The Village of Secrets [GAME OVER] Werewolves Win!

[superkeener]

Official Vote Count 1.1

Anarkistsdream (3): Whatsausage, jak111, rishaed
HotShot53 (1): spiesr
Iron Butterfly (0):
jak111 (0):
Jmac1026 (0):
jonty125 (0):
kgb007 (0):
Lootifer (0):
MudPuppy (0):
rishaed (0):
Roger Dodger (0):
spiesr (0):
virus90 (0):
Whatsausage (0):
X-Stor-X (2): HotShot53, Anarkistsdream

No Lynch (0):

Not Voting: Lootifer, virus90, Jmac1026, Iron Butterfly, X-Stor-X, jonty125, Roger Dodger, MudPuppy, kgb007,

With 15 alive, it takes 8 votes to lynch. If 8 votes are not reached by the deadline, then the first player with 6+ votes will be lynched.

Deadline for Day 1 is April 03, 2014.

===================

*NOTE, CHANGED THE 5+ to 6+,I meant it to be >5*

For clarifcation:
If and ONLY WHEN the deadline has been reached and no one has been lynched. The person with the highest amount of 6+ votes will be lynched.
However if 2 players both have 6 or 7 votes, then the first player that received the 6th or 7th vote (without being unvoted) will be lynched.

Example 1: Player A has 6 votes, Player B has 7 votes. Player A is voted. Day ends Player B is lynched.
Example 2: Player A has 6 votes, Player B has 7 votes. Player B is unvoted down to (6), Player A is voted up to (7). Player B is voted again back up to (7). Bother players now have (7) votes but player A will be lynched.

Sorry for the confusion.

[MudPuppy]

That makes a lot more sense, superkeener. Thanks for the clarification.
You were right, x-stor-x... nothing dire about 5 votes under these rules... I was just reading it too literally.

[virus90]

i got a feeling that its more throwing mud then building cases at the moment...
i think its a very weak case, (on nark)
when you attack people its a natural response to defence, and calling it out as more prove, i dont like that.

[Roger Dodger]

Jax111 why are you so keen on getting someone lynched right out of the gate? first you did a joke vote that got folks voting for X now its Anark. I need for something more solid to have someone just hang

[Jmac1026]

Lol for the record my vote against xstor was a joke vote although that doesn't seem to be in question at the moment.

No, it wasn't really in question at the time, so why bring it up at all? The assumption was that most of them were joke votes. It wasn't really needed for you to specify that. Are you feeling like you will need to justify your actions before they're even called into question? Seems a little defensive to me.

Typical noob misinterpretation. Those of us who have been playing as long as we have know that, by not listing out all reasoning at the beginning, it will be used against you later.

Jak, I have been playing for.... hmmmm. Six years... Go back and do your research, because you need some lessons in playing the game.

No, it wasn't. I knew exactly what I was doing. Day 1 sucks, you have to make your cases from nothing. I picked a crappy post to do so, but since you're so eager...

Why exactly did you feel the need to defend kgb007? I didn't even vote him, yet you jumped up for him. I think the fact you called me a "noob" to attempt to make me upset, deflect some pressure away from him, is very interesting. Are you two scum buddies? Or do you know for a fact what alignment he is?

[jak111]

^ He was saying kgb did not know what he was doing as a "noob mistake"

Jax111 why are you so keen on getting someone lynched right out of the gate? first you did a joke vote that got folks voting for X now its Anark. I need for something more solid to have someone just hang

Read CAREFULLY, I want more information, I don't want him to hang. That is just silly and jumping the gun.

[Roger Dodger]

i vote Whatsausage
Because, he did not have a real reason for the vote and for band wagoning..

nuf said

[jak111]

i vote Whatsausage
Because, he did not have a real reason for the vote and for band wagoning..

nuf said

1.) Reread again because that's the 2nd time you misread.
2.) To clarify 1, he voted during joke vote stage.
3.) READ MOAR!

[jonty125]

Con125firm!!

Obligatory joke votes vote X-Stor-X to make him rage, due to his dislike of the jokevote stage

Now, unvote, vote Nark to make him rage, due to his dislike of votes.

Oh wait, it's not over yet unvote, vote jak because he said let's kill nark for his dislike of votes (which will make him rage because I intentionally skimmed). and now the jokevote stage is over unvote[/color}

The Serious Part
So once again, X-Stor-X, starts off with his dislike of the jokevote stage, which personally I'm a great fan of, but hey-ho one man's poison is another man's pudding. And the jokevote stage continues, which includes but was no limited to [sarcasm]a bit of playground bullying as we all voted X-Stor-X due to his dislike of the jokevote stage[/sarcasm] and MudPuppy getting confused by this new fangled vote system (which I believe I understand just in case I'd confused anyone).

THEN!!! Things get serious, with jak's awful case on Nark. He has three reasons cited for voting Nark. Numero uno. 1. He's the last to continue the BW, and that makes him scummy because ... everyone's found a new joke in the jokevote stage and he was the last with the old one.
Point secondus, he sheeps everybody's else's' reasons, jak you openly admit your vote is the first serious vote of the game so how can you judge a vote that is not serious
And lastly, the Nark is time wasting and/or pushing for the lynch, well firstly I'd argue you can't be doing both of them on D1 joke case but meh, that's a moot point. Once again, we're back to this been a joke vote so if X-Stor-X was in a L-2 position based on this claim alone he who asked him to claim, should be made to claim himself. And this all rounded off with a very much WIFOM argument, that Nark is trying to push for a mislynch, deliberately (which as scum, probably would be a good idea). But the final statement i.e. Nark is scummy, I feel is very much based off the assumption Nark is scum.

Now, if I'd arrived, at this point in the game I would of voted jak without a second thought for his hideous case, but Nark's response, is well, less than flattering, it's very much an angry shout, at jak. Now, here is the thing that makes me hesitate on voting either of these two candidates. Is Nark's reaction justified? Has he over-reacted, jury's out on that one I'm afraid, could he have reacted better, definitely yes, a nice little deconstruction of the argument like mine would of been very good Anyhow, later down the page, Nark continues flinging the insults at jak, rather than the case at hand, and Nark, by his own admission, claims to have played the game for six years, surely, with that much experience, he would of addressed the case at hand by now, rather than just raging at jak, but is this outside of Nark's meta, not really, I've known Nark to be a very agressive player, and this, I wouldn't say is too far astray. BACK TO REALITY (or back to life, you're slightly behind) jak says his vote stays on Nark for Nark's overreaction, which I say has a lot more justification than his original claim.

And lastly, Roger Dodger, which was a campaign a few years ago around here to not try and sneak on to buses, but aside. I don't know if he's been skimming or just plain newb. For now, I'm going to go with newb.

So where to cast my vote, jak, for his poor case on Nark, or Nark for his poor reaction on the poor case. [color=red]vote jak this doesn't say Nark is blameless but I do believe that the origins of jak's case of Nark, are poor, and this does partially justify Nark's reaction.

[jonty125]

Con125firm!!

Obligatory joke votes vote X-Stor-X to make him rage, due to his dislike of the jokevote stage

Now, unvote, vote Nark to make him rage, due to his dislike of votes.

Oh wait, it's not over yet unvote, vote jak because he said let's kill nark for his dislike of votes (which will make him rage because I intentionally skimmed). and now the jokevote stage is over unvote

The Serious Part
So once again, X-Stor-X, starts off with his dislike of the jokevote stage, which personally I'm a great fan of, but hey-ho one man's poison is another man's pudding. And the jokevote stage continues, which includes but was no limited to [sarcasm]a bit of playground bullying as we all voted X-Stor-X due to his dislike of the jokevote stage[/sarcasm] and MudPuppy getting confused by this new fangled vote system (which I believe I understand just in case I'd confused anyone).

THEN!!! Things get serious, with jak's awful case on Nark. He has three reasons cited for voting Nark. Numero uno. 1. He's the last to continue the BW, and that makes him scummy because ... everyone's found a new joke in the jokevote stage and he was the last with the old one.
Point secondus, he sheeps everybody's else's' reasons, jak you openly admit your vote is the first serious vote of the game so how can you judge a vote that is not serious
And lastly, the Nark is time wasting and/or pushing for the lynch, well firstly I'd argue you can't be doing both of them on D1 joke case but meh, that's a moot point. Once again, we're back to this been a joke vote so if X-Stor-X was in a L-2 position based on this claim alone he who asked him to claim, should be made to claim himself. And this all rounded off with a very much WIFOM argument, that Nark is trying to push for a mislynch, deliberately (which as scum, probably would be a good idea). But the final statement i.e. Nark is scummy, I feel is very much based off the assumption Nark is scum.

Now, if I'd arrived, at this point in the game I would of voted jak without a second thought for his hideous case, but Nark's response, is well, less than flattering, it's very much an angry shout, at jak. Now, here is the thing that makes me hesitate on voting either of these two candidates. Is Nark's reaction justified? Has he over-reacted, jury's out on that one I'm afraid, could he have reacted better, definitely yes, a nice little deconstruction of the argument like mine would of been very good Anyhow, later down the page, Nark continues flinging the insults at jak, rather than the case at hand, and Nark, by his own admission, claims to have played the game for six years, surely, with that much experience, he would of addressed the case at hand by now, rather than just raging at jak, but is this outside of Nark's meta, not really, I've known Nark to be a very agressive player, and this, I wouldn't say is too far astray. BACK TO REALITY (or back to life, you're slightly behind) jak says his vote stays on Nark for Nark's overreaction, which I say has a lot more justification than his original claim.

And lastly, Roger Dodger, which was a campaign a few years ago around here to not try and sneak on to buses, but aside. I don't know if he's been skimming or just plain newb. For now, I'm going to go with newb.

So where to cast my vote, jak, for his poor case on Nark, or Nark for his poor reaction on the poor case. vote jak this doesn't say Nark is blameless but I do believe that the origins of jak's case of Nark, are poor, and this does partially justify Nark's reaction.

EBWOP so the formatting works, that'll teach me to use the preview button, and also, a move in hindsight to make my final vote a bit clearer.

[HotShot53]

I think it's amazing anyone claims or gets lynched in these games, since it's apparently a crime to make the 3rd or 4th vote on someone. While yes, sometimes scum could bandwagon to get a quick lynch, I think often it's town who are just convinced by previous arguments on the person enough to want to see a claim. I mean isn't that the whole point of an argument is to convince other people to join you in voting that person? Sorry for the little rant, I'm just often afraid of voting for cases that I think have decent merit just because I know if I do that 2-3 times I'll get railroaded as a bandwagonner...

id like to skip the joke phase....

I was going to ask how you proposed deciding who to pressure first then, but this seems to have worked out fine.
Vote Hotshot for his bandwagon on XStorex.

My vote was a half joke vote/half I don't know what else to do with my vote since as you said, how else are you going to decide who to pressure first? I did ask the question you were going to ask, and as I stated when I made the vote, he wanted pressure on someone, so I gave it to him. Since by his posts since then I'm guessing he is probably more likely town, I will unvote

As to the case on nark, the original case didn't have much (as is the case with most day 1 cases), but his response did seem a bit over-the-top. I'd consider voting him just to see what comes of more pressure, but then of course there is the whole "bandwagonning" problem (see above).

Lol for the record my vote against xstor was a joke vote although that doesn't seem to be in question at the moment.

@xstor yes I have a question for you - are you scum? (Note the sarcasm) congrats on moving beyond the joke vote stage rather quickly

@jak where was the overreaction? He responded to a post regarding him/his play, maybe he's town maybes he's not but didn't xstor have the chance to respond to posts regarding himself?

As for the multiple factions I didn't read it as more than two but I could have interpreted it wrong I'm playing on my phone so quoting is a pain but the last line of the opening scene naming the new party read to me as the same people that the mod opened the paragraph with

Anyways... unvote and carry on

The way the town win condition is worded doesn't leave much doubt that there is at least one third party. By the way you say you think there are only two parties, that leads me to believe you are third party or scum. So I will vote kgb007

And the way kgb and nark are defending each other, they are very possibly on the same team...

[Whatsausage]

Well I am gone a day and a lot happens (not much of real material of course, but still a lot). I think I am caught up though.

i vote Whatsausage
Because, he did not have a real reason for the vote and for band wagoning..

nuf said

You clearly didn't read the game if think that is bandwagoning, considering that was the first vote on him. (Even if you are skimming, pretty sure the vote count shows the order of votes, so not much of an excuse there either.)
But it is time to unvote my joke vote. (Not that I should have done that at all because we are skipping that phase this time )

As for my reads so far, I don't think it is scummy of kgb to not think there are more than two factions in and of itself, although I do think there are likely three. (If anything can be taken from the game flavors, but probably in this case it can be)

While I did unvote anark, I do find it a bit fishy that he reacted with no material than kinda just being mad that he got voted. I don't really know anyone here's meta, so I don't know if that is typical anark (or whats typical of anyone haha)

[virus90]

well i dont defend anark, i get his anger.
i hate it when people are pushing you on a case that is so weak that anyone who would take the effort to read it would know it was a bad case. Unfortunately its not in scums best intrest to unvote you, and there are always people who are reading it once, accepting it for true, and not reading again. Have been in a similar position in emotions maffia (game that just finished), was called out for bullshit reasons, and it really took a lot of effort to keep as cool as possible.
which eventually wasnt even enough coolness due to some weird unexpected game events.
ok i kind of do defend anarks reaction if i read it back....
Take home message, read carefully, and later read back when you vote.

[Iron Butterfly]

Con125firm!!

Obligatory joke votes vote X-Stor-X to make him rage, due to his dislike of the jokevote stage

Now, unvote, vote Nark to make him rage, due to his dislike of votes.

Oh wait, it's not over yet unvote, vote jak because he said let's kill nark for his dislike of votes (which will make him rage because I intentionally skimmed). and now the jokevote stage is over unvote[/color}

The Serious Part
So once again, X-Stor-X, starts off with his dislike of the jokevote stage, which personally I'm a great fan of, but hey-ho one man's poison is another man's pudding. And the jokevote stage continues, which includes but was no limited to [sarcasm]a bit of playground bullying as we all voted X-Stor-X due to his dislike of the jokevote stage[/sarcasm] and MudPuppy getting confused by this new fangled vote system (which I believe I understand just in case I'd confused anyone).

THEN!!! Things get serious, with jak's awful case on Nark. He has three reasons cited for voting Nark. Numero uno. 1. He's the last to continue the BW, and that makes him scummy because ... everyone's found a new joke in the jokevote stage and he was the last with the old one.
Point secondus, he sheeps everybody's else's' reasons, jak you openly admit your vote is the first serious vote of the game so how can you judge a vote that is not serious
And lastly, the Nark is time wasting and/or pushing for the lynch, well firstly I'd argue you can't be doing both of them on D1 joke case but meh, that's a moot point. Once again, we're back to this been a joke vote so if X-Stor-X was in a L-2 position based on this claim alone he who asked him to claim, should be made to claim himself. And this all rounded off with a very much WIFOM argument, that Nark is trying to push for a mislynch, deliberately (which as scum, probably would be a good idea). But the final statement i.e. Nark is scummy, I feel is very much based off the assumption Nark is scum.

Now, if I'd arrived, at this point in the game I would of voted jak without a second thought for his hideous case, but Nark's response, is well, less than flattering, it's very much an angry shout, at jak. Now, here is the thing that makes me hesitate on voting either of these two candidates. Is Nark's reaction justified? Has he over-reacted, jury's out on that one I'm afraid, could he have reacted better, definitely yes, a nice little deconstruction of the argument like mine would of been very good Anyhow, later down the page, Nark continues flinging the insults at jak, rather than the case at hand, and Nark, by his own admission, claims to have played the game for six years, surely, with that much experience, he would of addressed the case at hand by now, rather than just raging at jak, but is this outside of Nark's meta, not really, I've known Nark to be a very agressive player, and this, I wouldn't say is too far astray. BACK TO REALITY (or back to life, you're slightly behind) jak says his vote stays on Nark for Nark's overreaction, which I say has a lot more justification than his original claim.

And lastly, Roger Dodger, which was a campaign a few years ago around here to not try and sneak on to buses, but aside. I don't know if he's been skimming or just plain newb. For now, I'm going to go with newb.

So where to cast my vote, jak, for his poor case on Nark, or Nark for his poor reaction on the poor case. [color=red]vote jak this doesn't say Nark is blameless but I do believe that the origins of jak's case of Nark, are poor, and this does partially justify Nark's reaction.

Well done sir...well done.

vote jonty

[MudPuppy]

The way the town win condition is worded doesn't leave much doubt that there is at least one third party. By the way you say you think there are only two parties, that leads me to believe you are third party or scum. So I will vote kgb007

Could be wrong but I'm pretty sure kgb was referring to more than two NON-TOWN factions in response to jak's theory that there are "possibly 3 factions against town."

[jonty125]

The bodged post

Well done sir...well done.

vote jonty

Believe it or not it was because I had one curly bracket } instead of a square bracket ]

[Lootifer]

The thing is anyone who has played with Nark knows he is prone to this kind of behavior. The question we must ask ourselves is is this particular case of over-reaction different than his usual flavor? His meta of over-reacting is a convenient one.

The one town-nark rage I have seen in a game I was playing (which always gets read better than when im trying to research) he was very introspective. A strong theme of "dude I never roll scum". The example we see in this thread is markedly different; openly attacking two players at with personal insults (which I have no problem with, this is sparta mafia). Seems to be aggressive without the defensive aspect I would expect. FoS Nark.

Having said that: X-stor... I don't see why you guys are letting him off so easily. Does he honestly sound like a noob to you? No he does not.

Why then did he not do the natural thing and correct Nark when nark called him a noob?

Xstor apparently thinks his way is the only correct way, even though he is still a noobie around here...

vote xstor

I expect more from you. As far as my play, i will continue to push in a manner and state my opinion. If you have issue with it, then make a case on it. Simply responding with a 1 liner to generalize and insult stands as poor taste to me, and in fact i would even go as far to say that does make you look scummy.

That's a very controlled reaction. Nothing natural about it. Too controlled for my liking.

vote X-Stor-X

[StorrZerg]

The thing is anyone who has played with Nark knows he is prone to this kind of behavior. The question we must ask ourselves is is this particular case of over-reaction different than his usual flavor? His meta of over-reacting is a convenient one.

The one town-nark rage I have seen in a game I was playing (which always gets read better than when im trying to research) he was very introspective. A strong theme of "dude I never roll scum". The example we see in this thread is markedly different; openly attacking two players at with personal insults (which I have no problem with, this is sparta mafia). Seems to be aggressive without the defensive aspect I would expect. FoS Nark.

Having said that: X-stor... I don't see why you guys are letting him off so easily. Does he honestly sound like a noob to you? No he does not.

Why then did he not do the natural thing and correct Nark when nark called him a noob?

Xstor apparently thinks his way is the only correct way, even though he is still a noobie around here...

vote xstor

I expect more from you. As far as my play, i will continue to push in a manner and state my opinion. If you have issue with it, then make a case on it. Simply responding with a 1 liner to generalize and insult stands as poor taste to me, and in fact i would even go as far to say that does make you look scummy.

That's a very controlled reaction. Nothing natural about it. Too controlled for my liking.

vote X-Stor-X

You miss read. He did not call be a noobie player. He said i was still "noobie around here" Which is very correct. Why would i correct that?
(you could say my join date says other wise, but the 6+ years of inactivity between then and now speaks louder) + i've only played one game on this forum. (since you seem to be uninformed)

Lootifer, take a read at the previous game i was in (still on going breaking bad) Maybe it helps you with your read on myself. Besides that have any other questions for me?

[jak111]

The way the town win condition is worded doesn't leave much doubt that there is at least one third party. By the way you say you think there are only two parties, that leads me to believe you are third party or scum. So I will vote kgb007

Could be wrong but I'm pretty sure kgb was referring to more than two NON-TOWN factions in response to jak's theory that there are "possibly 3 factions against town."

Someone else brought up that there are two enemy parties with the quote (from wherever it was) so I read the sentence and pointed out that it could possibly be 3.

My original case against Anark was small Jonty, read all of my posts. I explain that I would of easily taken it off if it was not for Anark's reaction, and my crummy case turned out into a good lead for a Day 1 with no info.

[Whatsausage]

The thing is anyone who has played with Nark knows he is prone to this kind of behavior. The question we must ask ourselves is is this particular case of over-reaction different than his usual flavor? His meta of over-reacting is a convenient one.

The one town-nark rage I have seen in a game I was playing (which always gets read better than when im trying to research) he was very introspective. A strong theme of "dude I never roll scum". The example we see in this thread is markedly different; openly attacking two players at with personal insults (which I have no problem with, this is sparta mafia). Seems to be aggressive without the defensive aspect I would expect. FoS Nark.

Having said that: X-stor... I don't see why you guys are letting him off so easily. Does he honestly sound like a noob to you? No he does not.

Why then did he not do the natural thing and correct Nark when nark called him a noob?

Xstor apparently thinks his way is the only correct way, even though he is still a noobie around here...

vote xstor

I expect more from you. As far as my play, i will continue to push in a manner and state my opinion. If you have issue with it, then make a case on it. Simply responding with a 1 liner to generalize and insult stands as poor taste to me, and in fact i would even go as far to say that does make you look scummy.

That's a very controlled reaction. Nothing natural about it. Too controlled for my liking.

vote X-Stor-X

I know it is Day 1, but I think you are making mountains out of molehills. You are making cases against people for both having reactions and not having reactions. Seems like you are accusing xstor of doing something similar to...

Now don't get jittery, Luke. There are a lot of command ships. Keep your distance, though, Chewie, but don't look like you're trying to keeping your distance.
I don't know. Fly casual.

And of course they were guilty in that case, so you do bring up a valid point. However, I don't believe it is scummy to control your reactions. Especially after someone is getting targeted for "over-reacting". Controlled reactions is just how one has to play mafia imo...

[Whatsausage]

Besides that have any other questions for me?

Since you have asked that more than once, I have one. What is your read on yourself so far?

[kgb007]

Correct mud, I doubt there are 2 (multiple players-non town) factions against town, I've usually played with a SK, only 15 players and I didn't interpret opening scene as had been previously stated

[spiesr]

Having said that: X-stor... I don't see why you guys are letting him off so easily. Does he honestly sound like a noob to you? No he does not.

No, he sounds like what I am going to call a foreigner, someone with mafia experience outside of CC.

Why then did he not do the natural thing and correct Nark when nark called him a noob?

show

That's a very controlled reaction. Nothing natural about it. Too controlled for my liking.

Accordingly you need to pay attention to the "around here" with which Anarkist qualified his statement.

[StorrZerg]

Case against Jonty. With the explosive early post by Jonty i knew something was up.

Con125firm!!

Obligatory joke votes vote X-Stor-X to make him rage, due to his dislike of the jokevote stage

Now, unvote, vote Nark to make him rage, due to his dislike of votes.

Oh wait, it's not over yet unvote, vote jak because he said let's kill nark for his dislike of votes (which will make him rage because I intentionally skimmed). and now the jokevote stage is over unvote

The Serious Part
So once again, X-Stor-X, starts off with his dislike of the jokevote stage, which personally I'm a great fan of, but hey-ho one man's poison is another man's pudding. And the jokevote stage continues, which includes but was no limited to [sarcasm]a bit of playground bullying as we all voted X-Stor-X due to his dislike of the jokevote stage[/sarcasm] and MudPuppy getting confused by this new fangled vote system (which I believe I understand just in case I'd confused anyone).

THEN!!! Things get serious, with jak's awful case on Nark. He has three reasons cited for voting Nark. Numero uno. 1. He's the last to continue the BW, and that makes him scummy because ... everyone's found a new joke in the jokevote stage and he was the last with the old one.
Point secondus, he sheeps everybody's else's' reasons, jak you openly admit your vote is the first serious vote of the game so how can you judge a vote that is not serious
And lastly, the Nark is time wasting and/or pushing for the lynch, well firstly I'd argue you can't be doing both of them on D1 joke case but meh, that's a moot point. Once again, we're back to this been a joke vote so if X-Stor-X was in a L-2 position based on this claim alone he who asked him to claim, should be made to claim himself. And this all rounded off with a very much WIFOM argument, that Nark is trying to push for a mislynch, deliberately (which as scum, probably would be a good idea). But the final statement i.e. Nark is scummy, I feel is very much based off the assumption Nark is scum.

Now, if I'd arrived, at this point in the game I would of voted jak without a second thought for his hideous case, but Nark's response, is well, less than flattering, it's very much an angry shout, at jak. Now, here is the thing that makes me hesitate on voting either of these two candidates. Is Nark's reaction justified? Has he over-reacted, jury's out on that one I'm afraid, could he have reacted better, definitely yes, a nice little deconstruction of the argument like mine would of been very good Anyhow, later down the page, Nark continues flinging the insults at jak, rather than the case at hand, and Nark, by his own admission, claims to have played the game for six years, surely, with that much experience, he would of addressed the case at hand by now, rather than just raging at jak, but is this outside of Nark's meta, not really, I've known Nark to be a very agressive player, and this, I wouldn't say is too far astray. BACK TO REALITY (or back to life, you're slightly behind) jak says his vote stays on Nark for Nark's overreaction, which I say has a lot more justification than his original claim.

And lastly, Roger Dodger, which was a campaign a few years ago around here to not try and sneak on to buses, but aside. I don't know if he's been skimming or just plain newb. For now, I'm going to go with newb.

So where to cast my vote, jak, for his poor case on Nark, or Nark for his poor reaction on the poor case. vote jak this doesn't say Nark is blameless but I do believe that the origins of jak's case of Nark, are poor, and this does partially justify Nark's reaction.

EBWOP so the formatting works, that'll teach me to use the preview button, and also, a move in hindsight to make my final vote a bit clearer.

So i had the experience of playing with Jonty in my previous game. (he has yet flipped ) And just from that i know something has changed for him. I took a quick look at his posts in
Emotions Mafia (survives to end as VTown)
viewtopic.php?f=213&t=202851&sk=a&start=90
And A Cino Filled Mafia (2 time cop dies night 6)

In both these games we see similar opening. Joking a bit mixed with lots of down time. It takes several days for Jonty to "decided" on anything it seems.
(i would include the previous game on BB, still no idea what he is, but he did end up voting with a simple 1 liner for a reason and stayed quiet) The importance of him in BB and this game is the drastic change in behavior.
I am also backing this up with the 2 previous links. He is clearly Changed his play style, and is doing something DIFFERENT. With 2 previous games of flipping town, a VT and a Power role. Leads me to believe he is not playing his normal townie game. This i find Scummy.

Now we have his case, this is a scummy case coming from Jonty for a few reasons.
1. as touched before it is DIFFERENT than his normal play.
a. it is the longest case i've scene him make early on day 1.
b. it is the most in depth case i've read from him on day 1
2. He talks about 2 people, about how the actions have come how silly they are etc. And in the end it seems he is flipping a coin as to who he is voting. (how ever he does give slight reason for the difference that does look better for jonty)

Vote Jonty
fp

[StorrZerg]

EBWOP

seems like3 my Cino Filled mafia link did not go,
viewtopic.php?f=610&t=195164