In post 146, Accountant wrote: In post 140, Smithereens wrote:
This is not relevant, and if it is, all the more reason to believe your motivation for voting was malicious.
If you can call him out and condemn him as scum for passive-aggressive reference to other players, then your own method is scummy for the same reason. As you said, your vote for him stands because you believe he lashed out. Now some things to note:
1) You originally called it lashing out, and then described what he should have done as something which was far more 'lashing out' or aggressive, meaning there was no actual hope for him to be able to get a town read off you.
2) You underplayed your original claim by citing text-book scum plays that applied to him. What you cited, namely the 'lack of aggression' = scum, because scum would come right out and say it flatly contradicts your initial reason for voting him.
3) When you attempted to justify it, you came up with "Passive-aggression." Which is not actually what you were claiming when you were elaborating the reasons previous. Hence you've changed your claims yet again.
4) The reasons which you've cited as evidence against him I'd like to use as a more valid construction for a vote grounds against you. Namely, you are scum because:
a) Instead of 'saying so,' you gave arbitrary and highly ambiguous reads that concluded a vote against Spiffeh was justified.
b) You lashed out against Spiffeh (is equally valid to your original claim, which is to say, not valid at all)
c) You're blatantly performing 'doubt-casting' on Spiffeh, by making a claim against him that can be retracted into: "Oh, it was passive-aggression."
Your play is scummy as fck let's be honest.
Addressing your points:
1) You seem to think that him standing there and saying "texcat is scum" is less aggressive than sniping at texcat from the shadows. This isn't true at all. Sniping at someone, especially scum pushing a wagon from the shadows, is a far better way to cast suspicion on them and push their wagon than just voting them and going flat out "this person is scum".
>This blatantly contradicts your original motive for voting him. You claimed he was 'lashing out.' Which explicitly entails an overt medium of attack. Don't change your definitions of aggression, we all read that as active aggression, hence you meant that as active aggression. Presumably you are fluent in English, so there is no wiggling out of the fact that you conveyed to us the meaning of that as 'active aggression' not 'passive aggression.'
2) Being passive-aggressive is NOT lack of aggression. It is being sneaky about your aggression. I called out spiffeh for his sneaky aggression.
>As above, you called out Spiffeh for his 'lashing out,' which you don't get to define. Your readers are the ones who define that, and you obviously chose words that conveyed what you wanted us to believe. Welp, we believe that Spiffeh was in fact lashing out. Which is a plausible enough claim to make, however it didn't mesh with your defense when you were examined, which is where problems surface. You clearly didn't intend to convey any form of passiveness because that didn't come out until later on in the questioning, so you intended for us to believe what a primary appraisal of what you first said would conclude. Furthermore, you later said that he should have 'said so,' which is a more apt way of lashing out. So anything he would have done could simply be defined as lashing out, and you could scum read him for that. That's one reason why you should have just given the reason behind your scum read initially. You could say he was lashing out and then depending on if he was aggressive or passive, say that he was attempting to lead the town or was being too aggressive, or else make the claim that he should have been more aggressive. It's a double edged sword for him.
3) See above.
>The fact remains that your claims have changed. So to seal this in concrete, at the time you made your vote against Spiffeh, did you intend to mean he was too passive-aggressive or too aggressive-aggressive?
4a) Arbitrary and highly ambiguous reads? I said spiffeh was scum and voted him lmao
>To clarify: By saying that he 'lashed out,' and later defining lashed out as being either passive or aggressive depending on whichever he was, you've created a double conundrum for him in that whatever he does you are able to peg him as scum.
b) I was aggressive towards spiffeh, but I was open and upfront about my aggression instead of poking him sneakily like he did to tex.
>So you admit you lashed out against Spiffeh? And conversely what Spiffeh did cannot be aptly described as lashing out?
c) That's not doubtcasting. Doubtcasting is when you say something like "well don't you think X could be interpreted as Y under a certain light" and scum like to do it because if they are proven wrong they can laugh and say "well I did say under a certain light". It's basically being a weasel. On the other hand I am coming out and saying "what spiffeh did was scummy and I am voting him for it". See the difference?
>That's exactly what I can accuse you of. If it is established that Spiffeh did in no way lash out against anyone, you can laugh and detract that claim into: "Well, it was passive aggressive." Alternatively, if nobody calls BS on your claim, you can go merrily along with everyone else still under the initial impression of his aggression.
Also right now Smithereens is blatantly whiteknighting spiffeh
I'm attacking you=/= whiteknighting Spiffeh. Please show me where I revealed a town read on Spiffeh.
