ATHF Mafia OVER(roles and whatnot revealed)

[podium123456]

These two have a strange dynamic between them. Podium's jump to Seacore in ISO 35 is odd IMO, especially after he defended Seacore when he was attacking me. The jump seems ill-thought out, erratic and unexpected.

Ill thought out and erratic? What?? How is what i said 'ill thought out' or erratic? I explained it pretty damn thoroughly.

And I like how you call my case (that is substantive) unexpected... but not seacores vote... of which he had just said he was going to wait and think about over the weekend.

Btw, i didn't necessarily 'defend' seacore... hell, i raised the possibility of him being your scum partner. misrep some more.

So much in the thread to comment on, so much to scumhunt from, and you think that what you saw as a minor misrepresentation is the scummiest thing there?

It was the beginning of page four, and my case had dominated the game... there wasn't that much in the thread, from my point of view, at that time...

And just to clarify what I was talking about earlier with regards to Seacore (way back on page 2): I was referring

exclusively

to the part of his post that had mentioned him always being called out as scum on day one. The rest of the post, although supposedly his reason for saying that, is unimportant IMO.

You dont have to keep clarifying... it's pretty clear that i know what you meant.

This makes no sense to me... he said "i did x because of y", and you dont think y is in context or important? it's the REASON that he found x suspicious.

Furthermore, your paraphrase is a complete misrepresentation.

*HEY GW* -- THIS is an actual example of someone trying to make a mountain out of a molehill during RVS... as opposed to your phantom example of me doing it.

MoI is right, podium has blatantly done no scumhunting at all

BTW, are you aware that i have done more scumhunting in this thread than you have? MISREP SOME MOAR, SCUM.

______________________________________________________________
Votecount (as of post 254)
GhostWriter: 2 (podium, VasudeVa) L-5
podium: 5 (Fate, GhostWriter, implosion, Nacho, Seacore) L-2
VibeBox: 2 (Magna, Zinive) L-5

[GhostWriter]

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.

It was clear to me that nacho was joking, because of the delivery.

But this goes back to my other post that you didn't address... if your argument is that they both say the same thing, and that i was hatching this nefarious plan, then why didn't i attack nacho?

this is what shuts down your theory. think about it.

No, it really doesn't. You point it out yourself above. Though both posts are very obvious, Nacho's is far more obvious than Fate's, and is part of the reason why Fate's is obvious. As I have implied many times. To go after Nacho would be far too large a stretch. Going after Fate is the easier of the two.

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?

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.

I assure, I am not acting. They weren't.

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.

That's not what happened at all.

In post 63, i raised the point i bolded above... as well as highlighted that all i did was ask him and drop it... if i had this master scheme planned out, dont you think i would have... oh i dont know... USED IT? you act like i actually made the case against him and kept pushing it... and i didnt even come close.

That is hardly 'nuh uhh'... you avoided answering it then, and you still avoid answering it, even though i have directed you there several times. Why is that? Because you realize it pokes holes in your 'theory' and you dont want to have to back down.

I grow tired of using the phrase "for later". Does it mean nothing to you? I didn't answer it because it seemed very obvious. Then again, we're supposed to believe you didn't know Fate was joking, so I guess it follows that we're supposed to buy that your big statement is such a groundshaker, when, in fact, the answer is simple.

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.

Sigh... pay attention kids.

There were 3 'cases' (although i wouldnt really call VV's observation a 'case')

1. VV's 'case'. There IS no follow up to 'those are low-thought questions'... it's an observation... what should i follow up with? Should i have repeated the observation? Tell me.

2. Seacores 'case'. I FOLLOWED UP ON IT.

3. My other case was on implosion.... AND HE HADNT RESPONDED. How should i have followed up with that? Tell me? Repeated it as well?

You have quite the knack of being pretty damn disingenuous -- if not flat out misrepresenting -- with your language. Too bad there's all that text to prove you wrong.

1. Let us begin with knowing that "follow-up" doesn't mean "continue to call them scum". You ended up pulling a 180 on VV. All we had to go on was that you liked the fact that they defended you. A HORRIBLE reason, and, quite frankly, not much of a follow-up, if you can even call it that, which I cannot. You do not even really go in-depth about the defense.

2. Posts 87 and 95 counter that. After that, there is no more mention of him until the vote, which, as pointed out before, came after Fate began showing increased interest in Seacore as a possibility for scum. Oh, but you didn't read any of that...

3. Repeated it? Yes. Yes you should have. And broke it down for people when they wouldn't listen. And then asked why they didn't agree with it. And if then gone from there. Or you could have argued with the people who began to pick it apart in front of you.

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?

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.

Or you're set to cruise-control with your defending.

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?

Restate the question, im not sure what you are asking.

No need, it was already touched upon and you ended up answering it. I forget to who at the moment, but I was writing things up as I went, so this just ended up in the post.

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.

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.

and again... IGNORE the fact that i took the time to attack someone (and make a case) i found scummy right in the middle of all that.

i LITERALLY did what you said i should have done. disengenious as hell.

Yet you spend so much time defending that your attacks get swallowed up, when they do happen. For instance, what attack were you making in that post?

GW refuses to acknowledge the points i made that shoot holes in the biggest part of his case. his language is disengenious as hell, as PROVEN above.

i want to hear how he justifies some of his misreps.

scummy behavior ='s scummy read

Oh yeah, let me tell you. Because the fact that you didn't go after Nacho is totally like my case getting shot with a bullet from the golden gun on Goldeneye...

Preview Edit: There's more! Oh boy!

You continue to emphasize that you dropped it. Fail to see the point you're trying to make. You fail to remember (here we go again) the "for later" part. To use FOR LATER. So that you could try to combine it with other things later and turn it on Fate. Luckily, you've never played with or heard of Fate, so this backfired against you greatly. My case isn't swiss cheese.

[implosion]

Nacho's been tunneling podium all game, and sheeping Fate. But he's also given his own reasons, has been asking questions, etc. He fought for his viewpoint, and provided evidence.

A list of podium posts where he gives reads on someone (note: by read I mean him saying "X is town/scum/null):

Podium's first accusation - or read - at ALL - on ANYONE - was scum on me, and it was because of something I think he misunderstood. That's ISO 15, btw.
ISO 17 - null reads on people that had both been very eccentric, to say the least. Null read ≠ real read.

...

ISO 35 - sudden jump onto Seacore.

...

ISO 57

not looking any farther than that. Fact is, you should have done MUCH more scumhunting in this long period of time.

These two have a strange dynamic between them. Podium's jump to Seacore in ISO 35 is odd IMO, especially after he defended Seacore when he was attacking me. The jump seems ill-thought out, erratic and unexpected.

Ill thought out and erratic? What?? How is what i said 'ill thought out' or erratic? I explained it pretty damn thoroughly.

Seacore's quotes were all very much relevant. The first two (which you said were irrelevant) were both of you asking someone to explain their case on you in a way that didn't imply you thought their case was false. Or to rephrase, both of those quotes implied that you were asking the "how did I get caught so early" question that others had raised. To elaborate on the second quote which you specifically said in ISO 35 was bad: it doesn't have to do with something being a scumtell, but it does have to do with you asking someone how they found something suspicious. The thing is, nowhere do you really say "your case against me is bullshit" to anyone, or any other form of that, at least in the early game. In fact, reading it again, your vote seems kind of OMGUSsy too.

And I like how you call my case (that is substantive) unexpected... but not seacores vote... of which he had just said he was going to wait and think about over the weekend.

Btw, i didn't necessarily 'defend' seacore... hell, i raised the possibility of him being your scum partner. misrep some more.

You defended Seacore's phrasing of it, saying that my interpretation of what he said was wrong. You said "It doesn't amount to that at all. Not even close" which it does, you just misunderstood what I was saying. This is definitely defending Seacore, and you saying that it isn't is odd as well.

So much in the thread to comment on, so much to scumhunt from, and you think that what you saw as a minor misrepresentation is the scummiest thing there?

It was the beginning of page four, and my case had dominated the game... there wasn't that much in the thread, from my point of view, at that time...

What do you mean from your point of view? Everyone has access to the same information in-thread. There were plenty of other people making cases on people other than you (like my case on Seacore, although it was somewhat RVSy).

And just to clarify what I was talking about earlier with regards to Seacore (way back on page 2): I was referring

exclusively

to the part of his post that had mentioned him always being called out as scum on day one. The rest of the post, although supposedly his reason for saying that, is unimportant IMO.

You dont have to keep clarifying... it's pretty clear that i know what you meant.

This makes no sense to me... he said "i did x because of y", and you dont think y is in context or important? it's the REASON that he found x suspicious.

Again - it seems like an odd thing to bring up in the first place, even as reasoning for something else. If you knew what I meant, you wouldn't be saying it was a misrepresentation.

Furthermore, your paraphrase is a complete misrepresentation.

*HEY GW* -- THIS is an actual example of someone trying to make a mountain out of a molehill during RVS... as opposed to your phantom example of me doing it.

Nope. As I said, I'm just talking about the second part of what he said. I am in no way vaguely misrepresenting it.

MoI is right, podium has blatantly done no scumhunting at all

BTW, are you aware that i have done more scumhunting in this thread than you have? MISREP SOME MOAR, SCUM.

Wow. I was honestly hoping you would say this... you realize I was studying for a midterm the past three days and was not here at all, right? Why would you even call me out on this? Besides, lets talk about scumhunting per posts... I've made a (sort of RVS) accusation of seacore, I've listed my top suspects as of now... you've been fake scumhunting this whole time. You haven't committed to any reads that have legitimate reasoning behind them.

[podium123456]

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.

I assure, I am not acting. They weren't.

Find me one person outside of this thread that thinks those points weren't valid explanations/rebuttals. This is a scummy misrep.

I grow tired of using the phrase "for later".

Ah yes... the ole "oh nm, i thought you were serious" to "remember when i said nm? well i was lying... i think you were serious" switch.

/sarcasm

That's one crappy method of setting up a plan like that... ya know.

Tell me this... if i had just wrote "are you serious?", and then dropped it when he said no, would it still be a scumtell?

This is where your case. shuts. down.

Then again, we're supposed to believe you didn't know Fate was joking, so I guess it follows that we're supposed to buy that your big statement is such a groundshaker

Dont lose sight of the fact that you are the only person in this thread that thinks i knew he was joking. Even fate thinks that i thought he was serious.

1. Let us begin with knowing that "follow-up" doesn't mean "continue to call them scum". You ended up pulling a 180 on VV. All we had to go on was that you liked the fact that they defended you. A HORRIBLE reason, and, quite frankly, not much of a follow-up, if you can even call it that, which I cannot. You do not even really go in-depth about the defense.

2. Posts 87 and 95 counter that. After that, there is no more mention of him until the vote, which, as pointed out before, came after Fate began showing increased interest in Seacore as a possibility for scum. Oh, but you didn't read any of that...

3. Repeated it? Yes. Yes you should have. And broke it down for people when they wouldn't listen. And then asked why they didn't agree with it. And if then gone from there. Or you could have argued with the people who began to pick it apart in front of you.

1. So then it isn't a matter of me not following up then, is it? What you are doing here is shifting the argument from your initial accusation, into one about me moving from +scumpoints to town.

2. Again... a shift... the accusation was 'a lack of ANY followup'. yet you acknowledge here that i did... now it becomes that i didnt follow up enough to your satisfaction.

3. are you kidding me? you're telling me that yes, because i didnt repeat my case, it is a scumtell. holy shit dude.

This is all extremely scummy behavior from you.

Or you're set to cruise-control with your defending.

Are you really this focused on trying to paint me scum, that you cant even accept that i misunderstood who he was directing his UNSPECIFIED quote to?

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.

and again... IGNORE the fact that i took the time to attack someone (and make a case) i found scummy right in the middle of all that.

i LITERALLY did what you said i should have done. disengenious as hell.

Yet you spend so much time defending that your attacks get swallowed up, when they do happen.

More BLATANT shifting the argument. First it was that i DIDN'T attack anyone i found scummy... then it becomes i did, but they got swallowed up. I hope people are catching this.

[podium123456]

GW's case:

Podium asked fate if he was serious, and even though he said 'oh nm' when he found out fate wasn't serious, he was going to use it later to attack fate.

NOT that i actually did make an issue out of it and pressed forward with it, claiming that i thought he was lying when he said he wasn't serious. NOT that later in the game i came out and said 'i think you were lying when you said you weren't serious', and made a case then.

No.

It's that he

thinks

that is what i was PLANNING to do.

That's the basis of his entire case. (minus the misrepresentations and shifting of arguments)

I was curious as to how he was going to resolve all of this... now i know, and i have seen enough.

UNVOTE
VOTE: Ghostwriter

Whether or not people will actually read and understand the scumminess of his behavior, and the absurdity of his case, i have no idea. But I imagine that most of the sheep are already brainwashed into hanging me...

Fate's case is at least somewhat plausible (although it would involve a very naive/stupid scum)... GW's case isn't even a case... it's a PREDICTION of something (that's just barely plausible) happening.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To all of the sheep who are saying that my reactions/behavior to all of the accusations is what is warranting my lynch (mainly the accusation of 'oh you complain too much')... SHOW WHERE I HAVE ACTED 1/4 AS DECEPTIVELY as what i have just PROVEN GW has done.

Bet you cant.

Seacore's vote is still very suspicious to me, and he is still on the hook for what i have requested.

[podium123456]

Nacho's been tunneling podium all game, and sheeping Fate. But he's also given his own reasons, has been asking questions, etc. He fought for his viewpoint, and provided evidence.

Why are there so many sheep in this game?

Just because he thinks he was making a point, and says so, doesn't actually mean that he was. 'Provided evidence'? sigh... what he 'provided' was something COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the issue. I have explicitly explained why to him 6 times. Are you as dense as he is? Do you really believe he was making a valid point with the post he quoted? Do i need to start explaining it to you now?

This is an example of someone NOT really paying attention to the content of the thread as they read along.

And the simple fact that you are painting nacho's ISO as rational and good scumhunting leaves me completely speechless.

Fact is, you should have done MUCH more scumhunting in this long period of time.

What you just described was much MORE than nacho did... yet you painted nacho as someone who was properly scumhunting, and me as someone who 'blatantly hasnt done any'.

That is a FACT.

Resolve that, genius.

You defended Seacore's phrasing of it, saying that my interpretation of what he said was wrong. You said "It doesn't amount to that at all. Not even close" which it does, you just misunderstood what I was saying.

Third time... i have never misunderstood what you are saying... the problem is that you are wrong.

It

does

mean what you paraphrased if it was a stand alone comment... but it was obviously connected to the sentence in front of it... as a REASON why he thought it was serious. You learn this type of logic/deduction in second grade. What you did was separate it, and try to turn it into a scummy statement... even though that wasn't the intent of the author.

I bet you wont find one person in this thread that thinks your paraphrase was even close to accurate, when taken in context.

You took his statement OUT OF CONTEXT, to make it sound scummy.

FACT.

It's the oldest trick in the book. Why you can't comprehend what i'm saying is beyond me.

You haven't committed to any reads that have legitimate reasoning behind them.

Neither have you.

See how that works?

[podium123456]

THIS COMMENT GETS ITS VERY OWN POST:

So much in the thread to comment on, so much to scumhunt from, and you think that what you saw as a minor misrepresentation is the scummiest thing there?

It was the beginning of page four, and my case had dominated the game... there wasn't that much in the thread, from my point of view, at that time...

What do you mean from your point of view? Everyone has access to the same information in-thread. There were plenty of other people making cases on people other than you (like my case on Seacore, although it was somewhat RVSy).

Implosion criticizes me for making a case about his vote on seacore.

When i tell him there wasn't that much to choose from at that point in the thread, he says 'sure there was, for instance there was my case on seacore'.


facepalmx1000

[GhostWriter]

I grow tired of using the phrase "for later".

Ah yes... the ole "oh nm, i thought you were serious" to "remember when i said nm? well i was lying... i think you were serious" switch.

/sarcasm

That's one crappy method of setting up a plan like that... ya know.

Tell me this... if i had just wrote "are you serious?", and then dropped it when he said no, would it still be a scumtell?

This is where your case. shuts. down.

What?

Then again, we're supposed to believe you didn't know Fate was joking, so I guess it follows that we're supposed to buy that your big statement is such a groundshaker

Dont lose sight of the fact that you are the only person in this thread that thinks i knew he was joking. Even fate thinks that i thought he was serious.

Whatever. Doesn't make me wrong.

1. Let us begin with knowing that "follow-up" doesn't mean "continue to call them scum". You ended up pulling a 180 on VV. All we had to go on was that you liked the fact that they defended you. A HORRIBLE reason, and, quite frankly, not much of a follow-up, if you can even call it that, which I cannot. You do not even really go in-depth about the defense.

2. Posts 87 and 95 counter that. After that, there is no more mention of him until the vote, which, as pointed out before, came after Fate began showing increased interest in Seacore as a possibility for scum. Oh, but you didn't read any of that...

3. Repeated it? Yes. Yes you should have. And broke it down for people when they wouldn't listen. And then asked why they didn't agree with it. And if then gone from there. Or you could have argued with the people who began to pick it apart in front of you.

1. So then it isn't a matter of me not following up then, is it? What you are doing here is shifting the argument from your initial accusation, into one about me moving from +scumpoints to town.

2. Again... a shift... the accusation was 'a lack of ANY followup'. yet you acknowledge here that i did... now it becomes that i didnt follow up enough to your satisfaction.

3. are you kidding me? you're telling me that yes, because i didnt repeat my case, it is a scumtell. holy shit dude.

This is all extremely scummy behavior from you.

1. Yes, yes it is a problem of you not following up.

2. You didn't continue after it, so it's not a follow-up. The case was challenged and you simply dropped it without rhyme or reason.

3. No, I'm implying that you didn't do anything with it, that's a problem. You didn't need to wait for implosion, considering other people had attacked your case. Why didn't you reiterate it? Why didn't you attack their attacks? Why didn't you spend those times you repeated how much you were being attacked and repeat how much implosion was scum instead?

Or you're set to cruise-control with your defending.

Are you really this focused on trying to paint me scum, that you cant even accept that i misunderstood who he was directing his UNSPECIFIED quote to?

I understood it.

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.

and again... IGNORE the fact that i took the time to attack someone (and make a case) i found scummy right in the middle of all that.

i LITERALLY did what you said i should have done. disengenious as hell.

Yet you spend so much time defending that your attacks get swallowed up, when they do happen.

More BLATANT shifting the argument. First it was that i DIDN'T attack anyone i found scummy... then it becomes i did, but they got swallowed up. I hope people are catching this.

I specifically point out that I don't see the attack. I'm pointing out that you defend a hell of a lot, and that if there is an attack in there, I don't see it. And you didn't point it out... OH, WAIT! You didn't put that part in there. So it's not shown in context. Way to go. Want to talk about misrep? You just posted a bit of that, out of context, so you could make it look like something it wasn't. Guys, why isn't this scum lynched yet?

[implosion]

THIS COMMENT GETS ITS VERY OWN POST:

So much in the thread to comment on, so much to scumhunt from, and you think that what you saw as a minor misrepresentation is the scummiest thing there?

It was the beginning of page four, and my case had dominated the game... there wasn't that much in the thread, from my point of view, at that time...

What do you mean from your point of view? Everyone has access to the same information in-thread. There were plenty of other people making cases on people other than you (like my case on Seacore, although it was somewhat RVSy).

Implosion criticizes me for making a case about his vote on seacore.

When i tell him there wasn't that much to choose from at that point in the thread, he says 'sure there was, for instance there was my case on seacore'.


facepalmx1000

That was just an example. You were implying that everyone was attacking you, and that was why you weren't doing anything. Also, good job avoiding my question. What do you mean from your point of view?

[podium123456]

I specifically point out that I don't see the attack. I'm pointing out that you defend a hell of a lot, and that if there is an attack in there, I don't see it. And you didn't point it out... OH, WAIT! You didn't put that part in there. So it's not shown in context. Way to go. Want to talk about misrep? You just posted a bit of that, out of context, so you could make it look like something it wasn't. Guys, why isn't this scum lynched yet?

What are you talking about? Are you telling me that you didn't see my accusations/vote and subsequent follow ups against seacore?

And even if you really did miss it (yeah, right) it is

still

shifting the argument from 'you didnt attack anyone' to 'ok you did, but i missed it'. It wouldn't have mattered if i had included the entire quote... it was irrelevant to my point... which is why i left it out.

I love when i get to argue against dumb scum.

1. Yes, yes it is a problem of you not following up.

2. You didn't continue after it, so it's not a follow-up. The case was challenged and you simply dropped it without rhyme or reason.

3. No, I'm implying that you didn't do anything with it, that's a problem. You didn't need to wait for implosion, considering other people had attacked your case. Why didn't you reiterate it? Why didn't you attack their attacks? Why didn't you spend those times you repeated how much you were being attacked and repeat how much implosion was scum instead?

1. Trying to be cute does not magically mean that you werent shifting the argument... or that you made valid point to start with. Give me an example of what you mean by 'following up', in that specific instance. If you tell me that i should have repeated it, it's going to get it's own post. No one questioned my observation, it wasn't a major scumtell, and the accused hadn't responded... how should i have followed up with it?

2. Wrong. After following up on it with him through discussion, i stated that i could understand what he did. You see that's how things work when people approach a debate with an open mind... not with their minds already made up, regardless of if they are right or not... or as scum who are trying to push a lynch.

3. Give it up scum. THIS is an example of hitting someone with a lot of text so that they end up actually getting caught in a big lie.

Observe:

First of all, you accuse me of not following up on a case in which the accused hadn't responded yet (i guess that's your magical predictive ability at work... except you got it wrong, since i did when he responded).

But regardless of the semantics of what a 'follow up' is or isnt... you tell me im scum because i 'didnt do anything with it'... i didnt reiterate or justify the case when others attacked it.

EXCEPT I

SPECIFICALLY

DID

EACH

TIME THAT IT WAS CRITICIZED.

here

and

here


game. set. match.

swing, scum.

[GhostWriter]

You know what, let's bring the whole gang in: fellow players, what say you on our little exchange here?

[podium123456]

That was just an example. You were implying that everyone was attacking you, and that was why you weren't doing anything.

LOL Wrong. We weren't talking about me not doing anything, we were talking about your criticism of my criticism of your case... and my rebuttal that there wasn't a lot for ME to pick from in the thread at that point.

That's why what you said is such a mega facepalm.

[podium123456]

You know what, let's bring the whole gang in: fellow players, what say you on our little exchange here?

LOL.

Nice try scum... get hit with undeniable proof that you are lying, and pushing my lynch using bad logic and dirty tactics, and then puss out and say 'hey lets stop'.

You're gd right i want to hear what everybody thinks of it.

[implosion]

A thought occurs. What if podium is a jester? I'm not sure but I think he might be going out of his way to be scummy... he just ignored my question for the second time in a row, and I'm pretty fucking sure it was on purpose. Or maybe I'm just paranoid.

[GhostWriter]

I'm stopping nothing. I'd like for others to weigh in. Perhaps if they state their views on it, you'll see it's not just me. Or I'll listen to them, since you implied several times that I refuse to see you as anything but scummy (which, by the way, implies you see me as town).

[podium123456]

I'm stopping nothing. I'd like for others to weigh in.

I would want others to step in too, if i had been laid open like you have been just now.

What you are doing, is waiting to see if others see what you see... that your behavior/case and undeniable lies look pretty damn bad.

If by some miracle they dont (which wouldn't surprise me with some of these players), then you will keep on trucking. If they do, then you will have to change your game and back down from this obvscum lynch you have been trying to push so hard.

You dont want to say anything until you get some idea of the herd's mentality, before you commit yourself to responding to what's just come out.

(which, by the way, implies you see me as town).

uh... no it doesn't. it implies that i see you as scum trying to force this lynch by whatever means necessary.

[podium123456]

Or maybe I'm just paranoid.

It means that from my point of view, the majority of what was going on in the thread was attacks on me, that i was arguing against... so i had to look to other cases that were being made, to look for anything scummy... of which there weren't many.

[implosion]

So you

are

saying that you were not making your own cases because other people were attacking you?

[podium123456]

So you

are

saying that you were not making your own cases because other people were attacking you?

that's right. i'm saying that when i made my own cases, i couldn't... because people were attacking me. so i had to make my own cases instead.

...seriously dude, just stop. trust me.

[implosion]

...seriously dude, just stop. trust me.

[podium123456]

[podium123456]

GW do you really need someone else to tell you that you lied (or at best, were wrong) when you said i didn't do the things that i proved that i did? Or that your case is based on a

prediction

of an unorthodox scum move occurring? Or that you repeatedly shifted arguments?

Those are the most damning things against you, and they aren't opinion... they are FACT. So what exactly is it that you are waiting to hear, before you respond?

Sounds to me like you either dont want to have to admit that you were wrong, or you want to see if you can still get away with pushing this crapheap.

[GhostWriter]

What are you so worried about having people chime in for?

[podium123456]

What are you so worried about having people chime in for?

can you read? im not 'worried' about anything. im pointing out that you are waiting to see the herd mentality before you commit yourself to responding. thats scummy.

like i said... there is no 'opinion' surrounding where i caught you lying... those are facts. i dont understand why you need to hear other people address it before you respond. unless it's because of the reasons i said.

[Fate]

Podium never voted GhostWriter, he's still on Seacore