Sorry about that, been busy.
Powder Miner: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.
No, you didn't. Explain what you meant by this.
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
If my gut says you're not scum, I'm not going to lynch you for being a shitty player. What about this is scummy or a bad idea to you?
AND that you'd be willing to use your IC status to manipulate everyone else.
You don't even know where you're going with this, do you?
I mean, what is your argument here, exactly? That I'm scum attempting to manipulate the Town into
not mislynching you? Or that it's only manipulation if I say you
are scum? Or that with two ICs saying you're scum and four players voting you, I'd need some sort of elaborate gambit to get you lynched?
This has the classic signs of low-level tunneling and terrible, shitty arguments- it made sense in your head and sounds bad when you say it out loud, but doesn't make any goddamned sense when you actually plug it into the fantasy you've created for yourself. It's the throw-everything-without-looking-at-it approach, which is a clear sign that you're making arguments to support your case, not prove it.
Furthermore, this doesn't address my question. Even if you had quoted me in that prior post, I don't see how one quote for a two-sentence response invalidates the simple fact that you've been practicing
none of what you preached. And what you've used as an excuse to not explain yourself.
So I'll ask you again, because apparently just once doesn't stick:
Why have all of your prior posts been extremely brief, undetailed, and quoteless if "backing it up" is so important?
On Timing And Such: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:
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!
Yes, but that was, what,
four days ago (as of this quote)? My
explanation was not long after, but your
response certainly was.
And mind you, this was after blatantly ignoring the question when you didn't understand it, rather than bothering to ask about (or even
acknowledge) it.
On Noobs And Scum:That was six days ago. The response in question had been given seven days ago:
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.
If this was the original reason you were suspicious of me, why is this the first time you've ever mentioned it?
Also, I've explained this in fairly elaborate detail by now, but here's a particularly concise example:
What makes a bandwagon or lack of scumhunting a sign of scum and not proof of not being sure what they're doing?
If you
still don't understand the concept, why didn't you call me out on thinking your play was crap yet still thinking you were town? Wouldn't the two be mutually exclusive?
On Logic and Such: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.
Well, which is it, said or meant? If it's said, why isn't this a careful dissection of what words mean instead of vague accusations of misinterpretation? If it's meant, why are you phrasing your inability to communicate what you mean as a scumtell from me?
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.
I went through very elaborate efforts to explain, in detail, the logic of your argument and why it was worthless. If that hinged on misquoting your meaning, your response would have been a rather simple dismantling of my interpretation by pointing out what those words and phrases actually mean. Instead you've got a fairly emotional rant about how I've been misquoting you, without really bothering to explain why, and not explaining why
at all until later on. Why?
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.
So you saw me doing something scummy, and instead of calling me out on it and explaining why it was baseless and thus a scum ploy, you kicked the can down the road and insisted I fancy up my posts more. Why?
So I'll go with that it's just compltely unacceptable to misquote my meaning. How's that for you as logical arguments go?
It's a lot of text for saying absolutely nothing, except that you're emotional and defensive.
On Scumhunting And Such:[misquote]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]
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,
So you consider this a laughable, scummy misquote, but admit that you might have posted it and can't be bothered to click on the link to check.
It's a direct quote. It's trimmed, but there was no context to remove. I'll once again remind you of your claim that:
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.
I see no links proving I've misquoted you. Why is that?
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.
Yeah, because I wouldn't
be giving everyone advice. Thank you confirming my interpretations of:
"If you weren't an IC, you wouldn't be ICing."
"If you weren't ICing because you're an IC, you'd be active lurking. In fact, you ARE active lurking."
1. If you weren't ICing right now you'd be doing nothing
2. You're doing nothing anyway
The last part is more vague, quoteless, unexplained garbage, directly in contradiction to your nugget of wisdom further up.
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.
Once again: If I wasn't an IC, I wouldn't be doing anything ICish. Reconfirming the points listed above.
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.
Then, I guess we've confirmed point three. I'd link them, but they're pretty much up there verbatim.
Thus we get:
So, with my defense we get the truth, which is what I actually said, scum:
1. If you weren't ICing right now you'd be doing nothing
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. You're doing nothing anyway
2. Even if you do have the excuse, it doesn't change the fact that you're active lurking.
Nope. ICing is useful, as you later admit.
3. You're doing absolutely nothing for the town
3. If you're ICing, YOU NEED TO SCUMHUNT. Not scumhunting means not finding scum. Not finding scum means losing.
You've said this, but you've also said this:
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.
Plus, accusations of active lurking are pretty much this by definition, so basically the entirety of your case is "you're doing nothing," not "scumhunting is important." The two might look similar, but they're not the same thing.
With regards to your "intended" point, ICing is largely concerned with getting other people to scumhunt and scumhunt well, and the BM format's entire point is helping others improve. Even if it were more efficient for me to attempt to win the game single-handedly, it'd completely defeat the purpose.
Thus, I stand by my statement:
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).
On ICing: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.
Your ICing does help. But if you don't scumhunt, we lose. Scumhunting is needed.
That's not what you've been saying all game. Your entire previous section is centered around claiming that I've been active lurking and that my ICing is nothing more than a smokescreen to hide that fact. Which is it?
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.
I thought we'd established that you needed quotes to do stuff, rather than more vague, pointless garbage?
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.
That's answering my question. How does that count as you scumhunting?
This is not answering your question in any way, shape, or form. This is pointing out that your question sucks and asking how it's supposed to help you. That qualifies as both ICing and scumhunting, as it's attempting to both improve your game and check your motives.
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.
Yeah, I wasn't very active D1, and mipe9 was lynched rather promptly. Why does the lack of a long chain of questioning mean this wasn't scumhunting?
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.
Didn't get back before the day ended, but his answer was good. Same question as above: What makes this not scumhunting?
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.
Wait, it has to be "deep" scumhunting now? I believe that's called "moving the bar." You know, adjusting your definitions to fit the point you're already convinced of.
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.
So you admit to being wrong, but shrug and say it's "not enough" without going into any detail. This is both in
grievous violation of your now-infamous wisdom, and a very definite sign of tunneling.
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.
You also seem to have forgotten something. I pretty much knew you would, but that doesn't really make it better.
Well. This has become an atrocity.
Unvote ed boy. Quite unfortunate, as I had a few more things to ask him. Mostly about who he suspected now.
Shakerag, what's the scummiest thing you've seen in this game so far? I mean that both in the "why would you ever do that as either alignment" sense, and the far more useful "this made me suspicious of that person" sense.
Mormota, what's your current list of suspects?
Author
Topic: Beginners' XXVII - Imperishable Night - Game Over! (Read 185176 times)