In post 275, Bulbazak wrote: In post 254, Tebow wrote:'Actual case' and 'Genuine town motivation' are not two things that a reasonable person acting in good faith would think are the same.
Acting in good faith?
Yup. IE, trying to actually ascertain her alignment, rather than just deciding to try to paint her as scummy. If I can't see a reason a
reasonable
person acting in good faith (ie, town) would interpret a post in a certain way, that usually leaves three options: you're unreasonable, you're pursuing a personal vendetta, and you're scum. I don't like calling people stupid when there are alternative hypotheses, and I don't have any meta suggesting personal animosity.
In post 254, Tebow wrote:
Clearly, 'actual case' is to be contrasted with 'pressure vote' or 'random vote,' not 'fake case.'
And how does that change the interpretation? That just means she was ready to attack any case, or were you thinking she was planning on attacking a different type of case, and how would that not contrast with "fake case"?[/quote]
Because she felt Garmr was a poor player who scum wouldn't be able to resist attacking, therefore the first person who tried to actually build a wagon on him was likely to be scum.
In post 254, Tebow wrote:
Your mindset reads like "Can I find a definition of 'actual case' that would make her sound scummy, then imply that's what she meant even though it clearly wasn't?"
No, that phrasing did not feel natural to me, which was why I noticed it. And even if we were to ignore her particular word choice, the way she has gone about with her attack and her explanations since then point to the mindset that I have outlined. This is not some bit of semantic trickery. The intent behind that sentence was the same regardless of whether you buy the definition of "actual" or not.
Other players, please note Bulbazak baselessly asserting that his interpretation of her 'intent' is the same thing as her actual intent. Actually, I think they speak far more to the mindset that
I've
outlined.
She meant to attack those that presented a case on Garmr. It was not spur of the moment.
Never seen town try to lay a 'trap' before?
She admits to wanting to shut down discussion on him. She says it's to protect her townread, but when pressed, she couldn't give an adequate answer why this should be the case, since she admitted to ignoring most of Garmr's posts. Then when she was called out on defending Garmr, she backtracks and said that she was defending herself by defending Garmr, which is BS. So go ahead and criticize my interpretation of that one sentence. It still doesn't change her actions, which happen to back up that interpretation.
This is a hugely uncharitable interpretation of what she said and did.
In post 254, Tebow wrote:
Because, seriously, what scum would actually say 'I want to attack town players?'
Want town says that?
This would be valid, if
her having said that
was mutually accepted information. Since the argument is precisely about
whether that is a reasonable interpretation of what she said
, it's just crap. My argument isn't town say that. My argument is that Emogirl didn't say that, and you're deliberately twisting her words.
Gotta run to a lecture.
![:]](./images/smilies/icon_smiling.png "Cheerful Smile"){kind=icon}
