StrangerCoug's Worst Nightmare IIIS: The Dungeon (Game over)

[Parama]

.-.
Oh yeah. Rule 6. Sighs everywhere.

[Twomz]

So, right around there, a negative stigma was attached to the idea of surviving on human flesh.

Poor xvart, this seems to happen a lot in games I'm in. People need to be more careful of the rules.

[StrangerCoug]

VOTE COUNT

Chronopie (3): chesskid3, Tasky, Antihero
Espeonage (6): Knight of Cydonia, The Stove, Lady Lambdadelta, manho, Parama, Twomz
manho (3): Chronopie, Nachomamma8, smargaret
The Stove (1): xvart
Not voting (1): Espeonage

With

14

players alive, it takes

8

votes to lynch.

DEADLINE IS MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2010 AT 7:00 PM MST.

[Antihero]

Mod

, while it's completely your call, I would like to petition you to let xvart stay.

^This is not game related, by the way. I like xvart, so that's why I want him to stay.

This thread need more Chronopie.

[The Stove]

Well, xvart's gone so I'm not gonna respond to that mess.

Espeonage, where's your vote?

[Lady Lambdadelta]

Well, xvart's gone so I'm not gonna respond to that mess.

Espeonage, where's your vote?

I'm sorry. I would humbly request that you DO respond to it. Even if he will not return, I would like to see the response.

[Parama]

Well, xvart's gone so I'm not gonna respond to that mess.

Espeonage, where's your vote?

I am also requesting that you respond to that mess even in the absence of the player who asked the questions in the first place. There's no reason not to.

[StrangerCoug]

Mod

, while it's completely your call, I would like to petition you to let xvart stay.

^This is not game related, by the way. I like xvart, so that's why I want him to stay.

Sorry. You can appeal a strike that you think is unfair, but when I kick someone out of a game, it's final and the only thing that can be done is to join another game of mine.

[chesskid3]

Mod

, while it's completely your call, I would like to petition you to let xvart stay.

^This is not game related, by the way. I like xvart, so that's why I want him to stay.

Sorry. You can appeal a strike that you think is unfair, but when I kick someone out of a game, it's final and the only thing that can be done is to join another game of mine.

[smargaret]

Stove, I'll third the you need to respond to it. And I'll repost it, sans spoiler, if necessary to get you to respond to it.

[Parama]

THE FOLLOWING POST IS ALL MY ORIGINAL CONTENT. NO JOKE.

I can't believe you are even engaging me in this discussion, The Stove.

My apologies. When I said "you really did not say anything about BE" I meant "you didn't really say anything of substance". Better?

Lawl backtrack.

You are seriously trying to call that a backtrack? They are essentially the exact same thing but the second has a little more to it because I didn't realize you used semantics and such literal meanings in an attempt to defend yourself.

ORLY? I have gone through your ISO and quoted every mention or pseudo mention or reference to BE.

The lines in blue are where you directly said something about BE and your desire for him to be dead (or why he might be scummy in the few instances)

.

The lines in red are you talking about the case on BE, and note how it changes.

If I missed something please let me know.

TL;DR version:

Specific mentions about BE:

1. OMG BLOODERECTION NEEDS TO DIE NAO.
   
2. Are you incapable of reading English, good sir? Because if I do recall, you are a scholar and a gentleman. (speaking to BE)
   
3. Hey look, BE filled up the diesel tank and he's roaring in that big ol' yellow bus.
   
4. vote: Blooderection
   
5. BE has 6 votes.
   
6. came up with a scum list, which had... Blooderection
   
7. It's not like we never said we'd like to see BE dead, btw.

Saying someone needs to die does not really qualify as substantive posting. You never said anything of substance about why BE was scummy.

Talking about the case on BE

1. The case is outlined. Go read the thread.
   
2. Plz to be doing iso on Blooderection and posting results.
   
3. Obviously AGar and I knocked heads together (talking about their case on BE)
   
4. I'll also let AGar explain the BE case bit.
   
5. Again, I'll let AGar address this.
   
6. The case on BE, and on several of the players in this game, is that they aren't doing anything.

So... you said their was a case on BE (which apparently later turned out to just be that he wasn't contributing), then said to ISO to discover why BE was scummy, you knocked heads to determine that BE was scummy (how much head knocking does it take to think someone is scummy based on lack of contributions?), then you finally say he needed to die because he wasn't contributing. That, my friend, is a Lawl backtrack.

The Stove Quotes about BE

OMG BLOODERECTION NEEDS TO DIE NAO.

Sorry that i'm voting for your scumbuddy.

Really?

Really?

Okay, I'll play. I'll take "The Stove / Greek Chick Links" for $200, Alex.

I unvoted, and I don't think we should not lynch LLD because of the VT claim. I don't think we should lynch LLD because a few of her wagoners are really scummy, including you.

There's no one who doesn't want to lynch LLD because of the VT claim. Now you're just pulling stuff out of thin air.

VOTE: Blooderection

So why exactly did you unvote then? because of people jumping on the wagon? Specifically me?

Are you incapable of reading English, good sir? Because if I do recall, you are a scholar and a gentleman.

Hey look, BE filled up the diesel tank and he's roaring in that big ol' yellow bus.

DEAR SCUMZ

If you want to gg right now it's cool with us.

vote: Blooderection

BE has 6 votes

. CK3 has 1. Tasky has 1. It should be 9 to lynch. 16 alive.

Moar BE votes while Papa Ziti and I discuss the events.

Again, what's the case on BE? I've read BE's ISO, read the pages before the lynch; I'm just not seeing what happened since the day start that suggests BE is scum that would not have been obvious yesterday and BE been the lynch yesterday.

xvart.

Lol@ trying to save your brohan.

The case is outlined. Go read the thread.

Dear kids wanting Blooderection case,

Plz to be doing iso on Blooderection and posting results

.


Love,

PZ

And since he supposedly is super scummy, how hard is it to say why?

Do an iso on them real quick and tell me what you think.

why did you not vote BE yesterday instead of Baby Spice? What changed overnight that made you insta vote BE without further evidence or justification?

Now, see, this is silly. And it's why you're scum good sir.

Obviously AGar and I knocked heads together

and

came up with a scum list

, which had

Baby Spice

Blooderection

At the top of it. (you're up there now too, congrats)

It's not like we never said we'd like to see BE dead, btw.

Explain to me my scum motivation for asking the questions I did.

I'll explain things when I want a wagon on you. Which will come, no worries.

I'll also let AGar explain the BE case bit.

Were you intentionally lying when you said the BE case had already been outlined? If not, why did you say it when it had not been outlined?

We haven't intentionally lied about anything, so no.

Again, I'll let AGar address this.

Was the case on BE so complicated that you couldn't possibly sum it up in a couple of sentences?

The case on BE, and on several of the players in this game, is that they aren't doing anything

. If I help lynch all the lurkers, and the VIs, and the people not paying attention, and the people not trying, then I'm either going to hit scum or I'm going to get rid of dead weight. Either way, when the game comes down to the wire, the town is in a far better position to win. BE, and espeonage, and LLD, and Tasky, and Toon Fighter, and manho and etc fit this bill. (you're being actively destructive, there's a difference)

So despite your little semantical argument, you have not really said anything about BE

AND

you have not said anything of substance about BE.

And the funny part (I've mentioned this once before), is this gem of a quote:

3. The fail is strong with this one. I'm afraid it's hard for me to "poo-poo" (lol) your responses when you aren't giving any.

Let's, once again, list the questions you've refused to answer:

So since you were alluding to someone being scummy by not answering questions, does that make your refusal to answer my questions a legitimate scum tell?

xvart.

[Lady Lambdadelta]

I lol'd.

[The Stove]

Meh.

First, there's this:

I can't believe you are even engaging me in this discussion, The Stove.
...
So since you were alluding to someone being scummy by not answering questions, does that make your refusal to answer my questions a legitimate scum tell?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I spoze.

You are seriously trying to call that a backtrack? They are essentially the exact same thing but the second has a little more to it because I didn't realize you used semantics and such literal meanings in an attempt to defend yourself.

This is completely false. AGAIN, what xvart said was:

It seems if you are confident in your lynch target you would want to rally the troops to get a lynch, and the fact that you really did not say anything about BE at all is very telling.

As xvart demonstrated, we do say we want him dead, several times. He tried to change the argument to prove something else, but, no. We said we wanted him dead. We helped lead the wagon. End of.

[The Stove]

Er. People are acting like I dodged that why? lulz

[Lady Lambdadelta]

I don't know, maybe because it looks like you dodged it? You're still dodging it... You haven't answered nearly the entire post.

[The Stove]

I don't know, maybe because it looks like you dodged it? You're still dodging it... You haven't answered nearly the entire post.

That was the entire post. The rest is quotes from us.

[Lady Lambdadelta]

Uh... I think you need to respond to his point about the serious lack of evidence you have provided in your case on BE, as shown in your posts and discussion of your case on BE.

[The Stove]

I've given my reasoning for wanting BE (among others) to be in the graveyard pile.

BTW, there's a rather core fallacy to his argument. It's not necessary to post an exhaustive case on someone in order to vote them. For example:

Well... that's nice to see! No deaths!

Vote: Toon Fighter

My votes gonna hang out right here for now. I want to do a read of Reckamonic and xvrt, and I'll see if I can get a block post consisting of the cases against those 2, aswell as TF.

Toon Fighter never appears in your iso before this. And your TF never appeared afterwards either, even though you even promised one.

amirite?

[Antihero]

ugh, now I am regreting not hammering LLD on Day 1.

[Lady Lambdadelta]

Passive aggresive.

Deflecting attention.

Avoiding questions.

To answer YOUR question: TF was day vigged before I created a case, reckamonic replaced out, and xvrt solved my questions about his game play around the time he started looking into you.

But back to YOUR play. You continue to avoid things, even now resorting to attacking me, rather than providing cases that I request.

Unvote; Vote: The Stove

This is the play today.

P-Edit: Antihero, shut up. You have contributed less than I have. In fact, about all you've said is "I should have hammered LLD". If you find me so god damn scummy, post a case FFS!

[Lady Lambdadelta]

EBWOP: I'm Going to sleep. So I'll have to respond to whatever half assed defense you raise in the morning.

I have a pounding headache and it's not doing me any favors in my demeanor. Sorry to those I offend or am rude to.

[Antihero]

P-Edit: Antihero, shut up. You have contributed less than I have. In fact, about all you've said is "I should have hammered LLD". If you find me so god damn scummy, post a case FFS!

I hope your headache gets better, but this is completely not true. You voted Espy earlier for some undisclosed reason (either that or just for that one lousy, isolated post), you promised content earlier and haven't delivered, and your vote sucks.

[The Stove]

Passive aggresive.

Deflecting attention.

Avoiding questions.

Nope.

To answer YOUR question: TF was day vigged before I created a case, reckamonic replaced out, and xvrt solved my questions about his game play around the time he started looking into you.

But you voted TF without posting a case.

ugh, now I am regreting not hammering LLD on Day 1.

No, she's likely town. Just hardheaded or something. (maybe xvart was too, who knows)

Yeah I have reasons for saying that LLD. No I'm not posting them. hah

[Espeonage]

Well, xvart's gone so I'm not gonna respond to that mess.

Espeonage, where's your vote?

It was on VLA

[smargaret]

I've given my reasoning for wanting BE (among others) to be in the graveyard pile.

BTW, there's a rather core fallacy to his argument. It's not necessary to post an exhaustive case on someone in order to vote them. For example:

Well... that's nice to see! No deaths!

Vote: Toon Fighter

My votes gonna hang out right here for now. I want to do a read of Reckamonic and xvrt, and I'll see if I can get a block post consisting of the cases against those 2, aswell as TF.

Toon Fighter never appears in your iso before this. And your TF never appeared afterwards either, even though you even promised one.

amirite?

My interpretation of his post was that you do a lot of talking about the case on BE without actually making a case. Posts like "I'll post tomorrow," "I'll let other head do it," and "Go find it yourself" make you look scummy when they are disproportionate to the "BE is scum because X, Y, and Z" posts.

Also, just because LLD posted a vote without a case doesn't mean it's less scummy for you to do it.

UNVOTE: manho

VOTE: Stove