NY 163: Void Mountain of the Nightless Temple (Game Over)

[Ms Marangal]

V/LA till monday

not feeling that lynch anymore otter

[Human Destroyer]

DGB stop distracting from the TUA lynch please and thank you

[Voidedmafia]

Votecount 1.25:

Metal Overlord - Bulbazak, zdenek, Underachivers, Antilles
Underachivers - Robocopter, Klick, Human Destroyer, keybladewielder, Jennifer, Otterhorse
keybladewielder - RachMarie, Titan, TheLurker
DrippingGoofball - DrippingGoofball, Ms Marangal

Not Voting - Metal Overlord, Arcangel

With 17 alive it takes 9 to lynch and to no-lynch.

The Deadline is in (expired on 2013-04-06 22:45:22) or by 9:45 PM on April 6th, 2013.

The Mastin2 head of The Underarchivers is V/LA.
Human Destroyer is V/LA Friday Night to Saturday.
Ms Marangal is V/LA until Monday.

[RachMarie]

umm guys n gals we need a lynch this is getting ridiculous 1 day til deadline

Obviously the Key wagon is on a slow trip to nowhere.... DGB stop it and put your vote back on your main scumspect. You are just leading us to a no lynch with the self voting dramatics


So

VOTE: TUA

L-2

[RachMarie]

ohhh forgot there is a plurality in this game duh still I feel like peeps are just coasting and not focusing and the whole self vote thing is just derailing everyone.

[TheUnderachivers]

Stop it, geez. I'll have a post up later tonight but we ain't scum and lynching us just to "save us" from a no lynch is dumb. The point is to lynch scum so you all should be moving your votes to MO.

[RachMarie]

With a plurality you will be lynched anyways TUA unless you can get a whole boatload of votes on MO there is 1 day left, and I doubt we will get another extension.

[TheUnderachivers]

MO is at 4, We're at 6 (your vote notwithstanding) if you, and someone else were to vote MO he'd be lynched over us.

[Titan]

Arthur - What do you want to do?

[RachMarie]

TBH at this point I am so confused by all the WIFOM and other shenanigans that have gone on the past several pages. I am going to take a look at MOs ISO and TUAs again.... I have this sinking feeling though that with all of this stuffs the scum are hiding in the woodwork.

[Jennifer]

UNVOTE: TUA
VOTE: MO

I like TUA's staying in fighting against the lynch.

[OtterHorse]

UNVOTE: TUA
VOTE: MO

I like TUA's staying in fighting against the lynch.

I would almost be fine quick lynching Jen if thats an option. While TUA is best avaiable lynch, Jen might almost be at the point where she is passing Antilles for scummiest.

[Ms Marangal]

Jen... MO was fighting against the lynch as well.

who did Jen replace? I wouldn't mind getting behind her wagon

[Metal Overlord]

first and foremost TUA is very irritating

Since we have dragged our time to the last day, VOTE: TUA

Replying to accusations in the next post

[Metal Overlord]

Page 34:

The previous posts were written by KX, which were scummy(in your opinion, nothing is objective here). The post that I had written, was not scummy by itself, but according to the context it is scummy. So basically anything I write to defend myself against the "scummy" posts is a scum post? What do you suggest I do then? Do nothing and let everybody focus on the "scummy" posts?

The way you defended yourself was scummy. At no point do you try to discuss the points or the merits of the case, instead, you try to diffuse the situation and deflect attention away from the case by saying that you cannot be held responsible for your partner's scum posting, which is so antithetical to the game it's not funny.

I am not sure if you are misinterpreting me or are doing this on purpose. Taken out of context, my post would have been a well-written post with good reasoning and would have been a town tell, as you have said yourself.I want you, to find a scumtell in my posts, which can still be held under suspicion even when isolated from the case itself, before you can call me a definite scum. "Circumstantial Evidence" in this case is not enough. If we were not sharing the same slot, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you would have called me town in that case. So once again find more solid evidence.

So now I shouldn't think you're scum, because you're a hydra?

No, what I meant to say was, you should only think I'm scum when you have garnered enough *consistent* evidence on both heads to determine that my slot is scum. For now, you have no definite proof against *me*; your main argument being that my "well-written" post was scummy because it was meant to defend my partner's posts; inextricably linking your scum reads just on my partner alone and through minimal fault of mine. For argument's sake, let's say you indeed have proof and find that my partner is "scummy", but the thing is, it could just be his playstyle you simply just disagree with. Unless you pick up a definite, independent scumtell from my very own posts(my partner's scum posts not withstanding), I believe you do not have enough evidence to judge my slot as scum.

Except your partner committed several definite scumtells that could not be excused by playstyle. Those types of scumtells I would have zeroed in on no matter who committed them. Trying to excuse scum play by saying it's a playstyle is bad and is a no defense defense. Furthermore, your defense of his play was scummy, because it was meant to deflect attention away from the scumtells instead of actually addressing them. Essentially, you didn't want to discuss the actual validity of the case, but dismiss it instead. This is a huge scumtell for me. Finally, you tried to buddy up to me as a way to get me to disregard my case. Buddying IS a scumtell. So don't say that your hydra can't be held responsible for the scum posting from one of its members, because that in and of itself is a relativist fallacy and is scummy.

Except that "Scumtells" as defined by you are not set in stone. They are not like math or black-and-white, a town player can exhibit many "scumtells" which you have in your book but the slot happens to be town. If you have played enough games, you would have seen this phenomenon before. Simply, either the player sucks or has a playstyle that

disagrees with you

. Assuming that each player in a game is at a decent skill level, no player's playstyle is "bad", but whether they agree, disagree or is neutral with you. If they agree with you, it is a town tell, and if they don't you may see certain "scum tells". Once again I believe in the reality that you simply disagree with my partner's playstyle, so unless you can find evidence against me = both of us, you can't call us definite scum slot. Yes I was buddying with you, I'm glad you saw that.

As you said, you felt we had similar posting styles, and that you could therefore reason with me, or in this case, talk me down. I was essentially the main proponent of your wagon. By buddying up to me, you were trying to diffuse your wagon without having to deal with the case being presented. It was self preservation, plain and simple.

You are good. The only problem which I see in the statement was that you have read my post a bit too late; but by the time you have read it my votecount had decreased from 5 to 3; independent of your reads. How do you explain that?

How does my reading the post too late invalidate my point or the fact that you buddied up to me? Me being late and a change in the vote count doesn't magically change your motives in the past. Seriously, what is this crap?

It invalidates it because I was able to get the lynch off me regardless of my buddying of you or not. That said, it means that my buddying with you had little or nothing to do with the case at hand(getting the lynch off me). Why do I need to buddy up to you just to remove 1 vote from my lynch when I have successfully done so by removing 3 from mine independent of your reaction? The fact is I buddied up to you, correct. But wrong answer, the motive was not to get you off my lynch.

Note a TUA/Bulbazak or MO/DGB buddying

What is this? Having trouble buddying up to me so you switch tactics? First, I have no need to buddy up with UA, because I could care less what he thinks. I simply noticed in my catch up that he was posting incredibly town. The fact that we have similar reads was an afterthought. Second, even if I was scum, buddying up to UA would be the dumbest thing ever. He's not exactly obv. town, and there's no real reason I'd want him on my side. In fact, buddying up to them as scum would only serve to get me lynched.

And you claim that DGB is buddying up to me?

I'm going to make this real clear so you don't misunderstand me: Having similar reads as someone or a town read on that person DOES NOT EQUAL BUDDYING! Although, you saying that I'm buddying up to them shows me that you KNOW they're town. It definitely helps my scumread of you.

Therefore the argument that DGB is attempting to buddy up to me as you have accused is as moot as you buddying up to TUA. Unless you can argue otherwise.

Yay! I'm all caught up and stuff. I have a few more things I want to check up on, but I like my vote where it is.

[Metal Overlord]

P-Edit: The above posts were by Metal Sonic. Kx ragequitted and shit I'll see if I can get him back by the flip.

[Bulbazak]

UNVOTE: TUA
VOTE: MO

I like TUA's staying in fighting against the lynch.

I would almost be fine quick lynching Jen if thats an option. While TUA is best avaiable lynch, Jen might almost be at the point where she is passing Antilles for scummiest.

Do explain.

Except that "Scumtells" as defined by you are not set in stone. They are not like math or black-and-white, a town player can exhibit many "scumtells" which you have in your book but the slot happens to be town. If you have played enough games, you would have seen this phenomenon before. Simply, either the player sucks or has a playstyle that

disagrees with you

. Assuming that each player in a game is at a decent skill level, no player's playstyle is "bad", but whether they agree, disagree or is neutral with you. If they agree with you, it is a town tell, and if they don't you may see certain "scum tells". Once again I believe in the reality that you simply disagree with my partner's playstyle, so unless you can find evidence against me = both of us, you can't call us definite scum slot. Yes I was buddying with you, I'm glad you saw that.

No that is not how I define "scumtells", and I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. I rely on the same scumtells game after game, and they serve me quite well. As such, manufacturing of reads (ie. non-genuine reads) is a scumtell. Lying is a scumtell (I caught KX doing this with the read order thing. It was backward, which means that it was false, which means he was lying.). Doing something for the sole purpose of pacifying town is a scumtell. Trying to deflect the case against you, rather than confronting it, is a scumtell. Attempts to discredit a person or their case is a scumtell. Buddying is a scumtell. Need I go on?

And saying that you are not responsible for all that your slot does is ludicrous. The alignment of your slot does not magically change simply because there are 2 people playing instead of 1. The fact of the matter is that your partner was scummy and was caught. Tough luck. And maybe I backed down a little off the scumminess of your early posts because of how well-written they were. But in the end, posts are judged by the content therein, not by how pretty they are, and once I get past that, your posts are still pretty scummy.

And I have several town reads that don't agree with me, Titan and Klick being two right off the top of my head.

It invalidates it because I was able to get the lynch off me regardless of my buddying of you or not. That said, it means that my buddying with you had little or nothing to do with the case at hand(getting the lynch off me). Why do I need to buddy up to you just to remove 1 vote from my lynch when I have successfully done so by removing 3 from mine independent of your reaction? The fact is I buddied up to you, correct. But wrong answer, the motive was not to get you off my lynch.

That logic is so backwards it hurts. That's the equivalent of saying you didn't beat up someone 3 days ago because you lost your hands NOW. Your actions do not magically change because I didn't comment on those actions until long after they were committed. You buddied up to me to diffuse a wagon and get me on your side. Just because the wagon had diffused when I finally got around to addressing you does not mean that you didn't commit those actions for those reasons.

Did I mention how bad that logic was?

And you claim that DGB is buddying up to me?

Actually, I never said that. Seriously, when did I say that? What I said was that DGB was your scumbuddy and was chainsaw defending you. I beg you to get your facts straight and think things through before you misrep someone.

Seriously, why is everyone letting MO get away with such blatant scumposting? UA is town. MO is scum. Get on the ball.

[Ms Marangal]

Mmm... Jen replaced Serra... yeah, I would be comfortable with lynching her

she likes how TUA is fighting for his survival, yet MO is doing just that and she parks her vote on that Hydra. Jen, do you actually find MO scummy? why or why not?

[Ms Marangal]

Except that "Scumtells" as defined by you are not set in stone. They are not like math or black-and-white, a town player can exhibit many "scumtells" which you have in your book but the slot happens to be town. If you have played enough games, you would have seen this phenomenon before. Simply, either the player sucks or has a playstyle that

disagrees with you

. Assuming that each player in a game is at a decent skill level, no player's playstyle is "bad", but whether they agree, disagree or is neutral with you. If they agree with you, it is a town tell, and if they don't you may see certain "scum tells". Once again I believe in the reality that you simply disagree with my partner's playstyle, so unless you can find evidence against me = both of us, you can't call us definite scum slot. Yes I was buddying with you, I'm glad you saw that.

No that is not how I define "scumtells", and I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. I rely on the same scumtells game after game, and they serve me quite well. As such, manufacturing of reads (ie. non-genuine reads) is a scumtell. Lying is a scumtell (I caught KX doing this with the read order thing. It was backward, which means that it was false, which means he was lying.). Doing something for the sole purpose of pacifying town is a scumtell. Trying to deflect the case against you, rather than confronting it, is a scumtell. Attempts to discredit a person or their case is a scumtell. Buddying is a scumtell. Need I go on?

Lying is not a scum-tell. I tend to lie a whole lot more then I do as town. manufacturing reads is not a scum-tell because I do that when I don't want to give my own reads for whatever reason. mostly due to the fact that I'm still searching for a certain thing from a certain person and how I view that person will affect what I'm looking for. pacifying town, sure. He also didn't deflect the case IIRC, he's confronted it though I agree with you there. I have also been discredited by town, and as scum I have had town discredit me when I 1v1 them so that is a null tell. Buddying is not a scum-tell, I have seen town buddy their scum read, I have done it myself as town.

[Metal Overlord]

UNVOTE: TUA
VOTE: MO

I like TUA's staying in fighting against the lynch.

I would almost be fine quick lynching Jen if thats an option. While TUA is best avaiable lynch, Jen might almost be at the point where she is passing Antilles for scummiest.

Do explain.

Except that "Scumtells" as defined by you are not set in stone. They are not like math or black-and-white, a town player can exhibit many "scumtells" which you have in your book but the slot happens to be town. If you have played enough games, you would have seen this phenomenon before. Simply, either the player sucks or has a playstyle that

disagrees with you

. Assuming that each player in a game is at a decent skill level, no player's playstyle is "bad", but whether they agree, disagree or is neutral with you. If they agree with you, it is a town tell, and if they don't you may see certain "scum tells". Once again I believe in the reality that you simply disagree with my partner's playstyle, so unless you can find evidence against me = both of us, you can't call us definite scum slot. Yes I was buddying with you, I'm glad you saw that.

No that is not how I define "scumtells", and I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. I rely on the same scumtells game after game, and they serve me quite well. As such, manufacturing of reads (ie. non-genuine reads) is a scumtell. Lying is a scumtell (I caught KX doing this with the read order thing. It was backward, which means that it was false, which means he was lying.). Doing something for the sole purpose of pacifying town is a scumtell. Trying to deflect the case against you, rather than confronting it, is a scumtell. Attempts to discredit a person or their case is a scumtell. Buddying is a scumtell. Need I go on?

My profound apologies, I have genuinely worded my point wrongly. What I meant to say was that "Scumtells are not set in stone, the book of scumtells that you have is not kept by all; it is not standard." I hope this clarifies. I'm glad you put your "scumtells" all on the table for all to see, but my playstyle argument still stands. Evidence: Ms Marangal testified to display such "scumtells" in your list, even as town. Once again, A town player can exhibit the scum tells in your book due to playstyle, simply because your "scumtells" are not standard.

And saying that you are not responsible for all that your slot does is ludicrous. The alignment of your slot does not magically change simply because there are 2 people playing instead of 1. The fact of the matter is that your partner was scummy and was caught. Tough luck. And maybe I backed down a little off the scumminess of your early posts because of how well-written they were. But in the end, posts are judged by the content therein, not by how pretty they are, and once I get past that, your posts are still pretty scummy.

Actually, I never said that. Seriously, when did I say that? What I said was that you could be seeing scumtells on my partner just because you disagree with his playstyle. In order to make sure you have determined the alignment of my slot, both heads must be seen as scum, separately, then you can confirm that the slot is or is not town. Do you deny that you have mislynched a villager once or more before just because he was exhibiting "scumtells" but wasn't actually scum? That is what I mean. The fact that there are two heads here only serves as a double-check. And as I can see your only "scumtell" on me is correlated to my partner; no I am not shirking responsibility, but it is very obvious that your view of alignment of me is prejudiced and tainted because of the linkage with him. Your argument is "Your partner is scummy and you are defending him poorly therefore you must be scum as well!" which is a fallacy, and the correct way it should be is "Your partner is scummy, you are scummy, the slot is scum". I am arguing that you are against my partner and therefore my slot just because you have issues with his playstyle, and unless you can show independent evidence against me that rules out any possibility of playstyle quirks being part of the equation, you cannot indict me as scum. This is not the issue of shirking responsibility, it is the issue of you having tainted views which always have the possibility to be wrong and then imposing them on others.

And I have several town reads that don't agree with me, Titan and Klick being two right off the top of my head.

I meant playstyle agreement, not points or argument agreement. Just to clarify. In fact, if you could refer to Titian's earlier posts, he stressed that KX seems scummy while I seem towny, therefore undecided on my alignment. I urge you to do the same, and not "KX is scummy therefore the slot is scum"

It invalidates it because I was able to get the lynch off me regardless of my buddying of you or not. That said, it means that my buddying with you had little or nothing to do with the case at hand(getting the lynch off me). Why do I need to buddy up to you just to remove 1 vote from my lynch when I have successfully done so by removing 3 from mine independent of your reaction? The fact is I buddied up to you, correct. But wrong answer, the motive was not to get you off my lynch.

That logic is so backwards it hurts. That's the equivalent of saying you didn't beat up someone 3 days ago because you lost your hands NOW. Your actions do not magically change because I didn't comment on those actions until long after they were committed. You buddied up to me to diffuse a wagon and get me on your side. Just because the wagon had diffused when I finally got around to addressing you does not mean that you didn't commit those actions for those reasons.

I disagree. I believe that it is the equivalent of saying I didn't beat up someone 3 days ago for the intent of murder, but instead for the intent to "teach him a lesson", even though he had been murdered by the mafia 3 days later. My actions do not magically change, correct. To get you on my side? Correct. To diffuse a wagon? I've already done so! What did you have to do with the wagon when it had already diffused before you came back? It's the equivalent of removing you from the equation and still managing to diffuse the wagon, successfully.

Did I mention how bad that logic was?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

And you claim that DGB is buddying up to me?

Actually, I never said that. Seriously, when did I say that? What I said was that DGB was your scumbuddy and was chainsaw defending you. I beg you to get your facts straight and think things through before you misrep someone.

Woops. Well I'm sorry, I meant that TUA was your almost-dead scumbuddy and you are not chainsaw defending him. Does this make that better?

Seriously, why is everyone letting MO get away with such blatant scumposting? UA is town. MO is scum.

I love ultimatums

Get on the ball.

[Metal Overlord]

Typo at the last part. I wasn't being exactly serious about that point, but well.

"Woops. Well I'm sorry, I meant that TUA was your almost-dead scumbuddy and you are now chainsaw defending him"

[RachMarie]

Wait wait wait Jen replaced Serra??

uhhhh yeah she goes in my scum pile I had a scum read on Serra...

[Metal Overlord]

Yeah well Jen for tomorrow I guess. Today's possibilities are TUA or KBW or MO. There isn't much a case against MO except TUA spamming "this guy is scum!" and Bulbazak saying "I believe that it is comprehensible that the slot of Metal Overlord is a scum aligned one." and Jen saying "TUA is good MO is bad"


tl;dr my votes are all OMGUSes

[RachMarie]

umm why do you keep talking about yourself in the 3rd person?? You are MO

[Metal Overlord]

I was stating the facts in the first paragraph, so I refer to myself in 3rd person

the tl;dr is 1st person so really no big deal