Newbie 1352: Into the Darkness (Game Over)

[Majiffy]

I would say you never let me down, Catboi... but that'd be a boldfaced lie.

[UberNinja]

Newbie 1352 - Vote Count 2.4

---

Belisarius [3] - Majiffy, T S O, Wisdom

Majiffy [2] - catboi, Who
T S O [1] - Belisarius

Not Voting - frog

---

With 7 alive, it takes 4 to lynch.

Deadline:

(expired on 2013-05-12 16:36:41)

Also, small update re: why I don't have an avatar:

Apparently I have had all avatar privileges removed,

without warning

, because chamber felt I was trying to trick people into thinking that my previous avatar was legitimate site-sanctioned Scummies awards. What a joke.

[Who]

T S O, your entire vote is based around rule of three. Is that incriminating enough to lynch (He's currently at L-1) someone over?
Majiffy, good job on finally getting a case. Why does the rest of his argument "add nothing of merit"? I don't see what is wrong with the voting and unvoting you were attacking him for.

[Majiffy]

Because they're rebuttals he would

necessarily

have to say. His lack of any definitive proof to his statements rather than just a "no u" defense points heavily towards the fact that his rebuttals aren't actually true.

[catboi]

I would say you never let me down, Catboi... but that'd be a boldfaced lie.

I have nothing to add, really. ヽ(ー_ー )ノ

[Majiffy]

You sadden me, catboi.

[Wisdom]

So, will we lynch Beli?

[frog]

Majiffy has cleared up his play recently, so yes. I don't feel Beli's recent post answered the case on him at all.

[Belisarius]

Because they're rebuttals he would

necessarily

have to say. His lack of any definitive proof to his statements rather than just a "no u" defense points heavily towards the fact that his rebuttals aren't actually true.

OK, so let's examine the part of that post that you are calling wind:

Given that he hasn't mentioned Oro, seems a bit of a strong statement.

Given that I was voting Oro, it's not unusual; I voted him back when he was Cybertronix and said why.

Here I've caught you outright lying by saying that my agreement to the Oro lynch in #291 was my first mention of the Oro slot. It was not. I was

voting

that slot. This is not wind.

Not needed. I unvoted because of a claim, the counterclaim removed my reason for the unvote. This is blatantly obvious.

As a direct response to you implying that a further response

was

needed -- again, borderline lying. This is also not wind.

[Majiffy]

I didn't say oro

slot

, I said Oro. So now

you're

lying to strengthen your argument.

Not understanding at all what you mean by the second bit. Is English not your primary language? And what is all this "wind" shit?

[Belisarius]

I didn't say oro

slot

, I said Oro. So now

you're

lying to strengthen your argument.

A distinction without a difference; Cybertronix and Oro had the same role PM; I kept my vote on Oro because he was Cybertronix.

Not understanding at all what you mean by the second bit. Is English not your primary language? And what is all this "wind" shit?

Wherefore must I be curs'd only to minister to congregations held in deafen'd pits? I must hobble my speech:

Wind is speech devoid of meaning, as in "windbag" or "full of hot air," both of which are phrases I've heard from native speakers of English from Canada, the United States, and Britain, so unless you're claiming that English as spoken in Australia or Zimbabwe is the only true English -- and these phrases aren't used there -- then

that

question is indeed wind.

[Majiffy]

Distinction does have a difference; I wasn't paying attention to if/who had the slot prior to Oro. I was looking for Oro associatives. Your defense proves you're not arguing against the conclusion - just the methodology of getting there.

I can't argue against British/Canadian (essentially British) parlance, but I've

never

heard anyone use wind in that way in the US.

[T S O]

T S O, your entire vote is based around rule of three. Is that incriminating enough to lynch (He's currently at L-1) someone over?
Majiffy, good job on finally getting a case. Why does the rest of his argument "add nothing of merit"? I don't see what is wrong with the voting and unvoting you were attacking him for.

It's not necessarily the rule of 3 - though that does help, and I fail to see how it's "WIFOM" either. It's his whole play this game really. He was quite quick to unvote on the orozorro wagon and Majiffy's also illustrated that his play hasn't been hugely scumhunting either. Asking for opinions incriminates him and he makes a post on the oro/TSO wagon on which he basically says he'll join either, which seems like he's willing to acquiesce to either wagon just to not make a stance.

[Belisarius]

Distinction does have a difference; I wasn't paying attention to if/who had the slot prior to Oro. I was looking for Oro associatives. Your defense proves you're not arguing against the conclusion - just the methodology of getting there.

Your failure to notice that I'd voted Oro's predecessor does not mean that it did not happen. What witchcraft is this?

[Majiffy]

Since when is theory talk a scumtell in a newbie game?

Hardly seems justification for the original complaint. So my argument still stands.

[Majiffy]

Really, people?

[Wisdom]

frog? Will you hammer Beli?

[frog]

I am claiming intent to hammer. Beli, please claim your role.

Sorry for not being as accurate as I should be, school's been pretty demanding recently.

[Belisarius]

I'm VT.

Tomorrow, look hard at Wisdom; his D1 play was what I'd expect from him, but D2 he's been far more passive than usual.

[Wisdom]

I don't think there will be tomorrow.

[Majiffy]

I don't think there will be tomorrow.

[frog]

No objects to me hammering now?

[frog]

*objections

[Majiffy]

None here.

Been waiting for a hammer for what feels like ages at this point.

[frog]

Vote: Belisarius