NY 170: Georgetown II (Game Over)

[Maestro]

NOPE

[Huntress]

Vote Count 1.3

emogirl123 (4) - Maestro, Nobody Special, Bulbazak, Garmr
Garmr (2) - OhGodMyLife, Aegor
Aegor (2) - Brian Skies, Acidic_TACO
Acidic_TACO (1) - emeraldemon
emeraldemon (1) - Tebow
Maenara (1) - Sotty7
Brian Skies (1) - Chevre
Nobody Special (1) - WBOCampfire1104
Tebow (1) - The Goodfather
Bulbazak (1) - emogirl123

Not voting (4) - Albert B. Rampage, kabooooom, Maenara, Slandaar


With nineteen players alive, it takes ten votes to lynch.

Deadline for Day One is Tuesday, 4th February 20.00 GMT, (in (expired on 2014-02-04 20:00:00)).

[Maestro]

going to bed now, 4 AM ugh

[Aegor]

You did agree with emo at...She was the only one voting me and your vote came on with no reason. Which means you were sheeping a wagon and agreeing with emo

OMG unbelievable. Voting for the same person is not the same thing as conscious agreement. Did I mention emo's reasoning at all? Was there any indication whatsoever that my vote was in any way connected with hers? I did not even know whom she was voting.

By your bogus reasoning, anyone who happens to RVS someone who has previously been voted is "sheeping a wagon."

You never mentioned this before bulba started scum reading emo why If you really wanted emo gone wouldn't of you voiced it earlier when you were disagreeing.

The tone of my posts speaks for itself. Unless you are suggesting that I engage in liberal FoSes, we are done here.

The ones revolving around not voting you in post 129 question 1 and 3 this can be answered by me fusing you and acidic together in my mind.

LINK

to them. I still have no idea what you are talking about.

[Garmr]

You did agree with emo at...She was the only one voting me and your vote came on with no reason. Which means you were sheeping a wagon and agreeing with emo

OMG unbelievable. Voting for the same person is not the same thing as conscious agreement. Did I mention emo's reasoning at all? Was there any indication whatsoever that my vote was in any way connected with hers? I did not even know whom she was voting.

By your bogus reasoning, anyone who happens to RVS someone who has previously been voted is "sheeping a wagon."

You never mentioned this before bulba started scum reading emo why If you really wanted emo gone wouldn't of you voiced it earlier when you were disagreeing.

The tone of my posts speaks for itself. Unless you are suggesting that I engage in liberal FoSes, we are done here.

The ones revolving around not voting you in post 129 question 1 and 3 this can be answered by me fusing you and acidic together in my mind.

LINK

to them. I still have no idea what you are talking about.

Next time go back and look at your own post yourself.

quote="In post 129, Aegor"]Are you serious, Garmr? Your posts 27 and 55 bothered me (purely emotional reaction).

This a scummy post as a no lynch is a bad idea and you never point out reasoning why I you think I am scummy. This is opportunistic,omgussy and a nonsensical this where people should vote.

I never advocated for a NL. It is bad. And if people agree, then there is no reason to bother speculating about the number of scum groups, which is exactly what I said. My vote was not opportunistic (what opportunity), not OMGUSy (you were not voting me), and not nonsensical (what made it nonsense?).

The main point was he was using that to sneak a opportunistic vote under with out explaining himself. What do you think of his voting so far?

We are on page 6. This is a large game. What detailed explanation were you expecting?


[

quote]So everyone join the Aegor wagon or if you think I'm scum vote me let get things moving.[/quote]

You are not even ON my wagon. After all that, you are not even voting me?

I am happier than ever with my vote.[/quote]
here see the questions now?

[Aegor]

Nope.

[Garmr]

urls screwed up. I thought the bolded part were questions directed at me.

[Brian Skies]

Will actually read posts sometime this weekend.

Meanwhile, don't mind me slipping my vote onto the largest wagon.

VOTE: Emogirl

[Tebow]

Unvote, Vote: Bulbazak

Emogirl's play can be very concisely summed up as 'Garmr is dumbass town.' Bulbazak's harping on the use of the phrase 'actual case' to derive the idea that emogirl has admitted she wants to vote town is just craplogic in extremis. Maybe he's just bad enough to think that two players derping around in pre-game is an actual indication of a scum link, but the alternative hypothesis, which is more charitable about his ability and less about his motives, seems totally plausible.

[Slandaar]

VOTE: Goodfather

[Garmr]

How I feel this game.

[emogirl123]

maestro yours is clearly bigger than mine. vote bulbazak please, or else i'm forced to scum read you for shrinkage.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Vote: emogirl

[emogirl123]

[Maestro]

maestro yours is clearly bigger than mine. vote bulbazak please, or else i'm forced to scum read you for shrinkage.

...wtf

[Maestro]

Are you like, trying to ignore everything and just lobotomize yourself?
You're literally ignoring the inconsistencies and focusing hard on Bulba and derping

[emogirl123]

Incase it was too subtle, I clearly can't summon votes from the Netherworld of Townbloc, so I pale in comparison to you. Now that we established what you wanted to establish, care to vote bulbazak? Hint: He's scum.

p.edit: How am I ignoring everything. Seems to me like you are the one ignoring everything.

[Maestro]

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.

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

I don't mind your exchange with Bulbazak, but this is pretty much all you've said about what I've posted so ???
Also I think you are very confused as to what I was trying to do today, but do go on ignoring m

[emogirl123]

How am I ignoring everything. Seems to me like you are the one ignoring everything.

You made an emotional judgement that you dislike my personality and as a result of this, went on a tangent of how I should have waited for Garmr to post before addressing Bulbazak directly. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely found me annoying and that was to knock me off of my high horse. Now reread the game without that bias and give your thoughts on Bulbazak.

[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.

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?

also just saw this - the progression from "lol is this scumtheatre?" THEN to "dual scumreads after a possible chainsaw" doesn't really make sense to me, but I might not be understanding correctly

P-Edit: ...I made a personal judgement of you???

[emogirl123]

Seems to me like it. You were biased when saying that Bulbazak was not serious about his posts when it was clear to me that he was serious. You tell me that since I ignored Garmr's point of view, apparently I am guilty of some kind of tunnel vision in some meta where you watched with your skin crawling.

I go on explaining to you that Bulbazak made an attack on both Garmr and I. So if I relied solely on Garmr's defence when he has shown to be flaily, this risks the momentum of getting both Garmr and I mislynched. I just didn't word it very nicely and this most likely caused you to tunnel me for being arrogant.

[Maestro]

shhh, quiet you - not talking to you
(also stop claiming VT, it's annoying)

oh you mean this...

don't take me so seriously, I was just being a bitch and ordering you around

now engage with me (for lolz and because you might as well if you're going to ignore your wagon)
why is Bulba Scum again? (I don't care if you've said it before, I want it plain and simple

and so I can point and laugh

)

P-Edit: not tunneling on you at all, IMO, but ok, calm down now <3

I know Bulba from multiple games and outside of games so I thought I could read his personal attitude better than I obviously can, and FTR I don't think it's realistic to say that either of you would be snowball-lynched off of an accusation before page 10. And EVEN THEN, odds are we're smart enough as a Town to NOT mislynch twice in a row for the same reasons in the same situation.

[emogirl123]

Bulba the fuck are you on about

I want you to explain. We established that Bulbazak was serious about his accusations. You said earlier that he wasn't serious. In this post was you trying to see if he was serious or not. Now that we established that he is serious, why are you not giving reads and placing the responsibility on my shoulders. I voted for him because his accusation of Garmr and I was serious.

[Maestro]

I said earlier I didn't think he was, that would be the only reason I would then make the post you just quoted
I'm not giving reads because I don't have to, and I'm placing no "responsibility" on your shoulders other than to engage with me if you don't want me to continue pushing your wagon

[Maestro]

I'm not giving reads because I don't have to

and also because that helps Scum realize who they could push and also because it's a game of 7 or 8 people right now