Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jack A T]

I don't follow anymore.

Who are you stating you voted as a target of the most convenience?

I'm stating that, at the time when I voted for Janus, MBP was still the most convenient target for a bandwagon jumper: he had more votes on him and was an easy target at the time.

Instead, I voted Janus for the reasons I've given.

Finally, as some people think I'm jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon, I felt like noting that there were only two times when I could've been considered to have done that.  That is to say, not three.  (only other person who was getting a bunch of votes was me, and I'm not voting for myself!)

[Jack A T]

And that's the point where I can safely say that my argument is becoming slightly less coherent than it should be.

I must remember, in the future, that sleep is not optional.

[Zathras]

I like the idea that Janus and Org are scumbuddies. That's a fun team.

Isn't it a little early to be calling scumteams? I know you do it all the time, and you look ridiculous every time. But it's Day 1, and Org has posted only twice. You can't implicate either JTF or Org for what they may or may not be doing to each other, because they're not really doing anything.

Meh. I think they are both scummy. I have no particular interaction-based reason to think they are buddies, it's just a side effect of they both being scummy... and it's a fun idea for them to be a team.

I really don't think that I'm either deflecting or trying to be intimidating.

This is a deflection:

Archangel has 2 posts; the last 16 hours ago. Red text: Posts: [1][2]
Org has 2 posts; the last 45 hours ago. Red text: Posts: [1][2]

This is inexcusible. You have 2/3 as many posts PUT TOGETHER as the MODERATOR for crying out loud.

It's not false. They both should get their ass in here and play, but you pulling it out just when people are focusing on you is exactly what a deflection is. "Quit bugging me! There are perfectly good targets here! Go get them instead! Zathras, you like hounding lurkers, don't you? How about these?" That's a clear deflection.

Deflections are shitty scumtells, in that it's almost never what the person is doing.

You thinking it is actually a deflection seems like wishful thinking on your part, because I don't really see it. This is a single line from a single post of many where he's arguing with a bunch of different people, so how is it a deflection if he takes a bit of time to call out some unforgivable lurkers? Seems like normal scum hunting.

And there's the thing. The difference between deflections and scumhunting is only in how much you suspect the person. This is being unforgivably hard on JTF for no good reason except to get JTF lynched when he shouldn't be.

In order: a) he wasn't arguing with a bunch of different people. He was arguing only with me (and Jack). No one else even posted between the time I voted him and the time of his deflection. Where's this bunch of which you speak?

b) "Seems like normal scumhunting"? really? Note how he didn't ask them any questions, offered no opinions, did nothing other than "post, for crying out loud!" That ain't scumhunting. And yes, it was a deflection, he even admitted himself it was "a bit self-serving"; he wasn't trying to assess Org/Arch's scummitude, he was trying to shift some attention elsewhere. That's what deflection means.

c) Am I being "unforgivably hard on JTF for no good reason"? Other than a lame case on MBP, an admitted deflection, a "if you lynch me you'll regret it!", and now admitted self-preservation? I thought that you of all people considered actively trying to avoid being lynched a major scumtell? If I said something like "I don't want to be lynched, particularly on Day 1", wouldn't you task me for it? Or would you be unforgivably hard on me if you did that?

You're jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon without giving your reasoning. That *is* scummy around here.

Bullshit. He provided reasons on the post I quote earlier; you are just trying to intimidate the new guy into silience. His vote on you is hardly a bandwagon (being second, and it seems would have been first but I ninja'd him), and he stated his suspicion of you as early as his initial MBP vote. You know this; you read it then, and read it again when I quoted it, so your saying "without giving your reasoning" is a blatant lie. Liars are scum. Lynch all liars.

This is an intimidation attempt:

You're jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon without giving your reasoning. That *is* scummy around here.

Telling the new guy "*this* is how we roll around here", threatening to "nail" him for a major scumtell (for bogus reasons), explicitly after you saw how he reacted to earlier differences in playstyle (moving votes, pointing contradictions); it seems to me you were trying to provoke him into a reaction like here or here. Get him to back down; it'll be one less vote to shake off later in the day.

If you'll recall, I believe I was first in telling Jack A T what does and does not constitute a scum tell on this here forum. That's even what I said.
So, if JTF was trying to intimidate the new guy, wasn't I doing the same thing? What makes it okay for me to do but not for JTF?

You are being disingenuous and taking it out of context. You were merely saying that immediately unvoting was scummy, and didn't phrase it in an intimidating manner (beyond what is normal for you). Janus on the other hand did it based on a lie (reasons were provided), did it clearly on self defence, did phrase it in an intimidating manner (in my opinion), and did it after having seen what a likely reaction to the "this is how it's done here" argument would be. The context and circumstances are completely different.


I find your defence of Janus suspicious.

[Jim Groovester]

I like the idea that Janus and Org are scumbuddies. That's a fun team.

Isn't it a little early to be calling scumteams? I know you do it all the time, and you look ridiculous every time. But it's Day 1, and Org has posted only twice. You can't implicate either JTF or Org for what they may or may not be doing to each other, because they're not really doing anything.

Meh. I think they are both scummy. I have no particular interaction-based reason to think they are buddies, it's just a side effect of they both being scummy... and it's a fun idea for them to be a team.

If you have no valid reason to think that then why are you bringing it up?

Deflections are shitty scumtells, in that it's almost never what the person is doing.

You thinking it is actually a deflection seems like wishful thinking on your part, because I don't really see it. This is a single line from a single post of many where he's arguing with a bunch of different people, so how is it a deflection if he takes a bit of time to call out some unforgivable lurkers? Seems like normal scum hunting.

And there's the thing. The difference between deflections and scumhunting is only in how much you suspect the person. This is being unforgivably hard on JTF for no good reason except to get JTF lynched when he shouldn't be.

In order: a) he wasn't arguing with a bunch of different people. He was arguing only with me (and Jack). No one else even posted between the time I voted him and the time of his deflection. Where's this bunch of which you speak?

b) "Seems like normal scumhunting"? really? Note how he didn't ask them any questions, offered no opinions, did nothing other than "post, for crying out loud!" That ain't scumhunting. And yes, it was a deflection, he even admitted himself it was "a bit self-serving"; he wasn't trying to assess Org/Arch's scummitude, he was trying to shift some attention elsewhere. That's what deflection means.

c) Am I being "unforgivably hard on JTF for no good reason"? Other than a lame case on MBP, an admitted deflection, a "if you lynch me you'll regret it!", and now admitted self-preservation? I thought that you of all people considered actively trying to avoid being lynched a major scumtell? If I said something like "I don't want to be lynched, particularly on Day 1", wouldn't you task me for it? Or would you be unforgivably hard on me if you did that?

a) JTF has been pretty damn active in finding people to argue with. That you and Jack AT and he were the only ones arguing at the time of his purported deflection is pretty insignificant.

b) In the midst of everything else he's doing, calling out lurkers is fine, even if he doesn't ask them anything, because the first step in getting a read on a lurker is getting them to post. Also bullcrap. Single line, single post. If it were a deflection, don't you think he'd be trying to do, I dunno, more about them? Like try to create an argument about how they are scum for their mega lurkiness? It's a rather weak and utterly ineffectual deflection if that's the case, but good thing we've got you to call him out on it!

c) Quit throwing myself back at me; I don't give a crap what I may or may not have said previously on some matter, and you're probably misremembering something or I am and it doesn't really matter since every game is different. Actively avoiding being lynched is only a problem under circumstances. Gaming votes, for example, or defending yourself and not hunting at all. I see JTF trying to avoid being lynched by making a more convincing case on somebody else. This sits perfectly fine with me.

And if you were doing nothing but complaining about how you were going to be lynched, I sure as fuck would take you to task for it, but if you were hunting and trying to make a more convincing case, I wouldn't care. Not wanting to be lynched on its own isn't the strikingly awful thing you seem to think it is, and is highly dependent on the circumstances.

If you'll recall, I believe I was first in telling Jack A T what does and does not constitute a scum tell on this here forum. That's even what I said.
So, if JTF was trying to intimidate the new guy, wasn't I doing the same thing? What makes it okay for me to do but not for JTF?

You are being disingenuous and taking it out of context. You were merely saying that immediately unvoting was scummy, and didn't phrase it in an intimidating manner (beyond what is normal for you). Janus on the other hand did it based on a lie (reasons were provided), did it clearly on self defence, did phrase it in an intimidating manner (in my opinion), and did it after having seen what a likely reaction to the "this is how it's done here" argument would be. The context and circumstances are completely different.

I've bolded and underlined the relevant part. I don't see an attempt to intimidate anymore than what I was trying to do.

Also, nice edit of my post, leaving out the bit about the votes, considering that you quoted almost the entirety of it (except the last bit where I FoSed you but I am completely cool with that).

[Jack A T]

I don't think the intimidation thing is central.

Jim, what you said was centered around something I actually did.  That made sense.

What Janus said was based on me not giving any reasons for my votes, which I had.  In fact, he had responded earlier to my first point against him.  Essentially, it was based around a lie.  Also, after being pressured on that point, he quickly moved the goalposts, changing his argument from me having given no reasoning to me having given lackluster reasoning.

[Jim Groovester]

Accusations of lying are usually overblown.

If you want to bag JTF for that thing you say about the goalpost moving (usually it's just called changing or shifting reasoning), be my guest. I don't take issue with that.

Regardless of whether or not what he said was accurate, I still don't see it as an intimidation attempt, which is why I'm picking at Zathras for it.

Let me ask you, were you intimidated by what I or JTF said to you 'bout these parts 'round here? And then, did you think they were intimidation attempts?

[Jack A T]

You, quite obviously, weren't trying to intimidate me.  What you said, especially at that point, felt like an honest tip.  I was not intimidated.

Janus...if it was an intimidation attempt (I'm not sure whether it was or not.  I'm guessing it wasn't.  It was definitely built around a faulty premise, though.), it failed.  My vote's still on him, and more strongly than before.

Why I think it was a lie: Janus had directly replied to one of my points against him earlier, thus showing that he was aware of at least part of my reasoning.  It could've been an honest mistake, but frankly, I still don't trust the guy.  For now, my vote is staying on him.

I really hope I'm not screwing the town over right now.

[Jim Groovester]

Voicing reservations about your vote but keeping your vote where it is is scummy. It simultaneously distances you from a mislynch while participating in it. Pointing out such discrepancies is usually one of the better ways we find scum.

'Round these here parts anyways.

So tell me then, you've got a little voice in the back of your mind telling you that you might be wrong, but you're keeping your vote on JTF. Do you really think the chance of him being scum is great enough to ignore the little voice in the back of your head?

[Jack A T]

Even with my nervousness about the vote, he's the scummiest person I can see, for the reasons that have been given earlier in the thread, and he hasn't done much to convince me otherwise.

The voice in the back of my head has never been the best reason to do anything, anyway.  It's a crazy voice.  That crazy voice is out to kill me.  I must remove that voice with my tinfoil hat.  Yes.  Yes, I must do so.  My cleaver mind is cleaver-like!

[Zathras]

Voicing reservations about your vote but keeping your vote where it is is scummy. It simultaneously distances you from a mislynch while participating in it. Pointing out such discrepancies is usually one of the better ways we find scum.

'Round these here parts anyways.

So tell me then, you've got a little voice in the back of your mind telling you that you might be wrong, but you're keeping your vote on JTF. Do you really think the chance of him being scum is great enough to ignore the little voice in the back of your head?

You know what else is scummy? Pushing people to walk away from their suspicions just because they're not 100% sure.... you know, like you told him not to do earlier about MBP in the post you linked earlier?

Didn't you say that backtracking when under pressure was also scummy? I'm sure he wasn't 100% sure MBP was scum then either, and he even said as much, but back then unvoting was scummy, now keeping the vote is scummy... interesting, yes?

I hereby formally paint you with meaningless blue text: Jim.

Jack, just as a counterpoint: if you are town, you are never 100% sure that your target is scum. You are mostly sure, you act on suspicions and evidence, but you don't really know until they flip, and that's OK. Being aware of one's own fallibility is fine, and the little voice always reminds you of alternatives, but your vote needs only to be your best guess of who's scum; certainty is nice, but rarely an achievable goal.

[Jim Groovester]

Voicing reservations about your vote but keeping your vote where it is is scummy. It simultaneously distances you from a mislynch while participating in it. Pointing out such discrepancies is usually one of the better ways we find scum.

'Round these here parts anyways.

So tell me then, you've got a little voice in the back of your mind telling you that you might be wrong, but you're keeping your vote on JTF. Do you really think the chance of him being scum is great enough to ignore the little voice in the back of your head?

You know what else is scummy? Pushing people to walk away from their suspicions just because they're not 100% sure.... you know, like you told him not to do earlier about MBP in the post you linked earlier?

Didn't you say that backtracking when under pressure was also scummy? I'm sure he wasn't 100% sure MBP was scum then either, and he even said as much, but back then unvoting was scummy, now keeping the vote is scummy... interesting, yes?

In both cases the issue is the same: apparent lack of commitment to suspicions. While it may appear that I'm being inconsistent for what I'm grilling him for, I'm really not. And don't tell me that you disagree that determining whether or not people are committed to seeing their suspicions through is unimportant.

Also, quit throwing myself back at me. He's a persistent dickwad and doesn't let up at all. Also, that's the second time you've done this. Why?

[Zathras]

You know what else is scummy? Pushing people to walk away from their suspicions just because they're not 100% sure.... you know, like you told him not to do earlier about MBP in the post you linked earlier?
Didn't you say that backtracking when under pressure was also scummy? I'm sure he wasn't 100% sure MBP was scum then either, and he even said as much, but back then unvoting was scummy, now keeping the vote is scummy... interesting, yes?

In both cases the issue is the same: apparent lack of commitment to suspicions. While it may appear that I'm being inconsistent for what I'm grilling him for, I'm really not.

Bullshit. This is the post we are talking about:

I'm still suspecting Mysterious and Janus the most (though I doubt they're both scum), but, because I'm taking a lot of flak for my vote...Unvote.

On this here forum we are all about sticking to our guns.

You backing down from your vote as soon as it got a little resistance is a very scummy move. It means you weren't really all that interested in the lynch in the first place, which is pretty damn scummy because you're not really scumhunting so much as finding anybody to lynch.

So, are we all about sticking to our guns, or aren't we? You gave him a little resistance on his vote, had he backed down it would have been a very scummy move, yes? That's what you said earlier. But now you say that sticking to his guns and not backing down is what's scummy... 'Round these parts, at least.

Yes, you are being inconsistent. Sure, in both cases it's about commitment to convictions, but funny that it's only scummy when he's committed to voting Janus, or committed to unvote MBP. But not the other way around. Even though his suspicions on both were pointed out way back in that very post to which you replied to his MBP unvote.

Curious, yes?

Also, quit throwing myself back at me. He's a persistent dickwad and doesn't let up at all. Also, that's the second time you've done this. Why?

Yes, he is, isn't he? I do it because you're being wilfully inconsistent, which is intrinsically scummy. That you are doing it to defend someone who I think is scum is even scummier. Something smells funny...

*sniff*

Yeah. Scum. I thought so.


^{Oh noes, that's the third time!}

[Jim Groovester]

Bullshit.

Hardly.

Backing down from a vote at a little resistance = not looking very committed to a vote.
Expressing reservations about a vote = not looking very committed to a vote.

There's no inconsistency. Saying that there is is willful misinterpretation. Since I asked him about both of these things, I'm not being inconsistent either.

I should mention that I'm satisfied with his answer, given his utterly mangled previous experience with mafia, and you're entirely full of crap, so I'm going to unvote him, and vote you instead.

Zathras.

[Archangel]

Archangel:  What have you learned in recent games that you feel you can apply to this one?

Nothing, because all my mistakes are ones I've always made. Flaws that I would have at least somewhat fixed in the last Supernatural if I had continued what I did D1.

I am rethinking my pre-game argument. Arch, you said "I'll play this game to the best of my ability, because I can play well and want to prove it." Does that still stand? When will you start?

When I actually have time to do a proper post. Both yesterday and the day before I had to leave right after I posted the little I posted.

Archangel has 2 posts; the last 16 hours ago. Red text: Posts: [1][2]
Org has 2 posts; the last 45 hours ago. Red text: Posts: [1][2]

This is inexcusible. You have 2/3 as many posts PUT TOGETHER as the MODERATOR for crying out loud.

I have an excuse, which I've given far too many times and you a far too active for you not to be aware of it. Org, however, does not. Usually, he's also far more active than me. I find what he's doing suspicious.

Now I'm going to go back to the start and begin a proper look through. Some more should be coming in about 15 minutes, then I'm going to go wash.

[Archangel]

Now I'm going to go back to the start and begin a proper look through. Some more should be coming in about 15 minutes, then I'm going to go wash.

Actually, It's going to be the other way round. Wash then look.