Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DaveTheGrave]

Dave:
You have stated that you found IG scummy, so you left your vote on him.  You also said that you left your vote on him as incentive to remove his.  Which is it?

I lost suspicion for one, and gained one for another.
- snip
I did, and still have suspicion.

In your latest post you offer a contradiction.  These are both about IG, and you say that you have lost any and all suspicion for him in your first statement.  You then say that you still have suspicion.  Which is it, and why the contradiction?
Why am I suddenly so suspicious? Is it because I voted you?

ICs:
I do need your guys' help on this one.  How do I handle someone so... Illogical that I can't even understand or justify any of their questions taken?
IG:
When I wrote your RSV question, this is what I meant.
Why didn't you ask RVS questions to everyone?

Powder Miner:

If you're not finding new people to go after, that's a bad thing. You shouldn't only be focusing on voting IG into the ground, Dave (that's called tunneling, by the way), instead you should be gathering data on multiple people. That's why you should change it- ignoring everyone else in favor of one man can often be seen as scummy.

I politely disagree.  You totally should go after multiple people at a time, but I don't see that as a reason to change your vote.  If you think one person is the mafia, you BETTER be voting him over everyone else.

That's not what I meant. If Dave truly only has his vote on IG because there's "no reason to change", that means he's not actually finding anything to do. You shouldn't ever not be voting/pointlessly leave a vote somewhere due to having nothing to do

OK. That makes more sense.

Thats not a contradiction, thats me explaining I still have suspicion for him, but I have more for you.

[DaveTheGrave]

-snip logical information that you can read by scrolling up-

He was just lurking and hadnt posted anything applicable until he got vote, which made him go pseudo aggressive, and start to get, what I perceived as, extremely frustrated. Which to me seemed very scum like, and I felt the vote was well earned.

[Imperial Guardsman]

IG:
When I wrote your RSV question, this is what I meant.
Why didn't you ask RVS questions to everyone?

Because dave got my attention before any others.

[griffinpup]

Dave: You didn't answer my questions

[DaveTheGrave]

Dave: You didn't answer my questions

what questions

[griffinpup]

Dave: ALL of these questions.
Also, I find it doubtful that you missed these, seeing as YOU QUOTED THEM.

Dave:
You have stated that you found IG scummy, so you left your vote on him.  You also said that you left your vote on him as incentive to remove his.  Which is it?

I lost suspicion for one, and gained one for another.
- snip
I did, and still have suspicion.

In your latest post you offer a contradiction.  These are both about IG, and you say that you have lost any and all suspicion for him in your first statement.  You then say that you still have suspicion.  Which is it, and why the contradiction?
Why am I suddenly so suspicious? Is it because I voted you?

GriffionDay:
Why's your vote still on me?

[Imperial Guardsman]

Its a 50/50 chance hes either a VI or Scum.
Its a 99.9 chance he will be D1 Lynch.

[TheWetSheep]

Griffinpup:

Why not?  I'm not sure what you're looking for with this conversation.  I wanted to be the first one to post.  I didn't have time to do a full set of RVS, but I hate when people are like "first post!"  so I decided to throw out my vote on one of the new people.  It was purely a reaction-test.  Think of it as seeing how the new kid reacts to being called scum for fallacious reasoning.  It was just luck that the person I 'omgused' actually did suck.

At this point I'm more concerned about the crap reason you gave me for it when I first asked you. "Boy sucks because he hasn't posted yet". Why give me an answer that contains obviously impossible reasoning for that first post?

NQT: We're just coming out of RVS. I unvoted my previous RVS target and decided to go after something a little bit stronger, and I feel like Dave has quite enough pressure on him as it is. Also, see my answer to him for the issue.

[DaveTheGrave]

Dave: ALL of these questions.
Also, I find it doubtful that you missed these, seeing as YOU QUOTED THEM.

Dave:
You have stated that you found IG scummy, so you left your vote on him.  You also said that you left your vote on him as incentive to remove his.  Which is it?

I lost suspicion for one, and gained one for another.
- snip
I did, and still have suspicion.

In your latest post you offer a contradiction.  These are both about IG, and you say that you have lost any and all suspicion for him in your first statement.  You then say that you still have suspicion.  Which is it, and why the contradiction?
Why am I suddenly so suspicious? Is it because I voted you?

GriffionDay:
Why's your vote still on me?

Because Im still suspicious of you? Which I've already stated my reasons for.

[Griffionday]

GriffionDay:
Why's your vote still on me?

Me being too lazy to unvote I think.
Imperial Guardsman:

Its a 50/50 chance hes either a VI or Scum.
Its a 99.9 chance he will be D1 Lynch.

Is this in response to my question?

If so, how does having a cop help us on determining the validity of a D1 lynch?

Also why are you so confident that he'll be the D1 lynch?  Do you see any problem with the fact that it is so certain a thing?

[Griffionday]

Griffionday

What I intended my answer to imply is that I don't have a specific day 1 criterion.  Why should I?  I hardly have a specific criterion ever, why should I have a subcategory that applies to a specific day outside of mylo?

Counter question: at the end of the day, should you always be voting for the person you most want lynched? What about in cases where that person has a clear lead in the vote, and you've explicitly stated your approval of his lynch?

The different thing about day 1 is that there is no info to be gained from flips and less time has passed for scum to make a flip. Under these different conditions, certain scum-tells might be more important than others. It's okay if you don't have an overarching theory on how to play day 1, but I thought I'd check.

By the end of the day you should be voting for the player you want lynched, unless tactically voting for someone else would save a confirmed town player (say, if you're the cop). Even when your lynch candidate is the clear majority and your vote isn't adding anything to that, you'd have to have a very good reason for voting for someone else (perhaps role-power related), and it's not a situation I could justifiably happening in a BM. Do you disagree?

Missed this sorry.

Actually there is one situation where it's appropriate to vote for someone that you don't consider the most scummy, that I think Leafsnail brought up in the previous game.  That is when you need to vote for the one of the vote leaders to break a tie, even if neither is the absolute most scummy.  This is to make your vote as relevant as possible.

[Okami No Rei]

Day 1 ends on Monday, July 29 at 8:00pm CST

Votecount

TheWetSheep (1) - notquitethere
griffinpup (2) - TheWetSheep, DaveTheGrave
Griffionday (0) -
Powder Miner (0) -
Imperial Guardsman (0) -
DaveTheGrave (4) - Nerjin, Imperial Guardsman, griffinpup, Powder Miner
Boy (0) -
Nerjin (0) -
notquitethere (0) -

Not Voting - Boy, Griffionday

Extend (0/4) -
Shorten (0/5) -

TheWetSheep has Requested Replacement on or before Sunday, August 11.

Boy is inactive and needs Replacement.

[griffinpup]

Griffinpup:

Why not?  I'm not sure what you're looking for with this conversation.  I wanted to be the first one to post.  I didn't have time to do a full set of RVS, but I hate when people are like "first post!"  so I decided to throw out my vote on one of the new people.  It was purely a reaction-test.  Think of it as seeing how the new kid reacts to being called scum for fallacious reasoning.  It was just luck that the person I 'omgused' actually did suck.

At this point I'm more concerned about the crap reason you gave me for it when I first asked you. "Boy sucks because he hasn't posted yet". Why give me an answer that contains obviously impossible reasoning for that first post?

Your assumptions are wrong.  I never gave you a crap reason.  I merely stated that the literal OMGUS meaning could be applied to Boy.  I never once stated that's the reasoning that I originally used when I voted him. Therefore, your concern is immaterial, as it is based on fictitious events that you assumed happened.

[griffinpup]

Because Im still suspicious of you? Which I've already stated my reasons for.

Wow.  The one question that actually wasn't addressed to you, you actually managed to answer.  Regardless, YOU HAVE NEVER STATED REASONS FOR VOTING ME.
Since your brain can't apparently manage complex thought, (in this case multiple questions per quote), I'll individually quote all the questions you missed.

Dave:
You have stated that you found IG scummy, so you left your vote on him.  You also said that you left your vote on him as incentive to remove his.  Which is it?

I lost suspicion for one, and gained one for another.
- snip
I did, and still have suspicion.

In your latest post you offer a contradiction.  These are both about IG, and you say that you have lost any and all suspicion for him in your first statement.  You then say that you still have suspicion.  Which is it, and why the contradiction?

Why am I suddenly so suspicious? Is it because I voted you?

[Chink]

I am willing to serve as Replacement for Boy.