Shadow Dancer wrote:Overjustification? Backpedal? What? I hope you are not as narrown minded to expect me to 1.) cathegorically do a totally unjustified random vote first & 2.) do not expect me to stick to a really early vote, made when hardly any one had posted, and not change it (i.e. backpedal) at all?
Besides that: You totally overlook the quite high level in playfullness in the initial slugfest between me and xRx.
1.) Why did you need to add so much justification to your random vote? You could have simply said:
Shadow Dancer wrote:Still, making obviously idiotic suggestions deserves being punished by the first waggon!
That also allows me to bypass RVS, there're still no dice available, any way...
Vote: xRx
Of course a little justification is good, but you went overboard.
2.) That's not what I'm saying at all. It is completely normal for a person's vote to change after the RVS, but there is no reason for you to make it obvious that you are going to change it. Is there?
Shadow Dancer wrote:You have not the slightest idea about the psychology of a mafia game, have you?! How do you suppose we go scum hunting if we cannot effectively pressure them because we won't hammer them, ay way?
Lynch threat implies that they will have a chance of getting lynched. There is no chance of people getting lynched if the town has planned to go no-lynch. I am perfectly aware of how this game works, but I know that I wouldn't feel threatened by a bandwagon if I knew the town was just going to no-lynch anyway.
Shadow Dancer wrote:Besides your obvious missing sense of humour, which makes me wanna laugh - hope you realize at least that there is a sigificant difference between seeming and being. That being said: Yeeehaaa! Success!
So, what you're saying is that you were pretending to be confident?
Shadow Dancer wrote:Useless fluff from wicked.
Not really. Also, this doesn't defend my point or prove anything.
Shadow Dancer wrote:One might think reading and understanding the read is not exactly rocket science You are taking something and turn it inot the exact opposite.
This is why you should be thankful that I had such a strong town read of nopoint.
It requires a tremendous amount of either foolishness or ill will to do this.
Before I forget my point - but I have to warn you, it's really kindergarden-niveau: I accused scum of trying to prevent, not to initiate strategy debates - more than one time. It is totally unitelligible how you could have possibly missed that...
Sorry. I misread that. But, your response brings up another point which I'll add to the list regarding why you are scum: Threatening me so that I'll retract the points I brought up against you. Specifically the bolded portion: It is obvious that you are trying to make me retract my points by telling me they appear suspicious.
Shadow Dancer wrote:Even if we for one moment assume that I was really 100% sure about xRx: There are 5 scum in the game in we gotta catch 3 of them. Having one is not the end of everything at all.
The opportunistic point still stands.
Shadow Dancer wrote:Justification (for anything) = bad
And it wasn't a bad suggestion at all. But maybe you wann argue 'bout that. I that case: Please come up with something at least halfway substantiated, otherwise I won't even mind noticing you any more.
I explain this in my response to Rena.
Shadow Dancer wrote:Core assertion originally was: Aiming for LyLo instead of MyLo improves town chances of victory by about 42%. Quite a good reason to talk about that matter, eh? However, that discussion has been modkilled once and for all, so do not even attempt to reinvoke it!
You are the one that has been reinvoking this. After we decided we weren't no-lynching, you continued to mention how unlikely it was for us to win. What was the point?
Shadow Dancer wrote:scum hunting = baaaaad. We quickly and steadily reach subterranean levels of argunmentation, lol.
Again, see my response to Rena where I explain why I think the suggestion is bad.
Shadow Dancer wrote:Besides not giving any conclusive evidence for this assertion in your whole gigantically bloated WoT - pretty much the epitome of uselessness - the points you brought up so far make me doubt your qualification to even decide what is useful and what not.
I am shocked that you don't like the points against you.
Shadow Dancer wrote:1: It was a justified vote . thus not random. 2: You are complaining about a contradiction that you yourself propose.
1: Whatever. The point is, the vote was bad because of all the justification. 2: What?
Shadow Dancer wrote:Repeating yourself more... Seriously, every one has an opinion, but if you've got nothing to back yoursup then JSTFU. It's in your best interest to not make a fool of yourself.
I have got something to back up my point. Here's what happened: Lowell cast a bandwagon vote on you. brianj votes Lowell. You ask Lowell about his vote (this shows that you were aware of the vote). Then, DavidParker also votes Lowell. A page later you decide to vote Lowell because of his bandwagon vote for you. The vote looks opportunistic because you didn't find Lowell's action voteworthy until another person joined the bandwagon.
Shadow Dancer wrote:So you do not accept voting for a lurker as a valid reason. Assuming wrong premises does not validate your point any further. But I also remeber that you found votes suspicious when they were justified. From that queer point of view at least the "no real problem with that" part makes sense and seem consistent.
First of all, you didn't give your reason for voting. You simply agreed with Thief. The problem I have with this is that it doesn't tell us exactly what points you agree with and gives you room to make things up.
Second of all, this has nothing to do with my point earlier that you overjustified your vote. Saying why you are voting a person isn't the same as justifying the vote.
Shadow Dancer wrote:I voted him because he is and was but a useless weirdo.
If that's the case, then why did you wait until he voted for you?
Shadow Dancer wrote:That is of course a major indication of my guilt beyond all doubt
It wasn't supposed to be.
Shadow Dancer wrote:This is a highlight. You really exept no given so far as good reason? You disagree with - ?? - nothing?? The funnny thing is - this is consistent with what you earlier said (scummy because of "overjustification") - but still just another indication for the sad fact that one cannot take you and what you say seriously at all
Hmm... You're right. You didn't give reasons. I thought you had. I don't understand how it has anything to do with the overjustification point.
Shadow Dancer wrote:Results of my votes so far: One dead scum, no mislynch - objectively speaking my votes were really good for the most part - and you fail to provide any convincing counter-argument.
The point I am bringing up isn't regarding who you voted, but why you voted them. Also, no, your votes weren't really good.
Shadow Dancer wrote:You thing by suggesting this bogus a third time it will magically turn into a valid point, right?
I was summarizing the points in my case. I obviously wasn't expecting you to defend it a third time.
Shadow Dancer wrote:Which is true, which you could easily check - if that is not beyond your perceptivity... Other than that - what was your point here?
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with your theory. The point is that several times you continued to bring up how unlikely it was for town to win. There is no reason for you to be repeating that.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. -Wayne Gretzky"
-Wickedestjr