Zang wrote:But he didn't just say that one of {A,B,C} is scum, he also said that two of {A,B,C} are town. I don't see how calling somebody town is considered smearing them. You are also still ignoring the fact that later, he explained that he did not know which of the three was scum.
Without a designation as to which is which, the negative impact is the same for all three. You are ignoring the fact that at the time I voted him, this latter explanation was unavailable. You are trying to imply both pieces of information were available to me when I voted him. Not so. Faulty argument.
Zang wrote:You should not be voting at 33%. Instead you should be using scumhunting rather than statistics to catch scum.
You specifically asked why he should have voted at 33%. I specifically answered why 33% was a better option than the others available. Don't try to spin this into something it wasn't. Faulty argument.
Another question that arises from this is do you think voting is not a viable scumhunting tool in itself?
Zang wrote:I have already explained why.
No you haven't. We're talking about my first post, not just my vote on 4nxi3ty. Faulty argument at best for you, lie at worst. Why?
Zang wrote:I don't like your vote because your reasoning for it is “what nachomamma8 said”.
No, it wasn't. You tried to say it was, but I gave another explanation. An explanation you acknowledge I gave by addressing the smear three portion above. Faulty argument.
Zang wrote:I'm just defending him because you are using faulty arguments against him and unjustly accusing him of being scum.
I used no faulty arguments against 4nxi3ty and I never accused him of being scum. Did you miss the post where I unvoted him due to his reactions to my vote and other things?
You, I'm accusing of being scum. Nothing you posted in response has swayed me otherwise.
Zang wrote:Also, when I say “don't like”. It does not mean that it is not up to standard quality, instead I mean that it is suspicious or scummy.
Then why use both descriptors without stating that the two things which are not automatically synonomous are being used that way by you? But, fine, they are synonymous for the purposes of this discussion.
Zang wrote:Anxiety- His posts aren't that good
Faraday- I don't like his posts or how he pretended to hammer Anxiety
Why do you describe your top two town reads as being suspicious or scummy under that definition?
4nxi3ty wrote:@DLG, I don't really see the problem with zang defending me; he has a townread on me and I had a wagon on me not too long ago. Yeah he could be buddying me,though thats a bit of a stretch don't ya think?
Fair enough, but I find his manner of doing so scummy for the reasons I've stated. Buddying you may be a stretch, but that is only one of multiple possible reasons for him doing so as scum.
If you were telling the truth, at that time, regarding your 1 of 3 statement, why did you later say it was a semi-reaction test that you knew would look bad for you to post and then vote someone else?
Faraday wrote:Why would it?
Because you said it was the something else that informed your vote of Klazam.
Recap of the conversation, from my point of view:
kiwieagle is getting some heat.
Klazam has voted kiwieagle previously.
You ask kiwieagle a question.
Zang votes kiwieagle.
Klazam misses the point of Zang's vote post.
kiwieagle responds to your question.
You vote Klazam.
I ask you if it was just Klazam missing the point, or if there was something else.
You respond with,
Faraday wrote:Something else, specifically kiwieagle being town.
That's why.
I don't see the summiness in Klazam you do, but that doesn't matter with respect to the conversation between us. And, hey, me not seeing Klazam as scummy doesn't mean he isn't. I spend much more time being wrong for what seem like good reasons than I do being right for any reason.
Preview edit:
I'm not sure about what Klazam just posted. I'll think about it and post later. I've got other things to do right now.
If I can't give you guys enough activity by Tuesday/Wednesday I will replace out.