Newbie 873 - Game Over.

[CSL]

I'm not trying to get away with it. I'm just about as guilty as the rest of the bandwagon.

[foilist13]

Just about? It's bothering me that you are not admitting you acted scummily. Who on the bandwagon behaved as scummy or scummier than you?

[CSL]

I'm implying that I admit that I acted scummy. It was Jack's choice that he hammered, I just said

if he wanted

...

[Jackabomb]

I beleive that foilist was the only one not aware of the current situation at the time of the hammer. Also, at the time that I posted, I had been reading through the previous posts. This made me feel like each post had come right after another like a building wave, if you will, against mcgrill. It is only logical that the suspense be finalized.

In hindsight, I realize that we might have gained more from an extended D1, but I kind of doubt it. What might we have gained? Most of the time, a townie claim isn't exactly going to save you. Rhetorical question: If you had been a doublevoter, how many of the other members of mcgrill's wagon would have hammered?

[foilist13]

Why don't you make that question not rhetorical, and assume for everyone's sake that they were off the wagon, but McGriddle was at L-1, would they have hammered?

The obvious answer is no, but there is an argument to be made for the other side, and I want to see if anyone is willing to stake out their position.

@CSL - Don't even try that. You know damn well that you gave him your express permission to hammer McGriddle, which makes you equally, if not more responsible for the hammer itself, especially since you are an experienced player who knows that quickhammering is considered scummy, and could easily be construed as been trying to manipulate Jackabomb into doing it.

You need to stop this "I didn't

tell

him to" argument, because you know as well as I do that it is not going to get you anywhere but under a noose.

[MichelSableheart]

I beleive that foilist was the only one not aware of the current situation at the time of the hammer. Also, at the time that I posted, I had been reading through the previous posts. This made me feel like each post had come right after another like a building wave, if you will, against mcgrill. It is only logical that the suspense be finalized.

The problem though, is that in those previous posts, only you, CSL and Crimmy had been talking about McGriddle. Foilist hadn't commented seriously since post #100, and had obviously missed the claim. Cades hadn't added anything relevant. Brother, Dimaba and me didn't post on page 5 at all. Because of that, the building wave you had been talking about could easily have been completely manufactured by scum.

In hindsight, I realize that we might have gained more from an extended D1, but I kind of doubt it. What might we have gained? Most of the time, a townie claim isn't exactly going to save you. Rhetorical question: If you had been a doublevoter, how many of the other members of mcgrill's wagon would have hammered?

What you would have gained were responses from foilist, brother, dimaba and me. I know this is stated after the hammer, and therefore can't be checked, but I would have unvoted simply because I didn't like the way CSL put McGriddle at L-1 at all.

---

@CSL #195: There was no reason whatsoever to mention the cop there. Try to refrain from commenting on powerroles unless strictly necessary.

foilest, SEs make mistakes. Just like any other person. McGrill seemed the most scummiest by a 1/2 mile or so. cades would've been my suspect, had McGrill flipped scum.

The mistake you made isn't the fact that you voted McGriddle. The mistake you made is that you didn't tell Jack to wait with hammering till everyone had commented. He asked if he should hammer. You, as SE, should have told him to wait. Instead, you implicitly gave him permission.

---

@Dimaba and Michael - I was just looking for someone to pick on. Michael, you get it automatically by virtue of being the IC

Why didn't you check your facts before making the accusation though? False accusations make someone look bad even though there is nothing in the game to support them. Especially inattentive players are easily fooled that way.

Also, it's Michel, without an 'a'.

[Crimmy]

I've been re-reading, and all I see is CSL negating the fact that he indeed told Jack to hammer, and Jack giving bull facts.

I beleive that foilist was the only one not aware of the current situation at the time of the hammer. Also, at the time that I posted, I had been reading through the previous posts. This made me feel like each post had come right after another like a building wave, if you will, against mcgrill. It is only logical that the suspense be finalized.

Given the fact that nobody but Jack and CSL were posting, EVERYBODY ELSE was unaware of the situation. And that is quite obvious, so don't try to blame it on others.

Also, end the suspense by making a hurried hammer against a guy who could still be townie? Because I clearly remember, once more, that I said I wouldn't vote until I was sure McGriddle was, in fact, scummy.

So, why did you simply ignore that, and waited until NOBODY else was on to get a quicklynch? There's no townie logic in what you said.

In hindsight, I realize that we might have gained more from an extended D1, but I kind of doubt it. What might we have gained? Most of the time, a townie claim isn't exactly going to save you. Rhetorical question: If you had been a doublevoter, how many of the other members of mcgrill's wagon would have hammered?

I'm not sure I get your question.

As for what we could have gained from an extended D1, we could have avoided a townie kill, and maybe gained some more information. It's not about how the townie claim can save you, it's about how we could have had more info on the mafia, had

somebody

not killed him first, ending our first Day.

[Zorblag]

Vote count 2.3

The numbers by the voters indicate the order in which the vote was cast. If two or more players are tied for the most votes to lynch at the deadline the tiebreaker will be the player who has the earliest active vote.

Crimmy: 1: foilist13 (1)
CSL: 1: MichelSableheart (2)

Not Voting: cades, Crimmy, CSL, dimaba, Jackabomb

With 7 alive it takes 4 to lynch. Currently Crimmy would be lynched at deadline. Deadline is 5:00 PM EST/2:00 PM PST on Monday, December 28th.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[CSL]

It just dawned on me. When I allegedly told Jack to hammer, I was actually trying to tell him after the comments, and other shit.

tl;dr: Did one thing, while thinking of another = Absentmindedness.

[cades]

Vote: CSL.

I bet you vote me now.

[CSL]

cades, you failed at giving an explanation of why you voted. This just seems to light the fire a bit more...

You know what, screw this.

Vote: cades

[MichelSableheart]

It just dawned on me. When I allegedly told Jack to hammer, I was actually trying to tell him after the comments, and other shit.

Can you back that intention in any way with quotes from the relevant page?

---

I bet you vote me now.

Why did you write that sentence, cades?

[dimaba]

It just dawned on me. When I allegedly told Jack to hammer, I was actually trying to tell him after the comments, and other shit.

tl;dr: Did one thing, while thinking of another = Absentmindedness.

Wait, that just dawned on you? As in you suddenly remember what you were actually trying to tell him, having forgotten all about it for 4 pages? If I interpret your post correctly, you say you were actually trying to tell him to hammer, but to only do so after more people commented. You seemed to have forgotten that in all of about 10 minutes. (Post 127, which I assume it is about that you're now claiming 'I wanted to tell him to do it after comments', to post 129 in which you said "That's hammer" and waved McGriddle goodbye took about 10 minutes.) There's no mention of "I should have told you to wait for comments" in post 129, which I assume you would've said if that had been your intention.
Tbh, it sounds more like you never wanted tot tell him to wait for comments in the first place. You're just changing excuses because the one you were using isn't working.

@cades, you're being useless. All you've given us, especially since the lynch, have been one or two line posts without reasoning. Take some time to explain yourself. You say "I bet you vote me now", I say if you keep posting like this I bet I will.

[Jackabomb]

I don't have an opinion on CSL one way or another. I guess I'm too involved in that incident to be comfortable making accusations. Do remember, however, that cades wasn't much help D1 either. I'm not sure he realizes that his "Oh, woe is me. I'm just a lowly peasant speaking out against the egomanic, power-hungry, arrogant dictators. I'm going to die for this statement, but look how brave I am to do it anyway. Anything worth my life to say MUST be true!", attitude is Appeal to Emotion. I'm not sure he realizes that it doesn't work, either.

[cades]

I was 1st to vote for him, I voted him cause I knew it would get you (jack) and csl off my back, but I still thought he was maifa, and I put, I bet you vote me now cause last time I voted jack and jack and csl immediately voted me.

But you are right CSL I didn't give much of an explanation in that post but on post 181 I said that I agree with crimmy on what he had posted like 2 or 3 posts before.

and I already had suspicions on you and Jack in the first place.

[Crimmy]

Do remember, however, that cades wasn't much help D1 either. I'm not sure he realizes that his "Oh, woe is me. I'm just a lowly peasant speaking out against the egomanic, power-hungry, arrogant dictators. I'm going to die for this statement, but look how brave I am to do it anyway. Anything worth my life to say MUST be true!", attitude is Appeal to Emotion. I'm not sure he realizes that it doesn't work, either.

Even though I suspect both Jack and CSL, I must say this is quite true.
Cades, you're doing more and more mistakes by the minute...

[Jackabomb]

and I already had suspicions on you and Jack in the first place.

Groundless

suspicions, yes. How, might I ask, did you find it logical, immediately after two or three people made posts specifically condemning appeal to emotion, one of which explicitly defined what

kind

of appeal to emotion you were doing, to make a post containing the

exact same appeal to emotion

that several have condemned and I clearly defined? How much text-yelling does it take?

I bet you vote me now

See the above posts, if you please.

cause last time I voted jack and jack and csl immediately voted me.

Go check your facts. I voted you the next day in real life. That doesn't constitute 'immediate' in any way, shape, or form. Your initial post that voted me straight off* was followed by a string of posts by other members. I queried you on your vote of me. You responded, refusing to answer my questions. I voted you, refuting your arguments against me and giving my reasons quite clearly.

*Let it be noted that not once in the entire game has cades stood up for himself or defended his arguments made in this first post, #49.

Now, for my personal catch phrase when dealing with cades. "I defy you to prove those arguments you originally made."

[Jackabomb]

Why thank you for the compliment, crimmy. I'm glad to see you don't let your suspicions get in the way of your logic. *cough*-unlike SOMEBODY we know-*cough*

[foilist13]

First off my computer is down, so will be making my posts from an iPhone, so bear with me and try to ignore typos.

Now,

unvote

crimmy has succeeded in acting unscummy for the last couple pages, so I'm going to let him off the hook for now. I think our best play at this moment is to lynch csl, but that may change by the end of the day. The reasons for that are as follows.

1) He has acted scummy, especially for an SE as others have pointed out.

2) I feel that right now he is the most informative lynch, and I am refering of course to jackabomb. While it is by no means certain, I feel it is more likely that they are of the same alignment than of opposite alignments. The reason for this is that the scum team of csl and Jack acting in that way is extremely plausible, especially in a newbie game. Jacks partner tells him to hammer, so he does. Or, town csl tells newbie town Jack to hammer, and newbie Jack believes the SE. Or, scum csl tells newbie town Jack to hammer, and newbie town Jack believes the SE. What I don't see happening is scum Jack accepting the advice of town csl. While he would be eager to please the town, I think it is likely that the scum would be much more cautious than that, but that is speculation.

The only scenario I see where Jack is likely to be scum is if csl is scum also, because while he would be cautious around a town player, I think he would trust his scum buddy not to throw him under the bus. So if csl flips scum, I'd say that raises it to 50% odds that Jack is also, but if he flips town I doubt that Jack would be the first scum.

I think we ought to kill csl in order to get info on Jack, and because I think he is a scummy player.

vote: csl

[Crimmy]

Why thank you for the compliment, crimmy. I'm glad to see you don't let your suspicions get in the way of your logic. *cough*-unlike SOMEBODY we know-*cough*

Yeah, well, I learned the hard way that, when truth is told, nothing must matter to you. Not even the fact that you don't trust the other.

Now, on to the little rant.

As you said, yeah, cades has not once tried to give facts. Only AtE.

Yes, you also did defy him.
And the only defense was an even bigger AtE.

Also, post 115:

that is partly true, when I voted McGriddle I was thinking of saying, I wonder if they will take their votes off me now, and they did, which is why I'm suspicious of Jack and CSL still.

CSL keeps following Jack, and when I voted Jack he voted me, and when I voted someone else he took his vote off. That is suspicious.

But for now, McGriddle is on the hot seat, so if I he shall die,

and I die in the night, my guess is CSL and Jack as the mafia.

The first is partially true, but then again, Jack also made a good post about how it's not his fault CSL voted against cades. 'Cause it's true

only if he's not scum

, which, of course, right now is impossible to tell for sure. And for those Emotionals, I said

For Sure

, I'm not defending, nor accusing.

Now, another thing playing against him is the fact that he's also absent for too long. Even though I, y no means, say that is suspicion, it could hurt him, since people could start a total mob against him, and he wouldn't realize it until much later.

Last, but not least. Cades, you're still giving off a bad impression.
Remember why I was partially against McGriddle? Because he wouldn't share the info he claimed he had.
You wanna be townie? I suggest you give your ideas and information.
Otherwise, you're bluffing, and bluffs are, IMHO, very suspicious.

___

Unrelated:
Thanks, foilist. I agree, it could be quite informative.

[Crimmy]

EBWOP:

On the second bolded thing in the quote, I was going to say how paradoxical it was.
I mean, you say that, you are painting a bullseye over yourself, since people could think you're right, and therefore bump off somebody who could still be innocent.

[Jackabomb]

Off topic: Have I ever said how awesome I think that sig is?

[Crimmy]

Off topic: I don't think you have.
I think that as well.
Otherwise, I wouldn't have used it.

[CSL]

Off topic: It's another way of saying "404: Not Found"

[Jackabomb]

I know that. That's why it's so awesome.