Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:43 am
deer in the headlights, watching his deer-friend get splattered
Did he post in any other games?In post 1514, Sesq wrote:I checked him, and yep, he's online today, and yep, he didn't post anything. Might as well.In post 1511, TTTT wrote:Imp is getting off easy here. His posts today are bad.
Iron continues to lurk.
Probably scum in ^there
VOTE: ironstove
Can you also explain why Impo's posts are bad? One Titus is enough.
I feel like his one-shot tracker claim might have merit. With the JOAT before being all one-shots, it might be a trend. It's weak, but I'm not quite ready to place a vote on him yet. FOS though.In post 1516, drealmerz7 wrote:sesq you not feeling the LUV lynch at all/that he's scum? he's much better than ironstove at this point
He did not. Thanks for keeping things up to standard.Titus wrote:Did he post in any other games?
This post should be evidence that Gerry can't be scum with Impoetic or d7 based on the Kohai FoSes imo. rb turned out to be right and I don't see any scum, no matter how bold, putting both of their scum partners under FoS so early with just one town amongst their 3 suspectsIn post 200, Impoetic wrote:In post 185, Kohai wrote:I'm getting off work in 5 hours. I'll make my cases then. For now, FOS on:
1. Impoetic
2. Dreal
3. RB
I'm fairly confident at least one of these is scum. I will further make my case when I get off.so in the space of one post, you went from saying there was 1 scum in 3 people toIn post 188, Kohai wrote:Impoetic Is literally saying that she wouldn't do X as scum because it is obv anti town, yet she does X anyway; therefore she isn't scum. Yeah, I'm fairly convinced Impoetic is scum.completely ignoring mewhilst addressing the rest of the table and saying you're convinced I'm scum
all without seriously responding to anything I've said and only saying that my attempt at actual productive discussion over it is "bad wifom and contrived"
and you certainly aren't attempting to see what i'm saying for what it is. I'm not saying i'm town, i'm saying you voted me for being antitown -- something town does sometimes -- and I want to know why you think that makes me scum.
It's not like I malignantly quickhammered. I joke-voted. I'm telling you there isn't scum motivation in joke-voting, and it's only bad for town because the culprit is town in the first place; if I were mafia, I'd be giving town the rope with which to hang me for... what? A tiny chance to get one townie lynched early in d1... which would require two townies messing up and doing the same thing you're saying i'm scum for?
Keeping things up to standard?In post 1527, Sesq wrote:I feel like his one-shot tracker claim might have merit. With the JOAT before being all one-shots, it might be a trend. It's weak, but I'm not quite ready to place a vote on him yet. FOS though.In post 1516, drealmerz7 wrote:sesq you not feeling the LUV lynch at all/that he's scum? he's much better than ironstove at this point
He did not. Thanks for keeping things up to standard.Titus wrote:Did he post in any other games?
Who are you talking to?In post 1534, drealmerz7 wrote:comment on your diligence at keeping all the things tidy?
but ummm, that's a great comment there after being absent for a bit...
I was hoping for more, like, ya know, why did you think rb was town?
and ohhh, what about LUVs track claim? you cool he gave it up like that, and did what he did?
orrr, got anything?
It turns out he didn't post, which was my mistake for not checking, but his play yesterday was still very scummy, and my vote is carrying over. LUV does feel mildly scummy, but less that iron right now. Still watching.In post 1530, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:So Sesq you pinged me early day 1 but the way rb treated you while on his wagon makes me think you aren't scum with him. Are you just voting ironstove because he was online and didn't post, or is there more to it? LUV doesn't "feel" like the right lynch right now but I'm having trouble finding who makes more sense so I want to hear as many opinions as I can get even if you think it's far-fetched.
Now this ... this is interesting.In post 1531, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:Crazy theory I'm nurturing: Impoetic/Titus scum team. The main reason I am TRing both of them is a combination of the conversation they had with each other and relying on Transcend's gut reads. Problem is, day talk is on and that whole conversation could have been rehearsed in the scum PT. Rabbit judged Impoetic as town for how fast she responded, saying that if she was scum it would be really hard to fake those responses so fast. Also note that neither of them would vote for rb yesterday iirc (can't check on mobile atm)
I have been here daily, so why would due diligence be checking my activity levels?In post 1536, drealmerz7 wrote:you!
I was saying I think the sesq comment was about you doing the diligence to check on activity
I thought RB was town due to scum not wanting my counterwagons. The vote patterns are not making much sense to me.In post 1534, drealmerz7 wrote:comment on your diligence at keeping all the things tidy?
but ummm, that's a great comment there after being absent for a bit...
I was hoping for more, like, ya know, why did you think rb was town?
and ohhh, what about LUVs track claim? you cool he gave it up like that, and did what he did?
orrr, got anything?
I love a push "for information". Really? Cannot figure out my role at night. Sucks to be you.In post 1539, shannon wrote:Now this ... this is interesting.In post 1531, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:Crazy theory I'm nurturing: Impoetic/Titus scum team. The main reason I am TRing both of them is a combination of the conversation they had with each other and relying on Transcend's gut reads. Problem is, day talk is on and that whole conversation could have been rehearsed in the scum PT. Rabbit judged Impoetic as town for how fast she responded, saying that if she was scum it would be really hard to fake those responses so fast. Also note that neither of them would vote for rb yesterday iirc (can't check on mobile atm)
It's also interesting that Titus is being deliberately obtuse, by pretending not to know that D7 was talking to her in 1534.
We can always come back to LUV if we need to, but I think we should push this for info. It's so out there it just might be true.
VOTE: Titus
nahIn post 1540, Titus wrote:I have been here daily, so why would due diligence be checking my activity levels?In post 1536, drealmerz7 wrote:you!
I was saying I think the sesq comment was about you doing the diligence to check on activity
at this point? still waiting to hear more or??In post 1503, Titus wrote:It makes sense, but I want to hear him out. Worst case, we get information.
In post 789, ssbm_Kyouko wrote:I mean they're in really poor taste but iron's posts about Kohai's vla st least look like genuine scum hunting. Don't tr him yet but don't think he's today's lynch anymore for me. Want to hear more from rb before I vote I think but will need to check my notes once I'm off phone. Also will get to Impoetic when I'm home, it's hard to fully address walls from phone.
In post 790, Sesq wrote:Nobody has ever faked being sick to leave, or left due to suspicion. Is this projecting? Probably not. Also, I was going to unvote you for your early posts, and I don't see this as a scum move as much as I do a dick move, so I'm unvoting.In post 765, ironstove wrote:health reasons = suffering too much anxiety trying to figure out a post to craft to get him out of the hole he's dug himself into after I called out his BS to link me to his other games and would rather dump the problem onto another player instead.
UNVOTE: ironstove
MFOS: ironstove
also, due to his recent prod-dodging shenanigans and general disengagement, VOTE: rb Get your head in the game.
My posts today are nonexistentIn post 1511, TTTT wrote:Imp is getting off easy here. His posts today are bad.
Iron continues to lurk.
Probably scum in ^there
I still am but I am in porn mode. I will know it when I see it. I want to know why no counterwagon. My gut says lynch TTT but it is wholly unsubstantiated.In post 1544, drealmerz7 wrote:nahIn post 1540, Titus wrote:I have been here daily, so why would due diligence be checking my activity levels?In post 1536, drealmerz7 wrote:you!
I was saying I think the sesq comment was about you doing the diligence to check on activity
you checked ironstove's is what I meant, doing the diligence on that
how are you feeling about the time elapse of this:
at this point? still waiting to hear more or??In post 1503, Titus wrote:It makes sense, but I want to hear him out. Worst case, we get information.