Moderator: Community Team

Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:2. Anyone else find it kind of funny that naxus is NK'd right after insisting that we're all paranoid?
Disagree. Freezie has posted nothing since my response to his defense of himself. It's still 100% a bandwagon and my vote will not shift until I get an answer for it.kwanton wrote:I'm going to agree with strike here.
If conversation has stagnated, new cases really aren't going to present themselves.
The two cases I was willing to pursue today, naxus and freezie, are kind of dead since they've posted believable defenses. I'm currently at a loss.
aage wrote:Never trust CYOC or pancake.
pancakemix wrote:Disagree. Freezie has posted nothing since my response to his defense of himself. It's still 100% a bandwagon and my vote will not shift until I get an answer for it.kwanton wrote:I'm going to agree with strike here.
If conversation has stagnated, new cases really aren't going to present themselves.
The two cases I was willing to pursue today, naxus and freezie, are kind of dead since they've posted believable defenses. I'm currently at a loss.

He posted this.freezie wrote: And then I go silent a few more days, but you can blame my job for that.
True, I could have put more effort on Gilli's case. However, I had nothing more to add than what has been said on day 1, and as pointed, I still beleive he's quite lucky that everyone let him loose so easily. If people are going to let him loose, while I have nothing to add, I would feel Rodion-ish to re-present the case with the same arguments and holding on to what everyone beleive is a dead case.
I am still re-reading a bit, on all my games actually, once the week-end arrive I'll take 2-3 hours and get back on touch with everything.
Unvote for the time beeing.
kwanton wrote: Fastposted...
Anything else to add freezie?

This is probably what you'd do, but you don't do it. Let everyone else do the dirty work, aye?AndyDufresne wrote:This is what I'd probably choose as well.strike wolf wrote:I'm ok with that commander. I feel this game is starting to stray from the joke votes and in lieu of any real leads I think voting an inactive may help though I think there are more than a couple to choose from.
--Andy
We cannot read in your head. Avoid getting heat on himself.AndyDufresne wrote:Oh, I'm paying attention to who isn't posting, I just didn't add my little internal note-in-the-head list to my post./ wrote:In other words, let's go ahead and vote someone who isn't paying attention, but I'm not paying attention enough to care who that is X2.AndyDufresne wrote:This is what I'd probably choose as well.strike wolf wrote:I'm ok with that commander. I feel this game is starting to stray from the joke votes and in lieu of any real leads I think voting an inactive may help though I think there are more than a couple to choose from.
--Andy![]()
Vote strike, why does someone have to explicitly point out there being "no leads" every game? It's like a coverup or something!
--Andy
A good post, I guess, calculating all the posts from everyone, try to tell which is most inactives...but you're still not willing to include yourself in the post count.AndyDufresne wrote:Day 1 is the only day I'd vote out an inactive, otherwise, there are usually better leads/insights/what-have-you to go on.Commander9 wrote:Going with inactives isn't my favourite thing, but we do not discussions, patterns and leads and that may be useful further in the game. Unvote. Vote TSL- I'd like to see more of him.
I had a few moments, so I went to look at posting levels in this game (not including confirmation posts)
--Andy1. Metsfanmax = 5 posts
2. / = 2 posts
3. [Replacement] TA1LGUNN3R = 1 post
4. pancakemix = 1 post
5. Talapus = 2 posts
6. strike wolf = 12 posts
7. Fircoal = 1 post
8. freezie = 5 posts
9. Haggis_McMutton = 2 posts
10. kwanton = 4 posts
11. AndyDufresne = 7 posts
12. Gilligan = 3 posts
13. naxus = 3 posts
14. nagerous = 6 posts
15. Commander9 = 7 posts
16. TheSaxlad = 1 post
17. BGtheBrain = 4 posts
A very helpful post, once again.AndyDufresne wrote:I think things are too murky for me right now to get my head around much of anything. Though it could also be that it is morning right now.
--Andy
First, you say you'd vote an incative, and when someone goes inactives, you do? Oh yes, you don't vote.AndyDufresne wrote:I thought this as well. My ears were also ticked by Haggis wanting to replace him. I think I understand his reasoning about not wanting to vote someone who isn't around to defend themselves. But I can also see this move as something a compatriot might suggest, wanting us to get along with a replacement instead of a vote if in fact we are onto someone this early.BGtheBrain wrote:I thought for Sax wouldve posted something to defend himself overnight. It just seems odd to be quiet this long, especially with all of the accusations going on here.
vote thesaxlad
--Andy
An alright question to the mod, but that's +1 post that doesn't add much to the discussion.AndyDufresne wrote:Safari, do you have a 'time' when the official deadline is up? Like Midnight? or 6 PM Eastern? or Something?safariguy5 wrote: Deadline in 2 days.
--Andy
Finally he's getting a vote on someone, when everyone pretty much established sax was beeing voted for inactivity. Still going with the flow.AndyDufresne wrote:Vote: TheSaxlad
I think we've given him a pretty good chance over the last week, and my other suspicions have even less reasoning behind them.
--Andy
Role claiming beginning day 2 is not double or triple edgy....It's 95% of the time plain stupid.AndyDufresne wrote:Yowza, well the roles I think are among the interesting tid-bits of all this. Roles seem to be logically (at least do a degree so far) related to the actual portrayal of the character on the series.
So role claiming from now on can be a bit of a double-edge, maybe even triple-edge---there is a possibility we could learn or feel confident who has what character/role if it makes sense, there is also a possibility about tipping off non-town folks, and also the possibility that non-town folks would try to use their fake claims, which might be convincing, unless we figured out if their character/role jived with precedents so far.
Anyways, I think I'm more confused now than I was before.
--Andy
AndyDufresne wrote:So is Gilligan going to be the focus of day 2 because of his SaxLad actions?
=====
Also, I feel like we've still a few players who aren't posting very much, so much that I just went to the first page to check again who all was playing.
--Andy
This is where Strike pointed Andy's neutral attitude, and Andy's response was....well, neutral, like all his posts..AndyDufresne wrote:Sometimes it is hard not to go with the flow when it seems like it is mostly a discussion with a small number of players that are posting. Anyways, I'm still building up my reads on everyone.strike wolf wrote:FOS Andy. The majority of his posts are like this. Fairly non-commital and expressing little opinion on the actual scum tells. He appears to just be going with the flow.AndyDufresne wrote:So is Gilligan going to be the focus of day 2 because of his SaxLad actions?
=====
Also, I feel like we've still a few players who aren't posting very much, so much that I just went to the first page to check again who all was playing.
--Andy
--Andy
Another post where he actually post useful information, but still he keeps himself from voting anybody, taking the heat away from himself by ''beeing here'' when he doesn't help. Oh, and nice votting patern on your part. Or abscence of pattern...AndyDufresne wrote:Okay, so sometimes I find it is helpful to map out a player's votes, include their initial joke votes, since voting patterns can sometimes shed light on who they vote on, or perhaps who they avoid putting a vote on. I think I've got all the votes cast up to this post:
Highlights over the course of the game so far:Spoiler
[Died] Talapus Voting: Freezie,
Fircoal Voting: Talapus
[Died] Nagerous Voting: AndyDufresne-->TheSaxlad
BGtheBrain Voting: Kwanton-->TheSaxlad
Kwanton Voting: TheSaxlad
Naxus Voting: Fircoal-->Kwanton-->[Day 2] Fircoal
Freezie Voting: AndyDufresne-->TheSaxlad-->[Day 2] Gilligan
Pancakemix Voting: Metsfanmax-->Strike Wolf
Haggis_McMutton Voting: Commander9
Commaner9 Voting: Haggis_McMutton-->TheSaxlad
TheSaxLad Voting: BGtheBrain / [Day 2] Drunkmonkey Voting: Gilligan
Strike Wolf Voting: Freezie-->TA1LGUNN3R-->Fircoal-->Commander9-->TheSaxlad-->Gilligan
AndyDufresne Voting: TheSaxlad
Metsfanmax Voting: Gilligan
TA1LGUNN3R Voting: TheSaxlad
/ Voting: Strike Wolf-->TheSaxlad-->Talapus--> [Day 2] FircoalI'm going to take a closer look at voting patterns.
- Fircoal has received 3 player votes.
- Gilligan has received 4 player votes.
- TheSaxlad has received 9 player votes.
- Strike Wolf is the most prolific voter, with the most vote changing.
--Andy
I actually explained all my votes, including my vote on fircoal. It sounds, however, like you are trying not to vote.AndyDufresne wrote:Looking at voting patterns, I'm going to throw a FOS on Freezie.
Based on his voting, and his descriptions of why he is voting, it really sounds like he is just looking to vote, usually jumping onto a case that seems like it could be gaining momentum.
--Andy
Yes, mafias. one more post that shows an illusion Andy is here, but isn't.AndyDufresne wrote:Does anyone have any insight on strategies the mafia may be employing? I was thinking about this yesterday, and wondering if a part of them agreed to be the 'lay-low' type, and the other part agreed to be the 'active townie' sort of player, or if they put all their bananas in on basket.
--Andy
Again, another neutral post with nothing to add. Especially since many discussed about other possible roles beggining of day 2.AndyDufresne wrote:Is it worthwhile to have a discussion on what we think would be probable characters involved in this game? We briefly have mentioned characters in posts throughout the game so far, but we haven't had a sit down and hammer out probables.
--Andy
Once again placing heat on a few people, without getting wet himself.AndyDufresne wrote:So how many prospect-cases do we have? Fircoal, Gilligan, Freezie, Naxus, Strike Wolf?
I'm willing to listen to all the cases, but the Fircoal and Gilligan cases have been scattered too much for me to make much of anything. For those of you who feel something about those cases, would you write up a summary post, so we could more easily compare all the cases? Ta1lgunn3r just sort of presented a summary for the Strike Wolf case-building, and Strike Wolf and Myself posted earlier about Naxus and Freezie respectively. If my post isn't adequate enough for case comparison, let me know, and I'll write up something else.
--Andy

Hey, I know this won't help the town in discussions or anything but what does arbitrary?strike wolf wrote:4-5 days wouldn't be a bad deadline if we were having trouble producing a lynch target and needed to push something forward but saying to discuss until then and the pick the lynch seems a bit...arbitrary to me.
Clarification: In regards to my vote. I posted some legitimate points and you just kinda ignored me. This post and the previous indicate you're not going to, but thank you for giving me even more reason to keep my vote where it is.freezie wrote:pancakemix wrote:Disagree. Freezie has posted nothing since my response to his defense of himself. It's still 100% a bandwagon and my vote will not shift until I get an answer for it.kwanton wrote:I'm going to agree with strike here.
If conversation has stagnated, new cases really aren't going to present themselves.
The two cases I was willing to pursue today, naxus and freezie, are kind of dead since they've posted believable defenses. I'm currently at a loss.
My last post is last page, and you do not appear to have posted anything after me till now.
skimmar.
aage wrote:Never trust CYOC or pancake.
Barely helping? I'd like to think that at least I am gathering information, discussing it, and posting some relevant material. This is one of your first posts in the game with content that I can remember.freezie wrote:Alright, I went ahead and regrouped 99% of Andy's posts, to show how he's, like strike pointed out earlier but nearly no one paid attention, ''going with the flow'' without really getting wet, and barely helping most of the times.
So because I mentioned what I thought I might do, but didn't immediately do it, that is scummy? That seems like a round-a-bout way to get to scum. Could I say the same about you?This is probably what you'd do, but you don't do it. Let everyone else do the dirty work, aye?AndyDufresne wrote:This is what I'd probably choose as well.strike wolf wrote:I'm ok with that commander. I feel this game is starting to stray from the joke votes and in lieu of any real leads I think voting an inactive may help though I think there are more than a couple to choose from.
--Andy
Nice to see you were quick to hop onto a vote after you mentioned your possible intention. Wait, you waited 5 days and 48 posts later to get to your vote.freezie, Monday - July 11th wrote:Same, I vote inactives on day 1 but only because it's day 1...Otherwise I hate to do so.
I'll see what Sax has to say, but won't add my vote on him just yet.
Unvote
for now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>freezie, Friday - July 15th wrote:Wether he has posted or not over the weekend or send pms, we can not see them, therefor he is and has been inactive. Point done.
And weirdly, I don't feel like voting either com nor strike on that matter. Com is trying to find a scumarinner by saying he answered pms but didn't post here, strike is going against commander for lieing about Sax beeing around.
I mean, if they sent pms between each others, we won't know, so strike is right in his accusations......But still, Com isn't exactly doing harm by pressuring someone that hasn't posted and is beeing pressured. Sax is still at l-6 anyway....Well, l-5, since I want him to post now.
Vote: Sax
Moral of this story: Using the fact that a user has sent you pms to vote him in a mafia game is poor evidence in any ways shape or form. The fact he is inactive is here, but what's outside the game stays outside the game..
I'd hardly say I was trying to avoid the heat, but let me point you in the direction of someone who was. You posted this just minutes after Pancakemix put a vote up on you. Nice to see your activity heats up when you have a vote or a FOS on you. Nice try and re-directing the heat.Freezie wrote:We cannot read in your head. Avoid getting heat on himself.AndyDufresne wrote:Oh, I'm paying attention to who isn't posting, I just didn't add my little internal note-in-the-head list to my post./ wrote:In other words, let's go ahead and vote someone who isn't paying attention, but I'm not paying attention enough to care who that is X2.AndyDufresne wrote:This is what I'd probably choose as well.strike wolf wrote:I'm ok with that commander. I feel this game is starting to stray from the joke votes and in lieu of any real leads I think voting an inactive may help though I think there are more than a couple to choose from.
--Andy![]()
Vote strike, why does someone have to explicitly point out there being "no leads" every game? It's like a coverup or something!
--Andy
freezie, Thursday - July 28th wrote:pancakemix wrote:Read: Shameless bandwagon.freezie wrote:Most of the times, the best cases come out from the weaker ones. Since nobody seems to find Gilligan's actions as scummy as I think he is..
Unvote
Vote: Fircoal
Vote Freezie
Read: Defending fircoal.
See it as bandwagonning if you want. But, correct me if I am wrong, trying to tell everyone over and over that Gilli is scummier will get me lynched a lot faster XD
I'm not willing to include myself in the post count? I'm pretty sure I'm right in there. Here, I've highlighted it for you. "I guess" you just missed it.Freeize wrote:A good post, I guess, calculating all the posts from everyone, try to tell which is most inactives...but you're still not willing to include yourself in the post count.AndyDufresne wrote:Day 1 is the only day I'd vote out an inactive, otherwise, there are usually better leads/insights/what-have-you to go on.Commander9 wrote:Going with inactives isn't my favourite thing, but we do not discussions, patterns and leads and that may be useful further in the game. Unvote. Vote TSL- I'd like to see more of him.
I had a few moments, so I went to look at posting levels in this game (not including confirmation posts)
--Andy1. Metsfanmax = 5 posts
2. / = 2 posts
3. [Replacement] TA1LGUNN3R = 1 post
4. pancakemix = 1 post
5. Talapus = 2 posts
6. strike wolf = 12 posts
7. Fircoal = 1 post
8. freezie = 5 posts
9. Haggis_McMutton = 2 posts
10. kwanton = 4 posts
11. AndyDufresne = 7 posts
12. Gilligan = 3 posts
13. naxus = 3 posts
14. nagerous = 6 posts
15. Commander9 = 7 posts
16. TheSaxlad = 1 post
17. BGtheBrain = 4 posts
Agreed that it wasn't contributing to the building of any case, but it was at least expressing that I was visiting the topic and trying to be an active part of the game. I'd rather be active with a few non-helpful posts, than inactive like you seemed to be for most of the time. There was literally a week where you didn't post (Thursday, July 28th to Thursday, August 4th). That's quite "helpful," too, isn't it?Freezie wrote:A very helpful post, once again.AndyDufresne wrote:I think things are too murky for me right now to get my head around much of anything. Though it could also be that it is morning right now.
--Andy
I think I rebutted this above in my post. Glad to see that my non-desire to get a quick-lynch on Day 1 is what you think is scummy.Freezie wrote:First, you say you'd vote an incative, and when someone goes inactives, you do? Oh yes, you don't vote.AndyDufresne wrote:I thought this as well. My ears were also ticked by Haggis wanting to replace him. I think I understand his reasoning about not wanting to vote someone who isn't around to defend themselves. But I can also see this move as something a compatriot might suggest, wanting us to get along with a replacement instead of a vote if in fact we are onto someone this early.BGtheBrain wrote:I thought for Sax wouldve posted something to defend himself overnight. It just seems odd to be quiet this long, especially with all of the accusations going on here.
vote thesaxlad
--Andy
Similarly, I think I rebutted this earlier in my post. At least I am posting, and not a mystery-man lurking in the shadows for a week without posting.Freezie wrote:An alright question to the mod, but that's +1 post that doesn't add much to the discussion.AndyDufresne wrote:Safari, do you have a 'time' when the official deadline is up? Like Midnight? or 6 PM Eastern? or Something?safariguy5 wrote: Deadline in 2 days.
--Andy
Again, so my desire to not insta-lynch is what you are working on? You're working pretty hard here.Finally he's getting a vote on someone, when everyone pretty much established sax was beeing voted for inactivity. Still going with the flow.AndyDufresne wrote:Vote: TheSaxlad
I think we've given him a pretty good chance over the last week, and my other suspicions have even less reasoning behind them.
--Andy
Right---where did I mention we should start claiming on Day 2? I said from now on. That means from this point, into the future, in English usually. I'll toss this back at you. I know you were joking, but I think it proves my point nonetheless:Freezie wrote:Role claiming beginning day 2 is not double or triple edgy....It's 95% of the time plain stupid.AndyDufresne wrote:Yowza, well the roles I think are among the interesting tid-bits of all this. Roles seem to be logically (at least do a degree so far) related to the actual portrayal of the character on the series.
So role claiming from now on can be a bit of a double-edge, maybe even triple-edge---there is a possibility we could learn or feel confident who has what character/role if it makes sense, there is also a possibility about tipping off non-town folks, and also the possibility that non-town folks would try to use their fake claims, which might be convincing, unless we figured out if their character/role jived with precedents so far.
Anyways, I think I'm more confused now than I was before.
--Andy
That was certainly a helpful post.freezie, Thursday - July 7th wrote:Night 0 sucks.
Btw, should I claim now or not?
There are probably some players who have added more to the conversation, Commander9, Strikewolf, etc. However, I'm pretty sure you haven't.Freezie wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:So is Gilligan going to be the focus of day 2 because of his SaxLad actions?
=====
Also, I feel like we've still a few players who aren't posting very much, so much that I just went to the first page to check again who all was playing.
--Andy
Trying to get the head under gilligan ( granted, I agree on that XD ) but not getting wet still. Most players aren't posting much, but most actually added a lot more to the conversation than Andy did.
I think I've rebutted this point earlier in my post.Freeize wrote:This is where Strike pointed Andy's neutral attitude, and Andy's response was....well, neutral, like all his posts..AndyDufresne wrote:Sometimes it is hard not to go with the flow when it seems like it is mostly a discussion with a small number of players that are posting. Anyways, I'm still building up my reads on everyone.strike wolf wrote:FOS Andy. The majority of his posts are like this. Fairly non-commital and expressing little opinion on the actual scum tells. He appears to just be going with the flow.AndyDufresne wrote:So is Gilligan going to be the focus of day 2 because of his SaxLad actions?
=====
Also, I feel like we've still a few players who aren't posting very much, so much that I just went to the first page to check again who all was playing.
--Andy
--Andy
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If anything, I am seeing a pattern here in your case.Freezie wrote:Another post where he actually post useful information, but still he keeps himself from voting anybody, taking the heat away from himself by ''beeing here'' when he doesn't help. Oh, and nice votting patern on your part. Or abscence of pattern...AndyDufresne wrote:Okay, so sometimes I find it is helpful to map out a player's votes, include their initial joke votes, since voting patterns can sometimes shed light on who they vote on, or perhaps who they avoid putting a vote on. I think I've got all the votes cast up to this post:
Highlights over the course of the game so far:Spoiler
[Died] Talapus Voting: Freezie,
Fircoal Voting: Talapus
[Died] Nagerous Voting: AndyDufresne-->TheSaxlad
BGtheBrain Voting: Kwanton-->TheSaxlad
Kwanton Voting: TheSaxlad
Naxus Voting: Fircoal-->Kwanton-->[Day 2] Fircoal
Freezie Voting: AndyDufresne-->TheSaxlad-->[Day 2] Gilligan
Pancakemix Voting: Metsfanmax-->Strike Wolf
Haggis_McMutton Voting: Commander9
Commaner9 Voting: Haggis_McMutton-->TheSaxlad
TheSaxLad Voting: BGtheBrain / [Day 2] Drunkmonkey Voting: Gilligan
Strike Wolf Voting: Freezie-->TA1LGUNN3R-->Fircoal-->Commander9-->TheSaxlad-->Gilligan
AndyDufresne Voting: TheSaxlad
Metsfanmax Voting: Gilligan
TA1LGUNN3R Voting: TheSaxlad
/ Voting: Strike Wolf-->TheSaxlad-->Talapus--> [Day 2] FircoalI'm going to take a closer look at voting patterns.
- Fircoal has received 3 player votes.
- Gilligan has received 4 player votes.
- TheSaxlad has received 9 player votes.
- Strike Wolf is the most prolific voter, with the most vote changing.
--Andy
Freezie wrote:I actually explained all my votes, including my vote on fircoal. It sounds, however, like you are trying not to vote.AndyDufresne wrote:Looking at voting patterns, I'm going to throw a FOS on Freezie.
Based on his voting, and his descriptions of why he is voting, it really sounds like he is just looking to vote, usually jumping onto a case that seems like it could be gaining momentum.
--Andy
freezie wrote:Well, screw this..I would like to replace him over this, but with a deadline in less than 2 days..
Vote: Sax
I am reluctant to vote unless I feel there is a good case or a need because a deadline. You, however, play the 'reluctant to vote' card, to make it seem like your votes aren't just votes trying to get a quick-lynch I think. Hence your move from Gilligan to Fircoal, which was more popular/gaining steam at that time.freezie wrote:Most of the times, the best cases come out from the weaker ones. Since nobody seems to find Gilligan's actions as scummy as I think he is..
Unvote
Vote: Fircoal
Pretty sure I've rebutted this, and have already pointed our two Aims with this whole post of yours.Freezie wrote:Yes, mafias. one more post that shows an illusion Andy is here, but isn't.AndyDufresne wrote:Does anyone have any insight on strategies the mafia may be employing? I was thinking about this yesterday, and wondering if a part of them agreed to be the 'lay-low' type, and the other part agreed to be the 'active townie' sort of player, or if they put all their bananas in on basket.
--Andy
See above.Freezie wrote:Again, another neutral post with nothing to add. Especially since many discussed about other possible roles beggining of day 2.AndyDufresne wrote:Is it worthwhile to have a discussion on what we think would be probable characters involved in this game? We briefly have mentioned characters in posts throughout the game so far, but we haven't had a sit down and hammer out probables.
--Andy
I feel like you confuse 'placing heat' with 'trying to summarize the game so far.' If anyone is sweltering in heat, I'm pretty confident that is you, Freezie.Once again placing heat on a few people, without getting wet himself.AndyDufresne wrote:So how many prospect-cases do we have? Fircoal, Gilligan, Freezie, Naxus, Strike Wolf?
I'm willing to listen to all the cases, but the Fircoal and Gilligan cases have been scattered too much for me to make much of anything. For those of you who feel something about those cases, would you write up a summary post, so we could more easily compare all the cases? Ta1lgunn3r just sort of presented a summary for the Strike Wolf case-building, and Strike Wolf and Myself posted earlier about Naxus and Freezie respectively. If my post isn't adequate enough for case comparison, let me know, and I'll write up something else.
--Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Freezie wrote:Vote: Andy
And FoS: Gilli again XD

Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
strike wolf wrote:2 on gill; 2 on freezie.. I m going to support the freezie wagon. He answered my case against him ok enough I can't really argue it beyond a difference in opinion on how he should have proceeded (I think a nudge back towards the wagon doesn't hurt anything and would have been better than abandoning it entirely so quickly) but he never really put together a defense against PCM's side of the argument.
vote freezie

Metsfanmax wrote:While freezie's post did take a bit of effort, it looks like nothing more than a clever way to shift suspicion off of him. Especially choosing Andy.

pancakemix wrote:And? It's a piss-poor case and / admitted it. I'd rather point that out than jump on board because I think no one agrees with me.freezie wrote:Read: Defending fircoal.
See it as bandwagonning if you want. But, correct me if I am wrong, trying to tell everyone over and over that Gilli is scummier will get me lynched a lot faster XD
You're wrong. Doesn't make Gilligan more or less scummier, but you're wrong. In fact, if forced to pick between the two I'd go with Gil over Chu as he's done something scummy and admitted to it.
aage wrote:Never trust CYOC or pancake.
pancakemix wrote:pancakemix wrote:And? It's a piss-poor case and / admitted it. I'd rather point that out than jump on board because I think no one agrees with me.freezie wrote:Read: Defending fircoal.
See it as bandwagonning if you want. But, correct me if I am wrong, trying to tell everyone over and over that Gilli is scummier will get me lynched a lot faster XD
You're wrong. Doesn't make Gilligan more or less scummier, but you're wrong. In fact, if forced to pick between the two I'd go with Gil over Chu as he's done something scummy and admitted to it.

Except that you offered no explanation for the Fircoal vote except that the Gil case was being ignored.freezie wrote:pancakemix wrote:And? It's a piss-poor case and / admitted it. I'd rather point that out than jump on board because I think no one agrees with me.freezie wrote:Read: Defending fircoal.
See it as bandwagonning if you want. But, correct me if I am wrong, trying to tell everyone over and over that Gilli is scummier will get me lynched a lot faster XD
You're wrong. Doesn't make Gilligan more or less scummier, but you're wrong. In fact, if forced to pick between the two I'd go with Gil over Chu as he's done something scummy and admitted to it.
True, but I prefer getting info from a weaker case than cry out loud on a dead case and feel useless.
I am wrong in not going tunnel vision on someone when everyone AT THE TIME BEEING left Gilli alone? Not my oppinion, but ok
aage wrote:Never trust CYOC or pancake.
What the flip does haggis have to do with gilligan being town? Haggis vouched for Sax being town to prevent his lynch, then gilligan skimmed and offered to hammer sax shortly after.... That was the whole point of the case, to not know this at this point, after pages and pages of going back and forth on this matter, I'm afraid that is completely unacceptable skimming, I'm not really sure about the current cases, it doesn't seem very strong one way or the other to me, but on the other hand your obliviousness seems a better lead to me.Commander9 wrote:To be fair, Freezie, you're sort of bringing this on your own. You FoS Gilligan, who's most likely town (I'm fairly sure Haggis wouldn't make such a risky move and did what he did if he wasn't town) and you also continuously have a "thing" for Andy (tunnel vision, if you will) without providing any real substance to the game. Since the vote count is already somewhat high, I won't put mine just yet, but I'm looking forward to hear the response and possibly your claim.