ortolan wrote:Percy: which questions have I failed to answer?
Er, let's start with most of the questions I posed to you in 176.
-Why did you say you liked post 157, only to now say that you don't like any of it? What did you like? What didn't you like? Why?
-The contradiction you attempted to point out just wasn't there. Do you still maintain that it's true?
-Why should the manner in which people participated in the Seraphim wagon be ignored?
Oh, and I loved this:
ortolan wrote:Percy (176) wrote:And if there is something, why haven't you started talking about it?
I have. It is scummy to encourage town to tunnel on those on those on Seraphim's wagon. Thus I am currently critiquing you.
Let's take a look at what I actually said, yes?
Percy wrote:Also, seriously, how else did you want a conversation to get started today?
What else was there to talk about?
And if there is something, why haven't you started talking about it?
I guess your answer says "there was nothing else to talk about at the start of the day, except the wagon. Therefore, I'm going to jump on whoever wants to talk about the wagon". This makes no sense.
I wanted to talk about how people contributed to the Seraphim wagon. It seemed like the best way to start the day, since we didn't have anything else to work with. I thought I saw scummy behaviour there, so I looked into it.
Give me one post, one bit of evidence that I wanted to tunnel. Just one. If you feel like the search
has
tunnelled, then why is it my fault?
Also, how about you answer the question that I quoted, rather than whatever you think it should mean?
Finally, answer this:
Percy wrote:Yeah, I'm not comfortable with this idea being thrown around as if what makes a "Tarhalindur game" is well understood. Does this mean we can work under the assumption of different numbers of scum? Why?
And onto the zwet question:
ortolan wrote:Percy is not playing consistently with what I've seen from him previously. He seems very keen to justify his case against zwet but it doesn't change the fact that zwet is an easy target and he's acted no differently to his usual games- afatchic being flip floppy isn't exactly a scum-tell either. I've played with him before and he is, you know, kind of like that.
ortolan wrote:lol the way zwet is acting is entirely consistent with other games I've seen him in- I know Percy knows this also.
Percy is scum.
The zwet bandwagon is rotten to the core.
Firstly, let me say that ortolan, zwet and I are currently in another game together. Given that the three of us are all still alive, it makes this meta analysis kinda completely bullshit.
It's true that zwet is playing in a similar style to Prisoner's Dilemma II. I'm not going to trawl through all the games zwet is playing to figure out whether it's consistent across the board. Why? Because consistent play across games does not mean that the player is town in this one. If zwet's meta makes it easier for him to get away with scummy play, why should we give him a free ride? Based on his contributions
to this game
, he seems pretty damn scummy to me. If he's an "easy target", then he should become less of an easy target and actually do something.
You're defending another player. Why? Defending others is almost always a scumtell in my experience. Let him dig himself out of this mess, if he has answers. Don't let him off the hook just because he's like this in other games. And don't incriminate me for constructing a case. Let him answer for it.
Before I move on to what my case with zwet actually is, answer this: why is it OK for you to declare the entire zwet wagon scummy, but not OK for me to start the day by looking at people's individual motivations for participating in the Seraphim wagon? What makes what I did 'tunnelling', and what you did 'great awesome protown play'?
Let's start with my post almost two weeks ago:
Percy wrote:Now he's been replaced by zwet. I will therefore
FoS: zwetschenwasser
until he delivers some scumhunting and analysis. Then, and only then, can you shake off the horrible stench of afatchic's anti-town BS.
Then again, a few days later:
Percy wrote:My FoS is staying where it is. Zwet was top of my scumlist when he was afatchic, now all I get is a blurry zwet-read. He claims to have generated content, but it's not really anything useful.
A few days later:
Percy wrote:The fact remains that I don't think you're playing this game in a way that is helping us find scum. Your posts seem to be based on quick reads of people, without any real analysis.
Now you say there's not much to comment on when I say "hey, you should do some scumhunting and analysis". And then you defend yourself, and defer to ortolan.
I think you're actively lurking - posting a lot, but nothing of substance. I think the fact that you're in a lot of games has something to do with that. If you insist that it's not, and that you can handle playing all these games, then actually play this one.
My case: No analysis, no scumhunting, defensive play, active lurking, lack of any contributions, no attempt to address or correct any of these issues. And now we can add misrepresentation, as he addressed none of these, instead saying:
zwetschenwasser 181 wrote:So... half of your case is that my predecessor was outspoken and the other half is that I'm in a lot of games. Makes perfect sense, Percy.
In response:
Percy wrote:You know what else is a scumtell? Posting one-sentence defences that misrepresent the case against you, and that being your
only contribution
to the game in recent (and almost all) posts.
And he continues in fine form:
zwetschenwasser 189 wrote:See? That's your case! Afatchic was indecisive, so you must me scum!
zwetschenwasser 208 wrote:UnFoS
Percy's case is that I'm in too many games and that afatchic was a freak.
Keep saying it, maybe it will come true!