Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EFHW]

Fixed quotes and on looking back again decided I had phrased things too strongly before.  Please substitute this for the earlier post.  Still keeping my vote there for now, though.

I don't get it.  You admit to pushing a weak case harder than it deserved and find it odd when I take note of that and wonder what it means?

Riddle me this batman, how hard did I actually push the TA case?  Like seriously, more people need to realize that you're painting this way differently than it was.

You pushed it hard enough.  You made the initial post, which was several paragraphs, and then followed up with a reiteration (see below).  You said yourself that you made it as provocative as possible.  So, what's so mysterious if I took you seriously?  Why are you now ridiculing me?  Vote: Shraeye.

[shraeye]

You pushed it hard enough.  You made the initial post, which was several paragraphs, and then followed up with a reiteration (see below).  You said yourself that you made it as provocative as possible.  So, what's so mysterious if I took you seriously?  Why are you now ridiculing me?  Vote: Shraeye.

I made my vote as provocative as possible; that doesn't equate to me pushing a case hard.  That just is me trying to create reactions.

You are just taking this misinterpretation further and further.  I pushed my case hard because I had several paragraphs in a single post??  What do you mean by reiteration; are you simply talking about when I responded to Twisted's defense??

[EFHW]

You pushed it hard enough.  You made the initial post, which was several paragraphs, and then followed up with a reiteration (see below).  You said yourself that you made it as provocative as possible.  So, what's so mysterious if I took you seriously?  Why are you now ridiculing me?  Vote: Shraeye.

I made my vote as provocative as possible; that doesn't equate to me pushing a case hard.  That just is me trying to create reactions.

You are just taking this misinterpretation further and further.  I pushed my case hard because I had several paragraphs in a single post??  What do you mean by reiteration; are you simply talking about when I responded to Twisted's defense??

yes

[EFHW]

I made my vote as provocative as possible; that doesn't equate to me pushing a case hard.  That just is me trying to create reactions.

Right, I see that.  But you are now on my case because I took you seriously and I don't see how my challenging your case -- which you seemed to really mean, even if now you say you didn't --  is odd or scummy.

[EFHW]

I made my vote as provocative as possible; that doesn't equate to me pushing a case hard.  That just is me trying to create reactions.

Right, I see that.  But you are now on my case because I took you seriously and I don't see how my challenging your case -- which you seemed to really mean, even if now you say you didn't --  is odd or scummy.

I acknowledge that I didn't only challenge it, I also speculated on why you would make the case at all.  But I don't see what is odd about that.  Your posts didn't seem like a gambit to me.  You say they were.  I didn't know that then.  (I'm actually still not sure, but that's a different question).

[chairs]

Given that I voted for Shraeye as a joke, and it now looks as though he may be seriously being voted for (and I haven't made up my mind about the evidence so far provided)...

unvote

[theorel]

I think there's some miscommunication going on here.
shraeye has never said his case was a gambit.  He said his vote-presentation was, but the case was always just a weak case.

He also never said he pushed the case hard (unless I missed it), nor has he said he didn't really mean the case.  He said he made a provocative vote to gauge reactions, and then gave the weak case after prompting.

I personally don't equate 3 posts to pushing a case hard, especially when one is a sarcastic comment.  The response to Twisted's defense is more explanatory than anything.

[shraeye]

Your posts didn't seem like a gambit to me.  You say they were. 

I don't see how my challenging your case -- which you seemed to really mean, even if now you say you didn't --  is odd or scummy.

Stop.  Just stop.  I never said my posts were a gambit.  I never said I didn't mean that case.  Seriously, those statements you are making have no basis in reality.  stop.

I absolutely believe in the case that I made

[spiritbears]

I think there's some miscommunication going on here.
shraeye has never said his case was a gambit.  He said his vote-presentation was, but the case was always just a weak case.

He also never said he pushed the case hard (unless I missed it), nor has he said he didn't really mean the case.  He said he made a provocative vote to gauge reactions, and then gave the weak case after prompting.

I personally don't equate 3 posts to pushing a case hard, especially when one is a sarcastic comment.  The response to Twisted's defense is more explanatory than anything.

So you are ok with him pushing s weak case then?

[shraeye]

Spiritbears, are you ok with me making a weak case?

[theorel]

I'm okay with him presenting a weak case, and then answering questions about it, sure.

3 posts does not constitute pushing a case (especially based on my experience with shraeye).  Pushing a case usually involves bringing it back up with more points as more things come up (or after rereading).  Have cases really gotten so weak that that's considered pushing?

[spiritbears]

I'm okay with him presenting a weak case, and then answering questions about it, sure.

3 posts does not constitute pushing a case (especially based on my experience with shraeye).  Pushing a case usually involves bringing it back up with more points as more things come up (or after rereading).  Have cases really gotten so weak that that's considered pushing?

Ok that's fair.  It seemed like much mire than three posts....but maybe I'm reading their earlier back and forth into it....
I do think shraeya cones across scumier the. Efhw....

[EFHW]

Making a weak case (any case even) deserves to be questioned, but I didn't vote him based on the case.  I wondered why he made it, and expressed some suspicion. To address Theorel's points, why make it at all if the initial vote was the gambit?  Why respond to prompting by explaining it further if you aren't trying to persuade?  Being sarcastic suggests an investment in his position. 

What prompted me to vote and the part that is scummiest to me is his painting my reaction as "odd" and "not the good kind, either".  This doesn't make any sense and therefore strikes me as opportunistic.  When I asked for an explanation he attacked my characterization of him and did not explain what was "odd" and "not the good kind" in my reactions.  Miscommunication doesn't fit what I see happening here.

However, EFHW has the oddest reaction, deciding that because normally on-point shraeye was presenting such a weak case, that either I'm scum, I'm trying my hardest and Twisted is scum, or we're both scum. 

Re: scum-hunting, I had a thought about Shraeye.  In Pirates he got a bee in his bonnet about TA and TA ended up getting mislynched.  Now he is presenting a weak case on TA.  I don't think Shraeye actually has some deep-seated animus towards TA, which means either 1) he is bussing or 2) he thinks it really is a good case, or 3) he is scum trying to get a townie mislynched.  After Pirates I'd think he would pick someone else to try to drive a mislynch through on and I don't really think he thinks it's a good case, which leaves me with 1.  Which suggests they are both scum.
This is the strongest bit of evidence I've seen so far re: finding scum.

This is exactly the sort of reaction that I was waiting for, and it isn't the good type either.

I don't get it.  You admit to pushing a weak case harder than it deserved and find it odd when I take note of that and wonder what it means?

Riddle me this batman, how hard did I actually push the TA case?  Like seriously, more people need to realize that you're painting this way differently than it was.

[EFHW]

When I say "pushing a weak case harder than it deserved", that is how I interpreted his saying he made it as provocative as possible.  It's not about how many posts or the number of points in his argument, it's my interpretation of what he himself said.  Substitute "tried to provoke responses" if that fits better for you.

[shraeye]

I wondered why he made it, and expressed some suspicion. To address Theorel's points, why make it at all if the initial vote was the gambit?  Why respond to prompting by explaining it further if you aren't trying to persuade?  Being sarcastic suggests an investment in his position. 

What prompted me to vote and the part that is scummiest to me is his painting my reaction as "odd" and "not the good kind, either".  This doesn't make any sense and therefore strikes me as opportunistic.  When I asked for an explanation he attacked my characterization of him and did not explain what was "odd" and "not the good kind" in my reactions.  Miscommunication doesn't fit what I see happening here.

Wow, you really think there is zero ground between gambit-vote that I'm backing up with no real conviction, and pushing a case hard.

Also, This post above which I am quoting is the VERY FIRST time you have directly OR indirectly asked me to explain my characterization of your reaction as "odd", yet you are trying to spin my "avoiding it" as scummy. 

[shraeye]

Here is the post that EFHW snipped from:

In it, I highlight ashersky's completely normal reaction to my case; he saw exactly what I was doing, voting for a case that made sense to me but was weak by virtue of the game just starting.  My reasons for voting Twisted weren't gambit-fake, but I did try to be controversial with the way I voted, to maximize reactions to it.

I explained already how EFHW's reaction is odd (my snipped post above); she looked at the situation, and somehow, based on who looked scummy to me in a past game, reached the conclusion that my vote was a bus.  Because, according to EFHW, even shraeye couldn't believe a case like that.  This really looks like she is looking at the facts from a very particular perspective, trying to make sure that at least one of shraeye/TA comes out looking scummy. 

Later on, you posted the most logical explanation, and said that you hadn't thought about it, but wanted to include it just to be fair. I think that really looks like somebody who realized how scummy their first post was, and tried to mollify that later on. 

4).  Shraeye could be content to post a weak case as though it is strong b/c it is day one and all we have so far.  I'm not sure what I think of this option, but thought I should add it to be fair.

She kept changing and making up facts to try to stick it to me, during our exchange, and now that she sees that my point is getting through to other people like spiritbears and theorel, she decides to shift tactics and paint me scummy by saying that I "avoided" something which she never even asked me to do.

Vote: EFHW

[EFHW]

Here is where I asked you.  It was right after you first said it.

[EFHW]

I have zero investment in painting you as scummy.  I'm reacting to what I see, and each time you escalate further.  Re: option 4, it seems like most people say "I know it's day one" or "FOS here, I noticed this..." etc.  You don't have to do that, but since you didn't do that, and you voted, that's why it came across as it did to me.

I haven't changed my position at all this whole time, so that is either a mischaracterization or a misinterpretation on your part.

I think I've said all I can about where I stand here.  Continuing to explain myself seems to make things worse not better.

[shraeye]

That question is rhetorical.

[EFHW]

Technically maybe, but that's not what I intended and not how it reads to me.

[theorel]

Making a weak case (any case even) deserves to be questioned, but I didn't vote him based on the case.  I wondered why he made it, and expressed some suspicion. To address Theorel's points, why make it at all if the initial vote was the gambit?  Why respond to prompting by explaining it further if you aren't trying to persuade?  Being sarcastic suggests an investment in his position. 

Being sarcastic suggests he's shraeye.

Cases deserve to be questioned.  Making a case (any case even) does not deserve to be questioned.  Pushing for a lynch deserves to be questioned.  There's a huge span of gray area between making a case that a player is scummy and pushing for their lynch.  Just like there's a huge gulf between voting for someone and wanting them lynched.  One act is necessary for the other, but it doesn't imply the other.

[chairs]

FWIW - I will be taking a trip to Chicago, and will have limited posting abilities (not that I think my posting has been terribly productive to begin with) for at least the next 24 hours.  I suspect I will have semi-regular access to a computer once I get there, but if not i can at least post from my phone.  Apologies in advance for the afk.

I think I unvoted already to prevent being on any accidental wagon while I"m out, but if not: unvote

[Archetype]

Vote Count 1.5

xeiron (1) raerae
raerae (1)  xeiron
shraeye (2) spiritbears, EFHW
ashersky (1) mail-mi
EFHW (1) shraeye

Not Voting: (7) ashersky, Eevee, Twistedarcher, AHoppy, theorel, nkirbit, chairs.

Day one ends on Monday, July 15th.

[chairs]

I guess I'm just shoved under the table and don't count in the not voting count? 

[raerae]

Vote: chairs - for claiming.  Damn, was really hoping that wouldn't have to happen.

Shraeye and EFHW are being ridiculous.  I don't care who pulled hair first but both of you need to let go and hug it out.  EFHW was grossly exaggerating when she said shraeye was "pushing" TA's case.  He voted, then explained the vote.  Done.  Shraeye got over excited at her exaggeration and now this has happened.  I'd like to note that NOBODY is participating in this discussion but you two.  So what does that generally mean, kids?  Yup, probably town v. town.  Could I be wrong?  Absolutely.  If I had to point the scum finger at somebody, EFHW would get that honor because of her gross exaggeration and misrepresentation BUT her reaction to shraeye's reaction reads like pissed off and annoyed EFHW from Pirates.  I still lean toward the tvt thing though.  And moving on now.

TA, you've been extra super duper quiet lately...what's up with that?

And for the people saying they aren't good at scumhunting, I'm going to tell you something my mom STILL tells me when, "Well, you can't get any better if you don't practice!"  So, scumhunt or prepare to be lynched because if you aren't hunting, you're being hunted.