Several points:
---
Re:
786
1.) No, at the moment I simply find his actions to be anti-town.
2.) At the moment, droog and Willow are my two highest reads, for their insistence on misrepresenting my charges against Flubber and chainsawing anyone who comes to my defense.
You can be as philosophically against not making solid scum reads Day One as you want, but that will only lead you to influence your own play; my play will be dictated by my own philosophy. You may think that there are other cases where I can evaluate as scum or town; this is true, however the two cases which I mentioned above only struck me as scum
after
I made my case against Flubber. If you look at the timeline of when droog and Willow begin to make sparse cases focused on me, it's only after (and, importantly,
because
) I made my case on Flubber.
Also, and this tends to be a trend I've noticed with a few later posts, your comment that I could be bussing is something I'd like to address. You say that you find me scummy for pushing my case against Flubber. However, you say that if Flubber turns out to be scum, then I'm scummy for bussing. So there's literally no way to appease you here. I'm not going to dance in circles just to make you personally happy, I'm going to try to find the people I think are most detrimental to the town and get rid of them.
---
Re: GGG and Naomi's defense of me
I'm glad that at least a few other people in this thread are able to use critical thinking and reading comprehension to actually understand what I'm trying to say. GGG's
781 and Naomi's
773 perfectly encapsulate what I was trying to say. Droog and Willow's unwillingness to read what I'm saying and connect the dots that I lay out clearly are what strike me as scummy.
---
Re:
807
For something that is supposedly "glaringly obvious", very few other people appear to have jumped onto that particular bandwagon. Rather, it seems to me that you are trying to plant the idea in everyone's mind that I was being opportunistic with a wagon, when in reality I was calling out Flubber's general anti-town play.
You seem to either be of the mindset or want to force other people into the mindset that people can only think that others players a A.) Town or B.) Scum; this kind of black-and-white mentality is both iincorrect and hazardous. People lie on a sliding scale of Town-Scum, and the fact that you apparently want me to hold up a "neon sign with the words 'I am scumreading Flubber'" when I do not, in fact, hold that belief is indicative that you are trying to pressure people into rushing decisions and using the same kind of "100% good or 100% bad" mentality that you have, or want to project as having.
Further, your language is leading. "It was glaringly obvious...". "His attack... is pure desperation." You make assertions with strong language to attempt to influence other people into whatever agenda you want to push; I'm reminded of both politicians and lawyers, neither of whom I tend to trust. That you tend to use this kind of assertive language without first constructing an argument, forcing the reader to either search through the thread and construct the argument themselves (doing your work for you) or blindly believe you is something that I find to be detrimental to players who would be particularly susceptible to that kind of suggestion.
---
Re:
748
Holy shit you're like a dog with a bone with this fucking post. If this is your only cause for voting for me then that's sad. How about you stop spinning what I say into whatever agenda you want to push instead of looking at what I'm saying and doing your homework.
When I said in 648 that I had already explained, I was referring back to
603 where I make my initial explanations of why I'm against Flubber. In 648 I elaborated specifically upon the posts you asked for. Your entire argument here appears to be that I was inconsistent with my chain of events, but in reality you didn't bother to do your homework and even attempt to make the some connections I made, you simply saw what might be construed as a fallacy and jumped on it, and haven't let go since.
---
Re:
812
...what? Munkir your play is inconsistent. In
656 you ask me specific questions. I answer them in
683, but you don't acknowledge this. In
742, you say that you see my point of view, and in fact imply that you are leaning toward voting in my favor. Now in 812 you suddenly pull a complete 180, and join the wagon against me and pile a vote on for good measure. You say you were leaning more and more toward me being scum, but you don't say where or why. You say that if I were scum then I would have dropped my case on Flubber to save face, but then you say that since other people seem to think that since I didn't drop my case, that makes me scummy too (even though you admit that you wouldn't necessarily think that on your own; perhaps droog and Willow's leading diction is working by influencing the though processes of a newer player?). This is like with CP above; I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't, and I'm not going to do that dance for you, I'm going to go after the people I think will hurt the town. You then bring up 801 for some reason, saying that it was a "cave" and that you think it is basically an OMGUS vote. First of all, I didn't "cave", I was out (real life exists, what do you know), I had had a moment to check on the game, and wanted to drop in a few corrections. Secondly, unless you
also
haven't been reading what I've been posting, my vote on droog is
not
an OMGUS, which is characterized by voting for a person for the sole reason that they are voting for you, but rather a vote based on his insistence on misrepresenting my posts in order to push his agenda (seemingly to wagon me, although it has the added effect of protecting Flubber; I still see a buddy-buddy there). Overall, I don't necessarily think you're scum, but I think that you are dangerously naive at some of the ore complex situations that can arise from this game, and I think that you could be easily manipulated by the true scum. I'll be keeping a careful watch on you.
---
Re:
814
I agree completely; Flubber, as I have noted several times, hasn't actually posted any real content, preferring rather to poke and prod and make other people post content for him, while seeming to look like he's contributing. Droog and Willow's attack on me has had the serendipitous side effect of reducing the pressure on Flubber; more evidence of a buddying.
---
Re:
818
What? You don't find Flubber town; I don't find Flubber town. Yet you attack me because I decided to actually push in that direction? Your play is inconsistent, which is something I guess I should expect from a self-admitted troll account.
---
Re
820
She's actually not. The characteristic of a chainsaw defense is that it is attacking an attacker solely because the initial attacker is attacking a different person (i.e. A is attacking B, so C attacks A). This is seemingly, but
not
similar to the situation where a person is attacking a different person, and then another person finds flaws in that person's arguments and decides to attack them (i.e. A is attacking B, but C notices issues with A's arguments, so C attacks A). While the end result is similar, the motives are different. Be careful not to fall victim to the fundamental attribution error.
---
Re:
825
Bringing up a player's meta is not indicative of anything. In this game, and this game alone, it is possible to analyze Flubber's ISO and discover that his posts do not tend to have any significant substance. Again you refuse to actually do any real work, preferring instead for other people to make your connections for you. Maybe instead of telling us to find examples where he doesn't post content, you can provide examples where he does post content? That would be more constructive.
---
Re
828
This is a classic example, of which many more can be found in Flubber's ISO. He doesn't actually say anything himself, he just pokes another player to make a claim or answer a question, while he himself sits in the background and looks busy.
---
Re:
833
Generic defenses/hand waves are scummy.
Oh really? So your own generic defenses/handwaves are scummy? Meanwhile you conveniently ignore my consistent specific examples and constructed arguments, things that you are conspicuously lacking?
Playing inconsistently with one's town meta is scummy.
Playing inconsistently with one's town meta is indicative of a shift in playstyle, not indicative of scum. That you instantly jump straight to the only conclusion that incriminates me is indicative of your tunnel on the idea that I can only be scum.
I don't see the issue.
There is no issue, I included it for completeness.
But you did ask why you are scummy which I didn't answer.
And which you continue to not answer, except with vague statements like "This thing you've done is scummy, so you must be scum."
Policy lynches give town minimal information. Pushing a policy lynch deprives town of information and therefore is a tactic favored by scum.
There are many people who play Mafia that would disagree with you regarding policy lynches; nowhere is is written that policy lynches are a scum tactic and a scum tactic only. Again we have leading diction which will lead less experienced players to believe that only one perspective exists, and that perspective is coincidentally perfectly aligned with the agenda that I should be lynched. It is my opinion, as I have stated many times, that policy lynches are a tool that can and should be used when thinking in the long-term, since they will, over the course of the game, produce a healthier environment for finding and lynching scum.
And your ate over being scum read reeks the same scum stench of CP.
First of all, "ate"? I'm assume you meant "hate". But regardless, my posts continue to be misrepresented. I am not angry at being scumread, in fact if someone could actually come in and make a seriously analytical post with justified conclusions that state that I am scum, which could be defended rationally against cross-examination, then I would applaud them for their efforts. This has not been done. I have been ignored, misrepresented, and had words put in my mouth, and from these spurious "arguments" a wagon has formed for my lynch.
That
is why I am angry: not the fact that I am being called scum, but that I am being called scum on completely unjustified ground.
And through the massive walls of text you have, I just summarized your play in three sentences.
And through the massive clutter of non-content you have, I dissect yet another one of your non-posts. Which consisted of six sentences.
