Print

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

[Book]

Book: Your reasons are and were terrible but you insist otherwise; you give the contradictory answers of thinking I'm obvscum and wanting me as your Mafioso or even your GODFATHER if I were on your scumteam; you call my vote on you an OMGUS when it's clearly not. Blah blah blah you're scum.

Bullshit. these are not contradictory answers. You may be obvscum this game so far, but that wouldn't prevent me from choosing you for another one. You can be good scum, it's just some times you screw up very early. Like now. And of course your vote on me is OMGUS. It's based on the above bullshit, on exasperation of my pestering you, and absolutely nothing more. It can only be an OMGUS, given you have no reasons whatsoever.

And my second suspicion is also you. Or maybe Jack A T for what's either buddying of you or praising his scumbuddy. ("Book's actions: He's been questioning people, he's been showing interest in their answers to other questions, and he's been active.  He's been scumhunting.  I like it when people scumhunt.")

So, I'm both your picks? Oh yeah, totally not an OMGUS or based on bullshit. If Jack is really your second pick, is that the totality of your reasoning? Don't you find it rather lacking?

Do you think all of Book's reasons for suspecting you are terrible? Or just parts of them?

He has many parts, all or nearly all of which are awful or outright false.

Please cite and prove these outright falsehoods, or it is you who is lying.

[Pandarsenic]

It's not a strong suspicion of him, but it stands out to me as something that bothers me in particular.

It can only be an OMGUS, given you have no reasons whatsoever.

And there's a lie.

[Book]

It's not a strong suspicion of him, but it stands out to me as something that bothers me in particular.

So, it's not a strong suspicion of him, it's just how he seemed to not be immediately bothered by the guy you've OMGUS'd? And yet you insist you're not OMGUSing me? You've stated I'm your top two picks, and the next one is the guy who doesn't agree with you about how scummy I am? Oh boy.

It can only be an OMGUS, given you have no reasons whatsoever.

And there's a lie.

No it's not. Give your reasons if you have them. So far I've only seen you use the "he'd choose me as scumbuddy even though I'm obvscum" one. That's bullshit for reasons I've stated, and your "there's a lie" is not a lie, unless you have any other reasons whatsoever?! Unless you can cite any more, including how "all or nearly all of [my reasons] are awful or outright false." then it's you who is lying? Any other "false" ones from me?


Others: in your opinion, is Pandar OMGUSing me or is he not?

[Pandarsenic]

Here's another outright lie:
That my confusing two people's names on two occasions (that is, that I switched people in my mind) while delirious indicates I'm scum. Because it totally does, just like SaintDraze (scum in KM4) said I was scummy for doing (when I switched Leafsnail and Janus)

Oh, and you never answered (with a minor change to make the meaning less ambiguous):

Also, why are you constantly asking and answering questions for on behalf of other people?

[Jack A T]

Quick question, Pandar:

Back in...that mess, you said that you confused Janus and Leafsnail partially because you felt they were quite similar.  Does the same apply to your view of Argembarger and I?  If so, how?

[Book]

Here's another outright lie:
That my confusing two people's names on two occasions (that is, that I switched people in my mind) while delirious indicates I'm scum. Because it totally does, just like SaintDraze (scum in KM4) said I was scummy for doing (when I switched Leafsnail and Janus)

So, you're saying I'm lying because you once did the same stupid thing elsewhere in a game I wasn't playing in and had no reason to notice? Bullshit. Regardless, a) it's not by far the only thing I find scummy about you; and b) if you had done it only once, I'd be OK with it being an innocent mistake, but you did it several times, and then blamed it on me even when you were addressing people in conversations where I wasn't involved. No. You were being actively disinterested, and your attempt to deflect it on me was scummy.

So, twice you've accused me of lying and failing to prove it. Unless you come up with one that sticks, you are a liar.

Oh, and you never answered (with a minor change to make the meaning less ambiguous):

Also, why are you constantly asking and answering questions for on behalf of other people?

Yes, I did.


Jack: You didn't answer my question: is Pandar, in your opinion, OMGUSing me? Do you think I've lied in my arguments? Do you think he has?

[Jack A T]

OMGUSing: Well, seeing how almost all of his given reason for voting for you is your reasoning behind your vote for him...yeah, feels like OMGUSing.

Lying: I don't think either side's arguments involve much in the way of lies.  Also, because I feel like noting it specifically, Pandar's arguments are statements of fact.  However, they are not facts that explain his behaviour well enough for me.    I think he was tired, dazed, midtermy, and he was definitely having housing problems.  This doesn't explain things like the great "My hatred of RVS is pro-town because people thought it was anti-town and that meant people were seriously scumhunting in a pro-town way and thus my hatred of RVS is pro-town" argument.  So far, however, he has not depended on outright lies.

Both of you:  Okay.  Let me explain something as well as I can.  I could say "Book's username is Book.  Therefore, Book is scum."  That argument is not a lie.  It is a terrible argument and does not come to the conclusion I give, and is a great example of a non sequitur, but the argument itself is not a lie.

Oh, and by the way, Pandar, you're confusing people's names again.  I'm the one who used the name switch against you in KM4, and it wasn't even meant to be a major point.  I was using it to show a lack of care, to strengthen the bigger arguments, such as the implied quicklynch encouragement.  SaintDraze is the one who confessed for some reason.  Try not to confuse us too often, please.

[NativeForeigner]

Native: Please clarify if Pandar and I have answered your questions to your satisfaction, and tell us if you think if other players are playing in a way consistent with what you know of them from other games. Please point out the single most suspicious act you've seen from your top two picks.

Yes, both you and Pandar have answered my questions to a satisfactory degree, but Pandar has been quite a bit more lazy with his answers and stretching out information over several questions. I'm not as familiar with Argem's and Jack's meta because they're less outspoken about it than you or Pandar.

Pandar: He's fallen out of meta for his early RVS activity and a lack of sufficient scumhunting.

Hmmm, my second pick.... I think you might actually be my second scum pick, Book. I have a sneaking suspicion that this might be an early-game bus.

Do you think all of Book's reasons for suspecting you are terrible? Or just parts of them?

He has many parts, all or nearly all of which are awful or outright false.

Could you explain the most prominent parts?

Book: I feel it might have been an initial OMGUS that evolved into a true feeling.

[Pandarsenic]

Jack A T:
<_< Whatever, you were both on the scumteam in that game. You get the idea.

NF:
Most of his points are that when I'm exhausted, stressed, and delirious, I play like I'm exhausted, stressed, and delirious, which somehow makes me scummy.

[Book]

Lying: I don't think either side's arguments involve much in the way of lies.  Also, because I feel like noting it specifically, Pandar's arguments are statements of fact.  However, they are not facts that explain his behaviour well enough for me. [...] That argument is not a lie.  It is a terrible argument and does not come to the conclusion I give, and is a great example of a non sequitur, but the argument itself is not a lie.

Your point about some statements being irrelevant but not lies is correct. My point is that not all Pandar's statements are statements of fact (relevant or not). For example, he has stated, repeatedly, that I've lied. This is not the case, and I have proved it, so that statement of Pandar is, in fact, a lie. I have not accused him of other outright lies, other than where he uses bullshit to explain things away or blame it on me that he can't get your name right or things like that.

He doesn't lie when he says he was tired; I'm sure he was. He is merely dishonest when he says he always avoids RVS, or that he has an actual case on me. He does lie when he says he's not OMGUSing, or that I've lied. I do not call his scummy actions of deflection, disinterest, OMGUSs and so on "lies"; I merely call them scummy.

Most of his points are that when I'm exhausted, stressed, and delirious, I play like I'm exhausted, stressed, and delirious, which somehow makes me scummy.

Bullshit. Even if I were to grant that your first orange-coloured posts were done entirely by your drug-addled, delirious self (which I don't, not entirely, while there may be a couple of excusable mistakes, there are also genuine scummy gems there that you can't disown that easily), that doesn't excuse your current scummy statements saying that you're not OMGUSing, or that I'm lying, or that I'm both your top scumpicks and so on. Or are you still exhausted, stressed, and delirious? Maybe you shouldn't play if you have a condition that keeps you like that for a week.

[Jack A T]

I was focusing on the actual arguments for my lying analysis, not the "You lie!" "No, you lie!" "No, you're the liar!" "No, no, no, you lie!" mess.  All of the real arguments had been given already, and the mess was descending to a rather painful to read state.  Accusations of lying based on accusations of lying based on accusations of lying based on minor behavioural annoyances...I couldn't really say either side was actually giving arguments anymore.

And that's why I threw in the "Book is scum because his username is Book" bit.  Really should've expanded that.  It was mostly an attempt to stop accusations like "Book is a liar because he pointed out my name confusion and I confused names as town in KM4!"

I've found that accusations of lying tend to be shaky, and I'm cautious around them.  And I'll try to stop the stupid ones.

[Argembarger]

@Book: Meh. That's pretty much all that is to be said about your reasons for suspecting me. When I question you, I'm too interested for your liking, and then when you answer my questions and I comment that your answers are, all in all, acceptable, I'm suddenly breaking off and avoiding you?

If you think I'm afraid of scrutiny, you're sadly mistaken, but otherwise, you're free to think whatever you like. Stop inventing subtext to my words, though.

Also if you'll recall, I asked BOTH of you if you thought it was wise to be so hasty, because at the time, I was worried about the risk of a scum quickhammer.

At any rate, this corrected me quite soundly.

A Quickhammer is just ASKING for the Vengekill; I have no compunctions about putting someone at L-1 unless I thought someone idiotic enough to quickhammer was in here.

Hammering would require almost complete certainty due to the inevitability of a Vengekill on me.

Arg: Please tell us more of your reads on people, clarify if you think either Pandar or I are being unwise in our play so far, and answer the last two questions I asked Pandar above.

Sure. I'll also answer NativeForeigner's question while I'm at it.

Pandar, intensely tunneling Book nearly to the exclusion of everyone else. I've only seen a sparse handful of questions and posts directed to Not-Book. I'd call it unwise play.
Pandar, could you give a coherent case on why you think Book is scummy, preferably with evidence in the form of quotes and analysis, rather than just saying "blah blah Book is scum" constantly? It makes you look scummy.

I am leaning towards voting Pandar at the rate things are going now.

Book. Hyperactive, throwing out all the visible evidence for everyone. All in all, he's neutral, but only because I'm having genuine trouble reading his behavior. An important distinction in my eyes: Having reasons - even good ones, to vote someone with - is not necessarily evidence of townieness, especially when such evidence is as easy as Pandar is allowing it to be. However, it is evidence that Book is at least being useful.

I would not vote Book at this rate. He's posted freely and openly and I have little evidence that would justify a lynch. The few pieces of "evidence" I have would be a more-or-less suppressed OMGUS: I feel exasperated that he's misreading my intentions from earlier. But that's just a total null-tell.

The Book-Pandar Conflict.
A screenplay, by Argembarger.
Curtain raises, to reveal five shadowy figures in the darkness. Lights gradually brighten, to reveal PANDARSENIC, NATIVEFOREIGNER, ARGEMBARGER, JACK A T, and BOOK

PANDARSENIC: I'mma do some somewhat scummy things now for whatever reason kthx
BOOK: Stop doing scummy things, scum!
PANDARSENIC: No u
NATIVEFOREIGNER: What ho! Argembarger, what do you think of this situation??
ARGEMBARGER: I am going to go write a screenplay.

Go to BEGINNING of SCREENPLAY

I think that sums it all up fairly well.


NativeForeigner

My read on him is almost just like my read on Jack A T

They're both sitting on the sidelines, asking questions. Fair enough. I'm sitting on the sidelines, too. Book and Pandar have clearly drawn the lines, and where the sides of them are.

Jack and Native have been fairly passive and observant. They're asking questions, and being open with their suspicions.

I don't think I would vote either of them, currently.


Pretty much leaves Pandar the only person I'm leaning towards voting.


NativeForeigner,

I have a sneaking suspicion that this might be an early-game bus.

Why?

[NativeForeigner]

The Book-Pandar Conflict.
A screenplay, by Argembarger.
Curtain raises, to reveal five shadowy figures in the darkness. Lights gradually brighten, to reveal PANDARSENIC, NATIVEFOREIGNER, ARGEMBARGER, JACK A T, and BOOK

PANDARSENIC: I'mma do some somewhat scummy things now for whatever reason kthx
BOOK: Stop doing scummy things, scum!
PANDARSENIC: No u
NATIVEFOREIGNER: What ho! Argembarger, what do you think of this situation??
ARGEMBARGER: I am going to go write a screenplay.

Go to BEGINNING of SCREENPLAY

I think that sums it all up fairly well.

NativeForeigner,

I have a sneaking suspicion that this might be an early-game bus.

Why?

That was a beautiful screenplay. Nearly brought tears to my eyes.

As for the sneaking suspicion, I can't really explain it well. It just seems too...obvious, I don't know. It seems like Pandar took the dive so that Book could jump on him and come out looking like town. Mostly because I've never seen Pandar play this poorly during my short time on the thread.

NF:
Most of his points are that when I'm exhausted, stressed, and delirious, I play like I'm exhausted, stressed, and delirious, which somehow makes me scummy.

This is an example of an unsatisfactory answer. There's more to his arguments that just this. Is this the only thing you can argue against, or would you like to bring something else up that you feel is a lie, stupid, or unreasonable?

[Argembarger]

So, it's been 24 hours.

I hope Elvis doesn't show up.

[Ottofar]

I'll just mass-prod if nothing's happened once I get home.