Mini 758 - Normalcy (GAME OVER)

[Knight of Cydonia]

I'm a manic depressive insomniac, and I wrote that post after 72 hours of no sleep whatsoever. And you should remember from earlier games we've played together that I am very aggressive as town, SpyreX.

---

The 'MY FEELINGS' votecount

Votecount

Emptyger (3) - dejkha, Kieraen, Plum

Caboose (2) - Benmage, SpyreX

Juls (1) - Atronach
SpyreX (1) - Knight of Cydonia
Benmage (1) - Lowell
Knight of Cydonia (1) - Juls
Lowell (1) - Emptyger

Not voting

:Riceballtail, Caboose
7 to lynch

[EmpTyger]

dejkha, Kieraen, and Lowell have been posting elsewhere while lurking here.

I retract the good feeling I had of Spyre. The attack on Caboose is 100% nonsense.

---

Spyre:

<snip>
1.) Of course not, but if you're trying to tell me all of the statements above do not show suspicion then we're at an impasse. It is easy to imply negative or positive connotations with a question.

Um, most weren’t statements. They were *questions*. Which is why it doesn’t end there. Because then players *response* to those questions (or implicate themselves by deliberately not responding), and the asker reevaluates.
Otherwise you’re saying that players have to immediately decide who is and isn’t suspicious without getting further information, which is ridiculous.

2.) No, but it is

related

to a vote. Normally there is a relation to suspicion and the casting of a vote. Sometimes in the same post, sometime pages away - but, in general, if a "real" vote is placed without grounding in suspicion that vote itself is, by nature, suspicious.

No, there’s a huge difference between statements of suspicion and votes. You’re implying that it’s bad for Caboose to be the n-1th player to suspect Lowell. There’s certainly a danger of a player being *voted* to lynch-1: they might be speedlynched. But if n-1 players express suspicion- what’s the danger? There’s still opportunity to discuss, players still have to decide whether to vote or not.

And, it’s not even true by your logic. Caboose asked Lowell- which to you is the same as suspecting- in [43], which makes him the *second*, not the sixth to do so. Your logic should have implicated RBT, who was the n-1th, in [58].

3.) Of course it isn't. Now, the whole argument of "genuinely suspicious" being for the most part subjective aside - my problem isn't with suspicion of Lowell for this: to a degree it is warranted. It is with Caboose, specifically.
4.) Again, of course it is necessary. That doesn't alter the dissonance I see with 36 and 59 and, that in and of itself, raises enough suspicion that I placed a vote.
<snip>

What dissonance?
Caboose’s statement on KoC was directly in response to what Lowell was saying differently.
Lowell’s statement about KoC is still unprompted, unexplained, and without basis, other than some nebulous “I’ll share someday” which raises even more questions.

And, especially in light of Lowell’s failure to clarify, I feel that there are 2 reasonable interpretations of his original [36]: that Lowell is accusing KoC of being guilty, or Lowell is deliberately trying to be ambiguous. Both of which, in context, implicate Lowell. I don’t see how you reach the conclusion from the context of the thread that the best or only interpretation is that Lowell is making a null statement about KoC.

---

Juls:

<snip>
Question: Is EmpTyger another alt for Empking?
<snip>

I have over 3 years seniority on Empking; *he*’d be an alt for *me*.
(But, no. We are not related.)

[SpyreX]

(Note: Power Flashes are awesome and in fact don't make me angry that all the words I were typing are now lost in the abyss)

So, here we go again.

Um, most weren’t statements. They were *questions*. Which is why it doesn’t end there. Because then players *response* to those questions (or implicate themselves by deliberately not responding), and the asker reevaluates.
Otherwise you’re saying that players have to immediately decide who is and isn’t suspicious without getting further information, which is ridiculous.

Asking a question about a behavior in this game is, by nature, some suspicion: Behavior that is not suspicious doesn't normally warrant questioning.

So, be they questions or statements, an initial suspicion is there.

Further, suspicion isn't binary. Being suspicious of an action and asking a question is fine and the response by nature will either raise/lower the suspicion. So there is no immediate decision and saying I am painting any scenario where a decision has to be made (which only makes sense in a binary world) is ridiculous.

No, there’s a huge difference between statements of suspicion and votes. You’re implying that it’s bad for Caboose to be the n-1th player to suspect Lowell. There’s certainly a danger of a player being *voted* to lynch-1: they might be speedlynched. But if n-1 players express suspicion- what’s the danger? There’s still opportunity to discuss, players still have to decide whether to vote or not.

And, it’s not even true by your logic. Caboose asked Lowell- which to you is the same as suspecting- in [43], which makes him the *second*, not the sixth to do so. Your logic should have implicated RBT, who was the n-1th, in [58].

So, lets put on our scum-hat for a minute. You have a player who has received an implied level of suspicion from multiple players (including yourself). Does it make sense to attempt a wagon? Of course. Even if it sputters and dies because the player defends themselves well you are just a face in the sea of faces. And, if it takes off, you haven't done anything to actively set yourself out from the mold.

Now, does that, in and of itself, mean I think Caboose is scum? Of course not. The reasons for that I'll get to again at the bottom.

Additionally, my suspicion on Caboose doesn't have anything to do with the N-1. It has to do with the fact that, him included, there are N-1 players that you have an above-null reason to believe would move with a bandwagon. I'm honestly not even sure how/what made you think the logic was "N-1 to vote suspicion is scum." Versus "A scum has motivation to push this wagon considering N-1 players have expressed some modicum of negative issues with the wagoned."

What dissonance?
Caboose’s statement on KoC was directly in response to what Lowell was saying differently.
Lowell’s statement about KoC is still unprompted, unexplained, and without basis, other than some nebulous “I’ll share someday” which raises even more questions.

And, especially in light of Lowell’s failure to clarify, I feel that there are 2 reasonable interpretations of his original [36]: that Lowell is accusing KoC of being guilty, or Lowell is deliberately trying to be ambiguous. Both of which, in context, implicate Lowell. I don’t see how you reach the conclusion from the context of the thread that the best or only interpretation is that Lowell is making a null statement about KoC.

The dissonance I see is thus:

spyrex gets townpoints.

KoC does not

. Carry on.

Preemptive crap attacks are scummy.

+scumpoints for Lowell

I don't see what people are liking about Spyre

.

But seriously. Is there something you find scummy about his behavior?

No, I just don't see anything particularly pro-town about it.

There doesn't need to be one for it to qualify as a crap attack. All there needs to be is a vague, nebulous statement of "I think X is scum" or "I think X is scum for this reason that's not a scumtell."

So, now keep in mind that my issue involves no other players than Caboose. The names and anything else absolutely do not matter.

The issue is this: There is a direct parallel between the blue and green processes.

Blue: Player does not gain town points.
Green: Player does not deserve town points.

So we are starting from the same basic premise, yet:

Blue: Player's statement is a pre-emptive attack. (The implication here or this just flat out doesn't make sense is Blue initially was saying "KoC is scummy")
Green: Player is neutral, not scummy.

So, now we get some dissonance. Same actions, different results. This is further exacerbated by the inclusion of brown.

When you

combine

this dissonance with the level of pre-suspicion yes I see scum motive for a wagon.

Now, assuming I'm right, does this mean Lowell is town? Not in the slightest. Lowell's lack of participation is independently scummy. So, your contextual argument doesn't matter because I am not claiming to know what the hell Lowell means by his statement - but Caboose did and then used the same style of statement for different ends himself.

Thats the dissonance and the reason for my vote.

[dejkha]

Sorry, I forgot about this game.

At first I got the impression that Lowell was just joking about the "+scumpoints" post, until he promised to explain himself when he had a more complete take on thing and, as everyone has noticed, has yet to do so. I'm not even sure what there was to take in at that point in the game when making a seemingly baseless statement.

I really don't like Spyre's post 64. Quite frankly it seems like a bunch of BS, IMO. I don't see any point in it and he's trying to make it seem like Caboose is rushing a lynch, or something to that effect. By collecting questions and comments directed to Lowell (some suspicious, some not), he tries to make it looks like they all have the potential to turn into votes, which they do not. Some, ok maybe they do, but definitely not all, since half of them were questions.

However, the second quote is directly inferring that #36 is doing something different than #59 - which I do not see from what is there. So we run into the conundrum: we have two similar situations with different outcomes.

Post 36 and 59 are pretty much the same thing except one mention scumpoints and the other mentioned townpoints. And post 63 doesn't imply otherwise, the way I see it.

Asking a question about a behavior in this game is, by nature, some suspicion: Behavior that is not suspicious doesn't normally warrant questioning.

So, be they questions or statements, an initial suspicion is there.

Not always. If I was curious about something you said, I may not be suspicious, but I'd still ask for clarification or an explanation. Questions don't always indicate suspicion.

So far I like Spyre. Not a fan of the Lowell/KoC thing.

Care to elaborate on what you like about him and why you're "not a fan of the Lowell/KoC thing"?

So for now

Unvote Vote: Spyre

But that may change depending on whether or not Lowell decides to share.

[Caboose]

The dissonance I see is thus:

spyrex gets townpoints.

KoC does not

. Carry on.

Preemptive crap attacks are scummy.

+scumpoints for Lowell

I don't see what people are liking about Spyre

.

But seriously. Is there something you find scummy about his behavior?

No, I just don't see anything particularly pro-town about it.

There doesn't need to be one for it to qualify as a crap attack. All there needs to be is a vague, nebulous statement of "I think X is scum" or "I think X is scum for this reason that's not a scumtell."

So, now keep in mind that my issue involves no other players than Caboose. The names and anything else absolutely do not matter.

The issue is this: There is a direct parallel between the blue and green processes.

Blue: Player does not gain town points.
Green: Player does not deserve town points.

So we are starting from the same basic premise, yet:

Blue: Player's statement is a pre-emptive attack. (The implication here or this just flat out doesn't make sense is Blue initially was saying "KoC is scummy")
Green: Player is neutral, not scummy.

So, now we get some dissonance. Same actions, different results. This is further exacerbated by the inclusion of brown.

Great job taking those quotes COMPLETELY out of context.

Again, Lowell's crap attacks were NOT prompted by anyone. Him saying that KoC does not get townpoints implies that KoC did something specifically that made him not deserve townpoints. I said that you do not look particularly townish in response to Jul's and RBT's comments about you looking townish.

Scenario 1:

Somebody: *random stuff*
Somebody else: *more random stuff*
Lowell: Spyrex gets townpoints, KoC doesn't

Scenario 2:

Juls: Spyrex looks town.
RBT: I like Spyrex.
Me: I don't see what people are liking about Spyrex.

There ARE differences between the two scenarios. Scenario 1 implies that KoC did something to where it was worth mentioning that he didn't get town points. Scenario 2 implies that SpyreX didn't do anything scummy, but he didn't do anything town either, like other people say he has.

Spyrex, Posts 36 and 59 analysis was spot-on. I think it's funny just how similar those posts really are. Caboose, I don't think it's a false analogy. The posts have different contexts, but your complaint about Lowell's post 36 was not that it was unprompted, but that it was making a pre-emptive case. Your post 59 is doing the same thing.

^Nice job just parroting what Spyrex said.

[Atronach]

Not parroting, I was trying to explain in a different way because you did not seem to be understanding. You still do not, as you have brought up context once again. The quotes are not taken out of context, they are different contexts, but the two posts accomplish the same thing: pre-emptive cases.

There ARE differences between the two scenarios. Scenario 1 implies that KoC did something to where it was worth mentioning that he didn't get town points. Scenario 2 implies that SpyreX didn't do anything scummy, but he didn't do anything town either, like other people say he has.

I think this is where the disagreement lies. Scenario 1 = Scenario 2. The way you explain it here, is just two ways of saying the same thing. It was making note that someone should not get townpoints.

[SpyreX]

@Dej:

Post 36 and 59 are pretty much the same thing except one mention scumpoints and the other mentioned townpoints. And post 63 doesn't imply otherwise, the way I see it.

Ok, so you are agreeing that 36 and 59 are the pretty much the same. However, you are saying 63 doesn't imply that 36 is "bad" and 59 is "good"?

Great job taking those quotes COMPLETELY out of context.

Again, Lowell's crap attacks were NOT prompted by anyone. Him saying that KoC does not get townpoints implies that KoC did something specifically that made him not deserve townpoints. I said that you do not look particularly townish in response to Jul's and RBT's comments about you looking townish.

If you're going to rant and rave about me taking something out of relevant context - apply the context.

But, if we're going to argue context:

Scenario 1:
Somebody: *random stuff*
Somebody else: *more random stuff*
Lowell: Spyrex gets townpoints, KoC doesn't

Looking back at page 2:

KoC et al: Discussion about the 90's / segue into WW2 talk.
SpyreX: Theory discussion / game-relevant question to Atronarch
Lowell: SpyreX gets townpoints, KoC does not.

So, contextually, part 1 (the explict) STILL makes sense. The other, again, is open (with the most basic grammatical implication being KoC

does not

get townpoints. Not KoC

does

get scumpoints).

Scenario 2:
Juls: Spyrex looks town.
RBT: I like Spyrex.
Me: I don't see what people are liking about Spyrex.

Now this scenario fits better with what happened contextually than #1 did, but it doesn't change my initial concern.

What about you in this statement "I don't see what people are liking about SpyreX" is

inherently

different than "SpyreX gets townpoints. KoC does not."

Both statements are, by nature, nebulous. Without more information neither statement can

definitively

say whether or not the party involved is simply neutral or considered actively scummy.

You have taken 36 to directly be a "crap attack". Yet, 59 by its own nature wasn't.

There ARE differences between the two scenarios. Scenario 1 implies that KoC did something to where it was worth mentioning that he didn't get town points. Scenario 2 implies that SpyreX didn't do anything scummy, but he didn't do anything town either, like other people say he has.

I do not see how the implications with correct context are different. Nothing from what was said in Scenario 2 until clarified would make one believe one way or another whether you disagreed with them "liking" me as in neutral or "liking" me as in scummy.

So, still, it really appears that part of your justification for suspicion on a player that was getting growing background suspicion was...something you yourself did.

[Riceballtail]

Personally, nothing against dej right now. Don't like the last post by Caboose.

VOTE:Caboose

[Kieraen]

I find the arguments at the minute as nothing more than storm in teacups. However, since we haven't got much else to work on I'm willing to work on this weak info. I'll post more thoroughly tonight.

[EmpTyger]

Spyre:

<snip>
So, lets put on our scum-hat for a minute. You have a player who has received an implied level of suspicion from multiple players (including yourself). Does it make sense to attempt a wagon? Of course.

Now let’s take off our scum-hat and put on our town-hat for another minute. You have a player who has received an implied level of suspicion from multiple players (including yourself)

and he’s not responding to players’ questions and there’s a deadline within a week

. Does it make sense to attempt a wagon? Of course.

…but even so, that’s *still* not what Caboose did! Because no matter how many times you say it, he did *not* attempt a wagon. What he did was ask questions (*before* most of the “sea of faces” you claim he was following) and when Lowell ducked answering it, he declared it [correctly] suspicious.

So all you have is this contextless “dissonance”. Which is, in essence, no different from this absurdity:

Player X: <false premise>, therefore Vote: <someone>
Player Y: That makes no sense and your reasoning is faulty, therefore Vote: X
Spyre: Y is voting someone for a reason, yet they’re attacking X because they voted for someone for a reason! Therefore Vote: Y.

So even temporarily accepting your interpretation of Lowell’s initial comment- which I don’t- it’s not

Blue: Player does not gain town points.
Green: Player does not deserve town points.

but rather
Blue: Player does not gain town points,

for no particular reason at all.

Green: Player does not deserve town points,

despite what others are saying.

You really have Lowell to thank for why I’m not voting you.

---

RBT:

So far I like Spyre. Not a fan of the Lowell/KoC thing.

Care to elaborate on what you like about him and why you're "not a fan of the Lowell/KoC thing"?
<snip>

And your reply is

Personally, nothing against dej right now.

So, you want to *actually* answer that question?

Don't like the last post by Caboose.

VOTE:Caboose

Why not?

---

Atronach:

<snip>
the two posts accomplish the same thing: pre-emptive cases.
<snip>

How was Caboose’s post any different from your [47]?

[Juls]

@Caboose: I never said Spyrex was pro-town. I said I liked his style because it created conversation. He was making attempts at getting conversation going which IS good for town, even if it is as a result of scum starting the conversation. So I did not intend to imply Spyrex is or is acting town. You should not make arguments based on that idea.

The past couple posts from Spyrex though...I get the impression he is trying to use lots of words and hand waving. More words does not mean more townie necessarily.

@RBT: This is the grand total of your posts right now. outside of RVS..care to elaborate on anything?

So far I like Spyre. Not a fan of the Lowell/KoC thing.

Personally, nothing against dej right now. Don't like the last post by Caboose.

VOTE:Caboose

Unvote. Vote Spyrex

Normally I would wait a little while longer

on this particular vote

because I am not extremely strong in my beliefs that he is scum but of the two apparent wagons forming and the deadline looming this is the one I feel better about.


@EmpTyger: My apologies on the empking flap

[Knight of Cydonia]

I'm trying to find something else in this game apart from endless semantics between SpyreX, Caboose et al, but I'm having trouble. This is the problem with short days if you're not used to them. I will probably make a decision tomorrow after re-reading all the walls of text being used in this argument.

[Benmage]

I am, right now and pre-emptively, calling all of those people scum. Come day 2 sans confirmed scum I want the contentless players eliminated.

Sound good? Good. Its done.

But I'm also going to random

Vote: SpyreX

because it's scummy to set up an excuse for later mislynches.

I too am concerned that this alignment, sets up excuses for later.

spyrex gets townpoints. KoC does not. Carry on.

This stuff is always lame in my opinion…but is from my experience generally a townies move.

I don't see what people are liking about Spyre.

Nor I, save the fact that he posts a lot...which can be a townie trying to get as much information out in the open to have sufficient things to analyze.

Post 64, and also 74...not going to quote...but Spyrex seems to get caught up with semantics and wording wherein I feel he is way over analyzing and complicating things with a plethora of unhelpful nonsensical jargon.

Need to do a bit deeper reading into the end of page 4 (skimmed it a bit) but thus far I am content to switch my vote to

Vote: SpyreX

[SpyreX]

Now let’s take off our scum-hat and put on our town-hat for another minute. You have a player who has received an implied level of suspicion from multiple players (including yourself) and he’s not responding to players’ questions and there’s a deadline within a week. Does it make sense to attempt a wagon? Of course.

I'm pretty sure I implied just that when I said that the above, in and of itself, isn't why I voted for him.

…but even so, that’s *still* not what Caboose did! Because no matter how many times you say it, he did *not* attempt a wagon. What he did was ask questions (*before* most of the “sea of faces” you claim he was following) and when Lowell ducked answering it, he declared it [correctly] suspicious.

Again, the question being posed wasn't key. It was what he said in 59 that started this chain.

So all you have is this contextless “dissonance”. Which is, in essence, no different from this absurdity:

Player X: <false premise>, therefore Vote: <someone>
Player Y: That makes no sense and your reasoning is faulty, therefore Vote: X
Spyre: Y is voting someone for a reason, yet they’re attacking X because they voted for someone for a reason! Therefore Vote: Y.

This is just insulting. And wrong. My problem isn't some sweeping "ANY REASON" business and this scenario has nothing to do with the above. A more fitting "absurd" scenario would be:

Player X: People who eat apples are terrible people.
Player X: *eats apple*

That is my issue. I'm not sure how your example can relate to what I'm saying: Caboose voted Lowell based on a "pre-emptive crap attack" and in the same post mimic'ed the form in his statement of me.

So even temporarily accepting your interpretation of Lowell’s initial comment- which I don’t- it’s not

MY interpretation of events does not matter. It is only the fact that Caboose chose to interpret that in the most negative connotation and then his own example utilized a neutral one.

I, again, do not know or care what Lowell meant because it is moot for the reason for my vote.

but rather
Blue: Player does not gain town points, for no particular reason at all.
Green: Player does not deserve town points, despite what others are saying.

You really have Lowell to thank for why I’m not voting you.

THANKS LOWELL!

I'm pretty sure on this page without a lot of effort I found the basic context for Blue but even if we're going to reduce it to that it ultimately doesn't change the fact that ultimately:

Green: Player does not deserve town points, despite what others are saying,

for no particular reason at all.

Unless you've got some seecret reason you've pulled out of there because last I checked "despite what others are saying" isn't a reason for anything.

@Everyone else:

Well, with apathy being the way it is and my wagon jumping to the forefront I'd bet money on myself being the lynch for today. I'm not even going to pretend I care all that much.

So, how about these questions:

1.) What have I done that is

scummy

? (Hint: Lots of words isn't scummy.)
2.) What are you going to get from this flip if I flip town?
3.) What are you going to get from this flip if I flip scum? (Hint: A dead scum is p nice, but I'm looking for a bit more than that).

I'm sitting at 4? votes now - a couple more and I'll claim. So, if you're going to lynch me make up your mind sooner versus later so that there's time for discussion if, for whatever reason, my claim changes anything.

[Knight of Cydonia]

unvote; Vote SpyreX

for claim.

[SpyreX]

You're already voting for me. Nice try sneaky boy.

[Lowell]

unvote, vote caboose

for the long-winded explanation about how his one-liners are better than my one-liners. String him up!

[SpyreX]

[Caboose]

I think this is where the disagreement lies. Scenario 1 = Scenario 2. The way you explain it here, is just two ways of saying the same thing. It was making note that someone should not get townpoints.

Only if you take what I said out of context. Are you really trying to make the argument that context isn't important?

Blue: Player does not gain town points, for no particular reason at all.
Green: Player does not deserve town points, despite what others are saying.

This.

Green: Player does not deserve town points, despite what others are saying, for no particular reason at all.

Do you understand that you start out with 0 townpoints and you have to have a reason to GET townpoints?

1.) What have I done that is scummy? (Hint: Lots of words isn't scummy.)

You took what I said out of context and blew it ridiculously out of proportion.

2.) What are you going to get from this flip if I flip town?

Well, we can look at people like Atronach who are just repeating what you say.

3.) What are you going to get from this flip if I flip scum? (Hint: A dead scum is p nice, but I'm looking for a bit more than that).

We can

still

look at people like Atronach who are just repeating what you say. Plus, we can look at RBT who jumped on my wagon for no apparent reason. Plus, we can look at Lowell who made a nice akward jump onto my wagon.

Vote: SpyreX

Claim.

[Knight of Cydonia]

You're already voting for me. Nice try sneaky boy.

Ah. A worthy opponent.

[SpyreX]

Do you understand that you start out with 0 townpoints and you have to have a reason to GET townpoints?

NO I DIDNT! YOU HAVE BLOWN MY MIND.

Do you realize that you gave the exact same reason (none) for my not getting said townpoints that you were so quick to leap on Lowell for?

You took what I said out of context and blew it ridiculously out of proportion.

After my flip I bet at least one person goes back and goes "OHH I SEE, Caboose said pre-emptive crap attacks based on nebulous attacks were bad and the had the implication of the same thing!"

You keep saying context and I asked for the relevant context and it has yet to materialize.

Well, we can look at people like Atronach who are just repeating what you say.

So... if I flip town your logical conclusion is that I still am making it up and to go after people who see what I saw? Well done. Bravo in fact.

We can still look at people like Atronach who are just repeating what you say. Plus, we can look at RBT who jumped on my wagon for no apparent reason. Plus, we can look at Lowell who made a nice akward jump onto my wagon.

Now if I flipped scum I could see going after Atro for agreeing with me based on a scum-side argument...however you already blew that out of the water saying you're going after him regardless.

And Lowell for the jump on your wagon? Not for the fact that my bringing this up is easily construed as a defense of Lowell?

Anywho, like I said I would.

Are you ready for this?

ARE YOU READY?

I'm vanilla.

So, yea, I'm going to get hung. Before we do anything awesome like power hammer me give me a bit to give my read on the game as a whole and then you can get to lynching.

P.S. If we have a vig, you know what to do after my flip. Kisses.

[Caboose]

Do you realize that you gave the exact same reason (none) for my not getting said townpoints that you were so quick to leap on Lowell for?

Lowell implied KoC was scum.
I didn't imply you were scum.

You keep saying context and I asked for the relevant context and it has yet to materialize.

RTFT

So... if I flip town your logical conclusion is that I still am making it up and to go after people who see what I saw? Well done. Bravo in fact.

That's a very lovely strawman you have there.

Parroting is a pretty reliable scumtell if that's all someone does.

[Juls]

Unvote. Vote Benmage

Read his flip-flop. It wreaks of scumminess.

I voted Spyrex to see who/why people would jump on and also get reaction from Spyrex. I am satisfied with the latter but not the former.

[Benmage]

Unvote. Vote Benmage

Read his flip-flop. It wreaks of scumminess.

I voted Spyrex to see who/why people would jump on and also get reaction from Spyrex. I am satisfied with the latter but not the former.

This is comical... I don't have an original position to flip-flop from...explain please?

[SpyreX]

Lowell implied KoC was scum.
I didn't imply you were scum.

Where? How? Explain how these two scenarios are so different.

RTFT

I'm pretty sure I did RTFT. And I'm pretty sure I showed relevant context. So, if I didn't, show me what context I missed. If I did: why is it still contextless.

That's a very lovely strawman you have there.

Parroting is a pretty reliable scumtell if that's all someone does.

You said if I was town: Well, we can look at people like Atronach who are just repeating what you say.

You said if I was scum: We can still look at people like Atronach who are just repeating what you say.

Not to mention that, get this, atro isn't parroting but you are saying my flip does not influence this at all.

Where is the strawman? I love these words like "contextless" and "strawman" and "implied" without even trying to give the how.

@Juls:

I had a minute of et, tu when you were on this wagon. Good to know you had a plan. However, as it sits I'm probably the lynch. But that gets those naughty, naughty townpoints.