Mini 684: Quacks and Masons Mafia- Game Over

[Sun Tzu]

As i've already said i have plans for the docs/quacks that i'm not going into, and the scum can be adequately distracted killing off our confirmed masons while we figure out their lies.

Wait, we're supposed to follow you blindly on a plan you aren't "going into"?

I think you should describe the rest of your plan (even though we're not going to use it).

[Light-kun]

Clammy is on my scumdar, just not sure yet how big of a blip he is... *Hm...* Still, I have a few people to look at first so I am going to minor FOS him for weird play. BTW, aside from the fact that Pac's plan fails for making Docs to have unparalleled power, it was actually really good. I discounted it because in my experience and research on this game, I have NEVER seen a Doc that could self protect....

Vote: Riceballtail

Obvscum

Btw, I simmed through my idea and it doesn't work the way I intend to (by the time the quacks are outed, the scum would have won).

Another possibility is that everyone agrees to target the scummiest player each night and if he doesn't die then we lynch. But this is probably more akin to a less effective vig. Perhaps it could loosely keep track of how many quacks are remaining.

I have absolutely NO idea why Net is voting Rice in this post, but this concept is actually pretty strong and fairly pro-town, except, if the scummiest players were both town aligned (outside of mason, in which case, I think the masons should claim if they can confirm each other), then this plan would backfire. Still, it makes the most sense outside of everyone leaving the doctors to do whatever they want.

Again, I like Net's plan, for the moment: town list. There was someone else I am putting on my probably town list, forgot who. I will look that up on my next post, but I want to rest...so, later.

[muffinhead]

Vote Count

Netlava (2)- Dattebayo, Riceballtail

clammy (1)- roflcopter
springlullaby (1)- Netlava
roflcopter (1)- springlullaby

Not Voting (7)- Pimhel, Sun Tsu,clammy,pacman281292,Light-Kun,raider8169,sotty7

7 to lynch

Proding Pimhel

[raider8169]

Clammy is on my scumdar, just not sure yet how big of a blip he is... *Hm...* Still, I have a few people to look at first so I am going to minor FOS him for weird play. BTW, aside from the fact that Pac's plan fails for making Docs to have unparalleled power, it was actually really good. I discounted it because in my experience and research on this game, I have NEVER seen a Doc that could self protect....

Vote: Riceballtail

Obvscum

Btw, I simmed through my idea and it doesn't work the way I intend to (by the time the quacks are outed, the scum would have won).

Another possibility is that everyone agrees to target the scummiest player each night and if he doesn't die then we lynch. But this is probably more akin to a less effective vig. Perhaps it could loosely keep track of how many quacks are remaining.

I have absolutely NO idea why Net is voting Rice in this post, but this concept is actually pretty strong and fairly pro-town, except, if the scummiest players were both town aligned (outside of mason, in which case, I think the masons should claim if they can confirm each other), then this plan would backfire. Still, it makes the most sense outside of everyone leaving the doctors to do whatever they want.

Again, I like Net's plan, for the moment: town list. There was someone else I am putting on my probably town list, forgot who. I will look that up on my next post, but I want to rest...so, later.

The plans main downside is that we we are more likely to kill more town people witch will mean less lynches. We have no way to kill scum outside of lynches so I think it is more important to limit the amount of nightkills. As there are 3 scum it is going to take 3 day lynches to take them out. If we reduce the number of day lynches then that just makes our chances extremely low.

[springlullaby]

Vote roflcopter, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.

Nothing contradictory in it, roflcopter is pushing a case on the sole basis that clammy's plan is antitown, I do not agree with this.

However clammy's idea as he presented it - that is, partially and hinting at an undisclosed miracle course of action for night, is indeed antitown, and I cannot reconstruct the townie POV/reasoning which led him to it. As such, I'm urging him to disclose what the mysterious part of his plan is to be able to form an opinion on whether he is a misguided/brilliant townie, or scum bluffing in hope that town would fall for it. His continued refusal to disclose his plan merit a FOS from me as it make the later hypothesis more probable.

As for pacman, I reacted more to what I saw as a possible attempt at fishing than anything else.

[springlullaby]

Btw, I don't like roflcopter's reaction to my vote.

[Sotty7]

I see i've got some misnomers to dispell.

did you miss the part where you proposed a plan that would out the masons to the scum on day one and then i voted you for trying to enact a plan that is so blatantly pro scum?

Yes.
I didn't miss that at all, you seem to think yourself and that post so important that i should quake at your presence rather than objectively assess your intent.
I choose sense, i still think your post is irrelevant.

You think it's irrelevant that you suggested such a bad plan? To me, that's actually pretty damn relevant.

FOS: Clammy

You've changed what i've said. Not that roflcoptor's opinion is irrelevant, nor that the impact of my stated plan here is irrelevant, but that roflcoptor's vote is irrelevant when he demands i respond to him in a particular way when i have no intention to take him seriously.

You said post and not vote here. If it's true and you find his vote irrelevant you should have been clearer with that point.

[roflcopter]

spring, you couldn't be more obvious in simultaneously protecting and distancing from clammy.

here is how i read your actions: "attack rofl for his attack on clammy. fos clammy for exactly what rofl attacked him for." you can't have your cake and eat it too, sorry.

[springlullaby]

Roflcopter, have you read my 104? Does it make any sense to you? If it doesn't please point out why.

[Dattebayo]

Were you serious with that vote?

Yes, for missing the idea that shortening the number of days may be justifiable if it ends positively for town.

There are a few things that I don't like about that. First of all, your accusation on riceballtail is more like a defense from his accusation than it is justification for your vote on him. Second, because your accusation is like a defense instead of a valid scum tell, your vote looks like OMGUS. And third, I don't like how you never actually stated your reasoning for the vote in the post with the vote; it makes it look like didn't have justification at the time of the vote.

I also want to point his use of the word "frankly". It is used quite often by scum. Since scum spend most of the game in a lie, when they tell the truth, they often end up pointing it out.

1.

Lying is poor play from scum, scum should tell the truth as often and as vigorously as possible, telling the truth is how scum get townies mis-lynched for "being caught in a lie".

Or maybe that's too logical.

Or maybe you're not very good at playing scum when you get that role.

Clammy's posts 80 and 82 come with the implication that roflcopter never came up with the any reasons for voting Clammy (bolded), but when rofl pointed out his reason again, Clammy said that "he didn't miss it [the original point] at all" and then dismisses the post as irrelevant without reason.

2.

I can see how you're reading in there that there was no attached acknowledgment of his original post, but as i've already pointed out in this post it's his vote that i find irrelevant and you're also changing what i said.

1. That's a good counterargument, I'll drop that point.
2. Your backpedaling. You specifically said before that it was his

post

not his vote that was irrelevant.

Yes.
I didn't miss that at all, you seem to think yourself and that post so important that i should quake at your presence rather than objectively assess your intent.
I choose sense, i still think

your post

is irrelevant.

The original argument stands with the new addition of backpedaling.

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.

Nothing contradictory in it, roflcopter is pushing a case on the sole basis that clammy's plan is antitown, I do not agree with this.

However clammy's idea as he presented it - that is, partially and hinting at an undisclosed miracle course of action for night, is indeed antitown, and I cannot reconstruct the townie POV/reasoning which led him to it. As such, I'm urging him to disclose what the mysterious part of his plan is to be able to form an opinion on whether he is a misguided/brilliant townie, or scum bluffing in hope that town would fall for it. His continued refusal to disclose his plan merit a FOS from me as it make the later hypothesis more probable.[/quote]
I looked back, and earlier posts confirm your explanation; yours and rofl's attacks were fundamentally different.

So, I second this post by spring:

Roflcopter, have you read my 104? Does it make any sense to you? If it doesn't please point out why.

And, Netlava, could you elaborate on your reasoning in this post:

Vote roflcopter, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

I missed this post the first time around but, yeah, this is pretty scummy.

Unvote, vote: springlullaby

[Dattebayo]

EBWOP:

Nothing contradictory in it, roflcopter is pushing a case on the sole basis that clammy's plan is antitown, I do not agree with this.

However clammy's idea as he presented it - that is, partially and hinting at an undisclosed miracle course of action for night, is indeed antitown, and I cannot reconstruct the townie POV/reasoning which led him to it. As such, I'm urging him to disclose what the mysterious part of his plan is to be able to form an opinion on whether he is a misguided/brilliant townie, or scum bluffing in hope that town would fall for it. His continued refusal to disclose his plan merit a FOS from me as it make the later hypothesis more probable.

[Netlava]

There are a few things that I don't like about that. First of all, your accusation on riceballtail is more like a defense from his accusation than it is justification for your vote on him. Second, because your accusation is like a defense instead of a valid scum tell, your vote looks like OMGUS.

There's nothing wrong with that. I didn't think his vote was fair, so I voted him. I'll elaborate on my reasoning. When I try to put out various ideas, I do so to promote set-up discussion, which I think is worthwhile in this type of game. The ideas themselves sometimes contain flaws, but hopefully as a group it may be easier to work them out and think of a good idea. But not at least exploring the use of the roles seems like a potential waste, and when essentially every plan involving the use of quacks/docs entails "shortening the number of days," voting me for that is unfair and short-sighted. I don't like it when people shoot down ideas without bothering to consider the options.

And, Netlava, could you elaborate on your reasoning in this post:

It is a contradiction. From spring's explanation, it seems that the reasons are both the same, but in her case she added clammy's reaction to her fos. I do not see how they are fundamentally different.

And second, voting for both sides in an argument is a bit strange, seeing how that would mean that spring would have to consider both clammy and rofl on the same team, but her reasons do not seem to give forth this line of thought.

[Light-kun]

I think that Spring is probably town. It is just the feel I am getting from his/her reasoning on this page. (I think it was post 104.)

Same with netlava. I am getting a slightly town vibe. Still, as has been the target of discussion, Clammy's refusal to the main point of his plan bothers me. If the plan has been, by its creator, doomed to fail, then i see no reason to not explain what the idea was. It has two potential benefits to town:

1. It lets the town decide if the plan is conceivably made by a protown or anti town player.

2. The plan could be potentially modified if there is any merit to it at all. OR it could give the town an idea for a plan later.

The obviously more important of these 2 results is the fomer. It is pretty conclusive that everyone speaking of this would probably agree that it is strange, and to a certain degree, not helping town, BUT knowing the full thought process could prevent us from mislynching a townie.

So: all being said, I think that Clammy should explain his plan since that is best for town. And if he is still refusing to do that, I really want a reason on why he thinks it needs to be secret (IF he thinks that).

[clammy]

Will all the tea-totlers who are calling for

(and i summarise and create and combine in this statement what i think sums up all of the people who've made similar statements to it)

"clammy to reveal to us his top-secret, amazing, flawless plan or tell us why he shouldn't yet" please realise i've already done this and you're only showing yourself as to want to appear pro-town by pressuring someone under pressure while keeping a foot in someone else's door too.

I quote for you now where i have done this and you can all realise that only Datte has presented anything resembling an outstanding case against me.

i'm not asking for an infinite hold lullaby, but aspects of what i have as a plan could be used in reverse if not made in conjunction with the mass-claim so i have no interest in revealing that until it's clear which way we're going with the claim.

Otherwise i'll leave the plan under wraps until D2 and push for the claim again then.

"Foot in someone else's door":
[Rofl attacks Spring
Spring attacks Rofl
Spring attacks Dattebayo
Datte supports Spring's attack of Rofl]
Rofl amongst others has successfully pointed out at #95 that this is an attempt to have your cake and eat it too, of course.

-----------------------

1. That's a good counterargument, I'll drop that point.
2. Your backpedaling. You specifically said before that it was his post not his vote that was irrelevant.

I'm tempted to quote this back and simply ask if you're backpedaling or if the definition of the word is different where you live but i acknowledge that won't suffice for you.

I referenced post, probably because i went back and read and acknowledged his post which i was then accused of not acknowledging, nonetheless i assure you it is his vote i find irrelevant as i have already gone through why he'll be waiting for "scummy clammy" to reveal his night-action plan.

[raider8169]

@ clammy, if you have a plan and are not willing to reveal it I will not go along with it. Its that simple. If your plan it bad you can get everyone to release their roles, force a few kills and then be ok with getting lynched yourself because you gave so much information to your scum partners.

Scum can see the advantage to giving up themselves for everyone's roles and also getting a few townies taken out in the process. Until there is a known benefit for town I do not see how hiding your plan would work. Also note that I am sure other people like myself have been thinking about this alot and no one else has come up with a plan where the town can not know about until after it is started.

[Dattebayo]

1.

"Foot in someone else's door":
[Rofl attacks Spring
Spring attacks Rofl
Spring attacks Dattebayo
Datte supports Spring's attack of Rofl]
Rofl amongst others has successfully pointed out at #95 that this is an attempt to have your cake and eat it too, of course.

-----------------------

1. That's a good counterargument, I'll drop that point.
2. Your backpedaling. You specifically said before that it was his post not his vote that was irrelevant.

2.

I'm tempted to quote this back and simply ask if you're backpedaling or if the definition of the word is different where you live but i acknowledge that won't suffice for you.

I referenced post, probably because i went back and read and acknowledged his post which i was then accused of not acknowledging, nonetheless i assure you it is his vote i find irrelevant as i have already gone through why he'll be waiting for "scummy clammy" to reveal his night-action plan.

1. That is blatant misrepresentation. Spring never attacked rofl or me and I never attacked rofl.
2. Please post your reference. For I have already posted where you

directly

stated that his "post" was irrelevant.

Unvote, Vote: Clammy

. Clammy's scumminess just eclipsed Net's.

There are a few things that I don't like about that. First of all, your accusation on riceballtail is more like a defense from his accusation than it is justification for your vote on him. Second, because your accusation is like a defense instead of a valid scum tell, your vote looks like OMGUS.

1.

There's nothing wrong with that. I didn't think his vote was fair, so I voted him. I'll elaborate on my reasoning. When I try to put out various ideas, I do so to promote set-up discussion, which I think is worthwhile in this type of game. The ideas themselves sometimes contain flaws, but hopefully as a group it may be easier to work them out and think of a good idea. But not at least exploring the use of the roles seems like a potential waste, and when essentially every plan involving the use of quacks/docs entails "shortening the number of days," voting me for that is unfair and short-sighted. I don't like it when people shoot down ideas without bothering to consider the options.

And, Netlava, could you elaborate on your reasoning in this post:

2.

It is a contradiction. From spring's explanation, it seems that the reasons are both the same, but in her case she added clammy's reaction to her fos. I do not see how they are fundamentally different.

And second, voting for both sides in an argument is a bit strange, seeing how that would mean that spring would have to consider both clammy and rofl on the same team, but her reasons do not seem to give forth this line of thought.

1. The problem is that your justification for your vote is more like a defense. You thought that his vote was unfair, and then retaliated with an unexplained vote. I would think a townie would defend himself instead of immediatelly jumping on his attacker.

2. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the first part.

As for the second, I agree. If you look back, I only conceded the contradiction point therefore my keeping his foot in all doors point still stands.

[clammy]

1. That is blatant misrepresentation. Spring never attacked rofl or me and I never attacked rofl.
2. Please post your reference. For I have already posted where you

directly

stated that his "post" was irrelevant.

Unvote, Vote: Clammy

. Clammy's scumminess just eclipsed Net's.

1.

[Rofl attacks Spring
Spring attacks Rofl
Spring attacks Dattebayo

***

Datte supports Spring's attack of Rofl]

Rofl attacks Spring

holy crap springlullaby thank you for making it so obvious you are clammy's scumpartner.

fos: springlullaby

Spring attacks Rofl

wait WAIT I HAVE AN IDEA:

I don't know if docs and/or quacks can target themselves, but if they can, they might then target themselves:
Docs will not die.
Quacks will instantly die; we get rid of them.
There is a 2/3 probability of scum targetting doc or quack (no effects) and 1/3 of scum targetting mason (unlucky).
I hope this works. It's just an idea, and might not work, and it might not be possible, but if it is, then we have a great advantage with two less town-killers. Thoughts?

Mod, can docs target themselves?

Now, quack dying for the purpose of dying is out of the question.

FOS Pacman.

Vote roflcopter

, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy

, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

And again

Btw, I don't like roflcopter's reaction to my vote.

Datte attacks Spring
***Please note my original typo, it was Datte who attacked Spring.

I see bad plans as faults in logic rather than scum tells.

Anyway, my scumlist at this point is Netlava, Clammy, and Springlullaby.

Vote roflcopter, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.

...

FoS: springlullaby

Datte supports Spring's attack of Rofl

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.

Nothing contradictory in it, roflcopter is pushing a case on the sole basis that clammy's plan is antitown, I do not agree with this.

However clammy's idea as he presented it - that is, partially and hinting at an undisclosed miracle course of action for night, is indeed antitown, and I cannot reconstruct the townie POV/reasoning which led him to it. As such, I'm urging him to disclose what the mysterious part of his plan is to be able to form an opinion on whether he is a misguided/brilliant townie, or scum bluffing in hope that town would fall for it. His continued refusal to disclose his plan merit a FOS from me as it make the later hypothesis more probable.

I looked back, and earlier posts confirm your explanation; yours and rofl's attacks were fundamentally different.

So, I second this post by spring:

Roflcopter, have you read my 104? Does it make any sense to you? If it doesn't please point out why.

-------------------------

2.

You missed it again mate.

"I referenced post"

(- clammy, #113).
Would you like me to make it simpler for you?
"I said post, not vote".
"clammy finds the vote irrelevant, but wrote post, oops!"

This was clarified and has been time and time again, is now old, and is a huge stretch considering your initial argument "clammy said 'post', scumzors!". I have acknowledged i said "post", not "vote", yet have clearly shown how and why i meant "vote" and now your "case" still boils down to "clammy said 'post', scumzors!" but in that time, miraculously, "clammy's scumminess [has] eclipsed Net's."
It's not logical.
Again.

[Dattebayo]

Datte supports Spring's attack of Rofl

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.

Nothing contradictory in it, roflcopter is pushing a case on the sole basis that clammy's plan is antitown, I do not agree with this.

However clammy's idea as he presented it - that is, partially and hinting at an undisclosed miracle course of action for night, is indeed antitown, and I cannot reconstruct the townie POV/reasoning which led him to it. As such, I'm urging him to disclose what the mysterious part of his plan is to be able to form an opinion on whether he is a misguided/brilliant townie, or scum bluffing in hope that town would fall for it. His continued refusal to disclose his plan merit a FOS from me as it make the later hypothesis more probable.

I looked back, and earlier posts confirm your explanation; yours and rofl's attacks were fundamentally different.

So, I second this post by spring:

Roflcopter, have you read my 104? Does it make any sense to you? If it doesn't please point out why.

That's not an attack on Rofl and I don't see how it can be percieved as one. I was dropped the contradiction point on spring and questioned rofl as to why he didn't. No where in the there did I say I suspicous of rofl.
-------------------------

2.

You missed it again mate.

"I referenced post"

(- clammy, #113).
Would you like me to make it simpler for you?
"I said post, not vote".
"clammy finds the vote irrelevant, but wrote post, oops!"

This was clarified and has been time and time again, is now old, and is a huge stretch considering your initial argument "clammy said 'post', scumzors!". I have acknowledged i said "post", not "vote", yet have clearly shown how and why i meant "vote" and now your "case" still boils down to "clammy said 'post', scumzors!" but in that time, miraculously, "clammy's scumminess [has] eclipsed Net's."
It's not logical.
Again.

Please don't be condescending.

And, you strawmanned my argument. My argument was that you backpedaled on what exactly you were saying and:

Clammy's posts 80 and 82 come with the implication that roflcopter never came up with the any reasons for voting Clammy, but when rofl pointed out his reason again, Clammy said that "he didn't miss it [the original point] at all" and then dismisses the post as irrelevant without reason.

which basically boils down to avoiding the accusation.

[Dattebayo]

EBWOP:
Bolded mine.

Datte supports Spring's attack of Rofl

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.

Nothing contradictory in it, roflcopter is pushing a case on the sole basis that clammy's plan is antitown, I do not agree with this.

However clammy's idea as he presented it - that is, partially and hinting at an undisclosed miracle course of action for night, is indeed antitown, and I cannot reconstruct the townie POV/reasoning which led him to it. As such, I'm urging him to disclose what the mysterious part of his plan is to be able to form an opinion on whether he is a misguided/brilliant townie, or scum bluffing in hope that town would fall for it. His continued refusal to disclose his plan merit a FOS from me as it make the later hypothesis more probable.

I looked back, and earlier posts confirm your explanation; yours and rofl's attacks were fundamentally different.

So, I second this post by spring:

Roflcopter, have you read my 104? Does it make any sense to you? If it doesn't please point out why.

That's not an attack on Rofl and I don't see how it can be percieved as one. I was dropped the contradiction point on spring and questioned rofl as to why he didn't. No where in the there did I say I suspicous of rofl.

-------------------------

2.

You missed it again mate.

"I referenced post"

(- clammy, #113).
Would you like me to make it simpler for you?
"I said post, not vote".
"clammy finds the vote irrelevant, but wrote post, oops!"

This was clarified and has been time and time again, is now old, and is a huge stretch considering your initial argument "clammy said 'post', scumzors!". I have acknowledged i said "post", not "vote", yet have clearly shown how and why i meant "vote" and now your "case" still boils down to "clammy said 'post', scumzors!" but in that time, miraculously, "clammy's scumminess [has] eclipsed Net's."
It's not logical.
Again.

Please don't be condescending.

And, you strawmanned my argument. My argument was that you backpedaled on what exactly you were saying and:

Clammy's posts 80 and 82 come with the implication that roflcopter never came up with the any reasons for voting Clammy, but when rofl pointed out his reason again, Clammy said that "he didn't miss it [the original point] at all" and then dismisses the post as irrelevant without reason.

which basically boils down to avoiding the accusation.[/quote]

[springlullaby]

1.

[Rofl attacks Spring
Spring attacks Rofl
Spring attacks Dattebayo

***

Datte supports Spring's attack of Rofl]

Rofl attacks Spring

holy crap springlullaby thank you for making it so obvious you are clammy's scumpartner.

fos: springlullaby

Spring attacks Rofl

wait WAIT I HAVE AN IDEA:

I don't know if docs and/or quacks can target themselves, but if they can, they might then target themselves:
Docs will not die.
Quacks will instantly die; we get rid of them.
There is a 2/3 probability of scum targetting doc or quack (no effects) and 1/3 of scum targetting mason (unlucky).
I hope this works. It's just an idea, and might not work, and it might not be possible, but if it is, then we have a great advantage with two less town-killers. Thoughts?

Mod, can docs target themselves?

Now, quack dying for the purpose of dying is out of the question.

FOS Pacman.

Vote roflcopter

, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy

, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

And again

Btw, I don't like roflcopter's reaction to my vote.

Datte attacks Spring
***Please note my original typo, it was Datte who attacked Spring.

I see bad plans as faults in logic rather than scum tells.

Anyway, my scumlist at this point is Netlava, Clammy, and Springlullaby.

Vote roflcopter, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.

...

FoS: springlullaby

Datte supports Spring's attack of Rofl

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.

Nothing contradictory in it, roflcopter is pushing a case on the sole basis that clammy's plan is antitown, I do not agree with this.

However clammy's idea as he presented it - that is, partially and hinting at an undisclosed miracle course of action for night, is indeed antitown, and I cannot reconstruct the townie POV/reasoning which led him to it. As such, I'm urging him to disclose what the mysterious part of his plan is to be able to form an opinion on whether he is a misguided/brilliant townie, or scum bluffing in hope that town would fall for it. His continued refusal to disclose his plan merit a FOS from me as it make the later hypothesis more probable.

I looked back, and earlier posts confirm your explanation; yours and rofl's attacks were fundamentally different.

So, I second this post by spring:

Roflcopter, have you read my 104? Does it make any sense to you? If it doesn't please point out why.

This is inacurate and a misrepresentation, let me ask you, is it intentional?

As for you 'proposing your plan again D2', I'll repeat it again one more time: it is unacceptable as any plan that is breakable if examined during day can be broken by scum. And you are requested to disclose it as you are suspected right now of bluffing.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, you may simply be very misguided, but you re burning your town creds pretty quickly.

[clammy]

It's not inaccurate or a misrepresentation of posts and views that have been made, it is not meant to be the current state of events or a representation of how things stand right now, and indeed it is not. Remember it was only posted to expand on a single comment i made that Datte said wasn't true and now disputes but still seems to have missed that i only ever said he supported your attack of Rofl.

Re breakable plans etc, i've clearly said i'm prepared to either go into it or not, but i'm not going to bust the town by revealing my thoughts on night actions anytime soon unless we've decided to knock over the hurdles to getting there. Surely you'd have noticed i'm a little blase about when we give the green light to this, remember how my plan was for masons to claim D2? Maybe you don't.

Re bluffing, whatever mate, that's the weakest argument i've ever, ever, ever heard for pressure; if a town-aligned player isn't allowed to have conviction and courage when playing with you then doom to any town you ever play in.

[raider8169]

What are the hurdles you speak off? If you posted them before I must have missed them, so can you post them again?

[springlullaby]

@clammy

Lol are you stupid, doc claim day 1 is equivalent to mason claim, I already pointed this out to you.

And your post is a misrepresentation and inaccurate, in you post you make it seems as my attack on roflcopter is an omgus by presenting the post in a changed order, I can't imagine how this was not done on purpose because the post numbering is right there in your post. And you omit my earlier post in which I already explained to you why I thought your idea was not feasible and ask you to tell what your plan was.

And what hurdles? Blase what? What with the appeal to emotion? Please by all means have courage and convictions and explain how your plan can work, because you cannot reproach other people doubting you if you cannot explain why they shouldn't in the first place.

I cannot make sense of the words you speak. If you are town, reconsider what you've said and what others have said. If indeed you are brilliant and I am the stupid one, by all mean point out why.

In meantime, you've now reach my limit of 'too obvious to be scum'

Unvote, Vote Clammy

Now roflcopter, what do you think of this?

[Riceballtail]

Wow, this looks like a bus. A very deliberate bus.

But who first? Clammy or SL?

UNVOTE
VOTE:Clammy
HoS:SL

[Dattebayo]

Wow, this looks like a bus. A very deliberate bus.

But who first? Clammy or SL?

UNVOTE
VOTE:Clammy
HoS:SL

I have to agree; SL's post seemed forced. SL also tagged on the very telling line:

Now roflcopter, what do you think of this?

His vote most likely served the purpose of self-preservation.

I also want to make a note of how Clammy's reaction under pressure has been. He has stooped to the level of calling his attacker's trash without providing sufficient counter arguments. This is exactly how I think scum are under pressure as opposed to the self-righteousness and indignance that I normally see from townies under pressure.