PinkPuppy wrote:
And the above quote made me think, because windkirby says he "got a well-backed-up FOS." (I think he's talking about zeddicus' FOS btw). But sounds to me like even windkirby believes the fos had good reason -- like he felt caught. Usually people don't say it like that. They call it a crap fos (because they know it to be wrong) or they just ignore it, because afterall, it's only an FOS. I don't know about other people, but I don't take FOSes very seriously anyway.
I usually explain myself if I get FOS-ed. If I get to it before another person, I explain them if they got FOS-ed, etc. I don't think it's necessarily even defensive to respond to an FOS. I think there is a connotative difference between defending oneself and being defensive.
As far as the CliffNotes bit, you've written a longer one.
Cephrir wrote:
Yes, but they might as well be the same thing. Because neither really matters, neither is going to lynch someone, and not a whole lot can be read into either. They might be different words, but come on.
Wrong. You can read into a joke vote, or even more likely the way someone responds to it. That's how games basically always start. That gives us something to go off of. There's really no other basis. While I don't think extended periods of joke voting are productive, some
is
necessary. Do you have any other propositions for getting a game going? Because you don't seem to be employing them.
PinkPuppy wrote:
PUPPY CLIFF NOTES: Quantum thinks we can't know anything for sure at this stage. And she's not scumhunting.
Yeah, you know, nothing is for certain. But you have to take a stand and see what reactions you get and see if someone says anything to change your mind or solidify your suspicion.
And why aren't you scum hunting? What page will you start?
I'm setting up scum-hunting. I mean, no one's
really
scum-hunting yet. That's more so what I was saying. I'm analyzing players/play-styles. I'm reading into people's posts. I'm pointing out what I notice, defending or "attacking" as I see fit. At this point, though, I'm not going to pressure anyone. I'm not doing the confrontational bit of scum-hunting yet. Scum-tracking perhaps.
PinkPuppy wrote:
quantum wrote:
Also, yeah, why did you feel the need to give such an in-depth explanation to your joke vote? I mean, you've already explained it before, VoD was just pointing out that it was kind of suspicious - not enough to merit a vote, just kind of suspicious. The fact that you got really defensive could be something we should look into as the game continues.
PUPPY CLIFF NOTES: Windkirby is defensive to da max!
As I said before, I don't put that much stock in somebody being defensive. They have to respond to your accusations. It does make me look into their posts more closely though, and see if I can find any scumminess. But defensiveness isn't bad by itself, IMO.
That's what I said. Defending yourself, by itself, is not bad, no.
PinkPuppy wrote:
Personally, I don't see the difference. I understand the technicality, but I don't see why you are pushing the difference between joke and random votes, when you don't even think we can read into much at the beginning of that game anyway. I believe you can learn a lot from the beginning of the game, but not from the random votes. It's more about what they say and how they say it that counts for me.
That's why the difference matters. You can't learn a lot from random votes, but you can learn quite a bit from joke votes. I don't think one should base everything on joke votes, though, and that's what I've been pushing. I think they're something to take into account and keep in mind, but know that people make blunders, etc. Like, it's important to be flexible about that, I think. I think we pretty much agree on the core principles, though.
PinkPuppy wrote:
After readin that whole long thing, I feel it was actually very thin on content (sorry!). I think quantum's biggest reason for voting windkirby is simply that he seems defensive. I don't think being "defensive" is any indication of scumminess. And after reading that whole thing I am starting to feel like windkirby doesn't deserve all the suspicion he is getting.
Question A question for all: Is being "defensive" a sign of scumminess? And where do you draw the line between answering people's concerns and being "defensive"?
I can change my vote when I see fit, but at this point, I see most reason for voting windkirby than anyone else (except maybe Cephrir, who I am quite suspicious of at the moment as well for being so dismissive).
Defensiveness is an indication of scumminess. Scum would try really hard not to appear like scum, and be afraid that someone's "caught them." I feel that windkirby reacted too strongly. Answering people's concerns would be more proportional. For example, if I accuse you of being scum and give you two sentences of reasoning (yeah right, two sentences), and your respond with 10-sentence paragraph and a blurb at the end, that's a little weird. It's something to look into. If windkirby was anywhere near a lynch I'd definitely remove my vote.
Also, what do you mean by "boiling down [my] arguments?"