Page 158 of 290
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 10:54 pm
by AxleGreaser
In post 3920, davesaz wrote:If the pressure is stopped because the points are attempted to be discredited (regardless of whether the discredit works) we get.
except mafia doesnt work that way.
Garmr says Boon is scummy because of reason X.
Anen says. X is not the first letter of the alphabet Garmr's reason is bollocks. (or anything else that fails)
Errm...
Garmr says Boon is scummy because of reason X.
has lost nothing. If it applied pressure before it still does.
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:04 pm
by Izariael
I think I'm in agreement with Dave on this one, if I'm reading this exchange correctly... the two points (Anen halted my pressure on Boon) and (my points still stand because Anen did not successfully refute them) are not mutually-exclusive. If Garmr was trying to pressure Boon, then their interaction would have had a certain dynamic. If Garmr felt that dynamic change once Aneninen interrupted (much like I'm doing now on this exchange here...) then Garmr may have felt that the interruption was a hindrance to what he was tryng to accomplish and that Aneninen had intentionally done so because of scum motivations. The dynamic changed because a third party interjected, regardless of whether the points Anen brought to the conversation successfully refuted Garmr's or not.
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:06 pm
by Izariael
So Garmr felt that Anen did NOT successfully refute his points, but also felt that his interjection had affected the dynamic of his interaction with Boon in a manner that was either negative or counter-productive to what he was aiming to accomplish.
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:20 pm
by AxleGreaser
In post 3927, Izariael wrote:So Garmr felt that Anen did NOT successfully refute his points, but also felt that his interjection had affected the dynamic of his interaction with Boon in a manner that was either negative or counter-productive to what he was aiming to accomplish.
what.
Garmr didnt say negative or counter producitve, Garmr said stopped.
and if you go read the thread, Garmr did in fact just stop pressuring Boon.
(all time are probably in +10 AEST)
Wed 7:21 am (Garmr and Anen discuss it)
Wed 5pm Boon responds to garmr and the convo
Garmr does reiterate his now strengthened points
Garmr does talk to PereV Thur 6am
Garmr does talk to GM PereV Thur 8am
TSO Thurs 8.30am
GM Thurs 8:50 am
Boon says dont push me to claim 11am Thurs
In all that time Garmr doesn't actually try and push Boon again.
I believe Garmr is scum and wasnt actually even really as a towny trying to push Boon.
This is why later when he retrospectively as scum makes it up, the facts don't line up.
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:25 pm
by AxleGreaser
bugger I left out some critical words.
In post 3928, AxleGreaser wrote: In post 3927, Izariael wrote:So Garmr felt that Anen did NOT successfully refute his points, but also felt that his interjection had affected the dynamic of his interaction with Boon in a manner that was either negative or counter-productive to what he was aiming to accomplish.
what.
Garmr didnt say negative or counter producitve, Garmr said stopped.
and if you go read the thread, Garmr did in fact just stop pressuring Boon.
(all time are probably in +10 AEST)
Wed 7:21 am (Garmr and Anen discuss it)
Wed 5pm Boon responds to garmr and the convo
Garmr does NOT respond to boon and reiterate his now strengthened points
(if they were as he claimed strengthened by Anen he could, if he wanted to have done that)
(it was not wanting or bothering to that stopped any pressure there was at that time.)
Garmr does talk to PereV Thur 6am
Garmr does talk to GM PereV Thur 8am
TSO Thurs 8.30am
GM Thurs 8:50 am
Boon says dont push me to claim 11am Thurs
In all that time Garmr doesn't actually try and push Boon again.
I believe Garmr is scum and wasnt actually even really as a towny trying to push Boon.
This is why later when he retrospectively as scum makes it up, the facts don't line up.
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:28 pm
by Izariael
So what you're saying is that you don't think I've successfully refuted your points.
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:34 pm
by AxleGreaser
In post 3930, Izariael wrote:So what you're saying is that you don't think I've successfully refuted your points.
yep
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:35 pm
by AxleGreaser
and you have not stopped the pressure on Garmr slot.
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:56 pm
by Izariael
Probably not but I wouldn't expect to. You're Axle.
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:59 pm
by Izariael
Interestingly enough though, your most recent series of posts have been directed at me and not at Dave though. Perhaps I stopped the pressure/momentum on dave slot? He would be the appropriate slot for this analogy anyways. (You=Garmr, dave=Boon, Iz=Anen)
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:11 am
by Josh_B
can you guys explain to me what you're arguing about? Should Boonskies be getting more pressure or is that relevant?
Is boonskies a neighbor?
I've read about 20 pages so far, my first impression is that tobyloby is scum.
Axel, none of the posts you showed me make me think scum GM at all. I haven't really looked into thor or boonskies yet, but are they scumier than you?
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:17 am
by davesaz
In post 3927, Izariael wrote:So Garmr felt that Anen did NOT successfully refute his points, but also felt that his interjection had affected the dynamic of his interaction with Boon in a manner that was either negative or counter-productive to what he was aiming to accomplish.
Garmer feld that Anen's intervention destroyed his ability to continue to pursue the interaction with Boon. The points made by Anen were wrong, but the interaction stopped the pressure.
It is perfectly reasonable to think that scum might stop pressuring someone when interrupted.
It is not reasonable to think that scum would continue to argue the same failing point forever. There is no way scum is going to do that. Scum would
stop and completely drop the subject
, and probably not even say why they were stopped.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:23 am
by davesaz
In post 3935, Josh_B wrote:can you guys explain to me what you're arguing about? Should Boonskies be getting more pressure or is that relevant?
Clifnotes edition, Dave version:
Garmr was hunting Boonskies for acting VI. Anen jumped in with, among other things, "Boonskies is Boonskies". Garmr switched targets to Anen, saying that the "refutation of his points" was not really a refutation and that Anen was responsible for Garmr stopping his pressure on Boon. Boon later soft claimed a power role.
Axle is hunting Garmr for a contradiction between "Anen stopped my pressure on Boon" and "Anen's argument did not refute mine".
Anen was NK'd and flipped VT.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:27 am
by davesaz
I think the onus is on the prosecution to provide the next evidence. Are there other points against Garmr / Josh that do not hinge on the contradiction?
Maybe you should do the old man (and others) a favor by stating them down here at the tail of the thread where everyone is looking...
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:46 am
by Aegor
[5]
Thor665:
goodmorning, Izariael, reinoe, Flubbernugget, Josh_B
[4]
Josh_B:
Scripten, AxleGreaser, Slandaar, Shiro
[2]
Flubbernugget:
Nero Cain, The Fonz
[1]
beastcharizard:
davesaz
[1]
Boonskiies:
T S O
[1]
davesaz:
TierShift
[1]
goodmorning:
Thor665
[1]
reinoe:
Boonskiies
[1]
Not Voting:
beastcharizard
With 17 alive, it takes 9 to lynch.
Day 2 deadline:
(expired on 2014-11-19 18:27:52)
TierShift V/LA until Sunday
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:54 am
by reinoe
Axle is trying really hard to distract from the thor wagon. And the people saying thor is town have done a rather poor job of explaining how he's town.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:16 am
by davesaz
Maybe this attitude
In post 1663, AxleGreaser wrote:
I find that scum players, especially the not so good ones, focus on finding scummy things someone did then ride that like there is no tomorrow.
is the root of the current discussion.
Who is doing that thing up there right now, riding a single (marginally) scummy thing that someone did?
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:19 am
by davesaz
Maybe this old question bears additional thought.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:35 am
by Flubbernugget
Bear some additional thought because I have my answer.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:39 am
by davesaz
Would you consider the question to again be relevant? Is Axle currently gumming up the works?
What do you see as our path to a lynch today?
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:43 am
by Flubbernugget
The question is relevant but I think it's just shitposting over a scum tactic.
I see a compromise lynch on thor come deadline.
I stopped reading axle's posts so I'm trying to get my reads on him based on other's interactions with him which is going terribly.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:50 am
by Thor665
In post 3940, reinoe wrote:Axle is trying really hard to distract from the thor wagon. And the people saying thor is town have done a rather poor job of explaining how he's town.
Well, the people calling me scum have also failed.
That said, I think *everyone* is doing a pretty good job of distracting from the Thor wagon (including you and this weak nothing post) because STILL NO ONE HAS PUT ME TO L-1 OR BOTHERED TO WORK ON CREATING A COUNTERWAGON.
What the hell is wrong with all of you?
It's like you're *TRYING* to make a deadline wagon?
Screw you all and the horse you rode in on.
Claim: Power role - I'll claim the rest if someone can put me to L-1 with a hammer intent *or* we can start up a counterwagon and pretend we know how to play the game.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:51 am
by Thor665
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:54 am
by Flubbernugget
Really.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:54 am
by Flubbernugget
<3
you can still have my babies thor