The whole notion of "there's too much WIFOM in letting Cado live" is crap. Her argument was that the possible jailkeeper would be confused by it, but the scumteam would be too. It causes the exact same confusion for both teams.
That's... not what I'm talking about... nor has it ever been.
I'm talking about the whole "did he claim correctly" (therefore we should keep him alive) or "did he fakeclaim" (so that we would think we should keep him alive), and how that would play out through the rest of the game.
OK.
Oh, and Nightcrafter and Vector: How are your cases on me different from each other's? You both state buddying and bandwagoning.
Excuse me? What kind of shit question is this?
That question was mostly for Nightcrafter, but since he said he was going to bed, I thought I'd address it to you too.
When NightCrafter asks me this:
So TWS, how is your case on Vector different from Leafsnail's?
He's complaining about my reasons for voting you being the same as Leafsnails'. But look at your preliminary case:
Whoops, Extension.
TheWetSheep is scum because he's buddying, bandwagoning, and my gut is ringing with the force of a million cowbells.
For example, in the post where he votes me he cites some very shoddy reasoning and then goes on about how he has "many other reasons," but doesn't detail anything.
I will do a version of this with actual posts soon.
Followed by his:
Lenglon:
Nightcrafter: what do you think of the accusations Vector leveled against sheep?
I agree that TWS seemed to be buddying Leafsnail. As for bandwagoning, I'm not sure. Yes, his reasons look like Leafsnails, but do two votes count as a bandwagon? If so, this is the most minimalistic bandwagon I've ever seen. As for Vector's gut, I have no way of knowing.
Looking back on TWS's posts since he voted Vector, he really doesn't put forth any more reasons that aren't Leafsnails. His case here is that Vector was lying when she claimed to have not known there was a cop. But then in the quote below, he attributes more ideas to Leafsnail, which seem very similar to his arguments.
Vector: Scum, for reasons in my previous post and more. Leafsnail brought up a good point; she should have known not to lynch a cop claim D1.
Day will end when I'm asleep. TheWetSheep is my current top pick for scum for buddying Leafsnail and copying his case on Vector. I would have liked TWS to reply to my question, but that's not going to happen in the next ten seconds.
He does the exact same thing. His reasons are the same as yours: Bandwagoning and buddying.
Then, he has the following (bolded orange is mine):
Vector: Scum, for reasons in my previous post and more. Leafsnail brought up a good point; she should have known not to lynch a cop claim D1. Her initial reasons for voting Ranger were erroneous, but she kept it there saying that we had to lynch him to get rid of the WIFOM. This isn't true; I'll explain why below.
Vector:
Now that this has happened we practically have to lynch you in order to lift the WIFOM.
This is stupid. Sure, it forces our jailkeeper into WIFOM, but also the scumteam. Can you explain exactly why you thought we should lynch Ranger?
He acts like he has a big case--the "for reasons in my previous post and more," and then completely whiffs. Compare his attack with Leafsnail's. Leafsnail has a cogent array of questions, bringing up specific points of confusion, things which I've legitimately said nothing about. He has a case. What TheWetSheep has is "I'm going to call you scum because I can't bother to read what you've already said right after the quote I cherrypicked."
The "and more" was referring to Leafsnail's case.
Look, here's the full quotation he grabbed. It happens to have the explanation attached--and is the first of many similar posts:
You had only three votes on you, you moron, and most of those were there because you haven't been playing your best and because there weren't any scummier targets. Now that this has happened we practically have to lynch you in order to lift the WIFOM.
If you're town, then you put in an effort to clear yourself. And you put in an effort to find the scum. If you're going to be lynched, you go down fighting. Because you've done none of these, it's just about impossible to believe your claim.
Yergh.
Lazy! Bandwagony!
Additionally: You lynch the person you think is scum. I don't give a fuck if he claims cop, jailkeeper, or pink elephant. If all of his actions read scum but he has a juicy claim, you lynch the fuck out of him. You don't leave scum alive to whisper poison in your ear, you KILL them.
We may disagree on philosophy, but if you think I am wrong, that by no means makes me scum. And I'm right, by the way.
OK... but you weren't even suspicious of Ranger before he claimed. You were voting Captain Ford, and before that, Birdy51. You didn't even address Ranger for four pages before that. What made his claim so scummy? I think your answer will be "he wasn't doing any scumhunting along with it", but if that made him so scummy why didn't you vote him before that?
2. Yes, if I had to pick a scumteam it would be Vector and Dem. You bring up a really good point there, and in my reads post I go into a bit more detail on his jumping on Griffion.
Griffinpup:
... OK. TWS, what's your current opinion on Leafsnail and his case on Vector, his communication with Griffy, and my current discussion with him? I've been trying to get you to participate, so hopefully this works.
I completely agree with his case on Vector, as can be seen by me voting her as well. Because I agree with him, I think he is more likely to be town.
Here's where the buddying starts up. "I agree with him, therefore he is town." "I am voting Vector, which demonstrates that I agree with his case." This post is all about how his vote for me undergirds his relationship with Leafsnail, and not having a damn thing to do with anything relating to me.
Not "I am voting Vector, which demonstrates that I think Vector is scum," or "I am voting Vector because I agree with Leafsnail." No. His vote on me demonstrates that he agrees with Leafsnail's opinion of me, which in turn demonstrates that he's a fucking scumbag.
First of all, this question didn't have to do with you, it was about Leafsnail and his case on you, which were the points I addressed.
Here's where the buddying starts up. "I agree with him, therefore he is town."
This is not what I said. I said I think he's more likely to be town because I agree with his points. The logic there isn't flawed. In fact, you don't say it's flawed. You just misrepresent it.
Here, I gave exactly what the question asked. It wanted my opinion of Leafsnail and his case. I gave them. And you call me buddying.
Nightcrafter: Once you've finished reading, what's your opinion on Vector? How about Leafsnail?
This isn't especially telling, but I thought I should include it anyway. Given all the rest of it, it looks to me like he's searching for more supporters for his non-extant case. If he gets Nightcrafter to prop up Leafsnail, then that in turn props him up.
My purpose for this question: I was beginning to think NightCrafter was your scumpartner. I was hoping to press him into saying something incriminating by asking his opinion on you. The "how about Leafsnail" was to 'disguise' it, in a way.
Now, let's look at where TWS finally jumps in. When he has time for a real argument. Here we go:
If by "buddying" you mean "agreeing" then yes, that's what I'm doing. If he asks me for my reads then I'm going to them along with their reasoning. And that's what you see me doing. I'm not going to change my reads because somebody has the same ones.
This sounds like... well, let's break this down.
"When you say buddying, what you mean is agreeing." -> Let me recontextualize your allegations so they don't mean anything.
"If he asks me for something, then I'll do it."
"And that's what you see me doing." -> This is a hard one. First: he says "that's what you see me doing," not "that is what I am doing." Second, he takes the above obvious statement and tells us that that's what he's doing. Nothing to see here! It's another recontextualization. He provides a false framework, and then agrees or disagrees with it without looking to the actual situation.
"I'm not going to change what I see because someone else sees the same thing." -> More recontextualization.
...
This is crap. Let
me break it down.
"When you say buddying, what you mean is agreeing." -> Let me recontextualize your allegations so they don't mean anything.
How? You actually don't say anything about what my point was there. Because that's what your accusations of buddying are: Sheep was agreeing with Leaf, therefore he must be buddying. Address that please, don't just say I'm recontextualizing.
"If he asks me for something, then I'll do it."
Yes. Is there something wrong with that? If anyone asks me for reads I'll give them.
"And that's what you see me doing." -> This is a hard one. First: he says "that's what you see me doing," not "that is what I am doing."
Semantics.
Second, he takes the above obvious statement and tells us that that's what he's doing. Nothing to see here! It's another recontextualization. He provides a false framework, and then agrees or disagrees with it without looking to the actual situation.
You're rambling about nothing. This bit just means that he asked me for my read and I gave it to him. I don't even understand what you're trying to get out of this sentence.
"I'm not going to change what I see because someone else sees the same thing." -> More recontextualization.
Again, you don't actually address what I'm saying, you simply say I'm recontextualizing. What am I recontextualizing?
In that whole series you say basically nothing.
Asking when somebody will have the time to contribute is softballing? Why don't you ask Vector whether you think griffinpup was softballing with this too?
Vector, when will you be able to post some content?
There's a smooth deflection here. "We asked the same question, therefore they mean the same thing independent of context." This is a pattern for TWS: he pulls someone else's argument and claims it, and its context, for his own. In this way he gets away with posting absolutely no worthwhile content.
I did address it. I pointed out that it was a dumb question. Asking when somebody will have time is not softballing. Do you disagree?
Actually, I do have a case on Vector(it hasn't been answered yet though):
Oh, and in the next post, another bit on Vector and a case on Demdemeh:
"Look! Look, I have a case! No, it's not what you're asking for, but there's two posts softballing Vector. Hence I have a case, so there!!"
Softballing?
I voted for you in the first one.Vector:
Buddying? No. Agreeing? Yes. I don't think they're the same thing. See my response to NightCrafter.
Bandwagoning? I provided reasoning that was independent of Leafsnail's. Reasoning you haven't answered yet. (I'm not trying to rush you, sorry if it feels that way)
I looked through my posts and couldn't find the one you describe.
This post feels like you're just pulling scumtells out of a hat and throwing them at me. I await your "actual posts".
Darling, throwing such superficial reasoning my way by no way means that you're not bandwagoning, and you need to get one hell of a lot better at reading through your, what, four posts.
Also--how could I be pulling things out of a hat and throwing them at you if other people noticed the same things? Why does my random selection cohere to those of other folks?
I meant you didn't have reasoning backing them up. In retrospect it was unfair, because you didn't have time.
Leafsnail:
I agree that Dem wanted to see Cado lynched while not voting him.
That is also the reason why Dem, and by extension you, are scum.
The reason why he didn't want to switch to Cado was because he didn't want to be seen as the last person bandwagoning on someone he knew to be a cop. He knew him to be a cop because he was a mafia member.
If he was town and genuinely thought Cado was the mafia rolecop, he'd have no reason at all to fear being on his wagon. Because he was scum, he did.
The italicized part boils down to "No no no you're scum". The other part is faulty logic. You're assuming that a town Dem would have been absolutely sure that Cado was the mafia rolecop. Since that probably wasn't the case, he would be justified in being nervous about being on the wagon.
Which we top off with blatantly chainsawing his scumbuddy.
First he declaws Leafsnail's argument by mischaracterizing it. Then he decontextualizes the "faulty logic" portion by
a. ignoring previous posts from Leafsnail that imply Demdemeh quite firmly thought Cado was the mafia rolecop
b. eliding the "genuinely thought" from Leafsnail's post into "absolutely sure," then implying that there's no evidence for any interpretation (see point a.).
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: the scumteam. It's TheWetSheep and Nightcrafter.
Hey everybody, Vector is attacking my questions to Leafsnail. She's chainsawing! She must be scum, along with Leafsnail!.
Uh, no.
Mischaracterizing? Leafsnail is saying: Yes, Dem wanted Cado lynched without voting him. But not for your reasons, but because he was scum. It's not conclusive evidence by itself.
And quite firmly sure isn't enough, for me, to be unafraid to be on someone's bandwagon.
Now, I didn't address you saying I had a bad case that was copied from Leafsnail yet. OK, my initial arguments on you were quite poor. Yes, my reasons for voting you were mainly Leafsnail's. But now I have more. Your above case is, for the most part, pretty terrible, for the reasons I state above. Also, why were there only two questions for me in that entire huge post?
Author
Topic: BM XLI: On Wings of Haven -- Scum Victory! (Read 101956 times)