ika lied, you can't be VT and have a night action.
Not seeing a scum slip =/= defending that player.
I agree with your inequality, but ika hasn't posted squat about his night actions vs. vanilla townie and this allowed him the chance to say "I was lying to get reactions."
Would you lynch ika if it came down to lynching him or missing the deadline?
shes forced to watch the mason as i already stated so we have an ic.
if the mason dies and she claims ninja shananigns, i would call BS
if she dies we have mason going into lylo
any kills outside of that is just a huge set of WIFOM and suboptimal play
1 mason being alive in a 7 person LYLO situation is not exactly a big deal for scum.
"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 1724, Doctor Who wrote:This happened when I first replaced in and had just starting was reading the thread. Something seemed off, which is why I posted about it.
Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:17 pm <-started reading thread
Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:54 pm <- my post 1429, where I was confused. I had gotten through 210 posts in about 38 minutes. I am a slow reader.
That's great that you got something out one part of that post, the post as a whole didn't make sense to me. Ever get that feeling that you are missing something?
I know that's when you encountered that particular exchange between DT and Egg. I also encountered it after I replaced in and started reading the thread. However, even though we (supposedly) have the same role, the part of DT's question which specifically invoked our dealer flavor didn't ring any bells to you?
Also, I specifically asked you if you got anything out of any of the three questions DT asked Egg (Post 1431, Post 1432, and Post 1438). That includes DT's question about counting cards or hacking machines. I understand that you have repeatedly said that the entire post didn't make sense to you, but you specifically rejected the idea that any single question -- including the one that referenced our VT flavor -- made sense to you.
-----
Also, as an aside, it has not escaped my attention that Titus (1) was able to refence VT flavor in her veiled questions to Egg, (2) despite the fact that Titus does not have a VT Dealer rote, and (3) Titus has been the player pushing the possibility that scum would have gotten the VT flavor to have a safe claim.
@Titus:
have you claimed the name of your role?
"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 1731, Green Crayons wrote:1 mason being alive in a 7 person LYLO situation is not exactly a big deal for scum.
better then 7p lylo with all unconfirmed?
Maybe, depending upon how killing someone outside of the watcher/mason duo plays out in terms of WIFOM and momentum the following day.
And, no, I'm not voting you. I'm voting nati and so should 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).
Do floor managers oversee the card tables or something?
"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).
" bit in Post 1597? Like, she wasn't certain that's what her role PM said, or she wasn't certain if that's how her role PM would fit into Doctor Who's three types of casino employees?
"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 1734, Green Crayons wrote:I know that's when you encountered that particular exchange between DT and Egg. I also encountered it after I replaced in and started reading the thread. However, even though we (supposedly) have the same role, the part of DT's question which specifically invoked our dealer flavor didn't ring any bells to you?
Also, I specifically asked you if you got anything out of any of the three questions DT asked Egg (Post 1431, Post 1432, and Post 1438). That includes DT's question about counting cards or hacking machines. I understand that you have repeatedly said that the entire post didn't make sense to you, but you specifically rejected the idea that any single question -- including the one that referenced our VT flavor -- made sense to you.
It didn't ring any bells for me. Isolating a portions of the post that I was confused about didn't help with my understanding. I had a lot to read up on, and figured that it would make itself known in due time. I also didn't pick up on shos softclaim. What is the point that you are trying to make out of this?
" bit in Post 1597? Like, she wasn't certain that's what her role PM said, or she wasn't certain if that's how her role PM would fit into Doctor Who's three types of casino employees?
In post 1740, ika wrote:i like how dr who has yet to say his "flavor" he jsut claimed VT
Did you really ask that
Even though it is obvious?
Although this is ika so
Let's get serious:
Everyone who is vanilla
Really doesn't have night actions.
In post 1728, ika wrote:if shes not dead tommorow that is....
shes forced to watch the mason as i already stated so we have an ic.
if the mason dies and she claims ninja shananigns, i would call BS
if she dies we have mason going into lylo
any kills outside of that is just a huge set of WIFOM and suboptimal play
Disagree with me being watched really.
If they want to kill me, let them. I am not cut out to be a mason. I won't be a great loss for my scum hunting. Take the chance of picking someone else.
I hate hate hate someone telling another role what to do, especially when I am voting for them as scum.
No, the play is the correct one. We force scums hand to not kill you and weaken the lynch pool. They either kill Titus which clears up any suspicion in that case, kill you to frame Titus (if they actually have a ninja), or kill someone else for the wifom of it all.
