Walnut wrote:Good try, but what I have been saying all along is that apparently scummy play (such as lynching solely on standard scumtells) can well be town play.
This does not conflict in any way with what I was saying. It can, or can't. It's all situational, and you have to figure out the situation. You're telling people to use their heads, I'm using mine.
Walnut wrote:Incidentally, you say power roles is a decent one (scumtell)- what do you think of Hadhfang bringing up the possibility that Charter has a power role?
I don't like it, but I don't think it's a big enough scumtell to outweigh the rest of his play, which I find rather townish.
You totally ignored my request for you to talk about who you find suspicious. Why? Please do so.
Acidmix wrote:Sorry I somehow overlooked or missed your question the first time.
To put it simple yes I think Mac was trying to twist my words. I guess its
possible that he just misread my post, but I think the reason he said
what he did was to eventually make me look suspicious or to simply
use it to discredit anything that I post.
I've already explained why this is totally wrong. Please vote Netlava now. Thanks.
charter wrote:I'm not going to argue semantics on this question too. This is really getting out of hand, it's like there should be a dictionary on the forum or something. I read it as looking for a specific point, hence why I responded like I did. Regardless I think my response answers his question.
What the hell. hadhfang gave a
direct quote
of you saying you think he wants to lynch either you or Netlava (both very admirable goals, I might add). There is no way you can call him asking you where you saw that he wanted to lynch Netlava a flawed question. That's just laughably bad.
Moving on to Netlava's many and varied twists and self-contradictions:
Netlava wrote:In the context of this game, odd IMPLIES scummy. Why do we point out that something is odd in this game? Is it simply because it's bizarre? No, we say it's strange because it can be interpreted as scummy behavior.
I don't care how much you want this to be true, it's still not. There are lots of ways to play as town. Some of them are unusual, or odd, or whatever you want to call them. That doesn't make them scummy. Sometimes odd can mean scummy. You're trying to say that it always does, which is not true.
Netlava wrote:This "maliciously word twisting" theme is nonsense. You guys are just purposely misinterpreting my posts, and adding some drama to it.
No, you're reading things into people's posts that aren't there, and using that to attack people. We're pointing out why you're full of shit.
Netlava wrote:My comment here was that it implies not answering questions is lynch worthy. Here, we look at the assumptions. Batt dispels the notion that Charter should be lynched solely because he didn't answer a question. To dispel this notion requires the assumption that a person should be lynched solely for that in the first place, which is an absurd idea. Consequently, batt's post seems fake. I also don't like how he subscribes to the general mantra "not answering questions is bad."
Again, you're reading tons of crap that isn't there into what people are saying. He's making sure no one misinterprets his vote as him thinking that, emphasizing that it's just a pressure vote. You trying to make his statement into the opposite of what it is is just hilarious.
Netlava wrote:I changed my mind. woohoo. Because obviously nothing new has happened in this game, am I right?
Lots has now. You changed your mind about hadhfang's vote between post 110 and post 113, between which you and I were the only ones to post. You gained no new information on hadhfang's vote during that time, only on mine. Yet somehow, his vote became scummier to you. There's no reason this should happen, unless you need one of those charter votes to be scummy so you can accuse people based on them, which is something only scum need to do.
Netlava wrote:LOL, you really think I'm buddies with Charter?
Probably. There's still a small chance he's a very misguided townie, though.
Netlava wrote:And the case against CF Riot is based around 2 primary themes. The first is his question and the second is the precaution he takes. However, CF Riot's third act, voting Charter to stick to his guns, strikes me as a newb act, so therefore I'm inclined to dismiss CF Riot as a newb townie.
Really? Ok then, so obviously in your prior posts you must have quit accusing him after he voted for charter. Let's go back and look at them.
CF Riot in post 97 wrote:If it will help prove my township and prove I'm willing to take responsibility for my own actions, so be it.
Vote: Charter
Netlava in post 110 wrote:CF Riot wrote:If it will help prove my township and prove I'm willing to take responsibility for my own actions, so be it. Vote: Charter
This post implies you are voting Charter just to look more town to the town. Another questionable motive!
Huh. This looks oddly like attacking CF Riot for the thing you just said made him newbie town.
Netlava in post 110 wrote:CF Riot wrote:No I never meant to imply that I was in fact taking them. Netlava said it appeared that I was taking precautions as scum. I am not scum, and my post was saying "if I were, I wouldn't need them."
I meant that scum may feel compelled to take precautions because they know they'll be "wrong." Innocents don't know, so they usually hope for the best and assume they'll be right.
Still looks like pressuring him to me.
Netlava in post 113 wrote:Except nothing was realistically going to happen with the Blackberry incident either, and CF Riot was trying to make something happen.
Ok, that's definitely still attacking CF Riot.
Netlava in post 125 wrote:hadhfang wrote:Good point, but the way you say it suggests you feel Riot is scummy.
Well, yeah
Ok he's definitely still scummy in post 125.
Netlava in post 157 wrote:CF Riot has been giving me pro-town vibes as much as I find his actions scummy. Therefore, after re-reading the thread, I think had is scum. Batt would be my second choice.
Ok, so in post 157 he's finally town.
But that's an awfully long time after he voted for charter, which you just claimed caused you to dismiss him as newb town. In fact, you directly called that action questionable while attacking him earlier.
Netlava has some other comments between posts 97 and 157 talking about how CF Riot's first question to charter was loaded and such, but I didn't bother quoting them all because they were mostly in response to other people talking about it, and well, there's plenty of other stuff up there demonstrating Netlava clearly thought CF Riot was still scum long after he claims to have seen Riot as newbie town.
So Netlava has now added blatant lying to his routine. The timing of his shifts of opinion is absolutely damning, and him trying to lie about them only makes it more so. Can we please lynch him yet? Fans of the Lynch All Liars policy lynch can get on board now!
Netlava wrote:I
think
know you're town, Macavenger, because
you put quite some effort into that long post with a cocky attitude even though you're wrong
I'm scum.
Fixed for you. Also, it's way too late to try to buddy up with me. Nice try though.
"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