NY 178: MASQUERADE -- GAME OVER

davesaz
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: August 25, 2014
Location: Class of 93
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3750  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:13 am

In post 3747, Thor665 wrote:@Dave - like, here's my conversation with Muffin as I perceived it at the time;

1. I state I find Shiro scummy for the vote switch between Pere and Anen considering how much he talked about each.
2. Muffin asks me to defend that stance.
3. I ask him to look at the posts and tell me if he feels it was a legit switch.
4. He says he counted the number of times each name was mentioned and Pere was mentioned more - and apparently didn't care that, blatantly, there was more Anen conversation than Pere conversation.
5. He then asks me to defend my stance again.
6. At this point he has looked at the posts (by his own admission) and chosen to use an odd metric (number of times a name was mentioned) instead of "oh - look, he posted a whole lot about Anen and almost nothing about Pere" which is the actual situation.
7. I point out that I find his metric dumb.
8. He responds by posting all the comments and noting the size of the posts - that said he is including in the Pere quotes huge sections not discussing Pere, which make them appear larger.
9. At this point I am starting to believe he isn't reading anything and is attacking me weirdly.
10. I point out that the post size compare he did is not legit due to the padding.
11. He claims I am moving the goalposts to quality and again is demanding that I back up my case.
12. I claim I never moved the goalposts and ask him how he came to the conclusion I did.
13. He claims I am moving the goalposts to quality and again is demanding that I back up my case.
14. Other people agree with him.
15. I point out what is obvious if you read the posts - that Shiro talked about Anen far more than Pere and did an unexplained vote move.
16. Everyone claims that my delay in pointing out something that is obvious to anyone who reads the posts is scummy and that muffin's name count thing was somehow a legit reaction because saying "amount they were discussed" is somehow a vague statement that apparently can mean "amount a given word appears in an Iso as opposed to amount of words spent on a given subject"

And here we are.
Where do you think my above narrative differs from reality?.


I think your narrative is either completely missing this post, or very badly misrepping it.

In post 3127, Muffin wrote:So, yeah. 3 posts seem to be mostly about pere, and 4 mostly about anen, including one that is sort of about both of them. Not to mention if you go through them chronologically there is a clear progression of reads. Do you want to try your pathetically-bad argument again?

In before Thor just restates the same argument ignoring the factual evidence that he is full of shit.
In before "yeah but it's the QUALITY of the mentions, on some subjective scale it's impossible to argue against because I just made it up"


Not only did Muffin adjust his analysis of the number of mentions according to your revised criteria, he also provided a specific analysis of the trend in the quoted posts. "Not to mention if you go through them chronologically there is a clear progression of reads."

You go on to attack him on the last sentence of the post. Which is pointing out, ahead of your reply to it, that the section that I pulled out proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Muffin was taking quality into account! And you continued to attack him for the number of mentions, after he had already shown that the actual content of the Shiro quotes disproves your case.

Also, you complain that the "filler" in the PereV posts was commentary about you. Which, as scum, you want to discredit.

davesaz
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: August 25, 2014
Location: Class of 93
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3751  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:14 am

In post 3749, Flubbernugget wrote:Just reminding everyone that I totally wasn't stalking Tier's ISO and now is the perfect time to realize he hasn't revived anyone and needs to be LaL'd.


I hope that this is a joke, just like the post you're referring to (during RVS). :roll:

Flubbernugget
Survivor
 
User avatar
Joined: June 26, 2014
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3752  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:16 am

It is my phone likes to touch the q+ button when I'm not looking.

Flubbernugget
Survivor
 
User avatar
Joined: June 26, 2014
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3753  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:17 am

But now the joke only has 50% lulz, and it didn't have very many lulz to begin with :(

Thor665
Papa Smurf
 
User avatar
Joined: October 11, 2009
Location: Venice, FL
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3754  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:23 am

In post 3750, davesaz wrote:Not only did Muffin adjust his analysis of the number of mentions according to your revised criteria, he also provided a specific analysis of the trend in the quoted posts. "Not to mention if you go through them chronologically there is a clear progression of reads."

I will agree Muffin did these things.
I will disagree that they had anything to do with my point.
He notes that Anen moved toa town read which justifies the Anen unvote, sure. But Pere was *already* a town read - and so we have a lot of conversation to unvote a town read and no conversation to vote a town read - and thus my case remains. Basically Muffin was debating something I never called scummy and pointing out that it wasn't scummy. It was a non-starter for me as a conversation.

In post 3750, davesaz wrote:You go on to attack him on the last sentence of the post. Which is pointing out, ahead of your reply to it, that the section that I pulled out proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Muffin was taking quality into account! And you continued to attack him for the number of mentions, after he had already shown that the actual content of the Shiro quotes disproves your case.

I'm not sure I follow this. It should not have excited me that he took quality into account - because I never noted quality as any part of my case and never did and never accussed him of not doing so.
He also did not show the content difference, except by the specific metric of 'number of times a name was mentioned' which - as I mentioned, was weird and not about what I said.
I would note that Shiro, the writer of the posts, agrees with me insofar as my claim that he talked about Anen more than Pere - why does no one else?

In post 3750, davesaz wrote:Also, you complain that the "filler" in the PereV posts was commentary about you. Which, as scum, you want to discredit.

You are aware that Shiro was claling me town in that commentary, right?
So my desperation was to disprove a case suggesting I was town?
What?

Thor665
Papa Smurf
 
User avatar
Joined: October 11, 2009
Location: Venice, FL
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3755  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:25 am

@Dave - honestly, your answer shows that you didn't really read my post, and that you didn't read the Shiro posts that the debate is about. yet you have a strong opinion on me for misrepping, discrediting, and dodging?

How can you draw that conclusion without reading?
And if you did read - how can you think i was annoyed at Muffin for not discussing quality or was trying to discredit someone for town reading me?

Thor665
Papa Smurf
 
User avatar
Joined: October 11, 2009
Location: Venice, FL
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3756  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:26 am

Unvote: Iz
Vote: Dave

davesaz
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: August 25, 2014
Location: Class of 93
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3757  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:35 am

Perhaps I used an incorrect word or phrase there. You attacked Muffin for the word "quality", that's a fact. And you pointed out that the filler was about you, that's a fact. My focus is your posts and your responses to others' posts.

Thor665
Papa Smurf
 
User avatar
Joined: October 11, 2009
Location: Venice, FL
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3758  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:42 am

That's not actually an answer to my raised issue.

I will agree I attacked Muffin for the word quality after he suggested I was using it - but that has nothing to do with you being proud of pointing out that he used it. You doing that actually shows a total lack of understanding of what the 'quality' issue even was, and it's such a departure from it that I believe it shows that you haven't read anything and are only debating the topic with the most superficial of understanding of it.

Why are you doing that?
And if you're not doing that - please justify the beliefs you held that I expressed as nonsensical for someone who had read them.

Thor665
Papa Smurf
 
User avatar
Joined: October 11, 2009
Location: Venice, FL
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3759  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:46 am

In post 3750, davesaz wrote:10. I point out that the post size compare he did is not legit due to the padding.
11. He claims I am moving the goalposts to quality and again is demanding that I back up my case.

Even in the post of mine you quoted you have the timeline of the quality thing explained - did you read this and then decide that the issue was that I didn't think muffin had brought up quality and that you needed to show that he had? That makes no sense.

I mean, when you say my narrative is missing the point or misrepping it - but you don't even understand the case...how do you justify saying that I'm misrepping it?
Yeah, I guess I am misrepping it if the case is the made up one in your head, but...what the hell, you don't vote people over that. That's crazy talk.

Oh, snap, GM, look, I'm dissing on people again.
Hey, Iz, look, I'm calling a case dumb again.
Soooo scummy Thor!

davesaz
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: August 25, 2014
Location: Class of 93
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3760  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 12:01 pm

Yes, that was stated poorly. The point that Muffin actually was using quality is immaterial.

Point 11, Muffin pointed out (in the post I quoted) that his argument was about quality BEFORE you could change the goal posts. Because he anticipated that you would change them. That is a fair assumption to make, since you were already trying to discredit him for legitimately trying to debunk the "amount of posting" argument.

You attacked him for anticipating that you would discredit his new point, and the way you actually attacked him was by discrediting the anticipation (i.e. the use of the word quality).

Or to put that another way, you made a bad case, someone debunked it, and instead of working to prove your case by adjusting to the debunk (town motive) you tried to discredit the debunker (scum motive).

BTW, that first sentence in this post. :up: :up: :up: That is what town do when someone misunderstands them. They don't merely fling their hands and try to discredit the poor sod who chooses to interact with them.

Thor665
Papa Smurf
 
User avatar
Joined: October 11, 2009
Location: Venice, FL
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3761  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 12:08 pm

In post 3760, davesaz wrote:You attacked him for anticipating that you would discredit his new point, and the way you actually attacked him was by discrediting the anticipation (i.e. the use of the word quality).

When and where did I do this?
Because I didn't.

Post 3130 is when he attacks me based on quality.
Show me my attack on him as regards that prior.
Because you're noting 3159 - which is a response to his attack. Anyone who read that should be able to tell since, y'know, I quote his attack.

In post 3760, davesaz wrote:Or to put that another way, you made a bad case, someone debunked it, and instead of working to prove your case by adjusting to the debunk (town motive) you tried to discredit the debunker (scum motive).

He did not debunk my case - please refer to my timeline to show me where you think I leap off the rails.

In post 3760, davesaz wrote:BTW, that first sentence in this post. :up: :up: :up: That is what town do when someone misunderstands them. They don't merely fling their hands and try to discredit the poor sod who chooses to interact with them.

Well, yeah, except you flat out are saying things that don't make sense - whereas I am not. So it's kind of a conversation difference.
You also haven't explained why I was trying to discredit someone for town reading me - I also don't understand that.

davesaz
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: August 25, 2014
Location: Class of 93
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3762  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 12:31 pm

In post 3761, Thor665 wrote:You also haven't explained why I was trying to discredit someone for town reading me - I also don't understand that.

You are pulling this one out of the air. I pointed out, that you pointed out, that the filler was about you. I did not note, or even care, if it is positive or negative filler. My point is that you brought attention to the filler being about you. I don't think you said (back then) that it was positive commentary, but that would not affect the point that you are commenting on things commenting on you, and making that the key point of it being filler. I still haven't looked at what kind of commentary and don't plan to. This is not scummy, it is merely a choice of how I spend my time.

To summarize, you say there is filler about you. I find the bolded part to be scummy regardless of the content of the filler.

davesaz
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: August 25, 2014
Location: Class of 93
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3763  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 12:41 pm

In post 3761, Thor665 wrote:Well, yeah, except you flat out are saying things that don't make sense - whereas I am not. So it's kind of a conversation difference.

I would not expect you to admit what I'm saying is making sense, since to do that would be to agree that you're scummy. :cool:
And I'm not saying your posts don't make sense, or that they're wrong. I'm saying that they don't show town motivation.

However I will openly admit that I often write things that others have a hard time reading. Typically it is because I clearly see the logic and assume that others must also see it.

Thor665
Papa Smurf
 
User avatar
Joined: October 11, 2009
Location: Venice, FL
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3764  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 12:48 pm

In post 3762, davesaz wrote:To summarize, you say there is filler about you. I find the bolded part to be scummy regardless of the content of the filler.

So, when complaining that when comparing amount of talk between two players I point out that muffin is using posts talking primarily about someone other than the two people we're discussing then, because the conversation is about me, it's discrediting towards Shiro for me to mention that?

Do I have that correct?

In post 3763, davesaz wrote:And I'm not saying your posts don't make sense, or that they're wrong. I'm saying that they don't show town motivation.

However I will openly admit that I often write things that others have a hard time reading. Typically it is because I clearly see the logic and assume that others must also see it.

So my posts are correct and make sense but they are scummy because they lack town motivation.
How do they lack town motivation?

Also, you did not provide the quote or example about the 'quality' thing.
I flat out called you wrong/liar about that one - am I going to get a quote showing that it is, in fact, I who am wrong/lying or no?

Thor665
Papa Smurf
 
User avatar
Joined: October 11, 2009
Location: Venice, FL
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3765  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 12:50 pm

In post 3763, davesaz wrote:And I'm not saying your posts don't make sense, or that they're wrong.

Also, weren't you claiming I was misrepping and discrediting?
Don't those two words kind of require me to not make sense or to be wrong?

davesaz
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: August 25, 2014
Location: Class of 93
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3766  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 1:51 pm

Saying the posts contain filler about you, when talking to Muffin, is discrediting toward Muffin. Not Shiro.

I could see if you had said merely "hey those quoted posts contain more information". That would be reasonable.
I can't see any town motivation in the distinction about the content of the additional information, especially pointing out it's about you.

Also, why would someone agreeing with your case not say they think you're town? So even more so, in your reply to me, why is it relevant that the information is positive? How does that have any bearing on my accusation? Perhaps it matters to your case against Shiro, but it doesn't make a bit of difference toward what you accused Muffin of, or what you're accusing me of. And whether we disagree with your Shiro case is not indicative of our alignment.

davesaz
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: August 25, 2014
Location: Class of 93
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3767  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 1:53 pm

Our alignment that is...

Aegor
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: August 11, 2007
Location: Omega Station

Post Post #3768  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 3:50 pm

Votecount 2.9

[7]Thor665: goodmorning, Izariael, reinoe, Flubbernugget, davesaz, Garmr
[4]Garmr: Scripten, AxleGreaser, Slandaar, Shiro
[2]Flubbernugget: Nero Cain, The Fonz
[1]Boonskiies: T S O
[1]davesaz: Thor665
[1]reinoe: Boonskiies
[1]Slandaar: TierShift

[1] Not Voting: beastcharizard

With 17 alive, it takes 9 to lynch.

Day 2 deadline: (expired on 2014-11-19 18:27:52)

Mod Notes
Searching for replacements for T S O and Garmr
Currently partying at the M A S Q U E R A D E -- a Large Normal for 21 revelers.

TierShift
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: November 05, 2013
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3769  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:50 pm

flub, it is time.

VOTE: dave

I'll read more throughly tomorrow.

Shiro
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: August 08, 2014

Post Post #3770  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 4:57 pm

Dave you are not making much sense I hope you realise that.

Can you nicely clarify your thoughts in one post

davesaz
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: August 25, 2014
Location: Class of 93
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3771  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:20 pm

In post 3520, davesaz wrote:
Thor is repeatedly trying to catch others in misinterpretations of ambiguous things that he says. Then, when he does "catch" someone misinterpreting, Thor misrepresents that as intentional and scummy, when his own intentional ambiguity / opaque posting is causing the misunderstanding in the first place. Then, once he has his fish on a line, he steadfastly refuses to clear up the situation by explaining what he meant. He even goes to the extreme of extending the argument by introducing more unclear points as bait for further misunderstanding. I don't see town motivation in acting this way.

This post?

Thor says something.
Someone disagrees with it.
Thor attacks the person who disagreed with him.

Disagreeing with things that others post is not scummy.
Attacking people who disagree with you is scummy, if you do it to the degree that Thor is doing it.

I don't see any way this position can be unclear. You're welcome to disagree with it.

goodmorning
Survivor
 
User avatar
Joined: October 15, 2012
Location: THE SWAMPS OF MOSQUITOEY HELL (aka Orlando, FL)
Pronoun: She

Post Post #3772  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:48 pm

In post 3676, davesaz wrote:@GM: is adding original ideas to someone else's point. was also adding. I have no control over others seeing things and responding to them before I've even had a chance to read them.

That's fair. Could do with some more of you not getting sucked into 1v1s though.

In post 3680, Thor665 wrote:
In post 3674, goodmorning wrote:(Example: this happened to Muffin when he pointed out that Thor's version of events was incorrect as Shiro's scumread on Anen was decreasing; Thor responded by moving the posts to the amount of discussion rather than the content of said discussion.)

Quote me calling out the content and not the amount - even Muffin understood from the get go that I was talking amount --> he then claimed I "moved the goalposts to quantity"

So at least one of you is a total derp who got it backwards because you claim opposite things.

In post 3083, Thor665 wrote:You did take forever to say anything of worth - and then voted Pere out of the blue with no justification despite making a wall on Anen. That feels wonky to me.

In post 3089, Muffin wrote:Here's the "wall" in question, about Anen. I note without surprise that the first line explicitly shows Shiro's diminishing scumread on Anen. Given the proximity of deadline I do not see any internal inconsistency there.

You took a question of content (was Pere vote justified? suspicion of Anen was dropping) and turned it into quantity (so much more thought on Anen).

In post 3674, goodmorning wrote:@Thor: Did I say the situation was the same? No. Stop putting words in my mouth.

So...you brought up something that was different to show how I am in this game, and I was scum in the different game...?

I brought up an example of you as Scum on the offensive, as you are right now. Just because the situation isn't the same doesn't mean the reaction isn't.

In post 3681, Thor665 wrote:You claim I started at quality and moved to quantity.

No, I don't. I claim that you started in content (does Shiro's read display a coherent trajectory?) and changed the subject to classification of the content (quantity/quality/whatever).

In post 3686, davesaz wrote:Someone asks you to prove your point, and you ask them to prove the counter point.

In fancy debate words for you fancy debate folks, dave is referring to Burden of Proof, which lies on the person making a positive assertion (Thor, in this case).

In post 3689, TierShift wrote:Why do my shifts on thor make me scummy?

Because they don't make sense. I can't make heads nor tails out of them, nor any sort of reasoning at all.

In post 3701, Izariael wrote:
In post 3699, TierShift wrote:Right, but Thor's now just being awkward for no reason at all, while yesterday he needed to be so to get pere lynched.

How is/was Thor being awkward for no reason at all Day 2? His awkwardness was due to being caught out on a flimsy scumread and failing to back it up.

This.

In post 3704, Izariael wrote:Even the existing spoiler tags within the quotes weren't working properly.

Probably what happened was you broke quote tags with a spoiler, like [quote[spoiler[/quote[/spoiler. It's a known weird issue. Also they're not nestable so that would be another problem.

In post 3706, TierShift wrote:no one actually reads walls, yaknow.

I read it. And my heart cried tears of joy.

In post 3711, The Fonz wrote:Similarly, when GM claims Thor isn't scumhunting because tunnel, I wonder if she knows what scumhunting is. There is no value in 'commenting on other players' if you're confident you have scum in your dights.

Possibly, just possibly, YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PLAYER IN THE GAME. OTHER PEOPLE NEED TO READ YOU. WHEN YOU CAN POST LITTLE ENOUGH ON 99% OF PLAYERS, YOU CAN HAVE WHATEVER OPINION IS CONVENIENT. THERE IS NOT ONLY ONE SCUM IN A GAME THIS SIZE.

ALL OF THOSE REASONS FFS

In post 3724, Shiro wrote:Can I ask something Slander which was your alternative ? Yea u defended Pere the whole time yet u never really presented any wagon for people to vote how is you abstaining to vote to keep your hands clean any better ?

SHIT JUST GOT REAL

Breaking up wallpost; part 2 coming once I've read the next 2 pages.
EFFORT IS NOT INDICATIVE OF ALIGNMENT
Calling On Dragons coming eventually!

Get to know a very pleasant AM.

goodmorning
Survivor
 
User avatar
Joined: October 15, 2012
Location: THE SWAMPS OF MOSQUITOEY HELL (aka Orlando, FL)
Pronoun: She

Post Post #3773  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:55 pm

In post 3756, Thor665 wrote:Unvote: Iz
Vote: Dave

What is this, the second OMGUS vote today?

In post 3771, davesaz wrote:Thor says something.
Someone disagrees with it.
Thor attacks the person who disagreed with him.

Disagreeing with things that others post is not scummy.
Attacking people who disagree with you is scummy, if you do it to the degree that Thor is doing it.

I don't see any way this position can be unclear. You're welcome to disagree with it.

This is a much better post than the posts in which you talk to Thor.

Welllllll looks like these 2 pages were mostly rehashed so NOT WALL
EFFORT IS NOT INDICATIVE OF ALIGNMENT
Calling On Dragons coming eventually!

Get to know a very pleasant AM.

reinoe
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: March 11, 2014
Location: Reno, NV
Pronoun: He

Post Post #3774  (ISO)  » Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:58 pm

In post 3769, TierShift wrote:flub, it is time.

VOTE: dave

I'll read more throughly tomorrow.

Why leans-town Dave instead of obvscum Thor?
Scum typically need to fabricate reasons for scumreads...

Selkie

PreviousNext
[ + ]

Return to Completed Large Normal Games