Interesting. I
think I believe Shakerag, though his claim and playstyle have both made it pretty clear that he's a liability regardless.
Toaster:Irony: Please restate your whole cases against ZombieU and Shakerag.
Shakerag's Hapah thing irked something in my gut; it just felt
off, like I've said. Literally speaking it could have just been baseless pressure, which seems in vogue in this game, but something about the way he did it seemed a lot less innocent.
In addition, his other contributions suck. He started by pestering Dariush using baseless pressure as well, then spent some time riding his vote on a player who'd admitted he was doing badly, which he also returned to when his Hapah maneuver didn't work. I didn't have any particular feelings about his Dariush shenanigans at the time, but his Deathsword stuff seemed lazy and unproductive.
ZU's felt dodgy in general. Some of that might just be that a lot of his conversations are pointless and long, but it feels like he's had several areas where he just hasn't been answering straight.
More specifically, he's been talking about RVS questions and what makes them good all game, then replies to a question about good non-RVS questions with "they're different." That feels like he's trying to weasel out of admitting that he's not asking good ones, or that he doesn't actually know (or possibly care), which implies... what, exactly? That his whole case on Shak is an excuse for some ulterior goal?
He also skipped over Jim's rather important question, despite answering something decidedly not important from him in that very same post. Don't like that either.
Neither of these include material they provided after my last post, though there's a lot of reinforcement (Shak not town, ZU making wild baseless accusations) in there.
Dariush:I consider what Tolyk did scummy because he was pretty vocal that everything he said was 'just a guess', but then he directly and strongly contradicted his own words.
Where did he "directly and strongly" say the opposite of "it's just a guess?"
Accusation of being a lynch candidate. It is scummy for exactly the same reason describing someone as scum, but not voting them (or addressing them, for that matter) is.
I don't get it. How is asserting that someone's likely to get themselves lynched but not doing anything about it equivalent to stating that someone's probably scum and doing the same? What are they supposed to do about it?
zombie urist:This feels like a huge dodge. You say you were asking good questions, and get into a detailed argument about just what good questions are. Then you're asked about now, and you respond with "they're different."
Different how. Especially for someone who makes such a massive, stark distinction between RVS and scumhunting, going into detail about what makes a good RVS question work and then brushing off scumhunting as "different" strikes me as very suspicious.
My distinction between RVS and scumhunting is that the main purpose of RVS is to provoke discussion and scumhunting is to actively find scum. It's possible that RVS will reveal scum but that is not the main priority. Since these two activities have different purposes, naturally they have different guidelines.
I want you to explain how this answers my question, in nice, loving detail.
You also skipped Jim's rather pertinent questions. I mean, you answered to the "that's obvious" part, but completely skipped over the juicy "if that was his plan why didn't he go through with it?" bit that I wanted to hear about.
Also, what makes you think that was his plan?
He probably gave up his plan because I pointed it out. I think that was his plan because its a simple way to get a mislynch.
This makes mild amounts of sense if you already knew he was scum, though even then, I'd like to know why being a simple way to accomplish scumgoals makes you certain that was a given scum's goal.
More importantly though, I'd like to know how you knew his alignment well enough to surmise that "doing Plan X would be a simple way to mislynch someone" translated to "thus he was trying to do Plan X."
NOOOO
Please lynch Toaster tomorrow.
Brief case:
Further, I notice you didn't respond to any of the answers to your starter RVS post.
This is a scumtell which hasn't really been publicized and it doesn't happen very often. Other notable instances of this scumtell happening are by Think0028 in Super V and me in BM26(?).
Its a scumtell because it shows that Toaster doesn't really have anything to say and is padding his posts.
Dariush:
It was a reaction test. You didn't do well.
...
Irony: Please restate your whole cases against ZombieU and Shakerag.
I've already mentioned the first part is total BS. Also Toaster pulled the same thing in Cybrid IV after becoming cybridized.
The second part is also an example of post padding.
What the
So your sudden case on Toaster is that he's been padding his posts twice and a reaction test that's bullshit for reasons you can't be bothered to explain?
What makes you say either of those are padding?
Why is Toaster's "reaction test" BS? And most importantly, why is this the first we've heard of any of this other than you calling the reaction stuff BS with no explanation, elaboration, or action of any kind?
Author
Topic: BYOR 10 - Game Over: Town/Survivor Win (Read 78413 times)