I have tried to find this reasoning. Truly. Maybe I'll have better luck in this post. In any case I'm replying in full detail to it, because I see full what you're doing. Your 299 is a non-structured ball of half-sentences that is extremely difficult to reply to without wasting at least half an hour. And you wonder why I cherry-pick...In post 299, Garmr wrote:
No a omgus is saying your case sucks with out providing points. I have provided reasoning behind all my cases which you just cover your ears and go lalalalalala.
But I'm spending a lonely evening in my hotel room so you're out of luck
. It's harvesting time and this cherry bush is getting raped. You're talking about 183, right? Full of emotion, yes, if you stopped reading after the first three words of that post. And didn't expect what? An OMGUS of these proportions? No, you're right, I didn't expect that. You may keep saying OMGUS is not a scumtell, and granted, in itself it isn't and people do it all the time. But yours is bad because your arguments are bad.Your response to my vote on you was completely full of emotion and you probably didn't expect it.
But it's not just emotion. What follows after the three words is me laying out why your vote is terrible. Why your particular OMGUS is scummy. But you go, how did you put it, "lalalala"? "lalalalala, omgus is not a scumtell anymore gimme something else lalalala".
Let me summarize it for you, in an effort to both get a decent reply, as well as for others, to unclog what you're clogging up by splitting hairs.
The essence of 183, for which I'll have to refer to 130 again:
1. The "hypocrisy"-argument. This one has been empasized by you, and was meant as an afterthought by me. Nonetheless, at the time I called you a hypocrite there was very little indication your vote on amethyst was based on anything but some previous game. You stated repeatedly you liked where put your vote ever since RVS without a clear argumentation trajectory. The only thing one can discern is the 1vs1 with someone Amethyst seems to consider town, but it's plain to see for anyone this can hardly be called an argument, even at the time. Scum wouldn't go on a 1v1 they proclaimed town, and neither would town. Nobody would. You decided to take Amethyst's statement literally to such an extent in after the fact, when saying to me that your vote was there for other reasons than previous game experience.
2. And this will address a point you ask for here below: talk about previous games. This point should be split up in two points as well, A and B.
2.A. The value of talking about a previous game in the case of BigTerp - pieguyn - myself
Like I said before, we just got out of a game together, where the three of us reached LyLo. We were reading eachother's posts for a month, right before this game started. Of course you get a feel of each other more easily under these circumstances, or at least one cane xpect it to. It should go without saying really. All three of us were town in that previous game, and the slightest difference in play here could hint at a different alignment within the trio.
The discussion was interesting. I'm not going to pull out quotes, simply because it's tedious. You don't need quotes to realize the following:
We each gave our views on each other, and one thing we agreed on: pieguyn looks very town. I needed that list clarified first, but right now I see no reason to wonder about pieguyn. He's playing just like before (maybe even a tad more proactive). This feeling is backed-up by both me and BigTerp. This is valuable.
The read on BigTerp is trickier, at least for me. After all, we did need a cop investigation to find out BigTerp's alignment for sure. I'm not sure if I wouldn't have found him suspect if he hadn't been checked. From what I can see, he was behaving similarly to the previous game as well, but here there's less certainty, from both pieguyn and myself. This is also valuable, these doubts mean something could be up.
The read on me, well, not my place to talk about it, BigTerp seems conflicted and has me as null (feels like the same thing I have with him), pieguyn hasn't beenv ery clear on how he reads me but following the discussion I see he feels my point in a way only someone who seems to trust me could feel it.
2.B. Your comment about this past game-talk.
This was a bad comment to make, first of all because it was untimely, second because it allowed you to continue into your sideline-commenting and gaining general appraisal for saying something that seems so sensible at first sight. You closing it off with some token of modesty is just the cherry of overacting as mister goodiegood I picked to put on top of the cake.
I'll get into more detail when it comes to this point once we start talking about your A and B scenarios, because I can more clearly illustrate in that context why your comment was so bad.
3. You bringing up shit about me that occurred before my vote on you but only chose to point out afterwards.
This shows your reactionary way of playing. You don't scumhunt. You look for dirt on who attacked you and throw it in his face. That's OMGUS, and damn right it's the scummy kind.
4. Pieguyn's list and my comments on it.
The dead horse. I really don't feel like going over this yet again, but I must.
In closing I want to bring up some lines from your 130 that show clearly you're reaching (lines in italics were proclaimed by Garmr):
-
"Also i'm not getting lost in the past game unlike"
I guess this was meant to say "unlike you". So what you're saying here is I got lost in the past game. But I never did such a thing. I never got lost. The discussion had barely started, we were exchanging views on eachother, comparing to the previous game. THAT'S IT!!
-
"Yes reading meta is interesting but continuing to talk about the a past game with out using it in context to recent plays is just what you said stifling possibly interesting discussion and insights. So what your proposing is to continue being stuck in the past game wasting precious time. No this wrong."
An inflated argument if I ever saw one. I did not "continue to talk about a past game". I did not "propose to continue being stuck". And I sure as hell didn't waste precious time. What were you doing during this precious time? Oh yes, "you had said nothing about everyone except 3 people" (cfr. below) and some sideline comment on gamestate.
-
"You pretty much skipped the rvs phase not that is bad but you claim Slandaar is fluffier than you remember."
I can't even discern an argument in there, but you made it a seperate paragraph so I guess there must be? Yes, Slandaar looked very playful and I didn't know what to make of it. Last time I played with him (ohnoes, here I go again) he ot down to business more rapidly, also in the neighborhood QT we had at the time. It surprised me that in a game like this, with a pressing deadline, he seemed to be taking it all rather easy.
Did I address your non-existent point now?
-
"Your case in 78 is pretty bad and pretty much saying because he speculated three scum he knows the set up is what your basically saying."
Yes, basically that's what the idea was that was playing around in my mind. I never called it a case though. But I always find it striking when people talk about set-ups in such a way that it seems they're taking the set-up as a given. This is a closed set-up game. There's no reason at all why anyone should be treating setups as a given, no matter what norms are out and about. When they do, an alarm bells rings. It rang with Desperado, and it resonated with me. (note: pieguyn has made clear this was a reference to the previous game, one that I had missed but one that had cleared up my suspicions in this regard)
-
"Then when Slandaar replies 3 is the norm your next post focus's on discrediting him that's pretty bad in itself."
First of all: this is not an argument. This is giving information, and then adding "that's pretty bad", to it. My focus did not change. It's not about the amount of scum being 3 or not. It's not about pieguyn being correct or not. It's about what I spoke about rearlier: the proclamation of speculation as fact. Because that's how it sounded. I never shifted focus.
-
"But your making such a uproar about pieguy yet you pretty much vote TSO with out reasoning in the same freaking post."
My reasoning for voting T S O was to be found in my ISO and was reminiscent of what I had blamed Slandaar for doing. This was a vote to get a response from T S O (which I got, you'll never guess what it was). I knew pieguyn would be responding anyway, given the arguments were concrete and coming from different angles.
Thank you for proving my point about you having stuck to the sideline before I called you out. What should be added though, as it makes matters even worse: Your only scumread was null-scum based on a NON-argument.Also before that I had said nothing about everyone except 3 people and the only scum read was null-scum.
And now you're mister happy-wall aren't you? Scum found a tunnel to dig through.
Urgh. Trying to distill the core message of this. You're saying I'm cherry pickin? Funny, because that's what I accused you of doing (emphasizing the hypocrisy-argument). I see you'll enumerate which argument I left unadressed here below. Very curious.I have said Many times why continuing the last game convo was bad. But now instead of me defending myself for my opinion which not alignment indicative. How about it's time you argue with my points instead of cherry picking bits of what I say. Also that that all i do is ramble on about it is because you fucking keep pressing me about it and it's the main bit of your case against me.
Down boyAre you naturally just thick
Oh, so this is merely a matter of diverging opinions then is it? Then why would you vote me over it?First explain to me why a opinion about the environment is alignment indicative. I think you also have to realize everyone thinks differently and not everyone thinks the same about certain things.
But no, this is not about a difference of opinion and you know full well it isn't. That last line is bullshit plain and simple.
And why your opinion on the environment is alignment indiciative? Precisely for the reason why you seem to think it isn't: it's a perfectly safe statement to make as scum. You comment about the weather, everyone agrees with you, all joy and merriment. But by talking about the weather people don't find out who you are. I hate people talking about the weather all the time. They're either stupid, or they have something to hide (or it's their job, but you're not an Inexperienced Challenged Player and this ain't a newbie game).
I've had more fun assignments in History class.2nd
You have to prove why the environment is beneficial for town and disprove all the points I have made about how scum can hide in it. How getting caught up in the past game with out comparing it to plays in this game and just talking about it generally is town and has absoutly no scum benefits.
Scum could hide in it, just like how they hide in fluff. Yet this did not occur here. Why would I disprove your theoretical points? They're right, IN THEORY. The problem with your theory is: IT DOES NOT APPLY HERE. Yet you insist it does, all in an effort to call me obvscum.
Are you talking about yourself now? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You were NOT involved in the game, and that sideline comment seemed to hint at you not having any desire to do so. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!Also you have to provide scum motivation for wanting to get involved in the game instead of sitting back and letting the day pass by with nothing to gain.
In your last sentence you say you think we were heading for scenario B. And this is what makes your entire OMGUS so scummy,b ecause if you remember 130, there you said we were already in scenario B. Hence your comment was untimely. Yet you tried to make it sound relevant by claiming "I was stuck in a previous game and proclaiming we should continue to be in this state of affairs". It's a misrep. And you made a shift.In post 187, Garmr wrote:2 You told me my view was wrong. I told you why my view was right. Like I said if we don't use it in context with this game like comparing behaviors and actions they done then it just becomes worthless fluff.
Scenario A. x"You did this last game player y and then did it again this game.
(In context)
Scenario B player x"Wow you totally had me fooled last game."
player y "Yeh i know man that was an awesome game"
Player x "That play player z made wow"
Get my point I feel like we were heading for a scenario B
At the point of your intervention we were still all merrily in scenario A.
Also, even if it were scenario B, it would be fluff and that never lasts forever and, to use your own words, fluff "isn't necessarily a scumtell". Yet you made it one, all in an effort to back-up your OMGUS-vote.
No, I'll simply refer to what I said above. You giving me tedious assignments seems just like your way of discouraging me and I'm not playing along. Everyone can see for themselves what posts were made and can look at this post and see what I'm saying is correct.3rd you have to prove it was scenario A using posts. It also must be the players that were in the past games so none of those throw away things like the joke rvs read. Which I already explained is null and if you want to use that you have to disprove all my reasoning on that to that.
Consider it done.So if you want to continue that part of the case on me (The bulk) Answer all that or I won't even bother responding.
No, it's because you lack posting skills. Your posts are like a thick forest of random thoughts. It's difficult to cut through all that crap.On a side note if you can't make heads or tails of my arguments it's because your stubborn and refuse to.
I wouldn't count on it. We'll be in touch.I bet when you do actually land a town role mafia has a field day with you.
#1 reason my vote was on Marquis. Will rewrite later but for now
