Something about BBT's play didn't sit right with me from my read through. It's like he's trying too hard to be open about his reads. That's the best way I can put it.
For example, his shift on the beck/ika slot doesn't look genuine. BBT had a strong town read on beck the entire game. ika makes a few flippant posts D2, and BBT votes ika right out of the gate in D3. And from then on he's been just dumping all over ika to further support his ika vote.
"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).
In post 1426, Green Crayons wrote:Something about BBT's play didn't sit right with me from my read through. It's like he's trying too hard to be open about his reads. That's the best way I can put it.
For example, his shift on the beck/ika slot doesn't look genuine. BBT had a strong town read on beck the entire game. ika makes a few flippant posts D2, and BBT votes ika right out of the gate in D3. And from then on he's been just dumping all over ika to further support his ika vote.
do any of the three sentences DT posted in Post 205 make sense to you?
"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).
"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).
yup, that's it. At least for now. I'm not really making a push for your vote atm, just throwing out something that stuck with me from my read through.
Also, I think ika's 1v1 isn't a good idea. Are 1v1's a thing that has become A Thing?
"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).
I'm surprised that someone could have really been this sure at this point in the game. The point on Aronis looks like someone asking for a daykill.
At this point it seems clear that DT / egg would not get lynched as they are connected somehow, so wouldn't that mean they should have been on the same list?
do any of the three sentences DT posted in Post 205 make sense to you?
... but there are more than three sentences in that post?!?
Were they claiming something?
I was talking about DT's three questions.
"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).
In post 478, Dr Pants wrote:I personally think we should no lynch today, and this will be one of the few times I actually suggest this. Here's why:
a) Given how unfocused town currently is, no-lynching and possibly adding extra days to the game benefits town
b) Unless town magically shows up in the final minutes, scum has control of who gets lynched
c) The top suggested compromise is on Aronis, and is being led by one of my scum reads, so screw that
If anyone wants to try to convince me otherwise they are welcome to, I'll check in on the game before the end of the day
From one doctor to another the reasons you are giving really have nothing to do with this game.
a) how focused are any games day 1? (not very)
b) day 1 starts at a really high ratio of town-to-scum, meaning it is less likley to be scum controlled.
c) everyone should have scumreads, but folks need lynchin'. There is a 100% chance of not lynching scum when you no lynch.