I can't help but point out that you just posted all those options in detail here
Yes? I don't understand what you're accusing me of.
Let's look at some of your other falsheoods, both the outright and those by ommision.
You've claimed that there is a tangible difference to you between my suggesting a no lynch and voting for it, but you did it here
In that comment, in response to my saying that "...Insofar as the reason to vote no lynch instead of waiting for the deadline is to avoid wasting time and shedding bored players... a situation we clearly have here, you even say that I've favored it as a mod. I do, and you know and have shown that you know, that I do. That you dislike no lynches, does not change that I consider them the more pro-game solution than double-modkill or game death by inactivity. This is no secret, we've discussed many a time that even as a DF I will take risky action designed to keep people posting even if it draws eyes on me. I place game continuity above victory in individual games, and you know this, yet you lie outright when you say that in your eyes theirs a votable difference between suggesting and casting a vote to no lynch and you lie by omission when you imply I must have purely victory motives in mind for my actions. You also spin, because you've not explained how this scummy action I took would benefit me, you line up a series of rationales, all of which have improbable logic behind them, and say if all these are true then Isaac is scum, and when I countered them, you did not counter, you accused me of obfuscation.
You've claimed that there is a tangible difference to you between my suggesting a no lynch and voting for it, but you did it here
In that comment, in response to my saying that "...Insofar as the reason to vote no lynch instead of waiting for the deadline is to avoid wasting time and shedding bored players... a situation we clearly have here, you even say that I've favored it as a mod. I do, and you know and have shown that you know, that I do. That you dislike no lynches, does not change that I consider them the more pro-game solution than double-modkill or game death by inactivity. This is no secret, we've discussed many a time that even as a DF I will take risky action designed to keep people posting even if it draws eyes on me. I place game continuity above victory in individual games, and you know this, yet you lie outright when you say that in your eyes theirs a votable difference between suggesting and casting a vote to no lynch and you lie by omission when you imply I must have purely victory motives in mind for my actions. You also spin, because you've not explained how this scummy action I took would benefit me, you line up a series of rationales, all of which have improbable logic behind them, and say if all these are true then Isaac is scum, and when I countered them, you did not counter, you accused me of obfuscation.
I assume you're referring to this?
He asks "Is it out of character for me, as townie or scum, to discuss no lynch?" when the question is "Is it out of character for me, as a townie or a scum, to vote for a no-lynch?" and the real question should be "Is it antitown for me to advocate a no-lynch?"
I still don't see the lies you speak of. What is it about it that is untrue?
Let's take another example:
You accuse me of the very thing you are doing. Your counter question "Is it out of the ordinary for me, as town or scum, to deliberately not even try to find mafia?" twists my original question, because in your form, seeking a third party is equal to ignoring a threat, as though pursuing a lynch on DF 1 proves I'm a scummer because I didn't pursue DF 2 while hunting DF 1. You then say in previous games I didn't said something, putting it in quotes, but you say 'something like' and provide no reference to it. But you leave out that I never said any such thing yesterday, I said the scum were shapeshifters and would match their character claims, and thus wouldn't be locatable by our character claims table, but a SK might be, this truthful and logical comment you are aware is both you then lift out of context as proof of perfidy... a lie by ommision, you never challenge the actual comment, you never even reference it, maybe because in context it is not an indicator of guilt at all?
The actual quote:
Now, you would attempt on day 1, and later today as well, to say that it was a sign of my guilt that I'd suggest such a path, yet as I pointed out, and you never rebutted, that claim was based off an underlying assumption I would have to do it without knowing it was a scummer tell, the original accusation puts the claim to bed, as the bolded text indicates. So I accidentally dropped proof I was scummer in the very same message I outright say it could be seen that way. That makes no sense, and yet by accusing me from a set off comments in which it was impossible to miss my saying that, you once again lift something clearly out of context in a fashion that can not be an accident. "Knowingly Presenting False Evidence" is, some might say, not particularly pro-town
He asks "Is it out of ordinary for me, as town or scum, to worry about third party kills and to seek out third parties?" because the real question would be "Is it out of the ordinary for me, as town or scum, to deliberately not even try to find mafia?" And the answer is of course yes. Look at previous games, have you even seen Isaac say something to the effect of "I don't think we should will find mafia today, nor do I think we should even try"? And yet that's what he did with that serial killer chase.
You accuse me of the very thing you are doing. Your counter question "Is it out of the ordinary for me, as town or scum, to deliberately not even try to find mafia?" twists my original question, because in your form, seeking a third party is equal to ignoring a threat, as though pursuing a lynch on DF 1 proves I'm a scummer because I didn't pursue DF 2 while hunting DF 1. You then say in previous games I didn't said something, putting it in quotes, but you say 'something like' and provide no reference to it. But you leave out that I never said any such thing yesterday, I said the scum were shapeshifters and would match their character claims, and thus wouldn't be locatable by our character claims table, but a SK might be, this truthful and logical comment you are aware is both you then lift out of context as proof of perfidy... a lie by ommision, you never challenge the actual comment, you never even reference it, maybe because in context it is not an indicator of guilt at all?
The actual quote:
All right, so anyway, I do unsurprisingly have plots and schemes afoot but at the moment most have not yet reached 'the proper time', so I will focus on one particular avenue, which in this case was sort of a 'SK gambit'
Going into this it seemed a safe bet that our bad guys are shapechangers and already have a legitimate ID and knew they did, likely as major characters. One of them might have lied about all 4, but probably not, they likely listed their 'real' fake identity. I'm betting everyone did.
Let us assume for the moment that any role powers someone has are appropriate to their character. Now let us assume we have a vig or SK, knowing Beet, he wouldn't assign this role to a character that followed the Comics Code, which amongst other things doesn't let good guys kill people pretty much ever. I haven't done a definitive scouring of characters yet, but the perosn who most stuck out was WF, he had:
skip analysis
Anyway, that's my first thoughts, focusing in on a probable SK/vig isn't exactly ideal but realistically killing off a SK (and arguably a vig) on day 1 is preferable to catching a single scummer, since it eliminates a whole NK. And yes, I know I'm not very objective about vigs but I'll remind everyone that they have a a horrible track record with us, BA was the first vig to whack a non-townie and that was after he tried to whack the town doc, by and large our SK's and scummers have a better track record of killing off rival scummers than the vigs have. But again, there are a handful of major characters who I think would be obvious vig material, The Punisher being the blatant example, but plent yof more obvious vig candidates beside Deadpool, who is practically the poster-child for insanely homicidal third party guy.
Anyway, that's my first thoughts on it.
And yeah, to save the eventual comment, this is exactly what I'd be saying if I was the Evil Skrull Leader, I'm not, a general desire to do away with SK's and cultists is a trait I possess both when town and DF.
Going into this it seemed a safe bet that our bad guys are shapechangers and already have a legitimate ID and knew they did, likely as major characters. One of them might have lied about all 4, but probably not, they likely listed their 'real' fake identity. I'm betting everyone did.
Let us assume for the moment that any role powers someone has are appropriate to their character. Now let us assume we have a vig or SK, knowing Beet, he wouldn't assign this role to a character that followed the Comics Code, which amongst other things doesn't let good guys kill people pretty much ever. I haven't done a definitive scouring of characters yet, but the perosn who most stuck out was WF, he had:
skip analysis
Anyway, that's my first thoughts, focusing in on a probable SK/vig isn't exactly ideal but realistically killing off a SK (and arguably a vig) on day 1 is preferable to catching a single scummer, since it eliminates a whole NK. And yes, I know I'm not very objective about vigs but I'll remind everyone that they have a a horrible track record with us, BA was the first vig to whack a non-townie and that was after he tried to whack the town doc, by and large our SK's and scummers have a better track record of killing off rival scummers than the vigs have. But again, there are a handful of major characters who I think would be obvious vig material, The Punisher being the blatant example, but plent yof more obvious vig candidates beside Deadpool, who is practically the poster-child for insanely homicidal third party guy.
Anyway, that's my first thoughts on it.
And yeah, to save the eventual comment, this is exactly what I'd be saying if I was the Evil Skrull Leader, I'm not, a general desire to do away with SK's and cultists is a trait I possess both when town and DF.
Now, you would attempt on day 1, and later today as well, to say that it was a sign of my guilt that I'd suggest such a path, yet as I pointed out, and you never rebutted, that claim was based off an underlying assumption I would have to do it without knowing it was a scummer tell, the original accusation puts the claim to bed, as the bolded text indicates. So I accidentally dropped proof I was scummer in the very same message I outright say it could be seen that way. That makes no sense, and yet by accusing me from a set off comments in which it was impossible to miss my saying that, you once again lift something clearly out of context in a fashion that can not be an accident. "Knowingly Presenting False Evidence" is, some might say, not particularly pro-town
Again, I have no idea what you're trying to say, and even less of an idea where I'm supposed to have lied in this. It looks like you're saying "I openly admitted that my scummy behaviour was scummy, therefore I can't be scum" but that's such a ludicrous idea I have to assume I'm incorrect. But what are you saying?
Or are you suggesting that when I said that when I said "Look at previous games, have you even seen Isaac say something to the effect of "I don't think we should will find mafia today, nor do I think we should even try"?" I meant that as a reference to this comment of yours? It wasn't, it was merely a figure of speech to represent what your actions told us in English. If I'd wanted to quote you, I would have quoted you.
Let's go to your next one, in your original accusations on me that caused this avalanche:
Again, utter word game, and real ironic when your whole point is to accuse me of doing that. In BlackAdders case, I was trying to find a scummer and failed. In WF's case, I was trying to find a scummer and failed, SK's a scummers. You ignore again the inconvenient truth that I'd already told everyone that going for a SK was not ideal but we had a decent lead and a SK is more dangeorus than a single scummer. Again, you use a flawed argument that translates as "This cop is clearly dirty and on the take because he ran past someone who was trying to steal a car while pursuing a murderer" it sounds reasonable to people only because there's a tag at the end 'Someone shot the fleeing murderer, ending the day, and he turned out to be innocent, it was not possible to go back for the car thief' and leaves out something really vital, I didn't run past someone stealing a car, I ran past when someone yelled 'He's stealing my car' and there was no sign of who 'he' was.
He says "Led a lynch on an innocent townie? BlackAdder, Check." and tries to equate this with his serial killer hunt, leaving out that they are completely different - in BlackAdder's case, he was trying to catch a ninja and failed. In White Flame's case, he was not trying to find a Skrull and succeeded in not finding one. He tries to compare killing a townie by mistake to killing a townie by intent.
Again, utter word game, and real ironic when your whole point is to accuse me of doing that. In BlackAdders case, I was trying to find a scummer and failed. In WF's case, I was trying to find a scummer and failed, SK's a scummers. You ignore again the inconvenient truth that I'd already told everyone that going for a SK was not ideal but we had a decent lead and a SK is more dangeorus than a single scummer. Again, you use a flawed argument that translates as "This cop is clearly dirty and on the take because he ran past someone who was trying to steal a car while pursuing a murderer" it sounds reasonable to people only because there's a tag at the end 'Someone shot the fleeing murderer, ending the day, and he turned out to be innocent, it was not possible to go back for the car thief' and leaves out something really vital, I didn't run past someone stealing a car, I ran past when someone yelled 'He's stealing my car' and there was no sign of who 'he' was.
Again, I don't get the lie. Incidentally, you might have noticed that even though I said I found it suspicious and scummy, I did agree with the rationale behind the serial killer hunt. You might then wonder why I'm bringing it up as evidence now. You might wonder why I didn't press for it at the beginning of the Day. Except of course that it's missing the blatantly obvious. I didn't go for the lynch until you repeated your scummy behaviour. Anyone can do something that looks scummy. But when you're doing it consistently, that's when it becomes evidence. I wouldn't be able to get you lynched on either the sk hunt or the no-lynch individually, which is probably why you try disassociating them, but together they demonstrate a pattern, and that pattern reveals your motivations, and those motivations are to not get mafia killed.
And at the end, that's all there is to it. That's why you're going to hang. And I still don't know where I lied.
Next:
No supporting evidence of that claim, you just say 'irrelevant' and bypass it, but its pretty relevant and you know it. You use both the day 1 vote and the day 1 non-vote for ? as evidence against me originally, yet when I point outthat is normal, instead of ceding the point as a flaw in your original accusation, you ignore that it was part of your accusation and accuse me of obfuscation by pointing it out.
He asks irrelevant questions like "Is it out of ordinary for me, as town or scum, to accuse someone on day 1?" or "Is it out of ordinary for me, as town or scum, to drop a lynch I feel is not viable?" in an attempt to get people to get in an agreeable position. After all, it is perfectly accurate to say that these are not abnormal behaviours, nor are they anti-town, and he hopes that people will use them to get a good impression of him and forget what the real point was.
No supporting evidence of that claim, you just say 'irrelevant' and bypass it, but its pretty relevant and you know it. You use both the day 1 vote and the day 1 non-vote for ? as evidence against me originally, yet when I point outthat is normal, instead of ceding the point as a flaw in your original accusation, you ignore that it was part of your accusation and accuse me of obfuscation by pointing it out.
Okay, stop. Not only is that not a lie from me, it's a lie from you. It is irrelevant. The equivalent of being accused of murder and saying "I fed my cat yesterday, is that murder?" It is completely and entirely irrelevant. Nobody said you were scum because you "accused somebody on day 1". And yet you try to use that as a defence. Nobody accused you of being scum for "dropping a lynch you felt was not viable" and yet you try to use that as a defence. And so on. It's blatant misdirection, and I won't have you calling me a liar because I called you out on it.
Next:
In a post that is loaded with spin and obfuscation, you accuse me of doing it the whole while, then say I deliberately voted to protect the mafia. Yet your sole evidence of such a vote is that I went after a probable SK, needless to say, that's hardly anti-town, but certainly no more anti-town then everyone who voted for the lynch without pursuing other leads. That's a far more obvious scummer tell, I tell people I don't think the lynch is viable anymore on day 1 and we need to pursue other leads, I suggest some, and WF gets whacked in a few hours. You avoid all mention of that aspect of things repeatedly, that an avalanche vote off my suggestion we pursue other routes is not only bizarre, but utterly smashes the 'SK as distraction' concept.
Isaac writes in an attempt to obfuscate the issue. The facts are plain and simple: in the span of two days, Isaac has deliberately voted to protect the mafia from lynching.
In a post that is loaded with spin and obfuscation, you accuse me of doing it the whole while, then say I deliberately voted to protect the mafia. Yet your sole evidence of such a vote is that I went after a probable SK, needless to say, that's hardly anti-town, but certainly no more anti-town then everyone who voted for the lynch without pursuing other leads. That's a far more obvious scummer tell, I tell people I don't think the lynch is viable anymore on day 1 and we need to pursue other leads, I suggest some, and WF gets whacked in a few hours. You avoid all mention of that aspect of things repeatedly, that an avalanche vote off my suggestion we pursue other routes is not only bizarre, but utterly smashes the 'SK as distraction' concept.
Of course I avoid mention of that, the last thing this game needs is for people to lose focus. I did not always, however. Before you became the sole subject of attention, you will recall that I did say this after all. I imagine if you were me, you'd be calling that a lie?
Seriously, this entire post is disappointing. You can't put up a sign saying "Fanatic-Templar caught in a(n almost) lie!" and then not give a show. Barring that one bit above, this was more confusing that outraging. I think you might be panicking.
The first rule of being a ninja is "do no harm". Unless you intend to do harm, then do lots of harm.
~Master Splinter
Victorious in Bergioyn's legendary 'Reverse Mafia'. *MySmiley*
~Master Splinter
Victorious in Bergioyn's legendary 'Reverse Mafia'. *MySmiley*
RAFO Mafia 19: Superlative Crisis! ISSUE TWO: BLACK MAGIC- WHOA, MAN!
- 03/11/2010 04:59:59 AM
2707 Views
I see two avenues to discuss here
- 03/11/2010 11:41:14 AM
933 Views
I was thinking about number 1.
- 03/11/2010 10:00:57 PM
958 Views
Regarding 2, and let me suggets a 3
- 04/11/2010 02:30:41 AM
1000 Views
I, personally, agree with Isaac so here goes.
- 04/11/2010 11:33:07 PM
927 Views
O.......K..........
- 05/11/2010 11:43:14 PM
908 Views
Did Fist use his power last Night?
- 06/11/2010 03:41:05 AM
950 Views
It's one of three plausible explanations for his death
- 06/11/2010 04:53:19 AM
920 Views
Re: It's one of three plausible explanations for his death
- 06/11/2010 05:30:00 PM
919 Views
Re: It's one of three plausible explanations for his death
- 06/11/2010 07:15:11 PM
968 Views
Re: It's one of three plausible explanations for his death
- 07/11/2010 08:18:16 AM
1003 Views
Re: It's one of three plausible explanations for his death
- 07/11/2010 03:38:37 PM
976 Views
Re: It's one of three plausible explanations for his death
- 07/11/2010 06:42:10 PM
1009 Views
Huh, well Fox straight up told us his Mason group was a 3rd Fraction on Night 1
- 11/11/2010 12:55:50 AM
968 Views
Re: It's one of three plausible explanations for his death
- 07/11/2010 06:16:29 PM
1019 Views
Re: It's one of three plausible explanations for his death
- 07/11/2010 07:16:20 PM
961 Views
Re: It's one of three plausible explanations for his death
- 07/11/2010 09:29:12 PM
1037 Views
I am about 95% sure that WF targeted me last Night.
- 11/11/2010 01:04:34 AM
949 Views
Interesting.
- 11/11/2010 02:25:07 AM
975 Views
It's certainly possible.
- 11/11/2010 02:39:00 AM
969 Views
Now I'm curious
- 11/11/2010 03:33:46 AM
1013 Views
Presumably because I'm not trying to get her lynched.
- 11/11/2010 03:53:54 AM
1001 Views
Yeah, I'm going with that #3 there.
- 04/11/2010 05:41:04 AM
1015 Views
Re: Yeah, I'm going with that #3 there.
- 04/11/2010 04:18:17 PM
1019 Views
a scummer got caught on day one in the tower game
- 04/11/2010 06:42:15 PM
988 Views
also there was that time someone said they saw a black light instead of white
- 04/11/2010 07:52:41 PM
967 Views
That was Hobo in DK's crossover game. *NM*
- 04/11/2010 08:16:07 PM
533 Views
You know we could just forget about that. I wouldn't complain. 
*NM*
- 05/11/2010 08:35:03 PM
576 Views
*NM*
- 05/11/2010 08:35:03 PM
576 Views
Hypocop? *NM*
- 03/11/2010 03:20:17 PM
585 Views
So help me I will spoil the entirety of ToM, people! (not just yet, though)
- 10/11/2010 02:51:46 AM
884 Views
I'm pretty sure if you do, you'll be lynched. *NM*
- 10/11/2010 09:19:43 PM
546 Views
Vote: No Lynch
- 13/11/2010 12:24:43 AM
975 Views
I am very much opposed to this idea
- 13/11/2010 02:04:27 PM
908 Views
Then offer an alternative
- 13/11/2010 11:10:42 PM
961 Views
Why is an inactive likely to be a townie?
- 14/11/2010 04:03:35 AM
876 Views
Re: Why is an inactive likely to be a townie?
- 14/11/2010 04:21:12 AM
944 Views
I had no RBIRL because my computer died.
- 14/11/2010 06:52:56 AM
871 Views
Ah, I see you did unvote. Very well. I still got my eye on you. *NM*
- 14/11/2010 06:55:30 AM
481 Views
LOL - I guess this is also my informal defense
- 14/11/2010 08:52:56 AM
949 Views
Saying it's not out-of-character to be scummy doesn't make you any less scummy.
- 14/11/2010 04:33:15 PM
955 Views
Watch the difference between what he says and what he is accused of.
- 14/11/2010 07:08:08 PM
838 Views
After this whole argument I've had with FT...
- 13/11/2010 11:42:32 PM
920 Views
People who vote for totally random lynches don't deserve to win
- 14/11/2010 03:43:14 AM
883 Views
Re: People who vote for totally random lynches don't deserve to win
- 14/11/2010 02:23:04 PM
1063 Views
Vote: Isaac
- 13/11/2010 11:58:56 PM
1001 Views
Re: Vote: Isaac
- 14/11/2010 03:02:15 AM
902 Views
Re: Vote: Isaac
- 14/11/2010 04:02:30 AM
988 Views
What was scummy?
- 14/11/2010 04:10:12 AM
1021 Views
Re: What was scummy?
- 14/11/2010 05:41:44 AM
939 Views
Extrmely thin
- 14/11/2010 06:05:32 AM
1092 Views
Actually...
- 14/11/2010 06:55:02 AM
1000 Views
Re: Actually...
- 14/11/2010 07:44:33 AM
947 Views
Did you guys just blitz me?
- 14/11/2010 11:35:58 PM
980 Views
- 14/11/2010 11:35:58 PM
980 Views
Your not hammered yet are you?
- 14/11/2010 11:46:29 PM
904 Views
I think I might be, can never be sure what votes are worth in a heavy role game
- 14/11/2010 11:50:51 PM
927 Views
I'm potentially alive on a technicality
- 15/11/2010 12:02:36 AM
830 Views
Why don't you go ahead and claim then?
- 15/11/2010 12:11:03 AM
928 Views
Sure
- 15/11/2010 12:34:34 AM
898 Views
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
- 15/11/2010 02:13:23 AM
1000 Views
I think so.
- 15/11/2010 01:25:46 AM
906 Views
Also, I must confess...
- 15/11/2010 01:32:44 AM
905 Views
Re: Also, I must confess...
- 15/11/2010 01:58:26 AM
1038 Views
Yes, I would expect so.
- 15/11/2010 02:22:06 AM
849 Views
Re: Yes, I would expect so.
- 15/11/2010 02:35:49 AM
957 Views
I'm unvoting only if the defence is really foolproof, since now no-one can hammer without instantly
- 15/11/2010 07:18:05 AM
941 Views
EBWOP - The "only" in the title is rebundant, it was part of different title I abandoned. *NM*
- 15/11/2010 07:19:46 AM
577 Views
I guess the first title stands afterall I won't automatically unvote just because none should hammer
- 15/11/2010 08:19:00 AM
843 Views
I'll try to help Isaac out a bit here.
- 15/11/2010 01:11:11 PM
773 Views
Thanks, and a question too
- 15/11/2010 01:30:17 PM
855 Views
Well, I'll unvote if the third mason comes forward too. *NM*
- 15/11/2010 03:30:36 PM
531 Views
Jeez, when it rains, it pours
- 15/11/2010 10:34:54 PM
818 Views
OK Isaac
- 15/11/2010 11:14:45 PM
870 Views
My Defense Posts
- 16/11/2010 04:16:41 AM
883 Views
Defense A: The Fantastic Four
- 16/11/2010 04:31:11 AM
923 Views
Defense B: The Numbers Game
- 16/11/2010 04:36:59 AM
925 Views
"What motive would a scummer have"?
- 16/11/2010 05:56:04 PM
911 Views
Without any further questions though?
- 16/11/2010 11:51:42 PM
952 Views
If you see an avalanche coming, you hop on board (NOT a metaphor).
- 17/11/2010 12:12:31 AM
877 Views
Defense C: The Intro Flavor
- 16/11/2010 04:41:31 AM
1025 Views
Eh ...
- 16/11/2010 10:00:21 PM
870 Views
Re: Eh ...
- 17/11/2010 02:33:27 AM
929 Views
We'll take a look at that in turn, but first...
- 16/11/2010 07:01:22 AM
973 Views
Re: We'll take a look at that in turn, but first...
- 16/11/2010 01:40:21 PM
862 Views
Yes, that was it.
- 16/11/2010 09:05:04 PM
897 Views
Re: Yes, that was it.
- 17/11/2010 02:55:58 AM
927 Views
Not at all.
- 17/11/2010 03:04:50 AM
895 Views
Well, that's a borderline lie
- 17/11/2010 04:29:47 AM
981 Views
How do you figure?
- 17/11/2010 05:46:37 AM
883 Views
I'd say its pretty pertinent to my defense
- 17/11/2010 06:49:20 AM
880 Views
All right, fair enough.
- 17/11/2010 07:19:37 AM
990 Views
Thanks for whakcing me before going to bed
- 17/11/2010 07:39:58 AM
899 Views
- 17/11/2010 07:39:58 AM
899 Views
By the way, I'd appreciate if no one had hammer till FT has a chance to reply and vice-versa
- 17/11/2010 07:46:18 AM
886 Views
I have evidence in favor of and yet against F-T's claim. Take it as you will.
- 17/11/2010 07:18:35 PM
973 Views
Slight EBWOP
- 17/11/2010 07:20:58 PM
972 Views
Re: Slight EBWOP
- 17/11/2010 07:24:34 PM
869 Views
Uh, that doesn't make a lot of sense
- 17/11/2010 07:22:59 PM
941 Views
That's fair. Sanity can actually be called into question now.
- 17/11/2010 07:26:34 PM
879 Views
Re: That's fair. Sanity can actually be called into question now.
- 17/11/2010 08:01:20 PM
962 Views
Actually that sounds a good plan
- 17/11/2010 08:06:50 PM
872 Views
Glad to hear you agree with yourself
- 17/11/2010 08:14:42 PM
971 Views
- 17/11/2010 08:14:42 PM
971 Views
:/ Wanna mention this before I forget. Little niggling that's been bugging me.
- 17/11/2010 03:03:27 AM
896 Views
Ah yes, I noticed that as well
- 17/11/2010 04:08:15 AM
896 Views
I just caught that
- 17/11/2010 04:53:16 AM
997 Views
No, I don't mean Cop.
- 17/11/2010 05:29:36 AM
917 Views
Re: No, I don't mean Cop.
- 17/11/2010 05:34:46 AM
929 Views
I trust him because of the way he's been acting.
- 17/11/2010 06:30:26 PM
975 Views
Complete sidetrack.
- 17/11/2010 07:28:31 PM
996 Views
Re: Complete sidetrack.
- 17/11/2010 07:33:51 PM
869 Views
I can't seem to find the post about that arrangement we had, incidentally.
- 17/11/2010 05:38:53 AM
827 Views
Re: I can't seem to find the post about that arrangement we had, incidentally.
- 17/11/2010 06:04:08 AM
847 Views
Re: I can't seem to find the post about that arrangement we had, incidentally.
- 17/11/2010 06:25:05 AM
943 Views
Re: I can't seem to find the post about that arrangement we had, incidentally.
- 17/11/2010 06:50:04 AM
875 Views
In the interests of honesty, now would probably be a good time to mention ...
- 17/11/2010 09:22:14 PM
899 Views
What the balls?
- 17/11/2010 09:52:04 PM
924 Views
I still only see one way for this day to end
- 18/11/2010 02:02:03 PM
878 Views
Re: I still only see one way for this day to end
- 18/11/2010 03:18:50 PM
844 Views
Its probably the blind mason loyalty thing, but I'm inclined to trust Isaac.
- 18/11/2010 05:16:28 PM
1043 Views
Re: Its probably the blind mason loyalty thing, but I'm inclined to trust Isaac.
- 18/11/2010 06:00:06 PM
887 Views
I'd also like to point out that we know nothing about you
- 18/11/2010 03:37:08 PM
870 Views
i don't know much about comics but
- 18/11/2010 05:45:10 PM
910 Views
Re: i don't know much about comics but
- 18/11/2010 05:49:54 PM
826 Views
They're also Marvel characters
- 18/11/2010 06:30:11 PM
918 Views
LOL, duly noted
- 18/11/2010 06:48:08 PM
937 Views
- 18/11/2010 06:48:08 PM
937 Views
Beast is really surprisingly un-beastly.
- 18/11/2010 06:28:15 PM
939 Views
Sure
- 18/11/2010 06:42:01 PM
920 Views
Alright, to hell with this. Let's test F-T's sanity. Vote: Isaac *NM*
- 21/11/2010 08:29:53 PM
549 Views
Ah, the frustration vote, normally my best friend
- 21/11/2010 09:58:18 PM
887 Views
- 21/11/2010 09:58:18 PM
887 Views
OK, here's a question for beet:
- 21/11/2010 10:37:08 PM
898 Views
You're not suggesting we lynch F-T instead of Isaac, are you?
- 21/11/2010 11:17:19 PM
889 Views
But we do get information
- 22/11/2010 12:17:20 AM
915 Views
<-- Btw, first time I got the hammer vote. My life is now complete. *NM*
- 22/11/2010 12:20:53 AM
547 Views
Well, congrats *NM*
- 22/11/2010 12:32:34 AM
567 Views
*NM*
- 22/11/2010 12:32:34 AM
567 Views
Since this is a first for both of us... 
- 22/11/2010 12:35:29 AM
896 Views
- 22/11/2010 12:35:29 AM
896 Views
When someone dies, you find out their role. "Psycho Cop" is a distinct role.
- 21/11/2010 11:22:50 PM
905 Views
Isaac wonders how he could be lynched without scum involvement...
- 22/11/2010 12:00:31 AM
862 Views
Re: Isaac wonders how he could be lynched without scum involvement...
- 22/11/2010 12:21:01 AM
965 Views
Isaac has been lynched!
- 22/11/2010 03:10:01 AM
803 Views
- 22/11/2010 04:24:44 AM
875 Views
I can't help but feel a silver bullet would have been appropriate
- 22/11/2010 04:11:13 AM
791 Views
- 22/11/2010 04:11:13 AM
791 Views
I find that astounding, considering the level of suspicion generally laid upon you *NM*
- 22/11/2010 04:16:04 AM
600 Views
I might just mount your head on my wall .
- 22/11/2010 05:09:45 AM
1001 Views
.
- 22/11/2010 05:09:45 AM
1001 Views
I consider myself an integral part in this group.
- 22/11/2010 05:27:12 AM
977 Views
- 22/11/2010 04:24:44 AM
875 Views
