Unvote, Vote Chair
Yosarian's excuse makes sense to me, especially in light of his mistake about the lylo likeliness. I did not think about whether or not it was possible for us to be in lylo when I first attacked him for the "we" slip. I was most interested in pointing it out quickly and with certainty to gauge his response. As for other responses to the whole thing, I find Zepher's #934 to be especially troubling.
I'd also like to note that my top three choices all avoided empking wagon (with kunkstar being completely absent from even discussion about it)
Chair wrote:I've explained why he's scum. 754 had my primary case (so far) on him. There was also more in 869 and 873. He never responded to any of these.
Well let's fix that, shall we?
Chair #754 wrote:Looking at kanye's ISO, he looks scummy to me. Posts 97-98 look manufactured. The attack on Ethos in 318 just feels bad... like a lame excuse to jump on a wagon. The reasons for attacking Ethos are: 1) sheeping quil's reasoning that Ythan/Ethos aren't both town. This is bad reasoning in the first place... there's no intrinsic reason that any given conflict, even if extended like this, can't be town on town. 2) Backpedaling on the reason that Ethos wasn't posting. So what... this is such a minor point that it's ridiculous to attack him for it. 3) Using meta. There's no reason to think that using meta = scum.
Basically, his voting ethos just looks really bad, wagoning while giving really bad reasons for it. Ethos also brought up some of this, and kanye's 347 responding to ethos's arguments is also pretty weak. None of his responses feel like they actually address the arguments Ethos was making. They feel like kanye is just repeating the arguments that he made originally. For example: when Ethos makes a point that kanye sounds disingenuous and that he shouldn't be asking ethos to stop making bad arguments if he thinks ethos is scum, kanye doesn't actually respond to either of these points and just continues to say what he was saying before: "i'm going to keep calling you out for using meta," essentially. He isn't answering the questions, he's just repeating rhetoric.
my reasons for voting had nothing to to with quil's reasoning on ythan/ethos. i also was not backpedaling on anything? i was attacking the fact that he gave himself an excuse to stop posting but then did not take it. it was hardly influential in my decision to vote him. the majority of my reasoning for voting ethos was tied up in his interactions with parabollocks and the argument he had with spyrex and ythan, as well as his attempts to constantly use meta. and i do in fact believe that using meta is scummy.
I responded to 869 already. I thought I replied to 873 before I went on V/LA over the 4th but I must not have.
Chair #873 wrote:First paragraph: I don't feel like I was being overdefensive about the hydra point - I was just responding to it. The "others flipping town implicating me" thing was me asking spyrex to clarify something - I wanted to know if he meant that we were just his third strongest scumread, or if there was a specific reason that ethos/para flipping town would cause him to have a scumread on us (i.e. a connection). As for "fake attempts at scumhunting," you calling them fake doesn't make them fake. You haven't explained how anything that we've said looks like "fake scumhunting" to you - and unless you do, your argument is invalid.
@487: how have I not detailed my argument on Spyrex? I explained it in-depth in 415... did you not read that post? did you just ignore it? As for not voting on the suspicion, why if I was scum would I even need to give myself an excuse to not vote spyrex? Why couldn't I, as scum, just vote him and say Misder agreed with me? Why is it a scum behavior to use that to justify not voting Spyrex when as scum I could just as easily have voted him?
@695: essentially, when I was saying that, it was because of Spyrex's playstyle. The way that Spyrex is playing, I feel, will make it easier to read him as the game goes on. His attempt to develop a voting block, for example, will mean more after more people in that voting block have flipped. I also want to see how his reads develop as the game goes on.
@754: Untrod was the scumread that Misder and I had the most agreement about. The list of "more likely scum" was just listing people that weren't in my town list, which is why I went through all of them to get better individual reads. As for "not committing to anything" - this is just a ridiculous accusation.
that post wrote:
So My main scumreads would be kanye, untrod, zepher (but he hasn't posted yet so we'll see), and spyrex. I'm leaving our vote on untrod for now, since misder has a scumread on him and deadline is approaching and there's another vote on him.
I "commit" to scumreads in this line. Again, did you miss this line or ignore it? Also, why should town commit to reads in the first place? The game is constantly shifting with new information every day - why should anyone but scum commit completely to any particular read? Why is there more scum motivation to "not commit" to reads than there is town motivation?
You're right, calling it fake doesn't make it fake. I said that it felt to me like it was fake, that you were doing it for the sake of appearing to want to scum hunt. I admit, this is a very subjective point.
re: 695, I still don't get why you need to point out that a lynch on someone you think is null isn't necessary "today."
re: 754, the important part is this: "claims that empking is leaning town? he then says he would not be against the empking lynch." Your top read is UT, empking is leaning town for you. But you are not opposed to abandoning your top read and making sure you are on the empking wagon. We can happily look at this in retrospect knowing that empking was scum and it makes sense why you would want to make sure you were on a scum wagon if it had to go through.
Your point about "committing" to reads is a bit of a strawman. Not once did I mention anything about that and your attacking and easily refuting my phantom argument doesn't really say much. My main point was that you are setting these reads up and conflicting this way and that but it did not feel like you actually had any interest in pushing any of those reads. My point above re: 754 only aids this. This returns to my point about it feeling like you were fake scumhunting.
As far as the hydra thing goes, I don't like your play for the same reason that I did not like that of Ethos. You can express to us that you have dissent between the heads leaving you free to flip flop to whichever side you want. I agree that reads are an ever changing thing and sticking steadfastly to them is just being obstinate, but the way that you are setting up the dissent between yourself feels manufactured to me.
Chair, could you update us on your reads and where you believe everyone stands?
