Lady K Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 Like what? Tell me? I was blocked, there was no kill, it's megablocking hard to defend yourself against that don't you think? Your post looks like you are fishing for info from me before I die. Interesting reply. The way you say you were blocked and there was no kill almost seems like you are admitting to having a night action. And you think I am fishing for info from you? Seriously? You just keep claiming your vanilla town and are unwilling to help because you think you will be photographed tonight. That just screams scum. A real townie would be willing to help right down to the last minute.
Scaevola Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 Care to share why you think that? Of course. For yourself Representative Hatley, I will again cite your vote on Day 1. You stuck your vote on the minority candidate when the attainment of an impeachment was looking uncertain, thereby conveying the idea you were attempting to obstruct an impeachment. As a late voter, you should have ensured its fruition. Your Day 2 bandwagon on Palacios was again calculated to bolster your reputation with the majority, reassuring you agreed with them when you could have abstained or voted for another. As for Tiny, his posts have really been elusive and insubstantial which seems quite scummy. For instance, his reasons for impeaching Nottingham and Palacios were very vague. Albeit this is a little questionable considering it was Rutherford who exposed the Octan Figurelli.
Piratedave84 Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Interesting reply. The way you say you were blocked and there was no kill almost seems like you are admitting to having a night action. And you think I am fishing for info from you? Seriously? You just keep claiming your vanilla town and are unwilling to help because you think you will be photographed tonight. That just screams scum. A real townie would be willing to help right down to the last minute. HOW! Your mind like everyone else's is made; I'm trying to help by acknowledging that it looks bad on Me and am accepting the consequence in order for us to move forward and explore other avenues; in other words you are beating a dead horse and your doing so is counterproductive.
Yzalirk Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Of course. For yourself Representative Hatley, I will again cite your vote on Day 1. You stuck your vote on the minority candidate when the attainment of an impeachment was looking uncertain, thereby conveying the idea you were attempting to obstruct an impeachment. As a late voter, you should have ensured its fruition. Your Day 2 bandwagon on Palacios was again calculated to bolster your reputation with the majority, reassuring you agreed with them when you could have abstained or voted for another. You're not making any sense right now. According to you, you would have preferred if I bandwagoned on Day One but you don't condone the fact I may have done it one Day Two? It seems like you're trying to mislead people on your assumptions that prove nothing. I think scum would do that, wolf among sheep. But I've very curious as to how you came up with those conclusions based on innocent votes towards only me when 8 others voted for Palacios and you, me, and three others voted against Addie on Day One? Where you trying to obstruct a lynch, like you claim I tried to do?
Lego Spy Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Ok. So let us assume, for a moment, that you are just being a total noob. You say you want to help impeach scum. We don't know yet what information the investigator gave to our Speaker. What are your thoughts? Based on all the previous days and today, what are your opinions on other representatives? Personally, I'm feeling suspicious of Pierce because of his odd behavior today, and I feel Bjorn is being too quiet. As for who the confirmed scum is my conjecture is that it was most likely Rep. Spalding. His bandwagoning, fluffy or useless posts, and general quietude speak for themselves. Well its not going to be, and I'm sorry I'm not the kind of person who sits at their computer all day, clicking F5 every three seconds.
Yzalirk Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Well its not going to be, and I'm sorry I'm not the kind of person who sits at their computer all day, clicking F5 every three seconds. I love this! Anyways, I wouldn't accuse Spalding of bandwagoning, Sinclair, when you've done it yourself. I do agree that Pierce is looking quite scummy but he isn't at the tippy-top of my scum list. I think it's you, Sinclair, for being quite manipulative and being eager to hear what others have to say rather than saying what you think. It's as if you don't want to say the wrong thing and look guilty, which I don't blame you, but being manipulative is just as bad, maybe even worse.
MagPiesRUs Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 And what made your own self-nomination not innocuous? You nominated yourself later on in the day when it was safer, and when everyone else was agreeing that we had no reason to trust anyone else. That seems like a good time for the scum to self-vote and remain under the radar. As for Tiny, his posts have really been elusive and insubstantial which seems quite scummy. For instance, his reasons for impeaching Nottingham and Palacios were very vague. Albeit this is a little questionable considering it was Rutherford who exposed the Octan Figurelli. Vague? I provided plenty of reasons why I thought Nottingham and Palacios were good lynch candidates. I also fail to see how I'm one of your top suspects when by your own admission, I was the first to suggest Figurelli as an impeachment target.
Lady K Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Personally, I'm feeling suspicious of Pierce because of his odd behavior today, and I feel Bjorn is being too quiet. Well its not going to be, and I'm sorry I'm not the kind of person who sits at their computer all day, clicking F5 every three seconds. Speaking of Bjorn being too quiet, he hasn't even posted once today, and he was around earlier.
def Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 In hopes of maintaining conversation, I will not reveal the caught Octan until the 48 hour point. If I reveal it now, everybody will just vote for them, and we'll have nothing to do for the remaining hours of the day. Please, keep up your squabbling!
Yzalirk Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Haha, works for me! Addie, and how long was Bjorn on for? I don't think people should be nominated scum of the day just because they're a bit quiet. Look at what happened to Palacios because we all thought that. Just because someone is too quiet doesn't mean they should be nominated as Octan so easily.
mostlytechnic Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 In hopes of maintaining conversation, I will not reveal the caught Octan until the 48 hour point. If I reveal it now, everybody will just vote for them, and we'll have nothing to do for the remaining hours of the day. Please, keep up your squabbling! But I have to say you're probably right to do so.
Lego Spy Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 You nominated yourself later on in the day when it was safer, and when everyone else was agreeing that we had no reason to trust anyone else. That seems like a good time for the scum to self-vote and remain under the radar. I was under the impression that we had to vote for a speaker, and that there wasn't a choice in that matter. If I had known this was the case at the time, I wouldn't have voted at all.
Lady K Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Haha, works for me! Addie, and how long was Bjorn on for? I don't think people should be nominated scum of the day just because they're a bit quiet. Look at what happened to Palacios because we all thought that. Just because someone is too quiet doesn't mean they should be nominated as Octan so easily. I checked the last time he was logged on, about 2hrs after the start of the new day. He could have made at least one post. Given the different time zones, he should be on in a few hours. However, for the past two days when I question someones quietness, Mr. Speaker has stated he took the vote away and silenced the person (first Molly, then Lloyd). Since he didn't speak up just now, I will assume that unless Bjorn was the investigated scum, he did not silence him and therefore he (Bjorn) could have made at least one post by now. I am not suggestion Bjorn is scum based on quietness but rather on lack of contribution in his posts. What has he really given us? A few post with nothing useful is just a few posts to appear to be part of the town rather than actively helping.
Piratedave84 Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Haha, works for me! Addie, and how long was Bjorn on for? I don't think people should be nominated scum of the day just because they're a bit quiet. Look at what happened to Palacios because we all thought that. Just because someone is too quiet doesn't mean they should be nominated as Octan so easily. Ah! Good for others but not for me? You've been accusing me of being quiet for 3 days now and all of the sudden being quiet is not so bad; as long as it's one of your buddies that is, correct?
Tamamono Posted January 6, 2015 Author Posted January 6, 2015 You may now vote. With 12, it takes 7 to impeach
badboytje88 Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Excuse my tardiness. I had a party and drank one too many sherries. My money is on either Addie or Bjorn, but I could be totally wrong. Two other shots in the dark are Tiny and Lloyd. Ok... Why? As for my list, Rep Spalding still tops it for my previously stated reasons. Rep Haltley and Benedict are still suspicious, but Rep Borchard has definitely been added to my list as well. He is somewhat active but really hasn't contributed anything useful at all. And I would like to see more from Rep Davy and Rep Rutherord. Well it is nice to know you got a list. Not so nice that you put me on it. You know who also has a list? Santa! I was on his list too. And my oh my did I get spoiled this year cause I was (and still am) nice! Personally, I'm feeling suspicious of Pierce because of his odd behavior today, and I feel Bjorn is being too quiet. As I said before I am sorry I woke up a bit late today. I checked the last time he was logged on, about 2hrs after the start of the new day. He could have made at least one post. Given the different time zones, he should be on in a few hours. However, for the past two days when I question someones quietness, Mr. Speaker has stated he took the vote away and silenced the person (first Molly, then Lloyd). Since he didn't speak up just now, I will assume that unless Bjorn was the investigated scum, he did not silence him and therefore he (Bjorn) could have made at least one post by now. I am not suggestion Bjorn is scum based on quietness but rather on lack of contribution in his posts. What has he really given us? A few post with nothing useful is just a few posts to appear to be part of the town rather than actively helping. Wow have you been paying attention or what? Our speaker can only steal someones vote if they failed to vote the day before. I voted yesterday so he couldn't have stolen my vote.
def Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Scumbums, don't you want to lob some more accusations out there for when we out you?
Scaevola Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 You're not making any sense right now. According to you, you would have preferred if I bandwagoned on Day One but you don't condone the fact I may have done it one Day Two? It seems like you're trying to mislead people on your assumptions that prove nothing. I think scum would do that, wolf among sheep. But I've very curious as to how you came up with those conclusions based on innocent votes towards only me when 8 others voted for Palacios and you, me, and three others voted against Addie on Day One? Where you trying to obstruct a lynch, like you claim I tried to do? People voted after you. You could have helped seal an impeachment vote but risked a non-impeachment by keeping it up in the air. As I said, you were a late voter and thereby should have ensured its occurrence. I was sleeping when the decisive votes came in thereby could not alter my own. Day 2 however, the impeachment was already decided yet you still voted for the majority candidate. I love this! Anyways, I wouldn't accuse Spalding of bandwagoning, Sinclair, when you've done it yourself. I do agree that Pierce is looking quite scummy but he isn't at the tippy-top of my scum list. I think it's you, Sinclair, for being quite manipulative and being eager to hear what others have to say rather than saying what you think. It's as if you don't want to say the wrong thing and look guilty, which I don't blame you, but being manipulative is just as bad, maybe even worse. . Did you happen to notice everyone bandwagoned yesterday? And everyone was explicitly excused since it was certain Figurelli was scum. Interpret, don't just skim my comments. You're manipulating my words or seriously misinterpreting them to an excruciating point. You nominated yourself later on in the day when it was safer, and when everyone else was agreeing that we had no reason to trust anyone else. That seems like a good time for the scum to self-vote and remain under the radar. Vague? I provided plenty of reasons why I thought Nottingham and Palacios were good lynch candidates. I also fail to see how I'm one of your top suspects when by your own admission, I was the first to suggest Figurelli as an impeachment target. When your votes came in, meager at best justifications were included with the voting posts. Just refer to your votes on Nottingham and Palacios.
def Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Right now, I'm in PM contact with half the players. If you aren't in contact with me already, please do so ASAP. I want to know what you're doing. If you're only reading the thread twice a day since you're a lazy vanilla, then contact me to tell me that. But anyone who hasn't contacted me before the end of day four will rocket up to the top of the suss list. Do it. DOO EET! Town will inevitably win this, with the momentum we have now. Will you be a survivor or not? That depends on you.
Bob Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Ok... Why? Have I not explained sufficiently over the past few days? I'll repeat myself again (as you're also prone to do) by saying that you're purposefully confusing, forgetful, repetitive, and all around a bit fluffy.
Mencot Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Right now, I'm in PM contact with half the players. If you aren't in contact with me already, please do so ASAP. I want to know what you're doing. If you're only reading the thread twice a day since you're a lazy vanilla, then contact me to tell me that. But anyone who hasn't contacted me before the end of day four will rocket up to the top of the suss list. Do it. DOO EET! Town will inevitably win this, with the momentum we have now. Will you be a survivor or not? That depends on you. You like this don´t you, to be in charge
Yzalirk Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Ah! Good for others but not for me? You've been accusing me of being quiet for 3 days now and all of the sudden being quiet is not so bad; as long as it's one of your buddies that is, correct? Are you complaining? Are you trying to win my vote to be against you? If anything, I thought you where too loud and targeted me, which you did the past days. If you haven't learned anything from the Palacios impeachment, you are quite foolish. I'm not saying that being quiet should go excused, especially on Day Four, but it shouldn't mean they're the scummiest of them all. Again, I would vote for you for acting like a buffoon and a quitter but that might be for another day. People voted after you. You could have helped seal an impeachment vote but risked a non-impeachment by keeping it up in the air. As I said, you were a late voter and thereby should have ensured its occurrence. I was sleeping when the decisive votes came in thereby could not alter my own. Day 2 however, the impeachment was already decided yet you still voted for the majority candidate. . Did you happen to notice everyone bandwagoned yesterday? And everyone was explicitly excused since it was certain Figurelli was scum. Interpret, don't just skim my comments. You're manipulating my words or seriously misinterpreting them to an excruciating point. Again, you're avoiding my question. Why only target me for bandwagoning in a situation, like you clearly just said, everyone bandwagoned in? I actually wasn't aware that Figurelli was a confirmed scum until this day. That's what I find scummy about you - trying to target me for bandwagoning when other people clearly have, like yourself. I have a question for you though and I want you to give some thinking - If you are an Octan, was it hard to sell out one of your colleagues when he made it clear he was Octan without blatantly saying it?
badboytje88 Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Have I not explained sufficiently over the past few days? I'll repeat myself again (as you're also prone to do) by saying that you're purposefully confusing, forgetful, repetitive, and all around a bit fluffy. Well I am a pit forgetful and confusing, put that's my nature. To say I do it purposefully is just hurtfull and not true. I am sorry if it comes across like that to you. Repetetive and all round a bit fluffy (since when are we using that word) I can live with. Maybe having such an eloquent speaker made me a bit lazy...
Scaevola Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Are you complaining? Are you trying to win my vote to be against you? If anything, I thought you where too loud and targeted me, which you did the past days. If you haven't learned anything from the Palacios impeachment, you are quite foolish. I'm not saying that being quiet should go excused, especially on Day Four, but it shouldn't mean they're the scummiest of them all. Again, I would vote for you for acting like a buffoon and a quitter but that might be for another day. Again, you're avoiding my question. Why only target me for bandwagoning in a situation, like you clearly just said, everyone bandwagoned in? I actually wasn't aware that Figurelli was a confirmed scum until this day. That's what I find scummy about you - trying to target me for bandwagoning when other people clearly have, like yourself. I have a question for you though and I want you to give some thinking - If you are an Octan, was it hard to sell out one of your colleagues when he made it clear he was Octan without blatantly saying it? He was confirmed Octan because (see the eightieth post yesterday) Figurelli was counterclaimed with a night action (duh). Again, you are not reading for comprehension. You were the only bandwagoner (besides Spalding but he formatted his vote wrong, and Laughlin attempted to at days end) for Palacios. You voted after a vote was decided for a representative of unconfirmed allegiance (therefore an unexcused bandwagoning situation). Figurelli's was justified due to the surety of his allegiance. Time for you to interpret my comments (and others') instead of cannibalizing and contorting them. Whom is the real (albeit unsuccessful) manipulative here? I have an idea.
Yzalirk Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 He was confirmed Octan because (see the eightieth post yesterday) Figurelli was counterclaimed with a night action (duh). Again, you are not reading for comprehension. You were the only bandwagoner (besides Spalding but he formatted his vote wrong, and Laughlin attempted to at days end) for Palacios. You voted after a vote was decided for a representative of unconfirmed allegiance (therefore an unexcused bandwagoning situation). Figurelli's was justified due to the surety of his allegiance. Time for you to interpret my comments (and others') instead of cannibalizing and contorting them. Whom is the real (albeit unsuccessful) manipulative here? I have an idea. Then can you interpret this? I'm going to place my vote on Rep. Addie Tremain Vote: Addie Tremain (adventurer1) I consider Tremain a more viable candidate due to the evidence against Calanon being of more early substance and mainly due to her support in her bid for the speakership. Wherefore, the opposition against Addie is more founded upon consistent data relating to few and fluffy posts. I am however also a firebrand of lynching on the first day and encourage late voters to cast their vote upon the accused more who has more votes or is more apt to gain votes at that time. You dislike the fact I may have bandwagoned yet you condone the fact it should be done? You should remember this, you did say it on Day One. You support a Day One lynch but you didn't vote for Calanon, despite the fact he/she was a Loyalist, and instead voted for Addie, whom only had 4 votes against her that day. You made a claim but you didn't actually support it yourself, not any of the days except for Day Two. You started a bandwagon against Palacios by saying this, I for one am not satisfied with Representative Jacob Palacios justifications. A refusal to tender his vote, especially as one of the crucial later votes strongly testifies that he was aiming for a no-lynch which would entirely benefit the Octan. Furthermore, he attempted to justify his action by stating it would make himself look scummy, which is very self-serving and suggests a paranoid inclination to maintain his reputation (though paradoxical considering his vote), which also incriminates him as scum. Therefore, I'll be voting for Jacob. Vote: Jacob Palacios (JackJonespaw) If anything, Octan members would be all-aboard the bandwagon express, so saying that his vote was to try and deny the fact for a lynch, is silly. You did that on Day One, am I correct? And how else was he supposed to defend himself without risking his reputation? From experience, it's very hard and I don't blame him. And worst of all, since you started that bandwagon, he came up as a Loyalist. Now I'm not going to try and deny the fact I didn't vote for him when I clearly did, but because I believed it was the right choice. You're good, Sinclair, but not that good. You are being a hypocrite by accusing me of these actions when you condoned them on Day One and you didn't follow what you said. Your accusation against Palacios for trying to stop a lynch intrigues me since he never voted at all. So how did he exactly try to prevent a lynch when Calanon, the Day One lynch, was already set to be lynched? Care to try and counter what I've said here?
Recommended Posts