/Invitational 13: The battle of Yarmouk. Decisive victory!

[mykonian]

At the right wing, the formidable muslim cavalry relieved some of the pressure, but slowly but steadily the Romans advanced, holding their formations.

votecount

KittyMo (4): Fishythefish, Rhinox, Kublai Kahn, mith
Kublai Kahn (2): chamber, deathrowkitty
mith (2): KittyMo, katsuki

not voting (0):

[chamber]

I'm a man of my word and my vote will not move from KK until he is dead. If that means today's lynch has to be me or KK, then so be it. That just means he's forced to try to squirm his way out of this.

Do you have any other posts like this one or the one above this one from games you were town in? Can you link them?

[DeathRowKitty]

Probably not. I was a much more tame player during the time period in which I played a large majority of my games.

[Le Cupcake]

I'm sorry for my inactivity thus far this game. Been incredibly busy with schoolwork what with a shit ton of lab reports and finals coming up.

Will try and do the readthrough I've been wanting to do forever tonight...

[Fishythefish]

Your inactivity is probably excusable, given you're not in the game.

[chamber]

Thats katsuki.

[Rhinox]

Spoiler:

Oh KK, you like seeing me angry, don't you? You like it rough, don't you?

This post. Oh that post. You wanted to write it off as me being unclear, didn't you? Well you know why I made a big deal out of it? I bet you do.

The issue is that it has nothing at all to do with me being unclear

. It has everything to do with you

selectively and blatantly responding to things I didn't actually say

. Let's look closer, shall we?

It doesn't seem implausible at all in my mind. Scum get night talk in normal games and mostly just discuss who they're killing. Do scum need communication to function during the day? Considering you're the second person to tell me (or heavily imply, in your case) that scum do get daytalk in nightless games, clearly I was wrong.

You've been here since 2009 and the only thing you've ever used night-talk is to discuss who to kill?

This isn't even to being a response to what I wrote. For one thing, it's practically responded to

within the post he's responding to

. "Scum get night talk in normal games and mostly just discuss who they're killing." There's two ways I would be willing to believe someone interpreted that:
1) Most scum teams just talk about who they're killing.
2) Most night talk of the average scum team is in reference to who they're killing.
Regardless of which way he read that, his question is completely irrelevant. Perhaps more importantly, he blatantly missed the point of my response. He was supposedly asking this to find out if it would make sense for me to believe scum wouldn't have any form of private communication. The important thing he should have taken away from my post if he actually cared about my response was the "Do scum need communication to function during the day?" that sums up the "mostly just discuss who they're killing" part of the post that he seemingly completely ignored. But that's okay because who needs to respond to the actual content of a post when following an

agenda

(more on the agenda thing later because it runs soooo deep).

What answer were you expecting out of that question that would have been useful?

I'm pursuing this line of questioning because in post 103 you suggest that I'm scum because I'm "coaching" Panzerjager. I'm observing that you're doing something that I call "spaghetti-ing". You're throwing all sorts of bullshit to the wall and looking for something to stick.

In this quote, KK tries his hardest to one-up himself in failing to read anything I write and amazingly manages to succeed. I don't think that requires a drawn-out explanation and I don't think one exists beyond

is it even possible to read my question and think that was a valid response to it?

I think it shows something better though:

he didn't care what my answer was

. I mean, I suppose he made that sufficiently clear in the previous thing I quoted, but if you didn't believe it there, oh how he drove home that point here. Remember that

agenda

thing? Yeah, is there any doubt at all that he was asking these questions to lead to a conclusion he knew he couldn't support if he actually had to care about responses?

Here's where I initially said that I found you scummy. Tell me why at that point in the game I would decide I "wanted to read [you] as guilty" and why I would include an offer to give reasoning if I didn't actually have a reason.

But you didn't have a reason. You had a gut feeling. You didn't try to follow up that gut feeling by asking me any questions, you just starting making misinterpretations to justify a desire to lynch. That is scummy behavior.

I think I would find this post funny if I weren't legitimately angry right now. "Why would I offer to give reasoning if I didn't have a reason?" "You didn't have a reason." Smooth. Not only does this one fail to respond to what I said, it also fails at reading the post I linked:

I'm not really liking KK. I'm going to be lazy and pin it down to gut for now, but I could identify a couple quotes/patterns that lead me to that read if anyone actually cares about it.

How did he get "you didn't have a reason" from "I could identify a couple quotes/patterns that lead me to that read"? Welcome to first grade reading comprehension; failures: Kublai Khan. Except he's not that stupid. He's not stupid enough to have actually failed at reading any of my post that badly.


The big theme here is: he asked me questions without caring what the answers were. Heck, they were practically loaded questions. "You've been here since 2009 and the only thing you've ever used night-talk is to discuss who to kill?" Why yes KK, I did stop beating my wife, how nice of you to notice. He wasn't asking me questions with the intention of gaining information; he was asking questions in order to ask follow-up questions that weren't even dependent on my answers in order to lead to the conclusion he started out with in mind. And he had the

nerve

to accuse me of this:

You didn't try to follow up that gut feeling by asking me any questions

Yes KK, you are clearly following up on your gut read on me by asking me questions and ignoring the answers.

And even better,

this pattern of asking questions and ignoring the answers is the exact same thing he did with mith earlier

. See this post for a summary of that line of questioning.



So why did I make this big a deal out of KK taking another shot at reading comprehension? Failing that badly at reading my post once is damn near impossible. Failing that badly at reading it twice, knowing that he did so the first time would leave no question that he was doing it intentionally. The fact that he refused to take a second try at it tells me he didn't want to read my post correctly and I don't doubt that he reread my post and just didn't say anything. But hey, let's not sell him short here. He didn't actually refuse to try again. He pretended my request didn't exist and just didn't post anything. Is there any reason for that other than to impede my line of posting? I'm supposedly his big scum read...why doesn't he want me to post? I for one love it when my scum reads post things. In fact, it would be nice if KK posted things more often or if he ever posted anything remotely useful, but now I'm making this personal, aren't I? Oh KK, you wanted me to look like a fool sitting around waiting for you to make an acknowledgement you were never going to make, didn't you? But please, don't respond to anything now. If you do, I'll be forced to play to your level and respond with "NEENER NEENER NEENER" in all caps. I figure that should be simple enough for you to understand.

I don't really like this post at all. I'll give KK first right of refusal to address the actual points before giving my opinion there. But aside from that, I really dislike all the use of the over the top rhetorical devices, rather than letting the points speak for themselves. It sounds like you're trying to make your case sound stronger or more damning than it really is. The whole post to me just seems more likely to come from scum trying to force a case than town actually having one.

[Katsuki]

I'm sorry for my inactivity thus far this game. Been incredibly busy with schoolwork what with a shit ton of lab reports and finals coming up.

Will try and do the readthrough I've been wanting to do forever tonight...

[chamber]

Spoiler:

Oh KK, you like seeing me angry, don't you? You like it rough, don't you?

This post. Oh that post. You wanted to write it off as me being unclear, didn't you? Well you know why I made a big deal out of it? I bet you do.

The issue is that it has nothing at all to do with me being unclear

. It has everything to do with you

selectively and blatantly responding to things I didn't actually say

. Let's look closer, shall we?

It doesn't seem implausible at all in my mind. Scum get night talk in normal games and mostly just discuss who they're killing. Do scum need communication to function during the day? Considering you're the second person to tell me (or heavily imply, in your case) that scum do get daytalk in nightless games, clearly I was wrong.

You've been here since 2009 and the only thing you've ever used night-talk is to discuss who to kill?

This isn't even to being a response to what I wrote. For one thing, it's practically responded to

within the post he's responding to

. "Scum get night talk in normal games and mostly just discuss who they're killing." There's two ways I would be willing to believe someone interpreted that:
1) Most scum teams just talk about who they're killing.
2) Most night talk of the average scum team is in reference to who they're killing.
Regardless of which way he read that, his question is completely irrelevant. Perhaps more importantly, he blatantly missed the point of my response. He was supposedly asking this to find out if it would make sense for me to believe scum wouldn't have any form of private communication. The important thing he should have taken away from my post if he actually cared about my response was the "Do scum need communication to function during the day?" that sums up the "mostly just discuss who they're killing" part of the post that he seemingly completely ignored. But that's okay because who needs to respond to the actual content of a post when following an

agenda

(more on the agenda thing later because it runs soooo deep).

What answer were you expecting out of that question that would have been useful?

I'm pursuing this line of questioning because in post 103 you suggest that I'm scum because I'm "coaching" Panzerjager. I'm observing that you're doing something that I call "spaghetti-ing". You're throwing all sorts of bullshit to the wall and looking for something to stick.

In this quote, KK tries his hardest to one-up himself in failing to read anything I write and amazingly manages to succeed. I don't think that requires a drawn-out explanation and I don't think one exists beyond

is it even possible to read my question and think that was a valid response to it?

I think it shows something better though:

he didn't care what my answer was

. I mean, I suppose he made that sufficiently clear in the previous thing I quoted, but if you didn't believe it there, oh how he drove home that point here. Remember that

agenda

thing? Yeah, is there any doubt at all that he was asking these questions to lead to a conclusion he knew he couldn't support if he actually had to care about responses?

Here's where I initially said that I found you scummy. Tell me why at that point in the game I would decide I "wanted to read [you] as guilty" and why I would include an offer to give reasoning if I didn't actually have a reason.

But you didn't have a reason. You had a gut feeling. You didn't try to follow up that gut feeling by asking me any questions, you just starting making misinterpretations to justify a desire to lynch. That is scummy behavior.

I think I would find this post funny if I weren't legitimately angry right now. "Why would I offer to give reasoning if I didn't have a reason?" "You didn't have a reason." Smooth. Not only does this one fail to respond to what I said, it also fails at reading the post I linked:

I'm not really liking KK. I'm going to be lazy and pin it down to gut for now, but I could identify a couple quotes/patterns that lead me to that read if anyone actually cares about it.

How did he get "you didn't have a reason" from "I could identify a couple quotes/patterns that lead me to that read"? Welcome to first grade reading comprehension; failures: Kublai Khan. Except he's not that stupid. He's not stupid enough to have actually failed at reading any of my post that badly.


The big theme here is: he asked me questions without caring what the answers were. Heck, they were practically loaded questions. "You've been here since 2009 and the only thing you've ever used night-talk is to discuss who to kill?" Why yes KK, I did stop beating my wife, how nice of you to notice. He wasn't asking me questions with the intention of gaining information; he was asking questions in order to ask follow-up questions that weren't even dependent on my answers in order to lead to the conclusion he started out with in mind. And he had the

nerve

to accuse me of this:

You didn't try to follow up that gut feeling by asking me any questions

Yes KK, you are clearly following up on your gut read on me by asking me questions and ignoring the answers.

And even better,

this pattern of asking questions and ignoring the answers is the exact same thing he did with mith earlier

. See this post for a summary of that line of questioning.



So why did I make this big a deal out of KK taking another shot at reading comprehension? Failing that badly at reading my post once is damn near impossible. Failing that badly at reading it twice, knowing that he did so the first time would leave no question that he was doing it intentionally. The fact that he refused to take a second try at it tells me he didn't want to read my post correctly and I don't doubt that he reread my post and just didn't say anything. But hey, let's not sell him short here. He didn't actually refuse to try again. He pretended my request didn't exist and just didn't post anything. Is there any reason for that other than to impede my line of posting? I'm supposedly his big scum read...why doesn't he want me to post? I for one love it when my scum reads post things. In fact, it would be nice if KK posted things more often or if he ever posted anything remotely useful, but now I'm making this personal, aren't I? Oh KK, you wanted me to look like a fool sitting around waiting for you to make an acknowledgement you were never going to make, didn't you? But please, don't respond to anything now. If you do, I'll be forced to play to your level and respond with "NEENER NEENER NEENER" in all caps. I figure that should be simple enough for you to understand.

I don't really like this post at all. I'll give KK first right of refusal to address the actual points before giving my opinion there. But aside from that, I really dislike all the use of the over the top rhetorical devices, rather than letting the points speak for themselves. It sounds like you're trying to make your case sound stronger or more damning than it really is. The whole post to me just seems more likely to come from scum trying to force a case than town actually having one.

I agree, but I've seen town do this. Which is why I asked for him to give examples from the past. Too lazy to look them up myself, whens deadline?

[Rhinox]

I agree, but I've seen town do this.

So have I, but it was like, LLD, Fate, etc..

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm not actually entirely sure what you were referring to now when you asked me for examples of posts like those, chamber. Depending on what you meant, I might.

[mith]

Don't have much to add tonight. Still waiting on an answer from Katsuki. No read on DRK's wall, but the follow-up on this page feels a bit off.

I'm tired and grumpy and ready for a flip to analyze.

[Fishythefish]

I was assuming deadline was today, because the day started 2 weeks ago and that's how long day 1 was. But actually it wasn't announced, so idk.

[mykonian]

yeah, sorry, I forgot about it too. You are lucky: Deadline is 3 days from now.

[Kublai Khan]

It doesn't seem implausible at all in my mind. Scum get night talk in normal games and mostly just discuss who they're killing. Do scum need communication to function during the day? Considering you're the second person to tell me (or heavily imply, in your case) that scum do get daytalk in nightless games, clearly I was wrong.

You've been here since 2009 and the only thing you've ever used night-talk is to discuss who to kill?

This isn't even to being a response to what I wrote. For one thing, it's practically responded to

within the post he's responding to

. "Scum get night talk in normal games and mostly just discuss who they're killing." There's two ways I would be willing to believe someone interpreted that:
1) Most scum teams just talk about who they're killing.
2) Most night talk of the average scum team is in reference to who they're killing.
Regardless of which way he read that, his question is completely irrelevant. Perhaps more importantly, he blatantly missed the point of my response. He was supposedly asking this to find out if it would make sense for me to believe scum wouldn't have any form of private communication. The important thing he should have taken away from my post if he actually cared about my response was the "Do scum need communication to function during the day?" that sums up the "mostly just discuss who they're killing" part of the post that he seemingly completely ignored. But that's okay because who needs to respond to the actual content of a post when following an

agenda

(more on the agenda thing later because it runs soooo deep).

What? The question was asked to determine how freaking naive you are. You're positing that it doesn't seem implausible that scum might not have any kind of communication since scum mostly only night talk to determine who to kill.

To me that is an extremely newbie mentality and maybe you're playing the damn newbie card to cover up something.

Here's where I initially said that I found you scummy. Tell me why at that point in the game I would decide I "wanted to read [you] as guilty" and why I would include an offer to give reasoning if I didn't actually have a reason.

But you didn't have a reason. You had a gut feeling. You didn't try to follow up that gut feeling by asking me any questions, you just starting making misinterpretations to justify a desire to lynch. That is scummy behavior.

I think I would find this post funny if I weren't legitimately angry right now. "Why would I offer to give reasoning if I didn't have a reason?" "You didn't have a reason." Smooth. Not only does this one fail to respond to what I said, it also fails at reading the post I linked:

I'm not really liking KK. I'm going to be lazy and pin it down to gut for now, but I could identify a couple quotes/patterns that lead me to that read if anyone actually cares about it.

How did he get "you didn't have a reason" from "I could identify a couple quotes/patterns that lead me to that read"? Welcome to first grade reading comprehension; failures: Kublai Khan. Except he's not that stupid. He's not stupid enough to have actually failed at reading any of my post that badly.

I'm not failing to read anything. I'm going to blow your mind with some info right now:

Good scum can make up a case on anyone for any reason.

Anyone can comb through someone else's ISO with the mindset of "what can I use to make a case" and find some bullshit. Which looks exactly like what you were offering to do.

What you said was scummy as fuck because you could have switched out anyone else's name for mine in that sentence then go back and make a case if there is any expressed interest. If you had stated "I'm finding KK kinda scummy for reasons X, Y, Z from the get-go then I'd respect you and deal with whatever you're wrong about. It's confirmation bias

at best

and absolute scum at worst.

[DeathRowKitty]

You're positing that it doesn't seem implausible that scum might not have any kind of communication since scum mostly only night talk to determine who to kill.

Cool, you learned how to read. I'm proud of you. It might have meant something to me if this had come before my big post.

I'm not failing to read anything. I'm going to blow your mind with some info right now:

Good scum can make up a case on anyone for any reason.

Anyone can comb through someone else's ISO with the mindset of "what can I use to make a case" and find some bullshit. Which looks exactly like what you were offering to do.

Thank you for your vote of confidence in my abilities. Except this is completely bullshit ^_^ You're saying that I essentially pulled your name out of a hat because I'm good scum that can make a case on anyone (or maybe you're not calling me a good player? i hope you are because i could use an ego boost). Good scum pull names out of hats when choosing their targets, right? Because if you're not implying that I chose you in some sort of random-ish way, then I must have had a reason before making that post.

You know that spaghetti analogy you made? Please stop throwing spaghetti. There are starving children in Mongolia that would love that spaghetti.

[DeathRowKitty]

Was deadline

supposed to

be today? Because wow, I actually didn't notice...

[Kublai Khan]

I'm not failing to read anything. I'm going to blow your mind with some info right now:

Good scum can make up a case on anyone for any reason.

Anyone can comb through someone else's ISO with the mindset of "what can I use to make a case" and find some bullshit. Which looks exactly like what you were offering to do.

Thank you for your vote of confidence in my abilities. Except this is completely bullshit ^_^ You're saying that I essentially pulled your name out of a hat because I'm good scum that can make a case on anyone (or maybe you're not calling me a good player? i hope you are because i could use an ego boost). Good scum pull names out of hats when choosing their targets, right? Because if you're not implying that I chose you in some sort of random-ish way, then I must have had a reason before making that post.

It could random, or maybe not. The point is that it's entirely possible for someone to do that.

If I say "Hey, I've got a bad feeling about mykonian. Should I go check if there is a case that can be made?" and someone replies in the affirmative, then off to ISO I go.

You went about your case backwards. You decided I was scummy, then went to find evidence. Not the other way around. That's why you're not worth replying to.

[DeathRowKitty]

It's okay, I understand you: I'm a good player, therefore I pull names out of a hat to call scum and later make cases on them. Makes perfect sense.

[Kublai Khan]

It's okay, I understand you: I'm a good player, therefore I pull names out of a hat to call scum and later make cases on them. Makes perfect sense.

Sarcastic summarizing isn't a town strategy.

[DeathRowKitty]

Is it a strategy good scum use? I'm good scum, remember?

[DeathRowKitty]

God I'm sorry I just can't take this seriously after having you imply I'm a good player. That's just the greatest cop-out ever.

"KK, are you seriously saying I did x stupid thing? "
"Maybe. Good scum could ttly pull off x stupid thing if they wanted to."

That's seriously what you said. Do you dispute that?

[Kublai Khan]

Is your defense seriously "I suk atdis game lol.!"?

[DeathRowKitty]

I didn't say nor imply that. And I don't know where you're getting "defense" from.

[DeathRowKitty]

So now let me ask you again, do you dispute my summary here. And if not, what in the name of tadpoles did you mean?