In post 292, Selkies wrote: In post 258, Amrun wrote:You can have an unfirm opinion on page 3, but you were trying to weasel out of saying anything one way or another until you were asked directly. The scum motivation is not committing to a stance early on so you can take whatever stance is most advantageous later on. The most dangerous thing scum can do is take an early arbitrary stance.
Well, no.
I have unfirm opinions on page 3. There's no point in me voicing them because they're next to useless. I wasn't trying to weasel out of it--see here, you contradict yourself. I didn't want to say what my stance on Matt was, but once again, Demon was getting very irritated with us and we were townreading him and so in that situation, I wanted to be honest.
I use all my votes in RVS as reaction tests. I try to stir stuff up so I have something to work with (and bring us out of RVS). Demon's vote helped me in getting a read on him. However, when I voted Matt, Matt just...left. So that was not my intention, and gave me nothing wrt information about his alliance.
I didn't want to say blatantly that Matt was a scumread, especially since this hydra is coming off a game where we got a lot of flak for fakeclaiming PGO as innocent child, and Matt wasn't really a scumread. And like you said, if we said that voting Matt was a reaction test, it would negate the point of the reaction test. So what the fuck was I supposed to do? I went with trying to quell Demon a little by giving him the truth. So obviously, that wasn't pro-town play, but it was pro-me, and I'm town, so I'm still moderately content about how that went down.
Anything more?
Saying you were trying to weasel out of it is not contradicting myself even if you disagree that's what you were doing. (??) You admit in the NEXT SENTENCE that you didn't want to say what you stance on Matt was, so I was 100% correct!
I understand the reaction test explanation, and acknowledge its validity, but that self preservationist attitude is ABSOLUTELY what I picked out early on, and it's scummy as hell. There were lots of other ways to respond to a potentially ruined reaction test than that.
In post 299, GoodCop_BadCop wrote:Still like my SoO vote, waiting on more substance.
In post 181, Amrun wrote:
In post 118, Ghostlin wrote:
The odds of one scum being on that wagon are good. Probably Milk's buddies if she's scum are treating her like a toxic asset hoping for a later deflection off the wagon, and if she does unlikely flip town...well, then at least one or two scum are making that push. SOO's vote seems to be a follow the leader vote--I've got my eyes on him and Nic next for scum.
If milk is town, then Ghostlin is a good bet for scum. Notice the casual cognitive dissonance in this post. Milk is "unlikely" to flip town, but SOO's "follow the leader" vote is suspect? Treating her as town while calling her scum.
This is a complete mis-representation of the quoted post. I don't see any cognitive dissonance. He didn't say anywhere that Milk is unlikely to flip town, he said in the unlikely event that Milk were to flip town, which actually means the opposite of what you are trying to present here Amrun. Care to comment with that in mind?
Also the fact that Ghostlin
explained himself and you
still
refused to listen, but instead tried to
make Ghost look like the fool, makes me think you mis-repped that post on purpose.
I don't think you understand what you are talking about. A) Saying that "Milk is unlikely to flip town" is EXACTLY THE SAME as Milk flipping town being an "unlikely event" and if you seriously think those things are opposites then you are, in fact, sniffing glue.
Ghostlin's explanation failed for the same reason your objection does. It doesn't understand what I have issue with. I am not saying that Ghostlin didn't say Milkshake was scummy in his eyes. He clearly DID, which is what he argues in the post you quoted. What he does, however, is call milkshake scum while TREATING milkshake as he might treat town. In other words, it's more how he worded it that makes me think he's not being entirely forthright about his thoughts on milkshake.
fact that YOU think WE think you are that stupid might indicate that there was actually a possibility of you being that stupid, because the knowledge is actually there in your mind. You're just smart enough to ignore it.[/quote]
What is this round about theory about Ghostlin being stupid? This post makes no sense to me, not to mention you called him stupid and smart all in one paragraph...
You need to step up your reading comprehension if you think that post called Ghostlin stupid in any way at all. (Hint: it didn't.) I know it wasn't my post, but what the fuck. (Also I think milkshake has already responded - forgive me if not.)
In post 312, GoodCop_BadCop wrote:Other head checking in. I'm a total moron that thought he had posted the post he had written, didn't bother to check it did post, and went la-de-da on a weekend of booze and moving houses.
I have one main thing to add here. Why the fuck has nobody noticed this yet?
In post 181, Amrun wrote:Posts that jumped out at me and why.
In post 31, Demon wrote: In post 15, Selkies wrote:I already have my lynchlist. You guys are so transparent.
-o
Selkies elaborate. Also I really want to keep my vote on Matt right now but youir 30 is making it hard for me.
This exchange makes me suspicious of Selkies. Selkies is trying to shut down discussion for no valid reason. Plus, like Demon, I am immediately suspicious of them promising a "lynch list" and then not delivering or mentioning it again.
Later on, in reading, Selkies does elaborate a bit on why they didn't like the theory post, but it doesn't put me off from my original gut reaction. His stance, while more clearly stated, still makes little sense.
Post 15 was prior to game's start. Amrun, why are you (and Demon same question, really) using pre-game jokes as a way to try and build a serious case on Selkies?
Are you kidding me? It's literally like you don't read at all. What made me SUSPICIOUS of Selkies was the EXCHANGE I quoted. The pre-game post only piqued my interest in a way that none of the other pre-game posts did not. It is the type of things you look for in RVS to start the game rolling. Selkies' later response and follow up (or lack thereof) to this post is what is suspicious.
As for the other content...
Ghostlin's response to my last question is how I thought he would respond, and it is suspicious. His basic response to me IS to try and suck up to me and appeal to my suspicion of "top suspect that isn't Ghostlin" which is very self-preservationist.
However, his later aggression makes me think slightly better of him. I think his attack is a bit silly, but the fact that he's making it is a bit aggressive. I know for sure I have nailed Ghostlin as scum before but I don't remember when/where so I don't know if this is based on anything or I am making it up. >.>
