Hmm... I don't think it's such a big deal, personally. Sorry if it sounds like I'm defending her overmuch, but it's only on the second page. (I would agree if she had done it on the first.)Talitha wrote:unvote: darkdude
vote: Quantumfruit
4 (joke) reasons? In one post? Looks like overkill in (jokily) justifying the vote.
She just looks a little jumpy to me.
First page, zed. I wasn't serious.zeddicus wrote:did everyone miss this?zeddicus wrote:unvote, vote: windkirby
for saying the second vote is scummy when one person (mozsuggs) does it, but not when another places a second vote (Pink Puppy).
I still don't understand how you can justify a vote, even a random one, with what amounts to a double standard.
Dude, you ninja'd me. Not cool.zeddicus wrote:Indeed cephrir, the overall feel of the post does seem defensive. i should really change my vote- oh wait, its already on windkirby.
also:it registered on your scumdar at all? yet it was "not serious"?What happened was that I looked at mozsugg's vote and thought it was like maybe a 2/10 on my scum-o-meter
seems odd.
two points that try to let you play the "its random" side, as well as have a different defense. playing both sides is scummy.Basically, I defended myself with two different points. "What? Two different points? Scumtell! Deserves an FoS!" is a reaction that I fail to comprehend.
Yes, Yvonne. Shame on you for making Cephrir say something scummy! If you could elaborate, Ceph, could you please specify which game you were getting this one mixed up with? I'm not sure how one would find Open 62. If you could help me find it, it'd make me feel better.Cephrir wrote:Oops, mixed this game up with Open 62. It doesn't help that you're in both games.Yvonne wrote:Woah, hold on a minute here. How do you know there are specifically 3 scum, Cephrir?
I didn't agree with it at first, but when you put it like that it makes a whole lot of sense, not to mention darkdude seems to be getting a little nervous, getting reactive and talking a lot about getting lynched in his post when he's not even that close to it, is he?Pink Puppy wrote:I agree with this.YvonneSeer wrote:Supporting a wagon from the sidelines but not committing yourself to it is a really scummy thing to do.
It's sort of inciting the mob to take action without taking the action yourself and thus, avoiding the heat.
Ah, let me explain. What I meant was that I was hoping that since he was such a n00b that if he really was scum he would just break and say "alright I'm scum! now just get rid of me!" due to all the pressure. I did not mean to imply that this was actually what happened.Pink Puppy wrote:I agree that I don't like how windkirby says Mozsuggs had a confessional collapse.
Sorry if it was weird. It was pretty late last night (at least for someone who has a slight cold); basically my train of thought was "I don't think I've even posted in a few days although I've been observing, so I should probably make sure they know that." I think VoD explained the second part well, so... yup...Pink Puppy wrote:This is a weird post.windkirby wrote:Rest assured I'm keeping tabs on this game. If scumtells continue to hide I'll probably contemplate a switch to the offensive.
I never explained too much. I can't remember one-hundred percent what was going through my mind, but I believe my train of thought was: "This guy is such a newb! Therefore, if I add my vote on, and if he's scum, he'll probably collapse and admit to it! Otherwise, I'll take my vote off in a bit." However, WHAM! Before I got the chance to, VoD laid on the hammer. That was why my vote was on mogsuggz: to pressure him.emptyger wrote:Did you ever give an explanation to this? If not, I will very belatedly raise an objection for the purpose of your replying.
I just don't see it as a very good scumtell: you presented it as if he wasting time dwelling on the "frame" instead of scumhunting, but while I was wrong in saying he scumhunted (I'm not very good with the term, I more meant he was expressing opinion), I wouldn't say he was dwelling very much either: he only made two posts about the subject before moving on.For the first 2 weeks of D2, it seemed that darkdude did anything but. First he said that no one was suspicious, and in particular he defended VoD. Then he reversed and said that VoD was suspicious, while still saying that no one else seemed suspicious. Then he voted zeddicus, but specified that it was for lurking, not for any suspicions.
What do you see differently in darkdude’s response?
In this post, she does not vote for the first time: she switches her vote from someone else to me, the person who already has two votes on him, and gives excessive reasoning. Now, I already said that I didn't find it suspicious, I know, but on second glance, it seems very unnatural, especially seeing as how when DarkDude calls her out on it, she calls his logic convoluted and his point weak, (Cephrir, by the way, agrees) when in reality I think it's a rather good one. This with her slight exaggeration on DD's "meanness" create two slight slips in her otherwise flawless play. While I'm afraid I can't be certain that either Cephrir or QF are scum, their slightly sporratic behavior raised a red flag.QuantumFruit wrote:Unvote, Vote: windkirby
He totally just OMGUS-ed Akonas. Plus, I'm defending my man.(Yes, I'm purposefully embarrassing you, dear.)
Also, he came up on darkdude's dice roll the first time he did it. The dice are never wrong.
And if that's not enough reason, he's in two of my minis as well!
My point here was thatI was cop in my first game (newbie 559) and I acted a lot like darkdude is acting.
Oh sorry! I knew I was forgetting something.EmpTyger wrote:windkirby:
I want an answer to this. Did you vote Cephrir because you’re actually suspicious of him, or to stop me from voting darkdude? If because you’re suspicious, then why exactly?
,Cephrir wrote:Nobody's trying to bandwagon anyone or engineer anything this early in the game with ulterior motives. It's Page 2.
Darkdude's argument was good, but here, QF and Cephrir team up to make him believe otherwise with responses that I personally feel are rather stupid. ... Darkdude had pretty well spelled out why the action was suspicious, but she is oblivious. This could be chalked up to a slight freak occurrence, but then Cephrir goes along with her! There is a chance that Cephrir agreed with a townie rather than his scum partner to throw us off in case he did get lynched, but I find this very unlikely... after all, "no one is trying to engineer anything this early in the game with ulterior motives."Thank you, Cephrir. I'm just trying to figure out darkdude's logic. It seems convoluted. I mean, with your logic, everyone could be scum either by joke voting or by jumping on someone for joke voting because they're being defensive of either themselves or a scum buddy.
Yes, everyone is potential scum. I'm just saying at this point, there really isn't evidence, unless you can pinpoint what about one action is scummier than another. And that you have not answered, darkdude.
It was not so much the "joke vote" that got me but the way you reacted to its interrogation - it contained a hint of "I'm being attacked for the wrong reason" in it to me, which is a scumtell in my book, and Cephrir's defense of you seemed very forced. This being a pet townie act seemsQuantumFruit wrote:@windkirby: I'm sorry - what? Why do you keep going back to the joke vote as evidence? Can't you dig up something more telling or reasonable than a bad joke? Also, not cool that Cephrir picking a townie pet and tricking me with flattery is getting me in trouble. So not cool.
I acknowledge that vikingfan has been the most talkative player, but I hardly see this as a scummy attribute. When he does say something, it's usually useful. I find the particular post (which Akonas also found scummy) very show-off-y, almost propaganda-like, as if you're trying to start something on a player who I feel has done little wrong in comparison to some of the other players. "Purposefully" misunderstanding another player's points is something I never do; I was merely stating that you were not exactly one to talk about "playing it safe" of any kind, seeing as how you didn't even vote yesterday, an action which would be your only role power if you were hypothetically town. Of course I knew that this was not exactly the kind of "playing it safe" you were referring to.thevampireofdusseldorf wrote:Wk have you done a look at all post by user, if you have I find it hard for you to call me out on "playing it safe" in the context I used it more than vf.
And look here....Wk are you purposely trying to misrepresent my points made or do you not agree with them or do you not understand them.vikingfan wrote:I'm still entirely happy with darkdude and in fact will vote him, for all the reasons already mentioned,
And while he didn't provide a landfill of reasoning, he at least provided more motivation than you let on.Apologies for being out-I've been busy but am back now. I agree with PP that dramatic changes like that is scummy behavior. It's one thing to change one's mind (with sound logic to back it up), it's another thing entirely to change one's playstyle. But I'm not sure altogether that Cephrir's play matches her accusation to the depth that she claims, so I'm not prepared to vote him.
That being said, I'm still entirely happy with darkdude and in fact will vote him, for all the reasons already mentioned, both by myself and others. Hanging back, making lame excuses, and so forth. vote darkdude
