Print

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

[Dariush]

I see no links when you present your reasons here.

I (and everyone who kept even the laziest eye on the game) knew what I was talking about and anybody who didn't was welcome to ask and get proof. I'm not Nuke and thus am not inclined to explain and retort every sentence with meaningless WoTs and provide explanations when everyone knows what I'm talking about.

Or here.

Okay, now you're just bullshitting me. The post I was responding to was directly above mine and even if it wasn't, you could click on the nifty little link that says 'quote from such-and-such'.

If I continued with my inaccurate, false case against Wuba, I'd get lynched.

Which is commonly abbreviated to 'being under threat of lynching'. But whatever, I'm not a grammar nazi.

You. Admitted. To. Backing. Off. From. Your. Vote. So. You. Won't. Get. Lynched. You didn't say 'I think my vote is wrong, so I'll back off', you said 'I'll back off so I don't get lynched'.

[Orangebottle]

I (and everyone who kept even the laziest eye on the game) knew what I was talking about and anybody who didn't was welcome to ask and get proof. I'm not Nuke and thus am not inclined to explain and retort every sentence with meaningless WoTs and provide explanations when everyone knows what I'm talking about.

Or you could've just put it in the original summary so as to not waste our time and effort on getting you to provide evidence. And no, everybody doesn't know what you're talking about unless you post it clearly, with evidence.

Okay, now you're just bullshitting me. The post I was responding to was directly above mine and even if it wasn't, you could click on the nifty little link that says 'quote from such-and-such'.

This one? It had no links or evidence either. You were summarizing your case. You didn't link to anything that proved that he did anything you said.

You. Admitted. To. Backing. Off. From. Your. Vote. So. You. Won't. Get. Lynched. You didn't say 'I think my vote is wrong, so I'll back off', you said 'I'll back off so I don't get lynched'.

I admitted to both. Guess what? Townies don't want to get lynched either.

[TolyK]

posting from (friends) phone:
extent

[Toaster]

Vote Count:

Darvi: 
Think0028: 
Mr.Person: 
Orangebottle: Darvi, Dariush
Dariush:  Orangebottle, Mr.Person
Simple: 
Max White: 
Webadict: 
TolyK:  Webadict

Not Voting:  Think0028, Simple, Max White, TolyK


Day has been extended.

Day 2 will last until Friday, 9/9 at 11 PM EST.

[Max White]

Tolyk: I can't get a read off you if you never post. You still haven't given us your stance on Nuke, and that was promised waaay back in day 1. Your late with your homework, I suggest you get some serious catch up done, hang.
Give me a wall of text to break down, and we shall see about that vote.

[Max White]

" I suggest you get some serious catch up done, or go hang.
Semantics, but it makes it hard to read.

[Orangebottle]

Spoiler: Broken Quote Tags (click to show/hide)

I (and everyone who kept even the laziest eye on the game) knew what I was talking about and anybody who didn't was welcome to ask and get proof. I'm not Nuke and thus am not inclined to explain and retort every sentence with meaningless WoTs and provide explanations when everyone knows what I'm talking about.

Or you could've just put it in the original summary so as to not waste our time and effort on getting you to provide evidence. And no, everybody doesn't know what you're talking about unless you post it clearly, with evidence.

Okay, now you're just bullshitting me. The post I was responding to was directly above mine and even if it wasn't, you could click on the nifty little link that says 'quote from such-and-such'.

This one? It had no links or evidence either. You were summarizing your case. You didn't link to anything that proved that he did anything you said.

You. Admitted. To. Backing. Off. From. Your. Vote. So. You. Won't. Get. Lynched. You didn't say 'I think my vote is wrong, so I'll back off', you said 'I'll back off so I don't get lynched'.

I admitted to both. Guess what? Townies don't want to get lynched either.

Fixed them quote tags.
Max:Great. Now we have a three-way tie going.

[Max White]

Perfect. A three way tie is more fragile than a two way tie, thus more likely for a town player to change their mind and vote their second choice.
Better a choice of three than a choice of two.

[webadict]

Webadict: why are you defending me? Do you think I'm incapable of doing so myself?

Simple: Does it really matter? Either way I'd be backing off. They're both perfectly accurate.

Extend, I want to hear Dariush's action.

No, I just thought it was a stupid attack. I'm sure you are plenty capable of defending against that.

Actions:
Webadict:  Protect on Simple
Mr.Person:  Cursed Weapon Dariush
Think0028:  Protect on Webadict
Simple:  Noned
Max White:  Tracked Darvi to Webadict
Darvi:  Detect Monster on Webadict, came up Darvi, Think0028, and TolyK
TolyK:  Tracked Webadict to Simple
Dariush:  Noned
Orangebottle:  Noned, No one targeted

There was no kill last Night, which means one of two things:
1) Mr.Person's Curse Weapon succeeded in stopping Dariush's mafiakilling.
2) The scum have slowed themselves, which should result in two kills tomorrow.

As such, I guess maybe Dariush is scum (I've been wrong before), though I still believe TolyK is also scum. This should eliminate #1 from the list, leaving the double kill up for possibility tomorrow. However, since there are currently 9 people alive, lynching 1 and 2 kills should bring us down to 6 tomorrow if it is in fact #2. If #2 is correct, then Dariush could turn up either, and two kills should occur tonight.

And, just to be cautious, if no one dies tomorrow, then

3) There is a cult.

But, if that's true, lylo tomorrow.

Perfect. A three way tie is more fragile than a two way tie, thus more likely for a town player to change their mind and vote their second choice.
Better a choice of three than a choice of two.

Broken.

[Darvi]

Okay; my mistake. I was asking you a question, not FOSing you. Doesn't change the fact that your reasons for voting me are still terrible.

M'kay. I still wonder how you could make such a mistake, but I guess people are derpy at times.

He said he didn't want to be too straightforward. Remind me, how isn't not wanting to be honest a scumtell?

So it's rather the fact that he didn't want to be "straightforward" that tipped you off? And not the fact that he didn't want to say "I don't think either is scum", possibly out of fear to come over as buddying? Because in retrospect, that's how it looks to me.

Also, that was the only time that day that I actually went after him; the rest were me trying to encourage him to be active.

And you didn't think that maybe, I dunno, getting him to say something yourself by actually talking to him other than "talk, man, talk!"?

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that I'm asking him questions based on Webadict's points.

You seem conveniently to be ignoring the fact that that's not my deal. My deal is not that you blindly pseudo-bandwagon on TolyK without further explanation, my point is that you "suspect" him for exactly the same reason as wuba. And really "Why are you so passive"? That's less of a question and more a condemnation with an attached question mark. Because even I could tell you that the answer would be something along the lines of "Sorry, busy RL, blahblahblah". Hardly a good question.

I know what the acronym means. You're voting me for incredibly shitty reasons after I  asked you a question.

In any case, i'm not even voting for TolyK with these reasons. I'm FoSing him. Huge difference.

Which raises again the question why you used the acronym in the first place. Also FoS pretty much means "I'd be voting for you now if I wasn't busy voting for the other guy". Not so huge difference.
But then again you have handed FoS's out like candy so I guess your FoS threshold is lower than other's.

Also, you keep trying to justify your suspicion, and never even tried to say "Hey, wuba had a good point. That's why I used the same arguments." Because, that's the entire point of presenting your arguments for voting people.

So... here's a good question: Is it bad to follow someone if they're right?

On principle, no. Except OB has never made any such claims, as I just said.

He clearly has time to write up a WoT, yet none to participate. Not okay.

Aaaand what was the point of summarizing that part of my post?

Also wuba, question.

But, if that's true, lylo tomorrow.

If there's a cult (and Dariush really is scum as you believe), then it would be 3vs5 tomorrow. That's assuming a 2 man cult to begin with, which would be quite unfair from Toaster. Still doesn't lylo make. Why would you assume that we would be at lylo tomorrow?

[webadict]

Err... I was assuming mislynch if cult and no mafia, since that's worst case scenario. I was sort of rushing at the end.

I don't think there is a cult, though. It was more to let people know just in case.

[Orangebottle]

So it's rather the fact that he didn't want to be "straightforward" that tipped you off? And not the fact that he didn't want to say "I don't think either is scum", possibly out of fear to come over as buddying? Because in retrospect, that's how it looks to me.

What.
No, seriously, what?
He could say,"I don't think either of them is scum. Rather, I think <X> is scum. <post case against X here>." Would that still be scummy? Not in my opinion.

And you didn't think that maybe, I dunno, getting him to say something yourself by actually talking to him other than "talk, man, talk!"?

I started asking him questions today. Yesterday I was busy with NUKE.

You seem conveniently to be ignoring the fact that that's not my deal. My deal is not that you blindly pseudo-bandwagon on TolyK without further explanation, my point is that you "suspect" him for exactly the same reason as wuba. And really "Why are you so passive"? That's less of a question and more a condemnation with an attached question mark. Because even I could tell you that the answer would be something along the lines of "Sorry, busy RL, blahblahblah". Hardly a good question.

So, suspecting someone for the same reasons as someone else does is a scumtell now? Because if it is, I'm never playing this game again. That is just absurd. Being busy is also a terrible excuse for passivity. If I had said 'why are you lurking', maybe. But if you have enough time to defend yourself, you have enough time to scumhunt.

Which raises again the question why you used the acronym in the first place. Also FoS pretty much means "I'd be voting for you now if I wasn't busy voting for the other guy". Not so huge difference.
But then again you have handed FoS's out like candy so I guess your FoS threshold is lower than other's.

Because I thought I'd FoS'd you, and forgot that I hadn't.

Also, you keep trying to justify your suspicion, and never even tried to say "Hey, wuba had a good point. That's why I used the same arguments." Because, that's the entire point of presenting your arguments for voting people.

Using his arguments means I agree with him. This is a terrible point.

Darvi. Your case is shit. Stop flinging it at me.

[Mr.Person]

Damn power outage has left we with a reduced amount of posting time.

Toaster: Players aren't told that they've been hit by, say, a curse weapon or curse armor effect, right?

You. Admitted. To. Backing. Off. From. Your. Vote. So. You. Won't. Get. Lynched. You didn't say 'I think my vote is wrong, so I'll back off', you said 'I'll back off so I don't get lynched'.

Wow, this is just sad. You're saying Orangebottle is scummy because he's backing off of Webadict to not get lynched, which is a fair thing to assume. Except that in this case, the REASON Orangebottle would get lynched is because his case is incorrect. Unless you can come up with another reason Orangebottle might of been killed for continuing to argue with Webadict, Orangebottle backed off after realizing his/her case against Webadict was bad. So what you're saying is that a townie in Orangebottle's situation should hold onto his/her vote even with the knowledge that that vote is incorrect just to avoid trying to avoid getting lynched? Ok, that's stupid enough for me, but wait a cotton-picking second, you voted NUKE for voting Orangebottle with the knowledge Orangebottle was town to get more information. That means you're trying to make Orangebottle look bad for NOT doing something you voted NUKE for doing earlier in the game! That's hypocrisy! That means you're saying anything to make other players look scummy, which is classic scum acting in my book.

Okay; my mistake. I was asking you a question, not FOSing you. Doesn't change the fact that your reasons for voting me are still terrible.

M'kay. I still wonder how you could make such a mistake, but I guess people are derpy at times.

He said he didn't want to be too straightforward. Remind me, how isn't not wanting to be honest a scumtell?

So it's rather the fact that he didn't want to be "straightforward" that tipped you off? And not the fact that he didn't want to say "I don't think either is scum", possibly out of fear to come over as buddying? Because in retrospect, that's how it looks to me.

So you think Orangebottle is suspicious for using an original case rather than YOUR case against TolyK?

I know what the acronym means. You're voting me for incredibly shitty reasons after I  asked you a question.

In any case, i'm not even voting for TolyK with these reasons. I'm FoSing him. Huge difference.

Which raises again the question why you used the acronym in the first place. Also FoS pretty much means "I'd be voting for you now if I wasn't busy voting for the other guy". Not so huge difference.
But then again you have handed FoS's out like candy so I guess your FoS threshold is lower than other's.

Also, you keep trying to justify your suspicion, and never even tried to say "Hey, wuba had a good point. That's why I used the same arguments." Because, that's the entire point of presenting your arguments for voting people.

So your problem with Orangebottle isn't the copying of Webadict's case, it's that Webadict isn't getting credit where credit is due? Or is it more that Orangebottle is trying to pass off Webadic't scumhunting as original?

[Toaster]

Vote Count:

Darvi: 
Think0028: 
Mr.Person: 
Orangebottle: Darvi, Dariush
Dariush:  Orangebottle, Mr.Person, Webadict
Simple: 
Max White: 
Webadict: 
TolyK:  Max White

Not Voting:  Think0028, Simple, TolyK

Day 2 will last until Friday, 9/9 at 11 PM EST, ~15 2/3 hours from now.

Toaster: Players aren't told that they've been hit by, say, a curse weapon or curse armor effect, right?

Players whose weapon/armor is cursed/blessed are notified.

[Dariush]

Wuba, do you have like... any reason for changing your vote from someone you were so awfully convinced is scum to someone you're awfully convinced is not based on a fact that if I was attempting to kill someone, there'd be a 33% chance of that action failing? Even you immediatly admit that this theory is weak and full of holes. Mind elaborating what the fuck you're attempting to do?

Mr.Person, you're either extremely stupid town or (which is much more probable) simply stupid scum. I repeated twice that I voted OB not simply for him backing off, but because he backed off so he wouldn't get lynched. Wrong case or not, there was a dozen of ways to gracefully get out of that vote without painting himself as obvscum. OB didn't pick any of them.