Saint wrote:I've skimmed the big wagons in iso, and I completely understand the one on SGR
his "town will be in a bad spot if I die" is pretty bad.....
Oh, come on, I have explained this time and time before
Saint wrote:"I'm pretty sure the Town isn't gonna survive if it keeps having these lapses in logic"
Considering you suspect me for this line I said, shouldn't you be agreeing with me? If before this line I was saying nothing worth Lynching for, then that line makes sense and the Town is having lapses of logic.
Saint wrote:I don't like this either.
care to explain this? thanks.
There is literally nothing to explain, Ythill has been scumhunting, has been active, has been agressive, and aside from his Lynch on WrathChild, has had logic.
I don't need a deeper motive to Elect someone
--------------------------------------
Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh....
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
ATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATATA
Ghostlin wrote:Case on SGR:
ISO 0: Doesn't really answer Ythill's question. The other three comments are less than useful.
Doesn't matter, and the other three comments are regarding my defense on WrathChild
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 1: FOS Locke about asking why WC would post specific availblity. If you're on, you're on. If you're not...don't you have a signature for that? (Personally I didn't find either motive scummy. If Locke wants detailed reasoning about someone's schedule or why they felt like posting it, go nuts.)
Alright, personally, I saw it as Locke leaving a breadcrumb on the path to WrathChild's lynch by using a Null-Tell as something suspicious.
That BW never ended up picking steam, though, which is why Locke Lamora may have stopped giving attention to that bit of detail (Then again, to be fair, he was answered and there was not much to pressure on, so he might have just made a honest question)
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 4: I quoted this directly because of the reasoning here. He's making an argument of letting scum players live because they could help Town a litte--this isn't a protown argument, nor necessarly playing to the wincon.
It means they can be scumhunted at Night, ya bloody goose
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 5: "Scum wouldn't be that dumb!" defense.
Regardless of WIFOM, it makes sense, you have to accept the fact that the chances of Scum doing what I did to defend a Scumbuddy D1 are way below 50%
Ghostlin wrote:AtE: "If I do end up getting lynched... may god have mercy on Town's soul". Ranks right up there with "You're making a huge mistake!"
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, meh, fair enough. Honestly, though, its true, if I was gonna get lynched for the previous posts's reasoning, may God have mercy on Town's soul
Ghostlin wrote:"Its not so much as me defending you as me trying to get the logic behind your lynch so I can kill you" = "Please let me understand your case so I can lynch you, please."
Erm... Yes... That's what I said... Derp... That means I am Town because I want to lynch someone to advance the day but I want good reasoning to lynch that person.
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 6: " I'm still more curious on the beginning of this shitstorm instead of its current state." Shouldn't you care about the wagon as it's shaping up?
.____. What? I was more interested at what started the stupid BW, which was YThill, because I thought it was weird and was asking logic on him. You're just grasping at straws now, buddy, you have made one legitimate point in this shitstorm until now.
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 7: His response to my post. His first comment "Town won't survive these laspses in logic" makes it sounds like he's more vital than the rest of town.
No, it doesn't, it makes it sound like Town would be dumb to vote me for the reasons it was voting me, AND GUESS WHAT, IT IS!!!
Ghostlin wrote:No, sorry. I could see a scum doing that just to make the argument he wouldn't do such a blantant thing as buddy his scum buddy, make town swallow that pill so he can get town cred.
Except that's ridiculous, unnecessarily risky and dumb. And although it could happen, don't you agree it has more chances of
NOT HAPPENING
?
Ghostlin wrote:As for the AtE: look up.
I like how your only comment to 'this sounds scummy' is 'lol'. I see you take these arguments seriously.
lol
Ghostlin wrote:The rest is fine, except you did go on and on about how Ythill's reasoning is faulty. Twice. And didn't vote him. At all, once.
I have a Town-tell on YThill, as I said before, I think he's an active scumhunter, and I think he did a mistake on WrathChild, not every Town has to be a perfect scumhunter without any failures, I think its time you and Locke move on from that argument
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 8: Votes me for fallacious reasoning.
Fallacious reasoning? LOL'D. I'l show ISO #8 again, and you try to argue it.
SGRaaize wrote:Ghostlin wrote:First point: I'm sure we, as town, will somehow incredibly survive if you somehow made it to the gallows.
I'm pretty sure the Town isn't gonna survive if it keeps having these lapses in logic
Ghostlin wrote:The FOS uses the 'scum wouldn't be so stupid to do that argument,' which is invalid, and illogical, and could lead to WIFOM.
It isn't invalid, nor is it illogical, it may not lead to WIFOM, as it
IS
WIFOM, the logic is obvious, a Mafioso would not put himself on such a prominent role, nor would he go as far as defending his scumpartner when there was one vote placed at him
Ghostlin wrote:AtE noted.
AtE means "Appeal to Emotion" according to the Wiki, where the heck did I appeal for your emotion?
Ghostlin wrote:Second point: This just sounds scummy.
lol
Ghostlin wrote:Why not ask the other players for a case?
We're at 4 pages in the game and you're already lost:
SGRaaize wrote:What's your reasoning on WraithChild? I am sorry, but your vote-lynch makes no sense
Link:
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p2848638
If you even bothered to ISO me instead of trying to look for an easy target to kill, this wouldn't have happened
Ghostlin wrote:'Oh, hi, I'm just going to defend you until I can figure out a way to kill you' in the hands of scum is like, 'Hi, I don't want to look like I'm sheeping but I want to find a legit way to throw you under the bus.'
What it means is simple, apparently there has been a huge scumtell WrathChild gave which I missed, because there were about 3 votes on him for no reason whatsoever aside from a ridiculous BW, I am trying to find logic in the BW so I can follow it, I have not been given logic.
and:
SGRaaize wrote:Vote Lynch: Ghostlin
WrathChild admitting to trying to sound less suspicious sounds good, but Ghostlin voting me with bad arguments and lack of attention leads me to believe he's just trying to look good while joining a BW he thinks will pick up steam
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 12: Doesn't like the Ythill case on Wraith, never votes it, doesn't really vote for anyone on the Wrath wagon, Doesn't like my case on him; I must be scummy.
Hmm, alright, this one kind of makes sense if seen from a neutral point:
1) I think the WrathChild was just something YThill wanted to do at the beginning of the day, as to start discussion (It did)
2) The people that followed, I didn't care much for it, in one of them, I had a Towntell on them (farside22) as soon as he started posting, even if he was kinda weird with that "Oh, I see it now" comment.
3) You, on the other hand, decided to join my BW, which was clearly picking steam, and your logic DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE, it wasn't like YThill's, which was far-fetched but I could see working, yours doesn't make any sense, it only started making sense when I said "Town is doomed" (and everyone misread what I meant with that), until then, you had nothing on me and you clearly used derpy arguments (which I all countered in that quote thing I did above, and you didn't answer, yet I'm using faulty arguments, LOL)
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 13: Kinda a 'I give up' reverse AtE. "I don't care any more guys, I give up, have fun."
Hmm, yep, yep, fair enough, second legitimate point but to give it some context, I was gonna sleep, and I was kinda expecting to be lynched by then (I don't believe YThill would unvote me when we were at L-2)
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 14: I was the second one on your wagon besides OMGL, who you've not suspected. In fact, you've never asked for clarification on OMGL's case on you.
OMGL said "Gut feeling", I asked "Fry me?" = "Why me?", he didn't answer. Considering he has been tunneling on me all game, I ignored him and hoped people would do the same. Honestly, though, I get what you mean, I should have FoS'd him or whatever, but I didn't, my priority is you and Ani.
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 15: Asks Ythill why he suspects Apok, but says he doesn't suspect him.
So?
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 16: Tunnels on me. At this point, he's thrown out any case at all and just tunnels.
Bullshit, start answering to the fucking arguments I'm making like what I'm doing here instead of non-chalantly putting your fingers on your ears and screaming you can't hear me
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 17: "If you have to suspect someone, it should be Ythill, for:
1) Suspecting WraithChild under no basis (Cause he didn't RV? Doesn't matter. Cause he said "First Post"? Means jackshit. Cause he joked "OMGUS", doesn't mean crap either
2) Thanking WraithChild for a confirmation on being scum, where in the last post he didn't say absolutely anything that would confirm or even slightly give a scum tell (For saying he is inactive at certain parts of the day? Nope, and ythill suspected Locke based on him quoting that. For saying he has victories as Mafia on another game? WIFOM at best, WTH at worst.
So, yeah, I know I sound like I'm buddying, but I have no idea what part of the answer turned you from "What's the pro..." to "WOW, yeah, I see it"."
"What I said is that, on the sequence of messages I showed (The 4 quotes), you should have seen Ythill as the scummiest person of the group, because he was the one to cause a shitstorm for no motives, I have been corrected on the "no motives part", he does have motives, but honestly, they the one that started the shitstorm is completely far-fetched and the one after that is a little bit too far-fetched for my tastes...
I am not contradicting myself, I said that Ythill was the one to cause the shitstorm between him and WrathChild, and I explained why one neutral person should see Ythill as the scummiest of the two based on those 4 posts. Regardless, I trust Ythill for his logic and scumhunting."
Which of these statements is not like the other one? There was no specific person he was addressing this to, btw. This "neutral person" he was talking about didn't exist. He was covering his bases until a Ythil lynch showed up, and then backpedaled when it didn't. I'd even give him points if he said, "Yeah, I suspected Ythill, but I don't now and here's why," but he doesn't do that, he posts blantatly the opposite.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
Did you really think I was dumb to the point of thinking people were gonna lynch YThill when they were electing him? This is the second time you rely on me being a Mafioso that's retarded and 100% incapable of thinking
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 18: SGR: What, Ythill and I have the same suspicions!
We do
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 19: SGR: "No, I'm not doing this for populist reasons. By your reasoning, you must also suspect Ythill of being scummy."
Yep, although this point has been legitimately argued by Locke Lamora
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 20: Does everything I wanted in ISO 17 except say he suspected Ythill for suspecting Wrath Child for bad motives.
What?
Ghostlin wrote:Bad logic on anyone but him=not scummy.
Look here, Ghostlin, your logic was clearly to join a BW on me that was already ongoing, YThill's logic was to create a BW on WrathChild that was ignored when WrathChild brought up his points (and I defended him, I guess), can you stop pretending they're the same thing when they clearly aren't?
Ghostlin wrote:Asking followup questions about V/LA, even if your reasoning may be rooted in what you think is logical= scummy.
Wrong
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 24: "I'm not scum because I said something scummy!" No, you're scum because you're backpedaling on a suspicion that you originally had to set up a lynch; have been applying differing standards to everyone, have mirrored the tells of someone with more town cred than you and your biggest opponent and one of your agitators of your lynch, have contradicted yourself and backpedaled AND have been saying scummy things in the middle of it. That's why you're scummy.
Once again, you think I was gonna try to lynch YThill, come on, now, son
Ghostlin wrote:ISO 29: And the tunnel on me continues.
This is the part where you argue my arguments, because I am clearly giving them and not just going OMGML on your ass
Ghostlin wrote:tl;dr: SGR's only built cases on people he's confident he can take to lynch.
Like YThill, amirite? And me trying to see logic on a BW on WrathChild when it was growing on me trying to lynch the biggest BW, amirite? You have read my ISO's, yet you truly believe you, I am so positive you are scum its not even funny
Ghostlin wrote:As soon as a person becomes popular, he seems to drop the case against them, seeming to even backpedal in the case of Ythill.
Ythill was popular way before I "backpedalled" in your words
Ghostlin wrote:I'm not saying people can't change their minds, but he's not admitted that
I haven't changed my mind, I have explained what I was meaning with "If I have to lynch a person of these two, it would be YThill for starting the shitstorm on almost nothing", you have to understand that there's a certain plane and then there's the wider picture, and YThill isn't scummy on the wider picture
Ghostlin wrote:quite the opposite, he claims the only reason he'd begin a sentence that started with "If you have to suspect someone..." was to compare the play the other person being accused at the time.
...
...
Yes... ._.
Ghostlin wrote:There's more than a few blatant buddying posts, first to WC
I was clearly buddying up to WC so I could lynch the bigger BW which was... erm... WC, oh shit.
Ghostlin wrote:than to Ythill
I always trusted Ythill from the beginning he answered my questions, he scumhunts, he's agressive and overall, he makes sense, even if he far-fetched a little too much on WC, he's town. Me disagreeing with him on one point =/= Me suspecting him, get over it
Ghostlin wrote:(the WC defense is amusing, apparently scum are much too smart to buddy their partners)
Your attack is even more amusing, because you think scum would defend their partners on a Page-1 BW without much logic as I have defended him, you are obviously being a bullshitter here
Ghostlin wrote:He's almost deliberately blind to the faults of the people who are voting the same way as him, however, if you oppose him in anyway, watch out. Also, he's said a few things that are a little more than scummy.
You have brought two legitimate points on me, you won't be as credible as you want to be until you answer to my "faulty" arguments on you
I'm from EpicMafia and I love it there. Everything I say is now invalid.
I am a bad player, but I like to think of myself as the wild card that is unpredictable.