Sun and Rain,
what did you find scummy about xtoph's reaction to malpa's claim.
In post 2142, xtopherusD wrote:In this game, we agree that there are most likely at least four members of the Felt Mafia. With two of them dead, we have two unknown. If malpascp is also one of them, it leaves one final Felt member for malpascp to "ignore".
Overly obvious "buddying" was not the phrase I was looking for there. I was more talking about arguing on the other person's behalf (Mini 1196's 572 and 576). You can see this sort of thing in posts such as 731 (it's different but the inclusion of "weak" has the same idea to it) and 1204, from this game.
malpascp also likes to pay a lot of attention to scumbuddies (in that link, the person you're looking for is Bub Bidderskins). And malpascp spent a fair amount of time on players who we now know are scum. And of course, ends it with very non-committal conclusion(s).
And he does the same thing again. malpascp suddenly is talking about Paschendale/Tazaro (and again here).
Having read through this game, and Micros 1194 and 1196 (two of his scum games), I think that his play has a similar feel here to how he plays scum. And I have already stated what I think of meta.
I disagree with most of your conclusions here. First of all, I don't think that 731 was him arguing on another person's behalf. 1204 was him questioning votes on a wagon, which I think is one reasonable point against him, but that has nothing to do with meta, and it's a pretty weak point, since generally getting people to explain their votes is a positive thing. As far as playing attention to his buddied, he talked about Pandorica early, while he was voting him and then later, explaining what he was doing, and he spoke about Pasch mostly to call him scummy. It's a massive leap from Malpa pays attention to his buddies and Malpa paid attention to two scum in this game, to Malpa being scum. That sort of argument is ridiculous. Finally, looking over the games you provided, well except for the newbie one, malpa's scum play seems much more relaxed than he was here; I didn't see anything like his blow-up over buldermar's scum claim or the anger that he's expressed over being voted that he's shown here. Plus Nacho's provided meta of him overreacting to things as town, so to me his meta points to him being town.
Nope, it's because you didn't comment on them. Nice misrep though.
In post 2149, BroodKingEXE wrote:You're being vague, what do you find about Zeta in your argument. I only see disagreement in his response to you and at the very most I see a stubbornly wrong response. This is an important distinction because the way you scumhunt, that is looking for statements that are wrong, doesn't actually find scum, because being wrong is a null trait. If you think someone is wrong in their statement, then you obviously disagree with them. So I can conclude that you find scumminess in statements you think aren't correct.
"Digging into statements rather than the words in between them" means looking for motive in posts. I realize the statement's wording is really fucked though, so I understand how you could misunderstand. About the motive, do any of them make sense with how I am posting though? Sure I could make up a list of stuff about anybody about motive, but the list wouldn't make sense with how they are posting. I want you to give me a motive of why I would be pushing malpa or if you don't see a motive behind the push.
I was pretty explicit about what I think of Zeta, here look:
In post 1608, Zdenek wrote:I don't believe that Zeta believes in his argument that scum provide catch-up posts because the same reasoning that his using here can be ascribed to Nacho's 1290: his official re-read, but Zeta didn't say hide nor hare about that.
In post 1655, Zdenek wrote: In post 1547, ζ wrote:Later he finally votes a townie and tunnels on him aggressively.
This is part of Zeta's case on malpa - that he's tunneling on townie Buldermar.
In post 1642, Quilford wrote:I had not noticed buldemar's claim until very recently. Moreover, I try to focus on a small range of suspects per day.
But he hadn't noticed the claim, so where did his town read on Buldermar come from? Hint: nowhere, it's manufactured for the purposes of his case.
On top of that there is the deliberately narrowed focus in a multiscum game.
In post 1656, Zdenek wrote:Well, you don't need to, since you're scum, but town would because actually considering the circumstances under which posts are made and the content of player's posts are what matters.
which was in regards to:
In post 1608, Zdenek wrote:I think that your failure to actually consider the circumstances under which I replaced in and actually consider the posts reads at best as lazy and thoughtless.
In post 1617, ζ wrote:Why would I need to consider either of those things?
After I presented him with something that he should have found scummy, based on his argument against me:
In post 1656, Zdenek wrote:Also, I've presented him with something by all rights, considering his case on me, he should find scummy, but rather than offering an opinion on it, he just makes an excuse for not talking about it.
As you should be able to see, I did not, think that he was scum over a disagreement. So what are you talking about?
One scum motive for pushing Malpa is fucking clear: a case has been made against him that's gained a lot of traction, so your vote on him won't be questioned, and it's a great way to blend in. Just for clarity, I'm not trying to argue that voting for Malpa is scummy, but BroodKing is trying to argue that there's no scum motivation in such a vote, which is just foolish.
