Conquer Club

Well I'm going to repost what I said when I didn't realize it was night and give ghostly a chance to respond but if his response continues to be a bunch of bs then I'm going to move my vote in his direction

My original responses=blue
Ghostly's responses=red
My new responses=pink

ghostly447 wrote:

kratos644 wrote:

ghostly447 wrote: Going through, Kranos mentioned somewhere (P.23 somewhere) saying "going against the grain was not good". Well, I feel that this is quite scummy personally. Because last I checked, Zimmah went against the grain. And he was released after getting a few votes on him, with no claim, and really no results.

Just out of curiosity did you actually read the case I presented or just skim through it? I didn't say that "Going against the grain was not good." That makes it sound like a general thing and that every time someone does it's a bad thing which certainly isn't true. My case, if you would read it, talked about how he was saying things that appeared like he was making it sound as if he was trying to seek out cases while still applying pressure to the case he wanted to make him look town. Yes there was also parts about him stagnating the game from continuing on with the zimmah case as well.

I did in fact read it. Sorry, 30 pages is quite a bit to read through and summarize in as little as I did. So wait, your case was about PMC saying things that made it appear that he was in fact looking for cases while still applying pressure to the first case? Well, that is the point of the game isnt it? Pursue the current case until a better one shows up. By continuing pressure, it allowed for another case to build, granted it backfired and almost led to him being the D1 lynch, but obviously he had town benefit in mind by seeking other cases. Thanks for giving me that point

Sigh... Notice how I said the things he was saying was him "Trying to make it sound as if he was actively scumhunting while he wasn't" At the time I made the case that was what I believed him to be doing which was the driving reason behind me making it. I was pointing out how he was trying to sound like town when really I believed him to be scum(obviously since I voted him and made a case against him but we've had issues this game with people understanding that.) There is a difference between actually seeking out cases and trying to appear to be seeking out cases to appear to be town and when I made the case against him that was what I believed he was doing.

ghostly447 wrote:

kratos644 wrote:

ghostly447 wrote:

kratos644 wrote:What is really tricky is how Some7hingCLEVER continues to post a bunch of fluff to appear active but has no real substance to add anywhere...

True..But you know what is also really tricky? The fact that you were heading the case just 2 pages ago and now others are taking control and you are no longer really pushing on PMC. Funny how things like that work. You know, switching pressure everywhere by taking majority thought (everyone hates the pressure on Zimmah) and applying it to the person continuing to pressure.

What's even trickier than this though is how you're trying to twist things. Yes I was heading the case 2 pages ago but there weren't really any new developments for me to respond to and I was starting to get a much more null read on PMC at that point so there wasn't much to be said about that from me. And soon after he asked for time to create a solid defense for things which he did. Why would I continue to push that?

You didnt. I am just saying you directed pressure from zimmah onto PMC. You are in fact twisting my words, because here is my post:

Guys, Kranos is pushing this case hard. Such like a few pushed against Zimmah, and in the end, PMC was stuck as the next case just because he was finishing the case EVERYONE ELSE started.

Also, you must very much consider that my post against you was made before you backed off. Remember? I am a replacement.

Would you mind clarifying the underlined portion for me? The way it reads, it sounds like you're saying you made a post about me and then I backed off, but you weren't even in the game before I backed off the PMC case... Are you saying that you made that post you italicized prior to reading the part where I backed off PMC?

As far as me "twisting your words" I obviously wasn't referencing the post you quoted because hey I didn't quote that one... You see most people tend to quote the post they're responding to not some random one.

And one more thought. If I was going with majority thought, why were there only 2 votes on PMC before I made my case and if you look I mentioned that I was working on a case(the one on PMC prior to him having any votes at all.

ghostly447 wrote:

kratos644 wrote:

ghostly447 wrote:Kratos - Seems to direct the flow but never finish out his cases.

First you say "cases" I've presented the one case on PMC and while I may have directed the flow on that why would I finish out a case that was then adequately defended and I now believe the player is town... I'm not going to continue to push for a lynch of someone who I don't believe to be scum that's just stupid. I know maybe if I had said somewhere that PMC's response was good enough for me and that I no longer wanted to vote for him. Then we wouldn't have this confusion I bet.

kratos644 wrote:Alright. PMC, your response has satisfied me so my vote will be remaining off of you for now.

Oh wait I did say that. Hmm... Why are we having this confusion then? Either you've been really skimming or you're trying to attack the people who have been talking about clever as seeming scummy. aka SW and I

Oh, but wait. I could have sworn that my case was that you seemed to be directing the flow from switching the case from zimmah to PMC. oh, whats that? You have it quoted above? I will highlight in in green. Thank you for that.

Yes because so many people were on the Zimmah case that it took some expert manipulating by me to swing everyone over to the PMC case. And yes as you said, what you said is quoted above. You clearly mentioned how I don't finish my case"s" but why would I finish a case where I think the person who would get lynched is town? That's just silly. As for directing the flow in general though. Doesn't any case attempt to do such? Can I now say you're scummy because you're trying to direct the flow towards me? That seems rather ridiculous to me.

ghostly447 wrote:

kratos644 wrote:

ghostly447 wrote:Clever jumps all over the board with activity. Some games, he is inactive. Others, he is half active, half inactive. Most, he attempts to make the cases and figure out everything as he goes, and does relatively okay. In this case, I think he is trying to give little imput. Maybe either because he doesnt think the cases given are good ones, maybe because he is scum. He is not on the top of my list of potential scum.

This is just to further my point about you protecting clever. Here you're trying to sort of protect by saying he's not high on your list of potential scum/you don't think he's acting to scummy yet you also say that maybe he's acting the way he his because he is scum to kind of cover your tracks. I find this quite scummy in itself but unfortunately it is built around clever being scum so he would have to first be lynched to figure things out but if he does come up scum at some point you're my first target for a case.

Twisting my words again? Very much so. I did in fact say that he may or may not be scum. But I believe I also said that in some games he is hyper active, and in some inactive. Oh, I did. Here, I will highlight in cyan.

Not really sure what your highlighted part has to do with anything I mentioned. Yes you did also say that but it was irrelevant to the point I was bringing up and also not twisting your words in any way at all... I was just saying how they appear to me and to me it appears you're trying to protect a scum buddy while also leaving yourself a way out in case he gets lynched.

strike wolf wrote:Vote Ghostly Due to the early night I didn't have time to do this yesterday but the reasoning is quite simple. He was wrong about his cases on both me and Kratos. He never bothered addressing my counterargument and simply continued suggesting my probable guilt and when confronted by Kratos about the misinformation, instead of admitting he was wrong, he instead came up with some BS reasoning to try to make it fit.

really thats your case? thats probably the worst case i have ever heard.

bob- i think your scum
steve- nahh your wrong that means your scum

and you cant prove he is wrong he made a case on a few players and he got one wrong. is that a suprise?
ok well id like to see you do it. pick three players and if there all mafia then your point is valid. you cant prove that he was wrong and if you turn up mafia then i will go after kratos with a firey passion. and probably even if you dont turn up scum. but right now your at the top of my list vote strike wolf

I think ghostly needs more time to recover. I'm not voting for him just yet.

About the day scene:

DoomYoshi wrote:The party had walked along route 44 for most of day 1. Oda's forces were constantly following behind. Along the way, a trainer, Mako, had fallen ill. Unfortunately, she had to be left behind. During the night her Snivy was mewing and walking around. Eventually the crying became too much and a sudden SNAP! was heard.

Haggis was Mako's Snivy?! Is that a role? I mean it didn't say what he could do, so I guess he has to get unlocked or something?
Flavor suggests he died by jaws or neck breaking, it seems

DoomYoshi wrote:Grass Pokemon were not in favour during the night, as another one was torn apart, piece by piece.

And the poison doctor died. The inclusion of this role suggests we have a poisoner, so I guess we'll have 3 kills N2.
Flavor suggests CUT or something similar

DoomYoshi wrote:Also, a new deal was struck; Toyotomi Hideyoshi had entered into a bargain with Date Masamune. With this new alliance, the rest of Japan would fall very quickly. It was only a matter of time.

This sounds like a recruitment. We might have a cult this game. It would make sense flavor wise but would be difficult to combat if not taken care of early.

DoomYoshi wrote:Meanwhile, in a different area of the camp, a series of events occured which was guaranteed to cause confusion the next day.

When the party awoke, they saw they were at the BATTLE PARK!
However, 2 of the party were now missing.

What's gonna happen to us?!

-SG7 ( )

kratos644 wrote:Well I'm going to repost what I said when I didn't realize it was night and give ghostly a chance to respond but if his response continues to be a bunch of bs then I'm going to move my vote in his direction

My original responses=blue
Ghostly's responses=red
My new responses=pink

ghostly447 wrote:

kratos644 wrote:

ghostly447 wrote: Going through, Kranos mentioned somewhere (P.23 somewhere) saying "going against the grain was not good". Well, I feel that this is quite scummy personally. Because last I checked, Zimmah went against the grain. And he was released after getting a few votes on him, with no claim, and really no results.

Just out of curiosity did you actually read the case I presented or just skim through it? I didn't say that "Going against the grain was not good." That makes it sound like a general thing and that every time someone does it's a bad thing which certainly isn't true. My case, if you would read it, talked about how he was saying things that appeared like he was making it sound as if he was trying to seek out cases while still applying pressure to the case he wanted to make him look town. Yes there was also parts about him stagnating the game from continuing on with the zimmah case as well.

I did in fact read it. Sorry, 30 pages is quite a bit to read through and summarize in as little as I did. So wait, your case was about PMC saying things that made it appear that he was in fact looking for cases while still applying pressure to the first case? Well, that is the point of the game isnt it? Pursue the current case until a better one shows up. By continuing pressure, it allowed for another case to build, granted it backfired and almost led to him being the D1 lynch, but obviously he had town benefit in mind by seeking other cases. Thanks for giving me that point

Sigh... Notice how I said the things he was saying was him "Trying to make it sound as if he was actively scumhunting while he wasn't" At the time I made the case that was what I believed him to be doing which was the driving reason behind me making it. I was pointing out how he was trying to sound like town when really I believed him to be scum(obviously since I voted him and made a case against him but we've had issues this game with people understanding that.) There is a difference between actually seeking out cases and trying to appear to be seeking out cases to appear to be town and when I made the case against him that was what I believed he was doing.

ghostly447 wrote:

kratos644 wrote:

ghostly447 wrote:

kratos644 wrote:What is really tricky is how Some7hingCLEVER continues to post a bunch of fluff to appear active but has no real substance to add anywhere...

True..But you know what is also really tricky? The fact that you were heading the case just 2 pages ago and now others are taking control and you are no longer really pushing on PMC. Funny how things like that work. You know, switching pressure everywhere by taking majority thought (everyone hates the pressure on Zimmah) and applying it to the person continuing to pressure.

What's even trickier than this though is how you're trying to twist things. Yes I was heading the case 2 pages ago but there weren't really any new developments for me to respond to and I was starting to get a much more null read on PMC at that point so there wasn't much to be said about that from me. And soon after he asked for time to create a solid defense for things which he did. Why would I continue to push that?

You didnt. I am just saying you directed pressure from zimmah onto PMC. You are in fact twisting my words, because here is my post:

Guys, Kranos is pushing this case hard. Such like a few pushed against Zimmah, and in the end, PMC was stuck as the next case just because he was finishing the case EVERYONE ELSE started.

Also, you must very much consider that my post against you was made before you backed off. Remember? I am a replacement.

Would you mind clarifying the underlined portion for me? The way it reads, it sounds like you're saying you made a post about me and then I backed off, but you weren't even in the game before I backed off the PMC case... Are you saying that you made that post you italicized prior to reading the part where I backed off PMC?

As far as me "twisting your words" I obviously wasn't referencing the post you quoted because hey I didn't quote that one... You see most people tend to quote the post they're responding to not some random one.

And one more thought. If I was going with majority thought, why were there only 2 votes on PMC before I made my case and if you look I mentioned that I was working on a case(the one on PMC prior to him having any votes at all.

ghostly447 wrote:

kratos644 wrote:

ghostly447 wrote:Kratos - Seems to direct the flow but never finish out his cases.

First you say "cases" I've presented the one case on PMC and while I may have directed the flow on that why would I finish out a case that was then adequately defended and I now believe the player is town... I'm not going to continue to push for a lynch of someone who I don't believe to be scum that's just stupid. I know maybe if I had said somewhere that PMC's response was good enough for me and that I no longer wanted to vote for him. Then we wouldn't have this confusion I bet.

kratos644 wrote:Alright. PMC, your response has satisfied me so my vote will be remaining off of you for now.

Oh wait I did say that. Hmm... Why are we having this confusion then? Either you've been really skimming or you're trying to attack the people who have been talking about clever as seeming scummy. aka SW and I

Oh, but wait. I could have sworn that my case was that you seemed to be directing the flow from switching the case from zimmah to PMC. oh, whats that? You have it quoted above? I will highlight in in green. Thank you for that.

Yes because so many people were on the Zimmah case that it took some expert manipulating by me to swing everyone over to the PMC case. And yes as you said, what you said is quoted above. You clearly mentioned how I don't finish my case"s" but why would I finish a case where I think the person who would get lynched is town? That's just silly. As for directing the flow in general though. Doesn't any case attempt to do such? Can I now say you're scummy because you're trying to direct the flow towards me? That seems rather ridiculous to me.

ghostly447 wrote:

kratos644 wrote:

ghostly447 wrote:Clever jumps all over the board with activity. Some games, he is inactive. Others, he is half active, half inactive. Most, he attempts to make the cases and figure out everything as he goes, and does relatively okay. In this case, I think he is trying to give little imput. Maybe either because he doesnt think the cases given are good ones, maybe because he is scum. He is not on the top of my list of potential scum.

This is just to further my point about you protecting clever. Here you're trying to sort of protect by saying he's not high on your list of potential scum/you don't think he's acting to scummy yet you also say that maybe he's acting the way he his because he is scum to kind of cover your tracks. I find this quite scummy in itself but unfortunately it is built around clever being scum so he would have to first be lynched to figure things out but if he does come up scum at some point you're my first target for a case.

Twisting my words again? Very much so. I did in fact say that he may or may not be scum. But I believe I also said that in some games he is hyper active, and in some inactive. Oh, I did. Here, I will highlight in cyan.

Not really sure what your highlighted part has to do with anything I mentioned. Yes you did also say that but it was irrelevant to the point I was bringing up and also not twisting your words in any way at all... I was just saying how they appear to me and to me it appears you're trying to protect a scum buddy while also leaving yourself a way out in case he gets lynched.

Pyramid is getting a little too big for my liking so I will continue to post down here.

Point 1
Sigh... Notice how I said the things he was saying was him "Trying to make it sound as if he was actively scumhunting while he wasn't" At the time I made the case that was what I believed him to be doing which was the driving reason behind me making it. I was pointing out how he was trying to sound like town when really I believed him to be scum(obviously since I voted him and made a case against him but we've had issues this game with people understanding that.) There is a difference between actually seeking out cases and trying to appear to be seeking out cases to appear to be town and when I made the case against him that was what I believed he was doing.

Sigh. Okay, well here is my point (since you pretty much rambled on about how you thought that he was scum for..trying to make cases..to seem towny.). I know from playing with PMC that his game play does not change when he is mafia, or town. But I do not see why, if he were mafia, he wouldnt accept any new cases. In my opinion, if he is truly thinking zimmah is mafia, and not changing his opinion on it till he gets a claim (or in this case, the argument blown back at himself), then there is a very good reason to beleive zimmah is mafia, or PMC is just not as careful as he was...Last night playing RT .

Point 2
Would you mind clarifying the underlined portion for me? The way it reads, it sounds like you're saying you made a post about me and then I backed off, but you weren't even in the game before I backed off the PMC case... Are you saying that you made that post you italicized prior to reading the part where I backed off PMC?

As far as me "twisting your words" I obviously wasn't referencing the post you quoted because hey I didn't quote that one... You see most people tend to quote the post they're responding to not some random one.

And one more thought. If I was going with majority thought, why were there only 2 votes on PMC before I made my case and if you look I mentioned that I was working on a case(the one on PMC prior to him having any votes at all.

Sure. For everyones memory, I am a replacement. I had to come in and read 30 pages. Something I did not plan to do in 1 night. Kranos, either you do not get my posts of "I am stopping on page 23 for tonight" or you skimmed. Since there are 3 of them, I believe it is skimming since you never asked "What do you mean?". So, here. As an example:

ghostly447 wrote:Got halfway through page 23 guys. I have quite a few notes. I will finish reading tomorrow and post everything, but here are all the notes I have so far (bit unorganized of course guys).

SG7 - Trying to move on from the Zimmah/Freezie case by finding an inactive and trying to go from there (during open discussion) -Tails-
PMC - Said his case on SG7 was better than any others (around page 18). His only reason is that SG7 said "I think the case may be worth looking into, but I wont vote"...PMC, I do this all the time, I even did it in Power Roles. I feel it is a safety net to not only make sure you are going to get a decent case, but to also not reveal a Power Role.
Zimmah - OVer reaction in my opinion. Maybe a lyncher, maybe scum. Or maybe he actually did try to change up as to avoid getting "flamed".
Freezie - I dont like the way freezie has let others do his talking for him. Its like he is trying to fade out now.

Zimmah Page 20 votes PMC to attempt to change direction of thought

Freezie and PMC both attempt to keep subject on Zimmah while Zimmah attempts to change the direction of thought to another player. Freezie also tries to build something against Victor.

*Freezie and VS connection??? Freezie's random vote on VS for "The sake of lynching someone" still not removed for a VERY long time.

Page 21: Edoc Says he will vote the next person to bring up the case. Very strong feeling about this. Connection Edoc with Freezie or Zimmah?

Page 23: Freezie separates from PMC. Page 24?: PMC Asks is it the best case (against him) that they can get? When clearly its been established people would rather move on from Zimmah.


Like I said, still reading, but I took these as I went through.

So, that is 1/3 posts buddy. You skimmed through them, and that is 100% confirmed fact. So yes, I made the post against you before I got to where you backed off. And I could swear I posted that...oh wait, I did. BIG POST THAT STARTS WITH "Im truly surprised others didnt pick up". Just scroll down to the bottom, after the last quote, the second paragraph:

Nearly done with Page 28, just a couple more posts. 1 thing I must say is that PCM from my experience is rather inactive. Nothing that I can truly pin him for, but in my opinion, PMC v PCM seems to be a town v town case.

STARTING SECOND PARAGRAPH OF POINT 2
As far as me "twisting your words" I obviously wasn't referencing the post you quoted because hey I didn't quote that one... You see most people tend to quote the post they're responding to not some random one.

Kratos, you are a silly one arent you? I do post my responses to the intended quote, and not a random one. I am doing it here, I did it in the post prior, where I accused the 4 people, and I will always do it for big posts like this. Dont you love how you kill yourself? This is the second big post where none of your points have held up, and I see the exact same players defending you every time (some of the ones I accused by basically all ganging up on my at once and expecting me to magically re-read through 30 pages and reply to 3 major cases).

And one more thought. If I was going with majority thought, why were there only 2 votes on PMC before I made my case and if you look I mentioned that I was working on a case(the one on PMC prior to him having any votes at all.

God, some people piss me off. Okay Kratos, I will go back for you and get some posts about people getting tired of the Zimmah case and wanting to vote the next person to repost about the zimmah case. If you truly think I must do that to make your life easier and show you why you should lose this point too. For now, I am in school, and this will be probably my only big case (only 1 more max after this methinks).

Point 4
Yes because so many people were on the Zimmah case that it took some expert manipulating by me to swing everyone over to the PMC case. And yes as you said, what you said is quoted above. You clearly mentioned how I don't finish my case"s" but why would I finish a case where I think the person who would get lynched is town? That's just silly. As for directing the flow in general though. Doesn't any case attempt to do such? Can I now say you're scummy because you're trying to direct the flow towards me? That seems rather ridiculous to me.

Okay, lets pretend we arent all egotistic in here, alright? It took some expert manipulating?

edocsil wrote:END THIS SHIT.


I don't know how to say this any clearer. The case on Zimmah has been beaten to death, and will not result in a lynch. I am voting the next idiot who mentions it. Make a new case. and drop this steaming pile.

Oh yes, I see how with posts like this one how it could be so dificult to manipulate the case and point it in PMC's direction (when in fact, PMC was the next to talk about it in depth if my memory serves me well).

Why would you finish a case where you think the person who would get lynched is town? Well I dont know buddy, but here is the thing. You have gotten 0 claims out of the Zimmah case, the PMC case, and now this case (so far). If you dont get claims, you will never catch mafia for a day lynch, and your cases will never get further than "I think he is town". You dont have to lynch someone you think is town, just get them to claim when you get them as far as L-2 or L-1. Why the hell would you lead a case, get to L-2, and say "I dont need a claim, I think he is town"???

Any case attempting to lead is in fact making a person the leader of the case. But here is what I have been saying FOREVER. You are scummy in particular because you TAKE THE MAJORITY THOUGHT AND TURN IT INTO A CASE. Such as in edocsil's quote above. The proof is in the pudding dude.

Point 5
Here, I have to quote EVERYTHING for the readers to get it.

ghostly447 wrote:

kratos644 wrote:

ghostly447 wrote:Clever jumps all over the board with activity. Some games, he is inactive. Others, he is half active, half inactive. Most, he attempts to make the cases and figure out everything as he goes, and does relatively okay. In this case, I think he is trying to give little imput. Maybe either because he doesnt think the cases given are good ones, maybe because he is scum. He is not on the top of my list of potential scum.

This is just to further my point about you protecting clever. Here you're trying to sort of protect by saying he's not high on your list of potential scum/you don't think he's acting to scummy yet you also say that maybe he's acting the way he his because he is scum to kind of cover your tracks. I find this quite scummy in itself but unfortunately it is built around clever being scum so he would have to first be lynched to figure things out but if he does come up scum at some point you're my first target for a case.

Twisting my words again? Very much so. I did in fact say that he may or may not be scum. But I believe I also said that in some games he is hyper active, and in some inactive. Oh, I did. Here, I will highlight in cyan.

Not really sure what your highlighted part has to do with anything I mentioned. Yes you did also say that but it was irrelevant to the point I was bringing up and also not twisting your words in any way at all... I was just saying how they appear to me and to me it appears you're trying to protect a scum buddy while also leaving yourself a way out in case he gets lynched.[/quote]

Well here, let me break it down for you. I assume you are talking about the cyan color. You said I was defending clever. I was actually meta-gaming (frowned upon, but you twisted my words to attempt to connect us. Which is clearly worse). So, I went up and showed where I meta-gamed. So, that brings us to your next part. I did in fact say it, and you were in fact twisting my words (as proven in my above sentence). And I was posting about how it appears to me, and to me, it appears you are trying to pin 2 people with a lie to get us both lynched.


Does this make it clear that all your points are gone? To me, yes. That is my defense. As for you Strike Wolf, not only do I find how you cleared yourself and kratos scummy without, in fact, delving into your cases, but I will also address your case today if I get time.

I await everyones input.

Not much to say, will re-read. Find SW slightly scummy for clearing himself but nothing case worthy. I feel ghostly has defended himself quite well but the moment someone unpicks his defense I'll probably think that's good

Sigh this is what I get for posting while tired. I'm not clearing myself and I'm definitely not clearing Kratos (I wouldn't do that even if I was a cop who had gotten an innocent investigation result on him). What I am meaning to say is that Ghostly was wrong about the details of the cases:

1. He accused me of being a big inactive hunter but ignoring Nag. Wrong. I never voted for any inactive and the only inactive I called out specifically was Fircoal and he had been gone I believe over a week at that point. No response from Ghostly. Continues to say he believes I am scum.
2. He accused me of missing the "fluff" and "scum tells" in Nag's posts. I addressed that the ones that came before the back and forth between Nag and PMC you would have to apply to everyone missing, that I did note what I thought was wrong about the way Nag was going after PMC but didn't believe the asking for three reasons to not vote him was all that scummy and then noted that because he was accusing me for missing what pretty much everyone else had also missed that he was holding me to a higher standard without giving a reason to justify doing so. He never bothered to address that either continued to suggest that I am scum.
3. He's been bending the Kratos case around. Yes Kratos was wrong about a couple of things including the page 23 thing but Ghostly's argument at one point went from Kratos accusing PMC because PMC's going against the grain. Kratos proves him wrong. Ghostly changes it to Kratos voting PMC for "Acting town". Kratos shows that he was wrong in that Kratos was trying to show that PMC seemed to be making comments in an effort to appear town. Ghostly has since come back with a reason that makes slightly more sense but I'm still not buying it as his case kept changing.
4. Ghostly accused Looten of contradicting himself and even in his latest replies he doesn't himself even seem to know where the contradiction was. Instead ghostly says "I was trying to prove he was just being a smart-ass using the dictionary definition instead of going back, looking, and seeing that I was accusing him of drawing scummy stuff from his previous post." Correct me if I'm wrong but I read this kind of like "well it's not so much a contradiction but it seems to point to some vague scummy stuff". If it's not a clear cut contradiction and you know it's not a clear cut contradiction, you can't get mad at the person for trying to find the clear cut contradiction that you set it up as being.

As far as the telling facts argument, I don't want to speak for PCM but I do think I know what he is getting at and it's not what you are saying Ghostly.

ghostly447 wrote:Pyramid is getting a little too big for my liking so I will continue to post down here.

Point 1
Sigh. Okay, well here is my point (since you pretty much rambled on about how you thought that he was scum for..trying to make cases..to seem towny.). I know from playing with PMC that his game play does not change when he is mafia, or town. But I do not see why, if he were mafia, he wouldnt accept any new cases. In my opinion, if he is truly thinking zimmah is mafia, and not changing his opinion on it till he gets a claim (or in this case, the argument blown back at himself), then there is a very good reason to beleive zimmah is mafia, or PMC is just not as careful as he was...Last night playing RT .

I don't know how to explain any clearer to you that there is a difference between Trying to APPEAR that you're scumhunting and trying to actually scumhunt. He was saying stuff to make it appear that he was scumhunting but at the time that's all I believed it was. It was day 1. It's not like my case is going to be rock solid on a person but he made some moves that appeared scummy to me and after enough of them I put together a case.

Point 2
Sure. For everyones memory, I am a replacement. I had to come in and read 30 pages. Something I did not plan to do in 1 night. Kranos, either you do not get my posts of "I am stopping on page 23 for tonight" or you skimmed. Since there are 3 of them, I believe it is skimming since you never asked "What do you mean?". So, here. As an example:

I've read every single word in this thread thank you very much. As we can see from your post below that wasn't where you made your post about me and by the time you did make your post about me, you said you had read to the bottom of page 28 where I had already started to back off PMC by that point. That was what I didn't understand because either way it didn't make sense...

ghostly447 wrote:Got halfway through page 23 guys. I have quite a few notes. I will finish reading tomorrow and post everything, but here are all the notes I have so far (bit unorganized of course guys).

SG7 - Trying to move on from the Zimmah/Freezie case by finding an inactive and trying to go from there (during open discussion) -Tails-
PMC - Said his case on SG7 was better than any others (around page 18). His only reason is that SG7 said "I think the case may be worth looking into, but I wont vote"...PMC, I do this all the time, I even did it in Power Roles. I feel it is a safety net to not only make sure you are going to get a decent case, but to also not reveal a Power Role.
Zimmah - OVer reaction in my opinion. Maybe a lyncher, maybe scum. Or maybe he actually did try to change up as to avoid getting "flamed".
Freezie - I dont like the way freezie has let others do his talking for him. Its like he is trying to fade out now.

Zimmah Page 20 votes PMC to attempt to change direction of thought

Freezie and PMC both attempt to keep subject on Zimmah while Zimmah attempts to change the direction of thought to another player. Freezie also tries to build something against Victor.

*Freezie and VS connection??? Freezie's random vote on VS for "The sake of lynching someone" still not removed for a VERY long time.

Page 21: Edoc Says he will vote the next person to bring up the case. Very strong feeling about this. Connection Edoc with Freezie or Zimmah?

Page 23: Freezie separates from PMC. Page 24?: PMC Asks is it the best case (against him) that they can get? When clearly its been established people would rather move on from Zimmah.


Like I said, still reading, but I took these as I went through.

Like I said no mention of me yet. Did you bring this one up just to try and say hey look I posted back while on page 23 before you backed off on PMC. This quote is completely irrelevant

So, that is 1/3 posts buddy. You skimmed through them, and that is 100% confirmed fact. So yes, I made the post against you before I got to where you backed off. And I could swear I posted that...oh wait, I did. BIG POST THAT STARTS WITH "Im truly surprised others didnt pick up". Just scroll down to the bottom, after the last quote, the second paragraph:

Nearly done with Page 28, just a couple more posts. 1 thing I must say is that PCM from my experience is rather inactive. Nothing that I can truly pin him for, but in my opinion, PMC v PCM seems to be a town v town case.

100% confirmed fact that I skimmed is it? As I said above you actually didn't make your post before I backed off but instead of just admitting you were wrong you tried to fall back on that. You can believe you did all you want but if you can have a 100% confirmed fact that I skimmed than I can certainly have a 100% confirmed fact that you're BSing half of this stuff as we go along. For one you said you're nearly done with page 28 when you made that post. Well post 3 of page 28 is where I backed off. Now it stands to reason that only reading 2 posts wouldn't be considered as nearly finished with a page correct? So I can only assume that you had read it. So now here's where we run into a problem. You didn't make your post prior to reading where I backed off PMC. But you said that you did. Are you at this point just trying to change things around so you don't have to admit you were wrong?

STARTING SECOND PARAGRAPH OF POINT 2
As far as me "twisting your words" I obviously wasn't referencing the post you quoted because hey I didn't quote that one... You see most people tend to quote the post they're responding to not some random one.

Kratos, you are a silly one arent you? I do post my responses to the intended quote, and not a random one. I am doing it here, I did it in the post prior, where I accused the 4 people, and I will always do it for big posts like this. Dont you love how you kill yourself? This is the second big post where none of your points have held up, and I see the exact same players defending you every time (some of the ones I accused by basically all ganging up on my at once and expecting me to magically re-read through 30 pages and reply to 3 major cases).

Oh my oh my oh my. What I was saying is you tried to quote something you said and claimed I was "twisting your words when that in fact was not the post you made I was referencing and the one I was referencing I had quoted. What is so hard to understand about that? So far none of you defenses have held any ground and it's all just a bunch of BS you're trying to throw out because you don't have anything solid.

And one more thought. If I was going with majority thought, why were there only 2 votes on PMC before I made my case and if you look I mentioned that I was working on a case(the one on PMC prior to him having any votes at all.

God, some people piss me off. Okay Kratos, I will go back for you and get some posts about people getting tired of the Zimmah case and wanting to vote the next person to repost about the zimmah case. If you truly think I must do that to make your life easier and show you why you should lose this point too. For now, I am in school, and this will be probably my only big case (only 1 more max after this methinks).

Yes I realize that people were getting tired of PMC beating the dead horse. For one, if you remember correctly I posted about a case I was working on putting together prior to the all out hatred of the zimmah case that was going on and that case was on PMC. And as my second point my case against PMC didn't revolve around going hey guys I know no one like all the pressure being put on the Zimmah case so let's vote for PMC instead because he's putting pressure on it. So know you don't have to go get posts but you point is still invalid.

Point 4
Yes because so many people were on the Zimmah case that it took some expert manipulating by me to swing everyone over to the PMC case.(SARCASM) And yes as you said, what you said is quoted above. You clearly mentioned how I don't finish my case"s" but why would I finish a case where I think the person who would get lynched is town? That's just silly. As for directing the flow in general though. Doesn't any case attempt to do such? Can I now say you're scummy because you're trying to direct the flow towards me? That seems rather ridiculous to me.

Okay, lets pretend we aren't all egotistic in here, alright? It took some expert manipulating?

I'll go ahead and leave this post of mine to make it easier to understand. I'm sorry that you're not able to interpret when someone is being sarcastic and when someone is being serious. That is certainly a flaw of mine I can be very sarcastic at times. So I do apologize that you didn't understand the sarcasm but I'm going to go ahead and take out the edoc quote to make things shorter and the fact that it's not needed because I wasn't being serious in what I said.

Why would you finish a case where you think the person who would get lynched is town? Well I dont know buddy, but here is the thing. You have gotten 0 claims out of the Zimmah case, the PMC case, and now this case (so far). If you dont get claims, you will never catch mafia for a day lynch, and your cases will never get further than "I think he is town". You dont have to lynch someone you think is town, just get them to claim when you get them as far as L-2 or L-1. Why the hell would you lead a case, get to L-2, and say "I dont need a claim, I think he is town"???

I'm sorry but he hinted at having a power role when he said he'd really rather not claim and look he was poison doctor so I still stand by not forcing him to claim. Normally I would want the claim to further the defense but he was really against claiming and revealing his role and his defense was pretty solid so I didn't feel like it should have been pushed for the claim.

Any case attempting to lead is in fact making a person the leader of the case. But here is what I have been saying FOREVER. You are scummy in particular because you TAKE THE MAJORITY THOUGHT AND TURN IT INTO A CASE. Such as in edocsil's quote above. The proof is in the pudding dude.

And as I said before I was working on this case long before it was the majority thought. The problem is I don't like to make cases that have no basis to them or that are so flimsy they can be defended with so much ease that it wasn't even worth making the case. So I waited a little longer to present the case than I had hoped for and as a result it happened to come when people were starting to get sick of the Zimmah case.

Point 5
Here, I have to quote EVERYTHING for the readers to get it.

ghostly447 wrote:

kratos644 wrote:

ghostly447 wrote:Clever jumps all over the board with activity. Some games, he is inactive. Others, he is half active, half inactive. Most, he attempts to make the cases and figure out everything as he goes, and does relatively okay. In this case, I think he is trying to give little imput. Maybe either because he doesnt think the cases given are good ones, maybe because he is scum. He is not on the top of my list of potential scum.

This is just to further my point about you protecting clever. Here you're trying to sort of protect by saying he's not high on your list of potential scum/you don't think he's acting to scummy yet you also say that maybe he's acting the way he his because he is scum to kind of cover your tracks. I find this quite scummy in itself but unfortunately it is built around clever being scum so he would have to first be lynched to figure things out but if he does come up scum at some point you're my first target for a case.

Twisting my words again? Very much so. I did in fact say that he may or may not be scum. But I believe I also said that in some games he is hyper active, and in some inactive. Oh, I did. Here, I will highlight in cyan.

Not really sure what your highlighted part has to do with anything I mentioned. Yes you did also say that but it was irrelevant to the point I was bringing up and also not twisting your words in any way at all... I was just saying how they appear to me and to me it appears you're trying to protect a scum buddy while also leaving yourself a way out in case he gets lynched.

Well here, let me break it down for you. I assume you are talking about the cyan color. You said I was defending clever. I was actually meta-gaming (frowned upon, but you twisted my words to attempt to connect us. Which is clearly worse). So, I went up and showed where I meta-gamed. So, that brings us to your next part. I did in fact say it, and you were in fact twisting my words (as proven in my above sentence). And I was posting about how it appears to me, and to me, it appears you are trying to pin 2 people with a lie to get us both lynched.

You've still yet to show how I'm twisting your words to be quite honest. Here let me pick out my own part of what you said.

In this case, I think he is trying to give little imput. Maybe either because he doesnt think the cases given are good ones, maybe because he is scum. He is not on the top of my list of potential scum.

Here is where I get the vibe that you're trying to protect a fellow scum buddy,and here is where I say you're leaving yourself a way out to me.

Are you not able to at least admit that it is reasonable for someone to believe that could be a way of throwing that in, especially the way that you and S7C have stuck together in this game? I mean after SW went on to vote you S7C then comes in and votes for SW. It's funny too because he chose to go after SW who voted you and not PCM who's arguments for voting you weren't any better, probably worse, but for some reason you two are dead set on attacking SW and I. The funny thing is neither of us can even be 100% sure that the other is town but you both seem to be 100% sure of the others alignment just by the way you're sticking together. Now that doesn't necessarily imply mafia of course. There were also masons in the last pokemon mafia so maybe that's why you guys are sticking together so hard. But S7C has seemed scummy this whole time and if you're not affiliated with each other then sticking together this way isn't helping you any.


Does this make it clear that all your points are gone? To me, yes. That is my defense. As for you Strike Wolf, not only do I find how you cleared yourself and kratos scummy without, in fact, delving into your cases, but I will also address your case today if I get time.

I await everyones input.

Nope it just makes even more clear how you're trying to make something out of nothing to make me look scummy. Since I was in no way satisfied with your response as it felt like a bunch of BS again I'm going to stick to my promise I made you and Vote Ghostly

really kratos? that's quite farfetch'd

kratos644 wrote:For one you said you're nearly done with page 28 when you made that post. Well post 3 of page 28 is where I backed off. Now it stands to reason that only reading 2 posts wouldn't be considered as nearly finished with a page correct? So I can only assume that you had read it. So now here's where we run into a problem. You didn't make your post prior to reading where I backed off PMC. But you said that you did. Are you at this point just trying to change things around so you don't have to admit you were wrong?

I want to see how Ghostly defends this.

Also, Ghostly, could you for one last time make a detailed explanation on Looten's contradiction so we are all on the same page?

zimmah wrote:really kratos? that's quite farfetch'd

Click image to enlarge.

Which part about it is farfetch'd? The entire thing or do you have anything in specific?

ghostly447 wrote:Hey guys, I am going to attempt to go through this game tomorrow. Been busy (as posted in the vacation thread) so I am sorry that I came in, read 30 pages, dealt with looten, addressed 3-4 cases, got the game moving, and then didnt get time to address another case which would require me going back and rereading the 30 pages.

And to be fair, you are both now marked scummy (unless I havent read claims, or deaths, etc yet) because if you didnt notice, Strike wolf, I may have been wrong about looten, but you (as far as I have read) are not clear.

Wow. Seriously? You wonder why looten flipped out on you. You're acting like an asshole and screaming OMGUS instead of explaining your logic.

ghostly447 wrote:You make no logical sense PCM.
1. Facts are what drive a case, thank you for the boost.
2. I was trying to prove he was just being a smart-ass using the dictionary definition instead of going back, looking, and seeing that I was accusing him of drawing scummy stuff from his previous post.

This isnt a case, this is a flat out bandwagon, and you guys are giving some pretty poor evidence considering I posted in the vacation thread explaining my absence and anyone who looked back at my case against him could have seen what I meant.

EXACTLY. So why don't you have any?

And that's counterproductive. I'm pretty sure he knew he was being a smart ass. The question is were you actually trying to say something or are you just throwing out buzzwords and getting angry when they don't fit your case?

1. No it isn't bandwagoning. I was saying that yesterday/last night.
2. Your life has nothing to do with you backing up your claims.

Some7hingCLEVER wrote:

strike wolf wrote:Vote Ghostly Due to the early night I didn't have time to do this yesterday but the reasoning is quite simple. He was wrong about his cases on both me and Kratos. He never bothered addressing my counterargument and simply continued suggesting my probable guilt and when confronted by Kratos about the misinformation, instead of admitting he was wrong, he instead came up with some BS reasoning to try to make it fit.

really thats your case? thats probably the worst case i have ever heard.

bob- i think your scum
steve- nahh your wrong that means your scum

and you cant prove he is wrong he made a case on a few players and he got one wrong. is that a suprise?
ok well id like to see you do it. pick three players and if there all mafia then your point is valid. you cant prove that he was wrong and if you turn up mafia then i will go after kratos with a firey passion. and probably even if you dont turn up scum. but right now your at the top of my list vote strike wolf

Lemme ask you something: I know you and ghostly are friends and stuff, but are you actually forming your own opinion or are you just trying to keep your friend alive?

I only ask this because it seems like immediately after ghostly goes one way, you seem to follow soon after, and I'm wondering if you're not just doing that for the sake of following him and keeping him in the game.

Onto your logic: That makes no sense. Sure, he shouldn't be saying "he was wrong about us", and that he can't prove that ghostly's wrong. But can you prove he's right? Prove the validity of ghostly's statements.

have only read to page 42, but I have to go to bed, I have a early train to catch tomorrow, see you all on Monday

pancakemix wrote:

ghostly447 wrote:Hey guys, I am going to attempt to go through this game tomorrow. Been busy (as posted in the vacation thread) so I am sorry that I came in, read 30 pages, dealt with looten, addressed 3-4 cases, got the game moving, and then didnt get time to address another case which would require me going back and rereading the 30 pages.

And to be fair, you are both now marked scummy (unless I havent read claims, or deaths, etc yet) because if you didnt notice, Strike wolf, I may have been wrong about looten, but you (as far as I have read) are not clear.

Wow. Seriously? You wonder why looten flipped out on you. You're acting like an asshole and screaming OMGUS instead of explaining your logic.

ghostly447 wrote:You make no logical sense PCM.
1. Facts are what drive a case, thank you for the boost.
2. I was trying to prove he was just being a smart-ass using the dictionary definition instead of going back, looking, and seeing that I was accusing him of drawing scummy stuff from his previous post.

This isnt a case, this is a flat out bandwagon, and you guys are giving some pretty poor evidence considering I posted in the vacation thread explaining my absence and anyone who looked back at my case against him could have seen what I meant.

EXACTLY. So why don't you have any?

And that's counterproductive. I'm pretty sure he knew he was being a smart ass. The question is were you actually trying to say something or are you just throwing out buzzwords and getting angry when they don't fit your case?

1. No it isn't bandwagoning. I was saying that yesterday/last night.
2. Your life has nothing to do with you backing up your claims.

Some7hingCLEVER wrote:

strike wolf wrote:Vote Ghostly Due to the early night I didn't have time to do this yesterday but the reasoning is quite simple. He was wrong about his cases on both me and Kratos. He never bothered addressing my counterargument and simply continued suggesting my probable guilt and when confronted by Kratos about the misinformation, instead of admitting he was wrong, he instead came up with some BS reasoning to try to make it fit.

really thats your case? thats probably the worst case i have ever heard.

bob- i think your scum
steve- nahh your wrong that means your scum

and you cant prove he is wrong he made a case on a few players and he got one wrong. is that a suprise?
ok well id like to see you do it. pick three players and if there all mafia then your point is valid. you cant prove that he was wrong and if you turn up mafia then i will go after kratos with a firey passion. and probably even if you dont turn up scum. but right now your at the top of my list vote strike wolf

Lemme ask you something: I know you and ghostly are friends and stuff, but are you actually forming your own opinion or are you just trying to keep your friend alive?

I only ask this because it seems like immediately after ghostly goes one way, you seem to follow soon after, and I'm wondering if you're not just doing that for the sake of following him and keeping him in the game.

Onto your logic: That makes no sense. Sure, he shouldn't be saying "he was wrong about us", and that he can't prove that ghostly's wrong. But can you prove he's right? Prove the validity of ghostly's statements.

no i think you misunderstood what i said . i was pointing out that he said that he was wrong about them and clearing himself and kratos .and i said there is no way he can clear him. i thought he was calling ghostly scum for not being right about someone being scum. i know i know him in real life but we dont talk about this game actually at all. he pretty must just tells me when someone has posted something new. so no i dont let him interfere with my game.

Some7hingCLEVER wrote:

pancakemix wrote:

ghostly447 wrote:Hey guys, I am going to attempt to go through this game tomorrow. Been busy (as posted in the vacation thread) so I am sorry that I came in, read 30 pages, dealt with looten, addressed 3-4 cases, got the game moving, and then didnt get time to address another case which would require me going back and rereading the 30 pages.

And to be fair, you are both now marked scummy (unless I havent read claims, or deaths, etc yet) because if you didnt notice, Strike wolf, I may have been wrong about looten, but you (as far as I have read) are not clear.

Wow. Seriously? You wonder why looten flipped out on you. You're acting like an asshole and screaming OMGUS instead of explaining your logic.

ghostly447 wrote:You make no logical sense PCM.
1. Facts are what drive a case, thank you for the boost.
2. I was trying to prove he was just being a smart-ass using the dictionary definition instead of going back, looking, and seeing that I was accusing him of drawing scummy stuff from his previous post.

This isnt a case, this is a flat out bandwagon, and you guys are giving some pretty poor evidence considering I posted in the vacation thread explaining my absence and anyone who looked back at my case against him could have seen what I meant.

EXACTLY. So why don't you have any?

And that's counterproductive. I'm pretty sure he knew he was being a smart ass. The question is were you actually trying to say something or are you just throwing out buzzwords and getting angry when they don't fit your case?

1. No it isn't bandwagoning. I was saying that yesterday/last night.
2. Your life has nothing to do with you backing up your claims.

Some7hingCLEVER wrote:

strike wolf wrote:Vote Ghostly Due to the early night I didn't have time to do this yesterday but the reasoning is quite simple. He was wrong about his cases on both me and Kratos. He never bothered addressing my counterargument and simply continued suggesting my probable guilt and when confronted by Kratos about the misinformation, instead of admitting he was wrong, he instead came up with some BS reasoning to try to make it fit.

really thats your case? thats probably the worst case i have ever heard.

bob- i think your scum
steve- nahh your wrong that means your scum

and you cant prove he is wrong he made a case on a few players and he got one wrong. is that a suprise?
ok well id like to see you do it. pick three players and if there all mafia then your point is valid. you cant prove that he was wrong and if you turn up mafia then i will go after kratos with a firey passion. and probably even if you dont turn up scum. but right now your at the top of my list vote strike wolf

Lemme ask you something: I know you and ghostly are friends and stuff, but are you actually forming your own opinion or are you just trying to keep your friend alive?

I only ask this because it seems like immediately after ghostly goes one way, you seem to follow soon after, and I'm wondering if you're not just doing that for the sake of following him and keeping him in the game.

Onto your logic: That makes no sense. Sure, he shouldn't be saying "he was wrong about us", and that he can't prove that ghostly's wrong. But can you prove he's right? Prove the validity of ghostly's statements.

no i think you misunderstood what i said . i was pointing out that he said that he was wrong about them and clearing himself and kratos .and i said there is no way he can clear him. i thought he was calling ghostly scum for not being right about someone being scum. i know i know him in real life but we dont talk about this game actually at all. he pretty must just tells me when someone has posted something new. so no i dont let him interfere with my game.

And again I say there is no way for you to confirm it either. It's all based on a misunderstanding anyway, so there's not really much point in debating it.

Oh, I'm sure you don't. It'd be modkill worthy if you did. But that wasn't the question I was asking. I was asking whether you were just following his logic merely to give him some support not based on reasoning but on your outside relationship.

kratos644 wrote:

zimmah wrote:really kratos? that's quite farfetch'd

Click image to enlarge.

Which part about it is farfetch'd? The entire thing or do you have anything in specific?

the green and orange parts.

pancakemix wrote:

Some7hingCLEVER wrote:

pancakemix wrote:

ghostly447 wrote:Hey guys, I am going to attempt to go through this game tomorrow. Been busy (as posted in the vacation thread) so I am sorry that I came in, read 30 pages, dealt with looten, addressed 3-4 cases, got the game moving, and then didnt get time to address another case which would require me going back and rereading the 30 pages.

And to be fair, you are both now marked scummy (unless I havent read claims, or deaths, etc yet) because if you didnt notice, Strike wolf, I may have been wrong about looten, but you (as far as I have read) are not clear.

Wow. Seriously? You wonder why looten flipped out on you. You're acting like an asshole and screaming OMGUS instead of explaining your logic.

ghostly447 wrote:You make no logical sense PCM.
1. Facts are what drive a case, thank you for the boost.
2. I was trying to prove he was just being a smart-ass using the dictionary definition instead of going back, looking, and seeing that I was accusing him of drawing scummy stuff from his previous post.

This isnt a case, this is a flat out bandwagon, and you guys are giving some pretty poor evidence considering I posted in the vacation thread explaining my absence and anyone who looked back at my case against him could have seen what I meant.

EXACTLY. So why don't you have any?

And that's counterproductive. I'm pretty sure he knew he was being a smart ass. The question is were you actually trying to say something or are you just throwing out buzzwords and getting angry when they don't fit your case?

1. No it isn't bandwagoning. I was saying that yesterday/last night.
2. Your life has nothing to do with you backing up your claims.

Some7hingCLEVER wrote:

strike wolf wrote:Vote Ghostly Due to the early night I didn't have time to do this yesterday but the reasoning is quite simple. He was wrong about his cases on both me and Kratos. He never bothered addressing my counterargument and simply continued suggesting my probable guilt and when confronted by Kratos about the misinformation, instead of admitting he was wrong, he instead came up with some BS reasoning to try to make it fit.

really thats your case? thats probably the worst case i have ever heard.

bob- i think your scum
steve- nahh your wrong that means your scum

and you cant prove he is wrong he made a case on a few players and he got one wrong. is that a suprise?
ok well id like to see you do it. pick three players and if there all mafia then your point is valid. you cant prove that he was wrong and if you turn up mafia then i will go after kratos with a firey passion. and probably even if you dont turn up scum. but right now your at the top of my list vote strike wolf

Lemme ask you something: I know you and ghostly are friends and stuff, but are you actually forming your own opinion or are you just trying to keep your friend alive?

I only ask this because it seems like immediately after ghostly goes one way, you seem to follow soon after, and I'm wondering if you're not just doing that for the sake of following him and keeping him in the game.

Onto your logic: That makes no sense. Sure, he shouldn't be saying "he was wrong about us", and that he can't prove that ghostly's wrong. But can you prove he's right? Prove the validity of ghostly's statements.

no i think you misunderstood what i said . i was pointing out that he said that he was wrong about them and clearing himself and kratos .and i said there is no way he can clear him. i thought he was calling ghostly scum for not being right about someone being scum. i know i know him in real life but we dont talk about this game actually at all. he pretty must just tells me when someone has posted something new. so no i dont let him interfere with my game.

And again I say there is no way for you to confirm it either. It's all based on a misunderstanding anyway, so there's not really much point in debating it.

Oh, I'm sure you don't. It'd be modkill worthy if you did. But that wasn't the question I was asking. I was asking whether you were just following his logic merely to give him some support not based on reasoning but on your outside relationship.

and i accept that it was a misunderstanding.

Okay all. Here is what I hope to address tonight:
Kratos continually weak case (reading through it, there are still so many flaws)
Defending against PCM (looks pretty easy IMO, not that I am getting cocky
If I have the energy left, beginning to reread to address Strikes first post, and I will hopefully address his recent post tonight.


Give me a little while.

Alright guys, I got busy now I am tired. I will end up having to reply to everything tomorrow, but for now I must go to bed. replying now would not go well. I want to be awake enough to be able to respond appropriately.

Talk tomorrow.

ghostly447 wrote: Defending against PCM (looks pretty easy IMO, not that I am getting cocky

Sounds like it.

ghostly447 wrote:Give me a little while

Well today is Saturday, so any later than Tuesday and I'll vote you for not delivering what you promised.

Done re-reading ( tedious stuff ) and am going to post a few thoughts I have:

[quote="ghostly447"]Kratos continually weak case (reading through it, there are still so many flaws)
quote]


No. There's flaws in both of your cases. And there's valid points about flaws, in, guess again, both of your cases. I am in the oppinion that it will lead nowhere.

Strike/Pancake VS Ghostly:

Both are showing up valid points on Ghostly, which, like Rodion, I'd like you to post the contradiction. The thing here, is that quite clearly, Looten was probably looking for such a reaction. Did he really cared wether Ghostly would tell him or not? His spamming shows he probably didn't care.

I still think VS beeing all VS-y and not caring about who we lynch is to be noted, again.

PMC: With a fresh new day to come, I am dropping him. It was day 1, he stood on facts that I showed him couldn't hold true (mostly) but really not a major case, if a minor case.

Ok guys I am sorry I got busy but I'm here I don't know who case I should side on . Your right both cases have merit and they both have flaws ...but doesn't every case ...if mafia were to not cover there tracks and make cases so there cases have flaws would we ever catch them? That's why I think we should follow both cases and if we get close to the deadline then we choose which case is better

ghostly447 wrote:Okay all. Here is what I hope to address tonight:
Kratos continually weak case (reading through it, there are still so many flaws)
Defending against PCM (looks pretty easy IMO, not that I am getting cocky
If I have the energy left, beginning to reread to address Strikes first post, and I will hopefully address his recent post tonight.


Give me a little while.

So after two days, you must have one hell of a post lined up right?

Right?

pancakemix wrote:

ghostly447 wrote:Okay all. Here is what I hope to address tonight:
Kratos continually weak case (reading through it, there are still so many flaws)
Defending against PCM (looks pretty easy IMO, not that I am getting cocky
If I have the energy left, beginning to reread to address Strikes first post, and I will hopefully address his recent post tonight.


Give me a little while.

So after two days, you must have one hell of a post lined up right?

Right?

I am getting to this game and will look into it tonight. Im sorry, but if you are going to talk crap then all I can say is "what the f*ck?". Seriously, I have been busting my ass in this game since the second I got in, and if you dont think I would do my very best to finish a case, then I dont know what you are smoking, but I could use some right about now. Yesterday went absolutely terrible with some drama shit I do not even want to begin to explain, and now today I hope you can wait long enough for me to post the last of my case. Let me regroup and get posting, and please do not ever get sarcastic like that with me. After all, it is the weekend, and I dont see you calling other people out for anything else. You have a very biased outlook on things right now in my opinion.

I will post tonight or tomorrow at the soonest possible time. If I dont by then, then feel free to vote me for stalling the cases I brought up (oh, did you forget about the fact I accused 4 people and therefore had to make 4 individual counter cases to their counter cases?).

Okay guys, tonights agenda WILL consist of:
Kratos counter case
The more recent, dumbed down, case of Strike wolfs (Since I still do not have time to go back and read 30 full pages)
Showing where lootenplunder pissed me off (since apparently no one can take my words and go back and see what the hell I am talking about)

That is what I plan to address tonight, in 3 separate posts (at least the kratos one from the other 2).

Don't get sarcastic with you? You're SOL on that one, bud. That's my MO. Besides, you were the one who said you'd have something yesterday. You didn't, therefore I can complain about it.

I will post tonight or tomorrow at the soonest possible time. If I dont by then, then feel free to vote me for stalling the cases I brought up (oh, did you forget about the fact I accused 4 people and therefore had to make 4 individual counter cases to their counter cases?).

Can I just point out that accusing four people is basically attempting to accuse the entire mafia at once? A game this size isn't likely to have more than four, it might not even have that many. Accusing four people has no purpose. Cut the ones that don't really matter (being on your case does not count as scummy, btw).