In post 288, Axelrod wrote: In post 164, The Pied Piper wrote: I think that "hasn't done much of anything" is a fine reason to scumread a person. Where's the scumhunting? Where's the poking around for reactions? Do they have any reads? Why aren't they engaging with anybody? He was here for about an hour and he did very little in that time, though he made several posts.
"Hasn't done much of anything"
is
a perfectly fine reason to vote someone. But what I was talking about was less the vote than the
conviction
with which it was made. I think Beeboy said he was something like 90% certain FS was scum. And that was simply way out of line for what FS had actually posted up to that point. Which was basically nothing. So, like, you can definitely vote someone for doing nothing in the very early game, and that's fine. But declaring them scum with 90% certainly over it is just wrong.
What I'm trying to assess is Beeboy's genuineness about it though, and right now he's coming off as pretty genuine, at least. So, that's a positive.
In post 213, davesaz wrote: In post 117, Mirhawk wrote: In post 110, davesaz wrote:False dichotomy. You leave out the possibility that the behavior is neutral (or that I haven't formed an opinion on it yet) but the responses to my comments from him and others will help me sort people.
That's not how a false dichotomy works, as evidenced by the fact that you managed to answer my second question while pretending you didn't.
Both of the statements you made about Axel were accusatory in tone, they didn't sound neutral to me at least. Do you think Axel is town or scum?
@B
Dunno man, being self involved isn't really a scum tell.
You presented an either/or question which presented that there could not be any other answer, where the answer was none of the above. It doesn't get any more false dichotomy than that.
I made it very clear that my read is null. Your push however is not.
VOTE: Mirhawk
Ew. Bad vote.
First, you were totally casting aspersions on me without voting for me, which, is a thing you can do - not every suspicion is worth a vote - but when you get challenged for it don't pretend it wasn't what you were doing either. Also, you totally did NOT make it "clear" that your read was "null." What you said was (in response to the challenge) that Mirhawk was leaving out a 3rd possibility that the behavior was "neutral" or you hadn't formed an opinion on it yet (which is two different things), without actually saying that this was, in fact, your position. How was this "clear"?
Missed mine:
[@Sakura: (per post #64) did you really think that I was advocating for a "policy" lynch of all Hydras? Really?]
In post 221, davesaz wrote:
Your
68 was a direct response to people making comments (in particular Sakura's
64 which your 68 quoted) about your apparent interest in PLing hydras. You posted something, people reacted, you posted a retraction. By definition that is pulling back.
This doesn't even make sense. If you RVS someone, and another player
demands
(in very serious fashion) that you explain whether you were seriously voting or not, and you say "Uh, no." Have you "pulled back?"
Because that is exactly what happened.
My comment was, in part, a means of prodding you to find out if you would be defensive about it being called that. You later posted about hydras again, and I pointed out the apparent inconsistency between 68 (implying it's not serious) and the later post explaining your stance. I don't remember if you responded to that or not...
Do I think it was serious? Don't know, your own posting implies it is at least partially serious, but even that could just as easily be a joke or itself a reaction test. I don't think it's alignment indicative by itself, since it's hard to distinguish between scum testing the waters and town fishing for (scum) sheep.
What part of my posting suggests in any way that I have ever "seriously" advocated for policy lynching of Hydras? It is boggling my mind that anyone could genuinely come away with that impression.
The absolute most you might conclude (and that I would even cop to) is that I have a "policy" of randomly voting for Hydras during the RVS stages of a game when I have no one better to vote for, as a sort of silent protest against their existence.