Penngo: So you're sure that one of us is scum. What are you doing to find out which one it is?
McNoble: Because I don't have the time to pick apart your quote to reply, I'll just reply in order.
For reference:
The question was a stab at your hypocrisy, but I guess you didn't want to see it that way.
If you don't see the difference between going after each player in turn and going after only one player until prompted by a direct question into even bothering to address anybody else...
... nah, I'm not even gonna finish that sentence, because of course you know the difference. You're not stupid. Just scummy.
Weak tea. I didn't ask for an exhaustive list. Just one or two examples to show that you had actually thought about what you were doing and not making up excuses as you went along.
Those would be one or two examples that would be rendered useless by my sharing.
There is a great multitude of possible actions one may take, and an only slightly smaller multitude of those could be construed as scummy. A great multitude of those actions are already publicly "outed" as scumtells. You could have picked two of those, if you did not fancy revealing your own private list (which I suppose would be understandable if such a list actually existed).
- If Andrew was such an easy lynch, why isn't it already D2? Why aren't you attacking the other three players voting him?
Did you miss the last three pages?
Right now I'm bothering you. Stop deflecting.
Where are you attacking the other players "going after the easy lynch" in the last three pages?
You mean aside from the entire back-and-forth I had with zombie urist?
But by all means, please do continue to demonstrate that you're not paying attention to the game. It goes wonderfully with your claim to be lying in wait for scum with your super-secret checklist of scumtells.
Also convenient how you "miss" the part where I point out how you can bother more than one person at a time.
Why does it matter so much to you whether I bother everyone at the same time or everybody one at a time, so long as I bother everybody, and not just the safe lynch like you prefer to? It's not like the people I bothered before I bothered you have produced a wealth of new and interesting material since I started bothering you.
The only person I've seen you actively hunting is me,
What do you think I was doing to Dariush, Phantom and the other urist on Wednesday? Making out with them?
Seriously, if you're going to pretend that you keep a watchful eye out for scum, you can't also pretend to not notice what people do in the thread. Those two excuses really don't go well together.
[spoiler=And for the sake of completeness...]
I wasn't making excuses, those were statements.
I could'a sworn I saw at least one question mark in them, but let's say they were statements. How does that make them not-excuses?
To show that you have actually thought about what you're looking for, not just blowing off the accusation of activelurking with an "uh, I'll know it when I see it."
Of course I've thought about it, I'm not an idiot. Why do I need to prove anything to you?
No rule of the game requires you to. No rule of the game requires me to remove my vote from you either.
You were nattering about rolefishing in response to my suggesting that maybe you weren't so concerned about nightkills. I understand why you'd rather I forgot about that, because you were just throwing shit to see if it would stick.
I brought it up in the first place because of how you managed to work it in your post. It was clumsy and reeked of "Do I have to worry about your role?" I dropped it because it was weak, and I realized that it had little base.
OK, I can buy that.
What does the last three pages have to do with why Andrew isn't already lynched if he's "such an easy lynch"?
Because Phantom didn't have the courage of his conviction to hammer him before penngo flipped out at Orangebottle and OMGUSed him.
But I'll grant you that "easy" is the wrong adjective. "Safe lynch" was the term I should have been using.
Why is it that everytime I ask you a question that references other people, you accuse me of deflecting?
Because your favorite way to deflect is to whine about how unfair it is that I got around to bothering you and how I should go bother the people I spent the first three days of this week bothering.
I wasn't asking you to attack them,
Of course you weren't.
I was asking you why you weren't.
Because I did attack them, and they responded, and I ran out of interesting things to attack them about. When I run out of interesting things to attack you about - or decide that further pressing the point will be a waste of time because I can't get a clear, simple, straightforward, honest answer out of you, then I'll go back over those conversations and see what I missed. And if I didn't miss anything, I will bother them about why they didn't find anything interesting in the conversation we're currently having.
-If I recall correctly, you were answering Jim, answering Zombie, asked Phantom to answer someone else's previous question, then prodded him with a question about him softballing you, and poked Andrew lightly with a couple of questions. A lot of defending and not much hunting going on there.
-Quote-mining at its finest. Did you just miss the rest of that line where I mentioned that it was indeed possible for me to give a few generic answers? Also where I pointed out that you probably wouldn't be satisfied with that and that it would ultimately be pointless? Sharing well-known scumtells is moot and wasn't the point of your question.
If you understand why I wouldn't want to share my own private list, then why are you still trying to give me crap about it?
-My God, way to cut out pretty much the entire paragraph. I mean, holy shit. It takes balls to ignore so much so blatantly. You want to talk about not paying attention to the game, how about you, you know, actually stop ignoring half of my arguments? Particularly the halves you apparently have no answer for.
PPE: I see you answered most of the rest of the paragraph at the end. I'd prefer if you kept segments together.
-Because you're trying to give me crap for focusing two players, and here you are focusing one.
-If you could do that over the internet, I'd be impressed. I would call that weak hunting.
You talk about a "watchful eye", but where's the response to the other
half of my post? You know, the half that you have no answer for.
-Yes, there was a question mark, when I asked you how the hell I was actively evading anything. I mentioned the incompetence in the game, that's sort of an excuse, but the overlying point of the thing was to state that unless something big happened, you shouldn't expect a lot out of me until D2. Of course, you made something big happen, so congrats on that.
-Your vote is so big and scary. I'm so scared. The reason I don't have to prove anything to you? Because you're scum, plain and simple.
-Mmk.
-"Safe" lynch would make more sense. I still don't see how it condemns someone to be scum. Isn't voting obvscum almost always a safe lynch?
-One, I don't whine. Two, that's not deflecting. In no way did I tell you to attack those people, I asked why you weren't (which you've deflected every time by accusing me of deflecting).
-The questions were "Why aren't you?" not "Will you?"
-And it never crossed your mind that I had nothing interesting on anyone else, either? Or that I couldn't get anything more out of Andrew? Funny how it's okay for you to use that excuse, but you try to give me crap when I happen to be in that boat.
*shrug* The case stands with or without it.
But I actually do find it highly questionable that he jumps down the neck of the first person to scumhunt him, after doing bugger all other than bandwagoning a safe lynch. That you appear to not think so, or that it does not constitute an OMGUS, or that OMGUS is a weak scumtell... well, I'll keep that in mind. But, uh, I don't know that you're town yet, so you'll have to excuse me for reserving judgment on whether that was advice given in good faith.
As an aside, if I were doing "any material for a lynch" I would have jumped on either the Andrewwagon or the penngowagon. Which is why I'm pushing the people who did precisely that.
Uh, yes it was. You asked whether I had a justification for claiming that he OMGUSed me. His principal line of defense thus far has been variations on "oh, I already jumped on the Andrewwagon, so my job is done for today and I get to lurk now. Therefore, it is scummy of you to point out that I am lurking."
If the premise of that defense were justified, then the conclusion would not be an OMGUS. The question of whether the premise is, in fact, justified is thus highly germane to the question of whether he is or is not OMGUSing.
-Your case does not stand with or without it. Your case never stood. You tried to stack up a "case" and I huffed and I puffed and I blew your "case" away. You've yet to reestablish it in any meaningful way.
I only "jumped down" your neck because of how you went about hunting me. You asked me a scummy question, I picked up on it and retaliated. You tried to bring me down with an extremely weak case, you fail to answer important, possibly incriminating questions or justify your arguments, and you continually push weak tells. That's pretty scummy, the fact that you attacked me first isn't going to keep me from scumhunting you.
As for grabbing "any material for a lynch", of course you wouldn't jump on Andrew or Penngo. Andrew's your buddy and nobody is really aggressive towards Penngo.
-I'd like to know how I was using that for defense. My primary line of defense against your lurking accusations was that I wasn't getting anything out of Andrew and nothing interesting was happening. I also never attacked you for calling me out about lurking. I attacked you at first for asking what I was looking for.
Author
Topic: Hammertime - Here Comes the Hammer [Game Over] (Read 45743 times)