Yosarian2 wrote:"Answering a question not directed at me" is a really silly accusation, considering Incog already answered the question; it's not like I'm preventing anyone from answering anything. If it's "stating the obvious" that a name-claim is incredibly anti-town, then why are we talking about a name-claim?
As for "what it's supposed to contribute"; don't you want to know if Camn is being deliberately anti-town or if she somehow thinks that suggesting that was a pro-town thing to do? For that matter, just killing the suggestion before something stupid happens like people just starting to claim (which happens ALL the bloody TIME these days) is itself pretty damn pro-town, thank you very much.
Seriously, what the hell? Person A makes an anti-town suggestion, person B says "no, we're not doing that, it's anti-town", and you attack person B for that? That makes zero sense.
All the criticisms really fold onto themselves.
1. The fact that you're stating the obvious is bad because what you have added to the conversation is fluff. It's fluff because the very narrow point that you're making - that name claiming at this point in the game is a bad idea - had already been made to some degree by numerous other players at the time of your post (see 3. below). It's an attempt to look like you're contributing when you are not. Your question about "why are we talking about name-claim" appears diversionary. We're talking about a name-claim because camn made a really bad suggestion. There's nothing more to say about that, so I'm not sure what your point is.
2. The fact that you're answering a question that wasn't directed at you is bad because there's no reason for you to answer it. You're not preempting anyone from responding, that's true. But your response is unnecessary. The question has been answered. Exactly on the points that you have provided. Once again, this makes your post look like filler.
3. Your post in no way contributes what you are suggesting it does in the quote above. (a) Your original post did not attempt to discern if camn was being purposefully anti-town or genuinely believe what she was doing is good. That would actually be a useful thing for a post to attempt to coax from camn. Your post did not do this. (b) Your original post was not killing the suggestion before someone else had started claiming. It came after
Incog,
Haylen ,
bvoight,
myself,
Medicated Lain, and
Pine all voiced/voted in a negative reaction to the suggestion before your post. Your post wasn't going to "kill" the idea because plenty of other players had already jumped on that wagon. In fact, the notion that you were afraid that people were going to start claiming after so many negative responses and no positive affirmations of camn's suggestion looks like you just now pulled it out of the air to justify your post.
Finally, the fact that you're qualifying (what I believe to be) a fairly benign, "intro-suspicion" inquiry post (#79) as an attack is interesting. Heck, I even undercut the force of any suspicion I had by suggesting in that very post about how wishy-washy I was to even post my suspicion. But to you, this is an attack? I've spent pretty much the entire game spattering similar questions around to other players to judge reactions and answers. Do you think all of my posts with an observation/question or those just containing questions have been "attacks?"
---
Pine wrote:I'm pretty sure I didn't stutter. I voted because Camn's actions are anti-Town. (Note for the stupid: "anti-Town" is a synonym for "scummy".)
Your unwarranted belligerence is unnecessary. It is also anti-town. It is anti-town because it rubs people the wrong way and makes them want to kneejerk vote for you. If you're town, you're basically daring people to not vote you. Which is bad for the town and amounts to playing bad. Note how this has nothing to do with the player being scummy.
However, this could be considered scummy play. I can qualify the unwarranted belligerence as the (scum) player playing in a blatantly bad fashion. This would be to purposefully cause town to second guess their kneejerk reaction (WIFOM, I guess). Firmly establishing that the scum plays poorly, the scum is able to use this as a cover for future scum play and delay lynching.
Please note the distinction. It is possible for the same action to be categorized as either based on the rationale being used. But reasoning is generally used. You have used no reasoning to make any distinction.
In fact, this whole semantic issue of what is "anti-town" and if it includes scummy play can be shelved.
The fact is, is that your camn vote post was framed to look like you were voting camn for having a poor play style and not for being scummy. When this was pointed out and questioned, you've been real great on throwing insults. But you have been quite mum until just now (post 89) on suggesting that, no, you think she's scummy for making her suggestion. But you have still failed to explain why you think it does not denote the fact that she just plays poorly (evidence: camn making the same suggestion in previous mini theme games) but does show that her alignment is scummy (evidence: here's where you would provide an explanation).
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
)