OMG HERE ARE MY RESPONSES
This isn't a math question, no comparative analysis necessary. There were lots of people on VasudeVa (who you say is STILL hyperscummy) and he was getting lynched in 48 hours on my guarantee. You switched off of THAT GUY... why.
I already answered this: cause magnus was acting scummy. And if you want to get technical and say, "oh, well if it's VV vs magnus who is worse," then that is a math question because it requires being comparative which I admitted I did not have time to do at the time.
3. Almaster's response line by line (that I missed)
a. VV Truth telling? OMG. I present to you this quote in objectionfied form This is where you validated VV's self meta in response to VV's accusation that you knew his game play. Thus by validating the self meta, you agree that VV has this history of anti-town play.
Yes, VV has a history of sucking, but I also explained why what VV was doing wasn't just his usual suck-age - it had clear scum motivation. IN RETROSPECT HE HE ACTUALLY WAS JUST SUCKING AS USUAL, but at the time, it looked legit.
b. In regards to hiding from Fate: I can see it. I find your lack of paranoia to be odd because VV did have this history. You were bitten twice by VV's play in the games you mentioned. This is the third time. I find it odd that you are punishing him for the same way, using probably simillar arguments to those games that VV dug his own graves, for the third time.
If you're scum looking for that easy case, sure I'd see it. But after 3 times being burned as town, I'd expect you to sit down and think about whether this case would bite you in the arse. When you validated VV's self meta, you opened this Pandora's box of "what if questions".
What do you want me to do, just give VV a free pass until forever plus one? I parsed his meta and saw something that looked like specific scum intent minus the usual suckage. I'm gonna act on that if I see it.
c. Remember this quote that I objectionified. Why didn't you verify your reads? Are you that lazy? Or do you want to make a fake argument that I can't check up on? I'll wiki this and see what I can dig up but your inherit laziness to link these games when asked about when you clearly made a meta argument is really bad.
It was a general playstyle thing of how VV acts. It's not like I can go back to a game and whip out a very specific quote. If you disagree with the general read and have infinite time to go re-read old games regarding already dead players for the sole point of proving I am wrong about this (hint: i'm not), then be my guess and go look. The games I was going off are: Advance Wars: Mafia Rising, DEFCON Mafia, and Trader Mafia.
I wasn't looking for you to defend your stance on VV when I asked you to meta link. I was looking what your response was. I'd say you failed my little scum test because my hypothesis was:
As a town's person who made the above meta argument, it would be easy for him to link to the games in question. Since you know where these games are, you are able to make these arguments thus would be willing to link them. By linking the game, you Almaster, is showing actual determination to scum hunt. Thus: You are trying to find scum in this game and you're actually doing something.
As a scum's person you'd show reluctance to find these games even though you made meta arguments. Thus you gain scum points either through laziness or showing signs that you were throwing arguments to keep the VV fires going.
I'm judging you not on your actual conclusions here, I'm trying to see if you're putting effort in these cases (aka I'm looking to see if you're actually doing what you say). So far you don't seem to be. Reading between the lines is something that I've been improving on :p.
This analysis is bull shit, there's absolutely no reason why 1) my argument that re-parsing the games is POINTLESS isn't true and 2) town can't be lazy.
c. You validated VV's meta thus you validate that VV's self meta argument is town. It's a conclusion that's implied when you agreed that: "Yes VV does cause the town to shoot itself in the foot". Even though you made it fit into a "this could also be scum" argument, the inherit contrast is there to make your point.
You didn't say it directly, but it wasn't necessary.
This doesn't matter given my SPECIFIC META ANALYSIS that says even though VV was SUCKING as usual there was still specific scum motivation going on.
d. You didn't consider anti-town VV (stated above) despite your previous history with VV. Why didn't you throw that on the table? (See a again)
SEE ABOVE RESPONSE.
Happy?
