Battle of the Bulge - CLOSED

[everywhere116]

Ok, top 3 lynches. (Note: Very subjective and loose, not confident in analysis at all)

jgordon: claim survivor, could be scum. Hasn't really acted like a survivor.
new guy, jak: Don't really like the case on chap. Doesn't make much sense, seem to be pursuing it with gusto that would make more sens ein later stages of the game.

[Ragian]

If we are to get another claim, it might also be worth considering players that haven't posted for a very long time... Of course that would push any presented case in the background. Still, I don't see any case on the background of which I feel comfortable voting.

Rodion's last post was:
- by Rodion
Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:25 am

Dazza's last post was:
- by dazza2008
Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:10 am

While that's a long time to go without saying anything, I do sometimes catch myself reading everything and still not posting. Often, it's because I don't feel like I have anything new to add to the conversation, and I've seen players accusing other players of not contributing when they agreed with others. It's a double-edged sword:
- You suck if you don't post.
- You suck if you just agree with others without bringing anything new to the table even if you haven't got anything new to bring to the table.

(And I think someone even said this too )

[pmchugh]

Oh wow chap, you totally blew my argument out of the water... KABLAM.

Finally lets move on to chap, who has now changed his tune to say that he does have good reasons behind his waggoning. So lets take a look at him and some of the things I pointed out earlier that he never addressed.

Well, first of all, I never changed my tune. When did I ever say that I mindlessly bandwagoned or didn't have reasons for my votes? The answer is never. Boom, point 1 shot down.

I didn't say that your original tune was that you had no reasoning behind your votes, you just put words in my mouth. Your original defence was that you like to BW on day 1, which is a whole different defence than that you had good reasons for all of your votes.

It was faulty logic because jak's idea might work sometimes... That doesn't make it faulty logic. That means what jak did isn't completely dumb all of the time.

Actually yes it does. You FOSd him for using a "ridiculous" tactic, making it sound like it could never work and would only benefit scum. If you admit the tactic is viable, which the above post does then your logic was indeed faulty.

I defend this my making my arguments in posts that I already made. It's easy to make people look scummy if you don't read everything they say. And you help people skim by only making large the parts you want people to see.

No you didn't. Why did you vote clever? You have given no reason. The only reason you gave for voting and asking for a claim off of doom was that "someone needs to be pressured". Please quote where you have defended these points. I highlighted the large parts because it seems some people are too lazy to actually read how poor your voting reasons have been.

You basically have no case. You are just trying to manipulate my words when they aren't even bad. I'm like a freaking pyrotechnical expert with all of these points of yours that I just blew up.

You should be a politician. You are so good at squirming away from explaining why you made your votes. For all the points I have made against you, you have not once explained how any of your votes reasoning was good.

[Ragian]

Alright, so I read your argument as a dispute of why chap voted for various players.

- pmc says there is no reason behind the votes.
- chap says there is.

It seems pmc has brought forward quotes that indicate what in his eyes are lacks of arguments behind chap's votings. He is, however, dissatisfied with chap's response.

Wouldn't it be easily solved if we just ask: "Chap, what were your reasons for voting x, z, and y?" If he doesn't answer, the case is easy. If he does answer...well...we should decide if those answers are adequate.

@chap, what were your reasons for voting for the players, you voted for?

(And I do apologise if you have already stated this clearly. I'll be the first to admit that I have a hard time arranging all the various posts and quotes and what not. If you already answered, could you just link to the post?)

[dazza2008]

I'm struggling to keep up here. I can't really read a lot through the day and at night I am too tired to read all this. I will try to catch up tonight. No promises though.

[Some7hingCLEVER]

Alright, so I read your argument as a dispute of why chap voted for various players.

- pmc says there is no reason behind the votes.
- chap says there is.

It seems pmc has brought forward quotes that indicate what in his eyes are lacks of arguments behind chap's votings. He is, however, dissatisfied with chap's response.

Wouldn't it be easily solved if we just ask: "Chap, what were your reasons for voting x, z, and y?" If he doesn't answer, the case is easy. If he does answer...well...we should decide if those answers are adequate.

@chap, what were your reasons for voting for the players, you voted for?

(And I do apologise if you have already stated this clearly. I'll be the first to admit that I have a hard time arranging all the various posts and quotes and what not. If you already answered, could you just link to the post?)

dude you took the words right out of my brain.
chap every person you (serious) voted for can you give a reason? if you can and there good i wont vote you.

[jgordon1111]

Alright, so I read your argument as a dispute of why chap voted for various players.

- pmc says there is no reason behind the votes.
- chap says there is.

It seems pmc has brought forward quotes that indicate what in his eyes are lacks of arguments behind chap's votings. He is, however, dissatisfied with chap's response.

Wouldn't it be easily solved if we just ask: "Chap, what were your reasons for voting x, z, and y?" If he doesn't answer, the case is easy. If he does answer...well...we should decide if those answers are adequate.

@chap, what were your reasons for voting for the players, you voted for?

Guys I have already asked chap twice what criteria he is using for his votes and he hasnt given a reason as of yet.

(And I do apologise if you have already stated this clearly. I'll be the first to admit that I have a hard time arranging all the various posts and quotes and what not. If you already answered, could you just link to the post?)

[jgordon1111]

sorry for double,put my answer in the wrong place when i quoted raigan.

I have already asked chap twice what criteria he is using for his votes,so far no response as to what it is exactly.

[chapcrap]

So, the only point you still contend in your case against me is that you think I should list reasons for all my votes? This case is looking more and more like swiss cheese every minute.

First of all, it's Day 1. You don't need scummy reasons to vote someone. If you do have a scummy reason, then it's a plus, but it's not necessary. All you are looking for is information, which I have already stated. I'm looking for people to claim and make scum slips.

Who do you want me to explain? These votes:

• jak: He tried to direct the doctor. To me, that shouldn't happen. Already explained why.
• jgordon: He was acting scummy. Everyone thought so. He continued acting scummy even after his claim. He claims survivor and then votes himself and says he wants town to win. The whole thing doesn't make any sense. He should be lynched if no one else is definitely scummy. That looks more and more like what will happen today and I am fine with that.
• Doom: He was already being pressured and I was trying to force more pressure.
• newguy1: It seemed like he was trying to deflect pressure very quickly. He hadn't been posting a lot and then after Leehar voted him following jak's list, he all of sudden was available for a lot of defensive posting very quickly. Seemed a little strange to me that all of a sudden he was paying extra attention to the thread.

To those who were trying to agree with voting me if I don't give a great reason for all of my votes: After pmc made a giant post for a case, the only thing he really has left is that I have to have a 100% awesome reason for every vote I've made on Day 1. Please. If that's the basis of why you are voting, then whoever votes needs to get with it.

Moving on...

I'm struggling to keep up here. I can't really read a lot through the day and at night I am too tired to read all this. I will try to catch up tonight. No promises though.

So, as soon as Ragian posts something about you being inactive, this is what you come back with? Weak.

And I agree about Rodion being inactive and it being odd for him. I already posted about that.

[jgordon1111]

So, the only point you still contend in your case against me is that you think I should list reasons for all my votes? This case is looking more and more like swiss cheese every minute.

First of all, it's Day 1. You don't need scummy reasons to vote someone. If you do have a scummy reason, then it's a plus, but it's not necessary. All you are looking for is information, which I have already stated. I'm looking for people to claim and make scum slips.

Who do you want me to explain? These votes:

• jak: He tried to direct the doctor. To me, that shouldn't happen. Already explained why.
• jgordon: He was acting scummy. Everyone thought so. He continued acting scummy even after his claim. He claims survivor and then votes himself and says he wants town to win. The whole thing doesn't make any sense. He should be lynched if no one else is definitely scummy. That looks more and more like what will happen today and I am fine with that.
• Doom: He was already being pressured and I was trying to force more pressure.
• newguy1: It seemed like he was trying to deflect pressure very quickly. He hadn't been posting a lot and then after Leehar voted him following jak's list, he all of sudden was available for a lot of defensive posting very quickly. Seemed a little strange to me that all of a sudden he was paying extra attention to the thread.

To those who were trying to agree with voting me if I don't give a great reason for all of my votes: After pmc made a giant post for a case, the only thing he really has left is that I have to have a 100% awesome reason for every vote I've made on Day 1. Please. If that's the basis of why you are voting, then whoever votes needs to get with it.

Moving on...

I'm struggling to keep up here. I can't really read a lot through the day and at night I am too tired to read all this. I will try to catch up tonight. No promises though.

So, as soon as Ragian posts something about you being inactive, this is what you come back with? Weak.

And I agree about Rodion being inactive and it being odd for him. I already posted about that.

So in essence you are just voting and commenting on peoples playing. You tried to claim I was scum because I was commenting on playstyles and not contributing. hmmmm chap you keep contradicting yourself,just a few more please. UNVOTE VOTE CHAP for consistently contradicting himself when he is feeling pressure.

[chapcrap]

So in essence you are just voting and commenting on peoples playing. You tried to claim I was scum because I was commenting on playstyles and not contributing. hmmmm chap you keep contradicting yourself,just a few more please. UNVOTE VOTE CHAP for consistently contradicting himself when he is feeling pressure.

So, in essence you're making things up again?

I didn't claim you were scum because all you you were doing was commenting on people's game play. I just said that's all you were doing. I said that a day or two ago. I voted you over a week ago, so those were completely separate instances and they weren't even contradictory.

Please provide me with a contradiction I made. Use quotes instead of made up thoughts from inside your own head.

[jgordon1111]

So in essence you are just voting and commenting on peoples playing. You tried to claim I was scum because I was commenting on playstyles and not contributing. hmmmm chap you keep contradicting yourself,just a few more please. UNVOTE VOTE CHAP for consistently contradicting himself when he is feeling pressure.

So, in essence you're making things up again?

I didn't claim you were scum because all you you were doing was commenting on people's game play. I just said that's all you were doing. I said that a day or two ago. I voted you over a week ago, so those were completely separate instances and they weren't even contradictory.

Please provide me with a contradiction I made. Use quotes instead of made up thoughts from inside your own head.

Not true at all chap,as soon as you go ahead and validate the criteria you have been using for how you decide to vote I will be glad to tie it together for you. You are just about one step from getting uncovered as scum chap,take the plunge. Quit avoiding the question I have asked you 3 times now and others are also asking. Exactly what criteria are you using to vote.

[pmchugh]

Before I answer this I am getting a bit worried at how quiet everyone else is going. I agree with rag and chap on the inactives.

First of all, it's Day 1. You don't need scummy reasons to vote someone.

You claimed you did though, that was your defence... remember?

Who do you want me to explain? These votes:

• jak: He tried to direct the doctor. To me, that shouldn't happen. Already explained why.
• jgordon: He was acting scummy. Everyone thought so. He continued acting scummy even after his claim. He claims survivor and then votes himself and says he wants town to win. The whole thing doesn't make any sense. He should be lynched if no one else is definitely scummy. That looks more and more like what will happen today and I am fine with that.
• Doom: He was already being pressured and I was trying to force more pressure.
• newguy1: It seemed like he was trying to deflect pressure very quickly. He hadn't been posting a lot and then after Leehar voted him following jak's list, he all of sudden was available for a lot of defensive posting very quickly. Seemed a little strange to me that all of a sudden he was paying extra attention to the thread.

Your reasoning here on doom is incomprehensible. You cannot gain information from someone unless you make a specific accusation against them. You are criticising the people who are voting for you for having poor reasons, imagine we had just been saying "well you are already being pressured.. so why not?". Would you agree with that approach? Of course not. Would it cause you to divulge information? Don't be ridiculous.

Your faulty logic on jak has been explained so many times I am bored of it and where is the explanation for your scummy clever vote? You seem to have swapped it in for a more recent vote on newguy.

[chapcrap]

So in essence you are just voting and commenting on peoples playing. You tried to claim I was scum because I was commenting on playstyles and not contributing. hmmmm chap you keep contradicting yourself,just a few more please. UNVOTE VOTE CHAP for consistently contradicting himself when he is feeling pressure.

So, in essence you're making things up again?

I didn't claim you were scum because all you you were doing was commenting on people's game play. I just said that's all you were doing. I said that a day or two ago. I voted you over a week ago, so those were completely separate instances and they weren't even contradictory.

Please provide me with a contradiction I made. Use quotes instead of made up thoughts from inside your own head.

Not true at all chap,as soon as you go ahead and validate the criteria you have been using for how you decide to vote I will be glad to tie it together for you. You are just about one step from getting uncovered as scum chap,take the plunge. Quit avoiding the question I have asked you 3 times now and others are also asking. Exactly what criteria are you using to vote.

Umm... I just gave my reasons and you quoted them. Grow a brain. Can anyone decipher what the crap jgordon actually wants?

Well, pmc, if you said you were voting me to pressure me, I would accept that. I would let everyone vote me and claim and L-2. You can continue to vote me if you want, you just don't have a scum case on me. And you can call my logic on jak faulty if you want, but I thought it was good logic and I still do. I'm not the only one who thought so.

And, I didn't give an explanation for a vote on CLEVER because I don't think I ever voted CLEVER.

Any more questions?

[dazza2008]

I'm struggling to keep up here. I can't really read a lot through the day and at night I am too tired to read all this. I will try to catch up tonight. No promises though.

So, as soon as Ragian posts something about you being inactive, this is what you come back with? Weak.

And I agree about Rodion being inactive and it being odd for him. I already posted about that.

Yes I saw that as I skimmed through. I'm not going to contribute much after skimming but I thought I should address something I noticed.

I am a single dad with 2 young kids. If I don't have time to read the thread then I don't have time. If it is a problem I will drop out. Hopefully I won't be busy tomorrow and can read up what I missed.