Print

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

[Powder Miner]

Hey, Irony, if you'll look at the bottom of my previoud post, you'll find I answered your question.
And I ALSO KNOW THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSEDLY NOT SCUMHUNTING BECAUSE YOU'RE ICING/TOO MANY NOOBTELLS!
But if you don't end up sumhunting, you'll never end up being able to seperate the tells. It alo makes me feel a bit to much like you're hiding behind your IC role. If you weren't an IC, you wouldn't get away with not scumhunting, you wouldn't be able to IC. You'd just be active lurking. And when it boils down to it, that's precisely what you are doing. It really doesn't matter if we're too noobish, or if we need lots of ICing, if you're only being an IC, you're not doing a single thing for the town. And you're not even scumhunting right now. You're defending yourself.

And IC excuses or not, that's unacceptable.

[Urist Imiknorris]

when he does post, he's not scumhunting much at all. He teaches as an IC, but he fails to scumhunt/
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=93126.msg2641414#msg2641414 
Like this post. He does a lot of IC instructing to players, but he manages to fail to do anything close to scumhunting except for remind me that he was asking we a question earlier. HE asks no new questions, he even doesn't address my answers to his other questions, nor add any other questions.

(emphasis mine)

I asked him about this. Read his response to me. Go on, it's in the post you linked to. Both ICs have explained their current lack of scumhunting, and have given us newbies a way to get them to start - improve our games to the point where they can tell the scum from the newbs. After that, if they aren't hunting, it's their own damn fault.

Unvote. Powder Miner, you aren't hunting scum, you aren't actively participating, and now you've "graduated" to using an already-answered (multiple times) question as half of your argument, and using "lurkers = scum" as the other half.

Powder Miner, now you're ignoring me. Ignoring people gets you votes. Votes get you lynched, and if you manage to be that scummy as town, that puts us at either MyLo or LyLo, depending on the nightkill. Either you're scum or you just don't care anymore but can't be bothered to get a replace.

[IronyOwl]

Shakerag:

IronyOwl:  Looking back, you seem to have much more of an issue with Powder Miner than with ed boy.  Why is your vote on the latter?

Like I said, I'd gotten a town vibe off Powder Miner earlier. His flailings have also seemed more... non-malicious, I guess? If I'd thought his ignoring points and so on was intentional I'd be over him in an instant, but I don't really get the impression that it's an act. ed boy I'm less sure of.

More generally, this is a good example of the subtleties between being scummy and being scum. Powder Miner is far scummier than ed boy in that he's acting less like a good townie should, but I get the feeling that this is for other reasons than that Powder Miner is scum and ed boy isn't.



ed boy:

Just off the top my my head, there's this.

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.

Those are the obvious, singular examples, yes. Do you have any more? If not, your case isn't really "he's been doing X," and more "he did X this one time." Those can be substantially different. For instance, I agree his "Oh sure lynch the IC" bit focused more on the IC part than the terrible reasons part, but that's the only real example I can think of, and I think it was mild enough to not really be a good reason by itself.

Also, the short answers part. What issues do you have with that? Or more specifically, what do you think he should have been saying that he didn't?

It's because nobody would intentionally ask a bad question. I don't know that they're bad questions.

That's not (directly) what I'm asking. You admitted to realizing/suspecting they were bad after Jim pointed them out. So, why was your response to ask slightly different questions in an attempt to feel out the edges, rather than just ask someone else, like 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.

You're contradicting yourself.

On the one hand, you claim that you thought your questions were good, and thus there was zero point to asking the other IC about them.

On the other, you're claiming you'd have taken my advice a lot more seriously.

If my advice was so much more reliable than Jim's, you really can't make the claim that asking me about it struck you as completely pointless, especially not when claiming you were trying to feel out whether they were, in fact, bad questions at the time.



Powder Miner:

Hey, Irony, if you'll look at the bottom of my previoud post, you'll find I answered your question.

Wrong question. That's the one I said I still found unsatisfactory, but didn't feel there was any more progress to be made with. The one I'm talking about is the one you're just now answering below. I've had it out to you for a long, long while.

And I ALSO KNOW THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSEDLY NOT SCUMHUNTING BECAUSE YOU'RE ICING/TOO MANY NOOBTELLS!
But if you don't end up sumhunting, you'll never end up being able to seperate the tells. It alo makes me feel a bit to much like you're hiding behind your IC role. If you weren't an IC, you wouldn't get away with not scumhunting, you wouldn't be able to IC. You'd just be active lurking. And when it boils down to it, that's precisely what you are doing. It really doesn't matter if we're too noobish, or if we need lots of ICing, if you're only being an IC, you're not doing a single thing for the town. And you're not even scumhunting right now. You're defending yourself.

Several points.

One: Why did it take you so long to mention this part? As I've said (repeatedly) this question has been out to you for a long, long while, and you've just now gotten around to saying this part. Why? You've given very brief, vague versions before, mainly consisting of "Why can't you do both" or "You should scumhunt too" or similar, but this is the first time you've explained yourself fully, and the first time you could be interpreted as responding in a concrete way to the explanations I gave for it much, much earlier.

Two: "If you weren't doing X you'd be doing nothing therefore you're doing nothing" does not work as an argument, because they're not not doing X. It can have merit as a show of tunneling or lack of activity, but "1 = 0" just isn't going to fly.

Three: I feel my ICing is helping quite a bit in some areas. Would you care to point out an example or two where it's been completely worthless?

Four: I am scumhunting. Saying blatantly, demonstrably false things tends to ruin your case, so unless you'd care to explain why I'm not actually scumhunting ed boy or why we should all live in the past for a moment, I'm pretty sure you should just admit to spouting bullshit and move along to real arguments.

[Powder Miner]

Irony, here's a little lesson I learned when I got lynched last game. You can call someone's argument crap and bull all you want but you need to back it up. Link me to posts and I'll be happy to oblige.

[IronyOwl]

Extend. Or at least a votecount.


Powder Miner:

Irony, here's a little lesson I learned when I got lynched last game. You can call someone's argument crap and bull all you want but you need to back it up. Link me to posts and I'll be happy to oblige.

...

The irony here is palpable.


I mean, seriously. You've been giving brief, quoteless posts all game long, providing vague assertions, and then completely ignoring it when people question you on it (or anything else, for that matter). Where the fuck was this wisdom when my gut was the only thing keeping you from being a guaranteed lynch? Do I really have to spell it out for you that presenting a case requires at least as much substance as discrediting one?

But alright, sure. I'll provide nice, fancy quotes for everything I've said, despite most of it concerning your vague, quoteless bullshit. And then, you're going to respond in kind, or you'll be fucked, because that's going to be the absolute end of your excuses on this shit. I hope my assertion that you're town didn't make you think you could pull whatever RiA you wanted and get away with it, because that's not how that works.

So, here we go:



Point One:

One: Why did it take you so long to mention this part? As I've said (repeatedly) this question has been out to you for a long, long while, and you've just now gotten around to saying this part. Why? You've given very brief, vague versions before, mainly consisting of "Why can't you do both" or "You should scumhunt too" or similar, but this is the first time you've explained yourself fully, and the first time you could be interpreted as responding in a concrete way to the explanations I gave for it much, much earlier.

I first asked this question way, waaaaay the fuck back here:

Spoiler: Eternal question to Powder Miner (click to show/hide)

So, on that note, what about my response to Mormota wasn't satisfactory to you?

That was six days ago. The response in question had been given seven days ago:

Spoiler: Answer to "Who do you suspect?" (click to show/hide)

IronyOwl, you are nice providing tips, but who do you suspect? If you could choose to kill off one person now, who would it be?

This is a good question.

Currently, I don't particularly suspect anyone; with all the flailing that's going on, it's been difficult to pick out anything that seems outright scummy. Just about everyone is lurking, active lurking, and/or using questionable tactics.

Twelve hours ago, you finally got off your ass and gave an answer that wasn't uselessly vague. It took you a fucking week to answer a question and provide an explanation for your case.

Why?


Point Two:

Two: "If you weren't doing X you'd be doing nothing therefore you're doing nothing" does not work as an argument, because they're not not doing X. It can have merit as a show of tunneling or lack of activity, but "1 = 0" just isn't going to fly.

This is a logical argument. Yet you've refused to answer it because:

Link me to posts and I'll be happy to oblige.

This is known as "unacceptable bullshit," as it's a completely irrelevant excuse to avoid answering. If for some reason you need proof that you actually said that, that's also unacceptable bullshit, but I'll provide it anyway because I'm tired of you wriggling out of doing anything at the slightest excuse.

Spoiler: Powder Miner fucks up (click to show/hide)

If you weren't an IC, you wouldn't get away with not scumhunting, you wouldn't be able to IC.

"If you weren't an IC, you wouldn't be ICing."

You'd just be active lurking. And when it boils down to it, that's precisely what you are doing.

"If you weren't ICing because you're an IC, you'd be active lurking. In fact, you ARE active lurking."

It really doesn't matter if we're too noobish, or if we need lots of ICing, if you're only being an IC, you're not doing a single thing for the town.

"You're not doing a single thing for the town." That's a direct quote, even, no interpretation required.

Thus we get:

1. If you weren't ICing right now you'd be doing nothing
2. You're doing nothing anyway
3. You're doing absolutely nothing for the town

Thus we get my original interpretation: "If you weren't an IC you wouldn't be doing anything right now, thus you're not doing anything right now." In other words, (1 = 0).

Point Three:

Three: I feel my ICing is helping quite a bit in some areas. Would you care to point out an example or two where it's been completely worthless?

Helping Shakerag to avoid crippling assumptions, break out of his complacency, and refine his case. He took some further convincing for the theory part, but admitted most other points were not just good, but helpful to improving his game.

Helping ed boy explain his case on Jim. Note the improved specifics of the response relative to the vagueness of the explanation I was objecting to.


Point Four:

Four: I am scumhunting. Saying blatantly, demonstrably false things tends to ruin your case, so unless you'd care to explain why I'm not actually scumhunting ed boy or why we should all live in the past for a moment, I'm pretty sure you should just admit to spouting bullshit and move along to real arguments.

Spoiler: IronyOwl hunts for scum (click to show/hide)

PowderMiner:

Unvote whoever the heck I was voting, vote for ed boy. I haven't really questioned you at all yet.
What do you think of the lurkiness in this game so far (not the players lurking, the lurkiness). I think it's quite abundant.

How is this going to help you find scum? You've been bouncing around RV questions all game and have nothing to show for it.

I mean, is this even really scumhunting? It's more of a comment than a question, and I can't fathom how ed boy'd answer in a way that was useful to you, unless he seriously fucked up.

mipe9:

I don't care about the fact that he asked me two questions. I care about the fact that 100% of his posts are towards me.

So, you don't care that I only recently replaced in. You don't care that I might be active lurking. You don't care that both posts were advice. You don't care that both posts were the same advice. You don't care that I might have a point.

The only thing you care about is that I'm looking at you. Why is that?

Orangebottle, how do you distinguish between people who are scummy because they're scum and people who are scummy because they're new?

ed boy, what was your read on Jafferery? What's your current read on Shakerag?

Powder Miner, what's your read on Orangebottle? Which is worse, in your opinion: Bandwagoning or activelurking?

ed boy:

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.

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?

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.

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?

I look forward to your detailed and well-thought out explanations for all of this, in addition to why you needed this before you could field any responses of your own. And yes, that last part is a real, genuine question that you will need a fucking awesome explanation for.

[ed boy]

ed boy:

Just off the top my my head, there's this.

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.

Those are the obvious, singular examples, yes. Do you have any more? If not, your case isn't really "he's been doing X," and more "he did X this one time." Those can be substantially different. For instance, I agree his "Oh sure lynch the IC" bit focused more on the IC part than the terrible reasons part, but that's the only real example I can think of, and I think it was mild enough to not really be a good reason by itself.

Also, the short answers part. What issues do you have with that? Or more specifically, what do you think he should have been saying that he didn't?

Looking back, I was tunneling a lot and grasping at straws. I had a gut feeling that his answers were hiding something, and I was scrabbling for something in his posts to back it up. Emphasis on the was, though, I've dropped that horrible line of enquiry now.

It's because nobody would intentionally ask a bad question. I don't know that they're bad questions.

That's not (directly) what I'm asking. You admitted to realizing/suspecting they were bad after Jim pointed them out. So, why was your response to ask slightly different questions in an attempt to feel out the edges, rather than just ask someone else, like me, about it?

It was only after much prodding of similar questions that I began to suspect that I may have been barking up the wrong tree.

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.

You're contradicting yourself.

On the one hand, you claim that you thought your questions were good, and thus there was zero point to asking the other IC about them.

On the other, you're claiming you'd have taken my advice a lot more seriously.

If my advice was so much more reliable than Jim's, you really can't make the claim that asking me about it struck you as completely pointless, especially not when claiming you were trying to feel out whether they were, in fact, bad questions at the time.

I did not see the need to ask anybody because I was convinced that I had found some dirt on Jim. As far as I was concerned, asking someone else about it would have added nothing, because the thought that my line of questioning might be wrong did not even cross my mind. It was only after a long time that I started to question my own interrogation. As for why I would have taken your advice more seriously, it's because I would have taken anybody but Jim's advice more seriously than Jim's, because they would be indepentent of the enquiries.

In short, I was convinced that asking you would have resulted you in saying 'Yep, what's up with that, Jim', which wouldn't have really added very much. The possibility that I might be barking up the wrong tree and that asking someone else would reveal that did not cross my mind.

Extend. Or at least a votecount.

Here's a votecount:

Ed boy(1)(IronyOwl)
Powder Miner(3)(Jim Groovester, Mormota, Urist Imiknorris)
IronyOwl(1)(PowderMiner)

Also, I second the extend. Speaking of day ends, Dariush said the day would end 18 hours ago, and it still hasn't.

[Dariush]

Votecount:

• ed boy: IronyOwl,
• Mormota:
• Shakerag:
• Urist Imiknorris:
• Powder Miner: Jim Groovester, Mormota,  Urist Imiknorris,
• Jim Groovester:
• IronyOwl: Powder Miner,

Not voting: ed boy, Shakerag,

Extend: IronyOwl, ed boy

The day will end Friday, 6PM GMT. You need (in total) 3 votes to extend and 5 to shorten.

LT for this game. (Mostly for myself, for easier votecounts, but feel free to use it)

Ed boy, it was scheduled to end on Friday, I just made a typo in my last extension announcement. Don't worry.

Also I'll try to be more punctual with votecounts.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Extend.

[Dariush]

The day is extended untiiiiiil...

*drumroll*

Saturday! How did you guess?!

[Urist Imiknorris]

Unvote. Powder Miner, your answers to both my and Irony's questions will determine whether or not I vote for you.

when he does post, he's not scumhunting much at all. He teaches as an IC, but he fails to scumhunt/
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=93126.msg2641414#msg2641414 
Like this post. He does a lot of IC instructing to players, but he manages to fail to do anything close to scumhunting except for remind me that he was asking we a question earlier. HE asks no new questions, he even doesn't address my answers to his other questions, nor add any other questions.

(emphasis mine)

I asked him about this. Read his response to me. Go on, it's in the post you linked to. Both ICs have explained their current lack of scumhunting, and have given us newbies a way to get them to start - improve our games to the point where they can tell the scum from the newbs. After that, if they aren't hunting, it's their own damn fault.

Unvote. Powder Miner, you aren't hunting scum, you aren't actively participating, and now you've "graduated" to using an already-answered (multiple times) question as half of your argument, and using "lurkers = scum" as the other half.

I realize that if I wanted an answer from you, I should have phrased it as a question: Why are you accusing IronyOwl for something he's explained multiple times without doing anything to support your accusations? Forming an argument takes effort; you can't just wait for the scum to come out and say "Oh, I bow before your power of red text, even though there is no threat of me being lynched. I'll admit everything. I'm scum." You need to make them slip up and reveal it to you, and you can't do that with a case that either is based entirely on crap reasoning or has nothing supporting it. Your case is both.

[Mormota]

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.

I fail to see how I was tunneling. I was going after several people, just one at a time. Why should I spread my effort among several people? If I manage to ask a scum too, he wouldn't feel worried because I'm after several other people, not only him. That's not what I want.

[Powder Miner]

Let's do this

Extend. Or at least a votecount.


Powder Miner:

Irony, here's a little lesson I learned when I got lynched last game. You can call someone's argument crap and bull all you want but you need to back it up. Link me to posts and I'll be happy to oblige.

...

The ironyowl here is palpable.


I mean, seriously. You've been giving brief, quoteless posts all game long, providing vague assertions, and then completely ignoring it when people question you on it (or anything else, for that matter). Where the fuck was this wisdom when my gut was the only thing keeping you from being a guaranteed lynch? Do I really have to spell it out for you that presenting a case requires at least as much substance as discrediting one?

I quoted you in the quote you're quoting here. Also, I love how you say your gut was the only thing keeping me from being a guaranteed lynch. That both means you'd be willing to stake a lynch on nothing but your gut AND that you'd be willing to use your IC status to manipulate everyone else.

But alright, sure. I'll provide nice, fancy quotes for everything I've said, despite most of it concerning your vague, quoteless bullshit. And then, you're going to respond in kind, or you'll be fucked, because that's going to be the absolute end of your excuses on this shit. I hope my assertion that you're town didn't make you think you could pull whatever RiA you wanted and get away with it, because that's not how that works.

IT certainly didn't. I don;t care if you say I'm town, because I think you're scum. This is exactly the same situation that I was in wih Orangebottle (or maybe Mormota) last  Beginner's Mafia, except it's Day 2, meaning more suspects and less confirmedness (although don't think this doesn't still mean I don't think you're scum).

So, here we go:



Point One:

One: Why did it take you so long to mention this part? As I've said (repeatedly) this question has been out to you for a long, long while, and you've just now gotten around to saying this part. Why? You've given very brief, vague versions before, mainly consisting of "Why can't you do both" or "You should scumhunt too" or similar, but this is the first time you've explained yourself fully, and the first time you could be interpreted as responding in a concrete way to the explanations I gave for it much, much earlier.

I first asked this question way, waaaaay the fuck back here:

Spoiler: Eternal question to Powder Miner (click to show/hide)

So, on that note, what about my response to Mormota wasn't satisfactory to you?

I ANSWERED THAT. I SAID THAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION BECAUSE I NEVER FOUND AN ANSWER OF YOURS TO MORMOTA UNSATISFACTORY!

That was six days ago. The response in question had been given seven days ago:

Spoiler: Answer to "Who do you suspect?" (click to show/hide)

IronyOwl, you are nice providing tips, but who do you suspect? If you could choose to kill off one person now, who would it be?

This is a good question.

Currently, I don't particularly suspect anyone; with all the flailing that's going on, it's been difficult to pick out anything that seems outright scummy. Just about everyone is lurking, active lurking, and/or using questionable tactics.

Twelve hours ago, you finally got off your ass and gave an answer that wasn't uselessly vague. It took you a fucking week to answer a question and provide an explanation for your case.

Why?

Reading that quote now, I'm going to facepalm. That not finding anyone suspicious even though tey were lurking/active lurking/questionable tactics-using was what made me suspicious in the first place. How would you expect me to get off of your case for what made me suspicious? Yay emphasis stacking.

Point Two:

Two: "If you weren't doing X you'd be doing nothing therefore you're doing nothing" does not work as an argument, because they're not not doing X. It can have merit as a show of tunneling or lack of activity, but "1 = 0" just isn't going to fly.

That's not what I meant. What I meant was all you're doing is handing out advice and pretending that's an acceptable excuse to be not scumhunting. That's hat I said, scum.

This is a logical argument. Yet you've refused to answer it because:

Link me to posts and I'll be happy to oblige.

This is known as "unacceptable bullshit," as it's a completely irrelevant excuse to avoid answering. If for some reason you need proof that you actually said that, that's also unacceptable bullshit, but I'll provide it anyway because I'm tired of you wriggling out of doing anything at the slightest excuse.

I fail to see how misquoting my meaning is a logical argument. Try again. And I did say that. I won't deny that, nor would I ever need to or want to deny that. I wanted posts linked to because you were misquoting what I was trying saying and that was unacceptable. That's harder to do with the words up there and me here to advance them. I would also call it profanities, but I swear not to do so, since I'm only 13. So I'll go with that it's just compltely unacceptable to misquote my meaning. How's that for you as logical arguments go?

[misquote]

Spoiler: Powder Miner fucks up (click to show/hide)

If you weren't an IC, you wouldn't get away with not scumhunting, you wouldn't be able to IC.

"If you weren't an IC, you wouldn't be ICing."[/misquote][/quote]
Are you done misquoting me yet? No? Fine. That's about the most ridiculous misquote in here. I'm not sure if you edited tht there, if that was part of something else, or that was me trying to post int he ten minutes before my bedtime, but what I was trying to say was if this was a regular mafia you wouldn't get away with this kind of playing because you wouldn't have the oh-so-convenient "I'm just the benevolent IC giving you all advice falalalala" excuse.  You'd have to scumhunt instead of giving out advice/just defending yourself. You've finally got up off of your a-- now. But now you're using rampant misquoting and complete crap JUST like Orangebottle did.

You'd just be active lurking. And when it boils down to it, that's precisely what you are doing.

"If you weren't ICing because you're an IC, you'd be active lurking. In fact, you ARE active lurking."

Once we clear away the misquoting: If you weren't an IC, you wouldn;t be able to use the excuse of being an IC to not scumhunt. Everyone would recognize you as active lurking. But you do have the excuse, but excuse or not- you're active lurking.

It really doesn't matter if we're too noobish, or if we need lots of ICing, if you're only being an IC, you're not doing a single thing for the town.

"You're not doing a single thing for the town." That's a direct quote, even, no interpretation required.

Yes it is. Your ICing is fine and all, but you're not being a player at all if you're not scumhunting. If you're not scumhunting, you're doing nothing for town. That's simple enough.

Thus we get:

1. If you weren't ICing right now you'd be doing nothing
2. You're doing nothing anyway
3. You're doing absolutely nothing for the town

Thus we get my original interpretation: "If you weren't an IC you wouldn't be doing anything right now, thus you're not doing anything right now." In other words, (1 = 0).

So, with my defense we get the truth, which is what I actually said, scum:
1. If you weren't an IC, you wouldn't have the excuse of being the ohso benevolent IC that just sits around and hands out advice, and you'd be recgonized as active lurking.
2. Even if you do have the excuse, it doesn't change the fact that you're active lurking.
3. If you're ICing, YOU NEED TO SCUMHUNT. Not scumhunting means not finding scum. Not finding scum means losing.

Point Three:

Three: I feel my ICing is helping quite a bit in some areas. Would you care to point out an example or two where it's been completely worthless?

Helping Shakerag to avoid crippling assumptions, break out of his complacency, and refine his case. He took some further convincing for the theory part, but admitted most other points were not just good, but helpful to improving his game.

Your ICing does help. But if you don't scumhunt, we lose. Scumhunting is needed.

Helping ed boy explain his case on Jim. Note the improved specifics of the response relative to the vagueness of the explanation I was objecting to.

Only had this as a seperate section due to a quote screwup I'm far too lazy to deal with.

Point Four:

Four: I am scumhunting. Saying blatantly, demonstrably false things tends to ruin your case, so unless you'd care to explain why I'm not actually scumhunting ed boy or why we should all live in the past for a moment, I'm pretty sure you should just admit to spouting bullshit and move along to real arguments.

Bouncing around an occasional question to look active (A bit hypocritical, I'm sorry, but I didn't do that on purpose- I just couldn't find anything suspicious) while not following up on it doesn't count. I;m sorry.

Spoiler: IronyOwl hunts for scum (click to show/hide)

PowderMiner:

Unvote whoever the heck I was voting, vote for ed boy. I haven't really questioned you at all yet.
What do you think of the lurkiness in this game so far (not the players lurking, the lurkiness). I think it's quite abundant.

How is this going to help you find scum? You've been bouncing around RV questions all game and have nothing to show for it.

I mean, is this even really scumhunting? It's more of a comment than a question, and I can't fathom how ed boy'd answer in a way that was useful to you, unless he seriously fucked up.

[/quote]
That's answering my question. How does that count as you scumhunting?

mipe9:

I don't care about the fact that he asked me two questions. I care about the fact that 100% of his posts are towards me.

So, you don't care that I only recently replaced in. You don't care that I might be active lurking. You don't care that both posts were advice. You don't care that both posts were the same advice. You don't care that I might have a point.

The only thing you care about is that I'm looking at you. Why is that?

I don't seem to remember you ever having a real chain of questioning on mipe9.

Orangebottle, how do you distinguish between people who are scummy because they're scum and people who are scummy because they're new?

Or Orangebottle.

ed boy, what was your read on Jafferery? What's your current read on Shakerag?

I actually don;t see you doing much with ed boy. You have your vote on him and you're asking him a few D1-esque questions, but that's about it...

Powder Miner, what's your read on Orangebottle? Which is worse, in your opinion: Bandwagoning or activelurking?

Actually I think those last few ones WERE from D1. And guess what, I'm not counting RVS stage as deep scumhunting, considering you completely failed to follow up on it anyway.

ed boy:

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.

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?

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.

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?

I look forward to your detailed and well-thought out explanations for all of this, in addition to why you needed this before you could field any responses of your own. And yes, that last part is a real, genuine question that you will need a fucking awesome explanation for.

[/quote]
At this point I take it back about you scumhunting ed boy.But it's too little, too late, and only after I launched a savage attack on you.

[Urist Imiknorris]

...Wow. I've got some material to sift through before I can tell you just what I think of that post. I'll start by noting that you didn't answer my question (here we go again). Powder Miner, I voted to extend specifically because of you - I wanted you to be able to answer to peoples' accusations against you. I did not want you to spew bullshit.

[Powder Miner]

I did not spew anything. I countered Irony's spewing bullcrap.

[Powder Miner]

Also, I was drained when I did that post, that;s hwy I didn;t answer that post, and I'm ansering your question now.