Open 163 (Jungle Republic)- Game Over before 835

[Toro]

Toro - post 86: This whole post is scummy.

Where's the beef?

*Glances at avatar*

In other words, hasdgfas, how is that scummy?

[Nikanor]

In other words, hasdgfas, how is that scummy?

Are you kidding? I'll let Cow answer this one, but I feel it should be pretty obvious.

[DTMaster]

@Nik
Cow? Lol I assume you mean from that siggy :p

@has
I know this game is about implicit reasoning, but if you have nothing to hide then you should be able to explicitly express yourself. Asking people to do their own interpretations of your arguments (which is the point I put against Nik) is the same thing as putting the words in their mouth for you. Yes it's good to think this out on your own, but it's also bad because you assume too much from them. (My bit of mafia theory)

[DTMaster]

@Has

Forgot to answer your question >>;;.

I find it scummy because you

asked for the unvotes

jest or not. Asking for it joking or not reads as begging to me which at this stage is not necessary. The policy votes will come off (as you said from your experience) with or without mentioning it.

It's difficult to read sarcasm for me, then hear it. I did take what you said quite literally.

[Toro]

In other words, hasdgfas, how is that scummy?

Are you kidding? I'll let Cow answer this one, but I feel it should be pretty obvious.

I put a vote on a guy who hopped on a bandwagon on the first page, and all of a sudden I'm scum.

/facepalm.

[Nikanor]

I know this game is about implicit reasoning, but if you have nothing to hide then you should be able to explicitly express yourself. Asking people to do their own interpretations of your arguments (which is the point I put against Nik) is the same thing as putting the words in their mouth for you. Yes it's good to think this out on your own, but it's also bad because you assume too much from them. (My bit of mafia theory)

Scum aren't going to come and explicitly say, 'We're scum. Lynch us now, please.' A lot of scumhunting is implicit reading.

[Nikanor]

I put a vote on a guy who hopped on a bandwagon on the first page, and all of a sudden I'm scum.

Nobody said you were scum. Guilty conscience?
While I do like my DTM vote, I believe this one will serve me better:

Unvote. Vote: Toro.

IGMEOY: DTM

[hasdgfas]

In other words, hasdgfas, how is that scummy?

Well, first off, telling ThAdmiral that it was all random quibbling, which implies there's something you want to hide there, because it's quite clearly important to read.

Then, calling out Cain for his BW vote by saying it was still RVS. I don't understand how that's scummy at all.


Yes, DTM, cow. It's quite clearly from the quote in my sig, not to mention my avatar. If you don't want to call me cow, then please use hasd, as it doesn't look like a word on its own.

@has
I know this game is about implicit reasoning, but if you have nothing to hide then you should be able to explicitly express yourself. Asking people to do their own interpretations of your arguments (which is the point I put against Nik) is the same thing as putting the words in their mouth for you. Yes it's good to think this out on your own, but it's also bad because you assume too much from them. (My bit of mafia theory)

I'm sorry, but this is incomprehensible to me. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

It's difficult to read sarcasm for me, then hear it. I did take what you said quite literally.

I had a smiley. There is, quite literally, no way that it doesn't read as a joke.

[DTMaster]

@Nik
Yes when you are trying to scum hunt and get scum readings you go through implicit reasoning. No scum player would ever claim that (though it would make the game easier). But my view on townies is different and you should be able to ask for their explicit thoughts. Withholding that information is very anti-town to me if he/she is questioned on it. (My scum theory input)

@Hasdgfas

I prefer typing out hasdgfas since it's your username (but the cow avy is fun :p)

I'm also quite a literal person, with or without smilies (but I try to catch the sarcasm/and joking).

@Paragraph you didn't understand.
If you read the exchange between me and Nik:

I go: Explain explicitly please.
He goes: my case is obvious so I don't need to.

I dislike this (no matter how obvious it is) since this mind set makes me put the argument that Nik didn't state in his own post for him. No matter how obvious it is, it isn't

literally what he said, but what you assume he said

.

Make sense? Should I try and clarify more? Nik understood me fine though.

[Nikanor]

He goes: my case is obvious so I don't need to.

No, I went: I cannot make my case more obvious than I already have. You were implicitly defending Mastin from an L-3 RVS bandwagon. I cannot make it any clearer than that.

@Paragraph I apparently did not understand: Sorry, guess I misunderstood it myself. I thought you were talking about yourself not being able to express yourself explicitly, not me.

[hasdgfas]

I'm also quite a literal person, with or without smilies (but I try to catch the sarcasm/and joking).

sure, but everyone wants to be unvoted. Not to mention I didn't demand anything, I actually said "I'd appreciate it", which is completely different.

I go: Explain explicitly please.
He goes: my case is obvious so I don't need to.

I dislike this (no matter how obvious it is) since this mind set makes me put the argument that Nik didn't state in his own post for him. No matter how obvious it is, it isn't

literally what he said, but what you assume he said

.

Make sense? Should I try and clarify more? Nik understood me fine though.

Ok, from what I'm getting:
Nik says "You're defending Mastin"
you say "tell me explicitly where"
he says "I did"
you say "no you didn't"

is that right?
if so, Nik's ISO post 2 is quite clearly him stating exactly what was defending. Am I missing something?

Also, I'm not meaning to be rude, but is English your first language?

[DTMaster]

@Has

First of read my 26 (point 1) and 38 (bold). I asked Nik to quote me and point it out since I thought I only made a general statement which to me is my first time seeing it. Nik made an argument against me and I asked him to prove it in my quotes.

I don't want to restart this argument all over again, it'll end up wasting time by rehashing my own statements and Nik (and other townies jumping) on the argument that I was defending Mastin. It'll be one big repeat again, which to me is useless unless you can point out something that the town over looked. Then I would be more inclined to revisit that issue that Sabre's 67 didn't already point out.

[hasdgfas]

Post 33, DTM. Look at it. He clearly pointed out how you're defending Mastin. If that's not explicit enough for you, nothing in mafia is.

[DTMaster]

Whoops hit submit, not preview: >>

con't

Also I asked how the quote would be used to defend Mastin in my 26. I would need to make a convincing argument to stop the rest of the town from bandwagoning.

I found it odd in my 11

for the reason that it was just page 1

. Kill-kill was discomforted about it in his 71. I do not hate that bandwagon. People are acting on what Nik and Hohum said. A bandwagon is good to establish reactions from the person who is bandwagoning. The reactions are much more useful then looking at the people who started the bandwagon (unless it went to a hammer then the latter is much more useful).

I agree with this, I even said I do not find it scummy in my 11

.

You try to find the sub-text and make it into a defense post, but I clearly said what I was thinking at that time. I acknowledge this can be interpreted as a defense, but it is your interpretation.

/repeat rant

@question

>>;; My grammar is just weak, I know English. Second time I got asked this.

[DTMaster]

Yes because stating the obvious (since Mastin never confirmed) means I said:

"Stop this bandwagon! He's not confirmed! You are lynching an unconfirmed person. He doesn't have scum tells! etc..."

You can interpret this, but that is all.

[Nikanor]

I agree with this, I even said I do not find it scummy in my 11 .

Stop saying this. You keep bringing this up, even though that has never been an accusation against you. Stop using this as a defense. It is irrelevant.

[hasdgfas]

I actually don't think it was that much of a defense. I think it was wishy-washy about it, which, IMO, is actually worse than a defense.

I'm just trying to say that Nik quite clearly showed where he thought your defense was.

[DTMaster]

@Nik
One of the interpretations was I was uncomfortable about the wagon and I tore it down. How does my point not apply to this statement?

(See: Hohum 13. Your 33, Kill-kill 71 ,Scott 92)


@Myself
Thoughts: Greeaat. This is getting brought up again. Cue the recycled rehash.

[DTMaster]

@Has
Which I acknowledge, but I want to understand how

I bitched about the bandwagon

. So far the response was:

You bitched about it, its obvious. If you can't see it I can't help you, sorry!

To me it makes no sense. So I guess no help for poor me. (This gets into an argument about semantics anyways... which is very distracting for the town)

[Nikanor]

One of the interpretations was I was uncomfortable about the wagon and I tore it down. How does my point not apply to this statement?

The argument was that you were uncomfortable about the bandwagon because you and Mastin are both scum and you are trying to protect a scumbuddy by trying to tear down his wagon. That was the original argument. It has nothing to do with you thinking the wagon was scummy. So stop bringing that up.

[hasdgfas]

@Has
Which I acknowledge, but I want to understand how

I bitched about the bandwagon

.

You said (paraphrasing) "I don't understand how we got to an L-3 wagon on page one. Not that I think it's scummy, just weird"
The first part seems to be complaining about it to me.

Now then, seeing as how you're completely ignoring this, I'll bold it.

You were wishy-washy about the Mastin wagon, saying it wasn't scummy, but weird. Why not take a stance on it?

[Nikanor]

I want to understand how I bitched about the bandwagon

You implicitly defended Mastin. Defending Mastin against a bandwagon is the same as bitching about the bandwagon.

[DTMaster]

My statement shows that I wasn't uncomfortable about the wagon. If you don't believe me and want my 11 post to have that meaning then fine, take it. The only way it'll confirm this is my death which will make it just plain anti-town for me to martyr my point across if I was town (and anti-scum if I was scum).

[hasdgfas]

My statement shows that I wasn't uncomfortable about the wagon. If you don't believe me and want my 11 post to have that meaning then fine, take it. The only way it'll confirm this is my death which will make it just plain anti-town for me to martyr my point across if I was town (and anti-scum if I was scum).

but you said you thought it was odd, as though you could come back and use this as a point against people, not actually saying "it's not scummy" flat-out, no questions asked. You left a possibility of coming back to it as a point against people, which I dislike. I'm going to definitely keep an eye on this issue.

[DTMaster]

@Has

My stance is: I don't have on the Mastin wagon because I have 0 tells on anyone. The only people I dislike are the people taking a very backseat approach right now (see: Toro, Scott, Link, Kill and Cain, Admiral). Lurking isn't a scum tell, just a null tell right now, and it's been two days since the first post.

To me the only readings I get is a town-tell from sabre and the rest is null and my overreaction due to hyperactivity. This resulted

from the reaction from my original post, not from the reaction on the bandwagon.

Edit:Recent Post

I cannot use that part as an argument against people. If I did, I would contradict myself. This would mean I would be extremely scummy for lying on my mafia theory and being very opportunistic.