NY 165: A Large Normal (Game Over!)

[Rift Adrift]

BTW why is claiming right after Koopa did bad, exactly? I'm pretty sure everyone would be even more pissed off if I was nightkilled N2 without giving any hints whatsoever of my target.

I thought your reads list was supposed to be a hint.

What does this even mean.

Well, presumably if you died N2, we would have gone back through your posts and found your reads list and noticed how emphatic your read on baby spice was. That's usually the point of a breadcrumb. Crumbs you can point back and say "oh see I crumbed my role on day 1" are kinda dumb IMO but that's probably due to where I grew up playing mafia.

[BulbaFenix]

Page 119-125:

I think we're mutliball, but be careful saying that word because bulba has a hard on for me for suggesting it.

I love the attempt to discredit me. Recent events have made me think that I may be right.

*attempts to discredit DOMO right back*

How is that discrediting DOMO? I've said multiple times that I think he is scum and why I think so.

Also, why would you defend someone else, especially on something that has nothing to do with you or anybody else, but are questions aimed specifically at that person. That is incredibly scummy, especially since what you did was not so much defending, but rather attacking, on a case that had nothing to do with you.

Hoo boy, I so do not want to start this wallfight, but evidently you aren't giving me a choice. If you can't see how that post is an attempt to discredit him, I can't help you. I got attacked for answering questions addressed to others in Amnesiac Mafia as well and I have yet to grasp why people see this as a problem. I saw you making a shitty case and I thought it was scummy, so I pointed out the flaws in your arguments. I will continue to debate shitty arguments regardless of who they are directed at.

First, his post was a backhanded attempt to discredit my case against him, which I find scummy. My post, however, did nothing to discredit him, unless you are now claiming that saying somebody is scum is discrediting them. Second, you were not "pointing out flaws" in my argument. You were full on attacking me. At no point did you go, "I think you're wrong because...". Instead you overtly attacked me. So yes, what you did was incredibly scummy, because answering questions or addressing points made to someone else takes the pressure off of that person.

Disappearing under pressure is scummy if you were posting elsewhere (I don't know whether this is the case).

I explained that I have hardly been posting anywhere on site, mainly focusing on my first modded game. But you already know that your accusation is false, which makes this the equivalent of throwing dirt.

I literally said I didn't know whether it was the case. If you said that already, I missed it. But you already knew that I didn't know my accusation was false since I said I wasn't sure, which makes this the equivalent of throwing dirt.

Don't give me that "I didn't know my accusation was false" bull crap. You are one of 5 people in this game that would know for sure whether I was active elsewhere or not. Even if you didn't know, you could always click on my name, go to my profile, and then check my activity. This "I couldn't possibly know" defense is bull crap, scummy, and is a lie.

Stop cutting me off and answering other people's questions! I wanted Calcifer to restate his case, and you essentially patted him on the head and said, "It's okay. Cephy's here...".

And I didn't like the way you did it, firstly. Secondly, I *didn't* answer the question and there is nothing preventing Calcifer from restating the case just because I commented on your question.

As soon as you address the question posed to somebody else, you eliminate the pressure that was on that person. Calcifer didn't have to answer anymore, because you eliminated the need to. And all so you could make a snide comment and deride my statement, all in an effort to discredit me.

I expressed that I was not scumreading Ank. By extension, I guess posting townreads is a waste of time as well? You could have picked most posts in this thread and found about as much content as that post, hell *I've* made a lot of posts with less content, so your singling that one out reads as looking for a reason to attack me.

First, that is

reductio ad absurdum

, as you are misrepresenting my argument and stretching it to an absurd level with that townread comment. Second, in that post you gave a throwaway answer ("yes"), followed by a comment on current events which did nothing to advance the argument. You did not contribute to the exchange. You merely acknowledged it. If you were town, you would tried to be more proactive, whether it was asking some questions of either party, or simply adding something new to the conversation. You did none of that. You were trying to appear helpful and look like you were contributing, when you actually were not. There is no town motivation to do that, but there is a lot of scum motivation.

I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth, particularly words that aren't there. I didn't say anything about how you should feel about it, I was just explicitly stating for the benefit of not you that I am officially no longer on your side.

You were implying that I should feel bad about it in some way. And why should it matter if you're on my side or not? Why should I care?

Even if I was defending you though, I don't see what would be wrong with that.

Translation: "If I was buddying you, and I'm not saying I am, how would that be scummy?"

Yes, good job, you rearranged my words and put "Translation" in front of them. Did you have a point, or are you hoping someone else finds a reason this is bad for you?

Didn't I mention? You're scum, and blatantly obvious, toying scum at that.

What? Buddying someone requires agreeing with them or thinking they're town by definition. It is not possible to buddy someone without doing one or both of those things. That's all there is to it.

For buddying, all you have to be is on different teams or alignments. And buddying is not about agreeing with a person, it's about saying, "I'm on your side.". Otherwise, buddying scum would always be spotted for how obvious they were being.

The more Bulba and DOMO go at it, the more I think Bulbafenix is town and DOMO scum.

Go buddy someone else.

Are you trying to make everyone want to lynch you? It's working.

I'm sorry. Is this supposed to be a popularity contest? I thought we were supposed to be finding scum, lynching scum, and contributing to a town win. If I am able to catch some scum and help town win, who cares how much I'm liked? Why should it matter? The only ones who would be worried about such things are scum, because they want to survive until endgame. Your whole outlook on this game comes from a scum mindset rather than a town mindset.

By the way, good job voting me before I vote you so it looks like my vote is the OMGUS one when it's really not.

VOTE: BulbaFenix

This feels like you are overjustifying your reason for voting me (i.e. OMGUS).

So, help me fix that list guys.

Cephrir is scum. DOMO should at least be moved to null.

Bulba, there are a ton of people who played a themed game with the Rev head of DOMO that just ended. Whatever our alignments in that game (and there's at least one player from every team playing this one), we all saw Rev's town game up close. We think we are seeing it again.

I can kinda see where lacking that recent mutual experience that several players have, some of our reads have looked inexplicable. And maybe that's part of why you've been seriously out of step with a bunch of players who are town-reading each other this game.

Fine. I'll concede the DOMO point for now. What about Cephrir?

-Bulba

[Rift Adrift]

Fine. I'll concede the DOMO point for now. What about Cephrir?

-Bulba

Maybe instead of exchanging walls with him wherein the two of you try to convince the other that they are scum, you could write it in list format and try to convince other players.

[KingCrabd]

Let's try this.

VOTE: Bulbafenix

[BulbaFenix]

Fine. I'll concede the DOMO point for now. What about Cephrir?

-Bulba

Maybe instead of exchanging walls with him wherein the two of you try to convince the other that they are scum, you could write it in list format and try to convince other players.

I'll type up a case tomorrow after I've calmed down a bit.

-Bulba

[Cephrir]

Page 119-125:

I think we're mutliball, but be careful saying that word because bulba has a hard on for me for suggesting it.

I love the attempt to discredit me. Recent events have made me think that I may be right.

*attempts to discredit DOMO right back*

How is that discrediting DOMO? I've said multiple times that I think he is scum and why I think so.

Also, why would you defend someone else, especially on something that has nothing to do with you or anybody else, but are questions aimed specifically at that person. That is incredibly scummy, especially since what you did was not so much defending, but rather attacking, on a case that had nothing to do with you.

Hoo boy, I so do not want to start this wallfight, but evidently you aren't giving me a choice. If you can't see how that post is an attempt to discredit him, I can't help you. I got attacked for answering questions addressed to others in Amnesiac Mafia as well and I have yet to grasp why people see this as a problem. I saw you making a shitty case and I thought it was scummy, so I pointed out the flaws in your arguments. I will continue to debate shitty arguments regardless of who they are directed at.

First, his post was a backhanded attempt to discredit my case against him, which I find scummy. My post, however, did nothing to discredit him, unless you are now claiming that saying somebody is scum is discrediting them. Second, you were not "pointing out flaws" in my argument. You were full on attacking me. At no point did you go, "I think you're wrong because...". Instead you overtly attacked me. So yes, what you did was incredibly scummy, because answering questions or addressing points made to someone else takes the pressure off of that person.

Well yeah, if someone is scum we shouldn't listen to their opinions. There is no difference in my view between pointing out flaws in your argument and attacking you, except that I was also saying your argument was scummy. It's ridiculous to say that I didn't give reasons I disagreed with you; if I didn't I would have just voted you and said nothing. Shall I wait patiently for someone to address an argument before I demonstrate what garbage it is?

Disappearing under pressure is scummy if you were posting elsewhere (I don't know whether this is the case).

I explained that I have hardly been posting anywhere on site, mainly focusing on my first modded game. But you already know that your accusation is false, which makes this the equivalent of throwing dirt.

I literally said I didn't know whether it was the case. If you said that already, I missed it. But you already knew that I didn't know my accusation was false since I said I wasn't sure, which makes this the equivalent of throwing dirt.

Don't give me that "I didn't know my accusation was false" bull crap. You are one of 5 people in this game that would know for sure whether I was active elsewhere or not. Even if you didn't know, you could always click on my name, go to my profile, and then check my activity. This "I couldn't possibly know" defense is bull crap, scummy, and is a lie.

I wasn't cognizant whether you had posted elsewhere and didn't care nearly enough to check. I didn't say I couldn't possibly know, I could easily have checked, but I didn't.

Stop cutting me off and answering other people's questions! I wanted Calcifer to restate his case, and you essentially patted him on the head and said, "It's okay. Cephy's here...".

And I didn't like the way you did it, firstly. Secondly, I *didn't* answer the question and there is nothing preventing Calcifer from restating the case just because I commented on your question.

As soon as you address the question posed to somebody else, you eliminate the pressure that was on that person. Calcifer didn't have to answer anymore, because you eliminated the need to. And all so you could make a snide comment and deride my statement, all in an effort to discredit me.

First of all, false. Calcifer is not released from the obligation of having to answer a question just because I thought the question was scummy. I didn't even answer it, but you have of course ignored that fact. That's stupid. I thought we just established that you think discrediting someone and calling them scum are different things, but I guess that's only the case when you want it to be.

I expressed that I was not scumreading Ank. By extension, I guess posting townreads is a waste of time as well? You could have picked most posts in this thread and found about as much content as that post, hell *I've* made a lot of posts with less content, so your singling that one out reads as looking for a reason to attack me.

First, that is

reductio ad absurdum

, as you are misrepresenting my argument and stretching it to an absurd level with that townread comment.

It's not. If there is no point in posting that I don't think X is scummy, then there is no point in posting that I think X is town. The problem is not how I've interpreted your argument (and by the way you have ZERO right to complain about words being put in your mouth after your snotty "translations"), but your argument sucking.

Second, in that post you gave a throwaway answer ("yes"), followed by a comment on current events which did nothing to advance the argument. You did not contribute to the exchange. You merely acknowledged it. If you were town, you would tried to be more proactive, whether it was asking some questions of either party, or simply adding something new to the conversation. You did none of that. You were trying to appear helpful and look like you were contributing, when you actually were not. There is no town motivation to do that, but there is a lot of scum motivation.

I added to a different conversation. I'm not going to continue this line of argument because what you just said does literally nothing to discredit what I said in 3280, and is in fact irrelevant to my point that you basically picked a random post of which to make this criticism.

I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth, particularly words that aren't there. I didn't say anything about how you should feel about it, I was just explicitly stating for the benefit of not you that I am officially no longer on your side.

You were implying that I should feel bad about it in some way. And why should it matter if you're on my side or not? Why should I care?

Is this a joke? I said I was stating it for the benefit of "not you". I don't give a damn what you think at this point. You can feel bad if you want, I don't give a fuck.

Even if I was defending you though, I don't see what would be wrong with that.

Translation: "If I was buddying you, and I'm not saying I am, how would that be scummy?"

Yes, good job, you rearranged my words and put "Translation" in front of them. Did you have a point, or are you hoping someone else finds a reason this is bad for you?

Didn't I mention? You're scum, and blatantly obvious, toying scum at that.

So you're admitting that you had no argument here whatsoever?

What? Buddying someone requires agreeing with them or thinking they're town by definition. It is not possible to buddy someone without doing one or both of those things. That's all there is to it.

For buddying, all you have to be is on different teams or alignments. And buddying is not about agreeing with a person, it's about saying, "I'm on your side.". Otherwise, buddying scum would always be spotted for how obvious they were being.

I disagree, nor do I believe buddying is inherently scummy.

The more Bulba and DOMO go at it, the more I think Bulbafenix is town and DOMO scum.

Go buddy someone else.

Are you trying to make everyone want to lynch you? It's working.

I'm sorry. Is this supposed to be a popularity contest? I thought we were supposed to be finding scum, lynching scum, and contributing to a town win. If I am able to catch some scum and help town win, who cares how much I'm liked? Why should it matter? The only ones who would be worried about such things are scum, because they want to survive until endgame. Your whole outlook on this game comes from a scum mindset rather than a town mindset.

Yes, wanting to lynch someone is the same as disliking them.

Brilliant deduction, Sherlock.

By the way, good job voting me before I vote you so it looks like my vote is the OMGUS one when it's really not.

VOTE: BulbaFenix

This feels like you are overjustifying your reason for voting me (i.e. OMGUS).

The OMGUS has nothing to do with why I'm voting you, I just wanted to prevent you from making an incredibly tiresome and stupid argument that I could see coming a mile away.



@RA: If players are reading these walls, they should be either convinced or not convinced by each player's arguments, yes? Sooo...

[Ankamius]

BTW why is claiming right after Koopa did bad, exactly? I'm pretty sure everyone would be even more pissed off if I was nightkilled N2 without giving any hints whatsoever of my target.

I thought your reads list was supposed to be a hint.

What does this even mean.

Well, presumably if you died N2, we would have gone back through your posts and found your reads list and noticed how emphatic your read on baby spice was. That's usually the point of a breadcrumb. Crumbs you can point back and say "oh see I crumbed my role on day 1" are kinda dumb IMO but that's probably due to where I grew up playing mafia.

I never once mentioned Baby Spice before the fake hammer.

[Rift Adrift]

BTW why is claiming right after Koopa did bad, exactly? I'm pretty sure everyone would be even more pissed off if I was nightkilled N2 without giving any hints whatsoever of my target.

I thought your reads list was supposed to be a hint.

What does this even mean.

Well, presumably if you died N2, we would have gone back through your posts and found your reads list and noticed how emphatic your read on baby spice was. That's usually the point of a breadcrumb. Crumbs you can point back and say "oh see I crumbed my role on day 1" are kinda dumb IMO but that's probably due to where I grew up playing mafia.

I never once mentioned Baby Spice before the fake hammer.

You say that like it's a good thing. :/

[Baby Spice]

{spice, ank, bulba, Hollywood, maonic, stevie} maybe?

Both the townreads in that list have a positive utility to their death. Maonic immediately 120% confotowns serene and proves the mason claim that some people seem to be doubting. Spice because metal sonic all over again.

That is a horid list.

[Ankamius]

BTW why is claiming right after Koopa did bad, exactly? I'm pretty sure everyone would be even more pissed off if I was nightkilled N2 without giving any hints whatsoever of my target.

I thought your reads list was supposed to be a hint.

What does this even mean.

Well, presumably if you died N2, we would have gone back through your posts and found your reads list and noticed how emphatic your read on baby spice was. That's usually the point of a breadcrumb. Crumbs you can point back and say "oh see I crumbed my role on day 1" are kinda dumb IMO but that's probably due to where I grew up playing mafia.

I never once mentioned Baby Spice before the fake hammer.

You say that like it's a good thing. :/

This is a really elaborate way of dodging the original question.

I asked you why posting a reads list after Koopa claimed was bad. The resulting conversation from you dodging the question literally proved nothing but the fact that my investigation result from N1 would never have been known if I hadn't posted that and flipped tonight.

[Rift Adrift]

No, what was bad was not crumbing it long before then because the game day can end abruptly at any point after daybreak with a sudden wagon and hammer.

And you might not be at the computer when it happens.

[BulbaFenix]

Well yeah, if someone is scum we shouldn't listen to their opinions.

That is, of course, assuming that town know who scum are, which my experience shows is not always the case. Until then, we need adequate discussion to gain the information needed to identify scum. Any form of squelching such discussion is scummy.

There is no difference in my view between pointing out flaws in your argument and attacking you, except that I was also saying your argument was scummy.

*Looks at original attack post*

You said my argument was scummy? Where? All I see is you trying to discredit all my arguments so that others don't have to address them. You set out to deliberately castrate me in this game, and that is an incredibly scummy move.

I wasn't cognizant whether you had posted elsewhere and didn't care nearly enough to check. I didn't say I couldn't possibly know, I could easily have checked, but I didn't.

So when I point out that activity is a null tell, your response is to say, "Well it is if you're active elsewhere on the site.", thus implying that I'm scum (or else you'd never have mentioned it), yet you never actually put forth the effort to check my activity level, even though you are softly implying that I'm scummy because of it? How is that not scummy again?

First of all, false. Calcifer is not released from the obligation of having to answer a question just because I thought the question was scummy. I didn't even answer it, but you have of course ignored that fact. That's stupid. I thought we just established that you think discrediting someone and calling them scum are different things, but I guess that's only the case when you want it to be.

As soon as you wrote that deriding comment, you discredited my entire position, which meant that Calcifer was no longer obligated to address it because you said that my point was not a valid one. That's why I find discrediting other's points scummy, because it is meant to eliminate the need to address those points, thus squelching discussion. You see, discrediting someone IS scummy, but calling someone scum IS NOT discrediting. However, you can't seem to understand this simple dichotomy, probably because you are scum and it would undermine everything you're trying to accomplish.

I expressed that I was not scumreading Ank. By extension, I guess posting townreads is a waste of time as well? You could have picked most posts in this thread and found about as much content as that post, hell *I've* made a lot of posts with less content, so your singling that one out reads as looking for a reason to attack me.

First, that is

reductio ad absurdum

, as you are misrepresenting my argument and stretching it to an absurd level with that townread comment.

It's not. If there is no point in posting that I don't think X is scummy, then there is no point in posting that I think X is town. The problem is not how I've interpreted your argument (and by the way you have ZERO right to complain about words being put in your mouth after your snotty "translations"), but your argument sucking.

You took a point about fake content, twisted it, and took it to an absurd level by saying that we should not give townreads. This, of course, had nothing to do with my point at all. However, you needed to do so in order to discredit my actual point, and in so doing, not actually address it.

I added to a different conversation.

What sort of conversation is that? Because it sure wasn't the town one.

I'm not going to continue this line of argument because what you just said does literally nothing to discredit what I said in 3280

Why would I want to discredit what you said? I want to address what you said and show why it's scummy. Discrediting you would be a scum move and would do nothing to further discussion. But then again, you've shown that you are thinking with a scum mindset again, as that is what scum want to do.

and is in fact irrelevant to my point that you basically picked a random post of which to make this criticism.

It wasn't random at all. I saw you make a completely useless post, and pointed it out as such, knowing that others would be able to see what was wrong with it. When asked about it, I expanded on the point, and explained exactly why the post was filler. You see, that post did absolutely nothing conversation-wise. The first part did absolutely nothing, as it was more curt than a "Look in my ISO", thus unnecessary. The rest of the post looked at the slapfight between Kuribo and Ank. You said that you could see the point, which essentially was giving you room to jump on the wagon later if it really took off, but that you didn't think it was valid. This is essentially the equivalent of checking in a Poker game. It does absolutely nothing. You then restated something that others in that discussion had already said, that only having one mason in a reads list was not a scumtell. That's it. No original opinion whatsoever. Your post served no purpose whatsoever, other than to look like town who was contributing to the conversation.

Is this a joke? I said I was stating it for the benefit of "not you". I don't give a damn what you think at this point. You can feel bad if you want, I don't give a fuck.

When you say "I regret defending you", there is an implication in there that I should feel bad or sorry that you are no longer defending me, as if I should be wanting you to like me. Again, why should I care? You are trying to make it out like I lost something important or valuable, but once again, you overlook the fact that only scum care what other people think, since they are approaching the game from a survivalistic point of view. Once again, you are showing that you are approaching the game with a scum mindset, not a town one.

Even if I was defending you though, I don't see what would be wrong with that.

Translation: "If I was buddying you, and I'm not saying I am, how would that be scummy?"

Yes, good job, you rearranged my words and put "Translation" in front of them. Did you have a point, or are you hoping someone else finds a reason this is bad for you?

Didn't I mention? You're scum, and blatantly obvious, toying scum at that.

So you're admitting that you had no argument here whatsoever?

Whenever I do a translation, my point is to show what is actually being said, thus showing the scumminess inherently hidden in the statement, rather than spend a paragraph expounding on why what was said was scummy. You see when you were speaking to DOMO in that sentence, you were doing so in hypotheticals. I simply took that inherent hypothetical, and made it more apparent. By speaking in hypotheticals, you essentially admitted that you were doing something scummy, while simultaneously saying you weren't ("If I was doing scummy action A, which I'm not saying I'm doing it mind you, but if I was, why is it scummy?"). Essentially, you are being blatantly obvious with the fact that you're scum and are toying with the town, daring them to come after you.

I disagree, nor do I believe buddying is inherently scummy.

Newsflash: Buddying IS scummy. So is chainsaw defending. So is white knighting. Now you can say "I'm not buddying. You're just misinterpretting my actions." as a defense, but you can't say "I'm buddying, but I'm not scum." as the definitions are already in place, and one implies the other. So, yes, buddying is scummy, and, yes, you are doing it.

Yes, wanting to lynch someone is the same as disliking them.

No, wanting to lynch someone is the same as thinking they're scum. There are a bunch of players that I don't like for one reason or the other, whether it was due to playstyle, personality, or some other difference, but that didn't always mean that I thought they were scum or wanted to lynch them. In this game, our hydra is having a bit of a clash with Serene. Now I may disagree with a lot of what Serene says, but given the events of this game, there is no way that I'll ever lynch them (Fenix, you might want to listen to the next part.). Part of being successful at this game is taking our own biases into account and making sure that they aren't getting in the way of finding scum. We should think a player is scummy because what they said or did was scummy and was coming from a scum mindset, not because we don't like what they said or how they're playing the game.

Best example I can give is from Voided's Nightless Mountainous game. In it, I got chewed out by the Tammy head of Titan. And man, was I mad. But even though I didn't like what she said, and told her as such, her approach to the situation read as not only genuine, but extremely town, and Titan was a major townread of mine for the rest of the game.

Essentially, popularity or being liked has nothing to do with the lynches. We are here to find and lynch scum, so when we think we've found scum due to their actions, we lynch them. At no point should whether we like them or not enter the picture, and at no point should town worry if they're liked or not, since town wants to find and lynch scum. Scum want to be liked so that they don't get lynched. Town could care less as long as they find scum. The fact that you are focusing on whether somebody is liked or not as a basis for a lynch once again tells me that you are tackling this game from a scum mindset and not a town one.

-Bulba

[Zdenek]

I haven't read the walls, but I'm pretty sure if BulbaF was scum, they'd be voting Stevie.

I also kind of like their vote on Cephir.

Unvote
Vote: Stevie

[The Goat]

This game left me in it's rear view, and I simply cannot catch up.

Mod, please replace me.

[Shadi1337]

#3223

I don't see why you are voting for me there?

[Serene]

BRO are my strongest town reads

BRO is town, some people are calling him scum to protect him from the NK. Play along.

[Serene]

Like shadi. Let's see if his townie points card is due for renewal or not.

His subscription is cancelled for non-payment of fees.

[dramonic]

This game is shcizo, I need to do a reread.
However, I did catch that some people are discussing Vigging me to confirm Serene. I'd like to put forward the motion of not shooting masons? We already have a scumteam taking care of that.

[orcinus_theoriginal]

BRO are my strongest town reads

BRO is town, some people are calling him scum to protect him from the NK. Play along.

not all town players lie about their reads like you thank

god

[DOMO]

@mod - V/LA for the weekend, back sunday night/monday morning

[StubbsKVM]

I'll be on V/LA for the entire weekend. Might pop in on Sunday(but don't count on it)

[BulbaFenix]

Cephrir case:

1.) He's playing it extremely safe when it comes to taking stances. Save for a few reads on the fringes, he's refusing to take a stance on the actions or alignment of the players in this game. Seriously, is what Ank or Brian doing town, scummy, null? Give us something! Not just, "silly" or "it could be viewed as such" or "I see your point". All of this is extremely weak, as if he doesn't want to offend anybody. And if you disagree, why mention that you see that point anyway? Because by disagreeing, you obviously don't! All he's doing by saying stuff like that is keeping his options open for later on.

2.) When he does follow through on the line of thought that he left open, he still doesn't push it hard. Look at his stance on our wagon. He says, "Well, it can obviously be X, but that is a good point. Bulba should be lynched.", while not voting or pushing our wagon at all. Later, when Orcinus and BRO start taking apart the logic that was driving the wagon, Cephrir immediately backpedals and said "I had a momentary lapse. Bulba is town.", again siding with whoever was in charge of the momentum. Again, I want to remind you he did all this WHILE NEVER VOTING, in other words, he still avoided taking a definite stance, even when he was backing the wagon. If you want another post where he refused to take a stance and distanced himself from what he said, look here.

3.) He is not actually contributing, but rather pretending to in order to appear town. Again, his refusing to take stances are examples of this. And even better example is his post #2898, which I have explained in detail why it is bad.

4.) He's buddying up to other players, particularly DOMO.

5.) He's attempting to discredit cases, rather than disprove them. As I've said before, doing so is a major scumtell for me, as the whole purpose of discrediting a case is so you don't have to actually address. This squelches discussion, which is a scumtell.

6.) Going to condense this into one point instead of multiple: He is tackling this game from a scum mindset, rather than a town one.

7.) He's actually being incredibly overt with the fact that he's scum and is toying with the town, daring us to come after him. This can be seen in his hypothetical to DOMO ("If I was buddying you, and I'm not saying that I am, how would that be scummy?"). He's not content with just playing mindgames with town. He wants to openly mock us. And for that, I don't want to just lynch him. I want to crucify him, then set the corpse on fire, all while we dance around the flames, and Kuribo reads him his last rites. After that, I want to mount his head on a pike as a warning to all future arrogant scum.

[Thirdkoopa]

Anyone got a votal?

Not V/LAing but I might be busy this weekend. Will say further if anything comes up.

[BulbaFenix]

EBWODP:

6.) Going to condense this into one point instead of multiple: He is tackling this game from a scum mindset, rather than a town one. This can be seen in the fact that he is viewing the game more as a popularity contest, rather than a search for scum, which is survivalistic. It is more important for him that people like him. As such, he doesn't want to lynch scum, only those he does not like, and thinks others should do the same (i.e. not scumhunting, but perpetual mislynching). He thinks that having people on your side is more important than finding scum, and uses that as a way to induce guilt ("I'm not going to defend you. How do you feel about that?"). All of these things are things that scum care about, rather than town. He's scum, and he's reflecting his motivations onto others when he addresses them, and it betrays his actual motivations in return.

Sorry about the early post. Pushed the wrong button while I was on Skype. Anyways, Cephrir needs to wear rope.

-Bulba

[PeregrineV]

Marquis (1)- Ankamius
Marquis (1)- Rift Adrift

@Mod The second Marquis should be me

Got it!