[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
(RE : Diggit) The point here in my mind is that you voted for him TODAY for his “implicit” and “subtle” defense YESTERDAY, when it was neither. And when you realized that the implicit business had already been debunked, you said you couldn’t remember if it was or not, but you might check before the deadline. But that’s what you based your vote on! Do you seriously not see how scummy that is?? Does anyone???
[/QUOTE]
This irks me alot about Diggit’s posts; he’s adamantly sticking to his ‘fact’ that sach had an implicit defense of OAOW. Never once did I think that it was implicit; Sach was not being quiet about it (and seemed very, VERY angry over this.) Shadow is one of the few that I think of as town right now, rather than being suspicious of. I could be being had, for all I know, but I agree very much with how he’s approaching this.
There are a few more points I want to make about others, but that might have to wait till the next Day; none of them are who I will vote for.
Thats gonna be Darth. Why darth? I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around why he would jump on OAOW like he did yesterday.
Darth is Town : He’s already FOS’ed WF Tomba, for better reasons than he had for OAOW. Voting on OAOW? ‘Lazy’ as he puts it.
Darth is scum : Seeking to hide in a later vote in a bandwagon, he jumps on OAOW without much beyond what I quoted above.
Right now, I beleive his ‘lazy’ was just an excuse for turning towards OAOW and an easy bandwagon. It puts a bad logic spin on it, when we’ve discussed time and again that bad logic doesn’t make scum. And it doesn’t…but a lame excuse to point to bad logic can. I think his motivation at that point, combined with the fact he already had someone else FOS’ed, but didn’t play a one-off vote on them, gives him a scummy feel.
**
vote Darth**
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
Things people aren’t commenting on:
- I tried to get people to explain their OAOW vote Yesterday. Only Nanook and Blaster Master responded.
- ShadowFacts tried to get people to explain their OAOW vote Today. Again, no response.
- Some players seem quite content to fixate on one piece of data and ignore the totality of the game. This lynched OAOW, and people seem content to apply this narrow-mindedness to me. Look at the totality of my posts and what I have done. Picking out a single detail and distorting it to meet your needs is scummy.
[/QUOTE]
You know, this is a good point. You specifically mention that I’m one of only two of the nine people the voted for OAOW and responded to you, yet I’m the one you seem to be calling out for it. Why? Isn’t it MORE scummy to go along with the prevailing reason? This makes no sense to me.
[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
Being proven right or wrong with your assessment of someone else’s alignment is meaningless in and of itself. What matters is the motivation behind the argument. This is even more clear in the switch from “the attacks on OAOW are BS” to “OAOW is obviously town”. IF an argument is bad, it’s bad; but that speaks nothing of whether it’s conclusion is right or wrong. That is, even a bad and illogical argument can still reach a correct answer, it’s just not supported. What bothered me about his behavior was how far out of left field it was. I simply could see how anyone would have that view as the evidence stands. The fact that he was ultimately proven right is, in and of itself irrelevant.
And yes, I carry on with my promised lynch vote, and it got precisely the kind of response I was hoping for. He’s changing his tune ever so slightly. The switch now is particularly interesting, because he’s actually gone and started to color the arguments. It’s no longer “I think the arguments are flawed, but so he could be either” to “he was obviously town”. It appears to be motivated by trying to capitalize on the fact that he spoke out against the lynch.
Yes, I explained in the above post, it was a poor word choice on my part. I was trying to describe the behavior of attacking the argument rather than directly countering it. That is, he wasn’t directly going “no, OAOW is town” he was going “the arguments against him are bad” which doesn’t directly say he was town or anything.
[/QUOTE]
But isn’t this a blatant Catch-22? Let me see if I understand: his “implicit” defenses were suspicious because he was “attacking the argument” rather than directly countering it. But then his switch from “the attacks on OAOW are BS” to “OAOW is obviously town” is also suspicious? He’s screwed either way! That can’t be what you meant to say, right? I must not be understanding you right, because if I am, that’s ridiculous. Can you explain this again for me?
[QUOTE=Hockey Monkey]
Not much to go on today other than the Sach v Storyteller saga. I would normally chalk that up to town on town, but Sach is still pinging me. I can’t put my finger on it though. Freudian Slit however, I am going to vote for for the same reason I did yesterday.
[/QUOTE]
This vote bothers me. You comment on it and even say he’s pinging you, but you’re not willing to put your vote there. Instead, you vote for Freudian Slit for the same reason as Yesterday. Can you at least reitterate the reason?
End of Life posting time:
Now we touched on this a bit before, but I’m going to bring it up again since I’ll be dead soon. I brought up the fact that OAOW and Roosh advocated suspicion of storyteller as an argument for taking a good look at storyteller. This notion was dismissed since its ‘classic scum.’ I’m going to state my disagreement. While I support the idea that Roosh dying at Night then someone pointing out Roosh’s attitudes as a reason for thinking a certain way is dangerous because scum could have selected to kill Roosh for that very reason, OAOW was not killed by scum. OAOW was killed by Town. Therefore, you can take OAOW’s point of view as a trusted Townie who was killed by Town.
Furthermore, I’m about to die. And I will also be Town killed by (well, I guess I can’t say Town since only 4 people are voting for me, but you get the idea: lynches are different than night kills) I also feel that storyteller needs MUCH scrutiny. If you guys keep giving storyteller a free pass, then all he’s going to do is give “town” readings until you finally put your foot down and say, “we gotta kill storyteller”. Personally, I’d like to adopt a “lynch storyteller Tomorrow” policy; but I’d be content with Blaster Master dying Tomorrow too. 
At some point storyteller will conveniently give a “scum” reading to get you to lynch the accused instead of him, netting him one more mislynch.
Do not fall for this.
I can’t say for certain that storyteller is scum, but I feel that he is. Enough so that trusting his readings bothers me. When storyteller gives a scum reading. I beg you. I plead with you. Don’t just kneejerk a reaction of killing the accused. Look at both very very carefully and decide the lynch based on analysis. Be dispassionate. Be thorough. Look at both sides of the argument for both people. Then make your decision.
The added benefit is you will have data on who sided with who and for what reason.
[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
This is at least the third post with regard to an “implicit” defense of sachetorte. I’m not sure what to think of this, since this is much the same sort of behavior that he was doing Yesterday. Just… 
[/QUOTE]
Please see my post 762, dealing with this issue of defenses, implicit and otherwise. Yes, I am “implicitly” defending sach by questioning the cases of those who are voting for him that I find to be…poor. There - I admit it! I am implicitly defending someone!! twirls mustachio
I did the exact same thing early in SimpleTown. I was all over MadTheSwine for his terrible case against zuma. I was not defending zuma at all, who I had NO read on at all at the time. I was attacking a poor vote. I think you know how that turned out, Blaster.
[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
You know, this is a good point. You specifically mention that I’m one of only two of the nine people the voted for OAOW and responded to you, yet I’m the one you seem to be calling out for it. Why? Isn’t it MORE scummy to go along with the prevailing reason? This makes no sense to me.
[/QUOTE]
Correct, you responded. Responding does not equal Town.
[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
But isn’t this a blatant Catch-22? Let me see if I understand: his “implicit” defenses were suspicious because he was “attacking the argument” rather than directly countering it. But then his switch from “the attacks on OAOW are BS” to “OAOW is obviously town” is also suspicious? He’s screwed either way! That can’t be what you meant to say, right? I must not be understanding you right, because if I am, that’s ridiculous. Can you explain this again for me?
[/QUOTE]
You are misunderstanding. One method or the other, to me, is not more suspicious or less than the other. What I found suspicious Yesterday was the seemingly out of no where defense of him. What I was commenting on there, where you’re confused, is that he changed methods and is not coloring his previous methodology as different.
No part of his defense of OAOW Yesterday explicitly said “OAOW is obviously town”, it was “I don’t get the arguments”/“the arguments are illogical”, but now he’s stating that it’s obvious that he was town. What’s the reason for this change? If he’s town, there’s no need to color those differently. If he’s scum, he’d want to capitalize on that.
Even more, I think he set up for capitalizing on it with his little “if he’s scum, I’m screwed because I’m defending scum and if he’s town, I’m screwed because I knew he was town. Woe is me.” (paraphrased) post from Yesterday. It seemed like he realized it was a little TOO obvious then, and he wanted to try and nip it in the bud.
Bottom line, I cannot see any pro-town motivation for the misrepresentation of how “obviously town” OAOW was.
Out of courtesy, I will not switch my vote to Darth Sensitive unless he is present to switch his vote to me and does so.
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
<snip>You deserve to lose.
[/QUOTE]
Ya know, I wasn’t really sure what to think about you. I understand that you are either frustrated, or at least giving the appearance of frustration. I don’t know if you ever read the thread I wrote on the offboard site expressing the disapointment in a lot of the guys on my rugby club for bringing a negative attitude onto the pitch, and how I, as their captain, should deal with it. Well, sometimes a poor attitude hurts the team more than a poor tackler.
Vote sach.
I’d say I’m sorry in advance if you’re town, but I’m not. I dunno what’s come over you.
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
Correct, you responded. Responding does not equal Town.
[/QUOTE]
I never said it did. However, you essentially blame the lynch on me. Yes, I provided the case and I pushed it, but I’m hardly responsible for a plethora of “me too” votes. Me responding about my case is exactly what anyone should do, regardless of his alignment. Me too votes with no justification is just… bad.
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
Out of courtesy, I will not switch my vote to Darth Sensitive unless he is present to switch his vote to me and does so.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
It seemed like he realized it was a little TOO obvious then, and he wanted to try and nip it in the bud.
[/QUOTE]
I wanted to nip it in the bud by getting lynched Yesterday instead of Today.
Your reasoning is terrible and scummy. Die Blaster Master Die.
Gah!
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
Because there were questions specifically addressed to you?
[/QUOTE]
Oh, right. I meant to answer that, actually, but I got distracted by trying to figure out whether there was any merit to the case against Freudian Slit. Yes, I’d seen his rationale, and no, it didn’t change my opinion, because of course he’d have an explanation for the vote-change if he were scum.
Obviously, you were right and I was wrong, but that tends to happen a lot on the first Day.
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
I wanted to nip it in the bud by getting lynched Yesterday instead of Today.
Your reasoning is terrible and scummy. Die Blaster Master Die.
Gah!
[/QUOTE]
zuma called. He wants his shtick back. 
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
I don’t know if you ever read the thread I wrote on the offboard site expressing the disapointment in a lot of the guys on my rugby club for bringing a negative attitude onto the pitch, and how I, as their captain, should deal with it. Well, sometimes a poor attitude hurts the team more than a poor tackler.
[/QUOTE]
Right. And your treatment of Roosh in Three Kingdoms was so pristine.
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
Right. And your treatment of Roosh in Three Kingdoms was so pristine.
[/QUOTE]
I was a dick. I’ve apologized. It made me look bad, and I regret it. What’s your point?
New thoughts on Storyteller:
Why did storyteller investigate CatInASuit? Why didn’t storyteller investigate me instead? If storyteller is so suspicious of me and thinks I’m scum, then why didn’t he take his best shot a finding scum to prove his claim?
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
zuma called. He wants his shtick back.
[/QUOTE]
ok, this made me laugh. But that being said lets everyone remember that this is a game.
K?
ETA: sorry, that looks like I am singling you out Santo. I just happened to think your post was funny. The let’s remember this is a game is directed to everyone.
[QUOTE=Darth Sensitive]
I won’t be back, and am leaving my single on WF.
Quick rundown of why:
Is as noncommittal as possible when asked about the scumminess of a player early on after something that (IMHO) should haved moved every scumdar one way or the other.
Took poorly to being questioned about it, including OMGUS FOSes.
Accused those who didn’t drop the issue ASAP of being scum.
[/QUOTE]
Sach, not that it helps now, but he won’t be back 