In post 288, Drixx wrote: In post 287, soulmonarch wrote: In post 286, Drixx wrote:Scum classically go on the attack when they feel threatened.
See #285.
Someone missed #272 apparently.
Your logic implies that you are allowed to baselessly accuse people as you see fit -- but if the target dares to find that action to be suspicious in any way and rebuts the point, it confirms them as scum.
A bizarre confirmation bias, to say the least. I don't believe anyone here requires a deeper explanation of how insane that logic is.
I do see
272, by the way. I appreciate you notifying us of V/LA status from the 4th-6th. However, I cited recalcitrant behavior beginning as early as the the 28th. And, if you had not noted it, I at least implied that your posting prior to that date was focused solely on attacking EE and therefore could potentially be scummy -- though that point could at least be rebutted, should you care to try.
You could explain how your post wasn't opportunistic. Instead, you chose to attack me. I simply pointed out that a classic scum tactic is to attack when someone points out something they do that is scummy. Here you are continuing to attack.
Me calling your post opportunistic isn't baseless just because you say so. You made a post advocating that we policy lynch someone and went so far as to suggest that they are intentionally joining games on this site just to troll people. You even talked about site rules. The implication of your post is that you believe he should be sitebanned and that we should lynch him whether or not we have any reason to believe he is scum because he's just a troll.
I predict you will attack me again instead of responding. Prove a jaded soul wrong?
When you were only offering your
opinion
of me (e.g. "blatantly opportunistic", end of story) there was really very little to discuss. By definition, any opinion offered without backing rationale is "baseless." That is quite literally what the word means. Even simply saying that "it's a gut feeling" would offer some rationale, even if not something particularly defensible or useful at the moment. However, what you just wrote down is considerably better. Now I actually have a way to actually respond to you, and the rest of the town is able to judge for themselves whether or not they agree with your opinion. (And potentially condemn me for it, I they choose to.)
In other words: Thank you, that is exactly what I was asking for.
Now to answer:
Yes, my posts explicitly say that I believe his 'active lurking' playstyle is actively harmful to the game of forum Mafia in general and especially a smaller newbie game. I personally stand by that. However, it is not mine to say that he is deliberately trolling, and Workdawg stepped up to correct me about that in
279, which is fair.
You also suggest that I implied that he should be banned and that we should lynch him because he is a troll. I can see why you may have inferred the first point, and though you took it to a much more extreme conclusion than I would have, I will freely admit that I do wish there was at least some type of corrective action that could be taken. The second part I wish to refute completely. I believe I was fairly clear in
278 that reason I dislike policy lynches so much is precisely because they are not really an option, statistically speaking. In a larger game, there would be more wiggle room -- but in a nine person game, he has to go on the first day or town may suffer a significant disadvantage. A policy lynch is never about killing a troll, it's about attempting to salvage a bad situation.
I want to take a moment to note one thing: You are the IC. Teaching about good game theory is absolutely within your purview. So if you believe this is an over-reaction on my part or that my view on the necessity of policy lynches is inaccurate, it would be absolutely acceptable for you to attempt re-educate me. I do not say you are required to so, of course, but I would certainly listen if you did. That is, after all, why I came back to a newbie game instead of heading out to the rest of the site.
-----
And on with the final points:
Poking back when put on the spot is the most human of reactions, town or scum. Especially in games with less experienced players, it would seem. In this case specifically, I am poking at you for the same reason you are poking me: It generates content and might eventually provide reads. Even just you attacking me is helpful, as I see it. Assuming I did get lynched, town might be able to make some educated choices later by looking back.
In all honestly, if I was going to call me out for something scummy, I'd have picked something else to draw me up on. It's hard to make a good case why scum would ever want to kill off Dom. If he's town, leaving him in the game is a huge boon to their side. Even assuming he is scum, it would still be preferable to push the case on someone else instead.
[i]"I pledge to punch all switches, to never shoot where I could use grenades, to admit the existence of no level except Total Carnage, to never use Caps Lock as my 'run' key, and to never, ever, leave a single Bob alive."[/i]
