Tiruin:
However, there are points I can't argue against (especially the deflecting as it goes off more as deflecting..however something's just wrong when I read his posts. He's coming off as a non-scum [third-party is my best bet followed by extremely philosophical townie, which would be pretty strange. 95% third-party attitude, 3% townie, 2% scum. That's how I'm viewing it at the moment.] given how he answers things) given how he's representing himself.
This line really sours any point you're trying to make.
> Disproportionate..seems much like that. I saw it as a neutral answer where he stated..IC. While it is suspicious, it could also be said that (1), he chose to answer it IC (yet it is strange seeing how he doesn't address it explicitly, he does [prior to bad semantics] say I am not, as you say, a "third party". I am a journeyman carpenter." The second sentence throws it off.)
Talking IC is not a shield to being scumhunted.
>...crude and unfocused? That goes along the lines of diversion. Where specifically marks this out?
NQT:
Everyone
[Think about this carefully. If I'm scum, where's my scum team to make an alternative case? Look at the votes-- they're evenly spread except for on me. I'm willing to bet that this pattern has never been seen on a day 1 scum lynch before. All it takes for evil to prevail is you all doing nothing.
Everyone
[Also, are you going to trust the lynch to the two most lurkiest players in the game?
How do you feel about sharing a case with arch-lurkers Tiruin and Ottofar? Do you feel their powers of perception are so sharp that they can make accurate cases without actually needing to play the game?]
What's your view on lurkers Ottofar, Deathsword and griffinpup?]
I recently played a game over on mafiascum and one thing it showed me is that when there's a hammer, the players are forced to do something useful with their vote. You've all got to keep in mind that if you're not voting for one of the lynch leads or making a new lynch lead, then you're vote is doing nothing at day's end and if you don't think the person who's about to be lynched is scum, then you are wilfully letting scum win.
Here, he keeps harping on lurkers, continually demonizing them so as to draw attention to them instead of himself. This is the second of his two main diversionary tactics. (The first being what I mentioned very early on concerning his reaction to me asking if out of town meant third party.)
2. This is pretty much a taunt to me.
You respond in turn, here. You aren't sure what his point is despite him clearly outlining it?
You have the gall to accuse me of deflecting and then this is your response to my follow up?
I mean, there's nothing to glean but a disgusting insult to logic by that banter on your part.
His point that I laughed at had about as much logical value as me laughing at it. Can you honestly tell me that he is making any semblance of a valid point there? I gave that line every bit of response it deserved.
On another read, perhaps I should clarify a bit.
Your vote is incredibly weak and will mark you as scum if I am lynched or night killed.]
I have underlined the laughable part. Perhaps you thought I meant the rest of it?
Not sure what your point is, since you were deflecting and I was blowing off your ridiculous statement, which are two separate things.
> Ridiculous statement in turn was:
[I don't think it's deflection: I clearly answered your question, didn't I? I'm not third party. And furthermore, if your reasoning for believing that I am third-party were that I'm an out-of-towner, that would make you a third-party too (outlying is still outside). Your vote is incredibly weak and will mark you as scum if I am lynched or night killed.]
He answered it as clean as day here. Something which you didn't poke. This something being my point.
Did you poke that matter? No. You didn't.
I never said that he didn't answer my question. He did- I've never argued this point. My argument is that he answered it
in a scummy way, which I said:
These- especially put together- are some pretty serious deflection. You really don't like me implying that you're third party because you're out of town- as such, I do believe I will keep voting you.
You give a crappy generalist conclusion to it.
Damn skippy it is. Not sure what your point is, since you were deflecting and I was blowing off your ridiculous statement, which are two separate things.
In any case, I'm voting you because after I threw a question pertaining to "not from town = anti town" at you, you then deflected attention away from yourself. Before I could even respond you throw it right back at me. Basically, you flipped out over my simple question. You then threaten me with said ridiculous statement, which is just laughable.
Why would you blow off a case such as this when you do say it's a flip? That's pretty much something to build upon, eh?
Blow off a case? What? You quoted me stating the entirety of my case at the moment, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Given that the post you have quoted here is from the first half of day 1, I'm not sure what deep reserves of material you're expecting me to bring. What more were you expecting at this point?
| 3. | NQT:
Toaster
[No, I answered your question and followed up by indicating that if your logic was not from town = anti town" then you yourself would be out-of-town and so your continued vote made absolutely no sense. I fail to see how this is a lynchable offence. You've voted for me in the RVS and have kept your vote parked there since-- a typical scum manoeuvre. You're fabricating the flimsiest of pretexts to get away from doing something productive with your vote. If you're town then you need to step up your game; if your not, then laugh all you like: you're rumbled.
What's your view on Zombie Urist?]
The answering of the question wasn't the point- it was the fact you pointed fingers elsewhere on the out-of-town issue, and how it got you so riled up. Also, the vote wasn't and has never been a random vote- it was specifically directed at you on the grounds of something you said. It got a scummy reaction, so it stuck. Finally, just because you call the vote flimsy doesn't actually make it so.
|
You say 'your reaction is what I'm talking about' in a weird way. How did he point fingers when he distinctly said the above? His only other question was asking if you were out of town yourself.
The reaction was scummy--how? I don't see you expounding on it. Nor on why it stuck.
To clarify the last statement: You only gave something; posting something and left it out for conclusions to be derived rather than state how and in which parts, why, it is scummy.
I think this indicates that you don't understand my case. Let's go back to the beginning:
(And I really should have quoted the next line in my first response to this post- it does really make it harder to see my point without that.)
Toaster
NQT: In the first game, IIRC all the out-of-towners were third party. Are you non-town?
"A most interesting suggestion, Monsieur Petit. I am not, as you say, a "third party". I am a journeyman carpenter. But, alors! We must not rule out ze possibility of townsfolk sharing connections through similar circumstances. On zat note..."
Dariush, Deathsword, Zombie Urist
"I could not help but notice zat you are all in the clothes trade. Do any of you work closely together? Also, are any of you new to Uzès?"
Yes, he answers my question. If he had left it off with just the underlined bit, I wouldn't have batted an eye. But no, he had to go on and direct the attention of out-of-towners elsewhere. Then, in his very next post...
Toaster
"Monsiuer Petit, are you not also from out of town, as a farmer yourself?"
He turns it right back around on me! Clearly, I have struck a nerve here. If he had taken it as what it was- quick pressure- then I would have dropped it. But no, he had to go on about it way more than what one would expect for a townie response. Ergo, he has something to hide or this pressure resonated with him. Either way, such is a scummy reaction.
...Ok, either I'm blind, or I'm not seeing where NQT is going, or perhaps pleading for his life. He's attracting attention, of course, but his attention was put in a directive way. 'See what they're doing to me'-ish.
Is this a scummy thing to do or not?
Also, you should read my forthcoming response to NQT.
Lenglon:
Lenglon:
I would like to request a Lynch All Lurkers policy-lynch on Ottofar. the last time he did any scumhunting was his first post of the game. I do not want to have a BM XL situation where the scum sit back, lurk, and watch the town tear itself apart.
This is way too early to do such a thing. Either lead it yourself or just vote him and be done- don't try to get others to go along without leading a solid charge.
Toaster:my vote has been on Ottofar for three days now, have you not been keeping track of who is voting whom?
I am aware. I just got a feeling of you trying to spread responsibility for an Ottofar lynch, which I didn't like. It's not a lynchable offense, but it did get my attention.
Toaster...
Lenglon goes back and reviews Tiruin's case on Toaster
... That's actually a pretty darn good case, and I should have paid more attention to it when you made it. one moment...
Lenglon uses LurkerTracker to re-read all of Toaster's posts
Toaster: When I made my full flavor claim, I said that I was from Paris. do you think I am a third-party?
Toaster: I don't understand what made NQT's answer to your "are you a third-party" a deflection. could you please explain how that works when he said "I am not, as you say, a 'third party'"?
Toaster: If I ignore the third-party accusation from your post, then your case on NQT seems to be based entirely upon how he become upset when you continued to press him over his answer. Is this the entirety of your case?
No, I don't think you're third party. Neither do I think NQT is third party
because he is flavor says he is out of town. As I have said, his reaction to the question is what makes me think so.
Read my response to Tiruin, specifically this bit:
Let's go back to the beginning:
(And I really should have quoted the next line in my first response to this post- it does really make it harder to see my point without that.)
Toaster
NQT: In the first game, IIRC all the out-of-towners were third party. Are you non-town?
"A most interesting suggestion, Monsieur Petit. I am not, as you say, a "third party". I am a journeyman carpenter. But, alors! We must not rule out ze possibility of townsfolk sharing connections through similar circumstances. On zat note..."
Dariush, Deathsword, Zombie Urist
"I could not help but notice zat you are all in the clothes trade. Do any of you work closely together? Also, are any of you new to Uzès?"
Yes, he answers my question. If he had left it off with just the underlined bit, I wouldn't have batted an eye. But no, he had to go on and direct the attention of out-of-towners elsewhere. Then, in his very next post...
Toaster
"Monsiuer Petit, are you not also from out of town, as a farmer yourself?"
He turns it right back around on me! Clearly, I have struck a nerve here. If he had taken it as what it was- quick pressure- then I would have dropped it. But no, he had to go on about it way more than what one would expect for a townie response. Ergo, he has something to hide or this pressure resonated with him. Either way, such is a scummy reaction.
For your third point, said reaction was the turning point between pressure and a serious vote. Since then, he's done several other things, mainly his diversionary lurker castigating.
NQT:
Toaster -- Has made the semblance of justification for his attacks (but if you have half a brain then you know what alignment I am. Reread the penultimate thing I addressed to you.)
You know what, you are totally right- that slipped under my radar. Let's take a look.
Toaster
The answering of the question wasn't the point- it was the fact you pointed fingers elsewhere on the out-of-town issue, and how it got you so riled up. Also, the vote wasn't and has never been a random vote- it was specifically directed at you on the grounds of something you said. It got a scummy reaction, so it stuck.
[I feel we're talking at cross-purposes here. I was only 'riled up' because your reasoning was seemed to me to be so bugnuts insane. You seemed to have been calling me a third-party for being out of town when you yourself were out of town. I realise now that it was my reaction that kept the vote on me. Sometimes I let righteous indignation get in the way of good play. I don't agree with your vote but at least I understand it now. Think back to your previous Witches games and look at my actions, you'll know exactly why I'm not a witch.]
Let's review. I fished for a response out of you via the out of town = nontown bit. I got a heated response, so I pressed it. You go into survival mode. This urge to not get lynched, plus this statement I am quoting again for emphasis:
you'll know exactly why I'm not a witch.
I'm not a witch.
Not "I am town" or "I'm not scum," but
I'm not a witch. In other words, you're third party. Yep, you need to hang.
Author
Topic: Witches' Coven: In the Heart of Darkness [GAME OVER: 4/13] (Read 203901 times)