Workdawg wrote:
The difficulty is compounded by the fact that it was the beginning of the game and being unfamiliar with peoples styles and avatars. My "helpful tips" was helpful advice, but there's a difference between giving a few tips and making numerous statements IN ALL CAPS ZOMG. Not to mention the fact that my tips were general gameplay advice not specific to our game. I think that's an important distinction as well.
I think you're
The Fonz wrote:And it's not that post alone. The following three or four seem fluffy to me. Taking fencesitty positions on issues, without talking about who's scum, and asking an RQS question (and RQS is generally somewhat scummy) outside of the early part of the game (indicates desire to keep the fluffing going). Your posts up to 185 do not include a solid 'this is my top suspect' or vote. It all looks VERY active lurky. When I post from my phone, it tends to be short, to the point, and talks about who my top suspect is. IE, I'm more worried about taking positions and exerting pressure than 'being seen to contribute.' You seem to me to be doing the opposite.
I disagree that the "three or four" after #99 look like fluff. I provided my basic thoughts and posed a handful of questions to people. Just because you choose to be direct and short when you post from your phone doesn't mean that it's scummy not to. Post #99 was actually the last post from my phone anyway. [/quote]
No, but it speaks to a difference of motivation. When I don't have a lot of time to post, I try to make my stances as clear as possible. 99 contained a lot of words, but absolutely nothing about who the scum are, just a couple of hedgy 'I don't think this is that important' comments and some 'helpful advice.' That speaks to me of a different motivation - to be seen contributing. That's primarily a scum motivation.
Workdawg wrote:
I told you both why my contributions were lacking at the beginning of the game and I'm sick of trying to defend myself over that. If you don't want to believe it, then fine.
But it's not the lack of contribution, it's the type of contribution. It's almost like you're saying that because you're being a hero and staying in the game in difficult situations, we shouldn't be able to attack the posts you do make. Sorry, no dice.
Workdawg wrote: Your points against me can be summarized as follows (up until now):
1. IIOA from post 99 (607)
2. Non-commital (607)
--- You claim to have only read up to page 17 by this point...
3. Thread padding (628)
4. Voting for someone YOU THINK is town (628)
5. Two "playstyle wagons" (628).
1. ... yeah
2. I made a case against a person and voted for them. I don't think that's non-commital.
3. Simply not the case, and everyone else I've seen comment on this agrees with me.
4. lolplz
5. My votes against cym and blue were both intended to try and pressure them into posting, but obviously that didn't really work on either one of them. I suppose my vote against cym is based on his playstyle. However my vote on blue was based almost entirely on his slip in which he pretty much says he's only claiming to be a newb.
So yeah... my problem with your vote against me IS that it's poorly reasoned.
No, it's well reasoned, because you're probably scum.
1. Dealt with this in depth.
2. Eventually.
3. Oh, appeal to majority, is it? Asking RQS questions in general, and especially when there are real issues to be discussed, is thread padding and is scummy. It doesn't help find scum, it does help you look active. Your thoughts on Grimm, you basically
describe
him, but you do not ANALYZE him. 160 is a brilliant example. You say that someone else said something, but you didn't see it, you ask an asinine question and make a comment that doesn't seem to do anything in terms of helping find scum.
4. Well, scum want to lynch town. It's the most basic scumtell there is. If I see something and think 'Damn that's townish' and someone else claims to read it another way, there's always the possibility that it's because they're looking at it from a different (ie scum) perspective to me. Genuine frustration like that really looks town. Scum wouldn't care less if a game is stagnating.
5. Yeah, yeah, excuse excuse. Fact is, you put your vote in a place where I would expect scum to put it.
Workdawg wrote:
My vote against VE was not for votehopping, it was because he seemed to be votehopping based on the reaction he was getting from everyone else (trying to please the masses, rather than sticking to his case)... non-committal, as you called it. We disagree on his freakout, and I don't think disagreeing with you on that is scummy.
But I DO think attacking town is inherently scummy.
As for my thoughts on blue... I stand by that. Would you prefer a no-lynch? I'd vote for pretty much anyone who's even mildly suspicious to avoid a no-lynch scenario on D1. As for not making a case against any else, I intend to do that today/tonight. I was busy at work last friday... and then also busy most of the weekend. I just haven't had a chance to go back through the thread.
No, my problem is not that what you are stating is WRONG, it's that it's again stating the obvious in an attempt to look town. No-one wants a no-lynch. However you stated you were hoping for something better, but you didn't go do a re-read or produce a forceful case on someone else and try to get people on board, and that tells me your statement was dishonest- what you want is not a better wagon, but the excuse that there were none to lynch Cy or Blue without looking scummy.
@Cobbler: I don't have a time for a full rebuttal, but don't you think saying why I think the other four players are town constitutes explaining why I think Al, you, or Tomie is the buddy? Don't think for a second it's escaped my notice how you've blown with the wind w/r/t me and Workdawg. I make a case, I've convinced you I'm town and he's scum. He makes a rebuttal, you vote for me.
