Print

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

[Jack A T]

EBWOP: And I just realized how my second-to-last sentence comes off.   No skepticism about 4mask's time constraints is intended.

[FallacyofUrist]

Now this is the case I wish I had. Brilliant.
~~~
Yeah, I think 4maskwolf placed a pressure vote on me- if it was a real one he would have given a large chunk of reasoning with it. Flabort has a more solid case against me, so that's who I'm going to try to respond to, unless 4maskwolf sends something else at me.

Flabort, for my ease of my processing your argument, could you state your 3 main points against me in bullet point form so I can actually see what you're saying about me properly(and so I can produce a proper response)?

I think I can respond to a clearly put and thought out list of concerns easier than "this and this and this flowing in this manner over time equal scum".

[zombie urist]

Votecount:
Tiruin -
Teneb -
TheDarkStar -
Deus Asmoth -
FallacyofUrist - flabort, 4maskwolf
Persus13 -
Jack AT -
Tawarochir - Teneb
4maskwolf - Tawarochir
flabort - Jack AT
notquitethere - TheDarkStar

Not voting: Tiruin, Persus13, FallacyofUrist, Deus Asmoth

0 to extend, 4 needed
0 to shorten, 6 needed

1/2 extends used so far

Day ends in ~24 hours

[4maskwolf]

As you two have guessed, it was a pressure vote.  I'm going to do some reading and should have a post to you by midnight my time (about three hours from now).  Probably sooner, but I'm being cautious about what I promise.

[notquitethere]

4mask throws in what he admits to be a 'pressure vote' in the dying moments of the day (were it not extended) to get Fallacy lynched. That's not a pressure vote, that's a prod off the cliff. Can we just lynch him already?

Tiruin, Persus13, FallacyofUrist, Deus Asmoth, you need to vote.

This is just another friendly reminder, WE ARE ON TRACK FOR A MISLYNCH. Two votes on one player and one vote on everyone else and almost half the players not voting never catches scum.


Flabort

Firstly, while looking at the quotes I had to support my theory, I found evidence that FoU did more scum hunting than I first supposed, but I didn't find any evidence that outright disproved my theory.

Being focused on the most outlying player on D1 isn't too big of a tell (remember, this is Fallacy's second game ever). In comparison, there are players (like Tiruin, 4maskwolf) who've managed to sneak through the entire day without doing much of anything.

My theory is that Fallacy decided early in the day that he and his scum-team would be lynching NQT and can't let go of that early desicion.

That would be a bit more credible if more than two players had ever voted me.

But look, I've got the trump card here: Fallacy is the most prolific poster. This is almost never scum.


Tawa

NQT, I thought that walls of text were generally frowned upon. Under what conditions are they generally considered acceptable?

When I'm replying to half a dozen people in one post, a wall of text is fairly unavoidable. But I try to keep each part of the response succinct: nobody is expected to respond to all of it. Not everyone is so concise.


Persus

Hello, all, I am the replacement for Lidku. I've been following along with the game, but I'll read through the thread again to respond to questions and stuff being posted.

It's more important that you form a case and vote for someone.

Nice to see I'm not being specifically targeted by NQT for jester tactics this time around.

Just wait until Day 2.

[flabort]

Really? From what I've seen you're attacking me for being overly focused on NQT? Only that? Really?

No. See below.

4maskwolf and flabort, can you state 3 distinct reasons for voting for me other than my intense focus on NQT? Please justify your votes, sil vous plait.

Flabort, for my ease of my processing your argument, could you state your 3 main points against me in bullet point form so I can actually see what you're saying about me properly(and so I can produce a proper response)?

(( 0) The focus on NQT))
1) Threatening people to do your bidding and agree with you.
2) Instead of coming up with ideas on your own you appeal to authority.
3) Not having any suspects (once you stopped focusing on NQT), viewing everyone as town. Being wishy-washy about hunting anyone else.

flabort: No full read list yet.  Even late D1, I don't have a solid set of reads together yet.  Exam season (finally done!).

I'm afraid I don't understand the questions about the key step I missed. Which actions were noted?

You brought up my response to NQT's response to my claim, and called it baffling.  You never connected that to scumminess.  You brought up how my claim was in the style of NQT's, and declared that suspicious, but never said how.

Anyway, you claim to think that NQT should at least live to D2.  Despite that belief, you take a neutral stance on what you seem to strongly believe is an NK aimed at NQT tonight.  Any reason your pro-NQT-survival stance disappears so quickly?  Why do you not oppose my test when you support NQT's survival past it, flabort? 

Congrats on being done your exams! Hope you did well.

It's true, I never connected the baffling response to scumminess; it was just baffling, not scummy. I don't see how, after reading those claims, anyone would not come to the conclusion that it could be a kill, and I don't see how you would assume it wouldn't be the first thought someone with experience with the kill-as-investigation technique would have.

You were the second person to claim in that way, and further people claiming that way makes it less suspicious now (When I said it only you and NQT had claimed, iirc); however, while you claimed using NQT's format, you also kind of claimed more directly, which made claiming in the roundabout "is it true or isn't it" way not necessary; your WIFOM came in a different form, and asking you about it would be a form of rolefishing.

Re: My stance 'disappearing': Wut? I maintain that NQT shouldn't be lynched today; should NQT be night killed, that's too bad, but I'd like to see him not be NKed. Which is why I maintain a neutral stance on your investigation: What I say won't change your mind about using your possibly-a-NK, so it doesn't matter which opinion I express. I could oppose it if I knew for sure it was a NK and I believed there was a chance of changing your mind about it it, but that is not the case.

PPE:

Flabort

Firstly, while looking at the quotes I had to support my theory, I found evidence that FoU did more scum hunting than I first supposed, but I didn't find any evidence that outright disproved my theory.

Being focused on the most outlying player on D1 isn't too big of a tell (remember, this is Fallacy's second game ever). In comparison, there are players (like Tiruin, 4maskwolf) who've managed to sneak through the entire day without doing much of anything.

My theory is that Fallacy decided early in the day that he and his scum-team would be lynching NQT and can't let go of that early desicion.

That would be a bit more credible if more than two players had ever voted me.

But look, I've got the trump card here: Fallacy is the most prolific poster. This is almost never scum.

I could have sworn it was his third... but that doesn't matter, it could be his second or third game and it wouldn't make a big difference. True about players sneaking under the radar by not doing anything; TheDarkStar comes to mind. I did also list a couple other reasons, but they got buried under the proof needed to prove he was over-focused; if it weren't those reasons as well, I'd be willing to concede that point.

OK, so it doesn't seem that credible a theory now that you put it that way.

Re: Trump card: Keyword almost. I appreciated when you used that defense to help me, though, so I guess I'll concede the point in it's entirely.

I am dropping my case against Fallacy for now.
TheDarkStar Sentry mode activated. Is anyone there?

[flabort]

votecount:

Where is NQT's vote?

[Jack A T]

Congrats on being done your exams! Hope you did well.

flabort: Thanks.  I think I did.

Re: My stance 'disappearing': Wut? I maintain that NQT shouldn't be lynched today; should NQT be night killed, that's too bad, but I'd like to see him not be NKed. Which is why I maintain a neutral stance on your investigation: What I say won't change your mind about using your possibly-a-NK, so it doesn't matter which opinion I express. I could oppose it if I knew for sure it was a NK and I believed there was a chance of changing your mind about it it, but that is not the case.

Alright, this is helpful.  Unvote.  Just to be clear, though: if it were definitely a nightkill, but I wasn't going to change my mind, would you voice opposition when directly questioned?  Are you neutral on any issue you don't think you can significantly affect?

As you two have guessed, it was a pressure vote.  I'm going to do some reading and should have a post to you by midnight my time (about three hours from now).  Probably sooner, but I'm being cautious about what I promise.

4maskwolf: Yeah, this isn't helping you.  You made this tiny post just before 9 PM, when the day would have ended sans extension.  Not a good sign when your pressure vote would have sat through the lynch without your return.

[flabort]

Re: My stance 'disappearing': Wut? I maintain that NQT shouldn't be lynched today; should NQT be night killed, that's too bad, but I'd like to see him not be NKed. Which is why I maintain a neutral stance on your investigation: What I say won't change your mind about using your possibly-a-NK, so it doesn't matter which opinion I express. I could oppose it if I knew for sure it was a NK and I believed there was a chance of changing your mind about it it, but that is not the case.

Alright, this is helpful.  Unvote.  Just to be clear, though: if it were definitely a nightkill, but I wasn't going to change my mind, would you voice opposition when directly questioned?  Are you neutral on any issue you don't think you can significantly affect?

Well, I'm not trying to be unhelpful . If it were definitely a night kill, but your mind was shut, I'd be a little more vocal about it but not much more; I'd maybe ask someone to roleblock you or jail NQT, but since your opinion would be unchangeable, I wouldn't spend an extreme amount of effort trying to convince you.
As far as being neutral on any issue, that depends on how much or how little I think I'd be able to affect; if I can nudge it in the right direction, but not enough to significantly effect it, I'd still give it a small shot. Effort put in is proportionate to the gain I expect.

[zombie urist]

votecount:

Where is NQT's vote?

The votecount is correct.

[4maskwolf]

Alright.

NQT, I'll call your bluff.  If you truly have a daykill you can use on people who are voting for you, use it now and spend the rest of the day finding an actual scum.  If you don't have it, then I want my vote on you anyway for that particular bluff, so we're all good.

I have an apology to give you all after the game is over, so somebody remind me to do that once this ends.

[notquitethere]

++DAY KILL 4MASKWOLF++

[notquitethere]

Anything you want to tell us before ZU gets in and processes that?

[4maskwolf]

Beware of flabort, he's good at looking towny as scum.

NQT is always lying.  Figure out what his angle is.

Jack A T's vote flopping has drawn my attention, but I'm not sure what it means yet.

[4maskwolf]

Oh, and until I receive the PM telling me I'm dead you're bluffing.