curiouskarmadog wrote:
The lie here is that you want this town to believe that you called duster’s posting scummy and his actions anti-town, but you didn’t find him scummy. Explain to us what actions actually make someone “scummy” in your point of view. Please address what “I am liking him less and less”..WHY are you liking him less and less?
Point A, B, C, all have to do with this basic point.
Ok, I'll address this one last time (or at least I hope you understand this time):
1) Anti town does NOT mean scummy. I repeat, it does NOT mean scummy. It means that they are playing in a way which hurts the town. Scum can do this, town can do this. This in no way should tell you that I think he is scum.
2) When I said I liking him less and less, I meant it in a meta sense mainly. I really dislike players who post no content, yet post frequently. I tend to lynch them as a meta strategy.
3) I'm not saying the actions he took don't have the capability to make someone scummy,
if combined with other evidence
. I'm saying that there wasn't enough evidence for me to think him scummy. Only that he made a scummy post. An isolated occurrence does not make a player scummy.
And even if you don't agree with me, this is my meta opinion. This is a meta debate at this point, and it certainly isn't a lie.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
Fine, if I need to explain the most elementary points of this game I will. We need the majority to win.
I agree with you up to here.
curiouskarmadog wrote:We need to lynch scum, not townies to win.
It's true that scum must be lynched in order for the town to win. However, to think that we are going to lynch scum every time, or that this is necessary to win, then you're being ridiculous. Once I had established that losing a townie day 1 is not a huge detriment to a town (it usually happens anyways), I weighed the pros and cons. The only con is that he statistically is likely to be protown. Thats about it. The pros were lots of info, eliminating the possibility that he could make it to endgame and OMGUS us into a loss, or even just the problem that it is impossible to get a read on a player of that style, so any townie stuck in 3 player endgame with (town)duster and a scum would be screwed. Then we look to the fact that there is NO WAY that scum would eliminate a noncontributor, and see that we must deal with this problem, because if he makes that endgame, he is a huge detriment. Not to mention that his lynch gives us a wealth of information. Plus, I'd rather lynch a noncontributor then an essentially random contributor. Now I have established that town should probably lynch him to help themselves. When we think of throwaway lynches, when can we afford one? Day 1. That was my logic, and still is my logic. If you see fault in it, attack it's weaknesses, dont just say that townies are important.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
The fact that you were trying to push a case to lynch someone who you thought was townie, based one YOUR conjecture of their future actions is scummy.
My conjecture? Do you think that he would have started posting content? Do you think he would've been readable in a 3 man endgame? Just because it is a conjecture doesnt make it false, and additionally, I dont think this even is a conjecture. Barring replacement (which seemed unlikely leading up to my post) my predictions WOULD have come true.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
I wouldn’t have a problem with you if you simply admitted you thought duster was scummy.
This is ridiculous. I felt that he deserved to be lynched based off of his future detriment to town. I'm not going to lie, and say I thought he was scummy just so I can appease you.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
Once the town obviously wasn’t going to lynch duster based on his “scummy” posts and “anti-town” actions, you change up tactics to “I think duster (who is town) but he will hurt us in the long run, lets lynch him”
I dont think it was so clear that people didnt suspect him enough to lynch him. There were at least 3 people at the time expressing suspicion on him.
Regardless, I assure you I seriously thought this through. I'm also not the only player with this view. If you havent seen it before, then that's odd.
curiouskarmadog wrote:E.
From my point of view, you ARE lying.
Your opinion. Exactly. Your opinion which cannot be verified at all, and is COMPLETELY your word vs mine, youre willing to be absolutely sure I'm scum based on that. And that is ridiculous.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
Your lie is that fact that you want this town to believe you didn’t think duster was scum at a certain point.
I dont know what to say. I've given my explanation hundreds of times. I never thought he was scum. There just wasnt enough evidence, just that one post.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
That point in the game is key and I think you that I have caught you in your ruse, which is way you are going to such great length to say you didn’t think duster was scummy.
I am a strong player and major contibuter to this town. My lynch is bad for the town. Therefore, I defend myself when you attack me. By attacking me on the point "you claim to have never been suspicious of duster" you force me into defending it further. So claiming that I am going to too great lengths to defend it is a nulltell.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
Anybody ask themselves why he couldn’t just simply say..”yeah I thought duster was scummy”?
Because it would be a lie.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
Anybody ask themselves why he wants you to believe that he thought duster’s posts were scummy and his actions anti-town, but didn’t think duster himself was scum?
Because it's true.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
curiouskarmadog wrote:
Sephiroth wrote:
Any change of opinion is hypocritical then? I gave a well explained reason (though you may not agree with it) for my change of mind. If even that type of change of mind is hypocritical, then how o how will any townie ever change their opinion on something?
Read the quote…you are hypocritical because you attack Kab for changing his mind about duster, but it is ok for you to change your mind about duster. Again, please quote where I said people who change an opinion are hypocritical. Again, you misquote me.
Here you are trying to say I said changing one’s mind is hypocritical. Which is either a misrepresentation or a lie. I never said that. You didn’t quote me in the post, but you are suggesting I said something I NEVER EVEN CAME CLOSE TO SAYING…I say misquote..but maybe it is a misrepresentation?..which is worse?
Misunderstanding is the proper word. In every post that I have misunderstood something you said I have either allowed you to reexplain your point so that I can respond properly, or explained how my interpretation was implied, from my point of view. So you can hardly call this a misrepresentation, as I'm allowing you to explain what you did mean. If my interpretation is incorrect, I feel to see how the fact that I changed my mind is relevant, except for your far out theories that I did it as part of some elaborate scum ploy.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
Sephiroth wrote:
G.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
Sephiroth wrote:1) I make a very big distinction between thinking a
post
from someone is scummy, to thinking that THEY are scummy. I clearly said that I felt his actions were scummy, and have explained this standpoint twice before this post.
You want us to swallow the following:
You say someone’s
posts
are scummy and their actions are anti-town, but you are not suspicious of them and don’t think they are scummy.
A subtle attempt to turn what I said, "post", into what you want me to have said, "posts".
So that is a whopping
8
misrepresentations, all used in ways to inflate his case, and make it seem right when it was not. These are very scummy, because there is no motivation for a townie to falsely inflate a case, while there is motivation for scum (an easier lynch).
Please address this…don’t just call it a misrepresentation.
The fact that it is a misrepresentation disproves your point. I said his POST was scummy, not posts. It is nowhere out of the normal to say one post by someone is scummy without thinking they are scummy.
Sephiroth wrote:
LOL, I am not even addressing the appeals of to emotion points. They are ridiculous. Please tell me how sarcasm and angry posts = scum.
Yet another assumption of validity. *sigh*. Appeals to emotion are scummy because they are used to disprove an argument based on emotion as opposed to logic, as well as a way to skirt around the argument itself.
curiouskarmadog wrote:I haven’t retorted to why “lynching a townie is a good thing” because I thought it was elementary. You lynch someone when they are acting scummy, but could be town. You have stated and are pushing to have us believe that you thought duster was town…not town, that could be scum…but just town. That is scummy.
When did I say that I was certain that Duster was town. I said that it was statistically likely (in the absense of decent content) that he was town.
curiouskarmadog wrote:Just because I don’t go line by line when addressing your posts doesn’t mean points are dropped. That is too ridiculous. If you ask me a question, I will address it.
It's not that you werent going line by line. Its that you were ignoring key arguments that I was making, and simply repeating your own arguments. This isnt nitpicking, this is pointing out the way you blatantly ignored my key arguments.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
The only thing is this whole case you MIGHT have a point about is the fact I didn’t address why I thought lynching a townie was a bad idea. I thought this was common knowledge.
Actually, you really havent responded to my main four points about why you are scummy. I explained appeal to emotion as well as ignored points, assumption of validity, and misrepresentations. These are all scummy for obvious reasons, and all good points. Your blanket statement in which you accept one point and not the others will not work here.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
I think you are lying you say I misrepresenting you. You say I am ignoring points, but you have not asked questions. “Appeals to emotion” example are sad. Even if they are appeals of emotion how is that scummy?
You attacked less then half of my misrepresentation points well. Saying "these ones are the same" doesnt cut it. The appeals to emotion are scummy for reasons I outlined in my original case as well as here, and by other players. read.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
Oh and look the second most scummiest person in the game (tinvision) agrees with you…good job.
Ad hominems are fun arent they. I forgot to point that out, but thats your second ad hom this game (the first was when you called my case- which you had yet to see- bad because I forgot who you replaced).
curiouskarmadog wrote:
At any rate, we can keep going around in circles. I think you are scum…I think I caught you in your ruse. Now I am purposely misleading you?
You can't deny that you were willingly allowing the misinformation of another player to continue.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
You were about ready to pose a case that I was scum based on your conjecture that I know he was town because he wasn’t one of my scum buddies.
If you thought this to be true, then you have seriously underestimated my playing ability. Also, wasn't this whole debate about how I don't decide someone is scum based on one action?! How the hell did you expect me to build a case on one post?
curiouskarmadog wrote:
I wanted you to discredit yourself.
SCUMMY AS HELL! Why would you want me to discredit myself? To inflate a weak case, thats why! You could've easily just shot down that one point about you+duster, and it would have been a protown play, but you tried to turn it into something to destroy my credibility in the game, and ensure that I would never function as a useful part of the town again. It's ridiculous that you think this makes you protown.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
Tell me, how am I NOT protown?
See above.
curiouskarmadog wrote:
I think you are scum, I wanted to prove to this town how full of crap your cases are.
WHAT CASES? I hadn't written a case yet. You think that just because you're suspicious of me that what I say doesn't mean shit? Thats essentially what you're saying here.
curiouskarmadog wrote:I am attacking you because I think you are scum = protown.
Yet another misrepresentation. I'm not attacking you because you're attacking me. I'm attacking you for the way you're going about it, ignoring my arguments and attempting to publicly discredit me through continued misinformation. It's ridiculous, you could be lynched just on this if is this is how you treat players that you're suspicious of. Not to mention all the scummy behavior. Your lynch is definitely a good move today.
You are just a muppet... You have no heart... and cannot feel any pain.