Okay, responding to things...
I don't like Muertto's definite tone in his posts. It seems a little agressive, and not in the good way. Here's an example:
Muertto wrote:No one said not to re-read, but saying BaB wasn't acting scummy is ridiculous. That's obviously either a scum tactic or hindsight. And blaming others for lynching BaB for his scummy behavior is the same.
I don't have much to say in response to Macavenger's post, but I'll just reply to a few things
Macavenger wrote:The key word is reaching. I feel like you seriously exaggerated a number of points against him. Stuff you pointed out such as his eagerness to lynch is so common from newbies of all alignments that I wouldn't want to use it as the basis of an attack like you do here. He'd been corrected on that point and began acting much more rationally. There's nothing there except a noob tell. You also call for an LAL lynch based on him changing an opinion as he gains experience. This all makes me think you're too eager to get a case out on someone.
If eagerness to lynch is so common, why didn't any of the other newbies act that way? The only other newbie that you could say was at all eager to lynch was me for my case on BaB... which oh, you are accusing me for. The LAL note wasn't stongly calling for a lynch, and it had nothing to do with him changing his opinion -- it was him implying that he made a case he didn't really believe in at the time. Even then I didn't say that we should lynch him now, just that he fell under it.
Macavenger wrote:But you were trying to tell other people that they should lynch him even if they thought he was town, which is what I didn't like about this. cerebus sais he thought he was a VI and should be ignored, and you basically said "lynch him anyway." I find that to be a scummy attitude.
Okay, in retrospect that was probably not a good suggestion. I had seen a similar argument used in a game on another site, but in that game there were much shorter days so I guess it was a "deadline is soon, who the hell are we voting?" suggestion. But I maintain that lynching BaB was better for the town than any other town player, although obviously worse than lynching scum.
Macavenger wrote:I take the opposite view, actually. I see Amor's "flip flops" as normal town changes of opinion after considered rereading (hence why I've been saying he wasn't flip flopping), whereas yours seem more like scum trying to position himself more favorably.
You mean BaB instead of Amor here, right?
curiouskarmadog wrote:I mostly agree with Mac’s case on Amor. I think there was probably scum on BaB’s wagon. That leaves Muerrto and Amor. As I predicted Amor has resumed his attack on me, even though, yes, he stated he was not as sure. With stating that he isn’t as sure about me today, he has left himself some leeway to jump on a more convincing wagon or attack me has the mood of the game fits his purpose. As demonstrated when WLC present his “case” which I will address later. After “WLC” case, Amor states he agrees with it without pursuing any more information, scum hunting, or even asking questions.
You've got to be kidding me. I'm scummy for continuing to attack you, but I'm also scummy for looking for other suspects? Is there anything I could do here which you couldn't find some way to spin as scummy? Also, I was doing my reread when WLC presented his case, I didn't have time to comment extensively. And I've been doing plenty of analysis here.
curiouskarmadog wrote:I call bullshit on this. There at the end, BaB was not really posting at all. How would he continue you distract us? You let yourself be distracted. Defending yourself for lynching a townie to eliminate a “distraction” is weak and disingenuous.
Calling bullshit on
this
. Other than when he "stepped away from the game", BaB was still posting a ton, and most of other peoples' posts were either responding to him or discussing him. It really looks like you're just disagreeing with me here for the sake of disagreeing with me.
curiouskarmadog wrote:really which parts in particular?
I agreed with him noting how you left your options open and were manipuulative, even if some of his examples are reaching a bit.
curiouskarmadog wrote: If someone says there are two bottles of water they are considering drinking the other I want to throw way. One is probably filled with nasty scummy water and the other good water. If I drink one bottle and it comes up that it is good water, then the other must be scummy so lets throw it away.
That is setting up a lynch.
Um... if you're aware that one bottle is clear and one bottle is definitely nasty, then wouldn't throwing the other one away logically follow? But we obviously have more than two "bottles" here. You can call it setting up a lynch if you want, but I'm really not sure how that differs from logical town behavior. I didn't say "one of BaB and CKD are definitely scum" I said "BaB And CKD are my two top suspects right now, but I don't think they're buddies."
As for your case against WLC, I missed it being a case because the whole thing was a retort to his argument against you and then you saying that since the argument was wrong, he must be scum. There really wasn't a lot more to it than that. CKD, you seem to only go after people after they go after you, with WLC being the most blatant example, but you seemed to attack me more every time I accused you of something. You mentioned no suspicion of WLC on Day 1, and barely mentioned him at all unless he addressed you/you were asked about him. Now all of a sudden because you disagree with his evidence he's reeking of scum? He hasn't been the most townie player ever, but your sudden suspicion of him is a little too convenient.
I think that's everything I had to reply to... if anyone has something they'd like me to address, just say so.
