Open 805 Panic Room Day 1


Forum rules
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #43 (isolation #0) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:15 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

NM can we be in thread masons?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #44 (isolation #1) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:16 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Hot take GOT was bad after the first season and the books had some interesting character arcs but way too much rape.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #45 (isolation #2) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:17 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 9, Infinity 324 wrote:VOTE: D&D >:(
In post 11, MURDERCAT wrote:Hi!

VOTE: Infinity

Hydras please turn on sigs with names thanks
VOTE: infinity
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #46 (isolation #3) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:18 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 42, shadowslug wrote:
In post 38, MURDERCAT wrote:Hi shadowslug, I see you are an alt but you are still relatively inexperienced with non-newbie games is that correct?
inexperienced with all forms of games
Certainly are an expert with playing games with my heart.

;_;
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #78 (isolation #4) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 2:37 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 54, YyottaCat wrote:Hey guys welcome back to another mafia analyzation post! So uhh... as you can see, this game has just started and people alrrady made a lot of posts. But before you continue I'd like to mention that 0 percent of you are actually subscribed to this post so make sure you subscribe and click that bell to turn on the notifications. OK where did we left off again? Yeah right... As you can see PenguinPower has been eating that bag of 甘粟 for the last few years which is clearly against the laws of physics so he's definitely an alien to spy on us. Hydras are a type of snakes and snakes are dangerous, so the two hydrae we see in this game are definitely dangerous too. Green crayons are inanimate objects but this specific Green Crayon somehow developed into a living organism. Maybe that organism is made out of green crayons. Totally alien. MURDERCAT might murder me at any time so very scummy. N_M is a jester and judging fron his apperance, he is probably also an alien. Shadowslug is a slug so that is suspicious. Gamma Emerald is also an inanimate object which could've mutated. Alien. Infinity is not clear on his vote (D&D). Although we can assume which hydra he is voting for, but that is something that our sponsor for today - Mafiascum will do! Mafiascum is a website for you to play mafia games freely and make friends or foes! Don't mind too much about the foe part though. If you click the link in the description down below you will get an 100% discount on your account. Please enjoy this post and have fun!
Please use paragraph breaks.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #81 (isolation #5) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 2:39 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 56, Infinity 324 wrote:
In post 52, PenguinPower wrote:Hi!

What’s wrong the infinity votes?
Am I scummy?

Also lol yvotta

Skitter do you have meta on yvotta?
“Am I scummy?”

Is this a mafiascum humor statement? Or is this a legitimate Q?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #86 (isolation #6) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 2:41 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 67, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:What about these posts led gc to vote infinity?
Feel like we should don a sleuth hat and grab a magnifying glass.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #91 (isolation #7) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 2:44 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 83, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Gc why *did* u vote infinity?

Infinity what do u think of my lilith read btw?

~ Skitter
He was the first player to vote + bonus of already having a vote on him.

Real intricate thoughts, I know.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #92 (isolation #8) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 2:45 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Lol I play catchup I promise to respond. Unless if I’m ignoring you. <3
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #101 (isolation #9) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 2:51 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 90, shadowslug wrote:i like skitter but they seem kinda nervous right now

UNVOTE:
Nervous how?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #102 (isolation #10) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 2:52 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Yotta: thanks it’s just otherwise hard on my old eyes and difficult for my old brain to process without some space in between thoughts
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #103 (isolation #11) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 2:53 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 100, PenguinPower wrote:
In post 96, shadowslug wrote:Penguin why did you call me newbie twice and not just my name that's pompous of you
Because you said you were new and the rest of the PL is not?

But, sure, let’s insult people. Good look to start.
MMMMMMMMMMHMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #122 (isolation #12) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:09 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: shadow
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #123 (isolation #13) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:10 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

If this flips red let’s also flip Penguin.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #128 (isolation #14) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:13 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 126, Infinity 324 wrote:
In post 116, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:I don’t really think skitter came off as defensive, maybe like.. confused that infinity assumed a reason for her read that wasn’t true and wasn’t stated. Can we instead talk about why shadowslug seems to think her response is “annoyed in a defensive way”?

- Daenerys
I don't think it's AI (for shadow)
Yeah but did you see his 121?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #133 (isolation #15) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:15 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I’m scrunching my nose.

This seems too easy.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #136 (isolation #16) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:15 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 132, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Shadow is one of my 4 townreads

~ skitter
Because?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #139 (isolation #17) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:18 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Avoiding (twice!) the question while attacking the player questioning your behavior is very new player scum behavior.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #141 (isolation #18) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:19 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Very “new player scum behavior”

Not

“Very new player” scum behavior
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #148 (isolation #19) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:24 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

^^^ that’s probably town sort mentality even if it’s wrong on me and prob shadow
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #159 (isolation #20) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:41 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

You literally quoted a post where I am questioning my read.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #167 (isolation #21) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:55 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 163, shadowslug wrote:
In post 159, Green Crayons wrote:You literally quoted a post where I am questioning my read.
Questioning your read why? Because it seems so easy? that's bullcrap reasoning
Why is it bullcrap?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #170 (isolation #22) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:57 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 164, Infinity 324 wrote:
In post 160, Infinity 324 wrote:this post and 149 feel like trying to explain gut reads
To explain this better, I feel like scum would feel more obligated to address the apparent "contradiction" I brought up in but instead he's just saying what he thinks

Using words gang
Don’t see how 154 isn’t exactly what you said it isn’t.

I don’t think 154 is indicative either way but I’m not seeing how it assuages concerns.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #171 (isolation #23) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:58 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 169, shadowslug wrote:If it feels like there may be a flaw in your read then that's worth pursuing

But rather than question/make a post that would further develop your thoughts you choose to post a "Hmm guys Im totally reconsidering rn"

Ur being scummy
My post is developing my thoughts.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #172 (isolation #24) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:59 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I don’t have to engage you when others are doing it.

My 133 is flagging that maybe you’re just playing like a bad new town player instead of a scum new player.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #178 (isolation #25) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 4:02 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I got you, infinity.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #179 (isolation #26) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 4:03 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 175, shadowslug wrote:
In post 172, Green Crayons wrote:I don’t have to engage you when others are doing it.

My 133 is flagging that maybe you’re just playing like a bad new town player instead of a scum new player.
And what posts of mine gave you this impression? What's the distinction?
It’s there in the thread. I reacted to your posts in real time.

The distinction is hard to figure out!
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #182 (isolation #27) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 4:38 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

So is your problem that I'm too certain in my read or that I'm conflicted?

You're going to have to settle on which one you want to say makes me scum so you can finally finish this tiresome windup.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #183 (isolation #28) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 4:39 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 82, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Right its 6 and not 5 to flip, i was thinking 5 for some reason

VOTE: infinity

~ skitter

Pedit i thought was a reaction to ur recent posting from just now
Why this vote?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #189 (isolation #29) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 4:54 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

ty skitter

any thoughts about this?
In post 90, shadowslug wrote:i like skitter but they seem kinda nervous right now

UNVOTE:
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #192 (isolation #30) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:05 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

That's fair. I happen to think you're pretty town after 188.

I wanted to see who all was voting infinity and that took me to you. I agree with your initial reaction to 56 (but I think ultimately that Q doesn't come from scum). The rest of your 188 doesn't really matter to me as a matter of substance, but seems like a sufficiently just-complex-enough-but-simple-too explanation to read fairly natural.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #194 (isolation #31) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:07 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 190, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Maybe i should but i dont really
idk you're the one who thinks he's town, I just wanted to see if you saw anything wrong with it.

It's a combo of all three points that I think is scummy:

I don't like that he unvotes insanity after that wagon gets 4 votes (esp. now I have good town feelings about insanity)
AND
I don't like that he throws suspicion at another player while unvoting
AND
I don't like that he doesn't vote to either replace his insanity vote or to follow through on his suspicion
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #195 (isolation #32) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:07 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 193, Dumb and Dumber wrote:
In post 192, Green Crayons wrote:That's fair. I happen to think you're pretty town after 188
Perfect.

-Dumbass
This half is possibly scum tho.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #196 (isolation #33) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:08 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 194, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 190, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Maybe i should but i dont really
idk you're the one who thinks he's town, I just wanted to see if you saw anything wrong with it.

It's a combo of all three points that I think is scummy:

I don't like that he unvotes insanity after that wagon gets 4 votes (esp. now I have good town feelings about insanity)
AND
I don't like that he throws suspicion at another player while unvoting
AND
I don't like that he doesn't vote to either replace his insanity vote or to follow through on his suspicion
insanity = infinity
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #198 (isolation #34) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:10 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

which part, the unvote or the good vibes?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #206 (isolation #35) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:23 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 203, MURDERCAT wrote:
In post 198, Green Crayons wrote:which part, the unvote or the good vibes?
Specifically why unvoting a town read of yours is scummy
sure it's because 8 posts earlier skitter puts infinity at 4/6

shadow is now on a leading wagon (the only wagon? honestly idk)

there's no indication that whatever reason shadow originally voted for infinity has gone away

so his unvote looks like he wants off that train for <reasons>

bc I (now, looking back) think infinity is looking more like town, there's a greater probability for those <reasons> to be "not wanting to be on a mis-elim wagon"
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #207 (isolation #36) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:25 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

^^^ preemptively agree that this isn't conclusive. just that it more likely aligns with having knowledge about infinity's alignment at the time of unvote when i don't think that assessment was likely or probably from shadow's POV without scum knowledge

also it's tied with the other two points which I think adds to why the unvote is suspicious
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #208 (isolation #37) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:25 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

likely or probable*
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #211 (isolation #38) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:29 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

yes, if at the time of shadow's unvote there was some suggestion that shadow had a view that infinity was town

there's no suggestion that the reason for shadow's vote had been addressed
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #212 (isolation #39) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:31 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Like, iso shadow and infinity

and tell me on what basis between shadow's infinity vote in 37 to his unvote in 90 that shadow has a change of heart on infinity

I don't see it at all
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #214 (isolation #40) » Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:35 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I don't like his buddying of me, and I don't like his interaction with Shadow over the noob comments--looks like really forced tension
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #279 (isolation #41) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 223, shadowslug wrote:I unvoted infinity cos I thought 5 votes equaled a hammer btw. I don't think that Infinity post i quoted was even that scummy either, just an in the moment gut read thing.
So you paid enough attention to see that there was an infinity vote, but not enough attention to see that that very post said that it was six to hammer?
In post 82, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Right its 6 and not 5 to flip, i was thinking 5 for some reason

VOTE: infinity

~ skitter

Pedit i thought was a reaction to ur recent posting from just now
In post 90, shadowslug wrote:i like skitter but they seem kinda nervous right now

UNVOTE:
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #280 (isolation #42) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:27 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 217, PenguinPower wrote:crayon really needs to get up to date on terms btw
I'm misusing jargon or failing to use terms?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #282 (isolation #43) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:32 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 239, Gamma Emerald wrote:
In post 141, Green Crayons wrote:Very “new player scum behavior”

Not

“Very new player” scum behavior
Trying to break this down
You’re saying it comes off as newbish over scummish, while the thing you’re trying to NOT say is that it’s newbscum behavior?
No, 141 was clarifying what the "very" was modifying: the behavior (of a new player scum), and not the newest of the player.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #283 (isolation #44) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:35 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 253, Not_Mafia wrote:
In post 43, Green Crayons wrote:NM can we be in thread masons?
Hi GC!
That wasn't a yes.

:(
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #284 (isolation #45) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:38 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Salsabil: both questions you asked me are answered in the thread
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #293 (isolation #46) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:11 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 281, PenguinPower wrote:Misusing the term buddying.
Disagree.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #294 (isolation #47) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:13 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 287, Salsabil Faria wrote:
In post 284, Green Crayons wrote:Salsabil: both questions you asked me are answered in the thread
Can you mention those posts please? I'm on phone right now, so..
and .
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #301 (isolation #48) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:40 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 296, PenguinPower wrote:
In post 293, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 281, PenguinPower wrote:Misusing the term buddying.
Disagree.
Please describe what your definition of buddying because on face value your usage here would apply to almost everyone who says they "like" or "townread" someone when that is not the definition.
185 is buddying (throwing fence-sitting vocal support behind my #1 suspect, with no follow-up vote), not you saying "i like crayons"
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #303 (isolation #49) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:41 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 299, Salsabil Faria wrote:
In post 294, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 287, Salsabil Faria wrote:
In post 284, Green Crayons wrote:Salsabil: both questions you asked me are answered in the thread
Can you mention those posts please? I'm on phone right now, so..
and .
So the quote of
MURDERCAT
's in your is a mistake?
No.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #310 (isolation #50) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 5:02 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I know your thoughts were prompted.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #312 (isolation #51) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 5:13 am

Post by Green Crayons »

because you love wiki's so much
Buddying is a tactic used to subconsciously become perceived as less of a threat by another player.
With me + shadow going pretty hard at each other, one of my voters asked you for your opinion on shadow, and you give just enough support for my vote to make me feel good about my vote + you, yet also not committing to voting shadow

tactic used to subconsciously become perceived as less of a threat
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #314 (isolation #52) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 5:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

:)
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #323 (isolation #53) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 5:47 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 315, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Green Crayons, what are your thoughts on Murderkitten? Please re-quote if I have missed them in earlier posts.

-Dumbass
I have minimal thoughts, and haven't express them.

Pretty neutral opinion. His vote switch from me to Penguin, after I expressed problems with Penguin (from Murder's prompting), I think is more suggestive of town than scum.

Otherwise I get nothing much AI from his play. His probing of my shadow unvote suspicions didn't feel like it was mining for an attack on me, so while I don't think that nets him town points, I don't find it suspicious.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #326 (isolation #54) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 5:49 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 316, PenguinPower wrote:It's almost like there hasn't been a votecount this game and maybe possible maybe I'm waiting to see where everything is currently.

Maybe.

Possibly.
So you finally shifted away from the "well TECHNICALLY that play doesn't fit the DEFINITION" defense.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #332 (isolation #55) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 5:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 329, PenguinPower wrote:
In post 323, Green Crayons wrote:His vote switch from me to Penguin, after I expressed problems with Penguin (from Murder's prompting), I think is more suggestive of town than scum.
idk - seems like buddying to me
can you confirm whether it fits the definition, though?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #359 (isolation #56) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:39 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Why is everyone afraid of 4/5 votes?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #361 (isolation #57) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:41 am

Post by Green Crayons »

okay

then why are you afraid of NM getting to 4/5 votes when NM is already voting himself?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #362 (isolation #58) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:42 am

Post by Green Crayons »

oh i see you would vote me, not NM
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #363 (isolation #59) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:43 am

Post by Green Crayons »

hth thats a bad reason to not vote me, i'm town and not yet in the neighborhood so my death on a rush elimination would actually be pretty useful for town info
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #365 (isolation #60) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:45 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 340, shadowslug wrote:Why would I not want to be on a miselim wagon? I wouldn't care if Infinity gets quick elim'd as maf. I'm hardly going to cop suspicion just for having voted him. Maybe you could argue my unvote was performative, which I'd accept even if it wasn't. But your current reasoning doesn't make sense. Why does it feel like you've already concluded I'm maf and are just trying to find things to justify your read?
this

ignores my interaction with murdercat so he can be have some sort of defense


while also

further winding up waiting for those 3/4 votes on GC so he can finally shift over
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #366 (isolation #61) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:45 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 364, MURDERCAT wrote:
In post 363, Green Crayons wrote:not yet in the neighborhood
oof let's not do this
;) ts i did it
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #371 (isolation #62) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:49 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 368, Not_Mafia wrote:And I would never lolhammer my creepy eye buddy
I want to believe.

/Mulder
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #373 (isolation #63) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:49 am

Post by Green Crayons »

NM who is the scum team i know you know.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #377 (isolation #64) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 11:09 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 376, Infinity 324 wrote:He addressed the "wanting to be on a miselim wagon"
he said he wouldn't care as maf if he was on a mis-elim, which is worthless, superficial self-meta
In post 376, Infinity 324 wrote:and "no reason to unvote"
no?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #378 (isolation #65) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 11:11 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 376, Infinity 324 wrote:so what exactly is he ignoring here?
"Maybe you could argue my unvote was performative, which I'd accept even if it wasn't. But your current reasoning doesn't make sense." ==> ignores the back-and-forth with Murder where I explain how shadow-scum wouldn't want to be on a mis-elim, how he lacked any change in view of the infinity slot between time of vote and unvote, and ignores the other two reasons for why his unvote is suspicious
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #390 (isolation #66) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 12:50 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

"desperate"
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #391 (isolation #67) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 12:50 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

meanwhile

VOTE: Gamma
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #392 (isolation #68) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 12:51 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 388, shadowslug wrote:me to be mafia
don't worry snugglebug, I'll come back to voting you :)
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #397 (isolation #69) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:00 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

lol yes this is very town behavior
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #400 (isolation #70) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:05 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

You are not sufficiently defending shadow by attacking me, skitter. It’s quite obvious.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #402 (isolation #71) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:07 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Well TECHNICALLY if you look at the wiki definition of buddying you’ll see that
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #412 (isolation #72) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:45 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 410, Infinity 324 wrote:Bad vote
Tell me more.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #414 (isolation #73) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:51 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

So is that meta or are you saying that’s AI in itself?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #416 (isolation #74) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:56 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Okay

VOTE: shadow
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #427 (isolation #75) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:24 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

lol
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #428 (isolation #76) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:27 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 404, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Ok fair maybe i'm misusing the term
>.> i'm poking fun of penguin
I feel like u may be scum who realized that it's easier to townread / try to get on my side than to push me

If that makes sense
someone is vastly underrating my ego
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #430 (isolation #77) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:30 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

i wouldn't back away from being antagonistic just because i would think it would be hard to go head to head
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #432 (isolation #78) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:33 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

also I ~think~ I was the first/among the first to call you town? you can check me on that, i might be wrong. but I don't see why I would have thought being antagonistic toward you would be a hard option or whatever.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #435 (isolation #79) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:36 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 431, Dumb and Dumber wrote:would it be accurate to say you think you'd go for the head-to-head fight even if you think it would be easier to go the buddying route as scum?
WELL THAT'S HARD TO SAY

because I was scum once in the past 5 or so years, so i have little experience with what I would actually do

in that game I was antagonistic against two players who were really good (one had called out the scum team on, like, page 5; the other was frustratingly right-for-the-wrong-reasons), but it was part of the strategy for the mechanics (it was the heaven/hell game) to try to look like obstinate town

So, drawing from that, I think GC-scum would be friendly/antagonistic with players based on optimal strategy, not necessarily what is hard or not
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #436 (isolation #80) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:36 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

oh my god it feels good to self meta

feeding my ego
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #437 (isolation #81) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:39 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 433, Dumb and Dumber wrote:actually let me ask this a slightly different way: how hard do you think it is to misflip town!me

(apologies for being so ego-centric >.>)

~ skitter
tbqh at
this
point probably difficult, simply because of thread consensus, but I don't think that sort of vibe was happening when I started reading you as town and you don't strike me particularly as a force of nature type poster that would be impossible to mis-elim
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #438 (isolation #82) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:39 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 434, PenguinPower wrote:everyone...everyone...can we pls stop buddying each other. there is way too much of this going on.
I'm sad that you rolled scum.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #458 (isolation #83) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:35 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 448, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:@gc weren’t you scum in ambic’s fogeys game? I no longer seem to have access to the forum so unfortunately cannot compare play/no longer have a comparison for you

- Daenerys
oh yup forgot about that


i don't recall being antagonistic toward anyone in that one. my two scumbuddies were purposefully up each other's ass
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #459 (isolation #84) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:36 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

penguin why no vote?

you got your one (1) vc per 19 pages. should be sufficient.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #465 (isolation #85) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:45 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 462, PenguinPower wrote:You’re ridiculous if you think 1 vc per 19 pages is sufficient.
it was a joke :(
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #466 (isolation #86) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:45 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 464, PenguinPower wrote:Lol - I’m also voting so that kinda reinforces my point.
okay this is funny though
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #468 (isolation #87) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:46 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

oh that's right NM

boooo boring
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #473 (isolation #88) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:02 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Don’t worry. It doesn’t.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #474 (isolation #89) » Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:04 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Penguin, are you checked out bc your partners are shadow and cat?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #487 (isolation #90) » Tue Feb 02, 2021 3:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 475, shadowslug wrote:
In post 474, Green Crayons wrote:Penguin, are you checked out bc your partners are shadow and cat?
why would he be checked out if that was the case? i'm coming off this altercation way better than you are lol
not seeing how this comes from town
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #488 (isolation #91) » Tue Feb 02, 2021 3:58 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 486, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Notscience being in this game as an alt would definitely be interesting.

-Dumbass
confused how lillith could be confused about whether two players who are clearly not in this game are in this game
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #489 (isolation #92) » Tue Feb 02, 2021 3:59 am

Post by Green Crayons »

lilith

so many i's and l's
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #499 (isolation #93) » Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:35 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 480, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Flavor Leaf. You?

-Dumbass
In post 495, Dumb and Dumber wrote:If I thought that was a serious answer I'd be pretty concerned
at Auro giving his thoughts
on who the Mason is.

-Dumbass
????

Is the same head authoring 480 and 495? What is the Auro post being referred to in 495?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #501 (isolation #94) » Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:38 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 498, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:same goes for gc.
???

I'm confused how you didn't conclude that a post, that was responding to a horrible role fishing question with a player who isn't in this game, was a joke response.

Or that the next post, which identified the mod of this game as a response to the turn-around horrible role fishing question, was also a joke response.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #505 (isolation #95) » Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:41 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I never said you were pretending. I am no longer confused about why you were confused, though.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #527 (isolation #96) » Tue Feb 02, 2021 6:04 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Tell me more.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #531 (isolation #97) » Tue Feb 02, 2021 6:07 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 529, Gamma Emerald wrote:This interaction between lilith and auro seems rather pointless
Concur.

Any feelings re cat's recent posts?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #537 (isolation #98) » Tue Feb 02, 2021 6:51 am

Post by Green Crayons »

cat's recent play is pointedly suspicious or anti-town to the point I'm fancying that it's a purposeful strategy
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #542 (isolation #99) » Tue Feb 02, 2021 8:03 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Doesn’t preemptively giving away the activity that you see as a scum claim reduce the probability that they will take that action?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #615 (isolation #100) » Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:55 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 599, MURDERCAT wrote:
In post 537, Green Crayons wrote:cat's recent play is pointedly suspicious or anti-town to the point I'm fancying that it's a purposeful strategy
like, to take heat off the bomb?
That's the only thing that makes sense from a cat-scum POV. I don't think an otherwise context-less "let me do some just outright bad stuff so people might go 'too scummy to be scum'" is really a valid strategy. And I don't think that cat's play is indicates a noob level approach to the game where they are just falling into these bad plays.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #619 (isolation #101) » Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:59 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Yeah, I think the obvious candidates for cat-scum doing a weird strategy to draw attention to herself and away from the bomb is either shadow or me, just in terms of votes and who has garnered attention.

Can't think of anyone else who would fit the bill, but maybe infinity?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #621 (isolation #102) » Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:00 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

and yes I'm very well aware of confirmation bias and so I'm hesitant about this theory on cat's play that hinges on an unflipped shadow
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #635 (isolation #103) » Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:14 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 627, Dumb and Dumber wrote:
In post 619, Green Crayons wrote:Yeah, I think the obvious candidates for cat-scum doing a weird strategy to draw attention to herself and away from the bomb is either shadow or me, just in terms of votes and who has garnered attention.

Can't think of anyone else who would fit the bill, but maybe infinity?
fwiw i kinda you're doing just that >.>

~ skitter
lol, is there someone I'm drawing attention away from though? I don't think so. This is just me. ;)
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #636 (isolation #104) » Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:16 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 627, Dumb and Dumber wrote:
In post 619, Green Crayons wrote:Yeah, I think the obvious candidates for cat-scum doing a weird strategy to draw attention to herself and away from the bomb is either shadow or me, just in terms of votes and who has garnered attention.

Can't think of anyone else who would fit the bill, but maybe infinity?
fwiw i kinda you're doing just that >.>

~ skitter
In post 634, PenguinPower wrote:
In post 631, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:
In post 629, Dumb and Dumber wrote:i sent untrod tripod a pm r.e. redacted to see what's legal and not
already asked tbone about it, I’m under the impression we must redact.

- Daenerys
This is always a helpful post
Yeah can we just stop referring to redacted? It isn't helpful to anyone and needlessly gets close to lines.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #637 (isolation #105) » Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:16 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

^^^ don't know why the first quote was saved in my response box, whatevs!
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #654 (isolation #106) » Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:43 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 645, Dumb and Dumber wrote:{Salsabil Faria, Shadowslug, Infinity420, Gamma Emerald?}
Salsa & infinity are fine

Gamma is probably fine

Shadow is not fine
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #660 (isolation #107) » Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:41 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Yes, skitter.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #683 (isolation #108) » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:13 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 661, Dumb and Dumber wrote:ok and the followup is: i feel like he's exhibiting a certain level of newbie-townie-earnestness in solving. do you not see that? and can i get a quick tldr on why you're scumreading him again?

~ skitter
No but feel free to point it out.

1. His slippery responses to Dragons
2. His unvote of Infinity
3. The “lol I look better than you” interjection to my Q to penguin
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #684 (isolation #109) » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:17 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 672, Infinity 324 wrote:GC was talking about shadow but like. He's not engaging with people who disagree with him on shadow, he's just tunneled on obvtown because he has no way to walk it back. He also has no reaction to the SRs on him and townies usually hate it when I SR them, whereas scum know that my gut read is valid. He isn't town
What a bad take.

I’ve talked through my suspicions with you and murder off the top of my head. Just bc you’re not convinced doesn’t mean I’m not engaging.

There’s nothing to say about the SRs on me. They’re wrong and I’m not even sure what they’re based on other than ppl not liking my shadow suspicions/sticking with those suspicions. I also don’t really care about the votes on me. But I also am not getting suspicious vibes from anyone in particular who is voting me bc of their vote, so I’m doubly uninterested in beating someone up for their bad gc vote to see if I can shake out a scum.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #685 (isolation #110) » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:18 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 669, PenguinPower wrote:VOTE: gc
No more buddying.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #686 (isolation #111) » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:38 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 672, Infinity 324 wrote:GC was talking about shadow but like. He's not engaging with people who disagree with him on shadow, he's just tunneled on obvtown because he has no way to walk it back. He also has no reaction to the SRs on him and townies usually hate it when I SR them, whereas scum know that my gut read is valid. He isn't town
Feeding a baby at 4AM and got nothing to do but stew on just how bad of a take this is.

“Tunneled but no way to walk it back” - tunneling isn’t AI; your suggestion that I should want to walk it back implies that I should know that I’m wrong about shadow, which either is a slip from scum you or pretty big ego flex about your assuredness in reading shadow.

“Town usually hate it when I SR them” - I cannot express enough how comically unsound a rule about how players sometimes react to your bad reads is. You’re comparing my reaction to other players meta (bad) that isn’t even a uniform course of action (double bad)—which means I am also acting like those town players who don’t get bent out of shape over your wrong alignment reads of them
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #687 (isolation #112) » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:40 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Also just bc shadow is my #1 suspect doesn’t mean I’ve tunneled, and you should feel bad for using this terminology incorrectly.

Penguin will soon be serving you with an appropriate monetary fine shortly.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #691 (isolation #113) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 5:09 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 688, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:Ok this is kind of ass
infinity, soon: ah yes why hasn't gc engaged with this insightful commentary?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #692 (isolation #114) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 5:10 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 690, YyottaCat wrote:I'd like to know about GC's thoughts on Shadow.
:cool:
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #693 (isolation #115) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 5:22 am

Post by Green Crayons »

i know we're all being lazy bedbugs this game

but you could just iso gc + shadow

i've had some thoughts

here are some thoughts, some of which you'll need to click to to see the suspicious shadow post i was immediately responding to

Spoiler: thoughts
In post 103, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 100, PenguinPower wrote:
In post 96, shadowslug wrote:Penguin why did you call me newbie twice and not just my name that's pompous of you
Because you said you were new and the rest of the PL is not?

But, sure, let’s insult people. Good look to start.
MMMMMMMMMMHMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
In post 128, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 126, Infinity 324 wrote:
In post 116, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:I don’t really think skitter came off as defensive, maybe like.. confused that infinity assumed a reason for her read that wasn’t true and wasn’t stated. Can we instead talk about why shadowslug seems to think her response is “annoyed in a defensive way”?

- Daenerys
I don't think it's AI (for shadow)
Yeah but did you see his 121?
In post 139, Green Crayons wrote:Avoiding (twice!) the question while attacking the player questioning your behavior is very new player scum behavior.
In post 182, Green Crayons wrote:So is your problem that I'm too certain in my read or that I'm conflicted?

You're going to have to settle on which one you want to say makes me scum so you can finally finish this tiresome windup.
In post 194, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 190, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Maybe i should but i dont really
idk you're the one who thinks he's town, I just wanted to see if you saw anything wrong with it.

It's a combo of all three points that I think is scummy:

I don't like that he unvotes insanity after that wagon gets 4 votes (esp. now I have good town feelings about insanity)
AND
I don't like that he throws suspicion at another player while unvoting
AND
I don't like that he doesn't vote to either replace his insanity vote or to follow through on his suspicion
In post 206, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 203, MURDERCAT wrote:
In post 198, Green Crayons wrote:which part, the unvote or the good vibes?
Specifically why unvoting a town read of yours is scummy
sure it's because 8 posts earlier skitter puts infinity at 4/6

shadow is now on a leading wagon (the only wagon? honestly idk)

there's no indication that whatever reason shadow originally voted for infinity has gone away

so his unvote looks like he wants off that train for <reasons>

bc I (now, looking back) think infinity is looking more like town, there's a greater probability for those <reasons> to be "not wanting to be on a mis-elim wagon"
In post 207, Green Crayons wrote:^^^ preemptively agree that this isn't conclusive. just that it more likely aligns with having knowledge about infinity's alignment at the time of unvote when i don't think that assessment was likely or probably from shadow's POV without scum knowledge

also it's tied with the other two points which I think adds to why the unvote is suspicious
In post 211, Green Crayons wrote:yes, if at the time of shadow's unvote there was some suggestion that shadow had a view that infinity was town

there's no suggestion that the reason for shadow's vote had been addressed
In post 212, Green Crayons wrote:Like, iso shadow and infinity

and tell me on what basis between shadow's infinity vote in 37 to his unvote in 90 that shadow has a change of heart on infinity

I don't see it at all
In post 279, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 223, shadowslug wrote:I unvoted infinity cos I thought 5 votes equaled a hammer btw. I don't think that Infinity post i quoted was even that scummy either, just an in the moment gut read thing.
So you paid enough attention to see that there was an infinity vote, but not enough attention to see that that very post said that it was six to hammer?
In post 82, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Right its 6 and not 5 to flip, i was thinking 5 for some reason

VOTE: infinity

~ skitter

Pedit i thought was a reaction to ur recent posting from just now
In post 90, shadowslug wrote:i like skitter but they seem kinda nervous right now

UNVOTE:
In post 365, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 340, shadowslug wrote:Why would I not want to be on a miselim wagon? I wouldn't care if Infinity gets quick elim'd as maf. I'm hardly going to cop suspicion just for having voted him. Maybe you could argue my unvote was performative, which I'd accept even if it wasn't. But your current reasoning doesn't make sense. Why does it feel like you've already concluded I'm maf and are just trying to find things to justify your read?
this

ignores my interaction with murdercat so he can be have some sort of defense


while also

further winding up waiting for those 3/4 votes on GC so he can finally shift over
In post 378, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 376, Infinity 324 wrote:so what exactly is he ignoring here?
"Maybe you could argue my unvote was performative, which I'd accept even if it wasn't. But your current reasoning doesn't make sense." ==> ignores the back-and-forth with Murder where I explain how shadow-scum wouldn't want to be on a mis-elim, how he lacked any change in view of the infinity slot between time of vote and unvote, and ignores the other two reasons for why his unvote is suspicious
In post 390, Green Crayons wrote:"desperate"
In post 400, Green Crayons wrote:You are not sufficiently defending shadow by attacking me, skitter. It’s quite obvious.
In post 487, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 475, shadowslug wrote:
In post 474, Green Crayons wrote:Penguin, are you checked out bc your partners are shadow and cat?
why would he be checked out if that was the case? i'm coming off this altercation way better than you are lol
not seeing how this comes from town
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #699 (isolation #116) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 8:58 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 696, Dumb and Dumber wrote:(2) I had to scroll all the way to the top of his ISO to see, and was it something you mentioned or questioned him about earlier? Do you feel there's any special motivation for him to do that as scum?
Yes, there are several posts about this already (including with skitter):
Spoiler: GC + skitter, GC + murdercat
In post 189, Green Crayons wrote:ty skitter

any thoughts about this?
In post 90, shadowslug wrote:i like skitter but they seem kinda nervous right now

UNVOTE:
In post 194, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 190, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Maybe i should but i dont really
idk you're the one who thinks he's town, I just wanted to see if you saw anything wrong with it.

It's a combo of all three points that I think is scummy:

I don't like that he unvotes insanity after that wagon gets 4 votes (esp. now I have good town feelings about insanity)
AND
I don't like that he throws suspicion at another player while unvoting
AND
I don't like that he doesn't vote to either replace his insanity vote or to follow through on his suspicion
In post 197, MURDERCAT wrote:
In post 194, Green Crayons wrote:I don't like that he unvotes insanity after that wagon gets 4 votes (esp. now I have good town feelings about insanity)
Can you say more about this
In post 198, Green Crayons wrote:which part, the unvote or the good vibes?
In post 203, MURDERCAT wrote:
In post 198, Green Crayons wrote:which part, the unvote or the good vibes?
Specifically why unvoting a town read of yours is scummy
In post 206, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 203, MURDERCAT wrote:
In post 198, Green Crayons wrote:which part, the unvote or the good vibes?
Specifically why unvoting a town read of yours is scummy
sure it's because 8 posts earlier skitter puts infinity at 4/6

shadow is now on a leading wagon (the only wagon? honestly idk)

there's no indication that whatever reason shadow originally voted for infinity has gone away

so his unvote looks like he wants off that train for <reasons>

bc I (now, looking back) think infinity is looking more like town, there's a greater probability for those <reasons> to be "not wanting to be on a mis-elim wagon"
In post 207, Green Crayons wrote:^^^ preemptively agree that this isn't conclusive. just that it more likely aligns with having knowledge about infinity's alignment at the time of unvote when i don't think that assessment was likely or probably from shadow's POV without scum knowledge

also it's tied with the other two points which I think adds to why the unvote is suspicious
In post 208, Green Crayons wrote:likely or probable*
In post 210, MURDERCAT wrote:
In post 206, Green Crayons wrote:so his unvote looks like he wants off that train for

bc I (now, looking back) think infinity is looking more like town, there's a greater probability for those to be "not wanting to be on a mis-elim wagon"
I guess I sort of knew this is what you would say so I should have been more clear. Isn't there also town motivation for doing the exact same action?
In post 211, Green Crayons wrote:yes, if at the time of shadow's unvote there was some suggestion that shadow had a view that infinity was town

there's no suggestion that the reason for shadow's vote had been addressed
In post 212, Green Crayons wrote:Like, iso shadow and infinity

and tell me on what basis between shadow's infinity vote in 37 to his unvote in 90 that shadow has a change of heart on infinity

I don't see it at all

shadow later piped up about his unvote:
Spoiler: GC & shadow
In post 223, shadowslug wrote:I unvoted infinity cos I thought 5 votes equaled a hammer btw. I don't think that Infinity post i quoted was even that scummy either, just an in the moment gut read thing.
In post 279, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 223, shadowslug wrote:I unvoted infinity cos I thought 5 votes equaled a hammer btw. I don't think that Infinity post i quoted was even that scummy either, just an in the moment gut read thing.
So you paid enough attention to see that there was an infinity vote, but not enough attention to see that that very post said that it was six to hammer?
In post 82, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Right its 6 and not 5 to flip, i was thinking 5 for some reason

VOTE: infinity

~ skitter

Pedit i thought was a reaction to ur recent posting from just now
In post 90, shadowslug wrote:i like skitter but they seem kinda nervous right now

UNVOTE:
In post 340, shadowslug wrote:
In post 279, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 223, shadowslug wrote:I unvoted infinity cos I thought 5 votes equaled a hammer btw. I don't think that Infinity post i quoted was even that scummy either, just an in the moment gut read thing.
So you paid enough attention to see that there was an infinity vote, but not enough attention to see that that very post said that it was six to hammer?
No I didn't read 82 when I unvoted, posts were coming in pretty quick at that time

Why would I not want to be on a miselim wagon? I wouldn't care if Infinity gets quick elim'd as maf. I'm hardly going to cop suspicion just for having voted him. Maybe you could argue my unvote was performative, which I'd accept even if it wasn't. But your current reasoning doesn't make sense. Why does it feel like you've already concluded I'm maf and are just trying to find things to justify your read?

Which doesn't pass the smell test.

"I was afraid of getting infinity to Elim -1/-2, so i unvoted"
-Okay, but the most recent vote for infinity explicitly said before the vote that it was E-6, you didn't read that post?
"No I wasn't reading posts"

So he was afraid of putting infinity close to elim, which would require him to be paying attention to vote posts. But if he was paying attention to vote posts, he would have seen skitter's vote post that said Elim was at 6. So he says that he didn't see skitter's vote post. But if he didn't see the vote post, he had no reason to be concerned about quick eliminating infinity!

It's just after-the-fact lies to cover up his actions.


shadow later went on to justify his unvote, but I didn't respond because nobody was listening to me and I don't find it productive to engage with likely scum:
Spoiler: shadow justification
In post 388, shadowslug wrote:I don't have a strong reason to vote Infinity in the first place. It's like page 2. Not a lock in scumread. Already said this. I don't need to provide a reason to unvote infinity either; you're taking an absence of reasoning on my part and drawing a cynical conclusion. If you wanted a reason you could have just asked rather than call me mafia.

"I don't like that he throws suspicion at another player while unvoting" - Ok? explain why this is a scumtell.

"I don't like that he doesn't vote to either replace his insanity vote or to follow through on his suspicion" - My suspicions were on skitter at that point, who I did follow up with. I don't need to vote.

Anything else I missed? Why are you so desperate for me to be mafia?

But since you're paying attention, D&D, I'll respond to this.

That he didn't have a good reason to vote infinity in the first place is NBD. Like, no shit. It was very early game. The problem for the unvote is that
nothing changed about infinity's play between the vote and unvote
. Also that his later justification for being afraid about a quick elim are BS, per the above.

The other two points (throwing suspicion elsewhere, but no vote) are suspicious because shadow had already displayed, per his infinity vote, that he is a player who is fine putting a vote down for less-than-stellar reasons. Note:
that isn't a problem, especially early game! It's good! I support it!


But by unvoting infinity while simultaneously shading skitter without a skitter vote is inconsistent with how shadow plays the game with his votes. That is--if he's a town player who throws down votes early to get a reaction, then presumably he would have unvoted infinity and voted skitter. Because he didn't act in conformity to his initial play suggests that he is being calculating with his votes.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #700 (isolation #117) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:02 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 696, Dumb and Dumber wrote:I couldn't really find (1)
Also several posts already about this:
Spoiler: D&D + shadow + gc
In post 116, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:I don’t really think skitter came off as defensive, maybe like.. confused that infinity assumed a reason for her read that wasn’t true and wasn’t stated. Can we instead talk about why shadowslug seems to think her response is “annoyed in a defensive way”?

- Daenerys
In post 121, shadowslug wrote:
In post 116, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:I don’t really think skitter came off as defensive, maybe like.. confused that infinity assumed a reason for her read that wasn’t true and wasn’t stated. Can we instead talk about why shadowslug seems to think her response is “annoyed in a defensive way”?

- Daenerys
Well now this just seems like you're inviting other people to question me rather than doing the dirty work yourself :lol:
In post 122, Green Crayons wrote:VOTE: shadow
In post 124, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:
In post 121, shadowslug wrote:
In post 116, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:I don’t really think skitter came off as defensive, maybe like.. confused that infinity assumed a reason for her read that wasn’t true and wasn’t stated. Can we instead talk about why shadowslug seems to think her response is “annoyed in a defensive way”?

- Daenerys
Well now this just seems like you're inviting other people to question me rather than doing the dirty work yourself :lol:
Okay

Explain why you think skitter’s response is “annoyed in a defensive way”

- Daenerys
In post 130, shadowslug wrote:Actually first question which I dont think anyone asked yet is why is that Yyotta post not one scum would make?
In post 131, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:
In post 130, shadowslug wrote:Actually first question which I dont think anyone asked yet is why is that Yyotta post not one scum would make?
Why not ask her yourself if you think the answer is important?

- Daenerys
In post 133, Green Crayons wrote:I’m scrunching my nose.

This seems too easy.
In post 139, Green Crayons wrote:Avoiding (twice!) the question while attacking the player questioning your behavior is very new player scum behavior.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #701 (isolation #118) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:06 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 116, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:I couldn't really find . . . (3)
Only this:

Spoiler: GC + shadow
In post 474, Green Crayons wrote:Penguin, are you checked out bc your partners are shadow and cat?
In post 475, shadowslug wrote:
In post 474, Green Crayons wrote:Penguin, are you checked out bc your partners are shadow and cat?
why would he be checked out if that was the case? i'm coming off this altercation way better than you are lol
In post 487, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 475, shadowslug wrote:
In post 474, Green Crayons wrote:Penguin, are you checked out bc your partners are shadow and cat?
why would he be checked out if that was the case? i'm coming off this altercation way better than you are lol
not seeing how this comes from town

Basically I ask penguin a reaction question, and shadow jumps in to talk about whether the town is perceiving shadow or gc better which doesn't even really answer the Q I posed to penguin. shows a mentality that is focused on winning favorability points over finding scum.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #702 (isolation #119) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:07 am

Post by Green Crayons »

also when I did my big ole spoiler quote fest for yyotta, i remembered shadow's comically suspicious admonition of skitter for failing to chainsaw defense
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #744 (isolation #120) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:02 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 709, Dumb and Dumber wrote:@gc, some shadowslug posts i liked:

Spoiler:
In post 107, shadowslug wrote:i might be new but that doesnt mean you should say "newbie did this" for every move i make

it's like saying the "new guy" when you have a new person at school. it's a little patronising
i like the tone of this one, i'm not sure (new) scum is quite so stalwart in defending themselves against something like this
(i.e. i think they've be a little bit meeker/ more defense - and apologies for calling you new in the post about just that, but it's informing my read here >.>)

~
In post 121, shadowslug wrote:Well now this just seems like you're inviting other people to question me rather than doing the dirty work yourself
similarly, i like the tone here

~
In post 149, shadowslug wrote:Had to reread to make sure I read the situation correctly

Here's my intepration:

Skitter: yyotta is townie
Infinity: I disagree with reads of this nature
Skitter: I didn't make that read

The problem is skitter immediately defends their thought process rather than trying to correct Infinity. As far as i can see skitter never says why Yyotta's opening is not scum. It was immediately on the defensive. That's why it pinged me.
i like the analysis of this one

~

i like his pushback on your push on him


like idk i can go and quote more but his analysis is good, his tone is good, his line of questioning is good.
i don't see much to scumread here
lol we just fundamentally view him differently

107 is super manufactured and part of why I think shadow/penguin is a possible pair if shadow is indeed scum
121 i absolutely hate because its attacking his questioner rather than answering the question
149 is work, but it doesn't move the needle on anything. the skitter/infinity exchange was noise, and shadow sorting it out doesn't scum hunt but does make him appear active.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #745 (isolation #121) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:02 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 704, Infinity 324 wrote:
In post 699, Green Crayons wrote:"I was afraid of getting infinity to Elim -1/-2, so i unvoted"
-Okay, but the most recent vote for infinity explicitly said before the vote that it was E-6, you didn't read that post?
"No I wasn't reading posts"
Ehh, there's a reason votes are highlighted in white, you can see them even if you're skimming posts
just keep make excuses for him my dude

---
In post 704, Infinity 324 wrote:I also think the other points are kind of nitpicky, like new players can be awkward with votes, and unvoting your RVS or semi-RVS vote is something that's fairly common from new players ime when they don't have another confident SR
In post 713, Dumb and Dumber wrote:and while i get how you view it as scummy your scumread feels almost technical if that makes sense? like you're going 'well he should have done X but Y happened instead so he's scum' and like on the surface it kinda sounds ok but it's just not super convincing, or like, it doesn't take into account things like his tone or perspective
what y'all call nitpicky or technical, I call indications of scum perspective.

i don't focus on "tone" (not quite sure what that means) but I've also highlighted posts where his posts communicate a perspective that isn't scum hunting or town defensive, but attempts to discredit me (calling my suspicions of him desperate; trying to get skitter to chainsaw defense for him; his unprompted taunting that more ppl see him favorably over me)
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #746 (isolation #122) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:04 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

infinity, the only one of those that strike me as worth giving town credit is 585
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #748 (isolation #123) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:07 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 712, Dumb and Dumber wrote:gc do you have a read on infinity atm?

~ skitter
it was strong town for a while and now it's sort of medium town
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #757 (isolation #124) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:14 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

hth i think yyotta is possibly maybe a mis-elim candidate and so I'm a little suspicious of Gamma and MURDER for their continued votes there

I think I'm more suspicious of the latter of those two because at least the former was prodding yyotta and MURDER just parked a vote


VOTE: MURDERCAT
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #763 (isolation #125) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:18 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

my god this game is stale and there are actually votes on someone who i think is worth pursuing and so i'm trying to create a wagon and y'all are hemming and hawing
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #766 (isolation #126) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:20 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

well i can't help you there. i was going to ask Gamma and MURDER to tell me their thoughts about the other's vote but people started voting MURDER so this is more fun for me.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #767 (isolation #127) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:20 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

how many votes are on shadow?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #768 (isolation #128) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:21 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 765, PenguinPower wrote:comments on me
you need to get over yourself
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #771 (isolation #129) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:22 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

i did want to push you but now i don't, you don't see me shading you do you?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #777 (isolation #130) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:25 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

if i'm not pushing you that's a pretty good indication that i don't want to push you
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #779 (isolation #131) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:26 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

I'll update the wiki entry on reading minds to include taking note of observable behavior.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #785 (isolation #132) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:54 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 782, Gamma Emerald wrote:I’m sorry but I can’t have fun in mafia games as town, Cakez? Is that what you’re saying?
...Is that what you think he's saying?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #788 (isolation #133) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:06 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 783, Dumb and Dumber wrote:
In post 699, Green Crayons wrote:That he didn't have a good reason to vote infinity in the first place is NBD. Like, no shit. It was very early game. The problem for the unvote is that nothing changed about infinity's play between the vote and unvote. Also that his later justification for being afraid about a quick elim are BS, per the above.

The other two points (throwing suspicion elsewhere, but no vote) are suspicious because shadow had already displayed, per his infinity vote, that he is a player who is fine putting a vote down for less-than-stellar reasons. Note: that isn't a problem, especially early game! It's good! I support it!

But by unvoting infinity while simultaneously shading skitter without a skitter vote is inconsistent with how shadow plays the game with his votes. That is--if he's a town player who throws down votes early to get a reaction, then presumably he would have unvoted infinity and voted skitter. Because he didn't act in conformity to his initial play suggests that he is being calculating with his votes.
Thanks for the explanation! :D my bad, I should've read closer. But I feel this line of reasoning is problematic because I can't imagine what
scum
motivation he'd have to unvote in that manner.

Do you agree that town can be inconsistent sometimes?

If so, how would one distinguish between
town
inconsistency and
scum
inconsistency? And this also means that inconsistency does not imply calculated play, no?

To me, scum inconsistency is backed by playing to an agenda / to force unnatural positions. I see neither of that here. And it's a very plausible town thought process.

Scum on that position on a mislim wagon would probably
love
for the wagon to go through, as it only benefits scum (little info to the town and a lot of suspicion on the hammerer), and unvoting breaks momentum. The thought that scum would unvote to "stay off a miselim wagon" that early rings hollow: if you have empirical evidence of scum players doing this early in games, I'd love to see it.

I'll respond to the other parts in a bit, but in the meantime: did you recognize that you've played with me a few months earlier in a Vi-moderated game?

-Dumbass
Is dumbass Auro? I recognize the name and know we've played together but don't remember the game or much other than that.

Yes town are inconsistent. In how they view suspicious behavior--for example, they see Player A do X and find it suspicious, but Player B does X and it's not suspicious.

I don't recall seeing town inconsistent in how they actually play--for example, how they feel about the sanctity of voting. Some players are very careful with their votes. Others are not. I'm unfamiliar with town being inconsistent in that type of play within a single segment of the game. I don't see a town-based reason for this inconsistency (contrast with differing views on whether "X" action is suspicious, which can be influenced by subjective feelings toward the players who are both doing X). I do see a scum-based reason for this inconsistency as I noted.

Empirical evidence... no? Other than some very special starlets who Have Some Time On Their Hands, does anyone? Do you have empirical evidence showing that scum love to be on early game mis-elim flash wagons?

Finally, we just have different views of what scum would like to do with regard to any early mis-elim wagon, probably because we personally play scum differently. I think a newer scum player, like shadow, would be more cautious about being on an early game D1 quick elim wagon.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #789 (isolation #134) » Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:11 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 786, YyottaCat wrote:I don't see why continuously voting for me would be a good reason to join the wagon on MURDERKITTY.
I think you're possibly mis-elim material*, meaning you're low-hanging fruit for scum to vote/suspect.


*I'm probably not using the right term, but whatever the phrase is for a player who habitually looks/acts suspicious and often gets eliminated for it but that's just how they play as town.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #796 (isolation #135) » Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:48 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 790, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Shadow's play has been direct and unabashed
In post 704, Infinity 324 wrote:I felt that he's been very towny since then, displaying nuance that I almost never see from newbscum
y'all are doing a great rendition of Rashomon


Regardless, I don't think scum being careful about not wanting to be on an early mis-elim wagon dictates how a player presents themselves in terms of attitude.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #806 (isolation #136) » Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:57 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 802, Gamma Emerald wrote:Also can someone come up with a good reason for MCat being scum or is this just because he’s not a TR yet
I feel like most games MCat gets pressed early as town
how do you feel about his yyotta vote?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #807 (isolation #137) » Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:02 am

Post by Green Crayons »

NM, what's your comprehension level of the gamestate?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #810 (isolation #138) » Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:39 am

Post by Green Crayons »

that's precisely why I'm asking it.

for example, I can support shadow votes without liking yyotta's vote on shadow.

I want to know how you assess MURDER's yyotta vote park.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #811 (isolation #139) » Fri Feb 05, 2021 9:39 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 808, Not_Mafia wrote:
In post 807, Green Crayons wrote:NM, what's your comprehension level of the gamestate?
Not Applicable
attaboy
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #826 (isolation #140) » Sat Feb 06, 2021 6:32 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 812, Gamma Emerald wrote:
In post 810, Green Crayons wrote:that's precisely why I'm asking it.

for example, I can support shadow votes without liking yyotta's vote on shadow.

I want to know how you assess MURDER's yyotta vote park.
Well I've done the exact same thing pretty much, so I don't see much wrong with it, especially from a neutral POV (though the effectiveness of the term neutral is questionable)
Disagree. You’ve interacted with yyotta in a way that seemed to try to get her to play in a more constructive manner.

Why are you still voting yyotta after y’all’s back and forth?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #861 (isolation #141) » Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:16 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Maybe start with why you’re still voting yyotta
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #864 (isolation #142) » Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:20 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Maybe start with why you aren’t voting anyone
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #866 (isolation #143) » Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:21 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Live your best life.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #867 (isolation #144) » Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:22 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 816, MURDERCAT wrote:
In post 787, YyottaCat wrote:Why are you three voting MURDERKITTY though?
Hmm well this doesn't really make sense
UNVOTE:

I'm gunna do some rereading anyway
Was the thing that didn’t make sense your continued vote or the yyotta post you quoted?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #880 (isolation #145) » Sun Feb 07, 2021 3:03 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 873, MURDERCAT wrote:Well I'm explaining what I saw, but if you want other evidence I think the GC vote and FMPOV vote on me are further evidence.
the "explaining what you saw" is the primary thrust of your vote: that penguin is actively monitoring the thread but only occasionally contributing

y/n?


please explain how it is AI
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #881 (isolation #146) » Sun Feb 07, 2021 3:06 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

has anyone played with yyottacat before?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #883 (isolation #147) » Sun Feb 07, 2021 3:30 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

so by mis-flip-y you mean like in line with her play this game?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #885 (isolation #148) » Sun Feb 07, 2021 4:21 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

word.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #900 (isolation #149) » Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 889, catboi wrote:Upon pondering murdercat's attempt at a case and briefly skimming PP's meta, I conclude he is still dead null.
who is scum?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #901 (isolation #150) » Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

also i realize i may be mis-interpreting 889. who is dead null: murdercat or penguin?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #943 (isolation #151) » Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:01 am

Post by Green Crayons »

yoooo if you want to catboi wagon it up, i'm game
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #944 (isolation #152) » Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:02 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 932, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:I continue to not be a fan of Yyotta's posting. It seems less like lost townie and more like scum trying to act like lost townie.
i'm not a fan of her posting either, but that potential strat seems a bit more advanced than yyotta could pull off, given prior games of similar play?

if yyotta = scum, i'm guessing this is just how she plays more so than an actual advanced strategy. but i still think it's bait material.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #951 (isolation #153) » Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:12 am

Post by Green Crayons »

boo
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #953 (isolation #154) » Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:14 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 934, Dumb and Dumber wrote:VOTE: Not_Mafia

Sorry :/

-Dumbass
so, why?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #987 (isolation #155) » Mon Feb 08, 2021 3:55 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 986, PenguinPower wrote:I’m disappointed tbh gamma
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1003 (isolation #156) » Tue Feb 09, 2021 2:31 am

Post by Green Crayons »

A NM vote rn is lazy for town or easy for scum.

I don’t hate that Gamma vote either.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1004 (isolation #157) » Tue Feb 09, 2021 2:32 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Want to hear infinity’s thoughts on gamma since he’s the one that originally told me my gamma vote was bad partially bc meta.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1008 (isolation #158) » Tue Feb 09, 2021 4:52 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I don't know what that means.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1085 (isolation #159) » Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:13 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1012, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:Can you elaborate?
yyotta’s play here and prior games shows that she isn’t a very experienced player, so the notion that she’s an experienced player that is posing as a lost inexperienced play doesn’t seem to fit.

Also yyotta’s play that has triggered my “hmmm” senses aren’t so much her “I’m lost” posts but more her posts that don’t quite make sense—correlating suspicion/votes with things that aren’t particularly AI. That doesn’t strike me as something scum want to do (they want their votes to look sound).

Also, once yyotta explained why a wagon changed her mind on a player (murder I think, it was recent and I’d need to go back and look to verify but I’m on my phone), it actually made some sense from her POV which wasn’t readily apparent from her initial suspicion post. Which says to me that yyotta isn’t just lolrandoming her way through, which her posts might suggest (and lend to a “scum trying to pass as lost” theories), but is trying to actually hunt.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1086 (isolation #160) » Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:15 am

Post by Green Crayons »

Really glad murder finished that other game so he could have free time to continue to ignore this game so that the spotlight would start drifting away.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1091 (isolation #161) » Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:25 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I endorse 1090.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1096 (isolation #162) » Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:41 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1094, Gamma Emerald wrote:If you look at how murdercat got through all of those games you'll see a very consistent trend of town!murdercat getting pushed early and/or often
but see:
In post 1070, PenguinPower wrote:And my issue is you can't say that he doesn't as scum so it's nai. Stop relying solely on meta for which you don't have an established comparison.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1097 (isolation #163) » Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:42 am

Post by Green Crayons »

my problem with murder isn't that he's being lazy

and i would love to lay out additional thoughts, but he's ghosted this thread since i tried to engage him, and i want to engage before i lay out thoughts
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1108 (isolation #164) » Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:56 am

Post by Green Crayons »

if you're saying murder-town is stronger late game rather than early game


cool, i hope he's town and doesn't get eliminated


if you're saying murder-town is frequently pushed early in the game, and so because murder is being suspected in D1 (
not
early D1 mind you), we should give him the benefit of the doubt that he is therefore again town...........


well then you lost me
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1121 (isolation #165) » Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:34 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1120, Gamma Emerald wrote:we all want the same thing more-or-less
...to eliminate scum?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1172 (isolation #166) » Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:21 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1170, MURDERCAT wrote:
In post 880, Green Crayons wrote:the "explaining what you saw" is the primary thrust of your vote: that penguin is actively monitoring the thread but only occasionally contributing

y/n?


please explain how it is AI
It's AI because town is more likely to want to lead conversation whereas scum PP wants to sit back and add pressure to something townled. At least that was my sense from the last game we played together.
1. There's a difference between <actively monitoring but occasionally contributing> and <not leading conversation>. Your penguine reaction tests were aimed at the former suspicion. I don't see how you go from there to the latter suspicion.

2. Was penguin scum in your last game?

3. Why, in the first place, did you reaction test penguin for his active monitoring of the thread?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1182 (isolation #167) » Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:54 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1178, MURDERCAT wrote:Look at the game I linked to
I don't see what game you're referring to with penguin. I only see a link to the game where you said town threw.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1243 (isolation #168) » Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:59 am

Post by Green Crayons »

tbh I skimmed this Lilith/Gamma back and forth with one eye and nothing really grabbed me

If one of y’all think there’s a particularly AI post somewhere in all this back and forth, feel free to link it (and if you’ve already made this point I’d appreciate you just linking *that* post)
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1248 (isolation #169) » Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:03 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Also I thought Lillith’s early game “all questions” strat was minor sus and her reaction to Auro was potential scum manufactured

But her engagement since the Auro reaction has been proactive and solid, and her explanation for her Auro reaction is out of game reasons that I as a policy accept as true and don’t question whether RL shit is lied about for a game

So what I’m saying is is that the GOT hydra is solidly on the town side of the line at this point, and I’m not particularly interested in trying to further sort them for D1 elim
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1253 (isolation #170) » Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:06 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

^^^ Auro’s posting with you has been weird (I didn’t think his posting when y’all first got at it was weird, and actually thought you were being weird, but ever since then his posting wrt is off) but that’s also something I don’t have the energy to suss out as AI or just personality plus I really like the other half of the hydra
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1255 (isolation #171) » Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:07 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

What’s a “UTR”?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1257 (isolation #172) » Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:08 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1182, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1178, MURDERCAT wrote:Look at the game I linked to
I don't see what game you're referring to with penguin. I only see a link to the game where you said town threw.
Help me out, brother. I want to sort you and this game is dragging.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1258 (isolation #173) » Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:08 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1256, MURDERCAT wrote:Universal town read

or sometimes under the radar, I probably shouldn't use it as an abbreviation
Roger that.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1282 (isolation #174) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 4:27 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1259, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:which post was this in response to/who is "you"?
Was supposed to be responding to 1249

Spoiler: post & response
In post 1249, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:
In post 1246, MURDERCAT wrote:
In post 1204, Daenerys and Dragons wrote:more votes on gamma please. or on dumb & dumber although I doubt I'd be able to push through a wagon on them today.

- Daenerys
Didn't you say to never flip skitter D1? Or was that someone else?
I was quoting mena when I said that. I said to never townread her D1. I'm kind of at the point where I think my read is strong enough that I might want to elim her D1, but since it seems like no one else is really considering them I don't really see the point.

- Daenerys
In post 1253, Green Crayons wrote:^^^ Auro’s posting with you has been weird (I didn’t think his posting when y’all first got at it was weird, and actually thought you were being weird, but ever since then his posting wrt is off) but that’s also something I don’t have the energy to suss out as AI or just personality plus I really like the other half of the hydra
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1294 (isolation #175) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:14 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1178, MURDERCAT wrote:In my mind, someone who sits around the thread watching what is happening but only responding when called upon is scummy. Look at the game I linked to, PP waited for me to push Taylor and then immediately jumped on with me (I think Taylor was also scum that game but the point is that scum is usually more reactive than proactive).
I guess my final ask on this line of conversation is: does penguin not act like this when town?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1296 (isolation #176) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:21 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1178, MURDERCAT wrote:
In post 1172, Green Crayons wrote:1. There's a difference between and . Your penguine reaction tests were aimed at the former suspicion. I don't see how you go from there to the latter suspicion.

2. Was penguin scum in your last game?

3. Why, in the first place, did you reaction test penguin for his active monitoring of the thread?
I'm genuinely not sure what the difference is. Like it is obvious that PP was not leading the conversation. So I tested if PP was just not around or was being selective in what to post.

PP has been scum in both my games with him since I've been back, though 1 didn't really count because it was a meme game.

In my mind, someone who sits around the thread watching what is happening but only responding when called upon is scummy. Look at the game I linked to, PP waited for me to push Taylor and then immediately jumped on with me (I think Taylor was also scum that game but the point is that scum is usually more reactive than proactive).
In post 1261, MURDERCAT wrote:
In post 1257, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1182, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1178, MURDERCAT wrote:Look at the game I linked to
I don't see what game you're referring to with penguin. I only see a link to the game where you said town threw.
Help me out, brother. I want to sort you and this game is dragging.
In post 1185, MURDERCAT wrote:
In post 1182, Green Crayons wrote:I don't see what game you're referring to with penguin. I only see a link to the game where you said town threw.
I was referring to this game: https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=84282

Here's an example of what I am talking about (presented without context, but you know you can go read it):
In post 898, MURDERCAT wrote:VOTE: gamer
In post 900, PenguinPower wrote:VOTE: gamer
This one of a couple times where PP immediately sheeped me on a vote rather than pushing something himself.
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

So I'm not sure that "actively monitoring but not always participating" OR "not leading the conversation" are necessarily scum AI. My problem was that this was the main pillar of MC's penguin vote.

I do understand how MC is linking those two concepts, but I don't think they're necessarily coextensive (point here is it doesn't seem like MC is shifting his reasoning to suspect penguin as he gets pushed).

Given MC's history with scum!penguin, I think MC's association with this play as being scum AI isn't far fetched. scum!MC would have needed to have concocted the plan based on penguin's in-thread play, which isn't impossible but also consistent with town!MC.


(Aside: The secondary points of MC's penguin votes don't strike me as particularly compelling. That penguin changed his opinions on players without spelling it out in the thread, ~*~thus requiring mind reading, am I right penguin?~*~, is something I do and don't find AI. That penguin hasn't expressed ample TRs isn't AI, otherwise I think many players get those scum points.)

UNVOTE: MC
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1297 (isolation #177) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:23 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1274, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Also I'm not really gonna defend against votes on my slot. If anyone has concerns they'd like me to address, just go ahead and ask me.

-Dumbass
What does this mean--you're not going to defend against people voting you? Leaving it to Skitter? Or just a mea culpa?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1299 (isolation #178) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:26 am

Post by Green Crayons »

if i were to vote rn, it'd be on gamma because of his interactions with GOT D&D + his insistence on defending the MC slot based on non-AI reasons

but i want to reread a little bit first before voting
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1306 (isolation #179) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:47 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1300, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Neither, I am beginning to believe that defence against *votes* isn't useful :P
Also, zen playstyle, etc
I still don't understand what this means, especially with you emphasizing the "votes" portion. That you're not going to engage in naked votes? Or that you're also not going to engage in stated suspicions?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1307 (isolation #180) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:48 am

Post by Green Crayons »

I guess looking back at your original post I guess i understand but please spell it out for me bc I'm slow.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1394 (isolation #181) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 4:42 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1342, Dumb and Dumber wrote:i think i have a decently strong poe, and i'm kinda happy to wagon anybody outside of it
what's your poe?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1395 (isolation #182) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 4:47 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

btw i don't think the D&D hydra exchange, which is eating up of pages of energy, is helpful.

if y'all are trying to make a case on the other hydra, please get to it. otherwise can we please move on?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1398 (isolation #183) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 4:56 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1071, Gamma Emerald wrote:But the point is the fact I haven't been actively searching for scum is part of how I play these days, but atp I'm pissed off enough to switch to active mode.
sup, what happened with this?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1401 (isolation #184) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:05 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1211, Gamma Emerald wrote:Tbh after answering salsabil's questions I also remembered feeling let down by murder's play, and the sense hasn't really changed
So like, I get why he's being wagoned a whole lot more, but I also recall he just doesn't start out that strong as town.
As such I'm going to try to hunt other scum this day phase
This is just the weirdest phrasing. it caught me the first time and caught my eye again.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1402 (isolation #185) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:08 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1397, Dumb and Dumber wrote:gc - MURDERKITTY, gamma
you/yyotta are my lower-tier townreads but i don't wnat to go there today
I sometimes get mafia terms backwards. So I might be misunderstanding. But you're saying you do not want to elim MC or Gamma, or they are the only two you are looking at? (Your original post said okay with everyone outside of POE, which made it sound like more than two...)
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1407 (isolation #186) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:12 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

To clarify, lilith: your case is on a gamma vote?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1416 (isolation #187) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:24 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: gamma

For the reasons I stated before as to why i'd like vote him; plus I'm skeptical of his ATE in responding to lilith. lilith's reasons in her case post are also not wrong.


I know i unvoted MC but I'm fine with his elim too. I unvoted him earlier after his explanation of his penguin vote to me, but there's also still his vast lack of activity (not just in frequency of posts, but in pushing any suspicion forward beyond penguin after getting wagoned).
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1417 (isolation #188) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:25 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1415, Dumb and Dumber wrote:Everyone doubts D&D&D&D interactions of being TvS, but no one suspects it could be SvS :o

-Dumbass
you're the wooooooooooorst
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1420 (isolation #189) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:26 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

penguin is on the fucking case
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1421 (isolation #190) » Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:27 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

if only you had an avatar that's a penguin in a sherlock holmes outfit.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1436 (isolation #191) » Fri Feb 12, 2021 7:45 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1428, Gamma Emerald wrote:plus I have unresolved concerns of my own from early on
can you please point me in the direction of these concerns?

I'm being lazy
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1441 (isolation #192) » Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:50 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1439, Gamma Emerald wrote:
In post 1436, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 1428, Gamma Emerald wrote:plus I have unresolved concerns of my own from early on
can you please point me in the direction of these concerns?

I'm being lazy
didn't like how he was talking about mech stuff early
it felt like he was crutching on that to get TRed
did you point this out earlier?

what mech stuff?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1455 (isolation #193) » Fri Feb 12, 2021 12:51 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

:roll:
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1456 (isolation #194) » Fri Feb 12, 2021 12:51 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

Got the MC elim tho.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1476 (isolation #195) » Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:19 am

Post by Green Crayons »

VOTE: mena
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1477 (isolation #196) » Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:38 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1472, Infinity 324 wrote:That makes even less sense :/

It was pretty clear no other CW was gaining traction, I don't get why gamma makes himself look awful trying to defend murder esp if he's bomb
I agree that MC flipping scum is better for Mena-town possibility than if MC was town (as Gamma's non-AI defense of MC-town would look like Gamma-scum TMI),

but Gamma's defense of MC was early-ish of the MC wagon so not necessarily just throwing himself in front of an inevitable elimination

and Gamma's defense of MC is probably objectively verifiable (e.g., MC gets better as town as the game goes on; MC has been pushed early as town before), which is a good scum argument because it's technically correct, but is a scum argument because it isn't AI for MC in this game

also you were there similarly supporting the anti-MC push--so, if you're town, then Gamma-scum isn't alone protecting MC-buddy

finally Gamma's change on MC is inconsistent with his play towards the MC slot given penguin's
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1478 (isolation #197) » Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:41 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1464, catboi wrote:VOTE: Infinity 324
curious why infinity over Mena, who I think are the two initial candidates for today's elim (but not locked in to just these two for today)
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1489 (isolation #198) » Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:22 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1488, Infinity 324 wrote:penguin came to the conclusion that gamma's progression actually made some sense
I missed this--where?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #1490 (isolation #199) » Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:23 am

Post by Green Crayons »

In post 1488, Infinity 324 wrote:What was gamma's partner doing if gamma was trying to defend murder then?
Also are you asking for a gamesolve to suspect Gamma for his interaction re MC?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Locked