Open 413 - Duck, Duck, Shoot! (Game over!)

[Om of the Nom]

Michael Thorsett -- Nobody Special (and Shattered Viewpoint)

[Om of the Nom]

NS
I SEE YOU POSTING IN FACEBOOK CHAT
GET YOUR ASS IN HERE

[andrew94]

omg...
ns...

[drmyshotgun]

NS is playing to his "normal" meta then. Not saying its Town nor Scum. Just NS. Damn, he's hard to read.

[mcqueen]

I'll keep lurking, thanks. Glad you found it acceptable to make the offer.

Here's the thing. It wasn't an offer.

UNVOTE: - (I forget if I am still voting AcRv or not.)
VOTE: Shattered Viewpoint

[kondi2424]

I personally think SV is town for being more useful than his scum usual.

[mcqueen]

I personally think SV is town for being more useful than his scum usual.

Lmao.

To be honest, I've never actually

played

with Nobody Special, but I have

seen

him a little bit. I didn't pay much attention, though.

[Lastsurvivor]

A reporter is at the scene of one of the eruptions.
"It seems that the good volcanoes have no special volcanoes to help them against the killer volcanoes. No inspector volcanoes, no doctor volcanoes, nothing," she reports.
"So," says the anchorwoman comfortably at the station, "this is sort of like a mountainous setup?"
"No," replies the reporter, "they're volcanoes."

D1 VOTE COUNT #9

Jal (L-2) - AcRv, Quinter, drmyshotgun, brundibar

mcqueen - (L-3) andrew94, Jal, kondi2424
Phillammon (L-5) - Om of the Nom
Om of the Nom (L-5) - Shattered Viewpoint
Shattered Viewpoint (L-5) - mcqueen
AcRv -
Quinter -
andrew94 -
drmyshotgun -
kondi2424 -
brundibar -


Not voting: Phillammon

V/LA: Quinter LA until approximately 6/16 (but he can still post), Brundibar, 6/12 - 6/17

With 11 alive, it takes six to lynch

Deadline is in (expired on 2012-06-23 23:13:00)

[Shattered Viewpoint]

Is he Nobody Special alt?
No wonder then.

Hush, you.


Also, wtf volcanoes.


More later tonight.

[andrew94]

v/la couple days due to exams

[drmyshotgun]

Err, I can't make any new posts because there isn't anything new around here. So yeah. Jal is still scum.
Quinter ran off.

[AcRv]

Think you should all know that I'm only posting now because I didn't get to last night, I'm in a really bad mood right now so I officially take back anything I say in this post that offends anyone.

This was me saying things early game to get me moving. If you read later, you see that I realised I was wrong on this account too.

The absolutes are really bad sounding though. A much better way to say it would have been, "If Jal is scum, I'm willing to bet gunny is too, and if gunny is town the I'm betting Jal will be too."

So you don't like that I sounded too confident.

You didn't sound confident at all. It just sounded like lots of absolutes to me. I really didn't like it.

People use absolutes when they're confident

You were needlessly confident though. It seemed too early to be confident, especially considering noting really scummy happened.

I can see why that'd give you bad vibes.

Shooting down a case against player x is defending player x.

No it's not, as mcqueen said.

Defend:

n.

To ward off, repel (an attack or attacker)

That doesn't specify who it's defending.

I think it's pretty obvious when there was one guy under fire in the quoted post.

Stop assuming things.

It is just the most likely explanation. Also, if he were attacking us/me, he would have said so. He just said "I wasn't defending anyone". That was all. If it was his intention to attack one or both of us, he'd have said so.

That's what he was doing. He was repelling a case that someone else was putting forward. By definition, that is defending someone.

But you are assuming he was defending someone in the first place.

I already said that he was, when I quoted the definition of "defend". In fact, right above I say what defines defending, saying he was, and now you're sayinf I'm assuming he was defending someone. When I gave reason as to why he was. Looks like you're trying to keep this going longer than it needs to.

I don't remember you giving a reason for him to defend someone. Please quote it for me.

Sorry, I meant a reason as to why what he did was defending him. And I am not quoting that again, I've already done it enough damned times.

I would link to one instance to it, but that was lost in the crash... I'm sure if you looked you could find occassions where it's done. I can understand why they do it too, hence why I'm doing it. I only do it early game so scum don't give me an early town vibe and then mess with me a bit later on.

But if they start acting like that once they see your reason for your town reads, then surely that would be suspicious to you wouldn't it? It's a shit reason to not give out your town reads. You aren't just witholding information from the scum, but also from the town.

Or town could be doing it because, you know, it's a TOWN thing to do, and so TOWN are naturally going to do things that TOWN naturally do.

So basically anyone who isn't following your towntells is scum. Nice to know.

Where did I say you had to agree with it? I just said that it's not scummy to not explain town reads

Where did I say I had to agree with it? Explain your town reads please. There is nothing to hide.

Uh... you said you had to agree with it here:

So basically anyone who isn't following your towntells is scum. Nice to know.

If everyone is scum for disagreeing with unexplained townreads, then by that logic I should expect everyone to agree with them. Which I don't. Because you're not scum if you disagree with my town reads. You were the one assuming that. And I remember you saying something earlier...

Stop assuming things.

Exactly. Saying I'm scum for not explaining my townread is WIFOM, because it can just as easily be town as it could be scum

Same can be said for any scumtell. This isn't a proper defense.

There are many things that town would never do that scum could do.

Like what?

Counterclaiming PRs is the first that comes to mind. Not applicable in this case however. Town do things because it's their thought process, scum do things to look like they're thinking about things. Example, town don't put up analysises which are the same as someone elses - scum do it to make it look like they're being pro-town. Town say things like "I was thinking similarly to that guy" instead of saying the same thing as that guy in a different format.

Nope, not always. I've seen town do that before.

Can you link it? I wish to see if they had a damned good reason for it.

Then why'd he say "we"? And I believe at this point I had also posted against him.

Maybe the "we" meant he was attacking you and Phillamon instead of just one of you?

Why don't you ask him?

Did you ask him?

I'm not the one who thinks that he was attacking two people. If you want to know his motives, then ask him for them, because I'm not psychic. I'm pretty certain what his motives are, that's why I didn't ask - because I thought it was pretty obvious

So, you didn't bother to ask about his motives, yet you sit there and attack him for it. Yeah, nice try.

Well, I do love how he's sat back and let us argue about what he said. If he was town he'd break this up and tell us what he was doing. But he's been letting us rip at each other over something he could EASILY have fixed up. I'm liking my vote where it is on him even more now.

@Everyone: Why is the person you are voting scum?

Jal's response to pressure which later proved wrong seems off to me. Because he didn't explain why my logic was wrong for a while, and instead tried to say he wasn't defending him, claims I didn't address a point I did, and just doesn't offer anything productive in poking holes in my logic, said that voting someone you think is scum while posting reasoning isn't putting a case... he seems to not want to be labelled as doing anything relating to other players.

Examples please.

Spoiler: Oh for crying out loud.

Saying I didn't address things I did:

Getting this straight:

So if I were scum, I wouldn't have bothered to defend him if he were town because it would be an easy wagon.
However, if I were scum I might defend him if we were buddies.

This is all on top of assuming that I was even defending him. This sounds like some horrible roundabout logic to make me look scummy and tie Gunny and I together.

Uhm...

despite having apparently

read

your PM, and despite both PMs being posted above?

Whoa whoa whoa. We're already assuming too much here.

... Right there you say that we are assuming too much in the case against shotgun. That's defending shotgun.

The quoted is me addressing the two points. As you can see, that whole part in the first thing I quoted from Jal is related. Yet, when he posted something against me later:

Since you didn't say anything to this part of my post:

If he were scum and you were town, he wouldn't have bothered, because it'd be an easy wagon. So he's probably town.
However, as scum he might want to defend you if you were buddies. So he is only scum if you are.

Getting this straight:

So if I were scum, I wouldn't have bothered to defend him if he were town because it would be an easy wagon.
However, if I were scum I might defend him if we were buddies.

I guess you agree with me in that you're using horrible roundabout logic to make me seem scummy and tying Gunny and I unnecessarily together.

I did address it though. He cut off the last bit. You don't belive me, click the link in the quote.

Not saying why my logic was wrong for a while:
Here, here, here.
It occured to me eventually, but never did he actually help with that.

Him saying he didn't put a case on me when he did:

I fail to see how someone misunderstanding their role is scummy in any sense, especially when the role PM is made clear to everyone. It's not a town slip either.

AcRv

:

What makes Phill town?

If he were scum and you were town, he wouldn't have bothered, because it'd be an easy wagon. So he's probably town.
However, as scum he might want to defend you if you were buddies. So he is only scum if you are.

Getting this straight:

So if I were scum, I wouldn't have bothered to defend him if he were town because it would be an easy wagon.
However, if I were scum I might defend him if we were buddies.

This is all on top of assuming that I was even defending him. This sounds like some horrible roundabout logic to make me look scummy and tie Gunny and I together.

Because the "confirm by PM" is at the bottom of the PM.

No it isn't.

VOTE: AcRv

Also, I haven't yet stated a case against you. Why do you keep saying so? I voted you because you are scummy.

I believe that if you point out scummy things and then vote someone you are in fact putting a case on them. Early in the game it may be just a weak case, BUT it's still a case.

I've pointed out too many times the part where he denied defending drmyshotgun.

As for not wanting to not be assiociated with players: He denied defending shotgun, as I said. He denied putting a case on me. He never said that he was attacking Phillimon and/or myself, but if he wasn't defending drmyshotgun then he must have been.

@AcRv: I'm pretty sure "defend" is a verb.

kondi2424, even you got to agree here - he gave the definition of defending himself, then tried to use it for other people. LOL.

Where in my definition did it say "of oneself"? Hm? Yeah, I called it a noun (what happens when you're sleep deprived), but does that change the point? Honestly, that's not even good pedanticism, just stupidity!

Also Shattered Viewpoint is NS. I think this is his meta.

He is? No, that can't be right...

Why can't it be right?

I dunno, it was just a surprise

Can you guys not do that.
thats scummy as shit cos i dont even know where the quotes came from.

... It's been going back and forth. If you saw the first one you should know where everything came from. And I linked back to the most recent one as well, so they're all connected anyway.

So if he robs a bank first, and then you rob a bank, it's okay, because you didn't start it? Get bent.

I said that it wasn't that hard to keep up with... I never brought up it being fine because someone else did it first.

If you excuse me, I'm going back to sleep.

[Om of the Nom]

Shooting down a case against player x is defending player x.

No it's not, as mcqueen said.

Defend:

n.

To ward off, repel (an attack or attacker)

That doesn't specify who it's defending.

I think it's pretty obvious when there was one guy under fire in the quoted post.

Stop assuming things.

It is just the most likely explanation. Also, if he were attacking us/me, he would have said so. He just said "I wasn't defending anyone". That was all. If it was his intention to attack one or both of us, he'd have said so.

What makes you think that?

That's what he was doing. He was repelling a case that someone else was putting forward. By definition, that is defending someone.

But you are assuming he was defending someone in the first place.

I already said that he was, when I quoted the definition of "defend". In fact, right above I say what defines defending, saying he was, and now you're sayinf I'm assuming he was defending someone. When I gave reason as to why he was. Looks like you're trying to keep this going longer than it needs to.

I don't remember you giving a reason for him to defend someone. Please quote it for me.

Sorry, I meant a reason as to why what he did was defending him. And I am not quoting that again, I've already done it enough damned times.

Umm, if you have to constantly quote the same thing over and over again, then obviously it means it's not sufficient enough.

I would link to one instance to it, but that was lost in the crash... I'm sure if you looked you could find occassions where it's done. I can understand why they do it too, hence why I'm doing it. I only do it early game so scum don't give me an early town vibe and then mess with me a bit later on.

But if they start acting like that once they see your reason for your town reads, then surely that would be suspicious to you wouldn't it? It's a shit reason to not give out your town reads. You aren't just witholding information from the scum, but also from the town.

Or town could be doing it because, you know, it's a TOWN thing to do, and so TOWN are naturally going to do things that TOWN naturally do.

So basically anyone who isn't following your towntells is scum. Nice to know.

Where did I say you had to agree with it? I just said that it's not scummy to not explain town reads

Where did I say I had to agree with it? Explain your town reads please. There is nothing to hide.

Uh... you said you had to agree with it here:

So basically anyone who isn't following your towntells is scum. Nice to know.

If everyone is scum for disagreeing with unexplained townreads, then by that logic I should expect everyone to agree with them. Which I don't. Because you're not scum if you disagree with my town reads. You were the one assuming that. And I remember you saying something earlier...

Stop assuming things.

No, it meant that anyone who wasn't following your towntells is scum to you. Though I can see how that was a bit ambiguous.

Exactly. Saying I'm scum for not explaining my townread is WIFOM, because it can just as easily be town as it could be scum

Same can be said for any scumtell. This isn't a proper defense.

There are many things that town would never do that scum could do.

Like what?

Counterclaiming PRs is the first that comes to mind. Not applicable in this case however. Town do things because it's their thought process, scum do things to look like they're thinking about things. Example, town don't put up analysises which are the same as someone elses - scum do it to make it look like they're being pro-town. Town say things like "I was thinking similarly to that guy" instead of saying the same thing as that guy in a different format.

Nope, not always. I've seen town do that before.

Can you link it? I wish to see if they had a damned good reason for it.

I've done it before as town, though I can't remember where :V Though generally I would always end it with "tl;dr, what they said." I'm pretty damn sure other people have done it too. It's not a really good scumtell.

Then why'd he say "we"? And I believe at this point I had also posted against him.

Maybe the "we" meant he was attacking you and Phillamon instead of just one of you?

Why don't you ask him?

Did you ask him?

I'm not the one who thinks that he was attacking two people. If you want to know his motives, then ask him for them, because I'm not psychic. I'm pretty certain what his motives are, that's why I didn't ask - because I thought it was pretty obvious

So, you didn't bother to ask about his motives, yet you sit there and attack him for it. Yeah, nice try.

Well, I do love how he's sat back and let us argue about what he said. If he was town he'd break this up and tell us what he was doing. But he's been letting us rip at each other over something he could EASILY have fixed up. I'm liking my vote where it is on him even more now.

Lol.

@Everyone: Why is the person you are voting scum?

Jal's response to pressure which later proved wrong seems off to me. Because he didn't explain why my logic was wrong for a while, and instead tried to say he wasn't defending him, claims I didn't address a point I did, and just doesn't offer anything productive in poking holes in my logic, said that voting someone you think is scum while posting reasoning isn't putting a case... he seems to not want to be labelled as doing anything relating to other players.

Examples please.

Spoiler: Oh for crying out loud.

Saying I didn't address things I did:

Getting this straight:

So if I were scum, I wouldn't have bothered to defend him if he were town because it would be an easy wagon.
However, if I were scum I might defend him if we were buddies.

This is all on top of assuming that I was even defending him. This sounds like some horrible roundabout logic to make me look scummy and tie Gunny and I together.

Uhm...

despite having apparently

read

your PM, and despite both PMs being posted above?

Whoa whoa whoa. We're already assuming too much here.

... Right there you say that we are assuming too much in the case against shotgun. That's defending shotgun.

The quoted is me addressing the two points. As you can see, that whole part in the first thing I quoted from Jal is related. Yet, when he posted something against me later:

Since you didn't say anything to this part of my post:

If he were scum and you were town, he wouldn't have bothered, because it'd be an easy wagon. So he's probably town.
However, as scum he might want to defend you if you were buddies. So he is only scum if you are.

Getting this straight:

So if I were scum, I wouldn't have bothered to defend him if he were town because it would be an easy wagon.
However, if I were scum I might defend him if we were buddies.

I guess you agree with me in that you're using horrible roundabout logic to make me seem scummy and tying Gunny and I unnecessarily together.

I did address it though. He cut off the last bit. You don't belive me, click the link in the quote.

Not saying why my logic was wrong for a while:
Here, here, here.
It occured to me eventually, but never did he actually help with that.

Him saying he didn't put a case on me when he did:

I fail to see how someone misunderstanding their role is scummy in any sense, especially when the role PM is made clear to everyone. It's not a town slip either.

AcRv

:

What makes Phill town?

If he were scum and you were town, he wouldn't have bothered, because it'd be an easy wagon. So he's probably town.
However, as scum he might want to defend you if you were buddies. So he is only scum if you are.

Getting this straight:

So if I were scum, I wouldn't have bothered to defend him if he were town because it would be an easy wagon.
However, if I were scum I might defend him if we were buddies.

This is all on top of assuming that I was even defending him. This sounds like some horrible roundabout logic to make me look scummy and tie Gunny and I together.

Because the "confirm by PM" is at the bottom of the PM.

No it isn't.

VOTE: AcRv

Also, I haven't yet stated a case against you. Why do you keep saying so? I voted you because you are scummy.

I believe that if you point out scummy things and then vote someone you are in fact putting a case on them. Early in the game it may be just a weak case, BUT it's still a case.

I've pointed out too many times the part where he denied defending drmyshotgun.

As for not wanting to not be assiociated with players: He denied defending shotgun, as I said. He denied putting a case on me. He never said that he was attacking Phillimon and/or myself, but if he wasn't defending drmyshotgun then he must have been.

Okay then.

[Om of the Nom]

Also AcRv is now town, plus he has kinda convinced me of Jal scum.
VOTE: Jal
That is L-1 I believe.

[kondi2424]

I agree with AcRv town, but have not read enough to be confident in Jal scum.

[Shattered Viewpoint]

This fucking game.

Vote: Jal

[kondi2424]

I strangely approve of that.

[Shattered Viewpoint]

But not enough to have done it yourself? Coward.

[Om of the Nom]

Lol.

[kondi2424]

I thought about it. I'll be pissed if Jal's a PR though.

[Phillammon]

Kondi: We're *ALL* PRs. Read the setup.

[Phillammon]

I was gonna do full thoughts, and I still will if there's time enough.

[kondi2424]

...

I apologize.

[Phillammon]

Okay, Kondi is horrific at the minute, having been told to go back and read the setup, he has once again failed to pick up on the core mechanic of the game- though, once again, that's probably a townslip. Acrv is looking like fairly solid town from reasoning and activity alone- that's always a good thing. Quin has vanished again. This is not good, but explanations have been made. SV looks horribly scummy, but I doubt that scum would make the D1 hammer so readily and with so little explanation. Mcqueen and Om are obnoxious, but not really scummy. Shotgun's activity makes him very townish, but the content's not incredible, due to the early slip-up. Prettymuch null there. Others basically failed to make an impression on me.

[Om of the Nom]

I am always obnoxious.
It comes with my age :3