WW 19 Game Thread - Mobster Mayhem - GAME OVER

[uberfish]

@uberfish What do you think about Selrahc escaping from answering a lot of questions or arguments vs him?

I honestly can't keep track of whom has asked who what, so please point out where in particular you think Selrahc has been evasive.

[waterbat]

@uber: I actually reconsidered the phrasing you pointed out. Initially I just had 'framing' and I felt like that sounded derogatory - so I added the 'up' to it. It's essentially what you were dOing - providing structure "framing". I didn't mean it in the sense you were framing tasunke.

[Ryan]

@uberfish What do you think about Selrahc escaping from answering a lot of questions or arguments vs him?

I honestly can't keep track of whom has asked who what, so please point out where in particular you think Selrahc has been evasive.

Here they are. WALL OF TEXT INCOMMING

No, he was not. He was advocating that we lynch the one with the card IF there is no one better showing up.

Rowain wanted to get rid of the card in a way that focused on the card as the issue. He then changed to wanting to lynch me. That is unrelated. That doesn't mean his initial stance wasn't still based primarily on the existence of the card.

The idea I'm talking about is not asking for someone to be lynched on the basis of the card. It is a proposal to get rid of the card as the result of a lynch. It is an exact inversion of what Rowain was discussing.

I don't see the difference to what Rowain said and it feels like you are twisting his words. Firstly the lynch was going to remove Novice a suspect of being scum plus the card. Which what you were saying since in a same way you are relaying on the fact that wolves aren't influencing the votes and that town lynch. Secondly you mentioned in a very early post that you prefer Vigi not shooting so it doesn't fall into scum hands why the change of heart ? Thirdly I am still waiting for you to respond to the argument that Serdoa and Rowain made against you and uberfish that you both ignored responding to . I cannot link it right but it disproved the reason of you and fishes vote against Rowain . You didn't respond to that but choose to switch your point of view on the Vigi shot. All of these are increasing the level I was doubting you pretty heavily .

@Waterbat You have posted barley at all and provided close to now explanation for your votes or anything. At first you said this :"lynching novice seems to have the least net downside to it (absent other useful data)." and then your vote was finally set to "this lso seemed like something was off there with Zakalwe its thin" I dont understand that change vote or the reason for that change in fact I barley got anything from your posts except ideas already mentioned just to escape a convorsation. Looking at your posts its about scrapper and thats it. You provided zero information and the stuff you wrote is basically filler in my eyes.

@mattie and bigger , Well I think we shouldnt let them off for this, but meh life can get you busy. and Mattie :P

@ Selrahc this is the quote I wanted to link earlier :

Qgqqqqq Wrote: Sorry x-post with 375.
I'm explaining my reasoning.
Yes I do find Rowain suspicious but its no because I don't agree with him, its because of the way he is driveing his train - not for the sake of catching wolves but a veritable policy lynch where he basically says "we have to lose a villager, why not this one."


Yeah, that argument was brought now so often, but I still wait for someone to show me when Rowain actually stated that. Oh wait, pindicator found it:

(Today 13:13)pindicator Wrote:

(Today 03:44)Rowain Wrote: I'm still the opinion that it better to lynch a villager with the card than to lynch a villager without it.
So who has a good enough chance to be scum to outweight the risk of lynching a villager? Our back and forth has drawn too much talk so far (which makes it in itself already a good move for scum) but I think there are some names worth a closer inspection.


Well, probably good you called me out on that, because i didn't read this thoroughly the first time. I took the bolded bit and glossed over the rest, so boo on that example. But this later one is the one i had in mind:

(Today 05:23)Rowain Wrote: Yes getting rid of the card trumps lynching a random villager. Are you of different opinion? You rather want the card in play and lynch a villager?


So it could just be a lazy re-writing of the first point. Enough that i don't think that is his guilt all in one.


Serdoa : "Well, so we agree that he never stated what 4 people provide as reason to vote for him? Thats great. If now only those people, like Qgqqqq, would actually start to reread themselves instead of simply latching onto a wagon because it is so much easier that would be great.

Btw: Thanks pindi, I was getting unsure myself now what Rowain had actually written, but I was certain that I would remember if he actually really had stated that we have to lynch a villager anyway. Of course, one can construe the posts you quoted above as that, but I'd consider that ill-intent, because it seems obvious that is was meant differently, as you point out. I also understand that you have other reasons which let you lean more to him than to Selrahc. Not sure I agree with them, but at least it feels honest and not something you make up just to vote for him as I get the feel with some of the others.

Also, I agree with you that we should not put too much trust in the seer-scans. Thats a good stance to take. Hopefully that will be kept as soon as the first screams that he found a wolf. "

Ya i am waiting for the response.

[waterbat]

@zak,@serdoa: I'm not as dumb as I sound. Perhaps this is too close to 15 when I played inept villager to he end, but anyway, I had my reasons for wanting to lie. But I couldn't make it work, so I didn't. You all pointing out that it wouldn't have worked is just validating my decision not to have done it. Thanks.

Now, in hindsight, posting about it at all is stupid- but I dont have a QT like I did last game to put crazy stuff like this in.

[Ryan]

Then why would you say it as a way to respond to my attacks? Why couldnt you just respond in a different way? Why couldnt you respond more calmly and without saying fuck off?

[waterbat]

@Waterbat You have posted barley at all and provided close to now explanation for your votes or anything. At first you said this :"lynching novice seems to have the least net downside to it (absent other useful data)." and then your vote was finally set to "this lso seemed like something was off there with Zakalwe its thin" I dont understand that change vote or the reason for that change in fact I barley got anything from your posts except ideas already mentioned just to escape a convorsation. Looking at your posts its about scrapper and thats it. You provided zero information and the stuff you wrote is basically filler in my eyes.

Still going on about that? Read it and tell me where there is a goddamn question in there?

Statements :
You posted hardly at all
You included 'now' explanations of your votes
At first you said this and then u said that
I don't understand the change
You only talked about your scraper.
Your posts are filler in my eyes.

Ok- I agree with all those. What do I need to answer to?

[waterbat]

Then why would you say it as a way to respond to my attacks? Why couldnt you just respond in a different way? Why couldnt you respond more calmly and without saying fuck off?

I said it as a response to your attacks? Wtf? I never responded to your 'attacks'. You are interpreting all my posts in this forum as having a connection to you?

[Ryan]

I give a flying fuck, Ryan. Oh wait I don't.

I was going to also lie and counterclaim the gun against tasunke! Because I thought he was lying and I could protect the gun owner. If he was telling the truth, I could protect him from night kill. I couldn't work out to protect him and I both from lynch though.

Of course you didnt write in response to me...

[Ryan]

2nd time I quote you saying something incorrect.

[Ryan]

@Waterbat You have posted barley at all and provided close to now explanation for your votes or anything. At first you said this :"lynching novice seems to have the least net downside to it (absent other useful data)." and then your vote was finally set to "this lso seemed like something was off there with Zakalwe its thin" I dont understand that change vote or the reason for that change in fact I barley got anything from your posts except ideas already mentioned just to escape a convorsation. Looking at your posts its about scrapper and thats it. You provided zero information and the stuff you wrote is basically filler in my eyes.

Still going on about that? Read it and tell me where there is a goddamn question in there?

Statements :
You posted hardly at all
You included 'now' explanations of your votes
At first you said this and then u said that
I don't understand the change
You only talked about your scraper.
Your posts are filler in my eyes.

Ok- I agree with all those. What do I need to answer to?

So you agree that you are a scum ?