Psyche wrote:No.
I wasn't interested in it because of its reference to you, but because of its assumption that seemingly harmless differences in word choice can predict scumhood.
I don't plan to take the idea seriously at all during this game.
In post 496, nhammen wrote:So, what you are saying is if someone accuses me of something, I shouldn't respond to it and should just say lolno instead? I do not agree with this at all. If I see a logical argument which I know is false, I will use logic to show everyone that it is false.
In post 500, singersigner wrote:@nhammen...I never mentioned the case, you're right. What I DID do was react to your reaction to it. I didn't clearly define what I found scummy about it, no, but your reaction to my reaction only makes me feel better about my vote. You're either jumping to conclusions about why I voted, or intentionally putting incorrect motivations behind it, neither are town-motivated.
In post 511, Rhinox wrote:In post 496, nhammen wrote:So, what you are saying is if someone accuses me of something, I shouldn't respond to it and should just say lolno instead? I do not agree with this at all. If I see a logical argument which I know is false, I will use logic to show everyone that it is false.
You didn't use logic to prove iama wrong. You used logic that ended up just showing that iama was being logical, and then just tacked on your "lolno" at the end regardless.
In post 512, nhammen wrote:You seriously don't see how my argument disproved his argument? Care to read it again and explain why?
In post 507, Glork wrote:
Also, REALLY surprising that Sim hasn't claimed. Unless I missed him doing so, I kind of really want to lynch him after Nhammen.
Quag and Singer should claim, too.
:goodfeelings: about Quag went away because I forgot that his "protown behavioral tells" are invalidated by the fact that he had not read his role PM.
In post 418, Staeg wrote:In post 415, Quagmire wrote:Jesus, you guys. Tierce is scum so hard. How do you not see it?
I'll be having that case you promised, thanks
In post 474, JDodge wrote:I would like to take this time to note that I believe I am developing a blind spot towards Tierce; I'm finding it too easy to excuse her behavior as her trying to impress us or trying to use knowledge that I'm not entirely sure she understands, so I'm finding it hard to justify any of her actions as scum. I'm worried that this is a problem for me going forwards.
In post 125, Tierce wrote:In post 120, Thestatusquo wrote:Not only is there no reason to think Umoms is scum, but the person who is in my book most likely to be scum is hanging on the back end of that wagon.
Tierce, my comment on bellas posts were tongue and cheek, yes, but they were also an attempt to try to steer the conversation in a more productive direction. Izzy's answers to those questions mattered to me. The fact that you blew them off doesn't necessarily read as weird to me on its own, but it does sort of give the impression that you're attempting to stay in randomness. Like, a sequence of
Person A: statement, joke, etc.
Person B: Somewhat serious question with a slight hint of joke.
Person C: HAHAH QUESTION DOESN'T MATTER LETS JUST KEEP VOTING RANDOM PEOPLE.
is suspicious to me. I also don't like how aggressively you jumped on the back end of the umoms wagon with no justification for it.
Unvote, Vote: Tierce
Of course I jumped on aggressively--that was thewhole point. Push a quicklynch/quicklynch threat on D1, see where the pieces fall and mine the reactions garnered from it on later days. I've already explained this on #98. If I had hmm'd and haw'd about it we wouldn't be having these kind of developments; I wanted to take a decisive stance, to push the dominos one way or the other. People started scattering like frightened chickens, and with a few flips, we're going to have a better understanding of the interests behind this wagon and the reactions to it.
How did I 'blow your questions off'? My impression of Izzy's vote and comments about you was that they were RVS+jokes, and that you were overreacting in a weird manner and trying to fish too deeply for motivation. It felt like cheap posturing. This is not 'blowing questions off', this is "I find your Post 36 scummy", period.
Yes, my own vote at the time was still RVS, I made another RVS joke in the same post (about Bella) and could have shifted to you; I chose not to because, after Glork's #47, I had a plan of action re: the next quickwagon that developed--push it to L-2, L-1 or hammer it.
In post 155, Tierce wrote:I don't see any evidence of Rhinox looking for motivations--he's jumping on actions and declaring them scummy without showing how, if ever, said actions further the scum cause. He's more interested in criticism than in finding scum.
In post 452, Tierce wrote:redFF's tone reeks of "boy oh boy we caught a pseudo-scumslip party time". Look at how he addresses nhammen. Why is he apologizing for stringing him up? If he was THAT cheerful as town, he would be keeping it up, delighted that he had found a legitimate slip and would see someone flip scum very soon. He knows the slot is going to flip town.
And frankly, the number of situations in which this happened/didn't happen is not statistically significant, IMO.
As for you, I don't have a read yet. (Though thinking back that reaction to my vote shows a different mindset from redFF's, so town points for you I guess. I have to analyze this further.) And you're not going to get reads on 'everyone' on D1 of a large from me.
In post 508, Glork wrote:In fact, if I were a wagering man, I'd bet just about anything that Sim is some form of scum. I'd even be willing to lynch himoverNham today.
In post 518, Staeg wrote:Is that... it?
Doesn't phase me. I mean, it's better than "she's scum for srs guise," but I would think that you have some real-big catch.
In post 466, Flameaxe wrote:Might be a bit busy with reports over the weekend and early next week. Will try to stop by when I have time. Field session is muy fun.
singer wrote:Not really sure what the point of your post was except to say that you disagree with the way I play.
In any case, why do you automatically assume it's an uncritical acceptance of iam's case as opposed to a critical unacceptance of nhammen's reaction? That's pretty clearly neither my thought process nor my reason for voting nhammen.
In any case, it's perfectly reasonable to think the MC should play out without interruptions/distractions.