Open 177 (Monks and Masons) - Game Over.

[ODDin]

The Nothings Changed Vote Count

Scien: ZazieR
Farside22: ODDin, YankCane
Fuzzyman: ElectricBadger, Wulfy
Hewitt: Scien
YamiJoey: Nikanor
ODDin: Farside22

Not Voting: hewitt, Fuzzyman, Maemuki, YamiJoey

... What?
What has my vote on you has to do with my opinion on Scien? Suspecting you doesn't prevent me from thinking your arguments are correct - if only for the fact that you and Scien can be a mafia goon and a werewolf for all I know.

[farside22]

... What?
What has my vote on you has to do with my opinion on Scien? Suspecting you doesn't prevent me from thinking your arguments are correct - if only for the fact that you and Scien can be a mafia goon and a werewolf for all I know.

Reading your vote on me with your case all you say in a nutshell is you think I'm scum because of a comment I made explaining ti scein why I think he's scum and being too aggressive and basing that on one game where you know a person was scum who was aggressive.
Is that pretty accurate?
Did you read the game I gave an example of?
What case would you have on scien if any?

[ODDin]

My original vote on you was based on two things:
1) You were far too annoyed and edgy over what seemed to be a not so strong argument. (It's not the argument itself which bothers me - it's the way you handled the discussion around it.)
2) One of your posts made me feel like you're trying to implicitly show how oh-very-town you are.

The first things pends me reading the game you provided - no, I haven't yet, for the same reason I didn't reread this game yet although I want to; too little free time.

I have some other issues against you which have appeared later.
1) Your inconsistency regarding the usage of weak cases (you accuse Scien because he didn't, you accuse others because they did).
2) What I suspect to be OMGUS.


Regarding Scien, my current case would consist of your original argument: he didn't push a weak case and preferred to stay in the RVS, which is bad for town. I think it is a scum-tell, although a pretty weak one.

[farside22]

My original vote on you was based on two things:
1) You were far too annoyed and edgy over what seemed to be a not so strong argument. (It's not the argument itself which bothers me - it's the way you handled the discussion around it.)

you should read it then tell me your thoughts in comparison to this game

2) One of your posts made me feel like you're trying to implicitly show how oh-very-town you are.

Because I explained to someone why I find their nonagression scummy that makes is sound like I'm so towny? That makes no sense.


I have some other issues against you which have appeared later.

1) Your inconsistency regarding the usage of weak cases (you accuse Scien because he didn't, you accuse others because they did).

Can't agrue with that. I can see it as inconsist reading back but I still felt and do feel strongly about how scein worded things after the fact

2) What I suspect to be OMGUS.

I just made a huge post in which I show how I find you scummy. So far there is only 1 you really brought up to defend which I missed the scum part. Also I note it took me asking you to put your thoughts on scien and his actions to do so again it bothered me that you seem to neglect his actions.

[ODDin]

Because I explained to someone why I find their nonagression scummy that makes is sound like I'm so towny? That makes no sense.

I think I've explained this several times already. You explained why scum aren't aggressive in games - a thing I don't really agree with, as I've seen scum playing aggressively in games - in a way that made me feel like you're attempting to imply "look, I'm playing exactly in the way in which, as I say, scum don't play". It's an interpretation. What you said could've been said in many ways, and from the way you worded it, it makes me feel like you were trying to get across the point of "look how town I am".
No, it's not something I'm 100% sure of - I can't get inside your brain to find out what you really meant. However, when I read that post - although I knew exactly in which context it has appeared - I have immediately felt that you were trying to paint yourself town with it.
It is up to the rest of the people to decide for themselves whether they feel the same way about that post or not.

I just made a huge post in which I show how I find you scummy. So far there is only 1 you really brought up to defend which I missed the scum part.

I've already answered to that huge post several times. Here above I've answered to a part of it again. Your post is mostly based around me twisting your words. I don't understand how saying "I think farside is lying" or "I think farside has ulterior motives" is called twisting your words. I don't say you said something else. I said that I *think* you *mean* something else, instead of or in addition to what you've actually said.
It's not something I can 100% prove. However, it is known that scum lie and have ulterior motives. So, obviously, in my attempt to catch scum I attempt to understand whether somebody is lying or is driven by ulterior motives in saying certain things.

Also I note it took me asking you to put your thoughts on scien and his actions to do so again it bothered me that you seem to neglect his actions.

Wrong. I have said multiple times already that I think your argument on Scien is correct (I've explicitly said it has merit and that you have a point). When somebody says "X is scummy because of argument Y", and then I say "I think argument Y is correct" - don't you think it means I think X is scummy?
And once again, I don't neglect his actions. I said that his words didn't make me change my opinion on him - they didn't give him, in my eyes, neither scum points nor town points.

[Fuzzyman]

I feel that the Scien point I brought up in 168 was the most important one that you haven't answered. That's why I mentioned it. And to be quite honest, I feel somewhat inclined to go ahead and vote you if you don't care to do so.

How did I not answer it?

"You didn't answer it", as in, "Scien called you out in post 146, subsection 2, for ignoring the fact that he had inquired as to what you had referred to when you said that he had a good idea but random voted instead; you failed to make a response to this even while choosing to answer other items that Scien brought up to you.

[farside22]

The one thing I'd most like to see is for this:

2) I asked you about this around three times. I asked you where you thought the 'good thought' was in the two. You ignored the first two questions, then got 'angry' when I called you out on ignoring them. You then answered with "I think both are weak", which I took to mean you thought both of them were not 'good'. Apparently now you are saying something else.

which was in response to this:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 07#1933707
2] This is where our and yes I say our miscommunication starts. The good idea was about oddin. The weak idea is wolfy. You talk about it being null (my words) in regards to wolfy but what you failed to realize or see I thought the musing on Oddin was valid

to be responded to by farside. I'll be glad to get to Oddin's questionnaire after that post.

I really don't see what I missed with my answer her fuzzy. Am I supposed to make something more clear that is missing? Did I miss the question to his point? No I called it a miscommuniction which I do take blame in.

[farside22]

@Oddin: So far you named one game where you saw aggressive scum. Now tell me the number of games where townies are agressive and compare for me.
Do you assume all scum is aggressive?

I've already answered to that huge post several times. Here above I've answered to a part of it again. Your post is mostly based around me twisting your words. I don't understand how saying "I think farside is lying" or "I think farside has ulterior motives" is called twisting your words.

You never said any of this. You "interperpted" as scummy showing it as something it clearly was not to anyone who read my full post and have now attached it with an think she has an ulterior motive when 2 people commented that my statement can be made either good or bad.

[Fuzzyman]

Would you say that you necessitated Scien to ask that multiple times?

[farside22]

Would you say that you necessitated Scien to ask that multiple times?

I know I missed it the first time when I was arguing. I don't recall seeing it more then twice but that's just based on what I recall.

[Haylen]

Looking for a replacement for YamiJoey and YankCrane. Zazie will be replaced if he does not pick up his prod. I know he's been online >.>

[Haylen]

Canada replaces YamiJoey affective immediately.

[ElectricBadger]

Welcome, Canada! Who's scum?

I dislike refuting the comment about aggressive=townie as 'out of context'. It was a response to a question, yes, and shouldn't be assumed scummy as unprompted grasping, but it does state a paradigm that, currently, is the only reason given for farside's super aggressive attacks.

[ElectricBadger]

Fuzzy, is farside scum?

[Canada]

Electric, I'm only on page three of reading it now.

Everyone else, hi.

~Canada

[ElectricBadger]

Heh, no worries. Warning: upcoming walls. But post your suspects when ya catch up, hey?

[Canada]

Will do. Not that good at the game yet, so I probably won't notice subtleties, and with probably be relying on the posts of the rest of you to point them out, but I'll do my best!

~Canada

[Canada]

Will*

I really need to start re-reading and previewing my posts.

*sigh*

~Canada

[ElectricBadger]

No worries, long as you read and post and try to reason things out you'll do fine. Just be sure to let us know if you're mafia, that helps simplify the game a lot.

[Wulfy]

This is scummy. [...] explain what you think of Farside's questions. Someone else, in answering yours, noted potential manipulation in your question phrasing. Do you see anything similar or anything of worthy note in Farside's questions? More importantly, could you clarify (with complete sentence that include parts of the question [/teacher-esque-ness]) your statements in post 214?

Meh, not really at this point. I'm worried that me commenting on Farside will result in more flame wars, we just aren't getting through to each other. But since you asked, I'll give short opinions below. But first...

In my post 214, I am equally worried that me commenting on it is just going to perpetuate this war. But I guess I am obliged:
She asked if my "must not respond" comment was directed at her. I said, yes.

To elaborate, I wanted most to respond to this:

"I still don't like scien but I can see the hypocrissy comment but I still, still don't like when someone ask questions to me without answering the questions first and then following my reasoning as their own. If makes me feel all sorts of scum vibes. "

I was immediately attacked for having weak points that I believed in. When I say immediately, I mean before my second post. If I laid down my first post in hopes that someone would comment on it and overextend: one, how could I have provided my feelings on my questions in that first post and still get people to comment; two, how can you be sure that I am following someone's reasoning as their own rather than following my own; three, how could it have played out any differently if I was attacked immediately rather than waiting for me to dig a hole?

I actually have commented on and tried to explain much of this, and at this point DON'T want Farside to comment on it. Was just irritating me.

As for the sentence that I didn't understand: "Or is this like saying I'm not going to say a worday a word type thing?". I said I didn't understand it. I don't understand it. I don't think I can get much clearer. Want me to say what I don't understand? Sure. What is "worday a word type thing". I get the first part, she is saying that my comment was like saying "I am not going to <blank>" I don't understand blank.

As for her "no comment from the peanut gallery". I am fully willing to take her advice just so we don't muddle the thread any more.

---

As for the rest of her questions to others in that post:
I think I can cover it with a blanket statement. She seems to be focusing on people's RVS mainly. This is not bad at this point in the game. The bulk of many people's posts were RVS posts, and she is trying to get them to comment more on the game as it stands. Seems okay to me.

---

Just out of curiosity Wulfy are you really wanting to know what my thoughts towards Farside are? Or is this an attempt to flair up things again?

Not at all. You've answered my questions and I'm done with it. I am more worried that if either of you are scum (and with this reasoning, it assumes you're scum with farside town) I do not want to let you avoid commenting on the other strictly because you can't win the argument or you are scum together. If Farside seems to go out of her way to avoid giving thoughts on you (claiming something like I don't want another argument, etc) then I would pursue her too. No worries, I don't find your response scummy, and you avoided the obvious scum move (to me, anyway) of continuing to hide behind pathetic excuses.

2) How is is OMGUS?

I see OMGUS as an attempt to discredit your attacker by making him look scummy, thus discrediting his argument. This is what you appear to be doing.

Wrong, that is a version of the chainsaw defense, usually done by someone else. However, it is legitimate, in my book, for two people to point out why the others are scummy. Omgus, on the other hand, is strictly voting someone for no reason than they voted you. For example:
Person A: B is scummy for reasons X, Y, and Z.
Person B: OMG! U SUCK! I am town, and since now townie would vote a townie, A is scum! VOTE B! DIESCUMDIE!
See the idiocy of B?

In this case, I see some reason in Farside's play and therefore see nothing inherently scummy. If a pattern presents itself, then I could reconsider. However, so far I've seen heated debates and aggression, both are very much to her consistent character.

My original vote on you was based on two things:
1) You were far too annoyed and edgy over what seemed to be a not so strong argument. (It's not the argument itself which bothers me - it's the way you handled the discussion around it.)
2) One of your posts made me feel like you're trying to implicitly show how oh-very-town you are.

The first things pends me reading the game you provided - no, I haven't yet, for the same reason I didn't reread this game yet although I want to; too little free time.

I have some other issues against you which have appeared later.
1) Your inconsistency regarding the usage of weak cases (you accuse Scien because he didn't, you accuse others because they did).
2) What I suspect to be OMGUS.


Regarding Scien, my current case would consist of your original argument: he didn't push a weak case and preferred to stay in the RVS, which is bad for town. I think it is a scum-tell, although a pretty weak one.

Side note: pends should be "pings" write[sic]?
1. Um...is this a claim that being angry over details is scummy? Wouldn't then every minamalist who gets angry be scum? This point is pathetic.
2. Wait...so you're suggesting town wouldn't make an attempt to prove they are town? Are you saying town posts would be inherently scummier than scum posts? Why do I see a too townie argument forming...

3-1. Would you please point that double standard out with citations or examples?
4-2. ...Omgus argument doesn't exist...
Nvrmind on 3-1, Farside admitted it, so I have noted that. Her excuse of "not reading back [well enough]" doesn't fly with me.

@ EB: A lot... you mean that place you park a double wide?

[Canada]

I read a lot and never have I seen this much text in one place that I have to read in a short time span.

*falls over*

Just starting on page seven, had chores and personal things to attend to.

~Canada

[Nikanor]

Whoa, is this the same Canada I know?

Indeed it is, I don't only look for replacements on the site you know. I ask people I know first ~ Hayl

[Nikanor]

Wrong, that is a version of the chainsaw defense, usually done by someone else. However, it is legitimate, in my book, for two people to point out why the others are scummy. Omgus, on the other hand, is strictly voting someone for no reason than they voted you. For example:
Person A: B is scummy for reasons X, Y, and Z.
Person B: OMG! U SUCK! I am town, and since now townie would vote a townie, A is scum! VOTE B! DIESCUMDIE!

I like my version better. C:

[Nikanor]

Just be sure to let us know if you're mafia, that helps simplify the game a lot.

Mafia? Why not werewolf?

[Nikanor]

(I am not a Zaz alt. This is my last consecutive post).