Seven wrote:Cuetlachtli:
I just noticed how early on you stated this: "Seems like Seven is trying to free SP, a potential scum buddy, of some early pressure. Its strange to me that Seven would take issue to DRK voting SP when he himself voted Chamber for very similar reasons." [ISO 3]
At this point in the game I think that was the only thing I had said linking me to SP. It was RVS, and I did think it was weird considering DRKs reasoning that he would choose to vote SP over you without saying why. Despite this I didn't think it meant anything at the time and the question was a joke. Considering how the game has unfolded I think it could be relevant now. The fact that I eventually ended up siding with SP for various reasons is circumstancial. I did "defend" him later on, as you called it, by answering for him. But my RVS question does not defend him in any way that I can perceive. I was curious, but I didn't push the matter further until now. I want to know how, at that stage in the game, you already thought I was defending SP when there was no real reason to believe so?
In ISO 5 you said I tried to diffuse DRK and SPs argument which is true. I'm not the only person who thinks the argument was distracting and useless for the purposes of hunting. You said later on in response to Parama's accusations that they eventually stopped fighting and so it was no threat to the hunt, but you fail to acknowledge the reason they stopped bickering in the first place which is because some of us pointed out that it was leading nowhere. I think it's strange that you would encourage their argument. You say it could lead to tells. So I want to know what you were able to gather from the DRK/SP argument?
Not only did you start the 7/SP lynch-chain, but now you're adding Parama as a third lynch. I can't express enough how scummy this is. You started off by tunneling on me for mediocre reasons (I think in general everyone has had good reasons for their votes, yours seems to be one of the weaker ones) and now you're trying to have everyone focus on SP and Parama next, with hardly anything to base your arguments on (in the case of Par, at least). In what circumstance do you think it's beneficial to set up your next three lynches?
Seven, I hope you realize I have already answered your first two questions in previous posts.
Question 1, my ISO 3
In my one and only game on this site, I was scum. On D1, my scum buddy was being pressured and I tried to divert attention away from him by asking his attacker why he was ignoring another player who was displaying relatively the same behavior as my scum buddy. After my scum buddy was lynched, the town realized my scum slip and I was, in turn, lynched.
I believe there may be some diverting going on in this game. As you know, DRK voted SP and FoSed me for confirming at the same time. Really, this shouldn't be a big deal. Its RVS, therefore votes or FoS shouldn't be taken seriously. But it seems like one player did take DRK's vote seriously. After DRK voted for SP, Seven emulated DRK's reasoning for voting SP by voting Chamber because he was the "last to confirm." This maybe an early Scum attempting to buddy Town tactic. Right after Seven voted Chamber, he asked DRK a direct question:
"DRK: Why vote SeerPenguin and not Cuetlachtli? Do you have something against penguins?"
Seems like Seven is trying to free SP, a potential scum buddy, of some early pressure. Its strange to me that Seven would take issue to DRK voting SP when he himself voted Chamber for very similar reasons.
That said...vote: Seven
Question 2, my ISO 7
SP claimed that DRK had been pushing suspicion on anyone; meaning, FMPOV, that DRK had been trying to make cases on multiple people. I reread the thread and decided that DRK had only been pushing suspicion on SP only. I asked SP to cite where DRK had pushed suspicion on people because I knew that DRK had only pushed suspicion on SP and I wanted to get his reaction. What I got was both you and SP's reactions and they both were fail. Both of you only cited where DRK had pushed suspicion on SP. No where did I find where DRK had pushed suspicion on other people. Thus, I think SP's initial claim was an example of the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy is an attack of an exaggerated position. SP exaggerated DRK's position by claiming that he had been pushing suspicion on anyone. In actuality, DRK had only pushed suspicion on SP himself.
Now on to your third question...
Not only did you start the 7/SP lynch-chain, but now you're adding Parama as a third lynch. I can't express enough how scummy this is. You started off by tunneling on me for mediocre reasons (I think in general everyone has had good reasons for their votes, yours seems to be one of the weaker ones) and now you're trying to have everyone focus on SP and Parama next, with hardly anything to base your arguments on (in the case of Par, at least). In what circumstance do you think it's beneficial to set up your next three lynches?
First off, I believe everyone that is voting/FoS you is doing it for the same reasons I am voting you. That said, how are their reasons good and my reasons mediocre?
Ok now my case on Par:
Well besides Par misrepresenting my attack on SP's fallacious statement about DRK earlier, let me point out some other stuff that Par has done that I see as scummy.
Par ISO 12-13
Par advocates a policy lynch on Flareonage based on his meta. Par argues that Flareonage is basically a fail player and is always anti-town regardless of his alignment. What Par ignores is that a policy lynch is also anti-town because lynching solely based on meta means that we have only a 25% chance of hitting scum.
Par ISO 11
Early buddying with SP and a FoS on DRK.
Par ISO 16
More DRK bashing. Says he is bothered by my vote on Seven, thinks its fallacious logic. Yet states that there might be a Seven-SP scum team. This contradiction really perplexes me.
Par ISO 17
I can't tell whether Par is scumhunting here or giving advise to scum-teammate Seven. Regardless, Par says that my posts have been odd, but immediately contradicts himself by FoSing Seven and SP.
Par ISO 18
Misrepresents all of my arguments, contradicts himself by ignoring his previous FoSes on Seven and SP (which he got from my arguments), and finally commits a vote on me. Also, gives more advise to Seven.
Par ISO 20
Says he isn't getting town vibes from anyone, which basically means he is open to lynch anyone, as long as they aren't his scum buddies. Says he thinks you, Seven, are scummy, but says that I am scummier. This ignores the fact that the reason he thinks you are scummy is because I have pointed out your scummy behavior. This logic does not make sense to me at all.
In what circumstance do you think it's beneficial to set up your next three lynches?
Well if we do lynch you, Seven, and you do flip scum, I think its good for the town to know who I FoS in case I am Night Killed. I think the more content you can provide while you are able, the better for the town. If you are ever NKed or lynched, the town can always go back and analyze your previous posts and hopefully it will provide them with some useful insights into the game.
