In post 138, pieguyn wrote:
okay here's a question
what makes you think I'm just trying to devalue what you say, instead of actually believing what you said is scummy? as it is, you've given no reason beyond me being scum, making this logic circular.
You don't answer my questions when I ask them, but defer to other players,
You've responded with replies like "seriously, this argument? no thx" and "OMGUS" instead of critically responding to the text I've laid forth,
Your response "this one seems like attempting to redirect suspicion onto BROs" is you trying to drive nails into my coffin rather than discuss the points I've brought against you.
Ultimately, none of your responses to me have engaged what I've had to say, but, rather, dismissed it and tried to divert more ire towards me.
I've given plenty of reasons for you being scum, which makes your last sentence here literally untrue.
because I have a townread on BROs, while I had no such townread on you.
So, your townread on BRO is so strong, 6 pages into the game, that the very case you make for me being scum (hoping onto a wagon while parroting the logic of others in a way that looks artificial) somehow can't be made against him? Also, according to your original post in this game, you -did- have a townread on me, which means that your townreads are subject to change. Why did your read on me change to scum, whereas your read on BRO, which should have followed the same logic, did not change?
so you saw your redirection wasn't going to work, and thus realized your only option was to try to defeat me directly?
This is exactly what I mean. You're not trying to engage what I have to say, you're trying to actively paint everything I do as scummy. That's misrepresentation in action. You're positing what you believe to be my motives as a fact, where they definitely aren't. It became clear that you were scummier than zmon and that my conviction about you being scum was grander than that of zmon, and so to even posit the above is absolutely inane.
excuse me for working together with other people...
Work with other people? You specifically responded to my queries by calling out Morph and saying "Look at how abrasive he is",
as if
making a cat-cry for Morph to put a vote on me, rather than ACTUALLY WORKING WITH ME ON MY CASE THAT I AM BUILDING ON YOU. You ignored me in order to directly speak to another player in a way that calls attention to a negative aspect of my play. That's not working with other people, it's wagon-mongering.
1. I have no completed games with you. how would I have any way of knowing you're an easy mislynch?
2. this implies my vote on you was intended towards a lynch. now let me requote this
I've been on the site long enough for you to easily look up my games, and there's plenty of other players in this game who would push for a quick mislynch of me, since they have in the past (or at least witnessed it happen easily). Even without that meta-knowledge, you chose me, which is a mistake. Now, let me get to your backpedaling...
you claim that your vote on him didn't put the slot in danger of being lynched. so why do you assume my vote puts you in danger of being lynched?
You're trying to appeal to the logic that I put forth in order despite the fact that just posts ago you said of that very same logic, "anyone on the wagon is responsible for anything that might happen as a result of wagoning him." and also made the (awkward) argument that taking a typical defense for joining a wagon is scummy. Your vote on me is a push for a swing-wagon, as it presents me in opposition to the growing zmon wagon and tries to make a case out of it. If you truly wanted me to elaborate on my intentions for voting zmon, you'd ask me about it, rather than damning me out of the gate.
so now you're just going to discredit everything I've done? after accusing me of discrediting what you've done? no thx
I'm not discrediting what you've done, I'm engaging it and exposing your gaps in logic, your questionable play, and the various hoops that you've tried to jump through in handling my case. I've been asking you questions and providing criticism to each of your moves, directly. If I was discrediting, I wouldn't be so thorough. I'd simply say you're wrong because you're scum, or OMGUS or 'no thx'. Instead, I'm meeting you point-by-point and refuting what you've brought to the game in your efforts to push my lynch.
again, excuse me for working together with other people
Except you're not. You've chosen a very select two people. I'm asking why those two, when there's been plenty of active players to 'work with'. 3/4 of your ISO is directly involved with those two. Why?
not a single question in there.
you jumped on him apparently because you thought he was scummy? why can't I do the same?
this shows a greater "hiccup in coherency and logic in your play" than anything I've done so far ~
Oho, so here you are being a bastard and trying to turn my words against me, despite making a huge stumble to get there.
First of all, I -voted- zmon, not zmuffin. If you read, I discredit my own read of zmuffin, because it's predicated on scum-reading him as a baseline.
Secondly, I -explained- why I put a vote on zmon. It wasn't simple gut, or 'thinking' he is 'scummy'. Your vote on me wasn't that either, so let's stop trying to change the facts.
Third, I think you'll find that I've put forth and facilitated some pretty thorough discussion in my last few posts, and while I didn't have any direct questions to zmon, I did present criticisms. Should I have spent some time hammering out some questions for him? Sure. Not that it's important, seeing as you jumped at the opportunity to push a wagon on me.
But I fail to see how the lack of content is alignment-indicative from him.