nah, i was telling you why i thought you were scummy specifically because you were VLA and couldn't interact with me
the entire point is that asking you questions about your motivations at certain points in the game seemed irrelevant if there wasn't even going to be much time to consider answers given your VLA status even if you
did
answer them. ergo, i went the more direct route and told you exactly why i thought you were scum. if you didn't reply to me, so be it - i had my thoughts out in the open rather than questions you may or may not have been around to answer. if you did reply to me, it's not like you'd be sitting there going "durrrr no questions so i have nothing to say here!"
besides which, i don't
need
to ask questions to interact with someone. i can comment on different things they say that i agree with or don't agree with and, kind of like what you're doing with my posts regardless of whether they contain questions, a conversation can be had! ah, the miracle of language.
quite frankly, i do not give two smurfs whether you think there's something wrong with this line of thinking. i prefer interacting with players on some level because reading stuff they've said in response to other players does not do a whole lot for me; other players rarely ask the questions i think are important or comment on the things i think require commenting on. i thought you were scum but i wanted time to interact with you to flesh this read out. that's the entire reason i requested the deadline extension. the fact that you declared VLA was disappointing to me. i expressed such disappointment in thread
In post 2257, Thor665 wrote: In post 2243, zMuffinMan wrote:you keep referencing on point where sakura said she agreed with something you wrote as buddying that somehow points to you being town. i call bullSmurf. though feel free to go back and show me other evidence of sakura buddying you (i can't really do the opposite because i can't show you something i'm pretty sure doesn't exist).
If I show you this - what do I get out of it?
I understand you're asking me to do the work - but let's say I show other evidence of Sakura trying to get nice-nice with me; what is your reaction if I do?
Will you admit you lied?
Will you admit you read th egame poorly and readjust reads?
What's my offered gain for giving you links?
nothing, really. but i went back over the interactions overnight and i'm 100% positive you cannot do this, so whatever you were trying to do with these questions seems pointless to me. the entire point was that sakura wasn't buddying you and the only reference point you have for "buddying" was that single instance where she read one of your posts and said she agreed with you. whoooooo
the issue i have with the "sakura was buddying me" is, simply, she wasn't. the only thing you can point to that could even be remotely called "buddying" if you look at it sideways is her saying she agreed with one thing you wrote. i asked you to go back and tell me where else you think sakura buddied you because i know you can't, ergo your entire point revolves around the fact that she read your post and said she agreed with your points (but didn't even call you town or anything, just agreed with your points). that is not, in any way, buddying... unless you have an extremely skewed view of what constitutes buddying
to put it simply in words you understand, "sakura wasn't buddying you. prove it. or you're a liar liar pants on fire and that makes you scum because there can be no other explanation!"
In post 2257, Thor665 wrote: In post 2243, zMuffinMan wrote:the reason i call it mechanical is you're acting like elusive was a scumsmurf out to get you because she "lied" about something, but the way you were doing this felt like a robotic "lynch all liars" scenario rather than considering possible misunderstandings, misinterpretations, etc.
I talked with her extensively about why she said what she said and asked her repeatedly why she thought it was scummy.
Do you feel she answered?
she answered you. you called it dodging
in the end, though, your argument boiled down to, "she lied about something that could be factually checked for accuracy and this is scummy because lying is scummy."
that doesn't consider motivations at all. or whether that makes any sense at all..
in what world does scum intentionally lie about what actually happened in a game, when it can be easily fact-checked? what purpose would that ever serve, when the person in question could just... you know... go back and show that's not what happened and completely nullify the point while drawing unnecessary attention to the one making the argument...
i mean
maybe
you'd have a point if she was under pressure or something and was flailing for random shit to say? but that wasn't the case so basically, rather than assuming something like a difference in definitions, a difference in opinions, a difference in standards of proof or anything like that, you automatically went to, "you're lying and therefore scum."
and this is why i don't believe you're looking at things and thinking about them in a rational, town way. you're more concerned with finding errors and so-called "lies" than thinking about a person's alignment and making sense of their actions. no, don't give me bullsmurf about how you're asking questions and that shows you're trying to figure things out. you weren't assessing motivations in any way, shape or form. you were merely arguing semantics
In post 2257, Thor665 wrote:So you're saying scum Sakura decided to skim town Anti?
With their history?
Eh...yeah, maybe, seems unlikely though - and thus my point holds water.
history has nothing to do with whether or not you read someone's posts
case in point: do you ever read mastin posts? i know, i know... no one ever reads them so it's an unfair example to use, but familiarity with a player doesn't mean you pay close attention to every single one of their posts (and that's assuming she didn't genuinely miss antihero's post, which is a possibility you weren't considering at all). plus your argument was still reliant on the assertion that scum don't read each other's posts. meh
are you trying to tell me that you can look back on your argument and say it was strong?
you currently think antihero is town, right? meaning up until you reversed this read of yours, you were willing to push a lynch through on someone you now think is likely town for the
reason that sakura didn't read one of his posts... and you wouldn't have seen anything wrong with this? you woulda just thought to yourself, "well, uh, that'll teach antihero to... not do anything wrong, really"?
like even if you say that them knowing each other somehow makes the point more valid, at best you've shoveled out a small portion of manure from a gigantic pile of manure and now you're telling me, "look muffin, it's better! it's not
as big
a steaming pile of smurf anymore!"
In post 2257, Thor665 wrote:Feel free to point out where I *ever* claimed it showed more than that.
If not maybe I'll use this easily disprovable lie (that you are demanding I defend...instead of "easily" fact checking it) as a scumtell on you.
you never directly claimed it, but when asked why your wagon was a bad one, you
implied it was bad because sakura "buddied" you. i suppose you could argue you weren't directly calling yourself town because of it, but then you're just getting into semantics
