Unfortunately, it does make sense. I don't really believe you would waste your time trying to bus your partner, as you seem to assert by implying I, as well, would not bus a partner but would protect mine. Because you seem to think I would protect a partner, I will therefore imply that you WOULD NOT attack a partner with such nonsense. This is simple projection.
That still makes no sense. I make no implications on Toaster's alignment due to your defence. It's you who is scummy for it, not him.
You are still not justifying your jump from "a slight town tell" and "more likely" to the conviction with which you assert his towniehood. This is not "a slight tell" that you're defending him for. You've claimed it's defence of a townie. How did you make that jump? And you are incorrectly applying Occam's Razor: it specifically does not apply when there may be active intent to deceive (which is the nature of this game), and it never provides certainties, merely tendencies.
I am justifying my jump as inversely proportional to your attitude toward his lynch. You are overlooking that one thing that I have repeated over and over again. It was a slight town tell to begin with. Your attitude turned it into a certainty, as you suggested chainlynching, didn't scumhunt, and turned a null tell into a scumtell into a null tell into a scumtell ad nauseum.
Bullshit. I never asserted certainty he was fakeclaiming, I merely distrusted it.
Prove my attitude turned to a certainty, or you're a liar. I never suggested chainlynching, merely pointed out how retarded your numbers were.
Prove I did or you're a liar.
Bah again. He made a scummy comment. I called him on it, and did follow up with a direct question. He answered to my satisfaction. I moved on with the game. It certainly wasn't a big enough scumtell to warrant much more attention.
One question? Is it because you were certain you could calm him down first? You probably would have voted for him if he didn't, as is your tendency.
Of course I would have voted him if he didn't answer the question to my satisfaction, but he did. I don't see your point here.
You voted Leafsnail after he attacked you with valid reasons.
Please cite the valid reasons you mentioned. Hint: I didn't shorten the day or tied the vote, and I didn't call for a chainlynch.
I will call it activelurking because you were attempting to appear active by attacking Jokerman, instead of your target Toaster, who you were avoiding. Your failure to follow-up shows lack of care for even wanting to scumhunt.
You're quick to assume who my target is. I was voting Toaster at the time, as I didn't trust his claim, and stayed on him until I found a scummier target: when you strolled in with bullshit numbers "proving" that Toaster was confirmed town, and you backtracked from slight town tell to certain town to slight town tell to certain town ad nauseam.
And yet, you didn't rebut some of my points. Does that means they're valid? You can call my statistics bunk. Even if they are wrong, you haven't proven you're not scum. You've just proven that a bunch of numbers are wrong. Which I'm pretty sure they aren't anyhow.
I believe I've refuted every actual point of yours. The ones I haven't are not valid, but idiotic misreadings of a post (like "thank you for admitting this or that", bah).
My proving your numbers bullshit doesn't prove I'm not scum, it proves
you are, as you brought them up as backup for a very scummy defence, as justification for "knowing" stuff you certainly couldn't know, and as proof for you to from slight town tell to certain town to slight town tell to certain town ad nauseam.
Right, so you're saying that instead of my scumhunting, I have been doing nothing but posting nonsense. And you're trying to get me to suggest chainlynching. Your plan has a couple of holes in it, the biggest being that I've brought up legitimate points about you that you fail to defend adequately and some points that you fail to mention at all. Probably because you're too busy backtracking.
It's worse than posting nonsense. It's posting nonsense and then
using said nonsense as evidence for your decisions about people's alignment. That's awfully scummy. But go ahead and cite the "legitimate points" you say I've not addressed. And you say I'm "too busy" backtracking, which obviously means you think I'm backtracking
now. Please prove that; where am I backtracking now?
I also love that you say that you're not proposing a strategy based on numbers. I also am not.
Yes, you are. You are proposing the strategy of assuming kook claimants as confirmed townies based on your bullshit statistics. That's what's scummy: proposing a strategy based on bullshit numbers, as you have (and I have not) done.
Now you're just getting my goat. I didn't stop the lynch yesterday, that was Jokerman.
Ooooo, nice try. You were the last one to suggest a shortening, losing the lead.
What lead? How does not extending cause anyone to "lose the lead"?
You weren't voting for any of the people that were being lynched. You didn't even want them lynched. You shortened, though, for no reason. It is your fault.
Neither were Leafsnail, Ottofar, Native, and I forget who else. Is it their fault too? No, I didn't particularly want either of them lynched, they were not high on my scum list, hence I didn't vote them. And I did have reasons, which I posted in reply to Janus. He indirectly asked me to take a stance for or against extending, so I did. Your trying to blame this on me is, frankly, a made up reason to try to increase your case on me, where rational thought clearly shows it's not the case.
Bullshit. Go ahead and quote the fifty posts. This is my position, which has remained constant: A Kook claim, on its own, is a null tell. The circumstances of that claim, along with the reading of a person, can be scummy. I've also said that while I distrust Toaster's claim, I don't have enough on him to call him scum, so I moved my vote to where I saw scummier: you & your minion Leafsnail.
No, your reasoning is terrible. When he first looked at his PM (No, I don't KNOW this, but that's what he claims, so I'm going to take his word for it) and claimed instead of looking at it and claiming an hour later IS NOT LESS SCUMMY. Your distrust of Toaster's claim stems from wanting to turn the null tell INTO a scumtell. You didn't apply appropriate measures in trying to determine Toaster's alignment.
So, where are the fifty posts? And what makes you able to say where my distrust stems from? Who are you to decide what appropriate measures are? No. This entire thing is bullshit. You have failed to prove that I've moved back and forth between null and scum tell. You are a liar. As I said from the beginning, the claim is a null tell, the circumstances and the person can be scummy.
I also love how you're no longer pairing me with Toaster. Do you admit he is town, or is that you trying to not provoke Toaster, as well?
I most certainly do not admit he's town. But your scummitude and his are independent. You are perfectly capable of defending someone you
know is town (because you are scum) to incriminate someone attacking him. You are also perfectly capable of defending a scumbuddy. Your scummy defence doesn't either absolve him or condemn him, it merely condemns you.
Summary.
- Wuba lies when he claims I ever asserted certainty that Toaster was scum. He has no evidence for this, and he knows it.
- Wuba lies when he claims I've backtracked on my stance on a kook claim. He claimed he could quote fifty posts about it, but failed to find a single one when challenged.
- Wuba lies when he claims he didn't propose a bullshit strategy based on bullshit numbers, he did: make claimed kooks into confirmed townies.
- Wuba lies when he claims I "lost the lead" D1, whatever that means.
- Wuba lies when he claims I called for chainlynching people.
- Wuba is guilty of backtracking from "slight town tell" to certain town to "slight town tell" ad nauseam. Unlike him, I
can prove it by actual quotes, and will if people are interested.
- Wuba is guilty of posting nonsense statistics, and using them as evidence for his defence of Toaster. He's guilty of claiming knowledge he couldn't possibly have, and guilty of continuing to defend these bullshit underpinnings of his case even after proven bullshit.
Conclusion: Webadict is scum.
Claim: Your reasoning that it being that fast makes it scummy just sucks, and is borderline WIFOM. As far as web's defense goes as part of your case, you called it suspicious before that happened, so that doesn't hold for your first statement.
It being fast was enough for an RVS vote, and for me to not immediately buy it. Your lack of opinion on wuba's defence happened later, and is merely added to your case when that happened, just like your three D1 scumpicks being townies didn't get added until after the fact. His defending you doesn't make you either more town nor more scum; your lack of opinion on it until repeatedly prompted, however, is suspicious.
Web in general: [...]He should make his points more with reason and less with statistics. He can't be role-based certain since he said that D1, but I take that to mean he's quite confident in his statement.
Yes, but why? Originally it was because of his bullshit statistics. Now it seems he's found faith. No reasoning whatsoever. It's that certainty, found so fast early D1, in the face of lack of any real evidence at all, which I find scummiest in him.
Book argues over the same technicalities again while not refuting the actual scummy points,
Please cite the "actual scummy points" I haven't refuted.
and invokes [wuba's] staggeringly bullshit statistics (probabilities of over 1? So, uh, more than 100% chance of that event happening?). Y'know what? No, I'm not gonna go through that shit point by point again.
That's what wuba claims, a higher than 100% that there's a kook. He says it's
certain there's at least a kook, so at least one of them is a confirmed townie just by virtue of claiming. But yeah, let's not rehash.
Then webadict for "useless statistics". Even if they were completely wrong, I don't really see why that'd be a scumtell on its own.
They're a scumtell because he uses it as justification for his defence of Toaster, and his certainty that kook claims are genuine. It's his position on this that is scummy, and he uses bullshit statistics to "prove" it.
Dariush: I refer to them to prove they are bullshit, as I've explained above. Question for you: what's your read on Mr. Person? How would you have voted yesterday if you had known Jokerman was an enchanter?
Mr.Person: Please tell me how many of the people voting me you think are scum, and your read on Leafsnail's arguments on me. You mentioned five scumpicks earlier; can you elaborate who and why?
Argembarger, Ottofar: Please weigh in with your thoughts on Wuba vs. me, your reads on Leafsnail, Toaster and Person, and your top scumpicks.
Author
Topic: Paranormal Mafia Round 18 - Game Over (Read 126127 times)