Mini 737 - Hack Poetry Mafia (Game Over)

[Lynx The Antithesis]

I say it isn't helpful because our dialog has hardly even gotten a response from anyone else in the game. Spolium has a clear case of the OMGUSes, even if I wasn't actually voting him, and I can tell that no amount of back and forth with him is going to get him out of either the mindset that I must be scum for so vehemently attacking his position, if he's town, or the strategic use of tunnel vision to avoid other incriminating uses of his vote, if he's scum.

It is helpful to the town just look at Red Coyote's analysis of the interations between you Goat and Spolium. It gave me a feeling of your alignment as well. But now the swift change of direction doesn't sit as well with me.

Now on to your response to my question. Why is four pages not enough to have an opinion you can stand behind without calling it "an estimation"? Does a higher page number really make someone's posts more valuable for determining their alignment? I'd say Goat can stake a claim to a reasonably large proportion of the activity in this game, only four pages though it may be. You really seem to have tried hard not to take a divisive stance on this question. And your answer had to tie into you overtly reminding us of your own supposed alignment why, exactly?

I didn't take a positive stance because we know nothing for sure. I characterized your play as pro-town early enough. But sure enough something happened to change my mind about the call. It's only an estimation because in my eyes it's way too soon to settle on for sure town or scum.

Yes, a higher page count is more advantageous in reading a certain player. It's not even the quantity of the posts. Rather the way the player reacts and interacts to the numerous scuffles, arguments, suspicions, and pressure on themself in different situations presented through more pages.

The fact that I brought up my alignment was because it gave the main reason why I weighed him more towards town than scum. Since we both shared similar views and I know that I'm town. It only helped me gauge his alignment.

And lets just single out one thing which I find particularly interesting:

I didn't mind him pushing Budja either because I believe it was the best course of action to bring the game to a serious level

So, he brought the game to a serious level by pushing Budja and thats all well and good. What do you think of the content that this generated? Do you think Budja responded well to the pressure? Do you think Budja's response makes him more likely to be scum?

The content it generated was perfectly fine. Just look what it has evolved into now. Budja didn't get much pf an opportunity to be pressured. Considering that a large part of his defense was overshadowed by the Spolium/Goat debate. He really got off pretty easily in the way of people critiquing his response. I do believe he made a bad play with his vote rather than a scummy move. Though The way he took advantage of the other events going on to evade any informative response was scummier than what he was initially called out on.

[TonyMontana]

Vote Count

There once was a man in a cage
They said he's a criminal sage
Something wrong with his brain
And he's legally insane
Why's my count second post every page?

springlullaby

(3) magisterrain, Lynx, Azhrei

Budja

(2) RedCoyote, Ice9

fhqwhgads

(1) Goatrevolt

Ice9

(1) Spolium

magisterrain

(1) WolfBlitzer

RedCoyote

(1) fhqwhgads

WolfBlitzer

(1) Budja

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch

[Ice9]

Something else which has come to mind is the fact that his questions - in my opinion - are notably generic, with the possible exception of the one to don_johnson.

@Spring seems little more than an oddly dressed up "who do you think most likely to be mafia". @Lynx is weird also, in that it requests quantification yet no explanation. @Azhrei involves two questions - one concerning the bloody obvious (who does "you all" refer to in the context of Az's statement that it was "odd how you all jumped on FHQ"), the other being the fairly generic "given [perceived actions], do you think [player] is scum". @RedCoyote is "who do you want to see lynched", RC's answer to which I imagine would be something like "the guy I'm voting for".

Why is it that all you ever seem to be doing is trying to shut down other people's attempts to scumhunt?

[Goatrevolt]

I'd really like to hear more of Ic9, Goat, and fhq's takes on this theory.

I gave my take already in my last post. Thoughts on it? To my knowledge, ice hasn't responded, and fhq hasted posted on the site since the one I nailed him for.

I'd like more people to give their opinion on my fhq case, which at this point includes my original voting reasons followed by the additional reasoning I pointed out in my last post. I think this is a strong case, and I'm surprised by the lack of support.

[Spolium]

FHQ: I have a feeling Budja may be a scapegoat. That Goatrevolt is pushing the case on him seems noteworthy in that mistaken judgement on his part is bolstering a case for scum to push.

Ice9/Goat: We have a feeling Spring may be a scapegoat. That some players are pushing the case on her seems noteworthy since their negation of the larger debate is

giving potential scum an easy ride.

The bolded section is wrong, and that's where your hypocrisy case breaks down. It has nothing to do with "giving potential scum an easy ride." It has everything to do with the players attacking SL jumping on her, but ignoring the other discussion at hand and that being scummy.

Okay, so amend the enboldened text to read

a sign of scum trying to shift emphasis from the larger debate

. My point still stands.

In my case against fhq, I attack him on the basis of "shutting down scumhunting" because he presents the idea that pressuring mistakes could lead to someone being wrongly accused and construes that as possibly scummy.

I would disagree. While it's true to say that his statement "

if Budja just made a mistake [..] your case on him can be used as a misdirection by scum

" is a platitude and therefore not particularly helpful, it is not particularly scummy either.

Do you remember what preceded FHQ's "

if Budja just made a mistake

", and was in direct reference to his his comment about you pushing Budja the hardest? No need to look, I'll tell you - it was "

it by no means is a scumtell

". With this in mind, why are you now claiming that he "

construes [pressuring mistakes] as possibly scummy

"?

This is completely different than the situation with SL. In the case of SL, I attack people jumping on SL, not because they could be wrong about SL and lead to SL getting wrongly lynched but because they jumped on SL but subsequently ignored other nearby discussion. Do you see the distinction? My idea that SL is a scapegoat comes after this fact, based on my interpretation that the votes on her are scummy, thus she is less likely to be scum.

As I noted previously, I see a distinction in terms of how each scapegoat argument was presented, but not in the

implications

of those arguments.

So you think that the votes on her are scummy, therefore she seems less scummy to you and likely a scapegoat. Now look back at FHQ's post - he stated that he was willing to accept Budja's retraction, so Budja seemed less scummy to him and likely a scapegoat. It doesn't look like he decided Budja was a scapegoat and accepted his retraction on that basis (at least, there's nothing to imply this), so with regard to your own words above I don't see an enormous distinction.

Does the context really change with or without the if? Can you honestly read that post and not get the general impression that fhq thinks we're just townies arguing amongst ourselves, even though he says "if"? The fact that he then suggests we pressure a lurker instead agrees with my interpretation.

The context shifts substantially without the "if" since he never claimed to know that "

we are just townies fighting among ourselves

" and I don't see any insinuation of this; just that he posited a possible setback for town in the event that the scum are lurking, and expressed a desire to pressure the lurkers. He arguably stated the obvious, but he wasn't exactly wrong either.

His suggestion that lurkers be pressured is hardly an uncommon sentiment.

I also want to add to my suspicion of Fhq the fact that his post prior to the one I jumped on was him first saying that the "biggest thing for him was Budja's 3rd vote" and following it up by basically coaching Budja in what he should do next. Biggest thing for him is Budja's 3rd vote implies suspicion. Coaching does not imply suspicion, as why would you ever want to coach someone you think is scum? I consider this to be a pretty big point.

Presumably you're referring to FHQ's "

now you gotta follow through buddy

" when you say "coaching".

Tell me: how is this "coaching" any more than you or Ice9 telling Budja that he needs to explain himself?

-----------------------------------

Why is it that all you ever seem to be doing is trying to shut down other people's attempts to scumhunt?

All I did was point out why I thought the questions seemed off to me. As I said before, there's nothing wrong with the questions in themselves (that a couple were probably not worth asking is merely my opinion) and I have in no way suggested that you

shouldn't

have asked them, nor urged potential answerers to avoid answering them. How, then, am I "shutting down" your attempts to scumhunt?

Open Question:

Would you consider Ice9's continued evasion of my extended case against him to be a subtle attempt to shut down my own attempts to scumhunt? Please elaborate further if you do not think this is the case, preferably with reference to his claims that I am doing so to him.

[Budja]

I have to say I don't really like the fhq case.
Fhq said that he considered me a scapegoat after I had stated my actions.
I think he was just trying to stop the town becoming too tunnel-visioned, not that that was a problem in this case. A few people have also at least partly accepted my explanation (e.g Spolium,Lynx). I don't see why fhq should be singled out here.

I think Ice9 is playing very aggressively and is willing to push hard to find scumtells by your attempted pressure on Wolf, me and Spolium. I do not think Spolium has played scummily but I definitely do not suspect Ice9 for pushing so hard as it is consistent with his earlier play style.

[don_johnson]

I think Ice9 is playing very aggressively and is willing to push hard to find scumtells by your attempted pressure on Wolf, me and Spolium. I do not think Spolium has played scummily but I definitely do not suspect Ice9 for pushing so hard as it is consistent with his earlier play style.

when you say "earlier" playstyle, do you mean earlier like page two earlier, or earlier meta wise?

[Budja]

Earlier as in his attacks on Wolf and me, not meta.

[Goatrevolt]

FHQ: I have a feeling Budja may be a scapegoat. That Goatrevolt is pushing the case on him seems noteworthy in that mistaken judgement on his part is bolstering a case for scum to push.

Ice9/Goat: We have a feeling Spring may be a scapegoat. That some players are pushing the case on her seems noteworthy since their negation of the larger debate is

giving potential scum an easy ride.

The bolded section is wrong, and that's where your hypocrisy case breaks down. It has nothing to do with "giving potential scum an easy ride." It has everything to do with the players attacking SL jumping on her, but ignoring the other discussion at hand and that being scummy.

Okay, so amend the enboldened text to read

a sign of scum trying to shift emphasis from the larger debate

. My point still stands.

No, it doesn't. The bolded section is still wrong. You're still missing the point entirely. It had absolutely nothing to do with "shifting emphasis" or anything else you have proposed. It had entirely to do with people attacking springlullaby for lurking, when they had avoided discussion themselves (aka, hypocrisy).

Again, to state this as clear as I possibly can: I had no problem shifting attention to springlullaby. I myself did the same thing. I have a problem with people attacking springlullaby for lurking, when they completely avoided the Budja/fhq discussion themselves. These are two vastly different concepts.

In my case against fhq, I attack him on the basis of "shutting down scumhunting" because he presents the idea that pressuring mistakes could lead to someone being wrongly accused and construes that as possibly scummy.

I would disagree. While it's true to say that his statement "

if Budja just made a mistake [..] your case on him can be used as a misdirection by scum

" is a platitude and therefore not particularly helpful, it is not particularly scummy either.

Do you remember what preceded FHQ's "

if Budja just made a mistake

", and was in direct reference to his his comment about you pushing Budja the hardest? No need to look, I'll tell you - it was "

it by no means is a scumtell

". With this in mind, why are you now claiming that he "

construes [pressuring mistakes] as possibly scummy

"?

"It is by no means a scumtell, but hey guys, if Budja flips town, Goat is to blame. Just pointing that out. Lurker anyone?" The rest of that clearly suggests the opposite. Actions louder than words. This also strikes me as curiously similar to the "if" thing below. He says if, but he obviously doesn't mean if, because the rest of his post reads as though he's already accepted the text after the "if" part.

As I noted previously, I see a distinction in terms of how each scapegoat argument was presented, but not in the

implications

of those arguments.

So you think that the votes on her are scummy, therefore she seems less scummy to you and likely a scapegoat. Now look back at FHQ's post - he stated that he was willing to accept Budja's retraction, so Budja seemed less scummy to him and likely a scapegoat. It doesn't look like he decided Budja was a scapegoat and accepted his retraction on that basis (at least, there's nothing to imply this), so with regard to your own words above I don't see an enormous distinction.

Look. I agree with you. The situations are similar in that they both involve copious amounts of scapegoatery (all possible puns intended). The situations are completely different in

why

the scapegoats/scapegoated are being accused.

Fhq: Attacking Budja could lead to him being wrongly accused. If he is wrongly accused, Goat is the one pushing the case. Hint, hint.

Me, about SL: People attacking springlullaby are not necessarily wrong in attacking SL, because she has legitimately been scummy. However, I am put off by the large amount of hypocrisy present in attacking SL for something they are just as guilty of. Based on the nature of the votes on SL being scummier than she herself is, I consider her a scapegoat.

So yes, you are right. Both are similar, and have similar storylines about scapegoating. The reasons, are entirely different, and the reasons why people do stuff is so much more important than what is actually done.

Does the context really change with or without the if? Can you honestly read that post and not get the general impression that fhq thinks we're just townies arguing amongst ourselves, even though he says "if"? The fact that he then suggests we pressure a lurker instead agrees with my interpretation.

The context shifts substantially without the "if" since he never claimed to know that "

we are just townies fighting among ourselves

" and I don't see any insinuation of this; just that he posited a possible setback for town in the event that the scum are lurking, and expressed a desire to pressure the lurkers. He arguably stated the obvious, but he wasn't exactly wrong either.

He never outright claimed that "we are just townies fighting among ourselves." You're absolutely right. He put an "if" in front of it. However, he then goes on to ignore everyone in that group and push for lurkers. That means that he DOES think we are just townies fighting among ourselves. Actions...louder than words.

His suggestion that lurkers be pressured is hardly an uncommon sentiment.

Nope, and I've never attacked him specifically because he did attack lurkers. I myself attacked SL who was lurking. I'm pressuring him for what I believe to be a scum slip in revealing that he knows certain people are townies. I believe this is emphasized by what I pointed out regarding the suspicion + coaching inherent in the previous post.

Presumably you're referring to FHQ's "

now you gotta follow through buddy

" when you say "coaching".

Tell me: how is this "coaching" any more than you or Ice9 telling Budja that he needs to explain himself?

I don't see "now you gotta follow through buddy" as at all the same as "explain yourself, Budja". The first implies that Budja has gotten the attention of the world, and now needs to do something to satisfy us, i.e. "Ok Budja, you've gotten attention. Now follow through and tell us what you've learned or how it was pro-town, etc." The second is us asking Budja to tell him why he did what he did, i.e. "This is what you did. Why was it pro-town?"

Do you see the difference. What fhq said was "here's what you need to do to look pro-town." What I did was "here's where you didn't look pro-town, what gives." Large difference there.

In case this gets brought up, here's a diatribe on coaching and the mafia experience. Coaching by itself is not necessarily a scumtell. If you think someone is town, then you might be inclined to coach them so that they play better, help catch scum, and are deemed less suspicious by others. I don't have an issue with that. Where I do have an issue is where you "coach" someone who you are suspicious of. It suggests that you are entirely insincere in your suspicion. If you are legitimately suspicious of someone, you want them to slip up so that you can lynch them. You want them to be scummy so that they get caught. It's scumhunting. When you coach them, you are telling them what they need to do to get your suspicion off them. That is not what you do to people you are suspicious of.

So when I see fhq say "the biggest thing for me is Budja's 3rd vote" I see him saying "I'm suspicious of Budja's 3rd vote." Then, when he goes on to say "Hey, follow through, this is what you need to do next" I'm highly suspicious. That statement doesn't imply suspicion of Budja. In fact, it suggests his prior suspicion is entirely insincere.

Why is it that all you ever seem to be doing is trying to shut down other people's attempts to scumhunt?

Along this same vein. Why are you providing answers for fhq? A simple: I disagree with your case, but I'll let fhq defend himself so we can get a better read on his alignment would have sufficed. I don't really think you're all that scummy Spolium, but you gotta cut that out. Letting people answer for themselves gives them a chance to slip-up and out themselves as scum.

Open Question:

Would you consider Ice9's continued evasion of my extended case against him to be a subtle attempt to shut down my own attempts to scumhunt? Please elaborate further if you do not think this is the case, preferably with reference to his claims that I am doing so to him.

At this point, I think Ice should address your extended case. Originally, I didn't have a problem with him avoiding it because he was absolutely correct in that it was a back and forth between the two of you and everyone was staying out of it. Now that others have stepped into the mix, we should hear it. I also want ice to answer my question about his question to SL.

[Spolium]

Okay, so amend the enboldened text to read

a sign of scum trying to shift emphasis from the larger debate

. My point still stands.

No, it doesn't. The bolded section is still wrong. You're still missing the point entirely. It had absolutely nothing to do with "shifting emphasis" or anything else you have proposed. It had entirely to do with people attacking springlullaby for lurking, when they had avoided discussion themselves (aka, hypocrisy).

You said: "

it has everything to do with the players attacking SL jumping on her, but ignoring the other discussion at hand and that being scummy

" - what does this emphasise other than the scumminess of attacking Spring and ignoring the larger discussion? How doesn't this reflect a "scummy shift of emphasis from the larger debate"? These were your own words.

But then, if FHQ

was

construing your pressuring of mistakes as scummy (as you have adamently pointed out), doesn't that invalidate your point here? I'll adjust my loose summaries of each case for clarity:

FHQ:

I have a feeling Budja may be a scapegoat. That Goatrevolt is pushing the case on him seems noteworthy in that he is bolstering a case for scum, which seems scummy.

Ice9/Goat:

We have a feeling Spring may be a scapegoat. That some players are pushing the case on her seems noteworthy in that they are hypocritically ignoring the larger debate, which seems scummy.

Again, my point stands. The slight difference in the presentation of the arguments does not affect the implication of the arguments (that those attacking the scapegoat appear to be acting scummy, and that we should question the case on the "scapegoat" on this basis). It's still hypocritical.

"It is by no means a scumtell, but hey guys, if Budja flips town, Goat is to blame. Just pointing that out. Lurker anyone?" The rest of that clearly suggests the opposite. Actions louder than words.

See above.

Both are similar, and have similar storylines about scapegoating. The reasons, are entirely different, and the reasons why people do stuff is so much more important than what is actually done.

Interesting. While semantics and presentation are undeniably important, at this point I would prefer to take the stated reasons for actions with a pinch of salt, since we we know that scum will be lying. I'd rather study the

implications

of the arguments being made (as that reveals the most reliable facts at this point and is a great deal more objective),

then

reassess what people actually said.

As you say, actions speak louder than words. Raw facts trump semantic interpretation.

He never outright claimed that "we are just townies fighting among ourselves." You're absolutely right. He put an "if" in front of it. However, he then goes on to ignore everyone in that group and push for lurkers. That means that he DOES think we are just townies fighting among ourselves. Actions...louder than words.

So basically he said "if we are townies fighting among ourselves then lurking scum are getting off light" and proceeded to state that there should be more pressure on lurkers.

Why is this suspicious again? His actions follow logically from his statement, and I'm yet to see how either of those implies that he knows who the townies are. Assuming FHQ is town for a moment, if he was willing to accept Budja's retraction, an expected consequence of this would be the realisation that in pushing Budja hard you were building a case which could benefit scum, who wouldn't need to be a part of the debate in order to benefit. Were I in his position, my thoughts may also have turned to lurkers.

His suggestion that lurkers be pressured is hardly an uncommon sentiment.

Nope, and I've never attacked him specifically because he did attack lurkers.

I never said you did. I just don't think this supports your "how does he know who the townies are" angle.

Presumably you're referring to FHQ's "

now you gotta follow through buddy

" when you say "coaching".

Tell me: how is this "coaching" any more than you or Ice9 telling Budja that he needs to explain himself?

I don't see "now you gotta follow through buddy" as at all the same as "explain yourself, Budja". The first implies that Budja has gotten the attention of the world, and now needs to do something to satisfy us, i.e. "Ok Budja, you've gotten attention. Now follow through and tell us what you've learned or how it was pro-town, etc." The second is us asking Budja to tell him why he did what he did, i.e. "This is what you did. Why was it pro-town?"

Do you see the difference. What fhq said was "here's what you need to do to look pro-town." What I did was "here's where you didn't look pro-town, what gives." Large difference there.

Sure, you present it in a different way to FHQ, but the implication of both statements is the same - that Budja needs to explain himself.

Take a look at your own interpretation of the prompts to Budja:

FHQ - "here's what you need to do to look pro-town"
Goat - "here's where you didn't look pro-town, what gives"

If we assume either of you are scum, BOTH of these become examples of coaching. The only difference is that you were less overt.

Skilled scum is still scum.

Why is it that all you ever seem to be doing is trying to shut down other people's attempts to scumhunt?

Along this same vein. Why are you providing answers for fhq? A simple: I disagree with your case, but I'll let fhq defend himself so we can get a better read on his alignment would have sufficed. I don't really think you're all that scummy Spolium, but you gotta cut that out. Letting people answer for themselves gives them a chance to slip-up and out themselves as scum.

When I first mentioned it in the thread (#90) I did not address your direct criticisms of him or provide "answers" for him - I pointed out the similarities between his scapegoat comment and yours/Ice9's, then highlighted what I considered to be a discrepancy in the reasoning for your attack based on hindsight.

In your response to my case, you started bringing up specific elements of your case on FHQ, putting me into a position where I had to touch upon them to help clarify my point. However, given that FHQ hadn't posted anywhere since the 4th, by that point (the 8th) I considered it likely that he would be up for replacement soon anyway. Frankly, that will cause more problems for your hunt on FHQ's slot than if I had answered everything you threw at it since then.

On that topic,

MOD: prod on FHQ?

Open Question:

Would you consider Ice9's continued evasion of my extended case against him to be a subtle attempt to shut down my own attempts to scumhunt? Please elaborate further if you do not think this is the case, preferably with reference to his claims that I am doing so to him.

At this point, I think Ice should address your extended case. Originally, I didn't have a problem with him avoiding it because he was absolutely correct in that it was a back and forth between the two of you and everyone was staying out of it. Now that others have stepped into the mix, we should hear it. I also want ice to answer my question about his question to SL.

I'd like to see Ice address your question about SL as well, but it's interesting to note that you've danced a little dance around mine.

To rephrase: now that others are "stepping into the mix", thereby negating Ice9's reason for casually disregarding my extended case, do you think Ice9's continued evasion of said case is

scummy

? If not, why not?

[Goatrevolt]

(that those attacking the scapegoat appear to be acting scummy, and that we should question the case on the "scapegoat" on this basis).

This is the cause of the problem in the most simplified form. And this is a flawed argument.

You seem to think that when the word "scapegoat" is used it implies the situations are identical. You seem to think that when someone claims another person is a scapegoat I am supposed to immediately perceive that the situations are identical and respond in exactly the same manner. That is a ridiculous assertion. The reasons why someone is called a scapegoat or how someone went about calling another person a scapegoat or the implications behind calling someone a scapegoat are what is important here. Calling someone a scapegoat by itself is meaningless, and there's really no reason or precedent for treating each scenario equally when each scenario involves radically different ideas.

You're trying to say that it only matters that someone called another person a scapegoat, and that the "why" is irrelevant. That could not be farther from the truth. Why they called the other person a scapegoat, how they went about doing it, the implications behind it, are the ENTIRE point.

Look at these two situations without the word scapegoat:

I think Fhq is scummy because he implied that if Budja is town, I am scummy for having pressured him. In doing so, he establishes the precedent that "if you attack someone and they are town, then you are scummy for having attacked them" which is a deterrence to scumhunting.

I think the people attacking spring are scummy because they attacked her for lurking when they are just as guilty of lurking, having avoided the discussion of Budja/fhq. The hypocrisy present is scummy

What you are trying to do is add in the word scapegoat, then say that since both situations contain the word scapegoat they must therefore be identical, and since I am responding differently to two identical situations I am therefore scummy. You could not be more wrong.

Real life example: A man goes into a store and takes an item without paying for it and leaves. That is wrong. A cop goes into a store and takes an item without paying for it and leaves, but immediately outside the store uses that item to save another person's life. That's not wrong. Just because both people took an item from the store doesn't mean both situations are identical and should be treated the same way. The "Why" behind them taking an item is what is ultimately important here and what is relevant in whether or not they are justified or wrong in stealing.

Similarly, I have said Springlullaby is a scapegoat for X reasons. Fhq has said Budja is a scapegoat for Y reasons. You are saying I should accept Fhq calling Budja a scapegoat regardless of what Y is, because I myself have called someone else a scapegoat using X. That is flawed. Me saying someone is a scapegoat does not mean that it is all of a sudden acceptable and I cannot be suspicious of anyone else calling a player a scapegoat. This is just a simple example of how your logic is flawed, and that's not even considering the fact that

my reasons for suspecting Fhq are not based on him calling Budja a scapegoat.

Example: player A claims to be a cop. Player B votes for player A afterward. I vote for player B because I'm suspicious of him voting a claimed cop. You attack me because player C had random voted for player A early on in the game and I'm not treating the two situations (people voting for A) the same way. Under your logic, I should also be suspicious of C.

I have summed up the above situation as clearly as I possibly can and expressed it in a variety of fashions. If you still don't get it after this point, there is literally nothing more I can say.

He never outright claimed that "we are just townies fighting among ourselves." You're absolutely right. He put an "if" in front of it. However, he then goes on to ignore everyone in that group and push for lurkers. That means that he DOES think we are just townies fighting among ourselves. Actions...louder than words.

So basically he said "if we are townies fighting among ourselves then lurking scum are getting off light" and proceeded to state that there should be more pressure on lurkers.

Why is this suspicious again? His actions follow logically from his statement, and I'm yet to see how either of those implies that he knows who the townies are. Assuming FHQ is town for a moment, if he was willing to accept Budja's retraction, an expected consequence of this would be the realisation that in pushing Budja hard you were building a case which could benefit scum, who wouldn't need to be a part of the debate in order to benefit. Were I in his position, my thoughts may also have turned to lurkers.

What you have done above is point out a scenario where Fhq could be town and his actions make sense from a town perspective. That doesn't mean he is town or that the above actually was his mentality. If Fhq had come in and said exactly what you said above, I might have given him the benefit of the doubt, because that is a plausible explanation for his mindset. I would have at least asked him more questions and tried to get a better feel for it.

Sure, you present it in a different way to FHQ, but the implication of both statements is the same - that Budja needs to explain himself.

Take a look at your own interpretation of the prompts to Budja:

FHQ - "here's what you need to do to look pro-town"
Goat - "here's where you didn't look pro-town, what gives"

If we assume either of you are scum, BOTH of these become examples of coaching. The only difference is that you were less overt.

Wrong. Coaching involves telling someone how to do something to perform better. That is entirely in the future tense. "This is what you need to do to appear pro-town." That is coaching. "This is what you failed at, explain yourself" is not coaching, unless you are only asking expressly for the purpose of later on saying "so now this is what you need to do". What I did was investigating, scumhunting, etc. It's asking someone to explain what their actions in the past tense for the purpose of divining their alignment. Telling someone what to do in the future tense to play correctly is coaching.

So yes, what Fhq did was coaching. "Now you gotta follow through buddy" is telling Budja "this is what you now need to do after the actions you have taken." That is not how someone interacts with a player they deem suspicious.

You trying to paint my scumhunting as coaching based on literally no logic whatsoever is scummy. All you are doing is placing the two side by side and saying they are the same without explaining why.

In your response to my case, you started bringing up specific elements of your case on FHQ, putting me into a position where I had to touch upon them to help clarify my point. However, given that FHQ hadn't posted anywhere since the 4th, by that point (the 8th) I considered it likely that he would be up for replacement soon anyway. Frankly, that will cause more problems for your hunt on FHQ's slot than if I had answered everything you threw at it since then.

Fair enough.

To rephrase: now that others are "stepping into the mix", thereby negating Ice9's reason for casually disregarding my extended case, do you think Ice9's continued evasion of said case is scummy? If not, why not?

As of right now, no. The reason is that I think your term "continued evasion" is misleading. The reason I find it misleading is that it suggests that Ice has acknowledged that others want to hear his response and has still declined to answer. To my knowledge that has not happened. If after this point, he reads these posts and continues to evade it, then yes I would consider that scummy.

I have to say I don't really like the fhq case.
Fhq said that he considered me a scapegoat after I had stated my actions.
I think he was just trying to stop the town becoming too tunnel-visioned, not that that was a problem in this case. A few people have also at least partly accepted my explanation (e.g Spolium,Lynx). I don't see why fhq should be singled out here.

I missed this last night.

FoS Budja

.

Those are not my reasons at all for suspecting Fhq and I don't see how you could possibly have missed that if you were actually reading my posts and reading the reasons I am suspicious of Fhq. Dismissing the Fhq case without even a reasonable grasp on the situation is scummy.

[Budja]

I think I can see the situation and it looks fairly trivial to me.

The part I did not read in, was interpreting the scapegoat comment as "if Budja is town, Goat/whoever attacking is scum".

I feel that you are pressing rather hard on this as I feel that fhq didn't mean to accuse anyone with those words. He didn't follow up and attack anyone and instead wanted to look at the lurkers.
So this makes me think that he thought that I may be being overly focused on for something he didn't consider very scummy.

I think, that the use of the word scapegoat was misleading and not what he intended given the context of the rest of the post as I said above.

[Spolium]

You seem to think that when the word "scapegoat" is used it implies the situations are identical. You seem to think that when someone claims another person is a scapegoat I am supposed to immediately perceive that the situations are identical and respond in exactly the same manner. That is a ridiculous assertion.

Good job I didn't make that assertion then, isn't it?

The use of the term "scapegoat" was the factor which first drew my attention to the essential similarity of the arguments. I have referred to it specifically so others will hopefully be able to understand the origin of my argument and perhaps make that connection as well.

I'm not arguing that "scapegoat" is the defining bond between the arguments, and never have done.

Why they called the other person a scapegoat, how they went about doing it, the implications behind it, are the ENTIRE point.

Indeed so, and as I noted previously, the implications of each of the "scapegoat" comments are basically the same.

The problem here is that you're comparing the

stated

arguments made by yourself and FHQ. How can I take it for granted that either of you had honest motives? Obviously I cannot do so, nor can I trust your subjective interpretation of FHQ's comment to be unbiased or honest.

My only other option is to analyse the implications of each argument, and my suspicion of you is a result of this analysis.

Look at these two situations without the word scapegoat:

I think Fhq is scummy because he implied that if Budja is town, I am scummy for having pressured him. In doing so, he establishes the precedent that "if you attack someone and they are town, then you are scummy for having attacked them" which is a deterrence to scumhunting.

I think the people attacking spring are scummy because they attacked her for lurking when they are just as guilty of lurking, having avoided the discussion of Budja/fhq. The hypocrisy present is scummy

If I were comparing your case on FHQ's scumminess to your case on the scumminess of Spring's attackers, you would have a point here.

Real life example: A man goes into a store and takes an item without paying for it and leaves. That is wrong. A cop goes into a store and takes an item without paying for it and leaves, but immediately outside the store uses that item to save another person's life. That's not wrong. Just because both people took an item from the store doesn't mean both situations are identical and should be treated the same way. The "Why" behind them taking an item is what is ultimately important here and what is relevant in whether or not they are justified or wrong in stealing.

This example only really works because the motives of the people are verifiable. This is not the case with you and FHQ - how can I be expected to take your comment at face value, or give it any credence over FHQ's?

I have summed up the above situation as clearly as I possibly can and expressed it in a variety of fashions. If you still don't get it after this point, there is literally nothing more I can say.

I appreciate your effort (it says more good of you than can be said for Ice9), and do not require a further response from you regarding the above. Right now I would like to know what others think of the case, given our respective arguments.

Why is this suspicious again? His actions follow logically from his statement, and I'm yet to see how either of those implies that he knows who the townies are. Assuming FHQ is town for a moment, if he was willing to accept Budja's retraction, an expected consequence of this would be the realisation that in pushing Budja hard you were building a case which could benefit scum, who wouldn't need to be a part of the debate in order to benefit. Were I in his position, my thoughts may also have turned to lurkers.

What you have done above is point out a scenario where Fhq could be town and his actions make sense from a town perspective. That doesn't mean he is town or that the above actually was his mentality.

I agree, it doesn't. The fact remains that nothing about that post stands out as scummy to me, and consequently I am compelled to question your accusations.

If we assume either of you are scum, BOTH of these become examples of coaching. The only difference is that you were less overt.

Wrong. Coaching involves telling someone how to do something to perform better. That is entirely in the future tense. "This is what you need to do to appear pro-town." That is coaching. "This is what you failed at, explain yourself" is not coaching, unless you are only asking expressly for the purpose of later on saying "so now this is what you need to do". What I did was investigating, scumhunting, etc. It's asking someone to explain what their actions in the past tense for the purpose of divining their alignment. Telling someone what to do in the future tense to play correctly is coaching.

So yes, what Fhq did was coaching. "Now you gotta follow through buddy" is telling Budja "this is what you now need to do after the actions you have taken." That is not how someone interacts with a player they deem suspicious.

You trying to paint my scumhunting as coaching based on literally no logic whatsoever is scummy. All you are doing is placing the two side by side and saying they are the same without explaining why.

I thought I had explained the "why", but I can try again.

Goat - "

here's where you didn't look pro-town, what gives

"

Your claim, if I understand it correctly, is that your comment does not constitute coaching because you are pointing out where Budja is not looking pro-town, and requesting an explanation (as opposed to making an explicit suggestion, which you say is the case with FHQ). That FHQ was coaching Budja despite implied suspicion is, in your eyes, an important factor in your case for FHQ being scummy; it then follows that the accusation of coaching on FHQ's part must be considered within the context of FHQ being scum.

It would also be necessary to evaluate the counter-example of Goat coaching Budja in the same way

, and

that

is where we find the similarity.

Imagine for a moment scum1 and scum2 are scumbuddies, scum1 has started to draw attention and scum2 decides it best to help him out of it by prompting an explanation from scum1. He proceeds to openly criticise scum1 for actions which didn't look pro-town.

Now put yourself in scum1's position in the above scenario. You know that scum2 is your scumbuddy, yet he has accused you of not acting very pro-town and requested an explanation. What do you do? The answer is obvious. Since it's clear that scum2 is not actually trying to get you lynched, the logical conclusion is that he is prompting a response to which he (and others) can respond more positively.

From a townie perspective, the two questions can be easily interpreted to have different motives. However, to scum who enjoy the benefits of mutual recognition and a more clearly defined goal, they suddenly appear to share a similar semantic function.

To rephrase: now that others are "stepping into the mix", thereby negating Ice9's reason for casually disregarding my extended case, do you think Ice9's continued evasion of said case is scummy? If not, why not?

As of right now, no. The reason is that I think your term "continued evasion" is misleading. The reason I find it misleading is that it suggests that Ice has acknowledged that others want to hear his response and has still declined to answer. To my knowledge that has not happened.

I find the term quite suitable. Lynx pointed out that he thought Ice9's shift was evasive, and don_johnson seems to think that his lack of response is worth mentioning also. Ice9 has posted once since the latter stated his opinion, only to accuse me of attempting to block his scumhunting (where I arguably did not); he has therefore not only evaded the case initially, but continued to do so despite it being mentioned explicitly by two other players.

Just out of curiosity, what has my use of the term "continued evasion" got to do with whether or not Ice9 is scum?

[Spolium]

EBWOFP:

From a townie perspective, the two

questions

can be easily interpreted to have different motives.

Gah. For "questions" read "comments".

[Goatrevolt]

Just out of curiosity, what has my use of the term "continued evasion" got to do with whether or not Ice9 is scum?

Absolutely nothing, and I never implied it did. That has more to do with my own perception of you. You are exaggerating the situation. I didn't find Ice's original reasons for avoiding debate with you scummy at all. After that, people called for him to answer your post. That call from others right there marks the starting point from which you can legitimately accuse him of "evasion." He has posted once since then, and it was a 1-line post.

Your term "continued evasion" insinuates that this is a repeated offense than has gone unchecked. In reality, it's one post, and that single post was a 1-line post. Ice didn't address my question to him or a variety of other issues in that post as well. What you are labeling as evasion, and not even evasion but "continued evasion," would in reality be much more aptly labeled as "hasn't gotten around to it yet." I'm suspicious of the hyperbole here and how you are making this into something larger than it actually is.

I thought I had explained the "why", but I can try again.

Goat - "

here's where you didn't look pro-town, what gives

"

Your claim, if I understand it correctly, is that your comment does not constitute coaching because you are pointing out where Budja is not looking pro-town, and requesting an explanation (as opposed to making an explicit suggestion, which you say is the case with FHQ). That FHQ was coaching Budja despite implied suspicion is, in your eyes, an important factor in your case for FHQ being scummy; it then follows that the accusation of coaching on FHQ's part must be considered within the context of FHQ being scum.

It would also be necessary to evaluate the counter-example of Goat coaching Budja in the same way

, and

that

is where we find the similarity.

Imagine for a moment scum1 and scum2 are scumbuddies, scum1 has started to draw attention and scum2 decides it best to help him out of it by prompting an explanation from scum1. He proceeds to openly criticise scum1 for actions which didn't look pro-town.

Now put yourself in scum1's position in the above scenario. You know that scum2 is your scumbuddy, yet he has accused you of not acting very pro-town and requested an explanation. What do you do? The answer is obvious. Since it's clear that scum2 is not actually trying to get you lynched, the logical conclusion is that he is prompting a response to which he (and others) can respond more positively.

From a townie perspective, the two questions can be easily interpreted to have different motives. However, to scum who enjoy the benefits of mutual recognition and a more clearly defined goal, they suddenly appear to share a similar semantic function.

This is absolutely absurd. You skirt the real issue and use ridiculous reasoning and assumptions to ignore the facts.

FoS Spolium

Do you think a player coaching someone they think is scum is scummy? I want you to directly answer that question.

Secondly, the problem with your quote is very simple:

1. To assume I'm coaching Budja, you have to start from the base assumption that both myself and Budja are scum. That accusation is absurd: You're trying to prove your point by starting from the conclusion. Your conclusion is that I'm scum for coaching Budja. Your base assumption is that...I'm scum, and therefore my scumhunting is actually coaching?????

2. To assume Fhq is coaching Budja you have to make zero assumptions. The evidence is clearly laid out in the thread already. I don't have to assume anything about Fhq's alignment whatsoever to see that he is coaching Budja. I infer that Fhq's alignment is scum after the fact, by noting the inconsistency in him coaching someone he thinks is scum.

3. Your arguments are entirely in trying to prove that my actions were also coaching. None of your arguments deal directly with Fhq's coaching and whether or not it was actually scummy. You're avoiding the point and trying to deflect from the heart of the matter with flawed reasoning.

----

In other news, there is by far enough information in the thread right now for springlullaby to form opinions.

[TonyMontana]

Jebus

replaces

WolfBlitzer

[RedCoyote]

I gave my take already in my last post.

I try to make my comments in the same chronological order I read the posts. That was written before I got to your comments.

I'd like more people to give their opinion on my fhq case, which at this point includes my original voting reasons followed by the additional reasoning I pointed out in my last post. I think this is a strong case, and I'm surprised by the lack of support.

Is it much more than just his support of Budja (e.g. coaching) and his lurking?

---

Would you consider Ice9's continued evasion of my extended case against him to be a subtle attempt to shut down my own attempts to scumhunt? Please elaborate further if you do not think this is the case, preferably with reference to his claims that I am doing so to him.

Both you and Ice9 seem to be at each others throat. Now that Wolf has been replaced, which is where these problems stemmed from, perhaps we should focus this energy to interrogating him. I don't like the term evasion because Ice9 made it clear he wanted to drop the issue. Ice9 said there wasn't much meat left in it, and said he would rather ask new questions of other people. I don't know why you would call that evading.

---

I have to say I don't really like the fhq case.

I can't say I do much either but I can't blame you for feeling that way.

spring is just daring us to vote for her with her attitude in this game. fhq seems to be genuinely lurking. I don't know which is worse.

I think Ice9 is playing very aggressively and is willing to push hard to find scumtells by your attempted pressure on Wolf, me and Spolium. I do not think Spolium has played scummily but I definitely do not suspect Ice9 for pushing so hard as it is consistent with his earlier play style.

In other words all three of these players (including fhq) are townie to you at the moment?

---

I don't see "now you gotta follow through buddy" as at all the same as "explain yourself, Budja". The first implies that Budja has gotten the attention of the world, and now needs to do something to satisfy us, i.e. "Ok Budja, you've gotten attention. Now follow through and tell us what you've learned or how it was pro-town, etc." The second is us asking Budja to tell him why he did what he did, i.e. "This is what you did. Why was it pro-town?"

Do you see the difference. What fhq said was "here's what you need to do to look pro-town." What I did was "here's where you didn't look pro-town, what gives." Large difference there.

I'm worried that Goat is making more sense to me because I understand his points better.

I mean, I'm trying to remain as impartial as possible, despite (or maybe directly because of) not particularly liking either spring or Budja, but even still I'm finding it much more difficult to be sympathtic to Spolium's arguments and I think it's because I can understand Goat's rhetoric easier than I can Spolium's.

On the same token, I am having a real difficult time seeing Spolium as scummy.

---

Again, my point stands. The slight difference in the presentation of the arguments does not affect the implication of the arguments (that those attacking the scapegoat appear to be acting scummy, and that we should question the case on the "scapegoat" on this basis). It's still hypocritical.

I honestly think you've taken this about as far as you can without further input from fhq.

do you think Ice9's continued evasion of said case is

scummy

? If not, why not?

I don't know if this question is still open or not, but no, I still don't.

This is from an outsider's perspective of seeing little in that tussle to begin with, but I think if a player makes it clear his intention to want to move on to different arguments

and

follows through with said intentions, then it's hard to label that dismissal as evasive.

What specifically do you want Ice9 to account for that you think is necessarily relevant to you reading him?

---

[Spolium is] exaggerating the situation. I didn't find Ice's original reasons for avoiding debate with you scummy at all. After that, people called for him to answer your post. That call from others right there marks the starting point from which you can legitimately accuse him of "evasion." He has posted once since then, and it was a 1-line post.

Your term "continued evasion" insinuates that this is a repeated offense than has gone unchecked. In reality, it's one post, and that single post was a 1-line post.

Absolutely agree 100%.

[Spolium]

Just out of curiosity, what has my use of the term "continued evasion" got to do with whether or not Ice9 is scum?

Absolutely nothing, and I never implied it did.

Weird. I could've sworn that this exchange took place:

Spolium - "

do you think Ice9's continued evasion of said case is scummy? If not, why not?

"
Goat - "

As of right now, no. The reason is that I think your term "continued evasion" is misleading.

"

I asked "

do you think the evasion is scummy

" and you replied "

no, the reason is that I think the term you're using is misleading

". If you don't think the term is fair then that's fine, but I got the impression that you cited your problem with the comment as your reason.

That has more to do with my own perception of you. You are exaggerating the situation. I didn't find Ice's original reasons for avoiding debate with you scummy at all. After that, people called for him to answer your post. That call from others right there marks the starting point from which you can legitimately accuse him of "evasion." He has posted once since then, and it was a 1-line post.

Your term "continued evasion" insinuates that this is a repeated offense than has gone unchecked. In reality, it's one post, and that single post was a 1-line post. Ice didn't address my question to him or a variety of other issues in that post as well. What you are labeling as evasion, and not even evasion but "continued evasion," would in reality be much more aptly labeled as "hasn't gotten around to it yet." I'm suspicious of the hyperbole here and how you are making this into something larger than it actually is.

In retrospect, I am perhaps coming on a little hard, and think it would be best if I

UNVOTE

and stick with an

FoS

, pending further information.

This is absolutely absurd. You skirt the real issue and use ridiculous reasoning and assumptions to ignore the facts.

Try to understand that I'm not assuming a conclusion, but

analysing both comments in the same context

. I'm not saying that your accusation of Budja was inherently scummy, but that if I look at FHQ's comment and think "

if he is scum speaking to his scumbuddy, what is he trying to do?

" then I do the same with your comment, the result is the same.

The fact of the matter is, whether scum were to say "

you need to follow up on that

" or "

hey, that doesn't look pro-town, explain yourself

" to their scumbuddy, it would achieve the same results for the scum.

Do you think a player coaching someone they think is scum is scummy? I want you to directly answer that question.

I would consider it a weak tell.

----------------------------------

In other news, there is by far enough information in the thread right now for springlullaby to form opinions.

Agreed.

Both you and Ice9 seem to be at each others throat. Now that Wolf has been replaced, which is where these problems stemmed from, perhaps we should focus this energy to interrogating him.

This also seems reasonable.

I don't like the term evasion because Ice9 made it clear he wanted to drop the issue. Ice9 said there wasn't much meat left in it, and said he would rather ask new questions of other people. I don't know why you would call that evading.

I was willing to accept that he wanted to drop the debate over Budja, and I was in agreement that it was for the best at that stage. However, I had presented a further case based on the respective scapegoat comments, which I thought was worth a response (as did you, and you specifically said so in #98). His total lack of response to that did not really sit well with me, though as noted above I may have been hasty and would be willing to drop it for the moment in favour of obtaining more information from others.

I'm going to give the thread a couple of re-reads before continuing.

[Goatrevolt]

Weird. I could've sworn that this exchange took place:

Spolium - "

do you think Ice9's continued evasion of said case is scummy? If not, why not?

"
Goat - "

As of right now, no. The reason is that I think your term "continued evasion" is misleading.

"

I asked "

do you think the evasion is scummy

" and you replied "

no, the reason is that I think the term you're using is misleading

". If you don't think the term is fair then that's fine, but I got the impression that you cited your problem with the comment as your reason.

Fair enough. I can see how you draw that conclusion. At any rate, my last post gave a clearer explanation.

Try to understand that I'm not assuming a conclusion, but

analysing both comments in the same context

. I'm not saying that your accusation of Budja was inherently scummy, but that if I look at FHQ's comment and think "

if he is scum speaking to his scumbuddy, what is he trying to do?

" then I do the same with your comment, the result is the same.

The fact of the matter is, whether scum were to say "

you need to follow up on that

" or "

hey, that doesn't look pro-town, explain yourself

" to their scumbuddy, it would achieve the same results for the scum.

There's the issue then. You're assuming I'm comparing them as two scum buddies, and then you're showing how me and Budja as two scum buddies would be similar. I now understand your point, and the disconnect is that you are wrongly assuming that I think Fhq/Budja are necessarily scum buddies. I think the evidence suggests that it's scum-to-town, but I need to rethink this when I'm not as tired.

[Spolium]

There's the issue then. You're assuming I'm comparing them as two scum buddies, and then you're showing how me and Budja as two scum buddies would be similar. I now understand your point, and the disconnect is that you are wrongly assuming that I think Fhq/Budja are necessarily scum buddies. I think the evidence suggests that it's scum-to-town, but I need to rethink this when I'm not as tired.

Yeah, I think you nailed the misunderstanding there.

Can you explain why you think the evidence suggests scum-to-town, and speculate briefly on how scum-FHQ might benefit from coaching town-Budja?

Okay, question time:

@Spring

- I am particularly concerned about your lurking in light of a comment from your first post - "

I refuse to scumhunt if the level of coherence isn't raised

" - since despite the clear implication that you would scumhunt if the "level of coherence" was raised (and the consequent acquiescence from the town at large), I have seen nothing resembling this.

If you really find current cases lacking to the point where you do not think your opinion is worth sharing, why aren't you taking the initiative and getting stuck in?

@RedCoyote

- In #72 you said to FHQ that "

I have to admit I agree with Ice9 and Goat's suspicions of you

". However, in #116 you said "

I can't say I do much either

" in reply to Budja's stated dislike for the FHQ case. I can't seem to find why this turnaround occurred, or even

where

it occurred. Can you explain?

@don_johnson

- Given that this is the only thread in which Ice9 has posted on these forums, your "

meta-earlier?

" question to Budja in #106 seems a little off - like you're asking a question for the sake of it. What did you expect to gain?

@Goat

- In #66, you said you were going to "

keep/upgrade

" your random vote on Spring as she was posting in other games but ignoring this one. Why did you have nothing to say about magisterrain, who had been doing (and is still doing) exactly the same thing?

----

Mod - prod on magisterrain please

He failed to pick up his first prod. Currently loking for replacement

[Goatrevolt]

Can you explain why you think the evidence suggests scum-to-town, and speculate briefly on how scum-FHQ might benefit from coaching town-Budja?

My thoughts of scum-to-town are based on my idea that fhq slipped up in revealing knowledge of Budja-town.

As for why he would do it, I don't actually know, but I can wager a guess. I've been called out for coaching before when I was scum and it was a very valid point against me, so it's one of those personal tells I pay attention to. I think it's very meaningful. Have you noticed that people generally address those they consider town in more of a nice, friendly manner, and address those they consider scum in a more hostile fashion? Coaching involves being nice and helpful to someone by explaining what they should do. People with legitimate suspicion do not act this way to those they are suspicious of, hence it reflects insincerity.

As for my own personal example, I was scum, and the other player was town. I was "coaching" him because I thought being helpful and telling other people how to play a better game made me look more pro-town. In reality it was a beacon of how insincere my suspicion really was.

@Goat

- In #66, you said you were going to "

keep/upgrade

" your random vote on Spring as she was posting in other games but ignoring this one. Why did you have nothing to say about magisterrain, who had been doing (and is still doing) exactly the same thing?

I knew springlullaby was posting in other games (I'm playing in another game with her right now), but yet she had avoided posting in this game. I considered that scummy. She had an opportunity to post in this game but was not doing so.

I didn't address other lurkers (such as magi) because I had no idea whether they were lurking, merely absent from the site, or had completely flaked. At this point, I would guess magi probably flaked entirely, although I haven't looked at his posting history to verify. If he did flake, it's not really an alignment tell, thus not worth making waves over.

[TonyMontana]

Plonky

replaces

Magisterrain

[Spolium]

Ha, before I saw your response to the prod request I was flabbergasted by the speed of the replacement.

My thoughts of scum-to-town are based on my idea that fhq slipped up in revealing knowledge of Budja-town.

As for why he would do it, I don't actually know, but I can wager a guess. I've been called out for coaching before when I was scum and it was a very valid point against me, so it's one of those personal tells I pay attention to. I think it's very meaningful. Have you noticed that people generally address those they consider town in more of a nice, friendly manner, and address those they consider scum in a more hostile fashion? Coaching involves being nice and helpful to someone by explaining what they should do. People with legitimate suspicion do not act this way to those they are suspicious of, hence it reflects insincerity.

As for my own personal example, I was scum, and the other player was town. I was "coaching" him because I thought being helpful and telling other people how to play a better game made me look more pro-town. In reality it was a beacon of how insincere my suspicion really was.

I'd never have thought of it in this way.

I'm almost tempted to throw down an FoS on FHQ in light of your explanation, but I think I'll reserve judgement until he (or his replacement) addresses the case.

[don_johnson]

@don_johnson

- Given that this is the only thread in which Ice9 has posted on these forums, your "

meta-earlier?

" question to Budja in #106 seems a little off - like you're asking a question for the sake of it. What did you expect to gain?

i have no idea who Ice9 is, nor do i check peoples posting frequency or location as a matter of habit. i asked the question because i did not know what Budja was referring to.

someone tried to lynch me once based on meta and when pressed, could not produce what they said existed in regards to their claims.

so i dislike people referring to meta in

most

cases, and when they do i prefer to question them on it and find out where they are getting it(unless i agree with them). generally, i find that when people refer to meta that they are talking bullshit and when called on it can usually produce little to no evidence.

by stating that he was referring to this game, budja's argument instantly becomes a bit more credible(not sure if that's the right word) and also allows me to research the matter for myself much easier, thereby supplying more evidence to work with. what did i expect to gain? an answer to my question. it's not a gamebreaker or a trap or something like that, just me wanting to understand what another player is trying to say.

[don_johnson]

ebwop: mod can you fix my quote tag please. it should end after the first question. what did you expect to gain?

Like the idiot I am, I stopped reading before you explained where the quote ended. 30 seconds of my life lost