Open 173: Pie E7 Game over

[hohum]

scien just made an excellent point about the role PMs.

I actually confirmed before I received my role PM because I was trying to be a smart ass. I know for a fact that the role PMs went out after the thread was created because I was talking to the mod as she created the thread.

[Scien]

There is almost no way in my mind that she would have sent half the roles, created the thread, then sent the other half.

I just tested the PM system to see if it was sent datetime, and not recieved datetime. It was sent datetime.

Dramonic. I am actively accusing you of lying here. You deliberately concocted a story to address what was pretty much a WIFOM comment that had little import.

Unvote

Vote: Dramonic

[MiteyMouse]

Vote Count 1.3

*Hohum-1 (Amished )
KittyMo-1 (VP Balter)
Charter-1 (Hohum)
dramonic-1 (Scien )

Not voting

:KittyMo, dramonic, Charter.

With 7 alive it takes 4 to lynch!

[dramonic]

Hmm, checking the times you are indeed correct, received my PM at 6:11 and topic was created 5:50.

I must have missed the topic when I checked for it first then, because I know I checked the moment I got my PM.

[dramonic]

Oh, and mod, Charter unvoted.

Oops...fixed! Don't forget to bold stuff for me so I don't miss it.

[Amished]

@hohum: and you knew that she wanted us to confirm in thread?

[VP Baltar]

I'm more interested in why hohum was so diehard on the two mislynch thing when it was obviously not the case.

[charter]

I'm more interested in why hohum was so diehard on the two mislynch thing when it was obviously not the case.

Didn't you hear? That makes me scum!

Wait a few pages and lets lynch him.

[Scien]

@Dramonic:

Surprisingly, what happened is quite the opposite. I was online when Mitey sent the PMs,

so when I went to the topic it wasn't existent yet

, else I'd have been first to confirm. I went to post on my other games since this one wasn't there yet and I just forgot.

The bold is interesting to me. Its awkward wording, yes. And that might mean you refactored it. But you slipped in the final wording and said you went to

the topic

. How can you go to the topic when it doesn't exist?

I propose that you got your PM, came to the thread to 'watch this topic', then withheld your confirm while you played in your other game and finalized scum talk with your partner. I am pretty sure this is what has went down, and I am very confident in my vote.

Lynch all liars. Die scum die.

Moer Dramonic lynching plox.

[Scien]

Charter. Why the inconsistency between these two points.

L-1? I don't think so. Why would you expect me to vote Dramonic?

Cause bandwagons are awesome. The bigger the better. [...]
[Hohum votes]
If dramonic is not scum, then I don't want a quickhammer. Scum quickhammering on a townie is such a great strategy in this setup.

That being said, I do find dramonic suspicious (hasn't said anything yet this game), but enough for a lynch on page two? Please.
[...]
I also find hohum suspicious for putting dramonic in a position of great vulnerability so soon.

So let me get this straight. No one put him at L-1. You criticize everyone for it. Someone does, they are villianized. You are expecting to find ghosts on both sides of the argument? That's strange.

Wait a few pages and lets lynch him.

Why the holy hell are you not voting at this point. Explain to me your reasons.

---

[Scien still wants Dramonic dead.]

[charter]

First off, I did not criticize or pressure anyone in to putting dramonic at L-1 (unless you count "let's lynch him" which was obviously not serious). I asked why no one voted dramonic. I wanted to see what people said.


There's no need to wagon hohum, he's already outed himself as scum. I don't want a lynch right now because I am not sure who his partner is.

[Scien]

I did not criticize or pressure anyone in to putting dramonic at L-1

I guess that's fair... I was mentally combining a post of VPs with yours erroneously, and it made you sound highly critical of me not putting Dramonic at L-1.

Since that other post was not yours, I think your 'just seeing what others say' checks out.

IGMEOY for no need to wagon a person that I think is scum comment. I understand that you want to find partners, but scum hitting should be paramount, and a wagon on someone you are sure is scum could also aid in finding a partner.

[charter]

What do you think of hohum's constant changing his reasons for voting me every time he finds out what he's trying to push is wrong?

[VP Baltar]

The bold is interesting to me. Its awkward wording, yes. And that might mean you refactored it. But you slipped in the final wording and said you went to the topic. How can you go to the topic when it doesn't exist?

Not to defend dramonic, but this seems like an idiotic argument to make. Clearly what his explanation indicates is he went looking for the topic and claimed it wasn't there.

I can understand if you make the argument that he intentionally avoided a topic that was there, but trying to claim he made a logic error in saying he went to a topic that wasn't there seems like semantics mudslinging over something that is clearly impossible.

Also, do you feel that we should lynch dramonic over his "lie" right now on page 3?

[VP Baltar]

EBWOP: page 5...brain fart.

[Scien]

What do you think of hohum's constant changing his reasons for voting me every time he finds out what he's trying to push is wrong?

Perfectly in line with his meta every time I have played with him as a townie. He pressures to pressure. He keeps pressure on when certain points are addressed by changing the argument. But he is always abrasive about it in order to get the other person emotionally involved. I see nothing different here.

Not to defend dramonic, but this seems like an idiotic argument to make. [1]Clearly what his explanation indicates is he went looking for the topic and claimed it wasn't there.

[2] I can understand if you make the argument that he intentionally avoided a topic that was there, [3] but trying to claim he made a logic error in saying he went to a topic that wasn't there seems like semantics mudslinging over something that is clearly impossible.

[4] Also, do you feel that we should lynch dramonic over his "lie" right now on page 3?

Good I wanted a fight!
[1] I know this is what he is claiming. I think his mistaken wording invalidates that claim.

[2] Heh, so you half agree with what I am saying so far? That's strange. Yes I am saying he avoided the topic, he couldn't confirm until scum talk was over. We were too quick for the scum to talk it out, one of them had to confirm late, or they didn't finish talking.

[3] No. We have already proven that the topic was there. He either saw it or didn't. My argument is that he saw it, and since he saw it he lied in thread about seeing it, and had to have had a motive for not confirming when he saw it.

Due to his wording in that phrase that looks like he had trouble with, it suggests that he did know the thread existed. "so when I went to the topic it wasn't existent yet". He starts that thought with "so when I went to the topic", which joins to what he wanted to say "it wasn't existent yet". I claim there is no way to have the thought 'I went to the topic" if the topic didn't exist. Yes I know its just bulky wording, but it points at his thoughts.

[4] Yes. I can already see where you are going with this. Discussion is good, but hitting scum is paramount.

Besides the Dramonic wagon itself can help with information gathering as well, if handled correctly.

[VP Baltar]

I'll address some things you said in a moment Scien, but first I would like you to actually answer my question.

do you feel that we should lynch dramonic over his "lie" right now on page

3

5?

[dramonic]

So you're planning to lynch me over erroneous syntax?

You know how ridiculous that reason is right? <_<

[hohum]

I'm more interested in why hohum was so diehard on the two mislynch thing when it was obviously not the case.

mistake

[VP Baltar]

I'm more interested in why hohum was so diehard on the two mislynch thing when it was obviously not the case.

mistake

I realize you made a mistake, but what I don't understand is why you wouldn't just admit that. Even after you were pushed to finally having no other argument to make you still wouldn't simply say "oops, I figured it wrong", you placed in the addendum 'well, this isn't even figuring in the powerroles'...as if to say the town could still perhaps bank on two mislynches.

[hohum]

You're interpretation of what I was trying to say is dead wrong. I readily admitted I made the mistake as soon as I realized charter was right. The part about not figuring power roles into it is more about the notion that it's okay to put people at L-1 (which I still believe) than about mislynches.

Further, I've listed about half a dozen other reasons to vote charter. Charter on the other hand is holding on to exactly one reason to vote me.

[VP Baltar]

What do you think of Scien's argument for a dramonic lynch?

[hohum]

What do you think of Scien's argument for a dramonic lynch?

I think it would have been a good argument to make had charter not decided to moot dramonic's pressure wagon. Right now dramonic has the luxury of making a calm and collected argument.

It would have been useful to use scien's argument to pressure dramonic into dropping tells.

I'd rather lynch charter right now so I can get a better read on dramonic.

[Scien]

I'll address some things you said in a moment Scien, but first I would like you to actually answer my question.

Eh... I guess I'll answer by quote then since you couldn't see it the first time.

[4] Yes

[Scien]

So you're planning to lynch me over erroneous syntax?

You know how ridiculous that reason is right? <_<

Nope. I am planning on lynching due to the syntax showing that you lied in thread. There is a reason why that syntax is messed up. Your thoughts messed them up. Your thoughts show that you were aware of the thread.