![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
I wasn't calling your setup and meta talk a scumtell, but rather your lack of opinions on anyone when you asked other people for player reads. I consider that a scumtell.yabbaguy wrote:@Jahudo-73: I don't think that's a valid scumtell, discussing setup and meta when I'm supposed to be talking about... wait, we weren't talking about anything. Also, it's an obv. hyperbole that I have been talking about just those two matters, so you're basically stretching a case on me, which is scummy in itself.
Why did you feel the need to suddenly thrust the question my way?
I don't think he was trying to foster discussion because he wasn't leading by example. If he was, he would formed his own player reads before needing to get reads from lurkers.Neto wrote:That being said, in a game where nobody is talking, I think that his posts are perfectly reasonable attempts to foster discussion.
No, because he gives reasons. I see OMGUS as a suspicion without the attempt at showing a cause. I need to see how he responds to tell if his reasons are valid coming from his point of view.Cass wrote:@Jahudo: Do you think yabba's response to your attack was omgus, or something else? Why?
Where exactly did I do this?netopalis wrote:Whoa, wait a minute...Why are you narrowing your possible scum thing down to me or Yabba? It's entirely possible (and at this point, I think, probable) that neither of us are scum.
I just made up a bunch of semi-random questios, to force people to say something, maybe start sa discussion. An attempt to increase involvement in this game.Jahudo wrote:Cass, any reason you asked those particular questions to only those people? It looks like most could be answered by anyone, even you.
@ABR-32: ... I'd like your response to Netopalis-30, for one.
Big one coming up...@all: So this is my first game where our discussion has been noticeably slower than the rest, and I'm not quite sure how to go at this and start setting off more fireworks so that we can start doing more investigating. Any thoughts/ideas?
I can't notice anything alarmingly out of the ordinary in the first few pages, but that may be just because my mind's fried at present.
@Netopalis-45: The thing is, to me, I think this is way too soon to be going after people for lurking (etc.)
Yes, your statement is a huge hyperbole. I think it and other factors warrant enough for an initial vote.3) The moderator hasn't even technically said "go" yet. Let's not forget that.
This question does not indicate any opinion on your part.@ABR-32: ... I'd like your response to Netopalis-30, for one.
This is just fluff. Anybody can look pro-active this way but it takes actual investigating to, you know, investigate.@all: So this is my first game where our discussion has been noticeably slower than the rest, and I'm not quite sure how to go at this and start setting off more fireworks so that we can start doing more investigating. Any thoughts/ideas?
The lack of an opinion on who is scum does not help us find scum.I can't notice anything alarmingly out of the ordinary in the first few pages, but that may be just because my mind's fried at present.
That's great but you don't say whether you think he's suspicious for bringing that up. It's just personal preference. It has nothing to do with scumhunting.@Netopalis-45: The thing is, to me, I think this is way too soon to be going after people for lurking (etc.)
Another fluff post. It doesn't give anyone a better idea who you think is scum.3) The moderator hasn't even technically said "go" yet. Let's not forget that.
That phrase. You explictly said "nothing besides that and meta". There's your hyperbole.You had not talked about anything of worth besides setup
Elaborate.It looks to me like your trying to subvert my suspicion by changing the topic.
Who is the multiple other people? Neto answered his own questionaire in the same post. You asked two people to give reads that you had not given yet. That's a big scumtell for me.yabbaguy wrote:Also, let's take note here, you're targetting me for something multiple other people have done as well, not offering input as to who is scum and who isn't, and just taking the same icebreaker questionnaires that we distributed at the start of the Day.
I did not call you scummy for that reason. I called you scummy for holding back your first impressions on people until other people gave those impressions first.yabbaguy wrote:Calling me scummy for actively trying to offer discussion in comparison is asinine and contrived.
You are trying to make the argument that I am suspicious of you because of your level of pro-town contribution. On the contrary I think you've done alot of pro-town things like asking questions, making observations about setup, posting often and trying to get other people posting often.yabbaguy wrote:Elaborate.Jahudo wrote:It looks to me like your trying to subvert my suspicion by changing the topic.
Just picked two players who had both had cases on them, so Khamisa could make an informed choice.Netopalis wrote:Fair enough, I guess, but why did you ask only about the two of us?
It's the kind of question that's good for sparking responses, if only from the two players comparedyabbaguy wrote:@Cass-80: So you or Khamisa don't think (according to later posts) that me or Netopalis was necessarily scum before you asked? Why did you ask that question, then? I don't know if strawman is the right word, but it feels forcing.
Great tactic!ABR wrote:I am bandwagonning for the sake of bandwagonning for now.