MrBuddyLee wrote:Finds cesspit suspicious for voting DGB after she begged replacement. I see dumb not scum but yes, the Cess play is suspect.
If you want to frame it that way, this was what I would consider a poorly thought out rationale for a vote. Yes, it could arguably be dumb, but it could also arguably be an attempt to put together a compelling sounding reason for a bandwagon, which would be scummy. I'll return to this topic later.
summary: no real comment on validity of Bogretownwagon
I believe I've said this to you already, but I don't feel the need to comment on everything that's going on. I barely remember the Bogre wagon at this point, but I can't see anything in the thread to suggest that I would have had strong feelings one way or the other about it. Given that, I don't really know what you would have wanted me to say.
Lordy and Kurtz are stupid. No vote yet.
finds bluemonick's "jump to that bandwagon" on Yosarian scummy. (not stupid, scummy.) Says the reasoning is nonsense. Votes bluemonick for nonsense. Curious.
summary: found stupidity in bluemonick scummy but not in lordy or kurtz.
And I don't find this curious at all. As with Cesspit, bluemonick was voting on the basis of poor reasoning. More than that, he latched onto BMQ's bad reasoning trap, and then extended the poor reasoning by relying on matters of experience to which BMQ is entitled, but to which he wasn't. Criminally poor reasoning, and well worth a bandwagon, in my opinion.
Lordy, on the other hand, behaved stupidly, but not in a way that I view as having the goal of getting someone lynched.
Kurtz is a somewhat fairer comparison to make, but I feel that the mistake he made, his reading of lordy's non-claim, is a reasonable one. The comments lordy made were poorly worded, and could appear to be a claim. As such, I'm willing to give Kurtz the benefit of the doubt there.
Day three: disappears for 3 weeks
Apology for absense w/ excuse: "i was waiting for cam the replacement to speak first!" Must reread to see if Spam was so central that he should be waited on there.
I believe Spamwise was the main topic of discussion at that point. Also, more than half of that 3 weeks was the end of Day 2, when I didn't feel any strong needs to reiterate my argument about bluemonick, and Night 3.
Fuldu wrote:If trying to get people to not vote for you wasn't the goal of the claim, then what purpose did claiming serve?
Fuldu wrote:Fine, BJ. I gave you two opportunities to answer my question and you've ducked it without comment both times.
vote: BabyJesus
Hmm, is not answering that question really a serious enough offense to vote BJ? I lean towards yes--BJ looked like he was avoiding issues at the time.
summary: his words never really seem to imply belief that BJ is scummy, just that BJ is making a nonsensical defense. vote stayed to the end though.
How is it that you still don't get that beyond Day One for me the very existence of a vote on someone almost always implies belief that they are scummy? I try to take a measured approach in my voting decisions. Other people have different styles, but I can't see how that difference makes my way look scummy.
Day 4's 6 days old and votes MBL for being a hypocrite (lurkerish d1-3 now calling out lurkers)
Fuldu wrote:because MrBuddyLee has spent the entire game complaining about lurkers, player apathy, and the incoherence of everyone else's arguments without bothering to offer any real substance of his own
For me, the key words there were "without bothering to offer any real substance." You can condense that to "lurkerish" if you want, but "hypocrite" wasn't so much the problem I was trying to get across as was the notion that you had been skating through the game to that point on the
appearance
of contribution. Talking a lot about how no one else is participating and how bad that is for the town is a lot more pro-town-seeming than would be plain lurking, but it's only slightly more genuinely pro-town, which makes it an excellent approach for scum to take.
Fuldu wrote:I'm increasingly convinced that he's scum.
It's curious--this is only the second time Fuldu's actually stated he's found someone scummy. The rest of his mildest of mild suspicions have been very detached and clinical, other than on bluemonick.
Well, yeah. They seemed like stronger arguments to me and so I was willing to make them a little louder than I would otherwise. And, again, just because I don't use the word scum, doesn't mean I don't think the person is scum.
Drops hints that he's happy with MoS's cesspit case and is willing to move.
I'm assuming "may consider shifting my vote" means "if that becomes a safer wagon"? What else could it mean? In case this BuddyLee hypocrisy trend doesn't pan out?
"Safer" wagon? No, but there's always the possibility that no one's going to agree with me, at which point I'd rather put my vote on Cesspit and contribute to a lynch that isn't my preferred one, but of which I approve, than leave it somewhere where it isn't having any effect.
Claims that the quality of his posts dramatically exceeds MBL's. Uses his argument against bluemonick as his primary defense. It's true--that's the only Fuldu post that moved the game forward in a positive direction. The rest of them have diddled around with office logic, not expressed many of his suspicions, and pointed out minor flaws in people's logic but not their scumminess.
What do you want from me, exactly? I feel that my Cesspit argument Day One contributed to the discussion. And while you may feel that it is of minimal relevance now (see below), it was a genuine contribution at the time it was posted.
Similarly, I think my arguments with BabyJesus were a positive contribution. I was wrong, but I don't think I was unreasonable in suggesting that BabyJesus's behavior was inconsistent and merited an explanation.
And, maybe you don't see it, but I consider the pointing out of minor flaws in people's logic to potentially be of value to the general discussion. Not as much as the aforementioned points, but of value. Small misunderstandings like that can quickly turn into large misunderstandings like the one exemplified by the lordy/Kurtz exchange. Trying to make sure everyone is on the same page helps to defuse those situations.
Then digs up a decent observation on MBL--noted I posted in mild support of Bogre hours before he was hammered, and didnt unvote. This shows that Fuldu actually went back and reread my post history carefully, implying I was his #1 target for lynch. As I try to determine Fuldu's alignment, I ask whether he's going back and looking for dirt with a fine-toothed comb as scum or as town. I haven't played with Fuldu enough to say.
I can't recall which of those two situations it was in this case. It's certainly true that you were my #1 target for lynch, though I would use the word "preference" rather than "target". I was/am suspicious of you and had expressed that already. I'm sure I reread everything you'd posted at or around that timeframe, looking for suspicious behavior. But at some point back there I went through and reread the entire thread, as well. But I'm not going to suggest that I'm completely able to set aside my existing preconceptions about players when doing that sort of reread.
Fuldu wrote:you'll notice a marked difference in the quality of MBL posts from before my vote/post to which he's referring and those after...not that this was the primary intent of the post, my targeted attempt to improve the value of discourse from those I consider suspicious has proven substantially more effective than any of MBL's repeated listing of people he thinks are lurking.
For some reason attempts to detract from any pro-town motives in my September posts and reassign the credit to himself.
Well, I haven't considered the subsequent material to be exactly overflowing with pro-town motives. But this was said in response to describing my argument against you as "hypocrite," which I've already said isn't an accurate depiction.
Remember above when Fuldu gave signs that if the Cess wagon kicked into gear he'd move back onto it? Let's look at the actual quotes side-by-side:
Fuldu wrote:I agree with MoS's comments on
TheCesspit, who I was uncomfortable with back on Day One, but subsequently began to trust again
. I may consider shifting my vote over there, but for now would prefer this.
Fuldu wrote:Well, I was in favor of a Cesspit lynch back on day one
, so if the MBL bandwagon isn't going anywhere, I'll gladly change to Cesspit.
vote: Cess
1) It's day four. Your day one reason was way weak, particularly now that there're four days worth of posts to work with. Why even make an attempt to rationalize your vote
twice
by reiterating that it's a weak suspicion you dabbled with day one?
You think it's weak. I felt it was a reasonable argument that, by Day Four, was insufficient on its own, but in conjunction with MoS's concerns was worth pursuing.
2) How sincere were his suspicions of me if he moved his vote? He was "increasingly convinced MBL is scum" cause I was hypocritical. Moving off because a "better wagon" appeared is curious.
I guess the important distinction is between "better vote" and "better wagon." As I said above, you were still my preferred target. No one else really seemed to agree with me and I didn't have anything new to say. I could have repeated my arguments in the hopes that maybe no one had been paying attention previously, and perhaps I should have. I don't like to rant about "Why isn't anyone listening to me" unless I really, really think things are taking a bad turn. But as things were, there were a couple bandwagons with the potential to go somewhere, one of which I felt was a good idea, and the others I didn't (or had no strong feelings). Given that, Cesspit was a better wagon, and I don't feel that reasoning is scummy.
Apparently my accusation that he was looking for a convenient lynch stuck, because he counterargued that I listed a zillion people as suspicious. He didn't attempt to defend his vote at all.
The above is my defense of the vote, and I felt I had made it clear in the two Cesspit bandwagon quotes you've included above. And, again, I feel that the Day One argument I made was a stronger argument than you do, so you can disagree with it as a defense of my vote, but you can't say I hadn't attempted to defend it.
Disappears for a week waiting for Oberon to post. This is the second time he's seemed happy not to rock the boat until a replacement had a chance to dig themselves a hole. I'd have maybe asked someone else a question in that time, but that's not how Fuldu's playing this game. He's all about The Cesspit/Oberon.
Well, now you're just being snide. I've talked about a focused approach a couple of times now, and I don't expect to change your view on it, but I don't care to jump up and down just to keep you happy.
Takes a cheap nonsequitur shot at MBL while asking Oberon for a clearer argument behind his mathcam vote. Fuldu won't unvote unless Oberon:
Fuldu wrote:points to the specific arguments brought against him(mathcam) that you felt were strong
This is fascinating, considering the similarity between Fuldu's argument against Cess and Oberon's against cam:
Oberon wrote:Mathcam seems to stand out as more scummy then most everyone else here. Plus
the strongest arguements have been brought up against him.
Fuldu wrote:I agree with MoS's comments on TheCesspit
, who I was uncomfortable with back on Day One
Summary: Fuldu demands Oberon lists the specific arguments against cam that were strong, while Fuldu coasts along in MoS's wake without listing a single specific argument against Cesspit that he finds strong.
I can't speak to the cheap non sequitur, since it doesn't appear to be up any longer. My recollection of the post about Oberon was that it was complaining more precisely about the fact that he had replaced into the game and said, "yeah, the arguments against mathcam are strong." Without even any credible evidence that he read the thread any more clearly than would be necessary to find a target, I don't intend to remove my vote.
The comparison you make to me and my Cesspit/Oberon vote isn't entirely fair, but it isn't entirely unfair either. As I've said, I think the arguments I was pointing to are things that you either didn't recognize or don't respect as arguments, but I certainly did take what MoS had said into consideration without commenting on it.
It takes a village to raise a lynch mob.
