Print

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

[Jim Groovester]

Jim, don't ignore me. You accuse Shark of bandwagoning despite doing the same thing to him for this sole reason and additionally when he can't defend himself. Doesn't it look like hypocrisy to you? Because it sure does to me.

I haven't been, I just didn't think there was anything you wanted answered.

Except he can't really defend himself if he's being replaced. This looks like looking for an easy lynch, Jim.

I see a notable absence of questions here, but rather an apparent statement of your opinion. Absent, or perhaps too subtle for me to notice, was the request that I debate you about it.

I don't really care if it looks like an easy lynch to you. He bandwagoned onto Orangebottle with a flimsy reason and an insincere lecture about activity and prevaricated about his win condition.

Scummy enough for me.

Your arguments don't tell me that you think he's town.  From what I read, you're telling me you don't think he's scum... because he's a bad player?  That's the Org defense, and it's not any more valid here than when he did it.  You should know better than that.

I don't know how much more I can say about this. Bending backwards from pressure is a familiar thing for Orangebottle to do. If it was the only thing he was doing I'd be more concerned, but he's still around hunting and arguing and so on.

Also, it seems like there was some point you were going to make but didn't.

[IronyOwl]

Nuke:

Nuke: That's great and all, but it still doesn't explain why you used your just-now attack on OB as proof that you didn't suspect Shark. Why did you feel the need to prove yourself like that, and how is that supposed to mean anything?

...what?
I think you may be confused. If not, could you explain what you are referring to?

This:

I was asking Shark whether he was town in order to get a better read of him; if I too reckoned Shark was scum, it would be silly to berate McArathos for sharing that opinion.

You're saying "I never thought Shark was scum; if I did, it wouldn't make sense for me to then attack McArathos like I just did." Why did you need to defend your not-suspecting of Shark like that, and how does chainsawing him after the fact show that you never suspected him?

I have no suspicions.

Okay. What's your plan to win, then?



Dariush:

I missed it. How exactly am I supposed to explain how did I miss it?

Well, how much attention are you paying to the game?

I'm sorry, I can't seem to find the units for measuring attention in the SI table.

Little enough to miss three questions and not think that odd in the slightest, though.

Interesting. Who do you suspect, other than Jim?

[Leafsnail]

Look, man. He did this exact same thing in Wild West Mafia. I attacked him for reversing himself on some issue after I pressured him extensively over it. I asked him what was up and he admitted that he was just trying to get me off of his case. But Jim! That's super scummy! And yes it is, and did he ever pay for it in that game, but he was town then and apparently thinks that's a good way to handle attacks. The inductive part of my brain reasons that he's making the same godawful mistake here.

This seems like odd reasoning to me.  I guess it'd make sense if you'd seen him scum and seen that he doesn't pull this kind of shit as scum, but as it is you seem to be assuming that it's something that's exclusive to his towngame.

Apparently you don't know what bandwagoning is. I'm going to take this slowly because you apparently lack a brain. Let me spell it out for you:

The definition you're using is incomplete.  Bandwagonning for me also covers jumping onto someone else's suspicions without adding anything of your own.  I guess it's unusual that you were the first to cast the actual vote, but regardless of whether it fits the definition of bandwagonning it's still as scummy as hell (copying someone's suspicion in order to help get them off your back).

Leafsnail: I stopped doing lolrandom crap here. Everything after that, serious business.

So you weren't joking about that "ridiculous assault on logic" question?  Great.  And now you have no suspicions.  Even better.  If we all played like you I'm sure this game would've come a long way.

[Orangebottle]

The definition you're using is incomplete.  Bandwagonning for me also covers jumping onto someone else's suspicions without adding anything of your own.  I guess it's unusual that you were the first to cast the actual vote, but regardless of whether it fits the definition of bandwagonning it's still as scummy as hell (copying someone's suspicion in order to help get them off your back).

:|
Are you being serious right now? There are multiple flaws in your argument.
Firstly, you're going by your own modified definition of bandwagoning, which I couldn't have known without you telling me.
Secondly, I had reasons besides just agreeing with you on that one point. Reasons I quoted in the very post you just quoted. You apparently never read beyond the first few sentences of my argument before going,"Nope, you're wrong." Here, have a quote:

Those reasons seem pretty solid to me. In sum, I'm voting him because he is acting against his incredibly strong hatred of RVS(which is very unusual for him), he's not really scumhunting, and he's voting for shakerag for the most ridiculous reasons one could ever dream of(re: Shakerag couldn't/wouldn't provide him with a method of ending RVS).

Third, the whole point of the game is to find the scum, convince the other townies that said person is scum, and have them agree with you. It's ridiculous to lynch someone for agreeing with your suspicions and using them as a basis for questioning the individual you're both suspicious of.
Fourth, and finally, you're claiming to know my motives for agreeing with you(re:in order to help get them off your back)without having any argument that those were my motives. Though this may be a very weak flaw, it is a flaw nonetheless.

Let's face it: this part of your case is incredibly weak. Why are you still pushing it?

[Toaster]

Jim:

Except he can't really defend himself if he's being replaced. This looks like looking for an easy lynch, Jim.

I see a notable absence of questions here, but rather an apparent statement of your opinion. Absent, or perhaps too subtle for me to notice, was the request that I debate you about it.

I don't really care if it looks like an easy lynch to you. He bandwagoned onto Orangebottle with a flimsy reason and an insincere lecture about activity and prevaricated about his win condition.

Scummy enough for me.

Your arguments don't tell me that you think he's town.  From what I read, you're telling me you don't think he's scum... because he's a bad player?  That's the Org defense, and it's not any more valid here than when he did it.  You should know better than that.

I don't know how much more I can say about this. Bending backwards from pressure is a familiar thing for Orangebottle to do. If it was the only thing he was doing I'd be more concerned, but he's still around hunting and arguing and so on.

Also, it seems like there was some point you were going to make but didn't.

Why are you forcing people to drag these reasons out of you?  Usually you're wordy and open about your suspicions, but all this game you've kept things close to your chest.  It's unusual for you, and I don't like it.

[Jack A T]

Jim: Let me get this straight: you consider it rather scummy to agree with (parts of) Leafsnail's case, because you disagree completely with the case, but you don't tend to get anywhere when arguing with Leafsnail about things you disagree with, so you're deciding to skip arguing with him about his case, and are just arguing with everyone who (partially) agrees with him about his case?  And, while you find the anti-OB argument rather scummy, it isn't really impacting your read on Leafsnail much?

It sounds like you're describing someone who has a problem with people bandwagoning. That sounds like me! Very much like me, in fact.

But it also sounds like you're trying to describe it as a crime.

Jim: Not exactly.  I'm describing someone who makes statements like this:

All I see you saying is that Orangebottle was rolefishing, which is an accusation I don't agree with and I suspect you for so readily agreeing with it.

Statements that indicate that it isn't just bandwagoning that you have a problem with, but agreeing with the argument, whether augmented with additional arguments or not.

So basically exactly what I've been saying all along.

Read on him wasn't very strong my ass. Did you always know that your vote on Orangebottle was flimsy, or is this a recent development?

And how did it take you this long to figure this out?

First question: My vote was not nearly as strong as I wished it was at any point today, and I always knew that, but I had more on OB than on anyone else, so I went for the person I found scummiest.  Simple as that.

Second question: Two things:
*His responses to my questions were the first time I actually saw anything resembling the whole "deferring to attacker's opinion" thing you mentioned in his play today.  Would you be kind enough to show other moments?
*His responses were just like those to me in Ockham's, with the confusion about how his own brain works and such.

Finally, just to be clear: You find it hard to argue with Leafsnail, and you find it hard to read Leafsnail, so you've decided to not bother trying to argue with him?  Or is there another factor in this?

Jack:

Unvote.  Orangebottle is strongly reminding me of his play in Ockham's, as town.  He seems confused in the same basic way as he did in Ockham's.  My read on him wasn't very strong anyway, so, onwards.

This is interesting.

I saw Orangebottle as the scummiest player at the time (and still do)

Hmmm...
Scummiest player, and then you don't really have a strong read on me? How does that work?

Orangebottle: It's simple.  You were scummiest in a mass of people who either looked rather town or I had neutral reads on.  Didn't take much.  If you're wondering why I didn't yell something like "My read sucks!" before voting, think about how bad that would be for pressure.

[Jack A T]

EBWODP: Forget that last question, Jim.  Realized you've pretty much already given an answer to it.

[Dariush]

Jim, don't ignore me. You accuse Shark of bandwagoning despite doing the same thing to him for this sole reason and additionally when he can't defend himself. Doesn't it look like hypocrisy to you? Because it sure does to me.

I haven't been, I just didn't think there was anything you wanted answered.

Except he can't really defend himself if he's being replaced. This looks like looking for an easy lynch, Jim.

I see a notable absence of questions here, but rather an apparent statement of your opinion. Absent, or perhaps too subtle for me to notice, was the request that I debate you about it.

I don't really care if it looks like an easy lynch to you. He bandwagoned onto Orangebottle with a flimsy reason and an insincere lecture about activity and prevaricated about his win condition.

Scummy enough for me.

You're clever, aren't you? (hint: not really) In my first quote, you only responded to the first sentence, while in second quote you accuse me of not asking any questions, despite there being a question I want answered right in the middle of the first quote. Which you ignored.

Little enough to miss three questions and not think that odd in the slightest, though.

Three? I counted two. What exactly are you pushing at?

Interesting. Who do you suspect, other than Jim?

I still don't like Shark for that bandwagon but I'll refrain from questioning or voting him until a replacement is found and I don't like Urist A for that 'winging' case, but nothing too solid on him right now or directions to question. I'll just keep an eye on him. Oh, an if OB weaves another case based solely on his

PFS, will finish later.

[Dariush]

based solely on his target's meta (see: Nuke)... I won't like him either.

[Dariush]

EBWOTP: Urist I, not Urist A.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Okay, there's no chance that I'll be able to make an actual post before the end of the day. Unvote. I need time to form better suspicions than Shark, and I can't do that with this paper not done.

[Mephansteras]

The Monitor
Jim Groovester: Dariush, Jack AT, Toaster
NUKE9.13: Orangebottle
Orangebottle: Leafsnail, NativeForeigner, Pandarsenic, Shark
Pandarsenic: Shakerag
Shark: IronyOwl, Jim Groovester
Urist_McArathos: Mysteriousbluepuppet


Day ends ~5pm Pacific Today

[Jim Groovester]

Why are you forcing people to drag these reasons out of you?  Usually you're wordy and open about your suspicions, but all this game you've kept things close to your chest.  It's unusual for you, and I don't like it.

Explain this to me. I don't see it. I feel I've been clear.

Don't mix up getting asked a ton of fucking questions with being deliberately closed-mouth. I am not sitting at my computer thinking of ways to intentionally withhold my thoughts from everyone.

Is there more to your case you'd like to summarize for me?

Jim: Not exactly.  I'm describing someone who makes statements like this:

All I see you saying is that Orangebottle was rolefishing, which is an accusation I don't agree with and I suspect you for so readily agreeing with it.

Statements that indicate that it isn't just bandwagoning that you have a problem with, but agreeing with the argument, whether augmented with additional arguments or not.

There's a subtle distinction you're trying to make that I'm having a hard time figuring it out.

I've said repeatedly I think it's a bad argument. What problem is there that I think jumping on a bad argument in a lazy way is a scummy thing to do?

Second question: Two things:
*His responses to my questions were the first time I actually saw anything resembling the whole "deferring to attacker's opinion" thing you mentioned in his play today.  Would you be kind enough to show other moments?
*His responses were just like those to me in Ockham's, with the confusion about how his own brain works and such.

As early as here.

It seriously took you this long to recognize, hey, this is a thing he does in other games?

You're clever, aren't you? (hint: not really) In my first quote, you only responded to the first sentence, while in second quote you accuse me of not asking any questions, despite there being a question I want answered right in the middle of the first quote. Which you ignored.

Oh, so that's the question.

Hypocrisy isn't a scum tell. I've said this several times before. If you want a lengthy breakdown of my reasoning, allow me to direct you to this post in Wild West Mafia.

Was that all you had? I hope not.

[Orangebottle]

Hey, guys. Sorry to waste a day for you, but I'm going to vote for Jim. I'm not going out without a fight, mainly because I came here to play this game, not get lynched by a single unrescindable vote cast on me because some idiot voted for me, then asked for a replacement. That's utter bullshit, and I'm not going to stand for it.

[IronyOwl]

Fuck you and hang, scum. Unvote Shark, fucking Orangebottle.