Print

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

[Zrk2]

-snip-

Part One:
All you did there was say that my argumentwas crap and cite a non-seuitur (hint, I started my argument in Day 1, a single post cited in Day 3 responding to that argument doesn't automatically make you right and me wrong, and if that's all of that argument, then in fact it renders that little piece of your argument in serious need of work.

Part Two:
Because I'd already repeated that argument a billion times, and they were going to simply ignore me if I continued to pursue it.  This is not a goal, to get ignored.

Your points contradict each other anyway. First you say that my argument is bas and should not be used and then you say I'm scummy for trying to find a new argument to find scum.

Mormota: Thre's no question in thre. The only thing that could be interpreted as a quesiton is you asking me how askign for a replace could be used aas an excuse to vote the replacee when they're not in the game. I answered that. And the answer is: They're stll in the game until the replacer shows up.

A. A single post demonstrates that one good post =/= one bad post, so your case on nothing but post number is still shit, always was shit, and always will be shit.

...What? You quoted a complete nonsequitur and then said that  it also proves a non-sequitur (What did I ever say about "good" or "bad" posts, and then you try to change the subject here from the ICing as much as scumhunting argument to my mistaken post number analysis. (You know, how you kind of tried to refute the IC-scumhunt argument wtith a non-sequitur and I just called you out on it)?And why are you intent on defending IronyOwl anyway? I mean seriously, what kind of vote excuse is that, Zrk2?

Aside from the OMGUS, let's see here. You judged lurking based on number of posts, so I countered that one good post does not equal one bad post, demonstrating that post count alone cannot be used to demonstrate lurking. I am not defending Irony, I am pointing out weaknesses in your arguments.

B. Being ignored is not an excuse to stop arguing. You see something that doesn't make sense point it out, point that bitch way the fuck out. People ignore it, ask them why they're ignoring it. Maybe they're covering for their scumbuddy. Fucking investigate that shit!

Zrk2, the problem was that I had been repeating the same argument too many times. I needed to find the new one, since I'd been tunneling again... And I'm afraid you're the one I find scummy now, I mean seriously what's up with your first point?

C. It is bad, but if you believe it then stick with it. At the very least don't back off like that, since bowing to pressure looks completely like a scum trying to avoid attention drawn by his bad scumhunt. If someone trys to tell you you are wrong, analyze their logic and see if you can find flaws. If you can point them out, if you don't incorporate their thoughts into your case. Don't back down like a wuss.

Because machoness is always the key to town winning. In any case, they want me to find scum in other ways, and that I can do. In fact, I'm doing it right now.

I mean that if you have a point return to it. Come up with other points too, but don't leave that one be, it could be the argument that turns someone's vote. Every little bit counts. Machoness does not win mafia, tenacity does. You must find holes in logic and point them out, and keep pointing them out. Don't back off like a wuss the second you encounter resistance to your ideas. Never do that. It looks completely like scum trying to avoid attention.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Oh Mormota, you seem to be doing exactly the thing that you voted Shakerag for doing.

[Zrk2]

Oh Mormota, you seem to be doing exactly the thing that you voted Shakerag for doing.

Examples, please.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Examples, please.

Sure:

Questions for Shakerag

As per this, my main suspect right now is Shakerag, for the questions I asked him here are still unanswered.

See timestamps. Now look at how long ago Mormota last posted, and how long ago he was asked some questions. Note that all those timestamps are from yesterday (or at least they were fifteen minutes ago).One would think that if he considered not posting for a significant time during a weekend to be a scummy action, he wouldn't do it himself. Hooray for hypocrisy. He's been online a couple times today - I checked his profile info before making that post. So where is he?

[Urist Imiknorris]

Extend.

[IronyOwl]

Extend.

I guess I'm basically just waiting for Mormota to get back.

[Dariush]

The day has been extended by 24 hours.

No votes changed for the last two days, so no votecount for you.

[Mormota]

Extend.

I guess I'm basically just waiting for Mormota to get back.

And here I am, back after a busy weekend!

Or it'd require you to provide an excuse to cover for your mimicking.

For instance, you specifically mentioned that your questions to Shakerag were "still unanswered" and implied he'd need an excuse for that. Yet, the difference between your asking the questions and voting him over them was just a pinch over the time between asking those questions and your previous post. What about that time difference seemed lurky or suspicious for Shakerag, but not yourself?

First line of thought is unlikely to get us anywhere.

Second point, I am not entirely sure what you meant, so I'm just going to explain it a bit clearer. I voted him because I generally found him suspicious and because he did not answer. I did not take the vote off him because he did not get any better and if he wanted to, he could have just explained himself. To me, it seemed as scum trying to get more time, not town trying to get more time.

I believe the idea is this:
"Is" means that it is currently so. "Would be" implies that it would be true given a certain set of circumstances. So answering this question like that implies that you were thinking "Well I'm scum, so hiding from town is invaluable, so I'll say hiding from town is invaluable," rather than "Well I'm town, but if I was scum hiding from town would be invaluable, so I'll say hiding from town would be invaluable." In other words, it implies you weren't thinking of the town/scum situation hypothetically.

I have shown that the logic behind your arguments was wrong. If you are still voting me, that is not out of logic, but on a gut feeling. Do you believe that is good?

Interesting. So you believe Urist to be town following his gut, and not scum pushing for a mislynch? Why's that, Mormota?

First point: I was talking about the possession of an ability. As such, that ability is something. And I very much fail to see how that is reason for anyone to regard me as scum.

Second point: You are assuming that if someone attacks me he has to be scum? Why? If I don't find someone suspicious, why should I call them scum? To give more reasons?

On this note, Unvote. I wanted you to get here, you did.

Also, on D1 you said mipe9 was more arrogant than scum, but FoS'd him later on. What made you change your mind?

It would have been nice of you to post a link to my FoS post, but whatever. Also, you might notice I FoS'd him when he was doing smoething different from what he was doing before, but which I found more scummy than arrogant.

Mormota's had kind of a history of subtly following others' suspicions/votes, and hasn't had any serious suspicions all game.

Please point out where and how I was doing that. Throwing unbacked shit out there is not making a clear case.

Oh Mormota, you seem to be doing exactly the thing that you voted Shakerag for doing.

There is a rather sizeable question. He was being asked questions. I was not. He was also inactive during a weekday, but that can be a question of personal schedule and as such, it is not an argument.

Zrk2: Here you ask Urist if he has anything other than pointing out the flaws in my argument against me. Are you not doing the same? Do you not find it hypocritical, Zrk2?

[Mormota]

Second to last paragraph: There is a rather sizeable difference, not question. Sorry for that. Also correct smoething to something.

[Zrk2]

Zrk2: Here you ask Urist if he has anything other than pointing out the flaws in my argument against me. Are you not doing the same? Do you not find it hypocritical, Zrk2?

If you would read my post immediately after the uber-fucked-post character limit exceeding-double-post you would note that I had several reasons for voting Powder Miner other than his flawed arguments. For instance there is his backing down from his vote after being questioned. So no, I don't think it is hypocritical.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Oh Mormota, you seem to be doing exactly the thing that you voted Shakerag for doing.

There is a rather sizeable question difference. He was being asked questions. I was not.

Yes you were. See those questions that IronyOwl asked you while you were gone? Those questions were (surprise!) questions that you were being asked and not answering. Also there was this:

His explanation for not voting for an extension also seems scummy - why would a town player not want to hear their target's defense?

(By the way, I'd like an answer to that, Mormota)

Which you didn't answer.

[IronyOwl]

Extend and Mormota.

Still too busy to give a proper response, so you get the quick version:

Second point, I am not entirely sure what you meant, so I'm just going to explain it a bit clearer. I voted him because I generally found him suspicious and because he did not answer. I did not take the vote off him because he did not get any better and if he wanted to, he could have just explained himself. To me, it seemed as scum trying to get more time, not town trying to get more time.

I'm not talking about when you kept your vote on him, I'm talking about when you first voted him. The difference in time (as I recall) was something like 12 hours between asking him a question and voting him over not answering it, complete with the insinuation that you found that suspicious or that he was deliberately avoiding answering you. Yet, the difference between asking him said question and voting him on it was also around 12 hours (or whatever the actual time was). What was it about that time difference that was scummy and lurky for him but normal for you?


Also, you didn't address my other concern: You were suspicious of Shakerag for not scumhunting, but the only scumhunting you were doing was calling him out on it and asking him what he meant. Doesn't that strike you as problematic?

I have shown that the logic behind your arguments was wrong. If you are still voting me, that is not out of logic, but on a gut feeling. Do you believe that is good?

Interesting. So you believe Urist to be town following his gut, and not scum pushing for a mislynch? Why's that, Mormota?

Second point: You are assuming that if someone attacks me he has to be scum? Why? If I don't find someone suspicious, why should I call them scum? To give more reasons?

I'm not assuming that if someone attacks you they have to be scum. I'm assuming that it's odd to automatically assume that someone's going after you for genuine but bad reasons rather than because they're scum. What makes you think Urist is town? Do you have reasons, or do you just assume everyone is town until they do something horribly, horribly scummy?

Please point out where and how I was doing that. Throwing unbacked shit out there is not making a clear case.

Too busy to deal with this properly, but the short version is:

You've never had any major suspicions, as I can tell because you've unvoted pretty easily each time. Feel free to provide a counterexample; you didn't the first time, so I'm assuming this is correct.

As for subtly following others' votes, Shakerag was the obvious example. You provided your own reasons for doing so, but you nonetheless voted him pretty soon after me and kept it there until his lynch.

Quickly checking back, it seems your very first vote was the fourth on Jafferey. You later claimed to be the first because the others were RVS, but that's not really a good explanation, especially since you unvoted his replacement with no fuss.

All I can find at the moment, so I'll have to go back and properly address this later. I find your general drifting with votes suspicious in general, though; unvoting and then just sitting there while the lynch went through D1 strikes me as suspicious, for instance, since while it's not a bandwagon, it shows a definite disinterest in who's lynched.

[Dariush]

The day has been extended by 24 hours.

Votecount:

• Zrk2:
• Mormota: Urist Imiknorris, IronyOwl
• Urist Imiknorris:
• Powder Miner: Zrk2,
• IronyOwl:

Not voting: Powder Miner, Mormota,

Extend:

The day will end Wednesday, 6 PM GMT. You need (in total) 2 votes to extend and 4 to shorten.

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

Powder Miner has been prodded.

[Mormota]

Quickly checking back, it seems your very first vote was the fourth on Jafferey. You later claimed to be the first because the others were RVS, but that's not really a good explanation, especially since you unvoted his replacement with no fuss.

Just throwing this out here: Why would I not unvote the replacement? He just replaced, he can't be scummy.

Extend.

I am way too tired to make a longer post, I just read Candide. God, Voltaire was high on some really good stuff.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Mormota, where do your suspicions lie? You don't seem to be voting.