Open 557: Deck of Stacks [Game Over]

[Justin Playfair]

For nine pages this was a remarkably dense read. Will begin posting thoughts shortly. First let me...

UNVOTE: Desperado

...just to clear away the dead brush.

[tn5421]

@Desperado: the 4chan definition

[beastcharizard]

@beastcharizard: Your list is laughable at best. My initial vote on talah was RVS. When I placed it the second time, it stopped being RVS and was personal, which I have already explained. The problem with your logic is that it relies almost exclusively on WIFOM.

Please do quote your second vote on them.

[Cheery Dog]

Votecount 1.01

Katengecchi

(4) Paschendale, Finglove, penguin_alien, Voidwalker1234

tn5421

(3) Desperado, mlearn2, beastcharizard

beastcharizard

(2) SeeEmpty, talah

SeeEmpty

(1) Katengecchi

Not Voting

(2) tn5421, Justin Playfair


With 12 Alive, 7 vote are required to lynch
Deadline: Wednesday, May 14, 2014, at 9:40 PM EDT (UTC-4), which is in (expired on 2014-05-14 21:39:58)

Prodding mlearn2 & Voidwalker1234

[Justin Playfair]

Hi, I'm going to break these up into one to three player chunks so as not to create an impenetrable wall of text.

Going to start with

SeeEmpty

. SeeEmpty starts slow, though that may well have been a factor of the early game unpleasantness. The post where he explicitly calls that argument a pain to read would lead me to believe this would be the case. But it did bother me some that he

also pointed out that the early role discussion would also make rereading a chore

.

However, SeeEmpty then goes on to do a bit of what looks like pretty genuine scumhunting. He takes decent and reasoned looks at Pim (me), TN, Talah, Finglove, and Desperado. Not a lot, but if we're grading on a curve SeeEmpty's getting an A. And he adequately proves that whatever he thinks of the early squabbling he did read it.

I do have a minor question about something SeeEmpty posted in relation to his vote on Beastcharizard, though. Nor for keeping it through the

weirdly unnatural reason for Beast's lack of attendance

. I mean, in one post Beast combines an unconvincing reason for lurking and asks See Empty why he thinks he's lurking.

This, however, seems a bit too enthusiastic.

Void, while openly stated he's a lurker, is doing fine so far. If you can't see the different between Void and BC's posts then I don't know what else to say other than suggest you to read them again.

There is certainly a qualitative difference between Beast and Void. But...

@SeeEmpty, could you explain why you think Void is doing fine so far?


We haven't seen a lot from

penguin_alien

. She engages in a bit of the opening scum role speculation but other than first chastising Katengecchi for going after the ic and then defending herself from Katengecchi all but a couple random questions of penguin_alien's substantive contributions are contained in this post.

@penguin_alien. Something struck me as odd about this. In this longish post you praise Pim (me) for throwing down and taking responsibility in his post 39. The one where he makes a completely unexplained vote and demands others discuss it. After that post he continued to Cheshire Cat his way through the game until even his smile vanished. He deliberately and openly denied the town information.

Now Katengecchi put forth an opinion which she said could be proven if she could only link to a game played by some portion of its hydra. Admittedly these two cases are slightly different, but both boil down to referencing hidden information and then not revealing it to town.

Why does it bother you to the point you would threaten Katen with a policy vote but doesn't seem to bother you at all from Pim?

Thank you both for your answers. I'll be back with some more soon.

[SeeEmpty]

Let me say this in the first place: one more name calling from you and I won't even bother to reply you any more. This is just a game. I don't see the reason to do that at all. Do you appreciate being called a fuckface when people reply to you? I don't know about you but I don't. If you think you're playing aggressively, you're not, but just being rude and coarse. This is not a "you're louder then you win" type of discussion. So either discuss in a civilized manner or don't bother to discuss at all.

Yes, you shitlord, you did it in THE EXACT POST I CALLED YOU OUT FOR.

When what you said was:

Read:
"I'll just lynch whichever one of the two ppl want to lynch without taking any stance at all as to which one."

Did I:
1. Try to lynch whichever one of the two(what two? it was a 3 people argument) without taking any stance at all as to which one?
2. Try to lynch anyone for that matter without taking any stance at all?

And what makes you think I'm "scum painting", as opposed to looking into your mindset and motivations behind your posts? There is literally no town motivation to go "herp derp one of them might be scum or both might be town or they might all be scum" - it literally accomplishes nothing whatsoever. On the other hand, if you're scum, how convenient: you can just follow what everyone else seems to do and look like you're doing shit when you're really not.

I said this before and I'll say this again, but I won't repeat myself for another time:

It is my gut feeling from what I have read in the argument. And if I "just follow what everyone else seems to do and look like you're doing shit when you're really not", any one can point that out.

It's QUITE OBVIOUS you were using this as a reason to call him scum - if not, then why the hell did you throw it in with a bunch of comments about why he was scummy? This is a post where you are ACCUSING beast, and this is PART of your accusation. So this is blatant backpedaling.

2. If you have no idea what scum motivation there is for us being concerned, then why the hell bring it up?

3. Nice misrep. HE DID THAT ALREADY WHEN HE CLAIMED THE OTHER GAME WAS MORE INTERESTING THAN THIS ONE. And you used it as another excuse to make him look bad.

1. Everyone understand things differently. So if that's what you understand, so be it. I told you I didn't say that's scummy. I just feel strange. Yet you keep saying I say that because I think it is scummy. Suit yourself then.
2. I have no idea why you're being concerned. I like the fact that you mention "scum motivation" again.
3. You just avoided my question: "If I call you as not contributing and lurking, can you defend against it? Will any defence makes you look bad further?" If you can answer this straight up, you will know what I mean by "It is hardly indefensible" and why not "any defense he could give allows you to make him look bad further".

One more very important question: Do you think "THE OTHER GAME WAS MORE INTERESTING THAN THIS ONE" is a valid reason not to contribute, or is that a bad excuse? Don't skip this question.

No, you shitlord, I'm saying that, unless you can find explicit scum motivation for why we're doing what we're doing, it's a NULL TELL at best, NOT A TOWN TELL, EXPLICITLY because of said WIFOM.

Agreed. But using WIFOM to proof what you did is not scummy is cheap as hell. The essence of WIFOM is there is no way to be certain of one thing over another.

But, again, you twisting my words around to suit your arguments is noted.

The full conversation:

"Did I just caught your scum partner?"
"what scum motivation is there in making the most obvious as fuck defense ever?"
Read: "I am making the most obvious as fuck defense ever. How can this be scum motivated?", hence:
"WIFOM at its best"

Have twisted your words? I think I didn't, but I pass this judgement to the other readers.

Guess what? We never said this. Another misrep!

You never did literally say this, but "scum will never do what we do" is derived from "I am making the most obvious as fuck defense ever. How can this be scum motivated?".

^This is another blatantly scum post, by the way. Scum love to talk down to the people they're scumreading in order to intimidate them and otherwise manipulate them into not retaliating. JUST LOOK AT THE BOLDED. Hardly ggs

You seem to either:

1. Understand what BC was saying so you think my question is not worth answering, or,
2. You don't understand why BC was saying that but you still don't think the question is worth answering.

If 1, then tell me what do you understand, or 2, then tell me why asking for something you don't understand is not worth answering.

When I asked him exactly ~what~ the scum motivation in beast's play was, he was never able to answer. This also ties into 2 - he knows beast's play isn't actually scum motivated and thus keeps dodging the question.

Answer these:

1. Why does some people believes that "lynch all lurkers" is a valid strategy?
2. Is actively lurking a town motivated or scum motivated action?

If you can answer this, then I have answered your questions.

"3. That's what you think. Why not you see what he says before you start defending him?"

Mis-rep: we did.

You did what? Waited for BC to reply before defending him? You obviously didn't.

I consider low hanging fruit to be a player who's easier to push and/or lynch, whether based on playstyle or some other characteristic - that's the vibe I'm getting from beast atm.

You think BC's playstyle is a lurker? Why don't you stop being lazy and meta him? Do state the playstyle or characteristic from BC that makes you think he's a "a player who's easier to push and/or lynch"?

Please do quote your second vote on them.

This is just bad. You can easily know where is the second vote if you've been following the game, and you can also easily find it out by ISO-ing his posts. I don't understand what is this going to achieve.

Also, you're avoiding my direct question to you in post #211. If you do not answer it in your next post I'm going to assume you are deliberately ignoring it.

[SeeEmpty]

@SeeEmpty, could you explain why you think Void is doing fine so far?

By the time I was posting that comment, he was doing fine. He respond to other's comments, and his vote on Pim feels genuine to me. I also think that being cryptic does not help anyone in any way, and only serve to confuse people. I do give Pim the opportunity to explain himself, while Void thinks that behaviour itself is vote worthy.

However, his play after that is bad. Bandwagoning without reason and started lurking. I don't care if a person claims he is a lurker as long as he is not doing it. But if he really does lurk, then I won't like it, even if this is his play style.

So if you ask me if he is

still

doing fine so far? No.

[beastcharizard]

I did ISO him and I only saw 1 vote on Talah and that was the original vote. I also found the two unvotes. I now see it was post 106. I missed it because it is not on its own line like is standard protocol.

I didn't see a second vote originally so I didn't think there was a second vote. I was trying to catch them in the lie I thought they were telling.

[SeeEmpty]

I did ISO him and I only saw 1 vote on Talah and that was the original vote. I also found the two unvotes. I now see it was post 106. I missed it because it is not on its own line like is standard protocol.

I didn't see a second vote originally so I didn't think there was a second vote. I was trying to catch them in the lie I thought they were telling.

Still doesn't explain why you think tn "jumped on the talah wagon for no reason" in post #171.

[Katengecchi]

Katen, I don't particularly like your approach of scumhunting SeeEmpty. From best to worst, I consider logic behind scumhunting as follows:

BEST
(1) Scummy activity -> Scum
(2) If they are scum -> their activity looks scummy -> Scum
(3) If they are scum -> their activity still doesn't look scummy -> Scum (obviously crap, but included for completeness)
WORST

It comes across to me that you're veering quite close to (2) rather than (1), i.e., a lot of your argument seems to be predicated on SeeEmpty being scum. I assume this is because, there being no probabalistic reason for it, you have some kind of gut feeling that you can't elucidate in words, but with that feeling a lot of his posts come across as scummy, which you helpfully point out.

I get the feeling I wasn't quite clear.

SeeEmpty's activity is scummy explicitly BEACUSE it comes from scum motivation, as opposed to town motivation. In order to show that, I need to show how his actions work from a scum POV. I get how it feels like I'm assuming he's scum for this, but I'm not - I'm looking into his words and actions and seeing what he's trying to accomplish. Motivation is a thing that exists and drives ALL a player's actions a game, and you can hunt for it - it's always there, and in Empty's case, the large majority of his actions make way more sense from a scum POV than a town POV.

My arguments don't explicitly rely on Empty personally being scum, more so they're explaining how Empty's actions fit in and relate to a scum agenda. There may be a ~possible~ town motivation for each individual one, but that's what scum uses a blank check to hide. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture and make leaps in judgement as to what's actually going on.

For the sake of example, lets go through your five points assuming that he's town:

1. He's pushing lurkers because it's something that needs to be done, and it helps establish him as an active player the town may want to keep alive
2. I don't get a backpeddling vibe from 188, he's responding carefully to the questions people ask. He points out symmetrical reads because yeah, it's interesting, and might be worth thinking about later
3., 5. are feelings.
4. That post also contains a lot of responses too, and they look pretty comprehensive.

1. No. If he was actually interested in determining beast's alignment, he would actually be interested in finding the motivation in his posts, but instead, he just tries to pass beast off as mafia for "not scumhunting and lurking".

2. The point of that was, the fact beast's read matched talah's affected his read, but when pressured about it, he claimed it didn't and tried to cover it up. He's flip flopping around in order to try to squirm out of suspicion.

3 has a thoroughly objective point - he has not yet been able to explain what the actual scum motivation behind beast's play is. I deduce from that his push on beast is bullshit, because if he seriously believed beast was scum, he should be able to explain how his actions fit in from a scum POV.

4. Scum aren't going to pull this on every single response - they do this just a few times to avoid giving out answers for certain key points. If they do it every single time they interact with someone, it'll be way too obvious.

You see my problem? I don't think that what you're pointing to is objectively scummy. Maybe it's not objectively town either (I mean, the thought experiment above is way more supportive than I actually think) but I'm not feeling a great pull to jump onto that wagon.

If you limit yourself to things that are "objectively scummy" or "objectively town", you're not going to get very far. As I said, in-thread words and actions are ALWAYS coming from some sort of motivation, and you can hunt for it. Try to look at exactly what Empty is trying to accomplish with each post of his, what he was thinking at the time, and what his mindset was.

-Koromo

[penguin_alien]

Why does it bother you to the point you would threaten Katen with a policy vote but doesn't seem to bother you at all from Pim?

Because I've dealt with players who claim they have good information but can't reveal it for *reasons* and get tetchy over it. Sometimes scum, sometimes town. But it always leaves me frustrated as all get-out. See: Aunt Jemima in Death's Diner claiming to have scum tells on me that I was displaying but couldn't explain because it would involve revealing an alt (spoiler alert: I was town) and F-16 as Deviant Serenity in Micro 264 claiming I was playing my scum game but not wanting to give away his tells (spoiler alert: I was town, he was scum). It leaves the town deciding whether to blindly sheep, and it's dirty pool.

The difference with Pim was that he was choosing not to reveal something for the time being. I didn't get the sense he was insisting others agree with him sight unseen. I think a decent number of players try that tactic, albeit without necessarily considering what it gains them.

@penguin:

You have some questions in my wall 193. Plz answer

Naaaah. You're basically not going to be happy unless I town read you and agree with you, and since that's not happening, I don't feel like wasting my time with mincing little Q&A sessions.

I like Justin for coming in and pushing someone who's generally been townread in the person of SeeEmpty.

[Justin Playfair]

Finglove

has given us almost no scumhunting, but I did like his comment regarding Void in 94. I suppose what I don't like so much is this post:

Katen, I don't particularly like your approach of scumhunting SeeEmpty. From best to worst, I consider logic behind scumhunting as follows:

BEST
(1) Scummy activity -> Scum
(2) If they are scum -> their activity looks scummy -> Scum
(3) If they are scum -> their activity still doesn't look scummy -> Scum (obviously crap, but included for completeness)
WORST

It comes across to me that you're veering quite close to (2) rather than (1), i.e., a lot of your argument seems to be predicated on SeeEmpty being scum. I assume this is because, there being no probabalistic reason for it, you have some kind of gut feeling that you can't elucidate in words, but with that feeling a lot of his posts come across as scummy, which you helpfully point out.

For the sake of example, lets go through your five points assuming that he's town:

1. He's pushing lurkers because it's something that needs to be done, and it helps establish him as an active player the town may want to keep alive
2. I don't get a backpeddling vibe from 188, he's responding carefully to the questions people ask. He points out symmetrical reads because yeah, it's interesting, and might be worth thinking about later
3., 5. are feelings.
4. That post also contains a lot of responses too, and they look pretty comprehensive.

You see my problem? I don't think that what you're pointing to is objectively scummy. Maybe it's not objectively town either (I mean, the thought experiment above is way more supportive than I actually think) but I'm not feeling a great pull to jump onto that wagon.

I mean you sort of rebuff Katen's attack on SeeEmpty in the process of explaining why you disapprove of her approach in scumhunting him. And because you eventually label the process a "thought experiment" I won't push you on the second half of your point number one, which seems to rise from a curious perspective. But this aside:

"(I mean, the thought experiment above is way more supportive than I actually think)"

does trouble me. I mean you step in between Katen and SeeEmpty, but not in a way that commits you to anything. You're labeling Katen as not being objective, create a contrary position, disown it by saying it is way more supportive than what you actually think, and then circling back to it just enough to post that you're not willing to vote against SeeEmpty.

Okay. So what is your opinion on SeeEmpty's post? Where does it fall, point by point, between your thought experiment and Katen's actual opinion?

Desperado

hasn't offered a huge amount of useful content, but this short in and considering some of what's happened that isn't particularly noteworthy. I'm not crazy about this...

You don't have anything to add at all? I'd really like to see it in your own word explaining why do you think they are scum.

/shrug

I'm not going to make some shit up just because you want me to say something original. The tn/katen/talah engagement has dominated the game thus far and talah's already said everything salient about it re: katen's alignment.

...because it's just not true. For one thing Katen had made a number of posts not relating to Talah and on which Talah had not commented at all.

But this seems to be a consistent theme with Desperado He gives a townread for SeeEmpty in 131 and when Katen asks him for his read on SeeEmpty Desperado answers in post 202 that he's already given a townread on SeeEmpty and why would Katen ask him again. More than 60 posts had passed between Desperado's first read and the point when Katen asked this question; more than 70 by the time he answered. A lot of them involved SeeEmpty.

@Desperado, has anything happened after the early arguing between Katen, Talah and tn that has attracted your attention? If so would you share your thoughts on them?

Thank you for any answers.

[Katengecchi]

Let me say this in the first place: one more name calling from you and I won't even bother to reply you any more. This is just a game. I don't see the reason to do that at all. Do you appreciate being called a fuckface when people reply to you? I don't know about you but I don't. If you think you're playing aggressively, you're not, but just being rude and coarse. This is not a "you're louder then you win" type of discussion. So either discuss in a civilized manner or don't bother to discuss at all.

Oh, you're doing it again - that thing scum do where they talk down to others in their interactions in order to create an air of arrogance, to avoid being pressured. Sorry, I'm not that malleable ~

(I do admit I probably went a bit overboard and apologize if you took offense to it, but what can I say. I get invested in arguments ~)

1. Everyone understand things differently. So if that's what you understand, so be it. I told you I didn't say that's scummy. I just feel strange. Yet you keep saying I say that because I think it is scummy. Suit yourself then.
2. I have no idea why you're being concerned. I like the fact that you mention "scum motivation" again.
3. You just avoided my question: "If I call you as not contributing and lurking, can you defend against it? Will any defence makes you look bad further?" If you can answer this straight up, you will know what I mean by "It is hardly indefensible" and why not "any defense he could give allows you to make him look bad further".

One more very important question: Do you think "THE OTHER GAME WAS MORE INTERESTING THAN THIS ONE" is a valid reason not to contribute, or is that a bad excuse? Don't skip this question.

1. Then what was that doing in the middle of a post where

everything else was an accusation towards beast?

2. I'm concerned because you're scum and you're trying to lynch town, and I've caught you. Good enough?

3. There's no need to answer a question that's completely pointless. As for your last question, it's something people do all the time even though it's really stupid.

Answer these:

1. Why does some people believes that "lynch all lurkers" is a valid strategy?
2. Is actively lurking a town motivated or scum motivated action?

If you can answer this, then I have answered your questions.

1. You basically just admitted you're playing towards what other people want to see, as opposed to what YOU personally think is scummy. This isn't town motivated thought - town doesn't scumhunt based on what OTHER people think.

2. You completely ignored my actual point. You haven't explained HOW beast is actively lurking, as opposed to being legitimately bored with the game or spending time on another game.

On the other hand, that makes perfect sense given everything I was saying earlier. You're just repeating your idea that beast is "active lurking" in order to make him look bad.

Agreed. But using WIFOM to proof what you did is not scummy is cheap as hell. The essence of WIFOM is there is no way to be certain of one thing over another.

One of the ways I scumhunt is by asking this question. It gives me insight in what people actually think and if they legitimately believe what they're saying.

The full conversation:

"Did I just caught your scum partner?"
"what scum motivation is there in making the most obvious as fuck defense ever?"
Read: "I am making the most obvious as fuck defense ever.

How can this be scum motivated?

", hence:
"WIFOM at its best"

Have twisted your words? I think I didn't, but I pass this judgement to the other readers.

The italicized is where you twisted my words around - it implies that we're trying to state there's no way we could possibly be scum, as a result of making said defense.

What we really said was nothing like that - we were asking you why you thought it was scum motivated. By doing that, it allows us to gain insight as to what your thought processes and motivations are, as I mentioned before, and it also lets us possibly fix your read on us by discussing the specific motivations provided. You, however, completely manipulated it to fit your scum argument and completely ignored the actual motivations behind our actions.

You seem to either:

1. Understand what BC was saying so you think my question is not worth answering, or,
2. You don't understand why BC was saying that but you still don't think the question is worth answering.

If 1, then tell me what do you understand, or 2, then tell me why asking for something you don't understand is not worth answering.

I fail to see the relevance of this as a rebuttal to anything I've said - the point was your tone is highly indicative of scum who are trying to avoid pressure. I might need a better explanation

You think BC's playstyle is a lurker? Why don't you stop being lazy and meta him? Do state the playstyle or characteristic from BC that makes you think he's a "a player who's easier to push and/or lynch"?

Now this is a terrible reason to discredit someone. Do you really believe that townies should always meta dive people they disagree on?

Yeah, didn't think so. You're just trying to ask a bunch of pointless questions that deflect from my actual point.

But nice attempt to paint me as "lazy".

You did what? Waited for BC to reply before defending him? You obviously didn't.

Tell me where I did this.

-Koromo

[Katengecchi]

Naaaah. You're basically not going to be happy unless I town read you and agree with you, and since that's not happening, I don't feel like wasting my time with mincing little Q&A sessions.

I like Justin for coming in and pushing someone who's generally been townread in the person of SeeEmpty.

^Everyone, look at this post

What town motivation is there in blatantly saying you're NOT going to answer someone else's questions?

There is none. And this is why penguin is scum.

Also, she's heavily cherrypicking her scumhunting. She's done it twice now - selectively pushing on us for "trying to undermine the town IC" (when we really didn't), and now selectiveling townreading Justin for pushing on Empty, despite us doing the same thing. Given what she's given me so far, it feels like she decided to scumread us in advance and come up with the reasoning later.

-Koromo

[Justin Playfair]

@SeeEmpty. Thank you for your answer. I think I may have a follow-up, but I would like to ask Void something first, and I don't think I'll get to my first thoughts on Void until the morning.

@penguin_alien. Thank you for your answer. I can promise you this. I will always explain my reasoning. I can't promise that by the time you've had to read pages of it that you won't wish I'd just stop doing it so much.

[SeeEmpty]

(I do admit I probably went a bit overboard and apologize if you took offense to it, but what can I say. I get invested in arguments ~)

(Apology accepted. I'm okay with you putting "fuck" in your every other sentence, but I do take offence when you try to talk down others by name calling. Actually I do understand about your tone. You think this is an argument, while I think this is a discussion.)

1. Then what was that doing in the middle of a post where

everything else was an accusation towards beast?

2. I'm concerned because you're scum and you're trying to lynch town, and I've caught you. Good enough?

3. There's no need to answer a question that's completely pointless. As for your last question, it's something people do all the time even though it's really stupid.

1. First thing first. It was a questioning post, not an accusation post. I wanted answers from BC because there is something I don't understand from his post, which I found scummy, because it shows that he does not really understand about the current situation and just posting stuff after glancing through the thread, a sign of scum trying to get by. Secondly, there is no rules saying if I post something, everything in that post have to be relevant to just one purpose. Expressing my doubt is also another way to trigger response.

2. You seem to have forgotten about the context of the conversation. Let's refresh:

"Nice manipulation - attempting to downplay the skill level of your target to gain a personal advantage in the argument."
"Well, he can easily proof me wrong if that's the case. Are you worry that he might not be able to?"
"Why would I be worried? Go on, take your best shot. This question seems entirely pointless."
"No idea. You tell me. You do seem concerned though."
"If you have no idea what scum motivation there is for us being concerned, then why the hell bring it up?"
"I have no idea why you're being concerned. I like the fact that you mention "scum motivation" again."
"I'm concerned because you're scum and you're trying to lynch town, and I've caught you. Good enough?"

So the reason why you're concerned about BC might not be able to prove me wrong is because I'm scum and I'm trying to lynch town, and you've caught me? No that doesn't fit into the context. Not good enough.

3. Avoiding question. Afraid that the answer will just backfire on what you said so far?

Also for the second question I asked if what you said is a valid reason not to contribute, and you avoided the question by saying it is what people do all the time.

1. You basically just admitted you're playing towards what other people want to see, as opposed to what YOU personally think is scummy. This isn't town motivated thought - town doesn't scumhunt based on what OTHER people think.

2. You completely ignored my actual point. You haven't explained HOW beast is actively lurking, as opposed to being legitimately bored with the game or spending time on another game.

On the other hand, that makes perfect sense given everything I was saying earlier. You're just repeating your idea that beast is "active lurking" in order to make him look bad.

1. Avoiding question again. I am asking for one thing, and out of nowhere you started saying things that are not related to the topic. And you went on and accused me of voting BC without me personally think he is scummy. That has got to be the biggest joke I've ever heard so far in all my games.

2. You're absolutely sure he is being legitimately bored just because he said so?

If I think he is active lurking, why won't I keep repeating it when you keep disapproving it without a convincing reason?

One of the ways I scumhunt is by asking this question. It gives me insight in what people actually think and if they legitimately believe what they're saying.

The italicized is where you twisted my words around - it implies that we're trying to state there's no way we could possibly be scum, as a result of making said defense.

What we really said was nothing like that - we were asking you why you thought it was scum motivated. By doing that, it allows us to gain insight as to what your thought processes and motivations are, as I mentioned before, and it also lets us possibly fix your read on us by discussing the specific motivations provided. You, however, completely manipulated it to fit your scum argument and completely ignored the actual motivations behind our actions.

That's what you think it sounds, but that's not what I get. In fact, I still think your sentence is trying to subtly imply that you're not a scum because a scum won't do something that is so obviously scummy.

About why what you doing is scummy to me? Because you defend another person so vigorously. It is obvious that I don't agree with your read about BC being "town as fuck" based only on one post #122, which is "genuine as fuck" to you. I've explain why I don't think that post mean anything to me.

I fail to see the relevance of this as a rebuttal to anything I've said - the point was your tone is highly indicative of scum who are trying to avoid pressure. I might need a better explanation

Just answer the question then.

Now this is a terrible reason to discredit someone. Do you really believe that townies should always meta dive people they disagree on?

Yeah, didn't think so. You're just trying to ask a bunch of pointless questions that deflect from my actual point.

But nice attempt to paint me as "lazy".

Again, avoiding question. You just said BC is an easy lynch because of play style and characteristic you see in him, but don't even want to explain that?

It is not even a full meta dive. Just search the time of him posting on the forum and you can see while he is actively posting on another game, he is ignoring this one.

Tell me where I did this.

My question to BC was at post #188. Your defence of BC started at post #193, I said you should let BC answer first in post #207, referring to your post #196.
Did I mis-rep you in my post? Read again.

Avoiding direct question by just saying they're pointless shows nothing except being uncooperative and refusing to engage in further discussion. What if I just call everything you said pointless and refuse to reply?

You're basically not going to be happy unless I town read you and agree with you...

Oh. My. God. Word.

[SeeEmpty]

Also,

@Katen: Based on your post #234 I see one thing that you seem to have failed to notice: Before BC say his read was the same with talah's, Desperado said the exact same thing ("syncing with talah"). I explained that in my post #207.

[talah]

@ talah: If all three of you are actually town, what happens to your reads?

I'm going to need to take a bit of editorial liberty with your question to adequately answer this.

First off - I'd have to see both flips to be able to say with 100% certainty if that's the case, so I'm going to presume you're asking "If you decide that TN and Katen are more likely town than scum"

Secondly I don't have reads on everyone yet so I don't have a big picture framework in my mind yet and I've been kind of distracted by the early flurry of activity. I still have to take a look back and I'll do that tonight.

I was a bit concerned that you said we were in sync though, although I want to explain why. After the me/TN/Katen triscussion (or whatever you called it), I spent the next day mulling it over in my head and decided I wasn't even sure myself. I suppose from an outside observer's point of view I might have expected a bit more objectivity from you, but then again I can also imagine myself backing someone who I thought was town if their argument really made sense (and it made a shitload of sense to me at the time).

So I mean... back to you - do you think TN really did scumslip knowledge of the Koromi head in a failed distancing attempt?

And same question to you as to peng - who's your biggest worry outside of TN/Katen if you forget about them for a minute? I've had to do a hard reset just to keep my head in check but right now I'm thinking TN might be town, at least.

I also really like Justin's comment about always explaining his thinking. That's something I find myself saying a lot as town (just because it's true and I'm confident), and if he backs it up then I've got another candidate for my prob-town bloc (yes I'm still doing that).

[talah]

I did ISO him and I only saw 1 vote on Talah and that was the original vote. I also found the two unvotes. I now see it was post 106. I missed it because it is not on its own line like is standard protocol.

I didn't see a second vote originally so I didn't think there was a second vote. I was trying to catch them in the lie I thought they were telling.

I don't understand how catching him in this kind of lie would be any way alignment indicative.

Hypothetical: You can prove that TN lied about voting me for a second time. You have rock-solid evidence that he only voted me once and he lied about it.
Your next move is to: ...call him scummy for trying to hide the fact that he only made one vote and not two?

Otherwise can you explain where your processes were going with this please.


I'm *still* having a really hard time trying to figure out how you can be reading Katen as town when you are asserting that TN was caught by the "scumslip" where he "reveals knowledge he shouldn't have of Katen's other head". The slip is predicated on them being a team - it doesn't work *at all* if you're townreading one and not the other.

Can you explain that inconsistency?

--
Quick ISO impression, Finglove/mlearn maybe town, Void maybe scum.
That's it for me for tonight.

[tn5421]

@beastcharizard: Your list is laughable at best. My initial vote on talah was RVS. When I placed it the second time, it stopped being RVS and was personal, which I have already explained. The problem with your logic is that it relies almost exclusively on WIFOM.

Please do quote your second vote on them.

106. The one that everyone ignored.

I see you found it.

Why does it bother you to the point you would threaten Katen with a policy vote but doesn't seem to bother you at all from Pim?

In my opinion, actively lurking, as opposed to not being able to log in, is a primarily

scum motivated

action. If you're here, you can post, or you can build a post, or you simply not sign up for a game if you can't actually play.

@Talah: There is a word for that, it's called doublethink. aka: simultaneously holding 2 opinions that contradict each other.

@penguin:

You have some questions in my wall 193. Plz answer

Naaaah. You're basically not going to be happy unless I town read you and agree with you, and since that's not happening, I don't feel like wasting my time with mincing little Q&A sessions.

I can't help but feel this is a bit scummy, even if I understand that you simply don't want to argue. Denying information is one of scum's primary tools.

[Voidwalker1234]

So, much quote walls.

Sorry everyone for lurking, but could you not quote wall war?

[tn5421]

I have half a mind to vote you for 245, voidwalker. Specifically, your attempt to shame our word walls.

How else are we supposed to learn the dragon tongue?

[Finglove]

Okay. So what is your opinion on SeeEmpty's post? Where does it fall, point by point, between your thought experiment and Katen's actual opinion?

1) Pushing lurkers is fine with me
2) To point out the symmetrical votes and not follow it up is suspicious to me
4) His responses are a little jumpy for my taste.

3,5 I'm leaving as insubstantial.

PEDIT: tn, why not just vote for void? That's a pretty pathetic threat. And void, get involved already. Going to have a think about penguin...

[SeeEmpty]

2) To point out the symmetrical votes and not follow it up is suspicious to me

I stated my curiousity to BC's claim of exact same read as talah, and BC responded in his next posts stating his reads (which to me the reasons are not the same as talah's). There is not much to follow up on the said topic after that since he has given his own reason for his vote. I'm still waiting for some answers from him though.

[Cheery Dog]

bump