And honestly Rowain, part of the reason I'm more confrontational with you in particular is I feel like every game we play together (excepting MJW's weird game), whether I'm village or scum, or whether you're village or scum, you always seem to be on my back every single day until one of us dies. I'm never surprised to see you attacking me because it feels like a base element of the game by now. And it's pretty tiring or frustrating cause I'd like to say something or prove with my play something that could get you to reconsider, but you feel like a relentless robot no matter what I say.
I'm not going to OMGUS crusade on you for it, so far I'd say you're most likely village from your play as a whole. I just wanted to explain to you why I'm getting pretty upset with you in particular so often this game.
(February 20th, 2015, 04:58)Rowain Wrote: From those that stayed on Matt I like Jabbz the least.
to summarize: BRick, Jabbz are my topsuspects Qg, Fenn, novice follow-ups.
Could you expound on why you think I am scummy? You just drop that I'm evil, without saying why.
(February 20th, 2015, 06:05)zakalwe Wrote: At the other end of the scale, I think Jabbz was suspiciously quick to slap his vote down for Mattimeo when he returned. He also kept dropping the term "policy lynch" in a way that subtly undermined his own wagon. Maybe his "Zakalwe I'm totally down with lynching" post was there to give himself the option, but then he didn't quite dare to pull the trigger (after discussing with fellow scum, perhaps) and went for the maximum amount of towncred instead by attacking the late voters. Either way, it looks like a bit of a set-up when you first encourage people to vote for me, and then turn around and attack the players who took your bait.
I slapped my vote on Mattimeo because the lynch on you looked highly suspicious. I detailed exactly why it was problematic, but I'll be happy to explain to you yet again. The timing of your attack was what bothered me. When I had last logged off, the only comments about you were mostly jokes. I came back, and all of the sudden you are a serious contender for lynching. I looked at the timing, and it appeared the entire event started in the last 30 minutes. That smacked to me of scum action, so I took action to oppose it.
My comments of 'policy lynch' were to let matt, and others know, that I wasn't voting matt because I thought he was scummy, but because if someone had to go, I was more ok with it being the guy that had contributed so little. Hence, lynch on policy, rather than on content. Given that I wasn't running a wagon, I'm not entirely sure how you feel I was undermining it.
Finally, I have trouble believing you still don't get that I'm joking about lynching you. I know it was a long ways back, but lets think back, oh, 5 days or so, to where you had just spent two weeks up my ass. I've been giving you shit about that since the moment I found out you were town and we lost. Get a clue Zak.
(February 20th, 2015, 10:44)BRickAstley Wrote: And honestly Rowain, part of the reason I'm more confrontational with you in particular is I feel like every game we play together (excepting MJW's weird game), whether I'm village or scum, or whether you're village or scum, you always seem to be on my back every single day until one of us dies. I'm never surprised to see you attacking me because it feels like a base element of the game by now. And it's pretty tiring or frustrating cause I'd like to say something or prove with my play something that could get you to reconsider, but you feel like a relentless robot no matter what I say.
That is a complete uncorrect statement.
I have bothered to look through the last few games we played together. In 33 we were both villagers and I did not attack you in one single post nor vote for you during the whole Day 1 or Night 1 (you died N1 and I died N2) . Similar in WW 25 No attack or vote on you at all and that despite your picture-restriction. ( I died N1). In 24 you were scummy and you acted scummy and got pressured D1 and lynched on the last day because you tried to save your scumbuddy the day before. So if you feel remembered of that game then most likely because you are scum again.
(February 20th, 2015, 11:59)Jabbz Wrote: I slapped my vote on Mattimeo because the lynch on you looked highly suspicious.
You slapped your vote on Matt when it was the 8th vote, the next best (AdrienIer) had only 2 and a zak-lynch was not even thoughtable.
Brick, you said yesterday that you don't function well as town when you're put on the defensive (paraphrasing), so I said we should ease up on the pressure and let you play. Now you've had a day, and I think that's enough, so I'm lifting the amnesty. I did like some of your posts yesterday but that's really beside the point. To be honest I dislike the quote digging that you're doing there because it looks like you may be trying to construct a contradiction.
@Jabbz you just stated that you slapped your vote on Matt because the zak-waggon looked fishy when in fact you slapped your vote on Matt when a zak-waggon was not on the horizon/believable or what ever.
Yes, I jumped on Matt later than a lot of people. I was focused on Saul for a while. Then I went to class. I got back, his lynch wasn't going anywhere, so I shifted to somewhere more productive. Since I had no solid suspicions other than Saul and dtay, Matt was the best choice to lynch someone, because he was so non productive. Saying I'm scummy because I wasn't around earlier to dump my vote on him when the train first started is terrible logic. If you have a better argument than that, I'd love to hear it, but by itself, it just shows that I was actively pursing Saul until RL kicked in.
(February 20th, 2015, 12:18)Rowain Wrote: @Jabbz you just stated that you slapped your vote on Matt because the zak-waggon looked fishy when in fact you slapped your vote on Matt when a zak-waggon was not on the horizon/believable or what ever.
You are correct, I misremembered the order of my vote. Below is a list of everything I said leading up to my argument about the Zak train being problematic.
(February 19th, 2015, 13:57)Jabbz Wrote: Just caught up. I believe I have a little over an hour to respond, unless I'm reading time zones wrong. In case I'm wrong however, I agree in theory that a policy lynch of Mattimeo is justified. Responses to everything else incoming.
(February 19th, 2015, 14:57)Jabbz Wrote: I am really worried by this last minute swing to Zak. It seriously strikes me as planned/contrived early on. Zak is playing Zakish. It feels like wolves predicted this, laid a few breadcrumbs, and jumped on him last minute. Maybe I"m over reading it, but we went from Zak seems weird to, Zak must die, in the last 30 minutes of the day. I'm inherently distrustful of last minute swings like that.
(February 19th, 2015, 14:59)Jabbz Wrote: I'm keeping my vote on matt. Not necc because I think you need to swing Matt, but because this last minute surge on Zak is WAY out of the blue. The lynch on matt at least has a reasonable basis in policy.
(February 19th, 2015, 15:00)Jabbz Wrote: I'm not sure Qg. But I do know that zak jumped to 6 votes in the last 30 minutes of the day. That's problematic from my viewpoint.
Those posts came out in a relatively short timeframe, and I forgot which came first. It happens. I stand by my reasoning on all of it though. Matt was a good policy lynch, and the zak wagon was only 2 votes away at one point, so it was believable.
Whatever though. If you want to view me as scum, that's fine. I learned last game not to get so frustrated about people, especially zak, getting tunnel vision on me.
Of course I get that it's a joke, Jabbz. Could still be a joke made for a reason. You were lowering the bar for yourself if you wanted to follow up with a serious vote later.
And may I remind you that you were the one who mislynched me.
I thought the timing of your Mattimeo vote was suspicious because it looked like you were in a rush to get it in, before even catching up properly. So maybe you were trying to get a share of the credit.
