Open 680.1 C9++ | Endgame

Alchemist21 · Post Post #650 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:57 am

Comm's being weird again like last game, but I can't tell if it's scummy or just plain bad.

Titus · Post Post #651 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 6:51 am

Ok, I'm reading this up now. I haven't read in ages, so I'll just post my thoughts at the end, unless I get distracted/bored.

Umlaut · Post Post #652 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 6:52 am

In post 649, Alchemist21 wrote:Waiting for this is like waiting for Santa to write you back.

All you Santa deniers can just fuck off

Alchemist21 · Post Post #653 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:40 am

In post 652, Umlaut wrote:
In post 649, Alchemist21 wrote:Waiting for this is like waiting for Santa to write you back.
All you Santa deniers can just fuck off

I don't know why but this line just goes so well with your new avatar.

Gamma Emerald · Post Post #654 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:22 am

Yo Frank what's up

Brian Skies · Post Post #655 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:40 am

In post 634, Green Crayons wrote:And from that point on, he didn't say " several times that wasn't the point he was making right." After that, Alchemist ignored it and rested on "GC doesn't engage people like Post 154."

I swear to god you're doing this shit on purpose.

Yes, Alchemist was wrong that you weren't voting him. But what does that have to do with you advancing an argument that he never made (that you suspected Titus for lack of reasoning)? Just because he ended up being wrong about you voting Titus doesn't mean that you weren't strawmanning him before that (and he didn't even mention anything about you voting her until 553).

In post 635, Green Crayons wrote:"You didn't call her out on lack or reasoning"

The way I read his line is as follows:

"My issue with you has nothing to do about her 'lack of reasoning,' but you claiming she 'joined a wagon before you did."

NOT

"You're scummy for calling her out for her lack of reasoning."

If I'm wrong about this, then whatever. But I'm pretty sure this is the main issue in your conversation with each other.

Brian Skies · Post Post #656 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:50 am

In post 532, Alchemist21 wrote:You didn't call her out on lack or reasoning,
you called her out on joining a wagon before you did.
You didn't engage her on that vote.
Your suspicion stems from her taking an early spot on a wagon that you think looks good for scum and being upset that you didn't get it. That's the point I'm making.

Like, the bolded is the point he's making. But you don't like to read entire trains of thought.

FireScreamer · Post Post #657 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:52 am

In post 524, Titus wrote:
In post 501, CommKnight wrote:Well at this point if FS flips red, I think we'd have quite a few associates to look at.
Fs might be scum, might be lynchbait.

Explain why I am lynchbaiting please?

Just read over since my last vote. Reads softening on Brian and Alchemist. Last few pages seem to be really nothing apart from the GC/Alchemist thing which I still mostly read as TvT.

Ask me questions guys. I've been away from the game and need to reevaluate. Getting some direction on where to start from someone on that would help.

FireScreamer · Post Post #658 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:52 am

Last post*

FireScreamer · Post Post #659 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:55 am

I still don't think there is a better candidate than Comm, who is antitown at the very least and has been seen to act like this as scum.

FireScreamer · Post Post #660 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:57 am

Like after Comm claimed in the last game there was a definite tonal shift towards more reasoned play which made the claim of them acting scummy on purpose more believable. They seem to know what more townie behavior than this is. Why don't they do it?

Unless that shift was a placebo because I was suddenly looking for town after the claim. But I know I wasn't the only person to notice that.

Green Crayons · Post Post #661 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:06 am

In post 656, Brian Skies wrote:
In post 532, Alchemist21 wrote:
You didn't call her out on lack or reasoning
,
you called her out on joining a wagon before you did.

You didn't engage her on that vote.

Your suspicion stems from her taking an early spot on a wagon that you think looks good for scum and being upset that you didn't get it. That's the point I'm making.
Like, the bolded is the point he's making. But you don't like to read entire trains of thought.

Hah. No.

According to Alchemist, I didn't engage Titus because I didn't call her out for lack of reasoning--per the underlined (the reverse is also true: I *only* called Titus out on joining a wagon before I did and therefore I didn't engaged Titus).

Of course, I didn't call her out for lack of reasoning because literally nobody said anything about Titus's lack of reasoning before Alchemist brought it up. As in, for someone to meet Alchemist's definition of ENGAGEMENT, I needed to have come up with that suspicion (lack of explanation) and then tried to engage on

that

suspicion.

FROM THERE you can get to Alchemist's really stupid conclusion "you are scum who was complaining that they weren't getting a good spot on the wagon" (bold italics). THAT conclusion doesn't follow unless if you FIRST adopt Alchemist's position that I wasn't engaging Titus because I didn't magically divine the appropriate suspicion to engage Titus on.

Green Crayons · Post Post #662 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:07 am

Let's diagram more sentences of bad cases!

Titus · Post Post #663 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:07 am

I'm just going to read the VCs later. I need a nap.

Green Crayons · Post Post #664 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:09 am

In post 655, Brian Skies wrote:Yes, Alchemist was wrong that you weren't voting him. But what does that have to do with you advancing an argument that he never made (that you suspected Titus for lack of reasoning)? Just because he ended up being wrong about you voting Titus doesn't mean that you weren't strawmanning him before that (and he didn't even mention anything about you voting her until 553).

Okay, you tell me why Alchemist is voting me. Make sure you leave out:

1) I failed to engage Titus on "legitimate" suspicion of she failed to articulate her shannon suspicions before voting
2) My Post 154 was not engagement but some sort of showboat of a case to justify a vote (which never happened) and mounting suspicions (which never occurred) on Titus

Green Crayons · Post Post #665 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:10 am

In post 654, Gamma Emerald wrote:Yo Frank what's up

A good post.

Green Crayons · Post Post #666 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:10 am

In post 641, Umlaut wrote:Trying to reread Narna

Also a good post.

Gamma Emerald · Post Post #667 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:12 am

In post 665, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 654, Gamma Emerald wrote:Yo Frank what's up
A good post.

Not sure if this is serious.
@FS: Can we talk a bit?

Brian Skies · Post Post #668 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:14 am

In post 661, Green Crayons wrote:Hah. No.

According to Alchemist, I didn't engage Titus because I didn't call her out for lack of reasoning--per the underlined (the reverse is also true: I *only* called Titus out on joining a wagon before I did and therefore I didn't engaged Titus).

Of course, I didn't call her out for lack of reasoning because literally nobody said anything about Titus's lack of reasoning before Alchemist brought it up. As in, for someone to meet Alchemist's definition of ENGAGEMENT, I needed to have come up with that suspicion (lack of explanation) and then tried to engage on that suspicion.

FROM THERE you can get to Alchemist's really stupid conclusion "you are scum who was complaining that they weren't getting a good spot on the wagon" (bold italics). THAT conclusion doesn't follow unless if you FIRST adopt Alchemist's position that I wasn't engaging Titus because I didn't magically divine the appropriate suspicion to engage Titus on.

Well, yeah, he argued you weren't engaging her too, which I even said to Alchemist here.

But it doesn't change that you pulled the 'lack of reasoning' thing out of your ass and are still falsely arguing that he made that as a point against you. And you're still fucking doing it.

FrankJaeger · Post Post #669 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:14 am

Hey guys gotta read from page 20 and after.
Been super busy irl . if i dont think the time for this game will come i will replace out

Reading tonight. Off work tommorow

Brian Skies · Post Post #670 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:17 am

In post 532, Alchemist21 wrote:
You didn't call her out on lack or reasoning
, you called her out on joining a wagon before you did.

I literally don't understand how you believe that the first part of this sentence has anything to do with his suspicions on you when he not only says it doesn't, but everything else in his post only supports the latter.

FireScreamer · Post Post #671 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:18 am

In post 667, Gamma Emerald wrote:
In post 665, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 654, Gamma Emerald wrote:Yo Frank what's up
A good post.
Not sure if this is serious.
@FS: Can we talk a bit?

I'll be around on and off for a while. Yes we can.

Green Crayons · Post Post #672 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:19 am

In post 670, Brian Skies wrote:
In post 532, Alchemist21 wrote:
You didn't call her out on lack or reasoning
, you called her out on joining a wagon before you did.
I literally don't understand how you believe that the first part of this sentence has anything to do with his suspicions on you when he not only says it doesn't, but everything else in his post only supports the latter.

Please tell me what the bolded phrase means to you.

Green Crayons · Post Post #673 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:19 am

In post 667, Gamma Emerald wrote:
In post 665, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 654, Gamma Emerald wrote:Yo Frank what's up
A good post.
Not sure if this is serious.
@FS: Can we talk a bit?

Serious.

Brian Skies · Post Post #674 (ISO) » Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:20 am

In post 672, Green Crayons wrote:
In post 670, Brian Skies wrote:
In post 532, Alchemist21 wrote:
You didn't call her out on lack or reasoning
, you called her out on joining a wagon before you did.
I literally don't understand how you believe that the first part of this sentence has anything to do with his suspicions on you when he not only says it doesn't, but everything else in his post only supports the latter.
Please tell me what the bolded phrase means to you.

I already fucking told you. The way I read it is as follows:

"I'm not saying you claimed she lacked reasoning, just that you claimed she joined a wagon before you."