In post 772, quadz08 wrote:he diiiiiiies
I'd love to know what you find scummy about this.
In post 772, quadz08 wrote:he diiiiiiies
In post 773, Kinetic wrote:In post 762, kanyeknowsbest wrote:hey kinetic im gonna be honest i didnt read any of your guys idiot wall can u please sum up for me why zd is scum.
Continues to not scum hunt, has simply focused solely on me to the exclusion of the whole game.
Tierce seems convinced that's a town tell for Zd, but even if it is it's indicitive of absolutely useless town play. He actively disrupts other scum hunting efforts (both PV and Xalxe).
His actions are disruptive on purpose. He has performed Anti-Town actions because it would benefit him and him alone, without regard for the town (For instance, claiming "majority should be needed to hurt, well after the issue was thought to be resolved, when HE is on the chopping block now; but being completely OK with PV hurting me with no votes on me simply because it was targeting me. It was like he was hurting me himself).
Ironically, I'm not 100% on him being scum anymore, for a couple reasons that I'm keeping close for right now, but I'm starting to think at BEST he is highly uncooperative and useless town. Seeing as the last WiH game I played I was killed and the town lost because of players like that (see roflcopter in WiH2) I'm starting to believe that even if he ends up being town upon death I won't feel bad about it at all.
This is a game where the town MUST cooperate with each other and follow the rules we set forth. Anarchy, even in Hell, will lead to a scum win, and he is quickly becoming more trouble than he is worth.
Wheeee not reading all this.In post 773, Kinetic wrote:In post 762, kanyeknowsbest wrote:hey kinetic im gonna be honest i didnt read any of your guys idiot wall can u please sum up for me why zd is scum.
Continues to not scum hunt, has simply focused solely on me to the exclusion of the whole game. Tierce seems convinced that's a town tell for Zd, but even if it is it's indicitive of absolutely useless town play. He actively disrupts other scum hunting efforts (both PV and Xalxe). His actions are disruptive on purpose. He has performed Anti-Town actions because it would benefit him and him alone, without regard for the town (For instance, claiming "majority should be needed to hurt, well after the issue was thought to be resolved, when HE is on the chopping block now; but being completely OK with PV hurting me with no votes on me simply because it was targeting me. It was like he was hurting me himself). Ironically, I'm not 100% on him being scum anymore, for a couple reasons that I'm keeping close for right now, but I'm starting to think at BEST he is highly uncooperative and useless town. Seeing as the last WiH game I played I was killed and the town lost because of players like that (see roflcopter in WiH2) I'm starting to believe that even if he ends up being town upon death I won't feel bad about it at all. This is a game where the town MUST cooperate with each other and follow the rules we set forth. Anarchy, even in Hell, will lead to a scum win, and he is quickly becoming more trouble than he is worth.
In post 776, Zdenek wrote:In post 773, Kinetic wrote:In post 762, kanyeknowsbest wrote:hey kinetic im gonna be honest i didnt read any of your guys idiot wall can u please sum up for me why zd is scum.
Continues to not scum hunt, has simply focused solely on me to the exclusion of the whole game.
False. I'm not even voting you.
In post 774, Zdenek wrote:Just to get this all in one place. Here is why Kinetic is scum.
1. The AtE - iPad post. He attacks me for attacking him over the things that he chose to comment on. I no longer care about that, but the way he defends himself is the problem. He acts as though I am scum for not taking into account the fact that he is posting from an iPad and is 100 miles from a computer. This sort of attack is completely insane. I am not in a position to know anything about his personal situation.
2. Rhetorical garbage:
In post 192, Kinetic wrote:I love how you picked the one thing there that you think you have an attack against and make the entire post about that. Nope, its to point out how hypocritical you're being.
There is nothing that I have said where him explaining that he posting from an iPad is going to demonstrate its hypocrisy.
Suggesting that I am using logically fallacies that I am not using.
Yet, I've found numerous scum in numerous games with this tell. And it usually is a very strong scum tell in my book, or at the very least gives a lot of information.3. Use of weak/boilerplate scum-tells
In post 192, Kinetic wrote:Perhaps my meta is a bit dated, but I'm referring to a variant of the "Tarhalindur Chainsaw Defense"
Here he was using a version of a scum-tell where he was suggesting that Tierce is scum with me for attacking MattP in an attempt to distract town from Kinetic's case on me. Even the strong version of this "tell" (which would have occurred if Tierce had attacked Kinetic) is highly questionable, so this version is most likely irrelevant to people's alignments.
For someone like you, maybe. But not for me. When you get known for set up speculation as I am, you can see when someone is making attacks on it that don't make sense from a town perspective as your attacks did.He calls people scum for disagreeing with him over mechanics/strategy issues. These are usually alignment neutral things.
Just because you "say" the tell is discredited doesn't mean it is. And you're simplifying things incredibly. That post was an all out attack on me, which you made despite agreeing that I caught Xalxe in a scummy act. That's the whole fucking point. Your attack in that post on my was unwarranted because my logic was sound, but you had to make the attack anyway.He suggests that I was chainsaw defending Xalxe when I pointed out that I have doubts about the reason to think that he is scum on account of the setup being closed. This is a completely reasonable point, I think, and Kinetic doesn't seem to disagree, and on top of that, the "tell" is discredited.
You never "said" anything of the sort but everyone in the fucking game agreed that you were being OMGUS-y. If I don't say you're an idiot, but just act like I think you are, does that make it any less true what I think about you?4. Taking things out of context: Kinetic 203. I attack Kinetic over the things that he chose to comment on - he was talking about mechanics rather than talking about the case on MattP. I point this out, and he tries to suggest that my issue was with him attacking me. I'd never said anything of the sort.
You have this way about using words over the top. I explained what I meant there and I regret ever calling you town.5. Lying and backtracking. Regarding my post 300. He says its a good post and unvotes me, he gets called out on his unvote and says the doesn't agree with every single one of the points (not quite all the points) then later says that in fact he agrees with none of them. He exaggerated to justify his change of read on me and then backtracked on that when he was called out.
Actually, what I said was, I felt it was a scumslip that he wasn't trying to negotiate at all, just present a delaying tactic as the only option despite not even addressing my points on why it would be necessary to speed things up. And frankly, saying PV wasn't acting scummy is a big fucking stretch.6. Exaggeration: post 428, he suggested that Peregrine scumslipped when he said that he wanted us to use seven rather than five votes to secure a lynch.
I throw things around early in the game pretty heavily to see what sticks. I look at reactions. Guess what, you're reacting like scum so I call it like I see it.He suggests that me accidentally saying Kinetic rather that PV is a scum slip.
After saying you thought he was scum, after admitting what he was doing was anti-town, after allowing him to perform anti-town actions because it benefited your "game plan". Yup, that's a pretty solid scum motivation in my book.He suggests that not wanting to kill Peregrine yesterday is a scum slip.
At that point it was quite the convenient unvote, and it was at quite an interesting time. And the "buddies" comment was directed and PV when he said something along the lines of "If I were scum, my scumbuddies would protect me". Yup, I believed that at that time. I'm so glad your hindsight is 20/20.7. He attacks me for unvoting Peregrine in 464 and then later suggests that Peregrine's buddies wouldn't stick their necks out to save him. He was falling over himself trying to throw suspicion around.
That is one possibility. Or, you know the set up spec as scum, threw that out there to prevent townies from finishing off PV before he hurt me again, or just wanted to do something else. I don't know the everything, but there are definitely possibilities where you're scum and Xalxe is town or, *gasp* you're town and Xalxe is scum.8. He attacks Xalxe for hurtingKineticPVbecause of my setup spec - that scum will want to hurt town because it might help them pick up rage, and attacks me for not hurting Peregrine because I didn't want blood on my hands. If scum really do pick up rage for hurting townies there was no reason for me to stick my neck out and not hurt Peregrine, and if he buys the argument against Xalxe, he should not be attacking me over this.
That isn't a kicker. I made an initial vote on Xalxe to gain information. You know. Scum hunting. I do that a lot. Just because I'm going after someone doesn't mean I don't have reservations or I'm not open to changing my mind if new information surfaces. Apparently, not being 100% sure that who you're attacking is a scum tell for you.9. This is the real kicker. He's attacking me for saying that I have reservations about the Xalxe argument. When I ask him about it, he dodges the question, by saying that he didn't say that he didn't have reservations about them, but this seems to imply that he understands why I would have reservations about it, and the fact that he is attacking me over this is contrived.
Points for the future:
Kinetic has claimed that he has plans to use town claiming rage to find scum, and believed in them enough to suggest that I am for doubting him. If these plans don't pan out, he needs to be forced to explain them in detail, and then lynched if they don't make any sense.
In post 767, quadz08 wrote:In post 765, Zdenek wrote:In post 756, Kinetic wrote: wrote:
You've failed to do so at every turn. You haven't even made a case about me. Make one.
Maybe later.
This seems like more fun.
Vote: Yosarian
whaaaaaaat
how is this not being voted by everyone in the game
In post 798, MattP wrote:Thanks guys for being patient. My exam is over and tomorrow is all day mafia catchup.