890: Cults of Darkness and Shadow - Game over!

[semioldguy]

As stated before, I am against policy lynching.

No, Datadanne was not policy lynch worthy. No one else will be either.

There has been a change between dramonic and Datadanne. Unlike Datadanne, I don't think dramonic will disappear for days at a time. In my numerous past games with him he keeps active and I'm sure as the game goes on I will be able to get reads on him. He has not yet done enough to be considered an asset or not to this town. Part of that answer depends upon the town and part of the answer will depend upon dramonic.

If you don't know what I mean by that, an example would be that some towns are more accepting of zwetschewasser while others aren't (though I am not comparing dramonic to zwets at all, just using an example of how sometimes it is the town that helps determine a player's value to the game)

[dramonic]

you better not compare me to zwet, I'd be wounded

[Chaco]

As stated before, I am against policy lynching.

That's your style, so that's fine by me.

No, Datadanne was not policy lynch worthy. No one else will be either.

Whether or not you are against it, doesn't make them not worthy of a policy lynch.

There has been a change between dramonic and Datadanne. Unlike Datadanne, I don't think dramonic will disappear for days at a time. In my numerous past games with him he keeps active and I'm sure as the game goes on I will be able to get reads on him. He has not yet done enough to be considered an asset or not to this town. Part of that answer depends upon the town and part of the answer will depend upon dramonic.

So you're read on him is neutral? Or would it be a more pro-town read since you said you do not think he is scum? Or do you have enough info to derive a stance? If not, then why the claim of his township? If so, why not enough to prove he's an asset or not?

If you don't know what I mean by that, an example would be that some towns are more accepting of zwetschewasser while others aren't (though I am not comparing dramonic to zwets at all, just using an example of how sometimes it is the town that helps determine a player's value to the game)

It's quite straightforward. In your opinion, do you feel that Dramonic is currently an asset to the town?

[dramonic]

see, these are the kind of posts why I think you're scum. All you really want to do is take a stance that you can later try to condemn if he's wrong on any point.

[Chaco]

see, these are the kind of posts why I think you're scum. All you really want to do is take a stance that you can later try to condemn if he's wrong on any point.

It's incriminating to want a solid answer? He's already given himself room to back out on, and I do find that scummy. If he's sure at this point, why leave the trail of doubt to later follow out? Reads can be wrong, there's nothing wrong with that. But setting up your bail out, is indeed very scummy.

[dramonic]

How is SOG's read on me supposed to affect the fact he's voting you?

[Chaco]

How is SOG's read on me supposed to affect the fact he's voting you?

Does that have anything to do with my questioning of his stance?

[dramonic]

Well, my perception is that you are wanting to lynch me and think I'm buddying to SOG.

[Chaco]

Well, my perception is that you are wanting to lynch me and think I'm buddying to SOG.

Whether or not that is the case, that does not currently effect Semi's vote on me. I am trying to get more information.

[Snow_Bunny]

Mod: I'm having serious connection problems, so I'm a bit of LA for now. I'll try to fix this as soon as possible.

[semioldguy]

Whether or not you are against it, doesn't make them not worthy of a policy lynch.

Actually it does. I don't think that anyone is worthy of being policy lynched, which is why I am against policy lynches. I would find it very odd for someone to say that they are against policy lynches, but then also state that certain players are worthy of a policy lynch. That just makes no sense, how would you justify being against all policy lynching if you thought anyone was worthy of a policy lynch? That would be a huge contradiction.

So you're read on him is neutral? Or would it be a more pro-town read since you said you do not think he is scum? Or do you have enough info to derive a stance? If not, then why the claim of his township? If so, why not enough to prove he's an asset or not?

I don't have a read on him. It isn't a neutral read, it isn't a pro-town read, and it isn't a scummy read. I did not claim his township, this is a misrepresentation by you. If you think I did I'd like you to point out where.

It's quite straightforward. In your opinion, do you feel that Dramonic is currently an asset to the town?

No, I do not currently think he is an asset to the town. My answers seemed pretty clear and straight-forward, that there wasn't enough for me to get a read on him yet.

Why did you feel my post was in need of such extreme scrutiny when you haven't questioned any other post to this extent throughout the game so far? It seems that there would be far more important things to take note of and investigate than my post, which in all honesty was answered quite clearly by any literal means. It looks to me like you are trying to make something out of nothing.

[Magua]

I want more from dramonic. Right now it's been "Chaco is scummy" with little explanation. Now, this is a big step up from Datadanne, but I still want more in terms of an explanation.

Here's what catches my eye on reread:

339: strartransmission makes a buddying charge against semioldguy and dramonic, and then incants dramonic.

I agree it looks like some buddying is going on; however, it looks to me likes its semioldguy to dramonic, not the other way around. And, of course, we see from d1 the same charge of buddying applied to chaco and Seacore, and Seacore was town.

@startransmission: So why incant dramonic, and not semioldguy?

@chaco: Would you lay an incant down, please?

[semioldguy]

Seacore was not the one who looked worse in the Chaco-Seacore buddying. In fact, between those two it looked more like to me that Chaco was the one doing more buddying, not Seacore. The buddying I didn't like yesterday from Seacore was toward Snow_Bunny. Of course, I stated all this yesterday.

@Magua
Also I don't see where I am buddying to dramonic, would you mind directing me to where you get this notion?

[Magua]

@Magua
Also I don't see where I am buddying to dramonic, would you mind directing me to where you get this notion?

It's a repeated iteration of "I have no read on dramonic" with the undertone of "And I'm not suspicious of this." Now, for your consistency, you said the same thing about Datadanne. But I found that to be suspicious as well.

Me, if I have no read on someone, I ask them to post more. You haven't done this thing. dramonic and you are voting similarly, but dramonic's reasoning hasn't been given. You seem perfectly capable of picking up on small details and questioning people about them (eg, Faraday), but you don't seem interested in making dramonic expound on his point of view. That rings as an inconsistency.

Now, I don't actually think that you and dramonic are scumbuddies, simply being very agreeable with eachother. But if "buddying" is the rationale for startransmission's vote, I wanted more reasoning for it.

[Chaco]

Actually it does. I don't think that anyone is worthy of being policy lynched, which is why I am against policy lynches. I would find it very odd for someone to say that they are against policy lynches, but then also state that certain players are worthy of a policy lynch. That just makes no sense, how would you justify being against all policy lynching if you thought anyone was worthy of a policy lynch? That would be a huge contradiction.

I didn't mean it as getting you to admit it, I was saying just because you are against it doesn't mean the others are. More than half of the game was for policy lynching him, which was why I questioned you here.

I don't have a read on him. It isn't a neutral read, it isn't a pro-town read, and it isn't a scummy read. I did not claim his township, this is a misrepresentation by you. If you think I did I'd like you to point out where.

...but as of now I do not find dramonic to be scummy.

Explain what you mean here then. You do not find him to be scummy, but you have no read? To much ambiguity there.

Why did you feel my post was in need of such extreme scrutiny when you haven't questioned any other post to this extent throughout the game so far? It seems that there would be far more important things to take note of and investigate than my post, which in all honesty was answered quite clearly by any literal means. It looks to me like you are trying to make something out of nothing.

You laid down an incant with out first backing it up, Dramonic hopped on right with you. I had to request a case. There is some buddying action between Dramonic and you, as well as the ambiguity behind your "no read" on him. Which I do not find likely. To say he is not scummy must mean you have some sort of read him. Deny it as you may, that is the simple truth.

Explain to me what more important things are going on right now.

And no, if I were making something of nothing I'd scrutinize you for every little thing you've done and not one post regarding the ever so useless Dramonic.

@Magua: I'm torn right now between the two. I'm pretty damned sure Semi is lying, and Dramonic is useless at the moment.

So I'll go with the liar.

Incant: Semi

[semioldguy]

Explain what you mean here then. You do not find him to be scummy, but you have no read? To much ambiguity there.

If you don't have a read on someone how can you find them scummy? If I don't have a read on someone, it wouldn't be possible for me to read them as scummy. Not having a read also means that I don't find him town. Where is this ambiguity?

[Chaco]

You are saying that you have no read on him. You labeled him as not scummy to you. That sounds like a read to me. The ambiguity lies in your trying to cover up that lie.

I also agree with Magua, I do not see you two being scumbuddies. I do however, think either of you could be scum at this time.

[dramonic]

try to avoid referring to me as ever so useless, its not like I havent actually posted a list of point against you which you tried to

weakly

refute.

@Magua: my reasoning has been given <<

[semioldguy]

You are saying that you have no read on him. You labeled him as not scummy to you. That sounds like a read to me. The ambiguity lies in your trying to cover up that lie.

"Not scummy" isn't a read. It is a lack of one. (that's what the "not" is for, it means that some) To be specific, it is a lack of a scummy read. "Not scummy" is a subset of "no read."

The definition of not having a read is that I don't find a person to be scummy/town/third-party/anything! Not having a read means that I don't find a player to be any of those things. I don't understand what is so difficult to comprehend about this. Saying that someone is not scummy to me and that I have no read on that person are not conflicting things.

Chaco, do you ever find people to be scummy that you have no read on?

[semioldguy]

EBWOP:
The parenthetical above is incomplete, it should read as: (that's what the "not" is for, it means that something it refers to is of the opposite existence)

[Chaco]

try to avoid referring to me as ever so useless, its not like I havent actually posted a list of point against you which you tried to

weakly

refute.

@Magua: my reasoning has been given <<

Your reasoning was the side that was

weak

.

[Chaco]

You are saying that you have no read on him. You labeled him as not scummy to you. That sounds like a read to me. The ambiguity lies in your trying to cover up that lie.

"Not scummy" isn't a read. It is a lack of one. (that's what the "not" is for, it means that some) To be specific, it is a lack of a scummy read. "Not scummy" is a subset of "no read."

The definition of not having a read is that I don't find a person to be scummy/town/third-party/anything! Not having a read means that I don't find a player to be any of those things. I don't understand what is so difficult to comprehend about this. Saying that someone is not scummy to me and that I have no read on that person are not conflicting things.

Chaco, do you ever find people to be scummy that you have no read on?

That's the thing, it is a conflicting view. You are saying you have NO read on him, saying that he isn't scummy to you requires a read. I do not get why you deny this so. You ca n't just throw out a baseless "Oh he's not scummy to me." Well, you can. But I do not expect it from you, which is why I am pushing the fact so hard.

Saying someone isn't scummy to you, means that you have a read. Simple enough. It may not be leaning to two sides heavily, but it is in fact a read.

I rarely have no read, and when I do it is early on D1. Scum slips and tells change my read to scummy. What you are saying makes no sense.

[semioldguy]

I think Chaco is town. I find the points that semi and dramonic are using against him are weak.

Out of curiosity, what points of mine did you find weak? I was only aware of one point I'd even brought up against Chaco by the time of your post, and it was in my very first post of the game. Don't attribute other people's cases as my opinions.

[Magua]

@Magua: my reasoning has been given <<

I'm going to assume you mean your iso post #5.

Of those, I think all of them are crap reasons except for the fifth (incanting and then leaving for a week), which is ironic, as it's more or less what Datadanne did, except with less reasons given. So....

But, I appreciate you taking a definite stand. =P

[dramonic]

try to avoid referring to me as ever so useless, its not like I havent actually posted a list of point against you which you tried to

weakly

refute.

@Magua: my reasoning has been given <<

No you!

fixed <_<

@Magua: No problem I guess?