I know this is totally not directed at me, but I feel like answering this one for myself.QuantumFruit wrote: @EmpTyger: If it seems as though Cephrir and I are buddying up, why are you suspicious of Cephrir and not of me? It's fairly obvious why darkdude.
But idiocy isn't really a scumtell. It's more likely to have idiot town than idiot scum, simply because there's more town than scum.Cephrir wrote:I don't agree. Stupidity =/= town. Would you let idiot scum ride by because they're idiots? Didn't think so. moz was obviously either awful scum or even worse town at the point we went after him, and I'm pretty sure most of us thought the scum option was more likely.Akonas wrote:I find it interesting that people are saying they were really sure that they found mozsuggs scum. I didn't see him as all that overtly scummy; more overtly moronic. But when people do that, more often than not they are town. The problem is that they then proceed to clog up the work and cause problems for town.
No, I don't know he's a townie; I'm suspicious of him, but I'm not sure.Cephrir wrote:I don't follow. Do you know he's a townie? More seriously, why were you suspicious of vikingfan for being suspicious of dd, but not anyone else who is/was suspicious of him?Akonas wrote:Taking someone's life should always be serious business. But seriously, though, we don't want to lynch a townie.
vikingfan wrote:After seeing mozsuggs' alignment, I'm not sure about darkdude, especially since it seems that he may be framed by the mafia. It seems like, to me, the mafia were almost entirely sitting back and letting mozsuggs commit suicide (which is basically what he did).
I'm not holding vod's hammer against him: A) someone has to do it, and B) he was pretty much pissing us all off at that point.
Pink Puppy wrote: Even though I have disagreed with you at times (like when I was voting you) throughout this game QF, I feel your behavior has been pretty much the same. Cephrir was much more aggressive D1, had a big part in the mozsuggs lynch, and now is playing much "safer."
Is that not good enough for you or did you not see it?Cephrir 520 wrote: I toned it down a bit on D2 because, well, D1 is D1. On D1, you sometimes need to be aggressive to get reactions out of people and/or to get things to actually happen. I also am not as sure about my suspects right now as I was about moz.
Not like that! Sheesh. Of course none of us know for sure, unless we're cops with a guilty; I obviously meant that I didn't know who to vote for. You'll notice that 2 pages later, I came up with a scumlist and voted based on it. If I was acting like I didn't know who to vote for for a substantial amount of time, I could understand your suspicion. But that wasn't the case. Also, you refer to my not knowing what to do as an "argument"; it wasn't. I just needed to reread, and I did, problem solved.PP wrote:I keep thinking about the post where he said "I don't know who to suspect now, everyone looks town." That kind of post always sets off my scumdar. When people "don't know what to do!!!!!1111" For a variety of reasons, I don't like this argument.
1)None of us really know what to do... we're just pushing people to try to figure it out. So... why even say this? It's like you're trying to act town wihtout helping.
I made an LoS two pages later. I wasn't sure for a little bit, reread the thread and then voted. You're making this into something it's not at all.2)This argument is convenient for scum because: It's hard to manufacture reasoning as scum! Scum know they're lying and thats hard for most people. Scum are afraid to be caught, and they know the more info they give, the more chance of them contradicting htemselves because its all lies anyway.
Right! That's why I've been one of the more posty players in this game! That's why I was aggressive on D1! Because I didn't want to get noticed! Wait, that doesn't make sense.PP wrote:3)Scum want to pass through without making themselves a huge prescence in the town. The don't want to be blamed too much when town mislynches.
Meh. That wasn't the #1 reason for his lynching, although his lack of defense due to stupidity was a factor.Akonas wrote:But idiocy isn't really a scumtell. It's more likely to have idiot town than idiot scum, simply because there's more town than scum.
Yeah, but why were you suspicious of vikingfan for being suspicious of dd?No, I don't know he's a townie; I'm suspicious of him, but I'm not sure.
Interesting. Early in the game I was also accused on being too "calculated" in my posts.You don't know why you said something. You felt like speaking your mind, but you didn't bother thinking it through. And you didn't want to be helpful. Hmm.
The Cephrir-you interaction isn’t the only factor influencing how I will vote. (Cephrir’s 3-mafia slip > your early D1 freakout.) I feel that there’s more against him, so if I’m going to be voting someone over that, it’s going to be him rather than you. If you really want, you can commit some blindingly obviously antitown actions, and I’ll be willing to recalculate.QuantumFruit [547] wrote:<snip>
@EmpTyger: If it seems as though Cephrir and I are buddying up, why are you suspicious of Cephrir and not of me? It's fairly obvious why darkdude.
Akonas wrote:We don't need you to prove that you're pro-town using the iron fist of logic. That's not what we mean by "defend yourself." Just freaking play the game, and don't use this craplogic crap. It's not just craplogic but lack of logic. I think what's happening here is you're a newbie, you see people attacking you, you freak out and don't know what to do. The difference between you and mozsuggs is that you weren't being an ass in the first place.
Townies don't need to worry about being seen as scum. Try to find who scum is and you will help town win. Worry overmuch about suspicion on you and you will just serve to clog up the works. I don't know whether you're scum or not; I'm getting some scum vibes, but the fact that people are suspicious of you DOES NOT MEAN YOU WILL GET LYNCHED! So just put your head on your shoulders and PLAY THE GAME.
Cephrir questions this and the reply isAkonas wrote:Vikingfan especially seemed completely fine with lynching darkdude, and that bothers me.
Cephrir picks up on and interesting point asking do you know DD to be town.Akonas wrote:Taking someone's life should always be serious business. But seriously, though, we don't want to lynch a townie.
Now Akonas interactions while DD was top suspect indicate to me that either he is scum buddies with DD or DD is an innocent townie and Akonas is wishing to appear helpful and leniant on a suspicious person (whom was looking likey for a lynch) because he knew he would turn up town. Im more looking at the later option here.Akonas wrote:No, I don't know he's a townie; I'm suspicious of him, but I'm not sure.
I didn't ignore your case. I just don't buy your excuses. I can't just keep saying the same thing over and over again, so I didn't respond to you after 491. I am entitled to still think you are scum. You are entitled to disagree with me, but don't say I am twisting your words, or making things up.Cephrir wrote:This is getting obnoxious. When I responded to your case the second time (my 491) you ignored it and kept saying you thought I was scum. Stop twisting my words and making up scummy things I've done.
Because you still said it. And about your whole LoS. I don't think that's such a pro-town thing to do when you also say that mafia wouldn't do it because it causes them to get caught later. Maybe if someone else had brought it up. But the fact that yo usaid it makes it look to me like that is why you did it -- to look pro-town.Cephrir wrote:It's not an excuse, it's the truth. If you're going to make a case against me, you can't expect to completely ignore my response. If someone is accusing you, and you defend against their accusations, do you think it is reasonable to go on voting them with no more reason than "I don't buy your defense"? If ou still suspect me, give me some freaking reasons. I explained why my "scummy behavior" is not scummy. Example: You claimed that I was suspicious for not being suspicious of anyone for a short while, because "scum don't want to get caught in a lie". This theory makes no sense considering that I reread and came up with suspects 5 posts later. Therefore, why is it still suspicious?
Why on Earth would I keep voting you if I realize you're right?? When I think you are right, I will stop suspecting you. And you are totally FULL OF IT, when you say I keep suspecting you with no reasons. I am the only one who keeps posting reasons.Cephrir wrote: Seriously, it's sooooo obvious that you've realized I'm right and you can't beat my defense, so you've decided to continue to claim I'm scum with no reasons.
No, that's not my point. My point is, you say I'm suspicious for not having suspicions, but I did. That was only for, like, one post that I didn't. Is saying "I need to reread" scummy? 'Cause that's what I meant.Because you still said it. And about your whole LoS. I don't think that's such a pro-town thing to do when you also say that mafia wouldn't do it because it causes them to get caught later. Maybe if someone else had brought it up. But the fact that yo usaid it makes it look to me like that is why you did it -- to look pro-town.
If you don't think I'm right, TELL ME WHY YOU ARE PRETENDING TO THINK I AM WRONG. And you may not be "suspecting" me with no reasons, but you are as far as I can tell, because I've defended against all of the ones you've posted and you haven't followed up on that.Why on Earth would I keep voting you if I realize you're right?? When I think you are right, I will stop suspecting you. And you are totally FULL OF IT, when you say I keep suspecting you with no reasons. I am the only one who keeps posting reasons.
Would you prefer the phrasing "your reasons are no longer valid"?You can disagree with me... that is not scummy. But to say I have no reasons -- that is scummy.
...LaL? ...EmpTyger wrote:Hold on, I just reread my role, and it seems I missed a small detail. Apparently, all of that stuff I claimed is only true on April 1.
Unvote: EmpTyger
APRIL FOOLS
I'm saying that it's fair for him to complain about my buddying up to Talitha, but I don't think I really was. I do, however, see how that would be a valid accusation, and I don't really see how to defend against it.EmpTyger wrote: Akonas:Pick one?Akonas [522] wrote:<snip>Fair enough.vikingfan wrote:Akonas: it's not the fact that you didn't like me, it's the fact that you felt the need to buddy up to Talitha in the process. So it's not OMGUS.
<snip>Enh... I don't know about that; I was just saying that I liked where she was going. Take it as scummy if you like; I don't see it.vikingfan wrote:Akonas: it's not the fact that you didn't like me, it's the fact that you felt the need to buddy up to Talitha in the process. So it's not OMGUS.
<snip>
Pink Puppy wrote:Maybe you should try helping?darkdude wrote:I don't know. This part about idling around was written when I just felt like speaking my mind, and it was something I noticed. I never intended for it to be a real help or anything.Also, you appear to skirt around questions fairly heftily. Care to explain this tendency? I don't feel this is particularly helpful for town and I'm not entirely sure why you do this.
unvote; vote darkdude
Darkdude: Then don't complain about others?darkdude wrote:@ I try to, but I still have a lot of work these days...I can only spare time to browse here a few minutes per day for now...
I'm just trying to be helpful so that we don't lynch YET ANOTHER stupid townie.thevampireofdusseldorf wrote:Now Akonas interactions while DD was top suspect indicate to me that either he is scum buddies with DD or DD is an innocent townie and Akonas is wishing to appear helpful and leniant on a suspicious person (whom was looking likey for a lynch) because he knew he would turn up town. I'm more looking at the later option here.
Calculated? Really? Maybe artificial, calculated implies a higher level of efficiency.darkdude wrote: Interesting. Early in the game I was also accused on being too "calculated" in my posts.
Does throwing around potential clues not help? When I stated that I noticed the phenomenon, I did not expect anything to come out of it, but I decided to say it anyways because it can't hurt, and could POTENTIALLY be helpful.
I mean, it's not as if everything you say is helpful either. Did you expect that some of your points would be refuted? If so why did you say it in the first place?
Seems to me you're trying to make a nonsensical case based on nothing.
You say he wasn't contributing or saying anything. I think he was, but in a concise way. To me, he was contributing. It was just in a different style.Cephrir 491 wrote:But concise is not helpful if he's not really saying or contributing anything.PP wrote:I still don't see your arguments. I viewed his posts in isolation too to try to see it your way. I do agree that his posting style is very different that some players in this game. He did quote stuff, post a line of his feelings on it, then move on. I don't think that's bad though. Concise? Yes. Scummy? I dunno. Maybe you can explain this further if you still disagree.
Try post 14 where he calls out windkirby for having a double standard. QF votes him later, and so do you. You might not have had the same reasons as him, but you were all voting WK at the same time, putting pressure on him. And he voted WK first. He also questions Akonas, Talitha, darkdude and Mozsuggs.Cephrir 491 continued wrote:Well, it is what zeddicus did. He didn't really say much, he just used others' reasons, and didn't lead anything. Go ahead, find me a place where zeddicus "led voting". It doesn't exist.And the "not proactive" argument. In certain cases, I agree that somebody who acts ONLY reactively, and does not contribute original content ideas, or lead any voting, IS scummy. But I don't think that is what zeddicus did.
I disagree that he was not proactive. See last comment.Cephrir 491 continued wrote:It's not that he was reactive, but he wasThe argument that someone is "reactive" and therefore must be scum, does not fly with me -- it must be combined with other factors for me to care. The whole game is reacting to what people say.not proactive-- you can be reactiveandproactive, which is what you need to be in order to accomplish anything in this game. And if you don't think it's enough of a scumtell for you to care, good for you. I disagree. If you never really add anything to the game... it's just so easy for scum to slip under everyone's radar like that, and I feel like that's exactly what he did.
I think there is a problem with this whole exchange. I don't think zeddicus was "not proactive" and I think for you to phrase it that way makes it impossible for him to defend himself without you being like "that's not proactive. you're just responding to what I said." That's what I find scummy, that you are setting him up for failure based on something I don't even think he did.Cephrir 491 continued wrote: That said, I am going to back off on EmpTyger for a while. I overreacted a bit to my discovery that zeddicus wasn't contributing enough and put him higher than he should have been on my scumlist, I guess I was just excited about having found something. I also want to give him a chance to prove himself, being a replacement, and his first post is a step in the right direction. If he's acting scummy later, I'll be extra suspicious because of zeddicus' actions, but for now I'll give him a mostly clean slate. He's now below Akonas and darkdude.Unvote.
I have to address the two parts of this argument seperately. You keep using the word reactive, but that's not the problem. The problem was "not proactive", and there is a significant difference. And when someone responds to a case against them, that's when reactive is good. You're saying this argument is one scum would make based on things you think scum could do with said arguments but that I haven't done. Putting words in my mouth again.PP wrote: will go so far as to say people who use "he's overdefensive" or "he's reactive" as a argument, are probably scum. This is because it is such a gray area -- where does defending yourself become overdefensive? Where does reacting to other people's scummy actions become reactive? And it is much to easy for scum to accuse someone of this, and when they try to defend themselves, the scum can say "see? You're being reactive again! You're soo overdefensive!"
Cephrir, you have used both "overdefensive" (regarding windkirby) and "reactive" as arguments in this game. Do you still think they are viable arguments?
Your argument actually does apply to overdefensiveness, though. I've realized in the interim that overdefensiveness is a sucky scumtell, and no, I don't think that argument holds any water anymore. You'll notice from my list I'm no longer suspicious of wk, and I haven't been for a while; that's why.
I still think you're scum for all the reasons I have written. You can sort posts by Pink Puppy for the answer.Cephrir wrote:Okay.... why?PP wrote:I still think you're scum...
That quote you took from me on D2 wasn't criticizing you for being aggressive. I wasn't being sarcastic, I actually couldn't tell how aggressive you were trying to be and wanted to know.
I toned it down a bit on D2 because, well, D1 is D1. On D1, you sometimes need to be aggressive to get reactions out of people and/or to get things to actually happen. I also am not as sure about my suspects right now as I was about moz.
You hardly quoted any of it at all; only the parts you couuld use to make me look bad. And you may as well have ignored them because you just kept going without acknowledging them at all.Cephrir... I will do what you ask, but it is tedious and stupid. And I resent you saying I ignored all your posts. Just because I did not quote every part of it or comment on your every sentence does not mean I "ignored it."
Okay, that's one. I was talking about on the whole.(Example of one time zeddicus was proactive)
But it's not like that. Because i wouldn't do that. It's obviously wrong and silly. I meant his general playstyle, because obviously you have to react to other peoples' posts (*cough*). If I did make that argument later, then you would have reason to be suspicious, but I didn't. You're basing this on a hypothetical argument that I could have made, but that doesn't matter, because I didn't. You could roleclaim scum right now, but that doesn't matter, because you won't; and I'm not about to be suspicious for that because you didn't do it.I think there is a problem with this whole exchange. I don't think zeddicus was "not proactive" and I think for you to phrase it that way makes it impossible for him to defend himself without you being like "that's not proactive. you're just responding to what I said." That's what I find scummy, that you are setting him up for failure based on something I don't even think he did.
Once again, you're basically saying that you would simply disregard anything I said in my defense. Is this the case? I could just as easily do the same thing toi you that you're doing to me right now; I could make a case on you and ignore everything you say in your defense. Would you like that?still think you're scum for all the reasons I have written. You can sort posts by Pink Puppy for the answer.
It's not that youI disagree that you have to be agressive on D1 and not on other days.
I see a change in your play and I think it is scummy. I don't see any reason to stop playing aggressively because it isn't D1 anymore.Cephrir wrote:Pink Puppy wrote: Even though I have disagreed with you at times (like when I was voting you) throughout this game QF, I feel your behavior has been pretty much the same. Cephrir was much more aggressive D1, had a big part in the mozsuggs lynch, and now is playing much "safer."Is that not good enough for you or did you not see it?Cephrir 520 wrote: I toned it down a bit on D2 because, well, D1 is D1. On D1, you sometimes need to be aggressive to get reactions out of people and/or to get things to actually happen. I also am not as sure about my suspects right now as I was about moz.
Haven't I already answered this?? I think people expressing the feeling that they "don't know what to do" is scummy. Sorry if you meant it otherwise, but that's the way it sounds to me. I have just seen scum do it before.cephrir wrote:Not like that! Sheesh. Of course none of us know for sure, unless we're cops with a guilty; I obviously meant that I didn't know who to vote for. You'll notice that 2 pages later, I came up with a scumlist and voted based on it. If I was acting like I didn't know who to vote for for a substantial amount of time, I could understand your suspicion. But that wasn't the case. Also, you refer to my not knowing what to do as an "argument"; it wasn't. I just needed to reread, and I did, problem solved.PP wrote:I keep thinking about the post where he said "I don't know who to suspect now, everyone looks town." That kind of post always sets off my scumdar. When people "don't know what to do!!!!!1111" For a variety of reasons, I don't like this argument.
1)None of us really know what to do... we're just pushing people to try to figure it out. So... why even say this? It's like you're trying to act town wihtout helping.
Why does the amount of time between your scummy post and your next post make any difference? Because you tried to correct yourself I should forget?Cephrir wrote:I made an LoS two pages later. I wasn't sure for a little bit, reread the thread and then voted. You're making this into something it's not at all.2)This argument is convenient for scum because: It's hard to manufacture reasoning as scum! Scum know they're lying and thats hard for most people. Scum are afraid to be caught, and they know the more info they give, the more chance of them contradicting htemselves because its all lies anyway.
You were agressive D1 but not today, and the quote and behavior I am commentin on is from today. So don't make it like I am referring to D1. I am not.Right! That's why I've been one of the more posty players in this game! That's why I was aggressive on D1! Because I didn't want to get noticed! Wait, that doesn't make sense.PP wrote:3)Scum want to pass through without making themselves a huge prescence in the town. The don't want to be blamed too much when town mislynches.
What is obnoxious is that you claim I have no reasons if you disagree with mine, and say I "ignore" your posts if I don't quote and respond to every sentence that you write. That is a ridiculous standard to hold anyone to. I have commented on your arguments and sometimes quoted what I thought were the most important parts, or areas I thought should be clarified or discussed further. Now I have tried to go into greater detail if that's what you want.This is getting obnoxious. When I responded to your case the second time (my 491) you ignored it and kept saying you thought I was scum. Stop twisting my words and making up scummy things I've done.
Town can not know, too.Haven't I already answered this?? I think people expressing the feeling that they "don't know what to do" is scummy. Sorry if you meant it otherwise, but that's the way it sounds to me. I have just seen scum do it before.
It's not because I disagree with your reasons, it's because after I respond in a way that (to my mind, at least) is a fine defense, you don't back them up again and instead go on claiming I'm scum. You don't have to respond to everything I write, but when you attack me, and I defend myself, I definitely do expect you to either have something else to say on the matter or back off.Why does the amount of time between your scummy post and your next post make any difference? Because you tried to correct yourself I should forget?
No; you argued that it's convenient for scum to not have suspicions, because they don't want to manufacture reasoning, and I was pointing out that I did, so the "scum don't want to manufacture suspicions" thing doesn't apply.
The way you said "scum want to X" implied to me that you meant in general. If you think my being less aggressive today is a scumtell, fine, you're entitled to that opinion. Your whole post I responded to was about general scum mannerisms, and I was pointing out that my D1 play was no consistant with that.You were agressive D1 but not today, and the quote and behavior I am commentin on is from today. So don't make it like I am referring to D1. I am not.
What is obnoxious is that you claim I have no reasons if you disagree with mine, and say I "ignore" your posts if I don't quote and respond to every sentence that you write.