Newbie 1961 | Trees II | Over

[january]

and i see it as there's 1 maf between you and vork

?
There's two scum ...

yes i know...
i never said everyone else was town...

[january]

vorkuta you're so. annoying. to. play. with.
i don't understand how you justify your "i think this person is maf so

everything

they do must have scum reasoning"

i mean... i'm sure i've done that (see: push on Jamelia)
but i wasn't just blocking out every single thing he said

I read it as 30% tongue-in-cheek, 30% defensive, 30% 'lawl you got me, now let me try brushing it off with sarcasm' and 10% slightly forced

everything's scummy if you want it to be
i can be a lot more sarcastic brushing you off if u want (:

[january]

Suspicious has requested replacement. Searching...

didn’t notice this but uh
kinda sucks to replace in right here

[Plotinus]

Official Vote Count 2.04

---

Lynching

With 7 votes in play, it takes 4 to lynch.

Vorkuta

(2): skitter30, Zenith

skitter30

(2): Vorkuta, january

Zenith

(1): tictac

Not Voting

(2): DrDolittle, Suspicious

Deadline:

(expired on 2019-11-05 07:45:00).

Mod notes:

Suspicious is being replaced.[/area]

[january]

with regards to 798

skit - i get why you say you have an ethical or whatever dislike for tic’s read on jamelia. i don’t think i ever agreed with the actual read, but my evaluation was based on whether I thought tictac would make that argument as town or as mafia. basically, even if u find the read to be bad or unfounded or immoral - do you think he would have made that argument as scum?

[Zenith]

I don't know how I feel about skitter, but Vork's hypothesis in 774 makes sense to me and it does sound like skitter this game.

There's likely a decent chance Vork is scum, because I honestly don't see Vork being scum. I explored the possibility but just don't see it.
UNVOTE: Vork

@Vork
If January were to flip town, would you still be scum reading skitter?
If not, then do you think it could be better to lynch january instead of skitter?
If you would still scum read her, then who is her partner if jan flips town?

[Zenith]

Time to revisit TwofoldC9++ and EMM again for me to demonstrate that you 'demanding scumPT screenshots levels of evidence' is your way of shutting down arguments and scumplay.

?
I dont know what you're talking about
I dont know what 'demanding scum pt screenshot levels of evidence' means exactly, or how i'm meant to be doing that

I dont know why you think i'm cherry-picking or taking things out of context, your cinnamon push in cats (wherein i accused you of making stuff up and grandstanding) was a major reason why i scumread you there day1

And i should just ignore meta, you're suggesting?
So when january goes 'i dont think scum vork makes stuff up to push a lynch' and i have substantial evidence to the contrary i should just ignore that?

"scumPT levels of evidence demanded" is kind of the kicker and it still stands uncontested (fmv).
*reads a bit more*
Oh the irony of you demanding more evidence from me

because i don't understand what this means or where i'm doing it
i don't think i'm demanding that level of evidence
i don't understand how what i'm asking is demanding this level of evidence

if i understood what this meant or where you think i'm doing this i could respond to it better but as of right now i can't respond to this because i still don't know what this means or how this encapsulates my play

can you like quote something of mine and explain exactly why/where/how you think i'm doing this ? that might help

I don't believe you when you say you don't understand what "scum pt screenshot levels of evidence" means. It's kind of self explanatory. You seem too smart to not know know what it means, specially considering how tictac 773 already explained it for you.

I don't know why town skitter would lie about this.
The lie coming from scum skitter sort of kinda fits into the vork 774 hypothesis, but still seems quite odd. But I really don't see you still not understanding the meaning.

FOS: Skitter

Because I don't like voting when not caught up with the thread.

[skitter30]

i had that tone because i fundementally object to these sorts of tells in an abstract/ethical sense

So gimme an example where ya did that as town.
I need something to check/compare here.

why would you prefer to lynch me over vork?

I TR vork day1 scumread on me and his flip on Bailey.
I don't have a reason to TR ya and I think the tone-thing might be AI, I'll think over yer response to that tho.
I'm also not sure I buy ya nullreading me here, but that part might be BoP.

i don't remember the last time specifically the 'last seen timestamp' came up
but in general i don't like it when people use out-of-game things to try to get an in-game advantage in some way

i

Spoiler:

object to trust tells:

Subject: Mini Normal 2080 ft. My Cats [Game Over]

I didn't tell the mod I wouldn't replace if scum so I don't think it's a trust tell. I don't see anything wrong with exclusively replacing into slots that I strongly townread? I also don't see anything wrong with using that fact to argue that I'm very likely town.

i mean the quote that you linked basically said you'd rep-out of scumgames so

and there's been other mafia-related ickiness today and i just don't really want to deal with it really

not sure if it's really relevant to anything or if i want to continue this convo there either really

(she was trying to use this to prove herself town. it *did* make her town, i was p sure, but i dont' believe in such things so i don't think i ever vocalized a read on her using this)

Subject: Mini Normal 2080 ft. My Cats [Game Over]


He's trying to pick a fight with me when i indicated that i dont want to for non this-game-related reasons, and been twisting what i said to imply/indicate that I'm faking emotions in order to avoid talking to him, which i wouldnt do; and i think it's kinda icky that he's implying that i would.

[/quote]

objecting to this notion of faking irl emotions to score some points in an internet game

Subject: Mini Normal 2081 — My First Game! [Game Over]

skitter ur not gonna get my lynch

and i dont particularly tr you or your convenient absences either but oh well

i mean you were townreading me like five minutes ago, but ok
and calling my absences kinda convenient is kinda gross given that:

a) i'm v/la literally every friday and saturday - it's the first post i make in every single game, so suggesting that has anything to do with this game or gamestate in particular is kinda bad and almost insulting
b) i can't play at work (or at least not consistently), but i catchup every night afterwards

it's not like i randomly disappear for multiple days at a time

getting upset when people cast aspersion on irl stuff ^
(i do this as scum too. i.e. when people try to pull this trick and complain someone is scummy for irl reasons i'll usually object to it)

basically when things start getting ~out of game ~ i feel like it crosses some sort of line into irl and i don't like it

also i didn't say i was nullreading you, i said you were north of the null line, which means i'm lightly townreading you
not strongly, mind you, but it's inaccurate to say i'm nullreading you

i don't feel like most of what you've done is particularly hard to come from scum
or, in other words, i don't feel like i have a good reason to townread you

[skitter30]

and i see it as there's 1 maf between you and vork

?
There's two scum ...

yes i know...
i never said everyone else was town...

i misread ur post then

[skitter30]

with regards to 798

skit - i get why you say you have an ethical or whatever dislike for tic’s read on jamelia. i don’t think i ever agreed with the actual read, but my evaluation was based on whether I thought tictac would make that argument as town or as mafia. basically, even if u find the read to be bad or unfounded or immoral - do you think he would have made that argument as scum?

i don't have a strong opinion on whether it's more likely to come from scum

i think that some people wouldn't make that sort of argument for like ~ethical and gameplay boundary reasons~ but if he's ok with it i could see other alignment making it

i don't find the argument to be particularly ai, just not particularly valid

i do think that when i pointed out some townie behaviors jamelia was exhibiting that he should have reconsidered the read more

[skitter30]

I don't know how I feel about skitter, but Vork's hypothesis in 774 makes sense to me and it does sound like skitter this game.

There's likely a decent chance Vork is scum, because I honestly don't see Vork being scum. I explored the possibility but just don't see it.
UNVOTE: Vork

@Vork
If January were to flip town, would you still be scum reading skitter?
If not, then do you think it could be better to lynch january instead of skitter?
If you would still scum read her, then who is her partner if jan flips town?

a) no, his theory does not make sense and is not, in fact, based on how i play scum
b) why are you townreading vork

[skitter30]

I don't know why town skitter would lie about this.
The lie coming from scum skitter sort of kinda fits into the vork 774 hypothesis, but still seems quite odd. But I really don't see you still not understanding the meaning.

no, i don't understand what it means in this context
no, i wouldn't pick a fight over this as scum, i would just try to appease him and move on
no, i wouldn't lie about this as either alignment, i don't understand what he wants and as scum i don't play dumb, ty

[skitter30]

i think vork's arguments are kinda ridiculous and nonsensical and i'm not sure why i'm the only one who sees that; i'm kinda confused why people are treating them like they have merit

(inb4 someone informs me it's because i'm scum, so just saying this for later)

[Zenith]

All caught up.

VOTE: skitter

Don't really want to clog up the thread by commenting on everything in the vork vs skitter back and forth, but overall vork makes more sense to me than skitter. Things like 791.

you know what, i don't think this is a fruitful conversation
we're either communicating horrifically or you're scum

i don't think this is going anywhere

@ everyone not named vork, if you'd like to talk to me about my play, please let me know

I can relate with the feeling. Reminds me of me vs suspicious, which turned out to be tvt, but my gut says there's a good chance of at least 1 scum between vork/skitter.

Is a vork/skitter scum team possible? Probably just a paranoid thought, but if true I think we are ducked.

[skitter30]

i think 791 was moonlogic and word salad, but ok

i just hope we're not tvt

[Zenith]

I don't know why town skitter would lie about this.
The lie coming from scum skitter sort of kinda fits into the vork 774 hypothesis, but still seems quite odd. But I really don't see you still not understanding the meaning.

no, i don't understand what it means in this context
no, i wouldn't pick a fight over this as scum, i would just try to appease him and move on
no, i wouldn't lie about this as either alignment, i don't understand what he wants and as scum i don't play dumb, ty

demanding proof vs looking for evidence that the opinion is arrived at in a natural way.

Which part do you not understand?

[skitter30]

what i am demanding proof about vs looking for evidence that the opinion is arrived at in a natural way

i don't know what we're applying that to ^

[Zenith]

what i am demanding proof about vs looking for evidence that the opinion is arrived at in a natural way

i don't know what we're applying that to ^

Thats what he means when he mentions scum pt screenshot level of evidence. It's just a more flavorful way of saying concrete proof.

I can buy that you don't know where he is claiming that you demanded such a thing.

Spoiler: like here

Ok we're fine up until now. However- that's not all you did.
You provided a defense/explanation. Sure. Great. Might even be valid/relevant. Don't care anymore- point is moot, ship has sailed.
Then

in parallel. but semantics

you're all like "substantiate your assertions beyond a reasonable doubt".

Which is my beef with you.

Repeating myself- it's no longer about the specific/concrete responses to my line of inquiry.
It's evolved into the fact that your defense has been 30% {a), b), c) as you mentioned ^} and 70% "do more legwork"
a)- not "I don't play like this", but "prove that I play like this. because I don't"
b)- not "the association doesn't make sense" but "prove that this is optimal play coming from both of us. which it isn't"
c)- not "no motivation for me to do this" but "demonstrate that scum!skitter does this. which I don't"

I could understand you claiming ignorance of of denying having an unreasonably high standard of evidence, that's not the point here. I don't buy that you don't understand the meaning of the accusation after it has been explained.

[Zenith]

of or* denying

[skitter30]

concrete proof for what argument ffs

what does he want concrete proof for? or what does he think i want an unreasonably amount of evidence for

that's what i'm confused about and what i've been trying to say
it's a phrase that he's bandying about but i don't. know. what. argument. it's being. applied. to. other. than. in. a. vague. generic. sense.

[Zenith]

concrete proof for what argument ffs

what does he want concrete proof for? or what does he think i want an unreasonably amount of evidence for

that's what i'm confused about and what i've been trying to say
it's a phrase that he's bandying about but i don't. know. what. argument. it's being. applied. to. other. than. in. a. vague. generic. sense.

How is that relevant to my point that you know what the phrase scum pt screenshot levels of evidence means?

[skitter30]

because he's throwing around the phase like it should mean something but i still don't know what it's being used in context of

and not you, nor tictac, nor vork have answered that so far

ok, say i'm demanding scumpt screenshot levels of evidence ... for what exactly ?
do you know? can you answer that question? think about it for a minute. if you can't ... what is he accusing me of exactly ?

it's an empty phrase that sounds good but doesn't actually mean anything as far as i can tell because it's being used to hand-wave away my arguments generically without actually being attached to anything in particular

[Zenith]

I mean I even spelled it out in #817. Even though I responded to your question, I clarified: "that's not the point here."

And yet you still chomp down on that distraction while ignoring my point..?

[Zenith]

Oh and sorry, just realized you are at L-1.

[skitter30]

of course that's the point

ok
spell it out like i'm 5 because i'm obviously not getting it:
a) articulate what the phrase 'demandign scumpt screenshot levels of evidence' is being applied to.

tell me in your own words where and how i'm doing that,

don't just quote vork
b) what point do you think i'm ignoring?