Mini 1035 - Devil's Town - GAME OVER

[TDC]

I mean this is really fucking simple. There is evidence pile A and your reaction is "he's scummy". Then there's evidence pile B which is A+X and your reaction is "I want to lynch him". I've been asking you what "X" is countless times now and your answer has varied from nothing (A=B=hammer) to "everything that happened" but you're not offering a single concrete thing.

That just makes it very hard for me to believe that to be the honest thought progression of a townie.

[podium123456]

podium: Then bring it: What did the night kill, the mass claim, the tracker claim/reports do to further convince you towards him being scum?
(The last time I asked you what made you go for UT the answer was "UT's hammer is what made me choose him over you or LMP...", so you'll understand how much I'm looking forward to this answer.)

UT's hammer is what made him scummy.

Comparing UT to LMP/TDC, and considering 'everything else', i decided to lynch UT.

So, why did i choose UT for the lynch?

[LimMePls]

LMP, what's your take on this:

Other thoughts:
Incognito, I find it kind of suspicious that you came in and buddied up with LMP. As you could read in the game I posted for LMP to read, I used this as a scum tactic in my last completed game to get on the town's good side. You buddy up with a fairly pro-town player (I'd say LMP is fairly pro-town) and ride the goodwill out for as long as possible. Your predecessor(s) hardly confirm you as town, so I feel like this would actually be a good tactic if you're scum to get us to forget ConfidAnon's lurking and replacement.

It reads to me like UT was trying to sling mud at Incognito because he knew we were getting some traction on him. So pointing out Incognito's slots prior lurking and trying to paint Incog's behavior as "buddying" seemed like a good idea. I think its funny that he is basically buddying up to me in the very same post he is accusing Incog of buddying. Perhaps he was hoping I could be swayed away, since I had gone away from him once before. Also note the "kind of suspicious" and "fairly pro-town", more weasel wording which was the whole reason I was calling him scum.

[podium123456]

I mean this is really fucking simple.

you're one to talk...

There is evidence pile A and your reaction is "he's scummy". Then there's evidence pile B which is A+X and your reaction is "I want to lynch him". I've been asking you what "X" is countless times now and your answer has varied from nothing (A=B=hammer) to "everything that happened" but you're not offering a single concrete thing.

That just makes it very hard for me to believe that to be the honest thought progression of a townie.

i dont even know what the hell you are saying here. what the hell is evidence pile B? the only evidence regarding UT was A -- his hammer. "X" is THOUGHT. Apparently you cant understand how someone could use the power of... THINKING... to make a decision.

UT's hammer was scummy

I had to decide between 3 susp. people, and when i thought about all of it, i decided UT's hammer superseded anything else that had happened in the game.

So why did i lynch UT? BECAUSE OF HIS HAMMER

..the f man

[TDC]

Why did you "have to decide" before LMP had even claimed?

[TDC]

As in, your decision where you "thought about everything" including the mass claim was #322, his claim #325.

[podium123456]

Why did you "have to decide" before LMP had even claimed?

Wow... first i decided too late... now i decided too early. Cant win with someone who already has there mind made up, i guess.

Is this a new argument? Because i dont see how it relates to our previous discussions. It looks like now you are implying that i was lying when i said i thought about the mass claim, when i thought about who i wanted to lynch.

First of all, I didn't 'have to decide'... but I guess i implied i would be OK with a UT lynch before LMP claimed, for the same reason that you implied

you

were OK with a UT lynch before ANYONE claimed. Or am i not allowed to do something like that?

Does not having one persons claim mean that i cant use the rest of the massclaim information in my thought process in determining a tentative lynch candidate?

You are really over thinking this... meanwhile, the big flashing signs go (apparently) sailing right past you.

[TDC]

Yeah, but I'm not the one claiming that it took me so long to condemn UT purely on D2 evidence, because I was waiting to see what the mass claim would bring, but then when it hadn't brought anything at all other than more or less confirming someone who I didn't suspect anyway, I did not await one of my three suspects claiming because I had already seen enough.

[LimMePls]

I think what he is getting at is that once Taz claimed Tracker, you didn't need to hear my claim, because you knew it would be VT because you're scum. You also believed the claim without hesitation, which means you might have had some reason to believe there were outstanding town PRs, which is a good reason to want the massclaim.

[LimMePls]

Yeah, but I'm not the one claiming that it took me so long to condemn UT purely on D2 evidence, because I was waiting to see what the mass claim would bring, but then when it hadn't brought anything at all other than more or less confirming someone who I didn't suspect anyway, I did not await one of my three suspects claiming because I had already seen enough.

QFT

[TDC]

Would like to hear whatever comes to either of your minds on this post:

No, i have explained it pretty thoroughly at this point. Process of elimination by taking into account the votes placed today, and taz's claim.

It's actually quite strong.

I don't know how many different ways I can say this: Taz's role is not confirmed! Unless you have a hidden info role you cannot be sure his claim is true! The vote thing makes it just as likely that Taz is scum as it does me! Your case is weaksauce if it is based on that!

Both of you seem to have missed this.

[podium123456]

Yeah, but I'm not the one claiming that it took me so long to condemn UT purely on D2 evidence, because I was waiting to see what the mass claim would bring, but then when it hadn't brought anything at all other than more or less confirming someone who I didn't suspect anyway, I did not await one of my three suspects claiming because I had already seen enough.

I didn't say i was waiting on a mass claim to reach a decision on UT. I said that that information was taken into account, like everything else that happened in the game. I only brought it up because when i said i thought about everything before i made my decision, you couldn't understand what 'everything' was.

1. You asked me why i suggested UT for a lynch. I told you because of his hammer.

2. You asked me what happened between 301 and 322 that made me suggest him at that time. I told you because after contemplating UT's hammer vs. TDC/LMP/game, i found him to be the most likely scum at that time.

THINK ABOUT THAT. REALLY. It all makes sense. What do you want me to do? Lie to you and tell you i thought he was my guaranteed scumpick at the end of D2? I DIDN'T. Does that mean i didn't end up tentatively nominating him for a lynch because of his hammer? NO.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You're about to blow this F'NG game because you are overanalyzing this one thing to hell and back. Meanwhile LMP pulled off a gamelong bus, acted scummy consistently, and keeps making these OBV MAF posts like 483 and 484... and you have

yet

to question him over ANYTHING he has done all game.

[LimMePls]

Would like to hear whatever comes to either of your minds on this post:

No, i have explained it pretty thoroughly at this point. Process of elimination by taking into account the votes placed today, and taz's claim.

It's actually quite strong.

I don't know how many different ways I can say this: Taz's role is not confirmed! Unless you have a hidden info role you cannot be sure his claim is true! The vote thing makes it just as likely that Taz is scum as it does me! Your case is weaksauce if it is based on that!

Both of you seem to have missed this.

"Buddy, you're giving yourself away with this 'Taz is confirmed' stuff, so knock it off".

You're about to blow this F'NG game because you are overanalyzing this one thing to hell and back. Meanwhile LMP pulled off a gamelong bus, acted scummy consistently, and keeps making these OBV MAF posts like 483 and 484... and you have yet to question him over ANYTHING he has done all game.

LOL! I attack UT from D1 for legitimate scum tells, so clearly its a bus, while you do nothing but ignore him and chainsaw defend him so clearly you are town. That is laughably absurd. Do you even hear yourself, or are you just too busy posting as much as you can to try and hide the plain fact that you have played as UT's partner this entire freaking game. Oh, but we're supposed to ignore that, I forgot. You are hilarious.

[podium123456]

Would like to hear whatever comes to either of your minds on this post:

No, i have explained it pretty thoroughly at this point. Process of elimination by taking into account the votes placed today, and taz's claim.

It's actually quite strong.

I don't know how many different ways I can say this: Taz's role is not confirmed! Unless you have a hidden info role you cannot be sure his claim is true! The vote thing makes it just as likely that Taz is scum as it does me! Your case is weaksauce if it is based on that!

Both of you seem to have missed this.

What's the point of asking both of our opinions? Obviously we are both going to say whatever helps our case and hurts the other. LMP said what he did above, and i say:

Looks like UT was trying to make me look like a scum that had an investigative role... so that it would either make me a lynch candidate that day, or look like a bus attempt after UT was lynched as scum.

...comon man.

[podium123456]

While you do nothing but ignore him and chainsaw defend him so clearly you are town.

Besides all of the 'you're a liar! nuh uh!

YOU'RE

a liar!' back and forth about who is/isn't UT's partner... this is an example of the crap i am talking about.

We played with UT for 3 days. D1 i implied he was acting scummy. D2 i criticized his hammer as being bad. D3 i pick him for lynch.

That's the only times i mentioned UT. Yet LMP keeps saying that i defended UT all game.

open. your. eyes.

[TDC]

You're about to blow this F'NG game

While I would certainly be bummed if I made the wrong choice here, I think this appeal to emotion would work A LOT better if I didn't feel the deceased townies bar Incognito all deserved to lose.

What's the point of asking both of our opinions? Obviously we are both going to say whatever helps our case and hurts the other. LMP said what he did above, and i say:

Well scum would say whatever helps their case and hurts the other. Town would just say what they thought about it.

Looks like UT was trying to make me look like a scum that had an investigative role... so that it would either make me a lynch candidate that day, or look like a bus attempt after UT was lynched as scum.

Scum don't need to have an investigative role to know Taz is telling the truth (well unless you would go as far as thinking Taz would fake claim as town..), and he's not accusing you of anything there.
That aside, who would wagon you other than him for something that ridiculous? We were all committed to lynching him.

[TDC]

Well, can't say I would begrudge edmund victory either.

[LimMePls]

While you do nothing but ignore him and chainsaw defend him so clearly you are town.

Besides all of the 'you're a liar! nuh uh!

YOU'RE

a liar!' back and forth about who is/isn't UT's partner... this is an example of the crap i am talking about.

We played with UT for 3 days. D1 i implied he was acting scummy. D2 i criticized his hammer as being bad. D3 i pick him for lynch.

That's the only times i mentioned UT. Yet LMP keeps saying that i defended UT all game.

open. your. eyes.

You don't need to mention him to defend him. Here are the posts you made while Incog and I were pushing UT that illustrate my point:

LMP... been getting a slightly scummy scum vibe here... mostly gut. dont like how he says he thought UT was scum, but didn't pursue/vote him today until incognito started making a case.

First off this is a complete misrepresentation of me (I had pushed UT and Incog was actually copying MY case against UT). He even says when he joins in that he agrees with my arguments against UT. Even so, you don't ever actually say what you think about UT, you just say "been getting a slightly scummy scum vibe here... mostly gut". In true scumtastic form you both misrep my attack and paint me as scummy, BUT you don't actually commit to that, you just call it "slight" and "gut", leaving yourself room to back track out of it if you want.

I really don't get this. It is mind-bogglingly frustrating. Simply astonishing. I seriously do not understand the logic here.

The logic is that if UT was such a hot target in your mind, you would pursue him regardless of whether or not anyone else was with you.

Does that mean you are scum? I don't know. But that's the logic.

That is defending UT without actually defending him. Which is even scummier than just coming out and saying "I don't think UT is scum". You keep saying that you never defended UT, which is true if you only count defending as specifically mentioning the defendee. But you defended him by launching a misdirection vote at Zodiark and painting me as scummy. Also, again, here is your weasel wording "does it make you scum? I don't know" so you can back track out of this if UT ends up the lynch.

You have defended UT this whole game, while not actually engaging in discussion about him, which is even worse than outright defending him. You did it in a way where you could disavow any connection when he flipped.

For the record, here is Incog acknowledging that it is my case on UT:

Untrod Tripod:

Untrod Tripod has bugged me because I've gotten the impression that he isn't really pushing the game along. Post 60 is a major major fence-sitting post;

this was pointed out by LynchMePls, and I agree with him

- it doesn't do much more than state the obvious, it doesn't take a stance on the possible alignments of the two debaters (Dr P and podium), and lastly, it doesn't do the "looking into" that you suggest we do here:

although I agree with what people have said in that we will probably find scum on the blaze wagon.

If you thought scum was likely on that wagon, why not try and figure out who that scum is? Why throw a side comment like this and not follow it up?

There was an obvious disconnect, too, with his own description of his play and how he played here towards the end of D1; he claimed to be this cautious player who doesn't like to jump to conclusions so fast, but he was rather quick to throw the first vote out on ABR when he concluded with stating that he found ABR's play to be "anti-town". Not scummy but anti-town. I believe it was podium who pointed out the problem with UT's 6th post too; the question along the bottom had already been answered, so I don't really see the purpose of it there.

And considering the fact that it came only

after

being interrogated/voted by LynchMePls, it gave me the feeling that you were trying to appease him by "appearing active".

Can you go into more reasoning as to why you don't think Zodiark is scum too?

My bolding.

[podium123456]

What's the point of asking both of our opinions? Obviously we are both going to say whatever helps our case and hurts the other. LMP said what he did above, and i say:

Well scum would say whatever helps their case and hurts the other. Town would just say what they thought about it.

We both said things that help our case, and hurts the other... so... yeah.

Now i'll wait for you to tell me why my statement is the only one that helps my case, and how LMP is just saying what he thought about it.

Scum don't need to have an investigative role to know Taz is telling the truth (well unless you would go as far as thinking Taz would fake claim as town..), and he's not accusing you of anything there.
That aside, who would wagon you other than him for something that ridiculous? We were all committed to lynching him.

Cheezo dude, you are really tunneled on me...

everything

i say you want to argue about. You asked my opinion about a comment a confirmed scum made (that was on death row)... and now you want to argue with me about the plausibility of it.

You want to argue that a scum on death row wouldn't try to deflect attention on anyone he could at anytime? Whatever... i'm not interested in a debate about that. It still could be an attempt at faking a bus. You asked my opinion, and i gave it.

Or wait... was i supposed to say what LMP did? Because apparently you don't see anything wrong with that opinion, and i think it's no more plausible than mine is. People often bring up the 'zomg he's coaching his partner in daytalk' scenario, and i have never seen it happen.

[podium123456]

*snip*

GARBAGE

*snip*

1. My interpretations of how you are playing have absolutely NO connection to what i think about UT -- defending, attacking, or otherwise. I never said ANYTHING about the quality of your case, i criticized your BEHAVIOR.

2. You conveniently ignore that the only times (before D3) that i specifically mentioned UT... i implied he was acting scummy each time. But don't worry, because TDC isn't paying attention to anything you do anyway.

Hey... ya know... maybe you should post a link to your scumchat so we can all have something to read, while we wait for TDC to lynch me. awokka wokka

[podium123456]

Well, can't say I would begrudge edmund victory either.

Scum is playing just as bad as town has in this game.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Do us a favor and give us some idea of what (if any) cases you have against us at this point. Because all you have done for the last half of yesterday and all of today is grill me non-stop, and argue with everything i say. Are you trying to convince ME that i'm scum? Not going to happen. Are you interested in examining both of us, or do you just want to argue with me? So far, this is the only thing you have mentioned that you are really taking into account: UT connections. This is how you have handled it:

UT/podium - Hmmmm... I'm suspicious of how he approached the D3 vote... i'm going to grill him over pages and pages about every single aspect of it... and argue against whatever he responds with.

UT/LMP - Welp, i think town played bad... so obviously there's no way he would bus UT.

[podium123456]

Peep this:

Contradiction/Lie and Major Misrepresentation:

I think you manage to imply Me, ABR, Dr.P, Nexus, and UT are scummy in the same post.

Again, you only push UT now, but yesterday you argued pretty hard against any suspicions at UT.

&

Which you are now conveniently pushing despite all attempts previously to deny UT-scum.

1. contradiction because... it's a contradiction

2. lie/misrep because he says that i 'argued pretty hard against any suspicioun of UT', even though the

only

times i mentioned him in the game were to imply scumminess. (TDC CONFIRMED)

Nonsense/Illogical behavior

:

1. Says that because i criticized LMP's behavior, i was defending UT.

2. in response to my not wanting another claim on D1, and to proceed with a TDC lynch, he says this:

If anyone was worried, TDC/podium is NOT a scum team in this game, based on these interactions.

which makes absolutely no logical sense. (TDC CONFIRMED)

3. when iso'ing, he completely ignores a large portion of the role that he needs to buddy with at endgame.

Buddying/Obv Maf behavior:

1. Says that he is about to perform an ISO on all parties to determine guilt. Takes the one person that is likely going to be the tie breaker and goes 'oh i read some of it and then just thought boy oh boy he is so town, so im not even going to bother'.

2. Here, here, here

Misc:

1. Game-long bus on partner. From TDC's pov, it's unknown... of course.

2. his first vote on blaze looked really scummy: Link. Blaze's vote was his very first of the game, at the beginning of the RVS stage. LMP, quotes Dr. P calling it 'textbook omgus'... and says 'ok im on board'. i read that as scum taking opportunity of the situation, and using dr. p's words as the reason for his vote, so he wouldn't have to actually accuse blaze personally.

3. In an ISO post to determine guilt, he makes a point of pointing out where i defended taz 3 times (implying suspicion)... even though one of those times it was based on meta and UT had made a nearly exact defense about taz, here. The other 2 times referred to the period in which POE nearly confirmed taz as tracker.

4. Makes no mention of my behavior throughout the game. When realizing i will be in endgame with him, all of a sudden he realizes i have also been a 'wishy washy' 'following the crowd' player.

Day 2

Then we have day 2... which is the best for last.

Zodiark hammers without a claim on a townie. Nearly everyone (note, except UT. perhaps b/c LMP was already on board?) was on Zodiarks case pretty hard, starting at end of D1 and carrying over to D2. LMP joins the party, citing TDC's criticism of Zodiarks vote... ALSO he adds 'and after a quick ISO of edmund'. Why is that relevant? Because edmund had expressed suspicoun of Zodiark on D1, and edmund was killed during the night.

OK. Then, UT continues to make a few more 'wishy washy' posts at UT, and makes some banter with me, but NEVER addresses

any

of the responses Zodiark gave, nor presses him for any additional information.

Incognito enters and says 'i dont find LMP that towny, but i do like his UT hate'... immediately LMP drops Zodiark (never to return for questions/responses) and takes up the UT case. Even incognito continued to interrogate Zodiark... LMP just pushed UT and responded to her accusations.

I hope i dont have to explain how scummy all of this D2 activity is. Several people pick up on it, and zodiark sums it up pretty good here and here.

Here, ill do it anyway: LMP votes for someone that hammered a townie without a claim, and who was under suspicion of the person that died at night. She never responds to any of his explanations, presses him for any information, nor makes any comment about the issue. She then leaves that vote, to push for someone whose entire previous case she pushed was that he was 'wishy washy'.

/perry mason

[podium123456]

So basically, there's alllllll of that... vs. LMP's accusation that i am 'wishy washy'/'following the crowd' and TDC's opinion of just exactly when/why i actually found UT scummy enough for a vote. The latter of which i have answered nearly every possible detail imaginable, and have yet to really hear any complaint about my responses.

So... yeah.

[podium123456]

LOL... LMP, i keep referring to you as 'she', even though i know you are a 'he'. It's because of your avatar... it looks like an avatar a girl would use, and i cant disassociate it.... lol.

[TDC]

Cheezo dude, you are really tunneled on me...

everything

i say you want to argue about. You asked my opinion about a comment a confirmed scum made (that was on death row)... and now you want to argue with me about the plausibility of it.

You want to argue that a scum on death row wouldn't try to deflect attention on anyone he could at anytime? Whatever... i'm not interested in a debate about that. It still could be an attempt at faking a bus. You asked my opinion, and i gave it.

Or wait... was i supposed to say what LMP did? Because apparently you don't see anything wrong with that opinion, and i think it's no more plausible than mine is. People often bring up the 'zomg he's coaching his partner in daytalk' scenario, and i have never seen it happen.

No. What LMP suggested was a thought I had as well, but I think it's a) too much in-your-face for that and b) you were far beyond any point where you could've reversed your opinion on Taz.

I think the post sounds really, really fake, and since the only thing it does say is "ZOMG DON'T LYNCH ME, PLS, PODIUM!" (which doesn't make much sense in the first place, because your vote wasn't needed anyway), he may just have tried to portray a will to live that wasn't there.

I don't have time to read the rest right now, but I'd prefer LMP to answer it first anyway.

I would ask you, if you are town, to kindly consider that you have one very big piece of information I don't have and that hence what may seem obvious to you, is not necessarily obvious to me. That applies both to thoughts you may have had at the time but never really voiced and things LMP did that look agreeable on the surface but you would know may well have sinister motives.