Print

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

[Jim Groovester]

Seven out of thirteen. I'm pushing this to flavor/creativity unless some certain people (I'd ask Jim as he's already been hinting it out) could explain what they did.

I was one of the six who was perfectly fine with wearing a white dress.

[Leafsnail]

"Wait, no, I backed off a moment too soon. Lady Leafsnail, why didn't you ask me anything at all when you answered my question? If your decision to admit to your degree of influence depended on there being a valid reason, and I didn't give one, then why didn't you show any interest in finding one until you were questioned on why you didn't answer the first time you were asked?"
Leafsnail: why didn't you ask me any questions when I asked you if you had a double-vote?

Do you have short term memory loss?  I already explained, and then requoted the relevant passage for you.  Here, let me do it a third time.

2. Refusing to answer - it would be taken as an admission of guilt, particularly since Jim issued a denial, and probably cause a mislynch due to evasiveness

The situation when you asked the question was different to the situation when Toaster asked the question.  Whether or not you had a valid reason was no longer the issue, the issue was that I had been left with no choice but to come clean.  Therefore there was no need for me to ask for your reason - it didn't matter, and what's more I was pretty sure the reason was "because I wanted to know lol"

What's your view on the lynch and what correlation does his current view have with said lynch?

Lynching Solifuge was a reasonable move, because he was acting scummy and not posting even though there was a matter that really required his attention.  The fact that the moderator decided to declare a hammer prematurely made it a much worse lynch than it should've been, though - it allowed everyone else on the Solifuge wagon to pretend they didn't really want him lynched.

I don't understand what the second part of your question means.

@LS. So basically the only reason you didn't claim yesterday was because Toaster didn't explicitly ask? B/c that's what it looks like.

Because he didn't ask or provide any reason for me to claim, yes.  What, I should've just claimed for no reason at all?

Incidentally: everyone read this post of ZU's.  Look at how he's just passively sitting around, waiting for a chance to vote me.  Tell me it looks like an attempt to find scum, and not to mislynch.

More in next post

[Leafsnail]

So you're saying that you would have voted Solifuge on Day 2 regardless of him being tracked.

Him being tracked had nothing to do with your case and you weren't the slightest bit interested in that at all.

Is this all correct?

Yes, I would've voted him and made that case based on him attempting to tie up the vote.  Him not responding to the allegation of being tracked sealed the deal, though.

But I didn't oppose the lynch.

After getting tracked to a kill, and after tying the vote on Day 1, Solifuge didn't bother showing up to answer any questions to him.

That's pretty scummy.

And after a day or two of not hearing from him, I was about ready to propose a Lynch All Lurkers vote on him. That's why I put my vote on him, when I thought I already had.

OK, I think I misinterpreted what you said earlier then.

I was thinking more SK pretending to be a vigilante instead of just straight vig. Hence my concern about you calling him mafia.

I just said "mafia" because I thought he was scum.  It seems strange to assume someone is an SK when there was only one kill on the previous night, though.

How come you didn't think it was a vigkill, or at least, could have been one?

Because I thought Solifuge was scum for a seperate reason.

And how was Solifuge killing Griffionday supposed to fit into your theory of how he was scum?

It wasn't part of my thought process when I initially voted him.  Later I thought that Solifuge had decided he was doomed, and was therefore going to keep quiet so he could give the town as little info as possible.  I never really thought about his choice of kill, because scum can make weird nightkill choices sometimes and nightkill speculation isn't a strong enough reason to exonerate someone who's scummy for other reasons.

[Toaster]

WetSheep:

WetSheep:  I assume I am without asking.  I said it in flavor, but it's true- my flavor describes my red dress.

For the record, this is incorrect.  I did ask, and Vector told me that I was okay with changing.

1. There was (probably) no mafia-kill night 1. It's almost certain that Soli killed Griffionday, since he had a kill and Griff was his suspect.

What makes you think that the mafia didn't also target him?


Lenglon:  Fair enough.

Leafsnail: why didn't you ask me any questions when I asked you if you had a double-vote?

Er... who cares if he questioned you?


Zombie U:

I think LS has the double vote, especially since Jim already has two claimed abilities (knowing how many targeted him and the thing we're talking about)

Looks like you are correct.  How does this make Leafsnail voteworthy?  Okay, so you said.  Given Leaf's clarification, what makes him still voteworthy?

I don't really have too much of a case on LS,

Who do you have a case on?  If no one else, why not?

Who should we lynch then?

Consider this question shot back at you.


Tiruin:

But really, I'm falling on the 'this may be a great red herring' if it's that significant--I...didn't sense anything out of the ordinary but my dream. Oh, and before anyone claims the alignment blah blah, I doubt it given my alignment. No, not a third-party.

Suspiciously Specific Denial.


In any case, I read your flavor analysis, and am not sure what you're concluding from it.  Or if you're concluding anything, to be more direct.  Do you suspect anyone?


Jim:

Anyways, moving on, I think Leafsnail is scum. So if we look back to the Day 2 votes on Solifuge, we see that most everybody wanted him to show up and explain himself. Leafsnail is the odd man out in that he was certain Solifuge was scum.

I don't really buy this.  Since when does certainty = scummy?  I thought it was the other way; passive and waffly was scum.  Yes, I read your explanation, but I don't see it as a condemnation of Leafsnail at all.



Time's up so I may have missed something.

[Lenglon]

"Ok, sorry Leafsnail. I just needed to be sure."
Unvote

[zombie urist]

Toaster: I don't know. Its all gut feeling and weird semantics/reasoning. I think LS should be lynched. I don't really have a case because I've been lazy this entire game and now I have school and other stuff to do.

Webadict No Rei has been kinda absent this day and is my second pick.

Tiruin: What point are you trying to make.

[Jim Groovester]

I was thinking more SK pretending to be a vigilante instead of just straight vig. Hence my concern about you calling him mafia.

I just said "mafia" because I thought he was scum.  It seems strange to assume someone is an SK when there was only one kill on the previous night, though.

It was a better-fitting explanation than Solifuge being mafia.

Jim:

Anyways, moving on, I think Leafsnail is scum. So if we look back to the Day 2 votes on Solifuge, we see that most everybody wanted him to show up and explain himself. Leafsnail is the odd man out in that he was certain Solifuge was scum.

I don't really buy this.  Since when does certainty = scummy?  I thought it was the other way; passive and waffly was scum.  Yes, I read your explanation, but I don't see it as a condemnation of Leafsnail at all.

Alright, look at it like this:

Scum Leafsnail recognizes Solifuge's vigkill. This is bad news for the scumteam, so Leafsnail decides to lynch Solifuge. Not a difficult task after Solifuge attempted the tie.

Leafsnail's not interested in further information, like what Solifuge has to say for himself, because he already knows what's going on. So he comes across as dead certain about Solifuge.

That's why Leafsnail's certainty at the start of D2 strikes me as scummy. You see what I'm getting at?

In any case, Leafsnail's responses have satisfied me, so I will unvote. I'll have to do a reread because otherwise I'm lost.

[webadict]

Hey, Jim. Your power. I'm wondering why it says stuff about my flavortext in it. Like, it relates back to it in a minor way, and it's been bugging me. Is that coincidence?

[Jim Groovester]

Probably not. Supposedly I appeared to everyone in a dream in a form they would be comfortable with. I do know the forms I appeared as (since Vector handily provided them), but not the player the form was tailored to.

If there's any flavor relevance beyond that, it's not something I know about.

[zombie urist]

Maybe its time for flavorclaim? You were a math goddess in my dream. My char is based on a female mathematician.

[Jim Groovester]

It wouldn't hurt.

[Tiruin]

I'm really betting Jim appeared as what we see ourselves to be, somehow, or what we desire. He appeared as a swordsman-royalty-ish person in mine.


ZU

Tiruin: What point are you trying to make.

I've lost that long post I made and will be remaking it soon. The point is continued there.

What do you see in that post? Also, do you think I added nothing by that post?

Is your laziness contributing to the question you fail to mark correctly above? Why are you being lazy?
Toasty Toaster

Tiruin:

But really, I'm falling on the 'this may be a great red herring' if it's that significant--I...didn't sense anything out of the ordinary but my dream. Oh, and before anyone claims the alignment blah blah, I doubt it given my alignment. No, not a third-party.

Suspiciously Specific Denial.


In any case, I read your flavor analysis, and am not sure what you're concluding from it.  Or if you're concluding anything, to be more direct.  Do you suspect anyone?

Well it would be weird being a third party and saying "I am Jim Groovester, who stands with the Prince" rather than alongside or whatever. It would be weirder then, to see a third-party claim town when we've no idea on what he is, so I fall back on the two other logical conclusions there--town or scum.

Also the conclusion along with my suspect list (and reads as I see I'm lacking in content) will be coming up soon.

PFP

[webadict]

Sorry, guys. I'm not doing enough of my part this game right now. I'm busy doing some real life things, so I'll try to get something in tonight, but I'm more worried about real life things right now, so anything you can help me to get into the game would help. Questions and the like. Yeah yeah, I realize I'm not trying as hard, but real life. Thanks.

[Toaster]

Jim:  As for your case on Leafsnail, you're really putting the cart before the horse in assuming he's scum to make him scum.  But since you're unvoting him, I don't see the point of pressing the issue.

It wouldn't hurt.

I'm curious as to why you agreed with this idea yet didn't claim yourself.  I'll be willing to claim once you resolve that.


Tiruin:

I'm really betting Jim appeared as what we see ourselves to be, somehow, or what we desire. He appeared as a swordsman-royalty-ish person in mine.

SwordsMAN?

Tiruin:

But really, I'm falling on the 'this may be a great red herring' if it's that significant--I...didn't sense anything out of the ordinary but my dream. Oh, and before anyone claims the alignment blah blah, I doubt it given my alignment. No, not a third-party.

Suspiciously Specific Denial.

Well it would be weird being a third party and saying "I am Jim Groovester, who stands with the Prince" rather than alongside or whatever. It would be weirder then, to see a third-party claim town when we've no idea on what he is, so I fall back on the two other logical conclusions there--town or scum.

Before I go any farther with this, is your bolded statement talking about yourself or Jim?


Wuba:  What's your view on the proposed flavorclaim?

[webadict]

Wuba:  What's your view on the proposed flavorclaim?

I don't see the point behind it, and it sort of reveals my role, which I'd really rather not.