Isacc wrote:I don't believe my argument is dismantled.
Oh dear, I'm sorry. I guess since you believe it, it must not be dismantled!
My problem is based on the fact that he believes information can be gained from people's deaths.
What kind of information?
We should not be lynching to gain information, we should be lynching to kill scum.
Duh, which I never denied or disagreed with. Also, what if the information is
who the scum are
? Then a lynch that provided info would
lead
to a scum lynch.
Mainly that it lacked any reasons for suspecting anyone beyond the fact that you believed we could gain information from people's deaths.
Which is why I DIDN'T WANT THEM LYNCHED.
Look, it doesn't matter if I have no reason for suspecting someone, when I am not trying to get them lynched. Let's just say for a second I suspect McNuke still because I feel like it. Does it matter? No, because I am not voting him, attacking him, or getting him lynched, so my "suspicions" have no effect on the game.
Of course his post was never meant to represent that he thought it was a good lynch! My representation was more to the concern of a subtle suggestion of wanting to gain information from someone's death if he's scum as opposed to actively making a case on someone. I'm reading into possible subtlety here.
Surely you can see the possibility of what he could be trying to do in that post if he's scum.
More WIFOM like before. Any post can be re-interpreted as if it was actually scum trying to suggest things.
And frankly he does seem really bothered by it. I can't understand why he's blown up such a minor FOS and minor speculation over such a serious concern... unless he really DOES have something to hide.
Yes, I am bothered by misrepresentation. Seems like a logical thing to be.
It seems silly to say that in response to a post that wants a top 3 list of suspects... preferably with evidence and good reasons why... not because you think information could be gained from their deaths.
Not really. First, I have explained why information is helpful to town.
Second, he asked my top 3: just because my case is weak against them doesn't mean it still isn't stronger than against other people. I explained this in the other post that I still haven't seen you stop ignoring.
The whole idea of stating that seems silly to me anyway. Wouldn't it be better to remind the town of the information we gained from a lynch after the fact... to help point out the fact that the lynch actually wasn't pointless at all (In response to someone who might feel that it was.)... saying it before we actually decide on a lynch does bother me a little.
Why in all hell would I do that? So that you can call me out for backpedaling and get me lynched for lynching someone else? I don't think I want to hand anyone an easy reason to mislynch me.
Stating arguments ahead of time proves you aren't making things up. If you don't state your arguments first, you can end up fabricating evidence later, which would help the scum out. Thus, the pro-town thing to do is to make my case before I have to backpedal later.
It doesn't prove anything and I never said you should be strung up for it. I just felt it was a little bit suspicious
Oh really? A little bit suspicious? Let's check your original accusation.
You seem to be speaking in a sense to dissociate yourself from any lynch that might end up going bad... as if you're almost certain that the person we lynch ISN'T going to flip scum.
I don't like it... I don't like it at all.
Hmm...doesn't really seem like "a little bit." Seems pretty strong.
So now it seems like you are trying to slowly backpedal off of an argument that you can't win. If you really "don't believe [your] argument is dismantled" then why are you backing down in the strength of your suspicion?
This has been such an annoying distraction.
Yes, I am sure it's annoying when I start figuring out how scummy you are.
By the way, not all bad arguments or logic are necessarily scummy. Some come from misinterpretation of posts, tunnel vision, or just reading too much into what someone said.
Wrong. If you are town, you draw conclusions in an honest manner. Therefore, if you were town you should be able to either A) Prove your point, or B) Cede honestly that you were wrong. However, you did neither of these.
If you are scum, however, you have to often try and make scumtells out of things that town do, therefore you sometimes have to intentionally misinterpret, tunnel, or read farther than makes sense. Thus, these things can often be scumtells.
maybe I lucked out and got it perfectly right.
Why did you "luck out?" Didn't you actually believe in your own argument? If you were "lucky" that would suggest that you were taking a gamble, which would further suggest that you were grabbing at straws in your FOS against me. Kinda scummy to make arguments that will only work if you are "lucky."
But I'm not going to wuss out of being suspicious of it just because you attacked my logic, because that's exactly what you want me to do if you are scum.
Well, I already showed that you backed down somewhat in your suspicion, so a little contradictory here.
Also, I pointed out that if I attacked your logic and proved you were wrong (which you have yet to disprove), then it would be pro-town to back down. Otherwise, you are casting suspicion on something you
know
is false. Sticking to your guns when you are wrong is stupid.
I was only suspicious of you based on your FOS. However, your defense has gotten more and more scummy. So I think this warrants a
%% Vote: ZACHRULEZ
.
My case:
1. Misrep.
2. WIFOM.
3. Straw man argumentation (see Magnus's post)
4. Contradiction in his "level of suspicion"
5. Lot's of really weak logic
I may have a little more proof floating about, but I don't feel like I've fully analyzed it yet. Yeah, that sentence may be confusing, so ask if you don't understand it lol.
