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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then, as soon as anyone suggest otherwise you go after them, as if their opinion is totally unacceptable.
Again with the "going after". I am
arguing my point of view
. That is what players do in this game.
This is the only explanation you give.
No it isn't. I have given three reasons in the last 2 pages.
Well, you didn't give ANY explanation for your original vote. You only said "This should come as no surprise."
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.
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.
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 even
hinted
that 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
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
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? Actualy, Van Damien did just that when he said this:
Paradoxombie and DeathSauce are scum
, yet you never even asked him about that!
And my accusation was infinitely weaker, too.
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.
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.
No, I suggested that just like a liar there is no justification for trying to warp the truth, even if you were a townie.