Devescumtion wrote:Thats just luck, Azhrei.
More brilliantly helpful content from Devestowntion...[/sarcasm]
Emp wrote:FoS: Dev
I think he's fake helping the town.
You're a weak busser, aren't you?
Amiscum wrote:1 vote on somebody isn't likely to do anything, while 2 isn't much better it would seem to show scum that there's more support than one person who may or may not be listened to by all
The way this is worded, it seems like you're basically admitting that you KNOW I am pro-town. As if scum see that a bandwagon has support, scum wouldn't be on said bandwagon. It also implies that you're town, but at the same time, implies I am.
You're still voting for me, though.
Oops
.
Scumslip, anyone?
2-3) RVS shenanigans.
Definitely didn't seem that way, especially as it was clear the RVS was beginning to end.
No *real* contest here, but if you look back it was me, who has seen you post in other games as well, saying that you often post huge walls o'text. Probably due to boredom/too much time on your hands.
No.
You were quoting someone else.
You weren't the one who posted it.
And if you did, you were far from the first.
5) I like to hear from everybody in the RVS so that I can get a baseline for them from there on out.
And I am a firm believer in the fact that we need not have all our players to scum hunt.
Take 742--
Two townies who flaked (Ting, Caleb) contributed very little to discussion, and it wasn't necessary. The issue at hand involved Khan and I, nothing more. Only us two (plus one, to drop a verdict on the victor [me.
], of course) were truly needed for that. Everyone else, just voters.
I'll use your own words here: Behavior and Points.
My behavior in this game is the same as always. Null tell.
My points are solid. Town tell.
Why are we still debating over who to lynch? Yea, we've nailed the scum, defending each other and themselves, from me and they're voting for me as well. If there are pro-town players involved, they've been fooled very badly by the scum via buddying.
You can have good points but bad behavior (ABR is a decent example).
Doesn't mean that you shouldn't be followed, if the points are solid.
Your points might have validity, but your behavior, if continued would become too much discussion.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TOO MUCH DISCUSSION!
Discussion--ESPECIALLY once out of the RVS on day one--is CRUCIAL to determining the alignments of other players.
So, the more discussion, the more we can catch scum.
I've seen several people comment on the length of your posts and them being too long.
So, what?
Those who vote me off of it have only condemned themselves as scum, due to the fact that I can (and have) shot every point of theirs full of holes.
THAT is what makes it too much discussion.
How so?
What makes commenting on my post length too much discussion?
What makes it not a very valuable tool in scum hunting?
When everyone can't keep up with the pace of one (or a couple) people's posting.
This is NOT related to the above. AT ALL.
8) See end of 6. There is too such a thing as too much discussion.
No. No, there isn't.
If you're dominating most of the discussion, the rest of the townies will have a hard time either seeing where you're coming from or where the person you're questioning is coming from. That could be avoided by letting us commoners talk amongst ourselves and get a better feel for each other by questioning each other on our own.
Let's see how scummy these sentences are!
1: Rolefishing. "Townies", "Commoners".
2: Referring to said roles in third person. Not part of the town.
3: Says that it would be best for me to shut up, essentially, when I've made several valid points.
Hmm...I believe there's more, but my train of thought became distracted. Anyone else think of more?
This is still taking part of my quote, and disregarding the agreeing with you part of it.
/no
Is far from an indication of sarcasm.
I do not buy it.
12) I was criticizing your posting style that contains too many words for this type of game.
Which is different from what Zer/Zor did, and you trying to put yourself into their group, when it was clear you were not a member of it, I found rather scummy.
13) Got it: "nearly everything he said".
Well, I'm not going to quote everything. That gets repetitive, and makes things unnecessarily long.
You have gone over some stuff, which still is selective quoting.
BS. Again, I've quoted everything that isn't repetitive.
15) Disagreeing with people is also a scumtell, eh? I see Cabooses and Dusts actions slightly different than you do, and by posting my opinions on them I'm scummy.
Twisting of my words.
I said nothing of the sort about disagreeing being a scum tell.
The fact you were disagreeing about someone attacking Cabooscum, by extent, means you were defending Cabooscum, and THAT is what makes it scummy, for Cabooscum is also one of my top suspects.
The Bolded wrote:then later
The Bolded wrote:explaining it
Then later
explaining it.
Those two words are some of the most common phrases I've seen around. Later explaining actions is something everyone regardless of alignment has to do. How on EARTH do you see THAT as being somehow condescending?
Both of these make you come off as "I'm great, certainly better than most because I'm doing exactly what everyone should do to scumhunt, and if you don't see it, I'll explain it to you."
Now, THAT has got to be the most interesting (via how absolutely ridiculous it is) explanation I've ever seen. Again,
HOW THE HECK DOES FOUR VERY COMMON WORDS EQUATE TO THAT KIND OF ATTITUDE?!?
Not seeing it.
I'm calling it absolute, and completely total BS.
AND
Amiscum failed to answer the original question:
How does a patronizing attitude in ANY way justify a vote, meant to lynch a person?
How is a patronizing attitude in ANY way related to the primary goal of us, the uninformed majority, to SCUM HUNT?!?
It doesn't.
It really, really doesn't.
Amiscum's BS and junky reason for voting has been noted.
it doesn't really matter if my vote is on you for that, does it? If it gets close, I'm sure I'll have 30 more pages of your posts to analyze and come up with a solid opinion.
"Because I want to put my vote somewhere, I'll leave it where it is until I want to push a bandwagon on someone else. Maybe if I'm lucky, this will become a mislynch!"
^
|
|
What I see.
17-18) Do you know everything that I find to be scummy? No. Ok, then I suggest you not speculate as to everything I see that's bad.
This was not a defense.
"Mastin's just seeing everything scummy in my posts, so ignore him."
If there was any good in your posts, Amished, I'd point it out.
I don't see any.
19) You've gone back and forth about bandwagons
What a load of absolute BS. I've stuck on my opinion on the matter of bandwagons,
AND on which bandwagons I like.
While I'm sure you're solid on other points, both of these I can point to in this game.
Alright, do.
21) The "point" against OPengy was his voting of a lurker in a non-standard way of saying it. I pointed out what I thought it meant, and OPengy basically said it's exactly what I thought it was.
And I find that extremely scummy.
22) Avatars make it easier to relate people to thoughts. In a game of thoughts, I feel that's very on-topic.
We have, what, two people without an avatar?
Yea, not seeing the issue.
So, no, I don't see how it's game-related.
[quote="Zor']Prod: King (I don't buy he's active. He has posted ZERO TIMES since his /in post for 92 on APRIL 3rd.) [/quote]Lurking's the word I'd use.
Prod: killa seven
Prod: Phoebus
I agree with both of these.
Prod: hewitt
Hewitt has posted elsewhere on the site; lurking going on, here.
oh and Prod/Replace: _over9000 as he's unconfirmed still.
9000's getting replaced. Jebus said so earlier.
[sarcasm] Dev continues his good streak of pro-town behavior [/sarcasm]
Quoted for truth.
Cateraction wrote:I agree with Caboose calling him out.
That would, by extent, mean that you're saying Ace was using Chainsaw Defense, Cateraction, and I've proved how that's not the case.
I don't agree with Mastin's points on Caboose.
Oh?
It's so minimal and yet Mastin is so adamant.
Explain how it is "so minimal".
I really don't like that style of scumhunting.
742, 735, to a lesser extent, 763, and after I was killed, 760.
Yea, do research.
This is my style.
AND IT WORKS.
It's so unproductive.
Let's see my track record, shall we?
735:
2/3--miss on hohum, hit on Ult/And and Kier.
742: 2/3--initial miss on Data, hit on Kronos/Khan and Jeff.
763: 1/2--miss on Ivan, hit on Chief/Sister/Tubby.
760: 2/3--Mostly due to luck, so I don't count it.
762: 2/4|2/2--I had limited the possibilities of scum down on day one, and later, on day three, had all the scum pegged (though I was dead).
TOTAL:
7/11|7/13|9/13|9/15 (One of these four, depending on how you tally the above)
That's fairly darn good, no matter which you choose.
Let's see just how right I am right now.
My style is far from "unproductive" as you claim.
It works.
It catches scum.
Why change it?
Questions are how things get done.
Of which I have asked plenty of. What do you think I'm doing right now?
Posting fluff?
Yea, right.
It seems to me that Mastin just puts whoever he happens to be talking to at the top of his list of "confirmed scum".
I'm already confident enough to say this much:
Of those who I've listed as scum, AT LEAST half are scum.
I don't like Stevie keeping his positions to himself in post 127.
I do.
Mastin assumes that this means that Stevie think's he's town
Of course it does. If it were scum/third party, he'd vote me, for an anti-town role is still against the town.
but with the possibility of multiple teams, I don't think that it's that cut and dry.
I do.
Any withholding of information is anti-town.
BS.
Ask any power role on this site.
Cops,
Docs,
Trackers,
Watchers,
Roleblockers,
Whatever.
Withholding information as those roles is sometimes CRUCIAL to the town. Withholding information is not always bad.
Any who suggest otherwise either do not have the experience to know differently,
Or are trying to steal the information out of the player who they are questioning, threatening with a lynch if their demands are not met.
The latter is extremely scummy.
Mastin, post 136: Mislabeling what you think is a scumtell is not scummy.
From an experienced player like Cabooscum, I'd expect it, ESPECIALLY since he claimed that, in his experience, the said scum tell had held true. Implying he knew the article very well.
It just means Caboose didn't know the correct name, but he explained what he thought the tell was.
Again, I don't see someone with that level of experience who has had it supposedly hold true in the past having made this simple mistake.
Mastin's accusation to Dust of lurking and then coming back when mentioned is bullshit.
Oh, is it?
Timestamp of Accusation wrote:PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 7:13 pm Post subject: 149
Timestamp of 'Defense' wrote:PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 7:26 pm Post subject: 150
Just about thirteen minutes.
And his post contained almost nothing but the response to me. He commented on nothing else.
THAT seems like lurking to me.
I really don't like Mastin's soft claim
Soft claim-->Telling the town without actually saying it what kind of role you are. Basically, a huge breadcrumb so large that almost every player instantly recognizes what kind of role you are.
Overall, Mastin annoys me.
THEORY:
Annoyance-->Scum tell.
blows small null tells out of proportions
If they were null, blowing them up out of proportion would still have them as null.
is incredibly adamant over those "tells".
So, what?
Do you expect me to WAIT on my accusations?
Use these things pages later into the game to build a case?
Why not start NOW?
Yea...
It's annoying that you continually post how sure you are about your scum suspects
Why is it a problem?
and adding scum to their name is very annoying.
Get used to it. I'm not changing it.
Stop doing these things.
No.
Let your points speak for themselves.
They are.
Right now.
Oh, and by the way,
For this post,
Cateraction gets a
-S^1, + F.
---
Scumspects:
Revised scumspects:
Duscum,
Cabooscum,
Zcum_Faul,
Amiscum,
Devescumtion,
OrangePenguin,
Probable Scum:
Nanook,
Cateraction,
Possible Scum:
Empking.
