In post 147, lewarcher82 wrote:This is my challenge.
Challenge Accepted.
...until the next Day, anyway.lewarcher 147 wrote:Cutting short day 1 is an anti-town strategy, as it limits the chance of collecting information by the uninformed majority.
I'm pretty sure you said the opposite earlier.lewarcher 147 wrote:But the case that will likely get me lynched is based on me pointing out something anti-townand then decidingit was not a genuine scumtell.
Theoretically a Role Cop can investigate anyone and get a result, and then the investigated player can confirm or deny it. The downsides to this are:Cogito Ergo Sum 148 wrote:How you think this confirms your role, is beyond me.
In post 104, xRECKONERx wrote:In post 100, Kublai Khan wrote:Elaborate on what? I've seen you defend yourself with selfmeta a bunch of times. I found it to be a hypocritical comment.
I'd love to see some examples of this.
I don't think it was "looking for an excuse to hop on the wagon" but rather "keeping the door open with the vagueness of how the behavior might also be scum".In post 133, Amrun wrote:I told you the impression I got from the posts. You were fencesitting; it seemed you were defending him weakly on hand while looking for an excuse to hop on the wagon on the other.
I wasn't clear when I spoke about the context as I don't find you particularly scummy (outside of a very tenuous relationship with people I do find scummy). When I said "given the context, it is scummy" I was referring to Quilford's projection of your vote in the context of what had transpired at the time of his vote. I don't think you can argue that your post ever indicated anything outside of a typical RVS vote, so Quilford knowing you are town from your RVS looking vote post is invalid and scummy, especially since he delayed producing that information for so long.In post 145, Sotty7 wrote:So... I'm scummy for finding Jason's first post in this game scummy? Your logic is getting really poor here. Every single post has a bearing on a players alignment. Also why didn't you pick on this apparently scummy move from me when I first mentioned it?
Disingenuous? Nah, I believe there to be more substantial evidence against Quilford than lewarcher.In post 153, Kublai Khan wrote:Second, I think xvart's been trying to prevent lewarcher82's lynch by trying two different counter-wagons since lewarcher82 has been at L-2 (on jasonT1981 and Quilford). Plus his arguments seem disingenuous. If we get a scum-flip, then we'll know who the partner is.
In post 126, Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:For the most part, yes. I get more serious as the game progresses.
In post 158, Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:78
In post 160, lewarcher82 wrote:
You unvote me, and tonight I will visit someone who will claim to have a dog (no full claim required, any dog will do)
In post 164, Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:Since when? It's a good plan. Pie'd be proud.
In post 164, Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:Since when? It's a good plan. Pie'd be proud.
Unvote, vote: jason
In post 166, Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:In post 164, Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:Since when? It's a good plan. Pie'd be proud.
Yeah, a good plan for scum. Make scummy claim, when scummy claim doesn't save self, change claim to something more pro-town, guarantee death over night, somehow survive the night, drown town in "why you rascally mafia roleblocker preventing me from killing myself last night" WIFOM. Been there, done that, bought the souvenir program.
In post 163, Untrod Tripod wrote:considering that mafia kills happen before other kills, I can't see this plan doing anything but failing