bionicchop2 wrote:Did I say he was scum for not making mistakes? I have pointed out cases where I think facts were intentionally skewed and I feel strongly that BG was scum. I just feel the further away we get from the scummy actions of BG, people will be more likely to forget them.
Why are you defending BG when you voted her before EA?
Smooth as silk when he's scum, and very much capable of running things from behind the scenes while appearing to be doing minimal effort. - Almost50
Xtoxm is consistently great - Shosin
you were the only wolf i townread at endgame - the worst
PyroDwarf wrote:
why does it matter that I'm #2 on your list?
you waited for my vote to be off you just long enough to not be considered omgus.
Please identify how responding to questions and responses to the meta case (i have bee repeatedly been asked to clarify things and challenged by vollkan on specifics) is soething scum is more likely to do than a town player.
PyroDwarf wrote:I believe that the drawn out meta argument is distracting for the rest of the town.
You are the main driving force pushing the meta argument.
So, if soebody asks e a question about it, asks for clarification, or makes a statement I view as false when presenting a defense, I should just ignore those in fear of distracting other players? Perhaps that explains why you have posted nothing of content all game.
I like how your posts have gone from long drawn out analysis to sarcasm and hostility.
All i had to do was mention that you were distracting the town.
i don't know, it just seemed to me like you really wouldnt let it got even after it had been analyzed by several players.
It seemd like you really wanted to lynch Voll based on BG's meta, even when it was shown that she was a bad player on both sides of the field.
PyroDwarf wrote:
It seemd like you really wanted to lynch Voll based on BG's meta, even when it was shown that she was a bad player on both sides of the field.
Just because you were convinced doesn't mean I am. Let me know the next time others form an opinion and I am supposed to blindly change mine to match theirs.
You still haven't said how I am distracting the town by answering questions and pointing out flaws in arguments. What exactly am I distracting from? What other discussions have occurred that I have stopped from proceeding? When I log in and read, I try to address any recent posts. If I see a new conversation going on, I will generally try to follow that. If I see a post dismissing my previous arguments, I will respond to that as I see fit.
The conversation cannot continue if only 1 person participates. If the conversation is distracting, how is one person worthy of a vote, but not the others?
bionicchop2 wrote:Did I say he was scum for not making mistakes? I have pointed out cases where I think facts were intentionally skewed and I feel strongly that BG was scum. I just feel the further away we get from the scummy actions of BG, people will be more likely to forget them.
What scummy actions of BG do you mean?
Have I not been discussing this for the past several pages? You know, the whole meta thing somebody brought up, I agreed with and explored further and have been debating with several players for quite some time now. I guess I have to directly quote you and reply in that exact post or you might feel like I don't have reasons.
who peed in your koolaide?
i'm sorry you couldn't convince people to lynch vol.
Aparently I am not the only one that dislikes your zeal, you have more than one vote.
That meta argument went on way to long, I think other people would agree. Notice how it was mainly a back and forth vetween you and vol, with sche poping in here and there? I know rbt and ckd were on LA, but what about EA, mrfixijt, op, and xtoxm? g-force and rhinox had a few post in there, too.
By distracting the town, i mean you were arguing about a player who has been shown to play bad as scum and town, and trying to discredit vol by saying basically "beware his silver toung"
PyroDwarf wrote:you were arguing about a player who has been shown to play bad as scum and town, and trying to discredit vol by saying basically "beware his silver toung"
nah i read, there was also that part where you say vol is twisting the argument. Is that what you are insinuating that i didn't read?
no need to get all snippy.
PyroDwarf wrote:you were arguing about a player who has been shown to play bad as scum and town, and trying to discredit vol by saying basically "beware his silver toung"
Oh, I understand now. You didn't read either.
Now you're acting quite pompous... you're right.. aparently you write a much higher level for the rest of us to be able to read and understand, and that is why we (alledgedly) missed your messaged and were mesmerized by the mystical words of volkan.
You had your out when I asked you to summarize why you felt volkan's defense was inadequate, but I'm sorry you felt it was a waste of your time. Myself, pyro, ckd, EA, G-force, and I'm sure others have concluded that BG's meta was inconclusive evidence and that volkan had sufficiently pointed that out and defended himself (for now), so I guess we are all incapable of reading and understanding your posts. You are so obviously a much more advanced wordsmith than the rest of us, and your posts fly so far over our heads that we couldn't even begin to fatham what we were supposed to understand.
PyroDwarf wrote:you were arguing about a player who has been shown to play bad as scum and town, and trying to discredit vol by saying basically "beware his silver toung"
Oh, I understand now. You didn't read either.
Now you're acting quite pompous... you're right.. aparently you write a much higher level for the rest of us to be able to read and understand, and that is why we (alledgedly) missed your messaged and were mesmerized by the mystical words of volkan.
You had your out when I asked you to summarize why you felt volkan's defense was inadequate, but I'm sorry you felt it was a waste of your time. Myself, pyro, ckd, EA, G-force, and I'm sure others have concluded that BG's meta was inconclusive evidence and that volkan had sufficiently pointed that out and defended himself (for now), so I guess we are all incapable of reading and understanding your posts. You are so obviously a much more advanced wordsmith than the rest of us, and your posts fly so far over our heads that we couldn't even begin to fatham what we were supposed to understand.
[/sarcasm]
How does this post relate to scum hunting and how was my discussion with Pyro important enough for you to type this awesome message about it? Do something besides debating for the sake of debating. Somebody minimizing everything I said into "beware of the silver tongue" obviously just skimmed over stuff, or is intentionally misrepresenting me, so it has nothing to do with posting over people's heads. I don't use any complex statements and I don't claim to post at a level people can't understand. I say exactly what I mean in as few words as possible, which is why I choose not to repeat myself. If somebody didn't care enough to read what I wrote the first time, then I am not confident they will care enough the 2nd time.
PyroDwarf wrote:i just didnt feel like bringing up every point you made because,well, people can read for them self.
Maybe, but this is a very slippery slope. Think of the game telephone. I said something, then someone else (you) interprets and restates it. The more this happens, the further from the actual statement it gets. When you summarize my posts as you did, others can read that and it can form their opinion of what my posts actually meant. The fact you took the part of all my posts that didn't really relate to why I thought he was acting scummy was frustrating.
I have seen a few examples of the entire meta-debate being over simplified and vollkan being hailed as the victor. Even the exact word - obliterated by both vollkan and rhinox - has been used by two players to describe how awesome his defense was. I know it isn't uncommon for similar words to be used, but this one stuck out to me when it happened since it was such an extreme statement about the events. It felt like an argument from repetition type thing. If simply said enough times, it becomes accepted as truth.
Well, if by "victor" you mean "cast a reasonable doubt as to his alliance" then yeah. I think now we will be able to judge vol by his own actions, rather than those of an across the board bad player.
I would like to get this back on track. The last page has had a great deal of accusations being thrown around, and a bit of a senseless vote from EA on Bionicchop which seems to be building momentum that I honestly cannot see the case for. So I'd like to go forth and point a few things out.
Scheherazade's case on BG/vollkan. This is excellent. I don't see anybody disputing this case. However, we must realize that Babygirl and Vollkan have the same alignment, as they are the same role. If you think Babygirl is scum, then you MUST think vollkan is scum. If you think vollkan is innocent, then Scheherazade's case against BG may be well-argued and well-founded, but you also claim that it is incorrect. I find the fact that people agree with Scheherazade's arguement and then turn their attention away from or defend vollkan rather questionable.
EA: Could you please explain to me why you have voted Bionicchop?
Pyrodwarf: What the hell is the deal with your aggression on Bionic? Also, why do you focus on the meta arguement and COMPLETELY ignore scheherazade's case? As I stated before, BG and voll are the same role. In fact, I find it interesting that you have completely passed over any evidence incriminating BG or vollkan, and instead focus on strawmanning the weakest parts of the case. What is it exactly that makes you think BG/Voll was innocent and yet Bionic is scum? Is it scummy to push a case that you believe in?
I admit, the vollkan case is slightly intimidating in its scope. I'm trying to cut it down to size for my own benefit as much as I can, and I'm working on forming a solid opinion that will either put the nail in his coffin, or take me off the vote. As it is, my vote stands.
Also answer to 'e, it, scumbag, 'ey you!, and his royal towniness.
