Mini #516: Canyon City - Abandoned

Spambot · Post Post #75 (ISO) » Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:18 pm

Phate wrote: 1. There is no criticism of anyone for anything, much less criticising an anonymous plural "others" for "lack of content." I'm attempting to move from our fairly mutual agreement of the matter of the NPCs to the finding of scum.

2. If you read, the entire point of the post was to revitalise the search for scum. This one's a real stretch.

3. Ummm... yeah. Gonna have to agree on this one. I will post to defend myself from the moment I am accused to to the moment before my lynch, should it come to that. Deal with it.

4. See #2.

5. You're building on a foundation that doesn't exist. What about that post was self-centered?

6. Au contraire. No matter what happens from this point forward, we (or the rest of you, as the case may be) will be able to look back at this page and decide who was genuinely suspicious and who was just trying to get a townie lynched. Considering that all we've done so far is agree a lot about the NPCs, I'd say I've been the most helpful person so far this game.

7. I'm not nearly as experienced as some of you, but I really don't consider my behaviour scummy. Let's see: the main accusations are that I'm trying too hard to act town (which I've addressed) and that I'm trying to spur activity while not actually contributing.

Of those, only the second has merit. It's true; I have been trying to spur activity and my posts to try to accomplish that goal have been otherwise useless (although you have to admit, it HAS spurred activity =P). I apologise for the otherwise-uselessness of the post, but you know what? I don't really regret anything I've said so far (scratch that. I DO regret linking to current games. Other than that, nothing.)

1. You are saying "hay guyz, get teh scum lolz." It is not much of a leap from that to say you are criticizing others for not going after scum enough.

2. No. You are completely missing the point. I can sit back all game and tell people to find scum, that's lazy and unhelpful. You are doing NOTHING YOURSELF to actually find scum. You aren't voting for people here, you aren't attacking anybody. It's the very definition of medium-sized.

3. Again, you miss the point. Obviously people have to defend themselves when they are being attacked. My point was that you are defending yourself really hard without doing anything else. Like, I don't know why you can't be attacking somebody that hard. I can't decide if you misunderstood me or this is a staw-man.

4. Who do you think is scum? Top 3, and why.

5. When did I ever say I was only referring to one particular post? Another possible straw-man. If you're still curious, the reason you're being "self-centered" is my earlier point that you aren't actively hunting for scum at all.

6. Acting scummy and getting attacked for it =\= helpful.

7. Meh.

Primate · Post Post #76 (ISO) » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:11 am

Votecount

theopr - (Kabenon, phate) - 2
Kabenon - (D.O.S, CTD) - 2
Groinhammer - (Tyhess) - 1
Doc Christchurch - (SSF) - 1
Phate - (GroinHammer, Shanba, Spambot, Yagami) - 4

Not Voting: Theo, Zakarum + all NPCs

7 to lynch.

Deadline is the 14th of November, so about two weeks away.

Phate · Post Post #77 (ISO) » Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:58 am

It is not much of a leap from that to say you are criticizing others for not going after scum enough.

Yes, it is. A suggestion to do something =\= a criticism for not having already done it. That simultaneously skews perceptions of the actual message and of my intent. As well imply that your attack of me means that you are completely convinced that I am scum - it might not LOOK like like a huge leap, but when you think about the implications of the difference between positions, it is.

Besides, I can spell. =P

No. You are completely missing the point. I can sit back all game and tell people to find scum, that's lazy and unhelpful. You are doing NOTHING YOURSELF to actually find scum. You aren't voting for people here, you aren't attacking anybody. It's the very definition of medium-sized.

No one was posting. Now they are. I had no idea who was scum. Now I have suspicions. The town had nothing to discuss; now they do. In the event that town decides I'm scum, they can look back and see who was curiously reluctant to jump onto the wagon. In the event that town decides I'm town, we can look back and see who was all too eager to jump onto the wagon.

Also, what do you mean by medium-sized?

Again, you miss the point. Obviously people have to defend themselves when they are being attacked. My point was that you are defending yourself really hard without doing anything else. Like, I don't know why you can't be attacking somebody that hard. I can't decide if you misunderstood me or this is a staw-man.

When I see an Italian guy with a fedora and trenchcoat, I'll point him out. [In unrelated news, I am Italian and wear a fedora and a black leather jacket]

Seriously, though, I haven't been attacking scum because my opinions on who is scum are still taking shape. And personally, I'd rather deal with the arguments presented against me first, and then, once they're dispatched, move on to cross-examining proponents of faulty logic, than attempt to defend myself while simultaneously doing my best to cast suspicion on someone else. That's probably an overdramatization of your position, but you catch my drift.

Who do you think is scum? Top 3, and why.

I've been thinking about that. I'm not really getting a scumvibe from you [Spambot] or Shanba, but Yagami gets a beard-stroke because I'm entertaining the possibility that he's jumping on two relatively innocent posts just to see a townie lynched, and Kabenon gets a WtFoS for blatantly strawmanning my position (I'll respond to that in a moment, btw).

How about you?

When did I ever say I was only referring to one particular post? Another possible straw-man. If you're still curious, the reason you're being "self-centered" is my earlier point that you aren't actively hunting for scum at all.

*nonplussed* I thought this whole thing was about my bump post. I responded to the "not hunting for scum" bit in points 2 and 3.

Acting scummy and getting attacked for it =\= helpful.

Of course it is. It gives the town a chance to analyse the reactions of the other players. Since I've already explained this and you've reverted to your original implication without bothering to enlighten me with the reason for my explanation's invalidity, I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to respond to these questions in detail.

Meh.

That was helpful, alright.

On to Kabenon. If you truly don't understand this, then I have further confirmed my favour of abortion in cases of incest.

Let's look at the VERY POSTS YOU'RE QUOTING (out of context). The very first one begins with "Of those" - that might possibly suggest that I was referring to something I have just said. In fact, here is the sentence right before it:

Let's see: the main accusations are that I'm trying too hard to act town (which I've addressed) and that I'm trying to spur activity while not actually contributing.

Try reading the whole post instead of just scouring it for shortcuts and straw men.

Spambot · Post Post #78 (ISO) » Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:26 am

Phate wrote:Yes, it is. A suggestion to do something =\= a criticism for not having already done it. That simultaneously skews perceptions of the actual message and of my intent. As well imply that your attack of me means that you are completely convinced that I am scum - it might not LOOK like like a huge leap, but when you think about the implications of the difference between positions, it is.

Ok, I'm confused. When you made that post, you clearly didn't think that people were attacking scum enough, otherwise your post would be pointless, no? You suggested that people start hunting for scum, implying that they weren't and also implying that you thought they should be. Do you disagree with this?

No one was posting. Now they are. I had no idea who was scum. Now I have suspicions. The town had nothing to discuss; now they do. In the event that town decides I'm scum, they can look back and see who was curiously reluctant to jump onto the wagon. In the event that town decides I'm town, we can look back and see who was all too eager to jump onto the wagon.

Also, what do you mean by medium-sized?

Ok then, I am going to act ridiculously scummy, but don't lynch me because I'm just trying to generate discussion. Here is my interpretation of what happened.

You: Let's start hunting for scum, guys.
Me: You first.
Others: You are scum.
You: I am defending myself really hard.
Me: If you wanted to start hunting scum, why aren't you doing so?
You: I was just trying to generate discussion. Success!

I think you are trying to look helpful without actually being so.

Seriously, though, I haven't been attacking scum because my opinions on who is scum are still taking shape. And personally, I'd rather deal with the arguments presented against me first, and then, once they're dispatched, move on to cross-examining proponents of faulty logic, than attempt to defend myself while simultaneously doing my best to cast suspicion on someone else. That's probably an overdramatization of your position, but you catch my drift.

Well, this might be more of a style issue and I can kind of buy this. I think being so cautious, especially on day 1, is poor play, but I can see where you're coming from with this.

I've been thinking about that. I'm not really getting a scumvibe from you [Spambot] or Shanba, but Yagami gets a beard-stroke because I'm entertaining the possibility that he's jumping on two relatively innocent posts just to see a townie lynched, and Kabenon gets a WtFoS for blatantly strawmanning my position (I'll respond to that in a moment, btw).

How about you?

See, when you tell me that you are suspicious of these two people, but don't even mention the guy you're voting for, that makes me more convinced that you're scum.

My top three would probably go you, GroinHammer, then anybody not voting right now. The only person I've played with in this game before is Kabenon, so I'm trying to get a feel for everybody else.

Of course it is. It gives the town a chance to analyse the reactions of the other players. Since I've already explained this and you've reverted to your original implication without bothering to enlighten me with the reason for my explanation's invalidity, I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to respond to these questions in detail.

Holy crap, no. Acting scummy isn't a good way to generate discussion. All it does is get you mislynched (if town). Also, are you admitting that you were acting scummy?

That was helpful, alright.

I didn't strongly disagree with any of that part. Also, nice ad hom attack.

kabenon007 · Post Post #79 (ISO) » Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am

Well, Phate once again goes at it with his comedic routine, appealing to our emotion of humor... noted. Also, I see what you are saying now. I misread your "the second is the only one of merit" as in reference to your #2 accusation. So I was misunderstanding, not strawmanning. And there is no need to bring incest into this. If you are going to use humor, at least make it tasteful.

Phate · Post Post #80 (ISO) » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:31 pm

Ok, I'm confused. When you made that post, you clearly didn't think that people were attacking scum enough, otherwise your post would be pointless, no? You suggested that people start hunting for scum, implying that they weren't and also implying that you thought they should be. Do you disagree with this?

Yes, to all of the above. My issue is with the in-this-case loaded word criticism.

Ok then, I am going to act ridiculously scummy, but don't lynch me because I'm just trying to generate discussion. Here is my interpretation of what happened.

You: Let's start hunting for scum, guys.
Me: You first.
Others: You are scum.
You: I am defending myself really hard.
Me: If you wanted to start hunting scum, why aren't you doing so?
You: I was just trying to generate discussion. Success!

I think you are trying to look helpful without actually being so.

Perhaps I'm being unclear. I didn't make an unhelpful post in order to provoke a helpful response (although now that I see the results, I would consider it a valid strategy) - I didn't have the foresight to do that. I made a post to try to close the coffin on the NPC discussion, which we were all pretty much agreed on, and move on. As it happened, the response happened to be (IMO) helpful. Again, I consider this response and the possible analysis thereof helpful. If you don't, your loss.

See, when you tell me that you are suspicious of these two people, but don't even mention the guy you're voting for, that makes me more convinced that you're scum.

*blinks*

...

Oh. I've still got my first-post randomvote on.

Unvote: theo. Vote: Yagami.

Lol. If forgetting to unvote a random vote I made on my first post isn't scummy, I don't know what is.

My top three would probably go you, GroinHammer, then anybody not voting right now. The only person I've played with in this game before is Kabenon, so I'm trying to get a feel for everybody else.

Really? Groinhammer? I wasn't getting much of a scumvibe from him. I'll have to go reread him. What about him do you think is scummy?

Holy crap, no. Acting scummy isn't a good way to generate discussion. All it does is get you mislynched (if town). Also, are you admitting that you were acting scummy?

Nope, I'm not. I'm not terribly worried. I don't think the evidence against me is strong enough for a lynch, and I don't think my defense is suitably weak enough to overcome that fact. But it HAS generated discussion, and I don't think it will result in a lynch.

...or at least, not mine. >=P

I didn't strongly disagree with any of that part. Also, nice ad hom attack.

Well, if you didn't strongly disagree, did you disagree at all? Why? Or did you agree? Then why not say so, even if it's as half-hearted as your "I can kind buy this, even if it's a poor play" spiel? Or are you undecided? Well, then, say so. Just about anything more articulate than "meh" would be more helpful.

Also, how is this ad hominem? Calling your one-word response unhelpful isn't ad hominem any more than your calling my post unhelpful. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy involving substituting a personal attack on the other person for a response to the issue. That was neither a personal attack, nor was there anything to respond to.

Which was why it was unhelpful.

Phate · Post Post #81 (ISO) » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:41 pm

Well, Phate once again goes at it with his comedic routine, appealing to our emotion of humor... noted. Also, I see what you are saying now. I misread your "the second is the only one of merit" as in reference to your #2 accusation. So I was misunderstanding, not strawmanning. And there is no need to bring incest into this. If you are going to use humor, at least make it tasteful.

No, I don't believe my response was so much an "appeal to emotion" as stinging sarcasm, perhaps even a verbal slap in the face. I answered your question. I was abrasive because 1) it was a stupid question, and 2) the whole post reeked of snide superiority and I'm always happy to take people down a notch when they speak to me that way. Also, I'm not terribly interested in what you consider tasteful.

Also, your attempt to label my post as appeal to emotion is both clearly untrue and a possible scumtell, when you consider the circumstances (you're the latest member of a public that is pressuring me, this is your second unfounded pseudo-accusation, this is your first serious post, etc). If I could vote two people at once, I would. Consider yourself voted for.

But since I can't, I'll just upgrade you to a

WtFos: Kabenon.

Oh, yeah. Spambot, what does "medium-sized" mean, in context?

kabenon007 · Post Post #82 (ISO) » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:50 pm

Phate wrote:But since I can't, I'll just upgrade you to a WtFos: Kabenon.

You already did that, thanks. Got anything new to add?

Unvote,

highly considering voting, but not at 4 already.

Phate · Post Post #83 (ISO) » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:57 pm

Ah, but the new one's bold. *eyebrow waggle*

Since I'm the one defending myself from you, and since you've stated that you're highly voting, I should be asking YOU: Got anything new to add? Or do you not need a reason to vote, a la Chuck Norris?

Phate · Post Post #84 (ISO) » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:58 pm

EBWOP: highly voting = highly considering voting.

kabenon007 · Post Post #85 (ISO) » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:16 pm

Well, I think my vote would do the most work on you, however, seeing as how you are at 4, I do not wish to escalate it any further, and my vote was not serving a purpose on theopor.

Also, you say that was my first serious post. Fine. Whatever. But what about people who have yet to make a serious post?

Phate · Post Post #86 (ISO) » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:22 pm

I'm not saying that the fact that it was your first serious post is scummy. I'm saying, that fact in combination with the other circumstances I mentioned is what makes your accusation a possible scumtell.

So for your what about, question, all I can respond is: they suck, and should go die in a war. Or post. Whichever comes first.

kabenon007 · Post Post #87 (ISO) » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:39 pm

I wasn't saying you thought it was. I just thought it could possibly be scummy that you were only calling me out on this one.

Phate · Post Post #88 (ISO) » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:43 pm

*exasperated*

Nope. That one's really reaching. If I had just made a post that said, "Kabenon should post," you might be able to pull that one off (...maybe). But I used it as one of several exhibits of evidence for a point. That's hardly calling you out to the exclusion of anyone else.

kabenon007 · Post Post #89 (ISO) » Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:14 pm

Hence the possibly in my post. Atm you are the only one who has really posted much, so you are the only one I can really attack... sadness.

kabenon007 · Post Post #90 (ISO) » Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:15 pm

EBWOP: That should read posted much to be suspect of. Curse dyslexia

MCHammer · Post Post #91 (ISO) » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:36 pm

To be truthful, I've been a little scared to post recently (phate/spambot) discussion seems to have taken up most of everything on the last few pages, but 007, you are right in that you can't analyse anything i people don't talk. w.r.t. what has been said recently I have to say that I don't agree with spambot. I think it really is a case of phate being the only person to have said much a/b anything on p1/2 & him being picked up on it as much as he has been is a case being stretched too far. Incidentally, @ spambot: is that the reason why I've scored so high on yr. scumlist - we're you being serious?

I know that i might not be exactly the best person to say this here, but is there any chance of input from some of the other players before phate & spambot consume the entire game?

YagamiLight · Post Post #92 (ISO) » Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:13 pm

Groinhammer, I agree with the reason. I originally voted him because he was the only one with reason to vote. I have a question for you though. What reason did you have to be afraid to post?

MCHammer · Post Post #93 (ISO) » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:52 am

it was more of a joke seeing as spam&phate have been going at it at such a rate - not to be taken seriously.

Phate · Post Post #94 (ISO) » Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:20 am

Groinhammer: If that's the case, what is your vote still doing here?

Shanba, please clarify and your opinion of my status.

Spambot, has your opinion changed? If so, do any accusations jumped out at you as being unwarranted? If not, please respond to 80. Also, what leads you to think groinhammer is scum?

Phate · Post Post #95 (ISO) » Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:54 pm

ebwop - "clarify and explain your opinion"

MCHammer · Post Post #96 (ISO) » Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:17 am

phate wrote:Groinhammer: If that's the case, what is your vote still doing here?

I get yr. point - random vote never taken off isn't the most helpful thing

unvote

We really need to be hearing more from other people?

Dates of last posts:

#4: DragonsofSummer -25th
#5: CrashTextDummie. - 24th
#6: Zakarum. - 25th

Also - going to be away from comp/keyboard/internet for 7th-12th nov inclusive

Spambot · Post Post #97 (ISO) » Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:28 pm

Responding to points of interest, responding to anything else seems to be circular and causing more meaningful discussion to be lost. If you really wanted a response to something else, point it out.

Phate wrote: *blinks*

...

Oh. I've still got my first-post randomvote on.
Unvote: theo. Vote: Yagami.
Lol. If forgetting to unvote a random vote I made on my first post isn't scummy, I don't know what is.

You are fighting pretty hard, but I DO think this is a scum tell. I think that 95% of the time, somebody that is sincere about their suspicions will put their vote on that person. That you forgot you had a random vote on somebody makes me think you aren't very sincere about Yagami.

Spambot · Post Post #98 (ISO) » Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:29 pm

kabenon007 wrote:Well, I think my vote would do the most work on you, however, seeing as how you are at 4, I do not wish to escalate it any further, and my vote was not serving a purpose on theopor.

Also, you say that was my first serious post. Fine. Whatever. But what about people who have yet to make a serious post?

What? Why do you want to vote for him, but not lynch him? That makes no sense.

kabenon007 · Post Post #99 (ISO) » Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:47 pm

I do not wish to put him at -2 where scum could just easily slide in on the wagon and have themselves a quick lynch, for which we gain no information. So, I would rather express my suspicion and not vote. Also, I do not think my suspicion is enough to lynch him, he is just the most suspicious at the moment. But as has been pointed out already, this could be due to the fact that he has posted the most.