He doesn't care if he gets lynched, yet he's trying?Sakako wrote:Well I don't really care if I get lynched, it will just be annoying having to wait for a while.
Sorry if I can't practice scumhunting - I'm actually trying pretty hard here, you know. If you don't like it, then that's your problem, but I'm actually trying to save you here, Neto.
I took it to mean "there exist players x and y who are scum together, where player x, player y =/= MonkeyMan.Monkey wrote:Why would you assume someone is scum based on random selection?DRK wrote:If we assume 3 scum, this is trivially true.
The question was hypothetical. Answering it with a qualifier was not out of reach. Minimally, answering the question would have been useful in determining what Monkey thinks of other players, etc. Ironically, Monkey later criticizes someone for "not contributing," when he himself avoided contributing for 3 days straight after game start by shooting down questions such as this one.Monkey wrote:I don't believe in policy lynches, I believe in voting scum. Policy lynching, or anyone who would advocate voting someone that might be town, is scummy.
Disagree. While good play is fairly inelastic definition wise, what constitutes a scumtell varies greatly on meta. Sure, running to meta all the time is bad, but so is saying "we don't look at game history at all, we only look at the godbook of scumtells, it never changes and is always accurate, amen."Just because something is common or uncommon is not a logical reason for something to be scummy or not scummy. There are things that are scummy that happen quite frequently, and things that are townish that are quite rare. Lurking, for example, is a frequent scum tactic. Likewise, having made an argument in a previous game does not make you less scummy in this game.
What's the point of throwing this potential discussion under the rug?Random Player X and Random Player Y are a potential scumteam(as long as its not me). Discuss.
Why are you continually taking what I say out of context? I never said meta should be ignored completely, and I never said discussing any possible scum combos should be "thrown under the rug". I just found it fairly self serving to discuss me as part of a scum team after I had voted him, especially considering xReckonerx had been complaining of OMGUS before.AlmasterGM wrote:I agree with Lowell. In particular, these three comments from Monkey didn't sit well with me:
The question was hypothetical. Answering it with a qualifier was not out of reach. Minimally, answering the question would have been useful in determining what Monkey thinks of other players, etc. Ironically, Monkey later criticizes someone for "not contributing," when he himself avoided contributing for 3 days straight after game start by shooting down questions such as this one.Monkey wrote:I don't believe in policy lynches, I believe in voting scum. Policy lynching, or anyone who would advocate voting someone that might be town, is scummy.
Disagree. While good play is fairly inelastic definition wise, what constitutes a scumtell varies greatly on meta. Sure, running to meta all the time is bad, but so is saying "we don't look at game history at all, we only look at the godbook of scumtells, it never changes and is always accurate, amen."Just because something is common or uncommon is not a logical reason for something to be scummy or not scummy. There are things that are scummy that happen quite frequently, and things that are townish that are quite rare. Lurking, for example, is a frequent scum tactic. Likewise, having made an argument in a previous game does not make you less scummy in this game.
What's the point of throwing this potential discussion under the rug?Random Player X and Random Player Y are a potential scumteam(as long as its not me). Discuss.
First, why should people have to read a ton of context for what you say to make sense? Just say what you mean the first time. Second, yes you did. You said, "Having made an argument in a previous game does not make you less scummy in this game." Explain to me how that is NOT a denial of meta.Monkey wrote:Why are you continually taking what I say out of context? I never said meta should be ignored completely,
Once again, that's not what you said. Your comment was a mocking dismissal. Moreover, even if it was self-serving to a degree, so what? Why does that make it an irrelevant topic for discussion? You could point out that it's self serving without the condescension.That and I never said discussing any possible scum combos should be "thrown under the rug". I just found it fairly self serving to discuss me as part of a scum team after I had voted him, especially considering xReckonerx had been complaining of OMGUS before.
For some reason, this sounded really ingenuine to me.Netopalis wrote:Please be advised that this is L-2. If we go to L-1, I'm taking off my vote, just because I don't quite feel absolutely comfortable with this yet. I think Monkey may be the play today, but I want to hear more from him in response to all of this before we do anything.
