TWG XXI: X-Men Lockdown (Humans Win)

[lightdarkness]

Can you please add the real names next to those who have votes on them, I hate having to look back.

[Tasselfoot]

TPS, I at least clearly saw the final lines of your convo with me as sarcastic. I assume others did as well.

[Tasselfoot]

OK, I spoke with Kilga... and his VERY general response, plus common sense, leads me to believe that TPS' explanation is not true, which most likely means the conversation is fake.

Now, WHY? There seems to be no good reason to do it, unless it is what I explained when dealing with Chardish, although this could apply to anyone, it just happens that Chardish first pointed it out.

[GuidoHunter]

TPS, I at least clearly saw the final lines of your convo with me as sarcastic. I assume others did as well.

Yes.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilgamayan]

Okay. I can think of at least three people in this game off the top of my head that have come to me today.

I'm dead. Stop talking to me.

[Tps222]

Ok. I assume Hans was a wolf. If I am a wolf, along with Chardish, why would we chop down our 3 person team for a 2 person team? It's ridiculous. We already tried it once, why would we do it again? Especially involving me? If it was to be done, it would def be done with someone else. I raise too much doubt on things. You don't sacrifice a person like me and expect to be looked at as human. Give Chardish and myself some more credit than that.

[Afrobean]

TPS, I at least clearly saw the final lines of your convo with me as sarcastic. I assume others did as well.

Yes.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

I also noticed the sarcasm. It was blatant, really.

@Tass: stop cheating. You're not allowed to talk to the dead to try to extract information.

[talisman]

Well afro there's a fine line between talking TWG with a dead person and talking with a person about that person's inside jokes or whatever with someone else... although Kilga isn't one to make that distinction, as evidenced by tass' inability to get anything out of him.

[aperson]

Well, midterms are over and my goal is to be drunk from now until tomorrow so I probably won't be around any more until the day ends.

Therefore, I'm going with who seems most suspicious now, and why the fuck would you fake a convo? Eh... tps

[talisman]

ok, I think we need to take a step back and look at what "fake" means. If it is fake, I don't think there's anyway tps just completely generated it off the top of his head. If that were the case, he did a damn good job putting periods at the end of kilga's statements, and, plus, if he were flat out making the whole thing up, he wouldn't have made the mistake that has led to all of this.

So "fake" in this case must mean that he spliced together the convo or something. To me, it looks like he either moved the line in question up two spaces or else there actually is some sort of inside thing with kigla and "my self".

But assuming he faked it, the obvious question we've all been asking is why? Some have said it makes him look human, I'd disagree, I think it almost makes him look red, the way he's sort of prying for info. So it goes back to the same theme we had day one of why a red would post a convo that makes him more suspicious than he was before.

The problem is that faking that particular convo, as has been said before, is just plain illogical, and tps is not an illogical person. He has a reputation for doing crazy shit, but it always seems like there's reason behind that shit.

ugh. Trying to figure this out is lame. Hopefully the psychic will still be alive tomorrow so we have this thing figured out (if, as seems likely, tps gets lynched).

[QreepyBORIS]

Qreepy. You have been on me most of the game, with mostly nothing, you keep stating the obvious over and over again, regarding blues and all, like your trying to gauge reactions from them or Tass, and you plain just give me weird vibes, you are my vote for now.

With nothing? Sorry, but there's nothing but cicrumstantial evidence in this whole game. Not just this one, every single TWG game ever played -- everything is circumstantial, even when a blue comes out and says that another person is a wolf. So I hope that you cannot say with any degree of honesty that you think others have indisputable proof of wolfiness. But clearly you cannot, as one of the reasons you put down for my being a wolf was that I was giving you "weird vibes". Do you think that counts as evidence? Just quit the damn game until you can stop being a hypocrite.

Am I stating the obvious, though? Clearly not. Look what happened last night -- that is the reason I have been, as you so terribly put it, "stating the obvious". An "obvious" idea such as the one I repeated cannot be emphasized clearly enough when it is learned that it has not been followed. Jesus, Kilga's death could have been far worse than it was; but thankfully Tass is the new hub, I think, so it's not as bad as it could have been. But that's no reason to repeat the same mistake, is it? That's rhetorical.

So wait, you think I am trying to gauge peoples' reactions to see if they are blue? What, do you think the guardian's going to respond to one of my posts by saying, "Sorry, Qreepy, I won't make the mistake of guarding the wrong person again"? Don't be infantile. If I wanted to gauge peoples' reactions to that statement, I would have simply looked in this thread, where it has already been posted a dozen times. I could glean all the information I wanted from just that; I would not need anything extra. I was, as I already said, trying to pound the information into peoples' brains (specifically the Guardian's, of course).

Good god, wolves must think with their stomachs. They certainly don't with their heads.

[talisman]

qreepy, it WAS somewhat redundant to tell the guardian to guard tass. If he's alive, I'm sure tass has beaten that into his head himself.

[QreepyBORIS]

And do you think that is a valid reason to vote for someone?

[talisman]

god dammit I keep clicking on the wrong thread.

I don't think it would be the best reason to vote someone, no. He'd have to make the case that somehow your redundancy was part of larger behavior pattern in which you were trying to fit in slide under the radar in terms of strategy discussion by echoing others or something.

I mean, the way I see it qreepy, it's one vote and it means nothing, especially coming from someone who at this point most people aren't really liable to believe/trust. There's not too much point in making sure you refute it, although refuting it isn't necessarily bad/suspicious.

[QreepyBORIS]

I just like to take care of things like this most of the time.