In post 70, Radical Rat wrote:
For the record, while I do still consider this Mostly an RVS vote, I also don't take putting her at E-1 lightly, and have a small seed of reasoning behind it.
what is that reasoning?
If I were ready to share it, I would have done so with the vote. For now, just know that there Is reasoning.
suspicious but i'll buy it
Your friendly neighborhood chef and baker. LONG LIVE THE CHEFHAT REBELLION!
"You are the Joker of mafia players" - Oversoul
"last time I was scum with Firebringer
his first post in the scum PT was "yes I rolled scum!"
I decided to post "haha just don't post that in the main thread", but to get up to date on the main thread first.
His first post in the main thread was "yes I rolled scum!" -popsofctown
"You are the Joker of mafia players" - Oversoul
"last time I was scum with Firebringer
his first post in the scum PT was "yes I rolled scum!"
I decided to post "haha just don't post that in the main thread", but to get up to date on the main thread first.
His first post in the main thread was "yes I rolled scum!" -popsofctown
with 15 votes in play, it takes 8 to make a decision. day 1 ends in (expired on 2023-06-28 17:00:00).
I will straight up disregard all reason if you have a PR dream again. You can come back and be like, “I dreamt that Locke is a N2 Bulletproof Multitasking Cop and Self-Targeting Doctor,” and I will go, “Okay, Locke kill it is then.”
In post 60, Ausuka wrote:
Wow you're kinda playing with fire here
This kind of pings me towards Ausuka tho on my first read of 60. On my second read 60 pinged me as well. Third time I read 60 it didn't ping me as much but the fourth time I read it I was pinged again.
VOTE: Ausuka
What pings you about it?
It's very clearly a scumslip as she responds to somebody sheeping her as "playing with fire" when the title of this game characterizes the mafia as fire.
The more serious reason is it's an unneeded early posturing comment to position oneself as the reasonable one in response to something unreasonable (Cook's large early wagon & self-vote). It's fairly distinct from the rest of the early game tomfoolery.
On a somewhat related note, I think Rat and Cook are town.
I think the whole "i read it four times" thing is pretty performative, and also like 'the joke is actually posturing to seem reasonable' thing seems p stretchy
No matter what happens, I'll be right there with you.
I think the whole "i read it four times" thing is pretty performative, and also like 'the joke is actually posturing to seem reasonable' thing seems p stretchy
Maybe I'm just dense. Where's the joke? I read it three more times and I still don't see the post to be a joke.
Towwl is there a particular reason you jumped to thinking that playing with fire was a scumslip instead of using the idiom in the traditional sense of “engaging in a dangerous activity” like, I dunno, an RVS E-1?
TRing Rat for the E-1, mostly because I wanted to do the same thing (except for not actually having any reason to think Cook is scum)
“There are two kinds of people in this world: those who say, ‘There are two kinds of people in this world: those who say there are two kinds of people in this world,
Semi-serious, I don't claim to have any sort of meaningful read here but there are a few things I don't like.
“There are two kinds of people in this world: those who say, ‘There are two kinds of people in this world: those who say there are two kinds of people in this world,
In post 93, Bingle wrote:
Towwl is there a particular reason you jumped to thinking that playing with fire was a scumslip instead of using the idiom in the traditional sense of “engaging in a dangerous activity” like, I dunno, an RVS E-1?
I probably should've used a /s on that line. What initially pinged me about 60 and led me to post 64 is what I see as fake caution. After Merlyn asked me about it I noticed the wordplay (but thought it was coincidental) so I poked fun at it by calling it a scumslip.
