Total posts: 6,549
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Alright, that works for me. Figured Erza would either use items or be a bit of a JOAT. An odd choice for one of those abilities, but I buy it. Still possible that Earth is telling the truth as well (I’m currently leaning scum, hence the vote below), but I’d like his justification before we lynch.
VTL Earth
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I have no doubt that you’ve provided accurate information with regards to who he is. His role aligns with cop just fine, but it strikes me as an outlier. Maybe when we get more character claims I’ll amend my perspective, but as of now, both your and Earth’s claims seem odd for different reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Alright, give your justification, then. I’m having a hard time believing Erza could be the day cop, but if you really are the day cop, why do you buy the existence of a night cop as well?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Alright, that one’s weird, too. Jellal does make sense as a Miller, but he’s not part of the guild unlike every other character that’s been claimed thus far. He’s big enough in the series to be otherwise plausible, but it’s an odd pick.
Summarize the justification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I can personally cast shade on the argument that the guild is all scum, though you’re welcome to test it if that’s what you’re pushing. As for the council being scum, that would partly implicate you, as Doranbolt’s allegiances are a bit wonky in that regard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I’m saying Erza’s not a day cop. I don’t buy that at all. He claimed shortly after you called on him to do so (which would normally make him sus for me because you alone are not a lot of pressure). I’m not sure why he wanted a mass claim, but that’s behaviorally null to me. I think he has stronger suspicions against others, and deems them to be bigger fish to fry. He might also just not want to lynch a claimed cop. The fact that he’s not putting suspicion on you now furthers my certainty that he is not the day cop.
Created:
Posted in:
Alright, I’m at the airport and I don’t have long to post thoughts, so I’ll see what I can do.
Regarding FT, the fact that he’s claiming Erza means he’s most likely town. In this series, she’s one of the main 4 characters. She’d be a very risky fake claim to give this early. She’s almost definitely not the day cop (...seriously RM? I wasn’t buying that before the character claim), though I can think of a few fitting roles for her.
RM has me on edge. On the one hand, he claimed cop, which would be a ballsy fake claim for scum. On the other hand, his character claim stands out. Erza Scarlet and Mirajane Strauss are both the actual names of their characters. Doranbolt is an alias for a character actually named Mest Gryder. He’s not one of the more central characters of the guild, either, though he does do some important stuff. It doesn’t help that he’s the only claim that flies in the face of my interpretation of that first hint. I’m reticent in general about lynching in DP1, much less for a claimed cop, but so much about this claim seems fishy.
I’m not convinced that anyone else merits much attention so far. Pie’s behavior seems in line with his usual (if anything, I think he’d play tighter than this if he was scum), and I don’t buy Oro as scum based on anything he’s done (he’s normally rather neutral about the majority of us this early). Too little from Earth, nothing from Speed (likely at a debate tournament) or Luna (likely at work). Still trying to read Coal (usually have trouble there), already said I town read MC.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I don’t feel much need. If I’m interpreting the hint right, I think it’s further support for his claim being real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
The post doesn’t stand out to me, at least not at first blush.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Less to consider than I thought. It’s the first OP for the series. I hadn’t seen the English translation, but it looked familiar. I’ve got a couple of ideas regarding what hints we can take from it, though I’ll abstain from mentioning them until we get more character claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I’ll give it some thought and get back to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@MisterChris
Just FYI, I buy the claim based on the character. Doubt that MC would claim her if he was scum and didn’t have a safe claim (not super prominent, but prominent enough that it’s likely to be CC’d), and Loved definitely fits her. That being said, my justification exists, but is pretty weak.
Created:
Posted in:
Goodbyes don’t hurt, but greetings are generally better. How’s it going, everyone?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I didn't say I get to decide, I said the mod team and anyone who wants to chip in can decide as long as the general idea is that helping debaters during a debate is wrong. I made this thread because David suggested to, it's up to him to convince you.
I'd welcome his insights.
I have no clue why anyone on this thread is supporting the opposite but I do know how groupthink works so the later opposers are probably just bandwagoning and maintaining status quo.
So, clearly, supporting the opposite view is just groupthink and bandwagoning, while you're clearly in the right. Great, glad you think so highly of yourself.
Your reasons for being against it are nothing more than nitpicking solely directed at something I said about it being based on how significant the help was. Can you offer a better measurement to scale the repercussion?
I'm not nitpicking. I'm explaining my position with reasoning that applies broadly, not just to a few examples. Also, only a small portion of my argument has been focused on the significance of the help provided. Not sure why such a scale is required because it's not important to my or your argument as far as I can tell.
I don't understand a single thing you are raising as a point here, not even one. It's so crystal clear to me how wrong and fallacious what you are saying is that I don't want to rehash the rebuttals I just gave you once again. You can think whatever you want, people on this website can do what they want. It may take years or may never happen but eventually there will come a time if this isn't a rule,
Don't know why your not understanding my arguments functionally makes them both wrong and fallacious. Seems like that's a pretty fallacious stance to take, but hey, what do I know?
that someone keeps helping another debater with live, interactive tips and then you will realise the issue.
This seems like a sticking point for you, and you've mentioned it several times. The point appears to be that you don't like people giving "live, interactive tips" throughout the debate. Fine, we agree that's a problem. My issue is with the notion that, so long as the debate has started, even if no one has posted a single argument, those "live, interactive tips" are functionally the same as those that could come at any point after the first argument is posted. I don't see what changes as a result of someone accepting the debate. I do see what changes as a result of someone posting their first argument.
What's the barrier to a college assignment you receiving tips and help specifically and far beyond what's acceptable level of assistance by someone else via PM? Nothing much, they can't even really get a legal warrant to search your device even if they suspect it.Nonetheless, it's a rule right? Do you see how limitations of enforcement aren't justification for letting someone get credit for someone else's skills?
I'm not following this comparison because "what's [an] acceptable level of assistance" for an assignment varies based on the assignment, and the same holds true depending on the type of debate you're doing. It depends. If you want to set the standard for this type of debate in this way, then fine, I understand that you have that relatively narrow view of what should be treated as reasonable within the confines of a debate. I don't share that view. And, once again, I'm not saying that the limitations of enforcement are a reason why I am opposed to this effort.
Created:
Not at all for you to decide and 'equally affected' is extremely presumptive even if both debaters agree it was.Not all scenarios where you assist both sides equally affects both sides whatsoever. Not even slightly. It would be an extreme miracle scenario where that was, in fact, the case.The enemy of each debater is the other debater.
So... you get to decide, then? I was under the impression that this was an open discussion of whether this is good policy. You're the one talking about imposing a new standard for what moderation should do. It should be very clear that they have to do this, so the burden of proof is on you, not me.
I would argue that any attempt to help one side, especially if it's something that side uses verbatim, telegraphs what they're going to do to their opponent. Maybe it's just me, but knowing what's coming tends to be a pretty big help when it comes to preparing my arguments and responses. I agree, it's not an equal effect - if anything, I would say that the side that doesn't directly receive or utilize the advice given is probably in a better situation, largely because they're not tasked with superimposing someone else's ideas on their own, just with being prepared for a set of arguments - but I don't see how it has to be utterly equal. Perfectly equal effects aren't necessary for the point I'm making to apply: both sides benefit, so where's the harm?
Not necessarily, at the moment we have situations occuring where a poster who wouldn't PM to assist the other in an illicit manner is doing so. If people begin to gang together in PM groups of assistance, this will at first be something they get away with, of course, however it just takes one to snitch and things will begin to fall apart. Limitations of enforcement are never a good excuse to let something bad keep happening twice as much as it otherwise would (I predict this is more than twice actually, you're bringing up fringe cases which aren't the focus here).The looking at previous debates is 100% allowed as is discussions IRL, the ability to use them within the limited time given per argument using only one's own brain and typing skills is what the rating of each debater should reflect in the end. It should not reflect the propensity to be helped by others, especially not during the debate.
I'm talking about a single person in a PM with another person, e.g. someone providing the very same ideas you see in these comments to the challenger. You don't need a gang of people to provide ideas like this. My argument isn't that enforcement is limited in other areas so all bets are off, it's that a lack of enforcement in this regard encourages people to post publicly while enforcement along the lines you're discussing turns everything private and negates any benefits the other side could get from seeing the advice being given. For that matter, though you argue that this does happen "twice as much as it otherwise would", I don't see any reason to believe that. You say you "predict" it, but you give no reasoning to support that. Moreover, I'm not talking about specific cases here, unlike you (you actually posted a couple of them). I'm talking about a broad number of cases. If someone feels inclined to help a side better understand their position, they will do so. It's not significantly harder to send a PM, but people post in the comments anyway because it's public and transparent. If you take that away, what's the barrier to sending PMs?
You didn't really address my reasons for why this kind of help isn't distinct from those I'm comparing it with. For some reason, those uses of limited time are fine, but being helped by others in this way is not? They're all forms of help. They're all opportunities to take someone else's argument and use it for your own. They all involve our ability to use "one's own brain and typing skills". I don't see the difference.
Actually there isn't much. Sure direct copy and pasting without giving any credit is, however it will inspire them to think of things in ways they wouldn't necessarily have done so and that is a huge element of skill (or lack thereof) that is removed from being fairly assessed. I have not even the slightest clue where you are coming from here. You wrote on your profile you teach middle-school debating, there is no way on Earth that you would allow other student to live-assist a debater during a debate, period. You know why it's wrong and how severely you'd punish it already, you're lying here for reasons I do not understand. Stop the bullshit act, it isn't helping anyone.
I don't get this argument. You're saying that these people are inspired "to think of things in ways they wouldn't necessarily have done", which is a problem no matter where those ideas come from. I've had a single source change my mind on how to approach a topic before and give me a novel structure to work from. Why isn't that source off-limits to me in the same sense? Why is someone's advice in the forums that tells me to completely change my structure not causing even more harm? Why shouldn't the skill involved in actually taking an idea someone else gives you in the comments, modifying it to fit your strategy and voice, and putting it on the page just as valid as you deriving that idea from other sources and doing the exact same thing?
Yes, I am a coach. I've actually coached both middle schoolers and college debaters. Know what we did? We talked about the topic ahead of time. We discussed strategies that we expected our opponents to use, and then designed counter strategies. I and many others would often inform those debaters of arguments that they were absolutely unaware of, and work together to draft contentions based on those arguments. That's WAY more involved than posting a few points about possible routes arguments could potentially take in the comments of a debate before it's begun. We're not talking about a live-assist play-by-play on every single round. We're talking about prep. There's nothing wrong with it, and I don't know why you see this as severely punishable when it's common practice in any number of debate tournaments. You can call this a "bullshit act," but I'm speaking from my experience.
You posted this Pre-MEEP. You wanted feedback. You're getting some that you don't like and you think I'm wrong. Fine. Convince others. You'll have a harder time with me.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Because you have no idea which of those ideas would have come to the brain of the debaters nor if your wording of it would help them word it better (or ironically worse) than they originally would.The help you offer each side assists the enemy too, to structure and prepare for rebuttals.
But that's not really addressing my point, which is that the point at which assistance is provided matters, and not to whom it is provided. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "the enemy", but if you're informing both debaters, then the assistance you're providing should be even less concerning, since everyone is equally affected.
If you're concerned that the debaters aren't going to come up with their own ideas, I'd also say that that's problematic on a couple of fronts. First, debaters get ideas that come from the brains of other debaters in a dozen other ways, including PMs (if you make public comments about this off-limits, that's where these would go), forums, looking at previous debates, discussions IRL, etc. I don't see how this adequately prevents any cross-contamination in this regard. Second, I don't see the problem. If debaters were copy-pasting ideas from other debaters, that would be one thing, but there's recourse to punish that in voting. If they're taking basic concepts from others and finding personal ways to expand or reinterpret those concepts, why is that less valuable? I can speak from experience when I say that, when I was being coached and a coach would feed me an argument verbatim, I'd pretty thoroughly fuck up any explanation of that argument. So I'd say that the value of that information depends on an individual's ability to process it and convert it into a form that they can effectively utilize, which means it comes from "the brain of the debaters".
Additionally, the opponent of each may have structured things specifically to exploit that debater's style and flaws, failing to do so directly due to your assistance of the opponent which opened their eyes to something.
I don't get this. You're saying that an opponent can use a debater's style and flaws against them, which is true regardless of what information they're given. Style and flaws have little to nothing to do with the information that is provided to them, otherwise a source or two could substantially alter both. It seems like you've more got a problem with someone actually providing a structured argument that imposes their style and flaws on the debater, which would mean that they've taken verbatim (or close enough as to make little difference) the arguments that someone else gave them. Again, there's plenty of room for voters to punish that kind of plagiarism, so I don't see why moderators have to do anything about it.
Every Chess website that I know of rules out using a computer engine and getting live coaching from another user during a match with advice and move-suggestions specific to the game being played, since the elo rating is meant to represent the individual's skill alone.
Chess is very different from debate. There may be a massive number of possible moves for the game, but there are clear tried-and-true strategies that are used by top chess players and they work pretty much across the board. For that matter, you can impose that kind of strategy on a relatively new player and it can be nearly as effective (lacking some of the nuance) as with an actual master player. The same does not apply with debate for many of the reasons I already described, in that debate strategies can't be so easily superimposed on a new debater, copy-pasting debate arguments already has effective routes to be punished, and we're only talking about providing initial strategies before the debate (which, at best, would be like telling a chess player what the first few moves of the game should be based on the first move of their opponent). I don't see these as equally harmful.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
What you wrote is essentially total agreement with me except for if someone offers coaching to both sides at once.
How does this markedly alter the circumstances? I don’t get why offering advice to both sides instead of one changes anything.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think there's value in setting a line, but I think the place you're trying to set it is problematic.
For example, it makes sense to address comments from others that give debaters specific advice during the active debating period where both sides have already produced arguments. A debate is between the two debaters involved and should not include the comments section.
That being said, there have been many instances I've seen where commenters mentioned problems they had with a given sides' argument while the debate was going. I don't see that as a problem because it's not advice nor does it provide active direction.
You might say that the kinds of comments you're addressing in here fit into advice and direction, but the problem lies in the timing. If I went on an open challenge debate and pointed out numerous problems with how the resolution/description had been framed, stating that the instigator should modify it or risk those responses, then someone accepts the debate before they make those changes, I have technically given both advice and direction to the challenger. If I pointed out those same things after someone accepts the debate, using it as advice for the instigator, it would have the same impact on the debate. I don't see either of those instances as problematic, nor do I see efforts to examine what the debate can and cannot be about at those stages as problematic. When someone posts an argument, making one of the sides concrete, I think it's problematic to have commenters insert themselves into the debate. Before that, as far as I'm concerned, it's open season.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
Don't be so defeatist. What it should tell you is that there are problems with your tactics that other debaters (particularly coal and fauxlaw) are adept at exploiting. Every debater has flaws, but since you've debated this several times now, those just become more obvious the more you do it. My suggestion? Take a step back from debating the topic. Either move onto a different debate, or take a break from debating for a bit to try to better understand what's going on. For that matter, I'd suggest you just take your time with the debates you do. You tend to do several debates simultaneously and are very quick to post responses nonetheless, which is amazing given how much effort you put into each debate, but also works against giving you meaningful take-aways from any debate because you're not putting your focus on what you're doing.
Whether you choose to re-roll your account or stick with this one, my suggestion is that you try to get the most out of every debate you do. These are just some suggestions of how to accomplish that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Varrack
Like MC said, setting out clear stances in the resolution and/or the description would be a good start. However, I'll note that if you're doing a debate on policy, this is usually a negligible problem. Essentially, the benefit the opponent has in those instances amounts to "if everything is too confusing by the end to pick a side that's winning, I automatically vote Con," which I would say is an uncommon or even rare outcome, at least when the debaters are doing a decent job. It matters more in cases like the one you're stating because their entire case can amount to "there's no way to know which is better," whereas in policy, they're forced to contrast two positions rather than arguing that all positions are neutral (unless they're rolling with a Kritik, in which case, all bets are off).
Created:
Posted in:
Yup, Oro was on it. Can’t say I did well, though I only got one NP to use my role, and by then I didn’t feel at all confident in picking targets. Would’ve been good for town confirming me, though, and I had a high probability of hitting scum, so I probably should have done it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Better than a lot of the debaters I've seen. Only seen a handful of really solid LD debaters, though I will say that the amount of preparation that goes into those speeches makes it a very different animal than debates on here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
High schoolers - from like 15 to 18
Having judged HS LD a few times, I can honestly say that the caliber of debaters ranges pretty widely. Doesn't help that a lot of the judging they get for those debates is lay judges (read: mostly parents) with no background in debate who have not the slightest clue what a Kritik is. College brings on a stronger set for sure, though there is inconsistency there as well.
Created:
-->
@gugigor
bluesteel may have had relatively few high caliber debates, but those few showcased a degree of skill that always set him apart. Mikal had his moments, though so many of his debates were meant to buff up his win record. He certainly could challenge the best on the site, but Roy wasn't always at his best, and I don't think that debate was his strongest performance. I do think Mikal (at least at the time he was debating) could defeat Undefeatable, but I don't know how much debating he's done recently. Raisor is solid and he deserved the win against me. Larz also deserves his status, though I disagreed with the decision on our debate. Guy's dedicated.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Hey! Long time, dude. Glad to see you're still hanging around.
I’m flattered to see my name on the list but also a bit surprised since I reread a few of my DDO debates not too long ago and was not very impressed. I’m confident I could demolish my college aged self in a debate now so a lot of people on this site could certainly do the same. If I were debating today I would have a much more conversational and less technical style and would focus less on trying to trap my opponents with “gotcha” type stuff. Pretty lame. I would like to do a debate again but I don’t think I have the time between work, school, and lots of other hobbies. Plus I would probably only wanna debate stuff I actually care about and I was always way worse at those topics bc I’m not able to objectively assess what’s persuasive to a wide audience rather than what are the arguments that clicked for me in my pretty weird head
I think we could all look back at our debates from that time and find numerous flaws (I know I cringe looking at many of mine), but I will say that I was almost always impressed by your debates. You had a reputation on DDO that was well-earned, and while some of it was derived from that "gotcha" debating, I think it only worked as well as it did because you knew how to capitalize on mistakes.
It’s cool that whiteflame is here, that guy is an actual top 10 from ddo for sure, and better than me. I beat him the only time we debated but I feel like the topic was super unbalanced in my favor and if the roles were reversed I would’ve done a lot worse than he did
I'm flattered! Our debate was one of the very few times I walked away thinking that I definitely lost. Learned a lot from it, though.
But the two best DDO debaters of all time were bluesteel and raisor, who I always wanted to debate. I was always amazed at what they could do. With bluesteel in particular I was amazed at how much he could fit into so few words, he could’ve probably had a handicap where he had half as many characters as his opponent and still beat almost anyone
Those two were always solid, and bluesteel in particular could scare me with how effective he was. Small wonder he went into law. Never had the courage to challenge him straight up.
IIRC (it’s been YEARS) sometimes he would swing and miss but when he hit he would knock it put of the park. He wasn’t afraid to take on challenging topics or positions. There was also one guy, I can’t remember who now, who only won like 60% of the time but pretty much only debated top tier debaters I was always impressed with him too
Yeah, Larz would always push himself. Gotta hand it to the guy. As for who your mystery person is, if I might hazard a guess, maybe https://www.debate.org/F-16_Fighting_Falcon/? Guy had some seriously impressive debates.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
oh shit I guess we'd better get on with that thenI am hoping for a HISTORY topic.
I'd be down for a history topic. Just need to find a juicy one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Just going to say that I’m Republican, and yes, I have a 1X role.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Not sure why you chose Luna, but I do buy this claim more than Supa’s. Will be very busy over the rest of this DP, so I’ll lock in my vote.
Unvote
VTL Supa
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Supa already claimed, why do you need mine?
Because it's not just about him. Because both of you were on the lynch wagon from the previous DP, and while both MC and GP were on it, they both have open claims and MC has proven his role. Supa might be the lynch for this DP, but I think it's entirely valid to seek more info this DP, particularly as scum only has either a free role claim or a free justification (I'd hedge my bets on them having selected the former).
I'll claim if there's a wagon
Hoping to get one going, though too few people seem to be picking sides on this, given that there are a total of 4 votes going into the last 24 hours of this DP.
What are your misgivings about Supa
I do think his role claim sounds too much like a Role Cop, which tends to be a scum role, though the main problem I have with him is that he's doing nothing to pressure the person he used his 1X Detective on. I understand if he doesn't want to reveal the role, but even saying that he can town-confirm another player and saying who that player is would be beneficial. This dancing around waiting until the person claims is not helping anyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I already said that I’m interested in getting both claims before deciding who to pressure. I’ll hold to that, though I agree that Supa’s claim makes him a decent target of suspicion. If that makes me sus, then so be it.
Much of the rest of my evening will be a Passover Seder, so I won’t be able to provide much input over the next couple of hours... not that much is happening right now.
Created:
Posted in:
I've got my misgivings about Supa's claim, but I'd still like to compare it with Speed's. Since the latter has been pretty weakly active and didn't take his opportunity to claim, I'll push him.
VTL Speed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@Speedrace
@MisterChris
Whiteflame, haven't heard much from you yet. Read my posts above and tell us what you think.
Yeah... haven't had much time since last evening. Thankfully, nothing to do with the storms, though we did get quite a bit of rain and resulting flash floods.
I already expressed during the last DP how I feel regarding scum pursuing lynches in DP1 and how risky that can be. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if either Speed or Supa were scum, and though I won't write off GP, I have a harder time believing he's scum. You're the only role-confirmed player (though I leave open the possibility that your role doesn't indicate your alignment, strange as that might seem in this instance), so I'd agree that the choice is between Speed and Supa. I don't necessarily have a preference on this choice, so Supa is fine by me, though I don't agree with GP that this is some kind of vengeance gambit.
Still, would like to get a full claim from both Speed and Supa before selecting one. Either of you willing to do so without us having to go through voting you to L-1?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I mean... Luna was a soft claimed PR, he was an obvious target for any scum.
Created:
Posted in:
Alright, onto another DP. Guess Lunatic didn't last this time. Anyone got any info?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You obviously don't know me that well. I make mistakes like that all the time .
Perhaps so.
The more sus thing here is how you are injecting feeling and motivation without warrant.
More like poor wording. I admit that my first post was more meant to elicit a response, whereas my prior response to you clarified my meaning. I've pointed out what I find odd and false. Dismissive may have input some intent into the equation, and I can understand how you might find that problematic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
You've been scum before, you know this isn't how it works. There is little risk to scum to mislynch early game, and I don't think Oromagi's pushed for a VTNL so early in a game as scum before. It doesn't implicate you much at all as scum to hop on a wagon a townie starts if you can justify why you hopped on, and if you initiate a mislynch based on technically false but sound reasoning the same principle applies... If any mislynch goes through, it was only because a plurality of town hopped on board with you and agreed with your reasoning enough to risk the mislynch.
I disagree. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've seen scum try to move on quickly from DP1. I've also seen a great deal of wagons form on the basis that a person was on a previous lynch, though sound reasoning or hopping on someone else's wagon can provide cover. I don't see this the same way as you, but I respect your opinion on it.
I've never met a scum player that was so reserved as to not stick DP1 out and seek for a mislynch. We've not even gotten close to a point to where the scum team would want to give up on it, and even if Oro did want a VTNL as scum, I doubt his scum partner would agree...
I'd have to go back to previous games, but I can recall at least a couple of occasions where scum initiated a VTNL. They may not have happened this early, and that may have been at least partially the result of not seeing a path to a lynch, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility. More importantly, though, I'm not arguing that his VTNL is reason enough by itself. I'm arguing that his reason for pursuing the VTNL, which was founded in giving everyone an opportunity to speak up before doing so, wasn't fulfilled.
On another note, your statements here are reminding me of the sort of fluff logic scum use to justify mislynches and see if wagons catch on.
Not sure what statements you find so fluffy, but this is far from the first time that an effort to push for a lynch in DP1 was based on little. I'm more than willing to admit that it's not a lot to go on, but it's also the only thing in this DP that has stood out to me so far. More than happy to change my mind should I see something change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
As everyone knows, I note players that haven't checked in as "AWoL" in my reads list. You took the time to edit my reads list but failed to note my oversight. Doesn't your oversight of my oversight likewise implicate you as "dismissive of Earth's input"?
I don't think that my oversight did anything to diminish his input, especially since it's just a change of category rather than a recognition of contribution. That being said, what I find odd (and the reason for my current vote) is that you would put down a VTNL using that reasoning when it was clearly false. You're normally more thorough than this justification demonstrated and, contrary to the statements made by both MisterChris and Speed, I don't think you'd push for an early mislynch as scum since it would implicate you later.
Created:
Posted in:
I feel like I pretty regularly opine that most of the chatter generated within these games is non-constructive and so anti-TOWN. I generally support VTNL once everybody checks in and early claims have been made so long as nobody seems to particularly merit lynching. Those conditions just kicked in unusually early this game.
Normally, I might not be sus of this myself because I generally feel that much of the chatter that happens in DP1 is not particularly useful, though you posted your VTNL before Earth had posted anything. Everyone hadn't checked in yet. He has checked in by now, but this seems dismissive of his input and is just straight up a wrong characterization of what had happened before you posted your vote. Beyond that, while many others have contributed, I'd say there's still room to provide more insight before this starts to get absolutely muddled with pointless conversation.
VTL Oro
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I completely disagree sorry. Him withholding details is his one saving grace. The last thing we want to do is advertise lynch targets for free DP1, even Grey realizes this and we should NOT dismiss this as typical or acceptable.
Honestly, this wouldn't be the first time he's done something like this, so while I agree that it's anti-town, I don't agree that it's scummy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
oromagiTOWNgreyparrot Susan Collins PROTECClunaticspeedraceearthwhiteflamewaterphoenixchris ????? PACIFISTsupadudzSCUM
Fixed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Even Water's posted before youbruh
Let's not kid ourselves here, it's usually a while before you start engaging. Good on you for getting to it earlier this time around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
VTL Grey for:
- claiming a protective role DP1 (when he is smart enough to argue over a vig's town utility +and use POE to eliminate me last game).
I'm not surprised that he claimed a protective role. I am a little surprised that he didn't immediately include that with his character claim and that he chose to keep whatever protective role he has vague. Those stand out to me as reasons to be at least a little sus of him, though his role is potentially confirmable, so I'll abstain from voting to lynch over it this DP.
For now, VTL Earth
Even Water's posted before you. What's keeping you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am Collins from Maine. I winn wif da town.
What role?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Well done, dude. Not sure where I would’ve gone at that point, but considering so much of this hinged on you as the confirmed townie, you certainly stepped up to the challenge.
Created:
Posted in:
One of those occasions where I'm happy to be wrong. By the by, this does make me more sus of Oro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Ah, now I see my mistake. I was actually under a mistaken impression of how this was set up, but hey, I'll take it and join this lynch.
Unvote
VTL Whiteflame
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Actually, if you'll read back to that, I didn't say I was sus of him. I said that among the set of people who voted to lynch GP in the first two DPs, there was at least one scum. Oro could be that scum, and I still leave the door open to that.
Be that as it may, there are two scum left in this game, and as Luna cannot be lynched (and I exclude myself for now, as Luna is sus of me), there is only one town left in the available-to-lynch pile.
So, I'm amending my thoughts from the previous DP. I based my opinion of you on what you have going in RL, and I'm realizing that that was a mistake since you could either be using that as an excuse to lynch you or it's an issue you'd have regardless of whether you're town or scum. The fact that Earth wants to lynch you is actually making me sus of you at this point, since, again, there are two scum left in this game and, especially at this point, they would both be coordinating to get one of them lynched. As for why that sets of alarm bells and not the Oro lynch, it's largely the fact that Luna is supportive of the Oro lynch that has me pushing that. Luna is as close to guaranteed town as it is possible to be at this point, so either he and Oro are playing a long con that has so far absolutely failed, or he's town and Oro's likely town. I don't think the former is likely, and if it happens to be true, then the option exists to revisit this during the next DP. Hence, I go with the latter.
Created: