Open 572: Nightless Vengeful Mayhem - Game Over

Green Crayons · Post Post #2175 (ISO) » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:13 am

In post 2171, Riddleton wrote:
In post 2169, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 2158, Green Crayons wrote:The fact that you personally have not engaged in actions that are scummy on their face in the very limited time you have been involved in this game does not wash away the scum sins of your predecessor.

In post 2161, Riddleton wrote:You say that "you've not doing any actions that are scummy ergo you are scum". That's definitely complete BS.

In post 2167, Riddleton wrote:
In post 2164, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 2161, Riddleton wrote:You say that "you've not doing any actions that are scummy ergo you are scum". That's definitely complete BS.
Also, misrep.
It's called paraphrasing.

"Paraphrasing" that puts words in my mouth is not paraphrasing, it's misrepresentation.

I'm putting no words into your mouth. You say "You've not engaged in any scummy actions" and "...does not wash away sins of your predecessor". That's exactly what I'm saying. If you're going to be pedantic, which you're doing plenty of tonight, you could argue I meant "your slot is scum", but that's besides the point.

I know you can see the difference between your paraphrase of "you haven't done anthing scummy and THEREFORE ("ergo") are scum" - which is a nonsensical position to take - and my actual assertion of "

even though

you haven't done anything scummy, you are scum because your slot's predecessors."

Green Crayons · Post Post #2176 (ISO) » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:15 am

"I can however try and defend his motives as I know 100% he's town, but that's irrelevant to me, as I can never fully know why he did something. If you have issues with my slot, talk to me about it."

You state that you

can

defend his motives, and then invite me to talk to you about issues with your slot. It's explicitly stated and implied that you were willing to defend motives, not actions.

Green Crayons · Post Post #2177 (ISO) » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:16 am

(But, once again, lol @ this apparently fundamental distinction between motives and actions in reviewing your slot's previous occupants.)

Riddleton · Post Post #2178 (ISO) » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:17 am

In post 2175, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 2171, Riddleton wrote:
In post 2169, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 2158, Green Crayons wrote:The fact that you personally have not engaged in actions that are scummy on their face in the very limited time you have been involved in this game does not wash away the scum sins of your predecessor.

In post 2161, Riddleton wrote:You say that "you've not doing any actions that are scummy ergo you are scum". That's definitely complete BS.

In post 2167, Riddleton wrote:
In post 2164, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 2161, Riddleton wrote:You say that "you've not doing any actions that are scummy ergo you are scum". That's definitely complete BS.
Also, misrep.
It's called paraphrasing.

"Paraphrasing" that puts words in my mouth is not paraphrasing, it's misrepresentation.

I'm putting no words into your mouth. You say "You've not engaged in any scummy actions" and "...does not wash away sins of your predecessor". That's exactly what I'm saying. If you're going to be pedantic, which you're doing plenty of tonight, you could argue I meant "your slot is scum", but that's besides the point.

I know you can see the difference between your paraphrase of "you haven't done anthing scummy and THEREFORE ("ergo") are scum" - which is a nonsensical position to take - and my actual assertion of "
even though
you haven't done anything scummy, you are scum because your slot's predecessors."

See what I mean droog? Pedantic.

Riddleton · Post Post #2179 (ISO) » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:18 am

Droog, switch to GC with me? Pretty please? <3

Green Crayons · Post Post #2180 (ISO) » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:19 am

Ah, yes. Explaining a blatant misrepresentation has become reduced to being nothing more than pedantic, which you're adopting as a new strategy on the fly as apparently my use of the word has made it a quick and easy tool for you to pick up.

Not_Mafia · Post Post #2181 (ISO) » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:22 am

VC 9.02

shaddowez (1)-

droog

(L-2)

droog (0)-

Riddleton (2)-

Green Crayons, shaddowez

(L-1)

Green Crayons (1)-

Riddleton

(L-2)

Not Voting (0)-

With

4

alive, it takes

3

to lynch.

Deadline is in

(expired on 2014-12-23 22:00:00)

- Dec 23rd 22:00 GMT

Riddleton · Post Post #2182 (ISO) » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:23 am

Don't be silly GC, of course it's pedantic.

Green Crayons · Post Post #2183 (ISO) » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:24 am

I look forward to you being hammered, scum.

Riddleton · Post Post #2184 (ISO) » Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:28 am

Lol, OK. I wouldn't mind except droog thinks it's shadow. It's obvious the final scum is in this silly argument and I know it's not me.

droog · Post Post #2185 (ISO) » Wed Dec 10, 2014 12:07 pm

In post 2155, Riddleton wrote:
In post 1902, Riddleton wrote:Yeah, they look bad. I awknowledge that. But that's -- again -- not my play so I can't write an inspired defense of why Fink did XYZ at any given time. I don't understand what my comments about Fink's play will add to the game as it stands.

I don't really care about defending Fink's play or trying to justify it, droog. Logically, if my slot is scum, my posts & actions will be scummy as well as Fink's. The fact that has not been found to much degree yet means my slot is town. I welcome you to try and make a case based on
my
actions, and not that of my predecessors whom I can't defend.

I am not asking you to defend fink
I am asking for explanation on "fink is newb/confused"

shaddowez · Post Post #2186 (ISO) » Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:18 pm

droog

, I don't suspect you because you suspect me, I'm beginning to suspect you because of how you're acting all of a sudden. If I thought you were more likely to be scum than either of the other two, I'd be voting you, not either of them.

If you want to look at my voting record of people I "voted for suspecting me" anyway, I'd say I'm at a pretty good success rate.

Green Crayons · Post Post #2187 (ISO) » Thu Dec 11, 2014 2:03 am

In post 2186, shaddowez wrote:If you want to look at my voting record of people I "voted for suspecting me" anyway, I'd say I'm at a pretty good success rate.

Who has suspected you in this game?

shaddowez · Post Post #2188 (ISO) » Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:48 pm

I was referring to Thor. I suppose "suspecting" may have been the wrong word, since his case on me was "PoE"

shaddowez · Post Post #2189 (ISO) » Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:56 pm

@MOD

- V/LA over the weekend, back on Sunday, 12/14

Green Crayons · Post Post #2190 (ISO) » Fri Dec 12, 2014 3:23 am

Yeah, the only person I could think of who suspected you was Thor.

And you voted him after he voted you.

How does that make you have a "pretty good success rate" at voting people who suspected you?

Not_Mafia · Post Post #2191 (ISO) » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:22 pm

droog and Riddleton have been prodded. They each have 24 hours to respond in thread before being replaced.

droog · Post Post #2192 (ISO) » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:28 pm

VOTE: riddleton

droog · Post Post #2193 (ISO) » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:28 pm

there i did it

Not_Mafia · Post Post #2194 (ISO) » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:35 pm

VC 9.03

shaddowez (0)-

droog (0)-

Riddleton (3)-

Green Crayons, shaddowez, droog

LYNCHED

Green Crayons (1)-

Riddleton

(L-2)

Not Voting (0)-

With

4

alive, it takes

3

to lynch.

Deadline is in

(expired on 2014-12-23 22:00:00)

- Dec 23rd 22:00 GMT

Not_Mafia · Post Post #2195 (ISO) » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:35 pm

Hammer

Riddleton

was

lynched

day 9, they were a

Spoiler:

Not_Mafia · Post Post #2196 (ISO) » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:35 pm

VC 10.00

shaddowez (0)-

droog (0)-

Green Crayons (0)-

Not Voting (3)-

shaddowez, droog, Green Crayons

With

3

alive, it takes

2

to lynch.

Deadline is in

(expired on 2014-12-28 20:00:00)

- Dec 28th 20:00 GMT

droog · Post Post #2197 (ISO) » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:45 pm

droog · Post Post #2198 (ISO) » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:45 pm

cross.

Green Crayons · Post Post #2199 (ISO) » Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:47 pm

Well shit.