Moderator: Community Team
Dibbler wrote:I mean God Emperor Q has only posted once, That seems a much clearer scum tell to me. He really doesn't want to get noticed. I bet many of you have forgotten he is even in this game.
Vote God Emperor Q
slowreactor wrote:Dibbler wrote:I mean God Emperor Q has only posted once, That seems a much clearer scum tell to me. He really doesn't want to get noticed. I bet many of you have forgotten he is even in this game.
Vote God Emperor Q
The fact that you know forum inactivity/submarining as a scumtell but don't know trying to end the day quickly as one makes me even more suspicious...
dazza2008 wrote:slowreactor wrote:Dibbler wrote:I mean God Emperor Q has only posted once, That seems a much clearer scum tell to me. He really doesn't want to get noticed. I bet many of you have forgotten he is even in this game.
Vote God Emperor Q
The fact that you know forum inactivity/submarining as a scumtell but don't know trying to end the day quickly as one makes me even more suspicious...
Very good point Vote Dibbler
soundman wrote:Dibbler strikes me as a townie. He's bored with all the waiting and told us he didn't care if he was lynched. I think he would be more interested in the game and not mind waiting if he had a mafia/power role. Of course he could be using reverse psychology... I'm actually more interested in what ShaggyDan's case is. He's been pretty quiet through most of the game.
soundman wrote:And I have a case! Looking back to when Dibbler first made his comments I find slowreactor voting for him first. And first on Day 2. And first on Day 3. Even on Day 2 when Shaggy came up with his guilty find on safari, slowreactor didn't change his vote. He made a couple of comments during that time but was very reserved and noncommittal. I think he didn't want to vote for his scum partner. And now he's trying to make an easy lynch against a potential townie. Vote slowreactor
safariguy5 wrote:drake_259 wrote:And yes, vote Dibbler for his actions yesterday.
slowreactor wrote:soundman wrote:And I have a case! Looking back to when Dibbler first made his comments I find slowreactor voting for him first. And first on Day 2. And first on Day 3. Even on Day 2 when Shaggy came up with his guilty find on safari, slowreactor didn't change his vote. He made a couple of comments during that time but was very reserved and noncommittal. I think he didn't want to vote for his scum partner. And now he's trying to make an easy lynch against a potential townie. Vote slowreactor
2 things here:
1) I saw a major scumtell day 1 from Dibbler, and I acted on it. Day 1 ended too fast for any action, so I restarted day 2. As for the Safari bandwagon, the 1st time, right after Shaggy claimed, I misread, thinking he hasn't told us who his guilty investigation was yet, and when I came back to the thread Safari was already hammered.
2) I just saw this combing back through yesterday's stuff (in-game yesterday):safariguy5 wrote:And yes, vote Dibbler for his actions yesterday.
Mafia shouldn't have much reason going 3rd on a bandwagon against a co-mafia - unless Saf really thought that my bandwagon would be successful. Can people please let me know, if Shaggy didn't claim yesterday, would you think my bandwagon would have carried through? Just so I can gauge Saf's chances of bussing Dibbler vs him being innocent?
VioIet wrote:Dibbler wrote:I just don't think that we will get any more info. If you want I'm ok with lynching I never thought this game would go for months but right now it is on that track.
I am doing Dibbler a favor here.
Vote Dibbler
VioIet wrote:soundman wrote:Dibbler strikes me as a townie. He's bored with all the waiting and told us he didn't care if he was lynched. I think he would be more interested in the game and not mind waiting if he had a mafia/power role. Of course he could be using reverse psychology... I'm actually more interested in what ShaggyDan's case is. He's been pretty quiet through most of the game.
QFT. I remember making a similar statement in the Quentin game- which was perceived wrong. I think Dibbler's comments were due to inexperience, and not being sure how the game works.
icedagger wrote:And then later on the same day,
slowreactor wrote:slowreactor wrote:soundman wrote:And I have a case! Looking back to when Dibbler first made his comments I find slowreactor voting for him first. And first on Day 2. And first on Day 3. Even on Day 2 when Shaggy came up with his guilty find on safari, slowreactor didn't change his vote. He made a couple of comments during that time but was very reserved and noncommittal. I think he didn't want to vote for his scum partner. And now he's trying to make an easy lynch against a potential townie. Vote slowreactor
2 things here:
1) I saw a major scumtell day 1 from Dibbler, and I acted on it. Day 1 ended too fast for any action, so I restarted day 2. As for the Safari bandwagon, the 1st time, right after Shaggy claimed, I misread, thinking he hasn't told us who his guilty investigation was yet, and when I came back to the thread Safari was already hammered.
2) I just saw this combing back through yesterday's stuff (in-game yesterday):safariguy5 wrote:And yes, vote Dibbler for his actions yesterday.
Mafia shouldn't have much reason going 3rd on a bandwagon against a co-mafia - unless Saf really thought that my bandwagon would be successful. Can people please let me know, if Shaggy didn't claim yesterday, would you think my bandwagon would have carried through? Just so I can gauge Saf's chances of bussing Dibbler vs him being innocent?
EBWOP: Saf was the one who did that vote, not drake
soundman wrote:Unvote Can we get a prod on God Emperor Q and Violet please? Thanks.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users