Dannylonglegs Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I was saying that Lodmund never had a Writeboard. Pudding Head and I each received unique Writeboards that allowed us to contact the scum team. Very interesting... that would make Lodmund's inability to access it suspicious.
Hinckley Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I'm not sure people up and say that for no real reason, or others of us would've been messaged, wouldn't ya think? Especially considering he didn't say any such thing to me or to Agnar. He was very short with me. Told me to use the writeboard. And this was when there were several hours left in the day. If Lodmund is Scum, then he was over–compensating trying to prove he was actually talking to Jarl.
TrumpetKing Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Not shocked about Mist, but Munud being loyal is a bit of a surprise, and I won't lie, with the way Tarben was stirring things up, his coming up loyal came to me as a surprise as well, though I more suspected him to be a Third-Party rather than a full-fledged corrupted member. In addition to Danr, another sheep has been Toki, who disappeared back into the woodwork after freaking the megabluck out over me saying his post was fluff. Actually, what I said was "no vote" and it sent him into a multi-point tail spin about how I couldn't be trusted. what? I could have sworn we had talked about this. I did, admittedly, freak the megabluck out when I should not have, but as I have explained, Tarben stirred the pot a bit and turned the issue into a much bigger deal to me than it actually was. As for disappearing, that is my own fault due to many underlying circumstances in my personal life. Seeing how it is now Day 4, I'm beginning to wonder where our investigator is. By now, in a perfect world there would be three results, enough to form a solid town block, as I'm sure we would have heard otherwise if there were a corrupted result. Did I miss something? Did our investigator already die? It is fairly early into the day, leaving room for results to be revealed, but I have a hard time believing that, while being in contact with the vigilante, blocker, and tracker, an investigator wouldn't have checked Pudding-Head by now and contacted him to start a town block. It seems rather perplexing to me.
Hinckley Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Seeing how it is now Day 4, I'm beginning to wonder where our investigator is. By now, in a perfect world there would be three results, enough to form a solid town block, as I'm sure we would have heard otherwise if there were a corrupted result. Did I miss something? Did our investigator already die? It is fairly early into the day, leaving room for results to be revealed, but I have a hard time believing that, while being in contact with the vigilante, blocker, and tracker, an investigator wouldn't have checked Pudding-Head by now and contacted him to start a town block. It seems rather perplexing to me. You did miss something. The investigator is still alive and well and we have three Town results so far.
Pandora Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 See, I just can't see how what Mist did could have possibly been a sting, though. What did she hope to gain by that if she'd been Townie? I can't see any possible benefit. Even if Mist was town, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around why she would've claimed scum in a sting. How often are stings even successful? Meant to clarify and say if she was actually town why she would conduct a sting in such an open area. Why are you both speculating on what Mist might have done had she been town, considering we now know for an absolute fact that she was scum? If she was the traitor, she would have asked for the scum to contact her, but not the traitor. If she was the traitor, why claim? It'd do her and her team no good. Yes, scum and traitor if out there be in contact with me.... She asked for both the scum and the traitor to contact her. It is likely one or the other was WIFOM, and even possible that in fact she was the traitor, should one even exist. Either way, she's still dead scum. Now that we have this information, why did you feel revealing it should wait until tomorrow? I get that you are apparently reporting a conversation with the scum, so everything should be taken with a pinch of salt, but I looked back and couldn't see where Pudding had mentioned your name in the thread between Mist asking for traitor candidates and this point in the conversation where you apparently doubted her to be scum and unvoted her. Do you have any idea what they mean? It may have been overlooked by recent events, but Lodmund, I'd still like an answer to my questions from yesterday please.
Hinckley Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 It may have been overlooked by recent events, but Lodmund, I'd still like an answer to my questions from yesterday please. Several people have asked this same question. It seems like he's avoiding answering it.
Dragonfire Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Funny, when I first read that on the writeboard, I thought the same thing but I actually thought it was someone smart enough to mimic Mist. Wait a freakin' minute. How do you know someone spoke in text talk? In the paraphrasing, I did one over–the–top l33t post, but the rest was pretty straightforward. You know more then I revealed, Dar. You, Agnar and Lodmund's "writeboard" posts all showed one person talking in text-talk. I made the assumption that this was all the same person and that it was Mist. You know what? I didn't say anything about two others fake-claiming in the thread, Dar. You said something similar, here it is: They said they had two other candidates. I know who those are too, by the way. I'm trying to think of reasons not to reveal them. This basically means that two others fake-claimed traitor. They wouldn't have notified you about it if they were legitimate traitors claiming, and if you thought they were the traitor, you would have revealed them, which implies that you "trusted" them and therefore that their claims were fake. And it's terribly unfortunate that your theory is protecting Lodmund who now seems even Scummier. That was a theory based on the assumption that Lodmund is Town. I personally think Lodmund is Scum, but I was trying to come up with possible explanations. And it was announced from the beginning that there were two Scum teams, so not the same thing. Oh, OK. I guess there's only one team then. Seeing how it is now Day 4, I'm beginning to wonder where our investigator is. By now, in a perfect world there would be three results, enough to form a solid town block, as I'm sure we would have heard otherwise if there were a corrupted result. Did I miss something? Did our investigator already die? It is fairly early into the day, leaving room for results to be revealed, but I have a hard time believing that, while being in contact with the vigilante, blocker, and tracker, an investigator wouldn't have checked Pudding-Head by now and contacted him to start a town block. It seems rather perplexing to me. Is it just me who sees this as fishing?
Hinckley Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 This basically means that two others fake-claimed traitor. They wouldn't have notified you about it if they were legitimate traitors claiming, and if you thought they were the traitor, you would have revealed them, which implies that you "trusted" them and therefore that their claims were fake. That is dragon crap! And stop putting ads in your posts. I say that two others claimed. I did not say they were fake claims. I actually imply that either one can be Scum when I say I can't think of any reason not to reveal them. I'm threatening to reveal them because contacting the Scum is Scummy! Not to mention, I haven't even said Lodmund's name at that point. So basically you are explaining how the Scum misinterpreted my post. Interesting. How did you gain this insight? Even if I thought they were all fake claims at that point, how would I know? Wouldn't the real traitor who was trying to cover as an infiltrating Townie claim to be fake? Who else thought I meant that I thought we were all fake claims?
Dragonfire Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 That is dragon crap! And stop putting ads in your posts. I say that two others claimed. I did not say they were fake claims. I actually imply that either one can be Scum when I say I can't think of any reason not to reveal them. I'm threatening to reveal them because contacting the Scum is Scummy! Not to mention, I haven't even said Lodmund's name at that point. So basically you are explaining how the Scum misinterpreted my post. Interesting. How did you gain this insight? Even if I thought they were all fake claims at that point, how would I know? Wouldn't the real traitor who was trying to cover as an infiltrating Townie claim to be fake? Who else thought I meant that I thought we were all fake claims? OH. I thought you meant that you were trying to think of reasons to not reveal them, implying that you knew they were town! Simple misunderstanding. As for the ads, I can't help them - I'm infected!
JackJonespaw Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 Is it just me who sees this as fishing? I doubt the investigator would claim to anyone he hadn't investigated. Assuming he hasn't died. Might be fishing, could just be harmless wondering. I don't really see anything pingy about it.
Hinckley Posted July 19, 2015 Posted July 19, 2015 I doubt the investigator would claim to anyone he hadn't investigated. Assuming he hasn't died. Might be fishing, could just be harmless wondering. I don't really see anything pingy about it. Read...
Piratedave84 Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 3 in 3!!! I'll echo Pudding here and say that Dar seems a bit too familiar with the contents of the boards. I read back and I can't see where it was made explicitly clear that there were text-talk in all 3 boards. pudding are it pretty clear but not the others. Lodmund's unvote yesterday and behaviour today is also highly suspicious. I want to know why you unvoted.
Hinckley Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 I'll echo Pudding here and say that Dar seems a bit too familiar with the contents of the boards. I read back and I can't see where it was made explicitly clear that there were text-talk in all 3 boards. pudding are it pretty clear but not the others. I would say it's more clear in Lodmund's re-telling of the tale.
Piratedave84 Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 I would say it's more clear in Lodmund's re-telling of the tale. There still seems to be some relation between those 2; Lodmund's explanation for Dar's comment does not sit well with me. Unless they are both in the town block or are both scum there is no reason for him to step in like that.
Dragonfire Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 I'll echo Pudding here and say that Dar seems a bit too familiar with the contents of the boards. I read back and I can't see where it was made explicitly clear that there were text-talk in all 3 boards. pudding are it pretty clear but not the others. Do you want me to dig up the quotes for you? Scum 1: L33t drivel and craziness! Wacko wacko bleeeeeerg. Scum one: hey duvors r u rly te traitor or sre you just lyign to us? if u r then u can join us now :):):):):):):):) The evidence is right there. You can see that Pudding and Lodmund's writeboards begin with "scum one" speaking in crazy text talk. Agnar's writeboard also mentions a "scum one" as well. Agnar, can you clarify whether the quote below was in text-talk on your writeboard? Scum One: We hear you're trying to pull a sting on us. We're not idiots, you stupid, stupidPERSON! There still seems to be some relation between those 2; Lodmund's explanation for Dar's comment does not sit well with me. Unless they are both in the town block or are both scum there is no reason for him to step in like that. Well, I'm neither Scum nor in the Town block.... I don't see any real reason for Lodmund to defend me, but scum do defend townies sometimes....
Tariq j Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 3 in 3!!! I'll echo Pudding here and say that Dar seems a bit too familiar with the contents of the boards. I read back and I can't see where it was made explicitly clear that there were text-talk in all 3 boards. pudding are it pretty clear but not the others. Lodmund's unvote yesterday and behaviour today is also highly suspicious. I want to know why you unvoted. I'm not saying Dar is loyal, but its fairly obvious it is text talk, just at a glance you can tell.
Piratedave84 Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Do you want me to dig up the quotes for you? The evidence is right there. You can see that Pudding and Lodmund's writeboards begin with "scum one" speaking in crazy text talk. Agnar's writeboard also mentions a "scum one" as well. Agnar, can you clarify whether the quote below was in text-talk on your writeboard?[/font][/color] Well, I'm neither Scum nor in the Town block.... I don't see any real reason for Lodmund to defend me, but scum do defend townies sometimes.... I didn't remember the 'quotes' being so explicit on the text talk; thanks for clarifying.
MagPiesRUs Posted July 20, 2015 Author Posted July 20, 2015 You may now vote. With 15 players remaining, 8 votes are required to lynch.
Piratedave84 Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Lodmund, I reviewd some of your posts and it seems you are Really, really adamant there is no traitor when two confirmed scums both sought to have a traitor contact them: No, I think all of this stuff about a traitor is garbage, we have yet to see any evidence of a traitor, and I think the only reason that anybody believes in the presence of a traitor role in this game is that stupid PM debacle from day one. SNIP Now as for traitors, I have already said that I don't think there is a traitor in the game, and either the scum are confused or they're just taking advantage of a stupid conversation to troll us. SNIP That's even less likely than the whole 'traitor' thing. As far as I can tell the scum are simply being idiotic because they are idiots. THERE.IS.NO.TRAITOR. THERE.NEVER.WAS.A.TRAITOR.AND.THERE.NEVER.WILL.BE.A.TRAITOR. SHUT.UP.ABOUT.THE.BLOODY.TRAITOR. but then again ... is there a traitor? Here you seem to now think there is one: Yes, it was , and that's why I re-voted him. I was actually more interested in finding out weather he was really scum than in why the scum would still be looking for a traitor. Pudding said earlier that there seem to be 2 personailties on the board; one eager to reveal details (Mist?) and another who was more coy. Your insistence there is no traitor goes directly against what 2 other confirmed scums said. Could you be the coy scummo from the board? I just tried to send a link to my writeboard to Agnar, but the link in Jarl's PM to me not only leads to this a page saying that the stupid internet couldn't find a writeboard at that address. Is it possible to delete writeboards? Convenient ....
KotZ Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Yes, Lodmund. What's with the flip flopping? You yell that there is no traitor yet a few days earlier said you think there is one. And you mention about the write board being deleted... seems a little fishy...
Duvors Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 I have never said that I thought there was a traitor, the post that Petr cites as showing my belief in the exsistence of a traitor doesn't actually say anything like that, I don't think it even implies it. And I never said that the writeboard was deleted, I asked if a writeboard can be deleted. Different thing. It may have been overlooked by recent events, but Lodmund, I'd still like an answer to my questions from yesterday please. The answer to the first one is that I was being stupid, and the answer to the second is that I don't know any more than you. Yes, Lodmund. What's with the flip flopping? You yell that there is no traitor yet a few days earlier said you think there is one. And you mention about the write board being deleted... seems a little fishy... Why is everything you've said today either a statement of the obvious or an echo of something somebody else said?
Dragonfire Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Why is everything you've said today either a statement of the obvious or an echo of something somebody else said? Good point. ( I'm on my phone and can't type in bold, so I hope you'll view this as a legitimate vote. ) Vote: Lodmund the Dwarf (Lord Duvors) I think I've already made it clear why I suspect Lodmund, but I'm open to questions on the matter.
Hinckley Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 Yes, Lodmund. What's with the flip flopping? You yell that there is no traitor yet a few days earlier said you think there is one. And you mention about the write board being deleted... seems a little fishy... Lodmund, I reviewd some of your posts and it seems you are Really, really adamant there is no traitor when two confirmed scums both sought to have a traitor contact them: but then again ... is there a traitor? Here you seem to now think there is one: Pudding said earlier that there seem to be 2 personailties on the board; one eager to reveal details (Mist?) and another who was more coy. Your insistence there is no traitor goes directly against what 2 other confirmed scums said. Could you be the coy scummo from the board? Convenient .... So, the two of you are just filing official complaints but not voting, is that right? And I never said that the writeboard was deleted, I asked if a writeboard can be deleted. Different thing. You said you couldn't access it and then asked if it could be deleted, implying it had been deleted. So what is the status of it. Did you find it?
Duvors Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 You said you couldn't access it and then asked if it could be deleted, implying it had been deleted. So what is the status of it. Did you find it? No, just a page that said that there was no writeboard at that address.
Piratedave84 Posted July 20, 2015 Posted July 20, 2015 So, the two of you are just filing official complaints but not voting, is that right? SNIP He deserved time to answer before I cast my vote. The answer was shit so ... Vote: Lodmund (Lord Duvors)
Recommended Posts