Not really, I thought it was WIFOM-y because it's WIFOM-y, not because of an idea you floated, not sure where this comes from.The "WIFOM-y" refers to the idea I floated about a scum Miz possibly revealing since it was the smartest thing to do.
That was not my entire answer to your question and you know it because you quoted the rest of it later and saidHere we have DS admitting he does not know which is more likely and admitting that the only possible evidence of scumminess (the reveal thing) is WIFOM-y at best.
You agreed with me then and are ignoring it now.Death, you say it is the fact it had some relation to a loss in another thread and Miztef's contradictions which have made you suspicious rather than Miztef's actual actions. Even if I disagree with the former of these somewhat (the whole cause and effect debate we had), I can see your sense in the latter.
Actually you found more contradictions than I did. Your posts 653 and 660 raise two of the contradictions I was referring to. You and Paradox keep talking about "evidence", but there is no evidence in this game unless someone just comes right out and admits they are scum. All we have are suspicious actions, and Miztef has been full of them.All in all, whilst the contradictions are suspicious and I can see sense in suspecting Miz for them (as I said back in [660]), they are not very strong evidence at all.
How did I admit this? My defending myself has nothing to do with my suspicion of Miztef. I expanded on that when I saidThis bit really grabs me:
You then say you are not "escaping suspicion" but are merely "defending yourself". Either way, I really don't like this since you are basically admitting that you have advanced the anti-Miz line to protect yoursself.
(please ignore my use of the word 'evidence' there!The fact is I am only looking to defend myself, something every player wants to do. If a group of players continually posted "Paradox is scummy and is showing scumtells" and never expanded on that, might you not also get frustrated and ask for some actual evidence?
) That has nothing to do with my suspicion of Miztef.If you would have told me 4 pages ago that the people voting with me against Miztef would be VD and ryan, I would have had a good belly laugh, since I came right out and said I thought they were his scumbuddies. That was a turn of events I could never have predicted and didn't think possible. If my pointing out Miztef's slip-ups convinced them to vote for Miztef, it is mere coincidence that the same action removed their votes from my back. Can you really think that it was my intention to get ryan's and VD's votes off of me? Did there actually seem to be any hope of that when I began discussing Miztef?If this attack on Miz is "defending yourself", then that strikes me as very suspicious indeed. The only reason you are not on L-1 any more is because of the events which have happened regarding Miz, most of which has been fuelled by you conflating a case. This looks to me like a scum taking advantage of the fact that one of the people who suspected them the most made a blatant error.
DeathSauce wrote:Actually, I would like you to clarify post 632. It reads as a complete mishmash, and I glossed over because I was sure you would eventually come to your senses.
You asked why a protown player would use the same tactic as scum did to win in another game. An analogy would be to call a gun owner a criminal because criminals occasionally have guns. An even more accurate analogy would be to call a gun owner a criminal because they saw criminals use guns for crime.
We have different definitions of "peril" I guess. This is not the first time you have accused me of "lashing out" against you. I have done no such thing. I realize that it is hard to judge someones intent just reading words on a screen, but I am not lashing out at you, or upset, or angry, or any such thing. Maybe my typing style is terse or something, I will try to present a friendlier face.I said that most people thought either you or Miz were scum. You haven't bothered to disagree with that, and if that's not "in peril" I don't know what is. It only solidifies my point that you've lashed out at me for even mentioning you, even though I actually said I didn't think those scum tells were valid.
Emotions are irrelevant because I wouldn't expect a townie to be any less emotional. It's not tone, but message that I've tried to respond to. If we are miscommunicating then that's too bad, because now that I've revealed my thinking there's no way to prove your true intents.
There have been at least three major inconsistencies in Miztef's posts since the "trap" fiasco. Read my response to vollkan in post 654, that should help to explain my suspicion of Miztef. Read all my posts since the "trap". You are completely misrepresenting the breadth of my suspicion.You seem to think this one action of Miztef's is not only scummy, but totally complete and 100% evidence that he is scum. Yet you've never explained your vote. You never pointed out exactly how it proves the scumminess.
I don't consider them major inconsistencies. Even so you immediately voted Miz for the original act soon after he admitted to it. You waited a little bit, but probably so it wouldn't look like you were just making a distraction from your own wagon. I don't think that's particularly scummy, but now you are saying that the reasons your voting him are inconsistencies? I for one don't think there were any inconsistencies in his two posts between.
Again with the "going after". I amThen, as soon as anyone suggest otherwise you go after them, as if their opinion is totally unacceptable.arguing my point of view. That is what players do in this game.
No it isn't. I have given three reasons in the last 2 pages.This is the only explanation you give.
Well, you didn't give ANY explanation for your original vote. You only said "This should come as no surprise."
A "totally different scenario"? How do you know that? Because Miztef said so? I saw no link to the game. I have repeatedly said that I found that sentence "explaining" the trap to be incredibly scummy. To suggest I have neither "retracted or affimed this point" is utter hogwash.We've already explained that it's totally fallacy to suggest it makes a difference how it (the trap) played out in another game, in a totally different scenario too, and since you've neither retracted or affirmed this point, it makes me think you realize it's wrong but are afraid to admit it.
No, you said you could not even begin to comprehend how a protown player could use the same tactic as scum did once. It's the only thing you had going against miz before the inconsistencies came up and you said yourself you were arguing your point at the time you metioned it. So I take this as your primary argument for why Miz is scum, and it's flawed. I said it was flawed; you never said it was flawed. That's all there is to it.
So we come down to your only explanation why Miztef should be condemned, is that his tactic was "highly questionable". Additionally, while you haven't come out and said it, it's obvious that your post suggests it is more reasonable for me to be scum than to disagree with your opinion.Have you read my posts? How many times should I explain that it is NOT the trap that is my main source of suspicion?And please, please do not put words in my mouth. I have not evenhintedthat you are scum. But let me tell you, if you continue to misrepresent my arguments and put words in my mouth, my opinion can change. And please do not bore me with an "A-HA! I knew it!"
NO, you voted Miz after he gave two posts. I disagreed that those two posts proved his scumminess. YOU were so sure I was wrong that you couldn't even comprehend my beliefs and tried to convince me on the basis that Miz used the same tactic as he saw once used by a protown player who lost them the game. YOU SAID THAT HE MIGHT AS WELL HAVE ADMITTED HE WAS SCUM from that alone. The inconsistencies you point out, which are minor miscommunications at best, only came up later
Re-read the thread. I was suspicious of Miztef long before there was any sort of threat to me. You admit Miztef is an "obvious target", therefore suspicion of an "obvious target" is suspicious?Here are the tells, for clarity:
#1. Going after obvious targets to escape suspicion
(While the "to escape suspicion" is speculation, I think it's obvious that's what DS is doing)
#2. exaggerating points extensively and intensely for use in #1
You accuse me of "exaggerating your opinions". I see no evidence I have done so. If you want to keep your scumtells to yourself, just say so. The fact is I am only looking to defend myself, something every player wants to do. If a group of players continually posted "Paradox is scummy and is showing scumtells" and never exanded on that, might you not also get frustrated and ask for some actual evidence? Actualy, Van Damien did just that when he said this:, yet you never even asked him about that!Paradoxombie and DeathSauce are scum
And my accusation was infinitely weaker, too.
So you insinuate that I am a liar with your "LAL" comment, nice. As to your second point, about my ability to argue effectively to avoid a lynch, perhaps you didn't notice that two players that I previously argued were scum now agree with me that Miztef is worthy of lynching? Did you notice that I was at lynch -1, and then had no votes on me other than the person whose lynch I was advocating? I think I have argued as effectively and fairly as a player can in this game.I think it's important in the tradition of LAL to assume that they won't, because they shouldn't need to. Townies should be able to argue effectively and fairly to avoid a lynch and make a case. In my opinion DS purposely hasn't done that.
No, I suggested that just like a liar there is no justification for trying to warp the truth, even if you were a townie.
I don't think your analogy works, let's try another one. Why would someone that loves rabbits use an herbicide that is known to kill rabbits as a side effect? In this case, rabbits are townies and the herbicide is the tactic that Miztef used.paradoxombie wrote:You asked why a protown player would use the same tactic as scum did to win in another game. An analogy would be to call a gun owner a criminal because criminals occasionally have guns. An even more accurate analogy would be to call a gun owner a criminal because they saw criminals use guns for crime.
I just can't get over that sentence. It appears to me to be the slip-up scumtell of all time. I know you guys disagree, but just go over it again one more time and try to see it from another point of view.DeathSauce wrote:Wow.Miztef wrote: I saw someone do it in another thread (it failed there, and the scum won) but I thought I'd try it out here anyway.
Agreed. Let's see what the newbies have to say on this as I'm interested in a perspective that maybe we are missing about this situationParadoxombie wrote:Okay for the n-th time, any other game doesn't matter.If you really consider the move too risky, another game shouldn't make any difference.
We must be talking about two different things. I thought you said my rationale for a scum revelation of the trap was a bit WIFOM-y, in which case I agree since it was just a hypothetical which I admitted was stretching it. Hence, in my post I addressed the fact that you seem to just be accepting that one element of the case is based on WIFOM-y logic. If I have applied your comment to the wrong thing, explain what you meant.Not really, I thought it was WIFOM-y because it's WIFOM-y, not because of an idea you floated, not sure where this comes from.
No, I have never said I agree with you. I could "see your sense". There are grounds for suspecting Miz, but you have overshot them. Contradictions are scumtells and Miz has made contradictions but they are only quite minor. The point is that there is a minimal case against Miz which lacks any substantative evidence. You rushed to vote a person who made an obvious error and it looks as though you have simply been making a case up as you go along.Quote:
Here we have DS admitting he does not know which is more likely and admitting that the only possible evidence of scumminess (the reveal thing) is WIFOM-y at best.
That was not my entire answer to your question and you know it because you quoted the rest of it later and said
Quote:
Death, you say it is the fact it had some relation to a loss in another thread and Miztef's contradictions which have made you suspicious rather than Miztef's actual actions. Even if I disagree with the former of these somewhat (the whole cause and effect debate we had), I can see your sense in the latter.
You agreed with me then and are ignoring it now.
Para accused you of going after obvious targets (Miz) to escape suspicion (you were at L -1 until this erupted). When you addressed this you said:Quote:
This bit really grabs me:
You then say you are not "escaping suspicion" but are merely "defending yourself". Either way, I really don't like this since you are basically admitting that you have advanced the anti-Miz line to protect yoursself.
How did I admit this? My defending myself has nothing to do with my suspicion of Miztef. I expanded on that when I said
You clearly knew Para was referring to Miz by "obvious targets" and then conflated whether or not it was to escape suspicion by referring to people not listing each scumtell against you. Hence, you either dodged the question or you admitted to using Miz to your advantage. Either way, I don't like your response.Re-read the thread. I was suspicious of Miztef long before there was any sort of threat to me. You admit Miztef is an "obvious target", therefore suspicion of an "obvious target" is suspicious?
You accuse me of "exaggerating your opinions". I see no evidence I have done so. If you want to keep your scumtells to yourself, just say so. The fact is I am only looking to defend myself, something every player wants to do. If a group of players continually posted "Paradox is scummy and is showing scumtells" and never exanded on that, might you not also get frustrated and ask for some actual evidence?
This is highly surprising from someone that has used the last few pages of this thread building their own case against Miztef. Even Miztef saidHence, again the case against Miz is feeble at best.
I am somewhat confused as to why vollkan has not voted for me yet though, since his evidence against me seems to have mounted up quite heavily.
I did try and explore DS's side of the argument in the last few pages, but I think the results of that pretty much speak for themselves.This is highly surprising from someone that has used the last few pages of this thread building their own case against Miztef. Even Miztef said
Quote:
I am somewhat confused as to why vollkan has not voted for me yet though, since his evidence against me seems to have mounted up quite heavily.