He invited me to this game, and it's only polite in outer mongolia to kill your host.
So, basically whoever controls Roxi is getting a second hidden vote it would seem.
In post 33, Kublai Khan wrote:In post 32, VP Baltar wrote:ooo, pretty colors
So.... You, Quilford, & Llamarble are scum?
Good bussing, bro.
In post 85, Sotty7 wrote:From what I have seen of Quliford he does this kinda thing, it's a null tell. But you were all over it like it was a massive thing. I don't see it. I think you blew it up.
In post 93, xRECKONERx wrote:Oh man... VPB tries to goad Sotty into this with a sort of insulting challenge, then just goes on to say 'xvart was right' and regurgitate information.
In post 105, xRECKONERx wrote:In post 101, VP Baltar wrote:@Reck - So you point is that I voted Quilford without any reasoning and then hoped someone like xvart would come along to explain it for me? What about the post where I questioned him was unclear to you, particularly when I specifically mentioned his Sotty reasoning?
It just felt, to me, like that post was sort of fluffy, then xvart came along and presented you with reasons you could actually latch onto, and so you did.
In post 187, lewarcher82 wrote:In post 185, VP Baltar wrote:lew, why did you partially claim your info? What did you gain by keeping the vig part of the claim close to your chest at that time?
Good question: in order to prevent people from thinking that I want to prove my role by killing someone, the only acceptable pro-town plan I can propose with a full claim involves self sacrifice, which is what I have proposed once I was forced to fullclaim.
In post 256, glowball wrote:oh goodness am I missing something? WHERE did he claim VIG?
In post 273, Kublai Khan wrote:In post 271, Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:In post 268, Kublai Khan wrote:*Next Day*
Lewarcher82: "Gosh, I'm still alive. I don't know what happened, Mafia must have either roleblocked me or maybe glowball was lying about her dog-claim."
And then he gets lynched. Lynching him D2 instead of D1 is not particularly meaningful.
A lot of my reads right now depend on what lewarcher82 flips.
In post 409, Llamarble wrote:VPB is probably town.
"Something in my role suggests X is lying" usually comes from town.
In post 432, jasonT1981 wrote:We can get him to tell us tomorrow (if alive) who he targetted if a cat did not die. And then match that up to whatever his claimed target says. If person targetted says they are a dog, then boom... we lynch.
In post 440, Vi wrote:
On a somewhat related note, if "Governate" is the actual name of the ability, then your vote is improperly formatted as well. It should have been:LAMAHBOHL
I MUST BREAK YOU
Beyond that, hammer the obvious scum, failing that lynch the other obvious scum, pastiche of previous posts goes here, etc.
In post 485, Llamarble wrote:VP is scum except for the "I have role information suggesting Lew's claim is false" thing.
Then again I guess as scum with a non cat / dog I could say something like that.
VOTE: VP Baltar
llama wrote:VP does have the 'my role conflicts with Lew's let's lynch' towntell and the bit about whether we should have Roxi claim felt a smidgeon town though.
llama after I vote him wrote:I also don't like the fact that you voted Lew more or less entirely for role-disagreement, and that he flipped town after that.
If scum think they see a hole in a townie's claim that's like BLOOOOODD IN WATER LYNCHLYNCHLYNCHLYNCH.
llama wrote:This D1 read of VPB happened because his towntells are surface-tells whereas his scumtells are slightly closer to the hardware.
Vi wrote:Hm...
I'll drink this Kool-Aid and see what happens.
Vote: VP Baltar (L-6)
Sotty wrote:Llama is already so much better today. I like his VP pressure a lot.
Sotty wrote: I also don't like how he belittles the points Llama brought up against him.
In post 539, Vi wrote:slowplaying this game heavily
In post 547, Vi wrote:And you likewise.In post 541, VP Baltar wrote:He's been phoning it in all game, which is why I think he's scummy not just his initial bit.
Try chewing on:
*how scum would know there was an SK in this game (5 scum, 16-player game, no second kill at Night)
*why scum would choose bloodyCensus Takeras a fakeclaim, and then make it without provocation
*why scum would get a Census Taker if it's not a fakeclaim
*why, if there is another killing element in the game, they would make a highly credible and generally Town claim
VP wrote:I'll give you that I don't see scum giving up their numbers, so it's possible I'm wrong there.
glowball wrote:hahahahahaha, I avoided a Sotty question as well, good to know you're paying attention >_>
Anyway, JasonT there is no case to answer. You've fabricated a connection between Llam and myself that is your whole case.
DDD wrote:Starting from the top of the day, of the two names Sotty mentioned I think UT is the scummier of them because his play has been more “normal”. Normal/boring is scummier in my book than bad/weird.
Quilford wrote:Ghostlin: I'm pretty sure I voted you because your posts surrounding the lewarcher lynch yesterday seemed opportunistic in the same way that KK's did, but you were being more subtle about it
CES wrote:Why do I need to explain my fake governing? It's in essence just a reverse fake daykill. It probably would've worked better if lew had been active, but on the whole I think it was useful.
DDD wrote:In fact, four of the players in this game just played in a game where there was a modifided census taker (and I designed and ran the game) so despite VPB saying he hadn't seen a census taker before he just saw the results of one last game even as it got lost in your post restriction.
Amrun wrote:Uh, where is the info on there being an SK? We know there's a third party. It's not at all the same thing. (Vi also made this mistake, but it was after yours so I think she subconsciously picked your mistake up, and also this was addressed in her and she used it as a towntell for Quilford, which isn't at all scummy.)
Amrun wrote:You, on the other hand... That was a weird post already, as Vi noted. You have townreads on EVERYONE? I don't even know who your scumreads are, but you have "plenty," though apparently less than five.
Amrun wrote:Your response to Llamarble's vote was really scummy. You didn't address the point at all. You implied that you had a viable reason to believe lewarcher was scum based on your role, but lewarcher wasn't scum. That doesn't make you insta-scum, but you avoiding the issue doesn't look so great.
Amrun wrote:1. No, I don't think scum would know that, but it's quite possible that an SK would know that. It's not a huge thing, but I wanted to mention it. If we had flips to indicate sk, there wouldn't be even this note.
DDD wrote:You seem to be of the opinion that I really and truly thought KK was 100% scum and thus my vote switch was somehow a big revelation, what in my posts gave you that impression?
Amrun wrote:Post 41 is where you address his reasons, and it doesn't actually do what you profess and reads as flailing to me.
Amrun wrote:I'm still waiting for an explanation of your Quilford and Jason reads, VP.
Amrun wrote:You said one thing about grammar tells, but MOST OF what llamarble has to say has NOTHING to do with that. I don't give a shit about that argument either way, really. It's a dumb tell, and it's fine to call him out on it, but you equating his entire case with one bad tell and using it to discredit everything without addressing everything makes me really uncomfortable.
Amrun wrote:You still managed to dodge the Jason question, though.
Amrun wrote:Do you seriously think Quilford is scum, still?
Amrun wrote:p-edit: Mudslinging. Nice.