Unvote ; Vote : TinCow
Please, explain your vote for Double A.
Also, something about you is rubbing me the wrong way. Can't really explain what it is exactly, should do a re-read later on.
Printable View
Unvote ; Vote : TinCow
Please, explain your vote for Double A.
Also, something about you is rubbing me the wrong way. Can't really explain what it is exactly, should do a re-read later on.
Something about him is rubbing me the wrong way. Can't really explain what it is exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Didn't get any sleep, kind of in a rush right now. Andres, don't spoil Wheel of Time for me, I just started reading the first book!
Vote: Jolt
Let's make sure Jarema can get a useful partner for whenever the reshuffle happens.
Only reason why I dislike protecting(Other then being boring) is because you can't prove you did unless someone attacks your protect target.:juggle:Quote:
Originally Posted by edse
I don't buy it, need more proof. Vote:edse
well, that seems a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
unvote; vote: Jolt
@Visor: of course, I pm'ed him. I try to be active at mafia games, so I tried to contact him from begining; that is why I am so dissapointed with having him as a partner
let me note that players get woged if useless. No use killing town for such things.
My won partner was woged night 1 for no participating (daveshack)
Vote: TinCow
I refuse to believe it's a coincidence that myself, TinCow, and BSmith were all attacked on the same night. This was a coordinated act of terror.*
*Let the record show this was the day after the attack, not two weeks after.
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Even before today, I would've said the same of you. vote: abstain because I don't want to WIFOM. Is it still a WIFOM if I was going to vote for him anyway? Someone needs to write down an official WIFOM code of conduct.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
WIFOM code of conduct, rule number 1: just forget about WIFOM. It's a horribly overused concept often used to ignore perfectly valid arguments..Quote:
Originally Posted by Double A
That's a wonderful sentiment. unvote, vote: TinCow
What we know: 4 attacked Tincow, and 2 protected him. 5 attacked Zack.
If these would reveal in-thread, vouching for each other's performance, we would be able to clear 11 individuals.
Edse and Makrell are likely town: they seem to have contacted a bunch of us concerning a Pizza-protection.
The other kills seem to have been 3rd-party and scum.
Seriously, guys: half the players revealed as town would break the back of the enemy. Group actions are group actions - it would be difficult to fake one's way out of this.
Vote: Tincow
This is the guy who twice in a row commandeered the lynch to save himself. You are going to let him slide by unhindered?
I was the one who attacked Tincow last night. My partners were ishmael, Arjos, and Double A. We could tolerate such desecration no more.
REVEAL
Montmorency has basically said it all, so I'll just confirm all this - Monty, Double A, Arjos and I attacked TinCow, and I think it's pretty evident from the write-up that it wasn't one of the 'scum' kills (there seems to be two SKs and a mafia group operating, judging by the write-ups). The same is true for the group that killed Zack. I stand by my list of probable townies earlier, and as Montmorency mentioned particularly Makrell, who contacted three of us (but not me :no:) trying to protect Pizza, which seems a fairly legitimate townie move considering the likelihood that he would be attacked.
Also, unvote, vote: TinCow. Same as the others really - I have a funny feeling about you (as evidenced by the attack), and I don't really have anybody else I really think is scum.
Ah, so I actually have to defend myself this round. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disappoint you, as I don't have much else to say. I've been active both nights as part of vig groups, both successful. On N1, I killed JoanK. One person (my partner) failed to submit orders, so there were only three of us, though the write-up does not clearly state that. We either got lucky there or one of us is scum. On N2, I killed Zack (sorry mate) with 4 other people. All of us submitted orders.
That's all I've got. Lynch away.
3 other people....Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishmael
Just because you guys were in the groups doesn't make you townie by default, at least not all of you. Mafia can infiltrate the groups, so why is it impossible for any member of your group to be mafia?
Who else was involved?Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
If that's true, the others should be able to vouch for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincow
Unvote; in the meantime.
All four of us participated in the attack, as is visible in the writeup. On N1, we tried to kill Tincow and protect Arjos, but split 2-2. If the scum could attack as a group of 2 yesterday and this night, then it indicates that of these two possibilities -Quote:
Originally Posted by Choxorn
- the latter is the case. If the scum are not spread around, then our initial groups are secure.Quote:
The mafia may be infiltrated into these starting groups, or may be in their own groups.
Im invisible or what?
N1, Tincow, Bsmith and me
N2, Tincow, Bsmith, me and other two
I'm not Australian, you two-timin' ragamuffin!Quote:
On N2, I killed Zack (sorry mate)
I echo GH's :inquisitive:.
Morover, Tincow, what's striking to me is this: how did you find a 5th on N1? Was it Makrell? The partner of the other replacement?
I didn't find a 5th on N1, that was on N2. On N1 there were supposed to be 4 of us, but my partner didn't submit orders so there were just 3. On N2 there were 5, as my partner showed up and we added another. The other person's partner had questionable activity levels and it wasn't felt to be worthwhile to try and get them to show up. We didn't expect my partner to show up at all, so we expect it to be a group of 4 consisting of one intact pair and two solos. I asked 'khaan and he said that he would allow such a scenario to work properly as long as there was at least one intact pair. In the end, my partner did get orders in though, so we had two intact pairs, plus the fifth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
As for how I found the other people, that's a pretty silly question.
Very good. However, you evaded the real question. Who were you working with? This can't proceed without names.
Two of my partners have already been confirmed in-thread. If that's not good enough for you, then just lynch me because I'm not going to give you the other names. Hell, I wouldn't even have given you the first two, but one of my partners is apparently very charitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
There are 4 scum, and 5 were in the group against Zack.
You have Bsmith killt by an SK or something, and Riedquat vouching for you. Unless the other two vouch, it is entirely possible that you and Riedquat are dissembling scum.
What reason would you give for refusing to name the others, eh? The purpose here is to clear half the town, not merely to satisfy my curiosity.
It was suppose to be six in total but we ran out of time to include someone with TinCow and Co.(Up to them on whether they want to come forward or not):shrug:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
If that is the case I'm very bad at it.... :laugh4:
You've crossed the line from interrogating for lynch purposes to trying to gain names of active vigging townies. I specifically said that on N5 we had two full sets of two, plus a fifth, so the kill absolutely would have succeeded under the rules and there's no purpose at all for you to need to know the extra names. The questionable activity was on N1, with the group of 3, not N2, with the group of 5. You are fishing for information, and you are scummy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Unvote; Vote: Monty