My comment on Cyan "posting in other places but is passing this one" I find it to be a weak attack on Cyan. Granted I only know him from this and another game. I know how I function with more the one game and that is to work em one at a time. No this isn't an "OUT" for Cyan.. More of why I don't find him not "here" all too scummy. I have realized playing Mafia takes time (a lot of time!), and I know I would spend my time on the games I have invested more time in over others that have just started. Just my 2 cents.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks goes out to DarkNightCavalier and XenoNinja
@Andelijah: So, let me get this straight? You're calling me out for not answering AK, but, also specifically asking me to not answer AK? That's a nice one.
I'm asking you not to answer *all* of AK's points, especially because your good points against him get buried in the mediocre ones, or even if you feel they're all worth posting, make your post too long for everyone to read.
Also, you said that you asked me a question which I didn't answer. I don't see where that happened, I already addressed all of your posts yesterday. The only one that I have outstanding is my response to AK, and I've already explained why that one isn't posted yet. IF you're going to accuse me of things, at least accuse me of something I am actually guilty of.
I made two points worth responding to in my post, one saying I don't remember enough other mini's that you were in (although there was no direct question, I was hoping for some examples), and the other was asking you why you made this case only after I voted you, and not when you voted AK.
Andelijah bringing them up is nothing more than a desperate, scummy attempt to throw something at me and see if it sticks, to put me on the defensive and hope that I react badly. But it's not going to happen.
Every accusation I have leveled at you has been supported by you.
I've decided to skip some of the less meaningful of AK's responses and only respond to the ones where I can directly make a point. This included erasing some stuff I had already written, but, whatever. That is better than having no one read the post at all.
So, you ignore it when I disprove your points?
So what. Just because it is the random phase doesn't make it entirely meaningless. Posts like yours are a prime example, you are quite obviously appealing to emotion there. Random stage or not, it's still scummy.
Way to disregard 2), where I conclude that you misinterpret it to be "oh no, not another mislynch" instead of what it was, "oh no, not this argument again"
It is not necessary to vote someone in order to be opportunistic. Besides, it was post 15, obviously you weren't going to cast a serious vote yet. Instead, you just responded to the post in question in as predatory a fashion as possible, and continued down the path later when (you thought at least) it would look more earnest on your part.
I pointed out a horrible idea as what it was-are you saying the town shouldn't call out bad ideas as what they are?
Rarely do pro-town posts get pointed out, especially if they're not majorly relevant to the game itself. What is more relevant is that no one, but you, comment on how scummy it must be. Because it wasn't. You saw what looked like a good opportunity for you to make a newb look bad, and jumped on it. And of course, there is the whole bit about how it makes you look like you're just ignoring whatever doesn't fit the case you are trying to make, as pointed out later.
Then why did nobody else defend it? You are looking at me seeing something scummy, and taking it as me being some creeper looking for any weakness.
And honestly, you saying "makes you look like you're just ignoring whatever doesn't fit the case you are trying to make, as pointed out later" is hypocritical.
To clarify, your post 45 was not scummy. I felt it was relevant enough to mention it, that's all.
Read: I conveniently ignored a fact that would blow my case apart.
You seem to do this "read:" thing a lot, where you take a statement, and misrepresent it to be whatever you want it to be to incriminate the person you are launching a lone crusade against.
I am not overreacting, this an absolutely crucial point against you. Whether or not you 'explained' it(I use that term as loosely as possible) is irrelevant. It still happened, and still is completely and utterly scummy. And your explanation was lacking anyway.
It's not "completely and utterly scummy" to forget a contradiction in your argument. And if I already dealt with this, why bring it up again? Do I need to c/p that paragraph to refute you every time you post?
No, I don't think that it's reaching. At this point, you had to have realized that your case was failing miserably, and you desperately tried to keep it alive, rather than have it be realized that you had scummily tried(and failed) to start TWO wagons based on nothing.
Calling it desperate is misrepresentation, there is nothing desperate there. That post is not "desperately trying to keep a case alive" it is pointing out an action I consider scummy as scummy. To go to an earlier question, by calling this scummy, are you saying that we shouldn't point out scummy actions?
How is it NOT opportunism? If you are town, your immediate reaction to something like this is 'there is no need for you to claim now'. Instead, you tried to get MORE information out of him. This is pretty obvious scummy fishing.
Wait, first it was opportunism, now it's fishing. The "why do you want to claim" reads to me as in part, a suggestion that claiming now is wrong. And you claiming to know how every townie chould react seems off to me. I didn't want role info, I wanted an explanation of why he wanted to claim so soon.
The point is that she had *already* explained it, and you needlessly tried to pin her into explaining it again.
so you claim that I did the same thing that you are doing by bringing up the contradiction issue time and again, only when you claim that I did it, it's scummy? Also, I wanted, not for her to explain her WoD vote, but why she dropped Roja in a short span of time.
If you are town, please explain how this post helps the town in any way. It is pretty obvious how, if you are scum and know that WoD isn't, it hurts him.
It interjects a good chuckle into an otherwise dreary game thread, so that enjoyment, which according to you, begets activity, goes up. I don't see how such a ridiculous "incriminatory" statement can hurt him. It's obvious that nobody could take that as a valid point against him.
No, I pretty obviously mean when you tried to make Catalina and Roja look vastly more suspicious than they actually were.
So you think that I could single-handedly carry out a misinformation campaign against 2 town players?:rolleyes:
Sometimes, you don't want to tip your hand. Like in this case. I thought that, if you were scum, you would act a certain way. And you acted that way. The problem is not that you defended yourself, it is the manner in which you did so. This is very apparent for anyone that goes back and reads it.
Can you explain how you think I should have reacted as your perfect townie, and how my response fits your notion of a scum response?
Yeah, guess I missed my chance there. But then, as long as the end result is you getting lynched, that is all that matters.
So you ignore relevant game considerations to carry out a one-man crusade?
This just shows your lack of earnestness. If you are so interested in WoD paying more attention to relevant topics, why didn't you ask him his thoughts on YOU?
At the time, I thought discussion of your actions was more relevant, and as long as he contributes on either of us, it's better than his lurking, which seems to continue.
You don't seem to have any problems responding to this post. And I didn't misinterpret anything, that much is clear.
Yeah, because if I don't reply, you'll start screaming about how I'm ignoring it. I have pointed out in both this post and in my last reply, your various misinterpretations. Only, it seems that when I correct you, you don't bother to mention how I disproved you.
Alright, that's it. I don't think that any more of this back and forth is necessary. AK's scumminess is, quite literally, as plain as day. If you can't see that yourself just from his responses, then, go back and look again.
So, that's why there is 1 other person voting me, I get it now!:rolleyes: And are you saying I shouldn't bother replying to you?
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
I'm asking you not to answer *all* of AK's points, especially because your good points against him get buried in the mediocre ones, or even if you feel they're all worth posting, make your post too long for everyone to read.
It should be pretty obvious that I already did this, so, why are you clarifying it anyway?
I made two points worth responding to in my post, one saying I don't remember enough other mini's that you were in (although there was no direct question, I was hoping for some examples), and the other was asking you why you made this case only after I voted you, and not when you voted AK.
I honestly thought that I responded to this post already, but looking back, apparently it didn't happen..I dunno. At any rate, I honestly haven't been in a ton of minis, I'm generally really picky about which ones I participate in, because I find them hard to maintain interest in. But there was TV Mafia, where A)I was scum and B)I still posted plenty, or Code Geass, where I really didn't post alot(and was town), Stereotype, where again I was town but didn't post alot, Midian Mafia where again I was town and didn't post alot. I can't remember much past that.
As for your question about AK, I didn't realize that it was necessary to immediately present an elaborate case just because you vote someone. Sometimes it's fine to apply some pressure and see how that person, and other people, react. This situation is a fine example of that. I got the reaction(s) that I was looking for. More on that later, though. After AK is lynched.
Every accusation I have leveled at you has been supported by you.
I don't even know what that means.
@AK:
So, you ignore it when I disprove your points?
A)You have yet to disprove anything.
B)The only points that I didn't respond to are ones where A)there was nothing to say, which primarly consisted of you defending your pointless spam 'joke posts'
Way to disregard 2), where I conclude that you misinterpret it to be "oh no, not another mislynch" instead of what it was, "oh no, not this argument again"
Even if you're trying to present it as 'not this argument again', the intent is pretty obviously to give the town the impression that it would just be another mislynch. It is ridiculous that you are trying to argue this.
I pointed out a horrible idea as what it was-are you saying the town shouldn't call out bad ideas as what they are?
If you had merely said it was a bad idea, and possibly said why, that would be one thing. A pro-town thing, even. But you took it as a chance to attack the person making it. This is very obvious opportunism.
Then why did nobody else defend it? You are looking at me seeing something scummy, and taking it as me being some creeper looking for any weakness.
And honestly, you saying "makes you look like you're just ignoring whatever doesn't fit the case you are trying to make, as pointed out later" is hypocritical.
Obviously no one else was going to defend anything, the situation was blown out of proportion by you before anyone could. And no, there is nothing hypocritical about that statement which I made.
You seem to do this "read:" thing a lot, where you take a statement, and misrepresent it to be whatever you want it to be to incriminate the person you are launching a lone crusade against.
"Read:" Is the presentation of what the post quote obviously means, stripping away the layer of deceit that covers it with better sounding words. And also, fascinating that you call it a 'lone crusade'. You realize that you had 3 votes when that post was made, and others have commented specifically on your scumminess? Nice misrep.
It's not "completely and utterly scummy" to forget a contradiction in your argument. And if I already dealt with this, why bring it up again? Do I need to c/p that paragraph to refute you every time you post?
It is scummy because, if you were town, this is not the type of contradiction that you would have made to begin with.
Wait, first it was opportunism, now it's fishing. The "why do you want to claim" reads to me as in part, a suggestion that claiming now is wrong. And you claiming to know how every townie chould react seems off to me. I didn't want role info, I wanted an explanation of why he wanted to claim so soon.
Fishing is a form of opportunism. Obviously. And it is not the pro-town standpoint to want more information in that circumstance. The pro-town standpoint is the post made by some others, simply instructing him not to claim yet. You tried to get more information out of him. Which is the very definition of fishing.
so you claim that I did the same thing that you are doing by bringing up the contradiction issue time and again, only when you claim that I did it, it's scummy? Also, I wanted, not for her to explain her WoD vote, but why she dropped Roja in a short span of time.
Her answers were obviously satisfactory. Yours are obviously not.
It interjects a good chuckle into an otherwise dreary game thread, so that enjoyment, which according to you, begets activity, goes up. I don't see how such a ridiculous "incriminatory" statement can hurt him. It's obvious that nobody could take that as a valid point against him.
You seem to be under the impression that it was funny to begin with, when it wasn't. There are plenty of funny posts that are made that don't belittle another player. Yours quite obviously did belittle another player. And it's great for you. Either A)you get to play it off as a joke and/or B)it makes WoD look bad. Works great if you're scum. Makes no sense if you're town.
So you think that I could single-handedly carry out a misinformation campaign against 2 town players?
How do you know that they are town players? This seems like a pretty big slip, frankly. And besides, they're both brand new.
So you ignore relevant game considerations to carry out a one-man crusade?
I frequently carry out one-man crusades, what does that have to do with anything? And there were no other relevant game considerations at the time.
So, that's why there is 1 other person voting me, I get it now! And are you saying I shouldn't bother replying to you?
2 other votes, but that's okay. And now it's 3. And soon to be more, no doubt. You're flailing miserably throughout here. Especially that bit where you referred to Roja and Cat as 2 townies. I'm pretty sure that was a major slip.
Seriously, I know it's a pain, but people need to read through this nonsense. AK's responses are as scummy as can be.
I don't count WoD's vote as a real vote, and DesCourses said he hadn't read everything-thus both of these votes are of negligible quality. More tl;dr to come tomorrow I guess.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
Sometimes, you don't want to tip your hand. Like in this case. I thought that, if you were scum, you would act a certain way. And you acted that way. The problem is not that you defended yourself, it is the manner in which you did so. This is very apparent for anyone that goes back and reads it.
Quote from me »
Can you explain how you think I should have reacted as your perfect townie, and how my response fits your notion of a scum response?
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
I don't count WoD's vote as a real vote, and DesCourses said he hadn't read everything-thus both of these votes are of negligible quality. More tl;dr to come tomorrow I guess.
How do you know that they are town players? This seems like a pretty big slip, frankly. And besides, they're both brand new.
Nitpicks: Roja's not as new as he claims, and you really need to not point these things out so early. As it is, with him only stating it once, it's so weak a tell that it doesn't stand up as evidence.
Seriously, I know it's a pain, but people need to read through this nonsense. AK's responses are as scummy as can be.
His responses are weak, but not necessarily scummy. Honestly half of it reads like the two of you having a private argument on playstyle. My vote is still on him only because FMJ's disappeared again, Catalina's not suspicious enough yet, and WoD's egregious and spammy play is unfortunately not a scum tell.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Esper Simperer; Even the court homonculi need someone to look down on.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...' Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
Only quoted to comment aboutthis. I agree that I would like to hear something from WoD.
Ged do you know about WoD's playstyle that I wouldn't know about? (Like it is a tell or something if he dosen't pay attention to who he is voting for?)
And what is TL;DR ? Till later Day reply?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks goes out to DarkNightCavalier and XenoNinja
Only quoted to comment aboutthis. I agree that I would like to hear something from WoD.
DC used quotes to back up his votes.
Ged do you know about WoD's playstyle that I wouldn't know about? (Like it is a tell or something if he dosen't pay attention to who he is voting for?)
No, I'm voting him more because he has two posts with any real content this game, and they're pretty much the same post saying "I don't really care what AK says, I'm going to vote him."
So again, instead of commenting on the HUGE arguments and counter arguments, you pick about the smallest thing you can post about. That's it. I'm glad I'm voting for you, because in this post you validate a) your scumminess and b) why I don't count your vote against me.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
It should be pretty obvious that I already did this, so, why are you clarifying it anyway?
The post is still about three times longer than it needs to be.
I don't even know what that means.
It means that all I am accusing you of is being quiet, which you readily admit to. You give a different rationale for it, but I "seeing what sticks" is ignoring the fact that you don't disagree with any of the premises that I have presented, only my interpretations.
Anyhow, I'll try to look over some of those games some time in the near future, but Unvote, Vote: Apokalypse Kid for now.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
@Andelijah: I still don't really get it. So your main assertion is that I've been more quiet this game 'than I normally am'? My contention is that this has no bearing whatsoever on my alignment, especially since your 'points of reference' are 2 ongoing games where my alignment is unknown. Sometimes, I simply don't post alot at the start of a game. Sometimes I do. It has nothing to do with my affiliation.
@AK: Or, seeing as how you're at 5 votes now, you could stop wasting everyone's time and get on with claiming. You have been slowly accumulating votes throughout your 'discourse' with me, clearly people are coming to realize that you are scum. Get on with it already.
I fail at counting I guess, I thought he was at 5 votes now.
Not that 1 difference in votes makes him any less obvious scum, but now he's just going to run the tired 'I'll claim at -2 derfderf' so that he can stall while he tries to come up with a good false claim.
My vote is still on him only because FMJ's disappeared again, Catalina's not suspicious enough yet, and WoD's egregious and spammy play is unfortunately not a scum tell.
DC, am I right in reading this right that you think I'm the scummiest posting person, but not necessarily scum?
A)You have yet to disprove anything.
B)The only points that I didn't respond to are ones where A)there was nothing to say, which primarly consisted of you defending your pointless spam 'joke posts'
My point is that whenever I show something isn't scummy, you ignore the fact that I just knocked out part of your case, and continue with your crusade.
Even if you're trying to present it as 'not this argument again', the intent is pretty obviously to give the town the impression that it would just be another mislynch. It is ridiculous that you are trying to argue this.
No it isn't, the point is obviously that I don't want to go through that argument again, there is nothing about not wanting to rehash an argument I lost once that implies it would cause a mislynch. There's a big difference between saying "oh, don't mislynch me again" and "not this again" when the context clearly indicates that it's in regards to a previous argument.
If you had merely said it was a bad idea, and possibly said why, that would be one thing. A pro-town thing, even. But you took it as a chance to attack the person making it. This is very obvious opportunism.
I didn't attack Cat though. an igmeoy isn't an attack, but a reminder that you're being watched.
Obviously no one else was going to defend anything, the situation was blown out of proportion by you before anyone could. And no, there is nothing hypocritical about that statement which I made.
Before anyone could? Other users posted between his post and mine, and after my post before I decided to vote. There was ample time, and there is an occasion now to stand up and defend that post-nobody else has, because nobody but you thinks it's "obviously pro-town"
"Read:" Is the presentation of what the post quote obviously means, stripping away the layer of deceit that covers it with better sounding words. And also, fascinating that you call it a 'lone crusade'. You realize that you had 3 votes when that post was made, and others have commented specifically on your scumminess? Nice misrep.
DC has repeatedly indicated that he hasn't read all the discussion, and I take his last post to indicate he would rather push FMJ-speaking of which, where is FMJ :confused:, and wod has done nothing but barn you and andel. You were the only one to have any actual arguments, or to do anything other than lay a meaningless vote.
It is scummy because, if you were town, this is not the type of contradiction that you would have made to begin with.
Say that about now, somebody finds a contradiction in your argument. Does that mean that you are automatically scum? I looked at Roja for scum tells, and saw them, so I voted him, then noticed a contradiction in my argument after Andel's post.
Fishing is a form of opportunism. Obviously. And it is not the pro-town standpoint to want more information in that circumstance. The pro-town standpoint is the post made by some others, simply instructing him not to claim yet. You tried to get more information out of him. Which is the very definition of fishing.
I clearly asked for an explanation, not role info. Is it fishing now to ask people to explain why they are doing something.
Her answers were obviously satisfactory. Yours are obviously not.
Well, apparently most of the town disagrees with you.
You seem to be under the impression that it was funny to begin with, when it wasn't. There are plenty of funny posts that are made that don't belittle another player. Yours quite obviously did belittle another player. And it's great for you. Either A)you get to play it off as a joke and/or B)it makes WoD look bad. Works great if you're scum. Makes no sense if you're town.[/quote
How does that make WoD look bad? There is no mafia player who could take that as a serious point against WoD! There is no way that the post could hurt him, and I am willing to bet at least 2 other players cracked a smile when they saw that post.
[quote]How do you know that they are town players? This seems like a pretty big slip, frankly. And besides, they're both brand new.
You were arguing under the assumption that they are town, so I used that to debunk your argument.
I frequently carry out one-man crusades, what does that have to do with anything? And there were no other relevant game considerations at the time.
Yes there were! When you originally voted me, you were just barning Andel, and if you were actually planning this whole campaign, it would make more sense if you had called me out earlier. At least, if you were ready to carry out this lone crusade, because really, you're the only one posting arguments against me now, why didn't you have any other reasons ready when you voted me, meaning you should have had something other than what andel had just posted, but instead you chose to barn andel, which makes no sense for your [playing]role as the crusading townie.
2 other votes, but that's okay. And now it's 3. And soon to be more, no doubt. You're flailing miserably throughout here. Especially that bit where you referred to Roja and Cat as 2 townies. I'm pretty sure that was a major slip.
It was in the context of the argument! You made the assumption that I had carried out this campaign against 2 innocent players, so I used that in my reply! This is more of your misrepresentative Bull, and I'm sick of it. Also, of the wagon against me, I only really count you and Andel, because you're the only 2 to have posted any arguments against me, and DC has on numerous occasions indicated that he isn't fully informed, or considers somebody else scummier. And WoD I refuse to count, because he has posted nothing this game other than barning and voting, no reasons of his own, only "I agree with X, I'm going to hop on the wagon and disappear for another 5 days". Once WoD posts some of his own thoughts, I'll acknowledge his vote, but for now, I really count myself at 3, with DC as iffy.
Seriously, I know it's a pain, but people need to read through this nonsense. AK's responses are as scummy as can be.
Why has nobody met your repeated calls for votes:rolleyes:? Andel is the only newish vote on me, and he had previously presented arguments against me.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
I fail at counting I guess, I thought he was at 5 votes now.
Not that 1 difference in votes makes him any less obvious scum, but now he's just going to run the tired 'I'll claim at -2 derfderf' so that he can stall while he tries to come up with a good false claim.
I have a FOS on Ak now. Which is where I see you having 5. I am going to VOTE AKid based on:
Quote from AKid »
I looked at Roja for scum tells, and saw them, so I voted him, then noticed a contradiction in my argument after Andel's post.
Quote from AKid Post #80 »
So while the explanation point ends as a non-sequitor, there are enough other points against him that warrant my vote.
You noticed the contradiction however you fail to retract your vote until Cat (and everyone else) does.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks goes out to DarkNightCavalier and XenoNinja
DC has repeatedly indicated that he hasn't read all the discussion, and I take his last post to indicate he would rather push FMJ-speaking of which, where is FMJ :confused:, and wod has done nothing but barn you and andel. You were the only one to have any actual arguments, or to do anything other than lay a meaningless vote.
I have now, and in all honesty the entire argument still comes up as a null tell on both of you for me. Cyan's being Cyan, and you're being you.
However, in the above, I do note you subtly pushing back at FMJ. The ':confused:' is unnecessary and reads rather forced.
It was in the context of the argument! You made the assumption that I had carried out this campaign against 2 innocent players, so I used that in my reply! This is more of your misrepresentative Bull, and I'm sick of it. Also, of the wagon against me, I only really count you and Andel, because you're the only 2 to have posted any arguments against me, and DC has on numerous occasions indicated that he isn't fully informed, or considers somebody else scummier. And WoD I refuse to count, because he has posted nothing this game other than barning and voting, no reasons of his own, only "I agree with X, I'm going to hop on the wagon and disappear for another 5 days". Once WoD posts some of his own thoughts, I'll acknowledge his vote, but for now, I really count myself at 3, with DC as iffy.
The point was reaching, and I indicated as so myself. Don't describe me as 'not fully informed', though -- I merely skipped large amounts of pointless argument, which I've now actually gone over.
I have a FOS on Ak now. Which is where I see you having 5. I am going to VOTE AKid based on:
You noticed the contradiction however you fail to retract your vote until Cat (and everyone else) does.
...and he does give his reasons (weak and unspecified as they may be) in that post you quote. This is hardly a strong point, and not voteworthy in and of itself. I don't like the way you're throwing this vote on, Roja.
In fact, unvote ApokalypseKid. I still want to push FMJ, and Roja's vote is making me uneasy with the AKid case.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Esper Simperer; Even the court homonculi need someone to look down on.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...' Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
Sorry for the language of "not fully informed", I couldn't think of a better way to put the indication that you hadn't read all of it. I didn't unvote you roja, because I thought Cat/DC had caught something important, so I left my vote until Cat said her catch wasn't as important as she thought.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
@Andelijah: I still don't really get it. So your main assertion is that I've been more quiet this game 'than I normally am'? My contention is that this has no bearing whatsoever on my alignment, especially since your 'points of reference' are 2 ongoing games where my alignment is unknown. Sometimes, I simply don't post alot at the start of a game. Sometimes I do. It has nothing to do with my affiliation.
More quiet than you normally are as town, which would have a bearing on your alignment.
And my points of reference are games that are over: RK and WH40K. I'm using the other two to show you're still active, just not as much here.
I will look over those other games you mentioned if I plan on moving my vote back.
So, do you think AKid is scum or not? From what I am understanding here, you are voting AKid, you think he has acted scummy, but you don't think he is scum. That in itself is scummy.
This is false, though. An IGMEOY is, to all intents and purposes, an FOS.
Semantics. I personally rank an IGMEOY below an FoS, but that's me. Semantics.
I have now, and in all honesty the entire argument still comes up as a null tell on both of you for me. Cyan's being Cyan, and you're being you.
However, in the above, I do note you subtly pushing back at FMJ. The ':confused:' is unnecessary and reads rather forced.
Mind explaining how the smilie is insincere? Smilies have limited range of expression. He was using as "Where the hell is that guy!?". This is a very weak attack IMO.
The point was reaching, and I indicated as so myself. Don't describe me as 'not fully informed', though -- I merely skipped large amounts of pointless argument, which I've now actually gone over.
Uhh, what? Now all of the sudden a player can skip 'large amounts of text' and still be fully informed in the information he is debating? That's ridiculous. If you didn't read a LARGE PORTION OF TEXT that YOU are argueing, I would consider you MISINFORMED. Or at least poorly informed.
...and he does give his reasons (weak and unspecified as they may be) in that post you quote. This is hardly a strong point, and not voteworthy in and of itself. I don't like the way you're throwing this vote on, Roja.
In fact, unvote ApokalypseKid. I still want to push FMJ, and Roja's vote is making me uneasy with the AKid case.
Lastly, you have a nice and wonderful backpedal to wrap things up. You make this a post full of attacking AKid, defending previous points of reason, and you convienently backpedal out. Still pushing the attack of a lurker to boot. I don't like any single part of this entire post.
My content in bold. I'm still happy with my vote.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Underrated, Overlooked
Thanks to THEY DID WHAT!? For the sweet banner!
Games played:3, 1 ongoing Times Town: 1, with 1 win Times Scum: 1, with 1 loss
So, do you think AKid is scum or not? From what I am understanding here, you are voting AKid, you think he has acted scummy, but you don't think he is scum. That in itself is scummy.
Did you miss the word 'necessarily' by mistake, or on purpose? AKid has displayed some scummy behaviour. That's not enough for me to go 'scum scum scum lynch thx bai'. Even less so now.
Mind explaining how the smilie is insincere? Smilies have limited range of expression. He was using as "Where the hell is that guy!?". This is a very weak attack IMO.
Maybe it's because I don't use smilies much myself, but when I read that paragraph, it drew my attention immediately to that one section of text. I'll concede the weak point, but you nothing to say about him pushing back at FMJ?
Uhh, what? Now all of the sudden a player can skip 'large amounts of text' and still be fully informed in the information he is debating? That's ridiculous. If you didn't read a LARGE PORTION OF TEXT that YOU are argueing, I would consider you MISINFORMED. Or at least poorly informed.
Second verse, same as the first -- did you miss the 'that I have now gone through' by mistake, or on purpose? And other than Cyan's initial post, none of that 'large portion of text' had figured into either my argument nor my opinion up and until the previous post I made.
Lastly, you have a nice and wonderful backpedal to wrap things up. You make this a post full of attacking AKid, defending previous points of reason, and you convienently backpedal out. Still pushing the attack of a lurker to boot. I don't like any single part of this entire post.My content in bold. I'm still happy with my vote.
A lurker who checked in, saw my suspicion on him, then disappeared again, and who is now being replaced.
Right.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Esper Simperer; Even the court homonculi need someone to look down on.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...' Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
1. You know, quoting stuff written in previous quotes is really annoying to do....
2. Did you miss the word 'necessarily' by mistake, or on purpose? AKid has displayed some scummy behaviour. That's not enough for me to go 'scum scum scum lynch thx bai'. Even less so now.
3. Maybe it's because I don't use smilies much myself, but when I read that paragraph, it drew my attention immediately to that one section of text. I'll concede the weak point, but you nothing to say about him pushing back at FMJ?
4. Second verse, same as the first -- did you miss the 'that I have now gone through' by mistake, or on purpose? And other than Cyan's initial post, none of that 'large portion of text' had figured into either my argument nor my opinion up and until the previous post I made.
5. A lurker who checked in, saw my suspicion on him, then disappeared again, and who is now being replaced.
Right.
1. Sorry, I'm a lazy man...
2. In this section, you prove your scumminess. Thanks. You had a vote on him, when you didn't think there was enough evidence to think he was scum. Why the vote? Oh, and hiding behind the word necessarily is bad. That's open to interpretation at a later date. That can be adjusted as need be, and is a very easy way to try and slide out of arguments just like you are trying to do here.
The point is that you were voting a person you said yourself you didn't think was scum.
3. Point conceded. Oh, and AKid was not pushing FMJ, he was prodding him. There is a difference. You are pushing and attack on him, a lurker, who should be replaced before he is attacked at all. AKid was calling attention to the fact that he is absent, not attacking him for lurking. Your posts concerning FMJ seem vicious. AKid's seem more concerned.
4. Uhh, yeah, I completly disregarded that part. Why? Because it's an utterly useless defense.
You defend the fact that you were not reading posts by saying you've read them now? Uhh, the scummy part is that you didn't read them IN THE FIRST PLACE, and these things you skipped happened to be involved in an argument you were having. Yeah, you aren't misinformed now, but you were incredibly misinformed earlier, and now you are trying to cover it up.
5. You are attacking someone who can't defend themselves? At least wait for the replacement to show. We don't know why FMJ is lurking and being replaced. He could be having an emergency for all we know. Besides, lurking is a null tell. The scummiest part about FMJ's lurking is your reaction to it.
Still happy...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Underrated, Overlooked
Thanks to THEY DID WHAT!? For the sweet banner!
Games played:3, 1 ongoing Times Town: 1, with 1 win Times Scum: 1, with 1 loss
2. In this section, you prove your scumminess. Thanks. You had a vote on him, when you didn't think there was enough evidence to think he was scum. Why the vote? Oh, and hiding behind the word necessarily is bad. That's open to interpretation at a later date. That can be adjusted as need be, and is a very easy way to try and slide out of arguments just like you are trying to do here.
The point is that you were voting a person you said yourself you didn't think was scum.
...so apparently, in your world, spectrums of suspicion do not exist and everyone must always think 'SCUM' or 'TOWN' without exception, qualification, or consideration?
3. Point conceded. Oh, and AKid was not pushing FMJ, he was prodding him. There is a difference. You are pushing and attack on him, a lurker, who should be replaced before he is attacked at all. AKid was calling attention to the fact that he is absent, not attacking him for lurking. Your posts concerning FMJ seem vicious. AKid's seem more concerned.
That may be because, you see, I'm suspicious of FMJ, and have been since my initial mention of him.
4. Uhh, yeah, I completly disregarded that part. Why? Because it's an utterly useless defense.
You defend the fact that you were not reading posts by saying you've read them now? Uhh, the scummy part is that you didn't read them IN THE FIRST PLACE, and these things you skipped happened to be involved in an argument you were having. Yeah, you aren't misinformed now, but you were incredibly misinformed earlier, and now you are trying to cover it up.
By the same coin, then, andelijah (who skimmed as I did) and WoD (who apparently had tl;dr-ed much of Cyan and AKid's back and forth posts at the time he voted) must have been terribly misinformed as well. And this is somehow a scum tell.
Let me introduce an interesting concept to you. Time. Said concept also happens to spawn the concept of tl;dr. Not everyone has the time to immediately sift through veritable mountains of kicked sand for scummy oil, thank you very much. It's something that may have to be done at some point, but it takes time and effort and requires a certain level of awareness. Not things one always has during the week.
And after sifting through that sandpile, guess what? A few petrol fumes. That's it. No great deposit of oil, no ruptured pipeline.
5. You are attacking someone who can't defend themselves? At least wait for the replacement to show. We don't know why FMJ is lurking and being replaced. He could be having an emergency for all we know. Besides, lurking is a null tell. The scummiest part about FMJ's lurking is your reaction to it.
Still happy...
And you see me voting him now? Point about not knowing the reason for replacement. But he did check in after I expressed suspicion and failed to say anything about it.
Also, you seem to be under the impression my entire basis for suspicion on FMJ is his lurking. Did you even see the post many pages back where I expressed suspicion of his fishing?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Esper Simperer; Even the court homonculi need someone to look down on.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...' Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
1. ...so apparently, in your world, spectrums of suspicion do not exist and everyone must always think 'SCUM' or 'TOWN' without exception, qualification, or consideration?
Is your last name 'Bush' or something?
2. That may be because, you see, I'm suspicious of FMJ, and have been since my initial mention of him.
3. By the same coin, then, andelijah (who skimmed as I did) and WoD (who apparently had tl;dr-ed much of Cyan and AKid's back and forth posts at the time he voted) must have been terribly misinformed as well. And this is somehow a scum tell.
4. Let me introduce an interesting concept to you. Time. Said concept also happens to spawn the concept of tl;dr. Not everyone has the time to immediately sift through veritable mountains of kicked sand for scummy oil, thank you very much. It's something that may have to be done at some point, but it takes time and effort and requires a certain level of awareness. Not things one always has during the week.
And after sifting through that sandpile, guess what? A few petrol fumes. That's it. No great deposit of oil, no ruptured pipeline.
5. And you see me voting him now? Point about not knowing the reason for replacement. But he did check in after I expressed suspicion and failed to say anything about it.
Also, you seem to be under the impression my entire basis for suspicion on FMJ is his lurking. Did you even see the post many pages back where I expressed suspicion of his fishing?
Hehe, tearing this up seems fun...
1. Yes, levels of suspicion exist. Unfortunetly for you, a level does not exist for town players where you can get away with voting someone you don't believe is scum. You had a vote on AKid, and then said you don't think he's scum. THAT'S SCUMMY! What's so hard to understand about that?
2. It's great that you are suspicious of FMJ. I don't care a speck about that. I care about the fact that it is SCUMMY of you to attack someone who clearly cannot defend themselves. That's what's scummy. Duh.
3. The difference between Ande and WoD is that they didn't lie and say they were never misinformed. You were attacked for being misinformed, and you responded with 'No I was not! I only skipped a fairly large portion of text, but I'm caught up now!'. Difference is you got caught in a lie and they didn't.
4. Time huh? All I have to say is that if you are planning on responding to something, try reading what you are responding to next time. If you don't have the time to read the origional argument, you shouldn't have time to make a response.
5. Yes, I saw FMJ's fishing. Yes I understand he checked in. Yes, I understand you are not voting him. That's not what I'm attacking you for. I am calling you scummy for attacking a player that cannot respond. You are taking advantage of a bad situation for one player, trying to get some sort of negative attention on him, and he can't do anything about it.
When we get a replacement for FMJ, you can yell at him all you want about his fishing and lurking and whatever else you feel like. But by attacking him NOW, it's scummy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Underrated, Overlooked
Thanks to THEY DID WHAT!? For the sweet banner!
Games played:3, 1 ongoing Times Town: 1, with 1 win Times Scum: 1, with 1 loss
He really can't yell at FMJ's replacement about FMJ's actions. What is the guy going to say? Besides, the way that FMJ absolutely vanished, I don't think it was something intentional.
Other than that, I think that BT might be onto something here w/ DC, I'll need to see more responses first.
But AK is still scum, more people should be voting him.
He really can't yell at FMJ's replacement about FMJ's actions. What is the guy going to say? Besides, the way that FMJ absolutely vanished, I don't think it was something intentional.
For the record, I know FMJ in real life. He's disappeared due to moving into an apartment in preparation for college / is busy starting college. I think his new place of residence is either lacking in internet or a computer, too.
Not that the reason should matter at all, unless it's that he's running away from in game pressure.
I don't like the case on AK; I can see going somewhere with DC.
Planning on rereading with focus on AK, but these points popped up as I was reading the past few pages.
Quote from Cyan »
Even if you're trying to present it as 'not this argument again', the intent is pretty obviously to give the town the impression that it would just be another mislynch. It is ridiculous that you are trying to argue this.
Is a great catch. AK's response is not satisfactory at all.
Quote from AK »
So you think that I could single-handedly carry out a misinformation campaign against 2 town players?
Quote from Cyan »
How do you know that they are town players? This seems like a pretty big slip, frankly. And besides, they're both brand new.
Regardless of AK's response, I think this seems like a slip.
Quote from AK »
So, you ignore it when I disprove your points?
This is really scummy to me. AK is bringing attention to the fact that he 'disproved' (Not agreeing or disagreeing with this point) some of Cyan's points, as an attack on Cyan's case on itself. This is both a cheap shot and irrelevant to the case at hand.
FOS: AK. Intention to vote based on my reread. Cyan would have to be overreaching on every point for me not to vote AK.
I have exams on Tuesday and Thursday, so I won't be rereading until Thursday afternoonish or Friday, depending on my level of intoxication.
1. Yes, levels of suspicion exist. Unfortunetly for you, a level does not exist for town players where you can get away with voting someone you don't believe is scum. You had a vote on AKid, and then said you don't think he's scum. THAT'S SCUMMY! What's so hard to understand about that?
It's very hard to understand.
Perhaps you'd like to elaborate: such as why it is scummy, and when you've seen scum using this tactic?
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
...and he does give his reasons (weak and unspecified as they may be) in that post you quote. This is hardly a strong point, and not voteworthy in and of itself. I don't like the way you're throwing this vote on, Roja.
In fact, unvote ApokalypseKid. I still want to push FMJ, and Roja's vote is making me uneasy with the AKid case.
I think I am just shocked that my opinion means that much do you DC. While I agree with you on FMJ (and now whomever his replacement is) that isn't the current wagon that is the focus. You claim that AK is scummy and unvote because I vote that way. Just seems strange..
And you even state that when Bigtime questions you as well you feel even less likely. Is there something that I just am missing?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks goes out to DarkNightCavalier and XenoNinja
Perhaps you'd like to elaborate: such as why it is scummy, and when you've seen scum using this tactic?
Why is it scummy? Because it is a direct contradiction between a players actions and their thought process. It allows for the player to have their vote applied to a wagon while giving them the ability to say "my heart was never in it" and unvote. It's an easy way to support a mislynch without needing to carry through with their actions.
Scum take advantage of situations like this all the time. I see this situation as one where there isn't much going on, and there is only one main target, and the town is indifferent on said target. This is an easy situation for scum to take advantage of, esp. by saying "Well, I'm not really feeling it, but vote him anyway since that's all we have...".
BTW, I'm more suspicious of DC since he only unvoted under immense pressure.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Underrated, Overlooked
Thanks to THEY DID WHAT!? For the sweet banner!
Games played:3, 1 ongoing Times Town: 1, with 1 win Times Scum: 1, with 1 loss
Which side of that line do you think not voting at all falls? Would you characterise my voting as 'like a mad baseball pitcher?' I've made two nonrandom votes.
What post? Regardless, I am not misrepresenting you in the slightest, and your suggestion as such does not make me feel particularly good about you either.
I'd missed that post by DC that Cat's replying to here. DC -- points, Cat ++ points.
Why is it scummy? Because it is a direct contradiction between a players actions and their thought process. It allows for the player to have their vote applied to a wagon while giving them the ability to say "my heart was never in it" and unvote. It's an easy way to support a mislynch without needing to carry through with their actions.
Scum take advantage of situations like this all the time. I see this situation as one where there isn't much going on, and there is only one main target, and the town is indifferent on said target. This is an easy situation for scum to take advantage of, esp. by saying "Well, I'm not really feeling it, but vote him anyway since that's all we have...".
Isn't that the opposite of what happened?
You're saying the scumtell is wagoning without believing, yet dC seems to unvote when the wagon gets to claim range. Shouldn't the scum in your scenario want to keep the vote on to press for a claim and/or lynch?
Hello, all! I've skimmed along with this game, but need to sit down and read it through properly. At less than 300 posts, that shouldn't take horribly long. Tonight, however, is basketball night, so it's likely I'll do the read at work tomorrow.
1. Yes, levels of suspicion exist. Unfortunetly for you, a level does not exist for town players where you can get away with voting someone you don't believe is scum. You had a vote on AKid, and then said you don't think he's scum. THAT'S SCUMMY! What's so hard to understand about that?
First you say that 'necessarily' is a scummy way to leave a path to backtrack. Then you say that voting someone without thinking he's 'necessarily' scum is scummy. So tell me, BigTime, do I or do I not have weapons of mass destruction? Because I think I know what your answer is.
2. It's great that you are suspicious of FMJ. I don't care a speck about that. I care about the fact that it is SCUMMY of you to attack someone who clearly cannot defend themselves. That's what's scummy. Duh.
Reiterating one's main suspicion is hardly an all out LYNCHNOWTHXBAI. And for all I knew he was attempting to skate under the new wagon.
3. The difference between Ande and WoD is that they didn't lie and say they were never misinformed. You were attacked for being misinformed, and you responded with 'No I was not! I only skipped a fairly large portion of text, but I'm caught up now!'. Difference is you got caught in a lie and they didn't.
The only person 'attacking' me for this is you, and I'm not quite sure why. Even if I had been 'lying', this is hardly a scumtell. It sounds awfully like you're blowing up a relatively minor issue, which reminds me uncomfortably of what you tried with Catalina yesterday.
4. Time huh? All I have to say is that if you are planning on responding to something, try reading what you are responding to next time. If you don't have the time to read the origional argument, you shouldn't have time to make a response.
Some of us need to eat while avoiding replacement/modkill, thank you.
5. Yes, I saw FMJ's fishing. Yes I understand he checked in. Yes, I understand you are not voting him. That's not what I'm attacking you for. I am calling you scummy for attacking a player that cannot respond. You are taking advantage of a bad situation for one player, trying to get some sort of negative attention on him, and he can't do anything about it.
When we get a replacement for FMJ, you can yell at him all you want about his fishing and lurking and whatever else you feel like. But by attacking him NOW, it's scummy.
I think I am just shocked that my opinion means that much do you DC. While I agree with you on FMJ (and now whomever his replacement is) that isn't the current wagon that is the focus. You claim that AK is scummy and unvote because I vote that way. Just seems strange..
And you even state that when Bigtime questions you as well you feel even less likely. Is there something that I just am missing?
...there's just so much wrong with the tone of this post that I'm not sure if it's actually a scumtell. That being said -- I said AK had some scummy behaviour, but not enough to make me think he's scum for sure. The way you voted him just made me even more uncertain (this is where the 'less likely' comes from, BTW. Not from BigTime). The above post exacerbates that uncertainty.
No, it's strong. He listed all the reasons to dislike the AK wagon, and voted AK anyway- without providing ANY reason to endorse it. That is a significant tell. If he agreed with part of the case, i'd expect him to say so; if he had new and original information, ditto.
It's part of the same point. He distanced from contentious-sounding points, whilst still supporting the wagon overall. We are left completely in the dark as to his reasoning. It would be no problem if he'd said 'I disagree with A,B, and C, but X and Y are valid points, and I also noticed Z.' Instead, he attacks both the target of the wagon, and the reasoning behind it, therefore very much having his cake and eating it.
He did not indicate agreement with ANY of Andelijah's reasoning.
That's a massive misrepresentation of my position. Nowhere did I suggest that DC disagreed with everything; how can I know? My point is precisely that he didn't indicate agreement with anything, whilst distancing from the points likely to be contentious. We are left not knowing, at all, why DC is voting AKid.
Did you even read my response to you, where I quoted and bolded one of the main reasons why I voted AKid? Also, where does the 'distancing from contentious points' occur?
Which side of that line do you think not voting at all falls? Would you characterise my voting as 'like a mad baseball pitcher?' I've made two nonrandom votes.
Throwing votes around is a very good way to pull out claims unnecessarily, not to mention, in a mini, create potential for accidental and 'accidental' lynches. For someone who was lamenting the dribbling of information into the hands of scum earlier, I would think you'd be more concerned about this.
Really not happy to see the WBY/JqlGirl role slide through the entire day, basically without saying anything, and without having come under any pressure either.
Although this is a good point.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Esper Simperer; Even the court homonculi need someone to look down on.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...' Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
Why is it scummy? Because it is a direct contradiction between a players actions and their thought process. It allows for the player to have their vote applied to a wagon while giving them the ability to say "my heart was never in it" and unvote. It's an easy way to support a mislynch without needing to carry through with their actions.
Scum take advantage of situations like this all the time. I see this situation as one where there isn't much going on, and there is only one main target, and the town is indifferent on said target. This is an easy situation for scum to take advantage of, esp. by saying "Well, I'm not really feeling it, but vote him anyway since that's all we have...".
BTW, I'm more suspicious of DC since he only unvoted under immense pressure.
In the first place, that's completely not what I was doing -- see my previous post. But let's take it from your point of view..
I can see your point, although I tend to agree with andelijah insofar that scum would prefer to force out claims. The problem is, that while it's a perfectly valid 'possible scum mindset', it's an equally valid 'possible town mindset' -- where in the absence of anything else, town will follow wagons because 'it's all they have'. It's egregious behaviour -- which is why, again, I do not engage in it -- but it's exactly what lazy town does.
Also, this would be a more convincing point in the context of a more contentious and active game, with multiple leads and more people weighing in with good points than bulldog mode Cyan. This was not the case here.
And one more thing. 'Immense pressure'? What?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Esper Simperer; Even the court homonculi need someone to look down on.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...' Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
1. First you say that 'necessarily' is a scummy way to leave a path to backtrack. Then you say that voting someone without thinking he's 'necessarily' scum is scummy. So tell me, BigTime, do I or do I not have weapons of mass destruction? Because I think I know what your answer is.
2. Reiterating one's main suspicion is hardly an all out LYNCHNOWTHXBAI. And for all I knew he was attempting to skate under the new wagon.
3. The only person 'attacking' me for this is you, and I'm not quite sure why. Even if I had been 'lying', this is hardly a scumtell. It sounds awfully like you're blowing up a relatively minor issue, which reminds me uncomfortably of what you tried with Catalina yesterday.
4. Some of us need to eat while avoiding replacement/modkill, thank you.
5. See above.
1. What? You are trying to twist this a certin way when there is no twisting it. You voted AKid while at the same time saying you didn't think he was scum, just acting a little scummy. So I see it as you trying to have you cake and eat it too. I don't know what you are getting at here, but your actions are pretty clear cut.
And yes, the word necessarily does leave you a great out. Suppose we lynch decide to lynch AKid. Before the lynch happens though, you revert back to your flip-floppy ways, and use that word necessarily. You say "Well, I was not sure blah blah blah, I think he's town now, unvote.". If/When AKid comes up town here, you make yourself look better by suddenly NOT being on the AKid train.
Without looking into the future, your actions are still scummy. That really shouldn't need explaining.
2. No, but your not just reitirating your suspicion either. You are expanding your suspicion, expanding your reasoning, and applying a vote if I'm not mistaken. And why would you assume that when a player goes missing, they are trying to skate under a wagon? It's one thing when a player goes missing in one game but not others, but FMJ went missing in ALL his games. I'm pretty sure you are in another game with him, so this should be evident to you. A player can go missing for any number of reasons, but you automatically assume the scummiest of them.
That's why we wait on them to show or get replaced: Because going missing and being lurky is a null tell. It doesn't mean scum or town, it just means they are gone. Attacking a player who isn't showing up and is for all intensive purposes an "easy target" doesn't make you look good.
3. Maybe I am blowing it up a bit, but still, why would you lie and say you knew everything you were talking about when you didn't? Why would you lie when you could have said "Oh, sorry, messed up!".
Oh, and the "BigTime did this earlier, so meh" argument is a poor defense.
4. Wait, so you are saying that you only posted that stuff because you were about to be modkilled? I assume for lurking, correct? And now you are attacking a lurker all out? That's hypocritical...
Oh, and I eat everyday, and still find time to write massive responses, so eating's no excuse unless it's a marathon eating contest.
5. ditto to you...
Finally, those last two quotes you quoted aren't mine.
On to your second post!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Underrated, Overlooked
Thanks to THEY DID WHAT!? For the sweet banner!
Games played:3, 1 ongoing Times Town: 1, with 1 win Times Scum: 1, with 1 loss
1. In the first place, that's completely not what I was doing -- see my previous post. But let's take it from your point of view..
2. I can see your point, although I tend to agree with andelijah insofar that scum would prefer to force out claims. The problem is, that while it's a perfectly valid 'possible scum mindset', it's an equally valid 'possible town mindset' -- where in the absence of anything else, town will follow wagons because 'it's all they have'. It's egregious behaviour -- which is why, again, I do not engage in it -- but it's exactly what lazy town does.
3. Also, this would be a more convincing point in the context of a more contentious and active game, with multiple leads and more people weighing in with good points than bulldog mode Cyan. This was not the case here.
4. And one more thing. 'Immense pressure'? What?
1. Uh, yes. Yes, that was what you were doing. You said AKid was not scum, and voted him. CONTRADICTION. I'm calling it.
2. Wait, you don't engage in the "lazy town" behavior? Wasn't that you on AKid though?
But, I do see your point. It's just as easy for town as it is for scum.
3. Again, good point. One thing that strikes me as odd here though: It sounds almost like you are making the same 'slow game' excuse Cyan is making.
4. When I made this argument, you had already responded to a few things of mine detailing your scumminess for voting FMJ, among other things, and both Cyan and Ged had popped out saying that you did seem a little scummy, and they were watching the case. Then you unvoted. So you had me, 'bulldog' cyan, and Ged watching you closely when you unvoted. I'd call that a pressured unvote. Don't confuse this with vote pressure. This is 'center of attention' pressure. 'I'd better unvote now before this gets worse' pressure.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Underrated, Overlooked
Thanks to THEY DID WHAT!? For the sweet banner!
Games played:3, 1 ongoing Times Town: 1, with 1 win Times Scum: 1, with 1 loss
1. What? You are trying to twist this a certin way when there is no twisting it. You voted AKid while at the same time saying you didn't think he was scum, just acting a little scummy. So I see it as you trying to have you cake and eat it too. I don't know what you are getting at here, but your actions are pretty clear cut.
And yes, the word necessarily does leave you a great out. Suppose we lynch decide to lynch AKid. Before the lynch happens though, you revert back to your flip-floppy ways, and use that word necessarily. You say "Well, I was not sure blah blah blah, I think he's town now, unvote.". If/When AKid comes up town here, you make yourself look better by suddenly NOT being on the AKid train.
I say you're the one trying to twist things. You're attempting to railroad me by first saying that qualifications and expressions of cautiousness are scummy, then saying outright that anything other than an unmitigated expression of SCUMSCUMSCUM is scummy. Also, should that scenario you outline actually happen, the real scum tell is not the 'leaving of an out' at the beginning, but the sudden reversal of opinion (I refuse to use 'flip-flop' -- hear it way too much in relation to American elections).
2. No, but your not just reitirating your suspicion either. You are expanding your suspicion, expanding your reasoning, and applying a vote if I'm not mistaken. And why would you assume that when a player goes missing, they are trying to skate under a wagon? It's one thing when a player goes missing in one game but not others, but FMJ went missing in ALL his games. I'm pretty sure you are in another game with him, so this should be evident to you. A player can go missing for any number of reasons, but you automatically assume the scummiest of them.
You are mistaken, and a look at the latest vote count should tell you that. And I'm not in another game with FMJ.
3. Maybe I am blowing it up a bit, but still, why would you lie and say you knew everything you were talking about when you didn't? Why would you lie when you could have said "Oh, sorry, messed up!".
Oh, and the "BigTime did this earlier, so meh" argument is a poor defense.
Because I wasn't 'lying', to my mind. Obviously your definition of 'misinformed' is different from mine.
Oh, and that last bit wasn't a defense, it was an expression of suspicion. One that doesn't actually apply, given that I was referring to the wrong game. >_<
4. Wait, so you are saying that you only posted that stuff because you were about to be modkilled? I assume for lurking, correct? And now you are attacking a lurker all out? That's hypocritical...
Oh, and I eat everyday, and still find time to write massive responses, so eating's no excuse unless it's a marathon eating contest.
I misspoke. I wasn't anywhere near modkill. I try to respond as often as possible, though, especially when I know I might have an unplanned absence coming up soon.
1. Uh, yes. Yes, that was what you were doing. You said AKid was not scum, and voted him. CONTRADICTION. I'm calling it.
2. Wait, you don't engage in the "lazy town" behavior? Wasn't that you on AKid though?
But, I do see your point. It's just as easy for town as it is for scum.
3. Again, good point. One thing that strikes me as odd here though: It sounds almost like you are making the same 'slow game' excuse Cyan is making.
It was a slow game. Are you trying to say it wasn't? And unlike Cyan, I'm not using it as an excuse for silence -- I'm using it as a point to disprove yours.
4. When I made this argument, you had already responded to a few things of mine detailing your scumminess for voting FMJ, among other things, and both Cyan and Ged had popped out saying that you did seem a little scummy, and they were watching the case. Then you unvoted. So you had me, 'bulldog' cyan, and Ged watching you closely when you unvoted. I'd call that a pressured unvote. Don't confuse this with vote pressure. This is 'center of attention' pressure. 'I'd better unvote now before this gets worse' pressure.
I hadn't even seen Cyan say that, but fine. I can see your point. If you don't see mine for the unvote, that's not something I can help.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Esper Simperer; Even the court homonculi need someone to look down on.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...' Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I made two points worth responding to in my post, one saying I don't remember enough other mini's that you were in (although there was no direct question, I was hoping for some examples), and the other was asking you why you made this case only after I voted you, and not when you voted AK.
Every accusation I have leveled at you has been supported by you.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
So, you ignore it when I disprove your points?
Way to disregard 2), where I conclude that you misinterpret it to be "oh no, not another mislynch" instead of what it was, "oh no, not this argument again"
I pointed out a horrible idea as what it was-are you saying the town shouldn't call out bad ideas as what they are?
Then why did nobody else defend it? You are looking at me seeing something scummy, and taking it as me being some creeper looking for any weakness.
And honestly, you saying "makes you look like you're just ignoring whatever doesn't fit the case you are trying to make, as pointed out later" is hypocritical.
You seem to do this "read:" thing a lot, where you take a statement, and misrepresent it to be whatever you want it to be to incriminate the person you are launching a lone crusade against.
It's not "completely and utterly scummy" to forget a contradiction in your argument. And if I already dealt with this, why bring it up again? Do I need to c/p that paragraph to refute you every time you post?
Calling it desperate is misrepresentation, there is nothing desperate there. That post is not "desperately trying to keep a case alive" it is pointing out an action I consider scummy as scummy. To go to an earlier question, by calling this scummy, are you saying that we shouldn't point out scummy actions?
Wait, first it was opportunism, now it's fishing. The "why do you want to claim" reads to me as in part, a suggestion that claiming now is wrong. And you claiming to know how every townie chould react seems off to me. I didn't want role info, I wanted an explanation of why he wanted to claim so soon.
so you claim that I did the same thing that you are doing by bringing up the contradiction issue time and again, only when you claim that I did it, it's scummy? Also, I wanted, not for her to explain her WoD vote, but why she dropped Roja in a short span of time.
It interjects a good chuckle into an otherwise dreary game thread, so that enjoyment, which according to you, begets activity, goes up. I don't see how such a ridiculous "incriminatory" statement can hurt him. It's obvious that nobody could take that as a valid point against him.
So you think that I could single-handedly carry out a misinformation campaign against 2 town players?:rolleyes:
Can you explain how you think I should have reacted as your perfect townie, and how my response fits your notion of a scum response?
So you ignore relevant game considerations to carry out a one-man crusade?
At the time, I thought discussion of your actions was more relevant, and as long as he contributes on either of us, it's better than his lurking, which seems to continue.
Yeah, because if I don't reply, you'll start screaming about how I'm ignoring it. I have pointed out in both this post and in my last reply, your various misinterpretations. Only, it seems that when I correct you, you don't bother to mention how I disproved you.
So, that's why there is 1 other person voting me, I get it now!:rolleyes: And are you saying I shouldn't bother replying to you?
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
AKid - 3 (Cyan, desCoures, WoD)
desCoures - 2 (Catalina, BigTime)
Cyan - 1 (andelijah)
WoD - 1 (AKid)
Not voting: Roja, mmod, JqlGirl, FMJ, Ged
I'm too jetlagged to do activity checks, prods and stuff. Sorry. Maybe in two more days.
I've almost finished reading, but a lot of the stuff you guys are posting is verry TL;DR.
For now, Unvote, Vote Apokalypse Kid.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
Haha unvoting just to revote the same person. Also, vote Wrath_of_Dog.
It should be pretty obvious that I already did this, so, why are you clarifying it anyway?
I honestly thought that I responded to this post already, but looking back, apparently it didn't happen..I dunno. At any rate, I honestly haven't been in a ton of minis, I'm generally really picky about which ones I participate in, because I find them hard to maintain interest in. But there was TV Mafia, where A)I was scum and B)I still posted plenty, or Code Geass, where I really didn't post alot(and was town), Stereotype, where again I was town but didn't post alot, Midian Mafia where again I was town and didn't post alot. I can't remember much past that.
As for your question about AK, I didn't realize that it was necessary to immediately present an elaborate case just because you vote someone. Sometimes it's fine to apply some pressure and see how that person, and other people, react. This situation is a fine example of that. I got the reaction(s) that I was looking for. More on that later, though. After AK is lynched.
I don't even know what that means.
@AK:
A)You have yet to disprove anything.
B)The only points that I didn't respond to are ones where A)there was nothing to say, which primarly consisted of you defending your pointless spam 'joke posts'
Even if you're trying to present it as 'not this argument again', the intent is pretty obviously to give the town the impression that it would just be another mislynch. It is ridiculous that you are trying to argue this.
If you had merely said it was a bad idea, and possibly said why, that would be one thing. A pro-town thing, even. But you took it as a chance to attack the person making it. This is very obvious opportunism.
Obviously no one else was going to defend anything, the situation was blown out of proportion by you before anyone could. And no, there is nothing hypocritical about that statement which I made.
"Read:" Is the presentation of what the post quote obviously means, stripping away the layer of deceit that covers it with better sounding words. And also, fascinating that you call it a 'lone crusade'. You realize that you had 3 votes when that post was made, and others have commented specifically on your scumminess? Nice misrep.
It is scummy because, if you were town, this is not the type of contradiction that you would have made to begin with.
Fishing is a form of opportunism. Obviously. And it is not the pro-town standpoint to want more information in that circumstance. The pro-town standpoint is the post made by some others, simply instructing him not to claim yet. You tried to get more information out of him. Which is the very definition of fishing.
Her answers were obviously satisfactory. Yours are obviously not.
You seem to be under the impression that it was funny to begin with, when it wasn't. There are plenty of funny posts that are made that don't belittle another player. Yours quite obviously did belittle another player. And it's great for you. Either A)you get to play it off as a joke and/or B)it makes WoD look bad. Works great if you're scum. Makes no sense if you're town.
How do you know that they are town players? This seems like a pretty big slip, frankly. And besides, they're both brand new.
I frequently carry out one-man crusades, what does that have to do with anything? And there were no other relevant game considerations at the time.
2 other votes, but that's okay. And now it's 3. And soon to be more, no doubt. You're flailing miserably throughout here. Especially that bit where you referred to Roja and Cat as 2 townies. I'm pretty sure that was a major slip.
Seriously, I know it's a pain, but people need to read through this nonsense. AK's responses are as scummy as can be.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
...I agree on this. More content, WoD, kthxbai.
Nitpicks: Roja's not as new as he claims, and you really need to not point these things out so early. As it is, with him only stating it once, it's so weak a tell that it doesn't stand up as evidence.
His responses are weak, but not necessarily scummy. Honestly half of it reads like the two of you having a private argument on playstyle. My vote is still on him only because FMJ's disappeared again, Catalina's not suspicious enough yet, and WoD's egregious and spammy play is unfortunately not a scum tell.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...'
Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
Only quoted to comment about this. I agree that I would like to hear something from WoD.
Ged do you know about WoD's playstyle that I wouldn't know about? (Like it is a tell or something if he dosen't pay attention to who he is voting for?)
And what is TL;DR ? Till later Day reply?
DC used quotes to back up his votes.
No, I'm voting him more because he has two posts with any real content this game, and they're pretty much the same post saying "I don't really care what AK says, I'm going to vote him."
Too long; didn't read.
So again, instead of commenting on the HUGE arguments and counter arguments, you pick about the smallest thing you can post about. That's it. I'm glad I'm voting for you, because in this post you validate a) your scumminess and b) why I don't count your vote against me.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
It means that all I am accusing you of is being quiet, which you readily admit to. You give a different rationale for it, but I "seeing what sticks" is ignoring the fact that you don't disagree with any of the premises that I have presented, only my interpretations.
Anyhow, I'll try to look over some of those games some time in the near future, but Unvote, Vote: Apokalypse Kid for now.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
@AK: Or, seeing as how you're at 5 votes now, you could stop wasting everyone's time and get on with claiming. You have been slowly accumulating votes throughout your 'discourse' with me, clearly people are coming to realize that you are scum. Get on with it already.
AKid - 4 (Cyan, desCoures, WoD, andelijah)
desCoures - 2 (Catalina, BigTime)
WoD - 2 (AKid, Ged)
Not voting: Roja, mmod, JqlGirl, FMJ
FMJ prodded. Again.
Not that 1 difference in votes makes him any less obvious scum, but now he's just going to run the tired 'I'll claim at -2 derfderf' so that he can stall while he tries to come up with a good false claim.
DC, am I right in reading this right that you think I'm the scummiest posting person, but not necessarily scum?
My point is that whenever I show something isn't scummy, you ignore the fact that I just knocked out part of your case, and continue with your crusade.
No it isn't, the point is obviously that I don't want to go through that argument again, there is nothing about not wanting to rehash an argument I lost once that implies it would cause a mislynch. There's a big difference between saying "oh, don't mislynch me again" and "not this again" when the context clearly indicates that it's in regards to a previous argument.
I didn't attack Cat though. an igmeoy isn't an attack, but a reminder that you're being watched.
Before anyone could? Other users posted between his post and mine, and after my post before I decided to vote. There was ample time, and there is an occasion now to stand up and defend that post-nobody else has, because nobody but you thinks it's "obviously pro-town"
DC has repeatedly indicated that he hasn't read all the discussion, and I take his last post to indicate he would rather push FMJ-speaking of which, where is FMJ :confused:, and wod has done nothing but barn you and andel. You were the only one to have any actual arguments, or to do anything other than lay a meaningless vote.
Say that about now, somebody finds a contradiction in your argument. Does that mean that you are automatically scum? I looked at Roja for scum tells, and saw them, so I voted him, then noticed a contradiction in my argument after Andel's post.
I clearly asked for an explanation, not role info. Is it fishing now to ask people to explain why they are doing something.
Well, apparently most of the town disagrees with you.
You were arguing under the assumption that they are town, so I used that to debunk your argument.
Yes there were! When you originally voted me, you were just barning Andel, and if you were actually planning this whole campaign, it would make more sense if you had called me out earlier. At least, if you were ready to carry out this lone crusade, because really, you're the only one posting arguments against me now, why didn't you have any other reasons ready when you voted me, meaning you should have had something other than what andel had just posted, but instead you chose to barn andel, which makes no sense for your [playing]role as the crusading townie.
It was in the context of the argument! You made the assumption that I had carried out this campaign against 2 innocent players, so I used that in my reply! This is more of your misrepresentative Bull, and I'm sick of it. Also, of the wagon against me, I only really count you and Andel, because you're the only 2 to have posted any arguments against me, and DC has on numerous occasions indicated that he isn't fully informed, or considers somebody else scummier. And WoD I refuse to count, because he has posted nothing this game other than barning and voting, no reasons of his own, only "I agree with X, I'm going to hop on the wagon and disappear for another 5 days". Once WoD posts some of his own thoughts, I'll acknowledge his vote, but for now, I really count myself at 3, with DC as iffy.
Why has nobody met your repeated calls for votes:rolleyes:? Andel is the only newish vote on me, and he had previously presented arguments against me.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
I have a FOS on Ak now. Which is where I see you having 5. I am going to VOTE AKid based on:
You noticed the contradiction however you fail to retract your vote until Cat (and everyone else) does.
You read mostly right.
This is false, though. An IGMEOY is, to all intents and purposes, an FOS.
I have now, and in all honesty the entire argument still comes up as a null tell on both of you for me. Cyan's being Cyan, and you're being you.
However, in the above, I do note you subtly pushing back at FMJ. The ':confused:' is unnecessary and reads rather forced.
The point was reaching, and I indicated as so myself. Don't describe me as 'not fully informed', though -- I merely skipped large amounts of pointless argument, which I've now actually gone over.
...and he does give his reasons (weak and unspecified as they may be) in that post you quote. This is hardly a strong point, and not voteworthy in and of itself. I don't like the way you're throwing this vote on, Roja.
In fact, unvote ApokalypseKid. I still want to push FMJ, and Roja's vote is making me uneasy with the AKid case.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...'
Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
And my points of reference are games that are over: RK and WH40K. I'm using the other two to show you're still active, just not as much here.
I will look over those other games you mentioned if I plan on moving my vote back.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
My content in bold. I'm still happy with my vote.
Did you miss the word 'necessarily' by mistake, or on purpose? AKid has displayed some scummy behaviour. That's not enough for me to go 'scum scum scum lynch thx bai'. Even less so now.
Maybe it's because I don't use smilies much myself, but when I read that paragraph, it drew my attention immediately to that one section of text. I'll concede the weak point, but you nothing to say about him pushing back at FMJ?
Second verse, same as the first -- did you miss the 'that I have now gone through' by mistake, or on purpose? And other than Cyan's initial post, none of that 'large portion of text' had figured into either my argument nor my opinion up and until the previous post I made.
A lurker who checked in, saw my suspicion on him, then disappeared again, and who is now being replaced.
Right.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...'
Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
1. Sorry, I'm a lazy man...
2. In this section, you prove your scumminess. Thanks. You had a vote on him, when you didn't think there was enough evidence to think he was scum. Why the vote? Oh, and hiding behind the word necessarily is bad. That's open to interpretation at a later date. That can be adjusted as need be, and is a very easy way to try and slide out of arguments just like you are trying to do here.
The point is that you were voting a person you said yourself you didn't think was scum.
3. Point conceded. Oh, and AKid was not pushing FMJ, he was prodding him. There is a difference. You are pushing and attack on him, a lurker, who should be replaced before he is attacked at all. AKid was calling attention to the fact that he is absent, not attacking him for lurking. Your posts concerning FMJ seem vicious. AKid's seem more concerned.
4. Uhh, yeah, I completly disregarded that part. Why? Because it's an utterly useless defense.
You defend the fact that you were not reading posts by saying you've read them now? Uhh, the scummy part is that you didn't read them IN THE FIRST PLACE, and these things you skipped happened to be involved in an argument you were having. Yeah, you aren't misinformed now, but you were incredibly misinformed earlier, and now you are trying to cover it up.
5. You are attacking someone who can't defend themselves? At least wait for the replacement to show. We don't know why FMJ is lurking and being replaced. He could be having an emergency for all we know. Besides, lurking is a null tell. The scummiest part about FMJ's lurking is your reaction to it.
Still happy...
...so apparently, in your world, spectrums of suspicion do not exist and everyone must always think 'SCUM' or 'TOWN' without exception, qualification, or consideration?
Is your last name 'Bush' or something?
That may be because, you see, I'm suspicious of FMJ, and have been since my initial mention of him.
By the same coin, then, andelijah (who skimmed as I did) and WoD (who apparently had tl;dr-ed much of Cyan and AKid's back and forth posts at the time he voted) must have been terribly misinformed as well. And this is somehow a scum tell.
Let me introduce an interesting concept to you. Time. Said concept also happens to spawn the concept of tl;dr. Not everyone has the time to immediately sift through veritable mountains of kicked sand for scummy oil, thank you very much. It's something that may have to be done at some point, but it takes time and effort and requires a certain level of awareness. Not things one always has during the week.
And after sifting through that sandpile, guess what? A few petrol fumes. That's it. No great deposit of oil, no ruptured pipeline.
And you see me voting him now? Point about not knowing the reason for replacement. But he did check in after I expressed suspicion and failed to say anything about it.
Also, you seem to be under the impression my entire basis for suspicion on FMJ is his lurking. Did you even see the post many pages back where I expressed suspicion of his fishing?
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...'
Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
Hehe, tearing this up seems fun...
1. Yes, levels of suspicion exist. Unfortunetly for you, a level does not exist for town players where you can get away with voting someone you don't believe is scum. You had a vote on AKid, and then said you don't think he's scum. THAT'S SCUMMY! What's so hard to understand about that?
2. It's great that you are suspicious of FMJ. I don't care a speck about that. I care about the fact that it is SCUMMY of you to attack someone who clearly cannot defend themselves. That's what's scummy. Duh.
3. The difference between Ande and WoD is that they didn't lie and say they were never misinformed. You were attacked for being misinformed, and you responded with 'No I was not! I only skipped a fairly large portion of text, but I'm caught up now!'. Difference is you got caught in a lie and they didn't.
4. Time huh? All I have to say is that if you are planning on responding to something, try reading what you are responding to next time. If you don't have the time to read the origional argument, you shouldn't have time to make a response.
5. Yes, I saw FMJ's fishing. Yes I understand he checked in. Yes, I understand you are not voting him. That's not what I'm attacking you for. I am calling you scummy for attacking a player that cannot respond. You are taking advantage of a bad situation for one player, trying to get some sort of negative attention on him, and he can't do anything about it.
When we get a replacement for FMJ, you can yell at him all you want about his fishing and lurking and whatever else you feel like. But by attacking him NOW, it's scummy.
Other than that, I think that BT might be onto something here w/ DC, I'll need to see more responses first.
But AK is still scum, more people should be voting him.
For the record, I know FMJ in real life. He's disappeared due to moving into an apartment in preparation for college / is busy starting college. I think his new place of residence is either lacking in internet or a computer, too.
Not that the reason should matter at all, unless it's that he's running away from in game pressure.
I don't like the case on AK; I can see going somewhere with DC.
Is a great catch. AK's response is not satisfactory at all.
Regardless of AK's response, I think this seems like a slip.
This is really scummy to me. AK is bringing attention to the fact that he 'disproved' (Not agreeing or disagreeing with this point) some of Cyan's points, as an attack on Cyan's case on itself. This is both a cheap shot and irrelevant to the case at hand.
FOS: AK. Intention to vote based on my reread. Cyan would have to be overreaching on every point for me not to vote AK.
I have exams on Tuesday and Thursday, so I won't be rereading until Thursday afternoonish or Friday, depending on my level of intoxication.
Perhaps you'd like to elaborate: such as why it is scummy, and when you've seen scum using this tactic?
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
I think I am just shocked that my opinion means that much do you DC. While I agree with you on FMJ (and now whomever his replacement is) that isn't the current wagon that is the focus. You claim that AK is scummy and unvote because I vote that way. Just seems strange..
And you even state that when Bigtime questions you as well you feel even less likely. Is there something that I just am missing?
Why is it scummy? Because it is a direct contradiction between a players actions and their thought process. It allows for the player to have their vote applied to a wagon while giving them the ability to say "my heart was never in it" and unvote. It's an easy way to support a mislynch without needing to carry through with their actions.
Scum take advantage of situations like this all the time. I see this situation as one where there isn't much going on, and there is only one main target, and the town is indifferent on said target. This is an easy situation for scum to take advantage of, esp. by saying "Well, I'm not really feeling it, but vote him anyway since that's all we have...".
BTW, I'm more suspicious of DC since he only unvoted under immense pressure.
I'd missed that post by DC that Cat's replying to here. DC -- points, Cat ++ points.
You're saying the scumtell is wagoning without believing, yet dC seems to unvote when the wagon gets to claim range. Shouldn't the scum in your scenario want to keep the vote on to press for a claim and/or lynch?
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
Vote count:
AKid - 4 (Cyan, WoD, andelijah, Roja)
desCoures - 2 (Catalina, BigTime)
WoD - 2 (AKid, Ged)
Not voting: desCoures, mmod, JqlGirl, FMJ
With 12 alive, it's 7 to dump someone into the Old Faithful.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
First you say that 'necessarily' is a scummy way to leave a path to backtrack. Then you say that voting someone without thinking he's
'necessarily'scum is scummy. So tell me, BigTime, do I or do I not have weapons of mass destruction? Because I think I know what your answer is.Reiterating one's main suspicion is hardly an all out LYNCHNOWTHXBAI. And for all I knew he was attempting to skate under the new wagon.
The only person 'attacking' me for this is you, and I'm not quite sure why. Even if I had been 'lying', this is hardly a scumtell. It sounds awfully like you're blowing up a relatively minor issue, which reminds me uncomfortably of what you tried with Catalina yesterday.
Some of us need to eat while avoiding replacement/modkill, thank you.
See above.
...there's just so much wrong with the tone of this post that I'm not sure if it's actually a scumtell. That being said -- I said AK had some scummy behaviour, but not enough to make me think he's scum for sure. The way you voted him just made me even more uncertain (this is where the 'less likely' comes from, BTW. Not from BigTime). The above post exacerbates that uncertainty.
Did you even read my response to you, where I quoted and bolded one of the main reasons why I voted AKid? Also, where does the 'distancing from contentious points' occur?
Throwing votes around is a very good way to pull out claims unnecessarily, not to mention, in a mini, create potential for accidental and 'accidental' lynches. For someone who was lamenting the dribbling of information into the hands of scum earlier, I would think you'd be more concerned about this.
Although this is a good point.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...'
Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
In the first place, that's completely not what I was doing -- see my previous post. But let's take it from your point of view..
I can see your point, although I tend to agree with andelijah insofar that scum would prefer to force out claims. The problem is, that while it's a perfectly valid 'possible scum mindset', it's an equally valid 'possible town mindset' -- where in the absence of anything else, town will follow wagons because 'it's all they have'. It's egregious behaviour -- which is why, again, I do not engage in it -- but it's exactly what lazy town does.
Also, this would be a more convincing point in the context of a more contentious and active game, with multiple leads and more people weighing in with good points than bulldog mode Cyan. This was not the case here.
And one more thing. 'Immense pressure'? What?
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...'
Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.
1. What? You are trying to twist this a certin way when there is no twisting it. You voted AKid while at the same time saying you didn't think he was scum, just acting a little scummy. So I see it as you trying to have you cake and eat it too. I don't know what you are getting at here, but your actions are pretty clear cut.
And yes, the word necessarily does leave you a great out. Suppose we lynch decide to lynch AKid. Before the lynch happens though, you revert back to your flip-floppy ways, and use that word necessarily. You say "Well, I was not sure blah blah blah, I think he's town now, unvote.". If/When AKid comes up town here, you make yourself look better by suddenly NOT being on the AKid train.
Without looking into the future, your actions are still scummy. That really shouldn't need explaining.
2. No, but your not just reitirating your suspicion either. You are expanding your suspicion, expanding your reasoning, and applying a vote if I'm not mistaken. And why would you assume that when a player goes missing, they are trying to skate under a wagon? It's one thing when a player goes missing in one game but not others, but FMJ went missing in ALL his games. I'm pretty sure you are in another game with him, so this should be evident to you. A player can go missing for any number of reasons, but you automatically assume the scummiest of them.
That's why we wait on them to show or get replaced: Because going missing and being lurky is a null tell. It doesn't mean scum or town, it just means they are gone. Attacking a player who isn't showing up and is for all intensive purposes an "easy target" doesn't make you look good.
3. Maybe I am blowing it up a bit, but still, why would you lie and say you knew everything you were talking about when you didn't? Why would you lie when you could have said "Oh, sorry, messed up!".
Oh, and the "BigTime did this earlier, so meh" argument is a poor defense.
4. Wait, so you are saying that you only posted that stuff because you were about to be modkilled? I assume for lurking, correct? And now you are attacking a lurker all out? That's hypocritical...
Oh, and I eat everyday, and still find time to write massive responses, so eating's no excuse unless it's a marathon eating contest.
5. ditto to you...
Finally, those last two quotes you quoted aren't mine.
On to your second post!
1. Uh, yes. Yes, that was what you were doing. You said AKid was not scum, and voted him. CONTRADICTION. I'm calling it.
2. Wait, you don't engage in the "lazy town" behavior? Wasn't that you on AKid though?
But, I do see your point. It's just as easy for town as it is for scum.
3. Again, good point. One thing that strikes me as odd here though: It sounds almost like you are making the same 'slow game' excuse Cyan is making.
4. When I made this argument, you had already responded to a few things of mine detailing your scumminess for voting FMJ, among other things, and both Cyan and Ged had popped out saying that you did seem a little scummy, and they were watching the case. Then you unvoted. So you had me, 'bulldog' cyan, and Ged watching you closely when you unvoted. I'd call that a pressured unvote. Don't confuse this with vote pressure. This is 'center of attention' pressure. 'I'd better unvote now before this gets worse' pressure.
I say you're the one trying to twist things. You're attempting to railroad me by first saying that qualifications and expressions of cautiousness are scummy, then saying outright that anything other than an unmitigated expression of SCUMSCUMSCUM is scummy. Also, should that scenario you outline actually happen, the real scum tell is not the 'leaving of an out' at the beginning, but the sudden reversal of opinion (I refuse to use 'flip-flop' -- hear it way too much in relation to American elections).
You are mistaken, and a look at the latest vote count should tell you that. And I'm not in another game with FMJ.
Because I wasn't 'lying', to my mind. Obviously your definition of 'misinformed' is different from mine.
Oh, and that last bit wasn't a defense, it was an expression of suspicion. One that doesn't actually apply, given that I was referring to the wrong game. >_<
I misspoke. I wasn't anywhere near modkill. I try to respond as often as possible, though, especially when I know I might have an unplanned absence coming up soon.
And by eat I kind of meant 'earn money to eat'.
It was a slow game. Are you trying to say it wasn't? And unlike Cyan, I'm not using it as an excuse for silence -- I'm using it as a point to disprove yours.
I hadn't even seen Cyan say that, but fine. I can see your point. If you don't see mine for the unvote, that's not something I can help.
Jund Fangirl; Few things can describe the bliss of the fangirl's cries fading to silence (broken by occasional munching sounds).
Grixis Emo; 'Why should I go out there? They're all uncaring zombies! *sniff* No one understands me...'
Bant Wageslave; Behind every successful knight is a corporate drudge doing his taxwork.
Naya Overenthusiast; Because there is such a thing as too much enthusiasm.