In post 37, Perfect Chaos wrote:I think it does, and you should know why I am asking. I'm not saying that it is a 100% tell, but the only game I can remember us being in together where you didn't rvs me was where you were scum. Or at least thats how I remember it, and i'm being lazy about checking out that game.
FF - been on all three lynch wagons, was "convinced" to vote Nati
even though he hadn't voted her all game
. Lynch on Nati could be bussing. If you are going to bus a scumbuddy, might was well be on vanilla scum.
GC - also been on all three lynches, but was on the start of the Nati wago. Likely town.
shos - on first and third lynches. Likes to vote around a lot (had voted 9 times day 1)
ika - on all three lynches. Although Nati was stum, ika apparently likes to hammer no matter what (which is convenient when bussing). That said, ika's predecessor Beck was all over Nati from the start day 1, this makes me re-evaluate my read on ika (even though I'm still bothered by a VT having night actions).
BBT - on all three lynches, had been voting Nati for a while before.
Titus - has yet to be on a lynch.
DW - also has yet to be on a lynch. I hadn't replaced in until Day 3, and Day 3 ended before I got a chance to post.
Nati was not on the Day 1 mislynch, which pretty much guarantees at least one scum on the lynch wagon.
Based on just votes, FF moves up my scumlist.
Day 4: 4 votes required out of 7 players - Deadline is Sat 11/22/14 12:00 EST; updated through post 1862
Name_______________Count___Voters (Post)
Titus
_______________4______ika (1796),
shos (1804)
, Formerfish (1833), Doctor Who (1862)
ika_________________1______BlueBloodedToffee (1830)
no vote_____________1______Green Crayons
shos________________1______Titus (1824)
.
Scum is in FF / GC / BBT. If ika is scum, then kudos.
FF - came in out of nowhere to vote Nati (hadn't voted her before - I need to look at ISO to see if there was even any suspicions).
GC - bogus case on me (and since Titus was town, how could Titus directly have asked about being a dealer), brings up how he suspected me along with Titus and shos. That's 0 for 3, with 0 for 2 confirmed.
BBT - process of elimination, Beck covers ika's sins to me since Beck was on PB from the start. Admittedly, I don't like ika's playstyle at all, but the meta from confirmed dead town fits. I need to ISO and see where the votes where when BBT claimed.
Why wouldn't this be obvious to you? After all, you saw the "dealer" in Titus post that you are trying to hang me with. I'm town - I saw something that I didn't understand so I asked. Would scum put things do such a thing?
So by your own logic, should we all suspect you for asking if we are in LYLO?
This is you trying to amp up suspicions of me posting stream of conscious thoughts.
"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).
(As opposed to the substance of those thoughts, which is what is suspicious about your posts.)
"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).
forget about each ohter for one moement then you guys ca go back to suspecting each other cus the fact that they are not here atm makes me think that they are sitting around waiting on us to go at each ohter
I ISOd fish, and these where all the finds on "nati"
In post 1296, Formerfish wrote:Nati isn't suspect to you? Not really doing too much in the game, vote parking right now with tons of shit going on? And are you saying you don't believe the watcher claim from Titus?
In post 1303, ika wrote:maybe b/c anroius knows my shit meta?
maybe b/c we have played before?
maybe b/c hes thinking?
for nati shes alwasy lurkaderp
Maybe you could shut the fuck up for a minute when I am not talking to you and let the guy who was asked the question answer first? You want me to vote you, jump into my line of investigation again and I will vote you on policy alone.
In post 1308, Formerfish wrote:Nati, you have not, but that made me feel warm and fuzzy inside. It could have also been the tasty frosted beverages I am drinking.
And I did see your answer Ika, do I need to comment on everything at once or can I be pissed at you for being a jerk for a second?
In post 1714, Formerfish wrote:I've started this post like 6 times now. I am stuck in circular thinking because a 7 person. Lylo scares the shit out of me. I feel like Nati could be scum, but feel stronger about other people. I would compromise if I had to but I'm still pushing other people first.
^At the time of this post, the Nati wagon had just GC and BBT.
In post 1778, Formerfish wrote:Its not so much that I care about people going vla, its that I get a little annoyed when multiple people in the same game are on extended vla coming into a deadline.
And Green I'm glad that you took that away from what I was saying, [sarcasm]because that's like totally my point.[/sarcasm]
Fuck it.
Vote Nati
^Kapow! In post 1772 shos had voted Nati, giving her 3 of 5 votes needed for a lynch. This pushed the wagon to 4 (L-1).
(and since Titus was town, how could Titus directly have asked about being a dealer),
brings up how he suspected me along with Titus and shos. That's 0 for 3, with 0 for 2 confirmed.
lol
This is a great way to try to spin the situation. The point is that Titus's comment about cheating at cards implicates the dealer flavor - which was obviously inadvertent on Titus's behalf because she wasn't scum or a VT dealer. Regardless of the inadvertent nature of Titus's comment, however, the implication relating to dealer is still there.
"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 did a quick skim of shos last posts of the game after the day started, and caught the same post (there's another as well) suspecting FF. Nobody else seems to have been suspecting FF, and both Titus and I had gone so far as to say that FF was in the town column, so a bit of NK WIFOM makes me suspicious of him.
Will ISO and get back to you with further thoughts.
"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).
(and since Titus was town, how could Titus directly have asked about being a dealer),
brings up how he suspected me along with Titus and shos. That's 0 for 3, with 0 for 2 confirmed.
lol
This is a great way to try to spin the situation. The point is that Titus's comment about cheating at cards implicates the dealer flavor - which was obviously inadvertent on Titus's behalf because she wasn't scum or a VT dealer. Regardless of the inadvertent nature of Titus's comment, however, the implication relating to dealer is still there.
wut? thats not what is in 1950.
im looking more at PC interaction with your pretacetor then you.
iso PC and desp convos and tell me if it looks like TvS or TvT
Why wouldn't this be obvious to you? After all, you saw the "dealer" in Titus post that you are trying to hang me with. I'm town - I saw something that I didn't understand so I asked. Would scum put things do such a thing?
So by your own logic, should we all suspect you for asking if we are in LYLO?
This is you trying to amp up suspicions of me posting stream of conscious thoughts.
Stream of conscious is what you are trying to pin on me - it is hypocritical (aka scummy) for you to suspect me and then except others to exempt you for doing the same thing.
What do you think about Fish, specifically his Nati vote?
I'm not typically fond of NK analysis, but shos kill is actually perplexing. Titus went out saying that everyone should look at shos today. BBT said that he was willing to vote shos. I said I was willing to vote shos. Why wouldn't scum leave such red meat alive unless if it was to protect themselves from shos' suspicion?
In post 634, Perfect Chaos wrote:Beck, are you fucking dense? DT already went down the road that you are going down and came to the correct conclusion, that they misread what I wrote fitting what they were looking for.
My question may not have been formed in the best way, so I'll rephrase so you can understand it better. I asked if they saw Desp visit Egg when no one else did.
What that means is "You (DT) are claiming to have watched Egg last night. You say that you have a guilty (basically) on Desp as a result. So I want to clarify that you saw Desp and no one else visit Egg last night."
Does that make it easier for you to understand.
Jesus, in every game I play as town I either get accused of being the most manipulative scum player ever or a fucking moron.
In post 666, Beck wrote:I think its hilarious your hydra partner has to come rescue you. Now I'm more sure than I already was
Did you just break the ceiling and find a level of more assuredness than 100%. You know what, Metal, we have to give in to this guy. He is now more than 100% sure that we are scum, and he would know because he has been around for so long and has played so many games with us to know that we are scum with more than 100% certainty.
Beck, you do know how hydras work right? We both post from the same account, talk to each other about the game, and play together. Yet you find something scummy in the other half of our little duo posting when we are right in the middle of what is currently going on. You sir are the donkey at the table trying to push around a huge stack bluffing the whole way. Well, I will tell you this, we have the nuts and you are going to lose if you call us on it.
Oh man this looks like taunting a town.
"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 1959, Doctor Who wrote:What do you think about Fish, specifically his Nati vote?
From my POV, if there was a bus on Nati it was either BBT or FF. I doubt it was BBT because he was the one who actually convinced me to get back to the Nati vote. So if there was a bus on Nati, FF is it.
"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).
Tell you what though, I will help bus Desp. He has to be scum here
.
Vote: Desp
If this is the game that you act scummy as fuck as town to fuck with my read on you, then brafuckingvo bro.
Setting up my slot to get some votes if FF flips scum.
-----
Just hit the part where FF is all "Desp is scummy because he hasn't really stated his suspicions on me." Reminded me that Desp and FF are IRL bros and Desp's unstated suspicions are likely based on that. I'm sending a time-traveling high five to Desp to thank himi for his IRL insight.
-----
Weird interaction with Nati in Post 992, Post 993, Post 994, and 995, where FF asks Nati her thoughts on Desp, Nati says that she finds Desp pretty suspicious, FF asks Nati to vote Desp, and then Nati declines. Three possible justifications for Nati's actions: (1) I'm her scummate, and she didn't want to bus; (2) FF is her scummate, and she didn't want to look too cozy with a scummate; or (3) Nati didn't want to have to do shit in this game and thought lurking was the best tactic.
"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).
Yeah but what if you two are the last two scum and I'm just being played?
"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).
does anyone else see the underlying problem that i have with a "tourist"
Ugh, but so credited.
"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).