|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 18:50:16 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Dec 10, 2010 18:50:16 GMT -5
Here is my full PM.
XIV. Temperance -- metallic squink
You are a barefoot maiden, mediator of the Holy Altar. You may choose each Night one fellow traveler to prevent from wandering the castle grounds, instead fixing them in place in worship at the Holy Altar. Choose your targets wisely, lest you do more harm than good.
You are Temperance by nature, and a roleblocker by destiny. You are of The Light, and will achieve glory when the all threats to The Light have been vanquished.
On Night 0, I blocked Total Ulla. I didn't have a clue who to block and I hate to let my powers go to waste when I have them so I just picked the first person on the player list. On Night 1, I blocked Rysto since he was second in line for a lynching (seems as good a reason as any).
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 18:50:58 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Dec 10, 2010 18:50:58 GMT -5
@ Suburban, yesterDay NAF voted paranoia while you voted NAF. ToDay you are both voting paranoia. Was your final vote yesterDay intended purely as a prod?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 18:56:36 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 10, 2010 18:56:36 GMT -5
I can break the tie for now, and let's see what happens.
Squink has claimed a role, and honestly, my suspicion on her wasn't terribly significant, it is still early, so it was the most.
After hearing further from storyteller, I am not satisfied.
Unvote: Metallic Squink Vote: storyteller
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 19:04:47 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Dec 10, 2010 19:04:47 GMT -5
Vote Count
storyteller (3): peekercpa [115], catinasuit [124], mr ed [242]
paranoia (2): naf1138 [23], suburban plankton [100], metallicsquink [108-199]
charr (2): mr blockey [27-140], billmc [31], mahaloth [178]
metallic squink (1): total ullz [176-223], mr ed [188-242], brewha [194]
rysto (1): hockey monkey [101]
total ullz (1): texcat [16]
mahaloth (1): guiri [109]
hockey monkey (1): renata [160]
catinasuit (1): cookies [169]
naf1138 (1): paranoia [177]
brewha (1): metallic squink [199]
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 19:17:31 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 10, 2010 19:17:31 GMT -5
Vote Cometothedarkside
Upon reread most of her posts toDay have been fluff and/or observations that contribute nothing to the game.
Page 1 - two posts, neither significant.
Page 2 - a post about whether a PFK would choose to not kill.
Page 3 - a couple of fluff posts and some inside jokes.
Page 4 - a post about not having time to post. Fair enough.
Page 5 - a safe post asking Char and "the people who don't believe story" to explain themselves. Then a post about how she thinks somebody climbing naked on a limb (story) is more likely to be town. Then she posts that she wasn't defending story. It really just seems like it.
Page 6 - A post about Brewha asking if he had added something would it still feel like PIS. Then a vote for Catinasuit because she feels smudged. She feels like Catinasuit is trying to trap her.
Page 7 - Nothing
Page 8 - Nothing
Now, it's pages 5 and 6 that caught my eye:
The PIS post really added nothing. I don't like how it was posed as a question. It makes it too safe.
It feels like the defense that's not really a defense is a way to seem like she is participating while causing as little friction as possible. Again, playing it safe.
The vote against Catinasuit doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. She votes without setting up much of a case against Catinasuit. She feels smudged and and so she votes back. It's almost like an OMGUS, but not really.
I am not a huge fan of the fluff. I also think it is safe for scum to post early in a day and disappear for the end. That way you aren't a lurker because you were there early, but you avoid any more controversy at the end of the day. I realize that she posted that she would not have a lot of time. The disappearing wouldn't be as suspicious if not for the lack of contribution and over playing-it-safe-edness of other posts.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 19:47:06 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 10, 2010 19:47:06 GMT -5
There's a good bit of confirmation bias in that vote, crazy. And contradictory logic.
A definition of 'fluff' would be nice, along with definition of 'non-fluff', as well as a recipe to properly titrate fluff/non-fluff proportions so that I can make an informed decision as to whether I want or need to toe our line in the sand or not.
I'm allegedly defending players to play it safe, though acquiring votes because I'm allegedly defending players.
There are other 'defenses' being made that you don't seem to find suspicious. There are lots of pages that have gone by without individual players posting on them. Pages are rather short here. If they aren't part of your case, why bring it up?
I have also not disappeared at the end of the Day.
Weaksauce.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 19:52:54 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Dec 10, 2010 19:52:54 GMT -5
Forgot to mention the rhetorical question about brewha. I asked in the form of a question because I don't find it compelling that people were suspecting him because he did not itemize what they consider an appropriate amount of possibilities. I think people rarely do, and it doesn't make them scummy. If you think something has been left out, there's nothing stopping you from documenting it and confronting the individual/game with it and asking why it was not included. If the justification that they come back with is not satisfactory, feel free to vote them. But omission on its own, I think, is often a null tell.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 21:35:56 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 10, 2010 21:35:56 GMT -5
@ Suburban, yesterDay NAF voted paranoia while you voted NAF. ToDay you are both voting paranoia. Was your final vote yesterDay intended purely as a prod? Was it intended purely as a prod? I don't know...I guess you could say that. I got no strong 'Scum vibe' from anyone Yesterday...I voted NAF because I felt like he had a number of posts that didn't really say anything. I find that sort of behavior suspicious, because Scum can use it to appear like they are participating while avoiding posting anything that can be used against them later on. So yes, it was intended to send the message that I thought NAF's contribution to the thread was less than what I was hoping for. I certainly didn't have any strong evidence against him, or anyone else, for that matter. I don't understand how the first two sentences in your post relate to the third. Are you implying some sort of connection between our (NAF's and mine) votes Yesterday and our votes Today?
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 23:41:37 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Dec 10, 2010 23:41:37 GMT -5
On re-read... Re: Charr If Charr had said: It's Day One and I don't see any good cases and so I am going to Vote: Rysto because of ..his general, patronizing, outrageous response to accusations. I doubt if anyone would have even looked twice at it. Instead, Charr said he was voting Rysto for no reason and then said the second part later. Put together it seems even less suspicious than Plankton's explanation of his day one vote above. I am going to take Charr's vote as a noob error. Even if your reason is just gut, you should state your reason. If he had said, vote: rysto, nothing I can explain, sheer gut reaction. Even then we probably wouldn't have looked twice. We certainly wouldn't have concocted theories about shoes that make even crazy steph look sane. I see toDay that Charr has learned the lesson and voted "in self-defense", not a great vote, but there was a reason! Re: Brewha and Metallic Brewha's original statement seemed totally innocent to me. I can understand his frustration and big font. We know we have one killer, the scum. We know we had one death last Night. Either our one killer killed, or else the one killer was blocked* and someone else killed. duh? I would suspect Metallic for her continued pursuit of this statement, except that it just seems a little too obvious. I'm not sure about Hockey Monkey. My initial take was that Hockey Monkey had not read thoroughly and thought about it long enough before she jumped in the fray. I am a little concerned about Metallic's statement about I could claim this or I could claim that. Very odd. But again just a little too obvious. Re: storyteller I was totally confused originally. I think it's either a very bold move that he's been planning for a while, waiting to be scum in a game, or he's telling the truth. I'd be interested in opinions from those who are more familiar with story's play style. I voted for Ed yesterDay, and am still suspicious of him, in spite of his excuses reasons for not being around so much. In the end, I am going to go with Guiri. I think he made a pretty good case on Mahaloth psychopathgame.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=aaaa&thread=1526&post=72148 . I had thought it was a good case yesterDay, but since then Mahaloth asked: ....Can scum talk during Day in this game? Did the rules tell us? Of course, Mahaloth could have read the rules, or he could have read MHaye's post: Early mass claims work in two cases. 1. Where the Mod hasn't properly designed the roles. 2. When a bizarre set of circumstances removes a safeguard and the mass claim becomes viable. I assume, given the level of expertise we've developed, that Bufftabby has avoided the first trap; also, recalling Ragnarok, there were all sorts of possibilities for the then Get of Loki to fake claim. I don't see how the death of a Town Watcher can make it safe for the Mafia in this game to fake claim. I'd also like to point out that the Mafia can talk together in the Day (see Rule 2).I frankly doubt that a mass claim will work now. Later, maybe. Let's take it under advisement and come back to it later. After Mahaloth's post, Mhaye again told Mahaloth that scum could talk during the day. He then voted Mahaloth. And he ended up dead this morning. Coincidence, or not? Guiri has made a good case, documented the alleged crossposting and why it was suspicious, as well as the opportunistic voting on Pleo. Vote: MahalothNote to mod: I unvoted Total (#185?) but it did not show in your latest tally.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 10, 2010 23:56:15 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 10, 2010 23:56:15 GMT -5
Re: storyteller I was totally confused originally. I think it's either a very bold move that he's been planning for a while, waiting to be scum in a game, or he's telling the truth. I'd be interested in opinions from those who are more familiar with story's play style. Or he erred? Something about the situation just doesn't add up. It made me wonder about roles where you need votes to get powers. I've had that twice now.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 0:28:31 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Dec 11, 2010 0:28:31 GMT -5
I'm silly; trying to post this as a guest. Paranoia, what do you thnk of Ed now? Pretty apathetic; I probably am going to go through his posts tonight to see if my initial read was justified or not. Right now I'm back to neutral on him simply because I had him linked so heavily to Pleo in my mind and pleo flipped town... so... yeah.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 8:23:45 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Dec 11, 2010 8:23:45 GMT -5
I don't understand how the first two sentences in your post relate to the third. Are you implying some sort of connection between our (NAF's and mine) votes Yesterday and our votes Today? No. I saw an inconsistency in your votes: yesterDay you voted to lynch NAF, presumably because you thought he was scum, and toDay you have joined him in voting his Day 1 target. You did not mention why you were no longer suspicious of him or why you went from wanting to lynch him to joining him in his case against another player, so I was curious.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 8:23:58 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Dec 11, 2010 8:23:58 GMT -5
On re-read... Re: Charr If Charr had said: It's Day One and I don't see any good cases and so I am going to Vote: Rysto because of ..his general, patronizing, outrageous response to accusations. I doubt if anyone would have even looked twice at it. Instead, Charr said he was voting Rysto for no reason and then said the second part later. Put together it seems even less suspicious than Plankton's explanation of his day one vote above. I am going to take Charr's vote as a noob error. Even if your reason is just gut, you should state your reason. If he had said, vote: rysto, nothing I can explain, sheer gut reaction. Even then we probably wouldn't have looked twice. We certainly wouldn't have concocted theories about shoes that make even crazy steph look sane. I see toDay that Charr has learned the lesson and voted "in self-defense", not a great vote, but there was a reason! Okay, the shoes come in with storyteller if I'm not mistaken. </nitpick> Also I wouldn't care half as much about the silly insane voting if he didn't seem so... well. Worthless. Hell, he took the chance to vote me to save himself; something I could understand if this was you know. Near the end of day 2 and we were tied for votes - but given the circumstances and the fact that at the time had things continued how they were I was going to be a dead man walking regardless of what happened? Also I don't think it's the odd vote that has people really looking his way. If it was just silly/stupid reasons for suspicion I'd find the wagon on him objectionable. but the deal here is that he has plenty of posts. He doesn't really comment on anything that happens and then he disappears and people are confuddled about whatever regarding him. Point blank - it'd be less an issue for me if he was posting silly insane and outrageous accusations and theories if this is his first game than him popping in to say something or somehow, mind bogglingly work his way around a question by saying nothing relevant to it at all. On another note, I like that word. Boggle. Heh. Boggle. </fluff> Agreed on Brewha's statement. And also agreed on the plausibility of no SK. However, a game this size, I'm willing to bet there is some other non-scum killing role out there; probably a vig for that matter. The thing with Metallic is... well. I'd like her to go into a more in depth deal regarding her picks to block Total Ulla and Rysto. Particularly Rysto - was there anyone else you thought might have been a better block on reflection? That and reading back he only addressed one of Guiri's points against him... hmmm...
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 8:32:04 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Dec 11, 2010 8:32:04 GMT -5
I'f I've done all my math right, we've got just over 24 hours left until Dusk, and we currently have a 4-way tie between paranoia, storyteller, charr, and metallicsquink, all with 2 votes each. According to the tiebreaker rules ("Should a tie occur, the player who reached the maximum number of votes first will be lynched."), paranoia would be lynched if the Day ended now. I count 14 active votes spread among 10 different players. Are we as a whole just that unsure of things? See, the thing here with Suburban Plankton here is I have to agree with it - The votes are spread out and we're not forcing people to come together to commit to something; instead letting things spread out. I've seen games where this has happened and it has come back to bite the town on the butt hard. At this point I don't care where you vote or which case you commit to - Even lynching me is fine as long as you commit to it and can provide a decent reason for it. I know all of you have individual suspicions you'd like to see lynched, but at this point if lynches are being decided by just 2/3 votes that's kind of... well. Bad.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 8:33:40 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Dec 11, 2010 8:33:40 GMT -5
On one more note, I will be out the rest of the day because of a Funeral. If I'm not back by the lynch... well I'm simply not back. Bye!
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 9:30:42 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Dec 11, 2010 9:30:42 GMT -5
There's a good bit of confirmation bias in that vote, crazy. And contradictory logic. A definition of 'fluff' would be nice, along with definition of 'non-fluff', as well as a recipe to properly titrate fluff/non-fluff proportions so that I can make an informed decision as to whether I want or need to toe our line in the sand or not. I'm allegedly defending players to play it safe, though acquiring votes because I'm allegedly defending players. There are other 'defenses' being made that you don't seem to find suspicious. There are lots of pages that have gone by without individual players posting on them. Pages are rather short here. If they aren't part of your case, why bring it up? I have also not disappeared at the end of the Day. Weaksauce. I think fluff is something that doesn't contribute to this game. Jokes and comments about previous games don't help us. Don't get me wrong, fluff is fine, but not when it comprises the majority of your posting. As for the contradictory logic: You said you are acquiring votes because you are defending people. Last time I checked I am the only one who has voted you toDay. My vote wasn't because you defended people. My vote was because you made sure you posted that you weren't defending them to avoid looking bad if they are scum. So that eliminates that train of thought. I agree that lots of pages go by without posts. I haven't posted on a lot of the day 2 pages. It was just a summary of your posts organized by page in case anyone wanted to go back and read. It wasn't the empty pages that made me say you were disappearing. Like I said, it wouldn't bother me that someone said RL got in the way of being active. The timing just seemed convenient. It seemed like you were setting up to miss the most important part of the Day. I don't know if you would have posted again if somebody hadn't called you out, so that really can't be a part of my case against you any more, but I still feel like you have been playing too safe. All that being said, I will unvote Cometothedarkside for now. It has been brought up that there is a four way tie for first. That makes it way too easy for scum to influence the lynch, so I will go back and find out which of the four I think is most likely to be scum and I will vote them. Cometothedarkside still has my FOS.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 9:49:44 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 11, 2010 9:49:44 GMT -5
I can break the tie for now, and let's see what happens. It wasn't a tie as in a "tie means no lynch" it was more just a even number of votes. Squink has claimed a role, and honestly, my suspicion on her wasn't terribly significant, it is still early, so it was the most. There are some claims I always feel a bit unsure of. Roleblocker, watcher and tracker because they could been both Town or Scum and still be truthful regarding the power. However as I said before I don't want to test metallic's claim today. I've been re-reading and I still feel something is wrong with the discussion of brewha's assumption question. So I'm going to stick my vote were my suspicion is and Vote Hockey Monkey!
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 9:51:01 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 11, 2010 9:51:01 GMT -5
I didn't have a clue who to block and I hate to let my powers go to waste when I have them so I just picked the first person on the player list. Let's just hope you never get the part of playing Town vig, then...
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 9:51:28 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 11, 2010 9:51:28 GMT -5
Quick cleanup: 1. Waiting on an answer to this: CatInASuit and @stickler: Each of you voted for Rysto yesterday, Stickler in particular at a sensitive time when it was entirely possible your votes might send him to the gallows; they were not throwaway votes. Neither of you has voted for him toDay. What has changed? -- 2. @ NAF: I could reveal the restriction, but can see no pro-Town reason to do so. Those who are voting for me are doing so because, I guess, they don't believe I have a restriction at all. I'm not sure where sharing the details of it would change anyone's mind. If I'm to be lynched, I'll reveal, because at that point it won't matter. Until then, though, I'll keep it to myself. 3. @ Ed: That vote (your vote for me) is just as bad as Charr's, though you fancied it up a bit nicer. "I am not satisfied" gives exactly as much useful information as "I have no proof or evidence."
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 9:54:28 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 11, 2010 9:54:28 GMT -5
PS - Day ends today, yes? Right now I'll be lynched with a total of three votes. That's not good play on our collective part. If you want me lynched, vote for me and get it on the record. If you don't, vote for someone else and get it on the record.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 10:08:53 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Dec 11, 2010 10:08:53 GMT -5
Based on the vote count on this page and what has happened since, I think we have the following players not voting with Day ending today:
IV. sistercoyote XII. storyteller XIII. slicker intern XX. mister blockey XXI. crazypunker XXIII. char XXIV. rysto
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 10:13:14 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Dec 11, 2010 10:13:14 GMT -5
Vote Count
storyteller (3): peekercpa [115], catinasuit [124], mr ed [242]
paranoia (2): naf1138 [23], suburban plankton [100], metallicsquink [108-199]
charr (2): mr blockey [27-140], billmc [31], mahaloth [178]
mahaloth (2): guiri [109], texcat [248]
hockey monkey (2): renata [160], total ullz [256]
metallic squink (1): total ullz [176-223], mr ed [188-242], brewha [194]
rysto (1): hockey monkey [101]
total ullz (1): texcat [16]
catinasuit (1): cookies [169]
naf1138 (1): paranoia [177]
brewha (1): metallic squink [199]
cometothedarksidewehavecookies (0): crazypunker [244-255]
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 10:47:55 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 11, 2010 10:47:55 GMT -5
Let's just hope you never get the part of playing Town vig, then... hey, c'mon someone has got get this durn millstone from around my neck. A definition of 'fluff' would be nice, along with definition of 'non-fluff', as well as a recipe to properly titrate fluff/non-fluff proportions so that I can make an informed decision as to whether I want or need to toe our line in the sand or not. godfather claim? At this point I don't care where you vote or which case you commit to - Even lynching me is fine as long as you commit to it and can provide a decent reason for it. I know all of you have individual suspicions you'd like to see lynched, but at this point if lynches are being decided by just 2/3 votes that's kind of... well. Bad. totally agreed. vote your convictions and if you don't then shame on you. which was immediately preceded by this by the same author. (i didn't include it orginally and i'll be arsed if i am starting this over again). See, the thing here with Suburban Plankton here is I have to agree with it - The votes are spread out and we're not forcing people to come together to commit to something; instead letting things spread out. I've seen games where this has happened and it has come back to bite the town on the butt hard.one of these things is not like the other. Like I said, it wouldn't bother me that someone said RL got in the way of being active. The timing just seemed convenient. It seemed like you were setting up to miss the most important part of the Day. chastisement under way. if someone claims rl i always give them wiggle. i've played with a good many of these folks over the years and frankly claiming b.s. rl as an excuse is probably worse than non participation or lurking in my book. and further i don't know of anyone ever pulling that weak sauce. and even further i would add that i suspect (and i have never met her and only know her from this endeavor) that she is probably as honest as the day is long when it comes to non game related information.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 10:52:57 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Dec 11, 2010 10:52:57 GMT -5
2. @ NAF: I could reveal the restriction, but can see no pro-Town reason to do so. Those who are voting for me are doing so because, I guess, they don't believe I have a restriction at all. I'm not sure where sharing the details of it would change anyone's mind. If I'm to be lynched, I'll reveal, because at that point it won't matter. Until then, though, I'll keep it to myself. <snipped> rut roh. flashback to peeker in EDII. oh wait a minute, i was scum.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 11:11:16 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Dec 11, 2010 11:11:16 GMT -5
Kind of like when BillMc votes Story Well I was right about him :-) I agreed with your case against Squink, but given her claim, I'm willing to accept that at face value for now. Tho I could also read that as a subtle prod to vote for Story. While his play is rather obfuscated in this game, it hasn't struck me as scummy. Story does raise an excellent point about yesterday's votes on Rysto. So I second the call for Stickler and CIAS to do some explaining. As for Char, again I agree with Story that such a vote is bad play, newbie town play, or a clever scum ploy in playing the newbie card. I could get on board with a Paranoia vote, but NAF was also the one saying we should cut Char some slack. Paranoia's omgus vote on NAF, rather than placing it on someone else with multiple votes, makes me feel that paranoia isn't scum. tho i could be paranoid I feel the case on Hockey Monkey holds more water than the case on Mahaloth. Unvote: char Vote: Hockey Monkey
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 12:47:33 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Dec 11, 2010 12:47:33 GMT -5
For those of you voting Hockey Monkey...is your case against him based mainly on his reaction to brewha's statement earlier, or is there something else pinging you as well?
I'm getting increasingly bothered by storyteller. He's been spoonfeeding us information for the last several days. Now he won't simply come clean because there's no Pro-Town reason for doing so. But as it stands now he's going to be lynched in a few hours anyway, so I fail to see how it's going to hurt. If he truly has some sort of restriction, then it seems to me that it would be in the Town's best interest to disclose it before he dies, because it opens the possibility that others might have similar restrictions.
Of course, the last time I was sure someone was Scum because he was withholding information from the Town was in the Halloween game; that was peeker, and he was a Mason. I need to have my morning coffee and ruminate a bit...
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 12:54:08 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 11, 2010 12:54:08 GMT -5
So, I come in to figure out who to vote for, and discover that pretty much any of the candidates I had in mind will result in a tie.
I don't see the case on Hockey Monkey, I really don't. As I said earlier in the Day, I'm mostly leaning toward Mahaloth, but the case on cookies is somewhat convincing.
That said.
Vote: Mahaloth
Is it a scum slip? I don't know. And I still don't know what to think of Story. But Mahaloth is setting my gut off, so he's where I"m putting my vote.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 12:59:14 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Dec 11, 2010 12:59:14 GMT -5
Vote Count
storyteller (3): peekercpa [115], catinasuit [124], mr ed [242]
hockey monkey (3): renata [160], total ullz [256], billmc [264]
mahaloth (3): guiri [109], texcat [248], sistercoyote [266]
paranoia (2): naf1138 [23], suburban plankton [100], metallicsquink [108-199]
charr (1): mr blockey [27-140], billmc [31-264], mahaloth [178]
metallic squink (1): total ullz [176-223], mr ed [188-242], brewha [194]
rysto (1): hockey monkey [101]
total ullz (1): texcat [16]
catinasuit (1): cookies [169]
naf1138 (1): paranoia [177]
brewha (1): metallic squink [199]
cometothedarksidewehavecookies (0): crazypunker [244-255]
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 14:27:40 GMT -5
Post by special on Dec 11, 2010 14:27:40 GMT -5
-- 2. @ NAF: I could reveal the restriction, but can see no pro-Town reason to do so. Those who are voting for me are doing so because, I guess, they don't believe I have a restriction at all. I'm not sure where sharing the details of it would change anyone's mind. If I'm to be lynched, I'll reveal, because at that point it won't matter. Until then, though, I'll keep it to myself. 3. @ Ed: That vote (your vote for me) is just as bad as Charr's, though you fancied it up a bit nicer. "I am not satisfied" gives exactly as much useful information as "I have no proof or evidence." True, I wish I could say that your calim of a post restriction/well, a something else restriction that was called a post restriction by sachertorte/well, it's a vote restriction which I call a post restriction made some sense to me. You also failed to answer this question: Can you vote anyway and just have it not count? I'd like to see you try.
|
|
|
Day Two
Dec 11, 2010 14:47:00 GMT -5
Post by Mahaloth on Dec 11, 2010 14:47:00 GMT -5
Gee, thanks for the last minute vote Hockey. Real nice. Yeah, cause dropping in on Saturday to dump a tying vote on someone is real nice. I'm not really available tonight as we have a birthday party to attend. Thanks, Hockey. I guess I have to defensively put my tie-breaker vote on story out of pure survival. UnvoteVote Story
|
|