Not admitting to being scum is very different from denying being scum. The Orgtell works on a lot of people. Hell, it even works on internet trolls outside of Mafia--I've caught more than a few that way. It's subtle, but it's important.
Eh, I guess. Again though, that'd probably be more relevant if he'd presented something coherent from the start.
Saying "why would I do that" brings it to the personal scenario, and invites him to put words in your mouth. Saying "why would scum in general do that" depersonalizes it a bit.
Except, he's already putting words in my mouth. He's not
just claiming that scum do X, he's claiming I'm doing X because I'm scum. Trying to depersonalize a discussion about why I, IronyOwl, am scum is patently ridiculous, because it's already about me.
I still think that's ridiculous. It invites someone else to provide explanations for your behavior, which is a different behavior from saying "In my model of scum, there is no reason to do that." The statement is not an invitation. The question could be perceived as an invitation or statement.
That's... exactly the point, yes. I want his explanation for my behavior, since he's obviously got one that he'd like to share, but isn't doing a good job of it.
That is why it's a deflection or a block. It means that you don't answer the question. You say "that's ridiculous. You tell me."
And then he tells me and I have to answer to that. I'll admit it's dragging the issue out, but that's mostly because he refuses to give a real answer.
The obvious answer to "why would I hop on bandwagons to appear active?" is "Because you are scum." I have a hard time believing that you were expecting anything else out of that question. I see now that what you're asking is "why would scum do that" rather than "why would I do that," but still... it seems odd.
To be honest, I was a bit offended that he seemed to think I'd need group support to vote Ottofar for acting like he was.
More to the point, the two questions are closely linked if you're assuming I'm scum. Ironyscum isn't going to be the same thing as Ottoscum or Vectorscum, and trying to gloss over them all with "scum likes bandwagons" is lazy at best.
And, finally, I don't know which refusal you're talking about. I might have missed it. If you link it past, I'll let you know.
Oh, so you're seeing if a bandwagon on him will form before decide to vote him? Nice ultrapassive move, scumbag.
I have no idea why I'd want or need to do that.
Simple- you want to appear active while waiting for bandwagons to form so you can hop on it.
And I would want or need to do that because?
Because you are scum?
Why would that stop me from voting Ottofar on my own?
It's the passivity of the statement: you're looking for support (scummy) instead of acting as an independent thinker (not scummy). If you want to vote him, fine, but do it because you think he is scum, not because everyone else does.
Except, I wasn't looking for support for a given interpretation- I was literally asking what everyone thought of him. And this still doesn't explain why scumme would try to gauge support for the most obvious choice, rather than just jumping on there.
...Unless said scum wanted to test the bandwagon waters. You're verging into WIFOM territory now with your responses.
But again, why. What is it about Ottofar that would make me want to test the waters rather than just hopping on board? Or, barring that, what is it about my question that screamed "testing waters" and not "wants answers?"
That last response wasn't WIFOM from me, it was a changing story from you. You phrased it as though I was trying to passively build support against Ottofar, which you now admit wasn't the case.
Where did I say that?
I guess I misread that; your changing story had nothing to do with the WIFOM.
The real answer is it's only WIFOM if all the options are valid. You literally have no explanation for why I'd want or need to do X other than "scum do X," which isn't applicable in this case because it'd be ridiculously easy without X. I'm not trying to lead you in circles, I'm demanding an explanation.
Why do you continue to refuse to provide one?
Why isn't "Because you are scum" a valid explanation for you? I can't spell it out much more than this:
Otto acted scummy and got votes D1.
At start of D2, you go out to gauge the general opinion of him.
This is done to determine if a bandwagon is likely to form on him, or if votes will go in another direction.
Why you would do that as opposed to just straight voting him? I'm not much for guessing the motivations of scum, but if I had to say, it'd because you were afraid of commitment- an issue you've had before as scum. Perhaps you wanted to know if people thought he was a jester, which would mean you'd be unpopular for voting him. In any case, the fact that you cared about any sort of approval for your actions is a scummy move- town should be upfront with their intentions and disinterested in doing something because it's popular.
If that doesn't answer your question, I don't know what will.
Also, I really hate to do this, but I'll address the remainder/do stuff later.