ArcAngel seems to be off-site a while- not posting in Open475 either. I gtg too lol
I don't care whether she posts in your game or not. If she is V/LA, she has to declare it in here if she doesn't want to risk replacement. Also, please refrain from mentioning on-going games in this thread.
Josh Lyman and KX have been prodded. I'm still looking for a replacement for Spencer22.
First I wanted to say that I am still here, and trying to stay up to date, though I won't have high activity for a few days. Anyway, back in #244 I was asked why we should talk more. I think this should probably be a self-evident answer that most anybody who's not a first timer should know the answer to. That answer being if people talk, you can get an idea of people's personalities, and the more a person talks, the more chances it are for them to slip if they're scum. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I know, purely statistically most games favor the mafia. That is made up for by the fact that the town can talk and make more accurate lynches based on people's actions. We can't, however, get reads if people don't talk. Therefore, in order for the town to maximize it's chance to win, the town must talk.
Also, with the ongoing debate, I want to question why a player talking to one they suspect to be scum is a slip. Yes, you can say that they actually know the person is scum, but you can also say that they're trying to make sure of it and maximize information. If you simply suspect a player of being scum, you shouldn't tunnel them, you should try and confirm or dismiss said suspicion. And if you truly believe a player is scum, 100% in your mind, and you think you're good enough to make reads at all, then not doing everything you can do to get them lynched is the anti-town option.
Of course, of the issue of Josh, HD's point still remains. Yes, he did try focus in almost exclusively on me, and with the supposed purpose of making me contribute. The problem for him, and what I think makes him scummy, is how he himself wasn't contributing at the time, and was using repetitive posting against as a way to avoid making any real contribution. That hypocrisy as the ease with which alternative motives can be given is what the problem, for me, is.
Say I truly was some unmotivated nube town who knew next to nothing: Most likely I would have been able to make anything close to a quality read, and if I displayed the previous abilities, most likely would be overwhelmed by it. Combined with the inherent scummyness of my previous post, I find it probable I would have become a decent if not a great target, in which case I feel the attitude against Josh would be somewhat different. The hypocrisy might still have been pointed out, but until a later time, I feel not much attention would be given to it, and meanwhile even more attention then there already is would be focused on me.
And yes, this is a somewhat introspective post as well. Please don't give me any grief about it, I think I said it already, but just in case, if I see something I have the knowledge to respond to, I do. At this time, what I know most about is myself. So, until I gain more information, I use what I have as best I can to reason. If I haven't said something, it's because I've concluded nothing.
In post 279, KX wrote:Of course, of the issue of Josh, HD's point still remains. Yes, he did try focus in almost exclusively on me, and with the supposed purpose of making me contribute. The problem for him, and what I think makes him scummy, is how he himself wasn't contributing at the time, and was using repetitive posting against as a way to avoid making any real contribution. That hypocrisy as the ease with which alternative motives can be given is what the problem, for me, is.
How is it scummy of Josh to call you scummy for being too introspective that early in the game? His post isn't hypocritical. It wasn't directed at a generic lack of contribution, it was directed at introspection. I really like repeating myself.
Why is being introspective bad? Because it means you don't contribute. What was Josh doing? Not Contributing. What is Hypocrisy? Promoting, making, or calling out others on standards you don't follow. Have a nice day.
Klick and NicCage have been prodded. I'm still looking for a replacement for Spencer22. If you know someone who can replace, please contact them and tell them to PM me.
I don't disagree with his reasoning. What I disagree with is his hypocrisy, tunneling, and attitude. Now listen, I have no clue why you're so vehemently defending him, maybe you're scum buddies, it seems like that would be too easy, but idk. Either way, I have stuff to do, and you're not convincing anybody, so can you just give up? inb4 I'm "trying to kill discussion" or some such bs.
In post 118, Josh Lyman wrote:It's a way to focus not on the game and yet appear active.
He gave reasons why you're scummy and voted you. Just because you disagree with his reasoning doesn't mean he's not contributing.
But couldn't Josh's posts about KX be equally used to not focus on the game?
He hardly backed up his reasons for voting KX, and his reasons for unvoting are really, really awful.
I don't really see why you don't think Josh is scummy.
In post 273, serrapaladin wrote:So the one thing Venrob comes back for is to say that someone who's been more active than him isn't posting elsewhere...
Post #272 by Venrob was scummy, and you were immediately there to call him out on it. Venrob and Josh are equally scummy in my eyes, but Venrob has promised D2 activity. Josh hasn't provided anything of value in my eyes, and I don't think he plans on doing so.
In post 289, NicCage wrote:But couldn't Josh's posts about KX be equally used to not focus on the game?
It was focused on the game though. It took something KX said and pointed out that it was scummy. KX self-metaing is part of the thread, and pointing out an issue with it is a valid contribution. Whether you agree with it is a completely different matter. His reason for unvoting was agreeing with Jacob. He reinforced that by saying that kind of effort is very hard to fake. I have no problem believing that he genuinely feels that way.
In post 290, KX wrote:First thing, why? Why are you so determined to defend him?
And second, by failing to present an argument, I think you did, even if you don't admit it.
Well, I don't particularly like seeing people I find innocent being lynched. I didn't present another argument because your post was just nay-saying and trying to turn the argument around as to why I'm defending Josh.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't nay-saying simply taking a negative view of something or putting it in the worst possible light? From what I know, all I'm doing, and all my intention are, is proving your defenses of him invalid. If you were simply presenting an optimistic light of the situation and I the opposite, then as soon as we both stated our opinions there would be nothing more to say, and neither of us could gain any ground. However, instead, I've disproved your views, while you have yet to disprove any of mine or present any which I can't disprove. Also, if you truly think he's innocent, since I would hope it's obvious he won't be lynched at this point, wouldn't it be better to, upon presenting an opinion, step back and let him defend himself, so rather then getting another's interpretation, we get what the person in question's take on it is? And if, upon him presenting a defense as best he can, if he fails to provide a reasonable explanation, shouldn't you consider changing your views?
As for the possible implication of me trying to group both of you as scum which I got from your last sentence, should one of you be lynch and flip scum, then it would most definitely be a possibility and something to be discussed, however, for the moment, all I desire to know is what has led you to hold the opinion which you do. Having given reasoning against what you've presented for holding your opinion, I want to know why you still hold it. If I take away your reasoning, do you still hold it due to the point of conflict were it's simply opinions, or are there other reasons? That point of conflict beings, does pointing out a person doing what you yourself are make you scummy? Your opinion being that no, since you still try and help, it's not scummy, while mine is if a person is truly interested in helping the game, they won't call one out on something they themselves can be accused of while they hold the ability to change it. If that simple conflict is what it comes down to, then so be it. However, if you have any more reasoning to back it up, please present it now.
In post 289, NicCage wrote:But couldn't Josh's posts about KX be equally used to not focus on the game?
It was focused on the game though. It took something KX said and pointed out that it was scummy. KX self-metaing is part of the thread, and pointing out an issue with it is a valid contribution. Whether you agree with it is a completely different matter. His reason for unvoting was agreeing with Jacob. He reinforced that by saying that kind of effort is very hard to fake. I have no problem believing that he genuinely feels that way.
But you questioned him about the reasoning behind Jacob's post too.
In post 213, Josh Lyman wrote:It's well documented that a player who is putting real perceived effort into a game is more likely to be town than to be scum. Real effort is very, very hard to fake.
Apparently this answer is good enough for you, but it certainly isn't for me. Scum could fake effort in the game.
I think both Josh's vote and unvote were based on really weak reasoning. He's only commented on KX, and has only barely defended himself.
These actions don't really make sense for a townie to be doing them. I think Josh wants to be lynched.
@Josh: At least attempt to prove the people attacking you wrong.
I have finished my catch up... I haven't changed my read on Josh, He still looks scummy to me and over the 5 page he hasn't done anything to defend himself and according to the Mod he is currently under prod. so I am not going waste my vote someone who is obviously going to be replaced. so
unvote josh
for now!! If Josh is back. I ll change my vote back to him.
Another person i am concerned about is Good Morning, He agrees with everyone about Josh being scum but actually didn't vote him, and his reads on others didn't sit well as posted.
KX: "I don't disagree with his reasoning. What I disagree with is his hypocrisy, tunneling, and attitude" does nothing to disprove my argument. You haven't been disproving what I've been saying, you've been disregarding it. I do want Josh to present his opinion, as I have said before. If his answers seem scummy, I am willing to change my opinion. I don't understand the point of your second paragraph.
My reasoning is very simple: I see many people tunneling on Josh for what I find to be unsatisfactory reasons. I wonder whether people may just have a different opinion to me, or an ulterior motive. I present some of my views in hope of eliciting some useful discussion. People reject my view without much argument and instead I am attacked for defending Josh without cause. If Josh does something I genuinely consider scummy, those reservations disappear, but until then I will be suspicious of people tunneling on him.
Nic: I questioned him to see whether he genuinely believes it. I may not personally agree with the reasoning, but his 213 strikes me as being his genuine opinion. I agree Josh hasn't played very well, but I am concerned by how certain that makes some people that he is scum.
Arc, what in particular about GM's reads don't you like?
serra, now you're being hypocritical; we've presented our reasons for the case, and you've disregarded them by saying "Not scummy enough"; you haven't disproved them in any way.
