Darkdragon Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 OK, I think I'm all caught up on reading now. Thanks for waiting. * please note these are not direct quotes just general ideas in the quote marks so you know what i'm replying to in general. As far as "obligitory omg posts", well, when I saw the results from yesterday I was honestly confused. At first I couldn't imagine why a SK or Vig would kill Burbank and then after I started writing I figured out it must have ben scum. EIther way it was metagaming and it really irritated me. Getting irritated at the game is definately the quickest way to having a post that makes people think scum. Of course there is no editing allowed, and for some reason I always feel rushed to post something right away when a day starts. Even though it ALWAYS gets me no people's radar. "telling people to stay rational" Ok, same sort of thing, I was honestly disgusted by what happened. This is not the first time I've seen the exact same behavior end in the same result - townies lynched. I don't know if it's a newbie issue or just a panic issue when people are accused...whatever it is, I see it happen a lot and it's sad. "robbins" I was pretty sure I made myself clear yesterday. Robbins was acting suspicious, but for one reason or another the thing that caught my eye was the bandwagon starting to roll when someone jokingly said janitor. I did explain that even though I found him suspicious, I still felt like Wright was acting more scummy. Yes I was wrong on both counts, but most of us were. "wright" Again, I felt like I was pretty clear yesterday but obviously I was not. Wright was acting scummy, in my opinion because of the way he kept saying people should stop accusing people. After that, he seemed to bounce back and forth on loyalties, and jumped on any bandwagon that formed at the moment. That's my interpretation and I can't/won't apologize for it. Saying I was voting for him to look like I wasn't voting for a townie makes no sense at all, think about it for a moment. Wright was a townie too, so in the end I voted for a townie, I guess if you think I'm the stupidest scum ever? Man, insult to injury from you guys. I may add to this in a bit via another post, I need to read back yesterday now.
Dannylonglegs Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I'm asking that they don't repeat their mistake, and yes, they made a horrible call yesterday since they killed a member of the town. Would we really have made the same stupid decision to lynch today based on the clear mistaken thoughts from yesterday? If so, I'm a little concerned for our chances. Yes, probably. I would still have thought that Awesomestar's actions made him scummy even if KotZ had shown up Townie (which he did.) Their mistake was, indeed a mistake, but it wasn't the worst they could have made. They targeted someone who was clearly not an asset to the Town, whether he was one of us or not, and they saved us a great deal of confusion at the very least, and, I think, a lynch today. If you're so concerned about our chances why don't you enlighten us? Who are the scum? Please, I want to know so I can Lynch them and win the game get back to my security duties. No offense, but if the thoughts were clear mistaken, why didn't you tell us yesterday? Exactly! I believe what he meant was that, if the vig hadn't killed him, then today we would have realized that our thoughts were clearly mistaken when Ensign Robbins came up as town. That's what I was saying and what Shadows was refuting.
Dakar A Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Hmm... Well, voting has begun, and we have no clear direction to go. The last thing we need is a NK, so I'll share my basic supicions, to see if I can get anyone to talk. So far, I'm keeping my watch on Ensign Brian Pewter, security (Played by Dannylonglegs) and Lieutenant Michelle Wheeler, chemist (Played by Scubacarrot). Pewter seems to be very vocal, and seems to know a bit more than he should, or at least, more than the rest of us. For Wheeler, refer to my above post. And Phalandric, I know this is more of a personality/writing/gameplay style thing, ut metagaming still shouldn't be a defense. I'd like to see Mrs. Wheeler defend herself.
Brickdoctor Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 As far as "obligitory omg posts", well, when I saw the results from yesterday I was honestly confused. At first I couldn't imagine why a SK or Vig would kill Burbank and then after I started writing I figured out it must have ben scum. So if you figured it out after you started writing, why didn't you just go back and remove the sentence in which you acted confused before you submitted the post finished the statement? You even said in that statement that it only made sense as an Scum kill, yet you still made a statement as if you were confused.And also, it makes sense for an SK to kill Burbank. The SK wants to kill someone who hasn't been active. Not only was Burbank inactive, he's also the sort of person with enough experience in these situations to find an SK. It might be a little more risky for the SK than killing a sheep who isn't going to attract as much attention based on metagaming, but I don't think it's really that ridiculous for an SK to kill Burbank. (not that I think it was, because I think there's a better chance that it was a Scum metagame-kill, just saying...) "telling people to stay rational" Ok, same sort of thing, I was honestly disgusted by what happened. This is not the first time I've seen the exact same behavior end in the same result - townies lynched. I don't know if it's a newbie issue or just a panic issue when people are accused...whatever it is, I see it happen a lot and it's sad. There's nothing wrong with telling people to be rational and calm, but when you say that and nothing else, (other than the speculation about who was behind the kill, which, as I've said, was obvious) then it looks like you're trying to look helpful without actually adding anything to the discussion of suspicions. To be fair, that was your first statement Today, which is usually just a general reaction to the events of last Night, but when I consider both this and your use of IIoA yesterday, then it really looks like you're trying to look helpful without discussing suspects. "robbins" I was pretty sure I made myself clear yesterday. Robbins was acting suspicious, but for one reason or another the thing that caught my eye was the bandwagon starting to roll when someone jokingly said janitor. I did explain that even though I found him suspicious, I still felt like Wright was acting more scummy. Yes I was wrong on both counts, but most of us were. "wright" Again, I felt like I was pretty clear yesterday but obviously I was not. Wright was acting scummy, in my opinion because of the way he kept saying people should stop accusing people. After that, he seemed to bounce back and forth on loyalties, and jumped on any bandwagon that formed at the moment. That's my interpretation and I can't/won't apologize for it. Saying I was voting for him to look like I wasn't voting for a townie makes no sense at all, think about it for a moment. Wright was a townie too, so in the end I voted for a townie, I guess if you think I'm the stupidest scum ever? Man, insult to injury from you guys. No one said you were suspicious because you were wrong.
Darkdragon Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I know this might seem out of the blue but as I said, I've been looking back at yesterday and here's something interesting I found. I'm sorry if someone else already mentioned it today and I missed it. As it has already been mentioned, yesterday we all got very distracted talking about the who/why of a possible second scum team. This was started by one person, was he trying to derail the conversation? If so, it worked for quite a while, we wasted pages talking about it. That person is Ensign Robert Holloway (CallMePie)
CMP Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I know this might seem out of the blue but as I said, I've been looking back at yesterday and here's something interesting I found. I'm sorry if someone else already mentioned it today and I missed it. As it has already been mentioned, yesterday we all got very distracted talking about the who/why of a possible second scum team. This was started by one person, was he trying to derail the conversation? If so, it worked for quite a while, we wasted pages talking about it. That person is Ensign Robert Holloway (CallMePie) And...what would have been spending this so-called 'wasted time' doing if it hadn't been? Day One is a day of analyzing. I noticed a clue. Some of us discussed it. I didn't bring it up again unless asked or I was replying to something because it wasn't particularly helpful at the time. I would rather have spent hours talking about something that would've come in handy in the future than sitting and discussing absolutely nothing. It's not out of the blue, by the way. Shifting the blame is something we've all only too recently got accustomed to in this game.
Darkdragon Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 So if you figured it out after you started writing, why didn't you just go back and remove the sentence in which you acted confused before you submitted the post finished the statement? You even said in that statement that it only made sense as an Scum kill, yet you still made a statement as if you were confused. Why didn't I change it? Like I said, I always feel rushed to make a post early on the first day. No other reason, just didn't think it through as in "will this make me look bad". And also, it makes sense for an SK to kill Burbank. The SK wants to kill someone who hasn't been active. Not only was Burbank inactive, he's also the sort of person with enough experience in these situations to find an SK. It might be a little more risky for the SK than killing a sheep who isn't going to attract as much attention based on metagaming, but I don't think it's really that ridiculous for an SK to kill Burbank. (not that I think it was, because I think there's a better chance that it was a Scum metagame-kill, just saying...) Hmm, you make some valid points. I didn't think about an SK wanting to kill quiet people, I guess I always just thought they would pick someone that was likely scum so they wouldn't get killed themselves or get targeted for bandwagon lynching (which seems like something scum loves to start). I think at this point though we are pretty sure Burbank was killed by scum, or have I totally misread this? There's nothing wrong with telling people to be rational and calm, but when you say that and nothing else, (other than the speculation about who was behind the kill, which, as I've said, was obvious) then it looks like you're trying to look helpful without actually adding anything to the discussion of suspicions. To be fair, that was your first statement Today, which is usually just a general reaction to the events of last Night, but when I consider both this and your use of IIoA yesterday, then it really looks like you're trying to look helpful without discussing suspects. Well ok I can see your point. I wasn't trying to look helpful, I was actually trying to be helpful. I see looking back that what I said first post today was not actually very helpful, but still I think it needed to be said in case someone was reading that didn't understand. I don't even know what lloA is, so I'll go look that up after I post this. So many acronyms. No one said you were suspicious because you were wrong. I have to disagree with this, it seems like you are taking my response totally into a different twisted meaning. You said I was suspicious for voting for someone that wasn't the bandwagon because I wanted to look like I was not voting for a townie, right? Isn't that what you were saying? I don't think I said that I thought you were accusing me because I was wrong. (every time i post i have to defend again, this is kinda getting funny if it wasn't so annoying in a way) And...what would have been spending this so-called 'wasted time' doing if it hadn't been? Day One is a day of analyzing. I noticed a clue. Some of us discussed it. I didn't bring it up again unless asked or I was replying to something because it wasn't particularly helpful at the time. I would rather have spent hours talking about something that would've come in handy in the future than sitting and discussing absolutely nothing. It's not out of the blue, by the way. Shifting the blame is something we've all only too recently got accustomed to in this game. I was just pointing it out, that's what we are doing right? Pointing out strange things that make us thing "oh that was strange, was it a scum trick?". I don't think it's shifting the blame to point things out that I find strange, damned if you do/damned if you don't around here. There's still time, I have no vote to cast yet because I really don't feel strongly about anyone. I have noticed things are LOT quieter today though, are people afraid to speak up? I'd say yes definitely, look what happens when we do. Ok, more reading and thinking. Darn post merges...I made a wall of text.
Dannylonglegs Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Hmm... Well, voting has begun, and we have no clear direction to go. The last thing we need is a NK, so I'll share my basic supicions, to see if I can get anyone to talk. So far, I'm keeping my watch on Ensign Brian Pewter, security (Played by Dannylonglegs) and Lieutenant Michelle Wheeler, chemist (Played by Scubacarrot). Pewter seems to be very vocal, and seems to know a bit more than he should, or at least, more than the rest of us. For Wheeler, refer to my above post. And Phalandric, I know this is more of a personality/writing/gameplay style thing, ut metagaming still shouldn't be a defense. I'd like to see Mrs. Wheeler defend herself. Interesting. You find the person I believe most of all to be Townie, and me who I know to be Townie, scummy. I really don't know what I've writen that would make you come to such a conclusion. Feel free to show me what it is that makes you believe I know more than I'm letting on, and I'll re-explain it to you. Nothing I've written comes from more than reasoning and observation (and if it's the SK reference, experience.) I've been vocal because I've been actively trying find out who among us is scum. Feel free to "keep your watch" on me, but I assure you I'm an average Townie. Scubacarrot is acting the same way he was last game when he was one of the only sane townies and I regret not listening to him then. I don't see anything in his actions that would lead me to believe he's scum. And Palathadric is another who I'm pretty sure is townie, by his actions and his behavior.
Brickdoctor Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Why didn't I change it? Like I said, I always feel rushed to make a post early on the first day. No other reason, just didn't think it through as in "will this make me look bad". So you claim that you don't think about whether it would make you look bad, but you also claim that you feel rushed to make an early post? There is no reason to try to rush to get out an early post other than to try not to "look bad". I think at this point though we are pretty sure Burbank was killed by scum, or have I totally misread this? No, I was just responding to your statement that you claimed to have acted confused, because you couldn't figure out why an SK would kill him. Well ok I can see your point. I wasn't trying to look helpful, I was actually trying to be helpful. I see looking back that what I said first post today was not actually very helpful, but still I think it needed to be said in case someone was reading that didn't understand. I don't even know what lloA is, so I'll go look that up after I post this. So many acronyms. IIoA is Information Instead of Analysis. That refers to posts that speculate about the setup of the situation (number of Scum, number of factions, etc.) at a time when such knowledge can't help us decide on a lynch, instead of trying to actually find the Scum by analyzing behavior. I have to disagree with this, it seems like you are taking my response totally into a different twisted meaning. You said I was suspicious for voting for someone that wasn't the bandwagon because I wanted to look like I was not voting for a townie, right? Isn't that what you were saying? I don't think I said that I thought you were accusing me because I was wrong. In your earlier defense, you said, "Yes I was wrong on both counts, but most of us were.", and I was responding to that. I apologize if that's not what you meant.And, for the record, I myself never said that it was suspicious that you went against the bandwagon. No, I was just responding to your statement that you claimed to have acted confused, because you couldn't figure out why an SK would kill him. Slight correction: You claim to have been confused, not to have acted confused.
Darkdragon Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 So you claim that you don't think about whether it would make you look bad, but you also claim that you feel rushed to make an early post? There is no reason to try to rush to get out an early post other than to try not to "look bad". I didn't say it was logical. I have a feeling that I want to say something at the beginning of the day, I do fee rushed about it, I tend to not stop to think that what I was saying would look bad because I am trying to help and participate (as it made some sense to me at the time obviously if I posted it). I kinda feel like you are trying to get me to run in circles here until I eat my own tail, but honestly since I have nothing to hide any "misstep" you find is purely something you must be reading into it. At this point, I think I've said all can to your comments without just typing the same thing over and over. On another note, I've been thinking about it and I guess I'll have to post a Suspects&Why list. It will be at least 10 hours from now though as sleep is required. Hopefully I'll get a chance to post it early before work takes me over again like it did today (IRL btw), causing me to only be able to read on a 5" screen :shudder:
Brickdoctor Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I didn't say it was logical. I have a feeling that I want to say something at the beginning of the day, I do fee rushed about it, I tend to not stop to think that what I was saying would look bad because I am trying to help and participate (as it made some sense to me at the time obviously if I posted it). I think that there's no reason for anyone to rush out an early post other than to try to look active, because anyone trying to help should be carefully reviewing his statements to make sure that they make sense. At this point, though, there's really no way for me to know what your reasons were other than what you claim, and you can just keep insisting that you did it to help. In any case, you've admitted that you rushed to make an early statement, which I still find suspicious, and the fact that you used IIoA remains, so I will keep my vote as it is.
Darkdragon Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I think that there's no reason for anyone to rush out an early post other than to try to look active, because anyone trying to help should be carefully reviewing his statements to make sure that they make sense. At this point, though, there's really no way for me to know what your reasons were other than what you claim, and you can just keep insisting that you did it to help. In any case, you've admitted that you rushed to make an early statement, which I still find suspicious, and the fact that you used IIoA remains, so I will keep my vote as it is. Ok, thanks for wasting so much of my time.
fhomess Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Good day everyone. My apologies for my absence to this point. My research was at a state where I felt that if I left it, it would most certainly ruin the experiment and I would have to start over. I can say that I was surprised that both Robbins and Wright proved to be loyalists, but I'm not entirely disappointed that they are both out of the way for us to consider other candidates today. Narrowing down the field of suspects can be helpful even if it comes at the expense of a loyalist. Hopefully, those loyalists were not ones with special abilities to aid our cause. I find the whole situation between Commander Walters and Lieutenant Jones quite distasteful and I'm almost willing consider voting for one of them just to be rid of that annoyance! Probably Jones at this point as we seem to have enough engineers to take his place. I still don't understand how a junior engineer is an officer and a regular engineer is just an enlisted man (or woman, Hi Allison!). The one thing I'll say about that altercation is that it appears that Commander Walters has confirmed that Lieutenant Jones' transcript of their private correspondence is accurate in the request for being watched. That does seem suspicious, but I'm also more than a bit suspicious about Jones' assertion that he had no one contact him day 1, and now all of a sudden he's had numerous important townies contact him. That seems a bit convenient for Lieutenant Jones.
Brickdoctor Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Ok, thanks for wasting so much of my time. Hopefully, I'm not inferring too much from your statement, but just because I didn't unvote you doesn't mean that I didn't take your statements into account. I stated what I found suspicious. You defended yourself. I found part of your defense suspicious. I still find you suspicious, but for a different reason, therefore, my vote is unchanged.
Flipz Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I find the whole situation between Commander Walters and Lieutenant Jones quite distasteful and I'm almost willing consider voting for one of them just to be rid of that annoyance! *snip* In all honesty, I do deserve penalty votes for my behavior towards Commander Walters; I was arrogant and tasteless, and stepped far past the bounds of respectability that must prevail, even in this sort of situation. I shall endeavor to behave with more decorum from this point forward. As to the commander's request for Watching, I no longer feel it is that suspicious; analyzing his latest statement, it really does appear that this is simply his playstyle, and not a sign of his scum-hood. I simply latched on to the suspicious side of it and made it into something much more significant than it actually was. I have no excuse; I was reckless in my pursuit of him, and overstepped my bounds. Do allow me to point out, the information I have was passed on to me by a third party, because it related to our (at the time) mutual suspicion of Commander Walters. Upon further reflection, this particular bit of information is completely neutral regarding the commander's alignment (though for other reasons I am still not prepared to divulge it publicly), so again, I no longer suspect him. If something else turns up, I will reconsider, but at present he is clear in my eyes. The other role I now have contact with did not contact me, but rather responded when I requested information. The information this role gave me would not be useful if revealed publicly (that is to say, it is not a Scum investigation result), and so I am not at liberty to reveal it, either.
Waterbrick Down Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Well wading through all of these conversations we have two cases it would seem before us. A case against Commander Watlers (Tamamono)and one against Lieutenant Daly (Darkdragon). As Chief Engineer Wilder (Peanuts) initially stated, Daly has been playing the middle road, speaking from past experience this is one of the foremost grasping accusations made by scum as the accused can't win no matter how they answer, believe me I've done it before. However if we are to assume Wilder is a scum trying to bring down a townie, we have to wonder why he would do so when the debate between Jones and Walters is going on. Also it may be worth noting that it looks like we may have a third killer on the loose who attempted to bring an end to the already deceased doctor Burbank during the day which seems more like a SK styled killing, unless of course there are two scum teams and one of them has a day kill. I'm going to read through a little more of the arguments a little more closely before further comments, though it would seem the scuffle between Lieutenant Jones and Commander Walters has calmed down a little bit.
Scouty Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Also it may be worth noting that it looks like we may have a third killer on the loose who attempted to bring an end to the already deceased doctor Burbank during the day which seems more like a SK styled killing, unless of course there are two scum teams and one of them has a day kill. You mean this? It was a host joke. Don't look for clues in the pictures. Elsewhere, a loud crash was heard. [Look at me, I'm a picture!] A chandelier crushed Doctor Burbank / Dragonator 's lifeless body. As the Admiral has declared (why, barely five lines above from said picture, even!), he's just having a little joke with us. What a meanie. ( )
Waterbrick Down Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 You mean this? As the Admiral has declared (why, barely five lines above from said picture, even!), he's just having a little joke with us. What a meanie. ( ) Thank you for the clarification, I think it's a little confusing that the doctor's name should be emboldened. Maybe he should stick to writing plays.
Inconspicuous Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Of the two major conversations I've noted today, neither has led us to any grand conclusions. Granted, I wouldn't expect every single dialogue to reveal a big secret, but it seems like the arguments went out with a whimper, rather than a bang, and we've lost some momentum. I regret that I myself am unable to contribute more at the moment. I only have the time and energy to comment on a few of the day's proceedings. As it has already been mentioned, yesterday we all got very distracted talking about the who/why of a possible second scum team. This was started by one person, was he trying to derail the conversation? If so, it worked for quite a while, we wasted pages talking about it. That person is Ensign Robert Holloway (CallMePie) Can you really blame the person who asked a question for the discussion that followed? I think you've stretched your logic too far. Throwing someone under the bus is already a negative action, but coupled with poor reasoning, I can't help but raise an eyebrow. Scubacarrot is acting the same way he was last game... And Palathadric is another who I'm pretty sure is townie, by his actions and his behavior. It's bad enough that the scum took out a veteran because of his previous record; we don't need any more of that improper metagaming logic being applied. I'm especially against it in this case because I haven't been around on the mafia scene lately and I have no way of confirming your suspicions. Also it may be worth noting that it looks like we may have a third killer on the loose who attempted to bring an end to the already deceased doctor Burbank during the day which seems more like a SK styled killing... His "soul in purgatory" requested a more elegant and epic death, and his wish was granted. There's no need to analyze a joke!
Tamamono Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Then why didn't the Cop investigate you last Night? (This is not an accusation, I'm asking for your opinion here. I need to follow this up in private as well, thank you for pointing this out.) I have absolutely no idea. Who knows, maybe he did investigate me. If not, he probably saw a scummier target - someone who was actively scummy in the Day thread. Let's pray to God that he didn't investigate Wright. The problem with that is, that's part of the reason I wanted the Scum to think I knew who the Power Roles were, so they would do exactly what you did: to contact me and try to steer the roles. I just wasn't expecting you to be the person I caught. But, to be fair, some of the reason it came off as scummy was due to my own context as well, so I suppose I can't entirely blame you. Now that, right there, is another unorthodox plan - and not a very good one at that. People who try to control things are almost always town (last time I was already in a good position, so I took advantage of it), so you're more likely than not going to 'catch' a townie. Educate me--I really DON'T know these things. Obviously, the Scum thought taking out Lt. Burbank was a pretty good idea, and it turned out pretty darn well for them; how was their metagame target a worse target than you, from their perspective? (Again, I really am interested in the answer, beyond just what it says about your internal reasoning--though the passive assertion that I'm Scum is duly noted. ) Because, Burbank has a track record as a night 1 metagame target, while I do not. If I were the doctor, you bet I would have been on one of Francis/Burbank last night, and hell, who knows, maybe the doctor was on Francis and just missed the mark. Since I'm a possible metagame target, but not as feared as Burbank and Francis, I have a very low chance of having the doctor/watcher on me, and am thus a better kill. However, I'm starting to think now that I didn't get killed because the scum want to get me lynched instead. The passive assertion that you're scum is there because, frankly, I'm starting to think you're scum. As I recall, you did little more than to jump on an already-established bandwagon. Looking back, I can't really decide upon any one person who led Robbins' lynch, but I do know it wasn't me--and it wasn't you, either. Don't think so highly of yourself--over the past Day and Night I've certainly learned how weak and limited I am, I'm surprised you haven't made similar discoveries of your own in all the time you've been dealing with these situations. Oh? And what makes you say that, Engineer With an Accent? I've been unable to participate as much as I'd like to (which would be a lot ) due to my work, but I've still done what I can, and I honestly don't think I'm all that weak. Just because I was wrong about Robbins doesn't mean I'm 'limited and weak', and the same goes for you. I'd have an easier time accepting that you totally missed the possibilities I saw, if you weren't accusing me right back. It changes your apparent attitude from "OK, so I didn't see what you saw" to "if I'm going down, I'm taking you down with me." Just because you're scared to be accused, don't think I'm going to let you have a free ride. This case against me is literally nothing, and this is an empty push. Town doesn't push on air. Scum does. That's why I suspect you. Keep in mind, this came not long after you bragged about being the first person to direct suspicion toward Robbins; while that may have been true, it also sounded an awful lot like that blue-haired boy in the holodeck program's boasts about catching the first Sith in the game--boasts that didn't really start until after he had been converted to Scum. Yeah, I don't remember if my post went through on Day 1 or not, but that wasn't bragging, I was saying "Well, seeing as I was the first to call him out, it should come as no surprise that I'm casting my vote against him too." but I lost my spaceship of thought. On top of that, I was just realizing (thanks to Lt. Wheeler) how I trust people too easily and for the wrong reasons, and wondering why no one BESIDES Wheeler was talking to me, raising my paranoia ever further. (At one point I was so paranoid that I wondered if I was the only Townie among an entire crew full of Scum teams, like what happened in that prison break holodeck program I watched a while back.) Then you come along, falling exactly into a Scum trap I had set up, with...shall we say...sub-optimal wording, from my perspective. I may have blown things a little out of proportion, but based on what I had to work with, you seemed like a VERY likely Scum. I still think it's a possibility, but I'm not NEARLY certain about it , which means I can't in good conscience put my vote on it. We'll see if anything happens to change my mind one way or the other. Okay, that's good to hear. You made it sound like you were so certain about me and the 'case' against me, and that's actually why I suspected you. Not necessarily--there's ALWAYS another target. I don't know how much I believe it, but I've heard plenty of people say that giving up when accused is a scumtell. If you're not Scum, then you need to make sure you don't get lynched--an apology for mistakes made seems like a good start. I'll start off: Commander, I apologize for being rude and overly pushy and blowing things out of proportion and having absolutely abyssmal instincts in this situation, and for insulting you perhaps more than was necessary in my play. Forgive me? Well, I'm not giving up, I'm being realistic. If you had continued with your death tunnel (which you seem to have stopped), I would have been a goner, because you would have twisted every defense I gave and used it as "evidence" against me. You are forgiven, Lieutenant, and I too am sorry for being a bit snappy and egotistical.
Flare Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (Hi everyone, sorry for not coming in earlier. I could've sworn that I had left a comment yesterday afternoon, but my browser screwed up at the moment that I posted the comment, and I thought that it would've been posted, but I guess it didn't ) Anyways, I'm not finding anyone today extremely scummy. The only person I am feeling anything scummy about him is Commander Coryn Walter, I can't put my finger on it exactly, but something about the way he has been acting has been making me feel uncomfortable... I find his quickness to vote without much serious proof also scummy I'm not voting for anyone yet, though. I'm not determined that anyone is scum, yet.
Peanuts Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Well, I've read Lt. Daly's defense, but I don't understand why he didn't change his post before posting it, if he understood the motive behind Burbank's murder while posting. Talking fastly isn't helpful, if it doesn't make much sense. As McAndrews pointed out, my point about IIoA still stands, and I don't like how Daly seemingly tried to shift blame to Holloway. Saying I was voting for him to look like I wasn't voting for a townie makes no sense at all, think about it for a moment. Wright was a townie too, so in the end I voted for a townie, I guess if you think I'm the stupidest scum ever? Man, insult to injury from you guys. You're definitely not the stupidest scum ever. If you're scum, you're still doing fine, no need to feel offended. And Wright was a townie as well, but had the vig not killed him in the night, we wouldn't know right now, and had to lynch him too in order to find out if he was or not. Well wading through all of these conversations we have two cases it would seem before us. A case against Commander Watlers (Tamamono)and one against Lieutenant Daly (Darkdragon). As Chief Engineer Wilder (Peanuts) initially stated, Daly has been playing the middle road, speaking from past experience this is one of the foremost grasping accusations made by scum as the accused can't win no matter how they answer, believe me I've done it before. However if we are to assume Wilder is a scum trying to bring down a townie, we have to wonder why he would do so when the debate between Jones and Walters is going on. I don't know, is that an accusation? If so, I don't know what I should reply, other than that I found Daly genuinely suspicious. I'm not sure about that case between Jones and Walters. Jones' arguments doesn't make any sense, and now he backed out apologetically, but Walters' defeatism seemed wrong, especially because there was no reason for him to believe he would be lynched and his defense was otherwise valid.
Dannylonglegs Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 It's bad enough that the scum took out a veteran because of his previous record; we don't need any more of that improper metagaming logic being applied. I'm especially against it in this case because I haven't been around on the mafia scene lately and I have no way of confirming your suspicions. Sorry, I didn't realize I was metagaming! In Pal's case, it's not so much metagaming and more how he's acted to me and what he's said, and I guess Scubacarrot would fall under the gut category. *snip* This comment is really quite confusing, even considering that you thought the chandelier joke meant something (to anyone but Dragonator) which is a very odd conclusion to reach. Well wading through all of these conversations we have two cases it would seem before us. A case against Commander Watlers (Tamamono)and one against Lieutenant Daly (Darkdragon). I'm not sure those are our only two options if that's what you're saying. Neither seems too compelling to me. As Chief Engineer Wilder (Peanuts) initially stated, Daly has been playing the middle road, speaking from past experience this is one of the foremost grasping accusations made by scum as the accused can't win no matter how they answer, believe me I've done it before. However if we are to assume Wilder is a scum trying to bring down a townie, we have to wonder why he would do so when the debate between Jones and Walters is going on. You're suggesting that Wilder (Peanuts) is scum now? How'd that happen? You're accusing him for making a grasping accusation, when this itself is something of a grasping accusation! And that he walks the middle ground is not even the entirety of Peanut's argument against Daly. And then it sounds like you're suggesting that one between Jones and Walters is scum. If you think one is, just say it, instead of saying "We must wonder..." Also it may be worth noting that it looks like we may have a third killer on the loose who attempted to bring an end to the already deceased doctor Burbank during the day which seems more like a SK styled killing, unless of course there are two scum teams and one of them has a day kill. I'm going to read through a little more of the arguments a little more closely before further comments, though it would seem the scuffle between Lieutenant Jones and Commander Walters has calmed down a little bit. And then there's this, which I won't even try to comment on. The first time you spoke today you brought up SKs too, but your conclusion was different. Altogether, this post looks very scummy. You open with having settled on two cases, then go on to a poorly thought out somewhat accusation towards Peanuts and then the suggestion that maybe someone in the Tammo/Flipz argument could be scum. All this is followed by distracting garbage that might make it seem as if you were trying to help. I've got my eyes on you. (Hi everyone, sorry for not coming in earlier. I could've sworn that I had left a comment yesterday afternoon, but my browser screwed up at the moment that I posted the comment, and I thought that it would've been posted, but I guess it didn't ) Anyways, I'm not finding anyone today extremely scummy. The only person I am feeling anything scummy about him is Commander Coryn Walter, I can't put my finger on it exactly, but something about the way he has been acting has been making me feel uncomfortable... I find his quickness to vote without much serious proof also scummy I'm not voting for anyone yet, though. I'm not determined that anyone is scum, yet. Hmm. I'm not sure what to think about you. Yesterday, I thought you might have been in league with Awesomestar and KotZ, but that didn't turn out well. Your behavior has struck me as somewhat scummy, as there's very little substance to your comments. Yesterday, you showed up to say several things which weren't particularly useful, and then voted with the bandwagon. And now you show up and establish that you're suspicious of Walter for voting, when he hasn't even voted! Are you talking about Lieutenant Michael McAndrews (Brickdoctor)? The point is though that you established your suspicion on him for an unfounded reason, and it looks to me like you could show up again when a Lynch has started so that you could say something like: "I was suspicious of him earlier and now I agree with what everyone else is saying. Vote: Tammo/(ProbsTownorBussedScum)" I'm not sure if this post is scummy or just highly confused.
Shadows Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 No offense, but if the thoughts were clear mistaken, why didn't you tell us yesterday? If I had known they were mistaken then, I would have said so and not voted at all. The point I am making is that now, in retrospect, we can clearly see how stupid we were and need to learn from that to avoid handing ourselves over to the scum. I believe what he meant was that, if the vig hadn't killed him, then today we would have realized that our thoughts were clearly mistaken when Ensign Robbins came up as town. Yes, exactly. At the very least, we would have had an opportunity to consider the possibility, and we might not have ended up losing another member of the loyal crew.
Darkdragon Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Well, I'm not giving up, I'm being realistic. If you had continued with your death tunnel (which you seem to have stopped), I would have been a goner, because you would have twisted every defense I gave and used it as "evidence" against me. I know how that feels. Just a quick update to let you guys know I have read everything so far, don't really see anything to comment on specifically that I haven't already commented on earlier (last night IRL). I am getting my list together and will post it ASAP, within the next hour is my plan.
Recommended Posts