I think Shadow does deserve an apology for me calling him arrogant a while back. I was frustrated and that was uncalled for.
However.
Shadow directly said that I shaded both Rhand and Dawn.
Which I clearly never did. Shadow can either A)Prove that I did shade Dawn(At which point I'm wrong and a total ass)
Or B) Can explain why he is lying about that. This isn't misconstruing. IE interpreting something in a wrong manner this is saying I did something that I either factual did or didn't do.
You want to talk about respect? I get people misconstruing arguments. I understand someone saying that they interpreted something differently.
I do not understand how you can claim something that I factually did not do. How would you respond to me saying you voted Tom. Something you never did you would call me a liar.
And maybe there is a better nicer way to phrase it. And maybe I can be less in your face about it. But you know what? I've got two players attacking me for having a busy weekend, which is utterly ridiculous and you have sat on the sidelines and used it as cheap fuel to attack me. I've got a player attacking me for defending myself, while you sit on the sidelines and watch. I have Rhand a player who when pointed out that they attacked me as town, just says "Meh" conflicting play styles still want to lynch. Why should I ever bother to change my reads or think about play?
Finally I have Terry attacking me for god knows what. I don't even know. I do know at one point he attacked me because he couldn't be bothered to read the full sentence and missed the word basically. And then when questioned on this said it didn't matter. Meanwhile, when called out for using OMGUS in a BS manner he has now doubled down on the most ludicrous definition.
OMGUS is when the case is a paper tiger by his definition of paper tiger. So it is really just an attack when he says it is. Only when the player believe it, but you know its not really an argument. What Terry says goes. And I'm now stuck holding the bag trying to figure out if this player is scum and just using anything they can to sling dirt and attack a player for it or if they are just bad town.
Meanwhile you sit on the sidelines. Any respectable player would have stepped in and said "Hey knock it off. Your attacks are dumb." Players came out on the OMGUS stuff not you though. Vezok is the first to come out on the AFK thing not you though.
Respect is missing the word basically, and having it pointed out to you and saying "You know what I was wrong". Respect is not badgering a player over being gone four days. Respect is having it pointed out to me that I made a pretty bad statement that was vague and me going "You're right I need to explain that better". Respect is about not saying something that is so patently untrue that a simple check of the original post would have made you delete that. Respect is when a player says "You scum read me last time." to go maybe I should change that opinion. Respect probably also is to not use mean words so I'm right there in the dirt too. But the way that you are acting is that you are blameless and that's ridiculous.
You know what, no. If you think that you, the most disrespectful person in this entire thread, get to spit back in my face that I’m not being respectful of you when I have been maintaining my absolute best composure throughout our discourse (save for a couple of fair jabs), you have another thing coming. I don’t care about your alignment anymore, I don’t care about trying to meet you halfway, I am not going to do this.
If you want me to play with you as an equal, you’re going to apologize, and not just to me, but to every single person you’ve insulted against the spirit of the game, whether directly or by implication. Until you do, my vote will stay on you and my responses to you, if they come, will not be for your benefit.
No you haven't.
You've directly lied. First it was that I "Shat all over the Dawn flavor clear" Then when called out on that you moved it to this more "It was that you were shading Rhand"
Then it was "Shading dawn too" Which I never did.
Which is more aggregious me calling you a liar? Or you literally making things up and putting words in my mouth?
You can appoligize to me. Not the other way around.
First, how is that me backing off? Second, I never attacked you because of your skepticism over the flavor clear, I attacked your method for doing so, because you had a disconnect where you were willing to consider dawning and Rhand town but shaded them both in he same breath.
It’s a serious case of having your cake and eating it to, saying Dawning is behaviorally clear is laughable, especially while then crapping all over the claim clear. Then shading Kazin without apparently understanding why he’s clear is bad; if I had a suspect that people were saying was clear, asking why would be my first priority, not an afterthought.
Shadow treat me with respect and stop lying.
I never once shaded Dawn. Yes I attacked the flavor clear. That isn't shading Dawn at all I made it clear she was town. You quite literally defend the flavor claim here. It is an attack on Rhand. I think Rhand is town. I don't think Rhand should be listened to much. I don't see a problem with this.
Only after others posted about it. And your reason for voting Nancy was that. I had to dig for that other Nancy post. Otherwise you've been mute on the subject.
You really think you have a 100% read on Day 1? OK, then where's your vote? Bring it. I am absolutely on board with making today's lynch a you vs. me dichotomy.
I'll stay on my current scum read thanks!
Lets say 2000000%
Better?
God your percentages use is cute with all of your circular logic.
When someone makes an attack on you are you not supposed to defend yourself?
No. That shouldn't be your primary motivation.
The purpose of townies is to catch scum. It's not to defend themselves. Self-defense is sometimes useful in that a mislynch is obviously a bad thing, but catching scum should be more important. For example, a townie should happily trade 1:1 with scum - whereas scum doesn't like 1:1 trades (unless it's an "imbalanced" 1:1, like killing a powerful Cop or Doc role).
Therefore, caring mostly about your defense is scummy.
If I saw you doing real scumhunting, then I would not care about you defending yourself as well. But I don't see you doing real scumhunting, because the attacks you're making are not reasonable.
Could I be wrong about you? Yeah, it's possible. But I'm over 70% on you being scum, which is pretty solid on D1. So I'm going to push this lynch.
Why is it just me that has to go so deep to explain everything?
It's not about providing depth, it's about providing things that make sense. I'd be happy with your posts and opinions if they made sense to me as something a townie was likely do/say/think. That can happen with deep walls, it can happen with one-line posts.
That's not the case right now. You're steadily making things worse. For example, you're misrepresenting - you're saying that I'm attacking you for getting busy, but that's obviously not what I said; I pointed out that the timing corresponded to heat leaving you. And when I bring you up again and increase the heat, lo and behold, you're back and posting and defending yourself again.
People get busy in real life, sure. That's why V/LA exists. People also fake "getting busy" in order to slip under the radar. Why should I believe that you just happened to get busy?
There's a pattern that I think has a name but I don't remember what it's called - when scum gets indignant because they got caught but they think they got caught for the wrong reasons, and they get upset because they think they're doing a good job of looking townie. That's what I'm seeing from your "why is it just me".
Oh also: yeah, I missed Az's vote. Weakens the "content with this lynch" indicator slightly, but I don't think it removes it completely - you're still only #2 on the "wagon", and Az provided zero reasoning for his vote.
Speaking of which. Az. Reasoning? You're supposed to be helping us scumhunt. Tell me why shadow is scum.
Dude are you for real?
When someone makes an attack on you are you not supposed to defend yourself?
If I AFK because of personal reasons its because I was dodging heat.
If I defend myself its because I am scum and overly defensive.
If I ignore the attack its because I'm scum and know you're right.
There is no winning. Its just make it stick to the story you want to tell.
First off the Nancy post. You vote Nancy for god knows what reason only after others say to vote her.
Regarding Nancy drew: I am highly suspicious of her, and I think the things you’re pointing to as town posts are incredibly rigid and not really at all organically townie.
This is the only thing you have to say about Nancy in all of your posting. Its a bull***** non committal reason. But nobody pressured you for it, which also really bugs me. I missed it as well, right when you made it. But... This is the double standard thing I'm talking about again. Its ok for you to make posts like this.
Your attack on me was highly weak. You attack me for attacking the flavor clear. But when pressured backed off immediately at this.
It’s a serious case of having your cake and eating it to, saying Dawning is behaviorally clear is laughable, especially while then crapping all over the claim clear.
I want to say your DBS is opportunistic. I feel that entire wagon was bad. The players voting her all did so based off of almost as bad one liner reasoning as some of these posts.
And that's really it. Because that is all you have voted. Most of your reasoning is non existent, and I'm not sure why I get torn to shreds over the slightest thing, (Like having multiple players shade me for being gone over the weekend) while you get away with this.
Defensive = bad.
Getting busy = scum.
No town mindset(Never says anything on this though).
Ugh. I'll go into shadow later I guess to make it make more sense. But for real, you got people just lurking and whining while posting lists of players with no follow up or explanation and that's all good.
I think Shadow gives good info on top of it, but also feel he is a wolf.
I just want to emphasize this line so people don't miss it.
I see no reasonable town motivation for Nobue's posts and I strongly think she's the right lynch today.
I feel like there is a massive double standard being put on me.
This gets posted or Terry posts his "Gut feeling posts" or Rhand posts his no reasoning. No pressure is applied, nothing is asked for. The only players being asked for the reason are the ones new to the forum. Meanwhile Tom, posts his stuff that while useful did nothing to explain what he was thinking and no pressure was placed on him.
I post things with actual reasons, and its not good enough.
Shadow I said I felt your votes were opportunistic and that you feel like you are going for the weakest link. But Kamikaze posts this and it doesn't even say anything. You know what this says? See this line here draw your own conclusions for it, but its bad. I'm not going to explain why though.
Why is it just me that has to go so deep to explain everything?
Shadow are you really going to claim in a game that you didn't need to critically read DBS at all you had such a good understanding of her town game you just know here?
Except clearly you don't because you waffled on her so much.
Unvote Vote Shadow
I'm content with this lynch.
The last sentence here doesn't make sense. Nobue is the only one on Shadow, and only as of this post. "Shadow is scum" or some variant makes sense. "Content with this lynch" feels artificial. It's the sort of thing town might say when they hop on as the 4th or 5th member of a wagon... not when they think they've found scum and are the first to vote scum.
It is pretty telling that no one disputed my Kazin claim either.
What Kazin claim?
First I'm not the only one on Shadow. Read the game please!
Second though fair point. I'm more meaning I'm happy pushing this lynch. I think Shadow gives good info on top of it, but also feel he is a wolf.
With Kazin its more of my claim on him. The clear is lazy and doesn't make any sense. I have never seen a forum that doesn't tell the wolf team who is who. Except in special circumstances. Hell even in real life wolves are told who their other members are. So to say "Cleared because of comment". Its just a dumb comment that makes no sense.
However.
Shadow directly said that I shaded both Rhand and Dawn.
Which I clearly never did. Shadow can either A)Prove that I did shade Dawn(At which point I'm wrong and a total ass)
Or B) Can explain why he is lying about that. This isn't misconstruing. IE interpreting something in a wrong manner this is saying I did something that I either factual did or didn't do.
You want to talk about respect? I get people misconstruing arguments. I understand someone saying that they interpreted something differently.
I do not understand how you can claim something that I factually did not do. How would you respond to me saying you voted Tom. Something you never did you would call me a liar.
And maybe there is a better nicer way to phrase it. And maybe I can be less in your face about it. But you know what? I've got two players attacking me for having a busy weekend, which is utterly ridiculous and you have sat on the sidelines and used it as cheap fuel to attack me. I've got a player attacking me for defending myself, while you sit on the sidelines and watch. I have Rhand a player who when pointed out that they attacked me as town, just says "Meh" conflicting play styles still want to lynch. Why should I ever bother to change my reads or think about play?
Finally I have Terry attacking me for god knows what. I don't even know. I do know at one point he attacked me because he couldn't be bothered to read the full sentence and missed the word basically. And then when questioned on this said it didn't matter. Meanwhile, when called out for using OMGUS in a BS manner he has now doubled down on the most ludicrous definition.
OMGUS is when the case is a paper tiger by his definition of paper tiger. So it is really just an attack when he says it is. Only when the player believe it, but you know its not really an argument. What Terry says goes. And I'm now stuck holding the bag trying to figure out if this player is scum and just using anything they can to sling dirt and attack a player for it or if they are just bad town.
Meanwhile you sit on the sidelines. Any respectable player would have stepped in and said "Hey knock it off. Your attacks are dumb." Players came out on the OMGUS stuff not you though. Vezok is the first to come out on the AFK thing not you though.
Respect is missing the word basically, and having it pointed out to you and saying "You know what I was wrong". Respect is not badgering a player over being gone four days. Respect is having it pointed out to me that I made a pretty bad statement that was vague and me going "You're right I need to explain that better". Respect is about not saying something that is so patently untrue that a simple check of the original post would have made you delete that. Respect is when a player says "You scum read me last time." to go maybe I should change that opinion. Respect probably also is to not use mean words so I'm right there in the dirt too. But the way that you are acting is that you are blameless and that's ridiculous.
No you haven't.
You've directly lied. First it was that I "Shat all over the Dawn flavor clear" Then when called out on that you moved it to this more "It was that you were shading Rhand"
Then it was "Shading dawn too" Which I never did.
Which is more aggregious me calling you a liar? Or you literally making things up and putting words in my mouth?
You can appoligize to me. Not the other way around.
Shadow treat me with respect and stop lying.
I never once shaded Dawn. Yes I attacked the flavor clear. That isn't shading Dawn at all I made it clear she was town. You quite literally defend the flavor claim here. It is an attack on Rhand. I think Rhand is town. I don't think Rhand should be listened to much. I don't see a problem with this.
You voted Nancy in post
Only after others posted about it. And your reason for voting Nancy was that. I had to dig for that other Nancy post. Otherwise you've been mute on the subject.
Why are you lying so much?
I'll stay on my current scum read thanks!
Lets say 2000000%
Better?
God your percentages use is cute with all of your circular logic.
I have been scum hunting more than you have.
You're full of it.
Is this or is this not an attack?
Why say it otherwise?
Kamikaze is 100% scum here.
As Shadow put it having his cake and eating it too.
Dude are you for real?
When someone makes an attack on you are you not supposed to defend yourself?
If I AFK because of personal reasons its because I was dodging heat.
If I defend myself its because I am scum and overly defensive.
If I ignore the attack its because I'm scum and know you're right.
There is no winning. Its just make it stick to the story you want to tell.
You and Kazin both.
This is the only thing you have to say about Nancy in all of your posting. Its a bull***** non committal reason. But nobody pressured you for it, which also really bugs me. I missed it as well, right when you made it. But... This is the double standard thing I'm talking about again. Its ok for you to make posts like this.
Your attack on me was highly weak. You attack me for attacking the flavor clear. But when pressured backed off immediately at this.
I want to say your DBS is opportunistic. I feel that entire wagon was bad. The players voting her all did so based off of almost as bad one liner reasoning as some of these posts.
And that's really it. Because that is all you have voted. Most of your reasoning is non existent, and I'm not sure why I get torn to shreds over the slightest thing, (Like having multiple players shade me for being gone over the weekend) while you get away with this.
Shadow Kamikaze said no one else was voting you. Which was 100% false. When this was pointed out you just snidely attack me. What gives?
Defensive = bad.
Getting busy = scum.
No town mindset(Never says anything on this though).
Ugh. I'll go into shadow later I guess to make it make more sense. But for real, you got people just lurking and whining while posting lists of players with no follow up or explanation and that's all good.
I feel like there is a massive double standard being put on me.
This gets posted or Terry posts his "Gut feeling posts" or Rhand posts his no reasoning. No pressure is applied, nothing is asked for. The only players being asked for the reason are the ones new to the forum. Meanwhile Tom, posts his stuff that while useful did nothing to explain what he was thinking and no pressure was placed on him.
I post things with actual reasons, and its not good enough.
Shadow I said I felt your votes were opportunistic and that you feel like you are going for the weakest link. But Kamikaze posts this and it doesn't even say anything. You know what this says? See this line here draw your own conclusions for it, but its bad. I'm not going to explain why though.
Why is it just me that has to go so deep to explain everything?
First I'm not the only one on Shadow. Read the game please!
Second though fair point. I'm more meaning I'm happy pushing this lynch. I think Shadow gives good info on top of it, but also feel he is a wolf.
With Kazin its more of my claim on him. The clear is lazy and doesn't make any sense. I have never seen a forum that doesn't tell the wolf team who is who. Except in special circumstances. Hell even in real life wolves are told who their other members are. So to say "Cleared because of comment". Its just a dumb comment that makes no sense.
Well you can throw your temper tantrum. I'll keep playing!