Mini 1625: Redemption (Game Over)

[droog]

VOTE: riddleton

[droog]

i like you two

[droog]

do i know you

[droog]

cool nice to meetcha
im giving you personal responsibility for munkir
its a very big job
i expect a full report on his alignment

[droog]

power wagons are common
they pressure one player to perform
i think they work better than a normal rvs

your numbers look right
what is vin town?

pedit come on ggg its too early for pedits

[droog]

post-edit
pre-edit
preview-edit

when you hit submit
MS will tell you if someone else has posted while you were writing

if you stick a pedit in you are essentually claiming
that everything about the pedit is what you intended to write before
and everything after is in response to posts you just saw

[droog]

3/10 is how many power roles id guess

[droog]

3/10 is how many power roles id guess

[droog]

Scum?

scum.
easier. less pressure.
managing 2-3 allies toward a coherent goal is easier
than shepharding a large towwn

my scumhunting has also atrophied since whenever i last played regularly

[droog]

nah
if i was scum idve fudged my answer
what matters is getting to know a person
how they talk, how they lie, how they truth

while im expounding pompous theory
interpreting somone's motives
and personality

is more important than just about anything else

[droog]

Ok found out how to vote

(VOTE: riddleton).

THIS IS THE 4TH VOTE ON RIDDLETON
THIS IS L-1
DO NOT QUICKHAMMER
ESPECIALLY SINCE RIDDLETON HASNT EVEN POSTED

[droog]

WHAT THE FUCK

[droog]

RIDDLETON IS MY NEIGHBOR I WANTED TO SEE HOW HED REACT
NOT FUCKING QUICKWAGON THE GUY
HES A COOL GUY

[droog]

why would you do that
you have to get lynched tomorrow
if you're scum you just claimed
if you're town you just created two mislynches

[droog]

your iso is all votes
without explanation

am i being trolled
are you a bot

[droog]

i count 5 votes out of 9 players

[droog]

I count 5 votes out of 13.

fuck me
there are 4 playres who havent posted
sorry guys please ignore me now

[droog]

why would you do that
you have to get lynched tomorrow
if you're scum you just claimed
if you're town you just created two mislynches

Wait what is this in response to?


Also reason i voted for the guy is because Is because Naomi did and i have no clue what im doing

Is there a way to change your vote?

I will say that this whole situation is pretty funny though

in response to willow
posting what i thought was hammer on riddleton

to change your vote cast another one
theres also an unvote tag

[droog]

VOTE: droog

I think you super over-reacted with what you thought was a l-1. If you were so worried, why didn't you unvote?

because i wasnt worried anyone would vote
once id marked it as l-1
who does that

Tag fixed
~Mod

[droog]

pianist its like your question
was prophecying

VOTE: riddleton

[droog]

@Droog:

What made you decide there were only 9 players

, let alone freak out about Riddleton being L-1 (he never was), yet not unvoting? Let's not pretend an RVS wagon adds pressure to anyone, so it wasn't like him being L-1 or L-2 (assuming there were 9 players instead of 13) would've made any difference.

Wondering what your mindset was here.

i saw 9 posters playing and 4/9 votes on
no one will believe me but im doped up on pain pillls rn

kinda said this already
im neighbors with riddleton
i specifically voted him to suss a reaction out of him
see if he'd mention we were neighbors to the public or not
shot that plan to hell

[droog]

VOTE: droog

for failing his own reaction test.

i have no clue
what this means

[droog]

VOTE: whomping willow

[droog]

what kinds of post restrictions are considered normal

[droog]

i dont understand
how that applies to me

[droog]

[droog]

If whomp starts contributing
I will Unvote

[droog]

VOTE: unvote

[droog]

I'm a little ambivalent about droog's reaction to the quickhammer, going off the people who posted and not looking at a VC or realising what forum he was in seems a bit odd, but his reaction seemed genuine, and I like that he tried to get immediate in-game pressure on his neighbour.

why'd you place that vote?
im assuming you knew it wasnt l-1
was it a test?

[droog]

I'm a little ambivalent about droog's reaction to the quickhammer, going off the people who posted and not looking at a VC or realising what forum he was in seems a bit odd, but his reaction seemed genuine, and I like that he tried to get immediate in-game pressure on his neighbour.

why'd you place that vote?
im assuming you knew it wasnt l-1
was it a test?

I knew it wasn't L-1. I mostly did it for my own amusement, but also as a test.

you were ambivalent about how i scored on your test
which is the only reason i have trouble believing this

[droog]

Why are the two linked? I read your post and thought it would be funny to vote Riddleton, but I also knew your reaction might help me get a read on you.

right
but your analysis of my response
was mixed

so viewed as a reaction test
it kind of failed

[droog]

fair enough

[droog]

you're a troll
i like you

[droog]

But Riddleton capitulated on that read far too easily for my liking and Flames is being too hardline with it, Riddleton doing that and declaring istott town seems pointless as scum though, and he atleast did something to try and develop a read, which Flames349 has yet to do.

i agree re: riddleton
sorry riddle
something about you feels off

[droog]

Are you serious right now? Are you trying to tell me what I can and cannot comment on? Also, does Naomi = Whomping Willow?????

Why are you and Naomi answering questions for each other? Naomi answered questions directed toward Droog and you. You answer questions or deflect questions asked about/to Naomi. SCUMMMMYYY.

VOTE: originalchris

[droog]

freakout entirely disproportionate
to the manout of pressure you received

[droog]

Finally, at the end of post; post 136 you went and voted for chris, but you only mentioned him once as a mid sorta comment, rather than at the end like a bold statement, could you perhaps expand on that point as I personally feel that he isn't really doing anything and looking like he is contributing without saying much, but your RVS statement doesn't speak to me much. so I'd like more.

however
something about this seems more like
scum explaining their town thought processes
than town having town thought processes

[droog]

Scummiest player by far.

Anti-town in beginning til coached by Droog

, became "super serious" with a bunch of fluff commenting on how people force the word "anyways" over saying the word "anyways" casually (SCUM TELL OF THE YEAR!), somehow disliked my first post of the game as being not-relevant (trying way too hard here to look like a serious scum hunter), and overall deflecting for Naomi now, who I'm still wondering if she made a scum slip or what exactly happened with that post of hers. It makes zero sense whatsoever in regards to this thread, although it was directed toward Whomp, who tried to deflect away from it after I pointed it out.

DO scum have day chat? This would explain quite a bit.

>if scum have daychat, willow is scummy
>if scum dont have daychat, willow is scummy

[droog]

If whomp starts contributing
I will Unvote

this is coaching now right

[droog]

am i being trolled

[droog]

Has he contributed well enough for you? You unvoted him.

i said id unvote if he talked
he did
why are you casting aspersions on this

[droog]

2 days ago there was no indication
none
that willow was not a troll

[droog]

and then go on to defend that player consistently for no apparent reason whatsoever

pointing out your bad logic
is not defending
consistently
for no apparent reason

[droog]

I also dislike how Droog/Naomi/Whomp all answer questions not directed at them but one of the other two in that list. It's happened consistently. That is not pro-town at the best, and scummy at the worst. I'm wondering which is which.

no one respond to this
otherwise
youre answering things not directed at you
therefore scum
!!!!!

[droog]

the more i dig in your two past games
the more i like my vote

[droog]

I also dislike how Droog/Naomi/Whomp all answer questions not directed at them but one of the other two in that list. It's happened consistently. That is not pro-town at the best, and scummy at the worst. I'm wondering which is which.

this is posturing

compare to actual town ochris

Are you expecting my explanation of a past event to change? You questioned why I

had

voted Wgeurts, I said my vote had clearly been explained.

I'm not sure what you're struggling to understand.

I expect everything to change as the context of the game moves forward. Yes, I do. If you tunnel on a specific incident while not looking at fresh evidence, I find that bad play in every regard, if not scummy as well.

I'm not sure what you're struggling to understand myself.

2. I'm basically saying that if you can't take the time/effort to simply post a reason for a vote, especially one on a wagon, then don't claim you had different reasons later on in the game if this becomes an issue that looks scummy. Basically, you better hope the reasoning you used previously holds up, because I don't want you to come up with new reasons to defend yourself later on if you couldn't make the effort to begin with right now. I can't read minds, only posts. Whatever scum reads I have now on page 12 might not be the same as I had on page 8, but it's my own fault if I fail to express that. Apparently though, BBT never changes his mind on anything.

Considering wgeurts was trying to get ME lynched, I definitely did notice it. Are you serious right now? You seem to ignore all the good empirical evidence on players and go for the WIFOM stuff instead. I seriously don't understand your mindset Copper. It's as if you assume the most elaborate, outlandish things are the ones that will be true.

i could quote in this vein for some time

[droog]

here's the difference i see
for those playing the home version:

town ochris was assertive and called out bullshit
today's ochris is kind of implying things, you know?
like, look everyone, at how droog, naomi, and willow all bback each other up

[droog]

((even though i just listen naomi as a scum read))

[droog]

your move

[droog]

and then go on to defend that player consistently for no apparent reason whatsoever

pointing out your bad logic
is not defending
consistently
for no apparent reason

[droog]

nice simultaneous timing
thatll really convince them we're not buddies

[droog]

Why are the two linked? I read your post and thought it would be funny to vote Riddleton, but I also knew your reaction might help me get a read on you.

right
but your analysis of my response
was mixed

so viewed as a reaction test
it kind of failed

which one is this
coaching
defending
or deflecting

[droog]

you're a troll
i like you

anyways ill concede that
me stating willow was a town read
was not very clean

[droog]

isott behaved realistically
riddleton gave up with too little push

[droog]

Game over, pal. You scum?

Hm ok. Istott is town.

Im not sure why you didn't string it ong more

[droog]

Dayvig reaction tests are gay

Please don't violate sitewide rules again.

is this really a sitewide thing
im gay and it pisses me off if
calling things gay
is against the rules

[droog]

Oh and thanks to your backseat modding my infraction has been copied twice over in the thread so gg.

its actually a thing
fuck that shit
im a faggot
someone report me

[droog]

flames
is it really that hard to say you're leaning scum in isott

[droog]

no
you quoted yourself saying it
and went on this self-righteous
'im not going to spell it out im going to quote it'
binge

[droog]

eh
i dont agree with flames at all
but im getting a light town read for him

[droog]

isott what do you make of ochris

[droog]

Speaking of neighbours. I was under the impression that droog and riddle were real life neighbours, not mafia neighbors.

this would be cool
no we're maf neighbors

[droog]

as in
theres a privat topic
im harassing him tonight

[droog]

Both were you responding to posts but with no actual content response and evading the actual meat of what you were responding to

Wow, kind of like your useless votes.

sorry what
is willow's present game obviated
because he was a troll for the first 5 pages

[droog]

Why are the two linked? I read your post and thought it would be funny to vote Riddleton, but I also knew your reaction might help me get a read on you.

right
but your analysis of my response
was mixed

so viewed as a reaction test
it kind of failed

which one is this
coaching
defending
or deflecting

you handily ignored this last time

[droog]

Other than this, he's posted almost nothing of any substance.

come again?

[droog]

Because you picked the least relevant post possible on purpose, which I took for trolling.

that was smooth
not everyone will notice that you dodged the question
for the second time

[droog]

Since I'm going to bed, I'll answer it tomorrow by quoting every post that does show it clearly and concisely, rather than you picking out the least relevant post possible. Actually, I take that back. You could've picked the first post of the game and quoted that instead. I suppose that would have even less relevance and be even more useless.

here's the record:

1. you make points on willow
2. i attack some of your points
3. you accuseme of always defending, deflecting, or coaching him
4. i quote a post where this in not the case, and ask you if im wrong
5. you ignore this post both times i quote it
6. and now accuse it of being 'the least relevant post possible"

[droog]

Droog, why did you role claim neighbour so early.

because i legitimately thought my neighbor got lynched

[droog]

@ochris: youre never going to convince me im scum
your argument is so weak youre not convincing me you're town

so
youre doing a bad job of convincing your top scum read
that youre not scum
eh i guess that makes a convoluted 2 am sense

[droog]

Droog, why did you role claim neighbour so early.

because i legitimately thought my neighbor got lynched

nobody trusts me about this
is it the clown avatar

yeah the neighborhoods me and riddleton

[droog]

chiming in before bed
i dont like a riddleton lynch
only because i get to talk to him tonight
i wouldnt lynch that day 1

[droog]

i actually like his last barrage

[droog]

if you're going to make a nonexistent issue out of
'homophobic slurs'
im replacing out on principle

if you dont fucking like the way someone talks
fucking ignore it and fucking move on

[droog]

flubber and pianist are both trolls
but when each one talks i like their position better
thinking its definietly not town v town
leaning toward pianist being the scum

[droog]

Btw being a piece of shit isn't scummy.

i have a sinking feeling flubber will end up town
not touching this wagon

[droog]

droog: Still under finger of suspicion for your apparent encouragement of posting styles that obfuscate actual information or content.

hm?
im against lynching players i think are town if thas what you mean

[droog]

almost no one has this chip on their shoulder
for almost any other kind of insult

Wow Flubbernugget, you're terrible.

I don't like the whomp wagon, essentially people are voting for him because he is an ass.

No, shut the fuck up.

WHAT THE FUCK

or is it that gays need unique protection
and that is not patronizing at all

please get off your high horses
im trying to have fun playing a game
and itns hard when everyone holds up a card saying
'lynch me lynch me'
'i have time to post but not contribute'

[droog]

It's clear that Flubber is just trying to add chaos and confusion to the game, and I don't particularly care about the reason. That kind of posting style, behavior, and language serves only to distract from the true goal of the game, which is to eliminate the scum. Creating distractions OF ANY KIND supports the scum. That is why I am in favor of removing Flubber from the game.

This reeks of scum
Scum would be pretty happy with this "gay is a slur" nonsense
It gives them a chance to be genuine
Which scum will take for all it's worth

You're trying to justify a lynch as though flubber is making the ruckus
He's not.

[droog]

willow i agree with you re: ochris
awa's post on flubber ("flubber's antitown, therefore scum") was scummy
why flames?

[droog]

When it comes to this game, I see no significant difference between abetting scum by being flagrantly anti-town and true scum.

"Anti tow" is so flexible
You can define anything you don't like under it

[droog]

Droog prove to me you're not buddying me. I feel like you're buddying me.

do you want me to yell at you like kuribo
i could say you have a rusty fork prong for a tongue
and a dick to match
but i honestly dont give a fuck

if you want to suspect the one person not using bullshit
'i dont like x therefore anti town therefore scum' logic
vote me

so not no going to convince you

[droog]

something about ishtott has been ringing hollow lately
maybe ill do an iso through him

still dont like awa
ochrist hasnt bugged me in a while

[droog]

flubber is accusing me of buddying
over the 'gay is a slur' conversation
where i already explained my logic
and everyone agreed to drop the conversation

otherwise everything about
'droog is buddying'
is in fluggeb's gead

[droog]

It's clear that Flubber is just trying to add chaos and confusion to the game, and I don't particularly care about the reason. That kind of posting style, behavior, and language serves only to distract from the true goal of the game, which is to eliminate the scum. Creating distractions OF ANY KIND supports the scum. That is why I am in favor of removing Flubber from the game.

This reeks of scum
Scum would be pretty happy with this "gay is a slur" nonsense
It gives them a chance to be genuine
Which scum will take for all it's worth

You're trying to justify a lynch as though flubber is making the ruckus
He's not.

willow i agree with you re: ochris
awa's post on flubber ("flubber's antitown, therefore scum") was scummy
why flames?

id thought id done so
would you like me to add to this

[droog]

munkir's posts are getting gradually more coherent
cant shake off the feeling of coaching there

[droog]

Except I've already addressed those points.

im not sure where
564 is where i lay them out
588 i repeat without explaining
you post next in 603-4, 610, 612, and 641

603 is only in response to 588
and most of 603 is about willow, not flubber
604 is mod prod
610 points back to 603
612 suggests anti-town = scum, exactly what i dont like
in 641 you ask me to reexplain

so if the part of 603 where you call me scummy for calling you scummy
is addressing an argument
then yes i agree

[droog]

How exactly does this "reek of scum"? I'm not happy with the "gay as slur nonsense", because as I stated,

creating a controversy over something completely unrelated does nothing to actually help the town

, and in fact is a detriment because it causes chaos and distraction. Which I said in the very post you quoted. Can you show me exactly how Flubber ISN'T making a ruckus?

Because his insistence upon creating confusion, handwaving posts that don't necessarily conform to his own ideas, and posts such as 567 and 585 which directly demand specific players to state who they think are scum without providing any kind of context or rationalization don't help the town.

The only possible reason that a player would make these kinds of moves are if they are scum or some other kind of anti-town role. Either way I am in favor of a lynch.

1) we all create controversy.
flubber /started/ it but we each chose to continue it
you're not anti-town reading everyone else for it

2) this is a completely different argument
i do not scum read you for thinking flubber is handwaving
or calling 567 and 585 scummy
i scum read you for proposing an 'anti town = scum' lynch

you are conflating a reasonable argument i did not critique
with an unreasonable argument i did critique

[droog]

I believe I address this above, (and in fact in several posts since you originally posted this), but again I fail to see how

my opinion that Flubber is antitown

leads to me being scum. Please show me your train of thought here.

you moved the goalpost again
i am not calling you scum for 'flubber is antitown'
i am calling you scum for 'flubber is antitown and therefore scum'
which i already explained:

This reeks of scum
Scum would be pretty happy with this "gay is a slur" nonsense
It gives them a chance to be genuine
Which scum will take for all it's worth

in short
you were the only player to try to take advantage of the situation
not by suggesting a pl for trashy behavior
but by suggesting it actually effected your reads

[droog]

so an awa recap:

before this conversation:
- i scumspect you for 'flubber is antitown = flubber is scum'

after this conversation:
- i scumspect you for 'flubber is antitown = flubber is scum'
- i scumspect you for pretending you only ever said 'flubbel is antitown'
- i scumspect you for suggesting you responded to a point you actually didnt

[droog]

Finally, at the end of post; post 136 you went and voted for chris, but you only mentioned him once as a mid sorta comment, rather than at the end like a bold statement, could you perhaps expand on that point as I personally feel that he isn't really doing anything and looking like he is contributing without saying much, but your RVS statement doesn't speak to me much. so I'd like more.

however
something about this seems more like
scum explaining their town thought processes
than town having town thought processes

this was 400 posts ago now
any thoughts about things ive done more recently?

[droog]

Away that is shite

Two facts belie you

1) I do not scum read you for calling flubber anti town
I scum read you for calling flubber scummy for being anti town

2) I ignored your defense in 648

because it came after your request for an elaboration in 641

[droog]

In fact
In 648
You say you'd already responded to my points
I showed you hadn't responded to my points
And now you say yes you did -- in 648

VOTE: awa[/b]

That's for moving your goalposts to push a lynch on me again

[droog]

VOTE: awa

[droog]

Droog, would you mind compiling a post that clearly and concisely states your reasons for not liking me?

id thought id done so
would you like me to add to this

Except I've already addressed those

[droog]

Except I've already addressed those points.

im not sure where
564 is where i lay them out
588 i repeat without explaining
you post next in 603-4, 610, 612, and 641

603 is only in response to 588
and most of 603 is about willow, not flubber
604 is mod prod
610 points back to 603
612 suggests anti-town = scum, exactly what i dont like
in 641 you ask me to reexplain

so if the part of 603 where you call me scummy for calling you scummy
is addressing an argument
then yes i agree

[droog]

Regarding 564, I literally addressed that exact post in 648. Can't help but notice that you conveniently ignore that post in 670.

[droog]

You suggested in 648 you'd already explained
I suggested you hadn't
You then suggested you had... In 648

[droog]

I refuse to let you dictate the flow of my posts. You accuse me of moving the goalposts, yet you yourself are never satisfied by my responses, all of which have been backed up by quotes and evidence, while you do nothing except restate the same words over and over. It's like talking to a broken record. You're not going to drag me into an endless loop of explaining the same things over and over just to satisfy you because you are apparently incapable of critical thinking or basic reading comprehension. I'm done with you until you actually post some meaningful content. Don't think I don't take note of your pressure vote, either; you won't succeed at baiting me.

i explain my exact problem with you
and you ignore it
because youve already declared you're ignoring me
a classic example of physchological manipulation
which i wont fall for like all those other dumb people

[droog]

The difference here being that whenever I post a conclusion that I draw, I provide the steps of reasoning within that same post. You, on the other hand, simply state a conclusion(?) without any supporting evidence, leaving everyone to read your post and come to their own conclusions, which, since you poisoned the well with your own assertion, will likely be skewed toward your own stated conclusion. It's a classic example to psychological manipulation, which some people might not have recognized but which I won't fall for.

i mean, seriously?
do i have to state out exactly where you have done the same thing you accuse flubber of

[droog]

When it comes to this game, I see no significant difference between abetting scum by being flagrantly anti-town and true scum.

reminder that ignoring cases
is flagrantly anti-town

[droog]

awa why do you care what people think of you
if im your top scumread vote me

[droog]

where the fuck did i do that

[droog]

so an awa recap:

before this conversation:
- i scumspect you for 'flubber is antitown = flubber is scum'

after this conversation:
- i scumspect you for 'flubber is antitown = flubber is scum'
- i scumspect you for pretending you only ever said 'flubbel is antitown'
- i scumspect you for suggesting you responded to a point you actually didnt

[droog]

It's clear that Flubber is just trying to add chaos and confusion to the game, and I don't particularly care about the reason. That kind of posting style, behavior, and language serves only to distract from the true goal of the game, which is to eliminate the scum. Creating distractions OF ANY KIND supports the scum. That is why I am in favor of removing Flubber from the game.

"flubber is anti-town = scummy"
is a fair characterization of this post

im not even touching that i disagree with the basic idea
ive seen it be true

my original reason for touching this post was that it seemed like a horribly convenient moment
for scum to push on a growing wagon

[droog]

Flubber conveniently handwaves my entire post, without actually addressing anything in it, and then proceeds to make assertions with no backup, and THEN continues to use uncalled-for language and continues to spam post. These things may seem innocuous now, but over the course of a full game they become nonproductive at best, and anti-town at worst.

Vote: Flubbernugget

this is calling flubber scummy
for being anti-town

[droog]

It's clear that Flubber is just trying to add chaos and confusion to the game, and I don't particularly care about the reason. That kind of posting style, behavior, and language serves only to distract from the true goal of the game, which is to eliminate the scum. Creating distractions OF ANY KIND supports the scum. That is why I am in favor of removing Flubber from the game.

This reeks of scum
Scum would be pretty happy with this "gay is a slur" nonsense
It gives them a chance to be genuine
Which scum will take for all it's worth

You're trying to justify a lynch as though flubber is making the ruckus
He's not.

here is my explanation of why awa's behavior is scummy
((you know, the explanation she said i never gave))

[droog]

im going to shut up now
both to give you the chance to respond
and to let you focus elsewhere on the off chance you somehow are town

but this is a happy wagon i want to lynch. today.

[droog]

but it could VERY easily jump to droog if he continues to post the same things while pretending that he's constructing some kind of case.

oh my god
you read my posts on you and think im 'pretending' to have a case
where is the rope

[droog]

You suggested in 648 you'd already explained
I suggested you hadn't
You then suggested you had... In 648

this is still a thing that happened
@

munkir: what do you think of this

[droog]

youre right
it would be annoying if i voted without explaining myself
switched to a new target with every post
swore with every shitfaced breath
and didnt read the thread

so an awa recap:

before this conversation:
- i scumspect you for 'flubber is antitown = flubber is scum'

after this conversation:
- i scumspect you for 'flubber is antitown = flubber is scum'
- i scumspect you for pretending you only ever said 'flubbel is antitown'
- i scumspect you for suggesting you responded to a point you actually didnt

[droog]

I took it as
" scum annoyed at being caught for the wrong reasons"

[droog]

how am i bending awa's words

look at 648
awa told me she'd already responded to my points
i say im not sure where
she replies taht she's responded to them in 648

[droog]

Flubber conveniently handwaves my entire post, without actually addressing anything in it, and then proceeds to make assertions with no backup, and THEN continues to use uncalled-for language and continues to spam post. These things may seem innocuous now, but over the course of a full game they become nonproductive at best, and anti-town at worst.

Vote: Flubbernugget

awa wants to lynch flubber because flubber's scummy

Right now, my

two highest candiatess are Flubber and Droog, Flubber for causing anti-town chaos

and Droog for not only encouraging that sort of chaos, but for pointing a finger at those who call it out. Flubber's 524 is exactly the kind of misdirection and poisoning the well that I'm talking about. Also notice the buddy-buddy with Droog; I could easily see a scumbuddy relationship there.

awa calls flubber a 'candidate' for 'causing anti-town chaos'

It's clear that Flubber is just trying to add chaos and confusion to the game

, and I don't particularly care about the reason. That kind of posting style, behavior, and language serves only to distract from the true goal of the game,

which is to eliminate the scum

. Creating distractions OF ANY KIND supports the scum. That is why I am in favor of removing Flubber from the game.

awa wants to lynch flubber because flubber's anti-town

When it comes to this game,

I see no significant difference between abetting scum by being flagrantly anti-town and true scum.

awa directly says being anti-town is the same as being scummy

awa has called flubber scummy
awa has called flubber anti-town
awa has called flubber scummy for being anti-town

there is a direct relationship between awa's dislke of flubber
and awa's desire to lynch flubber

you would have to play very careful semantics
to read awa's posts as 'i want to lynch flubber but suspect flubber is town'

[droog]

awa directly says being anti-town is the same as being scummy

Miss rep +1

awa has called flubber scummy

Miss Rep +1

awa has called flubber scummy for being anti-town

Miss Rep +1

this is ridiculous

[droog]

perhaps you could argue awa hasnt said 1 or 2 of those things
but if awa has not said:
flubber is scummy
flubber is anti-town
flubber is scummy for being anti-town

then why, naomi, is awa voting flubber?

[droog]

He said Flubber is Anti-town,

this is something you just dinged me for as mis-repping

[droog]

they become nonproductive at best, and anti-town at worst.

Anti Town, not Scummy, 544, invalid +1 Miss rep Droog

[droog]

naomi what do you make of 648
i asked you earlier and you didnt respond to that point

[droog]

You suggested in 648 you'd already explained
I suggested you hadn't
You then suggested you had... In 648

this is what i mean naomi

[droog]

You suggested in 648 you'd already explained
I suggested you hadn't
You then suggested you had... In 648

this is what i mean naomi

there is an explantion of his train of thought in part in that post. its this part here;

his insistence upon creating confusion, handwaving posts that don't necessarily conform to his own ideas, and posts such as 567 and 585 which directly demand specific players to state who they think are scum without providing any kind of context or rationalization don't help the town. The only possible reason that a player would make these kinds of moves are if they are scum or some other kind of anti-town role. Either way I am in favor of a lynch.

that explanation happened in 648
awa also alleged that she had 'already explained' what was wrong with my arguments
when i suggested she hadnt
she suggested she had, in 648

i dont know how to break this down any further
awa suggested she'd refuted x a first time, and then refuted x a second time
i suggested she never refuted x the first time
she said she did... when she refuted it the second time

[droog]

?

[droog]

sorry bout that, wasnt on purpose

[droog]

i would love love love
for someone to explain my misrepresentation of awa
because every time i try asking all i get is

'youre not even reading goodbye'
'already explained it'
etc.

naomi tried and... gave me a list of misreps that weren't misreps

[droog]

Well, I don't find Flubber particularly town but that doesn't stop me disliking AWA's push

^

additionally:

"flubber has no content" is being heavily pushed by awa
so im automatically wary of it

i would like someone to show, with examples, places where flubber 'has no content'

for comparison, flubber's performance in other games:

mini 1609:http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go

-- short, frequent posts has a tendency of disappearing, town

micro 397: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go

-- short, frequent posts, has a dentendy of disappearing, town

micro 393: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=59227

-- ibid

micro 377: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go

-- couple wallposts, but they're stream of consciousnesss, basically the same thing, but flubber's scum

so can anyone prove to me that flubber is uniquely scummy
and not just posting in a style you dont like?

[droog]

@droog

I just finished the newb game the camping trip with flubbs. Flubbs in that game just asked questions with no analysis. In the other town games you listed he seemed to follow this ask questions meta. This game he is just making fluff statements.

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... ct[]=24265

Compare this games ISO with the one above. This came he isn't the same questioning scum hunter.

my point wasnt open discussion on flubb's meta
it's that flubb's posting style opens himself to easy "he's not contributing" allegations

id like the cases on flubbs to get more rigorous than
"hes not doing anything, here's 0 proof"

(have not read further than your post yet, i see awa has a long one））

[droog]

awa, this is ridiculous
you wouldnt wait for word on one wallpost
before writing a wedge of wanton wailing
((whoops, is this psychological warfare))


you have this ugly bias that anyone disagreeing with you is reading
naomi made one 'analysis' i responded to
she gets credit and i dont
you're playing the martyr and if you're really town it hurts more than anything anyone else could do

[droog]

hi tier : )

[droog]

Nah man
Awa has you admitting you're a troll
...right?

[droog]

I'm taking that with a grain of salt

[droog]

You're a tree

[droog]

deadline's in 2 days
by tomorrow i'll have a proper response to awa's last wall series

[droog]

---
Re: GGG and Naomi's defense of me

I'm glad that at least a few other people in this thread are able to use critical thinking and reading comprehension to actually understand what I'm trying to say. GGG's 781 and Naomi's 773 perfectly encapsulate what I was trying to say. Droog and Willow's unwillingness to read what I'm saying and connect the dots that I lay out clearly are what strike me as scummy.

and this is the start of all our troubles
i have consistently explained why i suspect you
that it does not convince you is unsurprising
that you refuse to accept my case as a case is

discouranging other people from posting
by implying that only a select few 'are able to use critical thinking'
is scummy
and your walls have quite the effect of shutting down discussion


---

For something that is supposedly "glaringly obvious", very few other people appear to have jumped onto that particular bandwagon. Rather, it seems to me that you are trying to plant the idea in everyone's mind that I was being opportunistic with a wagon, when in reality I was calling out Flubber's general anti-town play.

((this was originally aimed at willow))
nobody denies you called out flubber as anti-town
however, here is a clear chain of events:

VOTE: Flubbernugget

If the mods don't replace flubbs

I am okay with a policy lynch on him.

Regardless of alignment I don't want to play with someone who is intentionally using homophobic slurs.

^^^^^^This.

right before your vote
three people came down hard on flubber
none of them felt the need to explain
they did not present themselves as pro-town for their stances
they did not present flubber as anti-town or scummy

Flubber conveniently handwaves my entire post, without actually addressing anything in it, and then proceeds to make assertions with no backup, and THEN continues to use uncalled-for language and continues to spam post. These things may seem innocuous now, but over the course of a full game they become nonproductive at best, and anti-town at worst.

Vote: Flubbernugget

you, uniquely
try to paint flubber as a villain who needs rope
the other opinions were made for the sake of the people speaking
yours was for the people listening

maybe there's nothing to that thought of mine
but i imagine town isnt so careful about always sounding logical

You seem to either be of the mindset or want to force other people into the mindset that people can only think that others players a A.) Town or B.) Scum; this kind of black-and-white mentality is both iincorrect and hazardous. People lie on a sliding scale of Town-Scum, and the fact that you apparently want me to hold up a "neon sign with the words 'I am scumreading Flubber'" when I do not, in fact, hold that belief is indicative that you are trying to pressure people into rushing decisions and using the same kind of "100% good or 100% bad" mentality that you have, or want to project as having.

how do you write something like this
we're not jihadists or politicians
we understand the sliding scale of good and evil

this is why i say you're misrpenning
and overly defensive
if you were seriously in a right mind reading this gamestate
there would be no need to pretend that willow is too dogmatic to have a read that isnt 100%

Further, your language is leading. "It was glaringly obvious...". "His attack... is pure desperation." You make assertions with strong language to attempt to influence other people into whatever agenda you want to push; I'm reminded of both politicians and lawyers, neither of whom I tend to trust. That you tend to use this kind of assertive language without first constructing an argument, forcing the reader to either search through the thread and construct the argument themselves (doing your work for you) or blindly believe you is something that I find to be detrimental to players who would be particularly susceptible to that kind of suggestion.

and see
you never bring these admonitions against willow as part of a general point
"why are you manipulating these words"
"everyone else, i think willow's words here are manipulative"

instead you're trying to convince willow that he is scummy
as part of some long verbiage no one will read

wait, you are reading this post right guys
guys

Re: 748
Holy shit you're like a dog with a bone with this fucking post. If this is your only cause for voting for me then that's sad. How about you stop spinning what I say into whatever agenda you want to push instead of looking at what I'm saying and doing your homework.

yes i am
this is the crux of my case against you

if you believe i have no case against you
and that i am also 'like a dog with a bone with this fucking post'
and you do not see the contradiction there
why are you accusing me of being illogical?

When I said in 648 that I had already explained, I was referring back to 603 where I make my initial explanations of why I'm against Flubber. In 648 I elaborated specifically upon the posts you asked for. Your entire argument here appears to be that I was inconsistent with my chain of events, but in reality you didn't bother to do your homework and even attempt to make the some connections I made, you simply saw what might be construed as a fallacy and jumped on it, and haven't let go since.

and this is where you lie
i already talked about 603

603 is only in response to 588
and most of 603 is about willow, not flubber

in a post where i very politely sumarized your posts
and asked you for elaboration

here is the snipped of 603 in question

Additionally, Droog's 588 is questionable. I think Flubber is antitown, so that makes me scummy? I cannot conceive of what leap in logic you managed to make to arrive at that conclusion.

here is what it was in response to

awa's post on flubber ("flubber's antitown, therefore scum") was scummy

for those playing at home
i will summarize this in my next post

What? You don't find Flubber town; I don't find Flubber town. Yet you attack me because I decided to actually push in that direction? Your play is inconsistent, which is something I guess I should expect from a self-admitted troll account.

this is such a bad misrep of willow
and attacks in general
he doesnt like you for the

way you

pushed a flubber lynch

it is a ridiculous standard if willow is expected to
town read the people who have the same reads as him

Bringing up a player's meta is not indicative of anything. In this game, and this game alone, it is possible to analyze Flubber's ISO and discover that his posts do not tend to have any significant substance.

Again you refuse to actually do any real work, preferring instead for other people to make your connections for you.

Maybe instead of

telling us to find examples

where he doesn't post content, you can provide examples where he does post content? That would be more constructive.

i have no idea how you read my 825 and get that idea
i went through other flubber games and showed that his style is pretty consistent
across alignment

i do not understand what makes flubber in this game unique
yes of course i am "telling"
((asking? requesting? you frame the scene again))
you to come up with examples of how flubber's not contributing

because its your position

i dont ask you to come up with supporting evidence for my position
this is a ridiculous standard

If you can't see that droog is purposefully being obstinate regarding my repeated clarifications about why I pressured Flubber, then I can't help you, because I'm not going to cater to three people now (droog, Willow, and you) who either can't or refuse to see what I'm saying, even after multiple clarifications. Naomi does a fine job of breaking it down, why don't you look at her post?

im going to ask you directly:

1) do you think flubber is anti-town
2) do you think flubber is scummy
3) do you think flubber is scummy for being anti-town

To quickly address the people who are voting for me:

this whole post belies your distortion
by this post you have dominated the thread for 2 pages
of rapid-fire wallposts

there is nothing 'quick' about the discussion you are proposing
as shown by your recent behavior
you can post a huge amount of content
then demand that we respond
and refuse to cooperate if we dont

these are terrorist tactics

droog: I think he has done a really good job of starting this little wagon by

posting things that would give analytical players like myself headaches

, and then he gets to cherrypick whatever he wants out of their responses in order to further his own agenda. There is definitely some kind of buddy relationship between him and Flubber, no matter how much Flubber tried to distance himself.

1) you are not some special class of super pro-town player
2) you are not some special class of analytical player
3) you are not some special class of super pro-town player

you keep trying to paint all your detractors
as uniquely ignorant, or ill-willed

i will never convince you are scum but i hope to convince you of this
i am not voting for you because im too lazy to read
i am not voting for you because im dumb scum
i am not voting for you because im dumb town

i am voting for you because i

am reading what youre posting

and i dont ilke it

as to why: will report in later

[droog]

Sigh. It's clear to me that Tier is yet another person who isn't actually interested in reading what I'm saying, he just sees lots of words and thinks "hmm that's a lot of words, probably no content in there at all." I note that he only comments on my shorter posts, but handwaves my longer posts as either IioA (with no justification) or simply says "I disagree with all of this." I also note that he tends to agree with droog quite a lot, which is interesting considering that they are supposedly neighbors (of an unknown alignment) and that I've already addressed everything droog has had to say in my prosecution. Does anyone else see this trend?

im neighbors with goofball
go on inventing scumreads for anyone who agrees with me
and townreads for anyone who agrees with you

((oh, that, word, 'inventing'!
is it too similar to 'pretending?'
is it psychological warfare?
darn this clarafication could have been its own post))

[droog]

[droog]

ftr i would consider istott
but this is a gut read
one i havent event articulated until now
so im not going to want it unless it becomes big

[droog]

ftr i would consider istott
but this is a gut read
one i havent event articulated until now
so im not going to want it unless it becomes big

[droog]

presumably when a vote is placed there will be a reason

[droog]

i have a much bigger case against flubber
will attempt to post something on that before it's too late
also, id rather not lynch dgb today
only because i get to talk to him at night
its a waste of a power otherwise
day 2, go for it

[droog]

so let's talk about AWA

[droog]

sorry, that was supposed to say awa

[droog]

his behavior is not normal for a townie
my argumenst with him do not make him sound any townier
and i will show scum motive

the central point is awa's read on flubber
so let's gather some instances of it:

Flubbernugget: First things first: Your avatar creeps me out. A lot. I would appreciate it if you would change it, but if you don't I'll live.

In regards to his content, there is actually very little here to go off of.

The only thing is a vote on droog for his overreaction to the "hammer" on Riddleton (where it still stands, by the way). The vote itself is innocuous, in my opinion; less so is the fact that it still stands, without any reasonable justification, and in fact an explicit refusal to justify it. All of his other posts have been fluff. My stance: Scum.

now you could fairly take the above as a description of flubber
so let's move forward:

I'm very uneasy about Flubber's unwillingness to commit to reading large posts, which in my opinion are the kinds of posts that most often contain valuable information, on many levels. The arguments he is constructing are also very weak, and he seems to be very liberal with his vote, something that I am against philosophically.

FoS: Flubber.

awa gives flubber a clear scumread with an FOS
((presumably referring to 453, which is flubber admitting to not reading
so far awa's read is reasonable and consistent))

Flubber conveniently handwaves my entire post, without actually addressing anything in it, and then proceeds to make assertions with no backup, and THEN continues to use uncalled-for language and continues to spam post. These things may seem innocuous now, but over the course of a full game they become nonproductive at best, and anti-town at worst.

Vote: Flubbernugget

here awa calls flubber anti-town in several forms:
- not reading posts
- uncalled-for language
- assertions with no backup
and votes flubber for those reasons

It's clear that Flubber is just trying to add chaos and confusion to the game, and I don't particularly care about the reason. That kind of posting style, behavior, and language serves only to distract from the true goal of the game, which is to eliminate the scum. Creating distractions OF ANY KIND supports the scum. That is why I am in favor of removing Flubber from the game.

much later, awa calls flubber anti-town again
and says that flubber's actions 'support the scum'

note that nowhere has awa recounted her flubber scumread
she has only added accusations of antitown behavior
___________________________________________________________

so, at this stage, awa has
- scumread flubber
- called flubber anti-town
- voted for flubber

what consculion do you draw about awa's read on flubber this far in?

______________________________________________________________

let's look at awa's reasons for reading flubber
they become important

awa says
"Flubber conveniently handwaves my entire post,"

which post?
the first time flubber mentions awa is #528, below:

Spoiler:

Kuror: I don't think redact was the word you were going for.

Flames: Get stronger glasses, then. Reading a wall is no different than reading a book. You HAVE read a book, yes?

Also, I gotta love that refusing to read one wall of a user that posts excessive redundancy, and then putting off another one till later is anti-town, or worthy of any attempted insult.

When you have to read something dry and boring in a

game

where you're supposed to have

fun

, you're eventually gonna say "fuck it," and give a

confbias rant

analysis of whatever zzzzzz you just read.

A: "Reading a wall is no different than reading a book"
B: "Also, I gotta love that refusing to read one wall of a user... is anti-town"
A: "Flubber conveniently handwaves my entire post"

A: ignoring walls is anti-town
B: ignoring walls isn't anti-town
A: B is handwaving my entire post

does this look slightly wrong?

___________________

now enter me

This reeks of scum

Scum would be pretty happy with this "gay is a slur" nonsense
It gives them a chance to be genuine
Which scum will take for all it's worth

You're trying to justify a lynch as though flubber is making the ruckus
He's not.

my logic:

- awa is making a scumread and vote out of a dsitraction to the game
- this is scummy behavior

later i emphasize:

awa's post on flubber ("flubber's antitown, therefore scum") was scummy

and awa says:

Additionally, Droog's 588 is questionable. I think Flubber is antitown, so that makes me scummy?

I cannot conceive of what leap in logic you managed to make to arrive at that conclusion.

awa accuses me of no logic, though i've already explained my scumread
((scum can push a flubber lynch in a way that sounds agreeable to everyone))

and later,
after i've enigmatically repeated my awa scumread without adding explanation:

Droog, would you mind compiling a post that clearly and concisely states your reasons for not liking me? At the moment, all I'm getting from you is a vague sense of dislike, and that you seem to want everyone else to construct their own reasons for why that should be rather than coming out and stating it.

and i pont back to what ive already posted:

id thought id done so
would you like me to add to this

Except I've already addressed those points.

so the question is, where has

awa addressed those poinst?

it must be somewhere

between 564 and 648

between where i first scumread awa and awa says he addressed my arguments

so i walk through each one of those posts:

im not sure where
564 is where i lay them out
588 i repeat without explaining
you post next in 603-4, 610, 612, and 641

603 is only in response to 588
and most of 603 is about willow, not flubber
604 is mod prod
610 points back to 603
612 suggests anti-town = scum, exactly what i dont like
in 641 you ask me to reexplain

_________________________________________________________

at this stage, does anyone think i havent explained my scumread?
does anyone think awa addressed my scumread?

because, when pushed further, awa explains that he's addressed my scumread:

Again, first of all I never said that anti-town = scum, that was a connection that you made when you accused me.

Regarding 564, I literally addressed that exact post in 648. Can't help but notice that you conveniently ignore that post in 670.

........................
.........................
.....................
......................

awa says he'd responded to 564 in 648

which is the same post where he said he'd already responded to 564

_______________________________________________________________

by this stage of the game:

- awa has scumread flubber and called flubber anti-town
- i call this behavior scummy because scum could lynch flubber for being anti-town without putting forward any scumhunting
- awa disagrees, then later accuses me of not explaining
- when i repeat my explanation, he sais he'd already rebutted it
- and when i push him on where... he'd rebutted it in the place he'd said he'd already rebutted it

awa has massively distorted my scumread on him
his reaction to my scumread
and his read on flubber

these are not townie responses

[droog]

i dont even need to look at awa's behavior after that point
to explain why i have a solid scumread that deserves lynching

however i will return to finish the case.

[droog]

Droog you're trying really hard to save someone who you don't even know is town. I'm really curious what you think you'll gain from being able to talk to DGB tonight, because I don't really see it as anything special.

im trying really hard to save someone i have no good read on
when i have better scumreads like case above
when this someone i have no good read on
i can talk to tomorrow night instead of throwing a power away because of some wimpy day 1 reason

i have a solid case
unless we have to compromise
there is no incentive for me to pick a not-solid case

[droog]

Which you haven't.

i wasnt done yet

[droog]

Anyway, even if he's incorrect, even if he hasn't actually rebutted the points, how does that make him scummy?

It would be very easy for scumhim to rebut the points and I see very little incentive for scumhim to lie. What does he gain from it?

so your saying
you agree with my points
that awa is bad in several respects
but scum awa wouldnt be so bad as to be bad?

[droog]

Naomi, flubber, no idea who/what you're referring to

[droog]

now i will definitively prove scum motive
in the case of the disappearing scumread

______________________________

as soon as i got on awa for his flubber read, it changes

And I've said that since

I don't have any strong particular reads of actual scum

, I'm more concerned about removing players that will be obstructions toward lynching scum in future days where we have more connections to work with. Day One is almost entirely ad hominem, the connections I'm drawing are more meta than that.

but remember:

FoS: Flubber.

granted, the FOS didn't have to be a strong one
((i mean, don't we all casually throw around FOS's and votes?
who really insists that FOS's and votes go on strong reads?))

but, uh, i dont recall awa ever modifying that scum read
do you dear reader?

let's compare awa's posts across time:

You should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. The problem with your logic is that you are never sure someone's scum so therefore will never vote for a scummy person.

Do you find anything scummy about flubs posting?

The person I think is scummiest is the person that I think is helping the scum the most, be they actual scum or not. This is completely in line with what I have been saying all along.

ok, roger, flubber is the scummiest because flubber is helping scum the most

The only person that I would consider having a strong scumread on right now is droog, but God forbid I switch my vote (BACK) to him since that would obviously be nothing more than OMGUS, even though I had my vote on him in the first place. As of this moment, behind droog, Flubber is the person who I believe is the most dangerous to the town, from a metagaming perspective, and so I am voting for him. To answer your question directly, yes, I see nothing that would outright scream to me that he is mafia, however there is nothing that screams to me that ANYONE currently playing is mafia, because it is day one. Again, the only person that I think is remotely beyond that is droog, but I am well aware of how it would seem to switch my vote back to him after our recent exchanges. I do note that droog managed to slip in a vote on me while attacking my read on another player. I also note that droog has been extremely tunnel-visioned on me for the past hundred posts or so.

ok, roger, im the scummiest but flubber is 'most dangerous to the town'
which is not the same as scummiest anymore

You seem to either be of the mindset or want to force other people into the mindset that people can only think that others players a A.) Town or B.) Scum; this kind of black-and-white mentality is both iincorrect and hazardous. People lie on a sliding scale of Town-Scum, and the fact that you apparently want me to hold up a "neon sign with the words 'I am scumreading Flubber'" when I do not, in fact, hold that belief is indicative that you are trying to pressure people into rushing decisions and using the same kind of "100% good or 100% bad" mentality that you have, or want to project as having.

ok, now 'i am scumreading flubber' is too simplistic to contemplate saying
and too black-and-white
and pressuring people into rushing decisions

so, uh, if 'i am scumreading flubber' is too black-and-white, what is your flubber read?

AWA: I have two questions for you.

Do you think Flubbernugget is scum?

Do you have any scum reads?

1.) No, at the moment I simply find his actions to be anti-town.

ok, flubber is not scum
which is totally not too simplistic to say outright
even though 'i think flubber is scum' is too simplistic to say outright

((remember: by 706, the scummy players are anti-town players
and by 711, flubber is most dangerous to the town,
but somehow flubber is not scummy anymore
so, uh, what happened to the logic in 706?))

I have realized that a person's actions may be against the best interests of the town without them necessarily showing scumtells.

that sounds consistent
flubber's only anti-town, not scummy
and it's reasonable to change your appraisal of a player

Not sure whether to keep my vote on Flubber (I believe that if not outright scum, then at the very least very anti-town) or to move it to droog (insistence upon moving the goalposts, poisoning the well, and a high postcount with a low content saturation (which leads to unnecessarily difficult analysis and frustration for people like myself who want to analyze content instead of respond to the same accusations over and over)). Except for these last few posts, Willow doesn't strike me as particularly scummy, but these recent attacks smell like bandwagoning to me, especially when he has no real argument to back them up. I think I will keep my vote on Flubber for the time being, but it could VERY easily jump to droog if he continues to post the same things while pretending that he's constructing some kind of case.

Vote: Flubbernugget

but awa keeps his vote on flubber
because flubber could be scum, and is anti-town regardless

are you starting to see how inconsistent this read is

Never did I say that I would prefer an anti-town lynch over a scum lynch.

If you are trying to refer to my "scumreads" in 395, refer to 731 where I clarify what I was thinking. I never advocated lynching anti-town over lynching scum on principle, I was pushing on Flubber because in the absence of a strong scumread I wanted to pressure the person I thought would be most harmful to the town in the future.

when awa voted flubber, an anti-town read
over me, awa's scum read

What? You don't find Flubber town; I don't find Flubber town. Yet you attack me because I decided to actually push in that direction? Your play is inconsistent, which is something I guess I should expect from a self-admitted troll account.

now it's "i dont find flubber town"
so flubber is scummy, right?

You make it sound as if Flubber has completely dropped off of my radar, and I don't think that he's lynch-worthy at all anymore. This isn't true. First of all, you seem to be reading way too far into my courtesy post (801). I didn't drop the case on Flubbernugget, in fact if you read 842 I continue to grill him. I suspect you're only read the part of the post that applied to you, which I find disappointing.

so... the case on flubber was never dropped
even though awa admitted that flubber was no longer scummy, but anti-town

1) do you think flubber is anti-town
2) do you think flubber is scummy
3) do you think flubber is scummy for being anti-town

1.) Yes
2.) As of this post, yes.
3.) No. As I have said many times.

[/quote]

and now flubber is back to being scummy
but not scummy for being anti-town

____________________________________

here are various things awa has said about flubber:

- flubber is scummy
- flubber is anti-town, and the most anti-town player is scummy
- flubber is still anti-town, but not scummy
- 'flubber is scum because flubber is anti-town' is a complete misrep of awa's position
- flubber is scummy, and awa never dropped that case
- flubber is scummy, and flubber is anti-town, but flubber is not scummy for being anti-town

this is a complete morass of nonsense masquerading as a 'consistent read'

why would a townie need to present a very inconsistent read as a consistent read?

now, my original case on awa imputed scum motive:

This reeks of scum
Scum would be pretty happy with this "gay is a slur" nonsense
It gives them a chance to be genuine
Which scum will take for all it's worth

You're trying to justify a lynch as though flubber is making the ruckus
He's not.

and after 648 i posted this:

so an awa recap:

before this conversation:
- i scumspect you for 'flubber is antitown = flubber is scum'

after this conversation:
- i scumspect you for 'flubber is antitown = flubber is scum'
- i scumspect you for pretending you only ever said 'flubbel is antitown'
- i scumspect you for suggesting you responded to a point you actually didnt

yet awa keeps insisting:

I'm not going to continue responding to droog until he actually provides some kind of case instead of just saying that you don't like what I'm saying.

in short, awa's entire defense is based on me misrepping him
awa's case on me is likewise based on me misrepping him

and yet, when i explain that i have several reasons for voting awa
he does not respond to my points
he says that i am not reading him correctly

SO:

1) awa proposes lynching flubber, not because he thinks he'll lynch scum, but because it's a convenient lynch
2) when i call this scummy, awa says that im misrepping him
3) awa switches his flubber read as suits the circumstances of whatever argument he's in
4) awa refuses to acknolwedge any argument against him that doesn't agree with him
5) awa is pushing me for being scummy when i have, several times, given him room to explain

these are not town actions

he is not meerely being a little inconsistent, or having weird reads
he is actively changing his reads to fit the circumstances

he is not accusing me of misunderstanding him, or clarifying that i missed something
he is actively accusing me of being scum for having an incorrect case
and he refuses to explain why my case is incorrect until i admit it's incorrect

this is not town behavior

[droog]

then what makes someone scummy?
awful reasoning?
hopping on a wagon when it's looking popular?
being named istott?

cause i can give you 2/3

[droog]

When I made the original post, my mental scale was sliding from Town to Neutral to Scum. I have since revised that to include Antitown, since I have realized that a person's actions may be against the best interests of the town without them necessarily showing scumtells. It's not so much that my initial impression of Flubber was more severe than it is now, it's more that since my scale was revised, his placement on that scale now sits in a more accurate place.

like i went over in my post
his opinion on flubber changes yet again
and if you ask him
it was consistent the entire time

[droog]

*changes yet again after 731

[droog]

only giving the people what they want flubber

and the people want death by wordcount

[droog]

I really don't see the DGB wagon as holding water though. If we're dead set on simply finding an alternative to me, I think that Willow is a much better choice. You yourself slightly scum read him.

this is the first awa post in a long time that reads town to me

[droog]

you're not dying today goofball

[droog]

It's worth it if Tier hangs tomorrow.

you are so sure tier is scum
you would rather be lynched
than lynch awa?

[droog]

right, but if you were about to be lynched
would you take any alternative wagon?

this is off-game theoryposting but
as either alignment almost any other lynch is better than my own

[droog]

ok awa play straight with me
let's pretend the entire argument between us and all offshoots never happened

ive said i would lynch ochris (though he needs a sub before lynching)
ive said i would lynch istott
ive said i would not lynch goofball

i know all your scumreads ar etied into 'theyre pushing what i think is a horrible case on e'
but if you took that away, what would the rest of your reads look like?
who would you lynch today

[droog]

we are not lynching willow

[droog]

what about me

[droog]

its 1 post vs 100 others

[droog]

that i didnt show scum motive?

1) awa proposes lynching flubber, not because he thinks he'll lynch scum, but because it's a convenient lynch
2) when i call this scummy, awa says that im misrepping him
3) awa switches his flubber read as suits the circumstances of whatever argument he's in
4) awa refuses to acknolwedge any argument against him that doesn't agree with him
5) awa is pushing me for being scummy when i have, several times, given him room to explain

these are not town actions

he is not meerely being a little inconsistent, or having weird reads
he is actively changing his reads to fit the circumstances

he is not accusing me of misunderstanding him, or clarifying that i missed something
he is actively accusing me of being scum for having an incorrect case
and he refuses to explain why my case is incorrect until i admit it's incorrect

this is not town behavior

[droog]

When I made the original post, my mental scale was sliding from Town to Neutral to Scum. I have since revised that to include Antitown, since I have realized that a person's actions may be against the best interests of the town without them necessarily showing scumtells. It's not so much that my initial impression of Flubber was more severe than it is now, it's more that since my scale was revised, his placement on that scale now sits in a more accurate place.

like i went over in my post
his opinion on flubber changes yet again
and if you ask him
it was consistent the entire time

this is the only time awa changes his read and explains it
this does not cover all his vacillating on flubber
and my case is and has been about more than his flubber read

that is just the easiest example of awa moving the goalposts

[droog]

The person I think is scummiest is the person that I think is helping the scum the most, be they actual scum or not. This is completely in line with what I have been saying all along.

if that isnt basically what ive been saying
'anti-town = scum'
then i will eat my keyboard

[droog]

you will think a person is scummy even if you think they're not scum
ok

[droog]

sorry tiershift, it would be a HUGE leap in logic to assume awa meant anti-town when he said scummiest

[droog]

I called Flubber anti-town, I even say that myself. In fact, THAT WAS THE WHOLE REASON I WAS VOTING FOR HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[droog]

Spoiler:

[droog]

awa, after you fill in flubber on the graph
could you label all the other points on it?

[droog]

VC 1.12

Whomping Willow (2):

Originalchris, AWA

DrippingGoofball (3):

kuror0, GGG, crazypianist1116

Flubbernugget (1):

DrippingGoofball

AWA (4):

droog, Whomping Willow, Munkir, Flubbernugget

droog (1):

Naomi-Tan

istott (1):

TierShift

Not Voting:

istott

The deadline is Dec. 1, 9:40 AM EST.
Countdown: (expired on 2014-12-01 09:40:00)

i will probably not be around to change my vote before deadline
so im sticking with mr. 'i have a consistent read on flubber'

[droog]

I was so sure your outbursts
We're scum annoyed at being caught
For the wrong reasons

[droog]

Tier
How does you're willow read
Change on awa's flip

[droog]

Then give both cases

What does scum awa mean for willow
". ". Town ". ". ". "

[droog]

Though Oc's latest posting shifted him a bit to the townier side

its weird how we agree so much

[droog]

your right
im scum with willow

our plan is to always agree
this helps us loook different

[droog]

hi again tth

are we in multiball?
if so i highly highly highly suspect tier
as on the non-werewolf faction

[droog]

wait tier died
dammit

[droog]

food for thought
werewolves had a gunsmith
there was only one kill last night

[droog]

fuck

[droog]

bye tier : (

[droog]

flubber's probably not on awa's team

[droog]

VOTE: dgb[/b]

[droog]

Can we all get some reads down?
Especially after the flip

VOTE: dgb

[droog]

My bad sorry guys

[droog]

Wait that's only 4 votes
Definitely not hammer

So let's sit on this and get reads in

[droog]

UNVOTE:

[droog]

I wanna sit down and have a nice conversation
What are your Christmas plans
Visting the relatives?
Prime rib? Chicken? Turkey again?

Also who do you think is scum

[droog]

Personally

I'm committing over Christmas, sadly
Al my relatives live too far away
I've got a doctor's appointment
And probably chicken

Oh yeah I still suspect Chris
Want another look at the istott slot
Since that's who Riddleton dayvigged
And I willow-flubber probably aren't werewolves

[droog]

Who likes eggnog : )

Pedit

- we don't know if we're in multiball
Scum would rather kill each other than us
If we give reads now they have better odds of hitting each other

- we don't know if multiball means 2 nightkill a or one
Pianist, pretend you die tonight
Are you comfortable leaving without pushing your reads

- not everyone has spoken
What if watcher guilty isn't all we for

- quick lunches are lazy
If we lynch town tomorrow or after
What do we have to look back on?
This argument?

Really I don't see why we should push for another flip
When we basically just got one

What are you going to say tomorrow?
"We need more flips first"?

[droog]

Multiball is normal

[droog]

@Droog

Why are you acting so sketch?

You "highly highly highly suspect tier" a player already dead and town at that seems like ether you jumped the gun or you want it to look like you jumped the gun.

You still have yet to answer CP about your neighbor thing as far as I can tell.

You claim you want reads but yet you give none other then this "____ is probably ____" with nothing to back it.

@crazypianist1116

Maybe new player mentality but wouldn't quick killing someone just make it night again giving the scum the power to kill? Shouldn't we drag out the day so that we can get more information on all players so we can make correct lynches in the future rather than quick killing someone we are 90% sure is scum?

?

There are a lot of confusions here

I just gave reads. I even explained some
It was an intro not an essay

I did not look at the kill before posting
I forgot about my neighborhood last night

[droog]

If you don't like my reads
Please respond
Or give your own
If you agree with pianist
Vote with him

[droog]

Ah I didn't see the a second part of your post
Sorry
Carry on munkir

[droog]

why?

also i disagree with your analysis
awa being lynched so easily makes multiball likelier

if there's a scum faction that isn't awa's faction
that explains why he was 'bussed' so easily

[droog]

if there are two which do you think ggg's in?

[droog]

and why

[droog]

if gdb is werewolf, that definitely implies only one faction
which is why im suspecting gdb to flip scum
gdb's yesterday strikes me more as scum getting off a town lynch
than scum getting off a scum lynch

[droog]

thats fine tth
i consider this a time-well-spent discussion

id still like to have a few more
from other players

[droog]

also, since naomi's a watcher
do we get any discussion about who good targets for her are?
i wont say 'visit x' because then no one will kill x
but its worth thinking about

[droog]

what about town reads?

[droog]

Especially after AWA calling out my ridiculous notions/ideas/theories that proved to be somewhat accurate

which ones?