As of my scumlist: I still think charter is scum based on that claim, and he has been fairly scummy for a while; Xdaamno is scummy, but I'm not convinced of his guilt now; and the people who are pushing my wagon based on the fact that I decided to interact rather than lag behind--Izzy, Patrick I assume (although I don't see any explicit reason for his vote), and Ether I assume (her apparent case on me never got produced).
Xdaamno wrote:I'd like to hear Yos' opinion on OGML's proposal, ftr.
Yos, you missed this a page back.
Well, I kind of though I answered it. His proposal that we speedlynch the guy who just claimed an easily confirmable role on day 1? I'm against it, obviously. Or were you talking about something else?
I want us to win just for Yos' inevitable rant alone. -CrashTextDummie
What I highlighted in 539, didn't really like his rebuttal in 547, then only voting for me after others had.
His voting record recently is really bad in my opinion. He's been on me and Korts, and there's zero reason to lynch either of us today. He was on Dizzy before, and I thought his case against her was good, but it magically vanished at one point, never to hear another word from it again.
DizzyIzzyB13: For the record, I /ghooked Cogitate :p
ChannelDelibird: Well, for the record, FUCK YOU
ChannelDelibird: ;_;
DizzyIzzyB13: Cogitate is shorter. :(
DizzyIzzyB13: Sorry, CD
ChannelDelibird: Well, at least that's the first time a girl has told me "it's not short enough"
Yeah, 656 is inaccurate. Unless if charter can tell us who is going to be targeted for a NK?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
charter wrote:We shouldn't lynch Korts. There's an easy way to tell if he's telling the truth. Still want dizzy or Yos or Incog lynch.
How exactly do we confirm Korts?
Well, not "confirm" quite, but if a cop claims at some point in the future, we just tell Korts "you protect the cop from now on; if the cop dies and you're still alive, we lynch you." Then either A. the scum avoid killing the cop, or B. Korts dies protecting the cop, or C. The cop dies but we find out Korts was lying scum.
Again, we can't actually "confirm" him, but bodyguard is a very useful role, and one that it's unlikely a scum will fake. Also, I tend to buy it from a setup balance standpont; we know there's probably a cop because I'm a miller, and while cop+doc is overpowered, cop+bodyguard is kind of ok.
I want us to win just for Yos' inevitable rant alone. -CrashTextDummie
What would you say if we have a miller + tracker? How much sense would that make?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Thunderstorms in my area keep cutting off my 'net, so I can't really say much at this time.
I, too, would like to know how we can easily see if Korts is telling the truth like charter mentioned.
Yosarian2, why would a scum be unlikely to fake the role of Bodyguard?
[ooc][color=black]patrickgower2006 (8:12:03 PM): all beer tastes same to me
patrickgower2006 (8:12:07 PM): like dish water
If you see Patrick drinking dish water, please try and stop him. Friends don't let friends drink dish water.[/color][/ooc]
Green Crayons wrote:What would you say if we have a miller + tracker? How much sense would that make?
Well, there's always the chance the mod was just screwing with me and there's not actually a cop, like how some mods like putting a nurse into a setup without a doc, and if that's the which case then I'm a giant red herring.
To answer your question, though, I tend to doubt there are two info roles and a bodyguard. Also, my role specifically said I look guilty to cop investigations, not to tracker roles or any other info role.
I want us to win just for Yos' inevitable rant alone. -CrashTextDummie
Incognito wrote:Thunderstorms in my area keep cutting off my 'net, so I can't really say much at this time.
I, too, would like to know how we can easily see if Korts is telling the truth like charter mentioned.
Yosarian2, why would a scum be unlikely to fake the role of Bodyguard?
Well, for the reasons I just gave; if a cop claims (and cops eventually do tend to claim), then the scum is in a bad position; if they kill the cop, and the claimed bodyguard is still alive, then the claimed bodyguard probably gets lynched (since a real bodyguard should always protect the cop); on the other hand, if the scum just let the claimed cop live, then that generally leads to an easy town win.
I want us to win just for Yos' inevitable rant alone. -CrashTextDummie
Yos' details about his role pm being specific to cop investigations is giving me food for thought. I could, just maybe, see him as a town and a red herring.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
. Barring a counterclaim, I don't feel comfortable lynching him. I have almost no time right now, but will look over and place a vote before deadline. Nothing particularly appealing is jumping out right now.
Primpod 11:13 pm
chamber can you please come to ukmeet
i would love to finally touch your face
Stuff Ether didn't end up posting wrote:Mostly your Izzyvote and flip to Xdaamno when you picked up flak for it. I'm not wild about your refusal to read the posts you missed, but like the fact that you fell behind in the first place less. (I am aware that this is hypocritical.)
[...]
I don't like Charter's independent actions, but the fact that so many people have expressed suspicion of him gives me pause. And like he said, his Incoghate's hardly gonna get him anywhere. (Also, your expressed suspicion seemed particularly detached at the time, and I'd find you a likely partner anyway. This bit is somewhat less true now because you voted him.)
I failed to clarify this immediately because I'd switched to Charter.
I still think you're scum, but I agree that it's sub-optimal to lynch you now. (I would not support a counterclaim.)
unvote
I'm not as confident with lynching Izzy or Xdaamno, but I'll hop either for the deadline. I'll
unvote; vote: DizzyIzzyB13
now; WIFOMing myself over Xdaamno's play as scum in the marathon Chosen, mostly.
Hmm. Incognito, is Camn scum?
As I move my vote
Towards your wagon, town is taking note
It fills my head up and gets louder and
I'd rather lynch Korts, but charter's a viable second choice. I am uncomfortable with the notion that they should suddenly be let off because of unconfirmable power role claims, especially since I seem to suddenly be the default lynch and I'm just a vanilla townie. Korts and charter were scummy enough to have wagons before they made their unconfirmable claims, and charter particularly went as far as to say that "Korts is easily confirmable" to get the heat off him, even though he isn't.
DizzyIzzyB13: For the record, I /ghooked Cogitate :p
ChannelDelibird: Well, for the record, FUCK YOU
ChannelDelibird: ;_;
DizzyIzzyB13: Cogitate is shorter. :(
DizzyIzzyB13: Sorry, CD
ChannelDelibird: Well, at least that's the first time a girl has told me "it's not short enough"
Dizzy: charter putting "mason" into someone's role name which we will see when they die is a pretty confirmable action. Kort's dying/not dying when he should be protecting an investigative role is a pretty confirmable action.
I would say that they are confirmable power role claims. How are you suggesting that they are not confirmable at all? If you wanted to throw out legitimate criticism, I would have thought you would have argued that charter's ability doesn't make him town or that Kort's ability might take too long to test - and thus if he's lying, he might already be a part of the mafia majority by the time it comes down to realizing we should string him up.
Those are the criticisms that come to mind.
Not
that their roles are flat-out unconfirmable. I would like to know why you think we can't confirm either of these roles at all, because that just looks like a big fat lie?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
