In post 227, Chenoan wrote:See, I read the "i hate random voting" as him implying he was joining the wagon that was on you at the time. That was the logical reason to single you out.
Everyone else was random voting, there is no reason for him to single me out. Your reasons don't make sense. You cannot argue the fact that he voted "NULL" not "NUL" unless your reading comprehension is that bad. Your case against me is really shaky, looks to me like an OMGUS suspicion.
In post 225, Chenoan wrote:Nul's selective use of meta is starting to really stand out to me. It's totally cool to go meta search when it will help make someone else look scummy, but not when it might make someone else look towny? That doesn't make sense to me.
Did you even read the link on Meta I posted?
http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Meta
"Another potential flaw for metagaming is that after a single game, players will attempt to pick up on something notable their meta target did or did not do and associate it with their target's alignment when the target would actually do that regardless of whether they were Town or scum. This tends to lead to frustration after a player wins as scum by doing nothing out of the ordinary"
I can't use your meta of always being jumpy when being voted on because you could do that regardless of whether you are town or scum. The way you attack me with faulty reasoning is just absurd. The meta against Jmo worked because he actually claimed "I don't typically give out town reads" in a post, which could be proven as false and also used against him because it is something that stands out. Your meta of always overreacting to votes, as explained (if you would only read the article), cannot be used to help you because the potential flaw for metagaming is that players often do the same playstyle regardless of whether they are scum or not.
Your failure at researching your case properly and presenting nonsense to use against me shows, again, that you aren't really trying to scumhunt.
In post 227, Chenoan wrote:The information is that the tension seems out of the ordinary to me. So I pointed it out. Because it seemed like relevant, potentially alignment revealing, information.
You did not explain why it was out of the ordinary, you did not explain why the tension was random, you did not even have a conclusion as to what the point was of pointing it out. Fence-sitting and completely useless jibberish.
In post 227, Chenoan wrote:If people's play styles change, then why is the jmo thing more reliable? You showed a couple games where jmo gave a town read, but one of them was lover's mafia and the context seems different than a normal "oh this player is town" read. So why are those two posts you linked relevant but other meta arguments not?
Please read what I wrote above.
In post 227, Chenoan wrote:I was catching up with what had happened in the game that I had missed. And yes, I am defending myself. I like to respond to things that people say to/about me whenever I can. Is that a problem?
Yes it is a problem, when you're more involved in defending yourself than actual scum hunting. I don't feeling like you are acting pro-town, you're more concerned with staying out of suspicion than catching scum. The way you leap to defend yourself with logic that doesn't make sense is incredibly scummy. Can you read your posts to yourself before posting them? Because a lot of it does not make sense e.g. you misrepping me then saying "I'm not trying to misrep you", the meta you keep going on about, calling me odd for noticing an extra L in my own username, etc.
In post 229, Chenoan wrote:The overreaction is a really good point. Now I dunno how I feel on it.
Please stop presenting illusionary content. You're not contributing to town at all with your "maybe this, maybe that, I don't know". All you're doing is leading discussion the wrong way as you don't even write a basis for most of the things you say.
In post 227, Chenoan wrote:... Okay. Sure. But I already blatantly said I'm referring to the people who voted for him that he didn't acknowledge until I pointed out that he ignored them. And even then he only responded dismissively.
73 - I vote for Monkey, and give a reason.
76 - Zionite votes for Monkey, and gives a reason.
Monkey makes posts 97 & 99.
102 - I point out Monkey is ignoring the votes.
103 - Monkey acknowledges votes on him by not acknowledging them and being very dismissive.
129 - I point out how absurd that is.
Your first vote for Monkey and the reasoning behind it was illogical as I've explained over and over again. Asking for votes and "pushing a BS wagon" are two completely different things. Note how at the start of the game Hoopla was asking for more votes on me (
#39), this is the same thing as what Monkey was doing. They were just asking for more votes for pressure. The fact that you misrepped Monkey's push for votes as "pushing a BS wagon" just reiterates that your cases are nonsensical, you're using poor reasoning and you're not trying to scumhunt. I'm not trying to defend Monkey, I just find that scums generally use poor reasoning to support their votes because they're actually not trying to scumhunt.
The way you extensively fence-sit on two stances and the lack of a clear hypothesis on all of your posts just reminds me of an artificial shell trying to emulate the thoughts of a townie. There are many games where townies ignore arguments that they don't find reasonable or logical e.g.
http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 4#p2088014 please stop using this as a sole reasoning for a scumread, it just shows a lack of effort on your part.
