Emile Buchard wrote:Edward wrote:Criticizing someone's civility is the resort of someone who's losing the argument. Also, I haven't sworn at anyone.
Which is exactly why you should stop calling people "idiots".
Get a dictionary. Look up 'civility.'
What I'm saying is that people complaining about how I'm being 'rude' have lost the argument. Whether I'm rude or not has no bearing on whether I'm right. Have you never played mafia, seen a succession of REALLY BAD votes, and thought, 'What the heck are you guys on? This wagon is terrible!'
Edward wrote: Now, dice voting is antitown, for the reasons i and others have given earlier in the thread (and the recent MD poll agreed by 2-1, so it's a majority opinion but not an uncontroverted one).
So if it isn't incontroverted issue, why are you making it such a big deal? Seriously, die or no die, does it really matter? The answer, is no, so long as it really is a die. Since we cannot verify this, then the case cannot really be proven either way--null point.
Yes, it does matter, and I've explained why earlier. Most people think that dice voting is antitown. They happen to be right. The dice vote was the scummiest thing anyone had done to that point, and pressuring people who do antitown or scummy things is what town should be doing, no?
Emile wrote:Edward wrote:I think I would have voted without explanation there too.
Now how the hell can you say that you would have voted without explanation as well if you don't know why Whyte voted without explanation or even if he had an explanation to begin with. Crap logic.
Is proven by:
Edward wrote:Jaime wrote:
Alright, I guess I can agree with you that Emiles post was scummy but how do you know that that was the reason for his vote?
Well, I don't know...
Need I say more?
No, you need to say less.
1) You have wilfully distorted what I said there by leaving out the rest of the argument. I don't
know
: I can reasonably enough assume that it had something to do with the scummy post it followed, because, well, that's what votes usually do. It may have been that he thought Emile's post was scummy for a different reason to mine, but it doesn't really matter. The point, as I've suggested many a time, is that it's completely unreasonable to believe that an unexplained vote is one which doesn't HAVE a reason behind it.
2) Whether I know for sure why Stuart voted HAS NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER to whether I would have done the same thing. I have stated that, if i were in the game at the time, and had the opportunity to make post 71, it would have been an unexplained vote for Emile.
@Igor: Call it craplogic all you want, but, over all the games where I've played as town, that tends to be where decent scum players are most often found. They don't want to stand out; they also don't want to be seen
trying
not to stand out.
Your counterexample doesn't work, logically: I didn't say 'The people in the middle of WAGONS are most likely to be scum.' If you had come out all guns blazing on Emile, and expended a ton of energy on wagoning him, and brought a ton of attention to yourself in doing so, then I might conclude you're more likely town because of it.
