In post 30, Deltabacon wrote:
'
We
don't have cookies, but
we
have bacon'? Who is
'we'
? Probably over-reading this, but I'm happy to join this bandwagon, for now, at least.
pretty sure everyone already analysed this one but yeah he's really reaching here
In post 67, Deltabacon wrote:
The 'We' implies a team, no-one as yet is aware of any kind of team. That you include me in the 'We' looks like either
foreshadowing
, or buddying. And yes, I understood his reason perfectly, and I agreed with it. I didn't realise I had to go so far as to paraphrase the argument again in my own words.
Why are you defending Kid A?
???
this makes so little sense
why would a cult leader pick who to recruit in RVS?
how does referring to a group of two as "we" count as buddying??
In post 76, Deltabacon wrote:I keep my eyes shut? What? That's a great elaboration of your argument.
Why are you actually voting for me?
Is it because I'm voting for you, or is it due to some more, incredibly elaborate and far-fetched reasoning?
NINJA'd: It's the implication of 'team' that disconcerts me. You paint it however you wish, I saw it as definite buddying, and there is no reason for town to buddy so blatantly.
disregards the point about him not listening to pimhel and then in the very next sentence diregards something pimhel said
implies that pimhel has some master plan without giving any details or thoughts or anything about said plan - yet more reaching
In post 80, Deltabacon wrote:I disregard the rebuttal from a person whom I believe to be scummy, and as such, I am scum? No. If you had a legitimate argument, I have an open mind. But you don't.
You find me scummy, purely because I find you scummy. That is the basis of your vote on me.
more of that disregarding and strawmanning
also i like this
In post 76, Deltabacon wrote:I keep my eyes shut? What? That's a great elaboration of your argument.
In post 82, Deltabacon wrote:Kid A hasn't offered an explanation.
Given that you clearly think I'm the scum (your vote is on me), why are you saying Kid A's vote on Rememberance is a Good Vote? Seriously, do you not care about who gets lynched, because you're still yet to provide a case on me.
come on its not hard to do an ISO
attempting to paint pimhel as a liar
seems to think having two suspects is scummy as well ???
also apparently pimhel hasnt provided a case on him but if you look at his ISO he's been giving arguments against him since his 8th post, thats misrepping
In post 85, Deltabacon wrote:Why don't you summarize it for me, you know, so that it's not completely fucking invisible to anyone.
Furthermore, now that you've pointed out Kid A's explanation, do you want to point out the bit where it co-aligns with AP's and yours? With AP, he says it meant the entirety of the wagon on him, whereas with you, you make only specific reference to you and me. Kid A doesn't even make reference to the important part of the post, instead dismissing it as joke, which is convenient, given that you made the post early enough to still be considered RVS. You clearly think that it's me, and given that you aren't even trying to convince anyone else, it tells me that you're happy for ANYONE to be lynched other than yourself.
we're on post 85 here and his vote is still based on a post in RVS
he apparently didnt pay attention to all of pimhels rebuttals because suddenly the case is "completely fucking invisible"
yeah its not like anyone's been doing that for the past 50 posts
In post 122, Deltabacon wrote:It's entirely possible that I'm simply looking for a fight, but I feel like PimHel is the scum, if not for the original post, then for the posts afterwards and his reluctance to post a case on his vote target (me). His
sole reason
for voting me so far, is that I voted for him. That's not a town thing to do under any circumstances, and no-one else jumps out at me so wildly as scum.
hey its another misrep
gg
In post 124, Deltabacon wrote:But a townie wouldn't panic so much as to divert attention so promptly onto their attacker, especially given Pimhel's experience with the game (5 years). I think it's pretty awful for him not to have supplied a case, then claim that he has. (He hasn't)
(he has)
In post 130, Deltabacon wrote:
See, thing is, you haven't.
In post 59, PimHel wrote:Bacon. If he gives a bad response to my questions, he'll have my vote.
Yeah that's not a case. You never defined what a bad response would be, you just went right ahead and OMGUS voted me after I responded to your questions. Just because other people have provided you with a convenient excuse which you're now hiding behind, doesn't mean my interpretation is invalid else I might as well replace out, given that my opinions are apparently irrelevant.
BUT WAIT - THATS NOT EVEN MY CASE ANYMORE.
Let's have a look at how many times I've asked Pimhel to supply me with a case, shall we?
In post 80, Deltabacon wrote:I disregard the rebuttal from a person whom I believe to be scummy, and as such, I am scum? No.
If you had a legitimate argument
, I have an open mind. But you don't.
You find me scummy, purely because I find you scummy. That is the basis of your vote on me.
Here, I softly try to nudge him towards making a case and/or rebuttal aaaaand he ignores it.
In post 82, Deltabacon wrote:Kid A hasn't offered an explanation.
Given that you clearly think I'm the scum (your vote is on me), why are you saying Kid A's vote on Rememberance is a Good Vote? Seriously, do you not care about who gets lynched, because
you're still yet to provide a case on me.
Being more forceful now aaaaaand nope, no case given.
In post 85, Deltabacon wrote:Why don't you summarize it for me, you know, so that it's not completely fucking invisible to anyone.
*snip*
Yeah this is me outright telling him aaaaand nope, still no case given.
But wait, look at this next post!
In post 126, PimHel wrote: *snip*
I've given my summary. And I'm not nthe type of player who posts a giant case. I look at posts that are made, point out what I don't like about it and collect data before going on a rampage. *snip*
I'll translate this for you all: 'Pimhel has given his summary, and cannot be arsed with trying any harder.'
If he's not scum, then he's a fucking unhelpful townie who needs lynching. My vote isn't moving.
hey look he even made a big post of all the times he disregarded everything from pimhel
hes doing my job for me
also i like that subtle seed for a policy vote there at the bottom
seriously why the fuck would you try and push a policy vote when we can end the game at d1 if we get the scum
maybe this one is a bit more suited to your tastes
wheres your fucking case the whole thing is still
a) he voted me after i voted him which could only be OMGUS - no other explanation for it
b) he did that one post in rvs that i didnt like
In post 201, Deltabacon wrote: In post 199, Remembrance wrote:Let me say this better:
1. Where did you go to drink (I mean, a bar, or at home, etcetera).
2. What brand of drink did you have?
3. Why did you drink so much?
Feel free to be vague about these questions, if personal/or uncomfortable.
1. Houseparty
2. Malibu, Smirnoff and... snaps?
3. Woman.
4. Lynch Pimhel.
still no case
seriously wheres the case