that sounds reasonable on the surface, but when I break it down it doesnt play for me. Every time someone does a roleclaim, theres a chance they're lying, right? So you look for things that could help you figure out if the claim is false. One of those things is how likely the role existing would be. Im not seeing the WIFOM there. And you wont debate, because you 'already know the answer'? Well

I dont

- so I think I will keep discussing this roleclaim.

Even if there is only one other power role out there it still gives equal probability of being targeted by town or scum, and in the likely event there is more the chance of killing town powers increases. The small chance of taking a scum with me isn't worth that in my opinion.

I admit now: I've never been or played with this type of role before. But at the very least this seems to be a bad decision to me. What was making you think that you were likely to be targeted by a doc or investigator when you claimed? Your predecessor was barely on the radar when you switched in. This is why I worry that you have a separate win condition- because then I would completely understand why youd claim right away, so as to increase your chances of being untouched by any side or power role.

I can't decide if you just didnt reread thoroughly or if this is a more deliberate misunderstanding.

[Lynx The Antithesis]

The quick hammer by Xdaamno was extremely Scummy.

FOS:Xdaamno

Definitely want some answers on this vote. However, I am keeping in mind the fact that Xdaamno hasn't really been involved in the game. I think carelessness could be the major cause of his vote. He hasn't seemed to pay much attention to the game. Certainly doesn't excuse a vote of such magnitude though.

Sure, he calls him "extremely scummy" but also gives him several outs with the remarks about carelessness and really looks like lynx is keeping with his tradition of sticking a foot in both camps.
He further pushes the confused angle in his next post as well with this.

You haven't been paying to much attention to this game have you?

Really, I would say the first person to apply pressure to Xdaamno is charter for this post.

120- SCUM, explain Xdaamo

And he continues it as well as in his follow up posts, from #152 onwards.
It's only after this that Lynx finally picks a side and goes on to vote Xdaamno in #171.

Speaking of my good friend Lynx, lets take a look at his replies to what I said in the previous episode of 'Darox goes to town'.

his one was a fault on my part all led by the second reponse on the issue "denouncing" the first. In the second comment I adressed the whole BSG thing because I felt people were giving her too much credit as a townie because of her reaction to the wagon.I misplaced the fact that her emotions had already been displayed before I gave the earlier defense. Upon reread, I saw that her status as a rational townie under the wagon had been established already before my statement. Therefore I corrected my stance in the second comment. The second response comes from wrongly placed chronology of what happened earlier. Once I looked over it again, the proper order of the events were more clear.

The problem here is you're acting like a pendulum. You keep swinging from one extreme to another, while on average you're sitting squarely in the middle.

In the time between your initial defence and subsequent denouncement, one person (Artifex) stated that based on BSG's post which followed yours that she appeared to be a calm townie. Another (Lowell) came to the same conclusion, based on posts prior to your defence.
I'm sceptical about how much rereading you did, because this hardly shows that BSG's status as a rational townie had been established, much less that it had been established before your defence. The thing is, despite the fact your second comment disowning your defence completely ignored BSG's prior statements and the way it handwaved away anything that may have made BSG look town, it did have one correct point in that by defending her you did meddle in the way she reacted.

Which is why I was so incredulous when you suddenly turned around and disowned the entire comment and even disputed the reasons you had for issuing the comment in the first place. If as you claim you had read up on the events, what prompted you to take this stance? It really looks like you're just switching your position back and forth until you find something you hope I'll find acceptable.


Onwards.

I would only put someone at L-2 for the pressure aspect. And yes if Panzer had not said what he said it would not have been WIFOM whatsoever. The only scummy aspect of the vote was the WIFOM which I've stated numerous times already. The vote itself wasn't nearly as bad as the WIFOM that got mixed with it.

This is quite worrying. If Panzer had not said what he said the WIFOM would still be very real. It would have made it less confrontational, but in no way does it transform it from WIFOM-free to WIFOM-tastic.

Can you please explain to me in your own words why you think Panzer's comments make charters vote suspicious, in more detail than "It adds WIFOM", if you would be so kind.

Moving along, this set of posts really struck me as odd.

Incorrect wording on my part. I'll give you that. How about why do you think he's

scummy enough

to place your vote on him?

Asking Xdaamno for reasons behind his vote, fair enough, but...

I do imply such a declaration at this stage of the game.

For me, pressure votes are utilized more effectively earlier in the game. And to point out it's use for pressure basically nullifies its use for said pressure.

Basing votes purely off vibes is pretty impractical.

Also, didn't you say that while he was pressing you his questions came off scummy. Does that not make him somewhat scummy to you?

You're practically taking away any Value from your vote at this point.

The Value capitalization was a typo really. In regards to that sentence,

I feel your later explanation of the vote has taken away a large part of the usefullness of it in the first place

(largely the pressure business which was taken away by admitting that fact.

This really screamed out at me. First you ask him why he voted, and when he responds 50% pressure 50% vibes, you attack him for explaining that his vote was partly for pressure, on the basis that explaining a pressure vote kills it's value. Yes, it does, but

you asked him to explain it

. Come on, really?

Rolling on.
@Everyone who finds both Xdaamno & artem suspicious and also thinks that Xdaamno's vote was a failed hammer not a misjudged pressure vote: How does that work exactly?quote]

Here we go again from Darox. Regarding my first post about Xdaamno, it was all pertinent to his hammer. His carelessness still holds true to me about the deciding vote. I don't think he would have put that hammer vote down on purpose. But I've already stated it's not his hammer that was scummy to me. For me, his pattern of voting and play bothered me. After I posted the intial carelessness, Xdaamno's play continued to be scummy with his vote on Charter. With no reasons to support his vote yet again I finally decided to place my vote on him for his PLAY not his hammer vote which I still believe is carelessness .

Again, back to the BSG situation, I've already explained this as much as my head can handle. In your first post, you say that BSG

did

speak up before my defense. Now, you're saying her status hadn't already been established before my defense. Turnaround yourself anybody? You're basing your reactions off what the town has to say about BSG rather than what BSG said herself. She doesn't have to blatantly say that the wagon on her is BS. But by scumhunting(pressing Artem) instead of addressing the wagon, she's shown that she was calm under the wagon before I issued the defense.

The Panzer Charter WIFOM business has been stated by me already why I believe it's WIFOM. Here goes again though, Panzer says in his post that putting someone at L-2 is scummy. In the post immediately following, Charter puts BSG at L-2. The fact is that by challenging Panzer's statement he's also bringing WIFOM into play. It brings up questions about charter such as a scum be so bold as to blatantly disregard what Panzer say and do it anyway? Or is he scum who thinks that the town thinks that no scum would be so obvious ? This is WIFOM to me at least. Others have agreed.

Finally, about the Xdaamno Charter vote(the reason I finally decided to vote him in the first place), I didn't like the vote of course so I ask him to explain his reasons. Of course he throws out the pressure card(Artem anybody?) and vibes(another vague explanation). I'll give you that I did ask him so the nullifies my thinking about the whole pressure aspect though. However, throughout the entire exchange I don't believe his reasons justified in any way removing my vote from him.

Now, Darox, what do you think of the whole Xdaamno hammer incident? You seem to chime in only every couple pages with one big post rather than adresss the events as they occur. Do you have any other suspects beside myself that you're looking at?

[Lynx The Antithesis]

EBWOP if the quotes don't come up again for Darox all of my thoughts are after the rolling on sentiment by Darox at the bottom

[quote="Darox"]

Lynx The Antithesis wrote:
The quick hammer by Xdaamno was extremely Scummy. FOS:Xdaamno Definitely want some answers on this vote. However, I am keeping in mind the fact that Xdaamno hasn't really been involved in the game. I think carelessness could be the major cause of his vote. He hasn't seemed to pay much attention to the game. Certainly doesn't excuse a vote of such magnitude though.
Sure, he calls him "extremely scummy" but also gives him several outs with the remarks about carelessness and really looks like lynx is keeping with his tradition of sticking a foot in both camps.
He further pushes the confused angle in his next post as well with this.
Lynx The Antithesis wrote:
You haven't been paying to much attention to this game have you?

Really, I would say the first person to apply pressure to Xdaamno is charter for this post.
charter wrote:
120- SCUM, explain Xdaamo
And he continues it as well as in his follow up posts, from #152 onwards.
It's only after this that Lynx finally picks a side and goes on to vote Xdaamno in #171.

Speaking of my good friend Lynx, lets take a look at his replies to what I said in the previous episode of 'Darox goes to town'.

Lynx The Antithesis wrote:
his one was a fault on my part all led by the second reponse on the issue "denouncing" the first. In the second comment I adressed the whole BSG thing because I felt people were giving her too much credit as a townie because of her reaction to the wagon.I misplaced the fact that her emotions had already been displayed before I gave the earlier defense. Upon reread, I saw that her status as a rational townie under the wagon had been established already before my statement. Therefore I corrected my stance in the second comment. The second response comes from wrongly placed chronology of what happened earlier. Once I looked over it again, the proper order of the events were more clear.
The problem here is you're acting like a pendulum. You keep swinging from one extreme to another, while on average you're sitting squarely in the middle.

In the time between your initial defence and subsequent denouncement, one person (Artifex) stated that based on BSG's post which followed yours that she appeared to be a calm townie. Another (Lowell) came to the same conclusion, based on posts prior to your defence.
I'm sceptical about how much rereading you did, because this hardly shows that BSG's status as a rational townie had been established, much less that it had been established before your defence. The thing is, despite the fact your second comment disowning your defence completely ignored BSG's prior statements and the way it handwaved away anything that may have made BSG look town, it did have one correct point in that by defending her you did meddle in the way she reacted.

Which is why I was so incredulous when you suddenly turned around and disowned the entire comment and even disputed the reasons you had for issuing the comment in the first place. If as you claim you had read up on the events, what prompted you to take this stance? It really looks like you're just switching your position back and forth until you find something you hope I'll find acceptable.


Onwards.
Lynx The Antithesis wrote:
I would only put someone at L-2 for the pressure aspect. And yes if Panzer had not said what he said it would not have been WIFOM whatsoever. The only scummy aspect of the vote was the WIFOM which I've stated numerous times already. The vote itself wasn't nearly as bad as the WIFOM that got mixed with it.
This is quite worrying. If Panzer had not said what he said the WIFOM would still be very real. It would have made it less confrontational, but in no way does it transform it from WIFOM-free to WIFOM-tastic.

Can you please explain to me in your own words why you think Panzer's comments make charters vote suspicious, in more detail than "It adds WIFOM", if you would be so kind.

Moving along, this set of posts really struck me as odd.
Lynx The Antithesis wrote:
Incorrect wording on my part. I'll give you that. How about why do you think he's scummy enough to place your vote on him?

Asking Xdaamno for reasons behind his vote, fair enough, but...
Lynx The Antithesis wrote:
I do imply such a declaration at this stage of the game. For me, pressure votes are utilized more effectively earlier in the game. And to point out it's use for pressure basically nullifies its use for said pressure. Basing votes purely off vibes is pretty impractical.

Also, didn't you say that while he was pressing you his questions came off scummy. Does that not make him somewhat scummy to you? You're practically taking away any Value from your vote at this point.
Lynx The Antithesis wrote:
The Value capitalization was a typo really. In regards to that sentence, I feel your later explanation of the vote has taken away a large part of the usefullness of it in the first place(largely the pressure business which was taken away by admitting that fact.
This really screamed out at me. First you ask him why he voted, and when he responds 50% pressure 50% vibes, you attack him for explaining that his vote was partly for pressure, on the basis that explaining a pressure vote kills it's value. Yes, it does, but you asked him to explain it. Come on, really?

Rolling on.
@Everyone who finds both Xdaamno & artem suspicious and also thinks that Xdaamno's vote was a failed hammer not a misjudged pressure vote: How does that work exactly?[quote]

Here we go again from Darox. Regarding my first post about Xdaamno, it was all pertinent to his hammer. His carelessness still holds true to me about the deciding vote. I don't think he would have put that hammer vote down on purpose. But I've already stated it's not his hammer that was scummy to me. For me, his pattern of voting and play bothered me. After I posted the intial carelessness, Xdaamno's play continued to be scummy with his vote on Charter. With no reasons to support his vote yet again I finally decided to place my vote on him for his PLAY not his hammer vote which I still believe is carelessness .

Again, back to the BSG situation, I've already explained this as much as my head can handle. In your first post, you say that BSG did speak up before my defense. Now, you're saying her status hadn't already been established before my defense. Turnaround yourself anybody? You're basing your reactions off what the town has to say about BSG rather than what BSG said herself. She doesn't have to blatantly say that the wagon on her is BS. But by scumhunting(pressing Artem) instead of addressing the wagon, she's shown that she was calm under the wagon before I issued the defense.

The Panzer Charter WIFOM business has been stated by me already why I believe it's WIFOM. Here goes again though, Panzer says in his post that putting someone at L-2 is scummy. In the post immediately following, Charter puts BSG at L-2. The fact is that by challenging Panzer's statement he's also bringing WIFOM into play. It brings up questions about charter such as a scum be so bold as to blatantly disregard what Panzer say and do it anyway? Or is he scum who thinks that the town thinks that no scum would be so obvious ? This is WIFOM to me at least. Others have agreed.

Finally, about the Xdaamno Charter vote(the reason I finally decided to vote him in the first place), I didn't like the vote of course so I ask him to explain his reasons. Of course he throws out the pressure card(Artem anybody?) and vibes(another vague explanation). I'll give you that I did ask him so the nullifies my thinking about the whole pressure aspect though. However, throughout the entire exchange I don't believe his reasons justified in any way removing my vote from him.

Now, Darox, what do you think of the whole Xdaamno hammer incident? You seem to chime in only every couple pages with one big post rather than adresss the events as they occur. Do you have any other suspects beside myself that you're looking at?

[Lowell]

Geez these are some dense posts to navigate through.

[Xdaamno]

The second is a copy/paste of the first... *shrug*

[Artifex]

[OOG]Lynx, in your second post you sounded like you didnt know what it was gonna look like- if you hit preview before send you can see what your posts will look like. In this case, you're missing a "/" to end the quote by Darox. Honestly though I dont even know if you need to repost his stuff at all, since you seem to be responding to the post as a whole and not specific parts.[/OOG]

[charter]

Still want the Xdaamo lynch.

[Lynx The Antithesis]

[OOG]Lynx, in your second post you sounded like you didnt know what it was gonna look like- if you hit preview before send you can see what your posts will look like. In this case, you're missing a "/" to end the quote by Darox. Honestly though I dont even know if you need to repost his stuff at all, since you seem to be responding to the post as a whole and not specific parts.[/OOG]

You're right. I used the preview button, I just can't get the quotes together unless I quote the whole thing usually. So I just try to avoid any quoting for the most part. My fault

[Danchaofan]

got back last night, been reading other games. I'll finish reading and respond to this one later.

[Xdaamno]

Still want the Xdaamo lynch.

By that, do you mean you want to lynch me or that you would pick me if choosing someone?

[charter]

I think you're scum, I want to lynch you.

[Xdaamno]

I think you're scum, I want to lynch you.

Based on a single statistical point? Or is it vibes/something you haven't mentioned yet?

[Artem]

The original attack on Artem was obvious BS, but I'm surprised Artem needed me to point that out for him.

After a re-read,

it's a good lynch right now.

Also, I thought I had already made it clear

I did not want an Artem lynch

. My vote was (primarily) a pressure vote.

So, it was a good lynch but you didn't want it? How does that work?

"Good lynch" was ambigious, apologies for that. I did not mean I 'wanted an Artem lynch', but rather 'I would lynch Artem if I had to pick someone'.

But who was making you pick anybody? You said I was a good lynch "right now", implying that you were ready to lynch me right that second.

...and if it was a pressure vote, seeing that you're at L-1, I would like you to address the following:

Well, I didn't have anything in mind. If we knew what was on Mars, we wouldn't need to send probes there.

Would you like to share with us what your probe found on planet Artem? After all, you need to justify the future funding of the project "probe".

I lost interest. I'll go look back at the reactions sometime.

[Artem]

Also, if it was all for pressure, why did you not correctly unvote and re-vote me to maintain the said pressure after charter unvoted?

[LlamaFluff]

BSG and Panzerjager have been prodded.

[Master Ruck]

Ok,

Unvote: Xdaamno

for now.

More fuel to add to the "Ruck is scum" fire, I know, but the newbie game I'm in has shown me I have an agressive paranoid style whereby my votes only tend to make things worse. To counter this, I will only vote if there are also very good reasons in that post instead of having to be asked for them later only to not find them as my thoughts were only vibes. I am going to do a

detailed

reread and regardless of whether they are likely to be lynched or not, I will make a vote if I feel they are scum that needs to be lynched.

[Master Ruck]

Also, sorry for not posting in a while. Looking for a job takes up more time than you think.

[PJ.]

Holy shit, I have a lot of catching up to do, I've been away since Friday. also, POST.

[LlamaFluff]

bumping votecount