1 – Elmo (Battousai)
1 – Lord Gurgi (Elmo)
1 – SpyreX (Debonair Danny DiPietro)
1 – TDC (SpyreX)
With
If Nuwen wasn't scummiest to you then someone else was, it's a simple and truthful binary equation. And you showed either no confidence or interest in pushing a wagon for information or attempting to get them lynched based on your read.Elmo wrote:And this lynch should fit clearly into those two categories? I thought it was dubious at best, but not outright terrible. I did think she was mildly townish, and I said so at the time. If you would have liked me to do one or the other, then you should have talked to me at the time and we could have discussed it, instead of you informing me of your preferences well past the point where I can do anything about it.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:If you thought the Nuwen lynch was a good one then you should've been behind it and voting, if you thought it was a bad lynch then you should've been voting someone else trying to push your own candidate or find a viable alternative.
And I amnotgoing to defend Nuwen, either directly or indirectly by pushing a counter-wagon for the purposes of a counter-wagon, without a reasonably strong town read on her.
Well, you haven't reacted to my vote or claims. I want your opinion on what I said.Elmo wrote:Explain what better? You haven't asked me to explain anything.
It shouldn't have to be discussed. Do you tell every player, 'Make sure to scumhunt'? No. Because they should already know.Elmo wrote:f you would have liked me to do one or the other, then you should have talked to me at the time and we could have discussed it, instead of you informing me of your preferences well past the point where I can do anything about it.
It is neither simple nor true that a single person is scummiest to me, because a group of people may be, and were.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:If Nuwen wasn't scummiest to you then someone else was, it's a simple and truthful binary equation.
Agreed. Therefore..?Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:And you showed either no confidence or interest in pushing a wagon for information or attempting to get them lynched based on your read.
You said that you find not voting at the end of the day scummy; I don't agree. You said you thought I'd be more likely to argue with Goatrevolt if I was scum. I don't know the truth of that.Battousai wrote:Well, you haven't reacted to my vote or claims. I want your opinion on what I said.
I don't even agree that it's true, much less that it's obvious. Why is it true?Battousai wrote:It shouldn't have to be discussed. Do you tell every player, 'Make sure to scumhunt'? No. Because they should already know.
I can't help being a little curious, but maybe it'd be better for everyone to just leave it alone?Lord Gurgi wrote:I'm practically certain that Elmo is town
Its a combination of things:SpyreX: How about some explanation regarding TDC.
I'm not sure what you're asking here.Lord Gurgi wrote:TDC: How do you feel about SpyreX and Elmo both getting on your case at different times? Do you think it means anything about you? About them?
Hmm... I like how you degrade all of the cases against you and another player as just policy lynching. If it is a policy lynch, don't you think there is a reason WHY it is a POLICY? It's because the actions are scummy.TDC wrote:so Elmo and I are the next best policy lynches.
Shall I listen more, or shall I speak at this?Elmo wrote:wherefore art thou, anyhow?
Because im sure enough that Batt and Elmo are town to put them in that list, LG-TCD has scum but arent partners, Spy and you are bugging me quite a bit on more gut reasoning/PoE. DDD leans town, but not as near town as Batt and Elmo, leaning me to something like a (one of LG-TDC)/(two of Spy, GR, DDD)Goatrevolt wrote:LF: Why did I move up on your scum list? I am interested in hearing those reasons.
The funny thing about this is that Fluff says this is because I'm not calling anyone scummy and that you say this is because I do but don't vote them.Battousai wrote:Can you find one person he has called scum AND tried to get them lynched? No.
*sigh*Goatrevolt wrote: TDC: You had no problem voting in Advertising Mafia. What is the difference?
Which is essentially a random vote.me wrote:vote: Seraphim
If he is oh so scummy, why ain't you voting him?
becauseme wrote:unvote, vote crywolf
Which is on the border of random/non-random, yet a better reason to vote someone than anything I've come across in this game, as sad as it sounds.me wrote:She wanted to hear more from Seraphim, but didn't actually ask him anything. Seemed like a poor excuse to go into "I'm not posting anything because I'm waiting for replies"-mode.
That was all in D1. D2 I didn't vote anybody until I was nightkilled by you and your buddies for, as far as I remember, not being connected to anybody, being a blank sheet.me wrote:Not particularly convinced of the case as such, but I understand the argument for getting him out of the way.
vote: FearieLord
You misunderstand me. I somehow don't like your posts when I read them (gut), but I don't take that as a sign that you're scum. I have no actual reason to think you're scum. I can't mount anything resembling a case.What makes you think I'm scum? Furthermore, why are you making no effort whatsoever to commit to it if this is what you truly believe?
It is obviously (P AND Q) as both P and Q as the truth table would show that T, T = T; T, F = F; F, T = F; F, F = F. Remember, you have to do it logically, as I could say If it is sunny, it is nighttime and make an AND statement "It is sunny AND it is nighttime" which logically makes sense. Now P = Found someone scummy, and Q = tried to get them lynched. If P = false the whole statement is false. If Q = false, the whole statement is false. In both those instances, it doesn't matter what P or Q means, as one of them is false and thus, the whole statement is false (hence the "No.").TDC wrote:Uhm, no you said NOT (P AND Q) ("can you find a person..no") and I said that Fluff thinks it's NOT P and you think it's P, but NOT Q. (Never mind that Q in itself makes no sense without P)
I'm going off the assumption of trying to find an instance of you scumhunting. Scum scumhunt, usually not as well as townies, but they do it none the less.I'm a bit confused as to why you think that I think there might be something there and still think I'm scum. Obviously, if I was scum, I would know whether or not something is there.
*sigh*Battousai wrote:"one person he has called scum AND tried to get them lynched"
It is obviously (P AND Q) as both P and Q as the truth table would show that T, T = T; T, F = F; F, T = F; F, F = F. Remember, you have to do it logically, as I could say If it is sunny, it is nighttime and make an AND statement "It is sunny AND it is nighttime" which logically makes sense. Now P = Found someone scummy, and Q = tried to get them lynched. If P = false the whole statement is false. If Q = false, the whole statement is false. In both those instances, it doesn't matter what P or Q means, as one of them is false and thus, the whole statement is false (hence the "No.").TDC wrote:Uhm, no you said NOT (P AND Q) ("can you find a person..no") and I said that Fluff thinks it's NOT P and you think it's P, but NOT Q. (Never mind that Q in itself makes no sense without P)
How is scumhunting and saying someone is scummy the same thing?I'm going off the assumption of trying to find an instance of you scumhunting. Scum scumhunt, usually not as well as townies, but they do it none the less.