Marvel Avengers Alliance - Game over

[The Rufflig]

It's time to start!

VOTE: Yates

[The Rufflig]

Ok, 1 point for PeregrineV (who has a broken link in his sig) and 1 point for Squirrel Girl.

[The Rufflig]

You are Professor Doctor Awesome?

[The Rufflig]

It was a reference to the show called "The Awesomes" (catch it on Hulu - it's quite good), Aronis. The main character of which is Professor Doctor Jeremy "Prock"

Awesome

.

I must bow to Squirrel Girl's superior knowledge of comic book minutiae.

[The Rufflig]

VOTE: Kid A

No one likes a painting superhero.

Is that all you took away from that exchange?

[The Rufflig]

Though I am in fact town, you are not. You are pulling the same opener as last game and expecting me to townread you for it. You are also far more active early-on than the sweet-Grinny I am used to seeing.

What? Damn it! You two have had a game together since the last time I've seen you. Back to the drawing board.

[The Rufflig]

VOTE: Aronis

[The Rufflig]

We only have a week to make this wagon happen.

Why do you want a bulbafenix wagon? Could I interest you in an Aronis wagon? If one has an awesome character then one doesn't consider trading for the worst Marvel character.

[The Rufflig]

It wasn't when you made the vote and pushed for it.

[The Rufflig]

So what? Why am I supposed to switch now?

Also, I did not choose Bulbafenix at random.

Which goes back to my initial post: "Why do you want a bulbafenix wagon?". Your answer that you wanted a bulbafenix wagon because it was larger was sadly lacking as an answer.

[The Rufflig]

Sheeping is convenient. -for scum. How about I promise to vote exactly opposite on every one that you vote for except for the times that I come to the conclusion on my own that I should vote on the same person that you are voting for. And even then, it will be voting in opposition.

Wouldn't it be easier just to vote him for sheeping? How did the Umbrage analysis go?

[The Rufflig]

Unofficial Vote Count #1

Umbrage(4): Umbrage, vezokpiraka, Chandra Nalaar, PeregrineV
ZZZX(3): BulbaFenix, pappums rat, Kid A
Yates(2): Nero Cain, ZZZX
Aronis(2): The Rufflig, displaced
BulbaFenix(1): UnfriendlyNeighbors
The Rufflig(1): Aronis
Pidgey(1): beastcharizard
Kid A(1): jklash12
PeregrineV(1): Aunt Jemina
pappums rat(1): Yates
beastcharizard(1): pidgey
mozamis(1): Squirrel Girl

Not Voting(6): Josh_B, UniversalSlutBus, muttleyddmc, ThAdmiral, Snake Plissken, mozamis
Yet to Post(4): UniversalSlutBus, muttleyddmc, ThAdmiral, Snake Plissken

@Squirrel Girl: mozamis and I have played before. Actually, I've played with several of the players in this game before.

[The Rufflig]

@pidgey: Interesting. Would you say displaced is attempting to smear mozamis or mozamis' read on me?

[The Rufflig]

Also to whoever asked, i feel that going out of his way to just mentiona point anout something without really commiting to a read was what made me weary of displaced

That was me. I didn't think displaced was trying to smear anyone. My impression was that displaced merely wanted to make a post. It isn't like mozamis was the only player that displaced could have chastised for making a gut decision based on a posting style. For example, Aunt Jemina made such a decision on PeregrineV. Anyway, I would have characterized displaced's post as a nothing post - did not reveal any suspicions, did not press anyone, and did not particularly contribute to the discussion. There are several players that fall into that category currently. It is the weekend, though. Personally, I'm going to give them a couple more days and then revisit who is contributing and who is coasting.

[The Rufflig]

Does the bolded not mean anything to you? Who posts for the sake of posting?

Anyone who doesn't have enough time to devote to the game and lazy scum. Not everyone has sufficient time on the weekends to devote to the game. I'm more active on the week ends, because I have easy access to the internet then. During the week days, I do not have unrestricted internet access at work (no signal inside the large building, either). Unfortunately, that puts me in a minority. Most players are more active during the week days than the week ends.

So, I'm willing to wait until a couple week days have passed before finding players suspicious for their empty posts.

[The Rufflig]

Ruffig, why are you voting for me?

I have a pet theory. The role/character that most players dislike the most are scum ones. So hints of not being content with one's role/character makes me suspicious. You claimed to have an awesome character. So when Kid A complained about his character, he hit my list. However, so did you when you replied to him. If you had an awesome character, your answer to Kid A should have been "No, I love my character." A "Probably not." indicates that you don't actually love your character. Second, you asked who Kid A's character was. That is minor role fishing. Third, you hadn't produced any content (still haven't) to make me feel better about these minor transgressions. Therefore, I felt you were more worthy of my vote than the first person on the list of players.

So what about Kid A? Why am I not pressing him?
Another excellent question! He stated that his character name is 'Wolverine'. Such unforced disclosures early on almost always come from town. I've not run across a case where a scum did this, but it is possible so almost always. Anyway, that disclosure led to me not being interested in Kid A, today.

[The Rufflig]

This to me seems like scum posting 101. A lot of phrases that say nothing at all. You name people in your posts just for the sake of examples.

I think you missed the point of my exchanges with Pidgey. I imagine you'll figure it out if you read through it again. If not, feel free to ask.

[The Rufflig]

Ok. Are you scum?

Apparently, you didn't figure it out. That's ok, just pay attention to displaced - he caught all of the problems with Pidgey's posts that I was picking at.

VOTE: Pidgey

[The Rufflig]

Rufflin- i dont get your read on me bro umm whats exactly wrong here?

Displaced looked like a usual d1 scum trying to look like a participating member of town by kindaish calling someone out without much commitment.

Granted i did not noticed he was voting for that person before he did that post so that does kinda weakens my case huh? Ill look into other peepe later

Ok, from the top.

Displaced looks scummy with his last post since that seems like a little "throw some dirt and see if it sticks"

This is the post in question:

His early posts, particularly this one:
SNIP
all felt quite relaxed and "bantery". Doesn't seem at all nervous or forced.

Don't really think this is a good way to try to discern alignment.

In my opinion, displaced's post is in no way or form throwing dirt on someone. When I pressed pidgey on this, his explanation changed to this:

Also to whoever asked, i feel that going out of his way to just mentiona point anout something without really commiting to a read was what made me weary of displaced

That is a dramatic change in pidgey's reason to vote for displaced.
---

Why did you vote for pidgey if you were talking about displaced?

Because displaced covered these points (and more) in his posts about pidgey. pidgey's initial case against displaced is obviously false. pidgey's revised case is forced.

[The Rufflig]

This guy avoids the question I asked. And it is an incredibly simple question. Please tell me you can see how scummy he is.

You're asking

me

if I think you should lynch me? Gee, you ask tough questions. Is this test open book?

---

@the ruffling-read on me and SG noa

I liked Squirrel Girl up to the point that she started calling pidgey townie based of the same set of posts that I feel make pidgey scummy. However, I'm putting SG into the category of mistaken townie rather than skimming scum presently.

I have a similar feeling towards you, Nero. Your read on pidgey is wrong. Your assessment of SG's argument for pidgey being town is also wrong. I don't see how either of you can take a hard look at pidgey's shifting case and come up with a town reading off it. I'm a little more confident in thinking that you are town.

[The Rufflig]

displaced has posted the case. I've posted the case. Yates has argued about the case. If you don't know why we find you scummy by now then you aren't paying attention.

[The Rufflig]

Ok, that last part was a bit of a stretch. However, part of it revolves around whether pidgey was scum hunting or just faking it when he voted for displaced.

pidgey claimed that displaced was throwing dirt. This was obviously false. So what prompted pidgey to state it? When pidgey was pressed on his claim, he changed his tune. pidgey then claimed that displaced was pointing something out but not taking a stand on it (aka going through the motions). Following that pidgey stated that displaced was trying to look like a participating member of the town by

kindaish

calling someone out without much commitment. Do you see the backpedaling going on here? The only thing that pidgey has remained consistent on is that displaced is scum; the reason for this scum read keeps changing and becoming weaker.

[The Rufflig]

@pidgey:
First:
Unless you are using a strange meaning for throwing dirt - the phrase means to slander or vilify. If you feel displaced was throwing dirt then I will repeat my earlier question. "Was displaced throwing dirt on mozamis or mozamis' read?" Alternatively, could you explain how displaced performed such an action?

Second:
Making a point without committing to a read. Why can't displaced disagree with something (or someone) without finding it scummy? I found displaced's comment neutral. Why is a neutral comment scummy? Or maybe you do find that comment not neutral. What is non-neutral about it?

Third and at the risk of being a prick:

Could you tell me why you singled out displaced? I'm quite sure others have committed the same offense that you have attributed to displaced. Take this fellow for instance:

Umbrage- Im not caling you scum because at the moment i really dont have any real read on you, and no reason to call you scum. I do hwever called your read on me shit (yeah only that single read on me)

That is nearly the exact same offense that displaced committed is it not? There are more examples present from other players.


Fourth: Why does displaced's previously vote for Aronis (without comment) undermine your case on displaced?

[The Rufflig]

1. SG hasn't called Pid town.
2. Why is SG mistaken town than scum presenting wrong facts?
3. Short of claiming scum with Pid, why am I wrong?
4. His case isn't shifting

1) Partly true. She did not in fact call him town based off the posts I found scummy. She did claim a slight gut townish read on him.

2) I do not expect town to be right all the time. I look at SG's posts and I see scum hunting. She is pressing people, making some of her reads known and is active. Balancing all the factors out, I currently think she is more likely town than scum.

3) Let's set aside pidgey's case for the moment. The game started on a weekend when nothing much had happened yet. Could you look me in the eye and state that displaced's post held scummy intent? Why would he bother? Having established that displaced's post help no scummy intent pidgey's claims are called into sharp question.

4) Yes, it did. Would you like to spend more pages on this point? How about we just watch the Monty Python Argument Clinic skit instead and call it a day? The skit will be more interesting to everyone at this point.

[The Rufflig]

Oh, Rufflig was supposed to be on my scumread list as well, but then I forgot.

I finally figured out what my problem with you is. You aren't actually trying to get your scum reads lynched.

BulbaFeniz : Let's give you the benefit of the doubt that you were just trying to get a reaction to get a better read on this slot.
Umbrage: Your initial vote was unsupported by any reasons. True, you did take a couple pot shots at Umbrage later on, but you never pushed this scum read or mention what it was about Umbrage that you found scummy.
jklash: I don't recall you even making a snarky comment towards him or
Kid A: - how are you going to get people to vote for them without any reasons?
The Rufflig: No reasons here, either.

I think it is time for you to start filling in some of the blanks.

[The Rufflig]

Chandra didn't ask me for a response to anything in her post and I really don't want to start a wall war. So, I've decided not to rip Chandra's post to shreds by posting a wall (I saved it, though). If there's anything in Chandra's post that anyone wants a response to, let me know.

[The Rufflig]

Good lord. Where to begin with this mess? You obviously haven't been paying attention.

We only have a week to make this wagon happen.

Why do you want a bulbafenix wagon? Could I interest you in an Aronis wagon? If one has an awesome character then one doesn't consider trading for the worst Marvel character.

It wasn't when you made the vote and pushed for it.

^this was weird and illogical

Your stated reason for voting BulbaFenix at this point was that the BulbaFenix wagon was larger. This was untrue. So you were either mistaken or you had a different reason for voting BulbaFenix. I pressed you on it. Hey! Guess what? I was right. According to you, you were trying to get a reaction from BulbaFenix to get a better read on the slot.

@pidgey: Interesting. Would you say displaced is attempting to smear mozamis or mozamis' read on me?

At first, I thought this looked like trying to get pidgey to do your dirty work. However, you proceed to argue against pidgey in the following post. Calling it "interesting" first appears to me to be a case of cognitive dissonance and/or light trapping. I tend to think townies don't plan their posts/trajectories ahead of time.

So you didn't plan to make posts to get a reaction from BulbaFenix?

Ok. Are you scum?

Apparently, you didn't figure it out. That's ok, just pay attention to displaced - he caught all of the problems with Pidgey's posts that I was picking at.

VOTE: Pidgey

I just don't think pidgey looks scummy at all until you squint really hard trying to make it so.

I think you'd have to be blind not to see it. Keep in mind, I'm not the only one to pick up on these things. So, there is something there - or possibly something, if you are inclined to argue.

In my opinion, displaced's post is in no way or form throwing dirt on someone. When I pressed pidgey on this, his explanation changed to this:

Also to whoever asked, i feel that going out of his way to just mentiona point anout something without really commiting to a read was what made me weary of displaced

That is a dramatic change in pidgey's reason to vote for displaced.

As has been established, even if you thought pidgey meant what everyone apparently thought he did, this was a reach and a half.

Huh? That doesn't make sense. Anyway, I think we are all sick of arguing over what pidgey said. I don't need to win this point. It turns out that I can drop this point from my case and still have a damn solid case against pidgey.

Why did you vote for pidgey if you were talking about displaced?

Because displaced covered these points (and more) in his posts about pidgey. pidgey's initial case against displaced is obviously false. pidgey's revised case is forced.

Neither "obviously false" nor "forced" is an applicable adjective to the posts in question.

You find pidgey latching onto a neutral post and ascribing scummy things to it to be a natural progression? It seems forced to me. Can you come up with a rational reason why displaced would feel the need to throw dirt on mozamis (or anyone else)? With only two posts to work with, do you honestly believe that pidgey could determine scummy intent? Not a chance!

3) Let's set aside pidgey's case for the moment. The game started on a weekend when nothing much had happened yet. Could you look me in the eye and state that displaced's post held scummy intent? Why would he bother? Having established that displaced's post help no scummy intent pidgey's claims are called into sharp question.

This is not logic, nor does it resemble logic, and I don't like how you're putting words in Nero's mouth either.

So yeah.

There is a reason that prosecutors routinely bring up motive in a murder case to establish guilt. It is self evident that I am asking for displaced's motive. Here is the context: it is early day 1 without much to comment on. What is displaced's motive? If displaced doesn't have a motive (and no one has been able to provide one), then it is likely that displaced's post was not, in fact, the sinister thing that pidgey made it out to be. That would make pidgey's accusation false. False accusations are not to be taken lightly and reflect back upon the accuser. Very clear and very logical train of thought.

I fail to see how I've put words in Nero's mouth.

[The Rufflig]

I'd like to take this moment to note your decision to start out by discrediting me as "not paying attention" and then to do exactly nothing in the rest of the post to demonstrate that I was not paying attention. You're just trying to sound pretty.

If you had been paying attention, I wouldn't have to keep correcting all your errors that you keep posting. As expected, the wall only brought contradictions from you without any arguments or proof.

I never stated that I voted for Bulbafenix because his wagon was larger. You're extrapolating from what I did say to something that isn't true.

I'm sorry. I asked you point blank why you were voting for BulbaFenix and that

was

your reply. Would quoting it directly for you again refresh your memory or are you going to continue to deny your own posts?

Completely different. I didn't do any misleading.

We weren't talking about misleading. However, your stated reason for voting BulbaFenix was because his wagon was larger. It turns out that wasn't the case. So misleading also applies here.

(Hint: It's not solid)

Then come up with an argument to dispute it instead of just contradicting everything I say. That should be an easy bar to reach if the case isn't solid.

First of all, it's only neutral by your say-so.

Second of all, YOU don't seem to have been paying attention, because we literally just cleared up the confusion about "throwing dirt" last page.

First, are you paying attention to anyone? Even pidgey now states that the post was neutral -- that is the damn basis of his case against displaced -- that displaced did

not

take a side with his post.

Second, We did not clear up the mess of pidgey's throwing dirt. We just got tired of arguing about it. Excuse me - not arguing, contradicting. The clearing up is utter nonsense.

You assume that the response to your question is "no, you couldn't look me in the eye and state that displaced's post held scummy intent".

That would be a very easy statement to disprove, if it was false. Simply state a reasonable scummy motive behind the post. Go ahead. I'm listening.

[The Rufflig]

Ruff whats your solid case against me if youdrop that displaced part?

*sigh* I've already made the case a couple times now and brought all my points to bear. At this point, everyone knows where I stand with you and why. They either agree or disagree. Further debate on this subject is futile currently. I'm not responding further on this subject unless you have new points to bring up (besides I've already got one wall war going - I'd rather not have to engage in a second one simultaneously, thank you).

[The Rufflig]

Let's try to cut these walls down in size. This is the most important part, as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, I have no interest in disproving that statement or of telling you I think that scummy intent exists. What I think about it is entirely irrelevant to the fact that you were putting those words in someone's mouth.

It is not irrelevant. What you think is definitely important. Your case on me depends on my case on pidgey. My case on pidgey depends on pidgey's case on displaced. You've been defending pidgey for some time now. It isn't a stretch to state that you must have swallowed pidgey's case on displaced and therefore think I'm off-base for going after pidgey. If you don't believe in pidgey's case, then you have no case on me.

I would like to hear your thoughts on pidgey's case and why you believe it.

[The Rufflig]

As I stated, pidgey, I've already made all my points. You've already responded to all of them. I am not going to continue to repeat things over and over for no reason. If it makes you feel better, you can keep the dropped part in. I didn't concede it, I just grew tired of all the debate about it (how many pages now?). I see nothing more to be gained by going over the same things again and again and again and again.

[The Rufflig]

ZZZX was saying they were voting for info and not because they thought the person was scum. At least that is what I got from their explanation. I didn't agree with this so I was saying someone doesn't vote a town read for info they only should vote scum reads/null. That is what I found odd about what they did. The fact that didn't say they had a scum read but rather the vote was purely for info.

@beast: I'm confused by this post. ZZZX did state that he was voting Yates for info. I don't recall ZZZX ever stating that he had a town read on Yates. It appeared that ZZZX did not have any sort of read on Yates. So, ZZZX was voting for a null read. Did I miss something?

[The Rufflig]

Anyone who isn't voting ruffing or zzzx should reread these two guys.

@vezok: What don't you like about ZZZX?

@UniversalSlutBus: I get that there are two of you. Still, your play around Umbrage is confusing. Let me show you something. These are both jkm posts:

Umbrage: Self voting at that point in the game, then still not having changed it seems noncommittal. Fairly astute observation on the Yates/Nero probably being town v town though, so more of a town read for me.

Umbrage, on the other hand, seems eager to call a bunch of stuff town without really justifying why. Sees Yates getting frustrated and needing a friend, becomes that friend...

I think Alex changed our vote, I'm changing it back.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Umbrage

The very thing that jkm found townie in the first quote turned into a scummy thing in the second. What happened in between?

[The Rufflig]

And now you're posting completely unrelated things to try to distract from the fact that this post is COMPLETELY RIGHT.

Nope. How many other players do you hear in this discussion? No one else cares.

So, I'm going to find your scum buddies. I can't do that while I'm forced to make wall long responses to you and pidgey. Both of you seem to feel that your case is lacking and keep trying to get me to engage solely on your own terms. Nope, not going to do it. I don't need anything else from either of you. I've made my cases. I've pushed them as far as I can. It doesn't appear that I'm going to get either of you lynched, so I'm moving on to find your scum buddies. I hope to have better luck with them.

I am going to keep my eye on both of you. I'm sure you two will screw up again. I'll be waiting.

[The Rufflig]

Looks like there is some interest after all. Ok, one more time for fries (don't ask - extremely obscure reference).

---
Re: pidgey:

I don't like pidgey's case. I'll entertain the possibility that he did misspeak as enough players seem to think it is possible. I still don't like his case.

Taking pidgey's case at face value, here are the things I don't like about it.

1) I saw no scummy intent in displaced's post. I can not come up with a reason why any scum would try a dirty trick in the rvs portion of the game.
2) I do not believe that pidgey can determine scummy intent under such circumstances.
3) pidgey's reason was so close to "displaced is lurking - pretending to be active while not taking stances or making solid points" that I would have expected pidgey to wait until such behavior became more apparent and much harder to refute.
4) The reason to vote displaced seemed forced. Early on that could be excused especially if one is pressing/voting to get a better read on another player. That wasn't the feeling that I got from pidgey.
5) It seems to me that pidgey just made up the reason to vote displaced to make it look like he was actually scum hunting.

---

Ending the conversations:

I couldn't gather up enough support for pidgey's lynch. So, I decided to quit giving pidgey a reason not to look at other players. I figured if I was right about pidgey then he would likely stop scum hunting or start making more questionable cases and reads for me to explore. None of that would happen as long as I was in a heated debate with him. The debates were also taking away from my analysis of the thread. I've only skimmed the Yates/SG debate and I want to look closer at that.

I had a similar motive in mind for Chandra. I didn't have enough ammo. So, I was going to wait and find more. If I'm being honest with myself, there was a bigger reason for ending the debate with chandra. Chandra's posts towards me were deliberately inflammatory. I found myself responding in kind which is not a good thing. I don't enjoy flame wars, but I have a big enough ego that I don't like taking the abuse lying down even more. Bottom line: it was sucking the fun out of the game for me.

[The Rufflig]

How is refuting your points and asking you to actually back up your assertions being "deliberately inflammatory"?

Well, that would have been nice, but she wasn't doing that. Do you mind if I don't take on all the walls as proof? This is the response I got when I was trying to cut out the crap that was being thrown at me and just focus on what I thought was important.

I don't believe pidgey's case.

1)

If you'd been listening to me, you might have figured out that I don't think that's relevant, and

2)

I don't even think HE would call it a case, it was two fucking posts.

3)

You are trying to reduce this argument into something that it isn't so that you can win it even though you don't have a leg to stand on, and I refuse to participate in it.

4)

This point has nothing to do with anything.

5)

Anyone who actually cares enough to read our entire wallfest as one unit will see that you've tried the entire time to replace my argument with one of your own that you can actually win. You are scum.

1) I had been listening and responding. I did not respond to topics that I had already covered or minimized responding to well-covered topics by others. The responses I got back from Chandra are typical of what is shown here. Insults, non-responses and out right saying 'No, it isn't.' to anything I state.
2) pidgey did call it a case. post #231. Even if he hadn't, Chandra certainly knew what I was talking about. The whole tone in her non-response thus far has been insulting.
3) More mud slinging and refusal to answer.
4) And again
5) Once more twisting things.

I gave up after this. Chandra obviously didn't want to respond to me in anything but a degrading manner. Since I wasn't getting any answers (or refutes) - just more word twisting and insults from her - I stopped trying.

There is no possible way that Chandra could misinterpret every statement that I made throughout the walls. This was deliberate behavior.

[The Rufflig]

Ah what the hell. I'll do another one - the one that I mostly didn't respond to. Chandra can be happy that she is getting some more answers. Be back in a bit.

[The Rufflig]

I'd like to take this moment to note your decision to start out by discrediting me as "not paying attention" and then to do exactly nothing in the rest of the post to demonstrate that I was not paying attention. You're just trying to sound pretty.

If you had been paying attention, I wouldn't have to keep correcting all your errors that you keep posting. As expected, the wall only brought contradictions from you without any arguments or proof.

1)

You did not correct any errors in the post in question.

2)

You probably suspect no one will read closely enough to realize that this point is flagrantly made up.

3)

Contradictions: lol, show me them.

4)

Arguments: I'm pretty sure my post was comprised entirely of arguments.

5)

Proof: Is what scum demand when they are suspected on grounds they don't think are the correct ones, and is not a real thing that exists in mafia outside of power roles.

1) Straight up contradiction.
2) Accusation of making things up.
3) I'd rather not have to quote the whole previous wall.
4) Straight up contradiction.
5) Mud slinging. Proof also consists of quoting posts to prove that you aren't making things up or to prove that someone is making stuff up. Looks like I'm going to have to quote a lot of it of the previous post.

I never stated that I voted for Bulbafenix because his wagon was larger. You're extrapolating from what I did say to something that isn't true.

I asked why she wanted a bulbafenix wagon. Her response was that her wagon was bigger. She is correct in the sense that she didn't use the word 'voting', but this is hair-splitting. The reason someone wants a wagon and the reason they are voting someone are the same. Straight up contradiction and mud slinging (i.e. that I was making stuff up. I did use the word voting when referring to these posts at some point though.

The second half of my post asked if I could interest her in a Aronis wagon then gave a weak reason for an Aronis wagon. I think the context is clear that I was asking Chandra to explain her push behind BulbaFenix.

Time to move on to her non-contradiction and "argument" answers

Completely different. I didn't do any misleading.

I don't believe there is anything.

(Hint: It's not solid)

First of all, it's only neutral by your say-so.

Second of all, YOU don't seem to have been paying attention, because we literally just cleared up the confusion about "throwing dirt" last page.

Oh, hey. ^ The second part actually contains an argument.

You assume that the response to your question is "no, you couldn't look me in the eye and state that displaced's post held scummy intent".

You seem awfully sure that displaced has no scummy intent. Is it because you know he's town?

Should I point out that Chandra herself has since stated that she doesn't believe in pidgey's argument, either? This was a point that Chandra actually agrees with. She went out of her way to try and use this against me.

So that proves the contradictions and arguments part of my assertion. All that for one paragraph. Back to the post I'm actually responding to.

Go ahead, quote it, and I'll tell you how that's not what I said. I'm waiting.

I think I've covered this sufficiently in this post already. Eh, she could have just responded to the topic instead of just saying "No, it isn't". Next!

No, it was not. You asked me if I was interested in voting Aronis, and I told you the Bulba wagon was larger. I did not tell you that was why I was voting on it.

"No, it isn't". *sigh* My wagon is bigger. This was the reason she gave for wanting the BulbaFenix wagon and/or not wanting the Aronis wagon depending on how you read my initial post. It amounts to the same thing. This is more hair-splitting so she can justify denying everything.

I can't, because I have no idea what your case is without that point.

A denial, but probably a true statement. A rarity.

First: That's nice.
Second: Oh my fuck. He used the wrong fucking expression by accident. Holy shit. It's not hard to process this.

It isn't that I didn't process it - I simply didn't believe it. Hence why I stated that the matter wasn't cleared up. There was a lengthy argument over this point. There was no reason to assume that everyone agreed with her side of it.

Actually, I have no interest in disproving that statement or of telling you I think that scummy intent exists. What I think about it is entirely irrelevant to the fact that you were putting those words in someone's mouth.

She is claiming my posting style is scummy. To the charge of putting words in someone's mouth I simply state 'rhetorical questions'. These questions formed an argument. Rather than tackle the argument, she tackles me.


So there you go.

[The Rufflig]

It would be a defense of Pidgey, not Ruffling - you saying Ruffling has no value in what he's saying and attacking him as useless during a wagon build on him is support from the sideline.

I disagree. Yates articulated his stance on the matter clearly and without prejudice. I do not feel Yates was particularly trying to attack me or to defend pidgey. My only real response to Yates is that I felt and still feel that pidgey came on too hard on displaced over what was almost certainly nothing. The attack on pidgey seems forced and opportunistic.
As to the unofficial vote count - I felt we were leaving rvs. I wanted a vc at that point. As the mod hadn't given us any yet, I decided to do it myself rather than ask the mod. I rather like looking at the way votes flow and change. It sometimes gives me insights.

I also feel the day kill was by scum - probably a sk. The day kill flavor was stabbed in the back. Jason's kill method is generally significant.

[The Rufflig]

*attack on

displaced

seems

[The Rufflig]

Again, when did i went too hard? You are conveniently twisting words yet again. I'd paste my exact response again, but i used sentences that would, at worst, describe a weakish scum read of mine at the time. Sure, that's not a fledged case, so would you rather i keep RVS voting?
Also, my attack being forced and oportunistic is laughable IM FUCKING MAD WHY CANT YOU GUYS SEE THIS GUY IS FUCKING OBVIOUS SCUM. Look, he first said that I CONFUSED MY REASONS AND THAT I WAS MAKING SHIT UP. When that is clarified, he is now saying it was FORCED. AND OPPORTUNISTIC. This is AN ENTIRE NEW THING OF WHAT HE HAS CALLED ME SCUM FOR BEFORE, YET CASUALLY MENTIONS IT. Im really

Im gonna point this again, the fact is that it has been proven, by multiple people (Yates, Chandra, Bulba) that you just said whatever the fuck you invented regarding me and your case. And that you've dropped your argument cause it had no footing without never really clearing all the questions me and others asked.
This guy is scum guys seriously.

I HAVE NOT TWISTED ONE DAMN WORD!!

I said your case on displaced shifted. The consensus of many of the players seems to be that you used the wrong words by accident. Words that had a different meaning from your original words. You know what? It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong on that point! Either way, you had no case on displaced! So, yes, I dropped the point, because it didn't F***ING matter! I don't recall one person stating that they thought your case on displaced was justified. However, somehow I'm the bad guy for calling you out on your crappy case.

Now do you want to ask those pertinent questions or do you just want to rant and rave and make up more crap?

[The Rufflig]

Her belief in pidgey's argument is separate from her questioning of you. She's inquiring into your beliefs surrounding Pidgey's argument. Her beliefs are not on trial.

Wrong!

If chandra believes pidgey made a baseless case she should vote for pidgey or at least press pidgey on the point. She should not vote for me for calling pidgey on his baseless case.

However, that isn't what happened. I saw a case that didn't ring true and I pressed pidgey on it. Chandra saw a case that didn't ring true and she ignored it in favor of the person questioning pidgey. I can come up with a few reasons why chandra might do such a thing if she is scum. Can you come up with any reasons why chandra would do this if she was town?


Intent. Why does no one look for intent anymore?

[The Rufflig]

Wait you arent twisting words now?

Correct.

YOU JUST FUCKING SAID 1 PAGE AGO I WAS OPORTUNISTIC, MY ATTACK WAS FORCED, AND THAT I WENT "TOO HARD"?

Correct.

And all of this when you said you had a CASE on me even when you dropped all the shit about the first 2 posts?

Correct.

Yes you are being fuking manipulative.

Huh? This does not make sense. Which part confuses you?

[The Rufflig]

Which part confuses me? Oh I dunno, maybe when You said you had a full fledged case even if you "took away" the first 2 posts, but which of the words that you just accused me off still hold if you take that away?

All of them.

Forced: Your cased is base on displaced making a neutral comment when there is little of substance to talk about. We were still in the weekend start and there were more than a few players who had not checked in yet. You (among others) have also made neutral comments without taking a stand on them. However, only displaced seems scummy but not anyone else. Why? You know that town will make the same sort of comments. This case boiled down to 'displaced is scummy because I think he is'.

Too strong:

Displaced looked like a usual d1 scum trying to look like a participating member of town by kindaish calling someone out without much commitment.

I noted your comments fairly closely. None of them seem to indicate a "weakish scum read". Perhaps you can show me where you indicated this was a weak read? I've not been able to find it.

Opportunistic: You found something that you thought you could vote without bringing too much attention on yourself and you took it. I imagine you thought you were going to be able to avoid the hot topics of day 1 in this manner while appearing to scum hunt.


Case: I've always had a case on you. Just look at my first post questioning you about displaced. Right there was the heart of my case - that I knew you had no case on displaced. That point took a backseat for a little while as the meaning and intent of your posts was debated, but it never left. My case would be stronger with 'shifting' and 'backpedaling', but it remains strong without them.

In spite of the detours I've been forced to endure, my case has not been shaken by anything you or anyone else has said. It is also the most sidestepped topic in this whole mess. Nevertheless, eventually the detours lead back to the main road.

[The Rufflig]

@UniversalSlutBus: The inactivity does bother me (missed almost a full week). I've liked that you have town reads. I've also liked that you are poking at players again. You had early scum reads on: ZZZX, beastcharizard and Umbrage. However, these seem to have fallen by the wayside and I'm not sure if you find them suspicious anymore. In fact, I find myself unsure of who you find scummy currently (aside from mozamis). Could you update your scum list for me?

---

Cabdhead is gonna datamine this and catch up officially tomorrow, so hold me to it.

Tic, toc. Tic, toc.

---

@Chandra: I grade it a C. Your first point shows that you do not understand what beast is saying (bc misunderstood you as well). The second points are a little better - though I don't agree with all of them. The third points ... the green and blue is fine - not so much for the rest. The fourth point is an evasion. You also forgot to vote.

[The Rufflig]

Actually, I'm just going to go ahead and be a bit more verbose.

#582 Chandra: I don't think that post is particularly alignment indicative
#586 bc: How do you catch scum then if it isn't based on how they post?
#587 Umbrage: "I don't think this post is very useful" = "I DON'T CATCH SCUM BASED ON POSTING" APPARENTLY

Umbrage got it wrong. bc does care about postings (he just misinterpreted what Chandra said):

#230 bc: Can you explain how that post is town for me because I really don't see it.

#767 Chandra: I claim that one post is not alignment indicative
#775 bc: You imply that how one posts in general doesn't effect your scum read on them.

No, bc, Chandra claimed the original post by Yates did not invoke any feelings of towniness or scuminess in her.

As far as I can tell, Chandra parroted Umbrage's case without actually looking into it.

[The Rufflig]

Yes, I've cut the posts down considerably. I'm trying to zero in on specific points. I do not believe that I've altered the meaning of the posts in any significant way. Links to original posts provided for verification.

#592 Chandra: As much for 590 as the original problem. Who responds to "this point is scummy and makes no sense" with "wah but I'm town and you should look at this completely unrelated thing!!!" ?
#650 bc: how I am obvious scum? Chandra I think you are just sheeping Umbrage. clarification would be fantastic
#654 bc: Chandra, are you going to answer the question or not? Also quoting posts would help too.
#662 Chandra: @BC: I'll get to you later.
#741 bc: Chandra completely avoided my question on why they think I am scum.
#767 Chandra: And now I supposedly need to search for some BS reason, even though according to you a few posts ago I was supposedly sheeping Umbrage

In post #650, bc asked Chandra why he was scum. Yes, he accused her of sheeping, but that really wasn't the point. Chandra replied in #662 that she would get back to him. Her reply indicated that she had more to say on the subject. She did not follow through with her answer.

This is what I don't like about #767. Chandra is trying to tie "bc claims I was sheeping Umbrage's vote" (#650) to "bc changed his mind about me sheeping and wants me to explain my vote" (#741). Even if I interpret bc's #650 as a charge of sheeping instead of asking for clarification, Chandra's attack on bc doesn't hold up. Chandra's post #662 would cause bc's change in stance. She implies that bc is being inconsistent in his attack on her (#767), because of this change in stance. This twisting of things seems typical of her and I still don't like it.

VOTE: Chandra

[The Rufflig]

Here's my problem with those posts, Rufflig. Your analysis shows that you have a clear understanding that this is a misunderstanding between Chandra and Beast, yet you take a complete 180 at the end and use it to frame an attack on Chandra. Essentially you're WKing Beast so that you can attack one of your most vocal attackers.

I do not claim to be objective towards Chandra. Given how much Chandra and I have yelled at each other, I do not expect anyone to take me at my word on matters pertaining to her.

Quick question? What did you think of the interaction between Umbrage and Chandra (if anything)?

[The Rufflig]

Quick question? What did you think of the interaction between Umbrage and Chandra (if anything)?

I haven't seen anything that sticks out to me, and I don't know why you're asking. I don't think Chandra was sheeping Umbrage, if that was what you were getting at.

No, not exactly. To me, it looked like Chandra was buddying up to Umbrage.

---

@Umbrage: I see you are still pushing BC. Do you have anything else to say on BC? I'm not sold on the points brought up against him thus far.

[The Rufflig]

@Aunt Jemina & ZZZX: Both of you are voting for Josh_B. I would like your opinions on something. Josh_B posts #474, #479, #483, #485, #489, #502, #506, #509, & #511. Specifically, his not understanding about fake claims on this site. If you feel that Josh_B's posts ring true, would you not think that Josh_B did

not

receive such a role pm?

@Chandra: Thank you for your comments. You'll understand if I don't respond to them and just run runaway.

[The Rufflig]

@Umbrage:

also why is beastcharizard not lynched yet?

@Umbrage: I see you are still pushing BC. Do you have anything else to say on BC? I'm not sold on the points brought up against him thus far.

Also, most of my thoughts on your initial case on beastcharizard are mentioned in Post 781.

---

@Aunt Jemina:

Regardless of Joshy's alignment

Have you changed your mind on Josh_B? If not, I left you a question in Post 841. I'm not looking for detailed proof or anything. Just your thoughts.

---

Welcome, Malakittens.

[The Rufflig]

@ZZZX: I don't need a wall or a post by post sort of reply. Just your thoughts on it as a whole. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was asking for a lot more.

[The Rufflig]

This song is sent to Josh, Idk how he is town read by everyone... lol

Heh, not everyone. If my unofficial vote count is correct, Josh_B is tied for the largest wagon with UnfriendlyNeighbors, Yates and myself.

VOTE: UnfriendlyNeighbors

Oops, make that a three way tie for second place; I don't like any of the second place wagons. Everyone else is either not voting or on a vanity wagon at this point.

@Josh_B:

Psst. Josh, your case on ZZZX depends on UnfriendlyNeighbors flipping scum. Until you prove UnfriendlyNeighbors is scum, you don't have a strong case against ZZZX. Luckily, there is already wagon support for you know who ...

[The Rufflig]

Josh_B 2 - UnfriendlyNeighbors,Viomi
Josh B 1 - ZZZX,

@MOD:

*AHEM*

Mod - fixed, I feel like I have the hangover from hell, yet I have not had a drink at all :/

[The Rufflig]

@rufflig - I'm pretty sure you have it backwards. the case on ZZZX is independant from UnfriendlyNeighbors. But the obviousness of ZZZX shot through the roof after the wagon on UFN went up. UFN doesn't really have to be first, we can take out the goon, and be just as close to our wincon as we were before + I still have my eye on you Rufflig.

May I suggest you make the case again, then? You have 5 days and 1 hour to make your case and press it to get your preferred lynch. As of now, no one else is voting for ZZZX. So, you aren't getting your point across clearly.

---

@Malakittens:

I see you are voting for Kid A. Not a bad choice. I'm hosting your 'welcome to the game' party at UnfriendlyNeighborhood's place. Actually, we're crashing the place and raiding their liquor cabinet. Hope you can make it. R.S.V.P. by voting UnfriendlyNeighbor.

[The Rufflig]

What the fuck is this? There's literally zero mention of us in your ISO if I recall correctly, and you pull this bullshit out?

This was me giving up on the dying Chandra wagon. I thought it was late enough in the day to start consolidating wagons. I chose to vote for the wagon that was least objectionable to me. I wasn't going to vote for myself. I rather think Josh is town so he was out. I am leaning town on Yates so he was also out. That left you as the best of a bad set of wagons to vote for. If you wish, you can also add in self-preservation as a reason.

---

Yeah but I'm normally upfront about it - like "I'd rather vote someone else but I gotta live" etc. It seems like rufflig wanted to sneak on the wagon. Does that sound stupid or do I have a point there?

I dunno. I did ask two other players (in separate posts) to join the wagon. I wouldn't consider that sneaking; I would consider that pushing.

---

I kinda like what Unfriendly had to say. I just wish it hadn't taken pushing a wagon on them to get them to say something. I guess I can wait and see if they'll relapse. So, I'm going to go off the board with my vote.

VOTE: Viomi

[The Rufflig]

Btw, does anyone know who pidgey thinks is scum besides me? I don't recall pidgey doing anything since we stopped the wall war. I'm not sure what to make of pidgey's change of heart on UnfriendlyNeighbors.

[The Rufflig]

Consider this a call back, pidgey. I'm sure I stated that I would be watching you and what I would be looking for from you while I left you alone.

Unfriendly looks townish, even if a little too safe at times, wish he'd gave more stand out points.

I dont really have a gut read on unfriendly but i dont mind voting him later on

This is your change in stance on UN that I don't understand, pidgey. Anything you want to say about it?

[The Rufflig]

What terrible wagons.

VOTE: Kid A

[The Rufflig]

I would prefer a Rufflig lynch over Yates, primarily since that slot is getting replaced. Pushes against such slots unnerve me, since there's no one there to defend against any allegations. It would be an easy lynch for scum to push at this point.

Hey, cool! I'll go tell the mod I'm replacing out. Want to know something? It won't change a damn thing. No one is making any allegations against either of us and haven't for quite some time. The town and scum are both being lazy. They are both comfortable where the votes are heading. Me? I don't like the leading wagons.

VOTE: Chandra

[The Rufflig]

No one is making any allegations against either of us

Or right, you had a problem with 1 post that I made back around 350??? Your problem with Yates was that he used the wrong name in one post. YaY! Strong cases to refute!!! In the case of Yates, you were town reading him up until that point.

At least you knew we were trying to find scum. You can't say that about all of the contribute nothings in this game.

Seriously! Why isn't this dead yet?

Because I've been contributing to the game and scum hunting. Something you can't say about a lot of the players on the top wagons. I get accused of "sneaking" onto wagons that I push. Ha! Then I get suspicions thrown my way when I drop the same wagon because it doesn't seem so likely to be scum any more. Take a look at the players voting the top two wagons. How many of them have contributed anything to

either

any wagon besides a simple vote and that they are oh all so sorry to have to place on someone due to deadline crunch. Damn few. I bet they won't be looked at on day 2 either. So, hey! Have fun lynching the townies and helping scum to victory!

So, Bulba, do me a favor. Take off the blinders after I've been lynched and give pidgey and Chandra another look see. You'll find out that I was spot on about them.

[The Rufflig]

Though explain to me why sidelining your vote instead of voting Yates to save yourself?

Consider a vig with a shot. I use my vote the same way. I apply it towards those I think may be scum and never towards those I feel are town. Unlike a vig, I need the cooperation of the town, so I may have to settle for a 2nd or third choice of those I feel may be scum, but I never use it against someone I think is town. Like a vig, I am ultimately responsible for my choices.

My

choices. No other player (town or scum) gets to dictate what I do with my vote.

My only choice is to vote Yates or be seen as favoring a no lynch? Fine, I think a no lynch would be better. Better still, let's vote for someone who is actually scummy and has a decent chance of flipping scum. Save myself? Why? So I can be ignored and used as lynch bait tomorrow? No thanks.

[The Rufflig]

(Source: deviantART. Image by: MeiCailya)

[The Rufflig]

Took you long enough
*applauds Aunt Jemina* Someday I hope to become half as good at playing scum.

I said it in the the Marvel qt and the dead qt, but I'll repeat it here. I was very amused at the attempts to find my scum buddies off my read and interactions. I played most of day 1 knowing that I was scum, but not knowing who my scum buddies were - I hadn't looked. Any interactions leading to one of my scum buddies was pure coincidence.