Deadline is on
Needed to lynch a fool: 7 votes
If by deadline no one has 7 votes the fool is the player with more votes
If two fools share the top score of votes the foolest among them is decided by
But I will keep my eyes on you.
DR
spring seems to be saying there was more coming in the way of answers and DK is pushing hard for them. I hadn't made up my mind yet because of apparently incomplete info.Claus wrote:Gorkcat, Armix, Alabaska: What do you think of the headbutting between Spring and DP?
I have been a bit tunneled on Al, and GW hasn't done anything yet. Do you think if GW is scum that Flame(RoN) is, too?Claus wrote:GW, on the other hand, is getting much less attention than he deserves. He is not really lurking - he comes to post no-content posts, starts staying away from the RoN wagon, then answer questions for him when DP starts questioning him, then joins the bandwagon when it gets popular.
Well, I believe 169 says how I feel fairly well, but if you want something as specific as if they are town or scum, I'm not sure yet. I think that people are biased against DP because of his rhyming even if they don't know it. I'm trying to read him objectively, but I find myself skimming over his posts more often than not, slightly irritated. I think because he is a little harder to read than the others, his posts aren't being analyzed or thought about compared to the rest of ours. I think they've both made good points so far and if I had to say, I would agree with the town v. town you said, Claus.Claus wrote:gorkcat, armlx, Alabaska: What do you think of the headbutting between Spring and DP?
Interesting. GW really slipped under my radar.Claus wrote:GW, on the other hand, is getting much less attention than he deserves. He is not really lurking - he comes to post no-content posts, starts staying away from the RoN wagon, then answer questions for him when DP starts questioning him, then joins the bandwagon when it gets popular.
To put it quite frankly, I don't right now. Once one of them dies it could be useful, but for now drawing any conclusions from it seems iffy at best, except maybe to see who falls on whose side of the argument.Claus wrote: Gorkcat, Armix, Alabaska: What do you think of the headbutting between Spring and DP?
Al in Post 64 wrote:Ah. I see. I read that part as the was drivel because there was no one nightkilled and therefore nothing to talk about at the beginning of day 1. My apologies.
@Drunken Piper:Yeah I meta'd him, and I do think this stance on random voting is odd, as he random voted in others games. I just wasn't sure random voting is what he was ranting about. Also, kudos on the rhyme.
Again not liking post 86 of Ration.Al in Post 83 wrote: Prod RoTN for me, won't ya mod?
BTW,did anyone do a meta on Ranger to see if he random voted in other games?Just checking.
And he FOSes Roueben in 141 for him doing the samearmlx in 78 wrote:I whole heartedly agree. Ranger has been Mish-Mashing a heck of a lot since his last post too.
Moving past teaching game lessons.
Unvote, Vote Ranger
Post.
In 144 armlx says 'lynching people who do not post is wrong' - I agree but Rogueben only said 'voting' - not 'lynching' - Overprotective much?armlx wrote:Fixed,Rogueben wrote:
Mod: Can you prod Sir Tornado and DeanWinchester
If Dean does not post in the next couple of days I will seriously considervotinghaving someone replacehim.FOS Roguebenfor suggesting we do the mod's job for him.
QFT. Lolgorckat wrote:I have been a bit tunneled on Al
Wow. Good Catch. I missed that completely.ooba wrote:Nothing wrong with Roguben's 122 PbPa - Can't belive he missed Al's contradiction though
Alabaska J wrote:PBPA of GhostWriter:
15: Criticizes RotN heavily for his post butdoesn't vote him. Seems almost like coaching to me.
16: Corrects grammar.
49: Refuses to get into an argument about random voting. Similar stance to RotN. Dunno what that may mean, but thought I'd bring it up. Also, this post prevents him from being labeled a lurker like RotN and others, as he responds to armlx.
54: Corrects me about RotN's now infamous post.
57: Claims to have meta'd RotN, kind of bends to DP.
59: I have no idea what kind of content this post is supposed to bring to the table. He's definitely not arguing with anyone; I'm pretty sure we all understand this fact. He's not answering DP's question, he just…posting. Dunno who it's supposed to be directed at. I'm guessing this was just to prevent him being labeled a lurker? It's almost like he's buffing his post count here.
62: Points out to me where RotN is against random voting, even though DP already had. Looking at the time stamps, though, probably just sarnath'd.
Side Note: ooba's 63 is probably the most ironic post in the game so far.
77: Votes Ranger. Ranger wagon is gaining steam. Only one vote on him, though. If RotN and GW are scum, then GW is definitely distancing here. Great timing, as the third vote follows soon after. Second vote isn't very suspicious out of context.
Side Note: Dean's 79 is the best pot-calling-the-kettle-black since kitchenware could talk.
136: Logically defends his RotN vote. RogueBen was the first to notice anything scummy about him, ends his 13 day posting drought.
159: Unvotes Ranger. Ranger had been replaced, but Flameaxe had not yet (and still hasn't) posted anything to counteract GhostWriter's suspicions voiced earlier about Ranger. Seems very premature to me. Everyone else got off the Ranger wagon because of voting other people. Not GW. Doesn't want to vote his scumbuddy for no reason, I suppose.
163: Defends Dean's lurking. Dean has only posted twice, though. This post is definitely an understatement.
168: Defends rhyming. Honestly, I agree with this post. If DP rhymed only in games where he was scum, it would be different. However, doesn't address RW directly and just says "none of you" when talking about voting DP. RW just voted DP for a reason you don't like! Why ignore that? I could let this go as no treading the thread if RW's post wasn'ttwo posts above him!Seems like he's avoiding confrontation to me.
Alright, lets get started, then, shall we?GhostWriter wrote:I'll just start explaining the things that I can. You just figure out where they go, it won't be hard to figure out.
I'll tell you why it's coaching. Because you criticize him forI didn't vote for him because I did not feel that JUST because he said that was a reason to vote for him. Big whoop, he didn't like the part of the game where pointless votes were placed and everyone talked about nothing in general until someone "slips" and enough can be said about them to cause a lynch. If he did not want to participate in the part of the day that was indeed random. However, I did later vote for him, because I felt that part of the day had been moved past and that he needed to contribute. Also, why the heck would I coach anyone. He's way more experienced than I am, why would I coach him?
It ended the random voting stage and brought us into day one proper. That's seems like a good enough reason to me. Although you do have a tendency to avoid discussion.I did refuse to get into the argument over the ethics of random voting, because it did nothing. I saw no point, therefore I did not get into it.
Doesn't quite fit, diction-wise and all, but I'll accept that.59 was aimed at the post before it, where DP had stated that Ranger had picked this game to do the whole "no random voting, no day start, thing, and I simply said that this is why it got so much attention. Because he hadn't done this in any other game when we meta'd him.
Also, about 54, big whoop, I corrected you so that you wouldn't have the wrong idea.
Point this out please. I';m sure it's there, I just can't find it for some reason.I already explained 77 in the first response, not going to repeat it.
My bad. Didn't remember your sig in the PBPA.136, about that "drought", I posted in the V/LA thread that I was going to be at a National competition in Orlando. I put it in my signature. I had no computer access, and the only time I got online was through a cell phone, that couldn't handle looking at whole threads, so I responded to prod pm's only. If no one noticed the sig, and no one checked the V/LA thread, then I apologize.
Your vote of Ranger already seemed reluctant and you seemed to be looking for an opportunity to take it off. Besides, he had to seem somewhat scummy for you do vote him, right? Replacements have the same role, so it stands to reason guilty until proven innocent in this case. Unless, you never wanted to vote Ranger in the first place and did so to avoid suspicion.I unvoted Flameaxe because he deserves the chance to make me suspicious or to take away my suspicions, and I did not feel he deserved the vote. I gave the vote to Ranger in the first place, due to his inactivity. I took it off the replacement because the replacement is supposed to cure that inactivity. I had nothing else on Ranger, seeing as he did not talk, so what reason would there have been to stay on the vote?
I actually did meta Dean (by accident, I read a game he happened to be in) and you're right. He does post a shockingly low amount. However, this is still defending him, technically, although without the implications of the first time I accused you of it.I did NOT defend Dean, I stated that he had a tendency to do this, because you all deserve to know. I actually believe he'll be replaced. Meta him yourself and see how much he talks in the majority of his games.
Drunken Piper wrote:The game is on, however I am dark stalker naïve.
But love Dead’s games, and this will be great I believe.
Before you ask, I don’t have a Post Restriction.
Like a foot fetishist, to Big Feet, I have a rhyming addiction.
I find Ranger’s first post quite strange,
A quick meta showshe has never given that speech before, why the change?
Vote Ranger
Matter of fact, it seems he does partake in the random vote stage,
which make me wonder why he isn’t here on this first page?
Drunken Piper wrote: Again I put forth my question,
Ranger, why the “I will not random vote” confession.
Anyone who is Hands On and metas you they will see.
You in other games placing some random votes with glee.
Explain why youshould be playing different here.
While I sit and guzzle my beer.
Thoughts please,
since many of you are just shooting the breeze.
Drunken Piper wrote:But look at his other game(s).
and you will find he does not play the same.
Drunken Piper wrote:What has attracted my Eye,
is why he decidedthis gameto make such a statment, why oh why.
Drunken Piper wrote:Not trying to be a Butt, you see
but can you please explain to me.
why you didnt quote the whole post?
especially where he gives random posting the roast.
seems to me that he is giving himself reason to lurk.
reading this statement like a smirk.
got a question I would like to aska,
did you meta Ranger before you posted this Alabaska?
Drunken Piper wrote:Sir Tornado wrote:Drunken Piper, can you post at least once without rhyming please? I want to make sure there isn't any PR.a metawill tell you what you need to know.
play this way in all games though.
Sir T,your thoughts on my meta on Ranger?
I noticed you havent addressed the topic, stranger.
I have underlined every time he talks about meta-ing someone (mostly his meta on Ranger). In addition, the post directly before mine was:Drunken Piper wrote:
he says he does not like random votes and day 1 posting is a shame,
but posts like mad day 1 and random votes in another game?
this does not bother you!
this does not bother you?
he basically says he will not chat (much) this day.
but you feel like his lurker attitude is A ok?
so I have your vote for actually be Hands On and trying to scum hunt.
but you have no problem with his lurking stunt?
Interesting to me,
noting this link, I be.
I am not faking a PR,
check out my other games and you will find them on par.
Do you see the sarcasm apparent now? [sarcasm]I'm sorry I didn't put sarcasm tags around it.[/sarcasm]RossWilliam wrote:I think Drunken Piper might just be wanting more credit for his meta then he's getting