Print

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

[Powder Miner]

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.

I've said this multiple times. Or maybe I haven't, but I will take no excuse for not scumhunting, not event hat we are too nooby to read. This is a Beginner's MAfia, and if the ICs can;t read us, they shouldn't have signed up. Also, I beg to differ about "crap reasoning" and "nothign supporting it", as my deconstructing IronyOwl's post will show.

[ed boy]

I've said this multiple times. Or maybe I haven't, but I will take no excuse for not scumhunting, not event hat we are too nooby to read. This is a Beginner's MAfia, and if the ICs can;t read us, they shouldn't have signed up. Also, I beg to differ about "crap reasoning" and "nothign supporting it", as my deconstructing IronyOwl's post will show.

There's a difference between ICs being unable to read newn players, and ICs being unable to read new players constantly. New players vary greatly in readability and the ICs have to do what they can.

Also, what the hell does IronyOwl's shaping up as an IC have to do with lynching him? Either you're tunneling a gut reaction and scrabbling for anything you can that could back up your gut feeling, or you're scum and you are using unrelated material to try to get a mislynch. Either way, you need to drop all this whining about IC positions.

[Powder Miner]

Ed boy, I have no idea what you thought I said.

My problem is not that IronyOwl is an IC. I neve said that was the problem.
My problem is that he was using that as an excuse to not scumhunt.

[ed boy]

Ed boy, I have no idea what you thought I said.

My problem is not that IronyOwl is an IC. I neve said that was the problem.
My problem is that he was using that as an excuse to not scumhunt.

You appear to be using how good an IC IronyOwl is as an argument when it comes to the question of whether or not to lynch him. That is what I have a problem with.

[Powder Miner]

Ed boy, that is not my argument at all.
I never even said that. What I said is that he was only handing out advice instead of scumhunting.
And not scumhunting I have a problem with.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Let's do this

I quoted you in the quote you're quoting here.

No you didn't. He quoted the entirety of your post. Those two lines were all there is. Go ahead and check.

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.

You raise a couple points, then lose them by shoving words into his mouth. IronyOwl: Would you be willing to do either of the things he claims, and if so, why?

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).

I would like to bring up an issue here: Your spelling, punctuation, and overall presentation, namely the fact that the quality of such is inversely proportional to the number of votes on you at the time. Examples:

0 votes: No errors.

1 vote: "...I houldn;t back of from..."

2 votes: I can only see two recent posts from you in this category. One's only got a misspelling of "whoops," the other is full of mistakes, and I don't want to figure out how to average them together.

3 votes: Quoted above, stuff bolded for clarity. What's with the x-negative clusterfuck at the end? After removing the first two negatives, I'm parsing it as "This still means I don't think you're scum." What? Then why are you voting him? Although, thanks to this I learned that "confirmedness" is indeed a word.

I apologize if I sound unbelievably petty.

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!

You don't need to yell, we can hear you just fine. I'm fairly certain his issue with your answer isn't that you haven't given it yet, but rather the fact that it took you almost a week to do so.

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.

Not going to touch this one.

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.

I think you have the ICs' priorities wrong. You assume that their primary goal is to play the game and their secondary goal is to teach us newbies. I think it's the other way around, what with Irony's response to my questioning here.

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?

I see no misquoting. Please explain how what you said isn't what you meant.

This will be continued in Part Two.

[Powder Miner]

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.

[/quote]
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.[/quote]

This is the one he misquoted. Dingdingding.

[Urist Imiknorris]

You know what? There won't be a Part Two. I don't want to wade through the rest of that post. I'll just respond to this last bit:

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.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you call that savage. I call it "voting IronyOwl." And then after the "Irony-scumhunting-ed boy" point, I call it "thrashing desperately at IronyOwl in hopes of getting other people to see him as scum so you don't get lynched." You have not convinced anybody.

[Urist Imiknorris]

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.

I've said this multiple times. Or maybe I haven't, but I will take no excuse for not scumhunting, not event hat we are too nooby to read. This is a Beginner's MAfia, and if the ICs can;t read us, they shouldn't have signed up. Also, I beg to differ about "crap reasoning" and "nothign supporting it", as my deconstructing IronyOwl's post will show.

I already responded to this a couple of posts ago:

I think you have the ICs' priorities wrong. You assume that their primary goal is to play the game and their secondary goal is to teach us newbies. I think it's the other way around, what with Irony's response to my questioning here.

(reposting because I wouldn't want to be pointed to a WoT and told the answer's somewhere in there)
There's also this quote from Jim at the start of the game:

I will be a completely impartial source of advice that I will freely give at every opportunity, whether I am asked for it or I decide to give it on my own. You can trust that everything I have to say will be given in good faith, even if it comes at a personal cost to me in this game.

My stance on your reasoning and support remain unchanged for now.

Dariush: Does the "weekend time stop" rule apply to the current extension?

[Jim Groovester]

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.

IronyOwl has not been abusing his IC status.

Let's do this

You respond to IronyOwl's post, but your rebuttals are mostly regurgitation of things you have said repeatedly: that IronyOwl isn't scumhunting.

Your accusation is old anyway. Has nothing IronyOwl has done recently changed your mind? (I.E., voting ed boy, other stuff.)

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.

While I don't mind if you do this, just keep in mind that you can pressure several people at a time without weakening any of your attacks. Each attack has its own level of strength that doesn't get raised or lowered by how many other attacks you direct at people.

(But also, if you're pressing attacks on more than three people or so, it becomes harder and harder to believe that you actually have any genuine queries with either of them. This is not a hard and fast rule; if your questions are good no one will care.)

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.

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

So do you suspect him or not? Why or why not?

If you don't, who else is there, and why aren't you doing anything about them?

[Mormota]

You know what? There won't be a Part Two. I don't want to wade through the rest of that post. I'll just respond to this last bit:

Promising to deliver a complete case and then backing out, Urist Imiknorris? Why aren't you willing to go through the trouble of proving your point? Are you afraid of something, scum?

Powder Miner:  Well. Largely emotional response full of yelling is not going to make your case clearer. However, I see more arrogance and unexperience than scum behaviour in you now.

[Urist Imiknorris]

So do you suspect him or not? Why or why not?

If you don't, who else is there, and why aren't you doing anything about them?

I do indeed suspect Powder Miner, due to his lack of scumhunting, his inability to make a good case, and now the fact that his answers reeked of desperation, as if he would do anything to not be lynched except defend himself.

You know what? There won't be a Part Two. I don't want to wade through the rest of that post. I'll just respond to this last bit:

Promising to deliver a complete case and then backing out, Urist Imiknorris? Why aren't you willing to go through the trouble of proving your point? Are you afraid of something, scum?

Because the rest of Powder Miner's post was accusations of misquoting, most of which had no logical basis, and further accusations of not scumhunting. Just because you asked for it, it's about halfway done now. It is almost completely pointless and I'm going to have to spend more time ironing out forum code mistakes than responding.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Spoiler: It Keeps Happening (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."

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.

The quote is genuine. I'm assuming his quote is how he interpreted it. Also, where is this stuff about Orangebottle misquoting you? Links please.

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.

This would get the same answer as the other "ICing is not an excuse" accusations.

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.

See above.

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.

"WordTwistingOwl?" No need to slander other players. Also, your responses don't really change anything. You're just restating what you already said.

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

Again, priorities.

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

If you can't bother to make the post look right, why should we bother reading it?

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.

Hypocrisy is for the weak. And scum. No excuses.

That's answering my question. How does that count as you scumhunting?

He asked you a couple questions in that quote - which you didn't answer.

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

No he didn't. That one question wasn't answered before mipe9 got lynched.

Or Orangebottle.

Irony didn't post in the four hours between Orangebottle answering and the end of the day.

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...

Oh hey, it's at the bottom of this post.

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.

Congratulations, you think you know where the questions to currently-dead people came from.

<ed boy scumhunting spoiler removed>


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.

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.

a) Again, lol savage
b) Funnily enough, you never answered his question.



Powder Miner is so scummy it hurts. He cannot answer more than the simplest questions without extensive prodding, he's only gone after one person the whole day, and he hasn't really tried to defend himself from the people who are actually voting for him.

[Mormota]

a) Again, lol savage
b) Funnily enough, you never answered his question.



Powder Miner is so scummy it hurts. He cannot answer more than the simplest questions without extensive prodding, he's only gone after one person the whole day, and he hasn't really tried to defend himself from the people who are actually voting for him.

People shouldn't be entirely concerned of defending themselves. If they are only defending themselves, they are not contributing.

I do indeed suspect Powder Miner, due to his lack of scumhunting, his inability to make a good case, and now the fact that his answers reeked of desperation, as if he would do anything to not be lynched except defend himself.

Why did you vote him, unvote then vote again? If you find him "so scummy it hurts", then what reason did you have for that? It's not like he was any better before.

[Urist Imiknorris]

People shouldn't be entirely concerned of defending themselves. If they are only defending themselves, they are not contributing.

But if they're being attacked and not defending themselves, they're more likely to be lynched, which is bad for their side unless they're jester or something like that that isn't in this game. You'd expect a player to at least try to defend themselves, because if they don't it means they just don't care anymore, and won't contribute anyway.

Why did you vote him, unvote then vote again? If you find him "so scummy it hurts", then what reason did you have for that? It's not like he was any better before.

I unvoted him because I wanted to go back through everyone's arguments once I was done with the things I needed to do yesterday and start hunting other people in addition to him. I probably should have waited to unvote until I had gotten back home, because when I read his response I became fully convinced he was scum and that hunting other people could wait until D3. In fact, when I responded to his post I had completely forgotten that I had unvoted him (as evidenced by my thinking that his post was made with three votes on him). That's how bad I thought it was.