rishaed wrote: rishaed wrote: samgrossy wrote:
gregwolf121 wrote:well first off haven't been posting because i got swamped by college, but now that its calmed down a bit ill put in my two cents, from what i remember of my reading the biggest case, ie the most arguing is centered around jak, now i don't remember all the specific arguments but i would agree that jak your not always responding to them, it seems to me that you claim/reply enough to take the edge off the criticism but the root of the problem still exists, right now jak seems the scummiest to me.so i shall vote jak
While my vote stays where it is, this is almost a bad enough post to cause me to change my vote because I don't want to be associated with it. UGH.
jgordon1111 wrote:Vote gregg For the badly put together post and failing logic behind it. Fos Sam G for making the statement he would leave his vote were it was,but didnt want to be associated with gregg's post (which automatically did associate him with it) and then after being informed Jak has full claimed trying to stay with that pressure. Why would you keep pressure with a deadline loming on someone who has claimed?
if he is lying it will out shortly.
But rather than to assist with Gregg you sidestep it.
Heres a weak case on Samgrossy, however I really haven't found anything else. I can follow JG's argument here, and seeing as I haven't found anything else and casewise we're almost back to D1 I think its a reasonable place to start in pressuring until something else comes up.vote Samgrossy
Okay - So I have been laying low since Sandy hit up the East Coast of the US. Not that I was hit, but I was busy nonetheless.
Rishaed - This is a weak argument. While you have said as much in the post, I think it would be bad form for me not to at least address it. I explained why I said what I said in a later post. But I give you credit for at least coming up with a little something of a case on someone, even if it is me.
Now, general comment to the non commitals. Please present a case. I can't stand it when players say "they have a feeling." I was prone to saying those things as well, but realized that there must have been a reason to me feeling the way I did, so I would go back, find it, and post it. It helps lend credence to arguments later on. Instead of saying "I know he's being scummy," if you give reasons from the thread, other players can than build off of those reasons.
In that same line, here is what I think we need to do. Because Chap is not going to participate today (for what ever reason) we would do well to assume that he will come back tomorrow. I think Rodion, however misguided, was trying to do the right thing by asking for a prod in him. Although Edoc was super clear that we should just move along. So I think there are only two choices as the deadline looms.
1) JG - His fervant accusal of Jak actaully makes his case (at least in my book) more townish. I, if you look back, was built a detailed case on Jak during D2. I think that Townies build cases in the way that JG did and then defend it. Where I think we differ in opinions is that he wasn't willing to listen to reason and back off. It seemed like he wasn't willing to accept no for an answer contrary to many players hesitant to support the case. This, to me, is pretty scummy. But then, why would he put himself out there if he were scum by adamantly advocating his lynch. So a strong town action and a strong scum action equate to me as a neutral feeling
2) VOTE VODEAN
If you look at Vodean's posts, he has confirmed himself to be 3rd party. Why are we keeping 3rd party around? Look at his admission here
. While he admits to being not town by saying he is "not anti-town" Come on people. Guilty, Guilty, Guilty.