Open 131 - Nightless Vanilla (Over) before 767

[Wall-E]

Touche. I guess I just disagree with you then.

And that's fine, I guess I just encourage throwing yourself out there for the town's benefit over your own personal safety. I would much rather appreciate town not holding back instead of holding it in.

I believe that it's more pro-town NOT to voice my opinion on some issues.

[Wall-E]

I went back and checked how you signed up. You signed up as you said.

/in for anything

No, I didn't know what I was signing up for. I went to the queue and wrote "/in" like most people do.

This is a marginal, and wrong, tell. Try harder.

However, you have presented no evidence to support your claim that “most people just write /in” I am not willing to take anyone's supposition as fact.

I disagree that this tell is “marginal and wrong.” In the context of what you wrote, marginal means “barely within a lower standard or limit of quality”. This tell works some of the time, so I agree that it is marginal. However, to make a blanket statement that this tell is wrong strikes me as scummy. The only way your statement makes sense is if you applied it to your specific situation, but the context indicates you are attacking the tell itself and not applying it to your situation.

this argument was stupid and i'm giving WC scum points for it

[Wall-E]

upon review, i retract my previous statement. i misread something. upon a third read i'm all sorted out now, and i agree with white castle

[Wall-E]

Unvote: Vote Lowell

on the basis of the following:

"to make a blanket statement that this tell is wrong strikes me as scummy. The only way your statement makes sense is if you applied it to your specific situation, but the context indicates you are attacking the tell itself and not applying it to your situation."

[lixyl]

LETS RIDE THE CONVOY!

Sorry, but I saw that post as a mere attempt to get some of that weight of suspicion off of you. Hard to explain what I mean (I've been sitting in front of my keyboard for a few minutes trying to formulate my opinion...), but basically that message was an attempt to rid suspicions of you, in my opinion.

Unvote: Wall-E
Vote: Millar

[Jazzmyn]

Jazzmyn in Post 63: This looks like a hop off a bandwagon to keep you safe. Not to my likeage.

Perhaps you should read the reasons for my vote and the reasons for my unvote, then.

Regards,
Jazz

[Rishi]

MOD: Lowell voted for White Castle or did he not vote?

The word vote bolded followed by something that can easily be discerned as a player's name (even if misspelled), also bolded, is a vote.

So Lowell is voting for White Castle.

[Wall-E]

@hewitt: I'm sorry, but I want to revisit an issue. The scenario we just discussed didn't go as I'd have liked it to. Here's what I should have done:

First, White Castle said words: "I can see two options (if I didn't do what I did), A and B."

What I read was this: "I can see three options. A, B and the unstated option C, which is the one I actually took. A and B are bad options, and so I will not do them."

Hewitt: "You are not choosing between A or B, the only two options."

Me: "Something isn't right about what you just said, hewitt." - brain turns off and doesn't quite figure out what the wrong thing is until now

Me: "Let me try this again." - this post happens - "There are three options,

and

it is possible to be in a situation where both of the only two options are poor ones. Do you wish to restate yourself in regards to the post by WC?

[hewitt]

Post 51 was Lowell, not me. Your question strikes me as anti-town because an answer leads down a dark path. Suppose I answer "Lowell could have said X". In Lowell's next post he says X. I could keep my vote on him or unvote. I think either option looks bad. (Either I let him off too easy or I didn't keep my word). All that said, it is hard to come up with cases and defend them early in the game.

I don't understand your analogy Wall-E. White Castle has laid out two options and it looks like he is skiddish to do either because in his opinion he'll look bad either way. So either he unvotes and he "let's him off easy" or he keeps his vote and "doesn't keep his word". My advice was to do what you feel necessary if you feel he's scummy then keep your vote on him and continue your case but if you don't feel he's scummy anymore then unvote. I don't think it would look bad at all as long as you explain your actions accordingly and thus there should be nothing skiddish about.

I don't really understand where you're going with this third option thing Wall-E. White Castle doesn't state a third option.

[Wall-E]

Post 51 was Lowell, not me. Your question strikes me as anti-town because an answer leads down a dark path. Suppose I answer "Lowell could have said X". In Lowell's next post he says X. I could keep my vote on him or unvote. I think either option looks bad. (Either I let him off too easy or I didn't keep my word). All that said, it is hard to come up with cases and defend them early in the game.

I don't understand your analogy Wall-E. White Castle has laid out two options and it looks like he is skiddish to do either because in his opinion he'll look bad either way. So either he unvotes and he "let's him off easy" or he keeps his vote and "doesn't keep his word". My advice was to do what you feel necessary if you feel he's scummy then keep your vote on him and continue your case but if you don't feel he's scummy anymore then unvote. I don't think it would look bad at all as long as you explain your actions accordingly and thus there should be nothing skiddish about.

I don't really understand where you're going with this third option thing Wall-E. White Castle doesn't state a third option.

ok, i'm caught up now. disregard.

[millar13]

lixyl...you look into thing and can't accept randomness clearly or better still irony

[Netlava]

After, re-reading the thread,

Vote: Skitzer

The way he characterizes things makes me suspicious i.e.

farside in Post 24: Sadly, that almost sounds like a good idea.

In reference to the policy lynch proposal. Something about "sadly" and "policy lynch" doesn't mix.

Ugh, White Castle, your constant linkage to the Wiki makes me feel weird about you.

The word constant is a bit of an exaggeration imo. Note that Adam Smith also says something along these lines though.

Netlava in Post 68: Eww. Everyone off the ol' Lowellwagon!

Not liking this for obvious reasons.

White Castle in Post 75: You make 2 wiki uses in 8 posts sound like nothing.

I may use it once, but usually never in a game.

Bolded part is what I don't like.

But then... White Castle in Post 77: I pose the same question to you that you posed to me. What about the other 3 that quickly hopped on the wagon?

It wasn't a wagon yet when I joined.

[Lowell]

Still here. Will write a summary post when I get a chance.

[Jazzmyn]

I need to a re-read of this thread and get some game notes going, which I will do over the weekend.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

EBWOP: Ugh, that should say, "I need to

do

a re-read..."

[Jazzmyn]

Farside is seriously lurking. She hasn't posted since April 1 on this thread but she's posted 50+ posts on other threads since then. Seems fishy.

Adam hasn't posted in almost a week, but he hasn't posted elsewhere on the site in the interim.

@Mod: please prod Farside and Adam.

Regards,
Jazz

[millar13]

In essence this game is very much...big town vs. little town rather than scum vs. townies which makes this game that much more harder

[Adam Smith]

Shit, sorry. Been playing another game on a different site.

[Jazzmyn]

Just a quick head's up - I will have little to no access until Tuesday night.

Regards,
Jazz

[millar13]

Adam Smith and Jazzymyn active lurkers...always with an excuse

[Empking]

Unvote

Vote; Lowell

The Nigtless and Try Harder comments.

[millar13]

I want to know if Farside and White castle...think be jumping on the wagon is enough of a reason to want to lynch me?
Or if really, one if not both of them really has a hidden agenda "eg; being scum"

[hewitt]

I don't think anyone jumping on that wagon is a good enough to reason to lynch them. It is a good enough reason to be suspicious of them however.

[farside22]

Farside is seriously lurking. She hasn't posted since April 1 on this thread but she's posted 50+ posts on other threads since then. Seems fishy.

Adam hasn't posted in almost a week, but he hasn't posted elsewhere on the site in the interim.

@Mod: please prod Farside and Adam.

Regards,
Jazz

I forgot I was in this game and I posted everywhere but this one.

I want to know if Farside and White castle...think be jumping on the wagon is enough of a reason to want to lynch me?

I think it was a BW vote without reason which I find the most scummiest thing so far.

[skitzer]

Wall-E in Post 100: Why? I definitely agree with hewitt here: saying all you've got is better for town rather than holding stuff back.

Jazzmyn in Post 105: Sure, but that sounds more like an easy out to me. It's all WIFOM now though.

Netlava in Post 111: I'm sorry for my cadences, but they seem to be correct in their statings. First quote was joking, second quote was exaggeration, but it is a lot more than I've ever seen anyone do it before. The third quote looks OMGUSy. Fourth quote doesn't make sense, and fifth one may have been inconsistent, but you were/still are on the bandwagon at one point.