guess I'm gonna continue flip flopping all over the place. I just can't see voting to lynch either chelle or rescind boog with the evidence that we have against lynch stacks.
Printable View
guess I'm gonna continue flip flopping all over the place. I just can't see voting to lynch either chelle or rescind boog with the evidence that we have against lynch stacks.
My mother always told me to trust the instincts of the girls with Jack & Coke
resync Chele lynch Stacks
Lynching Chelle twice was a mistake and I promise I'll try harder.
:clap:
rescind boog
lynch stacks
I love how people notice when I go missing for a day. Was pretty drunk yesterday and feel like crap today, will have a read through when my head stops hurting.
There was one comment that stood out that I agree with... that stacks seems to be laying low after dodging the wagon yesterday.
Boog is suspect still though due to him suggesting gator is coaching chelle... not very well thought out. Yet he still wants to lynch chelle... prob because he can see other villagers going for her. If she's a wolf, honestly she's a very good one after the jyms deam man lynch.
Well I was hoping to not have to defend myself again immediately, as it seems like I'm in constant defend mode most games, and it's typically centered around my participation level whether high or low.
I was laying a bit low honestly. Not because I was scared of taking heat or anything of that nature, as I feel the claims against me aren't that strong. But simply because I thought the village was currently on the right track looking at the players they were looking at. And as the second leading bandwagon the day before, I felt that it was in the villages best interest (as well as mine) to allow for some discussion that wasn't centered around me. And that there was a reasonable chance that by injecting myself back into the conversation that either the baddies or suspicious villagers would be apt to turn the heat back towards myself. Which takes away from looking at, and gather information from, other suspects.
As for me pushing for the lynching of two strong villagers, I see the concern. However, I don't think I pushed nearly as hard as Shotty is wanting to portray. Although, I thought it was pretty obvious why and how I ended up on the bandwagon of both of the strong villagers. And that it was pretty apparent I didn't just blindly vote to lynch for either one of them.
I've already explained my reasoning for being on the Ong bandwagon, and for practically trying to push it through. But to re-hash, I started the Ong bandwagon. And while in hindsight it wasn't in our best interest, I still think it was the thing to do at the time. I think it was our best lead with pretty strong early game suspicions and that overall the suspicions were strong enough to warrant lynching even a strong player early in the game (although I wasn't absolutely sure). So after initially putting forth the suspicions, obviously I have to follow through with it when the alternative is lynching an individual who is away and can't defend himself at the time. So I ultimately voted to lynch Ong, and quasi-defended BooG temporarily (only on the point that he was away).
With regards to Bikes, it should be pretty apparent that part of the reason I voted to lynch him was necessity/survival. I did look back through the thread at the time, and overall I did think it was quite possible he would turn up as a baddie (vamp most likely), but I also felt like there were some better choices. But since it was essentially him or me, knowing I'm a villager, and that there is a legitimate chance he was a baddie, I was obviously more than willing to throw the vote his way when the alternative was to toss my vote elsewhere, essentially committing suicide (as he did in the end).
So yeah, I did vote to lynch two strong villagers early. However, with a bit of contemplation it should become pretty apparent that there were legitimate reasons for both votes on my part. And that I didn't just hop onto a bandwagon and lynch without merit only because there was an opportunity to have a good player gone. And that while the overall actions of lynching those two could easily be seen as wolfy, the reasons I ended up taking those actions seem more than reasonable.
I feel like we are allowing numerous individuals to get by without contributing, which ultimately leaves little information about them. Which not only puts us in the spot we are in today, but only gets worse as the game progresses, as there will only be some one-liners/quips/fluff to look back on with which to determine someone's role.
Even now because quite a few people are barely participating, one of the primary reasons for lynching me, is participation level. Which, as a read, or as a means of finding a baddie, I don't seem to put as much faith in, at least not to the same degree as a few of you. As there are numerous reasons that could overall cause someone to participate more or less than usual, as I've tried to explain.
However, as an overall means of gathering information, participation is pretty damn important. Some villagers might opt not to participate much, just as some wolves might decide to lay low. Regardless of their role or reasoning, it's pretty detrimental to the villages goal of determining people's roles. And it's always in the best interest of the village to have people participating. Throwing out suspicions, and discussing with each other. And it's always in the best interest of the baddies to have as little information as possible be revealed.
So people that aren't participating, and who aren't helping the village by getting information out there, are just simply not as beneficial to keep around as the people who are.
(It occurs to me now that this is one of the big things I overlooked when lynching Ong. As in hindsight, while the suspicions were strong for Day 2, they likely weren't strong enough to lynch what would be a very active participate. There is a positive though, in that an active villager is likely to get re-animated by the necromancer, and for the remainder of his time we get to contemplate his honest unbiased opinions, rather than wondering if he's deceiving us.)
So basically, I think it's in our best interest to try to increase activity level by going after the individuals we feel are suspicious, and that are also guilty of not participating. As well as being more suspicious of individuals that try to keep the discussion from expanding, and instead fixed on certain topics. As both greatly limit the information out there, making it harder to gather reads, put forth suspicions, and figure out roles.
I think it's pretty obvious who some of the low participates are that are suspicious this game. Hell most everyone fits that criteria right now, which is why everyone is coming up with a lot of names on their "not sure" lists. Notable mentions that seem most suspicious to me would be Chelle and BooG. Then of course Kiwi, Crazzvette, Bigred, Gizmo, Vinland, Gator, etc. it's difficult to be sure of because they aren't really putting forth much to use. But I feel they are more suspect simply due to lack of participation (some way more than others), whereas there are other suspicions floating around about Chelle/BooG.
So yeah, if you feel it's best to lynch me based on the suspicions you have, then I can't really continue to argue against them. Just make sure to weigh the suspicions you have versus the drawbacks of taking out an active participate and allowing equally suspicious individuals to remain in the game with low participation.
As the game progresses, the suspicions towards active players will only become more clear and logical, as you will have more posts/votes to look back upon, while all you will really have to point back on as suspicious for the inactive players is their lack of activity. Which is why I'd say it's in our best interest to lynch Chelle/BooG (suspicious + low participation) at this time, rather than myself. As there is a far greater chance that if I were a baddie I would tip my hand at some point due to participating more, whereby I could then be lynched with more conviction than suspicions based on lack of participation.
Damn posts get long fast.
Anyways, Lynch BooG. Not the lowest participant, but low enough. And we have other evidence that has been put forth previously implicating him.
I'd also be okay with a Chelle lynch. As she is probably the lowest participant, providing virtually nothing of substance for the village. Which will simply lead to never being sure of her role.
your most recent post have contradicted your actions in this game. you state that we should lynch innactives and new players early in the game and yet you push a lynch on two strong and relatively, in the case of bikes, active players. additionally your statements of innactives vs your activity is inaccurate in that after the near miss lynch of you, you then disappeared.
Furtbermore you are taking facts and changing them to suit your own needs. the fact that you claim that your actions in getting both Ong and bikes lynched were not as strong as I claim should be, to anyone actually following the game, a rewrite of the game history.
i smell blood on your breath, fur or fangs? which one? i don't know or care. i just know that you need to go...moreso than chelle, boog, crazz, gator or any of the others.
you have done more damage to us than ANY other player and need to be gone before you can cause any more.
tbat sould read " your most recent posts"
i still can't believe that you, in one sentence, are saying that it's in the viilages best interest to lynch innactives and in another sentence are stating that it was in our best interest to lynch an active player (Ong).
by now it should be bltantly apparent to anyone reading this that Stacks needs to go
Indeed, contradictionjs. We should lynch inactive players... but when an active player makes this very suggestion on days one and two, it's enough evidence to lynch him. And stacks' voting history does not reflect his suggestion that inactives are the problem. Day one - ong, day two - bikes. Not inactive people.
Stacks has to go. If he shows up villager, well fuck me, then we really have to start looking at everyone. As much as there's a few posts that boog has made that has me scratching my head, I'm not sure he's going to give us as much info as a stacks lynch. Yesterday, maybe. Perhaps we should've lynched boog instead of bikes, if boog is villager then we can leave bikes alone, but bikes was doing himself no favours with his weak defence posts, especially after being so quick to critises my defences.
Lynching bikes was a mistake, just as lynching me was. Let's not make another mistake today.
Stacks got let off the hook yesterday, I don't think we should let him off again.
hmn.
lynch shotty.
Interesting vote there chelle. Why shotty?
stacks - wolf/vamp
chelle - turncoat????
I don't think so shotty. If I'm honest, if stacks is a lone wolf, I'd expect his turncoat to vote boog, kinda forced move. If turncoat isn't gonna vote boog, well it'd be a vote for stacks for cover. For chelle, a noob, to be stacks' turncoat and then vote shotty, well this would be an awesome move.
Chelle is a villager. I'm genuinely curious why she votes shotty, who also looks like a villager to me.
Prob should've kept that to myself, reading that back I can see I'm helping the turncoats. Sorry. Not really been thinking clearly the last two weeks.
yeah, no shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
so much for the trap that I was trying to set.
Are you being serious right now? My actions for voting for Ong and Bikes shouldn't even really need to be explained, because they are more than reasonable. You quickly jumped on the Ong Bandwagon (right after JKDS I believe) saying he was the best lynch, and that we need to go with him. I was way more hesitant in actually lynching a good player, even after I provided the suspicions, than you were. And I cannot, in any way, be found suspicious for standing my ground on an Ong lynch, over lynching an inactive and defenseless (at the time) BooG, after providing the suspicions towards Ong in the first place.
And Bikes was in no way active. And he was certainly not trying to give the village any sort of information with which to work with. In fact, on more than one occasion he said it was stupid to even do anything before like Day 4. So when it comes down to allowing a bandwagon to just consume me, or lynch someone who doesn't particularly care to contribute, and who feels defending allegations by saying "lynching me is a mistake k thx", ofc I'm going to vote Bikes every day. And anyone in my shoes, regardless of role, should/would do the same. What the hell was my other alternative? Say nothing, allow the village to lynch a villager, and keep Bikes alive who doesn't care to do anything before Day 4? Toss my vote towards someone I believe is more suspect, leaving me ultimately getting lynched?
Seriously, please tell me what I did that is so suspicious by voting Bikes or Ong?
I said very clearly in my second post that I did in fact make a mistake with regards to Ong's lynch. At the time, I thought the suspicions I provided were good enough that it warrants lynching a strong player. And I still think that's true. What I didn't consider at the time was that Ong would likely be very active, which would benefit us by getting more information out there for mid to late game. So in hindsight, I realized that the lynching of an active was not justified by the early suspicions I had, and that it would have been in our best interest to not lynch him, and build a more solid case with the copious amounts of information he would inevitably provide. However, as I said, with a necromancer in the game, not a bad strategy to have a strong player dead and revived early with which we can trust for as long as the necro is alive.
Again, I really hate to have to explain shit over and over. I became inactive after yesterday's near death experience because I finally wasn't being talked about. Instead the discussion was finally moving in the direction of looking at BooG and Chelle, whom I believe to be the best lynches right now. I didn't want to provide any cause to stop looking at those two, end the discussion towards them, and have it all swing back towards me where I have to then try to provide another defense (re-hashing everything I already said), and inevitably waste another day going over the same shit, rather than progressing.
And I'm in no way changing facts. You are saying I went "HARD" after them. When in fact I did no such thing. I provided suspicions for Ong, a lot of people agreed and jumped on his wagon, then when provided with essentially a choice between Ong or Boog, I chose Ong. When provided a choice between committing suicide or lynching Bikes, I chose Bikes. Not exactly going HARD against them in either instance. I did what was best for the village in both instances by not attacking a player who is absent, opting to lynch the player that had suspicions towards him, and opting not to suicide leaving the village down a man. What is so wrong with either of those actions?
You don't know which because you have no legitimate suspicions towards me. All you have is twisted information taken out of context that you are applying trying to find someone to attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by shotglass
And if you think I'm the better target than BooG/Chelle/Etc, then go for it. I'm telling you plainly that if you would stop for a second to try to understand why I took the actions I did, it isn't nearly as wolfy as you want to believe. And that BooG/Chelle have equal levels of suspicion, yet also aren't going to help the village nearly as much I am in getting information out there and helping everyone figure out roles. They will continue to provide no substance, and inevitably you will be left lynching them only being able to point at the current suspicions you have. Because they won't be posting anything relevant with which to gain more concrete suspicions. Chelle will continue saying "I'm confused, Lynch Jyms" every other comment, while BooG is left saying "Sorry I was gone, wtf did I miss" over and over again. Hardly beneficial to the village now, and later in the game when you need to lynch a baddie, you will have shit all to look back on.
This is absolute bullshit. Honestly, I think you are doing the village a much greater disservice than myself, and it's not even close.Quote:
Originally Posted by shot
Firstly, you have voted for both Ong and Bikes, which seems to be what you are wanting to ultimately send me to the noose over.
Secondly, you have been flip-flopping your votes back and forth repeatedly. Just going with whatever flow the majority seems to be feeling at the time. When I provided suspicions towards Ong, and JKDS voted to lynch him, you were all over that. When BooG began to be talked about, you switched to him, even though lynching an temporarily absent player is far stupider for a villager than anything you are claiming I have done.
You voted Bikes. But not before you agreed with me that we should take out innactives. You were all gung ho to lynch BooG, based on suspicions as well as keeping participation up, but now the heat can be placed back on Stacks, so yay all aboard for you.
Did you read my earlier posts and see what I said about being more suspicious of individuals that are actively trying to dissuade an expansion of discussion? People that are keen to continually go back over the same content? Yeah, I was talking about you primarily.
Not only do you just continually go with the flow of whatever everyone else is feeling, throwing votes everywhere, but you also seem pretty adept at keeping centered on certain topics. Oh the village is discussing something, can't allow that, let's throw the heat back on Stacks. Oh the village might be on to something? Nope, lynch boog!
I'm so happy you said this so clearly, because it exposes your absurd level of hypocrisy in wanting to attack me right here. Do you remember saying this earlier: "I agree, like I wrote earlier, I think the evidence against Ong is just too damning to have such a weak defense" (post #259). What about "Shouldn't we send a message that both villagers and baddies need to play and won't be able to coast by?" (post #300), when you finally switched to BooG, but not until after you said things about how the evidence against Ong paints quite the damning picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by shotglass
So not only do you help build the Ong bandwagon, and ultimately want to lynch me now, you have also agreed on numerous occasions that allowing innactive players to remain alive is terrible.
But right now, when given the opportunity to lynch suspicious inactive players, or suspicious active players, you are opting to go with me. On one hand you have suspicions against a moderately strong player who is participating frequently willing to discuss and ultimately share information, and in the other you have suspicions towards inactive players (or in chelle's case new/bad) who are most certainly not providing anything of substance to the game, yet you are choosing to lynch me.
I mean, I suppose it's in your best interest. Certainly not in the best interest of the village now, in the future of this game, or future games, but it might be in your best interest for me to die. See, I'm not 100% sold your interests and the villages interests go hand in hand.
I'm certainly not going to vote to lynch you right now, as I don't have any real concrete evidence (haven't looked over your past posts extensively enough yet), and there is no way you get lynched today. But I'm sure you will just say that I'm being wolfy by not going with you, and instead wanting to remain alive by lynching to vote another top lynch candidate today. Because only baddies want to remain alive. Certainly not villagers who know the village is making a mistake.
Essentially all I'm asking is that some legit suspicions towards me be provided, rather than my participation level, or the fact that I voted for two villagers, one of which was practically forced (the other forced to some extent). And if not, let me live until you can come up with some. Surely if I'm a baddie you will be able to come up with something more substantial than those since I will be posting. The same can't be said about the suspicious low participating players who will continue to provide you with nothing with which to make an informed decision on.
Chelle has been all over the map, just randomly lynching people. I'm not convinced that she's a villager, but since you're the only confirmed villager I'll trust you on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
rescind chelle
Between stacks and boog -- I'm going to go for the quiet guy that keeps apologizing for not being around, promising to try harder, yet never delivering.
lynch boog
I would also like to see JKDS get more involved. He's skating by, doing nothing. I think he posted one time this day to lynch boog and hasn't been seen since.
Holy shit, longest WW post I've ever seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacks
This is the main reason I don't want to lynch stacks today, btw. I believe that we have much better targets that aren't providing any value to the village, and Stacks is willing to remain active and continue discussions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacks
Ong seriously. I feel like you are far smarter than this, but you aren't showing it right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You keep saying things about forced votes, yet you aren't even considering that my voting history was practically forced. Was I supposed to not provide suspicions towards you that I had? Was I not supposed to stand my ground that lynching you with suspicions was better than lynching BooG who was absent? Was I not supposed to opt to lynch Bikes over basically committing suicide if I placed my vote elsewhere?
Lynching you was a mistake in hindsight. But it wasn't at the time. At best, we get a strong wolf taken care of and out of the game. You had the most logical evidence provided against you. At worst, you get revived, and for as long as you are alive, we know you aren't deceiving us, and get discussion from a strong active player.
It's clearly a much larger mistake to lynch actives without damning evidence over equally suspicious inactives when there is no longer the chance of them being revived. At the time of your lynch, that wasn't an issue. Right now, it is.
You will be getting rid of a moderately strong villager who has no qualms over putting information out there, and trying to stir shit up to figure out the roles. You will be letting weak/inactive villagers remain who provide you with very little with which to figure out their role, while doing very little to figure out the roles of others.
I cannot see how that is the best move. And that it's a pretty large mistake. You will lynch me, I'll be a villager, then you will have to look back at all of the inactives who have provided very little. Ultimately choosing to lynch because they are continually "laying low" and providing nothing to the thread.
Ultimately, I'm done with defending. Lynching me is a mistake, not only because I'm a villager, but because you simply don't have reasonable enough evidence to warrant lynching an active strong player when there is no chance of revival. That isn't a worry if you place your vote elsewhere today.
If I die today, please look back over Shotty's posts. I'm again not convinced she is a baddie, but I do think there is a chance. So don't place her in your villager list too willingly.
And I'll refrain from saying "told ya so" when you inevitably lynch Chelle or BooG tomorrow, based on the same suspicions you have today and because they aren't participating.
I wouldn't lynch Stacks at this moment. Easy BooG lynch if I've ever seen one.
At least someone agrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
I got your back, bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacks
@ stacks- you make some valid points. I had a long defensive post typed and then some new posts popped up when I when to preview my post (pissed me off because I'm on my phone) so I deleted it.
The best points that you make is that innactives add nothing to the game and are a HUGE problem in mid/late game, which, as I wrote before, I COMPLETELY agree with and is the main reason that I flip flop so much. When new evidence, or a good defence, is presented then I default back to lynch an innactive.
I'm still uncertain about you but would MUCH rather lynch someone who keeps apologizing for his absence.
rescind stacks
lynch boog
The ol bikes method, eh? How'd that work out for him?Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
So what's our plan if Boog ends up a villager?
Who's next on the list? We can't make too many mistakes or we'll be pretty even in numbers before long
So little to go on with such infrequent posting. Seems strange to try and "make it through" as a villager by not posting much. I think we can agree there should be a wolf in one of the inactives, its just impossible to pick up which
Wow , lots of reading from Stacks , so confused from post to post that it's getting to be funny . To follow my basic feelings won't help much since we should be trying to figure who these baddies are and i'm not sure still who is what any more without futher info .Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
lynch Boog
jesus
Problem I have is that it seems to me stacks really doesn't want to die. He's investing a lot of time into the game. In the past, this has indicated wolf. TLR has made this point already. If stacks is balancing his game, well he's gotta pay the price at least once as villager.
I feel there's enough evidence from day two alone to lynch stacks. Today has only reinforced my opinion based on how keen he is to stay alive. Sure he's defended himself superbly, but this doesn't mean we should not lynch him.
boog, I just don't know. He's making some weird posts today. He's not a terrible lynch, but I can't help feel it's another mistake. This time yesterday I was sure bikes and boog were baddies, but with bikes showing up as villager, I don't feel confident about boog at all.
I'm much more confident stacks is a baddie.
this said by our ONLY confirmed villager is enough to get me to flop again
rescind boog
lynch stacks
Who that is participating does want to die? Regardless of role? Especially after investing a lot of time into the game as you say.Quote:
Problem I have is that it seems to me stacks really doesn't want to die. He's investing a lot of time into the game.
I hate that it comes down to lynching based on participating level, and whether people are balancing their games or not.Quote:
If stacks is balancing his game, well he's gotta pay the price at least once as villager.
Is this evidence you haven't provided? Evidence I haven't debated/refuted superbly as you say?Quote:
I feel there's enough evidence from day two alone to lynch stacks.
It's quite easy to defend when the reasoning behind my lynching is so sparse and relatively illogical, failing to take into account any sort of context.Quote:
Today has only reinforced my opinion based on how keen he is to stay alive. Sure he's defended himself superbly, but this doesn't mean we should not lynch him.
Quote:
I'm much more confident stacks is a baddie.
Quote:
Sorry. Not really been thinking clearly the last two weeks.
Luls Shotglass. Just go with the flow.
Stacks, you got the seer lynched on day two. jyms and jv played their parts, both wolves. Bikes did his bit, oh shit villager.
I really don't have the motivation right now for a thread read, I intend to do that with 3 new deads info tomorrow. Without going over the last 13 pages, I am most suspicious of you, not just because you're active, but because on day two you orchestrated a seer lynch. Further, you didn't even put a vote in, you made your case and sat back to see how your case went down. When you see it's getting enough credit to succeed in my lynch, you jump on board. Others who jumped on board were wolves. Ok a villager got lynched for his part, collatoral damage I guess.
I wanted to keep you around yesterday because if bikes was a wolf, which I was sure he was, then you looked better. He wasn't a wolf. I shouldn't have got him lynched, it should've been you.
If you're a villager too, well I'm sorry for sucking on two big reads this game.
Nobody posts such long and 'lawyered' defense posts as a villager (except Keith)
Stacks has to go, if he is a villager we will file this info for next game, but I would be very surprised
Next step in the wolf defense book - out yourself as a special - this will probably be coming every minute now
Don't know about Boog, I tend a bit more towards villager but not sure, I think that Stacks is likely to be a turncoat, but if he is a wolf/vamp then I think Chele should go next
Sorry for my absence guys.
I still think we should lynch Chelle. Also, I'm suspicious of those staying on the easy Stacks or BooG lynches. Nobody has really suggested anything different. That said, Shotty is dying for an easy lynch one way or another and should be looked at. Also, she bolded me so there's that.
Actually, all her flopping around between easy lynches deserves way more than just a look. I like her for my bold since people seem adamant on keeping Chelle around.
Rescind Chelle (both times)
Lynch Shotglass
One last thing before bed: where the FUCK is JKDS?
I didn't orchestrate a seer lynch. I outted information and suspicions towards an individual who ended up being the seer. I felt like JKDS was about to carry the village in the wrong direction by looking at people who didn't vote for Justin, so I looked back, and you became the most suspicious. I pointed at numerous reasons, and others felt it was compelling. So you got lynched.
It's rather absurd to think that I knew you were the seer on Day 2, targeted you, then was able to go back through the limited number of posts and pull up all the legit suspicions I did against you. That is a shitload of credit you are giving me. And that's implying you played insanely bad from the start enough that you tipped your role that early.
It's as simple as I had suspicions, I threw them out, others found them compelling, and lynched. I decided that lynching you was better than BooG. That's it.
The reason I didn't lynch right off the bat, and waited, was because I wanted to hear your defense, and hear what others had to say. Again, I have no idea how that's a bad thing. If I'm going to bold someone, usually it's late in the game day after I've contemplated everything. When I bolded you, it was late in the day and I had concluded it was best. Sorry for not being hasty enough to lynch you as others.
The primary reason I even brought those suspicions forward early was because I expected it to warrant a solid defense from you, and that the resulting discussion would be enough to get people participating early. And that if the defense was compelling enough, I wouldn't have to spend the entire game wondering if an active player was trying to deceive me at every instance. That's all. I figured the more I could move an active player closer to villager camp than unknown/wolfy, as well as collect thoughts/opinions from others, the better. Sorry, but your defense and the resulting discussion didn't do it for me in the end. And I decided it was actually pretty likely you were a baddie.
Also, don't see how Bikes being a wolf would paint me in a better light, especially since my vote towards him was forced. And because you even said that it's likely we are both baddies forced to attack each other at that point. Just as how, I don't see him being a villager makes me a more likely baddie. I honestly saw no connection between us other than we were both top prospects for lynching.
@ TLR
I always defend myself very in depth, and have done so on numerous occasions as a villager. You say you have such a read on me, then you should more than know this is true.
I'm not simply going to become involved in a game, and then when attacked and likely going to be lynched, stand back and let it happen. Especially if I feel the evidence is not at all compelling.
The day I don't put forth a long detailed defense post is going to be the exact same day you guys put forth a little bit of effort in coming up with some legit suspicions. None of this "oh he voted for such and such, even though he had to", "he posts a lot as a wolf, even though that wasn't the case in the last game", or "he's defending himself because he doesn't want to die, even though I guess villagers don't want to die either" type reasonings.
boog - shotty
shotty - stax
crazz - boog
gizmo - boog
chelle - shotty
stax - boog
ong - stax
tlr - stax
bigred - boog
jkds - boog
no vote - gator, kiwimark, vinland
shotty = 2
stax = 3
boog = 5
Day 4 ends in 3:36 at 3PM PST
Now I should post less?Quote:
Originally Posted by shotglass
Just realized the day is going to end while I'm asleep. In an effort to save myself, the only person I know is definitely a villager, Rescind Shotglass Lynch Stacks.
FWIW, I don't think Stacks is a wolf and think Shotglass is.
Sorry for my absence this game.
lynch shotglass
I dunno if you've got a handful of people you're willing to lynch that you the tape weak reasoning too after the fact, or if you're flying blind like me and so just lynching off of whatever floats past but iunno you seem more baddie-y to me than stacks or boog. barely.
tbat's not what I meant by that and sorry to have caused your misunderstanding. for clarification: i was wondering why you posted a defensive post when the vote count against you was zero. i won't EVER tell someone to post less. it's participation which,imo, makes this game fun and participation whicb provides information.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiMark
i just didn't see the need for a defense when you no heat.
wow. my typing on this phone sucks :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by shotglass
Quote:
Originally Posted by shotglass
And you say I'm contradicting myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by shotglass
Make up your mind.
it's not that i'm flying blind. Stacks and chelle are the top two on my list of potential baddies for reasons tbat I've posted over the last couple of days. boog was high on my list until bikes wound up being a villager.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwiMark
Like I wrote a few posts ago: the reason that I appear to be flip flopping is that when new evidense or a strong defense is presented then I default back to lynching an innactive, such a boog.
That being said, even tbough Stacks has posted a whole wall of defense, he really hasn't presented a strong case against someone else or even in his own defense. additionally since Ong is our ONLY confirmed villager then he is the only one that we can be sure is not trying to mislead us for some unknown reasons.
i love how when challenging someone you use only the parts of tbeir posts which help your case. bikes noticed this before he was lynched. maybe that's something that we should have listened to.:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacks
There hasn't been a strong case provided against me. Everything thrown out has been easily disputed because it's held no merit. And anyone that puts aside their speculations and pure suspicions I think would agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotglass
And I haven't presented a case for anyone else because I've been in constant defend mode from being lynched incorrectly without a strong case against me.
The only real thing I've been able to point to with regards to BooG was that Jyms inexplicably voted to rescind boog, lynch ong. This was after Jyms stated lynching Ong was a mistake and lynched boog, and then BooGs bandwagon began to take off.
So other than that, no I haven't provided a strong case for lynching anyone. Have you?
Annnnnnd...
Rescind Stacks lynch Shotglass
With Kiwi voting Shotglass it becomes closer and there's a chance of getting her lynched.
No, you default to going for an easy lynch, such as boog. JKDS has been a hell of a lot more inactive than I've been yet he hasn't gotten any heat. TLR has also been way more inactive. However, they're a lot more difficult to bandwagon against than I am. I'm the default bandwagon each and every game and this is why you choose me to try to bandwagon against. The majority of your votes have been with the bandwagons besides your initial Chelle vote. This is rather telling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotglass
There ya go. I went ahead and quoted your entire post here. I suppose from now on that's what's necessary, since it seems everyone here lacks to ability to put anything into context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotglass
I quote the relevant parts of posts so they can be more easily compared to others. Rather than having to quote one entire post that covers many different topics, then quote another post that covers other topics, and then expect everyone else to read them both and understand the point I'm trying to make.
In this instance, I fail to see how I took only information that helped my case. You said each of those things, and took each of those actions, in order over the course of today. I didn't misquote you, I didn't lie and mistell when they were said, or anything like that. I simply took what YOU said, and attached to it the argument you and Ong were trying to string me up for earlier (contradictions).
In the future, if you don't want people to quote you and point out contradictions, try not contradicting yourself every other post. And instead opt to consider the situation, come to a conclusion, and stand by it with some conviction. If that means you stay on my bandwagon, then so be it, but constant flip-flopping is simply not in the best interest of the village. It misdirects, and not only allows you to go with the majority flow, but also keep the discussion centered. Which is all very beneficial to baddies, and detrimental to the village.
good point stacks- one I'll keep in mind for future reference.
Hey Stacks, how about you rescind me and vote Shotglass so we can make it a coinflip and make shit interesting? THANKS.
Well I'd rather see boog die than shotglass so don't get too comfortable there Mr I'm-going-to-bed-no-I'm-Not.
Haha, it's 4:30 in the morning. I should be sleeping but my apartment has some kind of mosquito infest-fucking-station and the fuckers keep buzzing in my ears and nomming on my skin.
boog, why are you a better lynch than stacks?
what is the votecount?
I think...
boog 5
shotty 3
stacks 3
To my best of counting it's :Quote:
Originally Posted by TLR
Boog 5
Shotty 4
Stacks 3
While I'm inclined to think Shotglass might actually be a baddie, or at the very least needs to seriously be looked at, I just can't do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
There isn't enough time left for me to go back and look at her posts/votes, and see if there is any connections to be made. And other than just being all over the place, which is wolfy due to misdirection, I don't have anything else to point to yet. And while that's bad for the village, her participation levels aren't.
I think this is the correct count.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
shotty had 2 as of wuf's count, boog has since rescinded her and voted for here again, plus picked up a kiwi vote... she's on three unless wuf was wrong in his last count.
i honestly didn't realize that my flip flopping around was causing such a problem for us. it's something that I've done in every game that I've played and wasn't complained about until now. it is something that I'll work on in the future.
boog - shotty
shotty - stax
crazz - boog
gizmo - boog
chelle - shotty
stax - boog
ong - stax
tlr - stax
bigred - boog
jkds - boog
kiwi - shotty
no vote - gator, vinland
shotty = 3
stax = 3
boog = 5
Stax > Boog > Shotty
shotty, play your game as you like, I have no prob with you flip flopping, it's info.
agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by TLR
lynch stax
Let's look at the people on boog's wagon...
jkds - who? oh yeah, the guy that's usually top of the post count with me.
gizmo - quietly floating along
bigred - quietly floating along
crazv - confused noob
stax - wolf or villager he's gonna vote boog under the circumstances
I'm now of the opinion...
stax > shotty >>>>>>>> boog
Boog has gone to sleep as vote leader with like 2 hrs left or whatever. It's 5.20am is Boogistan. No special outing. Only a villager does this.
Anyone on the boog wagon listening?
I think boog is probably a low profile villager, shotty is a high profile villager
my thoughts = stacks>chelle>>boog>>>me. :D
I think so too. I don't like this boog lynch at all. I'm 99% sure he's a villager.
I'd flip to any of bigred, jkds, gator, gizmo and crazv to stop this one going through. I really don't want to flip to shotty though.
^at TLR
And I'm a high profile wolf/vamp capable of pinpointing the seer on day 2 and effectively orchestrating his lynching, without being able to distance myself from my teammates at all, because apparently I made sure all of them were on the Ong Bandwagon.Quote:
Originally Posted by TLR
And sense being a low profile wolf was so ineffective for me last game (hint, it wasn't).
Makes sense yo.
Who's on my bandwagon?
TLR who is always suspicious of me every game. Claims to have a read that I've active as a wolf, yet past games prove that is pretty incorrect.
Ong a special who I unfortunately got lynched early. He couldn't possibly hold any sort of grudge, or be blinded by that fact. I mean if he was he would probably mention me getting him lynched in every post.... oh wait.
Shotglass. Well whose wagon has she not been on?