Author Topic: Night of the Vampire Mafia: Happily Ever After (Read 133223 times)

Bardiche · « **Reply #240 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:10:00 AM »

So LSD's reaction is to pretend it doesn't exist. :U That's basically an admittance that everything is true.

So, can I convince the rest of you to lynch her as well? I get the entire vibe and jig about your current cases, but here we have someone who thinks they're too good to respond when called out on scummy actions, and who votes Huh What without ever elucidating reasons. Even PX is better than this, you can surely agree.

Lexicat · « **Reply #241 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:11:51 AM »

My thought process with the distancing should be pretty clear. A fake vig shot is seen generally as null (that's how I'm treating it). If you shoot Shadoweh as your scum buddy, it provides some small kind of buffer between the two of you. I retracted the logic, but that was my thought at the time.

I no longer am pegging for Schezo. I was worried about some of the things UK asked him (they were my thoughts as well) so I wanted them answered.

Bardiche continues to attack the rhetoric of my one line, even though I have now explained to him several times what I meant. That's his case. Rhetoric attacks. You want me to respond to that? How?

Lexicat · « **Reply #242 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:13:40 AM »

Quote from: Bardiche on June 19, 2011, 02:10:00 AM

So LSD's reaction is to pretend it doesn't exist. :U That's basically an admittance that everything is true.

So, can I convince the rest of you to lynch her as well? I get the entire vibe and jig about your current cases, but here we have someone who thinks they're too good to respond when called out on scummy actions, and who votes Huh What without ever elucidating reasons. Even PX is better than this, you can surely agree.

Oh yeah, because I made one post that wasn't directed at your case, and you can jump to this conclusion.

@UK: I like what you said there. Here, let me show it off for you.

"You're using meta too".

So essentially, you didn't answer my attack. Instead, you chose to deflect it away from yourself and not answer to anything.

This is noted.

UncertainJakutten · « **Reply #243 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:17:53 AM »

@Bard: Well, I remember doing the same in Zombie Apocalypse and I was town, so I can't say it's necessarily scummy. Hmm, did you answer her about why she's scum though? I forget. Just link me the post if you did. Further, I'm fairly sure she DID explain why she though HW was scum. Her reasoning just wasn't that great.

@LLD: Why are you retracting the logic? I mean, it has been illustrated how wrong it is, but I'm curious what caused you to reconsider.

As for "deflecting", uh...no? I'm pointing out that we're both using meta, and that it's not something you can indict for. I'm not sure I entirely understand how it's "deflecting" to say "Hey, look, we're both using meta. This has no bearing on our alignments". Can you tell me how using meta makes me scum, LLD? Without using it yourself?

Edible · « **Reply #244 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:20:03 AM »

Goat Count

Uncertain Kitten (1) - Dormio
Kiro (2) - Kitten4u, Dorian
Dormio (4) - huh what, Chaore, Shadoweh, Uncertain Kitten
huh what (3) - Schezo, LLD, Kiro
Lady Lambadelta (2) - Bardiche, PX
Schezo (1) - Hourai

Not voting: Zakeri

With 14 alive, it takes 8 votes to lynch.

Deadline is in 11.5 hours or so.

Lexicat · « **Reply #245 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:23:46 AM »

Quote from: UncertainKitten on June 19, 2011, 02:17:53 AM

@Bard: Well, I remember doing the same in Zombie Apocalypse and I was town, so I can't say it's necessarily scummy. Hmm, did you answer her about why she's scum though? I forget. Just link me the post if you did. Further, I'm fairly sure she DID explain why she though HW was scum. Her reasoning just wasn't that great.

@LLD: Why are you retracting the logic? I mean, it has been illustrated how wrong it is, but I'm curious what caused you to reconsider.

As for "deflecting", uh...no? I'm pointing out that we're both using meta, and that it's not something you can indict for. I'm not sure I entirely understand how it's "deflecting" to say "Hey, look, we're both using meta. This has no bearing on our alignments". Can you tell me how using meta makes me scum, LLD? Without using it yourself?

Because you have used it yourself, to explain a reason why you suspect me, but your OWN STANCE ON META contradicts this statement.

Your stance on meta is not classified as meta, unless you know it has changed coming into this game.

UncertainJakutten · « **Reply #246 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:26:57 AM »

That's kind of ludicrous, LLD. When have I said, in this game, that I oppose meta? Please, show me a post where I said "meta is bad". And if it's not in this game, it's meta.

Lexicat · « **Reply #247 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:28:09 AM »

Quote from: UncertainKitten on June 19, 2011, 02:26:57 AM

That's kind of ludicrous, LLD. When have I said, in this game, that I oppose meta? Please, show me a post where I said "meta is bad". And if it's not in this game, it's meta.

UncertainKitten, answer this question for me.

Do you support the use of Meta as the basis for a case?

Say it in red.

Bardiche · « **Reply #248 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:29:43 AM »

I'm not sure you can count, there's more than one there.

And you're absolutely right, it isn't at all about you ignoring things while claiming you're not ignoring them, or you backpedaling on more than one occassion, or you now voting Huh What without ever communicating your reasons clearly, or you pushing terribad logic to justify tunneling on Shadoweh and I, or you attempting to avoid scrutiny by casting doubt on the one attacking you (once more with misrepresenting what my attack on you entails), refusing to motivate your cases on who are scum, pulling magical town reads out of your high hat (and then reacting with a troll when asked about it), being generally trollish in responses to anything, and stalling from doing anything until pressed, as evident in how long it took between pressure vote and your final poor attempt to continue evading answering any of the questions I started out voting you on, alongside pretending that I am voting you for nothing more than "rhetoric".

How many votes are you looking to gather before you'll finally get that you need to motivate your cases and answer to people's cases on you, especially when your claims about having dealt with it already are proven not to be true?

How I want you to respond is look at the questions I bolded and summarised for your convenience, and respond to all of them to the best of your ability, so as to finally grant the rest of us an insight in why you think the things you think, without trying to insult people, and without attempting to claim you already answered them. Yes? Got it? Go.

Quote from: UncertainKitten on June 19, 2011, 02:17:53 AM

@Bard: Well, I remember doing the same in Zombie Apocalypse and I was town, so I can't say it's necessarily scummy. Hmm, did you answer her about why she's scum though? I forget. Just link me the post if you did. Further, I'm fairly sure she DID explain why she though HW was scum. Her reasoning just wasn't that great.

There's a major difference here though: in Zombie Mafiers it was a bullcrap case propagated by scum, but this time, I'm not lying when I say she's been passing off as "I answered all questions, can't you read?!" when she ignored most of them and passed off the entire first post with "Well I thought Shadoweh was gonna RAEG :|". After spending your entire first post going "omg ShadowehxBard scum OTP", I think you should have more to say than just "Well I thought meta". Apparently Shadoweh going "Bard is a fucking asshole" wasn't enough rage.

And yes, her case on HW is terrible. There are plentiful ways to articulate what is bad about him, but first voting and later going, "OK, there is this ooooone liiiiiiine please explain" isn't exactly the paragon excelsior of scumhunting. It's lazy and it smells of quickly attempting to throw the attention to someone else.

Bardiche · « **Reply #249 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:32:02 AM »

Also, UK, everyone else, for convenience I told Lambda why I voted her twice in this game.

capt. h · « **Reply #250 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:32:25 AM »

@mod Zak needs a prod.

Lexicat · « **Reply #251 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:34:08 AM »

Bardiche's new case on me consists of discrediting me with Ad Hominem and "your arguments are lazy and stupid".

So, you still have nothing Bard? Good to know.

UncertainJakutten · « **Reply #252 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:35:31 AM »

At this point, I am no longer using meta

You've claimed you are using the tell on HW. That means, in this game, you believe scum are more likely to use the "why me" tell. In this process, you have directly used it yourself. As for the meta argument we just had...

The meta is what allowed me to notice you were doing it in the first place

@Bard cuts: Thank you for the links. Going to look now.

@LLD cut: ##Unvote, ##Vote Lady Lambdadelta

UncertainJakutten · « **Reply #253 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:39:56 AM »

Bard's links are incredibly acceptable. Answer them or die, LLD.

Lexicat · « **Reply #254 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:41:47 AM »

You dodged my question. Do you or do you not support Meta as the basis of a case?

Did you or did you not use Meta to create this case?

Does this, by your own fucking principles, not invalidate your arguments?

Bardiche · « **Reply #255 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:42:06 AM »

See? :U That's what I mean. Stubborn insistence to avoid answering to things, despite there being evidence to support my claims. Further attempts to discredit by claiming I call her arguments stupid: no, I call your case terrible, because it isn't very good. I could write up a case on Huh What if I really wanted to, and I could find a fair more points to hold against him than one line in this entire game; therefore, lazy.

"How do you want me to respond?!" I give her an answer, she still refuses. Textbook anti-town. Now can we please lynch the scum in front of us first, and then look at the other scum?

UncertainJakutten · « **Reply #256 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:43:34 AM »

I answered your question. If you aren't going to read the answer, then there's not much else I can do. You're splitting hairs and trying to pretend you have something on me. You don't.

Now. You dodged my question. Please get to answering it.

Lexicat · « **Reply #257 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:44:40 AM »

UK, these links both attack my Rhetoric, which I discounted as a load of bullshit.

So I'm not considering them valid. You would though, considering it coincides with the rest of your play this game.

I'm being misrepped now by Bard. I asked how you want me to answer allegations against my Rhetoric.

UncertainJakutten · « **Reply #258 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:45:35 AM »

If you're being misrepped by Bardiche, show us how. Insisting that he's using rhetoric, and scummy for it, once again, is you engaging in something you yourself admit is scummy.

Lexicat · « **Reply #259 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:47:30 AM »

Quote from: UncertainKitten on June 19, 2011, 02:45:35 AM

If you're being misrepped by Bardiche, show us how. Insisting that he's using rhetoric, and scummy for it, once again, is you engaging in something you yourself admit is scummy.

...

That's not what I said and you damn well know it.

I'm saying he's only attacking me based on MY Rhetoric.

The both of you are now twisting my words massively, and I can't tell if any, one or both of you are scum, or if you're both just playing pants on head.

UncertainJakutten · « **Reply #260 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:49:59 AM »

It's quite amusing that you'd call me playing pants on head. Explain what you mean then. As it stands, I completely fail to understand how you are absolved of answering Bard's reasonable questions.

At this point, it's either that or the noose. What possible pro town intent could there be in not making things clearer to us?

Lexicat · « **Reply #261 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:53:14 AM »

This is incredibly incredibly frustrating.

I'm not going to stick around and get steamrolled by two people running over me at once, when I refuse to raise my voice anymore.

I don't even know what you want me to ANSWER any more. I've answered pretty much every god damn question I have been asked, and you're still looking for something. So either you're pants on head (in which case you missed my answers or just don't understand them) or you're deliberately missing my answers or trying to misrepresent them (that's happened a few times) to steamroll me.

So you give me in point form everything you want me to answer that I HAVEN'T ANSWERED, and I'll answer it.

Be warned, if I find a question THAT I HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED, I'm going to spam the link to the post in which I answer it at you out of frustration. >.>

Shadoweh · « **Reply #262 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:57:14 AM »

I'd love to join this LLD wagon if only Dormio could say something to convince me he's townie, which he's utterly failing at. Since Bard asked earlier, and my headache has finally gone away enough to read people's posts, I'd support a lynch on Dormio or huh what, with a Chaore fastball for popping in with a bunch of general reads and ducking his head back under, but I'd probably want him to make a second post before wagoning him.

I also can't tell where you've actually answered anything asked of you, Lambda. You have a bad habit of just not addressing things as either alignment. I don't see this twisting of rhetoric you're talking about. I agree Bard and UK should restate their questions so you can at least try to answer them this time.

UncertainJakutten · « **Reply #263 on:** June 19, 2011, 02:58:32 AM »

Well, I want you to answer all the questions Bard could not find answers to in his initial post. Given he conveniently linked the post and bolded the questions, this shouldn't be an issue.

Secondly:
1. What do you mean by Bard attacking "your rhetoric"? Cite it, show me how his case is invalid
2. Show us precisely how you're being misrepped by Bard, and give us the correct version of things.

I think those are all I need right now.

@Shadoweh: LLD has become more scummy than Dormio. I have not forgotten Dormio. Could you show me the case on HW again? If you stated one, relink it please so I can assess.

Bardiche · « **Reply #264 on:** June 19, 2011, 03:05:46 AM »

You may note that my attacks on your "rhetoric" are moreso based on that you saw the need to revise a statement so many times.
Original:

Quote

You didn't react at ALL to that post. You never mentioned it or anything, or even attempted to determine my alignment from it.

Revision #1:

Quote

Though, I realize I worded my statement poorly. I meant to aya that no where do you ever talk about my alignment.

Revision #2:

Quote

Oh, and by "never mentioned it" I mean "never mentioned anything about how my posts affected my alignment" until now.

Per Lambda's revisions, the original should read as:

Quote

You never mentioned anything about how my posts affect my alignment, or even attempted to determine my alignment from them

Like, what, do you honestly want me to declare you scummy or town over ":toot: Shadoweh is scum for not raging enough"? The point I hold here against you is the need to revise your original statement so much, given the new and old statements say completely different things and it's weird you'd justify missing a post with revisions. Or, y'know, the original complaint that I didn't react at all which spawned the entire controversy.

Cut. Lol okay.

* What changed between the first line and the last line of your opening post that you wanted to vote, i.e. what convinced you my vigshot was scummy?

* How does Shadoweh scum correlate to Bardiche scum, given the "distancing" would be an act of Shadoweh's to implicate me? I.E. what reasoning do you employ to support that someone vigging randomly would be scum if his target would flip scum?

* Reason out why a scum flip implicates scumBard, how a town flip implicates scumBard and how no flip implicates scumShadoweh. So far your only response to this has been ":toot: Shadoweh meta", despite not knowing her well enough.

* This is a vote for her to get on her suspicions post-haste and update it with a reasonable thread of logic so we can deduce how she arrived at her conclusion. Or: Who do you think are scum, and why do you think they are scum? I'm still lost on how Huh What is scum. Citing a post and bolding one line doesn't make it nearly as obvious as you think it is.

* What about Schezo's exchange with UK is awkward, and how does this make him scum? You obviously voted him for it, and even if his response is now satisfactory we never learn what was wrong with them in the first place. So what made you think he was scum at the time?

* Why do you maintain a massive twitch over Shadoweh? This is after you concluded the vig shot was a nulltell, so surely you have reason to still suspect her.

Shadoweh · « **Reply #265 on:** June 19, 2011, 03:08:13 AM »

Oh, and Lambda, if you think you've answered a question already, don't spam a link. Just answer it again and try to be clearer because if it wasn't sufficient the first time it's not going to be sufficient a second time. Being obstinent isn't going to help us figure you out if you're town.

ShoeCat: His response to my case seriously put me off. I feel like he's been acting defensively towards me ever since I voted him the first time. My post here is a more direct rebuttal.

Also, seriously, this.

Quote from: Bardiche on June 19, 2011, 02:29:43 AM

After spending your entire first post going "omg ShadowehxBard scum OTP", I think you should have more to say than just "Well I thought meta". Apparently Shadoweh going "Bard is a fucking asshole" wasn't enough rage.

I like to think I don't normally start swearing at people who target me. :/ You guys make me seriously wonder about my attitude sometimes. Amusingly, I'm pretty sure I know how scum me would have reacted. I would have laughed. If I were the bad guy it would have been pretty amusing for town to randomly kill me. Likely I wouldn't have said that, but I think my posts would have had an amused tone, instead of what you got. NotAmusedShadowehCat.jpg

UncertainJakutten · « **Reply #266 on:** June 19, 2011, 03:13:08 AM »

Hmm, what's HW's case on you? Um...hmm...I think for now I just want to leave it at "I disagree with parts of your counter to HW's rebuttal", since I see no need to give him a full out defense. I also don't see him acting defensively, but I could just be braindumb.

capt. h · « **Reply #267 on:** June 19, 2011, 04:20:10 AM »

Vote: LLD

You know, I really don't understand your case on Huh What right now.

Quote from: huh what on June 17, 2011, 10:52:18 PM

So uh, why am I scum again? You keep making nitpicks about my posts, but you haven't explained how my actions have scum intent.

I would like you to explain how Huh What?s request that Shadoweh explain why she thinks Huh What is scummy is a scum tell. More than that, I disagree with your current attacks on Bardiche and UK, and I don?t like how adverse you are to answering their questions. I do not agree that Bardiche is attacking you over your rhetoric. Frankly, I think you?re just throwing mud at your attackers to get out of explaining yourself, and I think you?re the most likely scum at this time.

I would like to apologize to Schezo. He did mention huh what in his previous post, although I still maintain that he is passive, and not really pushing his lynches. Schezo, what do you think of Huh what's post-confirmation play?

capt. h · « **Reply #268 on:** June 19, 2011, 04:27:01 AM »

EBWOP:

##Unvote

##Vote: LLD

Chaore · « **Reply #269 on:** June 19, 2011, 04:38:39 AM »

@Shadoweh: PX has actually said anything? Seems like passive defending and pulling off UK once he realized that he didn't actually have a good case and throwing his vote on someone else quickly. Not anything big. It doesn't help he runs away without so much as an -inkling- of a case on LLD, just 'hey sup explain yourselves whoops gotta run have a vote'. Hes asking her questions, but not explaining why she's scummy. Hes running and hiding from saying anything more than...actually saying anything. Still wouldn't mind him dying.

Dormio has similarly not made me like him any god damn more. His answer to why he hated that one post so much, 'She seemed to convinced of town shadoweh'. That's it. That's pretty much his entire case along with... 'Playing it safe'? Which is not a scumtell. Here's something I've had brutally drilled into my head from multiple people my first few games- town wants to live just as much as scum. Wanting to live is not a scumtell. You still haven't elaborated -anything- larger than your non-existant case from -before the god damn game started-. This is...terrible, and I really want him fucking dead for it. This is refusing to scumhunt for no reason and trying to get away with it.

Other than those two- I'm going to say I see nothing really wrong with Huhwhat, he seems to be pulling along rather nicely and I don't see anything wrong with his posts, and I'm kinda surprised he has so many people on him already- Though I am kinda curious why he thought Bardiche was always gambitting, I may just be kinda stupid but I wasn't exactly sure if it was, first looking at it.

LLD on the other hand earns a badge of disrespect for running away in the middle of questioning instead of calming down and trying to properly respond to her attackers. I see what's bad about her disliking Shadoweh's reaction based on poor meta for a player she's played with... for only a few games and perhaps doesn't know all that well, and generally I dislike using Meta myself. But she's not casting her vote for it, so I'm not going to really pick at that.

She has however, not used her vote well and overall her vote seems to be mishandled with similar no-cases. LLD, Make a case. Explain why your current vote is scum please. I am a dumb rabbit and can not comprehend the immortal mind of the witch of certainty, please explain a bit!

I'd like LLD to respond and explain a bit before I decide if I'm happy with seeing her die or not, because I'm having trouble reading into her current posts.

Edit: Cut by Capt. H asking for generally what I want to see as well. Huhrm.