^ Explain this. Explain why you showed an interest in voting for Narsis. (and give me a proper answer this time.)KHG wrote:I'd like to hear Narsis' response before voting for him. I will UNVOTE: Mysterio for now.
I'm not sure what you mean by the first part of that question, perhaps you could clarify? No one has made an argument against Narsis that I can agree with. If someone can, I can vote for him. That initiated early in the game, when it seemed the Mysterio wagon stalled, which I'll look further into when I have a chance tomorrow.TheButtonmen wrote:@KHG: Why do you always assume they are talking about Narsis when they mention scum hunting and whats your main reason for disliking the Narsis wagon?
What do you mean by unoriginal? I never used that word.Thor wrote:@KHG - I don't see how my comments were unoriginal. I do think lack of scumhunting is a scumtell - do you see any reason to disagree with me on that?
If yes, why?
If no, could you please point out some of your scumhunting efforts (I've clearly missed them).
I didn't show an interest in voting for Narsis so as much I said I was willing to vote for him, just as I am willing to vote for everyone. Perhaps if you explained what was soBudja wrote: ^ Explain this. Explain why you showed an interest in voting for Narsis. (and give me a proper answer this time.)
Backtrack city, here we come! You clearly said "I'd like to hear Narsis' response before voting for him." This implies that you were not merely willing to vote for Narsis (apparently that's default status towards all other players for you; if you were merely as willing to vote him as anyone else, why state it at all?) but actively considering doing so, depending on his responses. You were considering it, and you were interested in it. You never stated why you would be. Please explain.KHG wrote:I didn't show an interest in voting for Narsis so as much I said I was willing to vote for him, just as I am willing to vote for everyone. Perhaps if you explained what was soBudja wrote: ^ Explain this. Explain why you showed an interest in voting for Narsis. (and give me a proper answer this time.)improperabout my previous answer, I could attempt to give you aproperanswer.
You used the word 'trite'. Trite = unoriginal. Maybe use smaller words if you're uncertain what bigger ones mean?KHG wrote:What do you mean by unoriginal? I never used that word.
I have - and then I accused you of not scumhunting at all. I asked you why and you basically implied that youI don't disagree with you. I'm not going to comb through my posts and decide when I was scumhunting; you can do that yourself, if you're interested.
Thirded VOTE: KHGPlum wrote:Backtrack city, here we come! You clearly said "I'd like to hear Narsis' response before voting for him." This implies that you were not merely willing to vote for Narsis (apparently that's default status towards all other players for you; if you were merely as willing to vote him as anyone else, why state it at all?) but actively considering doing so, depending on his responses. You were considering it, and you were interested in it. You never stated why you would be. Please explain.KHG wrote:I didn't show an interest in voting for Narsis so as much I said I was willing to vote for him, just as I am willing to vote for everyone. Perhaps if you explained what was soBudja wrote: ^ Explain this. Explain why you showed an interest in voting for Narsis. (and give me a proper answer this time.)improperabout my previous answer, I could attempt to give you aproperanswer.
Also, while you're at it, explain what prompted you to unvote Mysterio.
Screw it; trying to get out of answering questions, plenty of other stuff including backtracking on the Mysterio wagon (first him claiming VT was directly scummy, then "I'm not intending to be confrontational, that claim is justMysterious(ha) to me") for no explained reason, the rolefishing coupled with the outraged reaction to Mysterio's bite at the bait is more than enough to want KHG strung up.
UNVOTE: Narsis
VOTE: KHG
Who's with me?!
Trite also means banal. That's what I was referring to. And, what, exactly is the point of an attacking comment like that?Thor wrote:You used the word 'trite'. Trite = unoriginal. Maybe use smaller words if you're uncertain what bigger ones mean?
It was a throwaway line. I meant that the evidence did merit my voting for Narsis at that time; I shouldn't have implied it was dependent on what he was saying next.Plum wrote:You clearly said "I'd like to hear Narsis' response before voting for him." This implies that you were not merely willing to vote for Narsis (apparently that's default status towards all other players for you; if you were merely as willing to vote him as anyone else, why state it at all?) but actively considering doing so, depending on his responses. You were considering it, and you were interested in it. You never stated why you would be. Please explain.
I took trite to mean devoid of real meaning; perhaps I used it incorrectly. Do you honestly think a comment like that is the right thing to say?Thor665 wrote:Banal = unoriginal. But please feel free to give me your definition of banal and how you intended it in your commentary.
I used the attacking commentary because I was unamused how you were playing a definitions game to try to redefine the discussion - I still think you're trying.
You still haven't really addressed how I should find your scumhunting work yet. I still submit it's not there and all you seem to be doing currently is defending yourself (and not that well, if I may make a personal observation).
He is shown to be cautious and doesn't want to draw attention to himself. And he should realize that just because he's not voting for him doesn't mean he's completely clear. But I still think that he is more likely to be defensive newb-town then scum.KHG wrote: I'm not voting for Narsis right now. I said I'd like to hear from him. Apparently, my not voting for him is scumlike, and if I voted for him, that would be scumlike.
After examining the text, I came to the conclusion that Plum is basically explaining her rolefishing accusation against KGH for the first part with a statement example (I didn't get the example, unfortunately; I don't see much difference between "I'm VT" and "I'm Town", not including the = "stuff"), and the second part explains her vote against Narsis.Plum wrote:KHG, bringing up questions, even with that sort of disclaimer, is partly asking for answers to the question. Mentioning the questions does constitute rolefishing-prodding. What, did you expect to let the questions hang in the air - and you didn't say explicitly that they shouldn't be answered. You just said you didn't necessarily mean they should be at that point - it's speculating about info and prodding for answers - directly asking Mysterio about his role and powers - with a little disclaimer. The tone and intent still had to do with questions which were not put there to sit and look pretty. They were there to get speculation out in the open and directly increase the chances of everyone talking about it, especially Mysterio, the only person with the info you asked about. Disclaimer or not. It had distinct overtones of rolefishing. You directly asked questions about Mysterio's role. That counts as asking Mysterio for information, or pushing him to reveal information. This wouldn't be egregious if you didn't turn around directly and call Mysterio out for having given the info. You asked the questions. If you'd said 'oh shoot, I shouldn't have asked those questions because they shouldn't have been discussed right now' that would have been one thing. But you refuse to shoulder the weight of having asked some of the questions which caused the revelation of the info by Mysterio. That's hypocritical and opportunistic.
I am a VT = I don't have any abilities.
I'm a Townie = Look guys I am so completely and totally Town, really super Town!
The latter can be scummy; the former is by itself neutral. You tried to equate Mysterio's statement of #1 for the inherently suspect nature of #2.
My main problems with you aren't your desire to wait on a Narsis vote in and of itself. However, my desire not to move my vote yet springs from the fact that my reason for voting Narsis was related to his lack of participation, bag full of nullreads followed by a jump on a popular bandwagon for a mediocrely explained (at best) reason EDIT: Actually I think I understand it better now, and I might feel a little better about it. I need to gauge whether or not he's still avoiding contribution and content-posting or not, and if he posts, does it seem to be honest scumhunting or not.
I praise his point, since Budja reminds KHG that it's just a technicality, but the intent to vote is more important here.Budja wrote:@KHG, Whether you are voting for him or not in a technicality. I want to know why are you interested in voting for Narsis rather than Mysterio who you looked quite happy to vote just a post earlier.
(i.e Why did you change your focus to Narsis?)
Good point. Except for the word choices, I would've said same had I've been around to respond.Thor665 wrote:@KHG - if you're waiting for a case to become actually worth supporting what are you doing in order to help this happen?
In other words - you seem to be sitting on the sidelines and not helping, my gut says 'OMG, no scumzhnting means obvious scummorz, vote pl0x!!!' Why is my gut wrong?
In first point, Button points out a possible scumslip, but I don't like his second point, because Button unfairly treated "not believing Narsis's case enough to vote him" to "I'm against Narsis wagon". Still, it's KHG's fault for being wishywashy and not commiting.TheButtonmen wrote:@KHG:Why do you always assume they are talking about Narsis when they mention scum hunting and whats your main reason for disliking the Narsis wagon?
I expected something like this. Obviously there's less risk involved in lynching a townie than someone with another claim, so the town has comparatively less to lose.TheButtonmen wrote:Well I'm happy with my vote.
The seeming lack of enthusiasm for Mysterio's lynch without explanation from certain players. I don't have time to go through it right now, but I'll take a look if I'm still alive tomorrow.Thor665 wrote:What exactly about the switch from Mysterio to Narsis do you find scummy?
I don't know what you want me to say. I answered your question, then you told me my answer was inadequate without telling me why. I said I would consider voting for Narsis based off the previous explanations given. That was all I said, and I never moved past that point on Narsis.Budja wrote:KHG, you kept dancing around the point of my question rather than answering it. (I asked three times).
I'm happy to switch to this wagon.
unvote, vote KHG
(Still think Narsis is scum.)
I'd like Chronopie to speak up a bit too rather than just latch to popular wagons/reads.
Preview: Ironic, KHG, since that is where you are getting a lot of your scumpoints.
KHG wrote:I took trite to mean devoid of real meaning; perhaps I used it incorrectly. Do you honestly think a comment like that is the right thing to say?
No, you expressed interest in joining the Narsis wagon after been pretty strongly fixated with Mysterio. You didn't mention any arguments that had convinced you.KHG wrote: I said I would consider voting for Narsis based off the previous explanations given. That was all I said, and I never moved past that point on Narsis.
.