In post 87, wgeurts wrote: In post 82, ZZZX wrote:
@wegurts why did u ignore this post when its the same?
As I don't know GreyICE and it looked like one of those fake sarcastic funny RV reasons.
ABR on the otherhand is someone I've played quite a few games with, so I wasn't sure wether he was also joking.
Hence I asked him, I also said that him just saying it was a joke would be ok.
To be truthful I was hoping somebody would pounce on what you pointed out and push me, I was hoping on a reaction test but hey.
I'm also very weary of mis-lynching ABR.
This is a poor explanation. Apart from the fact that arguing from a meta perspective is poor, wgeurts fails to justify the following aspects of his action:[/quote]It begins.
1. GreyICE and ABR performed exactly the same actions, apart from voting different people and having a different name. Why exactly did wgeurts phrase his post in such a manner: "We're in a nightless and all info is relevant, hiding it is anti-town. I'm going to vote you until you say it was a joke or explain why it's serious." a general sweeping statement "all info is relevant" while not addressing the personal aspects of why he voted ABR.
Here he's already started to misrep me. He says the ICE and ABR did the same, that's true, however he then goes on to attack my vote in the first place. I see two faults in his reasoning here:
- He attacks my vote using the reasoning in the post which I voted him. The odd thing is that he's reacting to a post where I explain why I truly voted ABR and he doesn't even bother explaining why that reasoning is false; he just goes back to the post I voted him, attacks that and ignores my later explanation for it. This is one of the reasons I think he's scum; he's seen an opportunity to push town and he's jumped back
to a vote he didn't question too much
and suddenly starts a case on it. He fully ignores my later reasoning for that vote. The way the read forms seems forced
- He says I should of explained my reaction test before as I did it, negating the whole point of the reaction test. It's another forced reason to scum read me.
2. wgeurts is hypocritical when he mentioned "I'm going to vote you until you say it was a joke or explain why it's serious." Apart from voteparking being an extremely scummy action, the fact that he calls out ABR for being "anti-town." reflects his shallow attempts at scumhunting. This is the second time that I have observed wgeurts perform shallow scumhunting.
Who disagrees here that not explaining votes is anti-town? He's once again attacking the original vote and ignoring all the explanations provided the posts afterwards. It's like he's decided I'm scum and has then made the reasons fit the theory I'm scum (bit like town conf-biasing their reads). He also never explains how I'm hypocritical.
I find it appalling how wgeurts refers to ABR in such a manner. A quick information check shows that Wgeurts joined late 2014, while ABR has been here since 2007. In addition, Wgeurts has 1500+ posts, while ABR has 10 times that.For this reason, I strongly agree with ABR's point that wgeurts is being disrespectful, and in fact this translates into scumminess for wgeurts as he does not make an obvious attempt to determine ABR's alignment.
So me and ABR
actually being in quite a few games together
is now scummy. He's got his facts wrong, I've played with ABR and have a general idea of how he plays. He never actually went ahead and asked me which games I've played with him, he simply states that I can't know his play as I'm newish. It's also funny how it makes me scummier and not ABR who also made this "lie". The fact he's now only posting attacks on me also helps the "found someone to frame now building reasons to justify it" theory.
Additional, I find it shocking how it appears that wgeurts expects ABR to respond nicely, when wgeurts initiated an attack with rudeness and obvious hypocrisy, as shown above.
Lies, unless he claims to read minds he can't know this (it also isn't true). Nowhere did I state that I was expecting a "nice" response. He by now he was fully fitting my expectation of scum jumping on me for the posts he's attacking (hilariously he's doing so after I stated I expected scum to do so.).
I find it distressing how wgeurts unvotes shortly (less than 1 page) after the backlash and reversal by ABR. This shows a lack of conviction on wgeurts' part, in failure to pursue ABR in order to reach an intended result or signs of a definitive alignment. wgeurts' did not proclaim that "ABR is town, I am done with my testing" or words of a similar impact before his unvote, rather he unvoted due to ZZZX's "That's a genuine point.". It appears that nothing constructive was gained from wgeurts' antagonization of ABR, and this further highlights the superficiality of wgeurts' actions.
He's manipulating my intentions, I said I would unvote when he gave any reasoning and he did, so I unvoted. My goal had been reached, however MS seems to completely missed this goal which I explained in the posts before I unvoted. He's trying to find reasons to scum read me (and he's forgotten other players exist in the game, coincidentally).
In post 120, wgeurts wrote:@Empire
I don't know SilverWolf well enough to judge wether what ABR said is true. I said I would unvote after he gives a reason and he did so, so I unvoted.
In this post, wgeurts explains his unvote. Fair that he has obtained his intended result "A reason for a vote on Silverwolf", but what exactly is the rationale for wanting "only a reason"? Note that wgeurts makes no judgment on whether he is town or scumreading ABR at this point yet.
He says I'm scum reading ABR (even though I stated I didn't know what to read him and I was doing this to sort him) which is false and can't be backed up with any evidence. If he had actually looked at my posts and read them properly he would of known my goal from the start (I had explained it before) however he's only trying to find yet more *false* reasons to scum read me.
Fortunately, he clarifies it in here:
Unfortunately, scum have daytalk (This is public information). If wgeurts is hypothetically scum, he would have had coaching from *possibly superior* teammates. Therefore, I feel that retroactively resolving logic does not net him as much town points as it would normally have.
Never scum read him in the first place, so this whole argument falls flat. *cough* strawman *cough*.
Oh, he also forgets to vote me. Almost like he's waiting to see if people ever actually start to wagon me before joining.
Now, next post.
