Green Poet

Ugh, alright, let's keep testing. ##Unvote ##Vote: Breezy Poly, would you be alright with posting frequently updated votals so that we can try this?

You remind me so much of myself in EO2. I don't see why scum would want Breezy dead. He didn't even make an RVS vote.

I don't think this is a doublevote sort of ability. Someone's got a huge amount of control over the votals right now, and I want to figure out the methodology behind it. ##Vote: Breezy My vote was on Breezy in that votal. I want to see what happens now; requesting votals at this time.

I'm not going to vote you based on rolespec, especially when my memory of P3 isn't precise. Not to mention that there's no reason for scum to start rolespeccing about potentially scum characters. I'm not liking FFM too much. He's the only of the up-to-speed posters whom I feel hasn't been saying anything really substantive, like wondering aloud what RVS means, and arbitrarily if SB's a lyncher. I haven't seen him play before and am unsure if he's new, but if he is, I think Junko's far more likely to be newb!town than he from comparing the density of their posts. I also feel as though Mitsuki was trying too hard to find fault with Junko's early vote, and that it didn't really merit a vote on him.

Yep, that's him. He seems like the best candidate for whom SB's describing right now. :x Let's go with this, then. SB, who do you think is likely to be scum so far?

He says he'll only become town if he fails his wincon. This makes his faction switch extremely hard to test, and like you said earlier, he could simply be fakeclaiming this. Sort of shaky reasoning to unvote now, imo. I believe there's a character in P3 that becomes an antagonist after a certain plot twist partway through the game. SB could be this character, claiming that he becomes town instead of scum.

Pretty much, yes. But there's no way that SB would've tried to crumb that he was either of those roles. Looks like it's time to finish P3P so I can rolespec this.

I see, alright. I think he's saying that he converts from survivor to VT if his survivor wincon fails. Which doesn't make much sense to me because the only way I can see a conventional survivor failing its wincon is by dying. . . right? So yeah, SB, please do clarify what you meant.

I ISO'd Kopf and Junko after reading Mitsuki's last post, and I'd like to ask something. What prompted you to say this? This wasn't a joke vote, so I'm trying to see what made you think as though Kopf would be inactive for this game. After all... It seems as though Kopf's saying that he does have time for this game. Also, SB, could you clarify on whether or not your claims have been serious or not?

/in Can't say no to Persona.

The story of the original Bioshock game is amazing, and it's thematically similar in some ways to TLoU, so it might be worth checking out. I think it's actually on sale on the PS store this week, too. I'd say Portal 2's also worth looking into, though its writing is more comedic than dramatic. As for DS games. . . maybe Fire Emblem 11? I suppose you could consider the Ace Attorney and Professor Layton games to have notably good writing, though they're more like visual novels and play closer to 999 than something like TWEWY.

I'd like to join the QT too, please.

Ugh, need to improve my scumplay. No hard feelings, guys; hope I didn't upset too much. -end bah post-

##Unvote ##Vote: Green Poet

I didn't receive a message stating that my track was redirected, no. I realize it sounds incriminating, but that's simply what happened. I'll try to stick around and answer any other questions or provide associative reads for the next couple hours.

My character flavor is Ishizu Ishtar, and my hand/role theme seems to be sight-based. I had one tracker, one "identify the user of one card in graveyard" card and one rolecop cards, one "secret of the pharaoh" card (piece #2 of 3) and one warp card that grants me immunity for the night. I drew from changing jar 2 on D1 and got a blank. My ability is that I can play two cards on a night, a 2-shot ability. On N1, I tracked Kay to kirsche. I have no idea why kirsche isn't dead and Garland/BBM aren't, so most likely my result was altered, or that Kay's kill was independent of her action. I used the double play and tried to cop Vhaltz, but my card "never touched the field."

Posting claim on mobile now, apologies in advance for spelling and such.

As promised, reads on scorri: and Shin: Oh, and Really sorry if I sounded passive-aggressive in that last post. It wasn't my intention, and I'll try to tone it down.

I was the second person to contribute to what became the final Psych wagon, after Vhaltz, on D1. The day ended with six votes on him. There was no existing wagon for me to jump on at that point. In comparison, you're voting me when there are already three votes on me. . . doesn't that sound a lot more like riding a wagon? Psych's choice of vote actually had nothing to do with my reason for voting him. It was his tendency to ask questions like "Could you elaborate on why you think I'm scum?" or "So if I vote X non-wagon instead of Y wagon, then you'll be satisfied?" instead of offering diverse reads that caused me to be suspicious of him. As for the lateness of the votes - the Psych wagon began nine hours before phase end on D1. My first vote on bearclaw was made in the first half of the day phase. Not seeing how this could be constituted as late; if anything, the timing of your vote on me is "late," as there was only just over a day left in this phase when you made it. I'd reiterated that I had a Psych case because my vote had been ignored for two pages, which is something you're not going to see from ISO'ing me. I wanted to know what people thought about my case, or if they'd even realized it existed (Poly had stated earlier that everything I'd said had been unmemorable to him, something I try to avoid). This is a really weak reason to vote anyone. Prims presumably only had that reason for suspecting me at that point (he'd listed his reads a page earlier and mine was the only one which contained just my name, without reasoning) so I decided to ask why he'd suddenly been so convinced I was a good choice for this plan over any of his other scumreads. Sure, you could say that it sounds like "scum complaining for being caught for the wrong reasons," but the sentiment is literally the same if you simply replace it with "town complaining for being caught for the wrong reasons." It's not an exclusive or strong argument at all. Prim's was a risky, unjustified plan that had an extremely low chance of benefiting town, regardless of either participant's alignments. Saying that my opposition to this constitutes a reason for voting me is ridiculous. A lot of the votes on me right now feel as though they're made with the intent of staying safe and falling on whichever wagon seems the most viable at present, and are inadequately reasoned. I think that some of the people questioning me (namely Prims and maybe SB) are town, whose suspicions are just founded too much on deflecting attention from themselves to a more popular target. Too many usually reliable scumhunters are being sidetracked by things like my posting style or wording, rather than the reasoning or the intent behind them. I do not want this to result in a mislynch. But I don't particularly care how I appear. My vote's staying where it is because I maintain that I'm confident that bearclaw is scum, and that voting me would be a waste of today's lynch. If the votes do continue being as misguided as EO2 D1, I'll come back and claim. Going to re-read Shin and scorri.

I'm not saying that claiming results on Baldrick's slot is inherently scummy, but that it's something scum has far more reason to do than town has reason to actually have investigated. Your result is arguably believable, or not, but it was far from an ideal choice to investigate, as both Poly and Randa have also stated. Not sure what sort of response you're expecting from this line. I didn't say it was purely an appeasement vote, or an appeasement vote at all, just that it could be seen as one. If I didn't want to risk being misrepresented that way, and if I was uninterested in trying to find scum, I simply would've kept my vote off you.

Of course it wouldn't, but it'll change what the slot is willing to say. Just a difference in our policies regarding cases like these, I suppose. Between Shin and Randa expressing doubt towards him on similar lines of reasoning as myself, I thought it would be best not to keep my own vote on him. I went and re-counted, and it seems that there's only one vote on bearclaw, Shin's. So, sorry for the lapse of attention on my part. This could be seen as an appeasement/uncertain vote, but I still think there's a high chance that bear's slot is scum, and do agree now that it's worth keeping the pressure on whomever ends up representing that slot to keep speaking. ##Vote: bearclaw

Just the product of my gaining experience, I suppose. I remember this was brought up in EO2 when apparently my posting style began to differ, and that was because Xinnidy had advised me to discontinue being apologetic and such. What would you say is off about my reasoning/posting, exactly? I wasn't targeted by the post restriction card, if that's what you're suggesting. As for my unvote, I thought I'd made my reason behind it clear. Between my intial vote and unvote, Elieson had announced that a sub was required, and this was likely for either Shinori or bearclaw. On the chance that it was the latter, I would want to hear that sub's thoughts before voting. Again, my unvote from bearclaw has nothing to do with a change in priorities or renege of scumreads.

I meant to state that he lacked reasons as to why Vhaltz would be a bad lynch. I can see now how my wording could've been confusing, though. I don't see what's wrong with theorizing what scum would do, and trying to see if people's actions fit them. In a best-case scenario, I could successfully find scum, and at worst, I could be dealing with WIFOM. We had claims, including some very questionable neighborizor claims, that would have been better investigation targets. Garland/Baldrick's inactivity might have made him an ideal vig target, but not much else. How so? It's not just that I think Garland wasn't an ideal investigation choice, it's that he's dead, and no one's offered any other investigation results involving his role or his interactions last night. At the time of your post, no one was going to claim to have information about him, and scum could easily claim to have investigated him in order to suggest that their role is town-aligned. Your Randa case was the other primary reason for my voting you. I understand and respect that you're busy, but I hadn't known this prior to my vote, and even now it doesn't change the content of your D1 posts. With that said, I'm not sure if the sub was requested by bearclaw or Shinori, so I'll give things some time and ##Unvote for now.

Not feeling good about bearclaw at present. -He switches from his RVS vote to Randa before phase end and doesn't follow up except with "I wouldn't lynch Vhaltz, personally." No reasoning there as to why. -Claims that Garland/Baldrick was VT, but this isn't verifiable, and an extremely easy claim to fake. I also don't see why you'd decide to investigate someone who was silent the whole day, as opposed to one of the remaining three wagons that were popular yesterday. ##Vote: bearclaw Also bothered by Shinori, somewhat. I'm getting bad vibes from his general lack of comment and lurking before phase end. I don't feel comfortable voting him now, though, since he's explained why he's been short on time recently and I definitely want to hear his sub's perspective if he does request one.

Went through the graveyard, and I'm not seeing a redirect card. Poly, what exactly was your result? I'm not seeing any further bomb-making cards in the graveyard, so this most likely clears Garland as a bomb.