Jazz 393 wrote:It is way too easy for scum to post mostly fluff in an effort to appear (artificially) active in a game, when their only real motive is to avoid being prodded or being called out as lurkers, etc.
I then implore you to explain to me how it is the case for Vi and not the case for Kinetic/zakk. Hell, zakk's first two opening posts are pure fluff, and yet you clearly pass over the opportunity to call him out on it in favor of Vi. At best, you know, maybe ~20% of the posts are a little fluffy. Compare that to 100% of zakk's posts so far...
Jazz 393 wrote:No can do. I don't "believe" anyone who tries to tell me that I should just "believe" them without them posting anything of substance in respect of the matters that they want me buy into; I prefer to come to my own conclusions, thanks just the same, and I think that you are still continuing to be rather fluffy.
lolwut
It's a turn of phrase... you are overanalyzing and trying way too hard to appear town.
Jazz 394 wrote:That strikes me as worthy of a spot in the top ten of worst possible rationales ever expressed in a game of mafia. You seem to be saying, on one hand, that because Vi is/was a mod on a quiet little site in a corner of the vast internet, you are willing to follow her willy nilly, and yet you imply, on the other hand, that she is so stupid that she didn't 'realize until after the fact' that she instigated the very thing that she clearly intended to instigate (and did in fact instigate from the outset), which she has not resiled from (nor should she) and which resulted in a derail of a game thread on the very same quiet little site in a corner of the vast internet.
This is completely unfair. I'm fine with you disagreeing with me, but "top ten worst"? You aren't being fair at all.
Once again, my contention is that because Vi is a sitewide moderator that has to deal with scummers reporting posts and making decisions about banning/suspending players on a regular basis, she is necessarily more adept at compartmentalizing drama and seperating it from her Mafia player persona. Vi is the closest thing you have to an impartial player when it comes to an issue like this. Full stop.
Second, I'm not willing to follow her "willy nilly", which is a gross mischaracterization in order for you to make a cheap talking point. I was voting her and attempting to figure her out. I actually caught a lot of crap from Sal about it earlier this game. After deliberation and interaction with her, I've come to the conclusion that I'm confident enough to put her in the town pile for now. I didn't just follow her "willy nilly", as you are unfairly implying.
Third, there is no implication of stupidity. Those are your projections, which, again, I'm growing more and more warm to the idea is meant to make a cheap talking point than actually trying to figure the game out. My contention is that she didn't realize that she was more or less starting a big stink when using the 'c' word. That doesn't mean she's "so stupid" at all. It's completely unfair for you to characterize it that way.
This is a very bad post, Jazz. I'm disappointed in the direction you are going. I'd like to have a reasonable discussion with you. You don't need to succumb to cheap talking points unless you are scum.
---
Q 399 wrote:I don't care. Ragefest disengaged me and literally all I remember is Jazz calling me (and you!) out for not posting enough when I had the same number of posts. And it ain't got better. That's a total I'm annoyed with Jazz vote, not a "I think you are scum" vote.
This is town. I'm still trying to parse why exactly Jazz is making these false attacks in multiple directions, but it's starting to look, as ABR pointed out, rather contrived.
I mean, to say that Vi as a site moderator is effectively no more qualified than anyone else to be impartial? And that I called her stupid? I mean, what? I had to do a double take.
---
Zik 402 wrote:She's adorable with her "Regards, Jazzmyn" signage.
What does her being adorable have to do with her alignment?
Zik 404 wrote:Continue discrediting my attacks with "More buzzwords". This is not the first time you've mentioned that.
You keep using buzzwords that mean nothing, I'll keep pointing them out.
Zik 404 wrote:No -- rhetorical question, don't answer that.
I wasn't planning to. It's also a loaded question, so there's that.
Zik 404 wrote:I would be expecting a town player to be responding with something from the scales of "No, you're wrong, and here's why:____" to "Fuck off". You have done none of what constitutes a town response.
...so you'd get better vibes off of me if I simply cursed at you?
Well, you'll have to settle for me trying to interact with you, instead. Further, me saying "no, you're wrong" is pretty redundant.
Zik 404 wrote:I correct myself -- it is not a lie. It is a misrepresentation and yet a subtle deflection from the original issue: whether you will be leaving the Kinetic wagon or not. The answer is: YES, you will be leaving the Kinetic wagon in the "foreseeable future".
You state this like it's inevitable when I was simply leaving my options open. zakk could convince me he's town, but he may not.
Okay, then let me put the shoe on the other foot. Whether you will be leaving my wagon or not. The answer is: YES, you will be leaving my wagon in the "foreseeable future" as no one will be joining you.
Zik 404 wrote:Where's the hypocrisy? I'd like you to explain alleged 'hypocrisy', because I don't see it.
It's hypocritical that you would attack me for staying on the zakk wagon, yet you've been on my wagon since page 3 and see no issue with that at all.
Zik 404 wrote:'Sound fake'? Once again another attempt to discredit my suspicions on you. So are my attacks on you 'fake' or not? What about it's validity? If you were town, you would be questioning its validity, not whether it 'sounds fake'. What, are you judging the quality of my argument? Is this a case-writing competition? A debate session?
I'm trying to assess whether you are attack me from a position of validity and therefore are genuinely scumhunting, or you are trying to attacking me unfairly and therefore are scum.
If something sounds fake, that's not a good sign. While I was open to the idea of you attacking me for being "fluffy" initially (I disagree, of course, but it was valid, I think), I've noticed that you've ignored similar traits in other players. This is not a good sign.
Zik 404 wrote:All of your responses to me have only attempted to argue one point, summarized into "Kinetic is not my scumbuddy". Instead of "I am not scum", the point you're feeding me here is "Kinetic is not my scumbuddy".
No, that was only one of the responses, the rest of the time has been spent on you making wild stretches and poor points against me that I have been successfully defending against.
The issue isn't you "belittling its severity", sir RedCoyote. The issue is you acknowledging the point AND doing so. 
