Joint Terror Task Force Mafia Day 3 - All is Well!

[NoSurvivors]

Seriously.. who got banned?

[thehippo8]

i just want to point out that Doom seems to be ok with any lynch, no matter who the target is.

Proof?

Maybe this is bringing my RL exerience (commonsense?) into the equation but any accused who says "prove it" is not denying anything and causes the prosecutor to "know" they are not dealing with an "innocent". Perhaps you'd like to explain yourself Doom?

[DoomYoshi]

You two are psychotic. I only want NoS lynched. I have never supported anyone else being lynched today. Therefore, there is no possible proof. Vodean is speaking out of his ass, and I just wanted to draw attention to that.

[vodean]

What do you want to hear more from me about?

- NoS can hang today, I am fine with that.

- jgordon proves again that even if he has a town role, he is not beneficial to town as a player

- DiM is my next best target, but that case will wait until tomorrow (nothing you say will bring it out of me today)

proof.
NoS.... uhhh.... really? yomiel.

[Iron Butterfly]

i just want to point out that Doom seems to be ok with any lynch, no matter who the target is.

Proof?

Maybe this is bringing my RL exerience (commonsense?) into the equation but any accused who says "prove it" is not denying anything and causes the prosecutor to "know" they are not dealing with an "innocent". Perhaps you'd like to explain yourself Doom?

real life is not the same as playing online. What we use as proof in these games is the written word and how someone decides to interpret or spin it. Vodean made an observation about Doom. If someone read it without have reading Dooms past posts one might infer Doom just wanted someone lynched, which by itself would seem scummy.

Doom has every right to ask Vodean to prove it. All Vodean has to do is quote the exact post Doom stated that he does not care who is lynched. In this game if you make an accusation in the negative you better damn well be able to prove it.

Doom said he does not care if NOS gets lynched and in fact prefers it. No where does he state he would be OK with any lynch...In fact that statement by Vodean is very scummy in trying to portray Doom in such a light.

[vodean]

well as i see it, in that post, he is saying that we should kill them one at a time.

[thehippo8]

i just want to point out that Doom seems to be ok with any lynch, no matter who the target is.

Proof?

Maybe this is bringing my RL exerience (commonsense?) into the equation but any accused who says "prove it" is not denying anything and causes the prosecutor to "know" they are not dealing with an "innocent". Perhaps you'd like to explain yourself Doom?

real life is not the same as playing online. What we use as proof in these games is the written word and how someone decides to interpret or spin it. Vodean made an observation about Doom. If someone read it without have reading Dooms past posts one might infer Doom just wanted someone lynched, which by itself would seem scummy.

Doom has every right to ask Vodean to prove it. All Vodean has to do is quote the exact post Doom stated that he does not care who is lynched. In this game if you make an accusation in the negative you better damn well be able to prove it.

Doom said he does not care if NOS gets lynched and in fact prefers it. No where does he state he would be OK with any lynch...In fact that statement by Vodean is very scummy in trying to portray Doom in such a light.

Well said IB, but you missed my point (possibly). Whilst proof can be used as you say, the expression "prove it" is not the same as "you are wrong" or simply "no". If the phrase was intended in the context of "you are lying so here have some more rope so you can hang yourself" then I agree that it is a valid expression. But if you use "prove it" in the sense of "I reckon I can get away with this because I don't think there's any evidence damning me" then there is a problem. Whether or not there is evidence the second use of the expression is scummy. But here if the expression was use in the second (scummy) way then things get worse for NoS because Vode provided some evidence. Admittedly the evidence is scant and I reckon that Vode is skimming like a stone on a pond, but my point is made. Anyway, I reckon you are right, IB, that NoS was using the "prove it" expression in the first (non-scummy) way in order to flesh out what Vode was talking about.

With that cleared up, umm Vode - can you confirm that you are properly read up to date? Or have you been skimming?

fastposted by Vode

[NoSurvivors]

i just want to point out that Doom seems to be ok with any lynch, no matter who the target is.

Proof?

Maybe this is bringing my RL exerience (commonsense?) into the equation but any accused who says "prove it" is not denying anything and causes the prosecutor to "know" they are not dealing with an "innocent". Perhaps you'd like to explain yourself Doom?

real life is not the same as playing online. What we use as proof in these games is the written word and how someone decides to interpret or spin it. Vodean made an observation about Doom. If someone read it without have reading Dooms past posts one might infer Doom just wanted someone lynched, which by itself would seem scummy.

Doom has every right to ask Vodean to prove it. All Vodean has to do is quote the exact post Doom stated that he does not care who is lynched. In this game if you make an accusation in the negative you better damn well be able to prove it.

Doom said he does not care if NOS gets lynched and in fact prefers it. No where does he state he would be OK with any lynch...In fact that statement by Vodean is very scummy in trying to portray Doom in such a light.

Well said IB, but you missed my point (possibly). Whilst proof can be used as you say, the expression "prove it" is not the same as "you are wrong" or simply "no". If the phrase was intended in the context of "you are lying so here have some more rope so you can hang yourself" then I agree that it is a valid expression. But if you use "prove it" in the sense of "I reckon I can get away with this because I don't think there's any evidence damning me" then there is a problem. Whether or not there is evidence the second use of the expression is scummy. But here if the expression was use in the second (scummy) way then things get worse for NoS because Vode provided some evidence. Admittedly the evidence is scant and I reckon that Vode is skimming like a stone on a pond, but my point is made. Anyway, I reckon you are right, IB, that NoS was using the "prove it" expression in the first (non-scummy) way in order to flesh out what Vode was talking about.

With that cleared up, umm Vode - can you confirm that you are properly read up to date? Or have you been skimming?

fastposted by Vode

You mean Yoshi? lol

[vodean]

i just want to point out that Doom seems to be ok with any lynch, no matter who the target is.

Proof?

Maybe this is bringing my RL exerience (commonsense?) into the equation but any accused who says "prove it" is not denying anything and causes the prosecutor to "know" they are not dealing with an "innocent". Perhaps you'd like to explain yourself Doom?

real life is not the same as playing online. What we use as proof in these games is the written word and how someone decides to interpret or spin it. Vodean made an observation about Doom. If someone read it without have reading Dooms past posts one might infer Doom just wanted someone lynched, which by itself would seem scummy.

Doom has every right to ask Vodean to prove it. All Vodean has to do is quote the exact post Doom stated that he does not care who is lynched. In this game if you make an accusation in the negative you better damn well be able to prove it.

Doom said he does not care if NOS gets lynched and in fact prefers it. No where does he state he would be OK with any lynch...In fact that statement by Vodean is very scummy in trying to portray Doom in such a light.

Well said IB, but you missed my point (possibly). Whilst proof can be used as you say, the expression "prove it" is not the same as "you are wrong" or simply "no". If the phrase was intended in the context of "you are lying so here have some more rope so you can hang yourself" then I agree that it is a valid expression. But if you use "prove it" in the sense of "I reckon I can get away with this because I don't think there's any evidence damning me" then there is a problem. Whether or not there is evidence the second use of the expression is scummy. But here if the expression was use in the second (scummy) way then things get worse for NoS because Vode provided some evidence. Admittedly the evidence is scant and I reckon that Vode is skimming like a stone on a pond, but my point is made. Anyway, I reckon you are right, IB, that NoS was using the "prove it" expression in the first (non-scummy) way in order to flesh out what Vode was talking about.

With that cleared up, umm Vode - can you confirm that you are properly read up to date? Or have you been skimming?

fastposted by Vode

who's skimming, again?

i am all caught up. that is just how i see it. feel free to disagree

[DiM]

doomyoshi is the one catching up/skimming.

[NoSurvivors]

doomyoshi is the one catching up/skimming.

Doom is also away I believe.. he said he would be gone for a few days. Where is the count?

[thehippo8]

Hi all - travel day today - may not be able to post now for a couple of days. Will try and pop back on later today if I get a chance at the airport.

[Campin_Killer]

I'm actually going to extend the deadline for 2 more days.

New deadline is August 12 at 12:00 PM

[DoomYoshi]

What am I skimming Dim?

@vodean: you have misinterpreted. Besides, 3 of 10 players is hardly everyone. Yes, I did support jgordons lynch yesterday. Now that he is claimed town, i facepalmed, but dont want his lynch.

I think I can bring a pretty good case against Dim, but I am not going to waste the effort on it today, since we already have a good lynch target.

[DiM]

What am I skimming Dim?

hmm, are you sure you're not skimming?
the discussion was pretty clear and the answers were clear also and yet you ended up with the above post.

first hippo said this:

Vode - can you confirm that you are properly read up to date? Or have you been skimming?

basically he confused you with vodean.
so vodean asked:

who's skimming, again?

and naturally i offered the explanation:

doomyoshi is the one catching up/skimming.

so you took my neutral comment, which i made to clear up confusion between hippo and vodean, extracted what you needed and threw away the rest and turned it into an accusation.
isn't that weird?

especially when you follow that remark with another accusation:

I think I can bring a pretty good case against Dim, but I am not going to waste the effort on it today, since we already have a good lynch target.

it's almost as if you're already setting up the stage for something.
i'm pretty sure that if i start taking things out of context i can build a case against anybody, right?

[DoomYoshi]

How do you know he confused me with vodean?

[DiM]

How do you know he confused me with vodean?

because you were the replacement who had to catch up on the action.
so he wanted to know if you've finished catching up or if you're skimming.

[DiM]

nevermind, scratch that.
i'm messed up in the head

i specifically remembered you saying you read until page 19 and then i realised this has just 18 pages.

so i went and searched and realised i confused this with another game. specifically this one where indeed you replaced somebody and were in the process of catching up.

sorry it's been a rough week at work. this is definitely not the first nonsense i've been saying in the mafia games

[thehippo8]

Lol, and yeah I meant Vode! Never mind - it's all out of context now anyway.

[Count Belisle]

I'm back guy's But I'm going to asked to be replaced, it is too much to catch up right now, I have missed far too much. I'm really sorry.

[DoomYoshi]

Actually, you haven't missed anything... Just vote NoS, and let's get this day over with.

[Iron Butterfly]

Actually, you haven't missed anything... Just vote NoS, and let's get this day over with.

Lets say we vote NoS and he flips Town, what would that tell us? Where would you take the investigation?

[LSU Tiger Josh]

I still don't like voting a claimed medic.

NOS I think I read somewhere where you claimed to not protect anyone last night. Is this true and if so why?

[jak111]

I still don't like voting a claimed medic.

NOS I think I read somewhere where you claimed to not protect anyone last night. Is this true and if so why?

^
Skimming or forgetful?

He claimed he visited no one because he thought he'd protect a mafia from a vig kill

[DiM]

Actually, you haven't missed anything... Just vote NoS, and let's get this day over with.

Lets say we vote NoS and he flips Town, what would that tell us? Where would you take the investigation?

good question.