multiple people wrote:Was that meant to say two or is there a third player you suspect?
It was a half-typo. There is a third player I suspect, but I decided I want to see more from them before I make any judgement call.
1. Essentially, it clarifies people's positions because it forces them to weigh in on the bandwagon one way or another. Are they for it because they believe the participant is scummy? Are they against it because they think she's delivered a towntell? Do they believe the participant is scummy, but they don't think they make a good lynch candidate, etc.
If your argument is that "early bandwagons are good," wouldn't it be sufficient for someone to get on the wagon by repeating what someone else said and saying "early wagons good, so I'll add my vote"? There is absolutely zero justification that anyone is "forced" to do anything - to repeat an argument that was made against me a million times earlier, just because you would act a certain way doesn't mean everyone else will.
But this is inconsequential. It's my personal scumhunting beliefs, and I think bandwagons have been useful in games that I have played. Feel free to disagree, but it's not a scumtell that I disagree with you (just like your scumtell isn't that you believe bandwagons are bad, it's all the other stuff we're about to go into).
Scummy logic is scummy. If I win that early bandwagons are anti-town, then it is very consequential because it means you are pushing an anti-town policy.
2. "It doesn't put pressure on anyone." I think this is self-evidently untrue.
How is it untrue? The discussion on me is because I made a post which some consider to be controversial - it has nothing to do with your "early bandwagon," which contained what, two people?
I just derailed the bandwagon on me by ignoring it." I think this is self-evidently scummy. "
I'm making an observation which disproves your original contention. I think that, at the point where I am admitting to this and using it for a specific reason, it's minimally a null-tell. If I wanted to ACTUALLY avoid attention, why would I make this argument?
Moreover, even if it does put pressure, how is this a good thing? Unneeded pressure can force premature claims and is just as likely to cause townies to mess up as it is scum." Also self-evidently untrue.
It's going to be your argument that will be the "self-evidently untrue" one if I'm lynched this round.
3. I think this is a good place to fit in that: The bandwagon reason for voting for you was only the second reason I had for making the vote! You've totally ignored the first reason (which was your utter logic fail). The second reason just made me comfortable voting on something that I was unsure about (as I had afatchic's defense in mind from the beginning). Ie: Even if I was wrong, and your fail logic was just bad towning, I'd still get valuable information out of the wagon. And lo and behold: I FEEL I DID!
How does this respond to my argument at all? My point is we don't need a bandwagon to have conversation, which is proven by the fact that there's 9 massive pages of text that have nothing to do with the "wagon" on me.
4. Early bandwagons aren't dangerous because there's a threat of someone being hammered, they're dangerous because there's a threat that the target will be lynched? Um. Okay? I think there's an obvious tautology here, but ignoring that for a moment: You weren't a random target! I thought your earlier posts were scummy and I think you continue to act scummy. I wouldn't have cried myself to sleep if you were lynched.
It's not a tautology - you can disprove my argument by showing that early wagons frequently reverse. My contention is that they do not - if an early wagon gets enough steam, it won't undo itself because no one person will have the political capital needed to move everyone to a new target. As far as your second argument goes: irrelevant. Ignoring the possibility that someone claims scum or something similar, early wagons are bad whether the target is random or not because you are unlikely to be sure of anything at an early point in the game and risk the harms I've outlined.
You keep evading the basis of my argument - I'm not indicting you because you voted for me, I'm indicting you for supporting this "early bandwagons good" theory which I think is scummy. I don't care who your target is.
Yay! Some meat. Ok, AlmasterGM, here's why you're newly appointed Scum Target #1.
I will admit, this is a well concocted argument. I'm going to need some extra time to break it down and analyze it.
cruelty wrote:Really? I have a couple issues with your Mordy case (most notably the hypocrisy of bringing up an old case when you pinged archaebob for doing the same thing) but I'd prefer to let him defend himself before I weigh in too heavily.
Hypocrisy doesn't make arguments go away, it just cross-applies them to whoever is making them. I'll take the hit, I still think archaebob is scum.
GG wrote:I don't think you meant to. I think you slipped while trying to make a case against Mordy.
Is this a joke?
foilist13 wrote:@Almaster - Your case was pretty weak. I don't have a lot to add on top of MordyS and Gammagooey, but I can send you to some meta where Archaebob is scum, and another where he is town. In both of these he interspersed content posts with one liners in a very similar manner to which he is doing now, except here there is less content than there normally is.
"I always do it" isn't an excuse. Scummy behavior is scummy. If you are in this game and you are on the town side, your should be trying to make the town win.
Oh and defending another player is not necessarily scummy. We're trying to find the scum and avoid lynching town, so if we see someone we think is town be accused of scum it would be logical to defend them if you think the argument is faulty. It is not the defense itself, but the quality of defense. You have to distinguish between legitimate town defense and scum defense.
False. Defending someone else, except in extremely rare and specific circumstances, is scummy. Half of the point of cases isn't to prove the truth of the matter, but to see what the other person has to say about it. By answering for that person, we hear what YOU have to say, not what they have to say (and anything they say in the future will be tainted by the fact that they already know your response).
SpyreX wrote:Mordy, will you be my bff this game? <3
Obv-buddying is noted.
archaebob wrote:@ Gammagooey - gotta say, not the best move defending me just now. i didn't need it, and I was hoping to see how others would respond to AGM's case without anymore direction from the players who have been posting most so far. You did a good job tearing apart AGM's case, but now we'll never know what afatchic, Chinaman, or Muffin might have revealed in their uninfluenced decision to support or reject it.
Seriously, this is my case in point. Archebob has managed to COMPLETELY evade responding to ANYTHING I said. Gammagooey, I don't even care if you're right or not - you've done the town a total disservice with your actions.
bon wrote:I'm still waiting on those three: fatchic, Chinaman, and Muffin. I really would encourage the town to abstain from engaging any further until we have heard from them, as all we are accomplishing is letting them see clearly who is on what side, and where it is safest to enter.
You want us to stop talking so you can know EXACTLY where to put your vote? This post literally screams scum. If I could trade my life for yours right now, I would, and it would be totally worth it.