chess 11 wrote:welp, I joined this game to be the tracker/vig and choose vig and be batman
didn't happen, fml. Going to be disinterested because this setup is lame other than vig >_>
Don't help the scum PR hunt, please.
chess 11 wrote:welp, I joined this game to be the tracker/vig and choose vig and be batman
didn't happen, fml. Going to be disinterested because this setup is lame other than vig >_>
chesskid 24 wrote:How am I helping the scum PR hunt?
chesskid 26 wrote:Everyone who says on page 1 I'M not blahhhhhhhhhh is neccesarily not a PR and also not even the PR they claimed to not be?
chesskid 27 wrote:Softclaim/hardclaim/whateverclaim VT on page 1? Explain scum motivations or gtfo with your chesskid-is-scum read.
SSSS 49 wrote:do you see it as anti-town (but made by a townie) or scummy?
HN 64 wrote:Anxious much? We have abitof time before the DL. I think I'll vote when I'm good and ready. K, thanx.
HN 68 wrote:Well....you seem to be asking a lot of dumb questions.
chess 79 wrote:Don't discuss ongoing games
chess 79 wrote:Especially ones in which you have flipped and I haven't, tyvm.
chess 82 wrote:can we all stfu about analyzing potential softclaims kthx?
name 83 wrote:Cause I'm blonde and I just realized this game didn't have a Night 0 start.......and I got the detective psychologist confused.
toffee 84 wrote:I don't understand this, I read you're thinking chess as town but at the same time you're voting him. Scum alarm activated.
toffee 84 wrote:Then in post #53 you're saying if it's better to hunt an anti town VT because it's D1 and all, I just can't understand the logiiiiiiiiiiiiiccccccccc
DH 87 wrote:This guy is so non-genuine, it hurts. He doesn't even have a scumread yet
HN 95 wrote:I'm not one of those players that votes/invites/revotes like it is going out of style. When I place a vote, I like to think it means something, rather than "just cause".
HN 95 wrote:He has asked me 2 questions and both of them I felt to be dumb "I'm active but not really doing anything" questions.
don 100 wrote:i like the rc vote.
DH 102 wrote:Does anyone else other than CK, Newman and I find Deity's line of questioning and desire for strong evidence before he lays down a single read scummy?
HN 128 wrote:Do I prefer to be voting for nobody? At this point, I am very comfortable not placing a vote at this time. Don't take hat to mean that I won't be voting however.
HN 128 wrote:"duh, what hand raising"? In a word, no.
Surye 134 wrote:He's trying to get others to vote, which seems like an attempt to get a wagon going without being the initiator.
Surye 134 wrote:The hand raising thing was also pretty distracting and pointless.
Surye 134 wrote:Also seeing a town claim as a VT claim is just asking to get a policy wagon going when there was no reason for one.
Surye 143 wrote:One person, doesn't matter, you're pushing for the idea of it. We're all reading it, and if there's anything to it, you're counting on it.
Surye 143 wrote:Now, I still read you as saying this, and I have no problems assuming what you are up to, to explain why I voted, and why I think it's bad or good. I don't know why you think that is a bad thing.
toffee 144 wrote:it is town job to find scum, not killing each other apart.
toffee 144 wrote:Why should we be convinced w/ chesskid lynch in this case?
SSSS 148 wrote:so amrun, commit. aside from nameloc, who are your suspects?
chess 149 wrote:I wants to join bandwagon
but i'z worried i'll look lke scum for it
so i'll throw 1-2 line thingy to explainz then everyonz thinks i towntowntown
Amrun 156 wrote:This is chess-town. Shame on me if I have been fooled.
HN 160 wrote:Please explain now.
Vote - DeityKabuto
HN 160 wrote:If asked to vote I will evaluate whether or not I agreement that said person is scum or not. If I agree I will vote. Why is this such a big question for you?
nameloc 161 wrote:I admit I effed up, but not as scum. I thought they were referring to me with the whole softclaiming business, and I had a blonde moment and just got my game mechanics mixed up. In my defense, the last open game I played (SSSS was the mod), we had a Night 0 start. I forgot this game didn't. I wasn't saying I was softclaiming, I was saying I thought they thought I was softclaiming.
DK 166 wrote:Sorry, but that would defeat my purpose of placing a vote on him.
DK 170 wrote:@RedCoyote
I will explain my vote, but if I did it now, than nameloc would have it way much easier.
DH 184 wrote:So, does anyone want to lynch toffee for being the common denominator?
DH 189 wrote:You know, we're talking about toffee now. I know you'd like to take the attention away from her, but no.
toffee 196 wrote:Deity's style of play I referred was his odd style in questioning people. While his votes history were quite alarming so far, I want to find out his true opinion 'bout all of his scumread and making sure if he's not just following the crowd.
DK 228 wrote:I don't like how Amrun, RedCoyote, Newman, and Newman's scumhunting buddy are all leading this toffee case, it's like they seriously wantan innocent townie lynch.
chess 236 wrote:........................................DEAR GOD THIS DK WAGON IS SCUM INFESTED
chess 240 wrote:WHEN ALL SCUM ARE GOONS?
ARE YOU PEOPLE CRAZY?
SSSS 245 wrote:ummm.... I think that was a DK lynch. would be really awesome if the mod came in here right about now to verify.
SSSS 244 wrote:and chess. you act as if the day is already over (post 191) when the wagon starts on toffee, without voting toffee. Now you're upset that the wagon swung back to DK. all without joining either case. you're more focused on night actions than trying to lynch someone. how come? the claim isn't the main point against DK (at least for me), I've had a scummy feeling about DK most of the game.
chess 249 wrote:DAT SOFTCLAIM
DH 255 wrote:Seriously, that rule needs to die. It's frustrating, because it's creating non-truthful wagons in votecounts.
DK 258 wrote:I am tired of the system, and how there are multiple scum on my wagon who will make sure that I get lynched.
chess 263 wrote:and you fucks have the balls to tell me there werent's scum capitalizing on the no vote counts at the end?
DK 266 wrote:Because at this point, I really don't care anymore.
Amrun 271 wrote:Guys, if that was the hammer, I apologize.
I really did not intend to end the day.
Hence why I requested more votecounts at least once or twice.
Amrun 298 wrote:Wait... scum killed chesskid?
don 299 wrote:i would argue against the claim, but with the hider dead, hider tracker is confirmed town, no? although i still think it may be wise for ht to lay low unless they have a scum result. what does everyone think?
Muffin 303 wrote:And I have no idea where this case on my player slot came from, but I'm willing to bet it's a steaming pile of crap.
Muffin 305 wrote:[RC's] posts are largely fluff
Amrun 312 wrote:He suspected Surye most, but also Scott Brosius and toffee.
Scott Brosius has been wholly unimpressive, but CK was really the only one to express suspicion.
Scott 313 wrote:Knew the number of votes at that time. I'm not buying the hammer.
Pretty much every wagon having >3 players on it includes you.
Amrun 314 wrote:At that point, the last vote count was closer. OUR MOD FLAKED. WE HAD NO VOTE COUNT FOR LIKE 2 WEEKS.
Muffin 315 wrote:I think Amrun really didn't know it was the hammer, but I do not believe for a second that she didn't want DK lynched.
Muffin 311 wrote:Actually, Amrun needs to die one way or the other.
Amrun 320 wrote:I didn't know it was the hammer.
Amrun 320 wrote:What about toffee? Didn't you suspect him?
Muffin 322 wrote:Do you want me to go through every one of your posts and dissect why I think there's little to no relevant content?
Muffin 322 wrote:Where's the inconsistency? I don't think she's town. I also don't believe she knew she was the hammer when she hammered DK.
Muffin 324 wrote:You asked a lot of questions yesterday (to appear like you were scum hunting), but did nothing with the answers (essentially meaning the questions you asked were useless).
RC 169 wrote:Because if someone is going to be protective of their vote, especially if they're active otherwise, then I want them to have to defend their non-voting. See my comments to Surye above if you want more elaboration.
In any case, I'm happy with your vote, and think I'll join you.
Muffin 324 wrote:You thought CK was anti-town, but you weren't sure whether he was scummy.
Muffin 324 wrote:You didn't have any better suspicions than CK, who you admitted there was no case on.
Muffin 324 wrote:Then you switched over to DK->toffee->DK with almost no reason given except that you agreed with someone else or liked the wagon.
Muffin 324 wrote:Do you think I'm scummy or do you not think I'm scummy for doing what I did after replacing in?
I wasn't asking you to validate your question in any other way than this.
If it's not going to help you determine my alignment, then there was no reason to mention it.
Muffin 324 wrote:What Amrun wagon? There were no votes on Amrun before I posted today. Before you posted, there was a single vote on her. What wagon was there to appease?
toffee 328 wrote:but you wanting chess lynched while him being Vig was still a BIG doubt back then, still seems odd to me.
HN 345 wrote:Now regarding the Amrun stuff. I was poised to pounce on her with the inconsistencies in her "okay with a DK lynch", "oops sorry guys" posts. Then, the HT comes out and Amrun claims VIG. Fucking ridiculous. Not so much the HT (although it wasn't needed at that point), but Amrun!!! If you are the vig, then you just cost us our NK. Good job.
Muffin 363 wrote:- His vote on Amrun was his first somewhat-justified vote this game. Literally. He hasn't justified any of his other votes at all. You don't think there's any deeper meaning behind this?
Muffin 363 wrote:Even if you don't want to read deeply into this (because it's very easy to interpret this as RC knowing what DK is going to flip), you can at least see that he had every intention of voting Amrun today if DK flipped town.
RC 368 wrote:Given HN's hammer
Muffin 369 wrote:What was the purpose in asking so many "rhetorical" questions?
RC 231 wrote:...and you know toffee is "an innocent townie" how?
Muffin 369 wrote:I may have been wrong that not all of your questions were useless, but you linking me to one instance where you asked a question and then used someone's response in some way doesn't really change the overall situation here.
Muffin 369 wrote:I don't really have an issue with this alone, except for the fact that you neglect to really mention any further suspicion of anyone whatsoever until your #169, where you tell us that if the day were to end right now, you'd want CK lynched (which indicates you haven't got a better scum read on anyone in the 168 posts prior to this).
Muffin 369 wrote:#121 was not an argument with toffee, but I'll acknowledge you did have a conversation with him. #169 was the first time you could be said to have "argued" with either of them, but even then I disagree that you did it here, either (and this was where you voted DK). Actually I don't really see any arguments outside of #198, in which you called bullshit on something DK did and asked toffee to state clearly whether he thought DK was scummy (which is kind of ironic).
Muffin 369 wrote:Your first DK vote was just you agreeing with Newman - I suppose this was somewhat justified in that you were sheeping here. Your move to toffee had no real reason (other than it's possible DK+toffee are scum together). Your second move to DK was because of his vanilla claim - while that was anti-town of him, you never really told us why you think it was scummy.
RC 169 wrote:That chess statement DK made was just flat out spineless. I still don't think I've got a firm answer as to why he got on chess' case earlier, and I shudder to think it's from an ongoing game that chess hasn't flipped in yet. That's just silly.
DH 184 wrote:So, does anyone want to lynch toffee for being the common denominator?
Muffin 369 wrote:Seeing as you've outright neglected to mention smash, should I assume you have a town read on him and you're therefore not even considering the possibility he is scum?
Muffin 369 wrote:But I should trust that you're not doing the same thing, right?
Muffin 372 wrote:I'm not voting don today unless you find a better reason than him being slick and possibly buddying me.
Muffin 372 wrote:He's virtually guaranteed to be scum at this point. He's the one common denominator in almost everyone suspicions.
Muffin 372 wrote:If it's not a RC lynch today, it's a toffee lynch.
Muffin 374 wrote:The major issue I have with your play (that you still haven't addressed in a way that I think is adequate) is the lack of reads from you in this game.
Muffin 374 wrote:And I know you know this, because you asked toffee to give aclearread on DK. But you never gave clear reads of your own.
Muffin 374 wrote:Also, your questioning of players in the game fits the bill of scum not wanting to properly engage anyone, but still wanting to appear to be scum hunting (essentially coasting).
Muffin 374 wrote:Why didn't you mention this town read before now?
Muffin 374 wrote:The problem here is, if you're town, it's your job to convince the rest of us to vote with you.
Muffin 374 wrote:Also, pushing a toffee lynch while trying to convince Amrun (who I'm just going to assume is the vig now) that you're town and don is scum would be the smarter option today.
HN 378 wrote:That is why I said it was dumb for you to claim needlessly.
don 380 wrote:plus, he implied he would not be open to lynching anyone but amrun. i made the point that amrun would get vig'd tonight if he was lying. once brosius acknowledged that i went back to my NUMBER ONE SUSPECT.
Amrun 381 wrote:I won't be shooting red.
don 382 wrote:uh, what did he notice about me? are you referring to his giant OMGUS vote? you know, the one he laid down after doing absolutely nothing for the entire game?
don 382 wrote:seriously dude, i'll lynch anyone over me today out of that scummy pool, but i would prefer to lynch RC.
don 382 wrote:vote don because he's the slickest of the three.
don 385 wrote:why would i unvote you? if you are the vig and i am scum, then i can only be scum with sss and rc. if not, then my third(or both) partner(s) are off the wagon. which means all they need to do is come in and hammer the fucking vig.
don 386 wrote:i also unvoteimmediatelyafter brosius concedes my point. please explain how any of that benefits scumdon?
Muffin 390 wrote:This actually is a good point. If don's buddy was off-wagon and Amrun is really vig, he had no reason to unvote (mislynch vig = game over). Which means if don is scum, his partners need to be on the wagon.
Also believe his explanation.
Muffin 393 wrote:I don't think you really engaged anyone.
Muffin 393 wrote:No. There are several reasons this makes no sense to me, and the biggest reason why is that he didn't need to unvote, he could have just feigned inactivity until someone else unvoted her.
don 382 wrote:if i am scum, who are my partners? toffee and newman? smasbro? seriously dude, i'll lynch anyone over me today out of that scummy pool, but i would prefer to lynch RC. i have no issue whatsoever taking a bullet tonight if we get a scum lynch.
don 408 wrote:unvote, vote: redcoyote
Mod 284 wrote:Votecount:
smashbro_of_the_SSS [0] -
toffee [1] - Scott Brosius
don_johnson [0] -
DemonHybrid [0]
Surye [1] - chesskid3
RedCoyote [1] -
chesskid3 [0] -
Amrun [0] -
Scott Brosius [0] -
nameloc1986 [0] - Surye
DeityKabuto [7) - nameloc1986, toffee, RedCoyote, DemonHybrid, Amrun, don_johnson, Newman
HellloooNewman [1] - DeityKabuto,
not voting: smashbro_of_the_SSS
Mod 351 wrote:Day Two, Votecount the Second
toffee (1): Amrun
Amrun (3): Scott Brosius, RedCoyote, Smashbro_of_the_SSS
RedCoyote (3): zMuffinMan, toffee, HellloooNewman
Not Voting (1): don_johnson
Mod 397 wrote:Day Two, Votecount the Third
don_johnson (1): Amrun
Amrun (1): Scott Brosius
RedCoyote (4): toffee, HellloooNewman, don_johnson, zMuffinMan
toffee (1): RedCoyote
Not Voting (1): Smashbro_of_the_SSS
Mod 444 wrote:Day Two, Votecount the Fifth
A lynch has been reached.
Amrun (1): Scott Brosius
RedCoyote (1): toffee
toffee (5): RedCoyote, Amrun, zMuffinMan, don_johnson, HellloooNewman
don_johnson (1): Smashbro_of_the_SSS
toffee wrote:
HN 277 wrote:3- I've had little conflict with Amrun, Smashbro, Surye, Toffee, ChessKid...are we all scum? That's a pretty big scum squad.
HN 399 wrote:RC? Maybe SSSS isn't town? Flip flopping your entire stance is a bit drastic wouldn't you say?
HN 430 wrote:I think we have this thing nailed here. RC, toffee and either SSSS or Don.