Like, no one mentioned the discrepancy behind Quandary's response to MG2 and imgay, and imgay has proven he really doesn't care about this game with his last post.
|
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 22:22 |
|
|
# ? Apr 28, 2024 22:16 |
This is probably because I am biased, but SSV is thinking of the same things I have been in regards to the no-lunch argument, and that just strengthens my resolve to vote Quandary.
|
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 22:25 |
|
I'm kind of in the same line of thinking. Reread time, I guess.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 22:27 |
The Lord of Hats posted:I'm kind of in the same line of thinking. Reread time, I guess. Of who? There are a lot of opinions expressed.
|
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 22:28 |
imgay posted:imgay. I just want to remind people that imgay pushed for a mass claim that would just make things easier for scum to pick their next target, and then followed up with this wonderful post.
|
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 22:30 |
Quandary, Chaoslord, imgay/BK for scum, imo.
|
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 22:35 |
|
Max posted:Of who? There are a lot of opinions expressed. You, regarding SSV on the no-lynch argument.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 22:45 |
The Lord of Hats posted:You, regarding SSV on the no-lynch argument. Cool.
|
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 22:47 |
|
Alright, reread both Quandary and SSV. I've got nothing. Just... nothing.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2016 23:05 |
Hey, we have one hour.
|
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 01:35 |
|
I'll be around until deadline.
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 01:49 |
|
I'm here, but I think you know where I stand.
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 01:51 |
|
Looks like you might get your wish then.
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 02:08 |
This sucks.
|
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 02:12 |
|
Where'd Hats go? Still reading?
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 02:18 |
|
Max posted:This sucks. word
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 02:18 |
A lot of people have done complete bullshit. Keep this in mind on the next day when we have one less town to discuss anything and scum command the vote with even more confidence.
|
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 02:22 |
FL, I know you made lots of posts about math and numbers, but in a very general sense there is a far greater chance for a no lunch to only help the scum in this case.
|
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 02:23 |
Like, all your posts were about how we shouldn't give up the very slim chance that the PR doesn't get NK'd and actually hits scum somehow. You realize it is far, FAR more likely that nothing happens, we lose a town, and scum benefit and we're back to today. This plan loving sucks.
|
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 02:24 |
|
If I wasn't pretty sure that the remaining scum were chaoslord and bottleknight I'd be squinting pretty hard at you hats.
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 02:51 |
|
err, leatherman I mean. THe one advocating the no lynch
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 02:52 |
7 minutes.
|
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 02:53 |
|
BK SSV and then probably Max, wrap it up folks. See y'all in the morning
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 02:59 |
|
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 03:00 |
|
beep beep
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 03:00 |
|
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 03:01 |
|
You chumps didn't lynch anyone today. It is night 3.
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 03:04 |
|
imgay was killed on night 3! You are a lowly serf You are vanilla town. You win when all threats are eliminated. it is now day 4!
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 19:35 |
So did anyone learn anything?
|
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 19:40 |
Killing imgay was the dumbest town member to kill. He would have only helped scum.
|
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 19:41 |
|
Yeah, I'm pretty surprised that they'd have picked him. He seemed like a good target for a mislynch later on.
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 19:51 |
Perfect target for mislunch or just as a non-engaged town that can win them the game. Maybe they thought he was the power role? I really don't understand that decision.
|
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 19:53 |
|
Cop claim Quandary- not scum BK - scum Max - scum I don't know if I trust that last result, so make of it what you will.
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 20:09 |
I want to see if there is any counter claim. If not, I know I was framed.
|
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 20:34 |
Can you explain your targets? Like, why pick Quandary first?
|
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 20:34 |
|
imdead
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 20:41 |
|
Max posted:Can you explain your targets? Like, why pick Quandary first? Quandary was MMT's doing so I don't have any input on that. BK was because I thought BK was scum (he is). I thought you were scum because of how adamant you were that no lynching, which in a vacuum is absolutely 100% the correct move yesterday, was the wrong move. Felt like you were trying too hard to force the game to end. The only reason I was against a no lynch was because I had this role. I have no idea how a VT could be against it as strongly as you were. And yet here I am with doubt now.
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 20:44 |
|
Well there goes my Quandary/BK/Chaoslord theory... Well, two out of three aren't bad. I agree that your third result is probably a lucky frame now that I know that we're in the framer setup. Max has felt too townie to me for me to think he's scum. I'm also unsurprised by the Quandary result, a Godfather would be the most likely to try to claim a vig.
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 20:50 |
SirSamVimes posted:Well there goes my Quandary/BK/Chaoslord theory... Well, two out of three aren't bad. This was my fear but who knows. I have felt pretty good about BK being scum though for the whole game, and would vote for him.
|
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 20:53 |
|
|
# ? Apr 28, 2024 22:16 |
|
While I know 100% that Quandary is scum, I'm also comfortable enough with BK being scum too that I'd vote him.
|
# ? Feb 23, 2016 20:57 |