yabbaguy wrote:I still believe you owe an explanation as to why one explanation of my attitude towards zwet is more plausible than the other. I don't think you've explained how I was opportunistic in any way, or making an unexpected reverse shift with my vantage. What in my posts tips you one way or the other? Or is it some track record that exists that you've observed over time?
I'll go over the relevant posts one at a time. My explanation is based on what I stated in post #730, your explanation is based on your reply in #731.
Please note, though, that part of my suspicion stems from the overall image, namely the feeling that you wanted to see Zwet lynched, even though you stated neutrality.
yabbaguy, post #133 wrote:Anybody have a good way of telling when zwet's play is just anti-town as opposed to scummy? I've never been able to decipher his gameplay after all this time.
My explanation: This post was intended to cause other players to start considering a policy lynch of Zwet.
Your explanation: This post was merely intended to express confusion. There was no intention whatsoever to get Zwet lynched.
Why I consider my explanation more likely: Look at Hyl's response to your post in post #134: "Who cares, the solution to both is a lynch!". 12Keyblade sort of agrees with this in #135. Both possible interpretations of Zwet's behaviour can be considered strong reasons to lynch, and I can't imagine you weren't aware of that when you made the post. If there was no intention whatsoever of getting Zwet lynched, you formulated your post in such a way that a Zwet lynch did become more likely. The direct results of your post contradict your stated intention.
yabbaguy, post #208 wrote:Active lurking, zwet. Come on, you know this.
My explanation: You wanted people to believe that Zwet was active lurking, without explicitly stating so yourself.
Your explanation: The post was intended to get Zwet to stop active lurking and start contributing, there was no intention whatsoever of making others suspicious of Zwet.
Why I consider my explanation more likely: The post contains an accusation, without counterargument. Because of this, anyone reading it will believe you agree with the accusation, and are likely to look back to see whether there is truth in the accusation (there was). However, the post does not contain any explicit indication whatsoever whether you agree with the accusation or not. If it wasn't your intention that players became more suspicious of Zwet, you should have taken action to prevent that from happening.
yabbaguy, post #297 wrote:Toro, zwet, dram, and WW are poor contributors to this game in general out of all the people actively posting. Not a fan of that.
My explanation: You wanted other players to become suspicious of these because of their poor contribution.
Your explanation: "I wanted them to act more pro-town. There was no intention of making anyone suspicious of Zwet."
Why I believe my explanation is more likely: In post #252, Pomegranate stated that she did not like Nikanor, meaning that she was strongly suspicious of him. It is likely that other players will interpret your "not a fan of that" in the same way. And again, other players reading this post are more likely to be suspicious of Zwet. If it wasn't your intention that players became more suspicious of Zwet, you should have taken action to prevent that from happening.
---
Conclusions thus far: The direct result of each of the posts listed thus far is that a Zwet lynch has become more likely. Your defense thus far has been that that wasn't your intention. The posts don't contain any indication about your intentions though. I think that it is far more likely that you intended your posts to have the effect they actually had.
---
yabbaguy, post #336 wrote:Secondly, the word scummy was neither said nor implied in the post in question. I'm in another game (ongoing at present) where we've had two lynches take place on apparent VIs, and I'm certain they were scum-driven. That's why I immediately got wary of you, who's been around longer than zwet, accused him over something that's just in his meta.
If he's scum, I'm waiting for a real tell.
My explanation: The last sentence was intended to have a reason for joining the bandwagon of Zwet later, provided he did something that was (mildly) scummy.
Your explanation: "I was considering Zwet innocent until proven guilty".
Why I believe my explanation more likely: If you indeed felt neutral toward Zwet at this point in time, the first paragraph alone had made that reasonably clear. There seems to be no added value to the last sentence, except to keep the possibility of voting Zwet later explicitly open. That makes me belief you were considering voting Zwet already, rather then your stated opinion (being neutral to him).
yabbaguy, post #454 wrote:@Honcho-438: Defending zwet is not a priority for me at all. The important thing is that one recognizes that he could be scummy (not at present), and you have to be aware of the reasoning that someone uses to hop on a wagon. As I recall, one of your BIG reasons was that zwet was active lurking. The two are synonymous if you know anything.
How much experience do you have with zwet?
My explanation: You wanted to join the bandwagon, provided good reasoning was available.
Your explanation: "I was considering Zwet innocent until proven guilty".
Why I consider my explanation more likely: The emphasis in this post is on how this is not a good reason to vote Zwet. Which carries the strong implication that there are other reasons to vote Zwet that are good. Like before, this gives me the impression that you are biased against Zwet. If a reason arises to vote Zwet, you are far more likely to use it then if the same reason arises against someone else. Which is in contradiction with your stated neutrality at this point in time.
---
Conclusions thus far: The last two quoted posts make me belief that you were likely to vote Zwet when a reason arises. That would make your explicit stance on him (no opinion whatsoever) incorrect.
---
yabbaguy, post #530 wrote:@Iguana: I've seen *nothing* that says scummy from zwet, and I must've missed your cases that indicate otherwise. SpyreX, same to you. You've basically highlighted the active lurking, which is consistent with his play.
and
yabbaguy, post #536 wrote:I really, really don't see the contradiction between the two posts. Are we finding information lynches scummy? Help me out here.
My explanation: you were trying to find out if a good reason to vote Zwet was available yet.
Your explanation: You were trying to find out why Iguana and SpyreX were voting Zwet.
Why I consider my explanation more likely: After post #536, SpyreX explains to you what the case is exactly. If you did truly intend to find out if you could get behind their reasons, I would have expected you to respond to said explanation. Either you would have brought up arguments against the reasoning ("in the second quote, zwet states that he accepts the explanation FF gives for her vote, not that he agrees with it and wants Pomegranate lynched") or you would have agreed with it ("interesting explanation. Unless Zwet gives a very good defense for his behaviour, I'll vote him"). However, you completely ignored it. Which makes me believe you weren't interested in actually finding out the reason, but merely wanted to act as if you were.
yabbaguy, post #571 wrote:Lack of defense is scummy.
Unvote, Vote: zwetschenwasser
I'm completely satisfied now.
My explanation: You had found your excuse to vote.
Your explanation: I was now actually suspicious of Zwet, so I voted.
Why I consider my explanation more likely: Several times throughout the thread, you have stated that Zwet was equivalent to active lurker. Did you truly believe that such a player would come up with an extensive explanation if you asked him? If you actually considered Zwet's active lurking a null tell, the lack of explanation would be a null tell as well.
---
yabbaguy, post #676 wrote:This game is out of control right now in terms of player inactivity. This isn't even fair to
town
anymore.
My explanation: scum slipup
Your explanation: I said that because I felt, as town, that this game was way too unfair for *us*, and that I'd rather not complete the game under these horrifically difficult pretenses.
Why I consider my explanation more likely: The quote has no indication whatsoever that you are part of the town. Nor does it have any indication whatsoever that you are at a disadvantage because of the inactivity. If you were actually part of the town, I would have expected that you actually complained how difficult scumhunting was for YOU. Instead, your post has the strong implication of "this game is much too easy, only mafia are seriously active. I don't want to win this way."
There is no 'a' in Michel.
