alvinz95 wrote:You're lingering on the facts that I have simply downplayed before.
Seriously?
That's the entire point. You're just sitting there downplaying anything I say against you as unimportant or a distraction rather than addressing the issues.
Of course I'm lingering on these issues. You're downplaying them, rather than addressing them. Do you honestly think you can get out of a bandwagon by just saying that your attacker's points are dumb, unimportant or a distraction and call it a day? Yikes...
alvinz95 wrote:I've already said that calling it opportunistic wasn't a "accusation of scumminess" as it was a comment. And I don't get what you're goal in this attack is, seriously. We're accomplishing nothing lingering on random stage moves.
My goal is pretty obvious. I don't like your defense period, and I'm pursuing you because I think you're scummy.
Also, I don't buy the "comment" rather than accusation of scumminess. Saying someone's vote is opportunistic implies that it was scummy, because opportunistic votes have a connotation of being something scummy. Then you confirmed your vote on a player being legitimately wagoned after saying that the person voting for him was opportunistic.
I want everyone to answer these questions. Do you think alvinz's comment that StrangerCoug's vote was opportunistic and then comment that he's confirming his vote on rage to be odd? Do you buy his explanation that it was just a meaningless post and not anything serious?
I'll say it again. I don't like you downplaying everything I say simply because your post happened during the random phase. Your post happening during the random phase doesn't mean that it automatically doesn't count and should be ignored. There was real discussion happening during that period, and your post contained real discussion, that you're now trying to play off as simply useless banter (which I don't buy).
alvinz95 wrote:1. You weren't consistent at all in scumhunting as you viciously attacked one single move then VOTED with both me and Rage, rather you just noted to Strangecoug that is was scummy and didn't even bother to FOS.
Again, this is really bad logic. I've been perfectly consistent in scum hunting. I'm going after things that I find scummy. Just because I'm not scum hunting what you want me to scum hunt doesn't make me contradictory at all.
Basically, I'll vote who I think is scum. I'll FoS someone when I feel they deserve it. My votes and FoS's have nothing to do with what you perceive as scummy.
Think about this for a second. If I were to apply the same logic you're using then I should find you scummy because you're not voting yourself. I think you're scummy, therefore you're being inconsistent in not also finding yourself scummy and voting yourself.
alvinz95 wrote:2. It seems like you are more lecturing and giving Strangecoug advice rather than pointing out scumminess.
Ah, yes. I'm making the coaching scum tell. Congrats, you caught me. I knew I should have attacked StrangerCoug because alvinz thinks he's scummy, therefore I have to as well...
alvinz95 wrote:An OMGUS is a "oh my god you suck" which cedes a VOTE and the basis is usually just because he/she voted him, and this situation doesn't fit that. And so you're saying, we can't investigate into partners until he/she's role is revealed? Anyway, I haven't even voted you.
I have a looser view of OMGUS. I consider you pushing poor reasons for finding me suspicious (regardless of whether you vote or not) at the same time that I'm pushing a case on you to be OMGUS.
You can search for partners, sure. But calling me out as scummy because I'm not attacking the same person you think is scummy is really dumb, especially when we have no clue if that person is scum yet or not. If he gets lynched and is scum, and you think my actions fit as a scum buddy, then by all means go for me tomorrow. Pushing me today for those reasons is putting the cart before the horse.