NavyCherub wrote:I don't understand what you are calling them out for here...
Well, I wasn't really trying to put anyone's feet to the fire, but I have seen a couple different back to back votes within the same post and was wondering if there was something extra going on, like a double vote? Why else vote and then vote one line below it?
I'm pretty ambivalent about the genre claim. I don't really see it as that beneficial and it could give away a good idea on where to target power roles during the night.
Xvart raises a point; why are two players multi-voting? There are plenty of presumptions to be made regarding abilities, but perhaps we should hear from SocioPath(2) and Fate(2+1).
To be honest, I wouldn't expect two multi-voters in such a small game (especially ones being indiscreet while doing so) to be a possibility, so I'm curious as to how this will pan out.
"Not exactly related to the topic as a whole but what's the deal with putting quotes in your signature that have no relevance to your own life?" - Ythan
llamaeatataco wrote:wtf?
This is what you are saying, as far as my understanding of the word 'interpret' goes:
He's scummy because of how I interpret (put a negative spin on) his posts, but I don't put a negative spin on them.
What? So if I find something someone says to be negative, I'm putting a spin on it? In that case, sure, that's what I'm doing every time I think something is suspicious. That's what you're doing, too. And everyone. Because no one says things that are automatically negative and anti-town unless they are extremely stupid; one has to read between the lines and make that decision for themselves.
The discussion about double votes is just
stupid
at this point. I'm not sure if its rolefishing, distracting fluff, or if people are actually breaking down jokes now.
It's kind of hard to say who a scum partner is when one doesn't have a partner. Or is scum. Again, loaded question.
And I don't care if they're just goofing off with the votes; at least say you were, weren't, or are disinclined to reveal.
"Not exactly related to the topic as a whole but what's the deal with putting quotes in your signature that have no relevance to your own life?" - Ythan
UncertainKitten wrote:I dunno SP. They've run out of their own integrity to undermine, so they might be interested in...EXPANSION!
This.
Also, I take your lack of response to mean that you decline to answer. Is this correct, SP?
"Not exactly related to the topic as a whole but what's the deal with putting quotes in your signature that have no relevance to your own life?" - Ythan
Pittbunny wrote:Also, I take your lack of response to mean that you decline to answer. Is this correct, SP?
I decline to answer any questions I either deem stupid, or unhelpful.
With this exception of this one.
A satisfactory response.
"Not exactly related to the topic as a whole but what's the deal with putting quotes in your signature that have no relevance to your own life?" - Ythan
NavyCherub wrote:The discussion about double votes is just
stupid
at this point. I'm not sure if its rolefishing, distracting fluff, or if people are actually breaking down jokes now.
It's hardly rolefishing when the behavior is so blatantly obvious, and two people have done it. I'm not asking for a role claim; I just want to know what the shenanigans are for. I simply want to know if is an attempt to not indicate appropriate votes since I haven't seen anything show up out of the ordinary on the vote count. I find it especially intriguing since two people have done it.
Twomz wrote:Wait, really? You alright?
I appreciate you asking. Yes, I will be alright. I dislocated both my shoulders and almost bit my tongue off, and it jarred my memory for the past three days or so catching up has been difficult...
@UK, yes, my original vote for you was silly and random and my reason for keeping it on you before the miniwagon started was silly (the whole challenge thing). Your reaction (as I've stated in a previous post) is what kept me on you and has me advocating your lynch. I don't mind if you attack my reasons or disagree with them or explain them away or whatever, but they're there and they're not going to change without you addressing them.
@ genre claim: The reason for a useless partial claim is to draw connections and to tighten possible future role claims. It also would (hopefully) promote conversation and give some information. Any info is better than no info for the town imo.
@ double votes: If one of you isn't joking around, is town and actually has more than one vote, i ****in hate you. For town that's a very powerful ability and you shouldn't shake it around willy nilly on Day 1 without reason. As nontown it attracts attention to you so good job if your antitown, you're making the towns job easier.
Twomz's Day 1 thoughts about players so far.
CJMiller: While I appreciate the assisted pressure on UK, the reason is silly and no backup or content has been attempted from him. For shame (and screw your Day 1 policy, scum can act like scum every day of the game, and any scum you find day 1 is one less that you have to find day 2).
Cobalt: Seems to know what he's doing but doesn't like explaining his actions. I know this is going to sound like coaching (it kinda is, but from a player to player standpoint, not char to char), but dude, if you explain your vote people tend to be more likely to agree with you or are more likely to make crap arguments against the vote if they're scum (although town do that to). But I know playstyle is sometimes ingrained so w/e.
Fate: Another short poster, but he gives reasons. Don't know if he's really wagon hopping or not (cause I don't think most votes had a wagon on them), but I'll double check later (getting late and I have a BUNCH of crap tomorrow).
Jack: Seems to have a good head on his shoulders, but I can't really get a tell one way or another this early in the game.
Jason: No comment yet >.>
Llama: Pretty much same as Jack.
Navy: Read all his stuff then read something else for context and forgot everything I was gonna say about him, ARG!
Pitt: Don't know what words I'd use to describe him... but pretty sure right now 'useful' wouldn't be one >.> Looks kinda like he's just going with the flow at the beginning, and I don't really notice any serious attempts at scum hunting later on.
SocioPath: Acting kinda crazy, but besides vote jumping from person to person I don't really see anything that scummy (at least imo).
xvart: Seems protown to me, but it is day 1, so meh.
"It's not a logical inconsistency. B can't be correct because then C would be, but it doesn't go the other way - there's nothing wrong with C being correct. Aside from Twomz saying otherwise." --Mith
And now all I can think is that Sociopath is just plain anti town (I would say moron, but I don't want to overuse that) and not interested in doing anything other than acting superior and being unhelpful.
Uncertain Kitten, I'll give you one guess at how you're being a hypocrite. If you get it right, I'll give you a cookie.
It's day one, so meh, like twomz said, but I'll put it on the record that I think UK and/or sociopath are scum.
I don't see how SP is scummy at this point. He may not post long explanations for things, but at least he tells us his position on everyone and doesn't post "hey guys could there be double voter!?!?"
holy crap! I almost choked because I was laughing so hard! Srsly SP, you need to stop being such a funny guy!
SP, quit active lurking and basically spamming the thread with your useless drivel.
You might think it's funny, but all it is is annoying. You aren't helping the game any, and I am wasting my time reading the inane things you post.
so... yeah, I'd lynch CJ, SP, Pitt or UK at this point. Too bad that's like a third of the town.
llamaeatataco wrote:holy crap! I almost choked because I was laughing so hard! Srsly SP, you need to stop being such a funny guy!
SP, quit active lurking and basically spamming the thread with your useless drivel.
You might think it's funny, but all it is is annoying. You aren't helping the game any, and I am wasting my time reading the inane things you post.
