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!
A common problem among newbies is to WIFOM others. Not in the traditional scum way, but the stupid facepalming way.
See, the probelm is Elegy is trying just as hard as Tack is. You, however, won't change your mind about anything ever. This will lead to the Town's defeat.
Your other reason for assuming Elegy isn't scummy is because is he voting with you.
So let's sum up your argument against me.
1. WIFOM is acceptable, as long as the player is new. 2. Elegy and Tack and doing the same things. (They aren't.) 3. Bayer's pig-headedness will end the game in favor of the scum. 4. You're still implying chainsaw defense on Elegy (if I understand what Chainsaw Defense is) because I refuse to vote him.
Well gee, that's not stupid at all! Maybe you forgot the post where I was prepared to allow Elegy's lynch instead of a no-lynch? Hell, maybe it'd be for the best! Prove my point, no doubt.
Now, you're saying Tack is spreading WIFOM on the way out. I don't see it. He's saying he'd be NKed. He's saying it would help me. He's a newbie, which you have granted to Elegy numerous times, but refuse to relent in the case of Tack. So, if you want to be like that, then I'll be like that too.
There's a difference between a town-newbie and a scum-newbie, Webadict. I've played long enough to know the difference. I know what I'm on about. And why do you care so much about Tack? Can't bear to see him lynched? Just too giving away for the rest of your scumteam?
You know what might be a good thing to do? Tell him how he could be better, instead of simply saying he's bad, saying he's scum for it, and then lynching him. See, what if he doesn't know what WIFOM is? What if he didn't know it was a scumtell, and therefore the Town him didn't realize it was bad to do?
So calm down already. Like I said, Tack's probably not scum.
You know what might be a good thing to do? Do a Beginner's Mafia! They have Mafias to
teach these things. It's not my goddamn responsibility to explain to him how to play the game. You won't dissuade me by defending his newness.
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.
It's again with the double standard. Tack is also a newbie. Seriously, your case is not any better for it. It just makes you look like an idiot.
See above. I don't have to explain this to you.
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.
I didn't spread WIFOM. I pointed out a fact. Show me how that isn't true, and I'll show you complete crap.
It ain't fact until the man's dead, Webadict. Predicting the future is the prime route for WIFOM and bullshit. Dignifying that with anything other than "WIFOM, newbie," just does not help your case.
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.
But you are a blathering idiot. The most idiotic of all blatherers, actually. Every point you've made can be negated by simple logic. You're point: Tack is scum. Elegy is a newbie. See the problem? You're giving Elegy a double standard. Now, compare them again: Either they would both be scum or both be newbies using your logic.
No, they wouldn't.
Tack makes scumslips, reacts ridiculously negatively, and pretends I'm not there.
Elegy gets angry, reacts ridiculously negatively,
replies to the other people, and continues scumhunting, which absolutely CANNOT be said for Tack.
AND WHY ARE YOU STILL DEFENDING HIM?!
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.
I'm sorry. Would you like me to open a tab in wikipedia and look up the exact name and definition of the fallacy? Couldn't I EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS THAT HE'S DOING WRONG:
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.
Which is true. There are few meta-arguments that will work. Believe me. I'm the one that found the Org Theory of Scummitude. It doesn't work unless the person does something COMPLETELY the same EVERY time. I don't. Sometimes I'm chill. Sometimes I'm fired up. Sometimes I'm in between. Right now, I'm chill. That means I'm not going to look up pointless information that will be thrown away. It's about the facts. The argument is wrong, and he refuses to admit that.
Besides, I've done more work than you have the entire game. I was wrong about Vector, but I got all of that. If you're going to complain about my not looking up that small pointless information, you can go cry about it because it isn't crucial to the game.
You've done MORE WORK? Excuuuuse me, princess, who pulled up the evidence on Tack? Who spent the pages arguing? If you have more text, it's simply because you didn't forget the game started and you've been posting throughout, which hardly seems like a fair qualify.
And why do you CARE enough to dignify my meta argument with a retort? Why do you CARE, Webadict? Because obviously you do, and this "chill" sham just gets more and more annoying.
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?
No. I'm saying if I were scum, I would have looked Town from that point. Learn to comprehend basic ideas translated through written words. If I looked Town, I don't need anyone else from my team, so TAKING SUSPICION ON MYSELF is definitely the stupid thing to do. I mean, think logically here: If I had not put attention on myself, would you even be going after me? Would I have to defend from two angles? Yeah, no. I could easily hop on the Tackwagon, pull up anything I wanted, and lynch him. Who's gonna stop me? Zai? You? Psh, whatever. I'd already look so Town I'd never get lynched.
I'm trying to make sure the Town doesn't screw up. You're sitting there sabotaging everything. You're not thinking about anything. You're not helping. You're SCREWING US OVER. You play worse than Org.
Ooh, bring out the big insults! SirBayer is worse than Org! You think that's gonna stop me? You think that's gonna stop me on Tack? WHY DO YOU CARE SO MUCH ABOUT TACK?!
And talking about what you SHOULD have done in retrospect isn't winning you any townpoints, Webadict. Yeah, I saw the shift in gaming. What happened, class went away? Maybe you started caring? Because you haven't done ANYTHING like this all game. There was a sudden shift in the density of text, in the magnitude of effort. I caught that.
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.
Because he said he would simply switch to make sure there isn't a tie. I'm telling him that the best way to do that is to EXTEND THE DAY. Either you're purposefully misreading my sentences, or you're possibly the dumbest person I know.
And while we're at it, I'm going to ask one question to prove a point: Is there any way for you to think I'm Town? I highly doubt it, since no matter what I do, you'll simply assume the worst out of all possibilities. I could point out all the scum, and we would still lose because of you.
Maybe if you STOPPED DEFENDING TACK so much, I'd consider accepting you as a townie. As it is, you seem adamant that Tack
cannot be scum. Not adamant enough to think I'm scum, but adamant enough that he's just too new to be a scumbucket. Come ON.
Your "Good thing I'm not stupid enough to call for another Extension" doesn't fit anywhere with what you've just told me. What is THAT supposed to mean?
Why is choosing to look past the obvious targets so anti-town?
You didn't answer this, Webadict. What's scummy about ignoring big obvious targets and going after relatively small targets instead?
My bad.
Because you're making a big deal out of small things and ignoring the big things. I guess it isn't too bad, but it let's you drift off the radar by looking like you're scumhunting but ignoring the big targets, which stays out of the bigger fights (Elegy vs. Tack.) Hence, you're scummy by making yourself look less suspicious.
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.
I - I - what. You're PROPOSING A DEAL IN WHICH - What are you even talking about anymore, Webadict? This DOESN'T BEGIN TO MAKE SENSE.
It's called a chain lynch. I'm asking for him to be lynched in return for my lynch. It's nothing new. But, it'll teach him to learn how to argue. Meta-arguments can only be trusted to a certain degree and if they're always happening.
How will it teach him anything, Webadict? Do you care more about finding scum or about teaching the players how to play?
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.
Whining about meta-arguments doesn't make them any less viable, and trying to convince someone to lynch themselves about it is even stupider. YOU KNOW THAT, WEBADICT. THIS IS - MY GOD, WHAT IS THIS?!
You're stupid. There is nothing for me to defend here other than your dignity for getting something so simple wrong.
Gee, let's resort to ignoring arguments and making personal attacks to make my point! You don't have any evidence to support your claim that meta is unviable. You hate it because it's being used against you, as far as I can tell, and that's just not cool, man. Can't do that to the Web-master. Not acceptable.
Stop it.
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.
Again with the hypocrisy. "It's okay for me in small amounts, but it's not okay for anyone else, especially as a primary argument." "It's okay for me to smoke the cigarette occasionally, but nobody else can because they give me second-hand smoke." There are a million ways you can phrase this, but the fact of the matter is that acceptable and unacceptable are black and white. There is no gray. You're claiming there is for the sake of convenience. You're trying to justify your own actions while discounting another's.
And the relaxed way in which you go about discounting (hey, the meta you hate so much!) is half the goddamn reason it's SO OBVIOUS.
I never said it was okay for me. I used it as an example. You're the one taking the entire sentence out of context. I said I used the meta Vector has (She plays well) and pushed it. I gathered evidence that was legitimate and non-meta based. The initial suspicion was more meta-based, but the evidence wasn't.
Uhh, isn't that what Mr. Person is doing here? Using meta to push you into giving him evidence? Like you're talking about?
I was actually pre-defending myself from such an argument.
Seriously... pre-defending? Now what is townie about that? Explain to me one way that can be construed in a townie-fashion.
I've got class, but I'll defrag this crap when I'm done.
You'd best.
Calm down, dude. You didn't even put out much of an argument. If I were actually scum, you wouldn't last. In fact, you'd probably be lynched for even trying. That or Tack, since I wouldn't have pulled attention onto myself to begin with. Would I even have lynched Vector? Probably not.[/quote]
Gee, I'm Webadict, I'm so cool that if Bayer were actually scum, I would
never have voted Vector, so it's totally cool that she went down and that my scumbuddy's scumslip implicates me in the mislynch.
Stop trying to direct blame off yourself. It's indirect and it's subtle, which means it's
not a mistake. You know EXACTLY what you're doing. And why do you people insist on just declaring "Bayer doesn't have an argument!" whenever I bring evidence against you? You and Tack both. You can't just pretend this isn't here. Rather, you can, but it
doesn't do you any good. At least I have the respect to acknowledge your arguments for what they are.
To be honest, guys. If there's a nolynch, I'm probably getting NK'd anyway.
Why? I want an answer that's not just "wel wub wood bnefit frum me turning up town." This just looks like a really weak defense of yourself.
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.
"Hey guys, Web would totally benefit from me turning up town if he were scum. So if I get NKed, Web might be scum."
You are really fucking stupid. As town, all you're doing is providing reasons for scum to NK you, whether or not Web is part of the team. As scum, all you're doing is providing WIFOM when (if you don't get lynched) you don't get NKed tonight. You seem like you're competing with Elegy to get the most votes on you. And I'm tempted to help you with that.
Yeah, kinda.
Ho, so now you turn on your scumbuddy? Took you long enough.
Author
Topic: Pick Your Scumteam - Mafia wins - Thanks to everyone that stuck with it (Read 78688 times)