zwetschenwasser 3 - Khamisa, dejkha, AshMC1984
AceMarksman 3 - Percy, Mixologist, Dust
AA23 1 - Gorckat
Why do you say that?zwetschenwasser wrote:^scumDust wrote:Can I get meta on Hewitt's posting habits?
No, you quoted the post and said scum, which implies you think so because of that post. So why?zwetschenwasser wrote:I'VE ALREADY TOLD YOU
I think anyone would claim Seer if they didn't want to die.AA23 162 wrote:why go down as scum on a day 1 lynch when you can claim "seer" and have the real one CC (NK in the bag) and convince us to go and mislynch someone from the wagon (mafia then get two excellent deaths on their hands)
A quicklynch would look bad for anyone. I think anyone who hammered Dust before he claimed would be toast tomorrow. Your scenario is a 'best case' scenario, and it's certainly not tight.AA23 162 wrote:I think my theory is sound and worth investigating.
Dust being scum - - calling seer to coax the real one out (juicy NK) and throw a lynch from him to a mislynch on a towny from the wagon.
He lived because both werewolves were on the wagon and no scum wanted to lynch their own - hence no quicklynch hammer.
Sounds pretty tight to me so far.
OK, I'll pay that.gorkat 164 wrote:He could've said, with eihter of the square bracketed items below and I would've instantly realized it was my vote he referred to:You ask a question [about the RVS] - I answer it - [someone gorckat] votes me for my answer - you join in and express suspicion toward me
This only works if they're scumbuddies. Yes, putting it together in a sentence means this is a possible interpretation, but I just don't see it yet. Emp asked for a claim. He didn't want anyone to CC a Seer claim, which was ensuring the best result for the town. We went over this when zwetAA23 192 wrote:The very statement is "Dust, protect yourself - Everyone else, let him!"
By "lynch hunting" do you mean "scumhunting"? There's nothing stopping us looking for someone to lynch who isn't Dust. That's how this game, you know, works.AA23 196 wrote:@Dust - - My honst opinion is that telling the truth or not, you're dead by tomorrow and no longer a powerful role to the town.
If we don't lynch you, we have to risk lynch hunting which is irresponsible, often accidental, and a risk to the town - - we could lose three innocents by tomorrow morning.
If we do lynch you - - we can base our cases on the other players off of that. Knowing if you were innoent all along or one of the bad guys helps us better understand the interactions everyone was having with you.
...
Lynching you is clearing you - thus clearing anyone that has been attached to you.
...
I confess that I'm very torn.
So he posted a lot, and pushed a case too hard. Now you're backtracking.hewitt 228 wrote:At the time I believe he was number 1 in my mind for two reasons. The first is that he stuck out the most prominently in my mind as someone I disagreed with pretty much just based on quantity of posting which is not a good reason to suspect someone but he was the one I most remembered. The second is that I felt he pushed the case on Dust so vigorously and a little too forcedly in the first three pages in the game which I felt was too early.
Now though after reading back I don't think he was the scummiest but the one I disagreed with the most.
I don't know what to do with zwet, and I don't think anyone else does either. He's just scummy in every game I've ever seen him. If anyone else had done this, I would be pushing for their lynch right now. Ace has my vote, but zwet is my solid #2. hewitt is at #3.dejkha 221 wrote:Also, everyone take a look at Zwets 20 posts in isolation. No scumhunting whatsoever. All he's done is blindly agree with Ace's reasons for his vote and asked for a CC. Both of which are scummy.
To be sure that no points are being missed, I really do want everyone to give an answer on this one:Percy wrote: Re: Empking:This only works if they're scumbuddies. Yes, putting it together in a sentence means this is a possible interpretation, but I just don't see it yet. Emp asked for a claim. He didn't want anyone to CC a Seer claim, which was ensuring the best result for the town. We went over this when zwetAA23 192 wrote:The very statement is "Dust, protect yourself - Everyone else, let him!"asked directlyfor a CC, and we addressed just how bad a CC would be.
Ace lies about a meta to put a vote down and gets caught/suspected of it later - - this could make him a villain and the reasons for lying suggest Dust being a villain of the opposite variety to him.AceMarksman wrote: Reasons why I voted: See my explanation and my Dust meta (a few pages ago)
This post is riddled with the very redundencies I said was initiated by what Emp did.AceMarksman wrote:
Reasons why I stayed: My LA
Reasons for pulling off:He claimed an un-countered seer. That's good enough for me.
opinions: This is tricky.While Dust has done some scummy actions(andI don't like the circumstances of his claim ("Don't kill me, I'm the seer")), thelack of a counterclaim makes me think he is town (if you are seer and dust is not, please don't CC. We need our only PR to not be outed kthxbai).
I never let him by just because he's stupid (or whatever you wanna call him). I'd think the same of it no matter who it was.AA23 wrote:EBWOP "Emp is being Emp" meta immunity for being crazy instead of actually considering the idea I present
There are other ways of putting this claim to use. If Dust isAA23 wrote:Do we understand that asking for a claim is only usefulif we intend to see how it stands to a counterclaim/with the town?I'm not being sarcastic, I just strongly feel you've all lost something in the texthere.
Or, it could be letting the town's only power role know that he shouldn't put a huge X on his back? As it is, Dust is most likely dead tonight. If he doesn't die tonight, we'll have to go back and re-evaluate everything.AA23 wrote:Instructing a man to claim, and in the same sentence instructing everyone not to challenge it - - is communicating an immunity play to a scum buddy.
It is not scummy to not want a CC - - it is not scummy to ask for a claim - - it is scummy to instruct a player to gain the immunity of a claim whilst instructing the town not to challenge it.
Because it's not so obvious to everyone. Did you not see zwet's responses? Just because one person sees something, does not mean everyone sees it also.AA23 wrote:You have all said it yourself - - if a claim was on the way no matter what - - based on common sense and the need for survival.....why ask for it? Remember, you've all said it yourself, it's just SO expected and obvious - - why instruct both motions that cancel each other out?
No. The request of no counter-claim is to make sure if Dust isn't the Seer, the real one does not outs himself. Percy pointed this out in his post.AA23 wrote:The request of no CC is us covering our asses.
AA23 wrote:Ace lies about a meta to put a vote down and gets caught/suspected of it later...
So now an out and out contradiction is being downgraded to semantics? Why are you defending Ace?AA23 wrote:...and my points on Emp are significantly more substantial than asemantics gameplayed on Ace...