Open 794 Pick Your Power X/Y (finished)


User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #69 (isolation #0) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 1:43 am

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: Ico
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #125 (isolation #1) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:28 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 98, the worst wrote:
In post 69, Green Crayons wrote:VOTE: Ico
hey talk to me about this? i don't think it was random, and that is a weird and mystical and exciting feeling.
Don't care for this:
Spoiler: posts
In post 36, Iconeum wrote:VOTE: gypix

Always trust datisi gut early game
In post 40, Iconeum wrote:it's not much, but i've got an early townread of hoopla here
In post 66, Iconeum wrote:luckily for them i'm already solidly pocketed so it's ok

Also not particularly keen about the gypyx shenanigans. Seems like a particularly confident push over very little. Feels like early scum distancing.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #151 (isolation #2) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:24 am

Post by Green Crayons »

What is it about addressing the flaws in Hoopla's plan, at that precise moment, that caught your attention?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #152 (isolation #3) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:25 am

Post by Green Crayons »

@username
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #154 (isolation #4) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 132, Gypyx wrote:Uh... ok, that just happened, safe to say that scum is on my wagon, try to look for persons who Fake finding me scummy, i'd probably look around grumpy / marquis, anyways bye sucks to suck
VOTE: gypyx
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #155 (isolation #5) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:30 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 154, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 132, Gypyx wrote:Uh... ok, that just happened, safe to say that scum is on my wagon, try to look for persons who Fake finding me scummy, i'd probably look around grumpy / marquis, anyways bye sucks to suck
VOTE: gypyx
came because the "I totally think I'm dead on page 6"

stayed because the "there is scum on my wagon" + <doesn't even know who is voting him because otherwise he would know that he isn't evicted> = manufactured last words = lying = ?!scum?!
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #157 (isolation #6) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:37 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Now do how you would react to seeing a fake D1 quickhammer when you’re scum.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #161 (isolation #7) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:54 am

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: Ico
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #215 (isolation #8) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:16 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 162, Datisi wrote:can you tell me why do those posts you linked in ping you?
didn't like the 180 on rvs to serious in a fingersnap on page 2 or 3 (whatever it was), plus those specific posts felt inorganic
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #216 (isolation #9) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:17 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 211, Grumpy Cat wrote:Green Crayons accurately ascertained Gypyx was faking a reaction after being fakehammered. Scum are less likely to take that accusatory route given they have no reason to think town!Gypyx is lying there, and no one else had seen his reaction as fake.
btw i would suspect scum to deny faking it

bc faking it for a reaction to a reaction test is lol
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #231 (isolation #10) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 3:05 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I already responded. Twice.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #233 (isolation #11) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 3:23 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I didn’t fake hammer.

Please read the game.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #235 (isolation #12) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 3:26 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 232, Clover Ebi wrote:Green Crayons did? He was the first person I was getting some wolf pings on not because of him going after the fake hammer but because I disliked the reasoning/way they worded it.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #237 (isolation #13) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 3:35 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Oh I see.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #241 (isolation #14) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:16 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Certainly hope not.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #242 (isolation #15) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:17 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 220, Hoopla wrote:an example of how we should use number analysis;

- gypyx is 11th in the draft (a low frequency slot for scum)
- he also chose 11 (a low frequency selection for scum)
- he is also on a doubled up number (an average frequency outcome for scum)

i'd want to be quite confident gypyx is much more likely scum than random if we're to wagon there.
I mean this is fine but don’t know if she was ever really saying let’s elim from top down.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #253 (isolation #16) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:36 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 252, the worst wrote:literally just crossing our fingers and following hoopla's plan turns this from mafia into a badly designed logic puzzle
who wants to do this though?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #254 (isolation #17) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:36 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 250, the worst wrote:well, one and a half.
you say one and a half

and i say five times

so let's meet in the middle and say it was twice.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #255 (isolation #18) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 4:38 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 253, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 252, the worst wrote:literally just crossing our fingers and following hoopla's plan turns this from mafia into a badly designed logic puzzle
who wants to do this though?
FWIW i might be interpreting what you are interpreting to be the thread's interpretation of hoopla's plan incorrectly.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #271 (isolation #19) » Mon Aug 31, 2020 5:19 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

way too many good vibes rn
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #388 (isolation #20) » Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:05 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 276, Iconeum wrote:
In post 125, Green Crayons wrote:Seems like a particularly confident push over very little. Feels like early scum distancing
yeah sure
weird thing to bring up on page 12
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #389 (isolation #21) » Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:08 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 302, DrDolittle wrote:I like, just don't agree with this, especially this line:
"the main players that should be off the table today is the trio of word/crayons/iamausername. the odds of one of these players being scum is so low we'd need overwhelming evidence to take a shot there."
what's the AI point you're making here?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #390 (isolation #22) » Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:18 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 373, Datisi wrote:you don't follow my train of thought or...? i mean seemed to be starting a push for certain players over others based on draft, no?
<ignores >

what is happening
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #391 (isolation #23) » Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:21 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 383, Umlaut wrote:Oh cool, more pages.
is this just how you're going to play?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #392 (isolation #24) » Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:23 am

Post by Green Crayons »

feel like one of DDL, S_S, and Datisi gotta be scum enjoying the free conversation generator that is Hoopla's number theory
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #393 (isolation #25) » Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:23 am

Post by Green Crayons »

feel like one of DDL, S_S, and Datisi gotta be scum enjoying the free conversation generator that is Hoopla's number theory
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #394 (isolation #26) » Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:24 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 385, Clover Ebi wrote:Word/Worst/Hoopla/Grumpy Cat are all good townreads for me. We've posted 16 pages in 2 days and it's super hard for me to not blur past the words to fully get my thoughts in so I might just deal with the fact I'll forever be behind so I can get my thoughts on a page. Reading all this is exhausting and I've played mostly larges! VOTE: Green Crayon
the stated reasons for this vote are wrong and also exceptionally uninteresting, so let's slot you as town for now
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #396 (isolation #27) » Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 391, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 383, Umlaut wrote:Oh cool, more pages.
is this just how you're going to play?
Umlaut isn't the only one who does catch up posts (hi yes I do it too but with multiple posts rather than a single big one), but damn the format just feels like a scum indicative tactic here.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #397 (isolation #28) » Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:27 am

Post by Green Crayons »

^^^ mech/theory is great scum convo material because it allows them to be productive without doing the hard part of making up cases against town

double bonus if you can suspect a player because they put forward a theory you can poke holes in
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #399 (isolation #29) » Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 396, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 391, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 383, Umlaut wrote:Oh cool, more pages.
is this just how you're going to play?
Umlaut isn't the only one who does catch up posts (hi yes I do it too but with multiple posts rather than a single big one), but damn the format just feels like a scum indicative tactic here.
Just so I'm not a complete ass, here, because Umlaut has suggested IRL reasons for not being as active as he might otherwise be (so the inactivity itself isn't AI). There's a sense of Umlaut's catch-up posts are more like detached observations rather than any attempt to really engage. No engagement is safer for scum because that never requires devolving into argument where you might actually have to put rubber to the road and evict a towns person based on the back of your bad reasons.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #400 (isolation #30) » Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:35 am

Post by Green Crayons »

"productive" as in posting something that looks substantive and contributing to the game wincon but isn't scumhunting
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #402 (isolation #31) » Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:38 am

Post by Green Crayons »

lol
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #403 (isolation #32) » Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:38 am

Post by Green Crayons »

what is even with that question
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #405 (isolation #33) » Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:43 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Okay.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #419 (isolation #34) » Tue Sep 01, 2020 11:40 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 406, word321 wrote:
In post 392, Green Crayons wrote:feel like one of DDL, S_S, and Datisi gotta be scum enjoying the free conversation generator that is Hoopla's number theory
why do I not fit in the list?
you and tw are town leans so are exempt from the pool
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #421 (isolation #35) » Tue Sep 01, 2020 11:42 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 418, the worst wrote:
In post 392, Green Crayons wrote:feel like one of DDL, S_S, and Datisi gotta be scum enjoying the free conversation generator that is Hoopla's number theory
is it bad that I don't think either of these players would avoid the temptation to chomp down on number theory nonsense as either alignment but statistically desperately want you to be right?
By my own estimate 2/3 of them are possibly town so it’s not exactly the AI silver bullet.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #609 (isolation #36) » Wed Sep 02, 2020 12:37 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 597, DrDolittle wrote:I have an issue that I have a too many scum reads this game, which usually doesn't happen to me
I’m feeling pretty numb on alignment so looking forward to these Hot Takes.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #658 (isolation #37) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:03 am

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: Umlaut
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #659 (isolation #38) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:03 am

Post by Green Crayons »

His Ico vote is scummy.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #692 (isolation #39) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:18 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 658, Green Crayons wrote:VOTE: Umlaut
In post 658, Green Crayons wrote:VOTE: Umlaut
In post 659, Green Crayons wrote:His Ico vote is scummy.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #693 (isolation #40) » Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:18 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

hth this is a good vote and there should be more of it
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #732 (isolation #41) » Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:18 am

Post by Green Crayons »

can we consolidate on either Marquis or Umlaut and have a real bandwagon competition going?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #733 (isolation #42) » Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:19 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Yes.

Yes We Can. (tm)

So let's do it.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #738 (isolation #43) » Fri Sep 04, 2020 4:40 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Would be weird to bribe you to not vote yourself.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #743 (isolation #44) » Fri Sep 04, 2020 12:10 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Looking forward to that beautiful VC.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #746 (isolation #45) » Fri Sep 04, 2020 12:59 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Clarify “hot zone”.

I approve of the wrestling commentator prose.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #748 (isolation #46) » Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:05 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 745, Hoopla wrote:top four picks.
Also curious you who viewed as the top four.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #755 (isolation #47) » Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:14 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Yes but there's obviously a bandwagon competition going on rn.

Are you purposefully ignoring that, or just accidentally?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #760 (isolation #48) » Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:14 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 759, word321 wrote:if u have any more, feel free to ask; just let me answer on another game first
Whose your current town clique?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #761 (isolation #49) » Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 759, word321 wrote:if u have any more, feel free to ask; just let me answer on another game first
Why is tw obsessed with how others view me?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #762 (isolation #50) » Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 758, word321 wrote:im here btw, and will answer the questions in short notice
In post 759, word321 wrote:if u have any more, feel free to ask; just let me answer on another game first
Want to bet whether I managed to nab a PR?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #763 (isolation #51) » Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:17 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 759, word321 wrote:if u have any more, feel free to ask; just let me answer on another game first
If there wasn’t this kickin rad marquis/Umlaut head to head, who would you vote for?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #768 (isolation #52) » Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:24 am

Post by Green Crayons »

tld u = ??
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #771 (isolation #53) » Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:25 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Oh townleaned.


No worries
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #772 (isolation #54) » Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Hot take I think I’d substitute DDL for Hoopla and throw in username.

Hoopla is pretty NAI imo
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #778 (isolation #55) » Sat Sep 05, 2020 9:07 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 776, Umlaut wrote:I'm having a somewhat childish stubborn "You can't make me vote Marquis" reaction just because I dislike the suggestion that I'm
supposed
to, even though I would be happy to vote them on the merits if not for that pressure.

I'll get over myself and

VOTE: Marquis
(L-1)


(Or at least I'll make the vote and internally grumble about it and try to get over myself later)
It’s not that you’re supposed to, and tbh I wouldn’t care if you said “this is dumb and I’m not participating”

What DID catch my attention is you asking to be bribed in a way that ignores that tw is in the marquis/umlaut mindset

IDK I’m still thinking about it not sure really what it means
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #779 (isolation #56) » Sat Sep 05, 2020 9:08 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 775, Umlaut wrote:
In post 755, Green Crayons wrote:Yes but there's obviously a bandwagon competition going on rn.

Are you purposefully ignoring that, or just accidentally?
Yes I am obviously aware of it. Do you think I'm obligated to vote Marquis because I'm the other leading wagon at the moment?
Like who did you think tw would bribe you to vote?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #787 (isolation #57) » Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:49 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 782, Umlaut wrote:
In post 778, Green Crayons wrote:It’s not that you’re supposed to, and tbh I wouldn’t care if you said “this is dumb and I’m not participating”

What DID catch my attention is you asking to be bribed in a way that ignores that tw is in the marquis/umlaut mindset

IDK I’m still thinking about it not sure really what it means
It was a dumb joke and I thought kind of an obvious one.
Yes. It was obvious that you were making a joke. I remind you that this is also mafia, and a joke is not always a joke and also jokes are suspicious.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #788 (isolation #58) » Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:50 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 785, Clover Ebi wrote:I still dislike this but it might just be my style of play then anything. I don't plan on hammering though!
Explain more about what you don’t like. Name names.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #789 (isolation #59) » Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:51 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 783, Hoopla wrote:
In post 746, Green Crayons wrote:Clarify “hot zone”.
a mysterious blend of the different numerical forces underpinning our game.

believe me, these puppies are hot!
Sounds very conspiracy theory. Count me in.



Get it.


Hilarious I know.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #790 (isolation #60) » Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:52 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 781, the worst wrote:rapidly Dying of Anxiety
Name of your first doom metal band.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #794 (isolation #61) » Sun Sep 06, 2020 2:51 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 793, Gypyx wrote:Are counterwagons that build themselves quickly scum or town usually?
Who was the counterwagon, here?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #814 (isolation #62) » Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:14 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Lmk how, to you, is Marq possibly scum discounting his “abysmal play so far”?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #827 (isolation #63) » Sun Sep 06, 2020 2:03 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 811, Datisi wrote:am i correct to think that from town!me pov there's like... a ++rand chance marquis is scum (and not looking at his abysmal play so far)
In post 820, Datisi wrote:because he's done literally nothing and keeps promising content that never comes?
In post 825, Datisi wrote:
In post 824, the worst wrote:and pivoting back to "oh they're ++rand scum because numbers and they're abysmal because they're lurking" makes my stomach sink
is that not... why we're wagoning them?
One of these is not like the other.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #829 (isolation #64) » Sun Sep 06, 2020 2:08 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Explain to me your first of those posts which I don’t understand.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #843 (isolation #65) » Mon Sep 07, 2020 2:07 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Is Marquis V/LA?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #899 (isolation #66) » Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:10 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 898, Something_Smart wrote:you should claim
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #907 (isolation #67) » Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:32 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Using vig early game is generally anti-town, because it's more likely to be used against town than scum.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to using it to get rid of a lurker elim, but that would be A50 himself, so I don't see the benefit in using it now and see plenty of risk.

Maybe
if we get a flip, then some serious discussion about associatives, I'd be much more comfortable with that +1 kill.

At this point, the thing that bothers me about A50 is the scummy replace out. I don't think an elim based on that alone is bad, but I'm also not particularly sold on it being the best option.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #910 (isolation #68) » Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:53 am

Post by Green Crayons »

That we have to eliminate to even hit scum is entirely consistent with saying we shouldn’t use a second kill option early on when the pure numbers of scum:town ratio are not as good as they would be later on (if we don’t elim scum), or before we have a flip to discuss associatives (if we do elim scum).
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #911 (isolation #69) » Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:55 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 904, Almost50 wrote:So what's the case?
Interested in this synopsis tbh
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #913 (isolation #70) » Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:06 am

Post by Green Crayons »

okay.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #914 (isolation #71) » Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:12 am

Post by Green Crayons »

So who are your top vig candidates?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #927 (isolation #72) » Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:22 am

Post by Green Crayons »

The only reason why the slot avoided a claim is because of lurkerdom. Persistence in not playing isn’t an excuse to not claim.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #929 (isolation #73) » Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:37 am

Post by Green Crayons »

1. No

2. It’s Ico’s baby so he should probably answer.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #955 (isolation #74) » Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:15 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: A50

I’m okay with this after the discusso re PR claim.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #958 (isolation #75) » Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:25 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Or just elim A50
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #959 (isolation #76) » Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:27 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 944, the worst wrote:anyone else smell the magnificent cologne of desperation?
In post 942, Almost50 wrote:I totally forgot how this setup worked, but now I remember. Nobody tell me what to do. Not whom to shoot and certainly not WHEN to do it. It's not just the redirector (who -btw- could interfere even if I was directed to shoot town, just to make it appear like I didn't follow the direction thus shading both myself and the original target). On top of the redirector there's the possibility of a 1-shot Commuter, a Roleblocker, a Scum Doctor or a JK, all of which can interfere with my shot.

So, let's keep it at this: I may or may not shoot tonight, and if I do it's someone of my own choice. That way if a redirector exists and wants to be on me the other TPR are guaranteed their results to -at least- be on their intended targets. If Scum want to block me then other TPRs will have their actions going through... etc, and there's no guarantee that I;m even going to shoot at all, so their redirection/RB'ing is a waste (especially the redirection which is 1-shot)
Like, I wouldn’t call it desperation, but 942 does seem like purposeful attempt to Be Present and Productive after A50 did a whole “I’m not going to do a lot of effort” intro.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1031 (isolation #77) » Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:22 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Did we just witness an honest to god scum slip?

VOTE: gypyx
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1032 (isolation #78) » Wed Sep 09, 2020 1:23 am

Post by Green Crayons »

The answer is yes. Yes we did. He hasn’t tried to walk it back.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1039 (isolation #79) » Wed Sep 09, 2020 2:25 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1037, Gypyx wrote:
In post 1032, Green Crayons wrote:The answer is yes. Yes we did. He hasn’t tried to walk it back.
Thanks for stating the obvious, got anything else to say?
Thank you.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1042 (isolation #80) » Wed Sep 09, 2020 3:43 am

Post by Green Crayons »

^^^ yeah I would think that town would have done something other than

"WELP"

and then has now said

"yup i'm scum who screwed up, want to fight about it?"


if in some horrible world Gypyx is actually town, he still needs to go but my goodness

w h a t

w h y
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1049 (isolation #81) » Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:02 am

Post by Green Crayons »

congrats, you lied to the town and I will forever want to eliminate you because there's no reason to think that you aren't scum who pulled this to try to look like crafty town
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1051 (isolation #82) » Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:05 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1047, Something_Smart wrote:I'm pretty surprised by the number of people taking an obvious shenanigan at face value.
punish all perjurers

ditch all deceivers
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1052 (isolation #83) » Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:06 am

Post by Green Crayons »

While I'm sure someone will pipe up with a OH YEAH WHAT ABOUT THIS SITUATION?!

But town should never lie and if you lie, especially on something this incredibly dumb when pressure starts to build on you, I'm going to yeet you into the sun.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1058 (isolation #84) » Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:29 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1055, Something_Smart wrote:
In post 1051, Green Crayons wrote:punish all perjurers

ditch all deceivers
I'm quite philosophically opposed to stuff like this. I'd rather kill the person with the highest chance of being scum than the person with the highest chance of being bad, and town lies are fairly common (and not necessarily bad!).

Certainly, occasionally dumb townies offer noticeably bad reactions. And occasionally dumb scum do as well; the question is, which is more likely in the particular scenario. I don't think that could have been intended as a real scumclaim; taken at face value, he'd be claiming scum while under the impression he was not hammered and asking people to unvote, which is nonsensical. So it must have been a poorly considered joke/reaction test.
This is you saying he was trying to be crafty
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1060 (isolation #85) » Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:30 am

Post by Green Crayons »

You want me to NOT take his claim at face value but not go so deeply that it was scum pretending to be town pretending to be scum.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1062 (isolation #86) » Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:33 am

Post by Green Crayons »

He obviously thinks it’s crafty, regardless of alignment.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1063 (isolation #87) » Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

It just looks crafty because it’s stupid as hell, regardless of alignment.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1065 (isolation #88) » Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:36 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1043, Gypyx wrote:Well, exe-2, i think that's enough screwing around

yeah this was a fake reaction once again, logic is that i'm feeling the lynch come anyways so might as well try to do something useful
Thought he was doing something useful


Not a troll
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1071 (isolation #89) » Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:45 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1066, Something_Smart wrote:What I meant in 1054 was, if he was trying to look like he was being pro-town with this gambit, he did a really bad job of it, which would have been towny if he'd been aware of it. But I think I do accept your conclusion that he THOUGHT it looked pro-town.
So we basically agree on both of these points.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1072 (isolation #90) » Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:46 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1068, Gypyx wrote:Just to be clear, my main intent was to pull off something kinda original with the gambit
be less nebulous and more specific
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1114 (isolation #91) » Wed Sep 09, 2020 12:08 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: A50
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1243 (isolation #92) » Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:48 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Hoopla kill is hella strange bc I was thinking maybe she was a good buddy with her “save the one-shot” theory.

VOTE: umlaut

Claim.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1266 (isolation #93) » Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:06 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1262, Grumpy Cat wrote:
In post 1225, Grumpy Cat wrote:
In post 1114, Green Crayons wrote:VOTE: A50
Why did you switch, Grayons?
Mr. Crayons, I have a query.
Just skipping to that post and the one prior to jog my memory, A50’s posts were scummy, I believe momentum was shifting back to him away from Gy, and it felt like the better option.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1267 (isolation #94) » Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:06 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

The one page prior*
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1273 (isolation #95) » Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:49 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: Gypyx
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1277 (isolation #96) » Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:55 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Initial reaction is that this makes Umlaut solid town.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1299 (isolation #97) » Sun Sep 13, 2020 2:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1297, Umlaut wrote:Looking forward to the explanation of why Rolecop is a high-EV town role in a setup where any alignment can be any role.
So you don’t think some roles are AI?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1300 (isolation #98) » Sun Sep 13, 2020 2:58 am

Post by Green Crayons »

By nature of the ability to choose, rather than being given out at random.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1306 (isolation #99) » Sun Sep 13, 2020 5:08 am

Post by Green Crayons »

First I liked his reaction to what I thought was the best case about him around his voting/not voting of Marquis/A50.

Second, his theory that scum picked his attempted PR seems more likely to come from town paranoia.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1307 (isolation #100) » Sun Sep 13, 2020 5:11 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1302, Umlaut wrote:
In post 1299, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1297, Umlaut wrote:Looking forward to the explanation of why Rolecop is a high-EV town role in a setup where any alignment can be any role.
So you don’t think some roles are AI?
Obviously I do since the whole basis of my reasoning here is that a role such as Rolecop can be AI. But there are much more direct ways available to learn alignments if you have your pick of roles.
Oh you’re saying just rolecop is NAI?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1308 (isolation #101) » Sun Sep 13, 2020 5:12 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1306, Green Crayons wrote:Second, his theory that scum picked his attempted PR seems more likely to come from town paranoia.
I don’t know if I agree with this theory btw but it definitely seems more from a town who gets stuck on why his PR was taken.

Also, claiming that picking this role is suspicious is real cheeky when Umlaut himself was wanting to pick it. It’s the kind of hypocrisy that seems more town than scum.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1312 (isolation #102) » Sun Sep 13, 2020 5:45 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Oh I see what you meant by 1297

I thought you meant RC was NAI, but you are questioning the efficiency of picking RC when the roles a RC picks up can be chosen by anyone
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1351 (isolation #103) » Sun Sep 13, 2020 11:33 am

Post by Green Crayons »

My spicy take is that Umlaut and DDL aren’t appealing elim candidates, and I don’t really have anything else to add to this line of conversation.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1373 (isolation #104) » Sun Sep 13, 2020 11:56 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1362, Something_Smart wrote:Also, A50 could have lolhammered Gypyx and fired his shot before dying, and he did not...
Digging my vote more and more.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1479 (isolation #105) » Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:52 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Gypyx didn’t claim.

Just eliminate him.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1484 (isolation #106) » Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:03 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Spicy.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1527 (isolation #107) » Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:35 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Do you did think you were eliminated yesterday, hunh?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1528 (isolation #108) » Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:36 am

Post by Green Crayons »

So you
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1556 (isolation #109) » Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Oh hello.

VT here.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1564 (isolation #110) » Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:06 am

Post by Green Crayons »

A double bus seems doubtful.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1654 (isolation #111) » Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:31 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

lol this game
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1655 (isolation #112) » Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:32 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Can’t wait to vote petapan
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1737 (isolation #113) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:17 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I’ll take that bet.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1738 (isolation #114) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:18 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Not convinced S_S is cleared but certainly think he’s a late game elim if we leash per grump target.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1739 (isolation #115) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:19 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Oh I picked cop bc I believe once I played this setup and nobody picked cop and it was lol
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1741 (isolation #116) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:21 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Oh I see
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1742 (isolation #117) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:21 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Do the #s add up? If you’re scum and in terms of who you clear vs nk/day elim?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1743 (isolation #118) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:22 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Like in terms of we already have enough clears + whoever else you add + we elim from the “no” pool
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1747 (isolation #119) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Righteous
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1748 (isolation #120) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:27 am

Post by Green Crayons »

If that’s the case and this game is locked up then I don’t really care if I’m first to go other than I’m not scum and I’m helped sway both the D1 1v1 that had a scum on it and then I’m pretty sure I was a big motivator in the gypyx elim.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1749 (isolation #121) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:28 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Who is the pool for elim?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1750 (isolation #122) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:28 am

Post by Green Crayons »

^^^ I’m on my phone and drinking sorry for being so needy
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1755 (isolation #123) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Hrm. Hrm.

tw did you pocket me hard earlier?

It’s okay if you did. I enjoyed it.

Not very strategic tho since I don’t have a lot of pull with nowadays players.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1760 (isolation #124) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:44 am

Post by Green Crayons »

^^ a lot of effort to not be elimed
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1763 (isolation #125) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:46 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I mean at this point scum would play night less to make RB results null.

Or would I guess kill RB then cop?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1764 (isolation #126) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:47 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Or maybe cop and then play nightless lol y’all about horrible
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1765 (isolation #127) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:47 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Talk about
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1768 (isolation #128) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:49 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I secretly want it to be Ico bc I think I called him scum early game.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1769 (isolation #129) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:49 am

Post by Green Crayons »

That’s tomorrow. Stop living in my future!!!
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1770 (isolation #130) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:50 am

Post by Green Crayons »

:) thanks
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1772 (isolation #131) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:50 am

Post by Green Crayons »

so is voting open or?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1840 (isolation #132) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:27 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1799, DrDolittle wrote:Please dont end the day without me catching up.
i mean let's have some manners
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1841 (isolation #133) » Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:28 am

Post by Green Crayons »

at this point i just want to make sure everyone's like "yes this plan is town lock" and i'd rather get that locked up on all agreeing that our game is locked up before before we elim
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1982 (isolation #134) » Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:33 am

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: DDL
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1983 (isolation #135) » Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Oh damn just saw my PMs. I was neighborized.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #2000 (isolation #136) » Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:48 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Hurrah. Nice work, town.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #2001 (isolation #137) » Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:49 am

Post by Green Crayons »

okay so next time this setup is played all 3 scum need to pick the same number
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Return to “Completed Open Games”