[TS02]
Response to MoI
MagnaofIllusion wrote:Twilight-Mina wrote:So guys. I will spend tonight on a monster case. Unfortunately, I'll only have time for one subject:
1) The player with whom I have reservations the size of a small continent and whose every post raises yet another alarm bell, simply because a couple of the arguments he's pushing are so ridiculous that I'm shocked he could genuinely believe them as town, but who wouldn't be my top choice for a lynch this early on.
2) The player who has virtually claimed scum.
So you went with 2. Why do I think that 1 is a more experienced player who you don’t want to antagonize since you are under fire? Well, let me see ...
No.
The obvious move is to first make the case on the player who is more objectively scummy, we find more deserving of a vote, we don’t consistently change our mind on, and isn’t on Benmage’s insta-governor list. On a case that takes hours of collaborative work, it makes more sense to get to the important stuff first and leave my reservations on a player getting no heat whatsoever for later.
Also, writing 1 is like tearing my fingernails off, one at a time, because a certain quote of Kast’s is accurate.
But 1 wasn't someone I'm afraid to antagonize and turn against me.
Number 1 was
you
.
And you want to know why?
My (Mina’s) views on the two Mags have been the exact opposite of Sotty's. MagUa seemed to have suspected us from the beginning of D1, and I saw where he was coming from re: his view that our vote was somewhat languishing during the beginning of the day. Furthermore, his feeling better about Thor because we weren't on the wagon shows that at the very least, he has a consistent view of the game. Your attacks on us, on the other hand, felt more as though you were capitalizing on Magua’s and Ben’s objections with us and trying to get a potential threat lynched early. I also think your “soft attacks" argument was bullshit used to justify turning every objection to your play around on us (hence why I’m so sceptical of Zdenek thinking that was the SELLING point for him on the Twilight Sparkle). Example:
I didn’t address it because quite honestly I didn’t even see it since you followed so quickly on the heels another Twilight post. In looking at that post are taking the soft tactic that I’ve noticed Sotty-head also taking – swiping at me with accusations that are meant to undermine but not outright directly call scummy. That’s a scum tactic – I should know I used it on Benmage in Clash myself (and he rightfully called me on it but didn’t really pursue it). I obviously disagree with your conclusions as I did with GreyICE. The difference is that he kept throwing crap any which way while you said nothing further.
@Twilight Mina (when you get back) - Why did you let that slide for 700 or so posts before bringing it up again?
But back to your earlier assertion – you intimate that GreyICE is an easy target. Did you find him to be a VI? Are you attempting to say I wouldn’t attack your slot for scummy-behavior simply because of it’s make-up of Hito, you and Sotty?
(FTR, it was because that was the first time I--as in Mina--got around to posting in this game other than that one fluff post to Magua. I think I’d mentioned something along those lines on AIM, but it didn’t make it into hito’s catch-up post. Decided to remind you of it before my trip. Re: GreyICE, remember this was before his flip in BotW, and I’d thought overaggressive emotional play from him was a towntell. I don’t know if I’d outright call him a VI--but yes, he had a controversial playstyle, was a total paranoid lunatic, and was disliked by most people.
If you are scum
, I’d expect you to prefer attacking the player whose play is “wackier" than someone who’d likely be a hard lynch (well, we were SUPPOSED to be a hard lynch <_<).)
But you never answered my initial question about why you wasted your time talking about the wonderful stuff you COULD have done with raising statistics. Instead, you retroactively decided that my question had been a soft attack, because
Sotty
had done something you thought was a soft attack.
But I almost let it slide because many of your posts from D1 looked very, very protown. And I did feel somewhat better about you when you explained the evolution of your TS suspicions. Besides, people are naturally more paranoid about attacks against themselves, so I could sort of see your POV on the Sotty thing (in her defence, however, her experiences with Benmage have been much less positive than yours).
Also, your attacks on GreyICE here were a niggling doubt in my mind on D2-3 of Brotherhood of the Wolf. So sure enough, when he flipped scum there, it made me think your suspicions of him in this game were genuine--a huge point in your favour if there’s a single scumteam.
But that’s it. At this point, you have stopped believing in what you’re arguing. And I can prove it:
MagnaofIllusion wrote:Twilight-Mina wrote:I'm not sure if I should be combing through ISOs looking for connections to diddin, or answering every single point that anyone has made against us.
If you were Town you know the answer and showed that you do in Clash – you would be scum-hunting. I absolutely refused to give you the “Mina is waffling" pass. You are too good a player to get away with it any longer here on MS.
(I’m not sure what “waffling" has to do with it, and I was never in this much danger of a lynch during Clash, but moving on....)
I don’t see any of my concerns about your slot being addressed. Just a large post that says – LOOK OVER HERE!!! HE’S SCUMMY FOR X,Y,Z! DON’T PAY ATTENTION TO THE FACT I AM GUILTY OF THE SAME CRIMES!!!
So which is it? You want us to avoid defending ourselves and just scumhunt? Or do you want us to concentrate all our energy into “addressing your concerns"? (As a side note, I love the arrogance implicit in “Stop playing the game and address more of MY concerns!")
I think Twilight Sparkle has answered most of the points against us. If there's anything in particular you think would affect your read for us to address, please point it out. (I think there's one about my read on Thor I didn't answer--I missed his comment on holding stronger players to higher expectations.)
But at this point, most people have made up their minds on us. Constantly defending ourselves is draining, and our energy is better served moving on and looking at the other players in the game. I mean...wasn't the major concern with our slot that we weren’t scumhunting enough?
You’ve completely stopped trying to figure out our alignment--which makes no sense for a case based in large part (yes, I know there are other issues) on inactivity during a period when the hydra was at reduced strength. Now you’re just trying to score easy points. Ha ha. We put a response in spoiler quotes for readability, and you missed it. How antitown of us. *tsk* Or just look at this kind of bullshit:
Mina wrote:Magna, I would really like for you to answer this yourself. Because you seem to be implying that our comment was scummy. Do you think there's a problem with the underlying assumption behind it--at least before LynchMePls' claim?
Now it is important for someone to answer the question put to them without interference?
Ooh. What a clever jab. We unwittingly disarmed LMP’s trap by correcting his goof on the kill flavour because we aren’t mind-readers who knew he’d seen a potential slip from Feysal. Therefore aren’t we being so hypocritical for politely asking you to answer something “yourself"? You have totally proven that we are scum with your catty dig.
For the record, I was trying to trap you by getting you to say you found us scummy for assuming there was a single scumteam, when you’d suggested the same theory earlier on. You didn’t fall for it. But when the only thing you have to say to several big posts are one-liners like “haha, you should have remembered that one of Raivann and Thor can still be third party, but since you didn’t explicitly mention it, that’s scummy," then you’ve gone beyond scumhunting into point-scoring.
=========================================
MoI wrote:
I’ve read it and just want to be sure we are on the same page.
Points 1, 2 and 5 are all the same point – Zdenek is being inconsistent and thus scummy.
Point 3 – Making safe, convenient stances is scummy.
There was actually some debate as to how to order/categorize/label the points--even using the word “inconsistencies" in all three headings was a bit arbitrary--but no, they are
not
all the same.
If you summarize 3/5ths of our case under the headline of "inconsistency", sure. But our posts are not as amenable to one-sentence description as you seem to think they are.
For example, our first point is not just "inconsistency." It is that Zdenek is calling us scummy for holding an opinion on Locke that he, logically, must hold. When we pointed out this contradiction, he chose an answer that
specifically
didn't address whether or not he shared our thoughts on LL. Throwing this under the banner of inconsistency doesn’t do it justice.
Also, inconsistencies aside, on a pure gut level, he's just
scummy
. Not scummy as in a weak player, scummy as in
scummy
. Just look at that “catching up" post in which he makes a bunch of useless fluff comments like his weak attack on Magua and question to Ghostlin.
MoI wrote:Your slot is guilty of exactly those same offenses in Points 1-3, 5 as Zdenek is.
Inconsistency – I’ve pointed out this in my case regarding my slot. Others have pointed out how Hito’s “Iso Extraveganza" has players with Town reads being listed in second tier suspects.
I (hito) already addressed why Nexus had a townie mention in ISO but was included in my scumlist in
ISO 47.
But furthermore, how the fuck does our being accused of an "inconsistency" mean that we're not allowed to point out WORSE inconsistencies from Zdenek? How does our having some stances you find safe nullify Zdenek’s overall pattern of behaviour? Even if the likelihood of multiple scumteams didn’t mean that we could be scum and still notice genuine scummy behaviour from Zdenek, ad hominems are Logical Fallacies 101. Zdenek can be inconsistent and scummy even if the three heads of Twilight Sparkle pointing this out aren’t 100% consistent.
I’m not sure what exactly you are saying in Point 4 but I don’t see the scumminess there.
Try reading it, then:
First Paragraph of Point 4 wrote:
These are, I freely admit, less damning as scumtells. I place them here because, together with the other evidence, they suggest the overarching theme that Zdenek is simply trying to find as many “points" to raise as possible. They are seriously vacuous, and in some cases downright moronic. Having a bad justification isn’t a scumtell per se; but when you apparently deemed raising these trivial, frivolous points as the most important use of catch-up time, it suggest that you’re simply ISOing us, looking for anything you can twist as scummy, and going, without taking time to consider if it’s actually scummy or worth mention.
That catch-up post is exactly what I would expect to see from competent scum under fire for lack of Pro-Town play – a well-reasoned case against a player who isn’t likely to competently fire back.
I’m interested in your quote, “a well-reasoned" case on Zdenek. You haven’t really said whether our case is good or bad at all. Instead, your points seem to amount to, in essence, that we’re not
allowed
to make this case on Zdenek. You also say that it’s against a player who “isn’t likely to competently fire back". Seeing as Zdenek is, by your own admission, “far from a VI", I’m curious as to what this means.
Also: a well reasoned case against scum seems exactly what the doctor ordered, and whether or not someone can fire back is independent of their alignment. If this is what the
scum
reaction is, then what do you think competent
town
would do in this situation?
If you thought our case on Zdenek was weak, then why didn’t you argue with the specific instances of scummy behaviour we called attention to themselves, the way Kast did? (We’ll respond to his later post when we have time.) Instead, you’re trying to trivialize the specific instances of questionable behaviour we found from Zdenek by lumping them into categories such as "inconsistencies" or "safe stances", and then imply that suspicious behaviour falling into those categories is off-limits to us.
So what do
you
personally think of Zdenek? Had that case not been made by people whose opinions should be invalidated because (gasp) hito found one post vaguely townish from a player in his second tier, would you have agreed with our points against him?
===============
By the way, Magna, what is your read on Nexus? At the beginning of the day, he was one of your top four suspects, but you’ve spent comparatively little energy attacking him.
Oh, and also, WHY THE FUCK did you feel the need to post this:
MagnaofIllusion wrote:No, they didn’t. Because you obviously didn’t investigate them as you had the same ‘rock-solid’ Town read on that slot before Night 1.
Stop drinking the gambit juice. Too many players who are Obv-Town at this point. You aren’t going to manufacture a NK draw …
-80% Mina, 20% hito
(Note that this section was started days before the other parts of this wall,but underwent constant revision and so was only posted now.)
Twilight Sparkle is a majestic pony union of hitogoroshi, Mina, and Sotty7.
