Yes, I am voting you for correctly pegging McGriddle as lying town, because lying townies are rare, when lying scum is common. It's a weird conclusion to draw.iLord wrote:Are you voting me because I correctly pegged McG and you did not? You know I could just not suck at scumhunting.
There was good evidence that McGriddle was lying. The fact that everyone else jumped to the conclusion that he was scum, but iLord thought he was lying town is weird.ODDin wrote:I'm also not convinced by the case on iLord. If he's scum, he knew McG wasn't scum, but he didn't know he wasn't cop. And either way, I see little reason for iLord to advise McG to admit that he wasn't a cop. I don't really see how it matters to iLord either way. If anything, the longer McG claimed to be cop, the more time it gave for people to potentially counterclaim and expose themselves.
I was having a little fun with it, because I didn't see how ABR emphasising his point made anything scummy. Big deal.ODDin wrote:Post 848 by evilsnail is scummy. First, he horrendously twists Starbuck's words. He may not agree with the point being made, but it's quite obvious she wasn't referring to the fact that the phrase had been underlined.
Well, explain to me then why emphasising something is scummy. Convince me that it wasn't you creating a reason to jump on that wagon.Starbuck wrote:Way to misrepresent what I meant.
I said the reasoning given for the wagon today is crap, not that there isn't a case to be made against tate. There are too many people jumping on the tate wagon on the basis of nothing or weak arguments, like bv310, CMAR, iLord or ani.ODDin wrote:Also, suddenly he says the case on tate is crap. Not only did he not say a single word against the case on D1 (although he's read the relevant part of the thread, as indicated in post 718), but he had actually agreed with the original argument about referring to the townie PM (which was actually the weakest and least logical part of the case), as can be seen in post 9 and later in post 128.
FoS: evilsnail
How is the fact that townies lying being uncommon make it scummy for me to recognize it when it occurred?evil wrote:Yes, I am voting you for correctly pegging McGriddle as lying town, because lying townies are rare, when lying scum is common. It's a weird conclusion to draw.
The first sentence here is completely irrelevant. I indicated that he had to be lying. I also notice how closely you stick to the term "weird" to describe my read. Why "weird" and not "scummy?"evil wrote:There was good evidence that McGriddle was lying. The fact that everyone else jumped to the conclusion that he was scum, but iLord thought he was lying town is weird.
Why do you think I'm voting tate.evil wrote:I said the reasoning given for the wagon today is crap, not that there isn't a case to be made against tate. There are too many people jumping on the tate wagon on the basis of nothing or weak arguments, like bv310, CMAR, iLord or ani.
I can think of at least one reason: you have a gut feeling that he's lying, but youiLord wrote:How is the fact that townies lying being uncommon make it scummy for me to recognize it when it occurred?evil wrote:Yes, I am voting you for correctly pegging McGriddle as lying town, because lying townies are rare, when lying scum is common. It's a weird conclusion to draw.
You don't know if he knew or not. That's WIFOM right there.Albert B. Rampage wrote:Actually he was a Deputy, he didn't even know he was a cop. I doubt that my prowess extends to guessing someone's role if they themselves are not informed of it.
Wowevilsnail wrote:Well, explain to me then why emphasising something is scummy. Convince me that it wasn't you creating a reason to jump on that wagon.
. Way to misrepresent me AGAIN. It was the tense and tone of this sentence and his emphasising of it that doesn't bode well. It's like he's trying to put into everyone's minds that the above is FACT. When we really don't know if it's fact or not.ABR wrote:The fact that he was a cop has no bearing on my question of if he was a daycop.
The reasons for the wagon today are the same as the reasons for the wagon on tate yesterday. Doesn't it make sense for people to begin D2 by voting for the next best suspect on D1? There weren't any new reasons made against him, it's still the same reasons from yesterday.evilsnail wrote:I said the reasoning given for the wagon today is crap, not that there isn't a case to be made against tate. There are too many people jumping on the tate wagon on the basis of nothing or weak arguments, like bv310, CMAR, iLord or ani.
What does it matter whether you think I'm misrepresenting you? I'm asking you to explain it to me, because I clearly don't understand your point. It's not as if I'm building a case on it.Starbuck wrote:Wow
Where did I say that emphasizing was scummy? It would be awesome if you could point that out, rather than putting words in my mouth.
Why is this significant? Suppose that ABR is trying to put it in people's minds that that line is fact. Is he more likely to do that as scum? Why? Why isn't it something a townie does when defending themselves?Starbuck wrote:It was the tense and tone of this sentence and his emphasising of it that doesn't bode well. It's like he's trying to put into everyone's minds that the above is FACT. When we really don't know if it's fact or not.
This is maybe true of the iLord, but CMAR and bv310 weren't voting him yesterday. Ani was, but for the same weak reason. It's scummy when people slip onto a wagon like that.ODDin wrote:The reasons for the wagon today are the same as the reasons for the wagon on tate yesterday. Doesn't it make sense for people to begin D2 by voting for the next best suspect on D1? There weren't any new reasons made against him, it's still the same reasons from yesterday.
There are two options. You are either town with an uncanny gut read or you're plain scum. The latter is far more likely.iLord wrote:How is the fact that townies lying being uncommon make it scummy for me to recognize it when it occurred?
Both are fine. It is both scummy and weird.iLord wrote:The first sentence here is completely irrelevant. I indicated that he had to be lying. I also notice how closely you stick to the term "weird" to describe my read. Why "weird" and not "scummy?"
That's a completely different thing from what you've said earlier. You've said that the case on tate was crap. Now you're saying that it's scummy for people who weren't voting him yesterday to vote him today.evilsnail wrote:This is maybe true of the iLord, but CMAR and bv310 weren't voting him yesterday. Ani was, but for the same weak reason. It's scummy when people slip onto a wagon like that.
I'll provide reasoning later today if I must, but it's kinda ridiculous that you are defending him after his scumminess yesterday...evilsnail wrote:Nah, I said the "reasoning given so far," referring to the fact that too many of the votes on there (bv310, CMAR and ani) were not backed up by good reasoning.
The reasoning that had been presented by that point was either no reasoning at all or reference to the case from yesterday (and one would assume, in the context, that those who didn't present a reason - CMAR and bv - also referred mostly to the case from yesterday).evilsnail wrote:Nah, I said the "reasoning given so far," referring to the fact that too many of the votes on there (bv310, CMAR and ani) were not backed up by good reasoning.
Two things I find wrong with this sentence. One, it's an easy way for scum to start the day by trying to use a deadman's words against another player. Two, evilsnail saysevilsnail wrote:Cult tried to recruit Kmd, who said the same thing. That totally makes sense if iLord is scum.Kmd4390 wrote:Wow. It was painfully obvious that Mcgriddle made an honest mistake.
In other news, I'm now confident iLord is scum who knew Mcgriddle was town and that the claim looked bad.
"The aura of subtly defending ABR"? I AM defending ABR. I've said the reasoning given for his wagon is crap and I've agreed with his defense. I'm not jumping to his aid. I just think the wagon on him is bad. Why would I not say so? Why would I withhold my opinion?Starbuck wrote:Also snail, I'm getting the aura of you subtly defending ABR.
Why so quick to jump to his aid?
Ah, come on. Let it go already. I opened the thread, saw five votes on tate in quick succession with weak reasoning (such as ani's "ODDin wrote:The reasoning that had been presented by that point was either no reasoning at all or reference to the case from yesterday (and one would assume, in the context, that those who didn't present a reason - CMAR and bv - also referred mostly to the case from yesterday).
When you say "the reasoning is crap", it means you think there is reasoning, and the only reasoning that could be there was the case from yesterday. If you thought that people were voting without reasoning, you should have said "why are you voting for tate?".
Bottom line, you can't simultaneously say "you didn't say a reason" and "your reason is crap".
There's a disconnect with your thought process here. Why was CMAR and my name on your list here:evil wrote:This is maybe true of the iLord, but CMAR and bv310 weren't voting him yesterday. Ani was, but for the same weak reason. It's scummy when people slip onto a wagon like that.
Additionally, what do you feel about tate not answering questions asking him about his reads on other players? Do you feel it's okay for anyone to do so with impunity?evil, Post 856 wrote:I said the reasoning given for the wagon today is crap, not that there isn't a case to be made against tate. There are too many people jumping on the tate wagon on the basis of nothing or weak arguments, like bv310, CMAR, iLord or ani.
We're playing a game of behavioralevil wrote:There are two options. You are either town with an uncanny gut read or you're plain scum. The latter is far more likely.
What differentiates in your mind from "scummy" and weird?"evil wrote:Both are fine. It is both scummy and weird.
Yeah, I don't really get it either. Wolf needs to elaborate.evil wrote:Wolf, I totally don't understand your point. Tell me, what should a pro-town player use there instead of an embedded conditional? An embedded conditional means only that something isn't an established fact. Should I be treating iLord's alignment as established fact? Why wouldn't I concede that there's a chance that I'm wrong?
There's another disconnect in your supposed thought process here.evil wrote:Ah, come on. Let it go already. I opened the thread, saw five votes on tate in quick succession with weak reasoning (such as ani's "vote: tate for not answering anything" or CMAR "antitownishness = not helpful"). So I said the reasoning given for the wagon was crap.