959: Malth's Alternate Reality: Game Over
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
This is scummy and overly anxious.UncertainKitten wrote:Once again, Cobalt is wrong.
This is not very surprising because, well, Navy said it best.-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
To say that someone is picking on easy targets is to say that they are accusing someone who has done a bunch of scummy things or is a popular suspect. To say that someone "likes" to pick on easy targets is to say they have shown a consistent tendency to do that. That's the rhetorical implication of your post.UncertainKitten wrote:I say it because that statement was pretty easy fodder when it has negligible benefit for me to say as scum. It's one of those "oh look a scumtells" that doesn't really appear to pan out that often ^-^.
So on page 4:
1) cobalt votes you with no reason
2) you insist that cobalt is wrong, and link to someone else who apparently rejects cobalts opinions
3) I asked why you seemed to feel threatened by a vote
4) you tried tried to undercut my question
That's twice in a short time period you've used rhetoric to try and undercut votes and accusations.
In previous games I have observed scum keeping up "banter" longer than they should.Pittbunny wrote:I prefer flowery but meaningless prose over one-liners that, while holding the same weight as everything else on Day 1, are blaaaaand. Personal inclinations, more or less.-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
So if you are town, if someone accuses you, their opinion is worthless, and it's ok to us whatever scummy tactics you can think of in response?UncertainKitten wrote:Well, it's something I do, Jack ^-^.
Why should I value the opinion of people who are wrong?
There's still a gap here though, where you say you found something suspicious, and then say what it was that you found suspicious, and don't say why you found what it was that you found suspicious, suspicious.NavyCherub wrote:Twomz: no lynching the mod please.
Jack: I specifically called you out because yours seemed suspicious to me, since you were reacting like that to something I don't think was even worth mentioning; it wasn't exactly scummy, and it wasn't hurting the town for UK to respond to a vote with no (clearly stated) reasoning, even if UK responded in a way I don't think was the most pro-town in the world.
I don't think it's relevant that UK wasn't "hurting the town" (no more than it's relevant that it has "negligible benefit for scum" like she brought up). I'm not sure how hurting the town even comes into it, and scum often do things that don't benefit them.
Do you think I'm suspicious because you don't agree with me that UK is suspicious?-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
Not particularly. And the beneficial to town/scum (or the "doesn't help town/scum) line isn't very useful.NavyCherub wrote:
It is suspicious because it would be beneficial, as scum, to attack as you did to something that deserves either a small questioning or not much attention at all (at least right now).Jack wrote:There's still a gap here though, where you say you found something suspicious, and then say what it was that you found suspicious, and don't say why you found what it was that you found suspicious, suspicious.
She said cobalt was wrong once again, and that it wasn't surprising because [link to your post about cobalt], implying that cobalt is always wrong. That's pretty strong.And yeah, it was an attack because you used hot words that didn't really fit the situation, most prominently "youinsistthat cobalt is wrong," to make the post you were referring to look worse than it was. Read UK's post again. Did she reallyinsistanything?
You really like the "hurting/beneficial" line huh? Scum are trying to do "beneficial" things remember. What's relevant is my gut. i.e. you have to decide whether someone doing something beneficial is really trying to help the town, or just trying to look like it, and whether someone hurting the town is doing so for scummy reasons, or for one of the many reasons townies do it.
Then what, exactly, is relevant here?I don't think it's relevant that UK wasn't "hurting the town" (no more than it's relevant that it has "negligible benefit for scum" like she brought up). I'm not sure how hurting the town even comes into it, and scum often do things that don't benefit them.
This was your initial reaction to the discussion at hand:
No, I think you're suspicious for the way you went about saying UK was suspicious, not the fact that you think she is suspicious.Do you think I'm suspicious because you don't agree with me that UK is suspicious?
Unvote, vote Jack.
It doesn't sound particularly concerned. It's more of a "oh you two and your arguing" post.Jack, at this point I think you're overreacting way more than UK did.
It seems like you've been working your way up to this vote, which is what scum often do because they don't really suspect the person.-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
This is a bad vote.Pittbunny wrote:
I don't believe it's the math that Cobalt is link-giggling at. In fact, it's a pretty interesting potential f-slip, if it is one. I don't believe I've seen that type before, and wouldn't have were it not pointed out.SocioPath wrote:Eh, I saw that, problem is the numbers don't add up. 4/12
Vote: Llama-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
I was thinking that the "he said "of the town"" point is terrible and weak, but that it was being talked about like it was huge. So when when Pitt votes based on it without caring to think about it and "doesn't even know if it is [a slip]" it is clearly a bandwagon vote. He'd probably been watching it building and looking for a chance to get on board.-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
This makes no sense. Why would they think I'm trying to get the wagon off my scum buddy if I haven't posted a case? How is that going to work? Do you think CJ is my scumbuddy?Twomz wrote: You know, if you elaborate, people might think you're trying to find scum instead of trying to vote hop to get the wagon off your scum buddy or w/e.-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
He's not interested in actually scummy.UncertainKitten wrote:
I find it stupid. Think. What good does that do scum? Rather, given the attention it garners, does it do scum ANY good? It's just plain bad play. Find something literally scummy.xvart wrote: You don't find it suspicious that someone wants to lynch someone for no suspicious reason?-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
In what way is he setting up lynches? That's a completely bogus accusation.
"Setting up lynches" is when scum try the "We'll lynch this person, and if they are innocent, then X must be guilty". That's the only legitimate use. There isn't a problem with saying "I think these three are guilty, let's lynch them" there's no setting up there. And lynching a scum to setup the lynch of a townie? Not a real popular scum ploy.-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
False. Vague accusations are pro town. If you never make vague accusations, that means you never share your thoughts about players who are tweaking your gut but that you don't have a "case" on.1. Vague accusations are suspicious. This is self explanatory.
Of course it's vague. A certain class of scumtells is always vague. In the face to face game you might think someone is lying, and that would be a good scumtell, but I bet you wouldn't be able to say exactly what it is about their expression and tone of voice that makes it seem like they are lying.2. Merely saying 'you sound fake' is very vague. You don't have to explain this one either. You don't point to a specific post, you don't point to a part of that post and you don't even say WHY it sounds fake.-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
Either the other people see it or they don't. Zero problems with pointing out that someone sounds fake. Many times I've taken a closer look at someone after they've been vaguely accused like that and ended up voting them.
Anyway, did you just go from saying that "vague accusations are suspicious" to saying that "vague accusations are cool to just throw out there, but it's helpful to be specific"?-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
I had nothing to say about baked beans and spam.
However. Twomz. Can I get an official stance on gut votes from you? I'm in favor of them personally as I said at length earlier. But you were against. And when people think things like "gut votes with no reasoning" are scummy, it's often because that's what they naturally do as scum (#1 source for ideas about what scum do). And when I call you on hypocrisy you throw some weasely "nice of you to jump 3 minutes after I vote you". That's a reference to a well known scumtell, when someone is lurking and they jump right in when their name is mentioned. But I have been rather active and didn't post during a couple days of caps lock spam.
You tried the same kind of weasely offensive earlier in response to my xvart vote:
"You know, if you elaborate, people might think you're trying to find scum instead of trying to vote hop to get the wagon off your scum buddy or w/e. "-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
Why on earth is llama at l-1?
Whenever someone changes their vote a lot, people say they are vote hopping. Since this is the standard usage, vote hopping is pro town, because changing your vote a lot means you are looking into a number of people and willing to annoy a number of people. Obviously the content itself can be questioned.
What people (often scum) try and do when they say someone is vote hopping actually a very common scum tactic. You take a common scumtell that is referred to only by name (or better yet acronym). Then you find a townie who is doing something that sounds like it could be called that and accuse them of doing it. That way, you can have a reason for your vote on someone even if they aren't doing the actual scummy version of vote hopping (switching your suspicions around to keep on the more popular wagon).-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
Right the only thing it changes is that "other mod pm's" other than role pm's can now be quoted.
How many times are you going to imply that I'm scum for ignoring it? This comment here is what I call a "defense by discredit" attempt.xvart wrote:Jack - I still have heard what you got out of your fake daykill. How many times do I need to ask? Or is it super secret?
I thought I wouldn't have to spell it out in black and white *facepalm*....
Game Rule 4(not general rule 4) was the one that has been changed.-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006
-
-
Jack Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5460
- Joined: August 13, 2006