skruffs wrote:"Could be a long day if we have to wait for responses" followed by a reminder he is at -2. DId you vote? No. Did you expound on the case? No.
Unlike the AlyG wagon, where you questioned if the votes on it were still random, the CLA you make no attempt to hinder. And the "Man day will take a while if we have to WAIT for him" is a subtle goad to encourage people to lynch him (without you getting your hands dirty).
So, I defended on confirmed townie and I didn't defend another confirmed townie. That's pushing? To tell the truth, I did a quick meta of CLA and determined that this was a pattern for his play. I didn't vote because he was at lynch -2. I didn't expound on the case because there was none. This post was a deliberate challenge to CLA to post and a warning that he was at L-2. I thought he needed pressure.
Is this scummy?
and then
Tell me, had I venomously defended CLA, would you be saying that I was scummy for doing so? Why or why not?
I ask because it seems as though most of your scumtests indicate scumminess if they turn up true or false. These are all positions that you have taken:
If Skruffs is NK, then cicero= scum
If Skruffs is not NK, then Cicero = scum
If pwayne defends a townie, then pwayne = scum
If pwayne does not defend a townie, then pwayne = scum pushing for his lynch
If pwayne defends cicero, then pwayne = scum defending his scumpal
If pwayne ignores skruffs case on cicero then pwayne = scum
^^^Can you see why I feel like you have a vested interest in nailing me, whether I am scum or not?
skruffs wrote:You then work to dismantle the Orlowski wagon, makign your own opinions about him with NO knowledge to back it up.
"He may be acting scummy as hell, but I like him, so build a stronger case if you want my support" is the general equivalent of what you are saying,
How did I work to dismantle this wagon?
and then
Even if I did, how is dismanteling a wagon scummy, unless you believe I was defending my partner?
Skruffs wrote:then you push the CLA wagon *more* with "The CLA wagon seems justified. The town isn't working cohesively to sniff out scum and I blame the unanswered questions leveled at CLA and Borchmore absence. Scum or not, CLA is hurting the town at this point."
So even in this post, you are saying that people who defend themselves are fine, people who don't talk are good to lynch, and people who attack people who are acting scummy, you just turn a blind eye to.
Please point to the post where I say "people who defend themselves are fine, people who don't talk are good to lynch, and people who attack people who are acting scummy, you just turn a blind eye to."
If you can't, please add this to the list of things that you have mischaracterized about me.
Anyway, as I said, I do think that the wagon was justified. CLA needed pressure. I didn't want him lynched.
Do you disagree pressuring CLA was justified? Why?
skruffs wrote:2 - You deflected the case on Cicero off of him, yesterday. Are you not aware of this?
I didn't know that Cicero had claimed, this might explain my confusion and why I wasn't able to answer. I don't take BM's case seriously, so I don't see that I deflected a case as much as tried to flush out scum trying to use crappy logic.
Do you think that BM had a serious case?
and
Do you think that crappy logic is a scumtell that ought to be questioned?
skruffs wrote:3- You wrote off my case on Cicero today, and said you were not goign to CONSIDER HIM as scum unless we had a better case on him.
First, correction: not "we had a better case" but rather "I had a better case". Anyway, peep this:
pwayne wrote:I'm not sure asking you what makes you think that he is scummy means that I am not considering him. I know that you have an aversion to answering questions, but please- what makes you think that I am not considering him? I haven't said that I don't think he is scum. And why, instead of defending your position, do you vote for the person that asked you to? Are you trying to bully me into believing that I am scum with Cicero? That's weird... Why not ask everybody else why they don't think so?
and
pwayne wrote:Skruffs. I have not cleared cicero of anything. the fact that I am not moved by your accusations indicate that I don't think your case has any merit, not that I am not considering cicero as scum. This is the distinction that you refuse to make. The only point I stood up against with BM was that his case was weak. Nobody seems to disagree with that. The only point I have stood against you is that your case is weak. Nobody that isn't you disagrees with that. I am not saying cicero is town. I am saying that your case does not convince me that I should vote him and it certainly doesn't convince me that he and I are scum buddies.
Here I deny the claim that I am not considering Cicero, twice. The fact that you keep saying that I have said I won't even consider him is one of the points that I consider a mischaraterization to be addressed later.
Why do you continue to assert that I am not considering cicero? I have not voted for or expressed any real suspicions of Shaka either. Do you suspect that I am not considering him?
skruffs wrote:One of the biggest frustrations and suspicions I have about you being scum with him is your reluctance to consider him as possibly being scum, even going so far as to 'bury the hatchet', publicly, in a different game from the last one, which makes ties between you. Then to say that that's all it is, and to SAY you have no idea what Cicero is, but to then continue to strike down other people's arguments and NOT offer any observations of your own, which is DEFENDING him, I am confused why you even feel like you have to ask this question.
I don't know what question you are refering to. I only "publicly buried the hatchet" when asked about our friendly banter. Again, I have considered Cicero and continue to do so (in fact, the ploy with shaka and TS is pinging quite a bit). What you are really frustrated and suspicious of is the fact that I don't think your case holds water. I was not defending cicero from your case until you called me out for ignoring it. I said jack shite about it for a month.
Do you feel that the fact that I had ignored your case for a month, is consistent with your claim that I am defending Cicero, my scum buddy?
If I was interested in defending my scum buddy, I would not do so when they had 1 vote based on a cracked case. This goes for you and it goes for BM. Neither of you were even close to convincing anybody to vote for Cicero.
So why would I come to my scum buddies defense? How is this consistant me "playing behind the scenes"?
Accuse me of WIFOM if you want, but this picture is hugely inconsistant.
pwayne wrote:5- Please explain where I have mischaracterized PWayne? I will be happy to counter with examples where he has mischaracterized me.
A prime example is above where I mentioned the "not considering cicero" thing. I have called you out twice but you keep insisting this. If you feel that I have mishcharactirzed you, tell me where, and I will acknowledge that I did (if I did). The point is that this is a heated debate and mischararizations will happen.
skruffs wrote:You keep demanding that *WE* need to *CONVINCE* *YOU* who to vote, which takes the buden of responsibility (conveniently) off your shoulders.
I do? It seems that I voted BM on my own accord. I voted AlyG on my own accord. I voted You on my own accord. Doubtlessly you are refering to the post where I told you that you needed to convince me to vote for cicero and that cicero needs to convince me to vote for SSF. You miss the point of that post. It is this: If you think somebody is scum, and nobody else sees it, it is your responsiblity to convince them by building a case.
Do you disagree?
I say so because to suggest that townies that fail to see the connection are going to magically connect the dots seems silly. I know it can be frustrating to "know" that somebody is scum, but nobody else can see it, but you have to try. Berating people for not seeing it is counter productive.
skruffs wrote:However, the bulk of your arguments seeem to be refuting teh 'validity' of cases. With the COP dead, there is NO WAY To 'prove' someone scum, there are only cases, which are built on CASES. You are aware of this, because instead of actual scum-hunting directly, you are only scum-hunting by way of reacting to other people's attempts at scum hunting. Your entire 'playstyle' seems to be to discredit scum-hunting without actually being proactive yourself. And then you whine about the days going on forever and ever. Hmmm.
Did I whine about days going on forever?
Different strokes I guess. Example: It seems to me that you like to find people that strike you as weird and then try to build a case around them. I perfer to anaylsis what everybody else is doing, who they choose to target, anaylize there reasons, detect deliberately weak logic and ask them why they are trying to lynch on weak logic.
Do you think that this is a bad scum hunting strategy?
skruffs wrote:Post-LAstly-
Maybe I don't answer a lot of questions. To a degree, this is because I post a lot from my cell phone, and havae no real ability to quote or to take notes or to even change pages. IT's *not intentional*.
Noted (hence the bolded questions)
