Meme Mafia - Town - (minus Mwil) wins

[squire12]

10 minutes ago, squire12 said:

anyone have thoughts on what the starting ratio might have been?   Does anyone think it is straight town vs mafia?  Or would there be an other/SK in the mix?

@Malfatron, @SwAg, @The Orca, @Pickle Rick, @TheKillerNacho, @rackcs, @Dome, @Slappy Mc

Tagging those that are more frequent hosts, sorry if I missed anyone of the regular game hosts.

THoughts on the starting ratio?

[Scoundrel]

The llama push and people flipping and flopping on this almost seems too easy. 

[Daboyle]

6 minutes ago, Counselor said:

@Llamalover where’s the results buddy

He’s waiting for his scummates in the chat to feed him a response

Edited December 15, 2019 by daboyle250

[squire12]

13 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

FEEL FREE TO START SENDING IN MOVES EARLY. NIGHT IS IN 15 minutes.

Vote Count:

@Llamalover - 8 - UNT, Josh, Pickle, Malf, Counselor,  KOTN, Slappy, Mwil

@theuntouchable - 10 - Llama, Racks, [Dome], Swag, Naz, BCB, Squire, TKN, Orca, Daboyle

People who have memed and voted today:

 - Dome, Counselor, Slappy, Mwil, Malf, DaBoyle, Squire, Orca, Josh, PR, Swag, Racks, KOTN, Llama, UNT, TKN, Naz, BCB, Gopher

 

People who have either not memed or not voted:

  - NS

Please keep the VC up to date.

@NS922 => We need a meme and vote

 

13 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

13 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

13 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

llama - PR, Counselor, Orca, Daboyle, mwil, Slappy, Naz

UNT - llama, Racks, squire, swag, wolfe

EVERYONE DOUBLE CHECK THIS PLEASE

IF YOU SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS VC, TELL ME NOW. 

 

LLAMA will be the lynch

VC from end of day and OT

[SwAg]

20 hours ago, SwAg said:

This is honestly comical.  Stop regurgitating tired and disprovable talking points on Touch.

Some people were content showing up and position themselves for what should be the clear "winning" position on this lynch, and now they're panicking a bit because their feet are held to the fire when some prominent voices made it a close race.  Kick facts, bro.  Your whole explanation exceeds the bounds of credulity.

Touch has had the Duelist role before and recently, and it was in Dome's Old West game.  The immediate reaction was "this is a Town role" and "lol we are not voting Touch over squire."  Touch is aware of this, as are many of those who are present.  The concept that this was some inordinate risk that could never work is laughable, as Touch was largely ignored for the remainder of the game as "likely Town" and "likely Vanilla."  The concept that Touch wouldn't do this because it's "too risky" is bull****.  There is almost no risk involved here.  If anything, it will have the opposite effect for multiple days.  There is one talking point debunked. 

Throw in that you're clearly aware of that, and you're not going back to see who reacted differently in the situation beforehand compared to now makes me think you lack a genuine curiosity in resolving the game.  That information is potentially valuable, and I went back to get it... but since I've given you half a day and you've made no mention of it, I am forced to assume it's not part of your plan.

Touch initiated the Duel when we are barely halfway through D1, which has resulted in the point I made.  It provided cover for literally everyone who opted to use it as such to abstain from a real decision on D1 because by all accounts: no one would realistically argue you should choose Llama over Touch on D1.  So, people queued up to get in on that action quickly and throw support behind Touch because there is literally no foreseeable downside.  All of those people could have a legitimate position on it, or they could be hiding in the cover that Touch gave them. 

[^ Note:  Facts/Analysis intermingle.  The fact is the consequence, not necessarily the actual action.  Should not be an issue because Touch acknowledged he prospectively provided cover for people, which is the gist of what the factual assertion is.]

Touch's explanation is straight-up bad, and I don't think even he believes it is good... and to be honest, with what I've said about, I doubt he even believed it needed to be good.  "I got excited" and essentially "he was in the thread not posting" and "I didn't like the meme posted in response to ****/marry/kill."  So, you stymied all external conversation midway through D1 and funneled all reads into artificial battle lines that you drew, and then your explanation is "I caught scum and I was excited."  Tell me, how it is more pro-Town for you to blow your ability and cause all of this cumulative side effects on D1 than to strongly pursue it, with the knowledge people will likely listen to you if you ask them to give you some good faith?  I certainly would have, but instead I have to ask: What is the point of Touch doing this?  What benefit does he derive?  And the most common response I conjure up is that you wanted an early clear and space where you can use your ability and not be at risk, and not be held accountable if it's wrong.

Counselor, MWil, and Touch are all connected, and you would be remiss to forget that when the vote swings to Llama.  Counselor and Touch had the back and forth early in the thread where Touch accused him of being scum with me, which is a clever way to put an albatross around a Townie's neck whenever you think a Mafia is likely to die early.  MWil and Counselor are jockeying to push a narrative that I'm useless because "lol swag is posting funny" and if I do break character and actually play then it's "lol swag is guilty, feelin heat!"  And Touch is pushing that all along.  Dome did it last game with Touch, it's how you start to form a narrative in the thread, and less experienced people will buy into it.  

So, that's why I'm content voting Touch right now because he's done nothing to allay any of these concerns.  And when he flips scum, you should vote Counselor and MWil out in quick order.  Don't **** around like retards and ignore my reads that solved the game while you all try to figure it out on your own.

Bold is facts and underlined is analysis.  There is some intermingling, but it's clear where I'm drawing my conclusions from even when it's intermingled.

This is my initial post.  It is clear.  The analysis includes the set of facts that I am analyzing and the logical steps that I am making to reach my determinations.  This is undeniable.  The words are there.  

E.g., Fact 1, Fact 2, Thus X.

This is Touch's response.

19 hours ago, theuntouchable said:

Speaking of panicking? Where did the schtick go? Oh, that’s right I called you out. Silly me.   [Quip/Insult/Rhetorical]
 

you’re also misremembering the game which is truly uncharacteristic of you. Forge shot me not long after I took squire out and IIRC he was town that game. That’s the game that started the Forge ******* me over.   [Dismisses a key point by simply saying I'm wrong about the facts, when I'm not.]
 

so because I haven’t gone back to reread in the last 12 hours means I’m intentionally not going back to reread ....... id expect a much better argument from town Swag.  [Misread my argument, or changed his argument later.  See below for details].
 

you’re absolutely correct that there could have been people hiding “behind the cover I game them”, there’s also likely players on the reverse side of that but that doesn’t fit your narrative, now does it?  [Affirming I could be correct, but telling me I'm narrative forming because I didn't consider the opposite.]
 

it’s pro town because I found scum. I have also unearthed you as scum. As well as likely josh/slappy. (Speaking it which didn’t he say he was gonna read up???) It created a line right down the middle and has since forced people to take a stance. That’s a better d1 than there has ever been, you’re welcome. [Quip:  "It's pro-Town because I'm right, and you're welcome."]

I’m also surprised that you would take this stance right out the gate. It seems to me that you know for a fact that either one of would turn up town. Why is that Swag? Did llama and slappy start crying to chatty about how you gotta save them?  [Telling me I took this position immediately when I waited for things to materialize for nearly half the remainder of D1].
 

it’s funny that you want the “concerted effort to save me” be noticed but you want everyone to not think about the concerted effort in place to try and bury me. [erroneous talking point that Touch seems to have made up]

Point 1:  He immediately enters with a quip.  Prior to this, Touch has been pointing out that I am being a gimmick player, and others allude to me being useless.  So, I'm either supposed to play as a gimmick player and be criticized for that; or if I actually make any points, I am invalidated because I'm no longer in a gimmick.  That is ridiculous.  This is why I said it's you and others trying to formulate a narrative around me, and I bumped a lot of quotes about it.  

 

Point 2:  You're objectively and demonstrably wrong on the facts, and you're dismissing my analysis based on an erroneous contention of facts.  But, later, we somewhat resolve this later by you simply stating that The Old West game is irrelevant without explanation.  I know, you're going to try to reduce this down to an "opinion" bit, but this is not a matter of opinion, it is matter of analytical process.

It is an objectively analogous fact pattern.  It is relevant because (1) it informs how people are likely to react, which changes the risk calculus for the one using the ability; and (2) people may have inexplicably differing reactions in a substantially similar scenario, with a logical inference being: something is different about them between the two games.

 

Point 3:  I'm still talking about going back to The Old West Game to get this information on who is acting differently relative to the present scenario that is substantially similar.  As I already explained above, you can use this information to question people and apply pressure, and you interpreted that as re-reading this thread.  Alright, maybe you misread that, but it's definitely clear that I'm referring to the Old West Game because I am referring to people "acting differently in the situation beforehand," or in other words... last time it happened... in Old West.  Either way, the Old West comparison game remains relevant for the reasons I've outlined, and you deny that.

 

Point 4:  I have no idea what this even means.  Please explain if I'm misinterpreting.  You're saying people were drawn out of hiding because Llama is scum.  Okay, I acknowledge that is possible.  But, the issue with you acting like this is some sort of "gotcha" moment, is that I already addressed and explained why I find this unlikely in my initial post, and again in my secondary post.

 

Point 5: Your response to me asking how your actions are Pro-Town is because you're right.  That is not an answer to that question because (1) regardless of how confident you or anyone else is, you do not know that; (2) even if it is right, you're conflating a result with the process...

Under this logic, if Orca somehow killed me last game, then he is pro-Town because he was right that I lied about being The Cop.  That is why I'm clearly referencing the process or motivation for the action in my post.

 

Point 6:  I really didn't, though.  I gave you a few jabs about you being scummy, but nothing substantive at all.  I did not push the issue until I allowed the day to progress a bit and saw a pattern.  I waited til almost half of the remainder of D1 had elapsed, and I did it because it felt like there was more to the D1 move and there was a demonstrable pattern among a few posters related to me.

 

Point 7:  I never said anything about a concerted effort to save you.  The full text of my initial post is above.  The concerted effort I mentioned is the effort I described in the second paragraph from the bottom of my initial post.  I explained that the "concerted effort" is about a campaign against me, which is the substance of the quote thread I linked in Point 1.  No mention of an effort to save you.

So, it may be partially my fault that I allowed your erroneous reading to stand and develop, but I did respond in my secondary post that I doubt there is a concerted effort to bury you because "I'm the only person genuinely pushing you and I'm Town."  And this turned into the object of fixation.

So, what happened next?

20 hours ago, theuntouchable said:

Lol so if I do it, it’s controlling the narrative but when you do it??  [Deflecting]

im almost positive that’s the game used a day shot and hit me.  [Touch still disputing one of my points because he remembers the game objectively incorrectly.]
 

ok, but I’m positive I caught scum with it right off the bat but you want to use the concept that I haven’t gone back to reread what just happened not that long ago as a basis for your theory of me being scum...... there’s been no flip yet and I remember what stance people took and even pointed out the people that avoided taking a stance.  [Again, misread my initial post and responded based on a misreading.]
 

so let me get this straight, I drew an artificial line that allegedly has an excuse for everyone attached to it, yet you dislike the stance I took on llamas answers to my question? So the logic applies where only you want it to apply?  [This is an incoherent run-on sentence.  I don't even know what logic you want me to answer about here.]

what?? My move has forced people into coming to a conclusion on two people. That’s a very visible line drawn that can be used throughout the rest of the game. Most d1s result in a number of people being up there towards the end, many off votes and absolutely nothing of substance. Meanwhile, I have personally caused you to drop your schtick because I called you out on it and you feel like there’s a good chance llama is getting lynched. You use mwil and counselor as “being attached” to me but yet here you are clearly defending llama. Contradictory much?  [Again, you're simply ignoring and misinterpreting my whole initial post, and providing a revisionist take on why your move was genius.  Then, you have this detached/unrelated question at the end, which I underlined...  It's not clear, and hardly coherent, but I answered it anyway.]
 

didn’t take the stance out the gate? Hold on.  [You never addressed this again.  And I already addressed it, so I'm skipping it.]

Slappy has posted since then? At least twice in fact. He answered my question to him but completely avoided the main thing in the thread.  [Not really relevant to me or anything I'm saying.]
 

lol you’re the only one pushing it? For someone with such great memory, how did you forget about squire and dome, to a lesser extent orca? Dome has absolutely pushed back the same way you have. Squire and orca have pushed back but have actually been involved in the discussion. They’ve asked questions, pointed out what they have doubts on and even brought up examples of why.  [Fixates on the "I'm the only one genuinely pushing to lynch you" line.]
 

you on the other hand, have resorted to writing paragraphs with absolutely no substance. None.  [...bruh.]

This is Touch's response to my secondary post.  I've linked my secondary post already, but here it is again, and it's not reproduced because (1) space, (2) everything I've said so far is a restatement of things I've already said.

Point A:  No.  I already explained it in Point 1, above.  

You continued the "SwAg is just gimmicking this game" mantra that MWil and Counselor were brandishing, which was part of my case.  The practical effect of your position is: if I'm posting like Drunk Elsa, I am "impersonating Dome" as a gimmick, and likely useless or otherwise not truly playing.  Thus, a logical conclusion from that is that you should not listen to me because I'm meme playing.  Then, if I start actually playing, you simply say "Oh, look, he's scum, he's playing now!"

How is it different?  How is it not a narrative when I do it?  Well, as I said in the next post, I have actual evidence.  There was about 30 posts all from the same people throughout the day to characterize me as a joke, "gimmick," or "useless" -- and then even signaling that if I start playing for real then I am scum.  So, the effect of that is to neutralize me as a thread presence because (1) I was talking funny, and then (2) I stopped talking funny.  The thread facts match up to what I'm saying.  If you didn't have that body of evidence, then there are issues. 

Also, the effect of my point is simply allowing me to talk and analyze the game, while the effect of your point is to dismiss everything I say because I'm no longer posting like Drunk Elsa.

It's the difference between inclusivity and exclusivity in an outcome, and these things are not alike.

 

Point B:  Already addressed extensively above, and you're wrong.  See Points 2 and 3, above.  But, it's moot now since it has "no bearing whatsoever," which I already explained is nonsense above.

 

Point C:  Again, you misread my initial post, and this is now the second time you're making the same mischaracterization.  See Points 2 and 3, above. I was referencing the Old West Game that you think does not matter.  My initial accusation was: you had the opportunity to use your role for even more information with that comparison game, and you did not...  Thus, I think you're not actually interested in game solving. 

You say it does not matter, but I've provided two instances in which it does matter, and both have general applicability here.  I was saying that you didn't look back to see who might have had a different reaction that game relative to this game, when the facts are largely the same, as that is information about their prospective alignment.

Also, since you made this argument, I'll point out that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.  First, you said your actions are pro-Town because you got scum.  Then, you said an argument (that I never made) was weak because you didn't "reread what just happened not that long ago... there's been no flip yet and I remember what stance people took..."

So, it's Pro-Town because you're right, and Llama is scum, but you imply that a lack of a flip is preventing you from gaining much more.

 

Point D:  Again, I don't know what you're saying here.  It is unclear.  I don't know what logic you're referring to, and you're not really referencing anything that would give me context to figure it out.  You reference the artificial line that I said is unhelpful because people have a built-in excuse to vote for Llama, because it's you versus freaking Llama on Day 1.  That does not provide any clarification.  I did get a laugh out of the "allegedly" throw-in though, as if you didn't acknowledge that was true already.

So, what are we talking about here?  The only thing I can come up with is that you're saying I'm wrong to dismiss your answers about why you chose Llama?  Your explanation was "I was excited" and "I didn't like his ****/marry/kill response, he was trying to be inoffensive."  I don't know how anyone could accept those answers.  I didn't even reject the rationale for the ****/marry/kill one.  I just laughed at the nonsensical nature of your justification.

So, if this didn't answer it, ask me again differently, preferably clearly. 

 

Point E:  I already addressed the artificial line bit throughout this post.  I already pointed out the objectively true flaw in your argument: everyone could have sided with you, and most people would not have cared.  For telling me I have no substance, you can see from this post that you're basically repeating one paragraph of content from my post, but spending most of your time misreading my post and arguing about what you misread, arguing about secondary or tertiary issues, self-aggrandizing, etc.

So, most of this section was unrelated to your final sentence and question.  That is unclear and rambling.  You concluded that I'm being contradictory on Llama.  Well, there are two main issues here.  First, you're saying this based on the concept that I said MWil and Counselor are protecting you, and that is the substance of the narrative... which as I have already shown, never happened, and never maintained at any point.  So, I'm already dismissing it because the premise is wrong.  But, I even answered it to the best of my ability, which is that I'm not being contradictory because I openly acknowledged that I was defending Llama.  I don't know how anyone could come away with any other impression, and I said as much in my initial response.

You do not truly think or believe that defending someone somehow invalidates their position on other people being connected.  That is asinine Mafia 001 talk.  So, even if we presume what you say is true, it is a logical fallacy to think it invalidates anything I've said.

 

Point F:  Yeah, already explained this above too.  See Point 6.

 

Point G:  Again, I don't know where Slappy came into this interaction, but it's not really relevant to this post.

 

Point H:  Yeah, I explained why I thought I was the only one engaging in a genuine push.  I detailed an articulable and reasonable case that guided my thoughts, and included extraneous reads and information to inform and develop my case to get beyond the binary choice we had in the Duel.  And, I was primarily the one pushing, and likely to continue to push.  As I already said, and this is at this time (not hindsight): Squire said his piece almost a full-day earlier and left; Dome was meme posting about Touch being redirected, Llama 100% Town, etc.; and Orca was semi-present, but not actively pushing Touch.  If I recall, his primary case was about MWil at this time, and he was either not present or allowing others to talk... which is pretty much what I said then and since.

 

I don't know how you can say I'm the one lacking substance at this juncture.  All your posts are a disjointed mixture of "no you."

 

Here is my contemporaneous response, which largely mirrors what I'm telling you now, but I've added detail and clarity to make it absolutely clear.

21 hours ago, SwAg said:

Well, I have actual evidence to show a concerted effort since I arrived as Drunk Elsa.  You have gaslighting nonsense, and like one post where you said I'm being a gimmick before I broke character.

Well, I don't know what to tell you.  I just read it.  Your defense is literally your recollection versus what I have open in a second tab.  You're just dismissing that whole point based on something that is wrong and easily verifiable.

That's literally my point.  I'm saying that the only mechanism you have to draw a conclusion is based on information you didn't look up because no one would ever choose Llama over you without something compelling, which is simply unlikely to manifest on D1.

I don't even know what you're saying about logic and answers.  I explained why I thought it was nonsense, but didn't even make it central to my case, only scoffed at it.  You're doing that thing where you grasp for secondary and tertiary bits that are largely immaterial and then hope people didn't actually read and will accept your "refutation" as equal, when it's not.

No, I don't know what you're not grasping here on the situational bits.  There looks like a concerted effort to impart a narrative, and none of you are refuting it, then you say this as though it makes me look fake... when I already said I'm defending llama, so I don't know how that's contradictory. 

Slappy hasn't posted anything of substance since he got back.  Last I saw he said he was catching up.  Again, that's a weird point to fixate on instead of the "why would you choose Slappy" for that accusation instead of any of the other people.

Yeah, I'm pretty much the only one pushing it at this juncture.  And I'm the only one who made an articulable case that can actually prompt discussion.  So, yeah, only one.

I literally did point by point analysis with citations to other games, bumped relevant posts, and did a restatement of facts before the analysis, and you're relying upon a conclusory declaration that I have no substance...while you are using your "recollection" to refute the end of a game that you can look up.

 

And thennnnnn:

Keep in mind these are only some links, there are literally dozens that show the same ****.

We go into a loop of me telling Touch he didn't effectively respond to anything; he's making no sense; he's really not making sense; he misread my posts, and was unclear. 

He kept telling me that I'm wrong, saying I'm scum because I'm actually posting, denying everything that objectively occurred, telling us our positions are equal (even though I've now proven almost half of his are wrong or based on a misreading or mischaracterization), and refusing to engage in a non-disingenuous manner (Orca and squire pushed more than I did, really?).

Touch does another post that is largely him misreading my posts, and all my responses are basically contained above.

Touch tells me he has directly pinpointed his arguments... uh, where?  The issue is, even if he has, his immediate follow-up is question based on his misreading of my post.

I counted the amount of conclusory or declaratory statements that he made, and I stopped counting at 30 on page 82.  And that's just in the spew that followed the large posts.  Feel free to skim back through, Touch completely avoided engagement and was objectively wrong throughout.

Then we had a circuitous bit where he refused to point out what I failed to answer because he already did it; or, it was "clear" and "everything he said spoke for itself."

Throw in the occasional disingenuous talking point about how I "have nothing" and I'm wrongly and baselessly "dismissing everything," and even the occasional quoting me and saying I said something other than what I clearly said:

21 hours ago, SwAg said:

Then I bumped all the quotes that are about me from you three, that seem to be positioning me to (1) fall with one of you; (2) portray me as useless; or otherwise shape the narrative about me.

I don’t know how you’re not getting that since you responded to it elsewhere.

Nowhere did I say they’re protecting you.  I said they’re attacking me, and you’re helping it.  Like if you did some argument about how attacking me is protecting you, I’d at least understand it.  But I never said they’re protecting you, so that’s a really weird characterization and point to pretend is critical.

 

21 hours ago, theuntouchable said:

Oh, so you’re making the argument by not directly making it. Just offering up tidbits here and there to further that idea but if called on “I never actually said that” 

 

21 hours ago, SwAg said:

No, my argument was literally that you all are trying to instill a narrative where I’m discredited if I continue to play as i was, or if I play as I am now... you’re reading the defense of you bit into it.

 

21 hours ago, theuntouchable said:

What? You’ve made the statement several times now?!?? 

 

Oh, and Touch tried the semantic battle about me being "the only one genuinely pushing," which I explained like 10x, but he clung to it like it defended him somehow.  I was the only one to make an articulable and sustained case, but Touch says Dome locked his vote and squire asked questions the other day, so, lol.

And I didn't address it because his points because they're different opinions? What.

After he understood my argument, he said it just doesn't matter, lol.  And effectively conceded all of the arguments I made, since he misread most of them... and then just dismissed it because it's not this game.  And then continued to argue his misinterpretation of my clear position as the correct argument instead of re-reading like three sentences about that argument.

I asked for him to re-read because he clearly needed to do so, or he was being purposefully infuriating.  I called him retarded and whatnot like I am wont to do.

Finally, I asked him to make a list of questions for me that are numerical so there is no excuse for me to not do it.  He refused to even acknowledge it for the while on the basis that it's a trap. I mean, lol. I offered to do it, and since then he has not shut up about it.

 

21 hours ago, theuntouchable said:

Well, for starters it has no bearing on this game whatsoever. I commented because I don’t remember it ending that way. 

No.  You didn't.  But now I have.

21 hours ago, SwAg said:

You’re really resisting the idea of making a concise numerical list for me to respond to instead of relying upon a confusing tirade full of unclear questions.  Almost like you benefit from the lack of clarity dude

I am not responding to disjointed, incoherent nonsense and rhetorical talking points. 

 

You can speak clearly, as I have done throughout all of this, or talk to yourself.

 

 

These things are not equal.

 

 

Touch is scum. 

 

Regardless of what Llama flips.

[SwAg]

I can literally break it down, line-by-line, and it isn't even a close issue.  The words mean what the words mean.  Almost none of the posts are edited.  But some of you will treat these positions as equivalent.  It is flat-out alarming to me how Touch can be so objectively wrong and mischaracterize me so severely, and people either wholly ignore it, or willfully choose to avoid it.

Touch is scum.

[Malfatron]

11 minutes ago, squire12 said:

24 minutes ago, squire12 said:

anyone have thoughts on what the starting ratio might have been?   Does anyone think it is straight town vs mafia?  Or would there be an other/SK in the mix?

@Malfatron, @SwAg, @The Orca, @Pickle Rick, @TheKillerNacho, @rackcs, @Dome, @Slappy Mc

Tagging those that are more frequent hosts, sorry if I missed anyone of the regular game hosts.

THoughts on the starting ratio?

havent really thought about it

was mafias hit blocked/didnt go through, and are you trying to figure out whether theres a SK in the mix?

cause thats what it feels like

[SwAg]

2 minutes ago, Malfatron said:

havent really thought about it

was mafias hit blocked/didnt go through, and are you trying to figure out whether theres a SK in the mix?

cause thats what it feels like

hi

[SwAg]

15 minutes ago, squire12 said:

@Malfatron, @SwAg, @The Orca, @Pickle Rick, @TheKillerNacho, @rackcs, @Dome, @Slappy Mc

Tagging those that are more frequent hosts, sorry if I missed anyone of the regular game hosts.

THoughts on the starting ratio?

I always put 28-35%

[Daboyle]

that was a very long post

[Malfatron]

1 minute ago, SwAg said:

hi

glad you were able to verbally defeat touch in thread.

however, that doesnt change the fact that llama is scum.

and i doubt touch busses llama.

so thats all i need to know.

i will conced that touch cant argue points as well as you

[theuntouchable]

I will respond to the rest of the nonsense here in a bit but notice how swags position has clearly changed. 
 

now I’m scum regardless of what llama flips. 
 

p.s. it’s because he knows llama will flip scum. 

[SwAg]

Just now, Malfatron said:

glad you were able to verbally defeat touch in thread.

however, that doesnt change the fact that llama is scum.

and i doubt touch busses llama.

so thats all i need to know.

i will conced that touch cant argue points as well as you

Could be multiple factions, 21-23 is the sweet spot for that.

[SwAg]

2 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

I will respond to the rest of the nonsense here in a bit but notice how swags position has clearly changed. 
 

now I’m scum regardless of what llama flips. 
 

p.s. it’s because he knows llama will flip scum. 

 

2 hours ago, theuntouchable said:

Also, @Dome I would say the chances of them having a lawyer are more than 50%. It’s the only reason I can think of that swag would be willing to go to that length to protect llama. 

Bro, you literally tried to preempt the lynch flip by saying if Llama is Town, it's because of a death framer.

[SwAg]

Also, if that post is any indication of how your response to my post is going to be, then I am not going to be responding to it.