First point, first example:
That's just a misrepresentation of what I actually was saying there. It's certainly one thing to express concern at a growing wagon on yourself. It's quite another to claim you are the counterwagon and being driven by scum, which is what I was referring to. By claiming that his wagon was, in fact, driven by scum(which is already been partly proven to be false), he is able to make a broad blanket attack on everyone rather than narrowing down the players who are scum on the wagon. Quite different than expressing concern on a growing wagon on himself, eh?
first point, second example:
VasudeVa's main point against my argument during that point in the game was that I had made a "lazy bandwagoning case" rather than actually addressing the points I had made against him. I still maintain that that post is an appeal to emotion, or perhaps more accurately "ad hominem". Let's take a look at the post again:
If we break down this post, he first tries to discredit the argument by asserting the following: "Scum are not more likely to make an OMGUS vote than town." This is also a strawman for the real argument, which is that he is discrediting my argument by calling it lazy rather than going after the points themselves. By continuing to push that I am being "lazy"(note the use of the word "yawn"), he doesn't actually have to answer any of my points because the case is "lazy" and therefore not a case at all and not worth answering. This IS appeal to emotion. Rather than answer the points or prove they are unsubstantial, he strawmans a few key points and says the case is lazy, probably made by lazy scum, therefore I don't need to answer the points because I don't need to answer no posts by no scum.VasudeVa wrote:Yawn at the OMGUS accusation. Does anyone ever believe that scum are more likely to do that? Lazy, lazy~
Also, I still believe VV is dodging my argument and that he has NOT addressed the points to a satisfactory manner.
Also, beyond this, how do the posts you've chosen prove that my case is "fake"? That's a pretty serious accusation. All you've done is prove that I've thrown some spin on the VasudeVa which hardly proves that my case isn't real.
Second point:
I've already proved why he's not scumhunting. I'll do it again, just for you. Go back, look at his ISO posts. Look how he bandwagons with no reasoning, with no follow-up. His pool of suspects is ever changing. He's asked a few questions of a few players, questions he hasn't followed up on, questions that haven't even been answered yet. If they mattered, don't you think he would tried to get people to answer them?
I will agree, though,that it's entirely possible that my "vendetta" against VV stems from a personal dislike of playstyle and personality. Maybe VV just rubs me the wrong way. It's a possibility. But no one has shown me any reasons for him being town besides continuing to push "too scummy to be scum".
Third point:
Since when is transparency a scum tell? I've had people come after me for
not
putting out that fire. fourth point:
I've already addressed this in my 942.
Also, about your case...I don't see how you've proven that I'm scum. How do your points come together to prove me-scum?
1. false case on VV(not proven)
2. Theory attack????(I don't understand why this point is named so, ties in with 1, not proven)
3. Over-clarification(hardly scummy)
4. Neutral reaction to Hoopla's gambit(spin)
Where is the over-arching proof?
