nn wrote:Also that from 247 - 261 he addresses a significant number of issues, but ignores the ones I've raised with him.
False? I address them directly in 254.
@Grendel, and @anyone else who wants to know why PP is town: PP's reaction in
219 and
221 makes me think town for a few reasons. 1, I think he shows genuine contempt, and that contempt indicates that he genuinely doesn't think your points have merit, meaning he's either town, or he's scum who thinks your line of reasoning is completely wrong which I find less likely because 2, it's antithetical to what I saw of PP's play in my other game with him. I pressured him a lot in that game; I was town, he was scum and he was, I think, a bit more hesitant to engage on such a direct level with calling the arguments I was making bad. He answered the queries I had about him and didn't really comment as much on the quality of my reasoning, iirc. Or at least it doesn't stick in my mind. I think the reaction of calling you bad town or scum is relatively unlikely to come from the scumgame that I saw in that game. 3, those posts in addition to contempt show a certain level of him feeling like he's in-the-right (since he's talking about how he was just being honest with his answers) that I think is consistent with town who feels like they've been accused for bs reasons.
Gamma wrote:Keep the shovel: makes it easier to tunnel.
Another case of Gamma misrepresenting things; PP isn't tunneling Gamma by any stretch, he had just given his first significant post explaining why he thought Gamma was scum and his vote wasn't even on Gamma.
Zoronos wrote:Gamma strikes me as the kind of person that likes to be 'technically correct'.
Ironic since I can think of at least three counts in this game where he has used terminology (omgus, tunneling, and even literally calling LUV town) to mean things that they don't mean at all.
Zoronos wrote:This kind of play annoys me, however, I feel that it is less likely to come from scum because it's an inherently antagonistic stance. He didn't call me scum for thinking about Ascetic in terms of being like Miller since they were both negative utility; he just called me wrong and insinuated that I was bad.
If anything this is scummier than if he had called you scum for his analysis; by taking the antagonistic stance towards you without actually giving any meaningful commentary on your alignment to go with it, he provides the illusion of content. And I don't think contentiousness is an aspect of personality that scum are likely to consciously mute to a large degree; maybe somewhat but *shrug*.a