Wall-E, Tenchi asked me for a
summary
of my case on you, so I gave it. He specifically asked not to reiterate stuff that had already been gone over already. Walls-of-text blow-by-blow analyses are a waste of time and often lead to multi-page back-and-forths with posts that take half an hour each to read and more often obfuscate than elucidate. If people have specific things that want more detail and reasoning on, I can give them, but it's inane to complain that a
summary
post is lacking in depth.
Wall-E wrote:mikek wrote:Wall-E posted a lot of fluffy posts
, especially early on. I'll not be addressing those individually, but I will note that posting fluff increases your apparent activity without actually helping to scumhunt.
Define 'a lot' of fluffy posts, please. What number would be scummy and therefore worthy of being used as a reason to lynch me?
This is not something that can be quantified---
it's subjective
. If people aren't sure whether they agree they can go back and look at your posts for themselves.
It's impossible to prove a subjective opinion and it's disingenuous of you to ask me to try
.
Wall-E wrote:You don't like my reasoning on some things? That's what I'm reading here. The other part is that I'm being evasive. Not actively so, but I suppose I can't deny a fair amount of laziness in this game on my part. I've rarely gone very deeply into the discussions.
What, specifically, are these things you don't like my reasoning on?
Again,
you're being disingenuous
. I already listed a bunch of things I don't like your reasoning on and you can hardly have missed them.
- The series of votes in 239, 291, and 321.
- False claiming looker.
- Post 368 and subsequent non-explanations.
- The distraction of NON-claiming and its inconsistency with your earlier stance on claiming
... for starters. Your explanations for each of these usually boiled down to
fishing for reactions
, which is
a convenient excuse scum can use to explain away anything at all
.
Wall-E wrote:mikek wrote:Post 462: Unvote - After claiming the game is over and fabricating a spurious case on me, he abruptly withdraws his vote.
Spurious? Please back this claim with some evidence or argument. I feel my actions there were fully justified.
Wall-E wrote:What I'm asking is this: Rather than you say, "It's nasty! So awful! I can't eat a bite!" I want you to say "You burned the corndog and used old hotdog oil and also this is a rat whisker here."
How did I burn this corndog? What about my case against you is flimsy, weak or otherwise unworthy of consideration? Worse! Worthy of my deconsideration, if you will. You say it, but do you MEAN it? If you meant it, I'd expect to see more... depth to your thoughts.
Your PBPA was in 393. My rebuttal is in post 456. Your response was "I also appreciate him (grudgingly) addressing my concerns, and he's convinced me I was up the wrong tree again", i.e., immediate retraction with no defense.
You already agreed that your case was worthy of deconsideration
.
Why are you acting as though you believe your PBPA was solid?
Nobody bought it then, not even you
. Should I re-iterate everything I said back then? To act as though I haven't addressed your PBPA in detail already is
disingenuous
.
Wall-E wrote:Wall-E's "misunderstanding" about the game set-up looks insincere
. It would make no sense at all to have night kills in this set-up, the game would be won or lost on day 1. I find it hard to believe he could make this mistake. At the time I accepted it, thinking to myself that his not knowing how the scum operate is a pretty strong town tell. Now, I think this tell was fabricated. It seems implausible to me that he could actually misunderstand the game the way he did, so it was faked. Only scum would have reason to fake that.
The only possible refutation I can give to this statement is to say that it was not fabricated, I truly have never played a nightless mafia game before this one, and the conceptual mechanics of the setup had eluded some of the finer points of my reasoning.
And the only response I can give is that I think
it is more likely a scum pulling a fast one than a townie being genuinely confused
.
Wall-E wrote:Again. What would you rather talk about/do instead of listen to me post? What was I distracting from? I need you to believe what you say and convey such with your language. If you really do believe I was distracting from something, what was it?
Post 368 and your subsequent flailing attempt to fabricate a case on me rather than explain the post.
Wall-E wrote:First of all, some people would be nervous even to talk about it. These would be people lurking to hope the idea goes away because they do not want to be the one to lose for their team by breaking their team's strategy apart. Some would be flat-out against it.
I considered mikek mostly scummy for being against it but not stating WHY he was.
He wouldn't point out downsides for NOT-claiming despite all the negativity.
Corndogs.
Wall-E wrote:I noticed you were hesitant toward the not-claim and even mildly vulgar during the time it became clear that others would be playing along. I hypothesize that scum would be jumpy like that, afraid of not-claiming incorrectly and revealing themselves in some unknown way. Like someone who is watching a terrible train crash and is unable to stop it, but stays and yells loudly out of concern. You were concerned that the one lynch we needed would be you because of something you'd said or done earlier in the thread.
So what you're saying is, the whole NOT-claim thing was you fishing for reactions. You have got to realize that excuse is wearing a little thin?
mikek wrote:Prediction: Nothing much will come of this NOT-claim thing and Wall-E will try to change the subject again.
Wall-E wrote:The analysis I have for the entire claim:
mikek looked nervous about the not-claim
zwets also looked somewhat sour on the idea
I noticed some other people gained small bits of information from it. I hope it helps in the long run. I'm not telling what else I may have learned from it.
Speaks for itself.
That post took me 40 minutes to write. I don't want to imagine how long it would take to respond to Wall-E if I had given the maximum ammount of reasoning and examples instead of a summary post.
