In post 1005, Whiskers wrote:
Great, well, I'll just sit here not knowing what to defend myself from, while other players attack me for it.
You hope.
Now I give you the same advice as I gave Thomas: Google "Intimidate" for the reason no-one wants to attack you, anyway. And while you're at it, wiki AtE.
(Feel free to Google 'Cunt' for an appropriate description of my own attitude, btw)
You could always tag the posts yourself in Preview and Right-click > Open in new Tab. Hot tip.
In post 1006, Whiskers wrote:I don't see how it "ruins" my "shiny coat". I'm not mason hunting, I'm telling you to stop fucking voting her for stupid stuff, especially when she's acted like a mason (though it is how she normally acts), and has several times dropped mason-tells. Which I think should be obvious and you should see.
Eloquence. So sorry - "Soiled Yourself Badly". I already gave you my opinion on ellabelle as mason. Masons don't drop tells like that, any more than masons claim on Page 2 of Day 1. I get the strange feeling someone said that before now, too - don't suppose you remember who that might have been?
Also, ellabelle hasn't had - well - any stances on who to lynch, but has been happy to "reluctantly" sheep votes while failing to provide any reasoning of her own which isn't "whoa the tension is bad, maybe I should vote [current wagon]". Which puts her in the sweet spot for scum.
Besides, I've seen this tactic before. Active lurking, hedging, acting preoccupied with the relationships in a game (maybe not acting, but certainly focussing on it), unsure when pressed on why someone is scummy or not, etc, etc.
And:
In
In post 943, ellabelle wrote: In post 794, talah wrote:I said it, not you. Read my 789 again please.
To expand, Gnomeo's buddying up to you and you don't have a townread on him, between your heads you give him a null read. Since you apparently know that you will flip town, why would you not find this unwarranted buddying suspicious, and ask him a bunch of questions to determine his alignment? Otherwise isn't it just a grab for town-cred?
Also answer Nani's question thanks
Ah the gems we find. Since we know the flip on HL now, this does beg a little questioning. Gnomeo, what was the deal here? The case on you being town in thin in varying degrees, and this right here is damning in the right hands. I unvoted you because I really don't want you being wagoned on as lynchbait, but dude...
After going back and reading HL's miles of wall, looks like Nani was high on his list, so I'll go there, but idk.
Just wanted to get that question out to the Gnomester while it was fresh.
Me neither. It's a quote of me asking HouseLan about his motivations for not finding Gnomeo scummy for buddying. What does Gnomeo have to answer to? My accusation that HouseLan was scum?
Scum daytalk? Hey Whiskers, use this against talah? talah didn't notice or comment on your own buddying?
Whose hands would it be damning in? What's so bloody damning about it if half the players in the list *aren't* finding Gnomeo suspicious because of the supposed "buddying" anyway? I did check back and Chess and IV both called HouseLan town, too. So Gnomeo could have been picking up on and agreeing with that, not buddying.
It just seems like she's trying to justify her weak vote on today's wagon. Anyway - scumtell? I don't know. I'm not leading today so I'll sheep ellabelle for a bit and see where her opinions - or lack thereof - lead.
Probably not to you under any circumstances, I guess.
In post 1006, Whiskers wrote:Ok, well, it's also a scum trait, sometimes. Have you played with Gnomeo? do you know he's always a "crotchety bastard"? Because the "wah, wah, you just want to lynch me, I'm giving up!" is sometimes a scumtell. Also, desperately lurking to try to avoid your own lynch is usually a scumtell.
I tunnelled so hard on somebody behaving in almost exactly the same way in my first game, that I was able to convince everyone else that they were scum, and got them lynched. That player was simply *stubborn*. Gnomeo has some stances at least but I do have some problems with him. One of them is that his argument against Nani is "You totes lied about me defending BS, you is scum". Which might be *stubborn for the wrong reasons*. But then Nani'd be guilty of that too, RIGHT?
Anyway the point is - *you* don't have a reason to vote him as opposed to any other lurker. Which means you don't care who you lynch or *why* they get lynched - which is a scummy attitude.
In post 1006, Whiskers wrote:That's interesting, because this is the first time you've brought it up, despite people pointing at you for it at least three times.
ORLY? That - Is - Pure - Fucking - Garbage - and you know it. Search for 'stool pigeon' in my ISO and then tell me how I wasn't concerned.
In post 1006, Whiskers wrote:Then maybe, you would do well to look at both of the wagons to see which players they have in common.
Or what they both don't have at all? Maybe you would do well to draw a fucking conclusion.
Because it was a herpaderpey series of four questions to ask, if you weren't intentionally misreading what I said.
And you do this kind of thing consistently. Eg:
In post 924, Whiskers wrote:The fucking hell is this referring to? The two WHAT mentioned (and Thomas' WHAT unmentioned)!?!?
The WHAT doesn't require a specific reference if the entire frikkin conversation, IS the "WHAT".
So I dunno. Are these pointless questions scummy, or are they scumhunting? The only other time I've asked myself that particular question, the answer turned out to be: They're Scummy.
Oh here's another one.
To draw attention to the fact it was theatrical and bullshity.
In post 1006, Whiskers wrote:Wait, why is it possible that [someone] could have bussed Gnomeo for "Mega cred", but not that Nani could have bussed BS2000 for "Mega Cred" before?
The circumstances were entirely different, and I'm not saying either case is not "possible". I'm saying a speedwagon at the start of the day is "more likely" to be written off as stupid-town sheeping, thus generating towncred for the participants in the case of a correct lynch. How is this at all similar to a deadline lynch where Nani *actually votes before deadline*, with *no reason attached*?
Also, it's "Possible" but "Unlikely" that Nani is scum. So don't be putting your "possible" as the preposition and then misrepresent my argument as the direct negative of that - as if I said something was "not possible".
You essentially just said: "Oh hai talah, so I might be scum? But I have a username. Nani has a username too, so you're saying she's scum, why?"
Ergo, this would be the argument for [remaining scum partner after Gnomeo scum-flip] if Gnomeo and [scum partner] had agreed that he was caught for buddying (or had lost interest in the game) and needed to be bussed for cred. However, that's not rocket science either. It's easy to gloss over as lucky, but townies will still give the "lucky ones" credit for it.
In post 1006, Whiskers wrote:Ok, dates and times I get, I guess, but what are the numbers in parenthesis? Also, you see which point?
It's not rocket science. And the point I see is evident, as is the concession I'm making, if you even remember what YOU said about comparative speeds of the Gnomeo wagons in the first place.
Can you link me to the post where I defended you from Iv? The post I referred to, I attacked Iv for defending you.
I already linked it, but it's post XXX
You go on to do it again in post XXX
In fact, here's the spoiler of both of those posts since you are having difficulty locating your own ISO:
SPOILER
Can you link me the one you're saying you referred to, which shows IV defending me, OR EVEN attacking me? Or just concede that it doesn't exist, and that actually, IV was basically stating "talah = null maybe town maybe scum and I don't want to be lynched, being the only other wagon"? And therefore that you're trying to manufacture some bullshit premise or diversion from what's actually important here - which is you had no reason for defending me AT ALL unless you were pretending you were unvoting because you'd spotted me as a mason?
In post 978, talah wrote:6)
you seem like a player who goes to work with a plan,
Oh that's right, you're acting so random and carefree! My bad. Nobody who plays mafia tries to prove anyone is scummy by using arguments that the person they're voting's behaviour is scummy! That's so 2011!
If you, like I, want to further believe that it announces, "I'm not answering you because I don't have an answer," you'll want to lynch him after this.
Yup, we lynched him alright. And I can't give you any grief about pushing for that lynch. But I already said what my concern was - You not giving him a fighting chance by bogging him down with walls of fucking nothings that he couldn't help but be sucked in by. I'm sure that works with most people.
Oh! I'm so glad you reminded me. What did you want a "simple explanation" for?
O.M.F.G.
Okay - you know what I want a simple explanation for? Why Nani?
You already answered this with "I forgot". Which means you forgot even the fact that you already answered it. The old "I forgot" defense *yay fozzee bear*.
Your scummy defending of BS on Day 1 in Post XXX
Your scummy (POST)vote and then (POST)unvote of me after I subbed in and called you scum - it almost looks like you thought you'd hammered, too
Your scummy ego-puffing of my mafia skills @IV immediately after I removed my scumread of you, by attacking him in Post XXX and XXX
Your scummy sheep of my naked vote onto Thomas with oh-so-weak arguments
Your scummy attack on Mantis' BS vote, which pretty much sealed the scum-lynch
Your scummy failure to vote BS close to deadline, because "You forgot", even though you were around to try to pry Mantis off her BS vote, and left your vote on a wagon with *only your vote on it*
And since you want the litany of things that I find scummy in your play today:
Then fucking bring it on, bitch!
- quote chain misrep
(SPOILER)
- why haven't you been nk'd?
- keep talah in line of vision
- votes with shit reasons, instead of
In post 1006, Whiskers wrote:Let me just say: pretty soon there'll come a point where I go, "so how is this scummy?" to every single one of your points and you'll have like, one or two left.
No doubt, if you keep saying "I forget" in answer to the scummy things about you that I'm pointing out. Maybe you need to borrow my signature with the Thomas quote for awhile.
Also, reading ahead a little bit-- right now is 2 scum vs 3 masons. Scum can not counterclaim.
Mmmyah, I get that, and Gnomeo already said much the same thing.
And then I said that having the four non-masons helping to scumhunt at this stage while masons hold the advantage over scum, might not be a bad idea.
At the very least it reduces the possible scum combos that need to be considered from 56, to 20.
And it also eliminates the possibility of mislynching a mason.
ellabelle
Whose hands are the right hands?
What are you asking Gnomeo about?
I voted Gnomeo for the simple fact that I said I would yesterday
I found where you said that, but the reason was different.
