Cw can heal T3 and vig can shoot T3 to verify town alignmentIn post 398, Jake The Wolfie wrote:How would a Doctor be helpful if T3 is town?
Of course, T3 just dies if cw is lying or is roleblocked
There’s your daily does of IIOA
Cw can heal T3 and vig can shoot T3 to verify town alignmentIn post 398, Jake The Wolfie wrote:How would a Doctor be helpful if T3 is town?
Because T3 told us that there's a macho.In post 398, Jake The Wolfie wrote:How would a Doctor be helpful if T3 is town?
No.In post 402, DrippingGoofball wrote:Why are we believing this claim?
It sounds like something scum would do to out the real doctor.
Are you scum or tracker?In post 408, DrippingGoofball wrote:If I'm scum, my go-to fakeclaim is going to be scum or tracker.
I'm not taking for granted that we might have a vig, since personally I see no indication of one.In post 403, VFP wrote:Because T3 told us that there's a macho.In post 398, Jake The Wolfie wrote:How would a Doctor be helpful if T3 is town?
Scum want to get Macho over Doc, so if doc hits right then a town life is saved, including PRs.
The threat here to scum is the Macho plus a plausible vig, not the Doc.
The annoyance to scum here is the Doc.
So this is the problem with no vig and a loyal doctor.In post 410, Egix96 wrote:I'm not taking for granted that we might have a vig, since personally I see no indication of one.
Also, strongman might be a possibility.
The bizarre takes are that me getting vaguely evil whiffs off two people means I am positively asserting those two are aligned and that stating you're trying to project helpfulness is some unfathomable concept.In post 385, Jessica Rabbit wrote:Yes and it’s an extremely bizarre take. It looks like you want to shade me without any basis that makes any sense. What does that even mean? How is it even possible to “project helpfulness” and not actually be helpful? Why are you curious? you were shading both of us.In post 373, excallq wrote:I said my read on you was that you were trying to project the image of being helpful. This is different from and independent of actually being helpful.In post 365, Jessica Rabbit wrote:I’m not a fan of this. If your take on me is that I’m being helpful then where is the shade coming from? It’s akin to claiming a player who is very clearly doing townie things is trying to look like they are but not really.In post 348, excallq wrote:Random early (probably more than half wrong) reads on some folks.
cw: Can't really get a sense of whether or not the inactivity is tactical but the vote for me feels like it was a "safe" one in that he could just point to my earlier less-than-supremely-serious posts without having to provide much in the way of explanation or logic behind the vote, and since there wasn't any momentum behind eliminating me it wouldn't garner so much attention.
T3: Leaning towards believing the roleclaim
Jessica Rabbit: Feels like she's trying to project helpful
Ranny: Think he's been happier just getting in minor spats since attention has shifted to DGB and CW. Keeping my vote on him.
Roden: Kind of agreed with whoever said the tiff with Ranny seemed staged but he's been feeling more town lately.
DGB: Has been pushing back in a lot of directions and kinda flailing. To me it reads more purely aggressive than overtly scummy but I don't have a read on him as town either.
Anyone I didn't list I don't have a solid read on at all (insofar as any of these are remotely solid)
I said nothing about you being aligned with Ranny or not. Curious why it seems to clear to you think I have that opinion.The only thing I actually don’t hate about these posts is your take on T3. Why because these takes with the sole exception of the T3 read don’t make a lot of sense as a whole.
Considering that one of the “spats” Ranny got into was with me, why would you shade both of us here? It seems really clear that you’re scumreading Ranny and don’t think we’re aligned, so I don’t understand the thought process behind any of it besides the T3 thing.
uhhhhhhhIn post 395, Roden wrote:Also, we only have three days left and the wagons all feel like they're losing steam. Are we looking at pursuing a wagon against one of DGB, Ranny, Excallq,or myself? Or is there interest on someone else?
In post 383, Titus wrote:Loyal is the correct modifier.
r ppl having too much funIn post 191, Titus wrote:Thanks. It largely is, but I am swamped at work. If my trial next week goes, I'll have to vla for it. I won't know if it goes for a bit though.In post 175, VFP wrote:I hope everything is okay, Titus.
this is a very off-putting post much like the one i quoted a little while back
and then this post came without any explanation or follow-upIn post 317, Titus wrote:I like Jessica Rabbit as town.
In post 379, Titus wrote:It is but I'm not going to out the modifier to ensure that cw has to come up with the answer on their own.
idkIn post 383, Titus wrote:Loyal is the correct modifier.
o yea i forgot about thisIn post 24, excallq wrote:I am posting because it will look suspicious if I don't.
I mean hello everyone.
honestly this is wifomIn post 163, excallq wrote:Cuz scum are more likely to try not to draw so much attention to themselves day one whereas townies are more likely to not call for policy eliminations also day one?In post 152, DrippingGoofball wrote:Having said that, the traitor speculation is complete garbage, why can't they just straight up say I'm scum instead of this roundabout traitor BS?
ok i actually called this out earlier but shouldn't u have towny self-awareness, having no self-awareness sounds like scum trying to obscure their alignmentIn post 51, excallq wrote:I have no self-awareness at all, scummy or otherwise.
In post 43, Rannygazoo wrote:Is this scummy self-awareness too?
In post 24, excallq wrote:I am posting because it will look suspicious if I don't.
I mean hello everyone.
hmmIn post 412, excallq wrote:The bizarre takes are that me getting vaguely evil whiffs off two people means I am positively asserting those two are aligned and that stating you're trying to project helpfulness is some unfathomable concept.In post 385, Jessica Rabbit wrote:Yes and it’s an extremely bizarre take. It looks like you want to shade me without any basis that makes any sense. What does that even mean? How is it even possible to “project helpfulness” and not actually be helpful? Why are you curious? you were shading both of us.In post 373, excallq wrote:I said my read on you was that you were trying to project the image of being helpful. This is different from and independent of actually being helpful.In post 365, Jessica Rabbit wrote:I’m not a fan of this. If your take on me is that I’m being helpful then where is the shade coming from? It’s akin to claiming a player who is very clearly doing townie things is trying to look like they are but not really.In post 348, excallq wrote:Random early (probably more than half wrong) reads on some folks.
cw: Can't really get a sense of whether or not the inactivity is tactical but the vote for me feels like it was a "safe" one in that he could just point to my earlier less-than-supremely-serious posts without having to provide much in the way of explanation or logic behind the vote, and since there wasn't any momentum behind eliminating me it wouldn't garner so much attention.
T3: Leaning towards believing the roleclaim
Jessica Rabbit: Feels like she's trying to project helpful
Ranny: Think he's been happier just getting in minor spats since attention has shifted to DGB and CW. Keeping my vote on him.
Roden: Kind of agreed with whoever said the tiff with Ranny seemed staged but he's been feeling more town lately.
DGB: Has been pushing back in a lot of directions and kinda flailing. To me it reads more purely aggressive than overtly scummy but I don't have a read on him as town either.
Anyone I didn't list I don't have a solid read on at all (insofar as any of these are remotely solid)
I said nothing about you being aligned with Ranny or not. Curious why it seems to clear to you think I have that opinion.The only thing I actually don’t hate about these posts is your take on T3. Why because these takes with the sole exception of the T3 read don’t make a lot of sense as a whole.
Considering that one of the “spats” Ranny got into was with me, why would you shade both of us here? It seems really clear that you’re scumreading Ranny and don’t think we’re aligned, so I don’t understand the thought process behind any of it besides the T3 thing.
Is there a language barrier? You come off like you're trying to feign being an active pro-town scum-hunter but that you aren't actually helping at all and just stirring up smoke. Which is exactly what you're doing.
And why would we assume there is a vigilante?In post 401, Rannygazoo wrote:Cw can heal T3 and vig can shoot T3 to verify town alignmentIn post 398, Jake The Wolfie wrote:How would a Doctor be helpful if T3 is town?
Of course, T3 just dies if cw is lying or is roleblocked
There’s your daily does of IIOA
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigarIn post 421, cw357 wrote:ok i actually called this out earlier but shouldn't u have towny self-awareness, having no self-awareness sounds like scum trying to obscure their alignment
It's because we're the only ones with votes atm. It seems like no one wants to draw attention and heavily push one of these potential wagons over another.In post 415, cw357 wrote:uhhhhhhhIn post 395, Roden wrote:Also, we only have three days left and the wagons all feel like they're losing steam. Are we looking at pursuing a wagon against one of DGB, Ranny, Excallq,or myself? Or is there interest on someone else?