Mini 856 - Star Control: Zeta Sextantis - Over

[Kmd4390]

So you are comparing Porkens/Excedrin (opportunistic?) to yourself (sarcastic) to determine that they are scum? So basically they are scummier than you and must be scum?

[Papa Zito]

I'm trying to demostrate what a real scumtell looks like, because it seems people have forgotten.

There's nothing scummy about sarcasm; that whole argument is stupid.

[Kmd4390]

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.

[Rosso Carne]

Zito, tell me what you, Plum, and Sigma did that was "obvious" and why scum wouldn't do it.

I've never seen a scum team actively defend each other in thread.

Zito, Porkens is probably town and Excedrin is probably town too. Who do you find scummy?

I'm not terribly fond of either one. If sarcasm = scum then game over, the whole site just lost.

wifom

[Rosso Carne]

I'm trying to demostrate what a real scumtell looks like, because it seems people have forgotten.

There's nothing scummy about sarcasm; that whole argument is stupid.

being unhelpful is scummy.

youre unhelpful

but i think its becase youre a n00B

[Rising]

being unhelpful is scummy.

Then, would you mind help us by explaining why you're voting for Kast?

[Papa Zito]

Thanks rosso.

@Mod: I will be V/LA Sep 30 - Oct 2 due to a business trip

[Locke Lamora]

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.

Either? So his sarcasm isn't scummy?

[Kmd4390]

Zito wasn't newbish in Boost 2.

Locke, guess I mis-spoke lol.

[Plum]

Rising &c. - I have better things to do with the limited amount of time I have in this game than spend a huge chunk of it analyzing and reanalyzing an argument that is almost purely theory-based when I realized that it's doubtful I can winnow any significant tells on anyone involved out of the chaff that is the argument itself. Is it possible that Rising is committing a scumtell in his theory arguments? Quite. Am I likely to get something conclusive enough to be useful out of it? Not in the long-term.

Not sure what to make of Plum's reaction. Yes, the original attack was weak. But Plum has been around long enough to know when someone is looking for a reaction. Hmm.

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.

Sarcasm can be scummy in some cases, especially if it's used to dismiss a case against oneself. I'm not sure if I can justify anything beyond that.

Fair enough. I could ask how strong a scumtell you'd think it would be in this situation, but fair enough.

Plum, the sarcasm looks more like scum who is annoyed because they are being wagoned and aren't even playing that badly. I had this happen to myself recently. Jelly could tell you all about that game. :eyeroll:.

Also fair enough. In fact, I outright like that point. Disagree that Porkens' is prob-town; I'm reading null or possibly a slight town-tell (for some reason I feel pretty okay about his post 49).

Mod: could we get a "Not Voting" line at the bottom of each votecount pretty please? I find them very useful. Thanks.

Early bus never happens?

Early game distancing happens, certainly. Honestly, I hadn't considered that possibility -- I would think it unlikely that KMD-scum would attack Papa-scum right off the bat like that, personally.

Kmd-scum did that with his Godfather just the other week in a mini-Normal, for the record.

Kast's post Post 53 is too dense for me to get through well and he hasn't voted all game I think (> scumtell than not voting in first . Kise, why are you throwing around terms like "craplogic" and "strawman" and "misrepresenting" but unable to point to scum suspects or vote anyone you accuse of doing things which connote scumminess?

@Rising, 51-
-You

manufactured

a

"tell"

by creating a

straw man.

The terms used here that I bolded commonly connote scumminess of actions, but here, despite the fact that you believe Rising did that stuff you won't vote him? You use even stronger terms than I did - and I was voting my just-about-best lead at the time, Kmd. You also attack Dry-fit and whatnot. But why not vote?

Rising was at least voting for his early best bet, and even if I'm not sure his Rosso Carne, am I onto what you're onto?

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.

Zito, your "opportunism" tell - in terms which I read as definitely serious:

Again, one of Porkens or Excedrin is very likely scum due to opportunistic voting.

well. In very early stages perceived opportunism - especially in a case like this, where I cant see either vote being obtusely opportunistic (Porkens reads give-or-take null on his vote from what I remember of playing with him and you could argue Excedrin's) the second two of three votes on a guy on Page 2 are not really indicative of anything all by their lonesome and you seem to try to make it out like it is.

Let's stir the pot a bit (though the pot-stirring is just a handy bonus)

Unvote; Vote: Kise

FOS: Zito

.

[Kast]

@Plum-
-I'm assuming that "Kise" refers to "Kast"? You kinda swapped there in the middle.

-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.

@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.

@Rosso-
Are you going to share your reason(s) for wanting to hammer me?

@Zito-
-Agreed that sarcasm itself is not inherently scummy. If it is used in place of defending oneself, that is scummy (although this is by virtue of not giving a defense, not because anything is wrong with sarcasm). I don't see Zito's situation as falling into that category.

-I'm not seeing the case against Zito. I think he is right to say it is extremely weak.

@Rising-
-When you avoid addressing an argument by attacking a player's irrelevant, personal, meta-statistics, that is petty and I'll call you on it. If you didn't post that in the first place, then I wouldn't call you on it. I didn't call it stupid.

Perhaps you felt your example was clever and relevant. I disagree and feel it was a very petty and childish way to attack other players while avoiding addressing the main point.

-Your new argument against Excedrin is much more valid; objecting to his claim that "sarcasm" is a scum tell is reasonable. It is not the same as your initial argument which you pushed despite others pointing out it's flaws. It looks like you have abandoned your initial argument.

-Ironically, you call out Dry-fit for the same behavior that you engaged in within the same post. This has been pointed out, but should not detract from your point against Dry-fit which is valid.

[Dry-fit]

The reason I disliked his [Sigma's] vote

is because I don't believe Kmd was seriously trying to "convince other players

to vote your lynch target

" at all, and I don't see how his post could have possibly been interpreted that way.

O RLY? Because what Sigma said

when he voted

was "Don't you think it's a little early to start convincing players

that you've found scum?

" That is hardly a misinterpretation, since KMD said "Yep. You're scum. I'm sure of it."

Do you really think Kmd was being serious? Kmd himself has stated he was not. Excedrin interpreted his comment as not being serious. Taking what someone says literally does not mean it's not a misinterpretation.

Sigma didn't suggest that KMD was trying to convince other players to

vote his lynch target

until his

next

post, #38, so you're clearly not remembering things right.

Okay, so it wasn't in the same post, but it was clearly a point meant to support his vote. What's your point?

And if you thought this was such a misrepresentation, why didn't you

say

so in post #43? In post #43 you discussed a

completely different

(and quite silly) issue.
I did say so:

But that's exactly what the purpose of Kmd's vote and comment were, to generate discussion.

#57: Dry-fit says "The reason I disliked his vote is because I don't believe Kmd was seriously trying to "convince other players to vote your lynch target" at all" which doesn't add up, for two reasons:
1. That is not what Sigma wrote when he cast his vote. Dry-fit just got that quote from Kast, just now. There was absolutely no misrepresentation going on when Sigma cast his vote, back in #33.
2. This is the first time Dry-fit brings this issue up. If this is the reason he disliked Sigma's vote, why didn't he say so in #43? Why discuss semantics if he had serious and valid reasons for mistrusting Sigma?

1. No, it's not what he wrote, but so what? Are you really going to argue that his stated reason for voting means something different?
2. I did say so, as already explained.

About "semantics": I never intended to have a semantics argument, and there never was one. sigma himself agreed that Kmd generated discussion. Here is the passage in question:

The goal of this stage of the game is to generate discussion, not convince other players to vote your lynch target.

My point was that Kmd has done the former(and no one has objected), and clearly has not done the latter. Where can a semantics debate pop up?

[Rising]

When you avoid addressing an argument by attacking a player's irrelevant, personal, meta-statistics, that is petty and I'll call you on it. [...] I disagree and feel it was a very petty and childish way to attack other players

O RLY?

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 was

me

who called

you

out on it. I was willing to put your statement above to the test.

I didn't call it stupid.

I didn't accuse you of calling

this particular

sentence stupid (you did that in an earlier post). I wondered why you had to be such a jerk

in this game

. If you want to provoke to get a reaction there are other, much better ways.

Your new argument against Excedrin, objecting to his claim that "sarcasm" is a scum tell is reasonable

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.

And how could you possibly believe that the argument you propose would be a reasonable argument against

Excedrin?

It was

KMD

that started the bandwagon against Pipo and said that sarcasm was a scumtell (he's

still

saying 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.

Please explain yourself, because there must be something that I've misunderstood.

---

Do you really think Kmd was being serious? Kmd himself has stated he was not.

KMD was just instigating with his

first

post - that's true - but Sigma responded to a later post, where KMD said that he was

sure

that Papa was scum (and KMD

has not changed his opinion since then!

- he does it again in #71). That's how serious he is.

No, it's not what he wrote, but so what?

You lied; and you think it's not a big deal?

(Well, I can see this as an honest and understandable mistake, actually, but I had to call you out on it to get a read on you)

Are you really going to argue that his stated reason for voting means something different?

Yes, of course I'm going to. Sigma's

stated

reason for voting in #33 is a reasonable and sensible post, but his explanation in #38 is pretty crazy and certainly up for a debate. There's no way you can convince me that #38 follows logically from #33.

My point was that Kmd has done the former(and no one has objected), and clearly has not done the latter. Where can a semantics debate pop up?

Actually, Sigma

has

objected. He just resigned to the silliness of your argument and admitted that "Sure, he generated discussion -- bully for him, I'll keep it in mind. I wasn't a fan of the way in which he generated discussion, however". Your silly semantics argument implied that when Sigma wrote "The goal of this stage of the game is to generate discussion" he should be fine with

any

discussion what so ever (even a ridiculous one), and that was clearly not what he meant. He has already explained this himself.

I did say so, as already explained

That's a pretty far reach, Dry.

"So you're saying he's scum for accomplishing the goal of this stage by creating discussion?" does

not

equal "The reason I disliked his vote is because I don't believe Kmd was seriously trying to 'convince other players to vote your lynch target' at all".

What do you say about Sigma's view: "My opinion is that this could possibly be scum trying to appear like the stereotypical aggressive pro-town player, and I voted him to underline this point." Plum tells us in #84 that KMD has been known to do this as scum in other games.

I'd like to hear your opinion on this.

[Rosso Carne]

being unhelpful is scummy.

Then, would you mind help us by explaining why you're voting for Kast?

im not voting for anyone.

[Rosso Carne]

@Plum-
-I'm assuming that "Kise" refers to "Kast"? You kinda swapped there in the middle.

-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.

@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.

@Rosso-
Are you going to share your reason(s) for wanting to hammer me?

@Zito-
-Agreed that sarcasm itself is not inherently scummy. If it is used in place of defending oneself, that is scummy (although this is by virtue of not giving a defense, not because anything is wrong with sarcasm). I don't see Zito's situation as falling into that category.

-I'm not seeing the case against Zito. I think he is right to say it is extremely weak.

@Rising-
-When you avoid addressing an argument by attacking a player's irrelevant, personal, meta-statistics, that is petty and I'll call you on it. If you didn't post that in the first place, then I wouldn't call you on it. I didn't call it stupid.

Perhaps you felt your example was clever and relevant. I disagree and feel it was a very petty and childish way to attack other players while avoiding addressing the main point.

-Your new argument against Excedrin is much more valid; objecting to his claim that "sarcasm" is a scum tell is reasonable. It is not the same as your initial argument which you pushed despite others pointing out it's flaws. It looks like you have abandoned your initial argument.

-Ironically, you call out Dry-fit for the same behavior that you engaged in within the same post. This has been pointed out, but should not detract from your point against Dry-fit which is valid.

no

[Rosso Carne]

When you avoid addressing an argument by attacking a player's irrelevant, personal, meta-statistics, that is petty and I'll call you on it. [...] I disagree and feel it was a very petty and childish way to attack other players

O RLY?

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 was

me

who called

you

out on it. I was willing to put your statement above to the test.

I didn't call it stupid.

I didn't accuse you of calling

this particular

sentence stupid (you did that in an earlier post). I wondered why you had to be such a jerk

in this game

. If you want to provoke to get a reaction there are other, much better ways.

Your new argument against Excedrin, objecting to his claim that "sarcasm" is a scum tell is reasonable

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.

And how could you possibly believe that the argument you propose would be a reasonable argument against

Excedrin?

It was

KMD

that started the bandwagon against Pipo and said that sarcasm was a scumtell (he's

still

saying 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.

Please explain yourself, because there must be something that I've misunderstood.

---

Do you really think Kmd was being serious? Kmd himself has stated he was not.

KMD was just instigating with his

first

post - that's true - but Sigma responded to a later post, where KMD said that he was

sure

that Papa was scum (and KMD

has not changed his opinion since then!

- he does it again in #71). That's how serious he is.

No, it's not what he wrote, but so what?

You lied; and you think it's not a big deal?

(Well, I can see this as an honest and understandable mistake, actually, but I had to call you out on it to get a read on you)

Are you really going to argue that his stated reason for voting means something different?

Yes, of course I'm going to. Sigma's

stated

reason for voting in #33 is a reasonable and sensible post, but his explanation in #38 is pretty crazy and certainly up for a debate. There's no way you can convince me that #38 follows logically from #33.

My point was that Kmd has done the former(and no one has objected), and clearly has not done the latter. Where can a semantics debate pop up?

Actually, Sigma

has

objected. He just resigned to the silliness of your argument and admitted that "Sure, he generated discussion -- bully for him, I'll keep it in mind. I wasn't a fan of the way in which he generated discussion, however". Your silly semantics argument implied that when Sigma wrote "The goal of this stage of the game is to generate discussion" he should be fine with

any

discussion what so ever (even a ridiculous one), and that was clearly not what he meant. He has already explained this himself.

I did say so, as already explained

That's a pretty far reach, Dry.

"So you're saying he's scum for accomplishing the goal of this stage by creating discussion?" does

not

equal "The reason I disliked his vote is because I don't believe Kmd was seriously trying to 'convince other players to vote your lynch target' at all".

What do you say about Sigma's view: "My opinion is that this could possibly be scum trying to appear like the stereotypical aggressive pro-town player, and I voted him to underline this point." Plum tells us in #84 that KMD has been known to do this as scum in other games.

I'd like to hear your opinion on this.

write who the damn quotes are from

[sigma]

@Rosso: stop quoting entire giant posts k thx

unvote

Vote: Porkens

Didn't respond to my question and is lurking.

[Rosso Carne]

@Rosso: stop quoting entire giant posts k thx

unvote

Vote: Porkens

Didn't respond to my question and is lurking.

no

[sigma]

Actually, Porkens hasn't posted since I asked him a question -- thought he had.

unvote

Vote: Locke Lamora

Every single sentence he's written in game has been a question. Good way for scum to skate by without actually having to state an opinion.

Sigma, why "scum trying to look like the stereotypical aggressive pro-town player." rather than "the stereotypical aggressive pro-town player"? What is the most notable difference there?

Just felt really over the top to me -- IMO, saying "You're scum, I'm sure of it" is something I would never do as town. Not to say you'd never do it, obviously, but just didn't like it. You look more pro-town since then.

[sigma]

no

thought it was worth a shot.

is there anyone else you'd hammah right now?

[Rosso Carne]

uhm

maybe

not 100% sure though

[Locke Lamora]

Zito wasn't newbish in Boost 2.

Locke, guess I mis-spoke lol.

Or you don't really think his sarcasm is scummy, you were just doing it to get a reaction.

Sigma: so Porkens is less scummy because he hasn't posted at all since you asked him a question than if he'd posted and hadn't answered it? Yes, that is another question.

[sigma]

yes, he is less scummy. he hasn't done anything other than wagon Zito and make his KMD statement, which doesn't look serious to me, so he's still odd. I did think he'd ignored my question for some reason, and that wasn't true, so I changed my mind.

Congrats on your first in-game declarative sentence, by the way.

What do you think of KMD so far?

[sigma]

EBWOP: "I changed my mind" should be "I changed my vote."

[Locke Lamora]

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?