Page 101 of 109
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 10:19 am
by fferyllt
in fact, it's basically a case based on what I noticed from the other game plus some attitudinal things about her not going after Mac from the get go today.
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 10:25 am
by VisceraEyes
In post 2413, goodmorning wrote:
In post 2401, VisceraEyes wrote:Considering that's demonstrably something she does AS scum, I can lynch GM based on this.
Except I haven't done it. I have never found crumb lookalikes in my posts as Scum. Now, if you wanted to accuse me of planting fake crumbs, that would be an argument.
This came before this
In post 2360, fferyllt wrote:I learned something yesterday from the postgame talk in one of my finished game. I've checked with Tracey to be sure that it is ok to mention/link to something from a finished game's QT and she said it is ok.
Since everyone else so far has been analyzing/thinking about the game without this info, I wanted to see Z7's post before throwing this into the mix.
Goodmorning was scum in the Donner Party game that just completed:
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27049
On the Mafia QT, she said this:
I may start looking for shit in my early posts that I can claim crumbing.
http://www.quicktopic.com/50/H/d6mG3vAAvvUc
When she claimed JK, she pointed up crumbs she left in this game. There was some skepticism but we eventually accepted they could be real crumbs.
I want this on the table going forward. Whatever we decide to do today, don't lose sight of this later in the game.
And she never mentioned you or this post again that I can see.
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 10:26 am
by VisceraEyes
No it came after. Is it a lie? Like you proved that she DOES do things liek that - it was why I used the word demonstrably because you demonstrated with evidence that she does/has done that.
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 10:28 am
by VisceraEyes
And OMG did they take the "users online" function off the game threads? ^^
I've been waiting for this day.
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 10:35 am
by fferyllt
Yes they did. And now I wander the forums feeling like a ghost among ghosts as posts appear from nowhere as though written by apparitions.
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 10:39 am
by VisceraEyes
Well operationally they are. You don't know if I'm real.
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 11:10 am
by fferyllt
So you feel better about a GM lynch than a Mac lynch?
Did you read through the convo we had this morning?
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 11:28 am
by VisceraEyes
I did...and I sorta agree with you on Mac's "tone"...but I'd kinda like GM to explain
In post 2413, goodmorning wrote:
In post 2401, VisceraEyes wrote:Considering that's demonstrably something she does AS scum, I can lynch GM based on this.
Except I haven't done it. I have
never found crumb lookalikes
in my posts as Scum. Now, if you wanted to accuse me of planting fake crumbs, that would be an argument.
...this post before I decide about that. This is an outright lie as you showed. The only way it's not is if I take the bolded as literal and in the game in question she did NOT actually find any crumbs in spite of her going back and looking, as she said she would do in the QT in question.
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 11:30 am
by VisceraEyes
So basically, I'm more leaning scum on GM than Mac based on what's in this thread, but my feels want GM to be town and Mac to be scum.
My heart will literally break if you or Inef are scum.
If Z is scum....I told you so in my first post.
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 11:50 am
by Ineffective
Nevermind... This game is too epic to replace out of. consider me V/la till i cool my jets
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 11:53 am
by fferyllt
If fropome was scum the student far surpassed the teacher on the first day of school. I'll give up the game and stick with cutthroat scrabble or something.
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 11:54 am
by fferyllt
In post 2509, Ineffective wrote:
Nevermind... This game is too epic to replace out of. consider me V/la till i cool my jets
Best crosspost ever. <3
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 12:42 pm
by goodmorning
In post 2507, VisceraEyes wrote:I did...and I sorta agree with you on Mac's "tone"...but I'd kinda like GM to explain
In post 2413, goodmorning wrote:
In post 2401, VisceraEyes wrote:Considering that's demonstrably something she does AS scum, I can lynch GM based on this.
Except I haven't done it. I have
never found crumb lookalikes
in my posts as Scum. Now, if you wanted to accuse me of planting fake crumbs, that would be an argument.
...this post before I decide about that. This is an outright lie as you showed. The only way it's not is if I take the bolded as literal and in the game in question she did NOT actually find any crumbs in spite of her going back and looking, as she said she would do in the QT in question.
How precisely is it a lie?
You should take it as literal, because that's how it was meant. I must say it's not for lack of trying though.
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 1:43 pm
by VisceraEyes
In post 2512, goodmorning wrote: In post 2507, VisceraEyes wrote:I did...and I sorta agree with you on Mac's "tone"...but I'd kinda like GM to explain
In post 2413, goodmorning wrote:
In post 2401, VisceraEyes wrote:Considering that's demonstrably something she does AS scum, I can lynch GM based on this.
Except I haven't done it. I have
never found crumb lookalikes
in my posts as Scum. Now, if you wanted to accuse me of planting fake crumbs, that would be an argument.
...this post before I decide about that. This is an outright lie as you showed. The only way it's not is if I take the bolded as literal and in the game in question she did NOT actually find any crumbs in spite of her going back and looking, as she said she would do in the QT in question.
How precisely is it a lie?
You should take it as literal, because that's how it was meant. I must say it's not for lack of trying though.
Well, what I was saying you HAVE done is LOOK FOR fake-crumbs in your posts - not that you found some and based a fake-claim around them. I'm willing to lynch you based on the ambiguity of the "crumbs" in question, on top of the fact that you're known to look for fake-crumbs in your posts, on top of the fact that you're only kinda sorta suspicious of Mac even though you claimed you jailed him on a night when no kill occurred.
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 2:25 pm
by goodmorning
I had ridiculously strong scumreads on two other people, at least one of whom (and likely both) is in fact not Scum. I'm still having difficulties coming to grips with the fact that I was wrong.
That said, I am determined that we should lynch Mac today, so I'm not sure where you feel wishy-washiness from me.
If I were Scum looking for fake crumbs, ctrl+fing "keep" would not be the way I'd go about it.
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 2:44 am
by fferyllt
In post 2291, Mac wrote:Yeah like every post is WIFOM now and I don't like it.
I know I was a top partner-read for alot of people but that doesn't mean I won't be killed. I was an easy lynch d2 when at L-1 but I managed to get away from it (
although not on my own terms.
.) but yeah, if I was the target last night, it would've thrown a spanner in the works had I not been protected.
What would your own terms have been?
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 2:47 am
by fferyllt
In post 2293, Ineffective wrote:I would instalynch VE if he claimed to protect GM
If i was in his situation as doc my greatest hope would be for GM to die so that i would have no reason to suspect him
also --- if GM died my suspicions of VE would have been relieved because if i was VM i would push on GM or push on someone else (mac) and set gm up for a lylo lynch and not kill him--- absolutely everything related to a pr not dying makes me think one of them is scum
What does VM stand for?
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 6:16 pm
by Ineffective
VE*
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 6:20 pm
by fferyllt
aaah. tks. I think I originally read it as VE, but going back thru the thread earlier today I couldn't figure it out.
Posted: Sun May 26, 2013 4:03 pm
by goodmorning
Well this game is dying. Z desperately needs prodding unless he's V/LA and there have only been two players posting within the last 2 days.
Someone should explain why Mac hasn't been lynched yet.
Posted: Sun May 26, 2013 6:19 pm
by TraceyLyn11
[L-4] Z7-852:
[L-4] fferyllt:
[L-3] Mac: (goodmorning)
[L-4] Ineffective:
[L-3] VisceraEyes: (Z7-852)
[L-2] goodmorning: (VisceraEyes, Mac)
Not Voting:
2 (fferyllt, Ineffective)
- With six alive, it takes four to lynch.
- Day Three's deadline: June 05, 2013 CST or in (expired on 2013-06-05 00:00:00).
- V/LA: Ineffective (indefinitely)
Posted: Sun May 26, 2013 6:19 pm
by TraceyLyn11
...
...
Z7-852 has been prodded!
Posted: Sun May 26, 2013 10:13 pm
by Z7-852
Forgot to put V/LA for the weekend. Read the thread with phone few times though.
I was just noticing that game goes around and around with same arguments with same people. I will put goodmorning to L-1 just because I still find her and VisceraEyes to be most suspicious. My arguments on the issue haven't really chanced.
VOTE: goodmorning
Posted: Mon May 27, 2013 2:51 am
by goodmorning
Z, I will point out that it is very very unlikely that both of the PR claims are Scum. So I have a few questions for you:
If I am Town and VE is Scum, who is the other Scum?
If I am Scum and VE is Town, who is the other Scum?
If I am Town and VE is Town, who is the other Scum?
Posted: Mon May 27, 2013 2:53 am
by fferyllt
lol. this wouldn't be a manufactured townslip would it?