ChiefSkye4
Azhrei
Jazzmyn
D1 Lynch Scene/N1 Results
D2 Lynch Scene/N2 Results
D3 Lynch Scene/N3 Results
D4 Lynch Scene/N4 Results
Sample Townie PM wrote:You are aVanilla Townie. Use your wits to reveal who are and who aren't who they say they are.You win when all anti-town factions are eliminated.
If you have any questions, please PM me. Confirm via return pm with your role and win condition.
Mini 768- Root of All Evil
No, that was, quite obviously, my parents, who saddled me a mis-spelled name. Me, I'm the black sheep of the family for being the white sheep of the family.molestargazer wrote:Vote: Jazzmyn
The inability to spell 'jasmine' obviously means that she's dropped out of school and become involved in criminal activities.
I've never played a game with him before, so I have no evidence of that myself.Verbosity wrote: Please direct all counter arguments now, failure to do so will be regarded as implicit agreement with my strategy, failure to follow my strategy while being in agreement with it will warrant suspicion.
Well, ChiefSkye1 died of natural causes. ChiefSkye2 died of a rotton baked potato poison. ChiefSkye3 died in an unfortunate ski accident. (a little bit of a Simpsons joke. Cookies to anyone who gets it.)Jazzmyn wrote:Vote: ChiefSkye4 until he explains what he did to (and where he buried) ChiefSkye1, ChiefSkye2, and ChiefSkye3
Is your purpose to constrain discussion? Or are you just too lazy to wade through my posts? I am being lengthy for the purposes of clarity, I make all my thought processes perfectly open. To me, your vote for my behaviour is suspect, because there is no town motivation for such an action, except sloth, which is no contribution to the town at all.Azhrei wrote:Vote: Verbosity
Be more concise man, it's just a random vote.
Please expand on this, why is pressuring a weak link a bad idea? Do you not want discussion? It is clearly the best plan of action to pressure a weak link into revealing their alignment, whether consciously or otherwise. Do you disagree? If so, what is your preferred method? If you do not have a reasonably cemented conception of your strategy, why do you resist those that do?kpaca wrote:I don't know what you're planning with this verbosity, but it's a terrible idea.
Why are you ignoring what I have posted? Do you then accept my implicit agreement clause and the accompanying suspicion with failure to comply with my plan? Why do you defend from a random vote?Jazzmyn wrote:No, that was, quite obviously, my parents, who saddled me a mis-spelled name. Me, I'm the black sheep of the family for being the white sheep of the family.molestargazer wrote:Vote: Jazzmyn
The inability to spell 'jasmine' obviously means that she's dropped out of school and become involved in criminal activities.
Vote: ChiefSkye4until he explains what he did to (and where he buried) ChiefSkye1, ChiefSkye2, and ChiefSkye3.
Regards,
Jazz
Why are you ignoring what I have posted? Do you then accept my implicit agreement clause and the accompanying suspicion with failure to comply with my plan?sekinj wrote:hey guys
Do you agree with the logic of my plan, despite the vote? Have you then played with sekinj before to the extent that you believe that he is weak enough to be most easily pressured? If no to either, why have you followed this particular course of action? Why have you only commented on my target, rather than my method? Is this because you are connected to Pablo Molinero?ChiefSkye4 wrote:I've never played a game with him before, so I have no evidence of that myself.Verbosity wrote: Please direct all counter arguments now, failure to do so will be regarded as implicit agreement with my strategy, failure to follow my strategy while being in agreement with it will warrant suspicion.
Well, ChiefSkye1 died of natural causes. ChiefSkye2 died of a rotton baked potato poison. ChiefSkye3 died in an unfortunate ski accident. (a little bit of a Simpsons joke. Cookies to anyone who gets it.)Jazzmyn wrote:Vote: ChiefSkye4 until he explains what he did to (and where he buried) ChiefSkye1, ChiefSkye2, and ChiefSkye3
Vote: sekinjFor TCold's flakiness.
Ok... I really had hoped you were making a joke with your first long post, I really had. It seems, however, you aren't. (If you are, now is the time to go 'hahahaha I got you all, LOL') For one, how do you know Pablo is a weak link? I'm going to assume you've played with him before? You never said. For two, how is it fair, on page 1, to put a vote on said player for no more reason than that? For three, if you hadn't noticed, there is thing called a random voting stage, and in it, we generally have some fun, throw out silly votes, and hope the scum will make blatant slips (hardly ever happens). Now, if you look at the post you've quote of mine (and, nearly all the others you've quoted) they are examples of random votes. Now, my random vote was essentially a joke about your name, and the length of your post. (at the time, I assumed it was some elaborate joke). Concise is the opposite of verbose, right?Verbosity wrote:Is your purpose to constrain discussion? Or are you just too lazy to wade through my posts? I am being lengthy for the purposes of clarity, I make all my thought processes perfectly open. To me, your vote for my behaviour is suspect, because there is no town motivation for such an action, except sloth, which is no contribution to the town at all.Azhrei wrote:Vote: Verbosity
Be more concise man, it's just a random vote.
Please expand on this, why is pressuring a weak link a bad idea? Do you not want discussion? It is clearly the best plan of action to pressure a weak link into revealing their alignment, whether consciously or otherwise. Do you disagree? If so, what is your preferred method? If you do not have a reasonably cemented conception of your strategy, why do you resist those that do?kpaca wrote:I don't know what you're planning with this verbosity, but it's a terrible idea.
Why are you ignoring what I have posted? Do you then accept my implicit agreement clause and the accompanying suspicion with failure to comply with my plan? Why do you defend from a random vote?Jazzmyn wrote:No, that was, quite obviously, my parents, who saddled me a mis-spelled name. Me, I'm the black sheep of the family for being the white sheep of the family.molestargazer wrote:Vote: Jazzmyn
The inability to spell 'jasmine' obviously means that she's dropped out of school and become involved in criminal activities.
Vote: ChiefSkye4until he explains what he did to (and where he buried) ChiefSkye1, ChiefSkye2, and ChiefSkye3.
Regards,
Jazz
Why are you ignoring what I have posted? Do you then accept my implicit agreement clause and the accompanying suspicion with failure to comply with my plan?sekinj wrote:hey guys
Do you agree with the logic of my plan, despite the vote? Have you then played with sekinj before to the extent that you believe that he is weak enough to be most easily pressured? If no to either, why have you followed this particular course of action? Why have you only commented on my target, rather than my method? Is this because you are connected to Pablo Molinero?ChiefSkye4 wrote:I've never played a game with him before, so I have no evidence of that myself.Verbosity wrote: Please direct all counter arguments now, failure to do so will be regarded as implicit agreement with my strategy, failure to follow my strategy while being in agreement with it will warrant suspicion.
Well, ChiefSkye1 died of natural causes. ChiefSkye2 died of a rotton baked potato poison. ChiefSkye3 died in an unfortunate ski accident. (a little bit of a Simpsons joke. Cookies to anyone who gets it.)Jazzmyn wrote:Vote: ChiefSkye4 until he explains what he did to (and where he buried) ChiefSkye1, ChiefSkye2, and ChiefSkye3
Vote: sekinjFor TCold's flakiness.
Thank you for your time.
Gateway wrote:Unvote
Vote: kpaca
I think it is a great idea, "All not agreeing with me are wrong.", thieves don't have that sort of confidence.
Why the sudden change?Gateway wrote:Unvote
Vote: Verbosity
Don't worry, I'm not that way inclined.Spolium wrote:You're not touching my family jewels, obvscum.
So, you want to lynch someone without any evidence for him being scum just because he's not worth the most to the town? Give the guy a chance.Verbosity wrote:I am going to vote for Pablo Molinero. I believe that he is the weakest player, and so most prone to revealing his alignment under pressure, and should he be town-aligned, would be least damaging to the town dead. I would appreciate additional votes to cause pressure on Pablo Molinero. Until then, I will place my vote accordingly: Vote: Pablo Molinero. Thank you for your time.
So, basically, you're saying anyone who doesn't agree with your strategy and vote PM is suspicious? Please see my 'counter-argument' up there.Verbosity wrote:Please direct all counter arguments now, failure to do so will be regarded as implicit agreement with my strategy, failure to follow my strategy while being in agreement with it will warrant suspicion.
Which means your FAMILY were scum! So you've entered the family business? Hm.Jazzmyn wrote:No, that was, quite obviously, my parents, who saddled me a mis-spelled name. Me, I'm the black sheep of the family for being the white sheep of the family.
What makes you say that?Gateway wrote:thieves don't have that sort of confidence.
Unfortunately, people will be lazy, be they townie or scum. You need to make sure people at least read your arguments, if you make them too long people will just skim and miss the facts.Verbosity wrote:To me, your vote for my behaviour is suspect, because there is no town motivation for such an action, except sloth, which is no contribution to the town at all.
Quite probably because at that time it was still the random voting stage. See above, chances are they've skipped your post. This doesn't make them scum.Verbosity wrote:Why are you ignoring what I have posted? Do you then accept my implicit agreement clause and the accompanying suspicion with failure to comply with my plan?
I'd also like to hear this.Spolium wrote:Is this significant, Verbosity, or a mere oversight?