Mini 630: Council of Eville: Game Ovah!

[Skillit]

Vote: Joonster

- because I dont think you are really Jessica Alba (and yes, i am really a literal, literate Skillit)

[Skillit]

-joon, id like this this proof you speak of

[Skillit]

We must quash the skillit uprising before they kill us all!

- what does that even

mean

? i mean, i know it was a joke and all but i . . . don't get it at all.

[Skillit]

What with 7 to lynch 3 votes didn’t seem like any real issue to me, but wonder if it had turned into a wagon would vote #3 of 7 be a pretty good place to blend into said wagon. but that is pretty much zomggrasping@straws!!! As far as the Rage "fishing" for a slip up I think that that bit o lil trickery could only work if the scum were like, 10 years old or something, so to me, it just seemed as likely a trap for overeager scum as much as a post by a scum trying to

look

more townie by saying hi and btw I’m not scum .

StrangerCoug's post here here reminded me of a tattle'ing lil bother (who might have been actually fishing for a modkill when he thought Rage was quoting his role PM). It was really either tattling or he didn’t trust the mod, but still I felt like, OUR job isn’t really to police others posts, but to interpret them for scumminess, we aren’t the referees - are we?
Anyway, this coupled with him being the first one to point out forbiddanlight had voted mod (circumstantial evidence I know), following Goat blindly-or at the very least voting withput botherng to add anything or even summ up why he was voting- back in post 17 and voting alvinz95 just "for hypocrisy" (really just seems a lil light on reasoning to me)
so in short

unvote:Joonster

Vote: StrangerCoug

because I don’t like people just going w/ the flow, I don’t like people tattle’ing (I had enough growing up), I'd like you to go more into your justifications and reasoning so they can later be assessed, and I don’t like scummy opportunism - it may be a lil early to just accuse someone of following someone around, but your answer to Alvinz was kind of dismissive to his point, possibly because HIS point was only briefly articulated, much like your posts. maybe brevity is just my personal nemesis, but I think you can pursue the same lead as another person without merely parroting back what they said, or summing up someone's points in as few words as possible as you seem to love to do.

[Skillit]

"A good part of this is fluff"-Thats very dismissive. . .I distrust people that just give me a decision and no real reason. was what i said a damning point of contention that was meant to seal your fate? No, but calling my whole post fluff save for one bit which you choose to respond to does not really address the rest, if it did every other post on this forum would be "thats fluff"
I try to keep my vote on who i think is the scumiest, right now thats you. Im not saying i hate you or that your a bad person, I'm saying "hey guys, maybe we should look at this too"

If you think im way off thats one thing, but I dont get how posting on things i think are off is at all a bad thing. I dont like when people seem to hold themselves somehow above suspiscion,

how is looking into players i see acting suspisciously an

anti-town

thing to do?

Do you think my post was designed to conjure up a magic wagon to string you up, or do you think it was just a post from a guy trying to objectively look at everything and bring some new discusion to a thread where nobody had posted in almost 2 full days

?

"for his weak case and misrepresenting me"

if you really think that im misrepresenting you then why not enlighten me?

unless you already did and my "misrepresenting you" was just related to what i referred to as the tattle'ing post, and if you can tell me honestly that you think that that post simply CANNOT be read that way then lets alk about that, but it will really just boil down to semantics in he end.
Also, misrepresent really has 2 meanings, to either incorrectly or misleadingly represent-what way did you mean it, i assume you believe i was

intentionally

misleading - which is absurd as i would have to do so knowingly, which i could not have done without the "info" you provided in post 54 (you were concerned because you are picky, and you wanted the mod to know someone might have broken a rule, but you didnt want any pnishment for him braking that rule?), and if you mean it as a way of saying i was incorrect about that post then, can you or anyone really fault me in reading it that way?- either way

i utterly fail to see how my coments were at all a misrepresentation - care to

actually

explain it to me?

as for the "weak case"- Coug-

do you really think im reaching if i say you have so far been light on the reasonings?

, you have the most posts in the game so far with the least bit of reasoning for actions (only 3 of your posts were longer than a single line), very quick to follow whats going on but not really bringing new things to the discussion, fast to omgus back at me with a "well i think your suspiscious skillit for daring to suspect me!!!"

:arrow: Id love to find out about how im scum trying to kill off the town as fast as i can by trying to make sure we look at everyone and that we don't react too fast to the whims of the informed minority.
Also goin to toss in an fast "against the man" here:

you of all people in this game voting me for weak reasoning is just . . . ironic.

[Skillit]

where did you explain what was fluff/why it was irrelevent other than to address the tatteling part, which was about 1/4 of my post and my points?

wether or not my case is a stretch is a matter of semantics i guess, we could just happen to disagree. but again rather than delve into

why

its "weak" you just call it weak and expect that to be the end. Im not going to assert its an ironclad case, but i certaintly think its both worth discussing and much less of a stretch than the are we/aren't we still in random stage alvinz95 talk. I think its clear that things are past that now, and we are at the point where discussion and reasonings are required. I'm getting the impression you just dont want to talk about it and thats what perks up my ears.

As far as acqusing you of trying to get him modkilled - me carrying your action to the logical conclusion is not really a misrepresentation but more a misunderstanding. i can admit that i could have misunderstood your motives on that issue, especially since you havent ever really made your motivations and rationales clear, however thats exactly the problem with not giving your reasons. In an effort to "not repeat" you dont tell me/us

why

so i have to guess at your thought train. As town i would never say "teacher teacher he colored outside the lines", but i can see scum do it if they thought there was a chance he might get modkilled - and then try the white horse defense. But im also not saying thats the only reason someone would point it out. You might just be a by the book guy, and thats more than fine. thats good. but the brevity leaves us forced to look at everything thats unvoiced and guess at your motives, and thats less accurate than you just telling us. perhaps a personal difference again in playstyle, as you can see i have . . . wordy tendencies. . .

and voting someone back for legitimate reasons isnt omgus, but you cant just

have

those reasons, you have to actually

say

those reasons, and explain why the feel they are valid, and explain why what they did was scummy, or anti-town or whatever. Had i just responded to your claim that the point was weak with "omgus" it would not have answered your point. and your saying "fluff and weak" does little better.

2 questions:
1)Do you think this is not worth discussing?
2)If we were talking about anyone

else

would you find the answers you gave to my post sufficent?

[Skillit]

jesus!

unvote:StrangerCoug

im just trying to get things going, but i dont want day1 to end at page 3

[Skillit]

on the discussion regarding post 22 (as i realize i haven't weighed in on this one yet) I'm just going to go with an abridged play by play of the highlights of this to serve as an objective summary to both make sure that i fully understand what was going on, and also to make sure all of us are on the same page

*Also if i dont do a quote="name" just please take my "blah" to be a phraphrase

I'll begin with my personal working definition of

opportunistic

: (

adj

) To prey on something that is likely to be weak and poorly able to defend itself.

She got an opportunistic infection because she had a weak immune system.

so. it all started with rages' lil scum name comment - goat says "rage, thats lame" SC posts "Goatrevolt pretty much said it, vote!" then alvinz posts

This to me is opportunistic, vote stays though

This translated to me as

Strangercoug, your vote hopping was kind of 'preying on something once it was proven to be weak' but im not going to follow you in vote hopping

The post, the initial point of contention, to me, was nothing more than that. Then (to me) the arguments seem

ed

to dissolve into semantics and minutia
But it really did not - the argument actually continued on pretty close to this:
Goat then said -hey, if you think thats scummy, why keep your vote withought giving us any reason as to why your keeping it, if you dont think its scummy, why bother calling it opportunistic?
to which Alv replied

...we are still in the random stage. Really, I don't see anything that bad in what he said, and he defended it well enough

goat replied "that still does not make sense, if it was random why confirm your vote, if it wasnt random why the importance of remarking on opportunistic-ness"

Pouncing on something measley is opportunistic, regardless of what stage we are in. So I'm guessing that the whole purpose of your vote is that it doesn't make sense?

You specifically making a point to keep your vote on Rage while also lamenting StrangerCoug's vote on Rage as opportunistic seemed a bit contradictory, so I jumped on it

It was a basic comment, not intended as an "accusation of scumminess". Hence that we were in the RANDOM STAGE

So you think StrangerCoug's vote was opportunistic, but you don't feel that his opportunistic vote was scummy?

@goat, I'm done talking dumb random stage moves mkay? [then he quoted goat]

Why go to the trouble of asserting that you're keeping your random vote on, especially on someone who has two legitimate votes on them at this point?

Does this matter?

The way you dismiss my arguments or simply brush over them without suitably addressing my concerns doesn't give me good vibes...It absolutely does matter. I think you've been contradictory

1. I haven't dismissed any of your questions.
2. Did I say all moves in the random are dumb?
3. Detracts from real discussion
...FoS: Goatrevolt

This is real discussion. See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're completely dismissive of anything I'm saying against you. . . you're ignoring/brushing aside anything I say under the premise that it's not real discussion

i realize that there were a few posts on this after where i am (this summary takes you to post 75, top of page 4) but this is pretty much how it all reads back to me.

goat

, does that about summ up what you point is?

[Skillit]

That was a nice long post with a lot of quotes and summations, but very few actual thoughts from you. A long post with little content is pretty scummy.

I had intended it to be read as a precurser to an actual post.The point was to first make sure everyone (including myself) was fully up to speed as i was geting the feeling most people were skimming the goat and alvinz issue and to see what developed when everything was summed up nicely. Also i only had time today to summarize but please take it however you want. I'd say the issue was not wether or not i had a long post w/ nothing new of mine, but did i appear like i was trying to look like i was saying a lot while really saying nothing? I personally dont think the post looks like i was trying to look like all of that was from me but if you think i was trying to appear like i was adding content without really adding anything new then we can by all means explore that avenue.

If he wasn't going to follow the vote "hopping" on Rage, he would've unvoted instead of insisting that his vote on Rage will stay. Could you explain your justification for the flawed logic here?

Is this a joke? im not really sure, but ill err on the side of caution.
:arrow: first of all it was fairly clearly stated as my

personal impression

of what his statement

appeared

to be. The cogency of my induction is absolutely sound even if

you

believe the statement is only correctly interpreted in a single way(unless you are implying a Humeian objection to the admissibility of my induction, and if you ARE this is an odd place for such talk, and is even still a FalseDilemma). If you want me to explain the rules of inductive reasoning I would be more than happy to if thats what you are asking veerus, but simply stated I really

cannot

be wrong by stating my impression of any event unless i am lieing about my impression.

Do you actually mean to imply that you believe that i was lieing about how i understood that statement and if not, can

you explain

your

justification for the flawed logic here

?

:arrow: second of all your assertion that the statement, if taken they way i said i had received it, demands that he would unvote in order to to not vote hop is baseless. Mostly because to unvote so quickly is a form of actual vote hopping, which would make such a move counter-intuitive, but also because your really just taking a false dichotomy to a new high by leaving only one choice. It really must not be as you asseverate, and the fact that we are having this discussion is empirical evidence against your point.

If this was some kind of joke using a logical fallicy to say that i was making some kind of a logical fallacy then that was a very strange lil quip, otherwise its about as ironic that you would pick this as a point of contention as it is disconcerting. . .

[Skillit]

i must just be wrong then, because i do not think that calling someone out for hopping on a wagon weakly is inconsistant with not moving your vote. i said i think x and was told very matter of factly that i was wrong, perhaps im too literal, and im not standing by my impression of the post being 100%, (in fact i had intended to compose a post with my reaction to the discussion and how my interpritation had changed before i got . . sidetracked) but if a person says they think thought A and someone tells them they are incorrect the only option is if that person thinks they are not telling the truth. ie. i think that milk duds are gross, no you dont skillit, you love them, your a liar. thats how i read it. for me to say i like milk duds cannot possibly be wrong, as long as i in fact do like them. to claim otherwise is to invariably to assert my dishonsty.

[Skillit]

I also still want to see skillit take a stance on alvinz. He seems to be avoiding this issue like the plague.

- can you show a single word i have said that can in any way show evasiveness towards this issue?Where i implied an immediate reaction?Or maybe where my "aversion" is so much more than any other person who hasn't commented on it? Did you read in my post 123 where i said i intended to post a follow up to my summation? Goat, your post 126 "I'd like to see skillit take a stance here" was in the context of the whole "thinking flawed" area, not alvinz and you, so to later charge that i am actively avoiding an issue i had only just 2 days ago said id address seems totaly baseless and. . .frankly irreverent. Do you feel that in any way enough time had passed to justify that comment? I avoided nothing and don't like the implication that i did. Its very much like your trying to discredit anything i might say before i even start talking. or is there another reason for you to be so . . vivid? did you not think i was going to post what i said i was going to post?

Alvinz why ready to end the day already? no way you think we have gotten all we can out of this day? what i was going to say as my summ up of my stance will be distilled and aded to for now for obvious reasons.
Alv at first you seemed to me to not reply initially because you didnt think goats questions were serious. then way you went from looking like you thought they weren't serious to looking like you wanted US to think they wern't serious. then it appeared the attempt grew frantic. which makes me reconsider my initial impression of things not from a point of you not taking it serious, but instead to wanting to LOOK like you thought it wasnt serious. (also the irony of the logic debate, i never disagreed with the asessment of Alvinz words, or the universal corectness of my view, only with the assessment of MY quantified assessment of his post from my initial pov). I usually judge peoples reactions more than the initial points of contention, as i feel like, withbenefit of the doubt an initial day 1 scumtel can often be a misnderstanding, but scummy reactions rarely are. in short being ready to be done with this day is to me a maor strike 2, but also perhaps just frustration w/ a wagon & whatnot. In trying to look at as many angles as i can i look at it like this. does scum alvinz want a fast lynch? ofcourse. does townalvinz want to end the day fast bcause he has enough rationale to KNOW 99.9% that SC is our scum? I think about what it would take for ME to be that sure (which is a post like "hey im SC and goats not scum, he has been looking for us too throughly all day" or some kind of -he HAS to be scum to say that post-which just isnt there) - this readiness to be done w/the day implies scumminess or disregard to me - which is bad

also:

By saying that SC's vote is opportunistic, [I'm saying] alvinz basically said that it's a bandwagon vote.*

*brackets added
show me how this is a valid deduction and then you’ve found my "flawed logic". but it is just not - to assert that opportunistic = bandwagon is inapplicable to my statement of opportunistic defined as

To prey on something that is likely to be weak

. to then say that my not including your O=B into my statement makes it flawed is the definition of inane, which btw is

lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly

. by saying that it was opportunistic he was not calling it a bandwagon vote. He was calling it opportunistic. (still talking about what I thought he was saying) if you read the quantified definition I posted, and can show me where "bandwagon vote," or how anyone could make that deduction in line with a single non fallacious logical deduction then we can talk about my flawed logic. but here is your flaw in logic: applying things that are outside the parameters of a statement to said statements validity. altering blatantly quantified definitions. Straw manning. Putting words in my mouth. I never said bandwagon. to say I did is to lie. PLEASE, go read my post again. and PLEASE SHOW ME where I even allowed for anyone to even think that i did.

I’m fine with being incorrect-I really am. I'm NOT fine with people telling me a very elementary (which means simple) induction is flawed. if you still don’t understand that my logic isn’t flawed I don’t know what else to say other than to offer to draw a diagram of antecedents and consequents - and to note that you use awfully flawed attacks in order to make people believe that my logic on a minor point was flawed.

[Skillit]

Your right goat, i guess it does kinda read like im skirting the issue, but i was really just sidetracked by the whole other agument. your "skillit take a stance" came right after veerus and cerebus3's your wrong posts. it read to me like - take a stance on

this

issue. As far as my summ up, i figured it would help out, just ended up making me look like a tool i guess. buti like to summ up aguments for myself to look at later, to let me see things

later

from my point of view

now

. maybe i shouldnt post lil summups like that, but i see it like, this is something im going to use, might as well give it to the rest of the town.

my sance on Alvinz is that his actions are scumy, but dont

prove

to me that he is scum.

I see what he did, im just not sure it means he must be scum. When looking back at something like this i use the theory of

actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

, which means that "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty." I need to see a lot of his actions being betrayed by his motives. like pushing for a full on SC lynch, and wanting to bring on the night.

Also to me it seems like the closer a person gets to death, the more sure you should be before you vote, first vote being really suspiscious, final hammer vote being fairly positive. If my count is correct, he is at L-2. I know what alvinz did was really really off, and the whole case against him is not even as big a deal to me as him wanting to get to night time, but as i said its really just a strike 2 to me. I think alvinz is loking really bad, but i dont think the case is ironclad. I also dont suport ending the day w/ a lynch at this point. we still have yet to hear from a full 1/3 of the players on the Alvinz case at all, joon hasn't posted in 8 days, gorj only really has one real post ingame so far and that was also 8 days ago, and 2 havent posted at all. i dont think we should rush this day when there is a full third of the player base effectively unaccunted for.

Id like to hear from Alvinz about why he thinks we should end the day at this point. It really quirks me when people seem too positive when i dont think there is enough information to be as sure as the are acting. Alv, do i think SC is scummy? yes i do. do i think you are scummier than him? yes i do. do i know you both are scum? of course not, its way to soon to know anything for sure. Although i do realize that at some point you have to go with a "im prety sure X is scum" leap of faith, but i dont think we are at that point yet.

[Skillit]

umm...strike 3? Alv why do you want us to lynch you so bad? now its like well, we lynch him and either get scum or we get rid of an anti town townie. you are either scum or your trying to help the scum - but does it matter anymore? im was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but now there is no doubt. saying lynch me is

almost

straight up daring us to ice you. desperate scum gambit or townie who dosent care are the choices we have now, acting like that really makes my decision for me

vote alvinz95

- the thing is, acting like this wont make sc or even goat look bad if your town, because your demanding to be lynched and refusing to answer simple questions. Im just asking you to explain why you are so reaady to end the day and all i get is "no more"?? there is no devils advocating that. this looks like a despeate last ditch attempt to get out of answering my very simple question. That makes me think you are almost certainly scum, or very anti-town town, and if you

are

town play like this will only distract us from chasing scum if you stay around.

[Skillit]

I say "why ready to end the day" he says "kill me im not going to answer." My position was there wasn't enough to be sure, now i have little left to doubt. why would a townie do this? i now support his lynch as he is just spitting in my face instead of answering a simple question asked by someone who was unsure.

[Skillit]

Id like to hear from Alvinz about why he thinks we should end the day at this point.

Nothing more, vote stands. Lynch, me

saying that hes not going to say anymore and demanding to be lynched
seems like a statement of "either lynch me or drop it. im done talking about this" and its odd that i think its scummy?

[Skillit]

sorry for the drop in frequency, i was camping and long story short, im stuck in tacoma for a few days (i live on the other side of the state) ill try to get on when i get to an internet cafe or something

[Skillit]

im here-kinda. im just still stuck in tacoma - i live on the other side of state. might get home-have to use psp til i get access to a comp. it seems like it was just asserted that i was scum. maybe because i disliked alvs lil gambit? anything specific for me to address?im not sure what to do to prove im not scum, but i can still help-even if in not listened to for a few days

[Skillit]

yo-here is a nice big - everyone ready for a skillit found a com-post Will try to keep back the heap of issues to what i have time to get thru.
1) will be on a train today down to portland and then will be there for the rest of the day then finally a nice 9hour train home. sorry for the absence.
2)did anyone read my last post? i was hoping for something specific to address.
3)To be honest there is so much scumminess that my head is kinda spinning. Dare i hope that 2 scum are trying to get lynched? that seems not very likely, but if not than why are there 2 people who are pushing for thier own lynch? Is rage trying to pull attention from alvinz? that wouldnt make scum-sense, as then alvinz would be an easy lynch tomorrow-the ploy would be too obvious, nor does it make town sense. if not than why try to get killed? I was pretty sure alvinz was scum on his last desperate "well, i guess you'll just have to lynch me, ill say nothing else" ploy. but with rage now also doing this it dosent seem likely unless there is a third scum somewhere looking spotless because of this. im having trouble understanding the motives of alv and rage as

either

town or scum. - the only thing i can come up with is that that might be the point?

4) i think i should appoligise for being a jerk w/ the whole logic thing (about the issue in post 123) it wasn't a real game issue and never should have even been argued the way it was. I had no real reason to be such an ass about it.

5)i am sorry for being an ass. (prolly wont happen again)

6)anyone catch the pun?

[Skillit]

i didnt mean to imply that it was just asserted, i more ment that it

felt

like it was just asserted. Im not used to not having vocal inflictions to work with. @sthar - thats i guess why i

bold

and

italics

and

underline

too much

I especially find his tattling accusation to be useless. Annoyance is a terrible reason to suspect someone

He posted it thinking there was a person who had broken the rules. you tell on someone when you want them to get in trouble. I think that scum would really just get all hot and bothered if they could arrange for a modkill, it would be like getting a free daykill. i think thats at least potentially scummy. All i said was that he might have been fishing for a modkill.

I definitely don't think SC's "tattling" was scummy, even if it was strange.

If you dont thats fine. i do. I think someone doing something i would enver ever feel motivated as town to do, but would only try as scum is at least worth noting. i really dont even think i have even been chasing after him for that. as i said before it was a minor point to begin with, but it was what started me looking at him closer. Plus the day was only just getting going at that time.

In post 97, he makes a summary of the battle between alvinz and Goat. He says he posts it for clarification purposes, but after confirmation is given, he does not give an opinion in his next two posts. Why did he want clarification if he wasn't going to follow up on it until he was called out on it?

1) this implies that i would only have "weighed in" when it was demanded.
2)

I had intended it to be read as a precurser to an actual post.The point was to first make sure everyone (including myself) was fully up to speed as i was geting the feeling most people were skimming the goat and alvinz issue and to see what developed when everything was summed up nicely. Also i only had time today to summarize but please take it however you want.

3) the fact that my next few posts were not my stance on the issue in no way implies that i was refusing to take a stance, merely that i was addressing another issue.
4) when i started looking back at the issue i had goat in my head as this semantics chasing tenacious bulldog and alvinz as the unlucky target, as i reread it i began to see it another way. i needed to summ it up on paper in front of me briefly so that i could look at the whole picture at once. while i was looking over this i figured id post it for the rest of the town to look have. perhaps like an "exhibit A" anyway, i was still on the scale, not ready to have a final weigh in when i posted it the summ. since my stance had shifted so drastically i wanted to do what i could to make sure my new impression of the chain was as accurate as possible.

He says he was sidetracked, but he could have easily added his stance in with those two posts. In fact, he wrote a long paragraph in first post after the summary about the summary, but does not take a side!

1) the so called "long paragraph" was an answer to someone claiming that my summing post was designed to look like i was saying a lot without saying anything - which it was not.
2) about 4 days of time passed from "initial summ" to "final stance". i dont usually spend much weekend time at home, work gets busy; we were not backed up against a deadline and i didnt realize that summing it up demanded such an immediate response.
3)nobody had even asked me for my stance when i started talking about the issue. its not like i had posted that as a stalling tatic or something, it was just my way of entering the discussion formally. steppin up to the plate so to speak.

he votes alvinz after he asks to be lynched. That's a bizarre time to vote, IMO, as even though

asking to be lynched should be a null tell so that scum are not encouraged to use it

, in my experience it is almost always done by townies. Even then, it should be a null tell. In everything alvinz has done, that would be, IMO, the least of his sins.

1) just because in

your

experience something is a null or town tell does not mean that it is to everyone. if in your opinion demanding to be lynched and refusing to answer questions isnt scummy great. it is to me. to you what was the least of his sins was to me his greatest.
2) i dont understand the underlined part specifically at all. if it was considered a null tell or a town tell than they might use it on us, but if doing something is looked at as scummy as a rule why would scum be encoureged to do it?
3)i had said in my previous post that he was at "strike 2" status - which to me is like saying he was just one telling mistake away from swaying me. he responded with (to me) a whopping tell.

Skillit also uses the fact that some of his stances are merely "his opinion" as a defense.

i used this as a defense only when i said that i read someones statement one way and was then told i was wrong. Was there any other issue i said this? that wasn't even a stance really it was an impression of a post.

[Skillit]

due to yesterdays reasons

Yesterdays reasons were largely "/follow mega" Did you not already admit that you were just saying "i agree with mega /hoponwagon" only adding a few minor points?-those extra few reasons were my inconcision and the slightly tangential nature of my personality?

Alas, inconcision

is

my personal nemesis. I am working on it, but how is it scummy?
it is a penalty of typing quickly i guess - my posts follow my train of thought fairly closely. The upside of this is that my entire reasonings are present, the downside is that it sems that less than the majority are able to grasp complex articulated rationale in its full. you feel that i "post for the sake of posting" If this is more than minor allegation can you provide something specific for me to respond to?

Perhaps it is our posting style alone that has created this rift. you have only 4 posts longer than 3-4 lines (and a big deal made about them as far as how much work they were for you)I have closer to 20 and get all excited when they are short. You rapid fire off posts that i see as lacking insight and actual justifications; i see just empty claims. i however post about 1/4 as often but see my posts as more valid, justified, and more insightful; you see whatever it is that you see when you read my posts.

Later you claim that a lot of my posts are not relavent to the "actual game" - do you mean that a disproportionate number of posts or do you mean average percentage per post? Also can you help me out by defining the parameters of topics that are considered within the boundries "actual game" topics?

what's the second most popular phrase today? Signal to noise from skillit.

- Why are you taking something Sthar said and claiming I said it?

Before we get to any specifics i think that any serious development on what we will call "tangential topic" would be almost certaintly the result of being questioned/urged along those lines and that minor tangents are merely an aspect of my overly analtyical tendencies. Would you disagree with that?

All in all this sems less like an attempt to do the town good and hunt some scum than it looks like a "zomg dont look at me" triade

[Skillit]

Sorry, but I think my vote stands since you are trying to countercase me it seems at worst, and at best are just using words as your defense again. Way too many of them.

do you really think i used too many words in 389? honestly? really?? how am i counter casing? what else am i supposed to us if not words? picutres?.wav files? You are literally putting me in a corner where NOTHING i say matters. if i dont respond im lurking. if i do im too wordy.

Actually, it's percent content in the posts. And mostly the stuff about how belief isn't claiming fact and the various logical theories you were proposing that seemed irrelevant

belief isnt claiming fact? what are you talking about? I cant believe this needs broken down again.
i said i had opinion A.
I was told i was wrong.
I explained how that cannot be.
it was a very quantified discussion about a very limited topic base.

love how you not only linked the post you are blatantly misrepresenting...but you blantantly misrepresented. You'll notice I said that I WASN'T following mega, but that other person was who was accusing me.

I love how you completely missed my point. You pull an "I agree with mega, FoS Skillit"...then call ME out for doing that...even though I actually backed up my reasoning with much more than an I agree?

lets talk about my so called "blatent misrepresentation" because is much closer to an "accurate representation". if you "backed it up with more than an i agree", than an i agree was absolutely part of the statement. so to say that your statement was an i agree +a few points is absolutely valid and you sir are the mistaken one.

[Skillit]

Alright, you want to see what skillit hides with his massive wordiness? Stuff completely unnecessary yet posted anyway:

I’m not sure why you think there are "hidden" things in my posts, but saying that there are hidden snippits of words just seems innane to me. You are essentially calling me out for being tangential. What you so irreverently call "unnecessary" I call being thurough. It seems that your case really boils down to spotting a few instances of myself using complete thoughts. I start at A and go to B and from B I go to C. My posts include not just what i'm saying but also why I’m saying it, what I'm taking into consideration and clearly defined scope and limits to my statements. You seem to think all that is unnecessary. I do not.

This whole paragraph was unneeded given the rest of his statements. To be fair, this feels just like he's trying to bolster the SC case with words, because it looks weaker when you break it down.

1) This paragraph was in no way unneeded. I was accused of misrepresenting someones post. That paragraph most directly addresses a specific point against me. I was pointing out that barring any connotation of misrepresent that I am unaware of, that word in no way applies, and that to claim so is wrong.
2) How is my defense of my alleged misrepresentation in any way unneeded given the rest of my post?
3) How is my defense of my alleged misrepresentation in any way a furtherance of any case on SC?

skillit's post 7 is as Megatheory or veerus said. A lot of quotes, very few opinions

I'd say the issue was not whether or not I had a long post w/ nothing new of mine, but did I appear like I was trying to look like I was saying a lot while really saying nothing? I personally don’t think the post looks like I was trying to look like all of that was from me but if you think I was trying to appear like I was adding content without really adding anything new then we can by all means explore that avenue

unnecessary

This single word assertion relates to a joke I was making that you obviously did not get.
1) Are you claiming that I had hidden that, or that I was using it to hide something else?
2) Have we reached the point where it’s all business and I’m being raked over the coals for my attempts at humor? If anything I would think that this is evidence that I try to make my posts more readable than less.
3) Simply calling it unnecessary does not leave me with much to respond to. Again I disagree that only that which is absolutely necessary is acceptable posting material.

Could have been said in the bolded sentence. And I could probably shave that down. What he's hiding is a case this time, I think, based purely on supposed logical fallacies, and trying to make it look stronger.

1) It could have been said less completely perhaps. I mean if you break it down than there is a transitional sentence, a thesis sentence and then reasonings. Just because you do not write well does not mean that to not do so makes me the devil.
2) Are we going to get back into why that was not a case built on logical fallacies? I will use small words for you. He said that it was wrong to say that calling someone out for vote hopping does not require moving your vote. I said that to move the vote would make him guilty of the same action he was attacking, and it in no way was required for his point to be right. This is the line it was in response to:

If he wasn't going to follow the vote "hopping" on Rage, he would've unvoted instead of insisting that his vote on Rage will stay. Could you explain your justification for the flawed logic here?

Specifically, where he says that "If he wasn't going to follow the vote "hopping" on Rage, he would've unvoted" is a false dilemma. He says that A implies B and only B when in fact A implies much more than B and does not even really imply B. It is most certainly otherwise. He is saying that there is only one possible outcome for that starting point, when in fact there are a myriad, and his one asserted outcome is actually not even one of them.
3) Just because an argument can be shaved down does not mean that it is enhanced by doing so.
4) I’m not hiding a case, I’m making a point there, as I am here.

All this is basically useless, though I don't see him trying to hide anything in here

1) again, not useless, this is an explanation of my actions.
2) this is a post where I take an issue that I was beginning to feel was not being understood and was putting it more simply so that it could be more readily understood. A point which I feel is another bit of glaring evidence to the contrary of your allegations of my intentional deception. I have examples, restatements, and was doing everything I could to make my point as accessible as possible.

Even though he bolded the first a lot of the rest feels like "Yes, I said that, but now I'm going to bury it"

1) Because I bolded the first line it is silly to claim that I was trying to make my post confusing and a chore to trudge thru. How can you claim that I was trying to bury my point with words only to put it in bold so as to ensure that it does not get missed?
2)As far as my arguing that anyone was "putting words in my mouth" that is a baseless claim. This was a post where I was saying 'yeah goat, you are right, my actions could have been interpreted that way, but I was really doing this'. Where do I even allow the possibility that I felt that someone had put words in my mouth?
3) this is not either a long or confusing post, where not complicated thought expression required elaboration. Do you really think that my post 160 was unnecessary and overly long?
4) its a post with 4 small points, each one maybe 3-5 lines hardly intimidating reading.
5) The part of my post where I was talking about goat’s interpretation of my action is less than a fourth of my post. so even if I was arguing he was putting words in my mouth it was obviously not 1/2 of my post. You are using overly emotive words to make your bizarre claims seem weightier.


1) as far as it being 'surrounded' I think that’s a silly claim, it’s a 7 line post in totality and calling it a wall of text is frankly ignorant
2)This is a post where I felt like I was getting spit on by alvinz. I was trying to be objective and methodical about his whole case and his flippant attitude pushed my buttons. in short I was pissed off when I posted that.
3) I never claimed that it would have been a policy lynch. do you know what a policy lynch is? My point was that it was almost certain just scum trying to intimidate us into backing off, but there was also the possibility that he was just base townie acting like scum for some reason.

Post 17 shows a precursor to wagon hopping that was never completed. He found Rage scummy, but didn't switch vote at the time (understandable since the wagon hadn't gained much steam at this point I don't believe). It still is wagon hoppery IMO.

1) I noticed that you skipped about 2 of my posts(there were others, but they were really just my popping in while stuck in Tacoma), how do my smaller posts fit into this plan of my hypnotizing people into not reading my posts? these were small concise summations of my reasonings and motives. Do not small clear posts seem to be direct proof that I’m not trying to be overly verbose?
2) It was not a precursor to some event that never took place, it was my statement that I find specefic actions that reveal darker motives as scummy no matter who commits them.
3) do you realize that you are claiming here that I was just waiting for this wagon to get stronger before I hopped on? Do you see that this is completely false as I never voted him? If this was some preemptive justification for voting him, then, having gone to all that trouble it seems silly that I wouldnt have voted him while you all were busy killing him.
4) How can you claim it was scummy for me to be considering the scumminness of the person YOU HAMMERED?

re addressed in post 18. Why did you wait til it was demanded of you to follow up? And why not promise a follow up in that post?

1)Just because I was asked for it before I got around to doing it DOES NOT MEAN THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE DONE IT UNTIL ASKED. seriouslly, only like 4 day passed, 2 of them I think were weekends. I like to think before I post
2) this same question was already answered in the post you are refrencing. I went into it in detail.

1) this implies that I would only have "weighed in" when it was demanded.
2)Quote:
I had intended it to be read as a precurser to an actual post.The point was to first make sure everyone (including myself) was fully up to speed as I was geting the feeling most people were skimming the goat and alvinz issue and to see what developed when everything was summed up nicely. Also I only had time today to summarize but please take it however you want.

3) the fact that my next few posts were not my stance on the issue in no way implies that I was refusing to take a stance, merely that I was addressing another issue.
4) when I started looking back at the issue I had goat in my head as this semantics chasing tenacious bulldog and alvinz as the unlucky target, as I reread it I began to see it another way. I needed to summ it up on paper in front of me briefly so that I could look at the whole picture at once. while I was looking over this I figured id post it for the rest of the town to look have. perhaps like an "exhibit A" anyway, I was still on the scale, not ready to have a final weigh in when I posted it the summ. since my stance had shifted so drastically I wanted to do what I could to make sure my new impression of the chain was as accurate as possible.

and

2) about 4 days of time passed from "initial summ" to "final stance". I don’t usually spend much weekend time at home, work gets busy; we were not backed up against a deadline and I didnt realize that summing it up demanded such an immediate response.
3)nobody had even asked me for my stance when I started talking about the issue. its not like I had posted that as a stalling tatic or something, it was just my way of entering the discussion formally. steppin up to the plate so to speak.

since I have already addresses this exact point 2 times before and my reasonings have never been addressed, ill assume they are still sufficent.

Actually you didn't. Just a minor point

Actually I did. Post 160 middle of second line of second paragraph

I know what alvinz did was really really off, and the whole case against him is not even as big a deal to me as him wanting to get to night time, but as I said

its really just a strike 2 to me

.

Looks like I just got prodded, I wanted to make sure I got everything, but here for now, don’t want you thinking I’m not going to answer. Let me know if I missed anything.

Ohh yeah, I DID think you were a dude, don’t know why, I just assumed, but sir is not gender specific

[Skillit]

FL can you help me out again by reminding me why you have just decided that your going to die right now instead of explaining and fighting for the town?

Do you think the forum would be a beter place if everyone played like you are playing now, would all of the mafia games be more fun for everyone?

I can tell you that its not much fun to play when everyone is always just saying "well kill me ha ha im town you are way off."

[Skillit]

Well, ya see, it would be a lot easier if I could actually defend, you see. I tried to defend and all of it was called out of hand. I'm done, since nothing I say is working. Do you think it's fun for me to have to come up with something that doesn't exist? I gave you what I had, it's your turn to accept or decline. You all are declining. So, whatever, I'm done.

ok, you gave us what you had, can you give us more? i know how you felt about me before, what do you think of me now? What do you think about categorical imperitaves(playing a way that it would not be good for everyone to play)? What do you think about the wagon on you and specifically what do you think the problems with it are? It seems like you are implying that there is no problem with it but that you are town. how can this be? If you insist on burning down and that you are town what can you say to not make it a waste?

[Skillit]

Sthar8 - that was very. . .graphic. Needlessly so really. I feel like FL attacked me for reason A, I defended it, then moved on and was trying to get FL to actually contribute before she threw up her hands totally and just quit playing. Which is now ironic as minutes afterwards she just peaced out. Who am I suspicious of? Everyone. I think FL has almost intentionally given me or anyone no reason to even suspect that she is town. I still don’t like Alvinz because of yesterdays "tactics" and BAB is taking far too long, making me think that perhaps the delay is intentional to hurry along the day w/o having to take a stance on D2 issues. On the Sir issue I agree that you are right, I'm ahead of my time and should not expect everyone else to be as progressive as myself.

Veerus - 1)what is my time consuming argument with FL? That she was attacking me for inane reasons? What in my recent posts makes you say this? The longer section really ended about 11 of your own posts ago, which is a long time really as your not a very potent presence here. Also ill see about adding fun little activity areas(see below) and maybe popup sections to make reading a lil more accessible for those who are having trouble. 2) Even if I WAS in an argument w/ FL and even it WAS to the exclusion of even considering anyone else don’t you think that maybe you might take an active role in the game and actually consider getting in an argument yourself rather than urge me into another one so you can complain about the length?

Now the good stuff!!
Here is the promised activity section: Hey! Lets find the secret message hidden in the word search!!
[mrow]W R E A D I N G F J B F X T E X N Y R E E G W A Y O U R I S Q E W K G B K H E U G R E N D S A B N S O M G S T F U F D K D S D K F B U C A N

Reading can be your friend!

[Skillit]

Few people on this site can honestly say that one of thier posts led someone to find jesus. i gladly join thier ranks.
@Sthar8

What?

You seem to be content to verbally masturbate

could you summarize the points against alvinz from yesterday

Basically these points:
1voiced eagerness to end D1 quickly.
2absurd sureness in SC's alignment
3(minor point)complete skirting of initial query from goat
4absolutely refusing to answer me when i asked him why he was so eager to end the day

what do you think of his play today?

He really only has one post so far today. thats bad. He has posted a few "checking in" posts. thats bad. He popped in voted FL to see what he could deduce from the lynch. thats bad. The only real post he did make today was just presenting possible scum chatter and some reasonings for his vote (which to me might have been beter placed way back when the actual vote was cast) thats bad. in short, his today play not any better to me than yesterday.

[Skillit]

Sthar8 - just realized i never answered your question, i totally missed it somehow. you asked me

Skillit: Did you take offense at the use of the word "masturbate," or are you contending that your protracted debate with FL over posting styles was useful to the game?

I was neither offended nor claiming that FL's accusations were helpful. my defense was i think necessary no matter what, as to ignore is neither helpful nor my style. I did think it was overly graphic rhetoric.

Also

The recent push for her to improve her content strikes me as similarly useless.

I disagree that it was useless. The remark FL made here was what i was trying to preemptively diffuse.

These people will need a lead tomorrow after my flip tears down their house of cards cases

I was trying to get FL to comment about what she thinks we should focus on if she does flip town. ie "i think person x is scum and this is why" so that should the impossible happen (her actually being town) we might have some people less likely to be scum. which I still think is a good idea as no matter which way she flips she can help us out. fl names "person x". fl dies, flips town. person x now on the record as being suspiscious to someone whose intentions we can trust. or fl dies flips scum "person x" being someone who we know scum wnated us to look at for whatever reason. could be scum or town yes i know, but that info still helps us.
By refusing to do so it does make it more likely that she is scum.

[Skillit]

Sorry - just moved to pullman dont have internet yet - have to go to school for another week or so to access(which is a pain as so many profs hand out everything via net). will have no net til tuesday. no tv for another 2 weeks >_< (might check thread saturday on psp at a hotspot, will post if im needed).
Im trying to be openminded but i can't get past alvinz as scum. As i said before im pretty sure of a FL scum as well but I'm not sure we are ready to move forward yet with the living dead still promising a weigh in. Fl is at L-2 if i am right?
Just wanted to be on the record as supporting either at this point. Looking forward to Rage the zombie's post.

[Skillit]

seriously FL? just bad form no matter how you look at it. not very sporty or gracious.
Why so emotional?
The only reason to be so upset is if you are in some way losing.

Like if your scum facing a lynch.

Don't think this really needs asking, but is anyone against a hammer at this point? Do we have open topics to consider or hear on?

[Skillit]

if we keep going like this this game will never end

[Skillit]

that im beyond tired of people replacing in and havin to wait for them to catch up only for them to replace out

[Skillit]

I go by the theory that if you are looking for jack the ripper you look for the guy with the knife and bloddy hands. Alvinz and Fl are the top of my list, as i have stated previously, because i think that town wouldnt act the way they did, but i really can see scum doint it. I dont think anything could make me think that Alv is town, and Fl has reeked to me since the hammer of rage, and just got worse since then. if either of you are town then i cannot fathom your motives. i havent seen anything that implies to me that these are not our 2 though. waiting on a votecount before I vote forbiddanlight <=not an official vote

[Skillit]

you are not helping anything. Even if you are "giving us what we want to know" your giving it to us in a way we cannot use it. you are both attempting to be, and taking delight in being, as unhelpful and contrary to the spirit of this game as you can imagine. pity
once again you are spitting in our faces. you think that playing this way will in some way be helpful? if everyone in this game played like you town would never win. one of you have nutered us enough. this is the second time you have shown blatent disregard for helping out the town and done so with as poor sportsmanship as you can muster.

vote alvinz95

[Skillit]

not calling us morons in your signature is a good first step

[Skillit]

so whats the right play?

[Skillit]

mega do you really want me to respond to 1008 and 9? i will do this in more detail if you want, but in short those are incredibly obvious questions if you read either of them in context, and there was no alvinz wagon at the time for me to not comment on, as it was just goat and alv. this is a point i have already addressed (why i didnt comment on it) and im not going to bother to do so again.

[Skillit]

Basically, i want to settle the issue of whether or not Alvinz is actually a neutral. If so, I don't have an issue lynching him, but my preferred method would be to wait it out a day and let someone vig him if we have a vig.

Im in the middle of a reread atm.

[Skillit]

Im here, doing a reread. mass claim? seems like a bad idea to me, but im just generally hesitant to hand over info to scum. If anyone feels strongly for one im willing to listen though. ill have more on my top suspects asap.

[Skillit]

then it seems to me that we dont do any popcorn or anything, just cut to the chase and say if you have a role to claim, claim first. if you claim late, you are more likely scum. right?

[Skillit]

the first to claim would either be a ballsy scum, or the actual role. if we said, ok if you have a role then claim by time x - the closer we got to x the more likely the claim would be untrue. granted tht a claim right before x wouldnt 100% be fake, but it would be more likely to be so

[Skillit]

as am I

[Skillit]

vanilla - who is left?

[Skillit]

engage rage cage!

[Skillit]

waitin on you rage

[Skillit]

gotta choose next :

Veerus

, Sthar8,

Rage

,

BAB

, Electra,

Goat

,

Skillit

,

StrangerCoug

[Skillit]

Im confused.
isnt agreeing with a person who believes that SC and BAB are scum implying that you are scum BAB?

So if my theory is correct, then BaB and StrangerCoug are both scum

I agree with SC being scum

are you saying you agree with the logic that leads to the conclusion, but with a different premise? Or are you assuming the same premises, but instead clearing yourself not electra? or full agreement?
Are you are saying that you think that the scum are SC and electra? Are you saying that you just feel sc is scum?

There are a

lot

of different ways to interpret your post there man. why so vague? The only thing to me that makes sense is that you are meaning to say that you agree with just the part that sc is scum, but why just a vote? If you have other reasons (which im assuming you do, as if you dont you are admitting to be scum) then why not , oh i dont know . . .give us the reasons for your vote?

[Skillit]

I didn't say I agree with the whole thing, or even that I thought electra was town. I simply said I think SC is scum. How on earth did that statement confuse you?

The only thing to me that makes sense is that you are meaning to say that you agree with just the part that sc is scum, but why just a vote? If you have other reasons (which im assuming you do, as if you dont you are admitting to be scum) then why not , oh i dont know . . .give us the reasons for your vote?

its confusing because someone said"given A and B i deduce C" then you said "I agree with C", however C was that you were scum with SC. not giving any other reasoning to the contrary logically asserts that you either arrived at C with the same reasoning(which implies that you are scum), no reasoning (which implies that you are scum), or reasoning that you for some reason do not feel like sharing (which implies that you are expecting to take your assertation as valid for no reason at all- which implies that you are scum) Thats why its confusing. Your post was vague, without backing and rather arbitrary. you also clearely did not read my entire post when you "answered" it in post 1182 - which is absolutely infuriating - especially since you did not reply to it until it was SPECIFICALLY asked by another person that you do so. you had no clue it was ever entered, or you did and had no intention of ever addressing it - which means you absolutely are not playing town in this game with anything that could be considered accuracy or good faith. this to me implies that you feel like you dont need to - why would scum need to carefully read? they just have to get that lynch right?

@mod - does that mean you will institute a deadline today, or one

for

today?

[Skillit]

im so tired of this trash. just because you can't comprehend something does not mean that it is inconsise. concise does not mean easy to comprehend - it means shortly and clearly stated. my post was neither inconcise nor verbose - this is just semantical boo-hoo anyway unless you are accusing me of posting in a manner of intentionally being confusing. which is going to be a tough sell since it textbook deduction.

If you were so confused and incapable of understanding my "big bad post", why make 2 rapid fire posts about how im exagerating and pushing weak cases? if you need to reread because its soooo big and mean, why and how can you possibly feel entitled to attack what i said when you said twice that you couldnt understand it? kinda odd to say "i just simply cant understand what your saying but here is why its wrong"

Voting without explaining DOES in fact imply scumminess. Are you honestly advocating voting w/o explaining reasonings? why would you NOT provide the reasoning behind why you think someone is scum? if you are right, you generate discussion that leads to scum lynch, if wrong you generate discussion that likely leads to you looking elsewhere for scum. asserting that a lack of reasoning and unfounded voting is pro town is innane and really questionable.

"There are three scum, and they are 3 of the following 4" - where are you on this helpful lil list?? kinda misleading to omit yourself

Skillit doesn't say what I did was scummy, so why was it scummy, veerus?

it was SC and maybe veerus who " immediately jumped on you" not me. By your OWN admission my post was not jumping on you at all for the vote. You actually used the fact that it was not attacking you to actually DEFEND yourself just a few posts ago. why would you claim this now? curiously right after i DO make a post against you. hmmmm...

[Skillit]

I think that BAB is not looking too good having in no way responded to direct questions, and posting in a few different other threads since his quick feeble responses to me earlier. I just have to assume hes avoiding. there is no other explaination. Scum or town i think BAB should be fired from MS.

basically i have to look at sc rage bab and electra. seems innane to think that anyone else is acting more suspiscious than bab. Goat if you want to go to bat for bab again and explain why he shuold be allowed to just walk away from direct and valid questions w/o being suspiscious then step on up. I think the SC case is grasping @ straws by comparison.I think how bab started to answer then never did at all in any way kinda shows that he just does not want to be held accountable. so Sthar8 my top suspect would be BaB. the dirty rat.

BAB answer my questions. stop avoiding this game and posting in others.

[Skillit]

-sigh-

[Skillit]

this is just silly, if you want to pull a gambit, why not just vote for sc, who you claim to think is scum, and bet the game on who you think scum is, instead of who you claim not to be? at least then you would make sense.

and you can go finish your reread of my point from earlier. remember, its the post you started to answer, but then stopped. fyi though, it had nothing to do w/ sc at all.

simply put, if you think sc is scum you should have voted him. then this gambit for lack of quick hammer would make sense, on yourself it doesnt, as its just a false play to make yourself seem less scummy by psuedo-endangering yourself.

sorry, was that too confusing?

[Skillit]

quitter

[Skillit]

I was hoping we could go back and forth a bit longer. I think that when someone does not have all day to type up posts they have a higher chance at slipping up. ahh well though.

you seem to be reacting to my questions by asserting that in some way i was helping out sc. Which is really just a way of dismissing what i said w/o addressing it. whatever i guess. you claim you voted him to get someone to "come to save him from the sure fire lynch of your oh so weighty one vote" could you link anywhere where i in any way did anything related at all to defending SC? (after you finish up w/ waterpolo of course) someone said they thought sc and you were scum. and thats . . .about the only way this is even tangentially related to sc. i really dont know where you are getting that. please do link.

you say my posts ramble. im going to just assume thet you dont really know what ramble actually means, as, well, it just dosent apply. there is obvious and very linear point development in all of my posts. you seem to be wanting something more along the lines of "overly articulated" so go make a case with that i guess. ironic though that in a post whose only real game relavent point was that there is no 1 way to play mafia you seem to rather arbitrarily apply that doctrine.

- in short- it seems like you want me to talk to you as though you were a child - i was (mistakenly?) under the impression that we were all adults. my bad. (you are a potty mouth btw)

I think its interesting that minutes after i pointed out that you had been posting in other games (which implied to me that you were avoiding the game) -poof!- there you are! You couldnt have started that post before you read my post because it was in direct response to what i had just said. I think you felt some pressure, and responded with your flacid lil self preservation gambit.

[Skillit]

im still waiting for bab to finish up with his waterpolo game

[Skillit]

as of right now i dont see anyone as blatently scummy as BaB. Rage what do you think about where everyone is at? of recent activity, or lack thereof

[Skillit]

that tears it.

im tired of getting whined at for posting too much and then whined at for not posting enough. im not sure if your trying to be ironic, trying to be clever, or just trying my patience, but here you go.

veerus how dare you start a post with

.. no one has anything to say??

and then call me out for not winning the chatty kathy award?

first of all, i am the one who was working to keep the deadline off.
mod makes a post-" better pick it up or ima gonna deadline ya" i didnt want this so i MADE time and posted everything i had wanted to say. sc mad a feeble "hey can you prod everyone?" but i didnt want a deadline, so i did my best to stimulate some discussion to stave off another deadline. i did this for as long as i could and made as much discussion as possible because i thought it was important. but you somehow forget that i just had a long, nuanced, and largely ignored discussion with and about BaB. so...your wrong.

also, i have not "disappeared since fl was lynched". its just a fact. you can either say that i disappeared well before fl was lynched, or that i never disappeared at all. Saying i disappeared right after fl was lynched is terribly misleading and grossly incorrect. you are implying i strolled off happily to the darkness after getting fl lynched (which is as ignorant as it is rude), because i was the one who was doing what he could to mitigate the damage caused by his death in case he was town. i try to read the game every day, and i pretty much do.My activity level in this game has been pretty much constant throughout, except for the period i was stranded in tacoma for like 2 weeks. when someone says something i have both time and inclination to remark on is when i post. Am i going to win a "most aggressive scum hunter " award? no. but i think I am one of the bigger scum hunters in this game. Im not an adept at generating discussion, but when i try all i get is "i dont understand you and waa too much words /cry" problem is, when i

make

points, people pretty much dont bother to read everything i write, and have the vocabulary of 4 year olds and use words they dont understand in ways that dont apply.

im simply just tired of having to dumb down everything i have to say to make it more palatable for the kiddie table. im very sorry that i, like you, and everyone else in this entire game, let this game sag. but are you really calling me out as the only one guilty of not 110% ing this game?

you think i'm scummy because i "disappeared" but what about people who are more absent than me?they would have to be more scummy or you are just being arbitrary. so no matter what, given the non impacted statements in you assertion, you cant be finding me scummy just for being as absent as everyone else, less so really. Simple truth is that there are people in this game that are

much

less active than me so to say that for some reason MY degree of game neglect, which far from atypical from the rest of the posters, is somehow telling in ways that others arent is, again, as ignorant as it is rude.

popping in and dropping a "skillit not posting E nuff .: scum" is absurd. Simple fact is that i got told, in no uncertain terms, that people straight up hate reading my posts. i basically got chewed out for frequent posting earlier in this game.

in short i never disappeared, i engaged in a contracted discourse with bab, who im pretty sure is scum, and have been doing my best to actually win this game for town.

people who did disappear ...hmm Bab left in the middle of an active conversation and pretty much hasnt come back. oh, im sorry i forgot, ever since goat told you to you went from

"I will probably cast my vote for BAB soon. I have a few reasons for this"

to "ooo backpedal...maybe i

shouldnt

vote for him...i think hes scum, but just not the RB" and now to me. whatever V

and the fact that you just posted asking everyone except goat and SC who wthey think should be lynched pretty much proves you arent reading the game very closely, because i dont think there is any doubt on my stance at all.

That question applies to everyone who has yet to chime in (ie. everyone except Goat, myself and SC)

This is -

expletive deleted

-ing insulting. i know your confirmed, but can you at least still read the game please?

seriously, HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT I HAVENT CHIMED IN?

[Skillit]

im not saying we should doubt his claim, im saying hes pretty much being a lazy jerk, and that i dont get the feeling that he has been reading the game. Im saying that his play style seems to be "coasting" and it ticks me off. Seems to me that people who are "confirmed" should be actually trying to win, not just trying to see who they agree with most. its like a golden ticket. we know you aren't lying...you should be

saying things

, not just asking questions that have already been answered.

Im saying that him singling out me for being inactive is pretty arbitrary, everyone in this game is pretty inactive. Not giving any reasons as to why my inactivity is different that anyone elses gives me nothing to respond to.

and him saying "everyone who has yet to chime in (ie. everyone except Goat, myself and SC)" was just rude, dismissive, and preferential.

[Skillit]

i forgot ironic

the only people who haven't "chimed in" on who they think should be lynched @ deadline are rage and veerus.

[Skillit]

thats funny sc, im in the middle of doing the same thing

[Skillit]

:arrow: my first point was: post 1173 where i ended with:

The only thing to me that makes sense is that you are meaning to say that you agree with just the part that sc is scum, but why just a vote? If you have other reasons (which im assuming you do, as if you dont you are admitting to be scum) then why not , oh i dont know . . .give us the reasons for your vote?

this was said as a response, post 1182:

Skillit seems to be purposely misunderstanding me.
I said exactly "I agree with SC being scum."
I didn't say I agree with the whole thing, or even that I thought electra was town.
I simply said I think SC is scum. How on earth did that statement confuse you?

1 its clear you didnt read my post when you "answered" it in post 1182 - which is absolutely infuriating.

2 I dont know how i can possibly make this more clear, but here goes. if someone uses a bunch of facts and opinions to come to a conclusion, and you pop in and agree with the conclusion without refuting the assumed facts, you are either just being arbitrary, or assuming said facts and opinions. As I said initially, subsequently, and it appears once again out of necessity of your own unwillingness to do any actual reading of this game, if you had other reasons for thinking sc was scum you should have stated them at this point, not just piped in with agreement.

3 The fact that you didnt implies to me that you saw someone post something that concluded pretty soundly that one of the people you know to be town was scum, and you agreed before you really read and understood the whole thing and its implications.

4 Your post (this one )was vague, without backing and rather arbitrary.

5 You did not reply to my post until it was SPECIFICALLY asked by another person that you do so. This implies that you either had no clue it was ever entered, or you did and had no intention of ever addressing it. Either way means you absolutely are not playing town in this game with anything that could be considered accuracy or good faith. - why would scum need to carefully read? they just have to get that lynch right?



:arrow: this is in regards to a point you defended by claiming you couldnt understand, so pay attention.
later in the same post you say

Skillit doesn't say what I did was scummy, so why was it scummy, veerus?
Maybe it wasn't?

Here you are making the point, to veerus, that since i wasnt attacking you and claiming that you were scum for this, why should veerus.

later, in post 1192 you, addressing the entire town, say

I changed my mind, it's definitely possible town can win this game. Let me point something out. I voted SC and who immediately jumped on me? Skillit did.

Here you assert that the post I had made, the one you had used just recently as a way to get veerus to not attack you, was evidence of me immediately attacking you. you go from "hey skillit isnt attacking me on this why should you veerus" to "Z0mGz everyone, look at how Skillit was attacking me here"

this is evidence, to me, of you panicking and not being able to answer pretty simple questions. it is a feeble attempt to somehow discredit my points without in any way addressing them.

:arrow: In the course of all of this you assert that its good to vote withough giving any kind of rationale, and in post 1217 you give some examples:

Example: If I was a cop I could breadcrumb a result by voting for someone without giving my reasoning. If I wasn't able to build an adequate case on them and was later NKed, the town would see this "random vote at the start of the day" as a breadcrumb as who I was suspicous of. But it wouldn't completely give me away to scum.

Example: If I thought a certain player was scum, I could vote for another player to see how they react. If the player I thought was scum defends them, then it provides evidence for them being a scum-pair.

Example: If I wanted to create some discussion and get reactions. I could just vote for someone in LYLO, and see which possible scum buddy comes to their side for help... oh wait a second!

example 1 is completely irrelevant. your not the cop. we already know this.
example 2 is ironic, because it implies that your vote on sc was made knowing that he was town. so i dont think you are going to be making the case that when you asserted sc's scumminess you were under the conditions of example 2. or were you voting for another player to see how the player you thought was scum would react? so your example 2 is as irrelevant as it is desperate. on to example 3!
example 3 - this is the only "example" that in anyway related to your situation (if you are town that is). and it is inherently flawed in that it assumes that you can only generate some discussion and get reactions with votes that are made without reasonings and rationale. which is obviously false.

i short all 3 of your desperate examples are either completely unrelated to your position as we know it or are so flawed that they are untennable. Which means that your advocation of unbacked voting is much more likely to be the result of not reading the game close enough to provide such reasoning, or not bothering to have any at all. Scum just have to get that lynch right?

i have a few more issues those are just the first 3, but im late for class.

[Skillit]

Actually, i think this is important to get up now. this next part

will

have to be more brief because of time issues though. but better presented now than later i think.

:arrow: your answers up to this point were implying that im just defending sc, a way of attacking myself instead of my points. i asked you here in post 1222

could you link anywhere where i in any way did anything related at all to defending SC? (after you finish up w/ water polo of course)...i really dont know where you are getting that. please do link.

never answered in any way. this has nothing to do with any other player in this game but you BaB.

:arrow: in my post 1213 i am answering Sthar8 as to who my top suspect is.

I think that BAB is not looking too good having in no way responded to direct questions, and posting in a few different other threads since his quick feeble responses to me earlier. I just have to assume hes avoiding. there is no other explanation. Scum or town i think BAB should be fired from MS.

the fact is that you were avoiding this game and posting in others. as soon as i make this point, you almost immediately enter a post. this post was made in direct response to my post 1213. This proves that you were actively lurking. keeping tabs on the game and only posting defensively when you had to.
This is the context into which you made your self vote gambit. a ploy i feel shows desperation and a need to get the focus off of my points on you and on the questionable merits of the gambit.

:arrow: responding to your gambit,i remind you that there are points left unanswered in my previous points.

and you can go finish your reread of my point from earlier. remember, its the post you started to answer, but then stopped. fyi though, it had nothing to do w/ sc at all.

So to say that these points had become somehow forgotten to you seems unrealistic and just an attempt to see if i would drop the case due to your evasiveness.
I dont believe that in a post directed to you specifically, where i make a separate paragraph to remind you of my last post and that it contained points you never addressed, you somehow forgot or missed this.
If you did, this is merely more evidence to you not reading very closely and that you are just trying to get that lynch.

[Skillit]

First of all i dont really see the case on sc at all. and i tried really hard. maybe i just dont understand enough about mafia. but it does look as if sc will be the deadline lynch. I think its a mistake to be so dismissive of babs obvious scumminess.I am going to try to fully flesh this out today before the lynch, but i have to go to work. i intend to go thru point by point and explain why just about every single one of his answers is in no way related to my point, and those that do are just ridiculous, but this is just a quick message case hammer and night come while im at work and i dont get to post all this because im gone.

There are an awful lot of problems with Bab's reply. In short it holds very little water. more to come after work

[Skillit]

First of all id like to say epic fail on your part BaB. congrats on the

worst

point by point reply in mafia scum history. I really do think you tried to make this as big a mess as possible just to make it a headache to go thru. Everywhere in my post was a link to the posts i was talking about, along with the post numbers, and relevant quotations. you have just little quote snips. nothing is in order, i didnt see it before the mod cleaned everything up, but the fact that the MOD HAD TO CLEAN IT UP AT ALL should really be pretty embarrassing to you.

No matter what i think it was pretty rude considering I think it was clear that i went to a fair degree of trouble to restate my case as clear and accessible for everyone, with links and references, so you everyone knew where i was getting what i was saying. It was my way of facilitating discussion with a person who is pulling every dirty trick in the book to avoid discussion. Your response was more scrambled and nonlinear than any other i have ever seen. I really didnt want to reward your lazyness with doing your work for you, but i did it for the good of the town. Your response was just, in a word, lazy. I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

Just not very good form...

anyway,

:arrow:

5 You did not reply to my post until it was SPECIFICALLY asked by another person that you do so. This implies that you either had no clue it was ever entered, or you did and had no intention of ever addressing it.

Wrong. this could imply I was waiting to see who and how they asked. I'm trying to maximize information. It's LYLO, and that's what we need, right?

Here you make the point that by avoiding specific questions to you, you were somehow maximizing information for the town, because you were waiting to see who would point out that you were avoiding issues? Thats absurd and really messed up. You are in fact minimizing information because you are dodging issues.

'ok guys im just not going to answer any more questions about anything, that way we will learn more about who is scum by looking at who points out that im refusing to answer questions asked of me.'

Its lylo, and we DO need people to try to maximize information. i just think its absurd that you claim now to be doing so by advocating having to be reminded by multiple people to answer direct questions. I would really like everyone in the game to say whether or not they think that BaB has a good point here, i feel like im taking crazy pills.

:arrow: In my response to your assertion that i am defending SC, i specifically ask you "

could you link anywhere where i in any way did anything related at all to defending SC?"

you reply

"Your actions with SC: In the begining you voted for him, then when the pressure got turned up on SC, you unvoted under the guise of not wanting to end the day. Then the whole you attacking me when I voted for SC. "

This is:
1 in no way a link
2 in no way any kind of reason to think or say that I am defending him or anyone. its absurd.
3 a point you later contradict

directly

later when you say

"Anyway, looking back you really didn't attack me too much for voting SC"

:arrow:

What exact post number are you referring to here?

1 You do NOT get to make comments like this ever again. In NONE of your anything at all do you provide ANY referencing post info.
2 It is clear when you read the post in context what post i am referring to
3 When i summed up all of my arguments i not only put them in context (because i wanted everyone aware of the relevant background info regarding you obvious scummtells), but i also provided not only a link but also a post number to exactly what post this refers to.
4 The post you quoted was one of my many review of my points posts that i made to keep you from avoiding issues with your scumminess. the part you are inquiring about post is referencing my post 1213 which is speaking about your post 1214.
5 If you need more help, please see my most recent explanation which is the second arrow point in my second sum up post, post 1291

:arrow: Oh, here was one of my favorites.

Where in it do I assume that "you can only generate some discussion and get reactions with votes that are made without reasonings and rationale."
You just put words in my mouth, why?

Is it little words time again? you have to try to stay focused and make sure you read the

entire

sentence. here you go . round 2!

example 3 - this is the only "example" that in anyway related to your situation (if you are town that is). and it is inherently flawed in that it assumes that you can only generate some discussion and get reactions with votes that are made without reasonings and rationale. which is obviously false.

I in no way put words in your mouth. You were claiming that its a good thing to vote someone without giving any rationale if you are trying to generate discussion. I said that your example3 was both the only one you provided that in any way applied to you, and also inherently flawed. You can certainly generate some discussion and get reactions with votes that are made with reasonings and rationale. So you cant argue that you have to make votes without reasonings to do so.

:arrow: The other answers you make are mere assertions like 'wrong' these assertions are in no way helpful or even considerable. you do this many times and it is just more evidence to you just trying to coast thru the day to get a lynch.

[Skillit]

:arrow: :arrow: I really want everyone (Goat, Veerus, and Sthar8 especially) to AT LEAST comment on this issue. i feel like ive done the leg work. and i dont get the impression anyone has been following along ( i feel like goat early D1) If you havent, thats ok. my post here, and the one right after it are my summation of pretty much the case on BaB as i see it.

His 'answer' is the jumbled mess that is post 1304 - it makes it easiest to just look for the parts where he appears to be addressing me.

[Skillit]

Ha i guess i DID defend SC . get it? ZIIING

[Skillit]

crazy! i thought for sure we had another grueling day ahead. Had we known there was a third scum we could have ended this soon as SC was at 3 votes. I was weary of Electra because i knew she had some ability. Iroooony. The whole game i kept almost saying things like "but there is only 2 scum"

Crazy role block action. If it hadn't gone down exactly the way they did town would have had so much more info. we nulled the Vig kill D1 and nulled the doc D2. wow.

[Skillit]

FL i...i missed you.