Kmd4390 wrote:Excedrin seemed too quick to jump without having anything to add. Scum if Zito is town. Then again, he's new and Zito is probably scum, so I can see newbtown. Depends on Zito's alignment though.
Kmd4390 wrote:Zito, Porkens is probably town and Excedrin is probably town too. Who do you find scummy?
I don't like the implications here that looks like:Kmd4390 wrote:There's nothing scummy about the votes on you either. Porkens clearly wanted a reaction. Excedrin is obviously a newer player and newer players tend to be either VERY opportunistic or VERY cautious.
More sarcasm? Please elaborate on how my 3rd vote or Porkens' 2nd vote was opportunistic. I'm fairly sure that there was zero chance of your actual lynch based only on Kmd4390's "case." If my vote was opportunistic, then were the people who didn't hop on your wagon overly cautious?Papa Zito wrote:If sarcasm = scum then game over, the whole site just lost.
I'm not sure if you're unhelpful, but does being difficult to read count as being scummy?Rosso Carne wrote:being unhelpful is scummy.
youre unhelpful
You are misquoting and changing context here. You made a personal insult and called me a jerk in response to my response to your "experiment". Incidentally, you still, apparently, fail to understand that your experiment does not test anything relevant. The theory is that scum sometimes make mistakes initially but appear more pro-town as the game progresses. To test we would need to see whether the following are true:Rising wrote:Kast wrote: "You may personally be incapable of catching scum tells without the benefit of hindsight. Please don't automatically assume that your limitations are true for everyone else."
Irrelevant? Nope, you brought this issue up yourself, and it wasmewho calledyouout on it. I was willing to put your statement above to the test.
Please be more clear. It is misleading when you quote one phrase and then reply to an out of context word from a completely different post on a completely different subject. It is also a pretty common scum tactic (though this also is not necessarily a tell as it could simply be badposting by a townie).Rising wrote:I didn't accuse you of callingKast wrote:I didn't call it stupid.this particularsentence stupid (you did that in an earlier post). I wondered why you had to be such a jerkin this game. If you want to provoke to get a reaction there are other, much better ways.
This is a new argument. You never mentioned this previously as a reason for attacking Excedrin. Your previous posts only attack Excedrin for setting up a trap. Excedrin did not set up a trap so it was an invalid attack. You now attack him for having a poor reason for his initial suspicion. This is a valid reason for attacking him. Your justification for why this is not a new argument is crap-logic. Simply because the action you are attacking happened early in the game does NOT mean the argument you are making is not a new argument.Rising wrote:What are you talking about? That is not my "new argument". That was just what had happened in the beginning of he game, when I wrote my first post. I therefore naturally assumed that every player had seen it, so I didn't feel the need to point it out.Kast wrote:Your new argument against Excedrin, objecting to his claim that "sarcasm" is a scum tell is reasonable
Read more carefully. Was your new attack on Excedrin just copying other players without understanding what you were posting? You specifically state that your reason for taking offense was because his reason was not strong (it was because of "sarcasm"). Regardless of whether another player voted for the same reason that Excedrin used, you are still capable of making a case against Excedrin (which you did).Rising wrote:And how could you possibly believe that the argument you propose would be a reasonable argument againstExcedrin?It wasKMDthat started the bandwagon against Pipo and said that sarcasm was a scumtell (he'sstillsaying it, btw). It would've been extremely scummy and completely nonsensical for a player to vote Excedrin and not KMD, if his argument was what you've just proposed.
It's my new early-game playstyle from either alignment. Like it?Plum wrote: Not since last time you announced (just about) sure scumreads on page 3 with fairly little to base your surety on and flipped scum I don't know what to make of you (and yes, when on page four you announced in no uncertain terms that you wanted Pom lynched . . . Frankly, I've learned the hard way not to trust myself to trust you.
Wait, what am I laying out?Plum wrote: And yeah, once I sorted it out Rising's reasoning for voting Dry-fit is pretty unimpressive. Hard to tell whether it's scummy or not, if, for example, Kmd would like to lay out what he sees there, I'm all ears.
*shrug*. Now that I think about it, you alwaysKast wrote: @KMD-
I'm not sure why you read me as obv-town. You've called me that in at least two other games we've played (I was town in both and you were town in one and scum in the other). The game where you were town, I could understand why you called me obvtown. The game where you were scum, I didn't see why you as a townie would call me obvtown, but I accepted your support nonetheless. I'll accept it again here, but I'd like to hear your reasons.
I didn't say that. Yeah, I was after reactions. Doesn't mean I wasn't being serious.Dry-fit wrote: Do you really think Kmd was being serious? Kmd himself has stated he was not.
I'm not saying sarcasm is a universal tell. Not even close. I'm saying that Zito's specific sarcastic response in THIS GAME and only THIS GAME is scummy. The rest of your post is filled with strawmans, exaggerations, and reaching.Rising wrote: And how could you possibly believe that the argument you propose would be a reasonable argument againstExcedrin?It wasKMDthat started the bandwagon against Pipo and said that sarcasm was a scumtell (he'sstillsaying it, btw). It would've been extremely scummy and completely nonsensical for a player to vote Excedrin and not KMD, if his argument was what you've just proposed.
Actually, I both thought it was a little scummy at first AND wanted a bit more of a reaction. When it began to escalate, I concluded that it was scummier.Locke Lamora wrote: Or you don't really think his sarcasm is scummy, you were just doing it to get a reaction.
His sarcastic response was scummy. Not as scummy as Rising though. Doing "whatever I can" to make Zito look scummy is a misrep. Hell, I'm not even voting the guy right now.Locke Lamora wrote:Thanks. I'm very proud of it.
I'm dubious of KMD. I know that his confident "Zito's scum" stance was probably to get a rise out of Zito as much as anything but I think he's then used whatever he can get from Zito's reaction to make him look scummy. That's why I challenged him on the sarcasm comment; it just looked like point-scoring to make Zito look bad, dropping one of his earlier points against Zito in the process which indicates to me that he never really thought it was scummy in the first place. Now that I think about it, I'm going to go ahead and:
Vote: KMD
Do you stand by your statement that Zito's "Me?!? Nooo" style reaction is scummy?
Hmm. Some of this will depend on the year.Kast wrote:-Are there any races that are specifically aligned with the Alliance/Hierarchy/????
Yes, more sarcasm. How did my meta research turn out, BTW? Because I'm going to assume that, if you're going to vote someone because of the way they're posting, then you've done the research to back that up amirite?Excedrin wrote:More sarcasm? Please elaborate on how my 3rd vote or Porkens' 2nd vote was opportunistic. I'm fairly sure that there was zero chance of your actual lynch based only on Kmd4390's "case." If my vote was opportunistic, then were the people who didn't hop on your wagon overly cautious?
Lawl. It wasn'tSpyreX wrote:This game is set during the events of Star Control II. Having a specific year would be a nice thing and I'm decidedly against nice things.
Mentioning SC III, hereby known as the game that should not be mentioned, will raise my ire.
It's one of my all-time favorites. You kids can keep your damn Halo.sigma wrote:
Wowsers. I bow down to your SC2 knowledge.
I seriously need to play that game again.
I don't like this, it sounds insincere. My first guesses are that either you were being too lazy to list races OR you were trying to subtly fish while disguising it as humor.That said, I'm not sure I want to start naming specific races as examples. Why exactly do you want to know? Did SpyreX not give you a safe-claim?
It could be a trap, I guess, but my biggest concern is that I don't know what KMD is talking about. He says that you "seemed too quick to jump without having anything to add", but unlike Porkens, you actuallyKMD wrote:Excedrin seemed too quick to jump without having anything to add. Scum if Zito is town. Then again, he's new and Zito is probably scum, so I can see newbtown"Excedrin wrote:This looks like a trap because most I think that most noobs will probably say, "I'm not a noob." [...] Rising, what do you think? Does this look trappy to you or am I reaching?
Let's have a look at my post #58 - which you think is where I changed my argument.Kast wrote:Rising maintains his position without offering evidence or explaining how Excedrin's behavior constituted a trap.[...]Rising eventually changes his argument and claims Excedrin's original reason was not strong.
*Slap forehead* Dude! You canKast wrote:You made a personal insult and called me a jerk
If the theory doesn't say that scum does thisKast wrote:The theory is that scum sometimes make mistakes initially but appear more pro-town as the game progresses [...] The theory says nothing about whether townies do the same thing
What?Kast wrote:Your repeated explanations that it is not a valid tell are irrelevant noise. You may as well tell us that there are townies in this game.
I've read a lot about it, but only played it for a day or two. Pretty fun. I have only met a few other species, though.Kast wrote:-I'm not familiar with the game. I've looked at the stuff on wikipedia. Is anyone else familiar with it?
. Whether or not you be scum you deserve an attack and vote which calls you by your actual username. I was more concerned with your willingness to throw around accusatory terms without showing clearly how scummy you think players are in relation to one another &c. Engaging in the game - or pretending too (lots of theory argument from you was part of what worried me) can be used as a scum tactic, and I have caught scum that way. It's a more reliable tell as the game wears on, however, so your case isn't egregious. Furthermore the way you put it makes me feel that this is a playstyle thing of yours and not, in your case in this case a tell much in wither direction. I disagree with you in theory terms, but I'll leave that for a different time. I continue to be frustrated, however, by the amount of time and dense verbage you're devoting to Rising. . . . You conclude that it's more likely he's Town and screwed up somewhere along the line but pend a good few long paragraphs afterwards hashing everything up clearly. I used to do that sometimes (I remember one specific case - and for the record I was a Townie there) but I would urge you to weigh the benefits against the downsides of continuing on that path in this game with things that you think do not indicate scumhood.Kast wrote:-To paraphrase your argument, you admit that I am scumhunting and have raised several valid points, however, you object to my failure to vote based on any of the things I have raised. Is this an accurate summary of your reason for voting "Kise"?
I'll vote when I'm ready to vote; either if I find a player I am willing to lynch or if I feel my vote would help to elicit a response/reaction.
-I don't think it helps to give scum lots of easy wagons to jump aboard. Voting for each and every potential tell just lets scum blend easier while pushing a mislynch without getting any heat for doing so.
Not in particular. Sorry to burst your bubble. What I was asking for was elaboration on your take on Rising's Dry-fit vote.Kmd4390 wrote:It's my new early-game playstyle from either alignment. Like it?Plum wrote:Not since last time you announced (just about) sure scumreads on page 3 with fairly little to base your surety on and flipped scum I don't know what to make of you (and yes, when on page four you announced in no uncertain terms that you wanted Pom lynched . . . Frankly, I've learned the hard way not to trust myself to trust you.
And no vote on them? The fact that he insists getting on his own bandwagon early was opportunistic and scummy (and that not doing so was a towntell) is pushing BS.Papa Zito wrote:Again, one of Porkens or Excedrin is very likely scum due to opportunistic voting.Kmd4390 wrote:Again, who do you think is scum?
-You are wrong. Plum posted that your trap argument is fallacious and that Excedrin was simply voting on a strong scumtell. You said that nothing would be wrong with what Excedrin did if he had a strong tell. However, you call Excedrin's tells weak and dismiss Plum's post. Your post does not refer to KMD directly OR indirectly. But we can examine the actual post instead of looking at isolated snippets and trying to spin new meanings on them:Rising wrote:Let's have a look at my post #58 - which you think is where I changed my argument.Kast wrote:Rising maintains his position without offering evidence or explaining how Excedrin's behavior constituted a trap.[...]Rising eventually changes his argument and claims Excedrin's original reason was not strong.
You are apparently focusing on this sentence "But when all you've got is a person that didn't post a vote in his first post, and responded with a sarcasm when attacked for it, then it's a completely different issue." This is not my case against Excedrinat all(and why should it be? Excedrin didn't start the wagon against Papa Zito.KMDdid.)
I wrote the sentence above to correct Plum, and to let her know that what she said had nothing to do about my case against Excedrin. The next sentence of my post reads: "I don't think what you just wrote applies to this case - or anything that I've written (or at least what I meant by it)at all."
There you have it. What you're calling a changed argument isn't an argument against Excedrinat all.
-You say that IF Excedrin had a strong case, then it would be okay to make post 39. However, you say his case was not strong, and conclude that Plum's argument, which assumes a strong scum tell, does not apply to this case which does not have a strong scum tell.Rising arguing that Excedrin used weak scum tells wrote:If this was a case of a really strong scumtell - an actual "mistake" - then of course I would've been fine with it. "Ouch. You did something really bad there, buddy. There's just no way for you to talk yourself out of this mess, I'm sorry. You're definitely the lynch for today." Nothing wrong with that. But when all you've got is a person that didn't post a vote in his first post, and responded with a sarcasm when attacked for it, then it's a completely different issue. I don't think what you just wrote applies to this case - or anything that I've written (or at least what I meant by it) at all.
Excedrin did not do 2. Your original - first of two - argument against Excedrin fails due to this. You have never once attempted to show that Excedrin did this, despite other players telling you repeatedly. THIS is my point. You explain repeatedly that a player who did this is scum and repeatedly state that Excedrin did this. HOWEVER, you completely avoid showing that.Rising wrote:Thisis (later in that post):
"There's a huge difference between:
1. "Hmm... I've noticed scum do this before." - Perfectly reasonable for a pro-town scumhunter.
and
2. "Hmm... I've noticed scum do this before, and they always come up with a good explanation afterwards, managing to explain away and fix their scummy behavior. " - why did this person add that last part? That wasn't necessary for pointing out the scumtell. This sets off my alarm, because scum have a tendency to go ahead of themselves, like proposing chain lynches (another scumtell I believe in)."
Andthatis where I explain my original - my one and only - argument against Excedrin. The thing that I call a "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't"-trap. You claim that I've never explained my argument, but that is simply not the case.
You are the one trying to play the martyr card. Since you have fallaciously done so, I have pointed out your error.Rising wrote:*Slap forehead* Dude! You canKast wrote:You made a personal insult and called me a jerknotbe serious!
You said that I was "justifying a stupid vote", "You may personally be incapable of catching scum tells without the benefit of hindsight. Please don't automatically assume that your limitations are true for everyone else." and that my attempts were "petty and childish". You arecompletelydisqualified from playing the martyr card.
This is playing the martyr card again. If you don't enjoy and want to get out, then do so. Please don't whine about thinking about doing something.Rising wrote:Youhavebeen a textbook jerk, and did a pretty good job at sucking all my enjoyment out of this game back on page two. For a while I even considered leaving the game cold to get myself modkilled.
If I think your behavior is inappropriate to the game, I'll tell you. If you think the same for me, return the favor. I agree with your sentiment; the game doesn't need people to be assholes to be enjoyable. I disagree that I have been an asshole to you, and I think you are too sensitive.Rising wrote:But ok, for what it's worth; if youwereinsulted by my post - as I've been insulted by yours, I'm sincerely sorry. Usually, when I play, I sound like you; I call people's posts stupid, naïve, childish and whatnot. I can be a real asshole. But I've come to realize that it's actually pretty mean and that it doesn't belong in a game that is supposed to be fun and exciting.
Sure.Rising wrote:So. Friends?
False. The statement is that "SCUM sometimes make one mistake initially and do not make any more mistakes" which counters the argument that "real votes should only be placed on players who make multiple mistakes".Rising wrote:If the theory doesn't say that scum does thisKast wrote:The theory is that scum sometimes make mistakes initially but appear more pro-town as the game progresses [...] The theory says nothing about whether townies do the same thingmore often than town players, then it lacks merit for scumhunting. All it says, then, is that "PLAYERS sometimes make mistakes initially but blah blah", and what would be the point of that?
(1)-Statement 1 is true.Rising wrote:What?Kast wrote:Your repeated explanations that it is not a valid tell are irrelevant noise. You may as well tell us that there are townies in this game.
2. "There are townies in the game" (or some other nonsense)
does not follow logically from
1. "I doubt that X is a valid tell", does it?
"Is X a valid scumtell?" -thatis an important question - it is relevant to the game.
"Is X something that scum does sometimes, and maybe townplayers too?" Isn't. As an example; a lot of scum begins the game by typing "/confirm" in their first post. This can easily be tested using your proposed experiment. But what does it imply?
I'll probably look into it this weekend.Rising wrote:I've read a lot about it, but only played it for a day or two. Pretty fun. I have only met a few other species, though.Kast wrote:-I'm not familiar with the game. I've looked at the stuff on wikipedia. Is anyone else familiar with it?
Did I say somewhere that I was voting you based on meta? My comment about meta was an example of a case where scum could be identified based on an early post, I said nothing about using meta to justify my Papa Zito vote or that I thought meta could frequently catch scum based on early posts. FTR, I voted you mainly for reaction. Am I correct that you view opportunism as scummy (in contrast with Kmd4390) in this instance?Papa Zito wrote:Yes, more sarcasm. How did my meta research turn out, BTW? Because I'm going to assume that, if you're going to vote someone because of the way they're posting, then you've done the research to back that up amirite?
I wouldn't call them overly cautious. I'd call them observant enough to avoid a crap wagon.
No, that's not what Excedrin said. Read it again.Kmd4390 wrote:Rising, I trapped him by saying he is town?
What is this a reply to?Plum wrote:I will say that Rising, Kmd made it clear that he was not sure Zito was scum
Well... hmm... ok, I can understand how you look at it.Plum wrote:Considering the way you attempt to use italics to prove your point [/plum]
I use italics because I don't think I'm very good at expressing myself in english (I know my grammar sucks, btw, and I'm sorry if it makes my posts painful to read). Italics (or capital letters) is an easy way for me to get my points through even when I can't find the right way to express myself, or to compensate for my limited vocabulary. It's a lot easier to just pronounce the important words in every sentence. But I'll stop it right away if you think it's distracting.
Plum wrote:Also #38 is a perfectly logical continuation of #33
Isn't that a playground argument? "Everything you say and do is stupid, retarded, ugly and gay. Hey, I haven't said anything about youKast wrote:Your vote against Excedrin was a stupid vote. That's not a personal attack, nor does it say anything about you personally
KMD and Excedrin (and Porkens) hadKast wrote:You clearly state that you "would've been fine with it" if it were a strong case. KMD has not posted anything that would require a strong scumtell for you to excuse, whereas Excedrin has. [...] This is clearly about Excedrin and not KMD
I believe he did, and IKast wrote:Excedrin did not do 2.
I don't think that anyone has proposed that "real votes should only be placed on players who make multiple mistakes". Excedrin wrote "If you're saying that scum has to be proven by a case that includes multiple points, then I disagree." in #39, but that was a straw man of Sigma's post #38.Kast wrote:"The statement is that "SCUM sometimes make one mistake initially and do not make any more mistakes" which counters the argument that "real votes should only be placed on players who make multiple mistakes"."
That wasn't my statement. (I liked this whole segment of your post, though. It helped a lot for me to understand how you've percieved things in the past)Kast wrote:"Statement 2 is "Players who make a mistake initially but appear pro-town later are more likely to be scum than town"