Mini 859 - Cleansing of Falls Church - Over

[ZazieR]

Regarding the Confid-DRK debate, I disagree with Confid, due to one quote:

Can you think of any non-mafia motivations for EC's actions? I'm just looking for a yes or a no...

[ZazieR]

Zaz, you rock.

Thanks ^.^
Post 325 shows that we're dealing with town-Looker and not scum-Looker.

I've had town-looker replace and act all anti-town. So, I wouldn't be sure about that. I don't think Looker'd be silly enough to just stick with one personality depending on if he was town or scum.

I've seen Looker play three games now (Not counting this one):
-One in which I thought she was one of the more pro-town looking players (though I was scum)
-One in which I thought she was one of the scummiest players (I think I even voted her)
-One in which she was scum.

I've seen three different Looker's, yet I'm still certain she's town in this game.

[ZazieR]

Post 331 gets a

Zaz Reminder

What? I answered everything! I'm just waiting on questions people might have.

That post has a

Zaz Reminder

for a different reason.

[ZazieR]

Confid is dodging one of my questions? That's news to me.

I mean this wasn't the greatest answer in the world, but it's an answer.

Missed it.

[Looker]

Zaz, you rock.

Thanks ^.^
Post 325 shows that we're dealing with town-Looker and not scum-Looker.

I've had town-looker replace and act all anti-town. So, I wouldn't be sure about that. I don't think Looker'd be silly enough to just stick with one personality depending on if he was town or scum.

I've seen Looker play three games now (Not counting this one):
-One in which I thought she was one of the more pro-town looking players (though I was scum)
-One in which I thought she was one of the scummiest players (I think I even voted her)
-One in which she was scum.

I've seen three different Looker's, yet I'm still certain she's town in this game.

All a part of my feminine mystique
The Good-Lookin' Lookeress strikes again

[ZazieR]

Post 97 – So the reason behind your vote is? (

Shrine

)

Far_Cry's insults looked more like strategic distancing than genuine emotion.

How?

Seemed unprovoked. I see little purpose for this tidbit thrown into his post: "Oh, by the way, you are a total idiot nook. And I never new you were gay." ... other than to start an argument with Nook, which could have strategic distancing value.

It seemed unprovoked? Did you actually see Nook's comment to him? He was provoked.
[teach]These posts show how dangerous sarcasm can be if you don't like to be insulted[/teach]

Post 115 – Why ask EC about Bear,

Shrine

?

Wanted to hear more from EtherealCookie.

My reason for asking was more for the Bear part. Your vote was against Far_Cry at that moment. Yet, instead of asking EC what his opinion is of your top suspect (which was based upon you thinking he was distancing with Nook), you asked him about Bear. So why not one of your top suspicions?

It's unfair to say Far_Cry could be called a "top suspect" of mine at that point. I did not analyze everyone's behavior up until that point and think he was most suspicious. The vote was thrown his way casually based on a mere observation/possibility.

Still doesn't explain why you asked about Bear, instead of the player who you were voting.

Post 107 – Which is why Bear’s vote after the no-lynch was for you and not for FC? Why didn’t you address this vote from Bear when you thought he was trying to catch scum by voting no-lynch?
Actually, talking about this, how come you didn’t even ask anything about it?
You giving him a way out is also noted. (

Shrine

)

He didn't back up his vote, so it was clear he wasn't planning to go anywhere with it.

Re-phrase the first question?

Your thoughts were that he was trying to draw scum out by voting no-lynch. But instead of voting the one who voted him for voting no-lynch, he voted you. Meaning, your thoughts were wrong. Yet, you didn't ask anything about it at all. Why?

Didn't feel a need to do so. After he'd voted me I couldn't tell whether he was gambiting or taking advantage of RVS, or whatever.
Should I have?
Can you elaborate on "You giving him a way out is also noted."?

You should have. Your impression was that Bear was trying to lure out scum by acting scummy. Yet, you later found out that this wasn't the case. I'm surprised that you didn't question his motives due to that.
Also, is self-voting scummy or not?

Elaboration: You gave an explanation why Bear could act like that, before Bear could explain, giving him an excuse if he needed it.

Post 250 – Why the unvote,

Shrine

?

I'm not interested in pursuing Far_Cry's/your lynch.

What changed?

Tone of the game. My vote for him is nice for reaction-searching in RVS/early post-RVS. Not something to follow up with a lynch based off of.

When did this occur (The change of the tone)?

[ZazieR]

Zaz, you rock.

Thanks ^.^
Post 325 shows that we're dealing with town-Looker and not scum-Looker.

I've had town-looker replace and act all anti-town. So, I wouldn't be sure about that. I don't think Looker'd be silly enough to just stick with one personality depending on if he was town or scum.

Stick with one personality? I can't even stick with one gender! Zaz, r u the only one who knows I'm a she?

Apparently But I'm one of the few who try to pay attention to somebody's gender.

[ZazieR]

BN

, do you see yourself as lurker and why?

[BigBear]

Guys, I know I have not been posting. I had a rough weekend and should have V/LA'd, but I didn't expect it to be that bad.

However, it's also going to be a long night for me tonight. I have a major paper to rewrite, accounting homework, and to study for a tough psych test. Tomorrow, will most likely be the day that I can get back to some of this.

I am very sorry.

[ZazieR]

Mod - I'll be V/LA from tuesday (tomorrow) till thursday

[Looker]

@BigBear: There's nothing to be sorry about, you weren't going to lynch

us

.

[Peabody]

Post 73 –

Peabody

, what did you think of Sanjay’s explanation?

Sorry, I must have missed Sanjay's question. Sanjay, my "are you serious" post was referring to your claiming that you caught all three scum. I was having trouble understanding whether you were joking or whether you legitimately believed that one or more of the people you listed were scum.

Post 111 – Why didn’t you join the discussion,

Peabody

? Also, can you elaborate on the random vote bit?

What do you mean by joining in the discussion? I felt that most of the RVS was just gibberish. I just decided to observe, and I found Far_Cry to be scummy. My vote on him was not random.

Disagreed on the following (Though EC seems to agree with one):

I think someone already pointed this out, but these two quotes seem contradictory:

True. I think I'll just stay on the bandwagon for a bit, though.

What is a L-2 going to do right now anyhow? If someone actually does lynch him, that automatically tells us who is scum.

I can't tell what you are trying to do with your Shrinehme vote EC... You said that it won't do anything. But you refuse to take the vote off of him. Then after you are questioned, you decided to act all hardcore about the vote. Seems like you are trying to

feel

your vote..

Also, can you elaborate how the last two quotes from EC seem contradictory?

They seem contradictory because EthrealCookie seemed to acknowledge the power of his vote, and then said that his vote did nothing.

After reading, I am really starting to suspect Brothernature. BN, what do you think of Zazie?


Gahh, reading this thread is getting tougher for me bc all of the multiposts. Zazie, can you please tone down a bit so that I can read a little more. Maybe fit it into one post?

[ConfidAnon]

What has changed, ConfidAnon?

Why isn't the theory as strong as it was before?

I didn't step back to look at it from the perspective of DRK being town, I immediately jumped to the DRK scum conclusion.

Do you think a discussion about jesters would have started because of my post had nook not mentioned jesters?

Absolutely. You said yourself that's what you were implying, so it's natural to assume you would have followed up with your implications.

Define 'jumpy'

Overly careful with your vote, taking it off just as quick as you put it on.

And I missed the EC post, my bad.

[DeathRowKitty]

Do you think a discussion about jesters would have started because of my post had nook not mentioned jesters?

Absolutely. You said yourself that's what you were implying, so it's natural to assume you would have followed up with your implications.

Given what Zazie quoted in post 425, why do you think I was intending to start a conversation about jesters? Also, how did your position change from me starting the conversation about jesters to me planning to start the conversation about jesters?

[ConfidAnon]

Given what Zazie quoted in post 425, why do you think I was intending to start a conversation about jesters? Also, how did your position change from me starting the conversation about jesters to me planning to start the conversation about jesters?

I believe you intended to start a conversation about jesters because you said so yourself. Your ignorance of your own post is telling.

Post 388 is where I quoted the post where you admitted that you were implying a jester.

My position has not changed, I don't know why you believe it has.

[DeathRowKitty]

Link me to a post where I said I intended to start a conversation about jesters. I implied a jester, but not with the intention of starting a conversation and I don't see why you keep insisting I was trying to start a conversation.

[ConfidAnon]

Implying a jester is starting a conversation by placing the thought into the thread.

[DeathRowKitty]

This is the quote that sparked the jester discussion. (DRK admitted that was the intention of the post later on.)

You did start the jester discussion.

You started the Jester conversation.

Later, in post 211, you clarified that you were implying that EC may be a Jester. You asked the question with the clear purpose of starting a discussion about a Jester.

Your question implied a jester, therefore you started the discussion.

You said yourself that's what you were implying, so it's natural to assume you would have followed up with your implications.

I believe you intended to start a conversation about jesters because you said so yourself.

Implying a jester is starting a conversation by placing the thought into the thread.

I'm not getting it. Did I start the conversation about jesters or did I intend to start the conversation about jesters?

[ConfidAnon]

You started it . . . whats the point of arguing this point? There is very little difference between either argument.

[DeathRowKitty]

My point is that you're being inconsistent. Unless you can reconcile your statements and show me a post where I either started a conversation about jesters or said I was trying to start a conversation about jesters (or whatever your view is supposed to be) IN YOUR NEXT POST, my vote will land on you IN MY NEXT POST.

[Sanjay]

Could we get a nook prod?

I'd love to have his input on this discussion.

[Sanjay]

Sorry, let me try that again:

Could we get a nook prod, please?

Where are my manners?

[Looker]

So...who won the jester argument? Sorry, but DRK's sig is a serious turn-off. It hurt my eyes...

[DeathRowKitty]

So...who won the jester argument?

I guess we'll find out when CA posts and points me to a post I made that doesn't exist.

Sorry, but DRK's sig is a serious turn-off. It hurt my eyes...

Then lynch me for it.

Mod, can we get a prod on nook?

Could we get a nook prod, please?

Stop stealing the lurker I stole from BN!

Speaking of brothernature, I think we have our first lurker-scum.

[DeathRowKitty]

EBWOP: I'm not sure prodding nook is going to help actually. He seems to have fallen off the face of the planet since his last post here.