Misfits Mafia (END GAME)

#801

Bullzeye wrote:Why do you think you might not make it through the night?

I felt i had something worth saying and didn't want to chance waiting for day :/. No reason to think i was going to die, just knew the possiblity existed.
Rip Roxy

#802

Yo, we forgot dana.

#803

S~V~S wrote:Thanks for the reply, Boogs. "OK, lol" was not inspiring me with confidence.

I was initially planning to vote for Made. I am once again holding my vote since I presume Made will vote for me, you might. I won't vote for you if I don't need to do so to save. Not so much for the No U, but for continuously voting and then saying he will come back with a reason, and he never comes back with a reason. I would have felt this way had he been voting for you, for anyone, really, not just for me.

What is your opinion on this list?

I agree with this. SVS was definitely the preferable lynch that day. I'm uncertain about DH and ni, and I've already made clear that I have a strong scum read on SVS and that hasn't changed. Bullzeye pegged me earlier with his responses to me. Then there's Canucklehead. In fact, let me make this easy and do a most-to-least scum list:

1. SVS
2. Canucklehead
3. Bullzeye
4. Roxy
5. Boogs
6. MovingPictures07
7. nijuukyugou
8. Dana
9. Elohchin
10. Made
11. DharmaHelper

SVS and Canucklehead are pretty neck in neck, with Bullzeye and Roxy not far behind, and after Boogs and MovingPictures07 everyone is pretty much interchangeable. I'm going to go ahead and vote SVS.
Keterman, why do you agree with it? Why do you think i am the preferable lynch for today as well as the day before Sorshas role was revealed? As I recall,, the main point was that I was buddying with Sorsha. You have not really given any new reasons for this belief. I would like to see them. Actual reasons, not snippets of various posts taken out of context.

Have you read back and seen that a few other people have mentioned Mades posting style?

Why do I agree with it? It's my list. I don't like how you're trying to hide that I have no reasons for suspecting you so much, especially when I've already made a post early in the game outlining as much and you've made your in-depth response to it. If you would like me to respond to your in-depth defense, I will. While one of my leading assumptions was that you were buddying with Sorsha, just because Sorsha flipped town doesn't mean you're in the clear, or that all of the points against you suddenly become invalid. Nice try though?

I was wrong about Boogs, and looking back it makes sense that he was the rogue. The random Elohchin death bothers me.

S~V~S wrote:While you are here, you might try mentioning why you voted for me the last two days. You kept saying you would be back with reasons, but i don't recall that happening. You & Keterman keep quoting each other as rationale for voting me, but thats about it.

Made never quoted me and I think I quoted Made a single time. You seem really eager to defend yourself by pretending that there is no case against you and that one has to be made, even though there is one already there. If you need a new reason to vote for you, these recent posts of yours where you accuse Made and I of buddying and constantly quoting each other comes off as extremely nervous, extremely paranoid scum that can feel the walls closing in.

You, SVS, and MP as well, said that you didn't know when I thought you were bad. I guess this goes back to me not believing in towntells. Once you've done something scummy in a game, you can't redeem it IMO. You only chance of not getting a vote is if someone else becomes a stronger scum read than you are. Canucklehead has come close but I'm starting to become convinced that what I have against her is more stylistic than anything alignment-indicative (not a diss Canucklehead, I'm sure that will change in time). I made a case against you early on in the game and you've already responded to it, and you seem to be proposing that the mere passage of time is going to clear your name. It's not.

I like Bullzeye's responses and they've convinced me that I was overreacting to our differences in jargon. With Roxy dead, that leaves only two scum reads for me, SVS and Canucklehead. SVS is the much stronger scum read so I voted for her. Early vote, I know, but I missed the first two so that's made me paranoid that I'll miss one again.

#804

Alright, Keterman, I've been on the S~V~S ship since day 0. Even if SVS is mafia, noone belives the argument at this point, and it's a waste of a vote to try to go after her with no support.

Your early vote, regardless of resoning, was really stupid considering tonight could very easily be lynch or lose dawg.

#805

Made wrote:Alright, Keterman, I've been on the S~V~S ship since day 0. Even if SVS is mafia, noone belives the argument at this point, and it's a waste of a vote to try to go after her with no support.

Your early vote, regardless of resoning, was really stupid considering tonight could very easily be lynch or lose dawg.

Conviction is the best weapon a civvie can have. A good case with no support is better than a shit case with unanimous approval. If you really believe you have a baddie caught, the burden of proof is on you.

#806

DharmaHelper wrote:
Made wrote:Alright, Keterman, I've been on the S~V~S ship since day 0. Even if SVS is mafia, noone belives the argument at this point, and it's a waste of a vote to try to go after her with no support.

Your early vote, regardless of resoning, was really stupid considering tonight could very easily be lynch or lose dawg.
Conviction is the best weapon a civvie can have. A good case with no support is better than a shit case with unanimous approval. If you really believe you have a baddie caught, the burden of proof is on you.

"Ow! My head" said the nail.

#807

Keterman wrote: "Ow! My head" said the nail.

I don't follow.

#808

He is saying DH hit the nail on the head.

#809

Keterman wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Made wrote:Alright, Keterman, I've been on the S~V~S ship since day 0. Even if SVS is mafia, noone belives the argument at this point, and it's a waste of a vote to try to go after her with no support.

Your early vote, regardless of resoning, was really stupid considering tonight could very easily be lynch or lose dawg.
Conviction is the best weapon a civvie can have. A good case with no support is better than a shit case with unanimous approval. If you really believe you have a baddie caught, the burden of proof is on you.
"Ow! My head" said the nail.

Holy shit! Everyone! Keterman made a joke!

You are one of us now, my friend.

#810

Do I come off as that overly-serious?

#811

Keterman wrote:Do I come off as that overly-serious?

No, don't worry! I'm just being silly! I like to make up for the intense inadequacy and guilt I feel when I see other people actually putting effort into things by poking fun.

#812

Understood.

#813

Yikes, sorry for being away. Yesterday afternoon and today were busier than I thought, and the school likes to block mafia when there are too many bad words on the screen :P Back to work fun!

So, thoughts. Canuck's not off my radar, but the conversations between Made and SVS have caught my eye more, especially most recently. And then this:

Made wrote:Alright, Keterman, I've been on the S~V~S ship since day 0. Even if SVS is mafia, noone belives the argument at this point, and it's a waste of a vote to try to go after her with no support.

Why are you giving up so easily if you claim you're gung-ho on the SVS ship? Wouldn't it be better to vote for someone you seem so sure is bad, than to actually waste your vote on someone you weren't as sure about? Or sure about at all? It's still early. I understand what you're saying with SVS, but I also understand why people voted for Sorsha (or at least why I did; I can't read minds). You've said this point over and over. The issue is you haven't brought anything new about her since the Day 1 deal, yet you have seemed so very, very sure about SVS up until this point. What changed?

#814

nijuukyugou wrote:The issue is you haven't brought anything new about her since the Day 1 deal, yet you have seemed so very, very sure about SVS up until this point. What changed?

That's the shitty thing, nothing's changed. My argument makes total sense to me, but doesn't to others. Until i can make a compelling argument against SVS, I'm better off voting with someone i got a good "Townscum" read from, or however the kids say it these day.
At this point, if Mafia votes together, it's probably enough to kill most anyone, So I think i might try voting with town.
that being said......
DANA
You're hella easy to read so i'm probably just gonna vote with you. Don't fuck up.
Ya boy,
Made :P
also, only witches kill civvies, just saying

#815

Made wrote:
DANA
You're hella easy to read so i'm probably just gonna vote with you. Don't fuck up.

Oh, Token. You gotta be a leader! I don't even know who's suspicious right now. Can you explain your SVS argument again, please? I'm kind of on the fence about if I trust SVS but I also really don't see a reason not to at the moment, so I have no idea why you're so convinced she's bad.

#816

Dana wrote:
Made wrote:
DANA
You're hella easy to read so i'm probably just gonna vote with you. Don't fuck up.
Oh, Token. You gotta be a leader! I don't even know who's suspicious right now. Can you explain your SVS argument again, please? I'm kind of on the fence about if I trust SVS but I also really don't see a reason not to at the moment, so I have no idea why you're so convinced she's bad.

TL:DR- SVS did more than Sorsha, yet Sorsha was killed. The other difference between the two being SVS "defended herself"(read back petaled) and Sorsha gave up.

The counter arguement is that it wasn't that cut dry, and that Sorsha's lack of a defence was more of a scumtell than anything SVS did.

Pretty much what it boils down to.

#817

Made wrote:
Dana wrote:
Made wrote:
DANA
You're hella easy to read so i'm probably just gonna vote with you. Don't fuck up.
Oh, Token. You gotta be a leader! I don't even know who's suspicious right now. Can you explain your SVS argument again, please? I'm kind of on the fence about if I trust SVS but I also really don't see a reason not to at the moment, so I have no idea why you're so convinced she's bad.
TL:DR- SVS did more than Sorsha, yet Sorsha was killed. The other difference between the two being SVS "defended herself"(read back petaled) and Sorsha gave up.

The counter arguement is that it wasn't that cut dry, and that Sorsha's lack of a defence was more of a scumtell than anything SVS did.

Pretty much what it boils down to.

But what do you mean that SVS did more than Sorsha? Sorsha was saying she wasn't bad and all SVS did was vote for her as far as I remember, and I'm not sure we should be basing lynch votes on day 0 puppy-influenced leader votes for someone who turned out to be good anyway. Idk though, this game is tough.

#818

Dana wrote: But what do you mean that SVS did more than Sorsha? Sorsha was saying she wasn't bad and all SVS did was vote for her as far as I remember, and I'm not sure we should be basing lynch votes on day 0 puppy-influenced leader votes for someone who turned out to be good anyway. Idk though,

SVS accused me of being mafia for my blind support of Nutella , which would of been w/e if she hadn't blindly "supported" KM. given, she did back up her reason for supporting km, but not until after day 1's vote. If the original theory was that Sorsha and SVS were teammates, then killing SVS made more sense. The fact that she lived makes me think somevoted to save her because they were teammates.

Dana wrote: this game is tough.

right?

#819

Made wrote:
Dana wrote: But what do you mean that SVS did more than Sorsha? Sorsha was saying she wasn't bad and all SVS did was vote for her as far as I remember, and I'm not sure we should be basing lynch votes on day 0 puppy-influenced leader votes for someone who turned out to be good anyway. Idk though,
SVS accused me of being mafia for my blind support of Nutella , which would of been w/e if she hadn't blindly "supported" KM. given, she did back up her reason for supporting km, but not until after day 1's vote. If the original theory was that Sorsha and SVS were teammates, then killing SVS made more sense. The fact that she lived makes me think somevoted to save her because they were teammates.

I thought it was random because it was a tied vote?

#820

I don't think it should of gone to a tie. I don't know, I'm either underestimating my ablity to read, overestimating other's abblity to read, or i'm just fucking moron.

I got an Ap due in 2 hours, and i might have 5 words typed, ban me from irc plox

#821

Made wrote:I don't think it should of gone to a tie. I don't know, I'm either underestimating my ablity to read, overestimating other's abblity to read, or i'm just fucking moron.

I got an Ap due in 2 hours, and i might have 5 words typed, ban me from irc plox

No, I mean it's good that you're analyzing and thinking everything through. That's super important for figuring out who's bad and who you can trust.

Do your homework! Ban coming in 15 minutes.

#822

Made wrote:
Dana wrote:
Made wrote:
DANA
You're hella easy to read so i'm probably just gonna vote with you. Don't fuck up.
Oh, Token. You gotta be a leader! I don't even know who's suspicious right now. Can you explain your SVS argument again, please? I'm kind of on the fence about if I trust SVS but I also really don't see a reason not to at the moment, so I have no idea why you're so convinced she's bad.
TL:DR- SVS did more than Sorsha, yet Sorsha was killed. The other difference between the two being SVS "defended herself"(read back petaled) and Sorsha gave up.

The counter arguement is that it wasn't that cut dry, and that Sorsha's lack of a defence was more of a scumtell than anything SVS did.

Pretty much what it boils down to.

Note, don't take offense to any coarse language, its a joke.
D to the H,
A to the Rizzo
M-A The DJ
Spittin' rhymes in the hizzo.

SVS in ya sights
but yo case ain't air tight
So just kick back and listen
Remove dat tunnel vision!

You claimin' Sorsha did less
than Notorious SVS
And thusly,
Unjustly
Was put down to rest
Ain't that some mess

Ya gurl throwin' up them red flags
But you just can't see the light
Sorsha was much worse my dude
That bitch was reppin' white!

I'm gonna get up in ya face
You punk ass busta wanna build a case
Then move on son cause ain't nothin' see
Day 1's done homie, look at two and three.

#823

How was Sorsha worse?

#824

Keterman wrote:How was Sorsha worse?

She quit. She tapped out. She threw in the towel. Day 1.

#825

I'm against quitting too, but that didn't make her scummier. Giving up isn't alignment-indicative.

#826

Keterman wrote:I'm against quitting too, but that didn't make her scummier. Giving up isn't alignment-indicative.

What made her scummy:
- Her buddy buddy with SVS
- Her insistence that she would be an easy read
- Her reactionary post RE: Dana and I

What made her worse than SVS:
- Defeatist attitude, didn't bother to defend herself, etc.

Two separate issues

#827

DharmaHelper wrote:
Keterman wrote:I'm against quitting too, but that didn't make her scummier. Giving up isn't alignment-indicative.
What made her scummy:
- Her buddy buddy with SVS
- Her insistence that she would be an easy read
- Her reactionary post RE: Dana and I

What made her worse than SVS:
- Defeatist attitude, didn't bother to defend herself, etc.

Two separate issues

We agree with what made her scummy in the first place, but all you have that supposedly made her worse is what I already disputed in the post you just quoted to respond to.

#828

Keterman wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Keterman wrote:I'm against quitting too, but that didn't make her scummier. Giving up isn't alignment-indicative.
What made her scummy:
- Her buddy buddy with SVS
- Her insistence that she would be an easy read
- Her reactionary post RE: Dana and I

What made her worse than SVS:
- Defeatist attitude, didn't bother to defend herself, etc.

Two separate issues
We agree with what made her scummy in the first place, but all you have that supposedly made her worse is what I already disputed in the post you just quoted to respond to.

You're not understanding my point. Sorsha was not any more or less a baddie because of her defeated attitude, she was less of an asset to the town and less valuable of a player because of her defeatist attitude.

#829

You're missing my point. How does that make her worse than SVS? If SVS was a scum read for you, then why vote for the person who was less of an asset to town over the person that most likely wasn't town and would not only not be an asset town but directly oppose it?

#830

Keterman wrote:You're missing my point. How does that make her worse than SVS? If SVS was a scum read for you, then why vote for the person who was less of an asset to town over the person that most likely wasn't town and would not only not be an asset town but directly oppose it?

Because the evidence of SVS being mafia depended entirely on whether Sorsha flipped mafia.

#831

DharmaHelper wrote:
Keterman wrote:You're missing my point. How does that make her worse than SVS? If SVS was a scum read for you, then why vote for the person who was less of an asset to town over the person that most likely wasn't town and would not only not be an asset town but directly oppose it?

Because the evidence of SVS being mafia depended entirely on whether Sorsha flipped mafia.

Not entirely. There was more to my case against SVS than her buddying with Sorsha and you know this.

#832

Keterman wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Keterman wrote:You're missing my point. How does that make her worse than SVS? If SVS was a scum read for you, then why vote for the person who was less of an asset to town over the person that most likely wasn't town and would not only not be an asset town but directly oppose it?

Because the evidence of SVS being mafia depended entirely on whether Sorsha flipped mafia.
Not entirely. There was more to my case against SVS than her buddying with Sorsha and you know this.

To each his own my brother. If I had to go back and make the vote again, I would 100% vote for Sorsha again.

#833

At least you're not flip-flopping. But if you were scum you would know town probably wouldn't like flip-flopping. Whatever. My point is that Made is not in the wrong for suspecting the Sorsha voters. I suspect them too.

#834

RIPIYWG Roxy.

Wow, this does not look good. Hopefully some scum have died at night, otherwise this is really, really bad.

I think I will be voting for Canuck or Dana today, maybe even Dana more so likely at this point. The refusal to commit to anything is really pinging me this late in the game, especially since this vote is so crucial.

The early vote from Keterman kind of pings me, but I still am not sure he'd be the best recipient for a vote.

#835

MovingPictures07 wrote:The refusal to commit to anything is really pinging me this late in the game, especially since this vote is so crucial.

I can't even commit to what to eat for dinner, let alone who to vote to kill. I just want to try and think through all the options and figure everything out. I feel that I should have all my reasons straight before I say who I'm suspicious of so that there's no confusion or miscommunication.

#836

Dana wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:The refusal to commit to anything is really pinging me this late in the game, especially since this vote is so crucial.
I can't even commit to what to eat for dinner, let alone who to vote to kill. I just want to try and think through all the options and figure everything out. I feel that I should have all my reasons straight before I say who I'm suspicious of so that there's no confusion or miscommunication.

I understand, and I entertain you could be genuine, but you understand my conundrum and why it is increasingly suspicious that you refuse to help the civvies help find baddies whatsoever, and especially more so that people don't seem to be giving you attention for it.

#837

If you can't see the case against SVS at all MP, then allow me. I'll take third blue.

S~V~S wrote:
Keterman wrote:@Epignosis

Regarding SVS and Sorsha, I'm leaning towards them being teammates because the two have been buddying quite a bit as DH mentioned earlier. Trying to read individuals is taxing enough though so I try not to overstep my boundaries and figure out entire teams until later in the game, so take that with a grain of salt at best. Of the two, SVS is scummier to me at the moment because most of what has been used against Sorsha could be chalked up to things that don't indicate alignment, whereas with SVS I just don't understand how that could possibly be town playing.

Thanks for the meta on DH and Sorsha, although are you not weary at all of DH being deceitful in this game with his "selfless" act, especially considering that he's a good liar (which doesn't surprise me)?
We were "buddying" as we knew each others games very well in general, although I tend to read her as bad. I have probably played more games with Sorsha than anyone else in this thread, we both were VERY active at both LP & Hedville, as well as active at TP and RM. It is possible I have played more games with her than with anyone. Over 20, certainly, maybe even 30. I have NEVER seen Sorsha lead with fun when she's bad, she is much more serious, IMO.

I highlighted that particular excerpt in blue for this post just to remind everyone that my case against SVS has never been a case that relied on SVS being scummates with Sorsha, just that it seemed likely because many of SVS's scummy actions in Day 1 were related to Sorsha. I will say again here that I don't see how SVS's actions on Day 1 could possibly be town playing, and that SVS (as well as others) have tried to make it look like that was all my case was based on certainly doesn't make them look any better.

Answers in red:
Keterman wrote:Okay.

SVS asks if anyone's up to volunteer for the leadership role in her first post. I was the first to volunteer, but SVS immediately voted Sorsha because puppies. It seems strange to me that after a serious establishment from SVS that she was interested in who to vote for, she tosses consideration out the window and votes for the one who's going to give her a free puppy. She knows that there's plenty of time to vote, why toss it for such a random, informal candidate? My vote was fast but it was a self-vote. Some time later SVS makes a morning post, a fragment of which defends her early vote for Sorsha. At first I liked her defense for voting early, that we're not voting to kill someone so it most likely doesn't matter too much, all that. But then...

So, you are annoyed I did not vote for you? My usual thing with day 0 polls (and this is not WIFOM, people who have played alot with me should also know this) is to overthink them, and put alot of discussion into them. That is the point of Day 0 polls, to be a discussion leader. But i was really struck by Sorsha coming in and trying to take the thread.

Nice try making it look like this was some kind of act of jealousy on my part. It doesn't matter that it was me you didn't vote or, the point is that after you asked for a volunteer, there was a volunteer before Sorsha and yet you still say that you voted Sorsha because she volunteered. Sorsha did not try to take the thread at all. Offering an imaginary free puppy for a vote is not trying to take the thread. At. All. It is not bold, it is not brave, it is not leader-like. It's fun. And it's funny that you try to use your meta (overthinking) as a defense here when it's a lack of overthinking that caused my suspicions in the first place. Rather than overthink, or think, about who to vote for, you pick Sorsha at complete random. Which was fine, but then your justification for it was too contrived to be anything but scum.

S~V~S wrote: Puppies aside, the main reason I voted for Sorsha so early is that she acted like a leader. She came in and boldly tried to buy the thread, no waiting and discussing for her. She saw what she wanted, and she made an effort to get it by bribing us to follow her. Whether that effort pans out for her or not is a "time will tell" thing. Initially I wanted to wait and hear from everyone blah blah but I think a bold move is a mark of leadership. Had someone else been the one to come in here with a bold move, they would have gotten my vote. Even good old El Hypocritico
Now wait a second. Sorsha didn't act like anything when SVS voted for her, she didn't have the time to. All she said was that anyone who voted for her got a free puppy. That's not being a bold leader, that's being playful. SVS actually considers the free puppy post a legitimate "bribe" here, and says as much. And even if is to be considered a serious "bold" bribe somehow, how is that acting like a leader? I really don't like how SVS goes from asking for a volunteer as if it were a serious concern of hers who gets the vote, then immediately voting for someone who made what's essentially a joke post, then goes back to being serious with defending that vote by making the candidate out to be a bold, audacious leader, entirely for the following post:

Sorsha wrote:Everyone who votes for me gets a free puppy!
It WAS a legitimate bribe~ it was a fun bribe, certainly, and not a real one, but she was buying votes. In a fun way, sure, but she was buying votes. In the context of this game, I thought it was a bold move, and I liked it. She had my vote. You can but all the spin on it you want (and so far, this "case" is just spin, based on the supposition that Sorsha and I were baddie teammates.

Again trying to make it look like my case against you relies entirely on Sorsha being bad when I've already made clear that that isn't the case as if it weren't clear enough from the points themselves. Fun bribes are not bold. How in the world is a fun bribe a bold move? And how is it leader-like? Why do you refuse to accept how much of an absurd reach it is to consider a free puppy bribe a leader-like, bold move?

And now for some hypocrisy. In a later post defending her vote for someone based on a single post, she claims Made to be lynch-worthy just for saying that nutella "knows what's up" citing only three posts. (one of which makes a good point against Sorsha...coincidence?) She tries to make it look like that Made was serious in her tone as opposed to being playful (this is the second time SVS has done this).

I explained this to Blooper~ I thought that single post was an slip, indicating BTSC with Nutella. I think that EVERY post I made regarding Made after that made it very, very , very clear that that was my thought. Especially after Dana came in to defend him, and one of her defenses echoed something Elochin has said to me in a different game.

It doesn't make sense that you would think it was a slip and trying to justify it by telling me that you made it clear that you WANT US TO THINK THAT doesn't make it any more believable. Using that as your defense also only makes you look worse.

S~V~S wrote:
Now, THIS is interesting:

Made wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I'm strongly considering voting for nutella

Yeah, she seems to know what's up

Really? These are her posts in this game:

nutella wrote:yey game! huh, pick a leader, that's an interesting day 0 poll.

nutella wrote:I would more likely trust DH than SVS I think Canuck though, I'd put my money on her.

Those who have voted, is this a changeable vote?

nutella wrote:
Sorsha wrote: I think I am easy enough for most people to read, if I did happen to be bad (which I'm not), you'd all be able to tell in a day or two and could lynch me. I think I'm a good choice.
Really? I thought I'd seen you make it to the end as a sneaky baddie quite a few times...
Which of these make you think she knows whats up more so than anyone else playing so far? If this was a lynch, I think this post would have been worth a Day One vote, and it still might be.
Here's what I find rather amusing. Look at the bold. SVS attacks Made here for saying that nutella "knows what's up". Why not attack DH instead, who said he was strongly considering voting for her? That's a much more extreme indication of a serious endorsement than what Made said, so why go after Made and not DH? Made addressed this fallacy himself, and this is the response that SVS gave:

S~V~S wrote:
I voted for Sorsha, not DH, and it isn't a threat. It's a statement of suspicion; I find your behavior suspicious, and i am saying so~ as far as I am aware I can't lynch anyone by myself.Stating whom I suspect is how I play the game. Your statement was not the same as his. He said we was strongly considering voting for her. You said that she seemed like she knew what was going on. I get what you are saying, but i am not sure that I buy it tbh.
Mades answer gave a deeper implication of opinion; DH only said that he was seriously considering a vote for Nutella. Made gave an opinion about her based on pretty much nothing. Not the same.

No, it didn't. By saying her seriously considered a vote, that gave a very clear implication of opinion. Much clearer than someone who merely agreed with that implication. And you say I'm spinning things.

She dodges that she finds DH a good candidate without reason by saying that she didn't vote for him, she voted for someone else. Again, I find this amusing because in this same post SVS uses logic that renders that defense obsolete. A "statement of suspicion" is the same for a lynch vote as a statement of trust is for the Day 0 vote, so it doesn't matter that she didn't actually vote DH, she still excused him for a stronger offense than Made's. She tries to explain this by dividing the two statements of DH and Made: one is a vote statement, the other is "nutella knows stuff".

I said I found DH a good candidate (along with a few others) becasue I know him to be a strong leader. But ultimately, I did not vote for him, I voted for Sorsha, becasue I felt that she was a better candidate, and iirc, several people who voted to lynch ME actually DID vote for DH. So

I have nothing to respond to this because nothing you say here even attempts to contradict my point.

Okay.

Let's see here.

Why would DH consider nutella a likely vote? Her posts. Which, at the time, were three. Not much to base a vote off of, but hey, it's more than a "bribe" for a free puppy. Now what about Made? I don't know how familiar is with the language that Made has been going for throughout the game...but..."know's what's up" does not imply actual knowledge. At all. It's like, she's cool, she's hip, she's funky. When you take a simple ebonics-influenced phrase like that and stretch it so far you actually imply that it meant that nutella had superior knowledge of the game than everyone else, and you use that absurd leap as a justification for a potential lynch vote? I rest my case.

No, wait, then in her next post SVS dismisses her issues with Made over a simple misunderstanding while proceeding to hail DH, the one who possessed a stronger case against him based on SVS's own logic and had no newbie-related misunderstanding to excuse it. NOW I rest my case.

I've also been taking issue with Sorsha's post, but everything that's bugged me about her has already been mentioned extensively enough, mainly that she tried to make it out like if she were scum she could be lynched easily. Also her case against Dana was horrible and it was followed by the beautifully-fence-sitting statement that she trusts SVS but that SVS could be tricking her. That was her most recent post, too.

I've already stated my issues with DH early on and they're still present. His fittingly Ned Stark-ian "selfless leader" bullshtick seems fabricated to gain trust (especially taking into account that as I mentioned before it's regarding an online Mafia game for a vote that the general consensus seems to think doesn't matter much in the first place, even as far the actual game goes), and the fact that it worked as well as it did certainly doesn't help. Feigning honor and selflessness to gain power, how politican of you, DH.

I'm strongly in favor of a 48 hour day to see which of these three (SVS, Sorsha, DH, or a possible other candidate if someone else gets very suspicious very fast) will get my vote.
This whole thing is based on Sorsha & I being bad teammates. and a total misconstrual of my posts against Made. She was a civ, and I thought Made was bad, specifically with Nutella, based on that one post. I thought he made a baddie slip.

I can see why some of the players here have believed this BS that my case rested entirely on you and Sorsha being teammates, especially because I said that I found it likely that the two of you were teammates. What you ignore here, and what others have been ignoring as well, is that the case did not in fact rest entirely on that proposition. You shouldn't have thought that Made made a scumslip there because it was obvious that she didn't, which leads to the conclusion that you were trying to get others to agree with you that it was a slip and get Made lynched. That's not the only thing that's scum-motivated for you, there are scum-motivations all over the place in your posts. Your constant mood-changing, as I said earlier, resembles a scum player trying to establish a certain way to go about things.

The thing about this is that you said after all my defenses that I did not address your case, and i did, totally. I don't see anything that I missed. back after work to reply to your reply. Please point out what I have not addressed that concerns you, and I will be happy to do so

When I said that, you hadn't addressed my case. NOW you have. It's funny to me that you had the nerve to say I didn't admit you addressed my points in the same post that you addressed my points. I'm not a time-traveler. If you were confident that you had addressed all my points before making this post, then why feel the need to make this post at all? Why not just say, I've addressed all your points and I'm town, come at me? You were scared that wouldn't be enough because you're scum and you can feel the walls closing in. This is backed up by how paranoid you were after this by accusing Made and I of constantly quoting each other to get you lynched, even though there's been very little heat on you in all other days outside Day 1.

Also, I have no indication of DHs alignment, he can be equally out there regardless of alignment, and we both can tend to misread each other as we play pretty different games. Did he vote for me last time? I only recall Elos vote (for not defending while I was papering the thread with a defense) and Nutellas (for being subtly evasive, which actually made me laugh out loud on the bus, which is not a good idea).

DH has yet to vote for you and I've made it clear that I'm not okay with that either. I'm not okay with anyone that voted Sorsha over you in Day 1.

#838

I know that rebuttal is overdue but I didn't make it sooner because I didn't feel it necessary. Apparently it is necessary if everyone has magically forgotten how scummy SVS was early in the game, and how her actions since have only supported my case against her. No other lynch options come close, that is all.

#839

You seriously don't think Dana or Canuck are "close"?

I still just don't see S~V~S as bad. I've played so many games with her now, and I just don't think I'm seeing a baddie S~V~S this game. To me, it all seems like miscommunication.

#840

Not to mention, Roxy, who also knows S~V~S incredibly well and can read her even better than I can, and arguably has seemed the most civvie of nearly anyone in this game, IMO, and has now been NKed, repeatedly said she was also not seeing her baddie game.

#841

Meta is great and all, but there are also these things called points. Points, and cases, and lack of decent defenses against those cases. And I've already said that Canucklehead is fairly close before but at the moment it's just too likely that my scum read on her is weighing on her style and not anything she's actually done. With Dana I don't see how she's scum at all. You've yet to make a real case against anyone MP, so let's see one.

#842

You basically have a gut town read on SVS while going against my entire case, and you haven't attempted to refute a single point in it.

#843

I understand, but I just don't think S~V~S is bad. It's that simple. It's not that your case is bad, I've just seen her civvie and baddie game a ton now, and I used to get S~V~S wrong time after time after time again. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't know how she would be the best person to receive my vote.

My case against Dana is that she continuously refuses to commit to absolutely anything game-related and that she's been avoiding serious scrutiny for it all game.

#844

DharmaHelper wrote:
Made wrote:
Dana wrote:
Made wrote:
DANA
You're hella easy to read so i'm probably just gonna vote with you. Don't fuck up.
Oh, Token. You gotta be a leader! I don't even know who's suspicious right now. Can you explain your SVS argument again, please? I'm kind of on the fence about if I trust SVS but I also really don't see a reason not to at the moment, so I have no idea why you're so convinced she's bad.
TL:DR- SVS did more than Sorsha, yet Sorsha was killed. The other difference between the two being SVS "defended herself"(read back petaled) and Sorsha gave up.

The counter arguement is that it wasn't that cut dry, and that Sorsha's lack of a defence was more of a scumtell than anything SVS did.

Pretty much what it boils down to.

Note, don't take offense to any coarse language, its a joke.
D to the H,
A to the Rizzo
M-A The DJ
Spittin' rhymes in the hizzo.

SVS in ya sights
but yo case ain't air tight
So just kick back and listen
Remove dat tunnel vision!

You claimin' Sorsha did less
than Notorious SVS
And thusly,
Unjustly
Was put down to rest
Ain't that some mess

Ya gurl throwin' up them red flags
But you just can't see the light
Sorsha was much worse my dude
That bitch was reppin' white!

I'm gonna get up in ya face
You punk ass busta wanna build a case
Then move on son cause ain't nothin' see
Day 1's done homie, look at two and three.

Rap battle? you have no clue what you just walked into....

http://bit.ly/1rQCGAQ (beat went a little too hard tho, he's a transcript)
Day 2 and day 3
Got us a bomb and civie
Day 4 yo
and now it time to rep my city

Gotta young brotha slippin
was gonna drop the case,
but then my dudes D-reins and KM
got me on the trace

reppin the party mafia
AP, but that ain't stoppin mah
mad flows that's leave
ya'll mad jaws that's droppin

some mad ish that's just wrong
in my mad dish
i'm preppin for all y'all
that's steppin on my ball

I'm Coming for ya.

Shout out to my Linkies tho

#845

MovingPictures07 wrote:I understand, but I just don't think S~V~S is bad. It's that simple. It's not that your case is bad, I've just seen her civvie and baddie game a ton now, and I used to get S~V~S wrong time after time after time again. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't know how she would be the best person to receive my vote.

My case against Dana is that she continuously refuses to commit to absolutely anything game-related and that she's been avoiding serious scrutiny for it all game.

while i agree, it's dumb af my dude Dana hasn't been called out yet, but she's ight tho. Strong opinions ain't her thing yo.
(also Argument for SVS and friends incoming

)

#846

Wait, so you don't think SVS is bad now? Where did that come from?

#847

for as in to give to them so that can eat and enjoy it KM, dw <3.

#848

I didn't get a word of that. What?

#849

My arguement if for SVS similar to how a greeting card is to/for whoever it's being sent to. it's a theory i've been poking around in my head, and now i think it might be read to use

#850

I still have no idea what you're talking about, but let's see it.

Who's next?