Open 581: Making Friends and Enemies! (Game over)

[elleheathen]

Let me rephrase this.
What is your concise and focused argument for why Swag is scum and worth being voted for right now?

Then let me bold this:

226 - 238 -268 - 281 -288 - 290 - 291

The answers are in the numbers.

I haven't said that swag is scum.

Yet.

You'll have to wait for a more

concise and focused argument

for why I think he's scum until I definitely think he's scum. Right now, he's got my vote until those questions are cleared up.

[Cheetory6]

You know, bolded numbers are much more difficult to follow than links >.>

I have questions, but if you'd prefer me to hold this train of thought until after Swag has responded to you, I'd be willing to wait.

[Cheetory6]

226 - 238 -268 - 281 -288 - 290 - 291
Look how much easier it is to use c:

[elleheathen]

Yeah, I'm on vacation with only an iPad to post from until the 1st so linking them is a pita atm, though I normally would have.

I'd prefer his response, if any, be unaided by why I think those posts are more scum motivated than town - because I think his reasoning could go a long way in my read, one way or the other. But I wouldn't wait

too

long in asking - I'd say if there isn't a response by maybe tonight, fire away.

[NJAC]

Sorry again for the absence. Tonight I'll read and post.

[Whatisswag]

Scum hates to say opinion, they rather look like they were scumhunting. And those questions also looked like he wanted to hide.

[Whatisswag]

Whatever. I dont like questions, but I must still respond to them. Sigh.

@whatisswag (in reference to 226-229)

Interesting.
That's a lot of lead-up for a sadly underwhelming post

So davesaz is scum because of useless posting - despite that he explains previous to any of this that his lack of posting is due to the holidays and not having time? Which would essentially negate all five of those first points you have there.

Then he could have used his time to say opinions.

The part on him only interacting 'with Grib and almost no one else' is ridic misleading. It's not hard to ISO him to see who he's directing his 9 posts to:

1) Hannibal

Not really

2) Riddleton

Yes

3) Grib

Yes

4) NJAC

Yes

5) Grib

Yes

6) Grib

Yes

7) Riddleton

Yes

8) awesomeusername

Not really

9) whatisswag

Grib has the majority due to a response but it's hardly 'almost no one else'.

What do you think of his thoughts that the confirmation order is largely irrelevant in this game due to the holidays - a theory that actually coincides with his reasoning for being more inactive than usual?

Do you think it's likely to be coming from scum when it's actually negating one of the reasons he may be seen as town - due to being one of the first four to confirm?

The confirmation case has partially closed.

Did something significant happen in the day you waited to reveal your scumread that proved he was scum for you?

Yes, he made post 186.

[davesaz]

186 Where I explicitly said

I had not had time

to do analysis?
Do you even realize that you couldn't do a better job of making yourself look scummier if you were trying to do that on purpose?

[elleheathen]

^^^^^^^^^^

[elleheathen]

I just can't figure out if he's town that's just making himself look scummier by not giving a damn about what he posts or scum that just doesn't know how to not give himself away.

I'm not getting anywhere - ask away, Cheetory.

[Whatisswag]

I dont take real life as an excuse, I am sorry. I initially wanted to unvote dave but he kept saying real life. Whatever, I will keep voting him too. Also, I will take note to not play with elle in future games as she has distorted logic.

[awesomeusername]

@dave, what makes you think swag is scum making a bad argument as opposed to town making a bad argument? (I do agree this is a bad push, by the way.)

@swag: Can you point out the logic elle is distorting?

[Grib]

VOTE: Whatisswag

fuck
off
asshole

I probably wouldn't have had much of a problem with your pressure on Whatisswag if it weren't for this. You voted him because he upset you, and now you're going back and suddenly finding reasons for him being scummy. It just seems more convenient/lazy than genuine.

And then you felt the need to explicitly justify it here:

In case you haven't figured it out from my other posting, my vote is not currently an OMGUS. I'm seeing scummy things that have nothing to do with you incorrectly scum reading my playstyle.

when I'm pretty sure nobody accused you of OMGUS'ing.

Give me a read on elle with reasoning, when you get the time. I know you were asked this recently:

If not, I'd like you to at least look over Elle and tell me what you think of her play thus far.

219 and 236 look reasonable, but there isn't really enough said to get a full read.

She has almost 30 posts. Surely there's something in there that makes you think she's leaning town or scum?

Also, I will take note to not play with elle in future games as she has distorted logic.

How so?

[davesaz]

I dont take real life as an excuse, I am sorry.

Do you have scum reads on the half of the player list who have barely posted anything?

[davesaz]

I probably wouldn't have had much of a problem with your pressure on Whatisswag if it weren't for this. You voted him because he upset you, and now you're going back and suddenly finding reasons for him being scummy. It just seems more convenient/lazy than genuine.

And then you felt the need to explicitly justify it here:

In case you haven't figured it out from my other posting, my vote is not currently an OMGUS. I'm seeing scummy things that have nothing to do with you incorrectly scum reading my playstyle.

when I'm pretty sure nobody accused you of OMGUS'ing.

1. I use an argument technique that I call disarming the opposition. It consists of anticipating things the opposition may use in rebuttal, and preempting them.

2. I put some of the other reasons in the same post, before the portion you quoted.

3. There is an inconsistency between how Whatisswag is treating my posting and several others who have done much less.

[davesaz]

@dave, what makes you think swag is scum making a bad argument as opposed to town making a bad argument? (I do agree this is a bad push, by the way.)

At this point the push on me has very little to do with it. Yes, I was annoyed that he was effectively calling me a liar, but it wouldn't be the first time town has acted similarly. There have been several other things that swag has done that are scummier. See the post that Grib partially quoted, for some of them.

I also examined my case for possible conf. bias, and see that others have called swag on the same points -- not necessarily all at the same time, but at various times.

[davesaz]

Give me a read on elle with reasoning, when you get the time. I know you were asked this recently:
She has almost 30 posts. Surely there's something in there that makes you think she's leaning town or scum?

Null leaning scum. At the point in time of my previous answer, she was null-town. Since then the only things she has posted have been to take my side in my push on swag. She even asked if I thought her defending me was town or scum. This doesn't seem very town to me, it's like she wanted to know if it was safe to continue or not.

[I Love Fairies]

@Riddle:

@Riddle:

I know you've seen Fairies' suspicions of you, as you have responded to her about other things. Why shouldn't I understand your avoidance of her suspicions as a scum tactic?

What merit is there for me to respond to Fairies' suspicions against me?

If you are actually town, then (1) getting her to see that her position is flawed (Fairies hasn't played in such a way that it would make such an exercise futile) and (2) convince other people who are following her suspicions that those suspicions are wrong.

Why do I need to defend myself and argue her scumread on me? You're addressing me as if it's urgent I do so when I'm not a major wagon today.Focusing all of my time into defending people's scumreads of me is futile when actual scumhunting can be done. Like I said, no motive for me to defend someone's case on me. If you think that's a scum tactic for me to "avoid" that then go nuts and vote me.

Well consider this: it is town behavior to dispel (or at least attempt to dispel) suspicions so that your case will be taken with more credibility and those who accuse you will move on to more suitable targets.

I'll catch up and post tomorrow (like, 12-14 hours from now, probably), but I just briefly went over the past two pages and this jumped out at me more than most things so I thought I should point out my thoughts on that.

[Grib]

Give me a read on elle with reasoning, when you get the time. I know you were asked this recently:
She has almost 30 posts. Surely there's something in there that makes you think she's leaning town or scum?

Null leaning scum. At the point in time of my previous answer, she was null-town. Since then the only things she has posted have been to take my side in my push on swag. She even asked if I thought her defending me was town or scum. This doesn't seem very town to me, it's like she wanted to know if it was safe to continue or not.

Are you going to push her? This looks like a great opportunity for a push.

[Grib]

I probably wouldn't have had much of a problem with your pressure on Whatisswag if it weren't for this. You voted him because he upset you, and now you're going back and suddenly finding reasons for him being scummy. It just seems more convenient/lazy than genuine.

And then you felt the need to explicitly justify it here:

In case you haven't figured it out from my other posting, my vote is not currently an OMGUS. I'm seeing scummy things that have nothing to do with you incorrectly scum reading my playstyle.

when I'm pretty sure nobody accused you of OMGUS'ing.

1. I use an argument technique that I call disarming the opposition. It consists of anticipating things the opposition may use in rebuttal, and preempting them.

2. I put some of the other reasons in the same post, before the portion you quoted.

3. There is an inconsistency between how Whatisswag is treating my posting and several others who have done much less.

1. But you only handwaved the OMGUS after you went back to find justification for your reaction-fueled vote.

2. Yes, I saw them. What I'm questioning is whether you were inspired to start scumreading Whatisswag before or after he insulted you. There's no real way to prove it either way, so I'm going to drop it.

3. It's easier to interact with people who are trying to look like they're contributing (which I imagine is what he thinks you're doing) instead of lurkers.

[davesaz]

2. Yes, I saw them. What I'm questioning is whether you were inspired to start scumreading Whatisswag before or after he insulted you.

There's no real way to prove it either way, so I'm going to drop it

.

Bolded part is town thinking. IMO If more town thought that way there would be a lot fewer TvTs and a lot more scum caught.

A much better question is, would I have seen it if I hadn't felt insulted? I believe I would have, but the timing might have been different. I'm certainly not trying to hide that I hadn't done much proactively before that.

I saw the suggestion on Elle (and am quite capable of reading between the lines to see what you're

really

looking for), but it's time to sleep.

[Green Crayons]

I've been purposefully only skimming the more recent postings because I want to do a reread, and I want a less in-the-trenches mindset going into that.

[Whatisswag]

Since my vote on dave is not getting much response (in terms of people who comment on it) UNVOTE: .

But I will be watching you, dave.

[Kaboose]

If not, I'd like you to at least look over Elle and tell me what you think of her play thus far.

219 and 236 look reasonable, but there isn't really enough said to get a full read.

What do you think about my defense of you in #238?

Do you think I'm more likely to be scum trying to buddy you with it or town not wanting to see you lynched because of it?

Why do I hate this question? Like, why are you looking for a confirmation from just one person for a town or scum read? I just I don't know, I'm probably not smart enough to put it in to words but this question here just does something to me inside.
---

Oh.

I don't know why you felt the need to tell me to go on with what I was already doing, but okay.

What do you think of davesaz and Green Crayons?

Hey Kaboose, in case you missed this.

I'm about to get to davesaz, and I'm going to have to read back again and look at Green Crayons but right now nothing of his stood out to me this trip through.
---

I probably wouldn't have had much of a problem with your pressure on Whatisswag if it weren't for this. You voted him because he upset you, and now you're going back and suddenly finding reasons for him being scummy. It just seems more convenient/lazy than genuine.

And then you felt the need to explicitly justify it here:

In case you haven't figured it out from my other posting, my vote is not currently an OMGUS. I'm seeing scummy things that have nothing to do with you incorrectly scum reading my playstyle.

when I'm pretty sure nobody accused you of OMGUS'ing.

1. I use an argument technique that I call disarming the opposition. It consists of anticipating things the opposition may use in rebuttal, and preempting them.

2. I put some of the other reasons in the same post, before the portion you quoted.

3. There is an inconsistency between how Whatisswag is treating my posting and several others who have done much less.

In response to number 1 this sounds like something only a scum could do and get a good result. As town how can you anticipate what a scum would say? If you could, shouldn't you have this game figured out for us by now? This sounds like something only someone who has the game figured out could do, to me. Also this doesn't seem like a good scum hunting tool if you're only asking questions you can anticipate an answer to, which sounds to me like you're only asking questions that you already know the answer to...
---

I probably wouldn't have had much of a problem with your pressure on Whatisswag if it weren't for this. You voted him because he upset you, and now you're going back and suddenly finding reasons for him being scummy. It just seems more convenient/lazy than genuine.

And then you felt the need to explicitly justify it here:

In case you haven't figured it out from my other posting, my vote is not currently an OMGUS. I'm seeing scummy things that have nothing to do with you incorrectly scum reading my playstyle.

when I'm pretty sure nobody accused you of OMGUS'ing.

1. I use an argument technique that I call disarming the opposition. It consists of anticipating things the opposition may use in rebuttal, and preempting them.

2. I put some of the other reasons in the same post, before the portion you quoted.

3. There is an inconsistency between how Whatisswag is treating my posting and several others who have done much less.

1. But you only handwaved the OMGUS after you went back to find justification for your reaction-fueled vote.

2. Yes, I saw them. What I'm questioning is whether you were inspired to start scumreading Whatisswag before or after he insulted you. There's no real way to prove it either way, so I'm going to drop it.

3. It's easier to interact with people who are trying to look like they're contributing (which I imagine is what he thinks you're doing) instead of lurkers.

Also in response to number 1... I don't see why Davesaz ever got upset and OMGUS'd Whatisswag over Whatisswag questioning his posting. Why would he get so upset and then explain to us a page later how he has this special posting style he does? If it had a real purpose why are getting mad about someone not liking it and stomping your feet Dave? It just doesn't add up.

a. OMGUS vote telling swag to fuck off.
b. explain to the class why your posting isn't useless but still upset that someone has that opinion of it
c. explain to the class that it's a unique technique and give it a name

Surely with your anticipation skills you should have foreseen Swag finding your posting useless? Why did you get so upset if you had an explanation, why would you out your style? Now people can manipulate it.

Since my vote on dave is not getting much response (in terms of people who comment on it) UNVOTE: .

But I will be watching you, dave.

I would be willing to vote dave.

[Armageddon]

Next page bump