NY 170: Georgetown II (Game Over)

[emogirl123]

Why are you not interested in what a Townread has to say...?

After suggesting that a day vig was a viable trap, I don't care much about what he says.

[Maestro]

...then you're guilty of the same kind of tunnel vision that went rampant in this game and which I had to watch with my skin crawling. Kindly adapt yourself to an adapting game or don't be surprised if I don't care what YOU have to say.

[emogirl123]

My vote on Bulbazak is independent of what Garmr is going to say.

[emogirl123]

I just didn't word it very nicely. Bulbazak attacked both me and Garmr in the same post. Why can't I respond to him and must rely solely on Garmr for my defence?

[Maestro]

VOTE: Bulbazak.

Weren't you a little shocked when you realized that non of your scum partners were PRs?

Yeh totally shocked I was even more shocked when I unlynchable godfather in vanilla only game.

He tried to make a joke in response to my statement where scum had no PRs. At the time, I suspected that he was not aware that this game was mountainous prior to my comment because of his awkward response.

Who said it was a vanilla only game?

Mod did

*quotes mod from 1st post*

Second post was made 10 minutes later, I suspect that he had to search where the game said it was vanilla only? The fact that he didn't use the word mountainous hinted to me that he didn't know what he was signing up for.

Didn't sign up for a mountingness game signed up for any random game only and got nabbed for this game when you said all your partners are vanilla.

Later he even admits that he wasn't aware that the game is mountainous until I commented on it.

This suggests to me that he is town.

Bulbazak, explain your bullshit please.

This does not look like a post made in your defense - it's CLEARLY in defense of Garmr, for whatever reason.

[emogirl123]

Because Bulbazak made an unflipped association tell of Garmr and I. My defence of Garmr is in response of what he accused Garmr and I of doing. This results in me outing my town read of Garmr. What is your problem?

[Maestro]

What do you mean "what's my problem"?! You're not making sense! I'm questioning what I see as you being extremely inconsistent:

You say Garmr is a Townread, strong enough to defend (see below) on D1 against 2-3 votes, and yet you don't want to hear what he has to say?
You say you didn't mean to defend him (see above), that your post #133 is in your own defense, yet you only mention yourself in context of defending Garmr?

You say Bulba's "accusation" forced you to out said Townread through a defense that he didn't ask for (see above), and yet:
1) Bulba's "accusation" doesn't look at all serious to me, it was the first time in his ISO (3 posts total) that he'd mentioned either one of you.
2) It was kindof obvious at that point that you had at least a null-leaning-Town read on Garmr.
3) You "outing" a Townread is inconsistent with you saying you weren't trying to defend him in post #133, because...

If you actually cared about how Bulba's "accusation" affected you, you would've defended yourself, not Garmr.
If you were trying to defend yourself you wouldn't've outed anything about Garmr.

All that tells me you weren't ever actually trying to defend yourself, but rather Garmr, and your inconsistency is a result of trying to back out of the connection you've now established between you two. I don't actually think you're a Team like Bulba though - if I had to guess I'd say you did know that Garmr looked like a toxic D1 wagon, and you wanted to attach yourself on the defending side for Towncred.

[Maestro]

pooh

VOTE: emog

get it?

[Maestro]

by the way this is the part where we summon votes from the Netherworld of the Townbloc and wagon emogirl fo realz

lessgo

[emogirl123]

You say you didn't mean to defend him (see above), that your post #133 is in your own defense, yet you only mention yourself in context of defending Garmr?

????? Did you read Bulbazak's posts?

[Maestro]

Yes. What does the quoted portion of my post have to do with reading Bulba's posts?
I'm not interested in why he thinks you're a Scumteam, because I think he's wrong.

If you meant something else then explain, LOLQUESTIONMARKS doesn't translate well to my native language.

[emogirl123]

1) Bulba's "accusation" doesn't look at all serious to me, it was the first time in his ISO (3 posts total) that he'd mentioned either one of you.

why isn't it serious? he placed a 3rd vote (4th if you count the RVS) on someone. he then made a very serious accusation about chainsaw afterwards. seems pretty serious to me

2) It was kindof obvious at that point that you had at least a null-leaning-Town read on Garmr.

ok?

3) You "outing" a Townread is inconsistent with you saying you weren't trying to defend him in post #133, because...

he associated me with Garmr so I defend myself by saying Garmr is clearly town and this isn't defending myself??

you seem mad.

[emogirl123]

I'll be back later, I feel that we both need to cool off for a bit.

[Maestro]

I'm cool, you don't make sense gurl

Yes, I'm saying that C calling A + B Scum and B saying A is not Scum =/= B defending themselves.
That's exactly what it is: B saying A is not Scum. It's not you defending Garmr to defend yourself, that's silly.

It's you defending Garmr.

[Bulbazak]

I don't care what he says, it is noise. I care why you are making associations of two unflipped players.

Because that's how I scum hunt. I look for scum motivation and intent in posts, and I also look at connections that can be used later for PoE. Sometimes those connections can make all the difference, and if you are successful in figuring out the scum team early, you can knock them down like dominoes.

QT was open at the time, so seeing that all three of your scum mates are not PR, he goes and attempts to use a day vig as a trap?

Day vig gambits are very common on the site, and as a result, they're fairly well known to be fake a large percentage of the time. That means that such a gambit is not hard to fake as scum. I wouldn't award any sort of towncred for that gambit, especially not when made in pregame, where there is no way a mod would actually accept the actions of a dayvig.

1) Bulba's "accusation" doesn't look at all serious to me, it was the first time in his ISO (3 posts total) that he'd mentioned either one of you.

Actually, it's pretty serious, especially for the early game. I have very good scumreads on the pair, and I plan to pursue them.

[emogirl123]

Just wanted to make sure that my thoughts on a Garmr/Emo scum team were not unfounded.

So he thought Garmr/Emo scum team might be unfounded, but now he is sure Garmr/emo scum team is not unfounded. I defend Garmr by stating my town read on him and ask him to explain why Garmr/emo scum team is no longer unfounded. He responds stating that I was chainsawing Garmr. Now why do I need to wait for Garmr to respond when I want Bulbazak to explain his reads since his attack is on Garmr/Emogirl, not Garmr independently?

[Maestro]

Actually, it's pretty serious, especially for the early game. I have very good scumreads on the pair, and I plan to pursue them.

...yup now you're not making sense.
Do tell.

[emogirl123]

Day vig gambits are very common on the site, and as a result, they're fairly well known to be fake a large percentage of the time. That means that such a gambit is not hard to fake as scum. I wouldn't award any sort of towncred for that gambit, especially not when made in pregame, where there is no way a mod would actually accept the actions of a dayvig.

You misunderstand the point I was trying to make. I don't think Garmr was aware that this game was mountainous. This is likely to be because he is not scum. ISO him for proof.

[Bulbazak]

So he thought Garmr/Emo scum team might be unfounded, but now he is sure Garmr/emo scum team is not unfounded.

Yes, it's called reading and observing actions. The only thing that made me think there might be a connection between you 2 was my feeling that the pregame back and forth was scum theatre. I needed a lot more to go on to pursue it seriously, and I much preferred pressuring others. Garmr started scumming the place up, and then you started defending him and his actions against all who came. The pieces fell into place, and I pursued my read.

I defend Garmr by stating my town read on him and ask him to explain why Garmr/emo scum team is no longer unfounded. He responds stating that I was chainsawing Garmr.

You were explaining? Funny, when I look in the dictionary, I do not see "the process of attacking a person and voting them" under the definition of explaining.

Now why do I need to wait for Garmr to respond when I want Bulbazak to explain his reads since his attack is on Garmr/Emogirl, not Garmr independently?

The logical course of action would have been to ask me about my read. Instead, you attacked me right out of the gate, and furthermore, you just focused on Garmr, and not yourself or the connection between you 2. But if you feel you have to continue defending this lie since you backed yourself into a corner, go right ahead.

Actually, it's pretty serious, especially for the early game. I have very good scumreads on the pair, and I plan to pursue them.

...yup now you're not making sense.
Do tell.

I feel I've been pretty clear. I had an early inclination of possible scum theatre. I watched Garmr scum it up and wondered if I was right. I then saw Emo defend him against all his accusers. After that I voted and pursued my reads. What are you unclear on?

[emogirl123]

Bulbazak, explain your bullshit please.

I think this is asking you to explain.

[emogirl123]

My vote was for

drama

.

[Bulbazak]

You misunderstand the point I was trying to make. I don't think Garmr was aware that this game was mountainous. This is likely to be because he is not scum. ISO him for proof.

He may have just not been aware of the actual definition of mountainous. I, for example, thought mountainous games were games where town outnumbered scum by a larger amount than the typical 1:3 ratio.

P-edit: Yes, at the very bottom of the post where you vote and attack me for voting Garmr.

[emogirl123]

Why can't I attack and question in the same post? Your accusations are off base.

I'm saying that Garmr is unaware that this game has no PRs. His conversation with me is convincing enough for me to believe it and think you are abusing his wagon.

[Bulbazak]

If he had read the opening post he'd know this game has no PRs. I'm saying that what you're trying to use to clear him is something that can easily be faked as scum.

[emogirl123]

VOTE: Bulbazak.

Weren't you a little shocked when you realized that non of your scum partners were PRs?

Yeh totally shocked I was even more shocked when I unlynchable godfather in vanilla only game.

He tried to make a joke in response to my statement where scum had no PRs. At the time, I suspected that he was not aware that this game was mountainous prior to my comment because of his awkward response.

Who said it was a vanilla only game?

Mod did

*quotes mod from 1st post*

Second post was made 10 minutes later, I suspect that he had to search where the game said it was vanilla only? The fact that he didn't use the word mountainous hinted to me that he didn't know what he was signing up for.

Didn't sign up for a mountingness game signed up for any random game only and got nabbed for this game when you said all your partners are vanilla.

Later he even admits that he wasn't aware that the game is mountainous until I commented on it.

This suggests to me that he is town.

Bulbazak, explain your bullshit please.

And I explain here that I was testing him to see whether or not he was aware that there are PRs in this game. This is because of his "day vig" attempt. When he openly acknowledges afterwards that he didn't realize there were no PRs in the game until I informed him of so, and he was hiding the fact at the time to avoid looking dumb, it convinces me that he is genuine and earns my town read. I don't see him admitting that he wasn't aware there were no PRs at the time of my initial post if he was scum.