Marvel Avengers Alliance - Game over

[Josh_B]

You got into a flame war with Yates and made the important stuff in the DP nearly unreadable, and at the bear minimum really, really hard to look up.

You shouldn't get into flame wars, or continue the flame war with Yates. (I don't care if he did call it silly). There is more in the DP than his opinion of your opinion about whether or not he was or wasn't scum hunting.

I don't think I made anything unreadable, and if I did you can just skip it. It's like you are skipping it, because he never called it silly and I never said he did, and I just made a post clarifying this fact that you decided to take time out of your day to suggest was poor play on my part while clearly not reading it - I guess because I make things unreadbale.

I also don't think I have failed to comment about other issues, but if you think there's an issue that needs my attention feel free to name it.

OK. How do you feel about KidA, chandra and rufflig

[Squirrel Girl]

[Squirrel Girl]

OK. How do you feel about KidA, chandra and rufflig

Null, town, town.

[displaced]

Struggling to motivate myself though

Can you at least motivate yourself enough to comment on my assessment of the displaced-pidgey-ruffling mess summaraized in post 569?

It seems a balanced summary from my pov. You're right in that a lot of my negative feelings toward pidgey are probably based on a misunderstanding. I dont really feel that Im guilty of the "seeing what sticks stuff" by your earlier definition either though. I stand by post 121 as I have reiterated several times. It's correct. I dont expect town cred for it because it's a theoretical point I could make as either alignment.

[unvote[/unvote]

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

^ Im drawing a line under the whole thing.

Dont really know where to go with my vote without going for a vanity wagon. I dont want to get involved in the Yates/SG thing since Im sure my thoughts on that are being influenced by a past game. There are quite a few players I would prefer not to see lynched today, but that doesnt preclude them from being scum. For example Rufflig. I could see him being scum looking to exploit friction between pidgey and myself, but also I know from past experience he's a decent player and could help us catch scum (regardless of his own alignment, yes, before anyone goes crosseyed Im going to be assuming multiball. Sue me or something). Several players fit into this category for me. Then there's the vast swathe of the game coasting along contributing next to nothing. I could get behind a flashwagon on any of these guys.

VOTE: Aronis

I initially voted him for his rolefishing. Snce then he scuttled off into the shadows and breaks cover only when it looks safe for him to do so.

[Yates]

yes, before anyone goes crosseyed Im going to be assuming multiball.

I will go on record as supporting this theory. Nothing to be ashamed of. It will likely sort itself out by morning - obviously - but there's no reason NOT to think this will be multiball based on all the big theme games Jason has moded in the past. Fake claims and multiball are mod meta.

So that's my last setup spec post of the day.

[Yates]

VOTE: Aronis

He's a gross lurker, but calling post 15 a "rolefish" is a bit of a stretch. To me it reads as a snarky reaction to:

You are Professor Doctor Awesome?

and

Maybe he's Dr. Decibel.

So two people jokingly referred to him as a "Doctor."

[displaced]

VOTE: Aronis

He's a gross lurker, but calling post 15 a "rolefish" is a bit of a stretch. To me it reads as a snarky reaction to:

You are Professor Doctor Awesome?

and

Maybe he's Dr. Decibel.

So two people jokingly referred to him as a "Doctor."

Maybe you're right about the rolefishing, but my experience of him is he isnt a lurker but 1 game and ~ongoing~

[Chandra Nalaar]

Vote The Rufflig

He attempts to dodge discussion more than he actually tries to engage. He states that he has a case or has stated a case, yet when asked about it, he avoids talking about it. He refuses to back points up. He tries to look like he's being incredibly pro-town, and that he's not going to clog up the thread with arguments or walls, but in reality, he's avoiding talking about his assertions and cases and is trying to put on a show more than actually trying to show why what he's saying is accurate or why Pidgey or Chandra are scum.

-Bulba

Either bussing or very tired bulba.

???

Right, Yates last post about Rufflig makes him look very town to me. It's completely logical, doesn't seem to misrep or exaggarare or obfuscate in anyway, and seems completely open and transparent. If he is scum, then he is very, very good. But seems unlikely as hell.
Rufflig, I care about the argument and dislike the fact that you seem to be trying to shut it down. Also, why would you give up on trying to get your two best scum reads lynched this early in the game? Also, I think I understand why you think Pidgey is scum. But your scum read on Chandra seems pretty much just OMGUS, please explain.

I don't think that post is particularly alignment indicative, anyone can construct a rational argument that describes exactly what just happened, though perhaps not in so articulate a fashion. I am starting to lean town on Yates though.

JoshB and/or PV, you were speculating about Kid A claiming wolverine. With him saying this, would this make him a bad lynch because of the uncertainty of his role or would it make him a good lynch because he claimed as he did?

Thanks

I hope PV responds to this too. probably Chandra{Is it your Birthday?},Fenix, and some of the others that were in on the conversation earlier can talk about this too. My original theory that such an early claim that wasn't counter claimed was a sign of it being town. The extent of counterclaims however indicates that unless his role lines up with his claim, it could be a predetermined fake claim.
My position is that his play style lines up with an inexperienced pioneer(someone that likes to wagon). However, it's not the case that he is inexperienced, so his play style this game has been purposely anti- town trolling. I have a theory about why an semi-experienced player claiming wolverine would do that, but I think it should be proven on a future DP.

My answer is neither. I could not care less that he claimed Wolverine and the amount of discussion on it has been silly. As such, I read him as a little scummy based on his lack of play.

[BulbaFenix]

Vote The Rufflig

He attempts to dodge discussion more than he actually tries to engage. He states that he has a case or has stated a case, yet when asked about it, he avoids talking about it. He refuses to back points up. He tries to look like he's being incredibly pro-town, and that he's not going to clog up the thread with arguments or walls, but in reality, he's avoiding talking about his assertions and cases and is trying to put on a show more than actually trying to show why what he's saying is accurate or why Pidgey or Chandra are scum.

-Bulba

Either bussing or very tired bulba.

What don't you like?

JoshB and/or PV, you were speculating about Kid A claiming wolverine. With him saying this, would this make him a bad lynch because of the uncertainty of his role or would it make him a good lynch because he claimed as he did?

Thanks

I hope PV responds to this too. probably Chandra{Is it your Birthday?},Fenix, and some of the others that were in on the conversation earlier can talk about this too. My original theory that such an early claim that wasn't counter claimed was a sign of it being town. The extent of counterclaims however indicates that unless his role lines up with his claim, it could be a predetermined fake claim.
My position is that his play style lines up with an inexperienced pioneer(someone that likes to wagon). However, it's not the case that he is inexperienced, so his play style this game has been purposely anti- town trolling. I have a theory about why an semi-experienced player claiming wolverine would do that, but I think it should be proven on a future DP.

I'd say he's scum based on play. His claiming is actually null, although I'm leaning scum on it for other reasons I'd rather not disclose.

-Bulba

[ZZZX]

I found the claim causing chaos and he just hid behind it without explaining any play he did

typical scum possibly

I found his play quite anti town mostly for reason I explained before

[Nero Cain]

Did Ruffling town it up lately or something?

[beastcharizard]

I don't think that post is particularly alignment indicative, anyone can construct a rational argument that describes exactly what just happened, though perhaps not in so articulate a fashion. I am starting to lean town on Yates though.

How do you catch scum then if it isn't based on how they post? I am a little confused.

@Person who asked me about ZZZX:

He didn't say it was for info until later from what I recall. Also him saying: "I am playing badly to test everyone." just looks absolutely horrible to me. It is an easy excuse to use when you realize you have messed up. I know town do it sometimes too but it is just an excuse for bad play and at this time I think it is coming from scum because he uses that excuse to cover everything he had done to that point and not just a single thing.

[Umbrage]

I don't think that post is particularly alignment indicative, anyone can construct a rational argument that describes exactly what just happened, though perhaps not in so articulate a fashion. I am starting to lean town on Yates though.

How do you catch scum then if it isn't based on how they post? I am a little confused.

LOOK AT THIS

LOOK AT THIS SCUM BULLSHIT

"I don't think this post is very useful" = "I DON'T CATCH SCUM BASED ON POSTING" APPARENTLY

I MEAN SERIOUSLY IS IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE A MORE USELESSLY BANAL INTERPRETATION?

so yup I'm fully on the beastcharizard wagon now

VOTE: beastcharizard

Squirrel can wait

[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.

[Nero Cain]

VOTE: Rufflig

After reading through some of the game, I don't like him. I'll try to finish catching up later.

don't really like the hop without being fully caught up.

I was liking Josh but on p. 20 and him questioning weather this game has fake claims makes me very very very uneasy 'cause new scum tend to do that often. I need to ISO him and see what exactly it was that I liked.

It's not an advantage, it's a fighting chance. What if we decided to all claim our rolenames on Day 1, and someone asked scum player X to go first. He has no choice but to pick something out of a hat and potentially dies right then and there for no good reason. It's what's done. The only point of flavor is to be flavor. Any game breakable by mass flavor claim wouldn't pass the review process.

I'm sorry, but no... A mod isn't going to go out of their way to give the mafia a 'fighting chance' by giving them ALL a character role to claim. UNLESS, it is ROLE specific, something in this game like Mystique I could see getting a role that calls for that. Other than that, no. If EVERYONE mass claimed day one, it then comes down to, 'ok, who's claim is believe-able'? After that, you give the MAFIA the advantage by leaping up and going, 'I got *insert character here*. 'But, that's my character! (another poster)' and it then becomes a truth/chaotic war where the town can devour itself while the mafia drink in the chaos.

~Fenix

This is horrible too.

OK. How do you feel about KidA, chandra and rufflig

Null, town, town.

how the hell do you have a town read on ruffling?

[beastcharizard]

I don't think that post is particularly alignment indicative, anyone can construct a rational argument that describes exactly what just happened, though perhaps not in so articulate a fashion. I am starting to lean town on Yates though.

How do you catch scum then if it isn't based on how they post? I am a little confused.

LOOK AT THIS

LOOK AT THIS SCUM BULLSHIT

"I don't think this post is very useful" = "I DON'T CATCH SCUM BASED ON POSTING" APPARENTLY

I MEAN SERIOUSLY IS IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE A MORE USELESSLY BANAL INTERPRETATION?

so yup I'm fully on the beastcharizard wagon now

VOTE: beastcharizard

Squirrel can wait

Now, what are you going to call that comment when I flip town? Also, what do you think of what I said about ZZZX and what is your general opinion on that slot? I don't remember you saying anything about them so your opinion would be greatly appreciated.

[BulbaFenix]

Did Ruffling town it up lately or something?

No.

Chandra's posts towards me were deliberately inflammatory.

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

-Bulba

[Chandra Nalaar]

I don't feel like having that argument anymore either, so I'll basically drop it. Rufflig remains scum, though.

@Nero: You didn't think the length of time he spent confused rang a bit town? Also, I'm not particularly aware of new scum doing that?

Also, beast is pretty much scum. 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!!!" ? Nobody does.

[Chandra Nalaar]

Chandra's posts towards me were deliberately inflammatory.

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

-Bulba

Also this.

[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.

[Aronis]

Sorry guys, I'll catch up tomorrow.

[beastcharizard]

I don't feel like having that argument anymore either, so I'll basically drop it. Rufflig remains scum, though.

@Nero: You didn't think the length of time he spent confused rang a bit town? Also, I'm not particularly aware of new scum doing that?

Also, beast is pretty much scum. 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!!!" ? Nobody does.

Unrelated? It is in the same post that they quoted, they just didn't quote it. Obviously they read the post so I was asking if they had an opinion on it. It isn't like I asked them to comment on a post on page 3.

Also, I was just curious on who scum Umbrage is going to twist what I said when I flip town. You are obviously protecting Umbrage so care to tell me why they are town or how they are town? Either one works for me.

[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.

[Squirrel Girl]

how the hell do you have a town read on ruffling?

If I had to try to put it in words it's the way the wagon on him formed and how Yates decided to start supporting it from the sidelines while still voting me while also saying he was moving past me and ignoring what I'm saying - but still leaving his vote sit.