Bear wrote:ZazieR (283) wrote:Playing anti-town is not a scumtell. Using anti-town play as reason to vote somebody is a scumtell though.
No it isn't.
And
I'm not even voting him.
In my games, it has been proven to be true many times. Links may be requested.
Also, you think that Sudo is scum based upon anti-town reasons. Unless you're a vig, you have to vote him to get him lynched. But for clarification, suspicions based upon anti-town reasons are scumtells. Happy now?
Bear wrote:ZazieR (283) wrote:Also, didn't you play deliberately neutral according to you at the start of this game?
No, unorthodox.
Bear wrote:I undertook a course of behaviour which is nonsensical, but not clearly pro-town or pro-scum- calling for quicklynches of random players is inherently neutral and, probabilistically, is as likely to hit scum as any other form of non-specific pressure.
You clearly disagree.
Bear wrote:ZazieR (283) wrote:My point was about Sudo's playstyle, that he has used it as town. Which means that it's not a complete scumtell. Yet, you think it is. It is indeed possible that he uses this playstyle as scum. But because he has used it as town, it it more a nulltell than a scumtell. Do you agree, or not? And why?
I don't care about his meta, useless divergence is anti-town, especially when he's done little else to contribute meaningfully to the game.
Looky, looky. The one who has accused me falsely each time of forgetting a questiong is doing it himself for reals.
But before I respond to this part, are lurking and active lurking anti-town to you and why?
Bear wrote:ZazieR (283) wrote:And you did use it against him, as you added that meta is useless against someone with a scummie award.
No I'm afraid I didn't. I said it was useless and
particularly so because he had a scummie award and is presumably half-decent
. I doubt I'd have been bothered metaing him regardless.
Bolded to show that you did use it against him.
But as should be known, I'm not using it against you. This should have been obv from the first time I mentioned it.
Bear wrote:ZazieR (283) wrote:What overreaction? I gave a post in which Sudo has stated that he saw you as suspicious. Where's the overreaction?
You have misunderstood. I am saying "overreacting" is definitely
not
a scum-tell.
Uhm, no. You said this:
Bear wrote:Zaz wrote:Uhm, with a post like this you should be able to find the answer to that.
I
hate
overreacting as a scum-tell in the way you've used it here. All I did was justify myself and question votes on me etc. which I always do as town and scum. I always dislike votes on me and am particularly allergic to scum voting me (or others) with crappy reasons and not being called into question for it.
If it wasn't in response to the quote of mine that was included, then why did you quote it?
And if it was in response to that quote, I ask again, what overreaction?
Bear wrote:ZazieR (283) wrote:No, you're question was:
Bear wrote:Yet again you dodge the question. In this context,
if
my vote was OMGUS, was it a scumtell
And look, I did answer that. Once again, you state that I didn't answer something, while I clearly did.
Also, I did answer your question in above quote in the first post of our discussion:
Zaz wrote:When you made the vote, I can see why it could be seen as OMGUS as you didn't give any reason why. Later when you explained, I agree that it wasn't OMGUS.
No, you referred to a vague hypothetical and said "if your vote was OMGUS...." etc. The fact you've conceded it wasn't makes me wonder why you are labouring this point.
Uhm, excuse me?! Check what you asked. It was even quoted by you, but this time I've included some bolding.
Seriously, your question included 'if', so you get an answer with 'if'. And still you're not happy and use it even against me.
And it should be obv why I'm still labouring (whatever that may mean) on it.
Bear wrote:ZazieR (283) wrote:You were accused of acting deliberately scummy. Your defence was a fallacy.
And why are you surprised that you have to argue this with me?
This doesn't even deserve a response.
Best move if you're scum and have no defence. Very bad if you're town like you say you are.
Oh, and of course other than that, it's very childish.
Bear wrote:ZazieR (283) wrote:Or I think you are scummy, and I might vote you for this later?
That's what I was calling you out on it. I suspect you are biding your time in an attempt to appear less scummy.
Ohh, I love speculation. Well, my guess is that you're using this in order to make me look black when I do vote you. But if I don't, you'll accuse me of not following my suspicions with a vote.
Based upon this same interest, we'll be best buddies for life.
Anyway, I'm investigating another lead as well, while discussing with you. It will all depend on what that lead will give.
Bear wrote:ZazieR (283) wrote:Also, strange enough, the wagon on Andy is already diverted. So tell me why I as possible scumbuddy of possible scum Andy would do something which has already happened before I got in?
Huh?
The Andy wagon has died a long time ago as he isn't scummy. I even wonder if you can actually remember the case against him.
Bear wrote:ZazieR (283) wrote:Your point of the part behind the part saying you still think he's town?
Huh?
Bear wrote:It stands. Reading over his posts I would still lean town over him, also.
However I know with both these players that letting them live through to the late-game without scrutiny can be very unwise. They are equally capable of lurking to end-game as both scum and town.
I meant the bolded. What's the point behind that?
Bear wrote:What was the purpose of your vote on Starbuck?
If I wanted it to be known, I'd have told so. Just be patient.