Why didn't you vote until your second post?
Plum, that's kinda funny. I can't come up with another time I've been town in a game with you.
That wasn't his reaction, ha-ha.Kmd4390 wrote:Yep. You're scum. I'm sure of it. Your defense of "OMG really?!? Me?!? Nooo" reinforces this.
Not if 'finding' scum consists of essentially nothing. The goal of this stage of the game is to generate discussion, not convince other players to vote your lynch target. Anyone who says that they're sure that they've found scum on page 2 is lying -- or possibly scum trying to look like the stereotypical aggressive pro-town player.Excedrin wrote:FoS: SigmaShould you wait to convince people that you've found scum?
Vote: Papa Zito
So if Papa comes up with a valid and sensible explanation, that would actuallyExcedrin wrote:I find that scum sometimes does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town as the game progresses because they explain away and fix their scummy behavior.
But that's exactly what the purpose of Kmd's vote and comment were, to generate discussion. So you're saying he's scum for accomplishing the goal of this stage by creating discussion?sigma wrote:The goal of this stage of the game is to generate discussion, not convince other players to vote your lynch target. Anyone who says that they're sure that they've found scum on page 2 is lying -- or possibly scum trying to look like the stereotypical aggressive pro-town player.
Kast wrote:He made an observation that is very rational, easily corroborated with anecdotal evidence, and easily corroborated by checking any of a number of ongoing and/or completed games on the forums.
Key word underlined in your post. Kmd didn't say Papa was likely scum, he said that he is scum. I think the former is reasonable and the latter is not, hence the vote.Excedrin wrote:If you're saying that scum has to be proven by a case that includes multiple points, then I disagree.
For example, you have a reliable read based on meta that whenever a particular player does X, they'relikelyscum, then you observe that behavior on the first page.
Point taken -- I should have qualified that generalized statement with 'most of the time' or something similar, and not doing so was sloppy, I agree.Kast wrote:@Sigma-
Strongly disagree with your generalized statement. Scum can give themselves away on a first post on page 1 or early page 2. This is not such a rare event as to be equivalent to being unheard of.
That's a bit of a logical leap from the first sentence to the second sentence, isn't it? Sure, he generated discussion -- bully for him, I'll keep it in mind. I wasn't a fan of the way in which he generated discussion, however -- he did it by saying that he's sure someone's scum. My opinion is that this could possibly be scum trying to appear like the stereotypical aggressive pro-town player, and I voted him to underline this point.Dry-fit wrote: But that's exactly what the purpose of Kmd's vote and comment were, to generate discussion. So you're saying he's scum for accomplishing the goal of this stage by creating discussion?
It is never too early. If someone believes they have found a clear scum tell, they can feel free to shout it to the heavens. Other players may, of course, brush them off as insane or foolhardy but, as is customary our species, everyone has their own opinions, which we are entitled to.Don't you think it's a little early to start convincing players that you've found scum?