Status
Not open for further replies.

MUUGEN

呪のろいの王
Im trying to piece up together who shot Muugen and who shot Zem.
no one shot me just random false narratives from ultra to make his case against me valid that everyone will overlook cause they can’t use logic
not rly
but muugen gives more info on ratchet than ratchet gives on muugen
if muugen magically flips town, ratchet's scum with tmi
if muugen flips scum, ratchet can be either really, leaning scum after an invest and QT failing on him

i think muugen has a really powerful role regardless and if he was town every scum and his mom would be jumping on him rn and his lynch wud be easy af, but thats obviously not happening
lol @Ratchet I told you you’d be marked as TMI when I flip town. Ekko is already getting ready to try save himself when I flip town.
Ah yeah. I went to sleep when Muugen asked me about this. @MUUGEN apologies for not replying on your questions, I was super tired and just wanted to sleep.

Just because I didnt use something at night doesn't mean I didnt use something this DP, but I must say just because my action didnt 'work' doesn't mean you're confirmed scum, but I bet you have an immunity to what I did.
If you threw anything at me today I’ve found the true essence of my soul and transcended - you didn’t come out with this to begin with you implied it was in direct correlation with flower you could’ve easily stated in the beginning you used something today.
To be fair, if the role cop failed on me, it probably wasn't going to be of much use anyway if it was used on Muugen.
If already openly claimed I reflect as No Results cause I’m an unregistered spirit
sallu

i was referring to the maki role and muus claim

since muus claim is basically a summary of the maki bulletproof passive thing

im tired
what was my claim?
said openly on game thread he hate Ekko and put him on ignore, idk why he's not shooting him. Its really bugging me.
what bs are you spouting when did I ever say I hate ekko?

& why would I spite shoot someone if I don’t like them outside of the game.

wtf are you even on about please come back when you attached your head back to your body.

[VOTE LYNCH ULTRA]
 

Lindltaylor

There's no "Tina!"
no one shot me just random false narratives from ultra to make his case against me valid that everyone will overlook cause they can’t use logic

lol @Ratchet I told you you’d be marked as TMI when I flip town. Ekko is already getting ready to try save himself when I flip town.

If you threw anything at me today I’ve found the true essence of my soul and transcended - you didn’t come out with this to begin with you implied it was in direct correlation with flower you could’ve easily stated in the beginning you used something today.

If already openly claimed I reflect as No Results cause I’m an unregistered spirit

what was my claim?

what bs are you spouting when did I ever say I hate ekko?

& why would I spite shoot someone if I don’t like them outside of the game.

wtf are you even on about please come back when you attached your head back to your body.

[VOTE LYNCH ULTRA]
Muugen are you bullet-proof?
 
hayumi

i still dont like rhea, my opinion hasnt changed ever since she said how promising dr professors case on me was, which did sound like she was just parroting kagura. funny how neither of them voted me

i read odd as town for now

ekko is a coinflip for me rn, i dont like how he was acting towards zem in the council

is lind always this helpful it reminds me of scum always doing vote counts and whatever just to be safe and not mix up their stories in thread

idk what exactly lind and ekko have on each other but i guess we might get an answer once one of them flips

im tired of having to put in so much effort
 

MangoSenpai

Argonauts, roll out!
See this is where your arguments all fall apart. You fail to actually substantiate any of them beyond just saying "more to it than face value", or "the presentation of your argument was bad to me", and more. You fail to actually compare and contrast why it was bad, and establish a behavioral baseline as to what would make a good impression.
True, and real.

Well, I'm not good at making cases period. I know I lost that argument, so I'll not contest that.
In this specific context, you first attributed your suspicion to feelings and the notion of my proposals to something scummy. Yet, later when you backtracked out of it to present a viewpoint where you said it's not based on sentiment, but more so on presentation, you again fail to substantiate further what sort of presentation you were expecting.

You then go further to state that Muugen was taking up a burgeoning space of discussion, which you yourself admitted to it being unhealthy, but fail to reconcile why I made such arguments to end it quickly, and instead, defaulted back to "presentation". Now you claim that from a pure argument perspective, you don't disagree with my proposal. You even go on to say that this could all be "circumstantial" and you now outright say that you don't want to clarify further because "I don't get it".
Now this is something I completely disagree with.

Because I mentioned that in our original back and forth, I was onboard with the sentiment, but the presentation pinged me.
I gave you the benefit of doubt but you became really defensive about it.

And me saying that I am not going to clarify it because you don't get it is because I've already explained myself almost every post I made.
Like I've been clear about it time and time again but you just say you don't get it, well then what am I gonna say then?

I made a scenario that made full sense in my mind, and you acted just as I'd expect if the scenario I made was true. So of course I'm gonna think you're partners with Muu in that case.

My PoV comes entirely from how I interpreted the situation, I made a scenario that made sense in my head, and I acted accordingly.
Just because I agreed with your sentiments doesn't mean I agree with your solutions and conclutions.

I'm not backpeddaling, I simply didn't have enough on you to substansiate further.
You claiming "I want you to be town because I don't want to sus you" or "You're a good player and you've fooled you before" are simply not good arguments to present. The factuality of those statements are brought into question since no one knows the truth of it, and two, those statements merely serve the purpose of just keeping your suspicion going, or reasoning out to others that your suspicion is based on somewhat subjective grounds. Yes, subjective again, because, like feelings and tone, the objective nature of those statements are again brought into question simply because they can only be proven, once again, after the fact. This behavior is also simply posturing.

Again, your perspective can be the same, or different. It doesn't matter to me simply because I consider the grounds you actually base your assumptions on to wrong and not substantiated enough. As for your assumptions about me, the bulletproof theory and more. There's a simple argument that is - No supposition is axiomatic.

This itself is a blatant contradiction here because you don't disagree with the argument per se, but you disagree with the presentation of it. So how would the presentation discredit the argument on a slot which you yourself claim that you want to see sorted out quickly? See, it comes off more so on the fact that you don't want to resolve Muugen quickly enough, that the presentation of the argument should distract you from the argument itself. Which again, you don't disagree with.
Say what you will about that, I am merely stating what I think.
Even if they don't make for good arguments it doesn't change the way I view the situation as a whole. If I had more dirt on you I'd present it, at best it's a hard read that's not substansiated by a lot of evidence per se.

So I understand you're appealing to logic here, which would make sense, but I think you're beeing TOO logical.

Maybe my read on you isn't the most logical thing all things considered, but who cares.
You're only repeating yourself, and I've only reiterated what I've said in the past.

So yes, I admit that I'm reading you based off a scenario I find likely.
Don't come here telling me I can't do that

Too big of a coincidence is again not a good argument. The validity of it falls completely on the two events not being mutually exclusive to one another, to which, we have no proof of again.

Calling it hyper-defensive, when I've been accused so wrongly isn't how it's done. I'm defending my viewpoint and you actually fail to see it is why I'm not on board to you being town here.
I really fail to see why it's not a good argument to make, I am totally aware that it might be a coincidence like no other, but I'm sure you realize how it looks for you right?

You can't seriously be telling me that something that's too good to be true can't be a good argument.

:seriously:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top