That said, I still think he's scum based on his recent statements. I apologize for the lack of quotations in the below; they are partially because the behaviors are rampant, and partially because it is nearly impossible to dig them out of his crunched blocks of text.
This doesn't look good. "He's doing these things. I won't show you. It's hard."
Busy, dude. "He's doing these things. I'll provide examples which people will easily find the actual quotations for, but I'm not going to go dig through his Posts from Hell to quote every single little thing."
Soft hits. Scared of me?
First, his current arguments are based almost entirely on meta. Though that is not a conventional scumtell, I consider it scummy since it implies that everyone's in-game play does not seem so noteworthy to him as it does in the context of meta.
I feel, however, that I have not been entirely precise in that characterization. It is true that he has flung many WoT recently about things that have happened in the game, but upon perusal they are largely based on statements of meta... such as that "Dakarian doesn't miss details" and "Dakarian doesn't use smileys," or perhaps that "Webadict is smarter than that as town."
appeals to emotion and hypocrisy are more important to my attacks than meta. If you're complaining about evidence quantities, aberrant behaviors (A2E, buddying, etc) only require one point- the act in question, rather like evidence for a flood. Meta is more like stating that "the depth of the river year-round is X" and thus will require more data points. So yes, my main argument against Web is meta, which is why he's getting lower on my scumlist, as his meta has changed since the start of the game. I mentioned this.
I'm not talking about evidence quantities. I'm saying that all your "appeals to emotion" you cited were... found in practically every single other player. As such, they are null. If half the town is lurking to the same degree, then you cannot base most of your argument against a given player on lurking that much. It just doesn't work that way.
Further, as I've been saying: most of your stated "hypocrisy" is not hypocritical at all. You like throwing that word around like it's candy, whereas most of what I see is "CobaltKobold is trying to get everybody lynched on the mildest of offenses." Then, you also end up just going "HYPOCRISY! CONTRADICTION!" with very little explanation whatsoever. At the very least, it's severely anti-town. At the most, it's scummy.
The purpose of the above statements is to inform CobaltKobold that, if he is town, he would do well to reconsider his attacking style, as it is so full of holes that the only thing it will hold is viscous liquid. Such as scum.
The icing my be holy, but there is still a cake beneath it.
The cake is a lie.
Second, though he addresses the WIFOM-spreading, he does not address his apparent cautiousness. Further, all that crap about staged fights is nothing but a vat of WIFOM, and it constitutes most of his arguments against Webadict and perhaps half of the WoT against dakarian.
*shrug* It's my interpretation. It's been...interesting that they've been into each other all game. Also, the nature of the fights is very odd, since each of them are throwing mostly-bad arguments against eachother. "I have a hole but I'm not telling you" for instance.
You have a duty not to WIFOM the town. The fact that you are doing so happily bothers me.
Third, his arguments continue to be horrifyingly flimsy. His statement was that he was pointing out "every scummy thing as it floated by, which doesn't look very town." This is not the issue I take with his statements. The problem is that he argues based on (extremely old) meta and, rather than searching for scumtells, seems to have confounded himself with "not-town-tells"--i.e., nulltells.
Null-tells would be either known self-used tells (which are going to be town-tells).
Uh.... no. Null-tells are things that players do when they are town or scum. We have three options: town-tells, null-tells, and scumtells. The fact that Dakarian is acting in a way that does not coincide with his town-tells does not mean that he is displaying his scumtells, or is even scum.
Null-tells are either known self-used tells, or... what? What I'm saying here is that you really aren't doing much by way of identifying scumtells. Mostly, you're sitting about digging up nulltells, and asking us to believe you're town.
Further, the "appeals to emotion" he has found do not constitute true appeals to emotion. Everyone in this thread (a generalization, as I am sure someone has been lurking too much to complain) has complained about its length/ridiculousness here or elsewhere. The "appeals to emotion" he found in me were nothing but apologies after having made grating statements.
There is quite a difference betweenA bigger part tells me that Wide Scanning 19 people will make me cry. *sigh*
and, something like "Yikes, 10 pages overnight"- for instance.
Yes. That difference is called "personality." Are we allowed to have those, or has King Kobold banned them, too?
Next, he is tunnelvisioning to force his arguments to work:
Seriously guys. Stop the nonscum lynching. Killing Web because's he's a prick. Killing Shadow because he writes in 3 words for one day. Killing Eduren even though a nolynch will mean he frys (when we get close to lylo, it'll be another matter).
So...uh...wow. Buddying on web after stagedfight.
He has no problem with the defense of eduren and SHAD0W, it seems, though of course Webadict is an issue.
Since webadict is higher in my scumlists than either, yes, I point it out more. I do not "have no problem" with the other buddyings, but they are patently obvious and still present in the quoted matter. Shad0w is up for replacement.
Right.
They're patently obvious, but you never explicitly point them out. You're expecting us to do your work for you, which ... well, it makes me pissed at you, at the very least. You don't get to say "Well, I pointed it out by virtue of throwing a mass of quotes at you." I continue to find your reasoning highly suspect.
I feel like you're saying "Well, you're just too dumb to understand what I mean, then, what with my sesquipedalian diction," to which I answer "screw you." Being smart includes knowing how to communicate, not just dicking around with things that are
so obvious to you and
so unobvious to us, the idiots. This feeling increases when I remember the argument with Cheeetar, where you defined a "referent" as
referent: concept to which an indexical refers.
"An indexical?" Really? If you're going to bash us for spelling incorrectly (sware vs. swear), how about learning to use the correct form of a word?
Fifth, there still remain inconsistencies in his arguments, which he has brushed over. When we were still functioning under the assumption that he had indeed spoken about the doctor in BMIV, he stated that his inconsistency was reasonable given that he had started playing Mafia two weeks ago. When I brought up the fact that he had started perhaps a month and a half ago, he completely brushed it off.
What I see here is an individual who is bending fact and, when someone brings up the fact that he is incorrect, does not correct himself, apologize, or bring up further reasoning. He forgets the point as soon as it has been noticed, perhaps in an attempt to cause others to forget as well.
Grasping at straws, I see. You're arguing that my "If it was my first two weeks" comment is bad because it wasn't my first two weeks. However, the point that I'm making with it- that it is still incredibly early in my mafia tenure (or whatever you want to call it)- does not hinge on that fact. So yes, I don't see it as a problem to be found as mistaken or incorrect on a fact that does not impact the game. Like, for instance, if I got your gender wrong. It would not matter for the game unless it was integral to some argument. So, a pronoun inconsistency would not be grounds for "lynch all liars".
No. My point is not about that specific inconsistency. It is about the part where I made a remark about your being inconsistent, and you ignored it until I brought it up... again. In combination with Dakarian's noticing you ignoring his attacks so many times, it is scummy in the extreme.
Further, it did seem to influence the game at the time. As such, your failure to make any statement about it is suspect.
If it's so small, why not own up to it? Why not address it? Instead, you leave it out and later cover by saying "But that wasn't important!!"
Sixth, buddying. I refer here to the statements in his WoT which are merely stating that others agree with him, i.e. that Mr. Person and Webadict have had similar feelings about Dakarian's scummitude. If this does not constitute buddying, I will classify it as "an overblown fear of death and attempt to get others on his team," which fits well with his sudden WoT-spewage. It does not fit well with the behavior of a typical townie, in light of said townie's goals.
That is not buddying as I understand or intend it- it is evidence gathering for meta. and..."an overblown fear of death and attempt to get others on his team"? I classify this as an overblown attack.
Ah, so your experience of meta is "Other people think the person is scum."
If you want to explain why that attack is overblown, I'd be happy to hear about it. As-is, you're doing that thing again where you attack me and don't explain anything.
Author
Topic: uPick Mafia: Panda Edition Day6 - Mafia wins. Cheeetar calls Shenanigans. (Read 299113 times)