I accidentally posted that other one. This post was supposed to be above that one. Hence, Birdy #2
Birdy:
Birdy12:
Your predecessor lurked incessantly.
He sat his vote on Powder Miner day one, and never really commented on the lynching of Dave.
Chink never actually interacted with IG in anything but RVS. This is a classic newb scumtell. Scum attempt to simultaneously avoid bringing attention to their partner and avoid any associative tells with said partner. This commonly involves no interaction whatsoever between them.
This argument again... Yes Chink lurked. This is a fact that has been pounded down already. That is where your argument stops making sense.
[1]If you could quote where this point has been "pounded down" and why that doesn't make this a scumtell, I'd appreciate it.
You say he never had any strong interactions with IG. While true, Chink also never had any interactions outside of RVS with NQT. Further you have tastefully neglected to mention that he also had nearly no interactions with two other players, TheWetSheep/ Guninanarunin, and Griffionday. Chink avoiding addressing just Imperial Guardsman. He just never took the opportunity to address anyone.
Fair enough. Though not addressing anyone, (lurking) is scummy by itself.
And since you've replaced in, you've voted IG.
Imperial Guardsman: Support your arguments. Preferably in something longer than single sentence groups. Beyond the flimsy reasoning on the basis of a mislynch, you didn't seem to have a single good reason for holding your vote on Griffonpup besides the fact that two other players had already voted for him. Do explain yourself.
But the interesting thing about this vote was how it was conditioned.
You never called IG scum. In fact, you're not even voting him to be lynched. No, you're voting him until he can explain his arguments. This seems more and more like an attempt to go with what is popular opinion, but have a viable excuse to remove your vote if the opportunity presents itself and if your scumbuddy can be saved. You continue this pattern with the rest of your posts.
more later
Finally something new.
Yes, I voted for IG. But I was not confident that he was scum, due to the sheer lack of content that he put out. So I pressured him so he could provide answers. When nothing came out of my vote, I was compelled to keep the vote there and lynch him for lurking. We've been through this. It's a pattern for a reason. I case you haven't noticed, this is a BM. My own goal is to see both myself and other players improve.
I'm not out to lynch everything in sight. If Imperial Guardsman had given a proper defense for himself, I would have unvoted him, even if not a single other player agreed with me.
[2]If you didn't think IG was scum, what did you think about the huge bandwagon he did on me? And who were your two scumpicks at the time?
But all in all, your answers satisfy me, so Unvote.
Birdy #2:
Griffinpup: Scum. I have come to believe that Griffinpup is not playing with the Town's survival in mind. There a few things that he has said just today that do not sit right with me.
3. I never insulted Griffionday's playstyle, only Griffionday as a person.
First I want to bring up this. Here Griffinpup admits to the use of Ad Hominem,
[3] Wrong. I admit to not insulting Griffionday's playstyle and to insulting him personally, no to the use of Ad Homenem.
He couldn't counterclaim against his logic,
3. I never insulted Griffionday's playstyle, only Griffionday as a person.
[4]Perhaps you should read the post that this quote is actually referring to. I DID refute his logic.
So I don't have the literal right to ask someone to respond to my post after they ask for replacement?
You don't have a right to expect an answer until they're replaced.
I disagree, but whatever.
1. I'm not saying explain to him why you aren't lurking, I'm saying only defending yourself based on posting frequency is stupid.
2. So you're saying one should do heavy research before voting for someone based on a case? I agree in theory, but in practice this means that votes like Nerjin's current one are going to be more common. I prefer having a case on the person you wish to lynch over leaving your pressure vote on someone who hasn't responded.
That obviously wasn't going to be my whole case. That was mainly my precursor. The fact that he refused to respond even to this kinda put a damper on my follow-up.
Care to explain what your follow up was? If it's real it shouldn't require you to do any work...
Sure. I would of then pushed him on the fact that the time-period was substantially less then twenty four hours and that I posted every day. I would ask him his definition of lurking and explain why it was wrong.
Griffinpup: Why are you focusing exclusively on the past in this game when you could be generating your own material to read? Interact with everyone, and once you've a feeling for them, move on and talk to someone else. Seriously. Your emphasis on reads, events, and past oriented hunting is equally detrimental to the game as IG.
Wow. You're brilliant. We should totally do RVS again and ask each other inane questions to generate new content. Of course, pushing people on stuff that they did in the past to generate content is a terrible idea, so we shouldn't do that.
Your emphasis on reads, events, and past oriented hunting is equally detrimental to the game as IG.
Lying piece of crap. I asked someone to elaborate on reads I couldn't understand ONCE. It's not an "emphasis" of mine. I have no idea why this seems like such a big deal to you. Also, please find me somewhere where I put an emphasis on an event and why it's been so absolutely detrimental. I'm fairly certain it doesn't exist. I also have no idea why you are so against pushing people on anything that happened in the past.
I'm glad you're focusing exclusively on easy lynches (it makes you kinda obviously scum though), but don't you think you should question the more difficult ones as well? I can guarantee there's far more satisfaction to be found there.
Lay off Griffionday. Either grow some balls and vote me with a case, or stop insinuating that I'm scum and insulting my play style.
[5]As I hope you can tell by this quote, I DID RESPOND TO HIS POINTS. I also insulted him. I didn't insult him to dodge his points. Hence Ad Hominem doesn't apply.
so Griffinpup opted to attack Griffionday directly instead. I hate to tell Griffin, but "You're wrong, because you're stupid." is not an acceptable counterargument when you are trying refute someone under any circumstances.
[6]And that's not the argument that I made.
I find the idea that Griffinpup relied on the principle of Ad Hominem to counter Griffionday scummy. There is no conceivable point in attacking other players, other than to dishonestly discredit both them as players and their arguments. If disagree with someone, present a counter argument. The resulting conflict has far more value than if you were to simply insult another player and call it a day.
[7]I did disagree with Griffionday, and I did PRESENT A COUNTER ARGUMENT.
Griffinpup: 1. The person I think is most likely to be scum, as he may have been building the arguement between him and IG to make it seem like they were at odds and thus neither was scum. 2. Also, for whatever reason, he got really pissy with Griffionday, 3. in addition to insulting his playstyle whilst simultaneously telling Griffionday to stop doing the same to him. 4. And yet he's been the one to continuously comment about people being 'emotionally-driven'.
1. WIFOM like none other.
2. Not a scumtell.
3. I never insulted Griffionday's playstyle, only Griffionday as a person.
4. "Emotionally Driven" and "Feels Emotion" are two separate and distinct things.
Then there is this juicy tidbit. The citing WIFOM in order to disregard another person's argument is also very scum move.
[8]I didn't cite WIFOM in order to disregard another person's argument. It WASN'T an argument. It was a possible explanation for my actions, which is heavily affected by WIFOM. If he had actually made an argument out of that point I would of refuted it. Since he didn't, I merely pointed out the WIFOM involved.
Why? because nearly everything in this game is WIFOM and reading the other players.
Look around, and you'll see WIFOM everywhere. Making a character judgement? That is affected by WIFOM.
[9]How?
Determining who's scum? More WIFOM.
[10]How?
Performing character judgments based upon their words and actions is a natural and inevitable part of the game. Rolepgeek just made an accusation against you.
Rolepgeek didn't make an accusation against me.
Griffinpup right. That is WIFOM. But instead of addressing the accusation, he called upon WIFOM as an excuse to hand-wave it, which is not at all a move a Townie would do. What he's done, is that he ignored the argument because he knew he couldn't defend against it.
[11]Wrong. I read it exactly as he stated it.
:
I cannot quote worth a damn, so I edited your own post a bit. Note that the questions and statements I'm responding to are numbered and colored blue.
[1]
If you could quote where this point has been "pounded down" and why that doesn't make this a scumtell, I'd appreciate it.
...Though not addressing anyone, (lurking) is scummy by itself.birdy12: Why do you think your predecessors have been so lurky? What do you think of the events so far? How scummy does Imperial Guardsman seem?
[spoiler]Replacement Requested
Sorry, but I just can't expect to have the time for this for a while.
I believe *this* may have something to do with it. Lurking is quite easy when you don't have enough time to dedicate a proper post. It's the same way with Boy. Things come up. I was on the fence of joining this game due to not knowing how much time I could dedicate. However, at this point it looks like you need someone who is simply willing to post at all. >.<
Giving an explanation for Chink's lurking was the first thing I was asked to do after replacing in. Having to justify his behavior twice now is a bit of a nuisance. To tell the plain truth, I don't understand why he had lurked. I suppose that he didn't have enough time to put in an effort. Frankly, that's all I can believe, considering there was no reason for his lurking otherwise.
As to your second point, I won't deny that active-lurking and lurking are scumtells. Interpret them as you wish, as I've already given my own thoughts on whether Chink's lurking.
[2]
If you didn't think IG was scum, what did you think about the huge bandwagon he did on me? And who were your two scumpicks at the time?
But all in all, your answers satisfy me, so Unvote.I never said that I didn't think he was scum, only that his behaviour bothered me greatly. I recall saying the words, "He is either scum or absolute crap." I just didn't know which group he fell into.
As for a second scumpick, I had none. I was still more or less trying to assert myself in the game for the greater part of Day 2. Rolepgeek may have been on my list for bits of time, but I never really had much reason to suspect him.
[3]
Wrong. I admit to not insulting Griffionday's playstyle and to insulting him personally, no to the use of Ad Homenem.Whether you realize it or not, you were using Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem is simply degrading the integrity of another man in order to degrade their case. Calling another person a "lying piece of crap" and telling them to "grow some balls" falls into this plane.
[4]
Perhaps you should read the post that this quote is actually referring to. I DID refute his logic.Not that I can see. Most of your "refuting" was defending yourself and demanding that Griffionday make a case against you, as opposed to addressing Griffionday's point that relying too much on the past can be dangerous.
[5]
As I hope you can tell by this quote, I DID RESPOND TO HIS POINTS. I also insulted him. I didn't insult him to dodge his points. Hence Ad Hominem doesn't apply.While you may have responded to his points, it was not in a manner that contributed to meaningful dialogue. Particularly, Griffionday prodded you on not looking for the "easy" lynches. I don't classify that as a proper response.
[6]
And that's not the argument that I made. That was a mannerism of speech on my end regarding Ad Hominem. The infusion of sarcasm and insults into responses infringes upon the validity of the argument.
[7]
I did disagree with Griffionday, and I did PRESENT A COUNTER ARGUMENT. One tainted with Ad Hominem.
[8]
I didn't cite WIFOM in order to disregard another person's argument. It WASN'T an argument. It was a possible explanation for my actions, which is heavily affected by WIFOM. If he had actually made an argument out of that point I would of refuted it. Since he didn't, I merely pointed out the WIFOM involved.Perhaps it wasn't an argument yet. But that doesn't change the fact you still hand waved the idea as WIFOM. You didn't want to address the idea.
[9]
How?I'll answer your one word question with another question that should answer your question.
Urist McPlayer is playing Mafia at LYLO. Near the end of the day, he is the lynch target and is flailing wildly and begging not to be killed. The other Townie now has to decide whether he's telling the truth based on his antics, and the antics of the other player, Urist McShifty, who has been lurking for most of the game until this very last day.
Who is the scum?
[10]
How?Same question as above, only now both Urists are claiming to be the cop, and are pointing fingers at one another.
[11]
Wrong. I read it exactly as he stated it.No you haven't. Beyond the words, "WIFOM like none other", I don't see you reading anything.
...Gah, that took me a greater part of the day to write out… For my own sake my good man, would you refrain from using so many quotations? They are good at times for clarifications, but quoting everything makes arguments considerably more difficult to go through.
Rolepgeek:
Extend
Well...shit. Those are good answers, griffinpup. I want to unvote you and try pushing someone else, but without an extend that will just result in a tie(which is just as bad or worse than a mislynch right now), or in you being lynched anyway.
I need to mull this over.
Don't be so afraid to shift your vote around it you need to. You already extended the day regardless.
Besides, I think people only get worried about the vote being tied when it is exceedingly close to the deadline that the votes get shifted around. Such as an hour before the Day ends for instance.
Author
Topic: BM XLII - Game Over: Mafia Win! (Read 76568 times)