It feels to me like you're using your IC position to undermine lines of suspicion and questioning against you.
You keep saying this, but you're not really providing examples or (sound) explanations for why he's wrong. Producing either would do wonders for your case.
Just off the top my my head, there's
this.
When people do get answers out of you, they are often brief and can be inconsistent.
Examples. I assume you mean in a scummy way?
Take
this, for example. The actual answers are only about a sentence each, and not particularly long sentences. As for inconsistent, there was the whole issue where I asked him what he thought of the scumhunting and he said that he was mostly happy, when he had recently spent several posts shouting at half the other players for bad scumhunting.
If you simply say 'no, that's a bad question', then I'm going to try a minor variation on it to see if that variation constitutes a good question. If I get similar responses, then I won't know if you're town and being honest, or if you're scum trying to dissuade me from a perfectly good line of reasoning against you. However, if you were to say 'That's a bad question because of X,Y,Z', and explain the reason why it's a bad question, then not only will I see that it's a bad question sooner, but I will have a better idea of what constitutes a good question and what constitutes a bad question, and I can avoid bad questions in the future.
First of all, it's generally better to trim down quotes where possible, to avoid the WoT effect. More relevant to the subject, why don't you just ask about it? You've got two players who's main purpose is to help you play the game better, and you're playing trial-and-error with them using bad questions, without so much as bothering to explain that it's a pain in the ass? Why would you ever do that?
It's because
nobody would intentionally ask a bad question. I don't know that they're bad questions.
For example, there was the picking I was doing at Jim. At the time, I thought it was a perfectly good line of questioning, and the only person who was saying otherwise was Jim, whose claims I wasn't going to take as gospel given that he was the questionee. If you had told me that it was a bad idea, instead of doing absolutely nothing, then it would have come to an end a lot faster, and it would have saved us both huge amounts of hassle.
I assumed you remembered and trusted Jim's starting thing about how he'll always be impartial as far as IC advice goes; ie he won't tell you your suspicions are shit just because he doesn't want to get lynched. Thus, I assumed Jim was handling your IC needs, especially since most of what I'd have had to say would be more or less parroting him.
Once again though, if this wasn't the case, why didn't you just ask me about it?
Because I didn't know it was a bad line of questioning. As far as I was concerned, it was a good line of questioning, and actively asking you to criticize it would be unnecessary. Even if you said the same thing, I would take someone's criticism of my arguments a lot more seriously if they did not have the incentive of being the one argued against.
Mormota, according to the LT, you seem to be pretty single-minded in chainsawing me. Apart from one minor question to IronyOwl and your recent question to Shakerag, your only non-responsive actions have been hacking away at me. Why have you not been looking at someone else?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
You asked me a question, I didn't understand, and you can't be bothered to explain? Why did you even ask the question then?
I apologize for missing that. What I meant was that you seemed to be tunneling a lot, and I was asking you why you had not picked at other people the same degree.
The problem is, simply pointing out a bad line of questioning doesn't help a huge amount, or at least doesn't help as much as saying why.
I did. Every time.
If I weren't playing the game, I would have the same opinion about everybody's progress as I do now, so is my opinion really all that relevant to the game itself? NO.
You didn't listen to what I had to say.
I will admit that I was a bit too sceptical of your answers, but I would heavily dispute your claim that you offered a good explanation every time. There's no explanation
here, for example. Even when you do offer explanations, they're
rarely satisfying.
Because you said the only reason the vote was on him was God of War. This is obviously not true since it is still on him.
That would be because I'm still re-reading through the thread this morning to find someone I'm more confident about being scum.
So you have your vote on someone you're not confident is scum, at this stage in the day?
Vote's still on you for now because God of War kept me from looking at the thread last night.
Yet you still haven't taken it back. Lies, lies and lies, scum.
Where's the lie? I never said I was going to change my vote. I still think Jim is suspicious, and until I find someone more suspicious I'm content with keeping it there.
If you haven't formed a strong opinion, then you should have voted to extend, which you did not. You were twice perfectly willing to lynch someone without being confident about it, which I find very scummy,
Shakerag. Your vote's been sitting on Jim for quite some time, even when you admit that you have nothing bit a gut feeling about it.
Author
Topic: Beginners' XXVII - Imperishable Night - Game Over! (Read 184188 times)