Mufasa 743 wrote:@ Percy i would stop defending my self and give my opinions but it seems like certain people are persistent on old news and don't give a shake.
...which is essentially where I'm coming from. I find responses like this:MikeSC6 732 wrote:You're acting funny here, Zwet. Answering for Mufasa? Refusing to believe that there's anything in his scummy behaviour? It would be okay if you saidwhyyou thought all of these various scummy posts were merely mistakes. What we have is your opinion, but we don't know the reasoning behind it.
...to be scummy. If he really is just a confused, busy pro-town player, then he's playing like a confused, busy anti-town player. Making excuses for him is more than a little bizarre. He's also at L-3, by my count. Why do you think he's in such a great deal of danger?zwetschenwasser 733 wrote:My opinion is the reasoning.
Bold added for what I am most curious about. dingo implies that Percy's lurker hunt is a way to avoid commiting to a lynch. I think dingo is trying to split hairs when it is pretty clear what he intended.dingoatemybaby in post 638 wrote:I'm sure that calling out lurkers is a good idea. However, you suggested you would keep your vote on him until he provided "excellent" scum hunting. That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything.Percy wrote: Calling out lurkers, voting for them and demanding quality participation doesn't seem like a bad idea. I don't have much experience, so I can't comment on its overall efficacy, but I'm willing to give it a spin.It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.
But...it's not.dingoatemybaby wrote:My position has not changed, and Dr. Pepper's representation of my position is utterly false.Yosarian2 wrote:Um, he didn't say you "asked" him to change your vote. He said you "pushed" him to change his vote; considering the way you were attacking him for his "I won't change my vote unless..." comment, that actually seems pretty accurate to me.
Your earlier post really seemed to convey the message that you strongly disagreed with his vote and his stated intent to keep his vote there. I find it a bit odd you seem to be distancing yourself from your earlier position there now...
First of all, you didn't just say it was "bad stratagy". You specifically said that he was trying to avoid commenting on a lynch, which implies that you think he is scum because of it.
I DID say that it was bad strategy to keep you vote on a person who is not posting regardless of whatever else is going on in the game.
I DID NOT say that Percy's vote was unreasonable in and of itself.
Percy makes good points here. Mufasa may have limited access but has not made a clear distinction between pro-town and anti-town. The pressure on him is justified and Zwet, at first, appears to be over-reacting. But it looks more like Zwet is just trying to explain his position and I don’t see anything wrong with the one he takes or how he’s been taking it in response to accusations on him.Percy wrote:If he really is just a confused, busy pro-town player, then he's playing like a confused, busy anti-town player. Making excuses for him is more than a little bizarre. He's also at L-3, by my count. Why do you think he's in such a great deal of danger?
Did you think Percy was doing this intentionally? Do you think any town player would do it? If so, why?dingoatemybaby wrote:That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.
I do believe you understand my stance. How could you not, after it has been explained to you so many times? The fact that you understand it and still misrepresent it is scummy indeed.Dr Pepper wrote:I am glad Yosarian2 sees what I am getting at. Since dingo has had time to answer my question but chosen to ignore it, I will continue forward. I understand your stance, but you have no reason to be pushing it. And now you are distancing yourself from it.
Now let's blod the part of my quote that you refuse to acknowledge.Dr Pepper wrote:Bold added for what I am most curious about. dingo implies that Percy's lurker hunt is a way to avoid commiting to a lynch. I think dingo is trying to split hairs when it is pretty clear what he intended.dingoatemybaby in post 638 wrote: I'm sure that calling out lurkers is a good idea. However, you suggested you would keep your vote on him until he provided "excellent" scum hunting. That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything.It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.
Percy stated to keep his vote on ZONEACE. dingo didnt like this statement and criticized him for it. The only logical reason to make a statement is to affect change. dingo further backs up the criticism by saying Percy might be voting ZONEACE to 'avoid commiting to an actual lynch'. I respond with if Percy avoids commting then criticism may be warranted, but until then Percy has solid ground to stand on. Now dingo is back peddaling.
See that? I am not trying to get him to change his vote. I am trying to get him to change the conditions under which he would be willing to change his vote. There is a stark and clear difference between the two. I know you are not stupid. Therefore you are lying.dingoatemybaby in post 638 wrote:I'm sure that calling out lurkers is a good idea. However, you suggested you would keep your vote on him until he provided "excellent" scum hunting.That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.
Untrue. Please quote me "specifically" saying "he was trying to avoid commenting on a lynch". I said his strategy was one that could be used to avoid "committing" to an actual lynch. As I said before, it IS a strategy that I personally used in my last game to avoid committing to a lynch.Yosarian2 wrote: First of all, you didn't just say it was "bad stratagy". You specifically said that he was trying to avoid commenting on a lynch, which implies that you think he is scum because of it.
True. But I did NOT attack Percy for voting for Zoneace. I attacked him for the conditions he required before he would be willing to change his vote. So it is not "perfectly reasonable" to say I was pushing Percy to not vote for Zoneace. It is "perfectly reasonable" to say I was pushing for Percy to change the conditions under which he would be willing to change his vote.Yosarian2 wrote:And if you attack someone for doing X, then it is perfectly reasonable to say "You are trying to push that person into not doing X".
Again, untrue. I never said Percy should not keep his vote on Zoneace for as long as it was appropriate. I said there should be conditions, other than the one Percy stated, which would cause him to change his vote.Yosarian2 wrote:you didn't want Percy to keep his vote on Zoneace indefinatly
Percy himself understood what I was saying.Percy wrote:I am going toVote: ZONEACEuntil he comes up with some fuckingexcellentscumhunting.
Percy wrote: I don't think dingo didn't like my vote. I think he didn't like that I said I would keep it there until ZONEACE's replacement actually contributed to the game. He wasn't asking me to change it; he thought it was scummy that I wasn't willing to change it.
"You should be willing to change your vote"
is not the same as
"You should change your vote".
Ok. So you were accusing him of trying to use a scum tactic, right? As I said, you were attacking him for the threat he made of threatening to keep his vote on Zoneace unless Zoneace started scumhunting.dingoatemybaby wrote:Untrue. Please quote me "specifically" saying "he was trying to avoid commenting on a lynch". I said his strategy was one that could be used to avoid "committing" to an actual lynch. As I said before, it IS a strategy that I personally used in my last game to avoid committing to a lynch.Yosarian2 wrote: First of all, you didn't just say it was "bad stratagy". You specifically said that he was trying to avoid commenting on a lynch, which implies that you think he is scum because of it.
Feh. Semantics, really. Especally since Percy had not actally kept his vote on Zoneace for very long or to the exclusion of other wagons, he had mearly threatened to do so.True. But I did NOT attack Percy for voting for Zoneace. I attacked him for the conditions he required before he would be willing to change his vote. So it is not "perfectly reasonable" to say I was pushing Percy to not vote for Zoneace. It is "perfectly reasonable" to say I was pushing for Percy to change the conditions under which he would be willing to change his vote.Yosarian2 wrote:And if you attack someone for doing X, then it is perfectly reasonable to say "You are trying to push that person into not doing X".
Oh, I don't think there was anything wrong with Percy saying that, but that's not really why I'm voting for you here.Again, untrue. I never said Percy should not keep his vote on Zoneace for as long as it was appropriate. I said there should be conditions, other than the one Percy stated, which would cause him to change his vote.Yosarian2 wrote:you didn't want Percy to keep his vote on Zoneace indefinatly
Note too that you personally have employed the strategy I have said Percy should use. When you saw someone you believed to be acting more scummy that Zoneace, you changed your vote. Percy's strategy does not allow for that.
Isn't it funny that you voted to lynch me for my endorsement of a strategy that you, yourse4lf, employ? For reference, he was the line from Percy that I criticized. I have underlined the part that I objected to.
Percy himself understood what I was saying.Percy wrote:I am going toVote: ZONEACEuntil he comes up with some fuckingexcellentscumhunting.
Perhaps not, but "you should be willing to change your vote" could very easily mean that you don't want him to keep his vote there long enough for Zoneace to be in danger, but don't want to actually say taht. Even if that wasn't your intent, you really don't understand why other people might decide that that may have been your motivation there?Percy wrote: I don't think dingo didn't like my vote. I think he didn't like that I said I would keep it there until ZONEACE's replacement actually contributed to the game. He wasn't asking me to change it; he thought it was scummy that I wasn't willing to change it.
"You should be willing to change your vote"
is not the same as
"You should change your vote".
"Excellent scumhunting".Yosarian2 wrote:
Ok. So you were accusing him of trying to use a scum tactic, right? As I said, you were attacking him for the threat he made of threatening to keep his vote on Zoneace unless Zoneace started scumhunting.
Not semantics. Two different things, which I repeatedly differentiated between, including in my initial post on the subject.Yosarian2 wrote:
Feh. Semantics, really. Especally since Percy had not actally kept his vote on Zoneace for very long or to the exclusion of other wagons, he had mearly threatened to do so.
I think you may want to read the discussion again. I didn't respond to his accusation by immediately voting for him. I corrected him.Yosarian2 wrote:
Oh, I don't think there was anything wrong with Percy saying that, but that's not really why I'm voting for you here.
Dr Pepper disliked your move, and he felt like you were trying to get Percy to move his vote off of Zoneace. Which is a competly rational reaction to your post; any reasonable person could read your post and see it as kind of a sideways way to try to discourage Percy from keeping his vote on Zoneace. You could have just defended your position or whatever and I would have been ok with it, but instead you responded with a massive over-reaction; you accused Dr Pepper of lying and of misrepresenting you, voted him, and have been attacking him since then. The degree of your response seems completly out of propotion to a rather rational and logical post by Dr Pepper, who didn't even FOS you in his initial post, and it makes me think that you may be hiding something, or that your motives may not be what you're saying they are.
and corrected him again.dingoatemybaby wrote:I just don't like the declaration that his vote will stay on Zoneface until Zoneface starts playing in some "excellent" way. I didn't say that Percy was not contributing.Dr Pepper wrote:dingo, I find that accusation of Percy not contributing to be unfounded. He is clearly performing player analysis, calling out lurkers, and keeping the game moving. He doesnt need to commit to a lynch so early. Maybe he doesnt want the popular lynch to occur. Maybe ZONEACE will be the lynch for the day.
and againdingoatemybaby wrote:I'm not asking him to change his vote. But that stance that he won't change his vote unless Zoneface provides excellent scumhunting? Not a solid position. Lurking can be scummy, but votes should eventually move to who ever is MOST scummy.Dr Pepper wrote:Also if you read the rest of my comments towards you, I explain what his vote is doing. It is putting pressure on ZONE to get in the game. Also, Percy does not have to contribute to a lynch if he doesnt want to. That itself is not scummy.
It is fine that you don't like Percy's vote stance, but you have yet to give a valid reason for him to change it.
Keeping a vote on a lurker can be a useful play for scum. You have an excuse to not vote for a scum buddy. You will not be blamed for the lynching of a townie if the town is going after one of their own.
This is not to say lurkers should not be pressured. If he does not respond to prods, he should be replaced. If he responds to prods but continues to lurk, he should be considered a candidate for a lynch. Putting a vote on a lurker now probably does not do much.
and againdingoatemybaby wrote:I think there is some disconnect in our communication here. I'm not concerned with Percy voting for Zoneface. I'm concerned about his statement that he intends to keep his vote there unless a specific condition is met by Zoneface.Dr Pepper wrote: That is complete crap. Percy is actively contributing to other conversation. If someone else is being more scummy than feel free to convince him. Right now he has great interest in ZONEACE and finds his lurking to be the most scummy activity so far. Percy is not trying to avoid taking part in anything. Your arguement is vast stretch.
and againdingoatemybaby wrote:I suggest you go back and reread what I actually said about Percy. I was talking about a specific tactic he said he was going to use. I'm done trying to correct you on this. If you want to talk about what I actually said, fine. I'm not interested in defending misrepresentations of my position.Dr Pepper wrote:dingoatemybaby: Look at Percy now. He is actively participating while following another lead. Will you now try to paint Percy in such a fashion that he wasnt even close to possibly doing?
and againdingoatemybaby wrote:There is that misrepresentation. I did NOT criticize Percy for voting for Zone. I've told you this enough times that your misrepresentation can not be anything but deliberate.Dr Pepper wrote:@dingo: I havent misrepresented anything. You have been trying to make something scummy that wasnt. I never even accused you of being scummy yet. But I am now starting to wonder just what you are up too. Percy currently has a perfectly legitamate stance and unless it was reset, he is still voting ZONEACE/tubby while contributing and starting more discussion. You are being misleading and completely paranoid with outrageous accusations.FoS dingo
I criticized him for saying he would not unvote Zone unless Zone managed to accomplish "excellent scumhunting". Pledging not to vote for anyone else, no matter how scummy those people might be is NOT good play.
Also, I did NOT criticize Percy for voting for Zone.
And in conclusion, I did NOT criticize Percy for voting for Zone.
Here is what I said.
dingoatemybaby wrote:I'm sure that calling out lurkers is a good idea. However, you suggested you would keep your vote on him until he provided "excellent" scum hunting. That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.
dingoatemybaby wrote:Well, that is just silly. It is obvious that no one should limit themselves to voting for a specific person regardless of how scummy other people are.Dr Pepper wrote:And I am saying the criticism is unwarranted.
He did not claim I had a hidden motivation. He claimed I said things I did not say.Yosarian2 wrote:]Perhaps not, but "you should be willing to change your vote" could very easily mean that you don't want him to keep his vote there long enough for Zoneace to be in danger, but don't want to actually say taht. Even if that wasn't your intent, you really don't understand why other people might decide that that may have been your motivation there?
Here is what really happened, dingo voted for me when it became obvious that I would not let his idea slide. I understand his motives could be honest. But I saw another opinion and want to discuss it. dingo's responses have been less than townie. And just requoting yourself dingo to hide the original statement is not content, it is spam.dingoatemybaby wrote: I did not vote for him until it became clear he would not speak honestly about what I had actually said. I've even offered to remove my vote if he would simply provide a quote from me backing up his claim. He responded with an OMGUS vote against me. Just how many times should I allow Pepper to misrepresent what I said before I call him out a liar?
Oh and to counter thisJahudo wrote:dingoatemybaby wrote:
That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.
Did you think Percy was doing this intentionally? Do you think any town player would do it? If so, why?
with the truthdingoatemybaby wrote: He did not claim I had a hidden motivation. He claimed I said things I did not say.
I am not concerned with surviving because if I go down, I am landing on top of you.Dr Pepper in post 703 wrote: @dingo: I havent misrepresented anything. You have been trying to make something scummy that wasnt. I never even accused you of being scummy yet. But I am now starting to wonder just what you are up too.
I quoted our discussion because it is quite illustrative. Your first post could have been an honest mistake. But look how you ignore everything I have to say just so you can repeat that "mistake" over and over. You did not want to "discuss". You refuse to discuss. HOw many times do I need quote my original post back to you before you will acknowledge the words that are actually there?Dr Pepper wrote:Look dingo, the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that your actions and statements could be interpreted in anything other than what you say makes you ignorant. I am not a liar and I have stated my opinion. Just because you believe one thing doesnt make it true. If you were honestly trying to sort things, maybe you could listen and realize "Hey, that might look like what Dr Pepper is saying" and instead of calling me a liar.
Since you are refusing to acknowledge that I have a point, I am going to assume dingo is either scum or stupid. I quoted you several times to back up my arguement and instead you just ignore me.
Here is what really happened, dingo voted for me when it became obvious that I would not let his idea slide. I understand his motives could be honest. But I saw another opinion and want to discuss it. dingo's responses have been less than townie. And just requoting yourself dingo to hide the original statement is not content, it is spam.
I didn't "ignore it". I read and post when I have time. And comging from you, who's entire strategy seems to be based on pretending you are too stupid to read, that is really rich.Dr Pepper wrote:Oh and I notice you ignored Jahudo's question posed directly to dingo. One very similar to one I asked earlier. Again, good selective reading there dingo. Here is it again.
@Jahudo - I don't know if Percy was doing it intentionally. Maybe it was an empty threat. Maybe it was a threat that was not well thought out. Maybe it was a scum tactic. If I knew the answer, I would not have asked him about it. Town players can make mistakes or empty threats. Sure.Jahudo wrote:dingoatemybaby wrote:
That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.
Did you think Percy was doing this intentionally? Do you think any town player would do it? If so, why?
That was my post to Percy. Note that I ONLY criticize the critera he is willing to consider when it comes to changing his vote. Note that not one other player has adopted this strategy. If the strategy is sound, why haven't you employed it?Dr Pepper wrote: with the truthDr Pepper in post 703 wrote: @dingo: I havent misrepresented anything. You have been trying to make something scummy that wasnt. I never even accused you of being scummy yet. But I am now starting to wonder just what you are up too.
Note that you STILL refuse to quote me trying to get Percy to change his vote. Note that you STILL refuse to acknowledge my corrections of your "misreading". Notice that you never expand upon or explain the way you logic your way from my actual words to what you claim I said. You just repeat the same lie over and over in the hopes that someone will believe you.
You say you just "interpreted" my words into the idea I wanted Percy to change his vote. Here is a quote. Show me how you "interpret" this into me wanting PErcy to change his vote.
dingoatemybaby wrote:I'm sure that calling out lurkers is a good idea. However, you suggested you would keep your vote on him until he provided "excellent" scum hunting. That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.Percy wrote:Calling out lurkers, voting for them and demanding quality participation doesn't seem like a bad idea. I don't have much experience, so I can't comment on its overall efficacy, but I'm willing to give it a spin.
QFFTJahudo wrote:I don't see scumtells in this line of discussion. Dr. Pepper went after something and seems to have a valid reasoning for doing so; dingo had a valid reasoning for the original statement to Percy and both look like town to me.
Maybe tubby and mufasa can bring a new perspective when they catch up.
dingoatemybaby wrote: I'm sure that calling out lurkers is a good idea. However, you suggested you would keep your vote on him until he provided "excellent" scum hunting. That seems to me a way to keep a vote out there which won't really do anything. It is an easy way to avoid committing to an actual lynch.
First dingo says that Percy is not moving his vote, then he says not moving his vote is a scum tactic. He doesn't actually accuse Percy of anything, but leaves everyone to draw their own conclusion.dingoatemybaby wrote: Keeping a vote on a lurker can be a useful play for scum. You have an excuse to not vote for a scum buddy. You will not be blamed for the lynching of a townie if the town is going after one of their own.
Lie. I talked about the conditions under which he was willing to move his vote. I've explained this to you at least a half a dozen times now.Dr Pepper wrote: First dingo says that Percy is not moving his vote
Note how many times I corrected you before calling you a liar. I even suggested that there was a miscommunication and clarified my position for you. So I guess your last statement was just another lie. This seems to be a habit for you.Dr Pepper wrote:then he says not moving his vote is a scum tactic. /quote]
Again, a lie.
But that didn't stop Pepper from claiming I did.Dr Pepper wrote:He doesn't actually accuse Percy of anything,
dingo's stance isLie. Show me one post where I asked him to move his vote.Dr Pepper wrote:A) Percy is not moving his vote
Lie. I never said that Percy should move his vote. I said he places unreasonable restrictions on the the conditions under which he would change his vote.Dr Pepper wrote:B) Not moving your vote is a scum tactic
Note how Pepper has to lie in his assumptions to get to the conclusion he wants.Dr Pepper wrote:therefore the implication is drawn
C) Percy is using a scum tactic
...nor is C implied by what he said, but if you ignore his actual words and pretend there is merit to the shit Pepper makes up, well then, you can believe anything.Dr Pepper wrote:He never actually says C...
If I were back peddling, I wouldn't be quoting myself over and over. Notice that while you refuse to discuss what was actually said, I am willing and able to back up my claims with actual quotes. If you are not embarrassed by your conduct here, why do you whine when I quote our conversation?Dr Pepper wrote:And given how much he is back peddaling I think I found something useful.
Dr Pepper wrote:If dingo had said, well thats one interpretation but not what I meant, then I would have moved on. Instead he calls me a liar and accuses me of misrepresenting him.
No. But I can understand this confusion (because it is entirely my own doing). I was typing fast and meant to vote for Pepper. I change this vote the next time I came online to who I meant if for. Note that the entire post was about Pepper.Percy wrote:@Dr Pepper: Post 769 is true, and I'm sure dingo would agree. That's why he voted for me - he thought I was using a scum tactic. This is a self-evident fact.
No. I identified at least one scenario where it would not be a scum tactic. You could be a townie bluffing, which would be a town tactic. You could also actually think the tactic is sound, which would make you an townie playing a bad strategy. Note that I simply asked you about this. I did not FOS you or vote for you (except as a foolish goof) over it.Percy wrote: Dingo
(1) Percy voted, and was not willing to change it until the condition "excellent scumhunting" was met.FACT
(2) Imposing this condition is a scum tactic.OPINION
Therefore:
(3) Percy is using a scum tactic.NECESSARY CONCLUSION
What if he doesn't provide "excellent scum hunting" and only acts like an average townie? Tubby may not be capable of excellent play. What if someone else appears extremely scummy? Would you still prefer to pressure someone providing average scum hunting over someone who shows them self to almost certainly be scum? Would you argue others should follow your lead?Percy wrote:I'll also note that Ihavefollowed through with my strategy. I think it's important to not leave lurkers behind, and I don't want a lynch until tubby has had a chance to speak. When he does speak, I want him to be under a lot of pressure to generate good info for the town as fast as possible, and scrutinised while he does it. That's why my vote is (still) on him.