JO_OEY said:
Scumslip? Raziek just admitted he has the intent to push my lynch later if he doesn't like how I answer his question.
That's a little bit preemptive.
This alone is why I think Kantrip needs to die.
He is turning Raziek's words against him EXTREMELY to make him look way more scummy than he really is. This is reaching on so many levels that its unbearable. Calling that a scum slip when you twist the intentions of the post like that is... :/.
This alone? So you think one reason is enough to lynch someone, or was that a hyperbolic statement to put emphasis on your point? I'd go with the latter due to the use of words such as "EXTREMELY" and "unbearable".
With this out of the way: I would be interested in hearing your explanation on why scum would want to twist someone else's words and how they would go about it. Describe a scenario, paint a picture. I want to see the scumminess emanating from your hypothetical scenario.
I will paint a picture of my own after I have seen yours.
JO_OEY said:
After reading that post and reading back, most of his conversation with Raziek is really reaching. Another example would be:
There's a such thing as shallow content. You have posted content, yet you think posting deep and a lack of content are synonymous. Which is false.
So you admit you're changing the subject.
Oh man, now Raziek is trying to back-door out of his argument with T-Block by going into semantics and argue that T-Block's claim was not pro-town.
What you fail to realize, Raziek, is that what you're doing isn't pro-town either.
I do not like his play right now.
Vote: Raziek
the bolded in this quote. The whole T-block v Raziek debate started off with discussion of this claim not having a pro-town purpose, yet hes trying to back out of the argument by debating that this claim does not have a pro-town purpose? Impossible, and its trying to make Raziek seem scummy for something that doesn't apply. (Yes, I know Raziek mentioned something along the lines of this as well.)
The keyword there was "semantics". You know, the actual words and phrasing and how they fit into context? What Raziek was doing at this point was trying to let on that T-Block's posts were scummy by how he was wording them. I found nothing wrong with Raziek's questioning and I actually liked how the conversation had helped progress the game. What I didn't like is how Raziek went about it. I believe I've explained the part already, but basically what I'm trying to get across is that what Raziek was doing was something that I did not like. Does that mean I want to see him lynched? Probably not. Does that mean I was interested in seeing who thought I
did want him lynched? Probably.
You see, I was and am gauging reactions. From my experience, mafia is not a game of black and white. You can find town performing scum tells and scum performing town tells, and none of it will ever matter. What will matter is when you can discern alignment from within the WIFOM of tells. If I get a better read on hard to read players by arguing with them, I will argue with them. If I think I will be able to read someone by buddying them, I will buddy them. If I have no clue how to go about reading someone (see: usually), I will probably do whatever I fancy at the time and see how they react. Either that, or I will just watch their play to try to get a handle on them and how to go about reading them.
JO_OEY said:
Putting those two together makes me believe he's trying to lead a mislynch. Some more things of value would be:
Awesome. T-Block's town this game.
I'm not sure about Raziek, though.
Note that he had a vote on T-block before this.
After unvoting, he randomly calls T-block town for NO REASON WHATSOEVER (that was stated) and says that hes not sure about Raziek.
You've already said maybe "lead" is the wrong word. First off, I have to ask you: How do you know if it would be a mislynch or not?
Regardless, the point stands - whether you thought I was leading, joining, starting up, or what have you a mislynch, I have to ask: Do you think a Raziek lynch could have occurred as a result of what I have said? Personally, I would be inclined to say that there is no chance a Raziek lynch would have occurred from my points alone. Maybe if a proper case was made it would be a possibility, but nothing I had said was even close to a legitimate case, and I think that is pretty easy to see. I had no legitimate points.
Why did I call T-Block town? I can't have developed a town read on him so fast, can I have? Am I scum for saying something I don't mean? Being insincere, is that a scumtell? I got a reaction from it (JO_OEY's) and from there I get not only connection reads but also alignment reads. That sounds like exactly what I would want as town. I don't see why scum would do something like that when it's so easy to avoid it. But alas, the WIFOM express.
JO_OEY said:
Its nothing special, really, until added to this:
Because I like how T-Block has responded and how he has defended himself.
He has chosen not to answer things that would help scum (and rightly so), whereas you have continued to ask them. You're better than that, Raziek, which makes me ask myself why you are trying to get T-Block to help scum.
This, right here, is a very weak attack on Raziek. Since there is NO evidence behind his statements, hes simply attacking Raziek with nothing of value.
Again, it seems as though you are under the impression that a very weak attack is something that scum would do. Why? Why would scum ever want to attack someone with something that obviously has more holes than swiss cheese? All that does is shines the spotlight right in their face and causes suspicion to shift to them. That's something only a Jester should want, and we already have confirmation there are none of
those in the set-up. The only reason scum would attack someone with weak logic is if they thought it was strong logic. It is understandable to believe I may think such a thing. However, I must assure you that I can usually tell good logic from bad logic, and my logic was clearly bad before, during, and after posting it.
I don't like the last point you made there. Since there is NO evidence, the attack has no value? Really? Sure, it doesn't hold any weight as a legitimate case, that's fine. It doesn't need to hold weight, though. That does not make it valueless.
JO_OEY said:
I would let this go if he planned on adding to it later, but instead of defending his point, he says things like this:
What T-Block did by claiming was most likely anti-town, though I could think of scenarios in which it could be pro-town (which I will not share so don't even bother asking ).
The point is, I am analyzing what I'm reading more than just thinking "this is townie" or "this is anti-town". You know, intent? You know, deep?
The point is Raziek, I came to the conclusion that I did. You asking me to quote T-Block's posts and show how I came to the conclusion suggests to me one of two things:
1. You don't believe that I could have (or did) come to this conclusion.
2. You disagree with the conclusion and came to the a different one.
Which one is it, Raz?
He freaking attacked Raziek when asking for reasoning and evidence, as if it could EVER be scummy. I took this as an attack because he says later on that what Raziek is doing (asking him to back up his reads so he can't randomly back out later for no reason) is not scum hunting. I also took this post as an attack because hes trying to generalize the options Raziek has for doing what he does, even though there are other possibilities besides those options. Its trying to make the post look stronger than it really is.
Hold on. You took it as an attack because I said it's not scumhunting? I don't like the use of the word attack, as it has personal connotation to it. However, even if you mean this in the context of attacking his play, I don't see in any way how telling someone they are not scumhunting is attacking them.
JO_OEY said:
Kantrip's attacks on Raziek don't get stronger either. Look at his post right before voting Raziek:
What's there to admit? It is pretty obvious that my posts are pretty surface-level for anyone who can read. If you wanted an admittance, you could have asked for one and I would have been all too willing to oblige.
You're asking a lot of things that are anti-town and saying and asking a lot of obvious things/questions, Raziek. I'll post deep when you do.
Once again, no evidence, no push, nothing but a weak attack. He even tries to turn Raziek's point against him. Not very pro-town.
Need anymore reasoning or explanation?
Congratulations, you found out that I never had any good arguments for why Raziek is scum within the first three pages of Day 1. The intent to get a wagon was there. The intent to lynch him was not.
I don't think we should be lynching any of the currently active players on D1. Especially Raziek, T-Block, or myself. What happened in Housepets is pretty indicitive of why that's a bad idea. You need power behind your town. If you end up leaving scum alive for a Day, it's better than mislynching a player who had potential to pin the scumteam. There better be a really good case against a strong player for me to agree to lynch them Day 1.
And now that I have kind of ruined my vote,
Unvote
I want to see those who haven't checked in to do so. I feel pretty confident there is scum amongst them inactives somewhere. Not that this narrows it down much.
.
