Print

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

[Jim Groovester]

Sure, extend.

IronyOwl, like everyone else said, nice of you to leave out why you picked Toaster and MBP those nights and why you didn't target anyone any other night.

Anyway, since everybody's fully claimed now, I'll admit to lying when I said this:

Unfortunately, I have no idea if I've been targeted by anything or not. I'm assuming I may have foiled a few attempts just because it's me.

I do know when I'm targeted, but I still don't know by what. My flavor indicates that I feel a presence near me and then I fly into the air to avoid it.

I was targeted on Nights 3 and 4 only. I held out on this to try and catch fakeclaims. If somebody had claimed they targeted me on Night 2, for example, then I'd know they were lying fucking scum.

[Mephansteras]

The Counting Stones
IronyOwl: Jack AT, Jim Groovester
Jack AT: IronyOwl
Toaster: Dariush


Day has been Extended to ~5pm Pacific Wednesday

[IronyOwl]

Irony, why didn't you... sting (feel free to suggest a more appropriate verb) Jack if you suspected him for the last several days? Why didn't you sting anyone last night? What were you reasons for stinging MBP?

Initially, I didn't see any reason to, and would have preferred keeping it hidden from the scumteam.

After the BD fiasco, I really didn't like Toaster's insistence that MBP was town, so I went for him on a hunch. I think I was also hoping for some kind of reaction out of him, but didn't really get anything from it.

MBP I spent a while thinking about, but ultimately decided was still scum. As he'd just recently shown himself willing to vote like a jackass (the fact that he hit the right target didn't make his reasons any less horseshit, remember), I felt it beneficial to remove it.

Last night, I couldn't decide between Jack and MBP, so I decided not to mess with it. I figured hitting the wrong target would do more harm than hitting the right one would good.

As for Jack, if you want more elaboration, it's that I read over all his posts again and haven't seen any reason to suspect him.  Do you want me to point out specific posts that I think demonstrate good scumhunting?  Here's one.

This doesn't work for me. It doesn't go to one of Jack's posts, at any rate.

[Jack A T]

Jack:

...Did you read what I wrote?  Did you read what you wrote?  You tried to turn a discussion that I wasn't using as proof that you were scum into a discussion that I was using as proof that you were scum, through sheer bullshit.  Yes, the discussion was relevant, at least to your case.  That doesn't mean I tried to use said discussion as proof that you were scum, which is WHAT YOU SAID.

This is exactly what I meant by not being able to just split parts of it off and declare them irrelevant.

The whole thing was about Nuke's plan, and how obvious certain parts of it were. There was no point where I said "Gee, that's great, but let's talk about it just for its own sake," so it stands to reason that if we were discussing it in the first place, it was relevant to something. That something being whether I was twisting his words or you had uncanny insight into his plan.

Irony, I (like most people, I believe) tend to only count evidence against someone as evidence against that person.  If you say something that I don't scummy during a discussion, I don't consider it to be evidence against you.  If you say something that I do consider scummy, I consider it to be evidence against you.  Simple as that.

Also, you're conflating the idea of something being completely irrelevant with the idea of something not being used as proof.  Which, to be quite frank, is dumb.  The discussion was relevant.  It was not, however, something I ever used as proof that you were scum.  You tried to say that I was using it as proof that you're scum.  That's stupid and scummy.

In short, everything past a certain point was not irrelevant, and it's disingenuous and scummy to suggest it is.

Which is exactly why I DIDN'T SAY THAT.  Is it not disingenuous and scummy to try to apply a statement made regarding everything before it to everything after it, without paying attention to what is actually said?

You never said you had stopped using only the glaringly obvious, nor had you given me any reason why you'd do so. I still don't see what reason you'd have to veer off into wild speculation, whether in order to prove I was twisting his words or that you didn't have some insight into them.

You asked me questions.  I responded to your questions.  Are you saying that I shouldn't have veered off into responding to your questions?  Is it somehow wrong for me to respond to questions?  Was it wrong to respond to speculative questions after saying I had been sticking to the glaringly obvious?

You're twisting my words again.  You're turning me saying that not everything falls within the boundaries of one statement into me saying that nothing falls within those boundaries.  There is a reason why I used the word "some" to describe the amount of things I said after the "glaringly obvious" statement that it didn't apply to.

I don't follow. Which part is this supposed to be referring to?

Essentially, in this quote, I accused you of twisting my words when you said this (bolding added by me):

In short, everything past a certain point was not irrelevant, and it's disingenuous and scummy to suggest it is.

The accusation of word twisting was based on my earlier claims that some things I said after the words "glaringly obvious" were not covered by it.

However, you are saying that your comment was actually about the towntells discussion, which brings me back to what I said early in this post: It was not important to my argument, and I didn't use it to prove that you were scum.  It was important to your argument, but your argument isn't my argument.  You claimed that I used it to prove that you're scum.  That is bullshit.

[Dariush]

Stuff

Huh, that explanation actually fits together. Okay, riddle me this: why did you still think MBP was scum? Didn't his D2 quicklynch change your mind?

Jack and Irony: please give me the specific examples of the other one twisting your words. Preferably the ones from when all this began.

[Toaster]

Irony:  Oops.  Correct link.

What do you think of Dariush saying MBP "was literally the least likely to be scum" and using that as the entirety of his case against me?


I'm waffling between which of you two (you and Dariush) is the best vote choice right now.

[IronyOwl]

Extend.


Jack: Then you're completely missing the point.

I asked Nuke about his plan. You claimed I was twisting his words. I asked about his plan to you, because clearly you had a good idea of it for there to be words to twist. Now you're trying to claim all that stuff was irrelevant to your case. It wasn't. Just because you didn't want to use it in your case doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

Huh, that explanation actually fits together. Okay, riddle me this: why did you still think MBP was scum? Didn't his D2 quicklynch change your mind?

No. It was mind-bogglingly stupid for any alignment, and I don't see, especially in a game with this many roles that mess with votes, why it couldn't possibly be a scum power.

Jack and Irony: please give me the specific examples of the other one twisting your words. Preferably the ones from when all this began.

This is a good example, I think.

Irony:  Oops.  Correct link.

What do you think of the fact that this post was where he ignored my response completely?

What do you think of Dariush saying MBP "was literally the least likely to be scum" and using that as the entirety of his case against me?

I think it's garbage on multiple levels, but I can't tell if that's scummy or just Dariush.

[Jim Groovester]

Since the game is almost over and everyone has fully claimed we should probably discuss some sort of game plan going into the night.

Extend.

Will post about it later tonight.

[Mephansteras]

The Counting Stones
IronyOwl: Jack AT, Jim Groovester
Jack AT: IronyOwl
Toaster: Dariush


Day has been Extended to ~5pm Pacific Thursday. There will be no more extensions.

[Toaster]

Irony:  Since he's accusing you of ignoring his post at the same time, not much.  I can't say I'm heavily invested in that argument of yours.

Does your action remove a single vote or all votes from a target?


Jim:  I was trying to see if there was a plan for tonight as well, but it's tough.  Any plan would have to assume X person is town.  Being untouchable with no night action, you'd have to be lynched to be removed.  I can take out anyone else, and at the cost of myself if the target is Dariush.  Irony can target Dariush, be killed by me, or be lynched.  Dariush and Jack both can be removed by lynch or me.

The best plan may be just to lynch.  That way, if we miss scum, it'd go into night and end up 3 man LYLO tomorrow.   Scum can't target you or Dariush, so if you two weren't lynched, it'd be you two and whoever wasn't lynched or NKed last night.  I'd be holding fire.  The only fly in the ointment is that Jack, living, would have three votes to the two of everyone else- and assuming no one lied about their claim.  Per previous Meph games, I'm assuming Scum Irony couldn't both kill and sting someone.

[IronyOwl]

Irony:  Since he's accusing you of ignoring his post at the same time, not much.  I can't say I'm heavily invested in that argument of yours.

Does your action remove a single vote or all votes from a target?

Fair enough.

All of them.



Dariush, how does your role differ from Nuke's?

[Jim Groovester]

I've got an idea.

Let's no-lynch. Everyone with an action targets me, so IronyOwl and Toaster both target me. If there's a kill, and I receive notice that two actions targeted me, I will be able to confirm that Toaster and IronyOwl were not the ones doing it. If I get less than two notices and there's a kill, then one of them lied, we lynch them no problem we win.

Come tomorrow, if everyone is telling the truth, then the scum can kill Toaster, Jack A T, or IronyOwl.

1) If Toaster is dead, meaning Jack A T or Dariush did the killing, then we lynch Dariush, and then IronyOwl stings Jack A T during the night. Come the following day, I lynch Jack A T with the power of my single vote, we win.
2) If Jack A T is dead, meaning Dariush did the killing, we no-lynch, Toaster shoots Dariush, we win. (Even if Toaster is an SK.)
3) If IronyOwl is dead, meaning Dariush or Jack A T did the killing, then we lynch Jack A T, then Toaster shoots Dariush taking them both out, we win. If Jack A T doesn't comply because he's scum, we tie the vote, Toaster shoots him, then if the game isn't over, we lynch Toaster or just have him shoot Dariush in the night. We win. (Even if Toaster is an SK.)

This is all speculation if I get two notices of actions against me and there's a kill. If there's no kills at all, then we end up right back here again, even if I get two notices of actions.

Obviously this doesn't take into account if I'm scum. But, uh, it would be broken if I were. Even more broken than what people were saying about MBP's role being scum. Pardon the WIFOM.

Also, I haven't confirmed with Meph whether or not I actually get individual notice about each action during the night, or just one general notice, in which case, we'll need a different plan.

Thoughts? I think this plan is pretty solid (from my perspective anyway).

[Dariush]

Dariush, how does your role differ from Nuke's?

I'm a 'pure' PWV, meaning no vengekill upon lynch.

I'll look into your argument with Jack once he too responds to my question.

Here's my proposed course of action: we lynch Irony, if he flips town, we lynch Toaster. Otherwise, we lynch Toaster, if he flips town, we lynch Irony. Sounds good?

[Toaster]

Jim:  How does you being untargetable make you impossible scum?  All that would prevent is a kill, inspect, redirect, and vote loss- hardly a huge loss for one of four.

Regardless, I can't think of a better plan besides of the one I suggested.


Dariush:  How does that plan help if you, Jim, or Jack is scum?

[Dariush]

Dariush:  How does that plan help if you, Jim, or Jack is scum?

For any of us to be scum, both of the following conditions must be fulfilled:
1) A guy who admitted to killing the obvtowniest player possible, and whose claim of being a vig goes quite counter to the observed amount of kills every night, must be town.
2) A guy who admitted to stinging the obvtowniest player possible, didn't sting anyone once there has been one scum remaining (which may very well mean he had to choose between stinging and killing), has been doing ridiculous amounts of tunnelling (asking someone why they think their opponent is town? Really?) for the whole game and generally spent the game tangled in a stupid argument with Jack must be town.