Meme Mafia - Town - (minus Mwil) wins

[theuntouchable]

21 minutes ago, SwAg said:

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.

I love the talking point of “no risk” other than there is inherent risk which is evidenced by how the vote went. Especially, when scum like you is involved. 
 

now, will I say that there wasn’t as large of a risk with it as some people made it seem? Yes, but the point still remains that there is risk. No amount of words, or how large you make the words, can refute that. 
 

you’re simply dismissing the fact that there is risk because of your apparent opinion. There’s also something to be said about the timing of your attack towards me but you likely ignore that as well because it doesn’t fit your narrative. 

[Dome]

38 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

It’s passive because you aren’t actively pushing for it. You’re merely suggesting it and then still acting like I haven’t responded. 
 

p.s. part of me thinks it’s just cause you’re mad I called you a moron for that play 

I’ve brought it up twice in thread today after saying last night it’s what we should do 

but OK. 

[theuntouchable]

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.]

 

no one would realistically argue against touch, yet, here you are. Doing exactly that. Anyone care to look back in previous games and find examples of swag arguing with me? How about you take a look at last game. I was actually scum that game, it was obvious, and even then swag wasn’t pushing that hard. Now he wants to push after I made a play on llama? Coincidence? Not likely. 
 

did I possibly provide cover? Sure, you could say that but the equal and opposite argument is that I also drew battle lines. Battle lines that have since made it very apparent you were trying to protect llama. (Not to mention the odd votes/odd vote flips in OT) so another talking point proven to be incorrect and entirely baseless. 
 

furthermore, he was NOT the only one arguing against me. He’d like to play this giant charade that he was the only one truly pushing me but his “push” was based solely on nothing of any substance. I did it because “no one would argue against touch in d1” this has been proven incorrect. I did it to provide cover for other scum (not quite proven incorrect but will be in time)

[Dome]

“We should force touch into using his move.”

.......

”does nobody like that plan?”

*bunch of llama votes*

.........

”hello?”

”well if you think it’s such a good plan why don’t you do it?”

[theuntouchable]

3 minutes ago, Dome said:

I’ve brought it up twice in thread today after saying last night it’s what we should do 

but OK. 

I get what you’re saying but in the context of passive/aggressive you’re would fall more on the passive side. 

[SwAg]

1 minute ago, theuntouchable said:

I love the talking point of “no risk” other than there is inherent risk which is evidenced by how the vote went. Especially, when scum like you is involved. 
 

now, will I say that there wasn’t as large of a risk with it as some people made it seem? Yes, but the point still remains that there is risk. No amount of words, or how large you make the words, can refute that. 
 

you’re simply dismissing the fact that there is risk because of your apparent opinion. There’s also something to be said about the timing of your attack towards me but you likely ignore that as well because it doesn’t fit your narrative. 

What.

You're trying to go back and re-answer and raise new issues that you never raised before now.  So, I don't know how I'm supposed to answer these "clear points" you made that I left unaddressed yesterday, which you griped about endlessly, when you literally never brought them up.

And notice, I said "trying."  This attempt is very disingenuous.  You dropped off a section of the quote to give you something to say.  I said "almost no risk," and then you say "there wasn't as large of a risk with it as some people made it seem?" -- whatever that means.  I'm assuming you're saying it wasn't a substantial risk, because no one is going to take that seriously.  It was Touch vs. Llama on Day 1.

You came closer to agreeing with me than disputing what I said here.

[Nazgul]

Duel me, Touch!

[Dome]

Just now, theuntouchable said:

I get what you’re saying but in the context of passive/aggressive you’re would fall more on the passive side. 

compared to other people who are actively ignoring the plan and allowing you to go unchecked, it’s incredibly pro-active 

[theuntouchable]

32 minutes ago, SwAg said:

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.

He starts off by stating my explanation is bad. I have walked everyone directly through my line of thinking on several occasions, yet oddly enough you were never part of that conversation. Why? Because you don’t care about it and me walking you through the progression of it dismantles the basis of another argument of yours. 
 

stymied conversation? Again, wrong. You could potentially argue that I boxed the conversation in, that would be correct. However, I would again argue that your point here was ALSO proven to be false as there was plenty of conversation. 

[theuntouchable]

1 minute ago, Dome said:

compared to other people who are actively ignoring the plan and allowing you to go unchecked, it’s incredibly pro-active 

I would agree with that in comparison to others 

[SwAg]

1 minute ago, theuntouchable said:

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.]

 

no one would realistically argue against touch, yet, here you are. Doing exactly that. Anyone care to look back in previous games and find examples of swag arguing with me? How about you take a look at last game. I was actually scum that game, it was obvious, and even then swag wasn’t pushing that hard. Now he wants to push after I made a play on llama? Coincidence? Not likely. 
 

did I possibly provide cover? Sure, you could say that but the equal and opposite argument is that I also drew battle lines. Battle lines that have since made it very apparent you were trying to protect llama. (Not to mention the odd votes/odd vote flips in OT) so another talking point proven to be incorrect and entirely baseless. 
 

furthermore, he was NOT the only one arguing against me. He’d like to play this giant charade that he was the only one truly pushing me but his “push” was based solely on nothing of any substance. I did it because “no one would argue against touch in d1” this has been proven incorrect. I did it to provide cover for other scum (not quite proven incorrect but will be in time)

I'm not giving a new response to this because you're repeating the same arguments that I already addressed and throwing in some rhetorical questions / quips to obscure and make your response seem longer because people are unlikely to actually read it.  So, I value my time sufficiently to not waste any more of it when you're going to be disingenuous scum.

But, I will say, I am enjoying that my past games are now relevant to you, but the Old West Game "has no bearing whatsoever."  Don't you think you're "being contradictory????"

My response is to re-read this post until you understand my position.

[SwAg]

5 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

He starts off by stating my explanation is bad. I have walked everyone directly through my line of thinking on several occasions, yet oddly enough you were never part of that conversation. Why? Because you don’t care about it and me walking you through the progression of it dismantles the basis of another argument of yours. 
 

stymied conversation? Again, wrong. You could potentially argue that I boxed the conversation in, that would be correct. However, I would again argue that your point here was ALSO proven to be false as there was plenty of conversation. 

Touch, you're going through my initial post and re-analyzing it now to raise new issues.  Your position is that you were clear in what I was avoiding and I was wrong and scum.  That is not what you're doing here, and what you're doing here isn't even effective because I already addressed almost all of it in this post.  Maybe read the whole post first, then come back.

And even if we presume what your raising is valid here, none of this changes what occurred after the initial post.

[theuntouchable]

39 minutes ago, SwAg said:

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.

Again, the timing of when you broke character is the key here. Up until that point you were completely content with playing up the drunk else scheme (something you have done countless times as scum). Once the narrative started to change a bit more in thread (and llama kept hiding) is when you then hopped in with the swag bravado to really try and flip it back to me. 
 

you’re also attempting to group me, mwil and counselor based on one reaction that is in no way, shape or form actually connected. Yet again, you ignore the clear and obvious equivalent of YOU and LLAMA being connected. 
 

this entire string of diarrhea of the mouth is NOTHING other than a hidden agenda. The entire point of this part, is not to actually argue against me. It is to instill a notion that mwil, counselor and myself are pushing a false narrative onto you (which is funny considering the context)

[Scoundrel]

Ok new plan. Can we lynch Swag or Touch so I don’t have to read this **** anymore?

[theuntouchable]

45 minutes ago, SwAg said:

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

So, I point out the change in your posting style and it’s merely a quip/insult/rhetorical even though it is a direct fact that your posting did change. So my “analysis” of your change is baseless but your “analysis” of why I used my move the way I did, is not?? 
 

that’s interesting.