DX wrote:
I'm under the impression here you didn't bother reading either. Firstly, that post was mostly a response to Rodion. As was my next post with the "4.30am excuse" as you put it.
That was post #742. I explained in post #744 I clicked "submit" too soon instead of "preview". See post #744, and in a very similar vein, #746 for this. I've already given my full reasoning. To reiterate, it's nothing to do with "prob town that needs lesson", it's "dodgy as hell, now claims town, but has changed claim 4 times. I see no reason to believe his latest face-saving claim either."
Okay,
DK-5
. I did read, but it didn't really click until I read MOI's post, by which time the only thing I could remember reading from you by way of explanation was a confusing Numerical Soup post. 744 isn't MUCH of an improvement (there WAS a wolf at the end of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"), but 746 clarifies it.
DX wrote:
In other words, you just cut out a pretty damn key part of narrative, namely "At which point, I took a step back, and said the following"
That is the IMPERSONAL description I refer to. MoI gave a reason for not wanting to name, and I took it at face value, so I then asked for some details that would NOT implicate anyone, but that Town could work with MoI on, to determine which, if any, looks forged/edited.
I don't see how the fact that you back-tracked from initial role-fishing makes said role-fishing okay. As in, town-DX had a choice between:
a) Defending his initial fishing as pro-town (which, for obvious reasons, I don't think is viable, since it was an anti-town request); or
b) Mea culpa
Instead, you basically just changed tact completely and asked for something different.
Tell me, did you ever actually retract your call for a nameclaim?
DX wrote:
Vollkan > Reads as Town to me, but tunnels rather heavily on Zinger.. I can see the logic and reasoning behind it, but I get the impression he may be getting a little blinkered. This is another one who I'd love to see his current reads.
I do have a tendency to tunnel. The fact that I argue a lot probably makes it more explicit than for most people, but I think tunneling is something that's almost unavoidable in this game (as in, it would take a LOT of effort to simultaneously pursue the leads that you find most promising AND maintain 100% focus on everything else). If I have missed anything, please just let me know and I will reread it.
Junpei wrote:
vollkan is town due to his system of points that will be very easy to see if he's abusing. It's a clear tunnel into his brain and that is something scum wouldn't give for free like that, if he's scum it'll be easy to tell later in the game.
Hopp wrote: vollkan: How long have you been using your points system now?
I ask this because whilst going through your ISO, I noticed at the point which you switch from voting Leonshade (on 64 points) to Zinger (who was at 50 points) - but you didn't award Zinger any points, so using your points system you would still be voting Leonshade...
It also worries me that since your post here, (ignoring the ambiguous Zinger case) you've only seen two scummy things (ie. things fit to award points for - both from DavidX). You awarded over 60 points in your catch up for the first 290 posts - yet we're approaching post 1000 and you've awarded a grand total of an extra 10 points in that time. That doesn't seem right...
I'll address the above together.
1) I have been using my points system since, IIRC, 2008. I did have a break from it at some point, but I'd say that I have definitely been using for most of my time on site. For this reason, Junpei is incorrect to treat it as a towntell from me; it's part of my meta no matter what my alignment.
2) On Zinger: in my initial post, I included my standard PSA which includes the caveat: "Absent claims, need for deadline compromises, etc. I will always vote the person with the highest score." My reasoning for voting Zinger was essentially claim-based. Obviously, behaviour comes into it, but because it rests on a claim it basically becomes a binary choice between "To vote, or not to vote" rather than a spectrum/relative question like most people's scumminess. In that sense, my points system becomes kind of redundant, since it would just dictate that I give Zinger something like +40 points to clearly stake him out as scum, other than somebody explicitly claiming scum.
3) On the number of points given: I noticed this myself, and I think it's largely attributable to the fact that the Zinger issue has been dominant for most of the interim period , and it's an issue on which very little from anybody strikes me as "scummy".
I thought maybe he would post something inconsistent with the previous, but it's exactly the same, other than with NC being included expressly as #1, rather than being dealt with separetely as the major suspect.
