Alright so I just went though Omni v. OS again and here's what I'm getting out of it:
OS has some seriously good analysis on Omni. Like, rock solid. He brings a lot of good logic to the table and pretty accurately calls Omni out on things he IS guilty of, such has leaving a lot of shallow trails, harping mostly on inactives, etc. This isn't to say that the behaviors OS called Omni out on are true in totality, but as a general rule so far, what OS points out isn't misrepresentation of Omni at all.
Bearing this in mind I came to the conclusion that within the scope of that argument, OS was the "winner" so to speak. His LoAs are still standing and Omni pretty much backed down from going "tit for tat" so I imagine he isn't doing to pursue the contesting of said LoAs. However, the "winner" of an argument does not by any means make them the townier of the arguers, though I imagine this is pretty obviously to most if not everyone in this game.
So basically there were a few key points that I've been trying to derive intent from and figure out if this is TvT, TvS, SvS, something with an indy, whatever.
One of OS's first actual posts really set off some alarms.
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10727132&postcount=150
The very first line here where he talks about "liking to manipulate people as scum" just reeks of being disingenuous, reason being, if you think about it in the context of the rest of his post where he goes on to talk about how there are other "big names" in the game that he wants to hear from (the LoA he uses to justify being less active), it makes sense that he might pitch this gambitty "I play this way when I'm scum" to us when in actuality, maybe in a game with "bigger names" or more experienced players, his manipulative puppet master leader style might not be quite so effective.
Furthermore the whole line about "oh man guys I'm such a good guy but I did something bad (being inactive), you should've called be out. Here I'll hold you hand" just comes off as a classic attempt at trying to buy "easy" credibility by pointing out an obvious flaw (regardless of whether its your own or someone else) and suggesting an obvious remedy.
As far as the rest of what OS brings to the table go, not a whole lot really bothered me in a big way but I'll be pruning his analysis some more later and I'll touch on anything else that suggests scummy intent.
Moving on to Omni, basically a lot of OS's analysis holds true on him and as such, his early approach to the game does have some scummy traits. Unfortunately, I see a lot of these traits that OS points out to be pretty standard Omni style, and as most of you should know I don't have much of a penchant for determining alignment via meta. But other than being in general agreement with what OS posits, there were a couple other things Omni said that lean on the scummy side.
- The immediate conclusion that Omni came to that OS was "tunneling" him. I see this as a knee-jerk characterization and the quoting of OS saying basically "IGMEOY Omni" early in the game just looks like a scramble to support his tunneling accusation. Not that it doesn't fit as supporting evidence, but it seems like Omni was going out of his way to make it seem like OS was in fact tunneling when if he really was, it would likely be obvious without pissant quotes of that nature. OS launched a big attack on Omni, that won't be disputed, however just because OS's only big attack has been on Omni so early in the game hardly qualifies him as tunneling. Heck, I've barely commented on anyone outside of KBot, Omni, and OS. Does that mean I'm tunneling on them? No, it just means that the game is still young and obviously unless someone is pitching a lot of shallow cases on people, they aren't going to have an incredibly diverse scope of focus.
- The implication that "if OS v Omni is TvT, then it's a waste of time" that Omni makes really rubs me the wrong way. How did you come to this conclusion Omni? When has TvT ever been a waste of time? In fact when is really in depth discussion between two players ever a waste of time? Just on the most basical level you're establishing strong connections between the interacting players, and you're probably pushing both players to their expressive capacities, a situation where any given player is most likely to have linguistic cracks that will show their true intent. Beyond that, you (Omni) say it possibly being TvT is bad because then the scum can manipulate the scenario. Seriously dude? It's the scum's JOB to manipulate EVERY scenario. The point is you want to CATCH them doing it. That statement comes off as very slight fear mongering, but regardless the point is that whether big discussion be TvS, TvT, SvS, or whatever type of comp. you can think of, people are gonna get involved, and when you push a lot of people to discuss and analyze really in depth conversation, you're going to build the connections and linguistic trails that you (Omni) have been claiming to champion all game. How you could dismiss your interaction with OS as possibly being a waste of time despite your alleged effort to be the driving force behind connection creation in the like seems off, if not contradictory.
In conclusion, (tl;dr version) I've got OS as being the argument "winner". OS is guilty of some strange suggestive language in his earlier post which gives me a slight scum vibe but overall I'm getting a town read on him thus far. Omni, though behaving in a pretty standard manner, is coming off more scummy but not really so much by virtue of the attack OS mounted on him, but rather, the nature of his response TO the attack and characterization of the exchange.
I'd still rather lynch Bot over either of them though because of just overall bad play that I touched on in my last post, but if I had to go with one of those two it'd be Omni.
