Yes but you made it seem as though that thought was novel. It wasn't I myself brought it up.
I know. I was having fun at the fact that you couldn't defend yourself without shooting yourself in the foot.
I mean really, when the best defense you can come up with for hammer voting someone you said you hardcleared is, "I don't like how you're representing this as a hardclear. Also, I'm the one who represented this as a hardclear. But it wasn't really a hardclear. But really, it was a hardclear," then I don't know why you even bothered to hit Post Reply. What was that post even supposed to accomplish?
I mean, if this is just your way of admitting your move was indefensible, then... Thank you, I guess? I mean, if you want to go the extra mile and vote yourself again, that would be appreciated.
The only time I used the word hard clear was when I was lamenting being talked into it. That was poor wording choice, I should have said really unlikely to be town clear. But it was more of a hard clear than a soft clear, I guess and maybe that talk was with some hindsight 20/20.
Yes, so in other words, "I don't like how you're representing this as a hard clear. Also I represented it as a hard clear. That was a poor play of mine. But it really was more of a hard clear."
Wow.
So self-defense 101, don't aim the gun at your own foot.
I don't know why anyone wanted to kill Terry. I've repeated that multiple times. I still don't. Nobody has given me any good reasons.
You just don't get the talked into thing at all. It wasn't any specific person and it had to do with the group think of Terry being scum. It also had to do with Terry's actions himself. I've repeated that like 20 times as well.
So this is fascinating, because we have two completely contradictory positions here:
1. When it comes to anyone else voting Terry, there were no reasons to vote Terry.
2. When it comes to you voting Terry, it's supposed to be perfectly understandable that you were persuaded to vote Terry, even though you'd previously declared him hardcleared.
Except how is it understandable that you were persuaded to vote Terry after you supposedly hardcleared him despite there being no reasons to do so?
Again, hardcleared. You argued Terry was hardcleared. Not "unlikely to be mafia," hardcleared. You went from Terry being hardcleared to Terry being a likely mafia. How did you do that if there was no reason to vote Terry? You had less reason to vote him than anyone else on that wagon, indeed less reason than anyone else period other than Terry himself.
If there were truly no reason to vote Terry, then why did you, who believed Terry to be hardcleared, vote him?
It would be hypocrisy if I actually were to believe you were even trying to make a good faith argument, but it's obvious you're a mafia trying to fight his way out of a hole he dug for himself.
Furthermore I know you have an inflated sense of ego, but you did lynch Terry over your vendetta
I will let this slide this time, and only this time. This is an untrue statement regarding a matter that is totally irrelevant to the thread that you are parroting from someone who has since rescinded his statement after issuing an apology to me for being inappropriate in bringing it up. I suggest you follow his good example.
You keep saying that nobody convinced me, but I was convinced.
What I said was you have never said who convinced you, and also that I have a hard time believing that anyone actually did. Given both your belligerence and your propensity to throw petty insults at people, it seems highly unlikely that someone was able to sway you into voting someone that you believe you yourself hardcleared. Once again, who convinced you that the town you hardcleared was mafia: someone you ignore, someone you throw petty insults at, or someone whom you throw petty insults at while also ignoring? Because there doesn't seem to be a fourth category, and I have a hard time believing that you would let someone you openly condescend the intelligence of suddenly talk you into sanctioning a daykill of someone you hardcleared.
I might not have even been fully convinced but I had doubts, and a lot of them were just coming from Terry's play.
I let myself get talked into something I shouldn't have.
Talked into by whom?
I still don't know why you wanted to kill Terry, but it looks like it was just a personal vendetta on your part.
It wasn't, and I've already explained this, and vezok has already apologized for bringing that into this thread, but nice try at the inappropriate low jab.
Terry was not my number one target, YOU were. However, Terry was suspicious due to his behavior, especially the fact that he didn't vote Rodemy, and also realistically he was the only one we were actually going to get 7 people to agree on that day.
Also, it's hilarious you're trying to say there was no reason for lynching Terry despite the fact that the majority of the town agreed he was suspicious and no one was defending him. In the end, not even you were, and you thought you'd hardcleared him. Desperate smear campaigns against me are one thing, but you still have five other people in the town to try to account for.
In addition to the people who need to get back to us on night abilities, TubbaFett claimed an ability that activates when he targets Ecto, so how'd that go TF?
The people I target are not notified when I target them, or if they are cocooned.
Tonight, I tried to protect tom, but got redirected to Silver. Both Silver and Highroller got targeted by NKs(highroller was N1 target, delayed to N2).
Zero Idea what the case is on me but you all do you. Vaimes is either scum or eventually he will remember how to play mafia again. My lynch if it happens will be the same as Terry where nobody can really quote any reason for the death and I'll flip town. Oh well.
You realize that you agreed with killing Terry, right?
It's really surprising to me you keep (A) insisting there's no reason to vote you, and (B) bringing up Terry, because once again: you sanctioned the daykill of an individual you insisted was a cleared town.
What town sanctions the daykill of a person they believe they themselves confirmed to be town? And when pressed for why you did this, you have never once come forward with a decent answer. You've said something along the lines of, "I lost sight of the fact that he was town. I let myself be convinced," but you've never said what convinced you, or who convinced you, or any kind of justification for your reasoning.
So instead, we're just left with the facts: you defended Terry as cleared - based on reasoning that never made sense - until 6 people soft-voted that he be daykilled, after which you soft-hammered (that sounds wrong), and then proceeded to make sure everyone in the town knew that you tried to clear Terry after he was dead and flipped.
That alone should justify a vote, because who even does that? Who 180s out of nowhere like that on a person they believe was hardcleared?
Most controversial read he had was DV town and lol if they killed over that
I mean, I'm arguing they did.
My primary reasons for saying Rhand was suspicious was the the fact that he was defending D_V when that didn't make sense, and was lumped in with vezokpiraka who was also defending D_V when it didn't make sense and was acting pretty suspicious in general.
I've been pretty much the only consistent voice calling for D_V's lynch. Rhand had the least suspicion on him out of the three. Killing Rhand makes D_V look better.
D_V being mafia explains a lot of things. His swiftness to try to clear Terry, vezok, and me by an argument that still makes no sense, his inscrutable claim that Terry was cleared only to opportunistically kill him when 6 people signed on to his daykill, his gambit at the end of day 2, and now Rhand's death... All of these weird moves would make an abundance of sense if he were mafia.
With vezokpiraka it should be obvious to anyone. vezok claimed a similar role to Rhand, a counterpart role both thematically and apparently mechanically. Rhand's flipping town has made me less suspicious of vezok, a sentiment you agree with. Therefore, clearly Rhand would be the best choice of a nightkill were vezokpiraka mafia.
You because you, vezok, and Rhand seemed to be grouping up yesterday. I’m not the only one who pointed this out. Killing Rhand would be an easy way to make you look better.
I am a Town Doctorguard. Each night I protect someone that't not cocooned in marshmallow. If they are not targeted to kill by anyone, they become cocooned in marshmallow. People cocooned in marshmallow, when NKed, don't die; instead I die. If more than one player cocooned in marshmallow would die, all of them are saved, and only I die.
Rodemy was: Ivo Shandor, Mafia Architect (Ecto) Gozer Worshipers! (Day, One-Shot, Targeted): Target a player; at the start of the next Night, you will learn their full role. If that player has any abilities, you may make all choices for that player that Night and will be informed of any results they receive (that player will also see those results). Nobody Ever Made Them Like This (Passive): If three or more non-town players are no longer in the game, you gain an additional shot of "Gozer Worshipers!" and you may perform both Gozer Worshipers! and the nightkill in the same Night. Win Condition: You win when the Mafia equal or outnumber the other players (even if you're dead when that happens).
Does cantrip use the "majority among people actually voting" rule?
According to the first post, no. It's either lynch threshold or no lynch.
*Sigh* Less than two minutes until deadline. Anyone care to second my petition to extend deadline to midnight MST? Don't know if it will accomplish anything, but worth a shot.
But really I think I'm mislynch bait. HR and zdstd and KA will sit on me all tomorrow anyways. This needs to be done.
If this was your plan you could have done so when the probability of your being actually lynched was a reasonable one, instead of less than two hours before deadline.
I mean really, when the best defense you can come up with for hammer voting someone you said you hardcleared is, "I don't like how you're representing this as a hardclear. Also, I'm the one who represented this as a hardclear. But it wasn't really a hardclear. But really, it was a hardclear," then I don't know why you even bothered to hit Post Reply. What was that post even supposed to accomplish?
I mean, if this is just your way of admitting your move was indefensible, then... Thank you, I guess? I mean, if you want to go the extra mile and vote yourself again, that would be appreciated.
Wow.
So self-defense 101, don't aim the gun at your own foot.
"I'm tired of you putting the exact words in my mouth that I used!"
1. When it comes to anyone else voting Terry, there were no reasons to vote Terry.
2. When it comes to you voting Terry, it's supposed to be perfectly understandable that you were persuaded to vote Terry, even though you'd previously declared him hardcleared.
Except how is it understandable that you were persuaded to vote Terry after you supposedly hardcleared him despite there being no reasons to do so?
Again, hardcleared. You argued Terry was hardcleared. Not "unlikely to be mafia," hardcleared. You went from Terry being hardcleared to Terry being a likely mafia. How did you do that if there was no reason to vote Terry? You had less reason to vote him than anyone else on that wagon, indeed less reason than anyone else period other than Terry himself.
If there were truly no reason to vote Terry, then why did you, who believed Terry to be hardcleared, vote him?
It would be hypocrisy if I actually were to believe you were even trying to make a good faith argument, but it's obvious you're a mafia trying to fight his way out of a hole he dug for himself.
I will let this slide this time, and only this time. This is an untrue statement regarding a matter that is totally irrelevant to the thread that you are parroting from someone who has since rescinded his statement after issuing an apology to me for being inappropriate in bringing it up. I suggest you follow his good example.
Someone tried it already.
You really should have read ztdsd's post.
Talked into by whom?
It wasn't, and I've already explained this, and vezok has already apologized for bringing that into this thread, but nice try at the inappropriate low jab.
Terry was not my number one target, YOU were. However, Terry was suspicious due to his behavior, especially the fact that he didn't vote Rodemy, and also realistically he was the only one we were actually going to get 7 people to agree on that day.
Also, it's hilarious you're trying to say there was no reason for lynching Terry despite the fact that the majority of the town agreed he was suspicious and no one was defending him. In the end, not even you were, and you thought you'd hardcleared him. Desperate smear campaigns against me are one thing, but you still have five other people in the town to try to account for.
What?
I mean, technically yesterday, but there was no way you were ever going to get 7 votes that close to deadline, so really never.
Ok, lot to analyze here.
You realize that you agreed with killing Terry, right?
It's really surprising to me you keep (A) insisting there's no reason to vote you, and (B) bringing up Terry, because once again: you sanctioned the daykill of an individual you insisted was a cleared town.
What town sanctions the daykill of a person they believe they themselves confirmed to be town? And when pressed for why you did this, you have never once come forward with a decent answer. You've said something along the lines of, "I lost sight of the fact that he was town. I let myself be convinced," but you've never said what convinced you, or who convinced you, or any kind of justification for your reasoning.
So instead, we're just left with the facts: you defended Terry as cleared - based on reasoning that never made sense - until 6 people soft-voted that he be daykilled, after which you soft-hammered (that sounds wrong), and then proceeded to make sure everyone in the town knew that you tried to clear Terry after he was dead and flipped.
That alone should justify a vote, because who even does that? Who 180s out of nowhere like that on a person they believe was hardcleared?
My primary reasons for saying Rhand was suspicious was the the fact that he was defending D_V when that didn't make sense, and was lumped in with vezokpiraka who was also defending D_V when it didn't make sense and was acting pretty suspicious in general.
I've been pretty much the only consistent voice calling for D_V's lynch. Rhand had the least suspicion on him out of the three. Killing Rhand makes D_V look better.
D_V being mafia explains a lot of things. His swiftness to try to clear Terry, vezok, and me by an argument that still makes no sense, his inscrutable claim that Terry was cleared only to opportunistically kill him when 6 people signed on to his daykill, his gambit at the end of day 2, and now Rhand's death... All of these weird moves would make an abundance of sense if he were mafia.
With vezokpiraka it should be obvious to anyone. vezok claimed a similar role to Rhand, a counterpart role both thematically and apparently mechanically. Rhand's flipping town has made me less suspicious of vezok, a sentiment you agree with. Therefore, clearly Rhand would be the best choice of a nightkill were vezokpiraka mafia.
You because you, vezok, and Rhand seemed to be grouping up yesterday. I’m not the only one who pointed this out. Killing Rhand would be an easy way to make you look better.
Do the people you target get notified of this?
Vote D_V.
Because obviously.
*Sigh* Less than two minutes until deadline. Anyone care to second my petition to extend deadline to midnight MST? Don't know if it will accomplish anything, but worth a shot.
Ok, so that's 5. tomsloger is here and checking. Right now it's set for 10 pm EST, which is in about 30 minutes. Is anyone else online?