Now that I actually have a case to respond to:
Xite wrote:
First was on Tasky, his ISO 4, after there's a pretty big wagon on him already, with 3 reasons, "obvious buddying is obvious," "early self game righteousness," and pretty much an OMGUS pressure vote
There was a wagon on him for a good reason. Rather than demonising my vote for mere fact that I wagoned, you should actually look at my reasons. Speaking of which,
First, You ignored my main reason for voting him altogether:
Vollkan wrote: The above merits a +2. Reason being is that IIoA, while it is always an easy label for lazy scum to throw around, is not a scumtell at page 3 of a game where not even everybody has yet to post. Moreover, whether or not you think that the chances of popularity-manipulating roles is likely (and I note that nobody has suggested that it is), it's clearly something that due diligence required us to address in relation to the mass pop-claim strategy.
And, as others have already pointed out, it smacks of hypocrisy that you would accuse other people of IIoA and then have IIoA yourself. To be clear, my problem is not with your IIoA, it is with your hypocrisy of attacking people for IIoA
Vote: Tasky
Second, the "obvious buddying" point was addressed at Friend, not at Tasky.
Third, explain what is wrong with my accusation of early-game self-righteousness.
Fourth, what do you mean by "pretty much an OMGUS pressure vote"? My vote very obviously wasn't OMGUS because I had reasons.
Xite wrote:
Then in 5, he turns around and votes me based on quotes from someone else (that he puts in my name)
What quotes from somebody else?
You said:
X wrote: By the way, would quick lynches be good in this game? Considering the nifty neighborizing idea?
X wrote: ok, just wondering
that was a joke
X wrote: I am too [against quick lynches], but I figured this might be a special circumstance
I voted you because you apparently flip-flopped over your stance on quick lynches (ie saying it was a joke but then saying you thought it was serious). But you then explained that "that was a joke" was in relation to something else. And I unvoted accoridngly.
I'd also note that you didn't have a single vote on you at the time when I voted you,
which immediately shuts down
your claim that "Wow, not one of his votes WASNT jumping on a wagon..."
Xite wrote: Then, when I prove him wrong, he turns back around and revotes Tasky
I love the way you smear this in the worst way possible. I voted you based on a reaonable misinterprtatino of your post. You clarified. And so I returned to my previous suspect.
You present it, though, like some great inconsistency.
Xite wrote: His next vote isn't until his ISO 14, and guess what? It's another wagon, this time the sando wagon. Right after Andrius starts getting a few votes, he starts pushing the sando lynch.
Yes, I joined the Sando wagon and as my post made clear, if you had bothered to analyse it properly rather than superficially focussing on the mere fact that I voted, you would see that I had good reasons for doing so.
Xite wrote:
His next vote is ISO 36, after quite a bit of questioning of his votee (Vezok). Perhaps to see if others would go with him? Oh, and look at the 5 other votes on him/her before he even votes.
Golly gosh! I voted after "quite a bit of questioning"! How scummy?
Seriously, the argument you make above is just conspiratorial bullshit. Questioning a votee is EXACTLY what townies should do in this game. But you, again, put the worst possible spin on it by implying that it was to test the waters.
(Also, look at the two words under my name "The Interrogator"...they are there for a reason)
xite wrote: ISO 52 is his no-lynch vote, again he waited to see if he had support.
No. I just wasn't in any haste to vote NL. Unlike voting a suspect, voting NL doesn't place pressure on anybody. I'd been clear from the outset where I stood. And again, you are assuming the worst possible motivations for my actions
Review of the case thus far:
In a number of his attacks thus far, he indicts my actions on the basis of an assumption that my actions are scum-motivated. In other words, he is committing the logical fallacy of begging the question - because his argument for why I am scum assumes that I am scum in the first place.
Xite wrote: mixed with him usually having a lack of attacking anyone, Instead he has huge posts of why everyone else is wrong or right, but very little saying anything about who is scum.
For starters, I think that it's fair to say that I've been far more transparent than many other people in this game. I think I am the only player to date who has posted a proper summary on every player in the game.
I also think that here you are just attacking my playstyle. I scumhunt by analysing reasoning. Necessarily, that involves huge posts on whether things are right or wrong. I also am one of the most skeptical people on site about scumtells and towntells (as in, I see the vast majortiy of things as nulltells).
I don't make stupid posts like:
Xite is scum
Because they don't tell people anything and I hardly ever have that degree of certainty.
Xite wrote:
2) I see reasoning AND analysis, point out where you don't plox?
His page 1 comments are all playstyle-related and not scumhunting related
His page 2 comments are focussed on the pop claim and he says "Ugh Tasky" (which isn't "reasoning and analysis" by any stretch of the imagination)
His page 3 comments are a playstyle thing on Nicol, "Ewww @ Tasky's Selfvote.", and asking somebody to explain a vote
His page 4 comment is that you seem to be posting without thinking.
Page 5: all playstyle
Page 6: Popularity, concludes without explanation that you seem newb, and concludes that he doesn't think Firned is buddying (again, no reasoning)
Page 7: says he gets a malicious "vibe" (a word I hate) from Tasky and he likes my playstyle
Page 8: doesn't like Friend's "it's too soon to be claiming" (why??)
And he then expresses broad conclusions
No reasoning and analysis.
Xite wrote:
4) I'm not really seeing what you're seeing. What he said IS scummy as hell, but more because he thinks Tasky is town and Sando is scum and votes Tasky, from my interpretation. But then you say it's not a scumtell... but add points?
I gave him a point for voting Sando based on "aggression" because aggression is a typical boilerplate scumtell that isn't actually a scumtell
Xite wrote:
Voll wrote:
5: Position here doesn't make sense at all. He leaves Tasky wagon to join another, but is clear that he still thinks Tasky is a good lynch. BUT, at the same time, says that the Tasky wagon "reeks" of scum +2
Vas wrote:
I'm feeling temporarily tired of the Tasky case(Although he is a fine deadline lynch.) and I want to see where a Friend wagon would take us. Plus the Tasky wagon reeks of scum, possibly 2 of them in here(Right now, I'm thinking its Sando and Friend.). And I do not see anyone(bar me, as of this post) defending him.
^ This is exactly what he said, way to misrep. Unless you're reading into a different part of that post that was about tasky and sando, if so, I'd love for you to point it out. [/quoet]
Are you paying any attention at all? He is very clear that he wants to leave Tasky but still thinks Tasky is a "fine deadline lynch". But he also says that the Tasky wagon "reeks of scum". In the very thing you quoted..
Xite wrote:Voll wrote:
7: Every one of his attacks on Prana here simply stretches what Prana said to make the worst possible interpretation of it. +1 (only reason it isn't +2 is that since there was no wagon on PD, there isn't clear opportunism)7)
Or that's the way he sees it?
It's the same thing I attacked you for just above. You CANNOT accuse somebody of being scum based on an interpretation of their behaviour that assumes that they are scum.
It's like saying: "I think Mr Smith murdered Mr Jones, because if you assume Mr Smith wanted to kill Mr Jones, then it makes sense that he would kill Mr Jones"
Xite wrote:
25) Or he was able to read him at that point?
Nothing he said indicatd he was able to read RC now.
I find it very odd that you are willing to make the worst possible interpretions of
my
actions, but you are willing to extend such generosity to Vas
Xite wrote:
26) Oh you mean this no explanation?
"votehopping is like woah" is not an explanation.
Xite wrote:
Huh... no real points against the two people without any real suspicion on them... afraid of getting attacked for making bad cases people will notice?
You ever stop and think that maybe the reason they don't have any real suspicion on them is because they aren't suspicious?
Again, you are doing the same conspiratorial bullshit. It's clear that people didn't suspect them and it would be entirely reasonable that I would be in agreement with that consensus.
But no! The reason I am not suspicious of them has to be because I am "afraid of being attacked". Fail.
Xite wrote:
15) Uh... huh. Or he was giving his reasoning for why he wasn't voting?
First,
You are now very clearly being unfair
This is the second time that you've been willing to give somebody else a very generous benefit fo the doubt at the same time as you persistently make the worst possible interpretations of my actions.
And of course he was giving his reasoning - my problem was that the reasoning was noncommital and his only qualification was based on the number of people, rather than substantive comment on the wagon
Xite wrote:
46) I do that as town. Sometimes it's better to get a lynch you don't agree on than not to get a lynch at all.
Good for you. But objectively it is inconsistent and thus can be validly treated as a scumtell
Xite wrote:
13) Why ridiculously strong?
This:
These two posts are what ticked my scum-o-meter.
This is Parama scum at is finnest. Please lynch this guy.
unvote
Vote Parama
Xite wrote:
15) What scumteam?
For distnacing purposes, scum will usually have one of their buddies in their top three suspects. Now, vezok had said:
15: As far as scumtells go, this is the most serious yet. I've addressed this in my own posts already, but to repeat (because I think this is important), Vezok said: "I stil support a Parama wagon or Ray Frost wagon. Or even Andrius." This is just after he swapped his vote to Andrius. It's contradictory and scummy in and of itself, but also evidence of a scumteam for the future. +4
It makes no sense that, at the same time as he is voting Andrius, he would be expressing support for Parama and Rayfrost "Or even Andrius" (which bizarrely means that his "or even" candidate is the very one he is voting). The inconsistency between his declared suspicions and who is voting suggests a scumlink