Support NeoGAF

[*Splinter]

Assuming Blarg flips scum, Stan and Kawl are next on my list.

Also WAMD is still scum and how the hell is that slip being ignored?? From Blarg especially: you spent the entirety of Danny Phantom accusing Flush for a slip far less blatant than WAMD's

Oh right, teammate, of course, nevermind

 

[StanleyPalmtree]

Assuming Blarg flips scum, Stan and Kawl are next on my list.

Also WAMD is still scum and how the hell is that slip being ignored?? From Blarg especially: you spent the entirety of Danny Phantom accusing Flush for a slip far less blatant than WAMD's

Oh right, teammate, of course, nevermind

well coming after me would be no surprise, but why kawl?

 

[Blargonaut]

As much as I hate to defend Blarg, Dusk is ignoring a real possibility of a fake claim in order to protect the real winner.

That said I still think he's scum, and tbh I thought I voted him yesterday.
Let me fix that:

VOTE: Blargonaut

And now you're trying to claim credit for confirming that fluff is fluff?

Blarg I have some water here, could you just check its wet for me? Ta.

Yeah, it's wet, and if Dusk is ignoring that real possibility as you say he is, then I don't see why you're so proud of outright dismissing it by voting against me.

I'm claiming credit for bringing this inevitable discussion about the 4 named contestants in fluff, to a point where a mod had to intervene to clarify the conversation I started and you refused to cooperate in. I got shit done and you haven't. Like I said to Sawneeks:

3 others have the knowledge I possess, and 1 of them has more, owning the Xbox themselves; I assisted in the proof that me, Stan, *Splint and Kawl may not actually be all of Night 0's contestants, despite all of us being named as such.

and pls specify what "huge decisions" I'm Trumpesquely asking all 19 other players to consider; last time I checked, I wasn't the bro that advocated we lynch a Plinko result.

As a participant in the bidding last Night, I could've went 'fuck you, got etc.' like the other 3? are, and left you all discussing that named flavour without my insider input. That's gratitude for you. If it wasn't me who goaded the mod into confirming that was just Flavour, then who would it have eventually been? Someone would bring it up eventually. Would you lynch that person too?

and to top it all off, a false equivalence based on nostalgia as the foundation for your vote against me

That's fine

But thanks for finally voting against me, good to know that I can make you do you at a snap of my fingers

If everyone played as passive-aggressive as you do, we'd all stay thirsty

 

[*Splinter]

well coming after me would be no surprise, but why kawl?

See previous:

To elaborate on that note about Kawl:

Dusk posts some questionable logic.


Kawl dismisses it. Dusk's post wasn't awful but I'm more on board with Kawl here.


Dusk makes the aforementioned scummy as hell post. "Don't over think", "50/50 scum", "Listen to me so you don't suck like you usually do"


Now here's where Kawl loses me:

Doesn't seem to have a problem with the scumminess of Dusk's post, but instead doubles down on defending Blarg.


---

Also on Dusk's scummy post, I must have misread before because I didn't realise he's advocating against lynching inactives on day 1. Lol at that

Inactive partners dusk?

He never responded to this post (although to be fair I don't think he's posted since?)

 

[*Splinter]

Yeah, it's wet, and if Dusk is ignoring that real possibility as you say he is, then I don't see why you're so proud of outright dismissing it by voting against me.

I'm claiming credit for bringing this inevitable discussion about the 4 named contestants in fluff, to a point where a mod had to intervene to clarify the conversation I started and you refused to cooperate in. I got shit done and you haven't. Like I said to Sawneeks:



But thanks for finally voting against me, good to know that I can make you do you at a snap of my fingers

If everyone played as passive-aggressive as you do, we'd all stay thirsty

If it even needed confirming in the first place, it would have happened when the four contestants had claimed and didn't match the four in the fluff. This is a desperate defense.

Your question was "Why are you lying?", and I responded with "I'm very obviously not, why the hell would I do that?"

 

[Blargonaut]

Assuming Blarg flips scum, Stan and Kawl are next on my list.

Also WAMD is still scum and how the hell is that slip being ignored?? From Blarg especially: you spent the entirety of Danny Phantom accusing Flush for a slip far less blatant than WAMD's

Oh right, teammate, of course, nevermind

*snip*

and to top it all off, a false equivalence based on nostalgia as the foundation for your vote against me

That's fine

.

 

[Blargonaut]

You didn't ask my permission to meta, *Splinter

Bad player, Bad

 

[*Splinter]

.

You're gonna have to elaborate if you think that's a false equivalence.

Nostalgia is just an emotive word for appealing to past behaviour. And yes I'm appealing to past behaviour, current behaviour doesn't match it. You think people will ignore my point just because you accuse me of appealing to "nostalgia"?

 

[*Splinter]

You're gonna have to elaborate if you think that's a false equivalence.

Nostalgia is just an emotive word for appealing to past behaviour. And yes I'm appealing to past behaviour, current behaviour doesn't match it. You think people will ignore my point just because you accuse me of appealing to "nostalgia"?

I should also point out that "foundation" was bullshit meant to undermine the rest of my argument. You ignoring WAMD was a distant side point to the rest of my argument.

 

[Blargonaut]

If it even needed confirming in the first place, it would have happened when the four contestants had claimed and didn't match the four in the fluff. This is a desperate defense.

Your question was "Why are you lying?", and I responded with "I'm very obviously not, why the hell would I do that?"

And I soft-confirmed your answer by bringing about that mod Flavour intervention. What truly sounds desperate is your unabated assault on me, in light of a pro-Town play of mine that you yourself acknowledge could be a possibility.

Are you going to answer my question to Sawneeks for her? Or should I wait for her to return so I can actually have a meaningful conversation with someone?

 

[StanleyPalmtree]

See previous:

He never responded to this post (although to be fair I don't think he's posted since?)

that? really?

thinking that thats in defense of blarg is a pretty big stretch.
both parts of it speak much more as a warning to keeping an open mind when trying to draw meaning from blargs actions.

and yeah, pretty sure kawl hasn't posted since.

 

[*Splinter]

that? really?

thinking that thats in defense of blarg is a pretty big stretch.
both parts of it speak much more as a warning to keeping an open mind when trying to draw meaning from blargs actions.

and yeah, pretty sure kawl hasn't posted since.

My complaint was specifically that it was subtle rather than openly defensive. It's why I think he's more likely to be scum than you are.

But yes, it's not much, just the next lead I intend to follow

After WAMD, who btw is still scum

 

[Blargonaut]

You're gonna have to elaborate if you think that's a false equivalence.

Nostalgia is just an emotive word for appealing to past behaviour. And yes I'm appealing to past behaviour, current behaviour doesn't match it. You think people will ignore my point just because you accuse me of appealing to "nostalgia"?

No, because I never asked anyone to ignore you or your points.

fake edit: Oh look, now you're handwaving you bringing up WAMD and my lack of pressure on her typo?, as a "distant side point". What do you want it to be, *Splint? Make up your mind.

I must've missed that post of hers, do me a favour and point it out to me, would you kindly.

 

[*Splinter]

No, because I never asked anyone to ignore you or your points.

fake edit: Oh look, now you're handwaving you bringing up WAMD and my lack of pressure on her typo?, as a "distant side point". What do you want it to be, *Splint? Make up your mind.

I must've missed that post of hers, do me a favour and point it out to me, would you kindly.

Are you serious?

If you wanted to criticise me (and Sawneeks) for appealing to past games, you could have done so. Instead you accuse us of appealing to "nostalgia". "Nostalgia" specifically being chosen as a word that undermines the argument by painting it as manipulative.

Appealing to past games is (maybe) convincing.
Appealing to nostalgia is manipulative.

WAMD is a side point because it's far from the most damning evidence againdt you. Again you used a specific choice of words (foundation, in this case), to inflate it's importance and implicitly undermine the rest of the my argument.

In a similar vein, if you wanted mod confirmation that water is wet you could simply ask the mod. Mods generally don't step in unless they feel it is necessary so there was a good chance your ridiculous arguments would have run unchecked (by the mod at least).


Will find the WAMD post in a sec, although it's not exactly the first time I've mentioned it...

 

[Blargonaut]

VOTE: WhereAreMahDragonz

nvm *Splint, I forgot, I can do things myself

 

[*Splinter]

On the show there are four.

Who's the last? And what exactly did everyone bid?

Here

At this point, we only knew of 2 contestants. She later confirmed that she was not a contestant herself.

 

[Kyanrute]

Well that's more like it, but is it opposite day? "Offers no opinion", "minimal shade" is fine, while trying to lynch obvious scum is scummy?

I don't even disagree that Kark (Plinko aside) has been looking pretty townie, but I don't really get your reasoning here.

Like with Dusk, like with Blarg, you now do it with me. You ignore the context in a way that lets you cast others in a bad light. I had a premise there: "scum might want to appear active by throwing shade at Dusk". The whole post was about that.

I get what you are saying, it is the way you go about things that seems extremely counter-productive to me. You do not argue, you force others to do it for you. You put yourself on top of a pedestal and look as the peasants below you try their best to conjure up the words that would wipe away the dirt you tossed at them.

 

[*Splinter]

VOTE: WhereAreMahDragonz

nvm *Splint, I forgot, I can do things myself

 

[*Splinter]

Like with Dusk, like with Blarg, you now do it with me. You ignore the context in a way that lets you cast others in a bad light. I had a premise there: "scum might want to appear active by throwing shade at Dusk". The whole post was about that.

I get what you are saying, it is the way you go about things that seems extremely counter-productive to me. You do not argue, you force others to do it for you. You put yourself on top of a pedestal and look as the peasants below you try their best to conjure up the words that would wipe away the dirt you tossed at them.

🤔

 

[Kyanrute]

🤔

I dunno, is this a reference to the million or so posts you've made after I went to bed? I have no way to know, since this is the way you choose to communicate. How is the air up there?

VOTE: *Splinter

 

[*Splinter]

I dunno, is this a reference to the million or so posts you've made after I went to bed? I have no way to know, since this is the way you choose to communicate. How is the air up there?

VOTE: *Splinter

Brisk

 

[Blargonaut]

Are you serious?

If you wanted to criticise me (and Sawneeks) for appealing to past games, you could have done so. Instead you accuse us of appealing to "nostalgia". "Nostalgia" specifically being chosen as a word that undermines the argument by painting it as manipulative.

Appealing to past games is (maybe) convincing.
Appealing to nostalgia is manipulative.

Is what you and Sawneeks are doing, not manipulative? You are appealing for my lynch with the difference in my play behaviour as a point in your case. I consider that manipulative, hence why I used the word "nostalgia"; by your own definition I am fully qualified to say it so, because that's what I feel you are doing to me.

I have undermined no argument but your own, and rightfully so.

WAMD is a side point because it's far from the most damning evidence againdt you.

That's the thing, *Splint; it's NOT evidence against me.

Unless you consider it in the narrative of you continuing to wield my play history against me.

Again you used a specific choice of words (foundation, in this case), to inflate it's importance and implicitly undermine the rest of the my argument.

It is important, it's me

If you can't handle my vocabulary I can tone it down for you

In a similar vein, if you wanted mod confirmation that water is wet you could simply ask the mod. Mods generally don't step in unless they feel it is necessary so there was a good chance your ridiculous arguments would have run unchecked (by the mod at least).

I didn't ask if water is wet, you did. Why didn't you ask the mod about that, *Splint?

My argument was only deemed as truly ridiculous only after Sophia intervened with the 'just Flavor' confirmation. Yet you say it like it was 100% ridiculous before that. That's the thing, it wasn't. It, being in its unconfirmed state back then, was entirely a valid point of discussion.

4 named contestants in the D1 opening post, and we didn't know if they were just there for flavour or not. I didn't know, because I was a contestant myself, yet I was named. Can you not see how that would be confusing to me? So I endeavoured to clear it up in public. Why ask in private when I can generate a point of discussion with my issue?

Like I said:

If it wasn't me who goaded the mod into confirming that was just Flavour, then who would it have eventually been? Someone would bring it up eventually. Would you lynch that person too?

 

[*Splinter]

Alright Kyan I'll play along

Like with Dusk, like with Blarg, you now do it with me. You ignore the context in a way that lets you cast others in a bad light. I had a premise there: "scum might want to appear active by throwing shade at Dusk". The whole post was about that.

I get what you are saying, it is the way you go about things that seems extremely counter-productive to me. You do not argue, you force others to do it for you. You put yourself on top of a pedestal and look as the peasants below you try their best to conjure up the words that would wipe away the dirt you tossed at them.

I wasn't so much trying to cast you in a bad light, I just genuinely don't understand your line of thinking there. You approach the situation from the angle of "scum will be aggressive, town are pussycats" and I don't see why you'd make that assumption? Yes scum can be aggressive and yes town can be pussycats, but why would you assume that as a starting point?

"You do not argue" I flat out disagree with.

As for putting myself on a pedestal, well... Yeah? But only because I'm better than everyone else? I don't think that's unreasonable?

 

[Blargonaut]

*snip*

As for putting myself on a pedestal, well... Yeah? But only because I'm better than everyone else? I don't think that's unreasonable?

With my permission, you're entitled to coast through the Days without votes on yourself, like the pair of novelty fuzzy dice off the rear-view mirror that everyone is content to keep you around as

 

[Blargonaut]

You should be grateful that I drove you to a schooling out of my own damn pocket

 

[*Splinter]

Is what you and Sawneeks are doing, not manipulative? You are appealing for my lynch with the difference in my play behaviour as a point in your case. I consider that manipulative, hence why I used the word "nostalgia"; by your own definition I am fully qualified to say it so, because that's what I feel you are doing to me.

I have undermined no argument but your own, and rightfully so.

Well did you want to undermine it or not:

No, because I never asked anyone to ignore you or your points.

And let's not get bogged down in semantics. Undermine = asked to ignore which is exactly what I accused you of.

That's the thing, *Splint; it's NOT evidence against me.

Unless you consider it in the narrative of you continuing to wield my play history against me.

Continuing? It's the first and only reference to past behaviour I've made. It is in direct opposition to your current behaviour, it is entirely reasonable to point it out.

It is important, it's me

If you can't handle my vocabulary I can tone it down for you[/I]
I realise this is facetious, but in case anyone is so easily bamboozled I'll reiterate my point that you are specifically choosing words (from your vast vocabulary) to undermine my arguments rather than responding to me in good faith.

I didn't ask if water is wet, you did. Why didn't you ask the mod about that, *Splint?

Sophia pls confirm.

My argument was only deemed as truly ridiculous only after Sophia intervened with the 'just Flavor' confirmation. Yet you say it like it was 100% ridiculous before that. That's the thing, it wasn't. It, being in its unconfirmed state back then, was entirely a valid point of discussion.

This is, was, and will always be a stupid argument:

but first-



food for thought

Would you like to continue to pretend otherwise?

Only reason I hadn't already called you out is because I wasn't around. I'll have to look back to see who let this ridiculousness ride.

4 named contestants in the D1 opening post, and we didn't know if they were just there for flavour or not. I didn't know, because I was a contestant myself, yet I was named. Can you not see how that would be confusing to me? So I endeavoured to clear it up in public. Why ask in private when I can generate a point of discussion with my issue?

Like I said:

It was reasonable to you. It was still reasonable when Kawl claimed. It was less reasonable after me, Stan, Corn and CM weighed in.

And it was a question you could have asked in public, but again I think you'd prefer the question to have gone unanswered.

 

[Kyanrute]

Alright Kyan I'll play along


I wasn't so much trying to cast you in a bad light, I just genuinely don't understand your line of thinking there. You approach the situation from the angle of "scum will be aggressive, town are pussycats" and I don't see why you'd make that assumption? Yes scum can be aggressive and yes town can be pussycats, but why would you assume that as a starting point?

"You do not argue" I flat out disagree with.

As for putting myself on a pedestal, well... Yeah? But only because I'm better than everyone else? I don't think that's unreasonable?

yaaaay i like to play.

I make that assumption because it is one of the possible scenarios that might happen in a game. Is it THE scenario? I have no idea, likely it is not. It might be useful in the future, it might not be. Jumping on a train is very easy to do and the returns are good as well for scum. Scum who throw shade at silly things make themselves look like they have opinions and are present and contributing, qualities that generally make a person less likely to get lynched on day one. Little effort, large benefit. The reactions to Dusk's posts were a good possible example of such a scenario I felt and that's why I brought it up.

I admit, I too exaggerate things from time to time. In your case, I said that you do not argue (and all the rest) in hopes to get more than a .gif out of you, and it worked. You argue, certainly, but so far I feel that sometimes it goes more towards shit-slinging instead of actual discussion. Giev me some time to read through what happened during zzz so I can see if there is more of this there or not.

 

[Dusk Soldier]

You're right that in the end, the points don't really matter; but take a step back and actually think about what a failed bid winner claimant can do. Fuck yeah what I did was a huge risk to my personal survival, that's why I did it. I'm a team player like that. And practical, too.

But if you wanted to protect the real prize winner. Why did you later take back the claim that you won?

That's what I don't get. Why not stick to your guns?

---

Slightly off topic, but I just realised that both Kyanrute and Sawneeks are playing this game. I've always wanted to see how their play styles mesh together.

 

[Blargonaut]

Well did you want to undermine it or not:

...yeah, I said that I wanted to undermine you, of all people? I typed it out pretty clearly, I think.

And let's not get bogged down in semantics. Undermine = asked to ignore which is exactly what I accused you of.

I'm not the one who's spewing out definitions for the sake of their own argument, you are. And it's getting just as thin as the paper of a reputable dictionary.

Continuing? It's the first and only reference to past behaviour I've made. It is in direct opposition to your current behaviour, it is entirely reasonable to point it out.

IMO, neither you or Sawneeks should've pointed it out at all, but that's just my opinion.

But now that you have, what of it? Just because I failed to notice something I previously tunnelled someone for; you gonna lynch me for that?

I realise this is facetious, but in case anyone is so easily bamboozled I'll reiterate my point that you are specifically choosing words (from your vast vocabulary) to undermine my arguments rather than responding to me in good faith.

I've been responding to you for quite a while now, *Splint. And why would I NOT want to undermine your arguments? You're arguing against me.

This is, was, and will always be a stupid argument

Would you like to continue to pretend otherwise?

Because...?

Only reason I hadn't already called you out is because I wasn't around. I'll have to look back to see who let this ridiculousness ride

It was reasonable to you. It was still reasonable when Kawl claimed. It was less reasonable after me, Stan, Corn and CM weighed in.

How so? Because you're all bidder claimants?

Corn and CM weren't named. You and Stan were named. Yet you and Stan said you weren't bidders. Kawl and I were named, and I was a bidder. He says he was too. Is that your "weight"? That you're not what a previously unquestioned flavour post suggests you were, and it took my escalation to bring it to light and actually soft-confirm/HELP you? I fail to see how that unjustifies my actions.

And it was a question you could have asked in public, but again I think you'd prefer the question to have gone unanswered.

Again, thanks for noticing. Didn't I already address that? Oh wait, you're selectively dismissive, I forgot. Aside from your non-stop nibbling of me, what have you contributed to the society of this thread, internetman? You keep saying I should have asked; why didn't you, o keenly observant one?

You're all hindsight and no foresight, *Splinter. That's why you're successfully untouchable at what you do: nitpicking. Your repetitive, unoriginal jabs appear detail-oriented to Town by virtue of the misplaced decisiveness of their sheer reactive quantity. I read them, and all I gain are lost minutes. When I reply to them, all I gain is your inane aggro.

Scum doesn't have a monopoly on lies, because lies don't have an alignment. You haven't yet done a single thing in consideration of Town's future, only tunnelling. You wanna bring up the past? Did you see what blind tunnelling achieves, in DP? I should know, I was THE tunneller. And it didn't end well for anyone except scum. If you wanna repeat my history, go ahead, my vote's there waiting for yours and everyone else's.

And now you accuse the one who talked about it openly instead of in private, of having an ulterior motive? Fuckin' LOL. Doctor, I hope you can treat my

I got the answer for us, not you. The ends justify the means. I brought it to that level of divine intervention, and you're all the better for it. Justify your own existence, exalted one.

 

[Blargonaut]

But if you wanted to protect the real prize winner. Why did you later take back the claim that you won?

That's what I don't get. Why not stick to your guns?

*snip*

finally, someone brings up a real valid point

Dusk, if you must know, it's because I'm a liar.

 

[*Splinter]

gg Blarg

 

[Blargonaut]

gg Blarg

a GG but your vote's still on me, what kind of an honest admission of your utter defeat is that? You'd remove that vote too if you were truly sporting

oh wait, you meant it in spiteful irony, since I'm going to be lynched Today by a paltry handful of 4 out of 19 players, your outsmarted-by-me-yet-no-one-will-acknowledge-it self being one of them

yeah GG

 

[melonrabbit]

(Back to work and mobile)

The longer this goes on the more consistent Blarg is too me as a town read. The strategy he employed might have a dishonest one but I think there is some merit to it. Town sometimes had to lie for the longer-term benefit of the town. Over this discussion has given me a few reads.

Kark is so far leaning town to me.

I also think CM and Cornbro's drive-by comments on bidding last night without any sufficient follow up or mention was a little strange.

LP was inactive but his latest posts have been pretty solid and reads town.

Star has been coasting a lot and has so far been hesitate to give a real opinion on anyone.

Dusk's overall behavior has been rather scummy.

Splinter, I'm a lot less sure of you than when the day started.

Vote: *Splinter

 

[*Splinter]

(Back to work and mobile)

The longer this goes on the more consistent Blarg is too me as a town read. The strategy he employed might have a dishonest one but I think there is some merit to it. Town sometimes had to lie for the longer-term benefit of the town. Over this discussion has given me a few reads.

Kark is so far leaning town to me.

I also think CM and Cornbro's drive-by comments on bidding last night without any sufficient follow up or mention was a little strange.

LP was inactive but his latest posts have been pretty solid and reads town.

Star has been coasting a lot and has so far been hesitate to give a real opinion on anyone.

Dusk's overall behavior has been rather scummy.

Splinter, I'm a lot less sure of you than when the day started.

Vote: *Splinter

Normality has resumed

Joking aside, is there a question attached to that vote? Anything specific you're "less sure" about that I can respond to?

Can you also be more specific on your town read of Blarg? He's been consistent in his belligerence but his recent posts were (in my opinion) increasingly desperate attempt to disparage me.

The rest of your reads I more or less agree on. Kark as town; I'd extend the drive by accusation to Kawl, I think he and CornBro haven't posted at all since claiming; Sketch is more of a null because she kind of plays like that and she hasnt posted enough yet for a better read; Dusk is scummy, but I also think he's right about Blarg so overall I townread him.

LP I must have missed, will look back for his posts.

 

[*Splinter]

To be fair to Kawl this absence seems beyond "lying low". I'm assuming he's been unavailable and hopefully he'll show up soon.

 

[WhereAreMahDragonz]

Here

At this point, we only knew of 2 contestants. She later confirmed that she was not a contestant herself.

When I typed this, I had assumed that Blarg was right and that three contestants were already out. Blarg, Kawl, and Stan. Stan had yet to come out and say that he was NOT a contestant, and I was just kind of skimming through posts because there was a lot of Blarg bullshit, so I made an assumption. It was honestly a matter of me misreading (or lack thereof) and assuming things and has nothing to do with me accidentally giving away information. I went back and reread it after you made a stink about it and realized that Stan had yet to say shit about it.

But if you want to keep riding that bus, go for it.

 

[StanleyPalmtree]

can we please not do the usual day 1 gafia thing of honing in on the active players just because they are the only ones that have given enough material to provide a safe accusation of scummyness?

pretty please?

 

[StanleyPalmtree]

heh, i was just thinking of WAMD as an alternate target due to her silence on the matter, but there it is.

i see your skills of foresight / long range mind reading are nothing to shake a stick at.

 

[WhereAreMahDragonz]

I mean if y'all wanna lynch me, that's your call. But I am telling you, in the best way I can, that I am town and you will be mislynching me.

And that fact is the only reason I'm responding at all. Mostly because I don't really know how to play town. I've played scum too many times to make a slip as stupid and obvious as that.

 

[Christina Mackenzie]

can we please not do the usual day 1 gafia thing of honing in on the active players just because they are the only ones that have given enough material to provide a safe accusation of scummyness?

pretty please?

What do you suggest, Plinko?

I'm at a lost trying to make sense of everything.

 

[*Splinter]

When I typed this, I had assumed that Blarg was right and that three contestants were already out. Blarg, Kawl, and Stan. Stan had yet to come out and say that he was NOT a contestant, and I was just kind of skimming through posts because there was a lot of Blarg bullshit, so I made an assumption. It was honestly a matter of me misreading (or lack thereof) and assuming things and has nothing to do with me accidentally giving away information. I went back and reread it after you made a stink about it and realized that Stan had yet to say shit about it.

But if you want to keep riding that bus, go for it.

Huh, that's quite a lot more involved than the excuse you gave last time?

Lol it was an honest mistake I made in my hungover state but okay

I'm not sure these posts even line up?

Simple mistake made in hungover state
vs
Weird, hard to justify assumption

 

[*Splinter]

heh, i was just thinking of WAMD as an alternate target due to her silence on the matter, but there it is.

i see your skills of foresight / long range mind reading are nothing to shake a stick at.

Silence? She did respond when I first made the accusation, in fairness.

 

[*Splinter]

What do you suggest, Plinko?

I'm at a lost trying to make sense of everything.

Um, try harder please. Do you have any reads so far?

Thoughts on WAMD's slip and her defense(s)?

Thoughts on Blarg, or the people attacking/defending him?

It's been a lively day 1, not satisfied with "at a loss"

 

[WhereAreMahDragonz]

My immediate gut reads are this:

Splinter: pushing my lynch hard on what was a scummy move on my part, so I can't really fault him. Normally I'd say he was scum but I've played with him before on multiple occasions and I know this is just how he is. Null read.

Blarg: why lie? Doesn't really make sense from a town perspective. Leaning scum.

Kyan: Honorary scum forever and ever and ever. He's playing consistently like he always has, so I can't tell if this is indicative of scum or town this time, because I do not have the advantage of being on his team if he is scum.

Kark: Town. Does a lot to contribute and hasn't done anything to trigger my radar just yet.

Melon: Asks questions, seems honest, no scum reads from him.

Dusk: I don't like his statical analysis because I don't really see why he would go through the trouble other than to create chaos and point fingers on day one. Scum.

The rest I don't really have a good read on. Sorry, I'm on my phone so I cant type much.

 

[WhereAreMahDragonz]

Huh, that's quite a lot more involved than the excuse you gave last time?


I'm not sure these posts even line up?

Simple mistake made in hungover state
vs
Weird, hard to justify assumption

Are you seriously trying to call me scum over the differencd between hungover and a simple mistake? Dude...

It doesn't matter what I call it, I wasn't in the physical / emotional mood to deal with Blarg's shit posts and I skimmed. I'm responding to it now because you won't let it go and I don't want you to mislynch me.

 

[OceanicAir]

Jeez. I'm really not feeling a Blarg lynch right now mainly because I felt he did a roundabout way of garnering attention away from the winner (who's not exactly anymore likely to be town or mafia depending on the action of the item). I really wish that one of the other bidders would comment in some way about the bidding. And remember if Blarg is telling the truth about not winning the item then somebody else is lying too (and isn't that why some are voting Blarg?).

Splinter, doesn't get me as mafia right now. Just really aggressive and probably wrong town. But I really don't like him using WAMD as any form of justification for voting Blarg (regardless of how small). Wouldn't it be far better to lynch WAMD first before using it as a reason (and I do think you are running down the wrong path in her case right now).

I'm leaning Dusk right now but I'm personally thinking that a good deal of scum are coasting and not bothering to stick their neck out right now. Doesn't help that some people haven't really commented lately.

 

[StanleyPalmtree]

Silence? She did respond when I first made the accusation, in fairness.

yes she did.
damn i completely missed that,
my bad.

What do you suggest, Plinko?

I'm at a lost trying to make sense of everything.

RIGHT

 

[*Splinter]

can we please not do the usual day 1 gafia thing of honing in on the active players just because they are the only ones that have given enough material to provide a safe accusation of scummyness?

pretty please?

I have a love-hate relationship with this argument. Sure it's good as a general rule but when I'm this certain on someone, I'd rather lynch the scum than waste time playing it safe.

But ok I'll bite. Who do you suggest? Is WAMD "inactive" enough for you? I don't think she's done much outside of her slip and subsequent defense, but your next post sounded like you are already satisfied by her post?

 

[*Splinter]

Are you seriously trying to call me scum over the differencd between hungover and a simple mistake? Dude...

It doesn't matter what I call it, I wasn't in the physical / emotional mood to deal with Blarg's shit posts and I skimmed. I'm responding to it now because you won't let it go and I don't want you to mislynch me.

That's maybe my bad for putting the arguments backwards compared to the quotes, but hungover = simple mistake. Weird assumptions is your longer recent post.

Also, from your (safe as houses) read list:

Blarg: why lie? Doesn't really make sense from a town perspective. Leaning scum.

Blarg's lie was his least scummy move of the game. Don't like this read, feels like trying to jump on other people's arguments/reads without even understanding them. Bandwagon/bus.

 

[Kawl_USC]

Sorry was busier than I expected this weekend with birthday stuff.

Have at least skimmed all posts (except for the blarg x splinter tedium after the 10th or so post). At work until day end but will try to string thoughts together during lunch.

Oh also, I was just trying to give blarg enough rope to hang him self with vis a vis agreeing with his claim. So, I'll leave the actual status of myself as a bidder up in the air but not the previously stated definite yes.

His attempt to claim it as all part of a master plan strikes me as typical for him, not really alignment indicative. I would be fine with him or splinter to just clear the muck from the thread, heavily leaning to blarg out of the two.