|
On March 26 2010 13:37 Fishball wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2010 11:46 L wrote:Here's where you've bothered me in the past L, as well as this game. I recognize that in many games, including XX, you've been town aligned, and I've recognized your earnest attempts to aid the town. But in actuality, you posses a certainty in your writing which is highly convincing to some people, (including myself, on occasion) but also does not take into account the chance that you're wrong. You make gambits where you pretend to sacrifice yourself in order to get someone to be killed. We all know those are ploys, but they keep working, and you keep employing these disingenuous strategies You uh, don't read my writing if you think I often push with the assumption that I must be correct. I push with the assumption that even if I'm wrong that the right move has been made. In XX for instance, I didn't give a shit who died besides Me, Cobbler, nemY or MM because I knew if we survived the night that we would win. Killing BM was part of an overarching plan to rape the abenson list which wasn't wrong: 3 of 4 mafia were on there and I had a bomb sitting on their godfather. Not only that, but at the start of the game I called that 2-3 of me/malongo/incog/bc/foolishness would be mafia. I was right. So yeah, mafia is a guessing game; No one's going to guess 100% correct, especially with a buncha jerks in the background trying to make you guess wrong. The important part, however, is getting it right enough of the time. I'm not tearing townies down. I'm saying that people who voted for me have no real excuses. Maybe Opz does because he knew abenson was legit, maybe fishball and versatile are playing like emotional douchebags (which is expected of them), but for you? For the rest of the people on that list? Your defence is "i wanted to punish inactivity" but that simply doesn't hold. You also have no reason to rage against me unlike those mentioned above. So why the claws and fangs; I certainly didn't take them out against you. I just suggested you as a candidate based on the evidence in front of us. I have an unrebutted and substantial piece of evidence that makes you pro-mafia in my mind. Why would I back down from that until you can rebut it? Why would backing down be pro-town? No one else has suggested another candidate of equal magnitude besides Caller and I'm pretty sure I was all for having his face turn into a nuclear foam. So to sum up; You're around 4 inches short of average. Feel free to grow a bit before claiming you hit puberty... kid. Haha, there are many reasons to vote for you, Mr. self righteous. You should be the one growing up, kid. Not tree.hugger. Should I even quote that hypocritical PM you sent me? Feel free to dick around TL and get temp banned again. Would do us all a favor.
I was sincere with that PM.
Feel free to post it. I thought you needed a cheering up, so I tossed you a shout. If that makes me a bad guy, for actually manning up and attempting to smooth things over after you spazzed out, my bad.
This is what I was talking about when I referred to the rage donut; kid's understandably and predictably angry.
JeeJee: I was thinking of firing off the fake nuke, but the fact that I'm not going to retaliate to tree.hugger is pretty much equal proof of me being honest on that point. I'll extend the day if there's any consensus among the town that they need more time. Otherwise, there's no real point.
|
On March 26 2010 13:51 Fishball wrote:Basically in the PM to me, you said that you're not trying to be a jerk, but here you are being one to tree.hugger, and dragging me and Versatile into your argument. Show nested quote +On March 26 2010 11:46 L wrote:
maybe fishball and versatile are playing like emotional douchebags (which is expected of them) Show nested quote +On March 26 2010 11:46 L wrote:
So to sum up; You're around 4 inches short of average. Feel free to grow a bit before claiming you hit puberty... kid. See, normally I would just ignore you, but since you are a hypocrite to such a degree AND brought my name up in such manner... Ah, to be honest what else is expected from L?
Sorry, but I brought both of you up to explain why it would be predictable to see hits from you even if you weren't anti-town. Ie, I was protecting to you.
That doesn't change the fact that attempting to kill someone off zero evidence and purely because of your feelings from prior games is a douchebag move.
But yeah, keep scapegoating. Totally pro-town move. You say there are many reasons for getting rid of me but the only one I've seen besides inactivity (which was a poor and debunked argument) is that I'm too persuasive. My bad. I'll intentionally make weaker arguments in the future.
|
On March 26 2010 14:02 Fishball wrote:
To be honest, this is the internet, he can do or be whatever person he wants for all I care.
All I'm saying is he has no credibility, which is game related.
His ruthless and forceful arguments along with personal attack isn't convincing anyone.
A simple and recent example. Could the action of tree.hugger launching a nuke be prevented? Absolutely.
I still don't get how my arguments have been classified as ruthless and forceful. Is it that people don't bother reading them?
If people disagree with them, feel free to counter them. Many of the arguments rest upon assumptions which we simply don't have better leads on, so go look at the starting points and dispute those. Many of the 'counter' arguments i get don't even deal with what I say. They deal with me as a player. In fact, the vast majority of arguments I get are like that.
Haster offered a very substantial critique of my analysis after my first post back. I responded to it. I have no issue with debating, but I have an issue with people throwing shit purely to throw shit. In XX I was town and the target of a massive smear campaign, for instance.
|
On March 26 2010 14:07 Fishball wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2010 13:59 L wrote:On March 26 2010 13:51 Fishball wrote:Basically in the PM to me, you said that you're not trying to be a jerk, but here you are being one to tree.hugger, and dragging me and Versatile into your argument. On March 26 2010 11:46 L wrote:
maybe fishball and versatile are playing like emotional douchebags (which is expected of them) On March 26 2010 11:46 L wrote:
So to sum up; You're around 4 inches short of average. Feel free to grow a bit before claiming you hit puberty... kid. See, normally I would just ignore you, but since you are a hypocrite to such a degree AND brought my name up in such manner... Ah, to be honest what else is expected from L? Sorry, but I brought both of you up to explain why it would be predictable to see hits from you even if you weren't anti-town. Ie, I was protecting to you. That doesn't change the fact that attempting to kill someone off zero evidence and purely because of your feelings from prior games is a douchebag move. But yeah, keep scapegoating. Totally pro-town move. You say there are many reasons for getting rid of me but the only one I've seen besides inactivity (which was a poor and debunked argument) is that I'm too persuasive. My bad. I'll intentionally make weaker arguments in the future. See, you like to put words in other people's mouth and have selective reading. I lost count how many times, in the past 2 years, people have said something similar. I never brought up previous games. YOU did. Zero evidence? This is subjective. tree.hugger's action is evidence to you, but your behavior is evidence to me. You don't agree? I don't care, but same thing could apply to your argument. You act like this is the first time I've seen you play. The other post I just posted is just another reason.
Uh, you voted for me before I mentioned your name a single time with quite the happy face if I recall. How exactly was I supposed to take that? I brought up the prior game to even JUSTIFY that vote for you.
And no, it was zero evidence; your reaction was emotional, not rational. The rationale for killing me doesn't exist. If you want to compare my behavior and try to pin me as mafia, GO AHEAD AND DO SO. I would LOVE to see what your reasons are. The lynch on me earlier wasn't even on the basis that I might be mafia. It was started based on the assumption that I would be inactive. Given that I already cut that argument down by examining WHY we kill inactive posters, it would seem that there aren't any reasons left.
Fishball, my dear friend. If you have reasons, subjective or objective, blurt them out. Even tree.hugger would agree that vague accusations are bad.
|
The other post I just posted is just another reason. Just to dwell on this a bit more, you're essentially saying that I'm mafia because I had a nuke launched at me? Please elaborate here.
I'm going to get some sleep. Later skaters.
|
Meanwhile, my intent with the L nuke was to eliminate someone who I see as a anchor to the town's effort
That would probably be why someone would want to stop it, right?
As to meeple; GJ.
|
On March 27 2010 01:30 Zona wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2010 01:24 L wrote:Meanwhile, my intent with the L nuke was to eliminate someone who I see as a anchor to the town's effort That would probably be why someone would want to stop it, right? I think he means anchor in terms of something holding back a ship. Rather than the other interpretation of anchor, being a solid foundation to build something on.
Well, that's new.
The anchor is a mason symbol for a well grounded and well spent life. Christians view it as a place of refuge. I've never thought of someone using it perjuriously.
|
On March 27 2010 02:30 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2010 01:30 Zona wrote:On March 27 2010 01:24 L wrote:Meanwhile, my intent with the L nuke was to eliminate someone who I see as a anchor to the town's effort That would probably be why someone would want to stop it, right? I think he means anchor in terms of something holding back a ship. Rather than the other interpretation of anchor, being a solid foundation to build something on. Oh yeah, I never thought about the other positive connotation. I was originally going to say 'parasite' but I subbed it out for something a little less harsh. I meant 'anchor' as in the object that prevents forward progress, and weighs the team down. So to clarify; "Meanwhile, my intent with the L nuke was the eliminate someone who I see as a parasite to the town's effort." Sorry for the confusion.
And in doing so you threw a nuke instead of putting it to the town to attempt to lynch me.
Logically incoherent attempt to portray an anti-town action as pro-town.
|
If you were so worried about the number of town controlled anti-nukes, why would you attempt to nuke me prior to asking people? I was going to extend the day if requested anyways; there was plenty of time to talk about it.
You're right in that we can't continue to think this way, but 'continue' implies future action, if we let both nukes fall, then we can subsequently not fire any other nukes. "its okay for me but not for anyone else to do what I did"
Cool beans.
|
On March 27 2010 04:26 Versatile wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2010 04:24 Bill Murray wrote:
Unless someone gives me a reason not to other than "it will make you look like mafia", I'm going to be anti-nuking the nuke that is going at L soon. I would rather use what I have than get capped in the night by mafia and have it be unused. if you anti-nuke him, i will just nuke him. so i suggest not anti-nuking him so as to not waste your anti-nuke.
Oh good. More anti-town bullshit.
|
On March 27 2010 04:53 Versatile wrote:
bill murray. i am not for people using anti-nukes. we need them later in the game. there is no way to confirm someone's innocence right now, so using anti-nukes on anyone is not pro-town.
so if it means i have to nuke someone to get that point across, fine. i want you to be clear that i don't make idle threats. your anti-nuke will essentially be wasted. if you care about the town, save your anti-nukes.
if you're wondering why i wouldn't just nuke the anti-nuker, well, anti-nukes are PMed and not in the thread. i would rather undo the person's intent then maybe wrongfully nuke the wrong person.
either way, don't make it seem like i'm the one escalating this. it's your choice. as long as you don't anti-nuke L, or anyone else doesn't, i have no reason to fire a nuke.
ps: lmao @ you telling someone to change their style up. didn't you barely get into this game? put on your own oxygen mask before attempting to helping others, pal.
"If you care about the town, let me violate the town's will so that i can let an innocent guy die."
"i'm not escalating this by suggesting that I nuke people to get my way"
Ok.
|
On March 27 2010 05:40 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2010 04:24 Bill Murray wrote:
Unless someone gives me a reason not to other than "it will make you look like mafia", I'm going to be anti-nuking the nuke that is going at L soon. I would rather use what I have than get capped in the night by mafia and have it be unused. Also, why would you attempt to save L over JSpazz? You yourself should know clearly what happens when we let L run his own witch hunts against random townies whom he doesn't like. I guess it's just a matter of preference, but from my perspective, JSpazz deserved it a lot less.
We win the game rather resoundingly?
|
On March 27 2010 06:50 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2010 06:29 Elemenope wrote:
First off - what the fuck at these nukes. I really hope that after the game, RoL gives some insight about why he decided to use his revenge nuke on jspazz rather than caller.
As for the L vs whoever crap: stop being so clouded by emotions. Holy shit. People can be dick to others, but that doesn't make them any less town than others. Yeah, L may have a history of running buses, but like I said earlier - if you think he's running an unjustified bus, attack his argument, not the person. A lot of people are confrontational, but we can't just attack L because he seems to act like a douche while responding to everybody else with logic. If you feel that wrongly about L, look past the name, and look at the posts for flaws. He's already posted way more than some of our lurkers. If you think somebody's wrong, attack his arguments. You don't even have completely destroy the argument, just put doubt in people's minds so that player doesn't get bused.
To be fair, this all started with a debate over whether or not the person who launched the first anti-nuke should come forward. That was an argument about facts and strategy, and would've remained so had it not escalated. I think we're both mutually responsible for that one. Eventually it got to a point where it was derailing the thread, and I was seriously starting to doubt L's intentions in pursuing a strategy that would almost certainly get an innocent townie killed, at least in my view. Somewhere along the line here, L apparently 'eviscerated' my arguments. I'm repeating myself, but there were other reasons for my nuke beyond thinking L was an arrogant asshole. Show nested quote +Regardless of the outcome - my first lynch target is going to be tree.hugger due to him claiming responsibility and because he launched an unsupported nuke. If you believe this to be in the best interests of the town, so be it.
The escalation was you firing a nuke. You seem to forget that.
|
On March 27 2010 07:05 Iaaan wrote:
and watch L start attacking me now. lol.
Nah, the points I disagree with I've already put counter arguments out against prior. I can fully understand townies falling on both sides of this issue.
That said, if I do end up dying, take responsibility.
|
The only reason why L has the ability to derail threads is because people fall into his 'word traps'. L can't derail a thread by himself, the player list isn't just L, L, L, L, L. Its more like L is dumb enough to refute arguments multiple times, so when they're restated he repeats his counter argument. I think I'm going to start numbering my posts and paragraphs so that I can refer back to the argument in paragraph 2, post 6 or some shit.
|
On March 27 2010 07:37 Iaaan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2010 07:19 L wrote:On March 27 2010 07:05 Iaaan wrote:
and watch L start attacking me now. lol. Nah, the points I disagree with I've already put counter arguments out against prior. I can fully understand townies falling on both sides of this issue. That said, if I do end up dying, take responsibility. Okay@paragraph 1, maybe I was a bit rude, I really do enjoy playing with you, even when you do stupid things ;p The way I see it happening is that tree.hugger will take the brunt of 'responsibility' directly, most other people will be ignored. But of course I won't deny that I supported your nuking.
Should actually probably be the reverse. Tree.hugger should probably die for the firing of the nuke itself. Those who attempt to get me killed by intervening via the anti-nuke option seem to be in a more comfortable area for mafia who want to take me out; unlike tree.hugger, they can potentially escape.
That would be why I want you to take responsibility.
|
On March 27 2010 09:26 haster27 wrote:
nemY// he has declared his intention to retaliate nuke if any Townie apparently interferes. Lynching is the only way Town can get rid of him safely.
If we react to nukes with lynches, we're just going to see a wall of people throwing off nukes. This is why I said we had to nuke RoL in response to his initial bullshittery. Even tree.hugger admits that next day could be the exact same asshattery and that his example is a bad one to follow.
The only solution to this is to dissuade both teams from firing nukes by NUKING THE NUKER as per my original plan. And not "maybe i'll nuke him" Immediate 2 nukes launched at him. Town members will accept death. Mafia members will throw off obvious anti-town nukes and we shoot those down. This was the only concrete solution ever in play; Its how real world MAD works and is why you and I aren't mutated and living in a post apocalyptic sci-fi zombie thriller.
Additionally, if someone wants to save me, do it after RoL's nuke hits or is stopped so that we don't get a second wave of retard driven nukes from Versatile. The first nuke should land in around 2 hours, though, so if you're going to be afk, might as well make the move before you're gone. .
As for tree.hugger: High road, my friend. I only respond to new content :3.
|
On March 27 2010 09:29 nemY wrote:
and this is why the mafia's going to win the game... we set up rules and idiots think they are above them and break them. way to go tree.hugger.
Well, town has avenues open to deal with it, but no one's stepping up to the plate.
Lets discuss why tree.hugger wants to kill me in the first place though, because his reasons are clearly false, emotional or dumb.
We initially had a rape train aimed at RoL's head. I offered to throw fake nukes in order to give us time to shift votes, but Ace basically rewrote the rules to prevent me from doing so, but maybe someone anti-nuked or some shit prior. Caller's still not producing very much which is very, very odd and a sign that we probably shoulda let the bomb drop but whatever, maybe he's a dt or some shit.
In attempting to get RoL to not soak our town lynch, I proposed that we kill people who were on the list to kill me, like you, fishball, versatile. I looked at all of your behaviors in past games and determined that the person who stood out most this game was tree.hugger. tree.hugger is not following his typical pro-town or town lurker play; he's playing the complete opposite. Generally speaking tree.hugger was always willing to vote with the town in colaborative efforts or to blend in.
So i said we should kill him over RoL. Shit failed. RoL died. I maintained that he should probably die tomorrow. Then tree.hugger comes out, and like happened in last game a smear campaign started up against me from a bunch of the usual suspects. Well, the usual suspects besides tree.hugger, because normally he doesn't inject himself into heated debates as a town member.
Putting the trigger to his head made him flip and start posting incredibly violently against me. I specifically asked Ace if he was going to take action or if I could reply in kind and the moment I did, lo and behold, everything I say is not "aggressive" or "misleading". That said, no one actually bothered to deal with the actual content of my posts. Besides fishball partially, but the majority of his responses, like stated above were rehashes of prior arguments that I had already broken.
When I essentially told tree.hugger I wasn't going to back off and lobbed the exact same insults at him that he lobbed at me, he threw a nuke at me. He then attempted to justify it on the grounds that I'm a bad guy.
I've suggested that tree.hugger gets nuked. If he's town he will not want to nuke back: he admits immediately that he's willing to die for the choice he's made, but he refuses to get nuked for it. Why? That just doesn't make sense. The only alternative option is that if the nuke against me is shot down, tree.hugger wants to shoot ANOTHER when the next day starts if I'm not killed by mafia. He's essentially holding the town hostage. By his own admission of counter nuking, he's stating that he has more nukes. Why would we let him fire another off? Well, because we're too afraid that he'll retaliate? He's going to launch another at WHOMEVER HE WANTS tomorrow and all the arguments he's presented here for why I shouldn't be saved will apply again, yet he admits those are all bullshit from tomorrow onwards.
I really don't see why there's even a shred of conversation here. Nuke the kid, throw me some star wars and lets call it a day.
|
K, if you wanted to shoot down the rape coming my way, now's the time.
|
On March 27 2010 11:38 ~OpZ~ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2010 14:39 ~OpZ~ wrote:
Wow....Can't really support the random nuke on L....So...Wow...
Okay, Spazz for Iran.
Tree.Hugger, why the hell would a mafia breadcrumb a name? To play arrogant? That would be retarded of me. I'm pretty sub par, but give me some credit. I did it to save Abenson because if I died, I knew I would flip mason and he would be able to confirm himself. And also, what initiated most of the votes against me? It was when L proposed voting for Abenson and I said I would nuke to defend against bandwagoning (I was only concerned about bandwagoning Abenson). Stop trying to discredit my claim. It's stupid and illogical. Let me make sure this post is seen. One reason I was garnering votes earlier, was because I went against L's idea of Abenson so strongly, to the point of threatening to use a nuke. (L got banned nearly right afterwards, saving my ass from arguing with him severely, and I'm sure, accusing and bussing me)
Nah, I said we should kill abenson purely based on the fact that he's normally quiet and that day 1 conversation is normally based around lynch choice given the lack of other information. I probably would have shifted to someone else if someone acted off, which a bunch of people did.
Saying you're both masons immediately makes an inactivity kill completely useless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
