Posted March 01, 2012
Posted March 01, 2012
Again, what is scummy about it?
How? With 2 votes? Don't you think we are able to be more subtle? Honest answer, please.
nmillar: Because of all the people who had posted at that point, your posts (no matter how minor the point) were more scummy than anyone else's. Because I refused massclaim and voted for SPF with Rodzaju?
nmillar: I voted for you, didn't I? I think this question was originally asked in relation to Stoicsentry's post though, and I already answered that. But you said "could be percieved as scummy." Normaly one would write are scummy not "could be."
nmillar: You could have dismissed my accusations without resorting to coming up with a detailed response to each individual point. The fact that you did that, seems very defensive to me. Like for real? Previously you accused me of dismissing your points and now I panicked because I didn't dismiss them?
And how: "Yes, it is a weak case (pretty non-existent really)". It much more implies you didn't have one.
How? With 2 votes? Don't you think we are able to be more subtle? Honest answer, please.
And how: "Yes, it is a weak case (pretty non-existent really)". It much more implies you didn't have one.
Posted March 01, 2012
Because you both unvoted and voted for the same person within a short period of time.
This is why the theory is somewhat weak; however at this early stage of the game it is more scummy than any other vote actions. This doesn't necessarily mean either / both of you are scum, but it is the only theory with any kind of evidence (however shallow) so far.
And the instant dismissal of claiming.
Vitek: But you said "could be percieved as scummy." Normaly one would write are scummy not "could be." No, because I don't believe Stoicsentry is scum. I was only pointing out how his post could be perceived as scummy because he's new to the game. Somebody also brought a bit of advice for the newbies earlier about looking at each post and seeing how it could be perceived as scummy.
Vitek: Like for real? Previously you accused me of dismissing your points and now I panicked because I didn't dismiss them? It was the way you responded, rather than the actual content of your response. It just seemed like you were desperate to get the heat off you.
Not at all. I've presented three points against you. They may be a weak argument at the moment, but as the game goes on they may / may not prove more conclusive as the results of lynches, night actions, etc. are revealed.
This is why the theory is somewhat weak; however at this early stage of the game it is more scummy than any other vote actions. This doesn't necessarily mean either / both of you are scum, but it is the only theory with any kind of evidence (however shallow) so far.
And the instant dismissal of claiming.
Not at all. I've presented three points against you. They may be a weak argument at the moment, but as the game goes on they may / may not prove more conclusive as the results of lynches, night actions, etc. are revealed.
Posted March 01, 2012
Just a quick one.
nmillar: No, because I don't believe Stoicsentry is scum. I was only pointing out how his post could be perceived as scummy because he's new to the game. Somebody also brought a bit of advice for the newbies earlier about looking at each post and seeing how it could be perceived as scummy. It was clearly about my posts, not stoics.
Whatever but you said I should have dismiss them but you also said dismissal of them was scummy.
Whatever but you said I should have dismiss them but you also said dismissal of them was scummy.
Posted March 01, 2012
Alright, I might be getting a bit lost here, but I looked at it like this:
1. Nmillar raises suspicion on Rod & Vitek for voting NFY in rapid succession
2. I ask why those actions would be suspicious considering they were the first two votes for NFY, and that would still leave NFY with 7 to lynch. In other words, it seems like a pretty weak attempt to get a train forming on NFY
3. Nmillar responds that his case is weak or almost non-existent, but that my post could be perceived as scummy for asking such questions.
The real thing we have to wonder here is how a post could be perceived as scummy for asking reasonable questions when the person in question admitted that his case was "weak" or non-existent.
The case by his own words wasn't strong, and he also said that my question made sense. So why would that be "perceived as scummy"?
It does indeed sound like a veiled threat, as some here have implied.
But no one else has ran to Nmillar's defense here, which is giving me a little pause about assuming he is mafia. You figure at least one of the others would have jumped to his defense.
Big problem here is that only about half of the posters have been truly active on the thread, so that complicates things.
1. Nmillar raises suspicion on Rod & Vitek for voting NFY in rapid succession
2. I ask why those actions would be suspicious considering they were the first two votes for NFY, and that would still leave NFY with 7 to lynch. In other words, it seems like a pretty weak attempt to get a train forming on NFY
3. Nmillar responds that his case is weak or almost non-existent, but that my post could be perceived as scummy for asking such questions.
The real thing we have to wonder here is how a post could be perceived as scummy for asking reasonable questions when the person in question admitted that his case was "weak" or non-existent.
The case by his own words wasn't strong, and he also said that my question made sense. So why would that be "perceived as scummy"?
It does indeed sound like a veiled threat, as some here have implied.
But no one else has ran to Nmillar's defense here, which is giving me a little pause about assuming he is mafia. You figure at least one of the others would have jumped to his defense.
Big problem here is that only about half of the posters have been truly active on the thread, so that complicates things.
Posted March 01, 2012
1. Nmillar raises suspicion on Rod & Vitek for voting NFY in rapid succession
2. I ask why those actions would be suspicious considering they were the first two votes for NFY, and that would still leave NFY with 7 to lynch. In other words, it seems like a pretty weak attempt to get a train forming on NFY
3. Nmillar responds that his case is weak or almost non-existent, but that my post could be perceived as scummy for asking such questions.
The real thing we have to wonder here is how a post could be perceived as scummy for asking reasonable questions when the person in question admitted that his case was "weak" or non-existent.
The case by his own words wasn't strong, and he also said that my question made sense. So why would that be "perceived as scummy"?
It does indeed sound like a veiled threat, as some here have implied.
But no one else has ran to Nmillar's defense here, which is giving me a little pause about assuming he is mafia. You figure at least one of the others would have jumped to his defense.
Big problem here is that only about half of the posters have been truly active on the thread, so that complicates things.
This was a humourous (in my mind anyway) response to his query about killing the thread (posts 55 & 56).
Posted March 01, 2012
1. Nmillar raises suspicion on Rod & Vitek for voting NFY in rapid succession
2. I ask why those actions would be suspicious considering they were the first two votes for NFY, and that would still leave NFY with 7 to lynch. In other words, it seems like a pretty weak attempt to get a train forming on NFY
3. Nmillar responds that his case is weak or almost non-existent, but that my post could be perceived as scummy for asking such questions.
The real thing we have to wonder here is how a post could be perceived as scummy for asking reasonable questions when the person in question admitted that his case was "weak" or non-existent.
The case by his own words wasn't strong, and he also said that my question made sense. So why would that be "perceived as scummy"?
It does indeed sound like a veiled threat, as some here have implied.
But no one else has ran to Nmillar's defense here, which is giving me a little pause about assuming he is mafia. You figure at least one of the others would have jumped to his defense.
Big problem here is that only about half of the posters have been truly active on the thread, so that complicates things.
This was a humourous (in my mind anyway) response to his query about killing the thread (posts 55 & 56).
Posted March 01, 2012
Ah, I used the same wording when commenting on both of you - my bad. Yes, there are three things you have done that can be perceived as scummy, whereas Stoicsentry only has the one potentially scummy post, therefore you are more scummy than Stoicsentry.
Hey, I explained my posts in more detail to you since you're a newbie! That'll teach me to be friendly ...
Anyway, as Rodzaju has correctly pointed out already, I never need much of a case against anyone to start with the accusations. All cases at this stage of the game are going to be pretty weak (unless a mafia member really slips up).
To summarise, the only thing that has stood out for me as POTENTIALLY scummy is the "follow-the-leader" moment that Rodzaju and Vitek had, and that is enough to prompt me to apply some pressure and build a stronger case.
Of course, I could be completely off the mark, but as Rodzaju knows too well, I'm going to stick with it until I'm proved wrong.
Hey, I explained my posts in more detail to you since you're a newbie! That'll teach me to be friendly ...
Anyway, as Rodzaju has correctly pointed out already, I never need much of a case against anyone to start with the accusations. All cases at this stage of the game are going to be pretty weak (unless a mafia member really slips up).
To summarise, the only thing that has stood out for me as POTENTIALLY scummy is the "follow-the-leader" moment that Rodzaju and Vitek had, and that is enough to prompt me to apply some pressure and build a stronger case.
Of course, I could be completely off the mark, but as Rodzaju knows too well, I'm going to stick with it until I'm proved wrong.
Posted March 01, 2012
I just realised the bait/line thing I said just now is misleading since nmillar was the one who started it. Ignore that part; I messed up. I meant to say that Vitek was grilling various people a lot earlier on, but with nmillar it turned into something thread-consuming.
Posted March 01, 2012
I'm more inclined now to vote for one of the people who have been less active in the thread. If you say 12/16 are town, I would say we haven't even truly had 12 active posters.
I would have to go back and look to see who I would consider inactive, but that's the direction I'm leaning in now. I would feel better about that at this point because I'm sure there's at least one of them who is just watching us turn in circles here.
I would have to go back and look to see who I would consider inactive, but that's the direction I'm leaning in now. I would feel better about that at this point because I'm sure there's at least one of them who is just watching us turn in circles here.
