Open 171- Carbon 14, Part 2!! Over!!

[Snow_Bunny]

Well, I'm having a hard getting something out of this topic. And, I wasn't even aware my vote was on her. I usually don't unvote my random vote unless there's someone else to vote for. But seeing how small this game is, I will this time.

Unvote.

[dramonic]

It works the other way around. You won't get anything more by unvoting. Vote, provoke people, see what happens when you put them closer to a lynch!

[Scigatt]

Speaking of which, does anyone have any outstanding issues they'd like to deal with? If not, I suggest we move to making a lynch soon. The deadline's just over 4 days away(

Mod:Is that 2:30 pm or am? And what time zone?

), and we seem to to be stagnating here.

[dramonic]

hmm, what happens at deadline if a lynch hasn't occured? top wagon or no lynch?

[Scigatt]

EBWOP:Actually only 3 days.(I forgot September only has 30 days)

[afatchic]

VoteCount!!

dramonic-(2)- Alduskkel, Scigatt
Khamisa-(1)- Cass
Scigatt-(1)- dramonic,
Snow_Bunny-(1)- semioldguy

Not voting-(2)-Khamisa, Snow_Bunny

With 7 alive, it takes 4 to lynch!

I am so sorry for leaving yall like that. I had been really busy and trying to get another game moved into night, but now my schedule is pretty clear and i will be more attentive to this game.

2:30 is my time, cst. If it helps, its about 1:45 right now, so the deadline will be in about 3 days and 45 minutes.

[afatchic]

Alduskkel, semioldguy, and Khamisa have all been prodded.

[afatchic]

hmm, what happens at deadline if a lynch hasn't occured? top wagon or no lynch?

Hmm... i thought that was in the rules, but when i looked i couldn't find it.

Top wagon gets lycned, if it has 50% of the required votes for a lynch.
For example... If it takes 10 to lynch, if the leading wagon has 5 at deadline, they will be lynched. If the leading wagon has 4 at deadline, they will not be lynched.

Pretty much, at deadline the required number of votes for a lynch is cut in half.

Adding this to the rules now...

[semioldguy]

Unvote; Vote: Khamisa

FoS:

Snow_Bunny

You need to put your votes somewhere and come up with suspects. You are both coasting through this game for the most part, which I find suspicious. It makes it easy to ride on the tails of the ideas of town without having to put yourself out there. For both of you, who are your top two suspects. The both of you are mine.

[Scigatt]

For me, it's dramonic. His miscount in trying to discredit me(

very

scummy, considering one was in the vote count and the other was a serious vote he should have been paying attention to.) and his overstated and hasty case when I pushed him make him, IMO, a highly provokable town at best. (see posts 75 and 76).

My second choice is Khamisa, but I get the impression that that she is more extremely inactive than scummy. I'd rather have her get replaced.

[Scigatt]

EBWOP:More on Khamisa

While she did make that false case against you, which caused me to nearly vote for her, but after thinking about it, I think it was due to lack of time spent on the game.

[semioldguy]

I don't like dramonic's pushing of you either, especially since I find you the most likely town player based on your play this game and also your play this game in comparison to the previous one in which you were scum. You just don't feel at all the same now as you did in the other game.

@dramonic
You seemed to have been starting to pick up on Scigatt's scum vibes the last game, what are you picking up from him now along those same lines and if your find him scummy in both games would you mind making a comparison?

[Scigatt]

Also, let me detail my case against dramonic:

First of all. I nearly voted on Khamisa, but then saw the she was at L-2(which was

easily

determined from page 3 alone) and FoS'ed her instead, not wanting to put her at L-1. In response, dramonic said she was at L-3(incorrect) and then tried to use that against me. (Note his argument on post 74 starts with "

Your overly-paranoid behaviour towards wagons (which your latest posts didn't help at all)...

" and that he's been fairly active throughout the game, unlike Khamisa.) Now what you have is dramonic either lying or overlooking something that no pro-town should(and no competent pro-town would), especially something that he was using for support for his case.

[Khamisa]

Urgh, I hate when people insist that I vote.

[semioldguy]

Well, surely you shouldn't need to be insisted upon to have suspicions. Out with them!

[dramonic]

Now what you have is dramonic either lying or overlooking something that no pro-town should(and no competent pro-town would), especially something that he was using for support for his case.

Kinda exactly like what you did last game when you accused me of putting Khamisa at L-1 when I didn't right?

Your play hasn't been noticeably different between the two games. Of course I wouldn't expect you to make the same mistake twice, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if you were scum in both games, with your somewhat paranoid (yes, I love that word) play. However, my pinky says you might be town, so if push comes to shove I'll switch my vote (and you seemingly won't be lynched today)

Also scummy is Khamisa, who has been quite non-commital this time around (well, more than last time anyways.) The three things that are preventing me of voting her are:
A) I doubt the scumteam is exactly the same as last time
B) She seems a bit newb-town to me (although she's not that new...)
C) That'd be L-1

However, if we get too close to deadline I'll switch my vote to her (since she is my second scum-vibe and otherwise I'm the lynch of the day ^_^;)

[Snow_Bunny]

Right. People have to stop being overdramatic about putting someone at L-2. It is not a big deal, period. L-1 deserves scrutiny, and people not paying attention to votecounts certainly does too. But if everyone gets too scared to vote because more than one vote on a person is ohso evil, the game stagnates like whoa.

Here's me putting dramonic at L-2.

Vote:dramonic

(Remember that Khamisa was already at L-2, and my potential post 72 would have put her at L-1)

Why would you vote for him? Before this post you made no prior accusation or case against him. So, why the sudden vote? Votes without reason are bad, and specially in a game so small.

Oh, I'll be away for the computer for most of Friday. In case there's a lynch and I don't make it to D2, I'd just like to say that if we lynch scum or get a guilty investigation result, the 'useless' investigator should claim, so we can narrow down lynch options.

There's something about this post I don't like. I'm not sure, but there's definitively something I don't like.

I also don't like the over paranoid reaction towards L-2. I mean, this is a small game. It's only natural to put a player to L-2 and L-1. The problem would be lynching it. If we were in a larger game, a L-2 would mean much, and a L-1 even more. But at such small game, I don't think that's the case. I'm not saying that we should just put someone at L-1 without thinking, but that doesn't mean you should avoid putting someone if you think that person is scum. Otherwise, it seems as if you're trying to cover up a partner.

I don't find Scigatt's case on dramonic that strong.

SoG is rather townish for me.

Adduskel jumping votes called my attention.

I don't quite get the case against Khamisa.

So, in conclusion, Scigatt is the one who has struck me as the most scummy, and thus:

Vote: Scigatt

[Alduskkel]

Now what you have is dramonic either lying or overlooking something that no pro-town should(and no competent pro-town would), especially something that he was using for support for his case.

Kinda exactly like what you did last game when you accused me of putting Khamisa at L-1 when I didn't right?

Kind of, and he was SCUM in that game. Thus you are arguing that you are scum NOW.

Also scummy is Khamisa, who has been quite non-commital this time around (well, more than last time anyways.) The three things that are preventing me of voting her are:
A) I doubt the scumteam is exactly the same as last time
B) She seems a bit newb-town to me (although she's not that new...)
C) That'd be L-1

So all of a sudden it's okay to be cautious and not put people at L-1 haphazardly? It's okay for you to be cautious, but when Scigatt is he's being "paranoid"?

Why would you vote for him? Before this post you made no prior accusation or case against him. So, why the sudden vote? Votes without reason are bad, and specially in a game so small.

I don't find Scigatt's case on dramonic that strong.

Either Scigatt is making a case on dramonic or he isn't. Make up your mind. If dramonic flips scum I'll be looking at you. Plus, I'm the main one pushing dramonic's lynch, got anything to say about my case?

[Snow_Bunny]

The first quote referred to at that point, where he voted without reason. Then, he made a case, which I find rather weak.

[Scigatt]

Right. People have to stop being overdramatic about putting someone at L-2. It is not a big deal, period. L-1 deserves scrutiny, and people not paying attention to votecounts certainly does too. But if everyone gets too scared to vote because more than one vote on a person is ohso evil, the game stagnates like whoa.

Here's me putting dramonic at L-2.

Vote:dramonic

(Remember that Khamisa was already at L-2, and my potential post 72 would have put her at L-1)

Why would you vote for him? Before this post you made no prior accusation or case against him. So, why the sudden vote? Votes without reason are bad, and specially in a game so small.

See post 75, which I wrote as an echo to dramonic's post in the first game(I couldn't resist). It was an implicit case and I assumed it was obvious what I was doing and I also assumed your vote was the one he missed. I also stated(indirectly) in the post you quoted that dramonic was wrong in his post 74.

Oh, I'll be away for the computer for most of Friday. In case there's a lynch and I don't make it to D2, I'd just like to say that if we lynch scum or get a guilty investigation result, the 'useless' investigator should claim, so we can narrow down lynch options.

There's something about this post I don't like. I'm not sure, but there's definitively something I don't like.

I can understand where your discomfort comes from, but was just thinking that just in case something happens on Friday, I would get a chance to detail plans for roleclaiming, which we will probably need to do D2. I don't see anything in my plan which would hurt town, though.

I also don't like the over paranoid reaction towards L-2. I mean, this is a small game. It's only natural to put a player to L-2 and L-1. The problem would be lynching it. If we were in a larger game, a L-2 would mean much, and a L-1 even more. But at such small game, I don't think that's the case. I'm not saying that we should just put someone at L-1 without thinking, but that doesn't mean you should avoid putting someone if you think that person is scum. Otherwise, it seems as if you're trying to cover up a partner.

L-2, maybe, but not L-1, When someone's at L-1 anyone not on the 'wagon could, in a moment of misjudgment, end the day prematurely with a bad lynch. In every other game I've been in, large or small, L-1 has always been a big deal, and often worthy of votes. L-2, I admit, is not that a big deal, and I was worried L-2 the first time because it happened really fast on random votes, and the second time it was my head on the line(so I had to deal with it) and the FoS on Alduskkel was almost an afterthought.

UnFoS Alduskkel and sog

, by the way. Also, when you say that you think I was covering for a partner, do you mean yourself? If I recall correctly, the only L-2s I reacted negatively to were yours and mine. (When I backed off voting for Khamisa my vote would have put her at L-1, so that doesn't count. I even approved that bandwagon at L-2(posts 64 and 72).)

I don't find Scigatt's case on dramonic that strong.

Here's what I was trying to get across:

Dramonic used incorrect information to make a case against me with the correct information within easy reach. Not only is this information easy to find, but this information is something any pro-town player should know, especially when using it to strengthen their case, and especially given the activity level of dramonic and the circumstances of the game.

If that isn't a scum tell, I don't know what is.

[dramonic]

Kind of, and he was SCUM in that game. Thus you are arguing that you are scum NOW.

I'm not ignoring other cases happening though.

So all of a sudden it's okay to be cautious and not put people at L-1 haphazardly? It's okay for you to be cautious, but when Scigatt is he's being "paranoid"?

There's a difference between L-2 and L-1. A huge one.


@Scigatt: Your case agaisnt me is awful. Basically your only reason is because I have made a mistaken accusation. Don't be ridiculous, your case is terrible and you know it.

[Alduskkel]

It's a pretty hard mistake to make, don't you think? Are you even bothering to do any fact checking?

See post 75, which I wrote as an echo to dramonic's post in the first game(I couldn't resist).

What do you mean here?

[Scigatt]

It's a pretty hard mistake to make, don't you think? Are you even bothering to do any fact checking?

See post 75, which I wrote as an echo to dramonic's post in the first game(I couldn't resist).

What do you mean here?

See post 50 of the old game. I tried to imitate that.

[Scigatt]

@Scigatt: Your case agaisnt me is awful. Basically your only reason is because I have made a mistaken accusation. Don't be ridiculous, your case is terrible and you know it.

It would have taken less than a minute to see that there were two votes on Khamisa, and you should have known about the 4-to-lynch(Your 'defense' on post 78 strikes me as after-the-fact BS.). Even if you didn't check, you should have known about the votecount and Cass's vote soon after. The fact that you were lacking here indicates to me that you were more interested in pushing a bandwagon then the truth.

[Scigatt]

Mod, Can you prod Cass?