QFT. I'm with you on this one:)SpyreX wrote:I am, right now and pre-emptively, calling all of those people scum. Come day 2 sans confirmed scum I want the contentless players eliminated.
I think this is where the disagreement lies. Scenario 1 = Scenario 2. The way you explain it here, is just two ways of saying the same thing. It was making note that someone should not get townpoints.Caboose wrote:There ARE differences between the two scenarios. Scenario 1 implies that KoC did something to where it was worth mentioning that he didn't get town points. Scenario 2 implies that SpyreX didn't do anything scummy, but he didn't do anything town either, like other people say he has.
How are they at all similar? Post 47 points at scummy behavior. Behavior which has continued to be scummy I will add. It is not attacking someone in the same manner in which they attacked someone else a la Caboose/Lowell. Which is the crux of the argument.Emptyger wrote:How was Caboose’s post any different from your [47]?
I am not saying context is irrelevant, I am saying that your explanation of what context your post was in is your opinion. And your opinion, when it comes to whether or not something you said is fallacious is irrelevant. The posts are practically mirrors of one another. You claim your reasoning for it is different, but that's just a claim.Caboose wrote: Are you really trying to make the argument that context isn't important?
Atronach wrote:
But I'm also going to random Vote: SpyreX because it's scummy to set up an excuse for later mislynches.
I too am concerned that this alignment, sets up excuses for later.
You are leaving out the part where I agreed with him. That was the irony, because it was a joke post. In the joke/random voting stage. Indicated further by the seriousness level, which you also left out. Purposely?Benmage wrote:I too am concerned that this alignment, sets up excuses for later.Atronach wrote:
But I'm also going to random Vote: SpyreX because it's scummy to set up an excuse for later mislynches.
Still not there? If we're lucky, you'll have a more complete take on things before lylo /saracasm again. Point is, you still have yet to provide anything of substance. 12 posts, one or two sentences at most, signifying nothing. That was two days into the game and here we are on day thirteen. I think the votes on you currently say it all; post something useful or risk lynch.When I have a more complete take on things I'll share, I promise.
This is a big stretch. Like I said, the claim is a nulltell in my book, but it is subjective. In any case, the defense of his play is what makes me think he may be scum.but it shouldn't be used to condemn him. That just looks like scum trying to get a mislynch.
Sorry, I thought mine was the last vote. I didn't realize we needed another.I have had limited access time until recently. I didn't have time for analysis posts, especially so close to deadline on someone who is not even close to being a leading lynch. Your late case against dejkha and refusal to vote is why we are probably looking at a no lynch.Emptyger wrote:Even if there wasn't still time for his lynch to be viable, there was time for you to not avoid commenting on dejkha, so that maybe he wouldn't keep getting away with it.
No business elsewhere, just "forgot" about the game. Excusable, perhaps, since he has posted quite a bit since. Still, all of his posts prior to this higher frequency look like scum trying to fly under the radar. Lurking through two game days is a good scum defense. What's more, his most substantive posts are in defense of himself.dejkha wrote:Sorry, I forgot about this game.
Oh wow, sorry everyone. I completely forgot about this game.
I do not need to defend my posting. My frequency, substance, and analysis are in no way similar to what Lowell, Rbt, and Dejkha have done.he picked out 3 people doing exactly what he's done, and said they should either give us more content, or be lynched
QFT. This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is why dejkha's lack of presence bothers me even more than Lowell and Rbt's lack of substance and/or inane posts.Emptyger wrote:dejkha:
Hey, look, it’s that time of day when I point out how much lurking we’re letting you get away with, while posting elsewhere.
Exactly. I have delivered on my analysis, and trying to quell out-of-control fights is an organizing action. Fights like that, if between town let lurker-scum like Dejkha, Lowell, and Rbt stay quiet until votes change. If between scum, they only serve to set up claims or establish false animosity between scum buddies.KoC wrote:how are you "organising the town" today? You've made a comment about how "this day shouldn't become a Kieraen-KoC fight", and promised some analysis.
Here we are three days later with no "detailed post" reminding me of the previous day when he did exactly the same thing. Promised analysis and never delivered.More detailed post will come when I get a chance. For now I'll say I find KoC very town, Kiraen slightly town, and RBT suspiciously absent.
, Benmage just pinged my scumdar.Was the lylo comment a joke? Lylo is not a good thing no matter your perspective or how you try to spin it. We would still have a very large field of suspicion.Benmage wrote:Lylo wouldn’t be so bad…it could put somethings in perspective.
Congratulations on the scummiest role claim I've seen yet. Also getting a second chance to use your 1-shot power despite being blocked...laughable:roll:. That is the first big hole in your claim. Second, there is no confirmed roleblocker in the game. Third:Benmage wrote:I killed KoC. You all suck. Told you he was scum...I killed him cause I am a one shot vig. I tried to kill him two nights ago, but I was roleblocked.
You tried to use your vig power Night 1? Not a credible claim even if you were a vigilante as using the vig power Night 1 is a terrible move since you can have no real idea of who is scum.Benmage wrote:I tried to kill him two nights ago...
