VOTE: Fate
because *generic RVS reason*.
Obviously. Which is why i didn't know if he was joking.GhostWriter wrote:Probably thought Fate would just point out that it was an RVS vote and leave it at that, though he apparently doesn't know Fate very well.
Right, because it's not possible for a player to make a serious vote/accusation during 'RVS'. That obviously never happens, right? /sarcasmGhostWriter wrote: It's the RVS, the part of the game most likely to be filled with nothing but sarcasm and joking around.
Please. If i thought there was anything of substance, perhaps i would approach it differently. But what it is, is what happens every RVS: mountains out of molehills. Now we have to do the song and dance to get past this hump into the meat of the game.GhostWriter wrote: As for the Podium/Fate interaction, I'm going to go ahead and just tell you, Podium, that attempting to turn it all into a joke so that you can discredit your wagon won't work.
Obviously.GhostWriter wrote:What are you saying "obviously" to? To not knowing Fate well?
Hey. I caught the sarcasm in nacho's post. I didn't in Fate's. Later i realized Fate was joking, and that was that.GhostWriter wrote:
all the rest.herp
What exactly was i caught doing?GhostWriter wrote: People take things one person says and calls them a liar for it as an RVS vote all the time, and there are plenty of RVS wagons, for the sole purpose of catching people like you. Clearly, this one worked.
ORLY? Explain to me how my comment showed that i was concerned for seacore.GhostWriter wrote: as well as the fact that this all started with Podium being concerned for Seacore.
If i had all these nefarious plans, then why didn't i do it to nacho? Hrmmmm?GhostWriter wrote:Except that wasn't that. I believe you knew what he meant all along and simply wanted to paint him in a negative light, perhaps to come back to it later in some BS case you'd try to build.
So far this is the scummiest thing i have found so far. (which doesn't necessarily mean it's severe)implosion wrote:Excuses excuses excuses.Seacore wrote:Then again, I'm used to always being accused of scum early in Day 1, as some of you can attest to, so maybe I was just paranoid.
VOTE: Seacore
It doesn't amount to that at all. Not even close.It basically amounts to saying "hey guys, people always find me scummy so even if I'm scummy you shouldn't accuse me for it."
??Seacore wrote:@podium,
The reason why I dropped it is that it seemed it was miscommunication, and it seemed hypocritical to vote for him for the doing what I did. I figured it was just get us into a big circle that would eventually just be seen as OMGUS
Quick-fire low thought scumhunting questions.VasudeVa wrote:Nachomamma is in this game?
Anyway:
podium, do you think Fate is scum? What do you think of Vibebox?
VibeBox, opinions on the wagon on you.
giving in? where did i give in? i said that his main point against me was ridiculous...Nachomamma8 wrote: I guess what I'm saying is why don't you hold your own against Fate right now? Like, instead of going "HERP DERP YOU SMOKE CRACK", tell him to jump in a lake or look elsewhere or something. Like, standing for your morals and beliefs and not giving in like a damned Frenchman?
That doesn't make any sense. The post is a rebuttal, and includes what you are asking for. Do you want me to rewrite it for you? This is the part in a debate where the other person rebuts it, if they disagree.Nachomamma8 wrote:Actually, I hold the belief that your translation is wildly inaccurate.Translation: "Post 63 pretty much junked my case."
If you wish to disprove my belief, then it would be wise to begin by explaining how your Post 63 explained away his case.
cute as in laughy-jokey-i'm gonna be the cool funny guy, and no one will suspect a thing.Nachomamma8 wrote:Cute?
MY AVATAR IS FUCKING SMOKING. THAT'S NOT CUTE, THATS FUCKING DANGEROUS MAN.
This is the third time i have said post 63... why haven't you got it through your thick head that that is the rebuttal in question?Nachomamma8 wrote: And yeah. I'm all for lynching your ass. Cuz GW was all like "here's a case", and you were like "WIFOMWIFOMWIFOMWIFOM", and that's not a rebuttal at all. Try harder, brosky. Try harder. Oh, you still don't know what I'm talking about? Here:
THAT. IS YOUR ENTIRE REBUTTAL. JUST THAT.podium wrote: i mean, do you really think that as scum, i would genuinely be asking that?
then you are a f'ing idiot.Fate wrote:YES I THINK YOU WOULD GENUINELY BE ASKING THAT.
Neither can i... which means it's much more likely that i was asking if you were serious by way of that question... because i knew that whatever 'breadcrumb' you thought you found was nothing more than a made up scummy move on him... so i wanted to see what kind of ridiculous concoction you were going to come up with.Fate wrote: I can't imagine any situation in which town would want a breadcrumb pointed out to them, on the first goddamn page.
i dont recall that ive said anything wasn't a scum tell, or even implied it. can you explain what you mean.Seacore wrote:It's hard to point out precise examples, because it's your overall play.
Basically, your defence is often "that's not a scum tell" rather than "I'm not scum"
i would be surprised if anyone would disagree that it would be highly unlikely for a scum to ask that question, with the intent of "oh wow, he said a pr just dropped a breadcrumb... let me ask him what it was so i can find out what role that guy is". it would beFate wrote:here are exampled FOR YA Seacore:then you are a f'ing idiot.
"You really think Id do THIS as scum?"
"yeah"
"u stupid"
you can take your 'dont you dare' business and shove it.GhostWriter wrote:That is not my fucking point, don't you dare misrep me.
Tell me how your case isn't that i knew he was joking, but wanted to try and paint him in a negative light. Because that's what this says.GhostWriter wrote:I believe you knew what he meant all along and simply wanted to paint him in a negative light, perhaps to come back to it later in some BS case you'd try to build.
you are a f'ing spaz, and this doesn't even make sense.Fate wrote:So you tailor your responses to the cases against you and NOT to what your play and motivations were at the time?
do you guys realize how much i am being freaking hit with right now? i get started on a response, and click the thread and see four or five more posts that i have to respond to. and with fate acting like an idiot and just talking to hear himself talk, it's a freaking challenge to stay on top of things. so please stop asking me to respond to things.Seacore wrote: While you're waiting for that, can you please respond to the inconsitencies that fate has pointed out.
This is a precise example of "debating the tells" that I'm talking about. Your defence is all about other people's arguments, not about your actions and alignment.
I think that's pretty disingenuous. My action was that i mistook fate's initial post as a serious comment, when it was a joke. I said that from the very beginning, and there's not much else that could be said about it.Seacore wrote: Your defence is all about other people's arguments, not about your actions and alignment.
The only example here that involves discussing whether or not something is a justifiable scum tell, is the third quote about me comparing what i did, to asking if it was a serious vote. And that doesn't even involve an accusation that was directed at me... that was me using an analogy, and asking if my analogy was a scumtell.Seacore wrote:Here are some examples:
podium123456 wrote:If i'm scum then why do i need to try and get a read on your alignment, dumbass?
podium123456 wrote: What exactly was i caught doing?
.......................
ORLY? Explain to me how my comment showed that i was concerned for seacore.To me, these are reading increasingly more as you engaging in a discussion as to why the 'scum tells' are justified, rather than why you aren't scum.podium123456 wrote:
But hold on... i just realized something... what ibasicallysaid was 'is this a serious post'... i just said asked it in a different way. You are acting like i made some big case about Fate and voted him or said he was scummy or something... all i basically did was ask if it was a serious post. When i found out it wasn't, i dropped it. You're telling me that is a scumtell?
Sheesh... i just solved everything you have against me right there.
Next dilemma.
You prefaced your vote (that you had just said you were going to think about over the weekend) with one of those vague comments. When i asked you for an example, you made another general comment. Only after i asked you a second time did you provide specifics.Seacore wrote:So the part where I direct your attention precisely to my points? This is the part where i was hoping you wouldn't notice?podium wrote:Almost as if you thought you could slip in quickly with a vague comment like that, and think i would be too overwhelmed with everything else to notice and/or defend against it.
That's twice you've said that. Just because fate craps out of his mouth and says it's me being inconsistent, it doesn't mean it actually is. Where have i been inconsistent, since you seem so eager to hear me address it.Seacore wrote: This is with the exception of podium responding to his inconsistencies.
degenerated? where did i degenerate from? i'm not following you.Fate wrote: Clarification: my case on you isn't that you thought i was serious, its that you had a gut scumreaction to my post and asked what breadcrumbs. NOW you have degenerated into this bullshit reasoning: "because i knew that whatever 'breadcrumb' you thought you found was nothing more than a made up scummy move on him... "
Uh... yeah, because i did.* When have i said that i DIDN'T think you were serious?Fate wrote: ^^ This implies that you DID think I was serious, as in scumserious. AKA you thought it was scum move. Which is just you retroactively justifying why you asked me in such a weird way.
??Fate wrote: So your stories are:
1. I thought you were being scum Fate making up shit, so I wanted to know what kind of BS you would come up with as a breadcrumb.
2. I was asking you if you were serious in a roundabout way by asking what the supposed breadcrumb was.
SO WHICH, FUCKIN, IS IT?
I thought you were serious. I asked that question to find out if you really were. when i saw that you werent, that was it. Me questioning you doesn't mean that i really thought you weren't serious... it means that i didnt know for sure... hence the question.Fate wrote:"I WAS JUST ASKING IF YOU WERE SERIOUS OR NOT."Uh... yeah, because i did.* When have i said that i DIDN'T think you were serious?
WHY IS IT SO HARD TO CONVINCE YOU YOU ARE INDEED SCUM?
Im not clear what you mean here... can you clarify.MagnaofIllusion wrote:
On to review the Case on Podium–
The whole ‘That’s pure scum-reaction’ on regarding the non-existant breadcrumb is junk. Sorry, not convincing in the least.
I believe you will find that the name-calling originated on the other side.MagnaofIllusion wrote: And I can’t say that his defensive posture and escalation into name-calling really sells me either. It’s clear frustration, but that can be any alignment.
But it wasn't pointless... it was theMagnaofIllusion wrote: Because the attack on Implosion was bad. It’s already been laid out but Seacore’s ‘I’m used to being wagonned so I am paranoid’ statement is soft self-meta and pointless. So Implosion was right to question it.
MagnaofIllusion wrote: Post 90 reinforces the lack of scum-hunting. Here he characterizes a post by VV as scummy. VV earns +scumpoints. Is that suspicion followed up on? Not at all. It’s just a pot-shot floating out into the ether that didn’t gain traction and thus is forgotten.
+scumpoints doesn't mean top scum choice. it means +scumpoints.MagnaofIllusion wrote: 160 where suddenly Seacore is obv-scum (what happened to VV?) after Fate laid the groundwork as to why Seacore might be worth suspicion is just moving a vote to move it.
I only called one person on my wagon an idiot. Although you aren't far behind.Nachomamma8 wrote:Podium just called everyone on his wagon idiots, dawg. No significant ways himself defended he. Nope. Also, I disagree with your read on me...
"this style of play"... you mean shit for brains style?Nachomamma8 wrote: ITS WRONG BRO. YOU GOTTA LEARN TO READ THE REASONS DESPITE THE JOKING, MAN. READ THE REASONS. Also bro, give ya reasoning. You said I was a bully, you didn't say why. You said post #111, and didn't say why. It's all based on ignorance, man. You don't like this style of play, brosesame street. It's okay, though. You don't gotta hate on me like that.
Hey spaz... the reason that doesn't make sense to you is because you completely missed the details of that exchange.Fate wrote: What the hell? Implosion didn't say ANYTHING about me or nacho's posts.
How bout you get hit with 4-5 people all at the same time throwing accusations at you, and asking for you to respond to everything immediately. See how 'defensey' you might sound if you tried to keep everything on track.Fate wrote: But no. You're all fuckin defense.
Heh, F you seacore. i pissed away all my other waste-time-on-the-computer time here today, so i'm in rant-mode now... proceed with caution.Seacore wrote:I believe that's called an OMGUS defensepodium wrote:And what exactly did you call it when i stopped in the middle of "accuse podium day 2010" to make a case against seacore? was that 'all fuckin defense' too?
fate wrote: THATS WHERE THE INCONSISTENCY IS:
1. You are either confused, "ARE YOU FOR REAL FATE?"
OR
2. You are seeing a scum move, and asking "WHERE DAT BREADCRUMB AT?"
GIVE ME 5 MINUTES YOU GD SPAZ.fate wrote: @Podium's recent posting:
STILL no Fate read.
STILL no explanation of the contradiction that I clearly outlined
this is the 4th time i have had to tell you that post 63 was the rebuttal in question. what you quoted (and the line you singled out) was a part of a rebuttal to fate. it had nothing to do with what GW and i (and you since you stuck your nose in) were discussing.Nachomamma8 wrote:
YOU HAVEN'T RESPONDED TO THIS SINGLE LINE. THIS IS POST #111. IF IT WAS SO TERRIBLE THEN WHY DID YOU IGNORE THE POINT OF IT?
pshhh... what if i had said all u queers? would that be bad too?Seacore wrote:Calling somebody an idiot, or mentally retarded for their opinions and arguments is fine by me, but implying that something is "bad" by saying it's homosexual is pretty offensive, so lets try and avoid that shall we?podium123456 wrote:no i hadn't responded yet...Fate wrote:
So no he has not responded.
because all of youare sitting around saying things and then mashing the refresh button every 2 seconds to see if have responded yet.faggots
No, no no sweetheart...Seacore wrote:And on that note
Limited access for the weekend, christmas shopping and Harry Potter here I come
You see this boys and girls? This is an example of someone shifting the argument.Fate wrote: Its not so much my point about them being exclusive as it is your thought process not lining up:
why cant you freaking understand that you are talking about something different than what GW and i were discussing when you intervened into our discussion?Nachomamma8 wrote: I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR REBUTTAL BECAUSE IT = "REALLY?"!!!!
UNDERSTAND NOW?
Seacore wrote: Calling somebody an idiot, or mentally retarded for their opinions and arguments is fine by me, but implying that something is "bad" by saying it's homosexual is pretty offensive, so lets try and avoid that shall we?
You kept making a big stink about how i had contradicted myself, or told 2 different stories or whatever. Enough so that seacore parroted it, to add pressure to me.Fate wrote: Shifting argument is bad how?
Well you didn't. Seriously... the only reason i'm not worried about what me calling a stop to the podium/fate show might look like to others, is because im confident that by reading your input they will understand why i did, and agree it was the right call.Fate wrote:Thanks for playing. You put up a pretty good fight if its any consolation.
i'm not... i answered you the first time you asked, and i will answer you now. (Spaz's requests dont count ) But get ready for some walls... hey, you asked...VasudeVa wrote: Podium, why are you refusing to give out your reads of Fate/Me?
Fate wrote: Shifting argument is bad how?
Fate, surely even you can understand why i dont want to continue debating with someone that admits to pulling dirty tricks like it's no big deal.Fate wrote: Is it a dirty trick to make my originial point look valid?
Yes.
The credibility of his reaction/explanation is a different issue than how that statement was or wasn't in context... which was implosions beef.MagnaofIllusion wrote: I don’t particularly find Seacore’s reaction and explanation very credible so you are not going to convince me that Implosion’s reasoning was bad.
I don't understand what you mean here.MagnaofIllusion wrote: The further no-thoughts would have been a very logical place to go if you really thought his post was originally scummy.
AGAIN... +scumpoints doesn't necessarily mean it is a top scum choice. It could take the person from null to null leaning scum, or from town to null leaning town, etc.. I had more than 2 scumreads at that point, btw.MagnaofIllusion wrote: When the only suspicion you have articulated outside of Implosion was VV for having scumpoints I find it hard to believe you would ignore what constitutes one of your two scum reads.
And did you just say you were not reading Fate’s post regarding Seacore? Why the hell not? Playing the ‘He’s annoying so I’ll just ignore his posts’ game is at best childish and at worst scumtastic.
It's a semantics difference about 'thought' or 'knew'... but since you think i am scum, logic would dictate that it's understood that i 'knew' for your case. The point is for you to come out with a 'dont u dare misrep me' attitude, like i had maliciously and purposefully turned your words around, was disingenuous and an over-reaction. A simple clarification would have sufficed... especially when it isn't exactly obvious what you thought was wrong.GhostWriter wrote: Post 146: The point is that you wrote it as "GW is saying that I thought Fate was joking".
It was clear to me that nacho was joking, because of the delivery.GhostWriter wrote: 176: but, as I have pointed out already, it is nothing more that Nacho's vote defined. If Nacho's is seen as RVS, Fate's was RVS. The corelation between the two is undeniable.
Quit getting so hung up on the fact that i put 'herp' and 'derp' in my post. The points i made in that post were valid, and substantive... don't act like they weren't.GhostWriter wrote: What the hell is good about him just saying "herp derp" until he has multiple pages in his iso making it look like he's posting well when most of it is pointless drivel and contentless babble that has no point?
That's not what happened at all.GhostWriter wrote: My 101 is not saying that at all. You tell me, where was my discussion going? In circles. I don't feel like restating my point and restating my point and restating my fucking point. Oh, just because he says "Nuh uh" to what I say, that makes it true? No.
Sigh... pay attention kids.GhostWriter wrote: The lack of any follow-up behind each of his "cases" seems to me as scum trying to point at people once said scum has been called out for lack of hunting, but not having anything to back it up with due to either knowing that they are aiming at townies who aren't guilty or scum partners they aren't willing to bus at the moment.
It's because i didn't understand who he was directing the first part to. I thought he was criticizing me, and saying my story 'wasn't convincing'... in the next part he said 'that doesn't sell me either'... so i thought all of that was connected and related to my argument.GhostWriter wrote: I sneaked a peak ahead, someone already answers your first problem with MoI's post.
The next thing, though... He wasn't even attacking you over it, he called it a nulltell, and you defended against that for what reason, exactly?
Restate the question, im not sure what you are asking.GhostWriter wrote: Post 204: You claim one is not excluxive of the other, yet how can you be confused by a post in the way Fate implied, and yet also be sure of something about the post, in the way Fate implied?
Fuck. You. Look at the timestamps on those posts, and what was said. People were hitting me with posts left and right, and then asking why i hadn't responded yet... as if i was ignoring them because they were valid points or something. Yesterday was NOT a typical scumday. And this isn't the only game i was attending to.GhostWriter wrote: 239: Okay, cut that out. "I'm too busy defending" is not a good defence. The best defense in mafia is a good offense. Meaning if you really wanted to prove how town you are, you'd attack someone you found scummy and prove why that is, instead of spending time split 50/50 between defending and complaining about having to defend.