gaulamos made a really good post that points out some of your inconsistencies that I find to be scummy. A basic recount is:Paschendale wrote:I'm curious, Wisa, other than stating that I'm wrong and Boberz is right (which is an opinion, not a fact), what exactly is your argument against me?
Hypocrisy in stances, twisting arguments outside of context to make cases, and having an anti-town attitude that you say is pro-town.
So.
Hypocrisy in stances is in the last post. I'll quote the text for ease of reference, even though it's literally right above this one.
Hypocrisy like this is really scummy behaviour. That's a mark against you.
Paschendale wrote:Let's here what other people have to say, and maybe we'll actually find a scum instead of a noob.
To be honest i saw nothing wrong with this at first, however you followed this up with this:
Paschendale wrote:Bad meta at its finest. Trying to guess what the mod was thinking, especially when roles are assigned randomly, leads to bad choices.
Vote: Wingless
So let me see, you were willing to wait for people to come in on your 1st post, them people pointed out you were fence sitting and you just decided to vote Wingless 2 hours later. You attacked Wingless for trying to guess what the mod was thinking, i agree with you that that might lead to bad choices but that also shows that Wingless is just probably a noob townie.
Taking quotations out of context:
Taking something that's clearly not serious and using it as evidence against a player is a pretty stupid thing to do. You take a couple lines, twist them out of context and build a case on it. When this doesn't work, you just switch to the next thing to tunnel Boberz with. Boberz is a target because he's aggressive and vocal, but he's not stupid and he calls you out for this.Wisakedjak wrote:I'm certain that Boberz is exagerrating a little. There's nothing in the rules that states: "BE 100% SERIOUS AT ALL TIMES OR I START KILLING PUPPIES". Read that post again without thinking he's serious and you'll see what I mean.
Paschendale wrote: I don't just speak of his first post.
boberz wrote:
Thank you, I was trying to demonstrate this by doing rather than saying.
Do as I do and all that.
On that point what do you make of the game so far Zach
boberz wrote:Any thoughts Zach?
Paschendale wrote: Twice he refuses to put his money where his mouth is and asks for support of his decisions. Boberz doesn't even believe in his positions enough to find support himself, so he tries to link himself to someone else and rely on them to prove for him.
The last part is having a clearly anti-town attitude:
On top of this, you actually
WHO VOTES FOR SOMEONE THEY KNOW IS TOWN?Paschendale wrote:I don't actually think he's scum. I think he's trying to outthink the meta of the game, and that's a stupid position. That's the kind of playing that is weak for town. That's why I voted him... ...You have to root out the weak townies in order to get at the scum.
The bolded part is what I'm going to point out here. It's one of the fun things about language, really. What's the difference between a 'witch hunt' on townies and a bandwagon on scum? One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. One man's trash is another man's treasure.Paschendale wrote:However, the notion that mafia will be more active than town doesn't often ring true, either. Getting town to fight each other is a good scum stance, as isleading witch hunts on townies.That's one of those second guesses that seldom pan out.
What I see you doing here is taking pro-town activities, denouncing them and saying that anyone who steps up to a leadership position and makes a case against someone (which, ironically enough, you yourself are doing), that it's a scummy thing to do. This confusion of motives is yet another mark of your scummy behavious, or at the very least huge anti-town tendencies.
For the record, you haven't backed up your claims except by using poor logic. You don't bother to address the holes in your arguments that I point out to you (admittedly, I didn't ask a direct question, so perhaps the fault is mine), the stances you do hold belief in are inherently anti-town and far more self-centered than this made up case you have around boberz. You project motives into his actions that aren't actually there for anyone else looking at what he posts. This is much scummier than what Boberz is doing.Paschendale wrote:Laying grounds to control the votes, while theoretically pro-town, is only so if the person is a) actually town and b) correct in his accusations. His unwillingness and inability to actually back up his claims and lay votes himself does not show real belief in his stances, nor genuine scum hunting. His actions are inherently self-centered, rather than group-centered. Scum's objective is to protect themselves. Town's objective is to kill the right people. His goal is just to kill the people he chooses, whether they be innocent or guilty. That's scummy.
Paschendale, at this point I'm convinced that it doesn't matter whether or not you're town or scum. You need to be policy lynched because you have hypocritical stances, you make horrible arguments with terrible logic on the weakest premises and you have a proven anti-town attitude. This kind of play is detrimental to the town no matter who's side you're on. Everyone should vote you today for this reason.
edit based on reading the new post:
Pasch: Why have you not commented on flip-flopping like gaulamos pointed out?
On a side note, I am not protecting Boberz. I am pointing out your bad logic and arguments and explaining why they are bad. If you have a problem with that,
Seriously, guys, ISO Pasch's posting and explain to me how I'm wrong.