This.Sawyer wrote:Better question: Why would I?charter wrote:Why did none of you comment on how Robocopter voted himself?
Also Kirby: did you actually get told you were a dayvig, or were you just joking? (serious question)
Trix, lucky and sonny.Robo wrote:ok, looking at the cc's. I think snap and toucan sam are most likely to be scum. What do you guys think?
You just attempted to daykill someone in RVS who hasn't posted (besides confirmation) based completely on meta. That is incredibly scummy. But i agree that scum probably wouldnt have a daykill.Kirby wrote:Also,
Daykill: charter
Last time I played with you was Second String Muppets. You were so confusing...
Voting for yourself in RVS isnt scummy.charter wrote:SSBF, xvart, Xscorpion, hiphop, Kirbyoshi, and Sawyer. Why did none of you comment on how Robocopter voted himself?
Robocopter, why shouldn't we lynch you right now?
My point was that there is zero town motivation to fake a daykill in the confirmation stage of the game. If it is, indeed, a fake daykill it was poorly orchestrated and even more poorly executed. The point of a fake daykill is to get a reaction from the person being "killed" and hopefully get him/her to confess or spill additional information. On the other hand, now scum do fake day kills to score town points because of the original nature of the gambit. When I saw the daykill the thing that first came to mind, given the context and timing was an overeager, poor planning scum member saying "Super Smash Bros. Fan, 48 wrote:However, xvart's reaction in particular bothers me. Usually, I consider people overreacting to fake daykill attempt a null tell, as it is common for people to overreact to them. However, I make an exception to this rule with xvart's comment regarding the fake daykill attempt. I find the below quote scummy:When you go as far as to say you'll vote him after the next votecount if a person doesn't die due to a fake daykill atttempt, this is not something I like. I don't see how an obviously fake daykill attempt is scummy at all, let alone worthy of a vote. I will be keeping a close eye on you throughout this game.xvart wrote:I will be voting you after the next votecount if charter does not die.
As scum, he could have thought he was gaining town points.Sawyer, 49 wrote:But if he couldn't really daykill, there would have been nothing to gain as no one would have died.
Exactly. If it was a gambit, it did hurt him. Can you think of any reason a pro-town member would fake daykill on the second page during the confirmation stage? Since I really can't, that means if the daykill was fake, it is more likely to be scum motivated.Sawyer, 49 wrote:Basically what I'm saying is, if Kirby was attempting a gambit, he would've been found out right away and it most likely would've only hurt him. So I see no reason to think someone would even attempt that gambit right now, let alone when it would likely only have negative effects toward him.
Because, in my one-game experience with Robo, he's somewhat of a VI. He does dumb stuff like that. It's null.charter wrote:Why did none of you comment on how Robocopter voted himself?
No. He was town PGO, I believe.xvart wrote:Was charter scum in the game where he was "so confusing"?
I'll admit, it wasn't charter by himself. It was the combination of everyone, including a pretty good scumteam.xvart wrote:Did his confusion cost you the game?
I look forward to that (not really).xvart wrote:I will be voting you after the next votecount if charter does not die.
I lol'd.bouncy.bouncy wrote:Toucan Sam quickly pulls out his gun and points it at Lucky.
BANG!
The shot hits the leprechaun right in the forehead.
Too bad Sam's ammo was a little different. This shot bounces right off of Lucky. It was a Froot Loop. A blue one.
You cannot be serious. It was a joke.Sawyer wrote:Kirby, do you have any ideas as to why the kill didn't work?
Agree. @Robo, why did you not mention xvart in your list of players who are "too jumpy"?SSBF, in response to Robo, wrote:As if xvart didn't just jump to the conclusion that Kirbyoshi's fake daykill attempt = vote if it didn't work?
I will neither confirm nor deny, but I will say that if I am, I kill by PM, not in-thread. The in-thread was just a joke.Xscorp wrote:Also Kirby: did you actually get told you were a dayvig, or were you just joking? (serious question)
This. +1 town point for discerning the real reason.jenni wrote:Gentlemen, I think everyone is missing the underlying point of Kirby's (Toucan Sam) "daykill"...it's so obvious that the imperialist British bird just wanted to take a pot shot at the subjugated Irish leprechaun, amirite?
I assume you're serious, so you're welcome. That is the benefit of doing stuff like that, it gets people thinking about whether or not I was serious.jenni wrote:It's still early in the game and discussion is really just starting now (thanks for that, Kirby).
Why are you so narrow-minded?xvart wrote:Can you think of any reason a pro-town member would fake daykill on the second page during the confirmation stage? Since I really can't, that means if the daykill was fake, it is more likely to be scum motivated.
Sounds a bit like rolefishing here. Why are you asking Kirbyoshi if he was a dayvig or not?XScorpion wrote:Also Kirby: did you actually get told you were a dayvig, or were you just joking? (serious question)
Congratulation on the first quote that shamelessly parrots other people opinions. *sarcasm*Zang wrote:Voting for yourself in RVS isnt scummy.
The votecount has already come by, charter is still alive, and you've made three posts so far after that votecount. Yet no vote on Kirbyoshi coming from you. Pretty interested in why you're still holding your vote, especially after you've explained a few times why you found Kirbyoshi's fake daykill attempt scummy.xvart wrote:I will be voting you after the next votecount if charter does not die.
Because I wanted to know if Kirby was actually told by the mod "you are a dayvig." If he was, then he's pretty obv. town.Sounds a bit like rolefishing here. Why are you asking Kirbyoshi if he was a dayvig or not?
Your whole "vote Robo and see what happens idea" is inherently scummy in nature, and as such, I believe (quite strongly by this point) that you are scum. Scum "wait and see what happens" whereas townies "make stuff happen". Plus, your timing of it was bad, how you posted some, then did some RVSing. Then, the degree that you're pushing the idea (of which nobody seems to have much interest in following) I find pretty bad.XScorpion wrote:Sawyer is a little hasty to call Kirby town, but I like him otherwise.
SSBF is behaving consistently with his town meta, but I don't know his scum meta.
So...why are you 99% sure I'm scum? Also why aren't you voting Robo?
We don't need to know Kirbyoshi's role now. Yes him saying that he was a dayvig and then proving his role would make him a confirmed townie (Unless the mod decided to be bastardly and give him an anti-town alignment), but that would also make him an obvious target for a NK. Had he answered your question, if he had answered "yes", he would likely face a NK. If he had answered "no", that just give scums one less possibility of a role that they have to speculate about and helps narrow down what role they are.XScorpion wrote:Because I wanted to know if Kirby was actually told by the mod "you are a dayvig." If he was, then he's pretty obv. town.
Although in that case, it would have been nice to know before the mod posted the flavour.
Not seeing how that's enough to make me a worthy lynch candidate. I don't see how that makes Kirbyoshi scummy, let alone worthy of a vote. Sure I can understand xvart's reason, but I'm still not convinced that Kirbyoshi is scummy. If Kirbyoshi was serious about daykilling someone, he would have done it later in the game and someone he's convinced that person is scum. As a result, as I think it's a null/slight town tell, I will not fake a negative reaction just to blend in the crowd.charter wrote:Actually, it's probably SSBF with his whole "There is definently an overreaction to Kirbyoshi's fake daykill attempt. I knew this wasn't serious, so I saw no point in making a negative reaction to it." speech.
XScorpion: I find him slightly scummy. He's not 99% scum to me, but based off what we have, the best lynch. I agree that the role fishing is scummy and already explained why. When asked by Robocopter87 to explain why he's suspicious, XScorpion danced around that using RVS comments.charter wrote:XScorpion, Sawyer, and SSBF, what is your opinion of the other two?
Considering how I explain why scum wouldn't fake daykill, I don't need a town motivation.xvart wrote:Exactly. If it was a gambit, it did hurt him. Can you think of any reason a pro-town member would fake daykill on the second page during the confirmation stage? Since I really can't, that means if the daykill was fake, it is more likely to be scum motivated.
I have seen legit DayKills made in thread like you did and since the mod acknowledged it, I saw no reason not to believe you really tried. And your reasons to kill charter are very realKirby wrote:You cannot be serious. It was a joke. I am not a dayvig. Or, if I am, the ability is used through PM, not in-thread. Hope that clears things up :rolleyes: