Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[webadict]

Interesting that you overlooked me.

No, I didn't overlook you. I just factored in the no second PM posts you made and factored you off the list.

...That's a terrible reason for him to be town. Ed included, in the first post of the new game (but in the last thread), this bit:

If you did not receive a role PM, then you are Vanilla Town.

... I suppose so. But, I don't think Org would know that.

[Jokerman-EXE]

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, the last few days have been spent moving into my new dorm and doing all the standard college crap. I don't have time to read over everything that's happened; sorry to be a dick like that, but I need a summary please.

[SirBayer]

Everyone attacking you SirBayer is scum, yep.  Makes sense to me.

Hey-o, let's indirectly defend my scumbuddies. AGAIN.

Buddying: I hardly think I'm doing anything like what you, Toony, and Webby are on about. This is fucking retarded and you three know it. You're acting as a group, following each other around - DOES NO ONE ELSE SEE THIS?

I see something like that, but Elegy's scummier.

Let's cut a deal, Zai. You help me lynch Tack. If I'm right about this, we'll move on to the rest of the absurdly obvious scumteam. If I'm WRONG about Tack, I'll gladly, gladly, help you lynch Elegy.

It's time we stop splitting up on targets. Take down the obvious one first and the rest will fall like dominoes. Speaking of which...

Okay then. Scumteam is Tack, Webadict, and ToonyMan. Done deal.

Awesome stuff.

Tack starts spewing scumtells all over the place, Webadict puts the lamest fake-pressure on him I've ever seen. I catch Tack's screw-up, Webadict tries to divert my attention to himself (Toony promptly joins him), then defends Tack's decision to run away at the critical moment. He hasn't shown back up, by the way. Too soon to blame him, but if he misses today...

Gotcha.

You quote is a fail. You're basically FoSOMGUSing.

I'd also like to see how you can find saying "Stop buddying," as, "Look at me!" In fact, I'd like to see how putting ATTENTION ON MYSELF would benefit scum me ever?

Bullshit, Webadict. You know damn well why having all the attention on yourself would benefit scum you. You're one of, if not the best scum player on this here board. You can dodge votes and deflect off better than anyone. How many times have you been lynched? Twice? Three times? How many of those times weren't because a role found you out?

Hey, we can lynch Webadict later. He's not going anywhere. Like I said to Zai: Help me bring down the RIDICULOUSLY OBVIOUS SCUM and we'll get somewhere.

However you scream, it's just seeming to me like you're both trying to defend Elegy.


And if you'd read. It's not just 'questioning'. It's a bunch of noise with my name in it as much as possible.

Are... are you reading?

No, you're not. Stop being an idiot, roll over, and die like a good scum.

This is pathetic. HEY ZAI, SEE THIS? This is what I'm talking about. Holy hell.

Seriously, you need to stop buddying. Calling out specific players to look at your evidence that isn't about the said player is scummy.

fffffffFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF-

Well then. If there's a chance of a no lynch, Elegy is gonna be the one biting the dust. That's ridiculous.

Lol, you don't even want to lynch the person you're voting for.

If you were willing to jump on Tack (which you aren't now, since it would be an obvious bus) I wouldn't have to do something like that. Do YOU want a nolynch? Seems like that'd benefit your scumbuddy, anyhow, seeing as he's such OBVIOUS SCUM.

1. Zai
2. Org
3. Elegy
4. Pandarsenic
5. Jokerman-EXE
6. Tack
7. Webadict
8. Lonewolf I
9. ToonyMan
10. SirBayer
12. Mr.Person

So, the question is really: Which 3 of these people are scum?

Well, through a very biased look at every players' posts, I think that the scumteam can be knocked down to:
12. Mr.Person, for ignoring big scumtells but jumping on the small scumtells. It shows how little he's caring about content and is only looking for the next big lynch.
3. Elegy, for general bad play. Seems to love latching onto Tack, following many of the leads of bigger players (He has a short-lived vote-hopping phase early on in the game.) Also deflected MEGA early on when faced with a bandwagon WITHOUT actually going after these people.
5. Jokerman-EXE, TBE
4. Pandarsenic, TBE
8. Lonewolf I, TBE
10. SirBayer, for buddying when all else fails and seemingly random flip-flopping. He's slightly redeemed in that he's playing a lot better than the above people.

I realize that's six, but it's a pretty good guess. There are 3 lurkers on there who NEED PRODDING: Pandarsenic (Who has simply posted once or twice a day to tell us he won't be posting [Which really begs the question: Why play?]), Jokerman-EXE (Who isn't posting anywhere on the Mafia board and might require a replacement), and Lonewolf I (Who is similar to Jokerman-EXE.) I really loathe using lurkers on the list, but it is a necessary evil.

So, Webadict, how about you provide us some quotes? You're just too lazy in your OBVIOUS SCUM GAME to bother with that crap.

Joe: Tack, ToonyMan, and Webadict are all scum. You can look at my posts for evidence, mostly on Tack.

[Tack]

To be honest, guys. If there's a nolynch, I'm probably getting NK'd anyway.


And Elegy, you still haven't answered either of the questions. Deflection, much?

[Elegy]

To be honest, guys. If there's a nolynch, I'm probably getting NK'd anyway.

Why do you think that?

And Elegy, you still haven't answered either of the questions. Deflection, much?

Hit me with them again, they probably got lost in the massive shadow cast by SirBayer's bible of scumtells.

[SirBayer]

Tack, you seem to think we're stupid.

No.

No, that's not the case. I - good heavens, this is a difficult situation.

I love, also, that Tack just kind of seems to forget about this whole thing. No word on all the tells I've caught him at. No word on anything I've said to him. Nothing. Just ignoring it does not make it go away.

[Elegy]

Not to mention then voting for me because I don't answer his questions.

Which is...

HYPOCRITI...cal

[Mr.Person]

Sorry Webadict, but you just proved yourself scum to me. You're not angry enough. Not even close. You don't care at all.

Plus your argument is that I'm going after easy lynches? Gee, that sure makes sense if you ignore the fact I'm voting you, the hardest player in the game to lynch. I don't think that's what you're accusing me of, though, so please provide some more discussion. For now it seems mostly like an OMGUS because your reasoning is horrible.

[SirBayer]

Mr. Person.

You cannot possibly hope to lynch Webadict alone. We'll get to him tomorrow. Yeah, he doesn't give a crap about the game. He's one of the scum. Tack first. We can get him. Webadict tomorrow. Okay?

[Mr.Person]

I'm not convinced at all that Tack is scum. If it makes you feel better, I don't want to see a NL. If it's getting close to the end of the day, I'll swap my vote around, although I really don't want to have to decide between Tack and Elegy. Until then, I'm sticking to the scummiest player.

[Tack]

I keep thinking 'How would scum benefit from me dying'?

SirBayer is obviously going to die next. Lonewolf1 doesn't really get anything out of it.

But Webadict has been defending me. Which will be helpful for him when I flip town.

I'm not going to change my vote, and it's not worth a FoS, but that just occured to me.

[webadict]

To be honest, guys. If there's a nolynch, I'm probably getting NK'd anyway.


And Elegy, you still haven't answered either of the questions. Deflection, much?

I very much doubt you getting NK'd. You have suspicion on you, so you'd survive unless you're lynched.

If you were willing to jump on Tack (which you aren't now, since it would be an obvious bus) I wouldn't have to do something like that. Do YOU want a nolynch? Seems like that'd benefit your scumbuddy, anyhow, seeing as he's such OBVIOUS SCUM.

...

So, Webadict, how about you provide us some quotes? You're just too lazy in your OBVIOUS SCUM GAME to bother with that crap.

Joe: Tack, ToonyMan, and Webadict are all scum. You can look at my posts for evidence, mostly on Tack.

Ah, but see, I'm not scum, so I DON'T want to lynch Tack. You don't seem to get that I'm not trying to lynch people that aren't scum.

You can say someone's being obvious scum, but it doesn't mean they are scum, which seems to be double the case in your case. Triple, if you include ToonyMan.

Sorry Webadict, but you just proved yourself scum to me. You're not angry enough. Not even close. You don't care at all.

Plus your argument is that I'm going after easy lynches? Gee, that sure makes sense if you ignore the fact I'm voting you, the hardest player in the game to lynch. I don't think that's what you're accusing me of, though, so please provide some more discussion. For now it seems mostly like an OMGUS because your reasoning is horrible.

This argument is a fallacy, but I'm too lazy to find out which one. It isn't an argument against me or anything I'm doing. It's a failed meta-argument, which won't work.

And funny that you said I'm going after you for going for easy lynches... I actually wasn't. I'm saying that your rationale for voting me is inane, using an argument that was false to begin with. Which, I might add, is still true given your new argument.

It's not an OMGUS. It's a legitimate vote. See, you voted me because SirBayer pointed out that I told him to stop buddying, which he needed to do, and said that I was trying to take attention onto myself. I pointed out that that argument is completely false, because: That doesn't take attention away from anyone (All it could POSSIBLY do is add attention to me solely), and that I wouldn't want attention because Vector's dying words were securing me as Town anyhow.

So, THAT argument is false, which is why I was voting you. Now, this new argument is... where'd it come from? My words were about how you blatantly ignore Elegy for big things, but go after me for... Not being angry, I guess. That's almost the exact opposite of what I'm accusing you of.

Not to mention then voting for me because I don't answer his questions.

Which is...

HYPOCRITI...cal

So... you admit to ignoring questions?

I'm not convinced at all that Tack is scum. If it makes you feel better, I don't want to see a NL. If it's getting close to the end of the day, I'll swap my vote around, although I really don't want to have to decide between Tack and Elegy. Until then, I'm sticking to the scummiest player.

Good thing I'm not stupid enough to not call for another Extension, then. Which I will should Thursday come around and it's not clear who will be lynched.

Stupidity arises in the most awful of places.

[Mr.Person]

Webadict, you're missing the forest for the trees. It's not that in this instance you drawing attention to yourself is good or bad, it's that you said in all instances that ever drawing attention to yourself is bad, which is obviously false. And I know that you know that's false, so you must be lying scum.

So wait, you think I'm scum because... I'm attacking you for something small rather than Tack or Elegy for the big shit they've done? There's no way you'd even think of making this attack as a townie. Going after people for small shit is what I do! You know that. And in any case, even if this was new behavior, what's so scummy about it? Why is choosing to look past the obvious targets so anti-town? Would you rather we just sit here, all decide to choose between Tack and Elegy, and end the day without anybody else ever questioning any other player? Does any of this make sense to the rest of you guys because it's just left me confused.

No, I still say you're just OMGUSing me. Keep trying to justify voting me, I promise to continue misinterpreting your explanations until you make them very, very clear. And at least try to explain which fallacy you're talking about. Why is it a fail meta argument? You can't gloss this over, you have to be detailed.

[SirBayer]

I keep thinking 'How would scum benefit from me dying'?

SirBayer is obviously going to die next. Lonewolf1 doesn't really get anything out of it.

But Webadict has been defending me. Which will be helpful for him when I flip town.

I'm not going to change my vote, and it's not worth a FoS, but that just occured to me.

Why the HELL do you have to bring in so much WIFOM? Why aren't you trying to be useful? You don't have any new ideas to tell blatant lies to discredit my arguments?

This is SO UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. Elegy is trying, you idiots. He's doing his best to make himself a useful townie. That's why I call him a new player, not a scumbucket.

THIS RIGHT HERE is the obvious sign of a scum player who knows he's on the way out, and the only way to go is to spread as MUCH WIFOM as possible. This is why my vote is on him rather than on Elegy. At least Elegy actually sees who the scummy player is!

I'm not convinced at all that Tack is scum. If it makes you feel better, I don't want to see a NL. If it's getting close to the end of the day, I'll swap my vote around, although I really don't want to have to decide between Tack and Elegy. Until then, I'm sticking to the scummiest player.

It's not a hard decision, Mr. Person.

The scum is Tack. The newbie is Elegy. Really, really simple.

To be honest, guys. If there's a nolynch, I'm probably getting NK'd anyway.


And Elegy, you still haven't answered either of the questions. Deflection, much?

I very much doubt you getting NK'd. You have suspicion on you, so you'd survive unless you're lynched.

Uhh, couldn't you have just told him in the scumtopic, Webadict? Saved us the trouble. Oh wait, you need to spread more WIFOM for when you make your nightkill tonight.

If you were willing to jump on Tack (which you aren't now, since it would be an obvious bus) I wouldn't have to do something like that. Do YOU want a nolynch? Seems like that'd benefit your scumbuddy, anyhow, seeing as he's such OBVIOUS SCUM.

...

So, Webadict, how about you provide us some quotes? You're just too lazy in your OBVIOUS SCUM GAME to bother with that crap.

Joe: Tack, ToonyMan, and Webadict are all scum. You can look at my posts for evidence, mostly on Tack.

Ah, but see, I'm not scum, so I DON'T want to lynch Tack. You don't seem to get that I'm not trying to lynch people that aren't scum.

You can say someone's being obvious scum, but it doesn't mean they are scum, which seems to be double the case in your case. Triple, if you include ToonyMan.

Webadict, YOU KNOW HOW TO READ. Unless you've been BLATANTLY IGNORING MY POSTS, which it APPEARS YOU HAVE BEEN, you know EXACTLY WHAT MY ARGUMENTS ARE, EXACTLY WHY THEY'RE LEGITIMATE, AND EXACTLY WHY YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY ATTENTION TO THEM. Every little bit of "SirBayer's just a blathering idiot," adds another nail in the coffin. YOU'RE THE SCUM. Stop bothering.

Sorry Webadict, but you just proved yourself scum to me. You're not angry enough. Not even close. You don't care at all.

Plus your argument is that I'm going after easy lynches? Gee, that sure makes sense if you ignore the fact I'm voting you, the hardest player in the game to lynch. I don't think that's what you're accusing me of, though, so please provide some more discussion. For now it seems mostly like an OMGUS because your reasoning is horrible.

This argument is a fallacy, but I'm too lazy to find out which one. It isn't an argument against me or anything I'm doing. It's a failed meta-argument, which won't work.

BULLSHIT. This ISN'T like Webadict. You're passive, you're uninvolved. Think of the children, Webadict - what kind of example are you setting? A good one, if OBVIOUS SCUMBUCKET is the goal here.

And funny that you said I'm going after you for going for easy lynches... I actually wasn't. I'm saying that your rationale for voting me is inane, using an argument that was false to begin with. Which, I might add, is still true given your new argument.

It's not an OMGUS. It's a legitimate vote. See, you voted me because SirBayer pointed out that I told him to stop buddying, which he needed to do, and said that I was trying to take attention onto myself. I pointed out that that argument is completely false, because: That doesn't take attention away from anyone (All it could POSSIBLY do is add attention to me solely), and that I wouldn't want attention because Vector's dying words were securing me as Town anyhow.

Two questions. One, is that a scumslip from the great Webadict? If not, then what the hell is it? What do you even MEAN by that? You don't want attention? WHY SHOULD YOU CARE IF YOU HAVE ATTENTION?

I'm not convinced at all that Tack is scum. If it makes you feel better, I don't want to see a NL. If it's getting close to the end of the day, I'll swap my vote around, although I really don't want to have to decide between Tack and Elegy. Until then, I'm sticking to the scummiest player.

Good thing I'm not stupid enough to not call for another Extension, then. Which I will should Thursday come around and it's not clear who will be lynched.

Stupidity arises in the most awful of places.

What the hell are you even talking about, Webadict? This is a non sequitur. What does an Extension have to do with anything? You're not this stupid, Webadict. You're not fooling anybody.

[webadict]

Webadict, you're missing the forest for the trees. It's not that in this instance you drawing attention to yourself is good or bad, it's that you said in all instances that ever drawing attention to yourself is bad, which is obviously false. And I know that you know that's false, so you must be lying scum.

By that very same definition, I could say you were lying about what I was attacking you about.

So wait, you think I'm scum because... I'm attacking you for something small rather than Tack or Elegy for the big shit they've done? There's no way you'd even think of making this attack as a townie. Going after people for small shit is what I do! You know that. And in any case, even if this was new behavior, what's so scummy about it? Why is choosing to look past the obvious targets so anti-town? Would you rather we just sit here, all decide to choose between Tack and Elegy, and end the day without anybody else ever questioning any other player? Does any of this make sense to the rest of you guys because it's just left me confused.

Quite, and I would as I currently am. Again, you can't defend yourself with meta because I couldn't care less about what you do in other games.

And yes I would, because I know I'd get my way and lynch Elegy.

No, I still say you're just OMGUSing me. Keep trying to justify voting me, I promise to continue misinterpreting your explanations until you make them very, very clear. And at least try to explain which fallacy you're talking about. Why is it a fail meta argument? You can't gloss this over, you have to be detailed.

I do not have such time for those explanations, which is why I made an extension request. See, unlike you (Who FoS'd me for quickswitching near the end of the Day to MAKE SURE A TIE DOESN'T HAPPEN), I happen to call for Extensions at the same time as unmaking ties. Seems perfectly logical instead of just lynching one of them because we have 3 lurkers who really need to get into the game (I realize you're not suspicious of anyone that's not playing. I'm glad you can somehow read them.)

Honestly, you can lynch me if you promise to lynch yourself tomorrow. Because your crap is just so presumptuous, it gets nauseating to just reply to it.

Your arguments degrade to "No, you would do this." When you say that, I wish there was a physical manifestation of yourself nearby because I would punch you in the face. Mostly because you're wrong, mostly because it ticks me off to use a meta-argument to attack someone. So, if you kill yourself tomorrow for lynching me on it, then it'll teach you.

I mean, that was part of my argument against Vector, but it wasn't all of it. Not even close. She understood, and that's why it was tough for her to defend against it.

I've got class, but I'll defrag this crap when I'm done.