WW 19 Game Thread - Mobster Mayhem - GAME OVER

[Serdoa]

Serdoa, the difference between Selrahc's suggestion and Rowain's suggestion is that Selrahc wanted to pick someone we think is scum, pass them the miller card, and then lynch them. Rowain skipped the "pick someone we think is scum" part.

No, that is not true. Rowain never said "let us skip the 'pick someone we think is scum as our lynch target'"-part. He clearly stated that without better leads he thinks it is better to lynch you due to the card. He even switched away from you when he believed that my lead on Selrahc was better.

And apart from that, Selrahcs request is also odd because now he suddenly wants to get rid of the card. What happened to "this card isn't a big deal"? Suddenly it is such a big deal that we even try to somehow incorporate the Vigilante into it? Making this even a bigger mess? And to top that off, it has to be posted shortly before the lynch? Really? He states he feared he would get lynched but that is obviously not going to happen when you look at the votes at that point, and I am certain that a player like Selrahc should realize that himself. And again, even if not, the card isn't a big deal I thought?

Don't you find it odd that Bigger states he prefers Tasunke over Rowain, but doesn't take the opportunity to lynch Tasunke when it arises?

He changed his vote to Rowain when Tasunke only had 2 votes. After that I don't see him posting neither before nor after the lynch. What is your point again? I mean, apart from trying to find another easy target to get mislynched?

[novice]

Re: Bigger, I stated my point and I think you understand my point. So you're lying when you say you don't see my point.

I want Bigger to explain himself why he didn't switch back to Tasunke, I don't want to assume.

As for getting rid of the Fool Card - it's NOT a big deal, Selrahc merely added it as a possible bonus from his vigilante scheme. It's certainly not worth a mislynch, that doesn't mean it's not slightly beneficial.

[Selrahc]

Are you kidding me? That is EXACTLY what Rowain was proposing (minus the vig-shot) and why you lynched him

I don't think you really understand the idea then.

Rowain was advocating a lynch on the basis of the card. The card was the thing that defined the lynch proposal.
This idea would be once a vig-shot "lynch" is decided, the card would also be destroyed. As a sort of freebie.

The card has no part in determining whether or not somebody is lynched, it is just removed from the game by it.

And apart from that, Selrahcs request is also odd because now he suddenly wants to get rid of the card. What happened to "this card isn't a big deal"?

The card isn't a big deal. It's certainly not a big enough deal to say... be the major determinant of who we lynch. But if we can get rid of it for free, we should.

[uberfish]

Why is this thread 58 pages long? Scum please kill me so I don't have to read all this.

[Serdoa]

Re: Bigger, I stated my point and I think you understand my point. So you're lying when you say you don't see my point.

I want Bigger to explain himself why he didn't switch back to Tasunke, I don't want to assume.

As for getting rid of the Fool Card - it's NOT a big deal, Selrahc merely added it as a possible bonus from his vigilante scheme. It's certainly not worth a mislynch, that doesn't mean it's not slightly beneficial.

novice, please don't play dumb. Bigger switched away from Tasunke when Tasunke did seem very unlikely to get lynched. After that he didn't post again. So why should he switch back to him when he isn't even posting. Your question only would make sense if he had posted later again when Tasunke had gained traction again. But he didn't.

The same goes for the card-stuff. I won't discuss that fifty times back and forth with you. Selrahc has asked us to do what Rowain asked us to do as well AFTER he lynched Rowain because of what Rowain asked. Thats contradicting himself and if you can't see this than the only explanation I have is that you are a wolf who doesn't want to see it.

[novice]

Selrahc did not suggest the same thing Serdoa. Why don't you ever comment on our rebuttals. Both Selrahc and I explained why it's not the same thing.

[Serdoa]

Rowain was advocating a lynch on the basis of the card. The card was the thing that defined the lynch proposal.

No, he was not. He was advocating that we lynch the one with the card IF there is no one better showing up.

The card isn't a big deal. It's certainly not a big enough deal to say... be the major determinant of who we lynch. But if we can get rid of it for free, we should.

See above. Has anyone of you even realized that Rowain had switched his vote when he believed someone to be scum? I mean novice and Selrahc, you both act as if he had all the time just screamed "lynch the card-holder" when he didn't do that at all.

[Serdoa]

Selrahc did not suggest the same thing Serdoa. Why don't you ever comment on our rebuttals. Both Selrahc and I explained why it's not the same thing.

He did, as both are suggesting that we get rid of the card via lynching someone. The only difference is that Selrahc wants to use the Vig-shot for shooting someone we believe could be a wolf and who we throw the card while Rowain wanted to use the lynch to lynch someone we believed could be a wolf and who has the card. In both cases, the idea is to get rid of the card by lynching someone who could be a wolf. You have not understood Rowains argument the whole of D1 and lynched him because you misundestood and ignored him - and yet now you two try to explain me what he suggested? Yeah, you two really have shown that you understood him...

Also whats the point on commenting on your rebuttals if I would just write the same thing I did before? I really would like to discuss it with you guys, but you ignore all the time the points I do bring up and instead just act dumb in a try to get me to rephrase things, so that then you can talk about differences in my first phrasing and in my second one without ever actually answering the accusation. I am getting tired of it.

[Selrahc]

No, he was not. He was advocating that we lynch the one with the card IF there is no one better showing up.

Right, whatever. That isn't the issue we're discussing.

Rowain wanted to get rid of the card in a way that focused on the card as the issue. He then changed to wanting to lynch me. That is unrelated. That doesn't mean his initial stance wasn't still based primarily on the existence of the card.

The idea I'm talking about is not asking for someone to be lynched on the basis of the card. It is a proposal to get rid of the card as the result of a lynch. It is an exact inversion of what Rowain was discussing.

[Ryan]

Can someone link the thing that shows posts per person ? I wanna check something while I'm coming home.