|
I'll play a game.
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
##vote Max Lynch all Nazis.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
Tobbs Gnawed posted:Go eat a cock, whore If I'd known this was a Firefly game I wouldn't have signed up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Moatillata posted:As scum im really careful, I mean the whole game rests on the shoulders of a scum team not being a flaming pile of poo poo That's a really good excuse to not make content. "Oh yeah, guys, my Town meta is to totally not contribute. I only try hard when I'm scum".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
BK, can we get a deadline and a Votefinder link?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
Retro Futurist posted:Boy I sure never get tired of watching the Aussies have the same meta-based slap fights all the time It's not like there's anything else to do in Australia. I'd rather vote Tomm out of the two of them, for that laboured nickname. "Infinitescum" is right there, man.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
On my phone at work, but I don't recall Tommunist or Infi voting for each other. For a slap fight it's very polite.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Max posted:Though it also has that "new player" smell about it. Is SoS new(ish?) I had to check the list to make sure that they were in the game. I haven't seen them before, unless they're a renamed account (stop loving doing that you bastards).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:I think SoS's suspicion of Tommunist is fake. ##vote SoS I can go with that. I usually only check the list when the game is fast moving to make sure I haven't just enabled a turbo or hammered, but it's something I can see Tomm doing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Where are AA, Retro and chores? They haven't voted anyone. (Asiina too, but Asiina has checked in.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Retro Futurist posted:I'm like five posts above you settle down One day I'm going to check my poo poo thoroughly and the world will end.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Infinitum posted:I'll be around for lynch. I don't think there's enough momentum for Tomm. I also don't like this much: Retro Futurist posted:You know, looking it over I'm actually finding myself agreeing with SoS. If Tomm had brushed it off as a joke and SoS kept on it then yeah, I'd vote SoS no problem, but Tomm actually tries to justify his Kash vote and as SoS notes, the evidence doesn't line up with his version of events. "The evidence" works fine if Tomm dropped off a vote then went to the OP to find someone else to read.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
You all have about 15 minutes to persuade me not to vote SOS. After that I'm going to bed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
##vote SOS
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Well, that's a good start.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Max posted:Something about Tobbs has been making my nose itch this game. With Chores flipping, could this have been some soft bussing? Now my nose is itching about you. Diqnol asked who our favourite person to lynch was 35 minutes into Day 1 and before Chores had even posted. There's no way whatsoever that Tobbs could point at a post saying he wanted to lynch Chores from the off and claim Town cred from it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Infinitum posted:Bugger it. I was blocked last night because my action failed. Who were you performing your action on?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Max posted:How do you feel about the three people that immediately bit the tobbs bait? I thought it was two: Pig and Stickup. And the answer is I'm not keen on either of them, but I want a couple of people to provide more clarity before I decide what I'm doing today. There's scum on that train, I'm sure, but I also think there's scum on the Moat train - it's running too easily towards a turbo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
Infinitum posted:tl;dr This is a very bad post. The NK was blocked and Moat was jailed. Unless we have a Doc who got lucky, that suggests Moat was the NK target and thus Town.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I thought it was two: Pig and Stickup. And the answer is I'm not keen on either of them, but I want a couple of people to provide more clarity before I decide what I'm doing today. There's scum on that train, I'm sure, but I also think there's scum on the Moat train - it's running too easily towards a turbo. I just realised both Pig and Stickup are also on the Moat turbo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
this is a stickup posted:it also suggests that moat could have been performing the NK and there is no way to differentiate That is true. On the other hand, you're the guy who has hopped on two bandwagons and just said he wants a double turbo so I'm not about to think of you kindly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
Infinitum posted:Well you'd be the expert on bad posts, especially with such a rolefishy doc callout. It is not fishing to consider alternate possibilities. If I'd said Moat had to be on one end of the NK I would have been wrong, and someone looking for an excuse would have called me on that instead.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
Max posted:That's what's bothering me about the pile up though. We have a second person who also claimed to have been roleblocked on a night where there was no NK and no one went "well Inf could have been the NK'er" (I do not believe this is the case.) But somehow Moat must be the person who performed the NK because . . . Infi claimed to be blocked. This is unverified, but it's a stretch to think that he would lie about it because it attracts attention to him. It's almost certainly not the case that he would lie if he attempted the NK, because if there's a Tracker out there he's screwed. Tomm, on the other hand, claimed to have jailed Moat. It isn't hard to confirm that one way or the other if Moat flips, so long as he gets a chance to claim. It doesn't mean Tomm is a Town jailer of course, but again it's a stretch to think it's a lie. And if Moat was jailed, then he could have attempted the NK.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Infinitum posted:Also because I'm the Doc If you're telling the truth here, Tomm must be Town, right? If you were blocked, then there was no save and so Moat must be either the NK or the target. If Moat performed the NK, then Tomm must be Town because as scum he wouldn't block his bro. If Moat was the target, then Tomm must be Town because scum wouldn't block their own kill.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Infinitum posted:No the simplest solution is You're arguing that Town have two protection roles.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
this is a stickup posted:I don't like the feels I'm getting over people defending moat when it's a 50/50 shot of being him the target or killer A lot of my reasoning for defending Moat is based on Infinitum using him to cast shade on Tomm. Tomm is a power role, and if Infi is telling the truth he is also 99% confirmed Town. But Infi is still pushing the "gut feel" case he made on Tomm on Day 1 and if Moat flips Town has set up an excuse to keep pushing into Day 3.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Moatillata posted:I think stickup is a good vote tbh. I guarantee my flip will be what I claimed from the beginning which I guess is useful because maybe you guys might go after all the folks who piled on so easily and readily. What are your thoughts on the possibility that if there's an SK, the scum may have a protective role?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Diqnol posted:This was a gross misunderstanding of the situation between those two to the point that it appears that Jedit didn't read the thread whatsoever. Mix that with a "me too" vote on SoS and a lurker callout and you have a pretty scummy d1. To Jedit's credit, however, he was around for the deadline; a pro town move to be sure. Also feeling better about Jedit's posting today now that I'm reading it so not super sold on Jedit scum but I know him to be a good player and that d1 stuff is pretty textbook scum maneuvering. You've also played enough with me to know that I'm pretty bad at Day 1 and it's frequently used to push for a lynch. Also I wasn't around at deadline, which is normal for me because it's usually 2am or 3am UK time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Infinitum posted:It's weird Jedit cause I did none of those things, in fact I cased Tomm D1 and I'm using player based evidence for my case D2 against Moat This: Infinitum posted:No I claimed that Scum would perceive the other players as either Town or a 3P. So in their mind players are more than likely "Non-town" as they are trying to throw possible shade onto various players. Is not a case. It's semantics. And it's pretty funny that your case on Moat depends on Tomm not lying after you suspected him the whole of Day 1 and said you'd gun for him if Moat turned out to be Town. Funny, and not at all like you're trying to set up a chain of justified suspicions. While we're on the subject of you: Infinitum posted:If we don't have a cc from a protective role, I'll vote moat Infinitum posted:Well you'd be the expert on bad posts, especially with such a rolefishy doc callout. I suggested the possibility of a Doc, you say I'm fishing. Then you openly call for a protective role to own up, and when nobody does you claim Doc. Right. ##vote Infinitum
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:Again I stress that even if Tobbs was someone who I had never seen play before, I would think he was scum. It's not just meta. What is tingling you that isn't meta, then? I just re-read him and I'm not seeing anything other than someone trying to make cases.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:Quote 2 of his cases this game. He expanded on one case. Reading over again, though, you're right: Tobbs is contributing, but not actively casing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Anomalous Amalgam posted:Wait, still most importantly. Inf somehow knows he was blocked. How do you know this? He would most likely get a PM saying his action failed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Anomalous Amalgam posted:Could be an ascetic trait, could be a hider, or a commuter, several things could result in his action failing so assuming as fact that there is a roleblocker is a bit scummy, because he doesn't sell it as oh, there might be. He goes, I was blocked. Definitive. He said that after Tomm had claimed Jailer, though. I wouldn't assume two Jailers for sure and I would assume RB before Hider or Commuter - particularly in a game where the flavour is we're on a spaceship, there's nowhere to commute to. No: it still bothers me more that he suggested Tomm was an RB then claimed to have been RBed himself. Barring major shenanigans he had to know that couldn't be true.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Moatillata posted:I'm not really falling over myself to lynch tomm or infinitum rn but I think they need to immediately claim their actions (as in shine 3 with INF) Tomm already claimed, you dipshit, he jailed you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Asiina posted:Good thing I'm not saying that. So you're saying we should lynch you even though you're a power role? Yeah, that's good Town play right there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
##vote Asiina This vote comes off if Asiina votes to break the existing deadlock. She has no excuse - I've phone voted before, it isn't the best but it's better than no lynch.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Asiina posted:Kill me today if you want but you know it'll be a contentless lynch and if you wait until tomorrow I may get a useful night action result. It won't be contentless if you're scum. It will make it very likely that you aren't currently voting because at least one of Stickup and Moat are scum and you wanted the deadlock to persist.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Infinitum posted:Ok the option is there was no town kill last night, and you got jailed Moving more to this line of thought now he's graduated to "hey everybody, I'm lynch leader so let's have a mass claim".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Moatillata posted:I am not advocating a mass claim thanks for putting words in my mouth Moatillata posted:I think our lynch should be one of the VT or no claims (myself included) as the other claimed roles are going to need to provide their actions and they can become verifiable How is this not pushing the no claimers to claim?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
Moatillata posted:Because it's not. I am not asking for a claim nor do I want it. If we are mislynching a PR I would hope they would claim other than that whatever Lynch Asiina for deliberately not playing, preferably. Failing that to go with the coinflip and lynch you, something I've held off on so far.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 02:02
|
|