Substrike's case on MS
1. Votes Empking without reasons.
[quote="strike" Not sure how I feel about MS's vote on EMP. Not a whole lot of reasoning there other than "oh look, wagon that's not being questioned intensely, yet." In fact I think that's the first honest scum post I've seen all game:
UNVOTE: EMPKing
VOTE: Midnight's Sorrow
[/quote]
MS first post was number 31. His vote can be thus considered his first participation in the game. Clearly, the game was out of the RVS but the amount of information is yet very limited. That a player writes his first post and votes in such a way cannot be considered, by any means FIRST HONEST SCUM POST.
---
Now, extra attack on strike
First: Strike had added pressure to Empking with expressions like "Awfully opportunistic", "wagon shot up in numbers so quickly",
"that's
scummy
", "as suspect as", "try to bully". Hence, how can be the FIRST HONEST SCUM POST he reads? how can be the amount of scumminess so high as to forget his attack on Empking?
Second: It is very inconsistent that after all these expressions on Empking, a player joins the wagon and he reacts this way. Strike was seriously attacking Empking. In my view, Empking's responses were pushing him apart as scum, and he found any reason to leave the attack and move in lurk-safer waters.
---
2. Misrepresenting Strike
strike wrote: and you're taking both of my statements out of context. I don't like when people vote/pressure people who haven't even posted yet. You had already posted a scummilicious post.
The answer: These are the words by MS in his second post, after Strike changed his vote and voted for MS as described above.
MS wrote: How wonderful of you to
have voted me last time for lurking
, and
then go ahead and say much later after you had switched votes to go about saying how much of a null tell lurking was
- as if that what I was doing in the first place >.>- What a wonderful contradiction you have made!
a) The reason exposed by Strike in his initial post can be described as "a lurker came and voted without reasoning much", being fair.
b) After this, strike mentioned couple of times that MS was "a lurker". Said nothing else.
c) He then criticized other people for "voting for lurkers"
You are a lurker, come back, read this, what do you say? It sounds pretty obvious. You say what MS said. This is a good observation by MS, as I mentioned. I do not see any serious misrepresentation in MS' words. We can discuss for hours about the subtle meanings of Strike's vote, but strike voted MS for being a lurker and joining a wagon without reasons. Nothing that MS is misrepresenting in his words...
---
Now, extra attack:
First: MS post was number 200. His second post in the game. An obvious lurker. His two posts were lurker posts. A vote on Empking without much reasons, a comment on the inconsistency by Strike (to whom he was not afraid to point even if strike had been one of the few pushing MS). And Strike insisted in voting a lurker for doing lurker things. To see a OBVSCUM misrepresentation in MS words is exaggerated, and thus, the principal characteristic you can associate to MS at post 200 is....lurker??? This keeps his contradiction.
Second: MS third and fourth posts were numbers 246 and 248. A question for our contestants....do you know which TWO players were commented/attacked by MS in these posts (Strike accusation of misrepresentation comes after these, number 252)................IS and ElSimio. A cookie for those who guessed correctly. A casuality? well, I do not think so. But obviously, you can skip this point if you think is a casuality. The rest of my answer remains the same.
---
3. MS came out of active lurking to vote for him on the basis of a vote for a cop confirmed guilty.
strike wrote: You come out of your active lurking to vote for me, on the grounds that I voted for a cop-confirmed guilty? Please, by all means, try again
I do not think this is even a proper accusation, but i want to compile all words of Strike on MS to show he has no case at all (apart from lurking). The answer. This were the words by MS:
MS wrote: If I've ever seen a scum bus their buddy in a cop out like yesterday as... deftly as this guy, my mind be pulling up the blanks.
As you can see, he is accusing Strike for bussing a scum mate. Well, clearly, MS is not arguing a lot his accusation, but, is MS accusation credible? I think so very much, as I pointed in my own case. Again, this is a second observation done by MS on his own, despite his very serious lurking, these are his observations. In post 517, he clarifies the bus read comes from the declarations done after the vote. Strike said:
strike wrote:
Although
I do find the flavor there kind of suspect. I mean, why would results come back as "town" or "anti-town" when there clearly isn't a serial killer here?
He was the only player doubting partially of the report and role discussing, after his vote....I think MS observation is at least, worth-studying. Hence, it cannot be any point against MS. At most, it is a failed scumhunting attempt. And consistent with his play in the game.
4. lurking and lack of content
There are several versions of this, but they have not been evolved more than this:
strike wrote: MS's active lurking is the scummiest thing in the game so far. Iso his posts and tell me how he's town, please. 8 posts. None of which have content. Scum.
First: MS is a lurker. Yes. This is slightly scummy. It is the only observation by strike which is correct.
Second: Given that there are 8 posts, the 2 observations on Strike sound content. Not much, but given he wrote 8 posts and a total of around 20-30 lines, I think is standard.
**********
Hence, the summary of strike's case is:
MS is a lurker.
