In post 3305, Cephrir wrote:
Well yeah, if someone is scum we shouldn't listen to their opinions.
That is, of course, assuming that town know who scum are, which my experience shows is not always the case. Until then, we need adequate discussion to gain the information needed to identify scum. Any form of squelching such discussion is scummy.
In post 3305, Cephrir wrote:
There is no difference in my view between pointing out flaws in your argument and attacking you, except that I was also saying your argument was scummy.
*Looks at original attack post*
You said my argument was scummy? Where? All I see is you trying to discredit all my arguments so that others don't have to address them. You set out to deliberately castrate me in this game, and that is an incredibly scummy move.
In post 3305, Cephrir wrote:
I wasn't cognizant whether you had posted elsewhere and didn't care nearly enough to check. I didn't say I couldn't possibly know, I could easily have checked, but I didn't.
So when I point out that activity is a null tell, your response is to say, "Well it is if you're active elsewhere on the site.", thus implying that I'm scum (or else you'd never have mentioned it), yet you never actually put forth the effort to check my activity level, even though you are softly implying that I'm scummy because of it? How is that not scummy again?
In post 3305, Cephrir wrote:
First of all, false. Calcifer is not released from the obligation of having to answer a question just because I thought the question was scummy. I didn't even answer it, but you have of course ignored that fact. That's stupid. I thought we just established that you think discrediting someone and calling them scum are different things, but I guess that's only the case when you want it to be.
As soon as you wrote that deriding comment, you discredited my entire position, which meant that Calcifer was no longer obligated to address it because you said that my point was not a valid one. That's why I find discrediting other's points scummy, because it is meant to eliminate the need to address those points, thus squelching discussion. You see, discrediting someone IS scummy, but calling someone scum IS NOT discrediting. However, you can't seem to understand this simple dichotomy, probably because you are scum and it would undermine everything you're trying to accomplish.
In post 3305, Cephrir wrote:
In post 3301, BulbaFenix wrote:
In post 3280, Cephrir wrote:
I expressed that I was not scumreading Ank. By extension, I guess posting townreads is a waste of time as well? You could have picked most posts in this thread and found about as much content as that post, hell *I've* made a lot of posts with less content, so your singling that one out reads as looking for a reason to attack me.
First, that is
reductio ad absurdum
, as you are misrepresenting my argument and stretching it to an absurd level with that townread comment.
It's not. If there is no point in posting that I don't think X is scummy, then there is no point in posting that I think X is town. The problem is not how I've interpreted your argument (and by the way you have ZERO right to complain about words being put in your mouth after your snotty "translations"), but your argument sucking.
You took a point about fake content, twisted it, and took it to an absurd level by saying that we should not give townreads. This, of course, had nothing to do with my point at all. However, you needed to do so in order to discredit my actual point, and in so doing, not actually address it.
What sort of conversation is that? Because it sure wasn't the town one.
In post 3305, Cephrir wrote:
I'm not going to continue this line of argument because what you just said does literally nothing to discredit what I said in 3280
Why would I want to discredit what you said? I want to address what you said and show why it's scummy. Discrediting you would be a scum move and would do nothing to further discussion. But then again, you've shown that you are thinking with a scum mindset again, as that is what scum want to do.
In post 3305, Cephrir wrote:
and is in fact irrelevant to my point that you basically picked a random post of which to make this criticism.
It wasn't random at all. I saw you make a completely useless post, and pointed it out as such, knowing that others would be able to see what was wrong with it. When asked about it, I expanded on the point, and explained exactly why the post was filler. You see, that post did absolutely nothing conversation-wise. The first part did absolutely nothing, as it was more curt than a "Look in my ISO", thus unnecessary. The rest of the post looked at the slapfight between Kuribo and Ank. You said that you could see the point, which essentially was giving you room to jump on the wagon later if it really took off, but that you didn't think it was valid. This is essentially the equivalent of checking in a Poker game. It does absolutely nothing. You then restated something that others in that discussion had already said, that only having one mason in a reads list was not a scumtell. That's it. No original opinion whatsoever. Your post served no purpose whatsoever, other than to look like town who was contributing to the conversation.
In post 3305, Cephrir wrote:
Is this a joke? I said I was stating it for the benefit of "not you". I don't give a damn what you think at this point. You can feel bad if you want, I don't give a fuck.
When you say "I regret defending you", there is an implication in there that I should feel bad or sorry that you are no longer defending me, as if I should be wanting you to like me. Again, why should I care? You are trying to make it out like I lost something important or valuable, but once again, you overlook the fact that only scum care what other people think, since they are approaching the game from a survivalistic point of view. Once again, you are showing that you are approaching the game with a scum mindset, not a town one.
In post 3305, Cephrir wrote:
In post 3301, BulbaFenix wrote:
In post 3280, Cephrir wrote:
In post 3257, BulbaFenix wrote:
In post 3187, Cephrir wrote:Even if I was defending you though, I don't see what would be wrong with that.
Translation: "If I was buddying you, and I'm not saying I am, how would that be scummy?"
Yes, good job, you rearranged my words and put "Translation" in front of them. Did you have a point, or are you hoping someone else finds a reason this is bad for you?
Didn't I mention? You're scum, and blatantly obvious, toying scum at that.
So you're admitting that you had no argument here whatsoever?
Whenever I do a translation, my point is to show what is actually being said, thus showing the scumminess inherently hidden in the statement, rather than spend a paragraph expounding on why what was said was scummy. You see when you were speaking to DOMO in that sentence, you were doing so in hypotheticals. I simply took that inherent hypothetical, and made it more apparent. By speaking in hypotheticals, you essentially admitted that you were doing something scummy, while simultaneously saying you weren't ("If I was doing scummy action A, which I'm not saying I'm doing it mind you, but if I was, why is it scummy?"). Essentially, you are being blatantly obvious with the fact that you're scum and are toying with the town, daring them to come after you.
Newsflash: Buddying IS scummy. So is chainsaw defending. So is white knighting. Now you can say "I'm not buddying. You're just misinterpretting my actions." as a defense, but you can't say "I'm buddying, but I'm not scum." as the definitions are already in place, and one implies the other. So, yes, buddying is scummy, and, yes, you are doing it.
No, wanting to lynch someone is the same as thinking they're scum. There are a bunch of players that I don't like for one reason or the other, whether it was due to playstyle, personality, or some other difference, but that didn't always mean that I thought they were scum or wanted to lynch them. In this game, our hydra is having a bit of a clash with Serene. Now I may disagree with a lot of what Serene says, but given the events of this game, there is no way that I'll ever lynch them (Fenix, you might want to listen to the next part.). Part of being successful at this game is taking our own biases into account and making sure that they aren't getting in the way of finding scum. We should think a player is scummy because what they said or did was scummy and was coming from a scum mindset, not because we don't like what they said or how they're playing the game.
Best example I can give is from Voided's Nightless Mountainous game. In it, I got chewed out by the Tammy head of Titan. And man, was I mad. But even though I didn't like what she said, and told her as such, her approach to the situation read as not only genuine, but extremely town, and Titan was a major townread of mine for the rest of the game.
Essentially, popularity or being liked has nothing to do with the lynches. We are here to find and lynch scum, so when we think we've found scum due to their actions, we lynch them. At no point should whether we like them or not enter the picture, and at no point should town worry if they're liked or not, since town wants to find and lynch scum. Scum want to be liked so that they don't get lynched. Town could care less as long as they find scum. The fact that you are focusing on whether somebody is liked or not as a basis for a lynch once again tells me that you are tackling this game from a scum mindset and not a town one.
-Bulba