1. I went through Vi's posts to see if anything points to potential gold to keep a float. Other then similar conclusions about M_O/Rhino i'd still like Almaster to answer Vi's post here:
Vi wrote:AlmasterGM wrote:Vi wrote:First sentence - The comparison here is WITH VASUDEVA. I think it has been established that m_o looks sketchy, but why him over the person you were previously gung-ho for?
I don't know. I admit, I have not actually compared the cases side by side. I am just voting for magnus because he has been more scummy more recently. I SHOULD do a comparative analysis, but that will come later. Right now, I am more interested in seeing where this goes and giving myself more stuff to compare with.
This isn't a math question, no comparative analysis necessary. There were lots of people on VasudeVa (who you say is STILL hyperscummy) and he was getting lynched in 48 hours on my guarantee. You switched off of THAT GUY... why.
Edited of course since the second question didn't apply. I realized that I had the same thinking process about Vi's analysis on AGM. Especially with the whole chain of inherit defense of Rhino with a M_O attack that required him to compare VV and Rhino, this relates with the above
Objectionfied (I think that the tunes code isn't working but what evs)
2. Initially it took me a while but Gammagooey troubled me because it was hard to get a read off him at first. I required an Iso read. Then I saw lots of hard stances. I like this. There are clear motives and attacks which to me is a good thing. Plus a hint of critical thinking (eg. his reply to me and his stance on M_O relating his content/stances compared to other players).
Objectionified
3. Almaster's response line by line (that I missed)
a. VV Truth telling? OMG. I present to you this quote in
objectionfied form This is where you validated VV's self meta in response to VV's accusation that you knew his game play. Thus by validating the self meta, you agree that VV has this history of anti-town play.
b. In regards to hiding from Fate: I can see it. I find your lack of paranoia to be odd because VV did have this history. You were bitten twice by VV's play in the games you mentioned. This is the third time. I find it odd that you are punishing him for the same way, using probably simillar arguments to those games that VV dug his own graves, for the third time.
If you're scum looking for that easy case, sure I'd see it. But after 3 times being burned as town, I'd expect you to sit down and think about whether this case would bite you in the arse. When you validated VV's self meta, you opened this Pandora's box of "what if questions".
c. Remember this quote
that I objectionified. Why didn't you verify your reads? Are you that lazy? Or do you want to make a fake argument that I can't check up on? I'll wiki this and see what I can dig up but your inherit laziness to link these games when asked about when you clearly made a meta argument is really bad.
I wasn't looking for you to defend your stance on VV when I asked you to meta link. I was looking what your response was. I'd say you failed my little scum test because my hypothesis was:
As a town's person who made the above meta argument, it would be easy for him to link to the games in question. Since you know where these games are, you are able to make these arguments thus would be willing to link them. By linking the game, you Almaster, is showing actual determination to scum hunt. Thus: You are trying to find scum in this game and you're actually doing something.
As a scum's person you'd show reluctance to find these games even though you made meta arguments. Thus you gain scum points either through laziness or showing signs that you were throwing arguments to keep the VV fires going.
I'm judging you not on your actual conclusions here, I'm trying to see if you're putting effort in these cases (aka I'm looking to see if you're actually doing what you say). So far you don't seem to be. Reading between the lines is something that I've been improving on :p.
c. You validated VV's meta thus you validate that VV's self meta argument is town. It's a conclusion that's implied when you agreed that: "Yes VV does cause the town to shoot itself in the foot". Even though you made it fit into a "this could also be scum" argument, the inherit contrast is there to make your point.
You didn't say it directly, but it wasn't necessary.
d. You didn't consider anti-town VV (stated above) despite your previous history with VV. Why didn't you throw that on the table? (See a again)
