Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2014 6:05 pm
In post 309, Newbie wrote:In post 303, FinnLaw wrote:
Wisdom- With Wisdom,I'm probably leaning slightly scum.I just disagree with some of the arguments he is making about Wgeurt and I do feel Wgeurt can't win in Wisdoms eyes over the self-vote situation. I do feel it's a catch 22, and I just don't think this is helpfully for town. (I understand Wisdom disagrees with the catch 22 but I do feel it's a catch 22.)
What is bugging me is thatI have Wisdom leaning slightly townand just confused with Wgeurt he could be scum but then I don't think the two of them would be arguing like this if they were scum buddies. So if any which one is it? Probably vote soon but not just yet, want to be more comfortable with my decision.
What? Which is it?
In post 261, Malakittens wrote:Okay my loves. The wagon on Wge is bad and you all unvote. This is townflail and not scumflail
In post 265, Wisdom wrote:UNVOTE:
VOTE: wquerts
Yeah, I don't like this quick recovery. A moment earlier you were on the brink of suicide and now, after getting people to think you're a newbtown flailing and beg you to unvote yourself, you act like nothing happened. Conviniently, this all happens just as there's momentum on me building.
In post 288, wgeurts wrote:Also, what's stopping from all masons claiming?
It would confirm 3 town out of 13, masons aren't exactly more powerful than town.
In post 308, SilverWolf wrote:In post 307, Newbie wrote:
I don't like this post. Wgeurt was asked repeatedly to unvote and make an actual case against someone. I actually agree with the case he made against you.
unvote
vote: Wisdom
This is a good point and it is worth pointing out that as soon as wgeurts said Wisdom may be scum pushing his wagon from the sidelines and not backing it up with a vote, he immediately votes wgeurts on the faulty reasoning that he unvoted himself even though he was asked to do so by several and asked to give the reads he did on his wagon. This was a no-win situation for wgeurts. Something I can see scum pushing.
In post 323, SilverWolf wrote:In post 319, Wisdom wrote:One of {SilverWolf, Newbie} is scum, both for this unwarranted WKing of wgeurts and for jumping on the easy wagon with rehashed reasoning. I don't think they both are, seeing as they voted together in a short time using the same reasoning.
Actually, my reasoning is pretty solid and I'm sticking with it for now. I am not really caring for the sheeping comments from mathdino or the comments from you either so if you guys get me lynched, I'll flip town, and be out of the game and then you guys can go back to leaving the new players alone-newbie, wegeurts, myself and actually go after real scum, unless of course one or both of you is scum doing this in which case, it would make sense.
In post 335, SilverWolf wrote:Sure new players can be scum and no I don't feel like I'm going to be lynched yet. I'm not understanding the scum case you and mathdino are working up to on me tbh. I feel like it is very superficial. I am giving my opinions and you two are jumping on me for it and again, for reasons that are not clear to me. It feels like a set-up.
In post 347, SilverWolf wrote:
The fact that you pulled posts based on an ISO of me, gave your interpretation of my thoughts, and asked others what they thought of me, with zero questions directed at me or giving me any chance to explain or defend myself.
In post 347, SilverWolf wrote:I'm seriously questioning even continuing with this game as I don't like spending the majority of my time on defense over accusations that make no sense and that I can't seem to defend myself from because you two aren't going to like anything I say.
That takes all the fun out of the game for me and I can relate even more to what wgeurts was feeling.
In post 354, acryon wrote:
The only issue that I think may be worth pointing out is that wgeurts sort of kept doing his own thing until mala stepped in and posted this. This psot from her seemed to cause his turn-around, so it reads to me like it could possibly be coaching. Although I think there is averysmall chance that this is actually the case, I think it is worth noting.
In post 298, Mathdino wrote:@Everyone: Who would you want to lynch if not wgeurts or Wisdom? What are your thoughts on SilverWolf? (free pass on sheeping the above case; I think I kinda exhausted everything that can be said about her)
In post 356, VictorDeAngelo wrote:354 - Calling 262 coaching from Mala is a massive stretch. In fact I've spotted a few spots where I think there might be coaching but this is not one of them. Also roles that benefit from being lynched are called Jesters. You'll note there's none in this game if you checked the setup. ?
In post 357, acryon wrote:In post 356, VictorDeAngelo wrote:354 - Calling 262 coaching from Mala is a massive stretch. In fact I've spotted a few spots where I think there might be coaching but this is not one of them. Also roles that benefit from being lynched are called Jesters. You'll note there's none in this game if you checked the setup. ?
And I obviously wasn't referring to him actually being a jester. I know the set-up of this game and I had never heard of a jester so I didn't even know that was a thing. I was more of commenting on the complete silliness of his play, because it almost seems like he wants to be lynched because of how bad some of the stuff he is saying is. It's just so hard for me to believe that someone who is actually scum could be saying things that were that scummy. That kind of player is almost always town in my experience, but at the same time, when the slot of scum it makes you feel like an idiot for not lynching them much earlier.
I am pretty confident wgeurts is town, but that is purely based on my experience with players that are playing like he does. That's probably stupid play on my part, but it's kind of hard to ignore my gut, at least this early in the game when it's the main thing I have to work from. SilverWolf definitely seems like a much better lynch to me, but a wgeruts lynch could possibly give us some good information, especially if he does happen to flip scum. But I don't exactly like the idea of lynching based on that.
In post 358, SilverWolf wrote:@acryon-tell me exactly why I am such a good lynch. So far you've said AtE and vote parity because you don't like the Wisdom wagon. Is that it so far?
In post 359, VictorDeAngelo wrote:In post 357, acryon wrote:In post 356, VictorDeAngelo wrote:354 - Calling 262 coaching from Mala is a massive stretch. In fact I've spotted a few spots where I think there might be coaching but this is not one of them. Also roles that benefit from being lynched are called Jesters. You'll note there's none in this game if you checked the setup. ?
And I obviously wasn't referring to him actually being a jester. I know the set-up of this game and I had never heard of a jester so I didn't even know that was a thing. I was more of commenting on the complete silliness of his play, because it almost seems like he wants to be lynched because of how bad some of the stuff he is saying is. It's just so hard for me to believe that someone who is actually scum could be saying things that were that scummy. That kind of player is almost always town in my experience, but at the same time, when the slot of scum it makes you feel like an idiot for not lynching them much earlier.
I don't really like the whole too scummy to be scum argument. It assumes that scum are always experienced and competent and yet townies will derp around and make bad plays.
In post 359, VictorDeAngelo wrote:I am pretty confident wgeurts is town, but that is purely based on my experience with players that are playing like he does. That's probably stupid play on my part, but it's kind of hard to ignore my gut, at least this early in the game when it's the main thing I have to work from. SilverWolf definitely seems like a much better lynch to me, but a wgeruts lynch could possibly give us some good information, especially if he does happen to flip scum. But I don't exactly like the idea of lynching based on that.
What's wrong with lynching for information? Day 1 lynches tend to be the least important in terms of actually catching scum and often simply lynching a scummy player is good play. If Wguertes is town then he is playing badly, he's claimed vt (so if we leave him alive then scum have one less target when hunting masons) and he will always be a question mark going forward (since there's no way of clearing players).
In post 360, acryon wrote:In post 358, SilverWolf wrote:@acryon-tell me exactly why I am such a good lynch. So far you've said AtE and vote parity because you don't like the Wisdom wagon. Is that it so far?
I thought I said more than that? And others said things that I didn't feel I needed to repeat. But I will for posterity.
-Use of AtE more than once.(323, 347)
-Very weak defense that lacked any real conviction. (335)
-Terrible argument about Dino "fabricating" a case on you. (437)
-Agreement with Newbie's weak argument that you back up with similarly flawed reasoning. (308)
-Agreement with Newbie another time where Newbie's argument wasn't necessarily bad, but your post added approximately nothing (84)
-Reasoning for voting Victor was just an argument I made much earlier; nothing original added at all. (98)
-In 121, after just saying in 98 that you thought the questioning of Victor was making a problem out of nothing, you question my questioning of Victor on it, asking where it might have gone even though in 98 you eluded to the fact that it wasn't an actual problem, and was thus, going nowhere.
-135. Not sure how that vote from Newbie would have been opportunistic at all. It was completely in the spotlight and was the second vote on the wagon. I would hardly call that opportunistic. If Newbie was 3rd or 4th maybe, and if Newbie's reasoning was bad, but it wasn't terrible.
-247 is another seemingly pro-town comment that lacks any real original content.
TLDR; other than the first two points I made, a lot of it has to do with you piggy-backing off of others' content to make it seem like you are scum-hunting. Opportunistic, in short.
In post 362, SilverWolf wrote:In post 360, acryon wrote:In post 358, SilverWolf wrote:@acryon-tell me exactly why I am such a good lynch. So far you've said AtE and vote parity because you don't like the Wisdom wagon. Is that it so far?
I thought I said more than that?And others said things that I didn't feel I needed to repeat. But I will for posterity.
-Use of AtE more than once.(323, 347)
-Very weak defense that lacked any real conviction. (335)
-Terrible argument about Dino "fabricating" a case on you. (437)
-Agreement with Newbie's weak argument that you back up with similarly flawed reasoning. (308)
-Agreement with Newbie another time where Newbie's argument wasn't necessarily bad, but your post added approximately nothing (84)
-Reasoning for voting Victor was just an argument I made much earlier; nothing original added at all. (98)
-In 121, after just saying in 98 that you thought the questioning of Victor was making a problem out of nothing, you question my questioning of Victor on it, asking where it might have gone even though in 98 you eluded to the fact that it wasn't an actual problem, and was thus, going nowhere.
-135. Not sure how that vote from Newbie would have been opportunistic at all. It was completely in the spotlight and was the second vote on the wagon. I would hardly call that opportunistic. If Newbie was 3rd or 4th maybe, and if Newbie's reasoning was bad, but it wasn't terrible.
-247 is another seemingly pro-town comment that lacks any real original content.
TLDR; other than the first two points I made, a lot of it has to do with you piggy-backing off of others' content to make it seem like you are scum-hunting. Opportunistic, in short.
So far you are just disagreeing with the points I am making and using the same old argument mathdino and Wisdom are using regarding the piggy-backing without using any real original content. I've already answered to this. You just don't like it. Where's your original content in your case above?
In post 363, acryon wrote:In post 362, SilverWolf wrote:In post 360, acryon wrote:In post 358, SilverWolf wrote:@acryon-tell me exactly why I am such a good lynch. So far you've said AtE and vote parity because you don't like the Wisdom wagon. Is that it so far?
I thought I said more than that?And others said things that I didn't feel I needed to repeat. But I will for posterity.
-Use of AtE more than once.(323, 347)
-Very weak defense that lacked any real conviction. (335)
-Terrible argument about Dino "fabricating" a case on you. (437)
-Agreement with Newbie's weak argument that you back up with similarly flawed reasoning. (308)
-Agreement with Newbie another time where Newbie's argument wasn't necessarily bad, but your post added approximately nothing (84)
-Reasoning for voting Victor was just an argument I made much earlier; nothing original added at all. (98)
-In 121, after just saying in 98 that you thought the questioning of Victor was making a problem out of nothing, you question my questioning of Victor on it, asking where it might have gone even though in 98 you eluded to the fact that it wasn't an actual problem, and was thus, going nowhere.
-135. Not sure how that vote from Newbie would have been opportunistic at all. It was completely in the spotlight and was the second vote on the wagon. I would hardly call that opportunistic. If Newbie was 3rd or 4th maybe, and if Newbie's reasoning was bad, but it wasn't terrible.
-247 is another seemingly pro-town comment that lacks any real original content.
TLDR; other than the first two points I made, a lot of it has to do with you piggy-backing off of others' content to make it seem like you are scum-hunting. Opportunistic, in short.
So far you are just disagreeing with the points I am making and using the same old argument mathdino and Wisdom are using regarding the piggy-backing without using any real original content. I've already answered to this. You just don't like it. Where's your original content in your case above?
Which is why I only posted the original parts in my post with the vote on you, as I mentioned in the very post you just replied to...
In post 365, VictorDeAngelo wrote:@Acryon- Let me put it this way, other than silverwolf, how many players in the game right now would you say are scummier than Wgeurtes (I don't need a list of names just a rough number)?
@Silverwolf- Why do all players scumreading you need to provide original content?
In post 365, VictorDeAngelo wrote:
@Silverwolf- Why do all players scumreading you need to provide original content?
In post 367, SilverWolf wrote:In post 365, VictorDeAngelo wrote:
@Silverwolf- Why do all players scumreading you need to provide original content?
That is the reason they are giving for scumreading me. Telling me I am sheeping other ideas without providing original content. I've answered to this but it continues to be used.
So why is it a problem for me and not for them?
In post 368, acryon wrote:In post 367, SilverWolf wrote:In post 365, VictorDeAngelo wrote:
@Silverwolf- Why do all players scumreading you need to provide original content?
That is the reason they are giving for scumreading me. Telling me I am sheeping other ideas without providing original content. I've answered to this but it continues to be used.
So why is it a problem for me and not for them?
Wrong. The reason for you isconsistentsheeping. Scum are never usually scummy for singular actions, but for patterns.
In post 367, SilverWolf wrote:In post 365, VictorDeAngelo wrote:
@Silverwolf- Why do all players scumreading you need to provide original content?
That is the reason they are giving for scumreading me. Telling me I am sheeping other ideas without providing original content. I've answered to this but it continues to be used.
So why is it a problem for me and not for them?
In post 370, VictorDeAngelo wrote:In post 367, SilverWolf wrote:In post 365, VictorDeAngelo wrote:
@Silverwolf- Why do all players scumreading you need to provide original content?
That is the reason they are giving for scumreading me. Telling me I am sheeping other ideas without providing original content. I've answered to this but it continues to be used.
So why is it a problem for me and not for them?
But there's a distinction between sheeping in general and finding the same things scummy about a player. If you ask for the scum case against anyone then the cases should overlap (in fact when they don't is when you tend to have a problem). It isn't scummy for a player to be scumreading you for reasons already mentioned, especially when multiple people have presented a case. It sort of feels like your looking for an easy thing to counterattack Acryon over.
PEdit: Acryon seems to have beaten to the punch.
PPEdit: Gees, can you wait like five seconds guys.
In post 371, SilverWolf wrote:
Except this is the exact thing I am being attacked over. Having similar reasons for scumreading someone that someone else has. It makes no sense to me.