He has not posted since then. This is his MO. He comes under fire and then disappears until the heat is gone. Not one of you, except for Muffin (who I'm about to rip apart so hard that his scum-juice comes loose) has even apparently tried to reconcile his super-scumminess with your lack of pressure on him. I don't know what the hell is going on. I mean, town rarely lynches scum on the first day, so I guess maybe the notion of hitting the scum jackpot immediately is new to many of you. But can we please not let this dude ride under the radar to avoid culpability for his actions. Here's a one-two punch for all you bloody archaebob voters: Archaebob answers attacks on him, AlmasterGM DOES NOT. Put that in your scum-pipe and smoke it.
It's going to be my new signature move … works quite well, I must admit. One thing that strikes me as odd, though, is where this ZOMG SLAM DUNK SCUM argument is coming from. IIRC, you are voting for me using a cross-application of logic I used on Page 1 that I've since dropped. Compelling. Actually, though, the reason I've been taking forever is because I was a) annoyed with your 15-year-old-esk arrogance and b) trying to overcome all the "OMG IT'S SOOOOO TRUE!" rhetoric of that one point in your argument. After getting past all that …
My actual case on you was that you made a super bad case on Gammagooey, one that I felt indicated scumminess."
You've omitted the part where your "actual case" less than one line long. Moreover, your theoretical justification was not presented as an afterthought - it was presented as having equal weight as your "actual case."
You have not yet told me what the obvious flaws in that case are.
Your "case" was simply a one-sentence long assertion that my argument was false. There is no way I can offer any sort of substantive response.
Yet, you end your own post with, "Unexcused badlogic is scummy." THE EXACT CASE I HIT YOU WITH. If attacking someone for apparent badlogic is scummy, then my case on your was excellent! Even if you felt your case wasn't badlogic, you admit in the beginning of your post:
CAPS PLEASE!! The key term is "excused." My initial argument was based on my observations of how I thought people would approach and play the game. After an unofficial poll was taken, I let the argument go because it was clear that my opinion was wrong. I don't see how I can be held accountable for this given that, unless I had done research prior to the game, there would be no other way for me to know whether the argument was wrong or not.
So if you admit the general consensus is that it's not a scumtell, and that general consensus is enough to get you to drop the case (OH MY GOD, BEAR WITH ME, THIS IS ABOUT TO BE AMAZING), then you admit that to a normal member of the general consensus, your case on Gammagooey was bad. If to a normal person (SAY ME, OMG, I HOPE YOU'RE HOLDING ONTO YOUR SOCKS), that case is bad, and as you yourself wrote, "badlogic is scummy," that means (HERE'S THE PITCH) that I was totally justified and validated in your own words for holding you as scummy and voting for you. By your own calculations, my vote on you was completely justified and you deserved it.
OMG MORE CAPS PLZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Your vote for me and my vote for Gamma are not the same. My vote: There was no way for me to know the truth or falsity of the matter at hand without making the argument in the first place. After the results came in, I let it go. Your vote: 13 pages later, you're clinging to a statement I made on page 1. You have no other arguments against me. LOL.
If I've expressed the opinion, either explicitly or implicitly through my actions, that bandwagoning can be valuable, and I was Town at the time that I expressed the opinion, obviously that opinion is not a scumtell on me in this game, correct? (This should be very simple, but correct me if I'm missing something obvious.) On Day One of Mini 843 (Fast and the Furious), post 27 (and then later on), I act on the same belief. Not only was I town in that game, but it's a game town ended up winning. So if you believe it's not helpful for townie, you're entitled, and feel free to start a topic on Mafia Discussion to discuss it. But it's a principle I believe, I've used before as town, and I'll continue to use in future games until I believe it's no longer useful. It's not a scumtell.
Mmmmmm …. meta. I'm going to drop my argument, but I still don't like you at all.
BTW AlmasterGM, don't think I forgot about your cute little sneaky appeal to emotion here, "It's going to be your argument that will be the "self-evidently untrue" one if I'm lynched this round." You think you're such a playa, dontcha)
Statement of fact, actually.
I would think that "I always do it" would be an excuse, as by definition it would be a null tell. Please stop making bad arguments...
It's not an excuse to keep engaging in bad behavior. If people tell you something is anti-town, you should stop, not just be like "LOL IT'S MY STYLE!"
I've been working on a post for about thirty minutes trying to explain why this is a scumtell. I've erased like a thousand words discussing linguistics and I'm going to try something simpler. I'm going to explain why it's a scumtell narratively. I was rubbed the wrong way by it that first time I saw it, and what occurred to me was that it's not how I'd expect a player to express that particular thought. I'd expect:
I'm on the debate team. We use that rhetoric all the time in round. That's where it comes from. Seriously, you are stretching REALLY far with your arguments.
Oh yeah, and I'm still not seeing archebob's response to my case (however supposedly bad). All I've got is "Gammagooey did a good job."
