With 13 alive it takes 7 to lynch.
The deadline for Day 1 is Monday, June 3rd, at 1 PM EST. This is in (expired on 2013-06-03 13:00:00).
Good thing I was quoting Selkies, not Ghost, then.In post 261, Nero Cain wrote:so not what Ghost saidIn post 256, Belisarius wrote:????In post 250, Selkies wrote:Wait whyIn post 221, Ghostlin wrote:1) No, I'm voting for Milk because a push on a claimed VT is pretty terrible, actually.
Why is a push on a p1 claimed VT by a person with a meta of claiming VT "terrible"
It's MattP who has the meta for claiming VT, not Milkshake.
In post 177, milkshake wrote: Why did I do that? Two reasons. First, because the bulk of the rationale for MattP's lynch came from an opinion held by Nero, not necessarily myself. That opinion was: MattP is equally likely to claim VT as scum as town. My extension of that opinion was: A town power role would never claim VT (see: don't lie as town), so we are left with MattP being VT or scum. Second, because it was very early in the day. Too early to seriously suggest an immediate lynchwagon on MattP. But not too early to highlight the topic for strategic discussion.
Later, some people (Ghostlin, possibly others) pointed out that MattP may be the type of player to claim VT as a town power role. (MattP might be the type of player to lie as town.) If this is true, my extension of Nero Cain's opinion is invalid, and MattP is not a good lynch.
That post to me sounds very much like you wanted to vote Matt. I don't get why you'd tell me that I should think that when you don't.In post 209, milkshake wrote:Technically, you should have wanted a MattP lynch because he claims early as town and fakeclaims early as scum. This was under the assumption of "Never lie as town" being universally accepted strategy here. Which apparently it might not be?I should have wanted a Matt P lynch 'cause I mentioned that he fake claims as both alignments?
This is the sum total of everything you have written about me in this thread:
I don't see anything to respond to.
I'll second this, and also request it to be some kind of sweet demon.In post 288, Iecerint wrote:BTW, I would appreciate it if you'd use an avatar. It will help me to keep track of your posts.
Well, no.In post 258, Amrun wrote:You can have an unfirm opinion on page 3, but you were trying to weasel out of saying anything one way or another until you were asked directly. The scum motivation is not committing to a stance early on so you can take whatever stance is most advantageous later on. The most dangerous thing scum can do is take an early arbitrary stance.
I'm not sure this is comparing apples to apples. Also, this is stupid considering how Innocent Child works.In post 292, Selkies wrote:I didn't want to say blatantly that Matt was a scumread, especially since this hydra is coming off a game where we got a lot of flak for fakeclaiming PGO as innocent child, and Matt wasn't really a scumread
...This question bothers me. It seems like you'll continue to use this for whatever motivation you got against Matt regardless of how this is answered.In post 283, milkshake wrote:I do want to vote Matt. You'll notice that Matt is on my 3/4 scum list.
I have a question for Matt, too, while we're on the topic:
MattP, do you believe in "never lie as town?"
It was a confirmable IC, as in, it wasn't announced at daystart and could mod-confirm us whenever we wanted at any point in the game.In post 294, Ghostlin wrote:I'm not sure this is comparing apples to apples. Also, this is stupid considering how Innocent Child works.In post 292, Selkies wrote:I didn't want to say blatantly that Matt was a scumread, especially since this hydra is coming off a game where we got a lot of flak for fakeclaiming PGO as innocent child, and Matt wasn't really a scumread
You're callingIn post 295, Ghostlin wrote:...This question bothers me. It seems like you'll continue to use this for whatever motivation you got against Matt regardless of how this is answered.
You don't see it in context?In post 297, Belisarius wrote:You're callingIn post 295, Ghostlin wrote:...This question bothers me. It seems like you'll continue to use this for whatever motivation you got against Matt regardless of how this is answered.thata loaded question?
In what way is it loaded? Specific examples please.
This is a complete mis-representation of the quoted post. I don't see any cognitive dissonance. He didn't say anywhere that Milk is unlikely to flip town, he said in the unlikely event that Milk were to flip town, which actually means the opposite of what you are trying to present here Amrun. Care to comment with that in mind?In post 181, Amrun wrote:If milk is town, then Ghostlin is a good bet for scum. Notice the casual cognitive dissonance in this post. Milk is "unlikely" to flip town, but SOO's "follow the leader" vote is suspect? Treating her as town while calling her scum.In post 118, Ghostlin wrote:The odds of one scum being on that wagon are good. Probably Milk's buddies if she's scum are treating her like a toxic asset hoping for a later deflection off the wagon, and if she does unlikely flip town...well, then at least one or two scum are making that push. SOO's vote seems to be a follow the leader vote--I've got my eyes on him and Nic next for scum.In post 105, Nero Cain wrote:This Milkshake wagon is going a bit fast and its making me worry...
How exactly do you determine that a post was decided to be made before the post itself?In post 136, milkshake wrote: Again I feel likethe decision to make this post came before the post itself.In other words, Ghostlin decided he should present some analysis, but only for the sake of presenting analysis, not for the sake of finding scum. If you look at the post, it doesn't help find scum.
What is this round about theory about Ghostlin being stupid? This post makes no sense to me, not to mention you called him stupid and smart all in one paragraph...In post 196, milkshake wrote:We know you aren't stupid enough to say something about knowing I'm town. Who is that stupid? But the fact that YOU think WE think you are that stupid might indicate that there was actually a possibility of you being that stupid, because the knowledge is actually there in your mind. You're just smart enough to ignore it.