Open 226: Big Love - Game over! Town wins!

[don_johnson]

/kanfirmative

[don_johnson]

stop talking and asking the mod silly questions. quicktopics are supplied. use 'em if you got 'em. if dizzy doesn't want you talking then she'll tell you.

[don_johnson]

was there a question for me? i think the night0 talk question was stupid. i think its only potential was in outing those of us who have lover pms. outing lovers give scum 2fers when it comes to nightkills, so i think its best if we don't try and out the pairs.

vote: chihuahua

yip yip little doggy.

[don_johnson]

Another game, don't ask it's ongoing

then you shouldn't have brought it up.

[don_johnson]

more chi hua hua votez please.

[don_johnson]

For what reason please?

sorry, but you'll have to come up with your own.

[don_johnson]

Don: Are you saying a reason exists?

i certainly think so. but he's had only a few posts. i'm not spilling the beans just yet.

[don_johnson]

do what you want. parf would be the breadcrumb i'll refer to if asked later on. definitely need more votes on the character. can't sit around with four people at L-8 forever.

[don_johnson]

When you give your reason, I'd like to hear the pro-town reason justifying you trying to get people to vote for chiuahuhauha without giving it

^^ fluffy bunnies, that one.

i breadcrumbed it for ya. no backing out. if i give my reason it allows people to piggyback my case. i think anyone who iso's chichi should see what i saw: parf

Paranoid Attitude
Role Fishing

now he responds with a "policy" vote and an omgusy fos.

chichi: what "policy" are you referring to in your vote on muthaa?

millar: talking about ongoing games is against the rules. period.

[don_johnson]

This makes no sense. If you're going to have other people vote for him, you have to provide evidence to support your conclusion that chi needs to be hanged. Otherwise we're just voting blindly. You might as well ask for people to look for reasons to hang people, which (I hope) they are doing anyway.

you write this as though my request somehow forces others to vote. just because i ask you to vote someone doesn't mean you have to. and no. i don't have to give reasons if i don't want to. writing up "cases" is a courtesy and privilege. not a right. this is not a court of law. it is a game of mafia. you have your own reasons for voting chi, so why try and make an issue of my earlier request, especially when i explained my reasoning already?

FoS: zerofang

[don_johnson]

zero: what do you think of yabba's recent request?

[don_johnson]

okay. 6 lovers. 1 scum.

millar's chances of being scum are 1/6. do lovers commit suicide if their partner is lynched? cause that would mean lynching millar gives us a 33% chance of lynching scum. and considering that its millar, it doesn't sound like a bad idea. that's one to think on.

zero: yabba asked people to iso someone and didn't give a reason. how is that different from me asking people to vote someone without giving a reason? also, how do you address the issue of players having their own brains. again, how is asking people to vote for someone without giving a reason anti-town/scummy? or are you saying something different?

[don_johnson]

I know this was directed a Zero, but whatever.
ISOing someone doesn't nearly have the same effect as voting them. An ISO may lead to a vote, or provide a reason for a vote, so asking to ISO with no reason is the same thing as asking them to see if there is a reason. Asking someone to vote without a reason is completely different. And at the time, you weren't giving a reason why even you voted.

uh huh. i am amazed at the power i have. if i ask you to jump off a bridge without a reason, would you do it? my point is that the entire conversation is retarded. me asking for votes is just that. anyone using it as a jump off point for suspicion is reeeeeeeeeeeeaaching.

[don_johnson]

Asking people to vote isn't scummy or town. It just annoys me for whatever reason

fair enough.

It's different because yabba was presenting evidence and asking us to look. You just asked for votes without explanation. See the difference now?

he didn't give a reason.

[don_johnson]

Way to totally ignore me Don.

?? what mean you? are you referring to your sarcastic and rhetorical question?

[don_johnson]

Why is Muthaa is even voting for me anymore?

Also, Yes Don, I want you to answer. You legitimately asked if lovers commit suicide if their partners are lynched. Yes they do and you should know that, I can't believe you asked a question like that 7 pages in on a Big Love. Its just makes Robo go grrrrrrr.

i have played one previous game where i was lovers with zachrulez. thinking back, i do remember that he commited suicide the night after my lynch. i was writing the post and wanted people who read it to understand my logic. at the time, i wasn't sure. after remembering my own experience from over a year ago and reading the rules, i realize how that works now. please explain why you wanted an answer.

[don_johnson]

I wanted to know if you were really serious about the lover thing.

why?

If you Join a game based on a role then you ought know what that role means.

why? its a "game". if i can find out by asking other players, why not go with it?

Also, you can use capitalization. I always remember my first game where I typed like it was a frigging chat box and everyone told me not too. Since then I type in complete, literate sentences and preview my message before posting.

oreally? HOW'S THIS? KTHNXBYE.

[don_johnson]

i approve.

also,

v/la until july 8

[don_johnson]

just back from camping. give this a read tomorrow. surprised chichi is still kickin', but whatever.

[don_johnson]

LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
NEEEEEEEEEEE NAAAAAAAAAAW

COP please investigate this scum bag tonight!

why investigate? if you think he's scum then lynch him.

in other news:

Now you are claiming love now, Xite? How is it all apart of a plan?

I see a OMGUS vote coming...

Preview Post: @millar: And just when I thought he was completly town...You are the one who should be investigated.

yup. still scum.

[don_johnson]

chichi is scum. why are we bothering with xite and millar?

[don_johnson]

and? it all seems like pointless drivel started by a player who is inherently anti-town. seems like a really wasteful, easily scum manipulated day 1 lynch. one of the two(if not both) may be scum, but the info from the lynch would be impossibile to sift through. chichi, on the other hand has been latching onto arguments like a hungry mosquito on a fat, naked camper.

[don_johnson]

unvote, vote: xite

alrighty then.

[don_johnson]

^^ see?

he's

even considering that he might be scum.

millar's self vote is disturbing.

[don_johnson]

vote: millar

your logic is fuzzy. xite could just be playin around. kind of like you were. oh well.

[don_johnson]

unvote, vote: xite

let's do it then.

[don_johnson]

as long as there's no poo poo floating in it you should be fine.

[don_johnson]

Or read the game first so that you can see what's going on.
That's funny tho millar, mindless hammer so that A) one less town for scum (which I am now pretty sure you are) to deal with B)we can lynch you tomorrow on the mindless hammer idea

what makes you think the lurkers are town? i wish i had two votes here.

[don_johnson]

ebwop: replace "lurkers" with "replacements". thanks guys.

[don_johnson]

Hi, sorry for the day off.

Well, it seems like Xite was almost in a postion to be hammered.

I would have done it

, but...

Hi, Zajnet. We want to hear your suspects.

^^ but you don't even vote him. why are we not lynching this guy again?

[don_johnson]

^^ exactly.

unvote, vote: chihuahua

[don_johnson]

And chihuahua is coming off more nooby than scum, so I'm not voting anyone for now.

how so? please expand on this line of thinking as best you can.

[don_johnson]

Who would you lynch today?

the little yippy dog with the brief sortie of fame in Taco Bell commercials of the '90s.

[don_johnson]

i accept your offer. please produce your examples of what makes chichi more "noobtown" than scum.

[don_johnson]

maybe you should try doing something about all this stuff you're bithcin about.

[don_johnson]

guys, vote chi chi. if chi chi is town, scums killing them anyway. the quicker the lovers die or get confirmed, the sooner we find the one scum among them. no sense in running anyone else up yet. lynch chi, go to night, regroup day 2 with more info. all this pussyfooting is going to grow the thread to unrereadable proportions. thats bad for town.

[don_johnson]

davidparker wants it both ways.

wacka seems to be trying to save chi for some unknown reason.

yeah. i think we're onto something.

If you think TownChi would get killed overnight, why would we lynch them now?

i don't think chi is town.

Conversely, couldn't your argument be used on Xite as well?

no. xite claimed vanilla. different math.

And what makes you think scum would aim straight for Chi anyways?--

assuming chitown(which i don't), it would be a 2 for 1 nk that could then generate suspicion on the players who were voting to lynch him. i don't know if scum would kill him, but i certainly would in that position.

the fact that chi has been camping his vote and has dissappeared don't bode well for his slot. his own lover thinks hes scum. i see no reason not to proceed.

[don_johnson]

this is a wonderful wagon. someone finish it so we can get some sleep. waiting around for deadline is only useful if you're going to add to discussion. otherwise its a rather weak attempt at looking town.

[don_johnson]

wonderful. four confirmed townies who shouldn't claim just yet. i'm going to sift through the chichi wagon detractors and find another scum. let you know what i come up with. oh and... you're welcome.

[don_johnson]

vote: mr. sandman

iso him. its... interesting.

[don_johnson]

define "textbook".

its not in scums interest to bus the treacherous lover. if scum was on the wagon at all, it was most likely late. lynching the tl confirms four townies. try again.

if you read sandman, you will note that he spends alot of time ignoring the chihuahua situation. he even goes out of his way to mention that he is not "defending" chichi, when he clearly is. he stays focused on the xite/millar combo all day. suddenly, millar is not so attractive to him. why is that?

so someone who seems to actively avoid a day 1 scum wagon is "null" to you? i don't get it.

[don_johnson]

Internet issues have resolved themselves.

I don't think millar would be a good lynch today. If the other pairs of lover's die, it will expose him but until then, I don't see that there's much point in them jeapordising their position or risking another lover coming out to support millar if he is indeed a lover.

you see, millars lover can confirm him. lovers aren't getting lynched. they are all as good as masons. actually, as i read this again, that seems to be precisely what you are saying. hm. that doesn't change your actions yesterday. and also, you are abandoning xite as well. please explain why you are no longer suspicious of xite(or if you are suspicious, why does sv take precedence.)

[don_johnson]

dp might be a good pick for a bus. can't wait to here his reasoning for his dj vote. i do remember him playing both sides of the fence a bit yesterday, and his last couple posts are a bit odd.

[don_johnson]

Bussing the treacherous lover, and then trying to get the remaining 4 lovers to claim, is a great scum play.

whose "trying to get the remaining 4 lovers to claim"?

From what I know about Don, this behavior might just be him.

if by "behavior" you mean "excellent scumhunting" then you are correct.

i pointed out what was wrong with chichi's posts right off the bat. there was only one other player with me at that time. way too many oppurtunities to "not" lynch chichi. a bus, my vote was certainly not, by any stretch of the imagination. now zaj seems to have launched an unsubstantiated and blatantly false accusation. at no point in time have i asked or suggested that the remaining lovers claim.

i get why sandman abandoned his suspicion of millar, but votes not moving until sandman explains why he is abandoning his suspicions of xite.

next i iso chichi.

[don_johnson]

We can deal with don later.

agreed.

[don_johnson]

wonderful. four confirmed townies who shouldn't claim just yet. i'm going to sift through the chichi wagon detractors and find another scum. let you know what i come up with.

oh and... you're welcome.

"You're welcome"? Cocky aren't we? What this said to me was that he either has a huge epeen, or that he actually thinks he is the best thing the town has, and wants others to think that too.

Who benefits most from others thinking they are town? Mafia. A townie can do whatever the hell they want, because they know they are town, a mafia, needs others to believe him.

bolded is the most ignorant thing i have read in a while. good townies shouldn't be "overly" concerned with thier reputation, yes, but most games i have been in where town has won it is because several players actively take the lead in finding scum and act so god damn town its funny. townies who do "whatever the hell they want" often sink good towns.

That was the most helpful case I have EVER read, congrats. Not only did you just throw you vote around without so much as a "He seems scummy:, you just said he seems "Interesting", hell, Adam Sandler is interesting but he isn't scum, try making a case instead of telling others to do your work for you. A scum wants others to look at people with an initial feeling of scum,

for instance, if I look at all of MY posts thinking "I think this guy is scummy..." then I will undoubtedly FIND things that appear scummy, the same way that would happen if I looked at myself for townie things

, a scum wants YOU to make your own case, so no one can pick out flaws and alterior motives in his posts.

bolded sounds like a personal problem. just because you don't have the mental capacity to read someones iso and form your own opinion, don't assume everyone else is a sheep as well. if you have a question for me just ask. all you are doing is criticizing my "playstyle".

if you read sandman, you will note that he spends alot of time ignoring the chihuahua situation. he even goes out of his way to mention that he is not "defending" chichi, when he clearly is. he stays focused on the xite/millar combo all day. suddenly, millar is not so attractive to him. why is that?

so someone who seems to actively avoid a day 1 scum wagon is "null" to you? i don't get it.

Firstly, even I didn't believe you and your whole chihuahua thing until Fidelis claimed and I checked the numbers, so don't rag on people who didn't agree with you and immediately called you our "Saviour".

your language here suggests you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. i never asked you to call me your "savior". expecting a little for good scumhunting is only natural.

Secondly, why are you attacking him? Don't you think there are better people to question, and with better questions than this? I do.

don't follow you here. day isn't over. i have time to question all whom i choose to question. you are acting as though sandman is in danger of a quicklynch. he is not. there is plenty of time for discussion. when he answers my questions i will either further interrogate him, or move on.

Clinging to the past (And especially past townie looking events) is a big scum tell, and the town needs to move forward in this game, not sit back in your old "glory"

hence why i am now investigating my new suspects and asking questions and participating in day 2. noone here is "clinging to the past". your entire argument here seems to be revolving around the idea that sandman is town. how do you know sandman is town? you were obviously(and admittedly) initially wrong about chichi(when i was spot on), so why do you think i am wrong about sandman? as of yet, i don't even think he has answered my last query.

you see, millars lover can confirm him. lovers aren't getting lynched. they are all as good as masons. actually,

as i read this again, that seems to be precisely what you are saying. hm.

that doesn't change your actions yesterday. and also, you are abandoning xite as well. please explain why you are no longer suspicious of xite(or if you are suspicious, why does sv take precedence.)

OK, so 4 minutes later, you post a total contridictory post that has no purpose? Why? I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you appear to be flailing.

flailing? actually, i simply acknowledged that i had misread someones post. how is admitting ones mistakes = flailing? hint: its not. you're reaching.

dp might be a good pick for a bus. can't wait to here his reasoning for his dj vote. i do remember him playing both sides of the fence a bit yesterday, and his last couple posts are a bit odd.

Ok, so now 6 minutes later, you post ANOTHER contentless post (So far, no post on day 2 has had any analysis or pro town content at all). You again say "Look at this guy! don't look at me!" and it is starting to get old, make cases, don't point fingers.

its not contentless. it contains an observation. just because it isn't a giant quote wall doesn't mean its "contentless". it points specifically at one player and states a clear and concise opinion. if you want to know why i feel that way, you should just ask. instead,

you

are the one fingerpointing. whats funny, is that this argument seems to be based on the idea that davidparker is town. do you think davidparker is town? thats two players now who you seem to be "defending". i understand that "lovers" are now confirmed to each other, but no way could you possibly know of two confirmed townies. and yet you have levelled two attacks against me, which at their roots, seem to be based on the idea that the players i am questioning are town and not scum.

Bussing the treacherous lover, and then trying to get the remaining 4 lovers to claim, is a great scum play.

whose "trying to get the remaining 4 lovers to claim"?

From what I know about Don, this behavior might just be him.

if by "behavior" you mean "excellent scumhunting" then you are correct.

i pointed out what was wrong with chichi's posts right off the bat. there was only one other player with me at that time. way too many oppurtunities to "not" lynch chichi. a bus, my vote was certainly not, by any stretch of the imagination. now zaj seems to have launched an unsubstantiated and blatantly false accusation. at no point in time have i asked or suggested that the remaining lovers claim.

i get why sandman abandoned his suspicion of millar, but votes not moving until sandman explains why he is abandoning his suspicions of xite.

next i iso chichi.

Ok, WHAT? someone attacks you, and your response is a sarcastic rhetorical question which completely dodges the issue?!

please explain this. someone accused me of trying to out the remaining lovers by getting them to claim. how is asking for proof of said accusation a "sarcastic rhetorical question"? it was actually a real question(albeit rhetorical).

[quote="obvscum"Wow, Atleast make up a defense, if it is so obvious you aren't doing that, then it shouldn't be hard to prove it.[/quote]

innocent until proven guilty. not the other way around. someone else levied the accusation. they need to support it.

By basically waving it off, you look even more scummy to me, I mean, that is just bad play right there plain and simple.

nobody waved anything off.

You go on to get even MORE cocky, and again I will say, that the people who REALLY want to seem town, are scum, not townies. That sentence is just so bad, and pointless... and it ignores any chance you had to explain your meta (even a little bit of "Oh, i'm a cocky guy" would have sufficed there).

?? not sure which sentence you are referring to.

You then go on to say you are going to spend your scum hunting time... on a dead scum. Why? stop clinging to the past! We all know you aggressively pushed the chi lynch, but that in NO way makes you safe, I have explained above why I think you are a "Sacrificial Scum" and I think other's will see just how bad you are from some of these analysis'. At the bottom of this post, I have my vote

you don't see the value in rereading what a dead scum wrote? seriously? you are suggesting that we ignore any and all information that chichi himself posted in this thread? is that what you are suggesting?

puhleeze.

[don_johnson]

sorry. quote fail.

should read:

Wow, Atleast make up a defense, if it is so obvious you aren't doing that, then it shouldn't be hard to prove it.

innocent until proven guilty. not the other way around. someone else levied the accusation. they need to support it.

By basically waving it off, you look even more scummy to me, I mean, that is just bad play right there plain and simple.

nobody waved anything off.

[don_johnson]

No, you asked me to provide a defense, not questions. Theres a difference.

trudat.

[don_johnson]

unvote, vote: sv

L-2. may as well move this towards a claim. noone hammer please. i am still trying to find the time to reread a bit. still waiting on a response from wackjob as well.

[don_johnson]

i wouldn't count it as a scum lynch until we see an actual flip. but yeah, wacka seems like a logical next step if sv is scum.

[don_johnson]

why enigma?

[don_johnson]

mass claim benefits scum more than town with so many players alive. lovers should only claim if they have to and make damn sure they leave a way for us to identify their partners if they should succumb to a nightkill. hm. maybe a lover hypoclaim? nah. it would just allow scum to more strategically focus their attacks at this point. i'm in a couple games right now and i haven't been paying attention in any of them. i need to give them all a good once over before i start voting, but if i remember correctly, i am thinking wacka was pretty scummy in this one. meh. i'll have to reread.

[don_johnson]

728 is chock full of oodles of wisdom. it would be nice to see enigma do some scumhunting.

[don_johnson]

unvote, vote: mallowgeno

He's scum.

[don_johnson]

Ur vote was entirely unoroginal. Too far into the game for an unoroginal piggyback.

[don_johnson]

Mallowgeno is scum. Please lynch.

[don_johnson]

Mallowgeno first. If scum, zero next. More when I return from vacation.

[don_johnson]

Yes.

unvote, vote:enigma.

[don_johnson]

Enigma. Vote or die. I am perfectly happy to go back to mallowgeno, but ur voteless theory posts are getting old.

[don_johnson]

unvote, vote: mallowgeno

enigma: being confirmed doesn't mean you don't have to contribute. you know what would have been better than a lover claim? a post with actual content and scumhunting.

[don_johnson]

zero: why not vote mallowgeno?

[don_johnson]

hey guys, its my birthday. in lieu of gifts and well wishes i will be accepting mallow votes...

[don_johnson]

happy birthday to me...

[don_johnson]

Wow. This is shaping up to be the worst birthday ever.

[don_johnson]

unvote, vote: zajnet

let's do it then. sorry dp, but noone seems to be on board the mallow lynch.

[don_johnson]

yeah, but dp voted as a birthday gift. the rest of you got me nothing.

[don_johnson]

hi. i'm mallow. when you suspect me, i'll lurk. when the wind changes direction i'll show up with nothing but a hammer.

zaj: please claim.

can we please lynch mallow now? if not now, then next? he is obvscum regardless of the flip here...

[don_johnson]

@don-your grammer sucks.

its spelled "grammar", genius. anyhoo, you're scum.

[don_johnson]

mallow votes please.

[don_johnson]

so...

let's lynch mallow.

[don_johnson]

fine.

unvote, vote: robo

zero: anytime you want to put your money where your mouth is, feel free.

[don_johnson]

unvote, vote: zajnet

new wagon.

[don_johnson]

Pretty sure I'm voting zaj. Nice take votecount to try and save ur buddy. Mallowgeno: please switch.

[don_johnson]

way to go.