|
Yes.
|
#
¿
May 27, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 05:37 |
|
|
Samfucius posted:I am 100% sure there is scum in that jake vote. haha ##vote sam no you're not! unless you are, in which case.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
hi gay, there's actual content on this page it's pretty cool.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
imgay posted:Sorry to be responding to questions people act. what do you think of sam?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
##suggest Bronzemurder http://bronzemurder.timdenee.com/
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Did you all really post five pages over the weekend without killing Sam? Come on.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
EXAKT Science posted:Now that there's actual content, want to make a real case on him? Not really but I will! Murmur Twin posted:Just a thought - while I fully support modkilling inactive players, please try and keep "active content" in mind because I think it's a better metric than postcount. Some people (like yours truly) have a tendency to bunch multiple trains of thought into single posts and shouldn't (in my opinion) be punished for it. Come on, almost all this game happened over the weekend. Ascribing alignment value to anyone based on scheduling conflicts is silly. If you want a lurker dunk you at least should have been honest about it rather than obfuscating your intention with the pretense of an alignment call based on lurking. ##vote Murmur Twin
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Yeah, voting a lurker is dumb. Lurking is always anti-town behavior. However, it's alignment neutral. There are plenty of reasons why anyone wouldn't post that have nothing to do with the game. I almost gave a full recap of my weekend here to evidence how ridiculous the 'hiding in plain sight' hypothesis is. Voting someone based on lurking, while maybe something you could argue improves the quality of the game, is not scumhunting. Both scum and town lurk. Pretending that a case on lurkers has anything at all to do with hunting scum is scummy. MT is picking on targets that no one cares about and who probably wouldn't be around to defend themselves. Especially with the modkill threats, there's no way her case is genuine.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
EXAKT Science posted:100yrs you're SK hunting. Also, you did you miss when derp said that he did not, in fact, have a vig? Yeah, would vote 100.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
EXAKT Science posted:I want to talk a few things out with him, but that slot definitely still feels like scum to me. I don't really want to vote MT today, in large part because MCS is voting her, and he's giving me serious ~vibes~ because of the way he's aggressively misinterpreting my posting and doesn't really have any opinions of his own whatsoever, except that I'm an idiot from OWS for making an effort to whip votes onto one of my scumreads I can't recall any posts from MCS this game but 'aggressively misinterpreting' seems to be his raison d'etre.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
EXAKT Science posted:Start here and then read the interaction between MCS and me that follows. Looks like MCS just being an rear end in a top hat honestly, that tepid OWS slam is funny but not in the way it was intended. I'm way more concerned with GG slapping a vote on you following that exchange without any reasoning.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:That seems like a huge misinterpretation / overreaction to what I said. I can't believe you're accusing me of obfuscating my intent when I've made it abundantly clear that my vote is staying on imgay until (a) I see a better case or (b) there is a risk of a no-lynch if I'm holding out. so why make that post if you won't stand by it? yeah i really can't understand why you'd be suspicious of me for the reasons i just stated. i explained why a case based on lurking has no value whatsoever.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
100 is right though.Murmur Twin posted:
This is addressing the wrong part of 100's post. I want to vote 100 far less than MMT now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
why would either of you do that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Somberbrero posted:why would either of you do that? not the breadcrumbing, but the claiming at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
also i know i need to post more and win the game like a cool guy but i'm not up to it due to irl concerns. i would probably request a replacement if i had any other games going.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
JakeP posted:Since they basically 75% claimed I'd like to see them come out and say they are confirmed town masons, since so far they have just been pussy footing around aking a full claim no, stop. Murmur Twin posted:I saw it when I hit "preview post" but couldn't find the breadcrumb and as of right now don't necessarily believe the claim. vote mmt, she is scum.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
great well this was silly and unnecessary. mmt's reaction is very scummy. why does anyone have reason to immediately doubt that claim other than to work out of previous missteps or throw shade on a role that's problematic for scum?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:It's touchy cause we're confirmed lovers. I was going to refrain from claiming until it was a certain thing that I was the option for tonight but there you go, now it's out in the open for better or for worse. oh my god please stop.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
JakeP posted:lol i cant imagine there is more 'well one of us is a cop and the other is a doctor, but i won't say who is who. anyway that info is out there let's see what happens.'
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:While I normally don't mind being killed it would've sucked since it'd of brought/will bring down someone else which isn't all that fair that my bad play gets them caught up. you were -6 to dunk
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
honestly in rereading Sam, the case on him seems weaker in the context of actual content. does anyone want to restate the case? i think the argument for mmt is stronger.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:Did you miss the big case that I wrote up (which I still feel has extremely valid questions) before I saw the claim? i'm not concerned with your case on wwm, i'm concerned about your reaction to his claim. there's nothing wrong with posting your thoughts anyway with a caveat.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:What is more likely? the second. anyway, that's a false binary and also 'too scummy to be scum.' you're just backpedaling away from your misplay here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
JakeP posted:btw gg is on my shortlist of dudes id lynch today i'd go for him before Sam, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
It's a bad question to begin with. Quick reminder that MMT proposed chain-dunking lurkers that would be modkilled anyway, not because they're lurkers but because they were scum 'hiding in plain sight.'
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
JakeP posted:It seems pretty typical for somber I think? I don't think your post after the "claim" was particularly scummy oh come on. confirmed lovers claim. mmt hedges over whether she believes it. mmt proceeds to backpedal. Did you see her really bad no good terrible case based on lurking as scum behavior?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
the probably there is that it doesn't at all mesh with your previously stated position. abandoning your previous, scummy position doesn't mean it disappears. and no, i don't see how my posting made you suspicious. the lack of my posting should have made it impossible for you to think i was suspicious because there was nothing there.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
JakeP posted:I have found a lot of her casework and opinions questionable honestly, but there is so much of it. Not that that makes her town, but it makes me less willing to vote her day 1 aughhh but i don't get that at all. Posting content in high volume is inherently pro-town but ultimately alignment neutral, it's just the inverse of lurking. The same way you shouldn't vote someone for lurking, you shouldn't not vote someone because they're posting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:##vote Somber - he's not looking for scum, he's trying to drive the vote on me by referring to my posts with dismissive language. I've explained my thought process behind every single post he's accusing me of, and rather than acknowledging my answers or trying to interact with me he just keeps doubling down. dismissive language? where? I'm very annoyed that you'd suggest that, I feel like I've gone out of my way to be respectful. explanations are not excuses. if i find your explanations inadequate then i will continue to call attention to them. where have i ignored your posts? I have no idea what you're talking about in regards to number of posts. It doesn't seem to have any relevancy to this game. i've evidenced how your cases and arguments do not make sense and are not genuine.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
JakeP posted:I feel like somber is like this a lot of the time as town mmt does not make any goddamn sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:While I agree with you that # of words doesn't mean poo poo, the thing to look for is whether you think the person you're casing is being genuine or lying. The reason I have no issue throwing out a bunch of okay. how is that relevant? my casing is based on your explanations for scummy behavior, in the instances in which you've provided them and haven't just ignored me, being insufficient. i'm not going to indulge your question again because i start unconsciously grinding my teeth every time i see it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 21:13
|
|
is because I know I'm telling the truth and can explain how I arrived at every conclusion that I came to by remembering the thought processes that got me there.
|
Murmur Twin posted:Actually, one quick answer first - no! your lurker cases had no basis in reason. i've talked in depth about why that is. you abandoned it when called on it so i'm not sure why you're also trying to defend it now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
why is uranus -3? i don't understand the case on him at all. i'll vote gg if no one is willing to listen to my murmur case.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
MEDS CURE SCHIZOS posted:Exact's play still leaves a sour taste in my mouth, mostly because he seems to be angry and indignant at the fact that people aren't doing what he wants. which makes him scum because __________ ##vote ghostly gangsta
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
It is possible I am wrong and that Murmur is just incomprehensible, I dunno.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
i don't super care for Exakt's reaction to the flip.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:Who was hunting serial killers now? you, it was you hunting serial killers. claiming credit for that means nothing as to your alignment. i see exakt's socratic casing method as value neutral tbqhwy but casing anyone based on the night kill is out-and-out wrong and scummy as poo poo. the 'oh geez wow weird' reaction to imgay flipping feels phony. same goes for mithross but he's not trying to define the narrative for today based on the kill.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
EXAKT Science posted:Well, now that we know imgay was town, looking at the people pushing him is, in my opinion, the best place to start. Sam was one of the scummiest people in general yesterday, so I feel like he deserves a very strong second look today. MT was giving me vibes all day, and I really don't understand the way she was behaving before deadline. Plus, she was the hammer on GG, which is always worthy of note. town don't push town? EXAKT Science posted:Yesterday I thought that your play felt town and you were always the person on the imgay push that I suspected least of being scum. That continues to hold today. this conflicts with your initial premise . if you're casing people off the value of imgay flipping scum, wouldn't you reevaluate your read from yesterday? ##vote exakt science
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 05:37 |
|
|
EXAKT Science posted:I'm not casing based on the nightkill. I was surprised by the choice because imgay was the vote leader for a large chunk of Day 1, and that combined with his being the NK target makes me suspicious because it says to me that the scumteam thought that imgay was someone to be afraid of and didn't want to risk leaving him alive for another day to try to push for a misdunk on him. you say you're not casing based on the night kill but then the start of your next sentence reads into the choice of the nightkill. hey if we're going to read into the nightkill then why wouldn't it be possible that imgay could have been murdered as a frame job? normally i would say that's stupid and wrong but here someone comes out of the gate at the start of the day pushing a narrative based on the kill.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 22:03
|
|