Netlava wrote:I still don't see how an answer that question would help. But more importantly, it leads Charter to the conclusion that Blackberry's action was scummy with the phrase "you say that blackberry's actions seem odd." The question almost expects Charter to find Blackberry scummy and makes not finding Blackberry scummy a direct disagreement with his previous post.
This is a load of crap. "You say Blackberry's actions seem odd" was a quote. charter very literally said exactly that. RIot is not leading anything. Odd also does not necessarily imply scummy, so charter would have been just fine saying he didn't find him scummy, had he wanted to.
Netlava wrote:Your vote didn't seem like a pressure vote. Now that you say it is, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. I'm not so sure about Had's and Battousai's votes either, but yours just feels the most suspect.
Really? What's suspect about Hadhfang's vote? Cause you didn't seem to imply that you found anything suspect about his when you brought it up earlier.
Tinsley wrote:Mac - I'll post my latest thoughts tomorrow. But not much has changed in my mind. I still feel charter is the most suspect right now. What makes you think Battousai is likely town?
Everything Battousai has done so far this game is consistent with protown motivations. He's pressuring suspicious players appropriately, asking good questions, and bringing up proper points on things people are doing that are scummy. This doesn't absolutely guarantee he's town, but I see no reason to suspect otherwise for the time being.
Post 115 is plus town points for Hadhfang.
Walnut wrote:OK, time to say something that will hopefully get people thinking, rather than following "Scumhunting for Dummies" Confused Just to be helpful, I will even mark with an * the standard scumtells I am giving.
This is not at all helpful. Stop now. Very suspicious that you could be trying to draw attention to minor tells you might commit and not mark any major ones, hoping they slip by as a result.
Walnut wrote:Some people write more logically, persuasively, or coherently than others. One of the challenges of online mafia is that all we have to work from is what people write, but inability to articulate clearly does not increase the likelihood that the person is scum. Therefore, while some people want to pursue lines of questioning unchecked, it naturally follows that their target should not have to always be their own spokesperson. At the extreme is a question like "Are you the cop, and who are you protecting tonight?"- I would hope that any townie would jump in and say it was not in the town's best interests to for the cop to answer this.
The situation isn't exactly analogous. Yeah, trying to figure out who the cop will investigate or who the Doc is going to protect is obviously very anti-town, and should be stopped. My question, however, was not leading in any particular direction and had no apparent anti-town motivation, and the interjection interfered with an opportunity to get a better read on acidmix.
Breaking up questions is really only good if answering them at all is bad for the town, as in your cop example. Otherwise, it's best to let the person answer, and if you feel like the questioner tries to do somehting inappropriate with the answer, interrupt then.
CF Riot wrote:I don't know if I'm happy or hurt at the fact that Had and Mac see me as protown now at the expense of me being newb town. It is my first game here, so I guess that's not a bad thing yet. My long posts are back. Are you happy? [=
Don't sweat it, I got called a newbie a couple weeks ago by someone who's been here since 2005.
charter wrote:Macavenger wrote:Of course, this all assumes you're telling the truth and weren't influenced by charter's interruption. I have no strong reason to believe otherwise for the moment.
You influenced him first with this. I already tried explaining this to battousia, but I'll spell it out.
The statement of mine you quoted there is from after Acidmix replied, genius. There's no way that influenced his response in any way.
charter wrote:The way you word your question only gives acid one answer. You're asking for reasons why being aggressive indicates pro-town motivations. You don't ask if aggressive=pro-town. You're not looking to see if he thinks being aggressive means you're pro-town, because you've already put that assumption in your question.
With you wording your question this way, you're influencing acid's decision. The way you ask it, you give support to him saying that his two statements were together. I said I didn't think they were. Either way, both of us would have been influencing it in both directions, so he would have had support either way. I don't like how battousai overlooks this on your part, and only questions me.
Again, no. There's nothing in my question that prevents him from answering "I didn't mean it that way." I'm not leading him anywhere, I'm asking him to elaborate on something he already wrote. I put the assumption in my question because it was an entirely reasonable assumption to pull from the way he wrote it, which Battousai apparently agrees with me on. I also don't in any way imply that aggressive=protown is in any way wrong or bad.
charter wrote:If by everyone you mean yourself, battousai, and mac. Scum like to subtly spin things to direct townies at other townies.
This is pretty rich, given that you and Netlava are the ones busy reading accusations that aren't there into questions we're asking.
Netlava wrote:Nice, [ShadowGirl is] on my list of suspicion already. What do you think of Charter and CF Riot?
Why do you suspect ShadowGirl?
Netlava wrote:He prefaces that question by pointing out that "you say Blackberry is scummy," which leads Charter to that conclusion. "Rank his scumminess" also implies that the action was scummy.
Please keep twisting words more. Pretty soon the rest of the town will start to see it too and string you up.
He said "odd" not "scummy," and it was a direct quote of charter's own words. These do not mean remotely the same thing, and he wasn't leading charter at all.
Acidmix wrote:yes 89 is my post and that was the post I was talking about Macavenger took the info from that post (meaning post 89) and focused on the last sentence of it in his post 93 and 95. he took the sentence and then tried to say that I said that because cf riot and blackberry had and afressive playstyle that made pro-town and no where in that sentence do I ever mention that making them pro- town. in other words he just straight up lied about it. you know may be thats not strawmaning or whatever I'm just a noob but either way that is not what I said at all!
Please go back, read my post where I explain why your reason for voting me is terrible, and do something more productive with your vote like helping me lynch Netlava, who actually is twisting what people say maliciously. Thanks.
I'd really love to see more votes on Netlava right now, as I feel like the spinning and twisting he's doing is noticably worse than charter's. I do also very much approve of the charter wagon though, so I may switch my vote there soon if I can't convince anyone else that Netlava needs run up too.
"By far the towniest player in the game. Very good scum hunting, doesn't let anyone off the hook. All in all I find Mac's posts insightful and thought-provoking. " - Vel-Rahn Koon
