Acidmix wrote:Vote: Macavenger
For Strawmanning info in post:89.
This is an utterly abysmal reason for voting me.
First, it isn't in any way a strawman. It's a misinterpretation of what you wrote, which could just as easily have been unintentional (which in fact it was) as intentional.
Look at the possible motivation. Was I trying to get you lynched or in any way paint you as scummy with that question? No. There was no implication one way or another. I was just trying to check for logical consistency, something scum usually lack. You answering that it wasn't meant that way should have been the end of it.
Of course, this all assumes you're telling the truth and weren't influenced by charter's interruption. I have no strong reason to believe otherwise for the moment.
I don't see any particular scum motivation in your vote for me right now either, so I'm going to pretty much ignore this for the moment, but I'm definitely going to be watching you carefully.
CF Riot wrote:If it will help prove my township and prove I'm willing to take responsibility for my own actions, so be it.
Vote: Charter
This statement is very scummy. Riot, if you're town, never do this again. Doing something because other people want you to is not a good way to act as town.
charter wrote:My last post was pointless. I don't like how Riot is says he's not scum. There's no need to claim this unless he is scum. Looks pretty WIFOM to me.
This is a load of crap. Yes, him claiming he's protown is meaningless. Everyone is going to claim to be protown. There's no need to claim that if he's town or scum since it's implied - it's not in any way a tell. You trying to represent it as such, and calling it WIFOM, is a huge stretch.
Battousai wrote:Charter, don't answer questions not directed at the whole group or yourself. Now I don't know what acid really would have said if you hadn't answered by himself. His answer could have been manipluated by you because now he knows he has support with this reason.
Mac: I agree with you on post 89. It sounded like his reasoning for thinking they are protown is because they are scumhunting and aggressive because he wrote ALSO. To me that means that's a second reason.
:goodposting:
charter wrote:First off, I didn't answer Mac's question and his question wasn't directed at anyone in particular. I was pointing out that Mac was stretching Acid's words to say what he wanted them to say. Second, Acid would have had support if I didn't say anything because Mac had already voiced his opinion on this. Convienent how you overlook this. Third you are ignoring acid's clarification and twisting his statement as Mac did, but this time it's worse because he's already said otherwise.
Wrong. You absolutely did straight up answer a question I posed to acidmix. There's no reason I wanted his words to say that - I already covered this above. His words could easily have had a couple different meanings. I should have pointed this out in my initial reply when you did that; I can't remember why I didn't now. Because of your intervention, I can't be sure that I got an honest answer to that question out of him, which screws up my attempt to find out how consistent he is. Interrupting questioning like that is almost never protown. You could always have called me on it later had I tried to stretch his response in a way you thought was inappropriate.
Netlava wrote:Macavenger, are your unvotes and votes always this methodical, or is it just me?
Not entirely sure what you mean by this. If you're referring to the way I unvoted, FOS'd you, and then voted you later, not always. I jsut do whatever seems appropriate at the time. Charter was sounding better when I unvoted him, and I didn't quite feel you were yet voteworthy at the time.
Netlava wrote:Also, Mac, how guilty was Charter in your opinion at the time of your vote? I noticed that your unvote of him was quite timely (after I asked this question).
I answered this in that post - it was mostly a pressure vote. He was the first to do anything noticably scummy, so I wanted to see what would happen.
Netlava wrote:An answer to this type of question wouldn't have given any insight into Charter's guilt/innocence at that point in the game, yet it puts him in a bad position by forcing him to commit that early on over apparently nothing. It also grossly overestimates the significance Charter's "that's odd" post.
Completely disagree. The actual number wouldn't have given much information, but the way someone answers (or doesn't, in this case) can be a valuable reaction to look at. It wouldn't have put him in a bad position at all, as very little stock would (or should) be put in that number later.
Netlava wrote:Had was the first to vote, and his reason was pretty trivial. It seemed more of an upgrade over a random vote. On the other hand, your reason indicated the beginnings of a case on Charter.
Battousai, I'm not so sure about it because it's a pressure vote, so it's harder to guess at its intent.
Your vote was the second vote after Tinsley's FOS, and the reason for your vote was a bit ambiguous.
This is pretty inconsistent. Tinsley was actually the first to vote, though it was random. Had was the first serious vote, followed closely by Tinsley confirming his.
I fail to see any way my vote was substantially different from Hadhfang's. The only real difference is that I used the word "case," and I did so in reference to what charter had already said himself.
You also already know mine is a pressure vote when you wrote this part, like Battousai's, so why are they still being treated differently if that makes it hard to guess intent?
Netlava wrote:I think having someone take a stance that early in the game was an unrealistic expectation. Mac, rank Near's scumminess 1-10!
The situation is not analogous, and you know it. Near has posted literally no serious content of any kind this game, whereas charter actually had said something of substance about blackberry.
Just to humor you, I'll say 2 because his silence is starting to border on lurking, but enough scumvibes are coming from the people posting that I think there's a good chance the scum lie elsewhere.
CF Riot wrote:Lastly, since this is another of my long winded posts, I'm going to try for at least the end of day 1 to start giving shorter posts unless specifically questioned.
Your posts aren't long winded in the slightest. Don't worry about your post length, just say what you need to say. More information is good for town.
Early reads:
charter + Netlava: possibly scum together. Netlava seems to be going after Riot hard for mostly incorrect reasons, charter answering questions for others but not himself and making some poor arguments, and I feel like they're working together somewhat in the way they're attacking CF Riot.
Acidmix: possible scum connection to charter from the question answering, but that's very loose at this stage. Need more posts to get any kind of real read.
CF Riot: has done some scummy stuff, but also a lot of newbie town mistakes and he's explaining himself fairly well. Also doesn't look like scum with Netlava or charter from the interactions I'm seeing, and I'm more suspicious of them. Tentatively newbie town.
Hadhfang: Questioning CF Riot for more correct reasons, and appears to be doing so honestly. Neutral-leaning town.
Battousai: Likely town.
Walnut, ShadowGirl, acidmix, tinsley, blackberry, Near all need to post more.
"By far the towniest player in the game. Very good scum hunting, doesn't let anyone off the hook. All in all I find Mac's posts insightful and thought-provoking. " - Vel-Rahn Koon
Just to be helpful, I will even mark with an * the standard scumtells I am giving.
