Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[Wall-E]

You have actually refuted many of my claims properly (if a bit angrily). See if you can spot where you have as an exercise in logical argument. After the game I will even show you what I mean if you like.

[X]

@X: Appeal to emotion: Saying, "I'm the worst player ever." It's an appeal to pity, and provably untrue besides.

I see. But he didn't use it to prove his point. His point was that scum or bad townies do XYZ, and you did XYZ.

Because I am highly alert to a problem in how I am presenting myself in this game, I'm telling you now that you need to be more literal with me. A lot more literal. Pretend you are speaking to a five year old with a very high IQ.

My case starts with the mini-flipout, which I have analyzed line-by-line previously. It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet. The most pro-town thing he's done was to question my condition, imho, and other than that he's mostly yelling about what I'm writing instead of refuting it properly.

So that's: Logical fallacies, flip-out, starting an RVS discussion to derail suspicion using a bombastic statement, prolific dismissiveness.

In relation to why IK is scum? I haven't seen him use many logical fallacies to prove his points, including the ones that you have pointed out. As for a flip-out, I think that's his personality - being combative and using charged language is not a scumtell for many people.

Please re-word your third charge.

And what has IK dismissed?

It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet.

X mostly seemed to agree on my choppy quoting skills and my rage. I've never been good with them, but then, I was basically doing YOUR damn homework and trying to compile all the arguments against you into one pile (thank you X for doing a much better job of it). Those "vague" references to your scummyness? YOU'VE BEEN DOING THAT TO ME THE ENTIRE TIME. How come you notice it when I do it, but not when YOU do it?

Appeal to authority (X) followed by more angry words.

1. I'm an authority?
2. An appeal to authority is like: "X said Wall-E is scum, therefore Wall-E is scum." It amounts to agreeing with someone without supportive reasoning.

I don't see what I said that IK is blindly agreeing with.

Wall-E, I'm going to talk to you as if you're 5.

One of my big issues with you is that you dismiss a lot of what people say by identifying them as logical fallacies when they are not.

Some things that you have pointed out are logical fallacies, but many are not.

For example, in the above quote, you said IK was using an appeal to authority.

He was pointing out the undeniable fact that what I agreed with you on were choppy quoting skills and rage - actually, more just rage.

He said that to highlight that "the things X agreed with in his latest post" does not include a case against IK.

In short, Wall-E, IK was arguing that part of your case (which you identified as the things I agreed with) only concerned nulltells. His argument was his own, and not based on an appeal to any authority as far as I can tell.

@ qwints - that's not the case. words dont matter, votes do

Both matter. I am amazed at your single-mindedness toward voting.

I think Wall-E is scum, and Looker is a likely candidate. Let's get one of them on the gallows.

[Wall-E]

@X: Appeal to emotion: Saying, "I'm the worst player ever." It's an appeal to pity, and provably untrue besides.

I see. But he didn't use it to prove his point. His point was that scum or bad townies do XYZ, and you did XYZ.

I'm town, so it's not a scumtell. I realize this is not an argument, but I've already explained myself in regards to XYZ.

Because I am highly alert to a problem in how I am presenting myself in this game, I'm telling you now that you need to be more literal with me. A lot more literal. Pretend you are speaking to a five year old with a very high IQ.

My case starts with the mini-flipout, which I have analyzed line-by-line previously. It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet. The most pro-town thing he's done was to question my condition, imho, and other than that he's mostly yelling about what I'm writing instead of refuting it properly.

So that's: Logical fallacies, flip-out, starting an RVS discussion to derail suspicion using a bombastic statement, prolific dismissiveness.

In relation to why IK is scum? I haven't seen him use many logical fallacies to prove his points, including the ones that you have pointed out. As for a flip-out, I think that's his personality - being combative and using charged language is not a scumtell for many people.

Please re-word your third charge.

And what has IK dismissed?

He often replies to my points with laughter and meta-defense, which I don't accept as proper refutation because meta-behavior, to an extent, has to be ignored in the case of frequently anti-town players. The only proper response to an anti-town player is to correct them repeatedly by lynching. It's a long-term versus short-term gain issue, and that is where I stand on it.

It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet.

X mostly seemed to agree on my choppy quoting skills and my rage. I've never been good with them, but then, I was basically doing YOUR damn homework and trying to compile all the arguments against you into one pile (thank you X for doing a much better job of it). Those "vague" references to your scummyness? YOU'VE BEEN DOING THAT TO ME THE ENTIRE TIME. How come you notice it when I do it, but not when YOU do it?

Appeal to authority (X) followed by more angry words.

1. I'm an authority?

Citing you as agreeing with him establishes you as an authority. I never called you one.

2. An appeal to authority is like: "X said Wall-E is scum, therefore Wall-E is scum." It amounts to agreeing with someone without supportive reasoning.

I don't see what I said that IK is blindly agreeing with.

Simply saying, "Person agrees with me" is not a valid argument because you are 1) not any kind of an expert on this subject (you supposedly know as much as I do if you're town) and 2) your opinion does not effect his alignment. Alternately, his alignment does not affect your perception of his win condition. That's an appeal to authority. He's establishing you as a viable reference based on nothing but the fact that you happen to agree with him (incorrectly).

Wall-E, I'm going to talk to you as if you're 5.

One of my big issues with you is that you dismiss a lot of what people say by identifying them as logical fallacies when they are not.

You have personally agreed with many of my logical fallacy callouts.

Some things that you have pointed out are logical fallacies, but many are not.

Please name the ones that aren't.

[/color]

For example, in the above quote, you said IK was using an appeal to authority.

He was pointing out the undeniable fact that what I agreed with you on were choppy quoting skills and rage - actually, more just rage.

As I've said, it's an appeal to authority.

[/color]

He said that to highlight that "the things X agreed with in his latest post" does not include a case against IK.

[/b]

I agree with you there, but an appeal to authority is still an appeal to authority no matter what goal the user intends. Strawman on your part. I don't think it was intentional as you seem unaware of the definition of appeal to authority as it refers to the logical fallacy. I'm going to rewrite what you just wrote to demonstrate that you actually agree with me: IK said that X agreed with things that had nothing to do with the case against himself in order to establish supporting evidence for his claim that X doesn't agree with the case against IK. We don't really need that evidence, and it's STILL an appeal to authority (you).

In short, Wall-E, IK was arguing that part of your case (which you identified as the things I agreed with) only concerned nulltells. His argument was his own, and not based on an appeal to any authority as far as I can tell.

Hopefully I've convinced you otherwise. If not, you are entitled to your own opinion.

[Wall-E]

This argument with X is relevant to establishing credibility for my opinion, so I'm engaging in it. That aside, you seem to be flip-flopping on the issue of my alignment, X.

[Wall-E]

One of my big issues with you is that you dismiss a lot of what people say by identifying them as logical fallacies when they are not.

Untrue. I point out the logical fallacies regardless of who makes them or the motive behind them. It keeps the information in the thread as clean as possible.

[Wall-E]

At the end of this day, you are all going to have to decide for yourselves who to believe. I had my moment of doubt about IK earlier, and I'm over it. I'm ready to sail this ship into the rocks, even if everyone else is boarding another boat while I do and firing cannons at me besides.

[X]

@X: Appeal to emotion: Saying, "I'm the worst player ever." It's an appeal to pity, and provably untrue besides.

I see. But he didn't use it to prove his point. His point was that scum or bad townies do XYZ, and you did XYZ.

I'm town, so it's not a scumtell. I realize this is not an argument, but I've already explained myself in regards to XYZ.

He often replies to my points with laughter and meta-defense, which I don't accept as proper refutation because meta-behavior, to an extent, has to be ignored in the case of frequently anti-town players. The only proper response to an anti-town player is to correct them repeatedly by lynching. It's a long-term versus short-term gain issue, and that is where I stand on it.

So you think he's either scum or an anti-town player who has to be lynched in order to correct his anti-town ways? Being satisfied with the second possibility is not playing to win, assuming you're town.

Simply saying, "Person agrees with me" is not a valid argument because you are 1) not any kind of an expert on this subject (you supposedly know as much as I do if you're town) and 2) your opinion does not effect his alignment. Alternately, his alignment does not affect your perception of his win condition. That's an appeal to authority.

I agree with you up to this point.

He's establishing you as a viable reference based on nothing but the fact that you happen to agree with him (incorrectly).

No, he's establishing my post as a reference based on the fact that it exists. You also referred to it. It's not a viable reference.

Wall-E, I'm going to talk to you as if you're 5.

One of my big issues with you is that you dismiss a lot of what people say by identifying them as logical fallacies when they are not.

You have personally agreed with many of my logical fallacy callouts.

Some, not many.

Some things that you have pointed out are logical fallacies, but many are not.

Please name the ones that aren't.

I can try to point out a few, but I certainly can't get to all of them, finish replying to the rest of your really long post on the previous page, do meta research on you, and do well on my AP tests before deadline. The one that we're currently talking about is a start.

For example, in the above quote, you said IK was using an appeal to authority.

He was pointing out the undeniable fact that what I agreed with you on were choppy quoting skills and rage - actually, more just rage.

As I've said, it's an appeal to authority.

No, no it's not. I definitely agreed with you about those things. And you definitely identified the things that I agreed with you on as points against IK. Referring to someone is not an appeal to authority, or a scumtell.

He said that to highlight that "the things X agreed with in his latest post" does not include a case against IK.

[/b]

I agree with you there, but an appeal to authority is still an appeal to authority no matter what goal the user intends. Strawman on your part. I don't think it was intentional as you seem unaware of the definition of appeal to authority as it refers to the logical fallacy. I'm going to rewrite what you just wrote to demonstrate that you actually agree with me: IK said that X agreed with things that had nothing to do with the case against himself in order to establish supporting evidence for his claim that X doesn't agree with the case against IK. We don't really need that evidence, and it's STILL an appeal to authority (you).

Don't tell me that I don't know that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. I'm quite insulted, really.

Logical fallacies refer to the use of arguments that can prove false things.

An appeal to authority is fallacious because it presupposes that the authority is infallible. It consists of person A saying something, and person B arguing that it is true

because

person A said it.

IK took your label for some of your "evidence," which was "the things X agreed with in his latest post." Then he said that the "evidence," because it only talked about quoting skills and rage, was not real evidence.

He was not saying that I don't agree with the case on IK.

That is true, but he was not saying that.

He was saying that the case on him was flimsy.

That aside, you seem to be flip-flopping on the issue of my alignment, X.

Where did you get the impression that I saw you as town?

One of my big issues with you is that you dismiss a lot of what people say by identifying them as logical fallacies when they are not.

Untrue. I point out the logical fallacies regardless of who makes them or the motive behind them. It keeps the information in the thread as clean as possible.

That's all fine and dandy that you point out logical fallacies. It's a good thing to do. I just think you misidentify a fair amount of them. That misidentification has clogged up this thread, IMO.

At the end of this day, you are all going to have to decide for yourselves who to believe. I had my moment of doubt about IK earlier, and I'm over it. I'm ready to sail this ship into the rocks, even if everyone else is boarding another boat while I do and firing cannons at me besides.

Nice analogy. I plan to keep firing away.

[Wall-E]

He often replies to my points with laughter and meta-defense, which I don't accept as proper refutation because meta-behavior, to an extent, has to be ignored in the case of frequently anti-town players. The only proper response to an anti-town player is to correct them repeatedly by lynching. It's a long-term versus short-term gain issue, and that is where I stand on it.

So you think he's either scum or an anti-town player who has to be lynched in order to correct his anti-town ways? Being satisfied with the second possibility is not playing to win, assuming you're town.

I disagree. It has the benefit of 1) helping him play more logically and 2) possibly doing so within the span of this game.

Simply saying, "Person agrees with me" is not a valid argument because you are 1) not any kind of an expert on this subject (you supposedly know as much as I do if you're town) and 2) your opinion does not effect his alignment. Alternately, his alignment does not affect your perception of his win condition. That's an appeal to authority.

I agree with you up to this point.

He's establishing you as a viable reference based on nothing but the fact that you happen to agree with him (incorrectly).

No, he's establishing my post as a reference based on the fact that it exists. You also referred to it. It's not a viable reference.

Why does he need to point out that something exists if not to use it for the purposes of convincing others based on what you have said? Using the reasoning of others is a scumtell, albiet a difficult one to find when done properly.

Wall-E, I'm going to talk to you as if you're 5.

I meant for you to be very literal, not flamboyant and cheeky.

[/color]

One of my big issues with you is that you dismiss a lot of what people say by identifying them as logical fallacies when they are not.

You have personally agreed with many of my logical fallacy callouts.

Some, not many.

Semantics?

Some things that you have pointed out are logical fallacies, but many are not.

Please name the ones that aren't.

I can try to point out a few, but I certainly can't get to all of them, finish replying to the rest of your really long post on the previous page, do meta research on you, and do well on my AP tests before deadline. The one that we're currently talking about is a start.

For example, in the above quote, you said IK was using an appeal to authority.

He was pointing out the undeniable fact that what I agreed with you on were choppy quoting skills and rage - actually, more just rage.

As I've said, it's an appeal to authority.

No, no it's not. I definitely agreed with you about those things. And you definitely identified the things that I agreed with you on as points against IK. Referring to someone is not an appeal to authority, or a scumtell.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm merely wondering what your opinions have to do with his defense or lack thereof.

He said that to highlight that "the things X agreed with in his latest post" does not include a case against IK.

[/b]

I agree with you there, but an appeal to authority is still an appeal to authority no matter what goal the user intends. Strawman on your part. I don't think it was intentional as you seem unaware of the definition of appeal to authority as it refers to the logical fallacy. I'm going to rewrite what you just wrote to demonstrate that you actually agree with me: IK said that X agreed with things that had nothing to do with the case against himself in order to establish supporting evidence for his claim that X doesn't agree with the case against IK. We don't really need that evidence, and it's STILL an appeal to authority (you).

Don't tell me that I don't know that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. I'm quite insulted, really.

Again, don't be insulted. I am merely pointing out my observations, and you should not internalize it. If I call your hat ugly it doesn't reflect poorly on you, it reflects poorly on my own self-esteem. On the other hand, what I'm doing here is pointing out that you seem to be unaware of the definition of the fallacy. It's not an insult, it's an opinion, and one made with nothing but respect.

Logical fallacies refer to the use of arguments that can prove false things.

Incorrect. A logical fallacy can attempt to prove something that is true.

An appeal to authority is fallacious because it presupposes that the authority is infallible. It consists of person A saying something, and person B arguing that it is true

because

person A said it.

So the things you said have merit outside your own authority? What merit is that? Are you softclaiming? What do the things that you say have to do with me and IK?

IK took your label for some of your "evidence," which was "the things X agreed with in his latest post." Then he said that the "evidence," because it only talked about quoting skills and rage, was not real evidence.

Saying that my case is invalid without stating why is dismissive and scummy. I don't have a problem with him saying quoting skills and rage aren't scumtells (I never advocated lynching him for a lack of quote skills, another strawman) I have a problem with him using a meta defense to excuse his dismissiveness, a problem with his attitude being one of a person attempting to characterize his attacker as illogical without evidence, a problem with his attempt to derail early-game suspicion by making a bombastic statement intended to spark a debate (you can yell about how it's not true all day, but I have no facts before me to measure with, so I must assume the worst), a constant repetition of logical fallacies (which you are now engaging in for some reason) and his dismissiveness.

He was not saying that I don't agree with the case on IK. [/b]That is true, but he was not saying that.

He was saying that the case on him was flimsy.

And I assert that it's the best case on the table.

That aside, you seem to be flip-flopping on the issue of my alignment, X.

Where did you get the impression that I saw you as town?

Touche.

One of my big issues with you is that you dismiss a lot of what people say by identifying them as logical fallacies when they are not.

Untrue. I point out the logical fallacies regardless of who makes them or the motive behind them. It keeps the information in the thread as clean as possible.

That's all fine and dandy that you point out logical fallacies. It's a good thing to do. I just think you misidentify a fair amount of them. That misidentification has clogged up this thread, IMO.

I think that I have identified all of them correctly. Are you starting to get annoyed with these third-grade rhetoric responses? Then offer me something more at the get-go.

At the end of this day, you are all going to have to decide for yourselves who to believe. I had my moment of doubt about IK earlier, and I'm over it. I'm ready to sail this ship into the rocks, even if everyone else is boarding another boat while I do and firing cannons at me besides.

Nice analogy. I plan to keep firing away.

Thanks. Analogy is one of my strong suits.

[X]

I'll try to avoid major quote pyramids here, so here goes:

• 1. Lynching someone because of something they always do is not finding scum. You seem to be fine with lynching IK because of something that he might always do (neither of us have checked yet).
  2. Referring to someone's opinion is not necessarily an appeal to authority, especially when it is used as a marker for which arguments are being discussed.
  3. Sorry.
  4. I would say it's significant enough to change. Just like the difference between "some" and "many" people voting for you can be difference between being alive and being lynched. So what I'm saying is that changing "many" to "some" weakens your point that I have agreed with your identifications of fallacies.
  5. My definition of fallacy was unintentionally slightly misleading, and you caught that. I meant that a logical fallacy is a method of reasoning that is able to prove something true that is not true. Fallacies can be and are employed about true and false statements.
  6. I am not softclaiming. However, my reasoning (as anyone else's) can be sound, and someone can agree with my sound reasoning without it being an appeal to authority. i.e., "We are playing a game of mafia. The game of mafia has an informed minority. Therefore, there is an informed minority in this game." If someone else hears this and says, "I know the first two statements are true, so the third is true," that is not a fallacy. It is a fallacy if someone else only hears the last sentence and decides, for no other reason than that I said it, that it is true.
  It would also be an appeal to authority if someone heard, "I did well in a Logic class first semester," and then assumed that, "Therefore he can tell what is a fallacy or not."
  7. I assert that your case is the best on the table, followed by Looker's who is pretty much not explaining himself, and Jase is really lurking hard, IMO.
  8. I am starting to get annoyed with these third-grade responses (I still deny that your definition of rhetoric is accurate). Offer you something more? In terms of what? My first instinct is that you're begging me to say or do something scummy so that hyposcum you can jump on
  hypo
  town me.

[Sajin]

I'll try to avoid major quote pyramids here, so here goes:

• 1. Lynching someone because of something they always do is not finding scum. You seem to be fine with lynching IK because of something that he might always do (neither of us have checked yet).
  2. Referring to someone's opinion is not necessarily an appeal to authority, especially when it is used as a marker for which arguments are being discussed.
  3. Sorry.
  4. I would say it's significant enough to change. Just like the difference between "some" and "many" people voting for you can be difference between being alive and being lynched. So what I'm saying is that changing "many" to "some" weakens your point that I have agreed with your identifications of fallacies.
  5. My definition of fallacy was unintentionally slightly misleading, and you caught that. I meant that a logical fallacy is a method of reasoning that is able to prove something true that is not true. Fallacies can be and are employed about true and false statements.
  6. I am not softclaiming. However, my reasoning (as anyone else's) can be sound, and someone can agree with my sound reasoning without it being an appeal to authority. i.e., "We are playing a game of mafia. The game of mafia has an informed minority. Therefore, there is an informed minority in this game." If someone else hears this and says, "I know the first two statements are true, so the third is true," that is not a fallacy. It is a fallacy if someone else only hears the last sentence and decides, for no other reason than that I said it, that it is true.
  It would also be an appeal to authority if someone heard, "I did well in a Logic class first semester," and then assumed that, "Therefore he can tell what is a fallacy or not."
  7. I assert that your case is the best on the table, followed by Looker's who is pretty much not explaining himself, and Jase is really lurking hard, IMO.
  8. I am starting to get annoyed with these third-grade responses (I still deny that your definition of rhetoric is accurate). Offer you something more? In terms of what? My first instinct is that you're begging me to say or do something scummy so that hyposcum you can jump on
  hypo
  town me.

@X-Stop lining up lynches. I am aware your mostly attacking one person, but that does not make it ok to list "top 3 cases".

fos X

@Looker-I want looker to answer my questions that is all. My vote is going back to Walle if I get satisfactory answers. If.

@Walle- Care to answer my statistics question?

[Idiotking]

fos Sajin

for thinking it's scummy to list your opinions, based on his own opinion rather than what is actually scummy.

[StrangerCoug]

fos Sajin

for thinking it's scummy to list your opinions, based on his own opinion rather than what is actually scummy.

Quoted for truth. May I ask how posting a top three is lining up lynches, Sajin?

[Sajin]

I have explained this elsewhere in this thread already. On day 1, listing and getting others to do so is scummy.

[Wall-E]

I've got my connection fixed now.

I'm really hoping Cubey comes back, if the bottom falls out of my case, I don't find the case against Wall-E all that compelling (I'm not sure why he's so close to being lynched).

In his next post he claims I was his next best lead.

I'm going to go through the thread and compile only the original thoughts Sajin presents, meaning I will be ignoring all the posts he made saying, "I agree with <name>" or "Such and such was a misread."

Original content only means things he brought up before anyone else:

Sajin, I'm going to start you off with 1 townie point.

@173-Kreriov- Semi agree. I see walle's large increase in participation as scummy because it strikes me as trying to be under the radar, and then realizing your in danger, and desperately clinging to a rope, spamming posts to survive.

One townie point for you.

@idiotking.....no information is "old" in a game of mafia. Also note, its not new to me or Hero because we joined on page 10. Also, scum could slip up day 1 and mess their story up. Not voting in RVS is scummy because of this:

RVS leads to discussion, discussion leads to information, information leads to lynching scum.

Not voting in RVS, cuts off information, which leads to less lynching of scum. Its not that its scummy in and of itself....its scummy because what it leads or does not lead to. So you have a grey mark in my votebook too. Its not enough to day 1 lynch you, but it shall be noted for future votes as again, the entire thread should be incorporated in every days vote/lynch.

RVS policy discussion. While I agree with you, not scumhunting. No townie points for this one.

why do you keep diminishing your own importance IK?

One townie point.

Feel free to ask any question you want. The person I would like to pressure would be cuabarey who is not here, and I feel like posting any sort of town/scum list at this time would let the scum setup better for day 2.

And more something more substantial and opinionated just for you: We should lynch walle because he claimed vanilla. Now that he claimed vanilla, if hes scum he will sit there and kill off people and if he is not, scum will not touch him in an effort to kill power roles, not that we have any of course. Thus, we must lynch him eventually, and its better to lynch this today.

One townie point.

Feeling good? You shouldn't. While I've been adding townie points for original content, I've been gleaning through tons of agreement posts and hot-topic commentary from you. The majority of your input is

not

scumhunting. You don't ask many questions, and you take the obvious side in debates that don't concern you to buddy up to the most pro-town players. For every time you used someone else's post to explain your own thoughts rather than taking the five seconds it takes to type them out yourself, I took away one point. You are now at -4 townie points as of this quoted post.

I could continue, but you'd be somewhere at -40 townie points by now.

Feel free to ask any question you want. The person I would like to pressure would be cuabarey who is not here, and I feel like posting any sort of town/scum list at this time would let the scum setup better for day 2.

And more something more substantial and opinionated just for you: We should lynch walle because he claimed vanilla. Now that he claimed vanilla, if hes scum he will sit there and kill off people and if he is not, scum will not touch him in an effort to kill power roles, not that we have any of course. Thus, we must lynch him eventually, and its better to lynch this today.

How does posting a list of scum help the scum decide who to NK? They won't be likely to lynch any of the people most of us agree are scummy. In light of this viewpoint, do you feel that if I changed targets I would be helping the scum in any way? What about if X did? What about if Cubarey had? Should we all just pick ONE target each to minimize the nebulous threat of "helping the scum?" That's what you're saying, right? Please clarify this viewpoint.

[qwints]

Expect me to outline my case against hero and sajin by tonight.

Also I plan to elaborate on my bad vibes, I was being sarcastic when I said "I find your hostility frightening" and "impatient" is not what I believe him to be. Your representation of my case is rather skewed, as none of what you've outlined will make up any part of MY case.

Jase made these two posts last Wednesday and hasn't posted since. I'm really bothered that he hasn't provided the promised case.

Mod, could you please prod Jase?

Wall-E is no longer my number one choice for a lynch. The fact that he continued to participate after looker took the lead in votes removes my biggest factor for voting him. I still don't like his early claim, but I'm fine leaving him alive for today. I do need to find time to evaluate the X-Wall-E argument.

Jase, on the other hand, is an increasingly likely suspect. He took a little heat and defended by promising to outline his cases. He then disappeared when pressure was removed. That style of play is quite scummy and was one of my main point against Wall-E earlier.

Looker continues to be non-responsive, but he did call out Jase's disappearance. The fact that he labeled himself as one his chief suspects in 827 bothers me. The fact that's he done very little analysis bothers me. Looker, if you think Wall-E and idiotking are a scum team, who should we lynch first?

In conclusion, Jase needs to post before the deadline or be replaced. Looker needs to pretend to care before the deadline or be lynched.

[Wall-E]

Sajin is noncontributing when he says things like, "I agree with this." but adds nothing to the discussion. He should be saying WHY he agrees/disagrees. Otherwise he's just making useless noise. What use is your unsupported opinion to the goal of scumhunting?

[Wall-E]

My last post should read, "Of what use are your unqualified agreements in scumhunting?"

[Wall-E]

No, it's this: "Of what use are your unqualified agreements?"

I submit that they are anti-town.

They add words for others to read that neither add to nor subtract from the issues. If you gave your reasoning for agreeing, that would be different, but we don't decide who the scum are by taking yes/no votes on random topics.

[Wall-E]

No, it's this: "Of what use are your unqualified agreements?"

I submit that they are anti-town.

They add words for others to read that neither add to nor subtract from the issues. If you gave your reasoning for agreeing, that would be different, but we don't decide who the scum are by taking yes/no votes on random topics.

[hambargarz]

Mod, could you please prod Jase?

Prod sent

[Kreriov]

Wall-E is going back up on my scum scale. He keeps dredging up old posts and mischaracterizing them. He (and other actually) keep bringing up Sajin's post about waiting to day 2 and not posting lists.

Wall-E - STOP TAKING POSTS OUT OF CONTEXT.

That post by Sajin was made when Wall-E was at L-1 and seemingly about to be lynched. Pretty important context there. Damn straight Sajin should wait until day 2. Damn straight a set of lists right before a lynch helps the scum. Its simple logic, really. Lets say Wall-E was lynched at that time and lets say he flips town. Ok, right before he is lynched 6 of the remaining 11 players all list YB as the most town with 3 more saying he is probably town. You think the scum might want to take him out? Or maybe make it easier to figure out PRs? This is only the most blatant example of Wall-E taking things out of context and commenting on them ad-naseum. I would say its a scum tactic of trying to baffle them with bullshit, but I do not think Wall-E really understands how poor and misguided his posts truly are.

I am not decided on whether Sajin's action in this particular instance is scummy or not, all I know is there is a logic and the logic depends on keeping the context of the action in mind.

What I AM decided on is that I feel that Wall-E leaving out the context to make is seem scummy on his targets part is deliberate and THAT is indeed scummy.

[StrangerCoug]

How does posting a list of scum help the scum decide who to NK?

I'd answer, but since this is directed to Sajin I think it's best to let him answer. It's pretty simple, though *hint, hint*.

[Wall-E]

Wall-E is going back up on my scum scale. He keeps dredging up old posts and mischaracterizing them. He (and other actually) keep bringing up Sajin's post about waiting to day 2 and not posting lists.

Wall-E - STOP TAKING POSTS OUT OF CONTEXT.

That post by Sajin was made when Wall-E was at L-1 and seemingly about to be lynched. Pretty important context there. Damn straight Sajin should wait until day 2. Damn straight a set of lists right before a lynch helps the scum. Its simple logic, really. Lets say Wall-E was lynched at that time and lets say he flips town. Ok, right before he is lynched 6 of the remaining 11 players all list YB as the most town with 3 more saying he is probably town. You think the scum might want to take him out? Or maybe make it easier to figure out PRs? This is only the most blatant example of Wall-E taking things out of context and commenting on them ad-naseum. I would say its a scum tactic of trying to baffle them with bullshit, but I do not think Wall-E really understands how poor and misguided his posts truly are.

I am not decided on whether Sajin's action in this particular instance is scummy or not, all I know is there is a logic and the logic depends on keeping the context of the action in mind.

What I AM decided on is that I feel that Wall-E leaving out the context to make is seem scummy on his targets part is deliberate and THAT is indeed scummy.

Thanks for clarifying, but please don't try to make it sound like an understandable (imho) mistake while reading in ISOLATION is somehow intentional.

Jeesh.

Do you disagree with my other point about him nodding and shaking his head and pointing at the logic of other players?

Chainsaw defense-looking post, here.

[Wall-E]

How does posting a list of scum help the scum decide who to NK?

I'd answer, but since this is directed to Sajin I think it's best to let him answer. It's pretty simple, though *hint, hint*.

I get it!

Retracted.

[Wall-E]

Looker said, "Paying attention to" not "I think the following people are scum." I agree with you that in the context of mafia, townies are "paying attention" to who is scum, but he may have meant that he's "following" (like how you follow a news story) three major things. It's very, very unlikely that he was making a joke about suspecting himself, and even less likely that he slipped and named himself scum. It appears to me he was merely stating what was interesting to him about the thread, and highlighting an interaction by calling attention to his OWN part in it rather than anyone else's (which seems off).