Print

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

[lordnincompoop]

Votecount:
...

NUKE9.13

- 4 -

Think0028, Urist Imiknorris, Time Blossom, Dariush,

...

Imiknorris is voting Simple.

Noted and fixed.

[Simple]

Ok, folks, I invite you to consider this latest post.

I ask you. Is there a single point in it which you think bears sufficient weight that I need to actually respond to it?

I don't think there is; I think the flaws in all of them are obvious enough. However, if you can not see the flaws in any of his points, please ask, and I will point them out. I just don't want to waste time by doing a line-by-line analysis if it isn't necessary.

If you are so sure that i can say nothing that would make you reconsider then why are you even asking ?
And if this post is so full of holes isn't it making it easier for you ? Don't stop in the middle and finish what you started, it's bit annoying.

Jack AT:Ah,maybe i worded it wrong there.What i meant was that his initial argument must be based entirely on that fact. And building a case on such flimsy base is at least careless. If he got anything aside from his crazy theory at that point his case would make more sense.

snip

How about the vig? Not supernatural at all - it was just Flandre with an axe. Also, my wincon specifically states that the following must all be eliminated:

-Witches
-Witch-aligned entities
-Magical entities
-Killers

There is plenty of room for mundane anti-town roles. Why are you so against the idea?

First of all : Since when vig is a third party ? Why i think there's probably no mundane killers ? First of all i think that main game theme is supernatural threat, second last game we had none , third : i belive mundane roles are used as "supportive or wifom-bringers" characters and killers don't fit into that category. There is possibility of natural killers but i think it's not as high as magical ones. And why are you so intent on pointing out the wincon ?

...

See previous note re: possibility of non-supernatural killers. One would think that you didn't realize that mundane killers were a possibility, which would be difficult to do with the town's win condition (I'm assuming that all town-aligned people received the same win condition).

Again, the exactly opposite thing can be derived from game closed setup.

No it can't. You're relying on the game's setup to sow confusion. You're basically saying "we don't know if there are natural threats or not, so you should stop looking for them," which I think we can all agree is a crock of shit.

We have no proof of either so why my opinion is more confusing than Nuke's ? We all agree ? Who are we in this sentence ? And stop putting something i never said in my mouth.

What ? You don't belive that third parties exist and are malignant ? So why are you voting me then ?

It's interesting that you're questioning NUKE for not believing in SKs, despite the fact that he said nothing of the sort (the exact opposite even - he accused you of being one). You're making things up to get out of a lynch, Simple, and that's not good.

That's the joke. He says that if I'm convinced sk's exist it's a scumtell. Somehow, him doing the same is not. What lynch ? If you want to put some pressure on me at least do it properly. Also it's funny how quick you change your mind.

Simple, you seem to believe that because there's apparently no magical doods, there can be no SKs. Possibilities of mundane killers aside, what makes you so sure there's no magical doods?

You got it completly wrong. I think that magical killers are most probable.

Simple, can you say with absolute certainty that your brother is the 'you' from the previous game or a relative or simply has a same name? Do you have any solid references to the previous game in your flavor?

All about him in my pm condenses to : my brother is named Anthony Engleford and died recently. Nothing more, no mentions about the previous game and my guy doesn't look like he even knows about it.

quote snip

I take issue with this.  The underlined part is fine- yes, the vast majority of third-parties are anti-town to some extent and should be dealt with accordingly.  The bold part, however, is not correct.  All scum are scum- finding one over the other (except in certain cases) is not that big a deal... unless you're on team Mafia, since they want their opposition gone.  Wanting third parties out at a priority is a good sign of being mafia-based scum.  So tell me, why are third parties more important to find?

snip

Simple:

Counterpoint: last game there was an anti-town non-supernatural opponent: a lyncher, who merely wanted to steal some guys valuables.
This game is closed setup. Very closed setup. We expect supernatural opponents, but I wouldn't put it past LNCP to throw in a completely ordinary 'guy with a knife'; indeed, it would confuse us more, which is what he wants.

While indeed Lyncher was present last time, i wouldn't call him defining part of the game. And lyncher is much less serious threat than sk or other killing role.
As for the this being closed setup : It works both ways. This is closed setups so why there should be one ? And don't even start with using mod-bastardness as an argument.

Why ? I thought what i should be doing is pointing out flaws in scum reasoning?

Pointing out flaws in someones reasoning (there's nothing stopping you from pointing out flaws in town reasoning, mind) is fine. But my reasoning was not flawed; you made up a flaw to point out, which, I think you should be able to agree, is not ok.

You see nothing wrong in building your all reasoning upon one fact than you earlier belived was a lie ? Why would my brother feel need for revenge on inqusition if they basically saved his life back then ? Is there even inquisition in this game ? Why "perfectly ordinary" claim is suddenly something scummy ?

You're using mod-based WIFOM here.  It's not a good way to defend yourself. 

Mostly because of the first game. It's nothing serious and one game does not make a trend but witches were given alibis last time while third parties pm's were less detailed, and besides i would rather lynch someone scummy than check what role he could probably be especially on d1.
 
 As for the second thing: i just don't see much a difference between mod-wifom from flavor-wifom at this point.

Nuke: Something that bothers me in your response to dariush : By literal Sk i meant natural killer rather than role-twists and i thought you realize that. And flavor theories with nothing to back them up are not valid counterpoint.

What's funny about this whole business is that i'm now pretty sure Nuke is town and it's pretty infuriating.

[Simple]

Ugh. I nearly forgot. Extend

[lordnincompoop]

Extend

- 4 -

NUKE9.13, Urist Imiknorris, Ottofar, Simple

The Day has been extended to Tuesday, 9PM GMT.

There is one possible Extension remaining.

[NUKE9.13]

Good. Now no one has an excuse not to at least drop by one more time before the day ends.

Now... Simple.

Ok, folks, I invite you to consider this latest post.

I ask you. Is there a single point in it which you think bears sufficient weight that I need to actually respond to it?

I don't think there is; I think the flaws in all of them are obvious enough. However, if you can not see the flaws in any of his points, please ask, and I will point them out. I just don't want to waste time by doing a line-by-line analysis if it isn't necessary.

If you are so sure that i can say nothing that would make you reconsider then why are you even asking ?

I didn't say nothing you could say would make me reconsider. Indeed, I took all the things you said there into account.
Its just that that post specifically was 100% pure bullshit, which I did not want to spend my time refuting, given that the flaws were so glaring.

And if this post is so full of holes isn't it making it easier for you ?

What, you want praise for being Obvscum? Yes, yes, thank you. You've made it very easy for me.

Jack AT:Ah,maybe i worded it wrong there.What i meant was that his initial argument must be based entirely on that fact. And building a case on such flimsy base is at least careless. If he got anything aside from his crazy theory at that point his case would make more sense.

Quite the backtrack you got going on there. You said that I based my case on something I earlier said was a lie. You really need to learn to express yourself better if that isn't what you meant.

Why i think there's probably no mundane killers? First of all i think that main game theme is supernatural threat,

You think. Your opinion is valid, but it is not fact, and you can't dismiss arguments based on it. Certainly your opinion is fairly baseless, given this game's closed setup, and the fact that the last game did contain a mundane threat (albeit a minor one); the potential for your opinion to be wrong is significant.

second last game we had none

You know, the nested quote that was in there with this line directly contradicts it: There was a mundane killer, a vig, last game. Just some guy with an axe.

third : i belive mundane roles are used as "supportive or wifom-bringers" characters and killers don't fit into that category.

You have no basis for this opinion whatsoever. It is even more baseless than your 'supernatural threat' opinion.

There is possibility of natural killers but i think it's not as high as magical ones.

Backtracking~
Earlier you said that the probability of mundane killers was 'beyond logic' in its lowness.
'not as high' doesn't quite have the same ring to it, you know?

You're basically saying "we don't know if there are natural threats or not, so you should stop looking for them," which I think we can all agree is a crock of shit.

We have no proof of either so why my opinion is more confusing than Nuke's ?

Because:
Me: There could be natural threats, or there could not. Either way, there's no harm in looking for them
You: There could be natural threats, or there could not. Seeing as we aren't sure, we shouldn't look for them.

Simple, you seem to believe that because there's apparently no magical doods, there can be no SKs. Possibilities of mundane killers aside, what makes you so sure there's no magical doods?

You got it completly wrong. I think that magical killers are most probable.

We actually cleared this up already. No need to remind him.

All about him in my pm condenses to : my brother is named Anthony Engleford and died recently. Nothing more, no mentions about the previous game and my guy doesn't look like he even knows about it.

Tch. This changes every time you mention it. A while back, you weren't even sure if he was your brother.

I would rather lynch someone scummy than check what role he could probably be especially on d1.

You trust D1 scumminess over D1 suspicious flavour? You think that doing these flavour claims was all for shits and giggles?
True, the body-snatching witches won't have much trouble getting through it, but folks like Irony or Dariush last game would've been caught quicker if we'd all claimed D1.

Nuke: Something that bothers me in your response to dariush : By literal Sk i meant natural killer rather than role-twists and i thought you realize that.

Well, I did not. Misunderstandings!
Doesn't fix the fact that, mundane or magical, they remain plausible enemies.

And flavor theories with nothing to back them up are not valid counterpoint.

I think you'll find that my flavour theories are only the beginning of my case. See how I didn't vote you until two posts in? That's because flavour theories alone weren't enough. The bullshit you brought up in your defence, the blatant untruths and the shitty reasoning- that is what convinced me that my flavour theories had struck the nail on the head, allowing me to vote you with confidence.

What's funny about this whole business is that i'm now pretty sure Nuke is town and it's pretty infuriating.

Augh, I know, right? It sucks when that happens.
Or it would suck, if you weren't actually scum.
To be fair, this latest post, not as bad as your others. My certainty at your guilt has had, say, one corner filed off.
Still a while to go before you can trick me into thinking you're town, though.

[Urist Imiknorris]

First of all : Since when vig is a third party ? Why i think there's probably no mundane killers ? First of all i think that main game theme is supernatural threat, second last game we had none , third : i belive mundane roles are used as "supportive or wifom-bringers" characters and killers don't fit into that category.

It seemed to me that part of your reason for not accepting the possibility of a mundane SK was that you didn't believe there would be mundane killing roles. As for your reasons:

1) Doesn't mean there can't be a regular killer
2) Doesn't mean there can't be a regular killer - also BS, because vig
3) Based on what?

There is possibility of natural killers but i think it's not as high as magical ones. And why are you so intent on pointing out the wincon ?

Ahem:

Last time it was two magical creatures and the supernatural elements seemed to be center of the plot. Why this game should be that different ?

I like your old story better than your new one, especially considering that the only thing that caused you to change it is pressure. As for the wincon, I'm working under the assumption that "magical entities" and "killers" aren't mutually inclusive, because if they were there would be no reason to list them separately, thus explicitly allowing for possible mundane killers. This is Mafia - no possibility should be ignored, and you were trying pretty hard to convince the town to ignore a possibility.

We have no proof of either so why my opinion is more confusing than Nuke's ? We all agree ? Who are we in this sentence ? And stop putting something i never said in my mouth.

Because you're using mod bastardry as a way of saying that we shouldn't be worried about something. "We" means everybody playing. As for putting words in your mouth, that's just how I read your defense.

That's the joke. He says that if I'm convinced sk's exist it's a scumtell. Somehow, him doing the same is not. What lynch ?

a) I thought his reasoning was more along the lines of you are a SK  -> of course you'd be sure there were SKs.
b) At the time I voted you, you had four votes (Dariush, Jack, NUKE, and Ottofar) and were flailing (rather desperately) for any way out of getting lynched.

Finally, who do you currently suspect, and why aren't you voting for them?

[Think0028]

NUKE9.13: While you are pushing your case hard and not trying to back down under suspicion, you still are behaving scummily. Your refusal to cooperate with questions posed to you, your flagrant dismissal of Simple's post as weak and not containing anything worth refuting is an obvious case of trying to prove something by stating it loudly. Even if you assumed that it was 'obvious' why his post was full of holes, why didn't you bother to go through and refute it anyways? You sure seemed awfully willing to before and after.

Simple: Why are you so insistent on only keeping an eye out for supernatural possibilities? Regardless of whether there were regular killers in the last game (which there were), why is there any harm in simply keeping an eye out for anything scummy?

[NUKE9.13]

NUKE9.13: While you are pushing your case hard and not trying to back down under suspicion, you still are behaving scummily.

How so? Even if  the points that follow are valid, do you really consider them put together sufficient evidence that I am scum?
Personally, I think it isn't much of a case. If true, all it proves that I am a tunnelling asshole, which is not the same as being scum.

Your refusal to cooperate with questions posed to you,

RVS questions, I won't answer them. That, I'm afraid, is factually and actually a meta thing I do. Or rather don't. All other questions, you may notice, I answer quickly and efficiently, and I apologize profusely should I miss someone's questions. One question not answered does not seem like enough to call me someone who doesn't cooperate with questions.

your flagrant dismissal of Simple's post as weak and not containing anything worth refuting is an obvious case of trying to prove something by stating it loudly.

No it isn't. Look, if you disagree, ask, and I will clarify. I said that, quite clearly. If you don't disagree, then there is nothing wrong with my loud stating.

Even if you assumed that it was 'obvious' why his post was full of holes, why didn't you bother to go through and refute it anyways? You sure seemed awfully willing to before and after.

Laziness. If the flaws were (as I suspect, and no one has challenged this assumption) obvious to everyone, then writing them down would be like writing down that the sky is blue and that water is wet; a waste of time.
I'm a lazy person, who does not enjoy wasting time.

[NativeForeigner]

Taking longer than I expected to catch up. With any luck I'll have something down by tonight.

[Toaster]

Ottofar:

Who is the most dangerous player in the game.

Translating that into:

I'll vote Imiknorris, instead, for at first asking basically "Whom should I nightkill",

...is one hell of a stretch.  How confident are you in that vote?


Simple:

First of all : Since when vig is a third party ? Why i think there's probably no mundane killers ? First of all i think that main game theme is supernatural threat, second last game we had none , third : i belive mundane roles are used as "supportive or wifom-bringers" characters and killers don't fit into that category. There is possibility of natural killers but i think it's not as high as magical ones. And why are you so intent on pointing out the wincon ?

None of those are really valid points.  There may not be any third parties.  There may be 80% nontown.  We don't know, and putting thoughts into what's in the mod's head aren't going to get you anywhere.  Even if it was, none of this will help you find scum.

Mostly because of the first game. It's nothing serious and one game does not make a trend but witches were given alibis last time while third parties pm's were less detailed, and besides i would rather lynch someone scummy than check what role he could probably be especially on d1.

Now you're contradicting yourself.  (Emphasis mine)

In one thing Nuke is right : we should find third parties anyway and it should be our priority. Another thing is how can we distinguish one from another.

First you want to lynch third parties.  Now that I called you out on it, you want to lynch scummy people.  You're being awfully inconsistent and are far more interested in defending yourself then finding scum.  Right now you're voting ECrownofFire for... what looks like an RVS question that he has since answered.  Do you think he is scum?  If not, who do you think is scum and why?

[Ottofar]

About a seven, on a scale of ten.

[Powder Miner]

Laziness. If the flaws were (as I suspect, and no one has challenged this assumption) obvious to everyone, then writing them down would be like writing down that the sky is blue and that water is wet; a waste of time.
I'm a lazy person, who does not enjoy wasting time.

... ... ... ... ... People have been questioning your logic. Just assuming that everyone hasn't and that there's no reason to answer questions or say your case is called tunneling. It's also called complete and utter bull[expletive deleted]. You have to answer questions. You can't just say "Here's my point, I'm right, there's nothing wrong with it because I say it's obvious."

You're a monkey named Jim in your real flavor. The holes in the argument are very obvious. I will now not answer questions on the subject, because it's obvious, and if you question me, I'll ignore you. So I win.




See? It's ridiculous. Unvote whoever my vote is on, Vote Nuke9.13].

[NUKE9.13]

...
Powder Miner, what is your problem.

People have questioned my logic, and I have replied to them. I have lively debates going on with several people.
The unquestioned item I refer to in that quote is my statement that one specific post of Simples (just the one) contains not one argument that isn't full of obvious flaws.
If you can find someone who has asked me to clarify on these flaws, I will do so, and apologize for not doing so sooner.

As far as I can tell, no one has.

[Powder Miner]

Good. Now no one has an excuse not to at least drop by one more time before the day ends.

Now... Simple.

Ok, folks, I invite you to consider this latest post.

I ask you. Is there a single point in it which you think bears sufficient weight that I need to actually respond to it?

I don't think there is; I think the flaws in all of them are obvious enough. However, if you can not see the flaws in any of his points, please ask, and I will point them out. I just don't want to waste time by doing a line-by-line analysis if it isn't necessary.

This isn't logic- there's nothing here to refute- This is the exact thing I was attacking you about. How is this supposed to hurt my case?

[NUKE9.13]

Err.
That's some pretty broken quotes you got there.

...I honestly can't tell what's going on.

Could you repost that, please. Also worth noting, there's a button next to the post button, labelled preview? It lets you preview your posts.