Print

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

[IronyOwl]

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.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

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.

[IronyOwl]

Irony: Yes, I did mangle Toaster's question a bit. Still didn't get an answer I like out of you. I'm not trying to say you're leading a bandwagon, I'm trying to say you're trying to point out Otto and saying 'oh, hey, look at that guy, he's being pretty weird'. And it'd sure be convenient if a bandwagon happened to appear, and you could just simply hop on. And I don't see Toaster's story changing like you claim it to be. My question was awkward, but I don't think my reasoning is bad.

No, I really just wanted everyone's opinions on him. Feel free to explain why you think otherwise.

If you couldn't get a read on Otto, why didn't you at least TRY hunting him? Considering your final reasoning was 'he's capable of good posts and he refuses to', isn't that a conclusion you could have reached with your own lines of questioning?

Admittedly, that was lazy. I didn't think the traditional route would accomplish much, since he'd lurk and then give a four word answer, and I didn't think to do a reread on him.

Why isn't "Because you are scum" a valid explanation for you?  I can't spell it out much more than this:

So you start off with the same self-evident bullshit as before, but then provide an actual answer anyway. Why is that?

I'm not much for guessing the motivations of scum

This is a lie, obviously. Not only is it not true for any good townie, it's the explicit reason you voted me and the core of your argument. Why are you lying, Toaster?

Other than that, we've got "you've had trouble committing as scum before" and "you might have been worried others thought he was a jester." Why didn't you provide explanations like that from the start?

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.

I never sought approval.

Anyways, gotta FoS Irony, for this post. It's a vote on me, after Toaster has pushed me for asking everyone what do they think of me, basically asking would they vote me or wouldn't. It's an attempt to look less scummy and stuff.

My primary suspect had vanished, and I'd been reminded that your behavior couldn't be a post restriction or similar, so it seemed a good time to give you a be useful or die ultimatum.

On that note, that post is a good start, but it's still not especially impressive. The bit about Toaster switching over as soon as Dariush got more votes than you simply isn't true, for instance. You'll need to do more if you want to not die today.

[Ottofar]

Native:

Oh, derp. Totally missed the word "not".

A good explanation of Darvi's past behavior would probably cause me to not revote him.

Could your answers be shorter, please?  It takes too long to read them.


Ottofar:  About time you did something.

Ottofar: 

Hurm. Looking for a  safe, easy lynch much, Breadbox?

And yet your actions are the sole reason lynching you would be "safe" and "easy."  Activity on your part would legitimize your defense.

I would ask Breadbocks what he thought putting another vote on Ottofar would do, but eh.  I'll ask Darvi.

This thing here. At first. He tells me policy lynching is okay, after BB has voted me, and in his next post, he'd have asked this from BB.

Darvi:  He had two votes on him before your third.  At what point does it stop being pressure and start being a bandwagon?  I'd think you could pressure him without a vote, but I suppose it's a fair toss either way at your point.

And here, Darvi has stated he's voting for the policy lynch, with the additional benefit of having me answer his question. This is Toaster's response. So yeah.

I don't understand your points here.

-snip-

Finally, I'm not sure what your point on hypocrisy is, other than you saying there is very little to my game, Mr. Active Lurk.

The point was that it was not the first post after the vote you'd have asked BB's reasons on the vote, but the second one.

And the point on hypocrisy, was me less calling Darway on activelurking and more on hypocrisy. You decided to call my thinking hypocritical, which was not the case.

[Toaster]

Native:  Why are you afraid of putting someone you suspect at L-1?


Irony: 

Why isn't "Because you are scum" a valid explanation for you?  I can't spell it out much more than this:

So you start off with the same self-evident bullshit as before, but then provide an actual answer anyway. Why is that?

Because I don't see the need to be long-winded when the answer should be obvious.  Clearly you wanted me to do so anyway, so I obliged.

I'm not much for guessing the motivations of scum

This is a lie, obviously. Not only is it not true for any good townie, it's the explicit reason you voted me and the core of your argument. Why are you lying, Toaster?

Other than that, we've got "you've had trouble committing as scum before" and "you might have been worried others thought he was a jester." Why didn't you provide explanations like that from the start?

Let me be more specific, then:  There's not much to be had in guessing the motivations of scum (Example: Nightkill target selection).  Getting the motivations of people so you can decide if they are scum is very valuable.

This is going to become an argument of mincing words, isn't it?

When you wanted more detail, I gave you more detail.  If I should have posted those first, oh well- I didn't.

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.

I never sought approval.

I disagree that you didn't.  What you said had every flavor of checking to see if it was safe to vote him.


Ottofar:

The point was that it was not the first post after the vote you'd have asked BB's reasons on the vote, but the second one.

And the point on hypocrisy, was me less calling Darway on activelurking and more on hypocrisy. You decided to call my thinking hypocritical, which was not the case.

Are you saying that if I had asked BB his opinion in the first post, it would have been okay?

And on Darvi (Emphasis mine):

And you're activelurking on RVS.

What now :V

And you? Fuck, Darvi, for activelurking. Seven posts in game, with practically no content at all. Only meaningless questions and answers. Also for sitting on a policylynch on a person for active/lurking.

It sure looks like you're voting him for active lurking, even if it is response to him voting someone for active lurking.

Do you deny you were active lurking?

[NativeForeigner]

Toaster: Because I'm not sure of it yet. I want to look back and try to figure out whether or not something else is going on with Otto.

[Ottofar]

Nope, even though it wasn't intentional.

Anyways, the point here is "Also for sitting on a policylynch for active/lurking."

[Solifuge]

Solifuge: What pronoun should I use to refer to you?

Missed this earlier. He/him/his works fine. No worries on the confusion either; I seem to come across as effeminate online, such that this has come up before. :I

Anyway, I am tempted to unvote Ottofar, because he's actually playing now, instead of his Orgish flailing at anything and everything that cast an eye his way. When faced with the reality of how he would die uselessly if he kept up his old tack, he changed to at least posit suspicions. These suspicions have been all gut-based with little player-reading, though, which doesn't give it a lot of Oomph. I sense a bit of resignation in his words, as though he recognizes that the game isn't lost if he dies (he's also not been claiming innocence) but he's been fighting to survive in small ways by asking for an extension, etc. It's not enough to convince me that he's town, though... seems the Jester behavior is a defense of sorts trying to keep himself around, while doing little to help others.

Also, Native, way to continue lurking on the fringe of activity, parroting other people's arguments while positing little original thought.
** Unrelated sidenote: I have some friends who moved to Bellingham not long ago, one of whom recently did a mural all over the walls of a local restaurant. Nice place!

[Ottofar]

(he's also not been claiming innocence)

Fine. I claim town.

[Solifuge]

Afraid that doesn't quite cut it. :I

But seriously, Otto... you've claimed to be able to gift Investigations during the night. What hope do you have for survival?

[Ottofar]

I could tie the vote between me and Irony.

[Ottofar]

Bluh. Should I fullclaim.

[NativeForeigner]

Also, Native, way to continue lurking on the fringe of activity, parroting other people's arguments while positing little original thought.
** Unrelated sidenote: I have some friends who moved to Bellingham not long ago, one of whom recently did a mural all over the walls of a local restaurant. Nice place!

I won't deny the slight lurking, it's hard to get right back in after having to lurk for that long period, but whose arguements am I parroting? As far as I can tell, I've only been offering my own observations.

Where in Bellingham? I hapen to

[NativeForeigner]

Damn touchscreen.

Where in Bellingham? I happen to live there.

[Ottofar]

If there are no objections to my fullclaim in fifteen minutes, I'll do it.

[Ottofar]

Okay, then.

I am Alan Moore, a comic book writer.

At night, I'm able to either erase a random ability from a player, or write another on them. I may choose to write an inspect, a block,  a protect, or a kill. Each of the actions can be written once, and only one action can be written on a given target.