If wanting someone to actually read the thread so that they can make an informed and logical case justifies a policy lynch in your mind, then so be it. Cherry picking small segments of posts and not reading blocks of content in their entirety before making arguments out of them only impedes town discussion, thus detracting from scum hunting efforts, which was my reasoning for saying something in the first place. I find slightly comical that you would make such a statement so early in the game, and also makes me believe that I might have struck something to make you feel the need to become aggressive in your defenses.Haterade wrote:no, you're unnecessarily being a soapbox asskloud1516 wrote:Gladly, once you stop distorting posts to suit your own obscure and fallacious cases.Haterade wrote:ugh shut up take your preaching somewhere else pleasekloud1516 wrote:I agree with TSQ on every facet of the argument above. Haterade, if you are going to place a serious vote on someone (I am assuming this is not a random vote, based off the "case" you provided), have something to back up your justification, for as it is right now, you have nothing but several paragraphs of fallacy that does little in regards to scum hunting. How about actually reading the thread, comprehending the discussions already taking place, and provide something that might help us catch scum.
I'd policy vote you if I didn't think TSQ was mafia.
Oh really? On what grounds; disagreeing with you?
So far TSQ and I are the only ones having a legitimate discussion here and it's kind of rude and hypocritical of you to attempt to derail it by posting your irrelevant and antiprogressive trolls. Participate or don't, but don't be an annoying bitch. Thanks.kloud1516 wrote:If wanting someone to actually read the thread so that they can make an informed and logical case justifies a policy lynch in your mind, then so be it. Cherry picking small segments of posts and not reading blocks of content in their entirety before making arguments out of them only impedes town discussion, thus detracting from scum hunting efforts, which was my reasoning for saying something in the first place. I find slightly comical that you would make such a statement so early in the game, and also makes me believe that I might have struck something to make you feel the need to become aggressive in your defenses.Haterade wrote:no, you're unnecessarily being a soapbox asskloud1516 wrote:Gladly, once you stop distorting posts to suit your own obscure and fallacious cases.Haterade wrote:ugh shut up take your preaching somewhere else pleasekloud1516 wrote:I agree with TSQ on every facet of the argument above. Haterade, if you are going to place a serious vote on someone (I am assuming this is not a random vote, based off the "case" you provided), have something to back up your justification, for as it is right now, you have nothing but several paragraphs of fallacy that does little in regards to scum hunting. How about actually reading the thread, comprehending the discussions already taking place, and provide something that might help us catch scum.
I'd policy vote you if I didn't think TSQ was mafia.
Oh really? On what grounds; disagreeing with you?
Really, you don't think a player pressing someone who voted someone without substantial reasoning for doing so for responses while asking them to read the thread more carefully is derailing discussion? Are you honestly disregarding all discussions that took place prior to your vote, including the inquiries dealing with CW's vote (I would still like a response about the contradictory statements, if only to clarify) and all other content as illegitimate? TSQ has proven your case invalid, he did so in his first response, which is why I asked you in the first place to read more carefully in the first place. This does not derail anything, as it will help ensure that all opinions are contributing towards a town win.Haterade wrote:So far TSQ and I are the only ones having a legitimate discussion here and it's kind of rude and hypocritical of you to attempt to derail it by posting your irrelevant and antiprogressive trolls. Participate or don't, but don't be an annoying bitch. Thanks.
TSQ I'll respond to you later, going off to drink now
No such thing as overdefensive. Defending yourself is not a scum tell.Citizen Karne wrote:Sounds like a classical case of an overly defensive beginner.
Seriously? You are 70% sure that Haterade is scum this early in the game?Citizen Karne wrote:I am not 100% sold that he is scum yet (more like 70%), as beginner players seem to all act alike when they are cornered unfortunately. More analysis pending.
QFT on this onescotmany12 wrote:No such thing as overdefensive. Defending yourself is not a scum tell.Citizen Karne wrote:Sounds like a classical case of an overly defensive beginner.
Yes there is. However, it is not a scumtell.scotmany12 wrote:No such thing as overdefensive. Defending yourself is not a scum tell.Citizen Karne wrote:Sounds like a classical case of an overly defensive beginner.
Look at the way he has stuck with his case. Noobtown would have retreated by now in my opinion.scotmany12 wrote:Seriously? You are 70% sure that Haterade is scum this early in the game?Citizen Karne wrote:I am not 100% sold that he is scum yet (more like 70%), as beginner players seem to all act alike when they are cornered unfortunately. More analysis pending.
Then why bring it up? You sure as hell made it look like a scumtell by saying that then saying you were 70% sure he was scum.Citizen Karne wrote:Yes there is. However, it is not a scumtell.scotmany12 wrote:No such thing as overdefensive. Defending yourself is not a scum tell.Citizen Karne wrote:Sounds like a classical case of an overly defensive beginner.
First off, haterade is not a noob. And I have seen both scum and town do exactly what Haterade is doing, sticking to a case that has been proven wrong. I've done it as town. And reading Haterade's post, I did not get any scummy vibes. Yes, he was wrong, but I feel Haterade genuinely believes what he is saying.Citizen Karne wrote:Look at the way he has stuck with his case. Noobtown would have retreated by now in my opinion.scotmany12 wrote:Seriously? You are 70% sure that Haterade is scum this early in the game?Citizen Karne wrote:I am not 100% sold that he is scum yet (more like 70%), as beginner players seem to all act alike when they are cornered unfortunately. More analysis pending.
I thought it was scummy that you had to stand on the soapbox and tell us that for ourselves instead of letting us come to our own judgement.Thestatusquo wrote:Because he DIDN'T give context, dude. He just pointed to the game.
I wasn't disagreeing with his context, because he didn't give any.
I WAS THE ONE WHO POINTED OUT I WAS SK.
I have explained this already, and you have yet to counter it, instead just saying that it's not even close.The post said "I was SK in that game, so all it proves is that you should doubt pro town reads on me."
How is that even CLOSE to "Implicitly defining my innocence"
Like... It's not EVEN CLOSE.
I still think my reasoning is valid. I have countered every point he's made with my reasoning because my first post was a little unclear on my original case on him. Get over yourself. I'll give myself a fine pat on the back when TSQ flips as scum.kloud1516 wrote:Really, you don't think a player pressing someone who voted someone without substantial reasoning for doing so for responses while asking them to read the thread more carefully is derailing discussion? Are you honestly disregarding all discussions that took place prior to your vote, including the inquiries dealing with CW's vote (I would still like a response about the contradictory statements, if only to clarify) and all other content as illegitimate? TSQ has proven your case invalid, he did so in his first response, which is why I asked you in the first place to read more carefully in the first place. This does not derail anything, as it will help ensure that all opinions are contributing towards a town win.Haterade wrote:So far TSQ and I are the only ones having a legitimate discussion here and it's kind of rude and hypocritical of you to attempt to derail it by posting your irrelevant and antiprogressive trolls. Participate or don't, but don't be an annoying bitch. Thanks.
TSQ I'll respond to you later, going off to drink now
What does derail discussion, however, is fallacy and unnecessary ad hominem retorts, as neither help acquire information or encourage open dialogue.
Um... Its not a case of judgment, because it's not subjective. You don't have to judge that I was a SK, I WAS a SK. It's not effecting anyones judgment to give them true information before they read the game.Haterade wrote:I thought it was scummy that you had to stand on the soapbox and tell us that for ourselves instead of letting us come to our own judgement.Thestatusquo wrote:Because he DIDN'T give context, dude. He just pointed to the game.
I wasn't disagreeing with his context, because he didn't give any.
I WAS THE ONE WHO POINTED OUT I WAS SK.
I have explained this already, and you have yet to counter it, instead just saying that it's not even close.The post said "I was SK in that game, so all it proves is that you should doubt pro town reads on me."
How is that even CLOSE to "Implicitly defining my innocence"
Like... It's not EVEN CLOSE.
That in itself wasn't a case of trying to influence our judgment, but the way you immediately got onto the soapbox and explained to us the context of that game before anyone had a chance to go over it themselves seemed scummy to me.Thestatusquo wrote:Um... Its not a case of judgment, because it's not subjective. You don't have to judge that I was a SK, I WAS a SK. It's not effecting anyones judgment to give them true information before they read the game.
But I did! The tone of your post implied that you were a bit combative with the original player who posted that link, and it was like disagreeing with the post. You may not have actually done it but it sure sounded like it. Everything about that post just smelled fishy.And second you have NOT explained it. I am directly attacking your explanation. You have said I was "Implicitely defending my innocence" And have not stated WHY, or how that makes ANY SENSE given the fact that what I was actually doing was talking about how I was guilty in that game.
Hopefully the above words will have represented my argument better. Apologies if I've been unclear.Your point, as it now stands is this "TSQ made a post in which he tried to effect our judgment about whether or not he was actually a SK in a game, when he should have let us find out if we believed he was a SK on our own. THEN he pretended to be town by saying he was scummy in that game so that we would think he was town... IMPLICITELY"
Like, thats exactly what you're arguing. Does it make sense to you? If you can't see how the above paragraph is complete crap, then please get your head examined.
Secondly, if you think I'm mischaracterizing your argument at all, please point out where and how.
dahill1 wrote:furthermore, i don't like kloud's constant use of these "textbook scumtells", per say. what i'm talking about is when he says things like: appeals to emotion, ad hominem (which i don't think is a scumtell at all), fallacies etc.
The bolded sections are the key phrase here. I was not saying CW was definitely using Appeal to Emotion, I was just commenting on TSQ's post in which he talks about how he feels she is more likely town than scum because of her emotional responses (that is how I took it at least, correct me if I am wrong). I respond by saying, as seen above, that I didn't the emotion TSQ was referring to in the posts, but I thought it was too early to say such things, considering the "emotion could have been AtE."TheyThestatusquo wrote:Answers to my questions make me satisfied about the dice roll thing, and in addition,her emotional responses feel more like annoyed townie than angry scum.could also be, you know, an Appeal to Emotions?I did not pick up on great deals of emotion(this is not me insinuating that you said there was an overt use of emotion in her rebuttals by any means) in her responses, but I don't think claiming her innocent for said retorts to hold much weight because of thepossibleAtE.
I am trying to explain my posts, and he retorts "you're being a soapbox ass," and the post above. Are they ad hominem? The first isn't, but I feel the second borders on it in my opinion. If you don't find it to be an ad hominem, it still has no contributory value to the game, and thus is still a derailment of legitimate discussion, which was the topic of that post.Haterade wrote: but don't be an annoying bitch. Thanks.
I explained why I felt they were being used in the posts I brought them up (I believe), and if I didn't state clearly why I thought they were being implemented, see above for my explanation.dahill1 wrote:I don't think these things are coming up as often as he's playing them out to be
Town. His misreading of your post seemed reasonable at the time, and his stubbornness thus far doesn't feel manufactured. I could certainly be convinced otherwise, but right now, I do not think a vote is warranted.Thestatusquo wrote:Haterade: More likely to be scum or town, at this stage of the game. Why?
Town. I think your original post was a good way of addressing the situation as it stood, and generally agree with it. I think you were being a bit combative, but I don't see that as a particularly town-tell or scum-tell. As for why your replica of SK play doesn't warrant a vote, I do think you played a generally pro-town game in Klepto, especially at the beginning. I am currently reading your initial play in this game as a town-tell. I didn't specifically say that because I wanted to see reactions: yours and Gorrad's, as well as people who weren't in that game.Thestatusquo wrote:Thestatusquo: More likely to be scum or town at this stage of the game. Why?
What do you think of my original post in question? Did you think I was being combative? Why/why not?
If you think that my play in this game exactly mirrors my SK play, why haven't you voted me?
Oh don't worry, I will. I just don't want to tip my suspicions just yet.Thestatusquo wrote:Don't just wait for a player who is inactive to answer questions. Be proactive, comment on shit. Get reactions. No one is going to play this game for you, and I'm not going to give you a free pass for not playing it either.
I see your point, but I don't see how doing #1 would make you any more town, either, so it's essentially a null tell. Besides, you certainly could whip out this "defense" of your actions as scum as if it was a manufactured ploy.Thestatusquo wrote:1) Why would creating discussion about how I can be helpful as anti-town benefit me as scum? That's whats making no sense about what you're saying, right? Mafia is a game of motivations. I just simply don't see a motivation for a scum player to say "By the way, I think you should doubt pro town reads on me." If you see one, please point it out to me. This is not to say that it clears me- It doesn't- but in order to attack someone you should be able to say why their actions are necessarily more likely to come from a scum player than a town player. That's the definition of "scummy."
To answer your questions in order: It can go either way, yes, yes. However, in regards to the last two, that doesn't get you any more townie brownie points, either -- the scum's job in this game is to try to blend in with the town, and I always get the feeling that people who try to coordinate the town's discussion by asking them questions about what they think in the early game use their questioning as an effort to not lay down any scumtells, i.e. their "contributions" to the game aren't analyzed as easily because they're doing the question-asking and not question-answering. Those who don't answer questions or talk during the game seem to be scum a lot more than the alternative, I find.2) I ask you the same question about my questioning. Do you think creating discussion is good for the town or good for the scum? Do you think my questioning created discussion? Do you think it moved us out of the random voting stage? Answer these questions to yourself, and then try to think of the scum motivation for the action. I mean, like, you throw terms like "scum" around, without thinking what they mean. In order for an action to be scummy, or "weird" as you put it, you would have to attack it by claiming that it is more likely to come from a scum player than a town player. Thats the basis for the whole game. If you can do that with this, then I would be very surprised. Again, I'm not saying this clears me, but I would argue that what I did was distinctly helpful to the town, and I think you would be hard pressed to find a reason why it wasn't.
I said in my earlier post that it only sounded combative to me. It was probably just because you were drunk.3) I wasn't combative at all! The most combative I got in that post was ranting about how I hadn't been scummy nominated for that game, and that wasn't even directed at the OP. He did not provide the information that I was SK in the game, so I felt compelled to provide it in case people misunderstood his post to say that he felt I was being pro-town. This is because he had said earlier that he didn't have any problem with my play. Nowhere in that post do I attack him. Nowhere in that post do I FOS him. Nowhere in that post do I vote him. I simply point out an important piece of information that was missing from his post, and ask if he forgot about it. Re-read the post again, please point out what is combative about it?
