Ugh.
Extend. Day ends tomorrow and I think we're going to need the extra time the way this is going.
It's not all that I have on him, however, I'd have to go over my notes and cross-reference them in order to form a concise thought.
flabort: Why not do this when you're placing your vote, instead of pointing at me and treating that as an argument?
Toaster You have been sliding down my scumometer as I've logged each post this morning. I find you have been aggressive and possibly even actively wanting a mislynch. What are your reads on everybody?
Telling us that your scumometer says something doesn't mean much. Explain, please. With evidence.
Imperial Guardsman: You have claimed to be a quasi-survivor who wins if you and an alleged townie live at the end of the game. Your claim makes sense, and the flavour is good. I generally believe your claim, though I cannot consider flabort above suspicion based on your claim alone.
However, quasi-survivor as you have claimed it is not a pro-town role, even if attached to a townie. It is a role that, should we make it to what would normally be >3p LYLO, can and likely will side with the mafia. In addition, your behaviour has not exactly been town-supportive.
I suggest that if we have a vig, that vig shoot Guardsman.
Im a survivor lover who doesnt sui when my target dies, but instead I get a different Wincon. I doubt I would get an SK or Mafia wincon if Flabort died.
Guardsman: And other non-town wincons aren't anti-town? Lyncher, which you lean towards, is disruptive and town-harming even if targeting the scum.
4maskwolf, if you wont bother to listen, you are endangering my wincon, and by extension, the towns wincon. I started a broadside against nearly everybody, with accusations of being a third, to make me un noticed by vigs...
Being a disruptive and useless twit flailing at everything and everyone is not vig repellant. It's a good way to attract vigs.
Lolz you're funny. This is actually hysterical. I'm dying laughing right now.
Because if you knew that you needed Flabort to live, then you wouldn't have voted for him in the first place, because you would have already known and not waited for a claim. And if you didn't know that you needed Flabort alive, then there was no way his claim was sufficient for you to determine that he was the one who needed to stay alive. Assuming you are telling the truth, which I doubt your vote for him was frankly ridiculous, and really risky. If your wincon truly relies on him staying alive, then you would never have taken a risk like that, no matter what. Because what if we had lynched him. You would have been the one to lose yourself the game. I've seen you play this game often enough to know that you wouldn't take a risk like that.
4maskwolf: I'm not very fond of poor-tasting wine. How much of a risk did you think that vote was, considering how little credibility Guardsman had and how people were treating his inane cases? Have you ever heard of distancing? With the astounding and risky way Guardsman has been playing today, do you really think he would never take an action that would decrease his chances of winning as much as his vote on flabort (that is, not all that much)?
I treat every vote on me as a lynch vote, and responded accordingly. I attacked you for having no case against me, as I would for anyone who attempted a lynch vote on me without a strong case.
Why do you treat every vote on you as a lynch vote? You've been playing here for a while. You know there is more nuance than that in voting.
notquitethere: So. People (I'd unvoted, and Flabort was starting to express doubts) were starting to move away from a Guardsman lynch. There was a move away from staring at the trainwreck. Two votes remained on the guy, and of those, one
was by someone who felt Guardsman was moving towards looking town-like.
And then you come in and
tell half the game to look at the trainwreck and start talking about it because it looked like the Guardsman lynch would happen. At the time, you ask him a few questions, but give no opinion.
You justify the push to focus on Guardsman by
saying you want to make sure nobody stays silent on major lynch ideas, yes. Of course, you were silent on whether the lynch was good when you told everyone to give opinions. With your justification, at least, you give your opinion of Guardsman: he's not helpful and behaves irrationally. Not really thoughts on whether to lynch him.
You also take a shot at 4maskwolf, and say you suspect him. For some reason, though, you would rather sit back and keep your old, reasonless
flabort vote, instead of voting for someone you suspect.
You're sitting on the sidelines, telling people who to look at and throwing scattered questions around. Any time you see much attention on a player, you tell half the game to look at that player. You give little in the way of thoughts on your own, and you repeatedly try to keep the focus of play on whoever gets attention. Aside from the initial 4maskwolf vote, you don't vote for any suspects.
Who do you think is scum? Why?
Why are you voting for flabort?
Why so passive?
PPE x A LOT:
*chuckles*
Flabort, check your sources, according to my chart and the lurkertracker the last and only person voted by Toaster is NQT.
4maskwolf: You are aware that votes are not the only tool for pushing mislynches, right?
Author
Topic: Supernatural 7 - Game over - Town Win! (Read 196026 times)