PFPBusy day. Bad morning >_<
Zrk2-snip-
Good point. Tiruin, I'll be taking a look at you.
Bah, deleted my post detailing why Tiruin. After going through your posts though I do agree with TWS.
This flagrant display of anything near the meaning of common sense irks me.
Why the FoS.
> I agree with TWS. My post got deleted, though my wording doesn't appropriately say that. Change of conscience or just laying down a blank?
> I'll ask you,
why.> I agree with TWS...Is what I'm thinking you'd say next. I understand the pressure of exams and all, but you could've typed a few words detailing anything.
ANYTHING REGARDING YOUR CASE.Come on Zrk. Reasons. Flailing with your vote there.
TWSTiruin: Forgot to vote you in my WoT. Anyway:
First of all, perhaps I didn't make this clear enough:
The reason I'm voting you is that I think you lied. I don't think you actually wrote that post to TolyK.
There's other stuff, but that's the main thing.
Then who in the world would I've written that post to?! You vote me because you think I lied - reasonable. So why aren't you poking at anything that correlates to that presumed lie?
Yes I did know it was staying on TolyK. For reasons that:
1. He took most of the weekend because seemingly RL stuff.
1. Is this a reason why you re-voted him, or a reason you find him suspicious, or what? I'm not sure I'm getting at what you mean.
1. ...Yeah, that's the reason I re-voted him. I did think that I posted a reply to his post and thus went on to re-vote him due to the lack of answer to it...only to find that the thing didn't post.
If there's other stuff you mentioned, would you please quote/link it? I'm meaning main reasons, not little additional stuff.
His absence, for a general list of things I'd want to know more about him. I was getting a null read on the guy. Main reasons - he hasn't done much.
Which was backing up what I was saying regarding the vote-reminder thing. After a long period of the target not answering, a refreshing vote is done in order to remind that you're voting him.
I know the question was about me. But what you replied with first was not the point of the question. You took a bit out, "reasonable reason", and answered that as well as the question. I'm not saying that in itself is scummy. I'm saying repeating it seven times is.
Re: Didn't say case was not important -- Yeah, I mean you made my case seem like it was just a harsh reminder, not something that actually made you scummy. I feel like my first case on you made it quite clear that it was a you-are-scum vote.
Re-reading this, where I saw those bolded parts which you thought marks it as a scum-vote was read as a communication-pressure in my mind. I was inquiring on the reasons why your case is such; because I can't fathom anything else you're poking at except for me being forgetful. The matter that you don't believe my case is one thing that you should've emphasized, clarified by me asking
why.Now, I see you're along the lines of undermining a case. I don't see how voicing what I think about it equaling trying to weaken your case - that's only if there's something wrong with the case in question, which I'm trying to find out. Firstly, you seem more concerned about the validity of your case than the person in question > You think I'm scum, ok. So why are you poking more at the assumed power of your case and assuming I'm trying to weaken it?
Oh, and those several times? The people in question were related to the line of thought there.
Addressed above. Basically, you make my lynch-vote seem like a pressure vote to stop other people from joining a bandwagon.
...Dear gods. OK, you think I'm lying > Why.
Why.I was voicing my opinion - that wouldn't stop anyone who gave a single [PENNY] about scumhunting as they'd look into the case themselves and derive their own ideas.
"Hey look, that's a pressure vote! Stop voting me!"
Is one of the worst reasons I've ever heard. Why would a pressure vote harry anyone else from voting the person?
Dude, look. It's all in how you present it. I found that case (without the given reason of lying as stated now) as a light pressure - someone trying to dig up information on another person; that works. What doesn't continue the effort of work is how you're continuing it. I mean, how would me voicing out what I think about your case
dissuade anyone from voting or not voting me? People look into what you post. They don't just look at the first sentence of a paragraph and get the gist from that. That's utter laziness.
I mean, I did agree with some of your points - they did look scummy in a way that forgetfulness could be a cover up > You aren't pressing at that for some reason but beating around the bush here whilst laying down your vote - that's what I'm aiming for. The Why's and How's beneath what you're presenting.
Vector:
Because Org is a wreck as a player and basically someone who got to keep playing over the years because we were so fond of his particular brand of unhelpfulness. Confident because they didn't NK a stronger scumhunter, snarky because Nking Org is ... well, it's a bit of a joke, really.
Quadressence would like to have a word with you.
Hey man, don't harass Quad >_< I mean, everyone has their favorite picks of people...
If its not harassing, then its joking. By that I mean
harass in the best way I could - just don't know the right word for it.
@
Regarding TWS' claim:Ranger:
Mainly this conversation:
As an example: if Sheep were killed who would be the most likely scum to your mind? Tiruin, as Sheep is tunneling her, right? The scum know this is how your suspicions would likely swing and so might kill Sheep just to cause suspicion to land on Tiruin. On the other hand Tiruin might decided that she could deflect using this fact, and so killing Sheep would off one of the people who is leading the suspicion against her.
This is me being curious, but how does this line of thought mark me as scum? Specifically, if TWS dies, I'm the most reasonable suspect then? Details behind this curtain, please.
He's the only one who looks like he's voting you for a reasonable reason, so with him eliminated there is less likely to be someone willing to construct a case against you.
They were establishing that there would be WIFOM involved if I died. This would make it basically a null-tell on Tiruin if I was killed. I thought(still do) Tiruin was scum. Therefore, I thought Tiruin might try to kill me and prevent me from presenting my case again. If Tiruin wasn't scum, someone else would kill me to try to kill me to frame her.
Wat.
"Establishing?"
...You know, I'm sort of getting how you view things now. You're taking these things too seriously - like most things said to you are in their extremes.
Why are you delving that deep into what wasn't said? [Meaning: Paranoia.]
@Bolded part: ...Ok, get some rest. You're really overthinking everything - more than I overthink everything...Because that last line is just bordering the lines of grammar and sense.
Someone would kill you, to
try to kill you, to frame me. How does that work? They killed me in trying to kill me and then frame the girl because killing someone in the effort of trying to kill someone is very suspicious.
...Logicified :/
That makes no sense. Mostly because a TON OF OTHER VARIABLES EXIST, and that in the case of 'NK your suspect' - a thousand other variables would come into play. Too many to list; like "what was that person's relations with the others", "how did they react to the cases presented against/before them", "Why would suspect A be the killer?"...
TWS: Why didn't you question me on anything else earlier? Given your case - you aren't poking on my reads, any other detail that would back it up but deriving the whole thing mostly on an assumption.
Do you think that if you're dead, people will drop the case you're trying to push? Why are you thinking along the lines of paranoia? Was the day opening anything to do with your claim?Also, why did you take that thing seriously?
Why did you think that you would be my target?See:
"Example" As noted in chocolate.
RangerGriff: Considering the current information we have, this seems plausible. It may be "based" on WIFOM but if the hypothetical situation is no longer hypothetical, can we still consider it WIFOM? The claim may be because he can do it again, or he's confident in his ability to convince us that what he says are the facts. I'm inclined to believe him for now, and would like to ask why you would dismiss his version of reasoning so quickly?
Yes. You can still consider it WIFOM unless you've anything to back it up because the relations of the NK your Target idea is pretty messed up. That, and the reasons behind why TWS claimed.
He claimed on an "Are you..." question. Not a "What did you..." question. It was more of a "Why are you doing..." question, and not a definitive question.
Excuse my (curt?) short response, busy busy.
NQTOk, Tiruin first:
Ok, what just happened there? NQT//Toaster - reasoning behind that agreement/voting shifts please.
OK. So, there's a tie between me, you and Ford. Toaster shifts it to three votes on me, two on you and one on Ford. I don't want to be lynched and I so I make the (correct) case that the other votes on me were not strong votes. Essentially there was no case. Soldier's vote was a random vote from the beginning of the game that he never removed and Vector's vote was more pressure (she never put forward anything resembling a full case). So, I vote you to tie as I'd rather a no-lynch than have me lynched. Then Toaster indicates when I ask him that he thought Ford more suspicious. The fact that Ford might be scum is enough to push for a Ford lynch rather than a no-lynch, so I switch my vote. Toaster says that he'll accept my move and we end up lynching a man that it turns out wasn't in my interests to kill. It's unfortunate and only slightly ameliorated by the lack of a scum kill in the night.
"Wasn't in my interests to kill."
What?
Ford might be scum.What?
Bolded the points that stood out to me. How does the last sentence have anything to do with the above?
UI
Okay, NQT. Why did you vote Tiruin?
To tie the vote, to avoid being lynched- as anyone else would rationally do in that circumstances. Rather than keep the vote tied, I then talked with the only other active player at the time in order to get a more productive outcome to the day. The mislynch was unfortunate for several reasons.
Justify those reasons and detail them, because it seems you're making a case out of a dead man's corpsey.
Lastly, why do you care so much about your bacon?
Read cut short - my eyes stopped at that post because busy. Will post later because busy :/
PPE: NQT.Gonna make a new post because this one is filled.
But just to say. You lynched someone you loved because...I can't wrap my head over it in making sense. You conceded to the big orange appliance, and then that voteless thing? And you keep on poking at the "I'm town" cliche. Why?
Hopefully, I won't be booted from the game for trying to vote when I know I can't.
Hopefully? So there's something against the rules for testing things out, huh.
- I am immune to kills from my lovers picks. I omitted this information before to set this trap. Now that there's been no night kill it strongly confirms my suspicions: there's a high chance that one of my lovers tried to kill me last night. A scum or 3rd party lover would have a massive incentive to kill me before I was able to reveal who they were.
...So is this the reason why you were fussing about the scum-trap thing earlier? Why do you think one of your lovers would've killed you and why would it be a massive incentive? The only way I can see that happening is when you
do know they've tried to kill you.
- Why am I saying all of this? Knowledge is town's weapon. Without it, we mislynch. Scum already know who to kill so telling them information doesn't help them very much. The more we know, the better chance we have at winning this. Obviously, you all have to weigh up the risks and benefits yourself, but if anyone has any other pertinent information that you don't think you'll be killed for saying then please share.
Thanks for the obvious. Why are you stating the obvious? Because this sounds more to me like you buddying the general public by toting your banner of information. A banner which currently is confided with two other people of unknown alignment - judging by your wording there - and most of the risks lie in, or probably when the information is given out.
On an OOC note: The idea is perfect context for Toony's Mafia.