In post 534, sottyrulez wrote:We just suggested your jump on was crap. So far you haven't proved me wrong.
Maybe that's what you meant. But you still haven't explained calling the wagon either "easy" or "terrible".
My vote was based on four reasons which you can find in post 518. The first two reasons are good, the third is weak but still worth mentioning, and the last is illogical but may as well have been stated. I don't see how you could possibly find my vote worse than Rob's, if you consider my reasons inadequate.
In post 534, sottyrulez wrote: In post 528, Herodotus wrote:There's nothing to defeat because you didn't make any argument. I was commenting on your reaction. Now you're trying to turn things from a mention of your own scummy reaction into a counterargument.
...What? Can you explain this thought clearly right now, because to me it looks like you are doing exactly what you are accusing us of doing and it is kinda blowing my mind. I want to know if I am understanding you clearly before I start ringing the bells.
The way I see it, in order, is:
(Gummy is voting kth)
Me: votes kth for some reasons you apparently don't like
(Rob agrees and votes kth)
(Gummy unvotes kth)
sottyrulez: kth wagon is easy and terrible, Herodotus's support of it is scummy.
kthx: So far all I see is "people are suspicious of kthx, I am too" from you. Why do you think I'm scum?
Me: {My impressions:
sottyrulez is saying I'm scummy for joining an "easy" (presumably meaning popular, or already pushed) wagon? And kthx is accusing me of following "people" (plural)? They're both pushing similar misrepresentations, I wonder why.
} (Make a public note of this.) (State full reasons why I suspected kthxby is scum.)
You: We didn't actually say that, {additional stuff}
Me: No, but what you said suggests it. {response to additional stuff}
You: I'm not talking where you joined, but how. You're trying to turn the argument into something easier to defeat. {response to additional stuff}
Me: What argument? (At this point all you've said about the reasons for my vote is that you're assuming the POE didn't happen.) I was noting something unusual about the responses by you and kthx, separately from any point you may wish to make. {response to additional stuff}
Now, I'm reinterpreting what you're saying. So please clarify: the "wagon is easy and terrible" wasn't supposed to be a reason why my "support is scummy"? What does the word "easy" mean in this context? I can think of no interpretation of the word as applied to a wagon other than to imply that people are bandwagoning lazily.
Also, could you comment on kthx's response? To me it looks like he was misrepresenting my vote as sheeping.
In post 534, sottyrulez wrote: In post 528, Herodotus wrote:
Both times I have seen scum intentionally act scummy, it was while a partner was being wagoned, and they were a goon while the partner taking heat was a PR. I don't know whether they exist, but this does provide a good (if very speculative) explanation for your play.
The next good explanation is that you are prematurely white-knighting for a townie. Either suggests you are scum.
UNVOTE: VOTE: sottyrulez
If you are going to talk about examples you are going to have to quote them.
DrippingGoofball in
PYP 5 almost explicitly says she isn't town in the linked post because her team's RB is under attack.
MagnaofIllusion in
Open 261
In post 534, sottyrulez wrote: In post 524, Herodotus wrote:(Is it your intention to draw the votes from your scumbuddy kthxbye onto yourself? Then he's a scum PR, while you're a goon. Thanks for letting us know.)
lol
If you ever believed this there in no way you would unvote kthx and then vote us.
The part in parentheses is a jump to conclusions / one possible theory. I did state another. In general, it's a bad, and often scummy, idea to hold the suspicious acts of one player (you) as a major reason to lynch another (kthxbye) while the first is still unflipped, unless lynching the first isn't an option.
In post 534, sottyrulez wrote:Also you cannot have it both ways, you just can't. It shows you are just not willing to listen to reason or logic and that you are willing to make anything into a scum tell for us and that's just bullshit. So which is it? Take a stand. Are we scum defending kthx or is k town? I refuse to let you sit on the fence like this and that allows you to come after us no matter what K flips even though your suspicion of us has come though him.
I don't know. Let me turn this around: people found Magister's page 1 defense of Feysal suspicious, without knowing Feysal's alignment. I don't need to have a singular and certain theory of the reasons why you reacted the way you did to find it suspicious.
In post 534, sottyrulez wrote:I'm stating right now that POE on day two in an active town is a terribly weak vote
False, it can be used at any time.
Step 1: Acquire townreads.
Step 2: Vote someone who isn't a townread.
Step 3: See whether the person you voted becomes a townread or someone else starts to look scummier. If yes, go to step 2.
Step 4: Lynch.
In post 535, Feysal wrote:Simply put, d3x makes a valid point about GB calling CES the second best lynch after consistently defending his slot.
What does scum-Gummy gain from changing to support a CES lynch after it was already decided? It didn't make any difference to whether the mislynch would occur.
Just because a majority of a group of people decide it's okay doesn't mean it's not murder. - Cobblerfone
