In post 928, Keyser Söze wrote:Garmr reads the emerging Haschel Cedricson wagon as a scum-counter wagon. I can see town-Garmr thinking this:
tbf, I think this could also come from scum trying to protect his buddy.
In post 930, Keyser Söze wrote:Garmr REALLY wants the Lalendra lynch: post 829, post 830, post 837, post 842, post 847, post 854.
This does make me feel that Garmr didn't know Haschel Cedricson was scum.
Could you explain this for me Keyser? Are you saying if Garmr and Haschel were scumbuddies, Garmr wouldn't have had an outburst like that trying to get Lala lynched? Not sure I agree.
In post 947, Keyser Söze wrote:I felt like Haschel Cedricson gave out many views/reads on behaviour of many players, but primarily focused only on Lalendra and Hieirama.
Lalendra wins a town point for being the wagon that Haschel Cedricson pushed D1/D2.
Haschel Cedricson did not vote for anyone else he'd given a negative remark on.
Interestingly, I could not find a read/opinion that Haschel Cedricson gave on Meanmelter.
I agree with these statements. I think Haschel's flip looks good for Lala and Hiei, but it makes me nervous about Meanmelter and Garmr.
In post 948, Garmr wrote:I'm trying to set up a situation that will get lale killed if she's town by scum or lynched as scum or forces scum to protect a town power role to keep lale alive if she's scum
Regarding this whole thing, where Garmr tries to out the remaining mason(s), I am going like this O.O We don't know if scum have something like a roleblocker or a strongman, which is likely if Lala is actually the doc and tried to save BBT last night. Garmr gets huge scum points in my book for trying to do this against the remaining mason(s)' will, and for making it easier for scum to hunt them down by pressuring DWL to confirm/deny his role. I'm beginning to feel more strongly that Garmr is scum who's just super ballsy with his anti-town behavior. I just don't see town playing this kind of risk, lemme break it down -- If Garmr's wrong about Lalendra, then his 'plan' directly kills two PRs, one at night, and the other gets lynched the next day. Actually, if Garmr is town and felt so strongly about Lala being scum, he wouldn't bother with this whole runaround. He'd just want to lynch Lala today. That way, we would still have conftown more likely to survive until later.
In post 966, Meanmelter wrote:I do not recall you not feeling townie agbout Keyser? You said he was null-town and that he has been under your radar, but I believe that was the last you mentioned of him. Perhaps you mean you are reassured? Especially with those last two statements who you felt are both town.
Yes, I am reassured that Keyser is likely town.
Garmr's post 973 bothers the crap out of me. It's like Garmr has a finger in each ear going "LALALA I CANT FUKING HEAR YOU" and just trying to drive his narrative home.
At this point, I do not think Meanmelter and Garmr are scum together, but I would wager that there's a scum between them.
A quick diversion -- I'm not a fan of Hieirama's 1002 for the same reason I've not been a fan of most of her play so far. So much vague language, so little desire to reread anything or analyze what has transpired in the game. I wanted real answers to my questions in 984, not just fencesitting without having reread the game and without indicating a desire to figure out the game to any depth. I can't take your reads seriously, Hieirama, if you just make posts like 955 and 983 without substantiation, and continue not to substantiate them after being pressured.
In post 1014, Meanmelter wrote:So what are your opinions on me, then?
I think that you have tunneled Garmr the entire game, and whether you are town or scum, it has left sort of a blind spot for other things that have been going on. That being said, I can see your push against Garmr as a town push. You have made several good points that I agree with, so that prompted my question to Hieirama when she said "not liking how anti-Garmr Meanmelter is being" in 983. I think there are points in your push against Garmr that appear to be misrepresented (e.g. the phrase at the end of 466 "You went from AFK one line posts to softclaiming out of the blue..." it's not clear whether you were trying to say Garmr was afk before he claimed, or rather that the style of his posts were afk-one-liners.) However, I think Garmr is totally overblowing how all of your posts are "shit" and misreps and strawmen and w/e. I think in your interactions with Garmr, Garmr looks way worse. I think Garmr complains about misreps and strawmen, all the while misrepresenting you and making strawman arguments. So I'm not liking Garmr atm.
Note to self: I should come back to myko's 1027 once I have some more time.
In post 1030, mykonian wrote:I think today I'd like to go with the theory that garmr and mean are the two remaining scum. It makes sense on a couple of levels.
Could you explain the levels on which this association makes sense? I'm not seeing this conclusion as readily as you are atm. Ever since meanmelter replaced in, do you think the aggression that he's shown towards Garmr is not unlikely to occur between two scum?
Reading Garmr's 1040, ok he's actually making a few decent points here. Like his point about the line from MM's 466. However (let's look at the FACT THAT WASN"T TRUE line), Garmr, you have it wrong. Your only scumreads D2 were people who were either voting you or considering it. See 530. I even called you out on this, and you sheepishly dropped your contrived scumread on me like a bad habit. Your scumread on feli D1 was AFTER he had first scumread you (see 270). Same with myko. Why does this matter? Because it looks like you're only interested in lynching people who want to kill you. Your scumhunting revolves around yourself. It looks like you're looking inward, not outward, and that is scummy.
In post 1044, Meanmelter wrote:The mafia are NOT killing people who see you as town. I do not recall BBT calling you town,
This is actually not true. BBT was pretty sure Garmr is town. Just look at his interaction with Garmr at the end of D2. And his 636, he outright said that the Garmr wagon was bad.
Holy crap this back-and-forth between Garmr and Mean is painful. It's basically Garmr going, "Mean did this," mean replies "No I didn't," then Garmr goes "Yeah you did." For the record Garmr, if you make claims about someone, the burden is on YOU to prove their validity. If you claim that Mean "says i provided no reads or anything," and he denies saying that, then it's your responsibility to show where he in fact said it. If you claim that Mean "tried to dispel my reads as only people that scum read me," and mean says he did no such thing, it is your responsibility to either show where he in fact said it, or admit that you're lying. Your 1045 just looks like you're trying to back yourself out of responsibility of claims you've made against mean. "really can't be bothered with these anwsers as they do nothing to change my points," well your points don't mean much if they're false to begin with. As scum, this makes complete sense, because you're using hyperbole to fabricate a case to get someone lynched. If you're town, it just means that you are lazy in how you throw shit around, making claims that aren't verifiable, exaggerating because you feel a certain way about a slot. I'm leaning towards the former.
VOTE: Garmr
