I wrote:
The Andrius lynch was a "speedy" lynch?! A little out of touch with reality it appears.
You'd think that someone who solidly and consistently suspected someone for that long would have been antsy, impatient, and anxious to have the lynch.
I'll stand by this quote until the day I die. You would never expect someone who had suspected someone for that long to not get impatient, and to have ANY sort of problem with them finally getting lynched.
This is so obvious to me, I'm really not understanding how no one else gets it.
And it should have been obvious to you, Exilon, which lynch I was referring to, as I quoted "speedy" and you were the one who called Andrius's lynch speedy right before that.
You knew which lynch I was referring to, so why even say that?
Exilon wrote:
My nooo was about not getting the reply and because of the speedy lynch.
Again we have you admitting that you 'mock-called off' a lynch you'd wanted the entire day.
Exilon wrote:
When I said “I would have liked to hear his say…” I was referring to both answers: the one to my post, and what you had to say about Andrius being at L1. Yes, you can deprehend that I was talking about your say to the lynch, and I was; and you can also deprehend, indirectly because it had already been stated, that I would have liked to hear your response.
This is useless. Though it makes me wonder, was one more important to you than the other? Which was more important, or bothered you more? Not hearing from me about either thing, or Quintastic's hammer-vote?
Exilon wrote:
I just learned about breadcrumbing the other day =D When I did that post about Samp!, you hadn’t said anything yet, and funny thing is I actually predicted you would say that.
Funny thing is? I thought it was pretty obvious, after the bit you quoted of yourself below this, that Samp was who your case was about. There was nothing to predict, you essentially already revealed it.
The real funny thing is you try to cast sideways doubt on my posts and intentions about 3 times in this one post. For no other purpose than trying to make me look bad or damage my credibility, without actually referencing anything I've done that's scummy.
Not sure why you'd feel the need to do that.
Exilon wrote:
So, and as to avoid any accusations directed at me (“now that’s convenient, you say you have a case on someone and then you can just choose it as you seem fit”)
Again, I thought I was just stating the obvious. I never meant to use it in the form of this type of accusation. Although it's nice to see you on your heels, even if you're trying real hard to pretend that you are not.
Exilon wrote:
Civil Scum wrote:
”Civil Scum” wrote: Really, was that before or after I called you out for not being serious about any of your suspects?
Funny how you manage to imply on this sentence that I wasn’t being serious about my suspicions. I’ll just leave that to be noted.
I would hope that I could manage to imply something I've been stating directly.
Funny to see you try to paint it otherwise. It's tough to insinuate/imply something that you've said outright like 4 times.
Exilon wrote:
Yes, as it should be obvious now, my case is on you.
Really, this is great. But didn't you say it was about Samp, and weren't you just talking about how you breadcrumbed your wanting to make a case on him?
Alright, but I can understand why you would try to make a case on me as well, now anyways.
Exilon wrote:
specially considering your play (basically some of the things you tell me and base your fos on me for can be applied to you as well).
Way to toss this out there and never elaborate on it.
Exilon wrote:
My suspicions, theories and the like did grow, and I do remember stating at several points why Andrius WAS STILL on the top of the list. Of course better reasons could come and make me change my vote, but in Day 2 (and to a lesser degree) day 1, they ended up not coming.
Like Antifinity is too scummy to be scum... after you post twice calling him scummy, even in one of those posts going so far as to tell him 'he's burying himself with his own words.'
I do know that you provided reasoning about it, but what I am saying is that I don't think the theories and reasoning you claimed to have behind your voting
for Andrius were good enough to exclude the possibility in your mind of anyone else being "vote-worthy." I don't "know" if you were actually comparing people's scumminess and trying to make the right decision. And I don't think you were.
Mustilicor wrote:
Civil Scum: What was your reasoning for moving your vote? I can't say I have issues with the place you put it, but the way you did it seems peculiar.
I wanted to lynch either Andrius or Antifinity, but was a little expecting Quintastic to survive the night.
I was half-pulling a hammer gambit (like Quintastic's), and also wanted to see if Quintastic would notice that, and how he would react to it. It wasn't exactly clear what Quintastic was thinking, though he really wanted Antifinity dead, that much we know! haha
Exilon wrote:
Now that isn’t a very nice thing to say, besides being wrong. You bring up your perspective, with the objective of dismissing my own reasoning as “not good enough”. “based on actual things on Andrius’ play”? Let’s see here: we were both wrong. My reasoning was based mainly on McGridle’s NK (which didn’t, by any means, exist only on my head. And if you think so, why is it that your only comment to it was “pretty involved theory” and “mostly WIFOM”, if I recall correctly. If you believed it meant nothing at all, why didn’t you say so right away?). Your reasoning was based on several things you found suspicious in Andrius’ play – but even those can be seen from a townie point of view now that he is dead; therefore, it also means there was theory-constructing involved, just like me. In both cases, the theories are based on someone’s possible scum-play.
This was mostly in response to your sarcastic comment about me not posting reasoning about my vote for Andrius, which wasn't even true(!), and you posting a half/page for yours. Which atleast here, you admit was largely theoretical. And that seems to be better evidence than anything else that came along (your words, not mine).
Exilon wrote:
In both cases, the theories are based on someone’s possible scum-play.
I still think there is a clear difference.
Exilon wrote:
Usually people play by pointing out what they found wrong in other people’s posts. I fail to see how a thing everyone does can be seen as scummy.
Interesting contention... you play exactly how everyone else plays? I'll just note this one and move on.
In an older post when I first asked you about this, you "clarify" that you didn't mean all three of those people individually.
Exilon wrote:
And correct you I shall. I said “since the day began, I have been more keen on the following trio”, not only on each one of them individually
After which, I tell you how ridiculous it is to include someone you don't suspect individually in a 'likely scum pairing'.
And now you've changed it again:
Exilon wrote:
“Since the beginning of the day, I have been more keen on the following trio”
I don’t think there’s anything else I need to add.
So you were talking about past suspicions? That's what you're saying now. That this was totally and completely about past suspicions at that point?
I'd like to add that "since" can indicate "up to and including now". But not if you say it doesn't.
Exilon wrote:
And by misanswering the statement, you evaded to actually comment on it.
The statement, when read correctly, didn't really warrant commenting.
And it's pretty obvious that I did misread that part of the post. I'm not sure how that equates to "evasion." In fact, I'm sure it doesn't.
And one of the times I "misanswered", it was because you had misunderstood what I was saying before that.
So, ACTUALLY, my question was avoided. Are you trying to suggest that everything else I've said is invalid because I've been confused about what you were saying a couple times?
Oh boy, the rest of this post is such garbage. Jeez.
Exilon wrote:
Oh, so you’re relying on the wiki now? And to quote a “null” tell? Well, then:
It is absolutely precisely clear what I was using this for. And my argument holds I believe. Mustilicor gave one example of something you wouldn't have done as scum. I already argued this effectively imo, that that one thing should in no way clear you in Mustilicor's mind. Referencing this tell was to argue that. I never suggested that you were scum on the basis of this tell. And the fact that it's null is immaterial, it wasn't always null, and it's a clear (and clearly documented) instance of scum doing things which apparently go against their overall interests. I did not intend to "use" this tell in a case against you. Just to argue why it was so stupid for Mustilicor to claim that your actions around the MMM wagon cleared you of being scum.
Way to MIS-QUOTE me!
And nice to see you on your heels again. When you read my posts directed at Mustilicor, I think it's rather clear that I'm not calling you scum for that wiki-tell. Sorry if you read it like that...
Exilon wrote:
I’m interpreting that mis-quoting is when you quote something and answer it wrongly (thus having mis-quoted).
Well, interpret it any way you want I guess, but you're compeltely off base/wrong. You interpreted it exaclty so it would serve the purposes of your following argument. Which isn't good Exilon. Not good.
Here's the dead give away for the definition, "Only scum should need to provide false evidence.”
Meaning that it's about knowingly changing what you've quoted (or omitting or doctoring the quotes) to make something that doesn't exist in the way you've presented it. In other words, "mis-quoting" has to be an action that creates "false evidence."
Your interpretation makes no sense.
I will admit that I rely more heavily on memory when playing this game than on re-reading, and sometimes remember things incorrectly, but that's not "mis-quoting" someone. If I'm paraphrasing or quoting someone, I usually make sure to have it correct.
And if I haven't done it heinously or insidiously, I fail to see how it's a scum tell at all.
Exilon wrote:
Anyway, I shouldn’t need to fish up instances when these two occur on your play, since they have already been addressed by at least me and Mustilicor.
You totally should, and then everyone would see that they don't match up to the wiki-scum tell you're supposedly accusing me of after changing it.
Am I really the only goddamn person here who thought that was f-in stupid?
Um, "those two". Are you referring to some other aspect of your invented scum-tell? Or are you talking about this one: “Deliberately avoiding/ giving half-answers to queries from other players.”
Because neither of you, now or in the past, have given any examples of me deliberately avoiding anything. In other words, THIS IS YOU FABRICATING EVIDENCE.
Exilon wrote:
Civil Scum wrote:
He doesn't take a strong stance on the lynch, or either of its canidates, but you can see he very weakly/cautiously gives support to an MMM lynch over a Samp lynch.
Really? By saying “the scales are tipped in MMM’s direction”?
To correct, you didn't actually say his name in the section I quoted, it had to be inferred from a knowledge of our game
I didn’t realize exposing my thought process and analysis on an important process Day 1 was saying “I am all for lynching MMM today”. Which I didn’t say, or even imply.
I know, I didn't say that you said that.
And Day 2, when you questioned me about that, I said, by quoting MMM himself “Are you going to lynch me for that 10% today?”. My answer still stands: no. Not by 10%.
It's pretty obvious that's not what I said at all. Another fine mis-quote. Would you like to talk about that wiki-tell some more?
I was leaning towards Exilon/Antifinity, but after D-3 so far I stand pretty confidently by this quote as well.
I wrote:
So, you both go after Samp. I raise what I think are several valid points concerning Exilon, Mustilicor feigns agreement, re-reads and says she 'just can't see it', citing one thing you didn't do that a scum -could- have, then she compeltely backs your attack on me while ignoring all of it's faults.
You two couldn't be working better together if you tried!
You can keep trying to paint me scummy, or keep debating, or trying to argue away my concerns, but I still see you as saying you were keen on Quintastic in a pairing when you weren't suspicious of him.
I also think your contradiction of Samp's is hog-wash, but I'll save that for a different post if neccesary; you already seem to be backing off from it.
I almost think I should just vote right now.
what makes you say that?