Mini 387: Suicide Bombers, GAME OVER (at last)!

[pablito]

I feel the need to remind everyone that during D1 there were three people with votes before any wagons started, there was ubertimmy, MSG and neongrey. Now I put the third vote on ubertimmy, but it wasn't until Dead Rik put his vote that momentum actually moved to anyone at all.

But it's important because people are valuing tells on people who moved to ubertimmy during D1. Fact is, scum were probably screwed no matter what on D1 with a deadline and ubertimmy and MSG having suspicion, so any movement toward ubertimmy may have been scum trying to bus their least contributive member rather than anything strictly pro-town.

[chaotic_diablo]

I did challenge KC for that. That's because I originally read your msg accusation post as "to get things moving". But it now looks like it

wasn't

to get things moving. You didn't specifically address whether or not "just to get things moving." was in response to msg's question. Why not?

My accusation had the intention "to get things moving". Please don't try to state your opinion as though it is fact. It was not in response to MSG's question and it was not there to answer it.

[Jack]

You do see how it looks like that though. msg asks a direct question

of you

, you have a sentence at the top of your post that would answer that question. The sentence ended in a period not a colon.

Also, when KC questioned you on your sherlock vote you gave reasoning, even though that was just a vote post, but you claimed you msg vote was for starting discussion. Why is that? Why did you ignore msg's question?

As for stating opinion as fact I said "it

looks

lie it wasn't to get things moving".

[chaotic_diablo]

You do see how it looks like that though. msg asks a direct question

of you

, you have a sentence at the top of your post that would answer that question. The sentence ended in a period not a colon.

That sentence was not there to answer the question. It is there to address the purpose of the post. Why are you trying to force your opinion in? My answer was clear and blatant. Nothing is going to change it.

Also, when KC questioned you on your sherlock vote you gave reasoning, even though that was just a vote post, but you claimed you msg vote was for starting discussion. Why is that? Why did you ignore msg's question?

What is the importance of the question? What was MSG hoping to accomplsh by asking the question? I felt that it was just a standard question given to anyone who appears to give no reasoning to a vote. I simply ignored it in favor of moving the game. KC's question was one used to accuse me, so I addressed it.

As for stating opinion as fact I said "it

looks

lie it wasn't to get things moving".

f course, how could I have missed that?

[Jack]

I don't believe you. You keep trying to duck out of answering questions. Your voting record is by far the most damning as well.

Vote:Chaotic_diablo

lynch -1

[chaotic_diablo]

I don't believe you. You keep trying to duck out of answering questions. Your voting record is by far the most damning as well.

Vote:Chaotic_diablo

lynch -1

Okay fine, I don't believe you either.

Why don't you explain a little on the voting record? You have never mentioned it before so you're putting me at -1 while tacking on something you haven't let me address. You're voting record isn't exactly clean either.

[Twito]

Whooohooo! Twito is back! PAAAARTYYY!
/me feeling tired and catching up prolly tomorrow

[pablito]

I'll put the maximum amount of time until I place a hammer vote at 48 hrs, unless there's reasonable arguments that show me otherwise.

[chaotic_diablo]

Longer days give scum a more likely chance to mess up. Since no activity is basically the case on shortening the day, it's not the best option. No activity just means scum realize that they can just sit back and watch things go without contributing in anyway. I'd rather not let them have it go that easily. I realize that you have been trying to put effort into sparking discussion, but I'm having trouble why the discussion has dwindled. Is it because scum are manipulating it or is there really nothing to discuss?

[Jack]

That makes no sense C_D, we have in my estimation 8 townies and one scum. Do you really expect us to believe that the dwindling of discussion is the scum letting you be lynched?

[Brutal Assassin]

C_D defenses are seeming more and more desperate as the day goes on.

[chaotic_diablo]

That makes no sense C_D, we have in my estimation 8 townies and one scum. Do you really expect us to believe that the dwindling of discussion is the scum letting you be lynched?

I stated it is a possible strategy used by scum, not that they are responsible for it. Longer days are argued to help town. Shortening the day always needs at least some short of opposition. Since scum are most likely not going to argue given an easy lynch is closeby, it mostly lies on the townies to do so. Or it could just mean I'm stalling. But what the hell, you'll know soon enough.

Please respond to why you tacked on the vote count. Since you were quick in arguing against me now, you should be quick enough to answer the question.
[quote="CD']Why don't you explain a little on the voting record? You have never mentioned it before so you're putting me at -1 while tacking on something you haven't let me address. [/quote]

C_D defenses are seeming more and more desperate as the day goes on.

Actually, Pablito is going to hammer me on something that deals with nothing on how scummy or townie I am. It's simply because the game was stalling and that I'm the most likely lynch. If you want a defense on how I'm not scummy, then there must be an attack on how I am scummy in the first place. Hell, TCS had desperate defenses yesterday and he turned up town. What is your point?

[Jack]

I've already explained and said why you are scummy. You're answers were not to my satisfaction--they were the equivalent of "no I'm not scum".

My voting record is fine whatever KC seems to think.

[pablito]

I'm getting impatient.

So c_d, explain why or why not your top 3 has changed from your original top 3 and what lead you to those changes.

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm getting impatient.

So c_d, explain why or why not your top 3 has changed from your original top 3 and what lead you to those changes.

Here are my old notes from my original list. It's outdated and I haven't looked at it, which probably was a bad idea. Give me some time to update it and post my new top three.

POST 200
MSG
Post 3: Says he won’t random vote
Post 7: He random votes
Post 28: Agrees with Sherlock’s post 27
Post 31: Defends sherlock’s post 27 against Tamuz’s post 30
Post 125: Pushes for a bandwagon with steam, explanations are bad
Post 228: Rolefishing
Post 270: Hops on MC as well. Little contradiction possible.
Post 342: See STD Post 326

Sherlock/Pablito
Post 10: Terrible logic
Post 19: Backtracks, lynchers, now it’s jesters
Post 27: overly Protownish. No votes without good cause
Post 36: Attempts to justify cardboard’s vote
-
Post 75: Post is off. Wiping slate clean with jokes?
Post 149: Refuses to participate
Post 261: Tries to give himself an alibi for a scummy action
Post 266: “helps” KC. Why?
Post 268: Votes MC
Post 291: Clearly Scummy. 180 degree turn in the other direction. In addition, he fails to give us the results of his ‘plan’.
Post 306: Terribly bad slip-up
Post 307: Plan again? What for?

TCS
Post 16: Hyperdefensive
Post 50: Hyperdefensive
Post 105: Random voting is over.
Post 152: misinterpretation, hyperdefensive
Post 260: Twito cop thing
Post 281: Hops on MC, wagon hopper
Post 303: Gives Pablito an alibi for an otherwise scummy behavior
Post 327: Copfishing

Scalebane/DeadR
Post 23: Supports a Jester turnout
Post 80: Devoid of content
-
Post 174: Probably has a valid point

Tamuz/Masterchief
Post 30: Accuses the overly cautious people
Post 35: Misses cardboard’s joke
-

Bird1111/jack
Post 33: Goes with the flow
-
Post 239: Mentions tension surrounding mole and Pablito.

Twito
Post 38: Votes ubertimmy and declares scum
Post 67: Joke? Perhaps not.
Post 101: Insists on a ubertimmy vote
Post 112: Says there is a read on ubertimmy, but doesn’t explain
Post 202: Sticks to ubertimmy
Post 224: doesn’t regret the ubertimmy lynch, even before the lynch
Post 250: Reinforces the thought.

Neongrey
Post 41: Repeats what already has been said
Post 275: Observe him. The post is off.

Twomz/STD
Post 42: Suggestion that cop should come forward if finds guilty. Directing cop.
-
Post 326: Wants a post from mole? Why? Mole gives one in post 342, with detail.

KellyChen
Post 146: Fos TCS right after STD does.
Post 154: Backtracks and foses STD
Post 220: Entire games defense? What is your point?
Post 254: Votes TCS and tries to bully people so that explanation could be left out

[Twito]

I'm getting suspicious of Jack which I hate to say.
I like voting Pablito atm.
If we are gonna hammer let me do it, please <3

[Twito]

Please?

[Kelly Chen]

/predicts CD's top 3 has not changed except that TCS is probably not on it. And Twito is still on it solely because maybe he knew UT was scum.

[pablito]

No takers on the unvote column?

[Twito]

Waiting for the new top 3..

[pablito]

Twito, I don't care if you want to hammer or not. But I will be adding a vote in less than 24 hrs unless there's some new substantial evidence. I stated my 48 hr warning and I'm still not reasonably convinced otherwise.

[Twito]

Twito, I don't care if you want to hammer or not. But I will be adding a vote in less than 24 hrs unless there's some new substantial evidence. I stated my 48 hr warning and I'm still not reasonably convinced otherwise.

What about letting c_d post first?
Also I'm gonna hammer on 23rd hour. Being 1 hour before this time tomorrow.

[pablito]

well c_d decided to post his notes instead of directly addressing my question. That's slacking off, which is typically scummy.

He even quoted my original question but failed to fully answer the question. His notes may make him look more pro-town, but he's intentionally procrastinating.

Apparently, what c_d decided to take from my question was "how did you get to your original top 3", which I thought was already clearly stated when he posted that. I didn't want that. I wanted to see how the old top 3 changed to his new top 3. c_d could've easily have said, "I don't know if my top 3 is still the same, let me re-read", but instead he was very vague.

And when I've already said, I will hammer at

maximum

in 48 hrs and in my next post say "I'm impatient", your make damn sure that your next defense is worthwhile and says something, or at least give an agenda or timeline of what to expect. c_d didn't. So I'm choosing to believe that c_d didn't truly want to defend himself. Of course, he did, and he did what he thought necessary. But not enough for me.

So if I don't want for c_d, oh well, he already had his chance in his last post.

[Twito]

I'm not liking Pabs too much.. Wonder why I'm voting him.

[chaotic_diablo]

He even quoted my original question but failed to fully answer the question. His notes may make him look more pro-town, but he's intentionally procrastinating.

I'm not procrastinating, I'm dumping all my past notes before the 48 hour limit. If I get the chance to review them and update them, I will. I can't lengthen a time limit that you yourself set up.

Apparently, what c_d decided to take from my question was "how did you get to your original top 3", which I thought was already clearly stated when he posted that. I didn't want that. I wanted to see how the old top 3 changed to his new top 3. c_d could've easily have said, "I don't know if my top 3 is still the same, let me re-read", but instead he was very vague.

Whatever I say will always be interpretted as stalling. Simply saying that I'll reread won't help my position in anyway. You stated yourself that you will hammer in 48 hours, stalling for more time won't do anything.

And when I've already said, I will hammer at

maximum

in 48 hrs and in my next post say "I'm impatient", your make damn sure that your next defense is worthwhile and says something, or at least give an agenda or timeline of what to expect.

If it'll change your mind, then fine, I'll ask for more time and

will

answer the question before or on Feb 16. If you don't like it, then hammer away.

c_d didn't. So I'm choosing to believe that c_d didn't truly want to defend himself. Of course, he did, and he did what he thought necessary. But not enough for me.

I'm unclear on what actions that made me scummy, but I'm aware enough to realize that I've done something scummy. It's kind of hard to make a defense with those conditions. People have been simply hopping on after your "CD dropped out of the discussion" post.

First KC wanted a wagon, so she hopped on. She later unvotes.

Then DR made some argument about "explaining MSG's newbie behavior" when I clearly made an argument. That argument has not been seen again.

BA comes up and votes because he already has suspicion on me and the wagon is growing.

Then holy crap, the contrived case comes up again.

Later KC votes and says there's nothing that gives a "town vibe" on me.

Jack returns to the "contrived case" and then ends up disbelieving me for no reason.

Now there's a hammer waving at me because some guy is "impatient".

Honestly, what defense do you want me to make? I really don't feel like defending myself since I already have argued the cases that made sense and I can't defend against wagon hoppers who give reasoning such as "I find him scummy".