This post is mostly links rather than quotes because I wrote it while the thread was locked. Will talk about other people in a following post.
In FoU's Mostly Vanilla Mafia, mightymushroom chased after me with a weak case for a long time, not even really listening to me, pushing the same argument over and over again even after I explained why it isn't true. I found this extremely scummy and went after him in turn. Then he made one big emotional post, and I faltered:
Purposeful intellectual dishonesty is a scumtell, but it's hard to say whether it was accidental and/or emotional. Lacking other evidence, I'll Unvote for now and look elsewhere.
Hector was in that game as well, so he'd know it worked on me once. I won't be fooled again. Though my position right now isn't as unassailable as in that game, the parallels are clear.
I consider a vote a wish to raise attention to someone and force them to respond. Here’s my side of the story:
I tried to provoke hector into making that RVS vote a case and following through on it, as I'm more in my element actually building a defending against cases than just doing random RVS conversation (which hector later said was his purpose all along. What's the point of content that doesn't eventually click together?).
He refused, then said
this as if he already had presented a case on the particular point. Using that point, I
built his case for him in a provocatively sarcastic fashion, and in the same post explain what the actual purpose of the question was. Hector
builds his actual case that’s just the case I presented, flipped: “Tea is scum because he wants to know roles, something useful to scum” rather than “Tea is not town because he wants to know roles, something useless to town.” He pointedly ignores the fact that I told my actual reason for those questions, including in his flipout post.
I remind him of my stated reason and place my vote on him to force a response.
He ignores it, again, and says he hadn’t made a case on me, which as noted before, he made when he first corrected the case I assumed he had on me and put his vote on me. “I believe you’re scum” and “I don’t want you lynched” are rather contradictory statements.
I even point this out.Then hector flips out. He reiterates the points of his case (even numbering them!), yet still says he isn’t making one.
He calls me a hypocrite for asking questions I say would be pointless if asked for a particular reason, again ignoring that I asked them for a completely different one.
He says that using empathy to anticipate what the other person is going to say is scummy, and takes the provocativeness of the case I assumed he had as evidence of wanting it to appear weak rather than provocation to make it stronger (who would build a strong, objective case on themselves, especially in the RVS stage where jokes and provocation are the expectation?)
He then says that when he built his case, it was to make me believe he was building a case? What? There’s a saying: if it quacks like a duck…
He then says his case isn’t actually the RVS questions, but the hypocrisy that I had already
explained three times wasn’t such. This willful ignorance is very intellectually dishonest, and the crux of my case.
In that final post, he builds himself as the victim, stops calling me mafia (apparently I’m now an SK) and switches targets. This is exactly what mightymushroom did in Mostly Vanilla, and the final show of bad faith that solidifies his scumminess.
Author
Topic: Proc Gen Mafia 2 -GAME OVER - TOWN VICTORY (Read 100875 times)