He did, but words are cheap; he's still trying to use his "don't withhold information" stance to extract a role-claim.The Fonz wrote:That's not what his logic suggests at all. He already said you should withhold information about your role.
1 wrote:Up through page 8, and I think I have a pair o' scum:
pete d and The Fonz
<snip> I think these two are up to no good.
3 wrote:Ha, and there you go with backing up pete d again.
<snip>
I attacked you because I think you're scummy.
Despite your, presumably, best judgement that Fonz and pete are scum partners, you're willing to vote/hammer two other players with no reasoning behind why...4 wrote:@ The Fonz: you're answering questions better than I think scum would at the moment, so for this Day I'm going to have to let you sit on the back burner.
@ pete d: what was said on those first few pages haven't changed, have they? Yes, I still think shady stuff was happening there early on.
But.
I think this Day has ran its course.
unvote; vote: kilmenator - I like this vote better than the other, but with fair warning, I'll hammer Off the Mark.
You reassert that Fonz is scum.6 wrote:Alright, so the replacements have had a lot of their say as far as review goes.
And, even with it, I still want to lynch kilmenator. IH, I guess fault me for not knowing The Fonz "uses metas more," but I think in this game he's scummy for pushing his argument for so long. It just cries of a desperate attempt.
But, I have been wrong before, and kilmenator just seems to be the better choice for Today because of some coattail riding, which I will gladly take care of with a Day 1 lynch. That's why my vote is where it is.
Again with the scumbuds.7 wrote:Pretty sure my suspicions of pete d have been right where I left them. But good job trying to clear your partner's name, again. Also, I don't believe I said you were "more town" but rather that I'd let you be for Today.
You've been needling at Fonz the whole time and never voted him. Why not?8 wrote:So, moving down the list, pete d still hasn't done anything to improve his standing with me, it's just that kilm and OtM have gotten worse. The Fonz's consistency is why I've got you listed on the bottom, even if I think you're being consistent scum.
ME wrote:Ok, so the only reason you should with hold information (such as suspicions, opinions, thoughts etc) is if it is related to your role. Anything else is just anti town play. Not necessarily scummy, but it is detrimental to the town.
Just what do you think it is we're talking about here? AIH wrote:nobody reads anything in detail.
ME wrote:Ok, so the only reason you should with hold information (such as suspicions, opinions, thoughts etc) is if it isrelated to your role.Anything else is just anti town play. Not necessarily scummy, but it is detrimental to the town.
OtM's going a little ad hominem, now. Scumerrific!inHimshallibe wrote:Of course, I have no proof that I'm just voting in retaliation to my accusers other than my suspicions for them now.
Is that part you quoted supposed to be your response to post 381? I was hoping you would explain why, according your theory, I started up a bandwagon on my scumbuddy as my first action upon replacing into this game. Your theory does not match the facts here. On my read-through, kilmenator and thorgot (and eletriar) were the most suspicious to me. I got the PM telling me that thorgot was innocent, of course, so I voted for kilmenator. You're asking people to believe that I immediately dropped into a game that had plenty of confusion going on, and decided to bus one of my mafia buddies? Sorry, I'm not that sneaky/weird.inHimshallibe wrote:OtM's going a little ad hominem, now. Scumerrific!inHimshallibe wrote:Of course, I have no proof that I'm just voting in retaliation to my accusers other than my suspicions for them now.
an ad hom attack looks like this:It's simply untrue to say my behaviour constitutes pushing a quicklynch
orI'm not responding to that, you're obviously a freaking moron
You're such a n00b. I can't believe you'd come out with something so dumb.
Exaggeration for comic effect, but you see my point. Ad hom attacks out of frustration are not uncommon in town players (when you feel someone is deliberately and repeatedly misrepping you, or just not listening to what you're saying) but they can also be a scum tactic, to obscure the merit of the opposing argument. Ad hom attacks are bad because if someone's making crap arguments, you should be able to state why they're crap, rather than resorting to ad hominem.Like I'd pay any attention to what you're saying, you're Canadian. When has anything worthwhile or good come out of Canada?
Thanks Fonz .. I didn't feel like swimming around the wiki as that always gets me into trouble.The Fonz wrote:Ad hominem attack. Wher you don't attack the argument, but the person making. IE, instead of something like:
an ad hom attack looks like this:It's simply untrue to say my behaviour constitutes pushing a quicklynch
orI'm not responding to that, you're obviously a freaking moron
You're such a n00b. I can't believe you'd come out with something so dumb.Exaggeration for comic effect, but you see my point. Ad hom attacks out of frustration are not uncommon in town players (when you feel someone is deliberately and repeatedly misrepping you, or just not listening to what you're saying) but they can also be a scum tactic, to obscure the merit of the opposing argument. Ad hom attacks are bad because if someone's making crap arguments, you should be able to state why they're crap, rather than resorting to ad hominem.Like I'd pay any attention to what you're saying, you're Canadian. When has anything worthwhile or good come out of Canada?
QFT= quoted for Truth. A short way of saying 'I agree with the above.'