New developments earn Smash an FoS (which saddens me, since I was thinking he was clean), and a :badposting: for raj's 347.
Now to return to our regularly scheduled program:
Thesp wrote:Dur-Galad wrote:1) Please elaborate on what "CrapReasons" are. If you call trying to put suspicion on a player for ludicrous reasons, and/or putting suspicion on a player while quietly trying to lynch another "CrapReasons", then I think we have drastically different ideas of good reasons to vote for someone.
No, I think help im a bug's thought on Macros was perfectly reasonable and certainly not ludicrous. When you vote for someone and say they have a valid point, you are "hedging your bet", and providing reason enough for you to escape the vote freely. The fact that help im a bug has blossomed into a wagon since then is merely icing on the cake.
So you think it is in fact perfectly reasonable that Macros has
two
post restrictions, and that one of them is "having to do a snake-like thing once a day"? You are on record as believing that that position is plausible?
Let me break down my beliefs re: hiab's original scummy post.
1) hiab postulates that Macros has a post restriction in which he must be generally antagonistic. hiab offers evidence to support his claim. I agree that Macros very possibly has this post restriction.
2) hiab suggests, based on the fact that Macros said "sssssscummy" that Macros is
also
"scum who has to do a snakelike thing once a day". hiab goes so far as to say that he is
"really suspicious"
of Macros being such a scum. I do not believe this suggestion for the following reasons:
a) I think the original "ssssscummy" quote was most likely a joke.
b) I think it is unlikely that a post restriction would be "do a snake-like thing once a day".
c) Given that I believe Macros quite possibly has the
other
post restriction, and that I think it is incredibly unlikely that he has
two
post restrictions, this second restriction must necessarily be almost as unlikely as the first is likely.
3) hiab then moves his vote
away
from Macros and
onto
spectrumvoid - a townie whose wagon you have been vocally against - putting spectrum one from lynch. He does this with no discussion, and yet immediately begins pushing hard for lynch (his next post, in its entirety, reads "Why is spectrumvoid alive?")
I believed hiab was scummy because he attempted to cast suspicion on a player for reasons that I believe are mostly or entirely lacking merit, while simultaneously attempting to bandwagon another player to death. Effectively, I think he was trying to get a quick mislynch on d1 while putting suspicion on another player for d2 (or, even worse, an n1 vigging). Please note that my agreement with one of his assertations is among the reasons I think his attack on Macros falls apart, rather than exculpatory evidence.
Thesp wrote:Dur-Galad wrote:I think Glork's play is either scummy or simply hurting the town...
What this says to me is that I can stop reading your posts. (I'm still reading them anyways.) You're not trying to find scum. In fact, this reason is often given as a means of justifying bad lynches, and I'm never comfortable with that.
I think there is a better-than-average chance that Glork is scum (to be fair, my suspicions have been decreasing as his play normalizes). I also think that when his play is egregiously abnormal, it hurts the town (if Glork is acting crazy, how can you get a read on Glork? If you can't read Glork, how can you read his interactions with others?) Ergo, in the absence of someone who I feel is more scummy than Glork, I'd be happy to vote him and, given a deadline, to lynch him rather than No Lynch. This does not mean I ever wanted to quick-lynch Glork - as I have stated before, I've never even voted for him.
Furthermore, I hoped that my statements would be responded to with at least some kind of list of what he's serious about and what he's not, and hopefully with an effort to at least be a little bit serious.
Thesp wrote:Dur-Galad wrote:4) What hiab suggested is in no way sensical. He provided evidence that Macros has a particular post restriction, and then suggested that he was scummy because he might have a second, entirely seperate post restriction - one which is quite a stretch of the imagination as well.
Why is this not sensical? I don't see this as a stretch at all,
particularly now since we've already seen a bizarre post restriction.
Someone who has to post in all caps and might blow up for posting too much?
Having to post in all caps is not what I would call "bizarre". In fact, posting in all caps seems to me reasonably similar to Macros being curmudgeonly. You also seem to suggest that spectrum died because he himself had posted too many times, which is untrue. Even if we call spectrum's PR "bizarre", it is still quite a bit less bizarre than a scum with
two
restrictions, one of which is to act like a snake once a day.
Thesp wrote:Dur-Galad wrote:5) You attack me for telling hiab that he has not provided enough evidence. If you had not taken me out of context, it would be plainly evident that I was simply refuting his claim to have given evidence of the "doing a snakelike thing once a day" post restriction, and his claim that I ignored this evidence.
I've looked at the context a bit more closely, as it was diffiult to delineate. (I think you overstate your case here, nothing is "plainly evident" about your conversation with help im a bug.)
The only time I conversed with him about evidence was this:
Dur-Galad wrote:hiab wrote:1) I gave evidence, which you ignored
2) I mentioned that my thoughts (about the ssssssnake post restriction) were only suspicions, and that it was "something to keep an eye on." The way you quoted, however, was an obvious attempt to make me look irrational.
1) You gave no evidence<snip>
It seems rather plain to me that I was responding directly to his "1) I gave evidence, which you ignored".
Thesp wrote:You said he gave no evidence
"other than the word "ssssscummy" that he used"
(emphasis mine). You then said it's not evidence, it's only "data you used to form your hypothesis".
My statement was true. He did the following (please note that I am attempting to be scientific to some extent, once the word evidence starts coming into play):
1) pointed out an unusual phenomenon - Macros said the word "ssssscummy"
2) offered a hypothesis - Macros is scum with a restriction to do something "snake-like" once a day.
3) concluded that he was "really suspicious" of Macros for this.
He
did not do
the following:
- suggest alternate hypotheses to explain the phenomenon (I personally doubt he even considered any)
- offer any evidence that any alternative hypothesis is false
- offer any evidence that his own hypothesis is true
Effectively, I refuted his claim that I had not considered his evidence by stating that he did not in fact offer any evidence to consider. I do not believe the point has been argued, and I do not believe there can be any argument.
Thesp wrote:Now, suppose that someone does indeed have a post-restriction that makes them use a elongated "s" in one post per day. Quiz for Dur-Galad,
(1) What sort of evidence would you find for it?
(2) What sort of role is most likely to have such a post restriction?
1) You could offer the following evidence:
repeated
"snake-like" actions; the existance of some sort of similar post restriction having occurred in the past; some explanation - and preferably evidence to support it - of the plausibility of Macros having two post restrictions, or somehow showing that it is plausible that he has only the "snake-like actions" restriction; suggestion and evidence against any other plausible reasons for the original phenomenon.
None of these were offered, and the burden of proof rests
squarely
on hiab.
2) If the post restriction were to exist, I believe it is more likely possessed by a scum than otherwise. Your question is fallacious, however, in that my central point revolves around the plausibility of hiab's assertion of the "do a snake-like thing" restriction, NOT whether or not having such a post restriction is scummy. Furthermore, I would still be uncomfortable lynching Macros based simply on having a probably-scummy post restriction.
Thesp wrote:Please answer those questions in thread, then I DARE YOU TO SAY AGAIN THAT
SUGGESTING WE OUGHT TO WATCH ONE PERSON IN THE FUTURE
BECAUSE THEY SAID "SSSSSCUMMY" IS SOMETHING SCUM ARE MORE LIKELY TO DO.
I dare you.
Your "dare" is clever, since I NEVER SAID THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE (given that you are defining "watch" as "keep an eye out for snake-like actions" rather than "be suspicious of"). Obviously, I can't say it "again", and I won't say it once.
What I
have
said is that placing suspicion (I defy anyone to suggest that claiming to have been made "really suspicious" is not placing suspicion) upon any player for CrapReasons is scummy, that doing so
while trying to lynch someone else
is even scummier, and that hiab's behavior has continued to be scummy - in fact, he's been vote-hopping just recently.
I find it
fantastically
interesting that you call me out for "hedging my bets", while
defending
a player who called someone "really suspicious" in one sentence, said "Just something to keep an eye on" the next, and then promptly put another player at lynch - 1.
Thesp wrote:Now, we've got to hurry and turbo-lynch raj before our deadline hits. If we must, I can conceive of a Mariyta lynch, she's just not all that terribly interesting to me either way as a lynch. I do, however, think a help im a bug lynch is terribly ill-informed.
It also interests me that your original vote for raj was an OMGUS in post 76, before the spectrumwagon took off. In fact, you randomly FoS'd me in the same post, before I had done anything that you now claim I'm scummy for.
Since hiab looks scummier every time I read through this game,
Confirm Vote: hiab
. If he manages to survive today, our vig should definitely make sure he's off our motherfucking plane by tomorrow.
Mod
, I think Macros could use a prod.
Fools. I'm a townie. You're wasting a lynch. -Mariyta, Bastard Mod Mafia
GlorkTheInvader (19:43:56): Then I guess I'm a succulent schoolgirls
