Conquer Club

edocsil wrote:

samgrossy wrote:Edoc, can we get a vote count?

There's about 4 votes between now and the last one, but yes.

Vote Count

Jak (5) ~ shaggy, pcm, aage, cm5, vodean, Sam
Vodean (3) ~ lsu, jonty, saf
Iliad (1) ~ / Fifth
Mr. S (12 ~ Jak ???

aage wrote:Secondly, and here is where my post becomes relevant to the game again. In my post I clearly defined the three issues I have with your post, just as I'm doing here, by using linking words. All that would be required of you is either to answer the three parts separately, or give a general answer to the post I made, which cannot be very hard since the part directed to you is what, five lines long? Could you try again?

jak111 wrote:The fact that me being confused about who WIlliam of York was is being used against what I'm putting out on the table, means somebody gotta be covering something up, I cleared that a while back that I didn't know who he was so I was confused if I was a saint or an angel or whatever.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me it seems you're saying that you didn't read your role pm. Also, you say you cleared something while it seems there are several people who disagree. That probably means you didn't clear it as well as you thought you did. As long as you keep saying "I already did that", your accusers will keep using the same arguments against you. That does not mean your accusers are flawed, it means your clearance is flawed. In fact, the flaw has been pointed out. Repeatedly.

Then I must correct you, I read my role pm, but it neither mentions angel nor saint. I've stated that it only mentions killing demons to win (which seemed like an angel thing to me, since it did not say threats to town as usual). So yes, I have cleared it up when I mentioned it before, let me link you. "William of York sounded like some Angel so I said Angel, plus [b]it doesn't mention anything besides killing the demons"[/b]

jak111 wrote:Is my case on Mr.Squirrel perfect? Hell no, he's too good at covering his bases to let a slip out easy. Are you gonna understand my logic without going back and re-reading what I am talking about? Probably not, considering I'm posting in a way that makes sense to me. But if you never WIFOM and you never question what it does, then essentially as long as the player is good enough to make active posts you will not question them. Mr.Squirrel is good at covering his bases in each post, I know this and hopefully so do some of you. A few others are also good at covering your bases when posting, but if Mr.Squirrel only finds angels, unless an angel wants to say they are third party or cult or whatever and we are assuming angels are town, then isn't that a bad power? Oh wait, that's right, I can't use logic because as my grasp of the present roles and alignments increase people will brush it off with past posts, sorry, I forgot.

Oh look, there is zero evidence against player X. He must be a scum masterbrain! *more wifom*
I think that the mistake you made in your reasoning is that a cop who only finds innocent people is useless to town. As Mr. Squirrel already demonstrated in his attempt to set Violet up, and as Strike Wolf repeatedly explained in his posts (which you seem to ignore, although I sure hope that's not the case) his power could easily have been used by town (Angels) to filter out non-angels for questioning, and clear angels from suspicion. Information is power, and public information is town power.
Moreover I find it doubtful that Mr. S would claim his role immediately on day 2 while he was never under any suspicion and would gain nothing by providing town with information and a public claim. As you can see, VioIet has not been lynched. If Mr. Squirrel were the masterbrain you say he is, he would never have undertaken such action.

^ Or to get in there early. One thing I don't like about Mr.Squirrel's claim is so far we know it finds Angels. People keep arguing that Angels are either town or town power roles, but if that's so why have a role to out them and not a role to be a cop? Unless he's a half working cop that can only find part of town. So if you believe Mr.Squirrel then you must either think Angels are power roles and he is non town, or Angels are 3rd party/cult and he is town. If you don't believe Mr.Squirrel <.< Well then you probably should FOS him. But with just "Whether they are angel or not" either means Angels aren't good, or he isn't. (Most likely). But I'll leave it with investigative roles to handle tonight if they so desire.

I also find it hilarious that in the upper quote you told me to go back and reread, while in the second quote you admit that it won't help.

^ Not what I meant at all. I meant that my newer posts will not hold any value because people will only think of my older posts if I made a mistake on who I was.

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 arguements 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

safariguy5 wrote:I'm trying to decide how much of the discussion revolving around jak is just his playstyle and how much is actually questionable.

I will say that any role that is vote manipulative is more likely town in my book. However, questioning a claimed investigative as being unhelpful and scummy is too big a leap in my book.

Let's look at gregwolf's Day 2 posts. I'm going to ignore his Day 1 posts because they tend to be jokey in nature and not necessarily a good gauge of activity.

gregwolf121 wrote:well i can't add to the others interpretation of the night scene, but i hope its a good sign that no ones dead

Fluff. I doubt anyone barring edoc the mod can really interpret anything particularly useful out of that scene.
agreed it was

gregwolf121 wrote:well i agree that we shouldn't rush a no lynch, but i also think its a bad idea to vote jak at this point, cause his wagon growing to big to fast, but what we need to look into are cases, true jak needs to explain a bit more, but i don't recall there being any other major leads yesterday, i should go back and check though.

Agreeing that a no lynch is bad given the day is young is pretty much a given. Says he notices bandwagonning on the initial jak pressure but doesn't call anyone out via a FOS or vote them.
no i didn't FOS or vote any because in my opinion none were at that level

gregwolf121 wrote:first off sorry for inactivity internet is nonexistant in my apartment, but terminology wise i believe saint means holy, thus good, and ill need time to catch up so i won't vote, and yeah

Game meta/speculation and an inactivity check.

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 arguements 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

Now this one is the real offender.

First, admission of skimming. Second, restating what aage just posted. Third a bandwagon vote based on feelings of scumminess that is basically implied to be supported by aage's post. Which is to say supported by really nothing. Which makes it a clear bandwagon vote. Seriously greg, you're an old player, you really should be better than this.
skimming maybe but i did read all the posts, didn't necessarily study them out or read the entire day before i posted, i read what had been added since i last looked at the thread and went with what i remembered of the discussion before, and i think honesty is the best policy so no i haven't been spending a lot of time on the thread, i generally get on once a day, internet willing, and read what has been posted and add what i think needs be said, i do see the part where you link what i said to copying aage, wasn't mine intention, just cause two scientists get the same result on a test doesn't mean one copied the other, it means they went through the same process and arrived at the same result, as i was reading and thinking back on what had been said, jak is the only one that has stood out to me, my reason for the vote was as i said that in my opinion jak has only only claimed enough to take off the edge but the problem/concerns are still there

unvote vote gregwolf

F1fth wrote:
As for Safari's points on gregwolf, I agree on all counts -- especially about the extremely weak bandwagon vote. Greg, you know you don't need to remember when you can just read the last few pages, right? Saying you can't remember just doesn't fly, nor does voting based on your lapse of memory. Vote Gregwolf

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 arguements 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

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 arguements 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

strike wolf wrote:YaY! Annoying orange text.

strike wolf wrote:YaY! Annoying orange text.

aage wrote:

strike wolf wrote:YaY! Annoying orange text.

I hope Saf will reply in yellow.

VioIet 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 arguements 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

Something about this post doesn't sound right to me. I know it was a post just of the sake of posting, but I'm starting to get an anti-town feel from greg.

Vote Greg

Also, is nagerous still in this game? He may really need to be replaced.

vodean wrote:y'all aint down for pressuring jak?

vodean wrote:y'all aint down for pressuring jak?

aage wrote:

vodean wrote:y'all aint down for pressuring jak?

Pressuring Jak further won't do any good, he already claimed everything he can claim. If he's lying, pressuring doesn't help. :/

vodean wrote:

aage wrote:

vodean wrote:y'all aint down for pressuring jak?

Pressuring Jak further won't do any good, he already claimed everything he can claim. If he's lying, pressuring doesn't help. :/

i can get him to crack. ill need some electrodes and a car battery. and access to his testicles.