Zilla wrote:Fucking hell, I am SO TIRED OF BEING MISREPRESENTED AND MISUNDERSTOOD.
Hypersensitive reaction. Scummy by your own logic.
Zilla wrote:Now, to address Goat's posts without quoting them because apparently that breaks their context, though it seriously doesn't.
Quoting doesn't break context. Pulling out individual phrases outside of their intended context does, creating strawmen. I will give a prime example:
Zilla wrote:Beyond_Birthday wrote:Since my reason for voting was based mostly off of someone else's opionion, I would no longer go along with that opinion as soon as he made that post before my unvote. After reading several of his points, I reread the relevant posts and found that a majority of his reasons were based on the rving stage, which is entirely invalid until the late game, and to be honest, the usefulness of the RV even then is questionable.
I don't fully understand.
This is crucial. You don't fully understand, and this is why your case is weak.
You pulled this grossly out of context. The context is me saying that I'm not sure which of 2 possibilities BB falls into, but it is definitely one of those two possibilities. I then go on to address both possibilities. BB admitted that his mindset fit one of the two possibilities. You pulled out the first sentence "I don't fully understand" and used it to imply that I lacked understanding in how I attacked BB. That is a strawman, and a misrepresentation. Don't believe me? Here is the original quote she so eloquently butchered:
I don't fully understand. I see two possible ways of interpreting what you've said. They are either:
1. You voted Panzer not because of the case on him, but because you were merely following GIEFF's lead. In other words, GIEFF thought Panzer was scum, so you decided to vote for Panzer based entirely on GIEFF's opinion that Panzer was scum and not on his actual reasoning.
2. You voted Panzer because of GIEFF's reasons for thinking Panzer was scum.
I'm guessing number 2 was your reason here, but I'll address either possibility.
We go from Zilla's butchering: "You don't understand the BB situation" to the actual context: "I don't understand which of these two mindsets you had at the time, and will address either possibility." The only person who didn't understand the BB situation was you, as it obvious. You tried to defend him without any understanding of the situation, which is highly scummy all on it's own. The implication is obvious here. You knew his alignment, and defended him because you knew he was town and wanted to smear me, not because you had an understanding of the situation and thought the actual situation made him likely to be town.
Zilla wrote:On the "vote stretching," you can call me a tunneller all you want, but that's how I roll. Check my meta. I don't drift around once I think I have a lead.
Deflection. I never called you a tunneler, nor did I imply that tunneling is scummy in any way. I said that you threw on additional meaningless reasons to suspect me to beef up your case and make it seem more than it actually was, which is scummy. Nice deflection, though.
Zilla wrote:On the SK discussion, you missed
this post. It was stupid when I didn't have a handle on the game and the situation, and now it's not so much about what was being said but who said it. I'm suspicious of those people who advocate an SK witch-hunt when we don't know if there is one, and that includes myk and panzer.
I didn't miss that post. In fact, I think that post is scummy as hell. It's the exact same tone you took when you realized that you screwed up and stepped out too far in your defense of BB. It's that "shit, I screwed up now I have to sneak a backtrack in here" tone. Note comments you use like "I may have changed my mind" and "perhaps it's just reading it all in one sitting" and "the argument has aged well." That's just flowery language to cover up the bullshit you used as fertilizer (this metaphor is a stretch...). You may have changed your mind? You either did or did not change your mind. You went on about how the SK discussion was stupid, but then you realized you needed more points against Mykonian to make your case on seem seem more legitimate, so you reneged on that assessment. Scummy. Furthermore, you need to show where Mykonian has "advocated a SK witch-hunt when we don't know if there is one." I don't recall him doing that at all.
Zilla wrote:Both you and GIEFF have misunderstood my intent on "being suspicious of nobody defending panzer." I mean you are suspicious THAT nobody is defending panzer, but then you fill that role by defending him. I've seen scum do this countless times. "Oh hay guize this wagun luks to EZ, lol! Thay must not B scum
!" Turns out both the person being pushed and the person who said the wagon looked too easy were scum.
Understood. Why didn't you address this then, when I argued against it? You left this to hang for many posts. Rather than say "you're misunderstanding my point" and clarifying it, you pulled the "fire and brimstone" argument.
Zilla wrote:As for inconsistency on who is scum and who I am pursuing, that's not true at all. I am voting for my top suspect now, as I always have been. Perhaps if you take the integral of my suspicion over time, you might say I'm not voting for the person with the most area under their curve, but I've always voted for the top suspect on my list. Mykonian is still my second suspect. Panzer and Birthday are third but in different facets; Panzer is more "group suspicious" and Birthday is more "single suspicious."
This is crap. For reference, here is the post,
post 387. As is obvious by reading that post, this occurs AFTER Birthday admits his scumminess and votes you. Since that point on, Birthday has not changed his stance at all. This is important. You list Mykonian at 50%, Panzer at 40%, and me at 20%. A few days later, you list Birthday at 75% when forced to give a stance on him.
Here's why this is scummy. If Birthday did not change his stance at all, it stands to reason that your stance on him likewise did not alter much (Note: you agree later in this post). You never questioned him, addressed him or made any post suggesting a change in heart regarding him. You listed him at 75%, and it stands to reason he was similarly 75% at the time you made the post I linked above (or at least close). So, that means that Birthday is at or around 75%, Mykonian is 50%, Panzer is 40%, and I am 20%
at the time of that post
. From reading your posts, it's clear Birthday was your top suspect based on the percentages, and you did not vote him or address him. I will also note that I was at 20%, a percentage more townie than the average player (likely between 25%-33%). Your suspicion of me rose from 20% to over 75% and much of that suspicion was generated or based on me providing a link describing my opinion rather than directly typing it out. Let's go ahead and look at your original response to the post I linked to:
Okay, now I can at least see a bit of what you are thinking. I don't agree with you, but I also don't think you're scum right now either.
unvote: goatrevolt
So, by linking to the very post you unvoted me over, your suspicion of me began to rise enough to go from 20% to over 75%? Haha, no.
Zilla wrote:
On "aggressive defense," you obviously don't know what my argument is, hence your misconstruction. It's the polar opposite between you and BB, and yet those extremes show scum behavior. BB's example, he tries to wholly own his scummy mistakes and therefore somehow nullify them. As if because he's the one pointing out his scummy behavior, hey, it's okay! You are the other kind of scum, that overreact to any suspicion thrown their way. See Charter in my Family Guy meta.
Deflection, again. I said that you were suspicious because of the hypocrisy. You have defended yourself exactly the same way I have, by "overreacting." Note my very first line of this post. You call me scummy for being hypersensitive and aggressive in my defense. You are guilty of the exact same thing. I called you out on the hypocrisy, and here we see you utilize deflection to try to avoid that point.
Zilla wrote:On "linking instead of text," that was for your current opinion on panzer, nothing else. Opinions that are outdated are no good. Arguments that are still valid are perfectly acceptable linking material.
My arguments on Panzer were still valid. Nothing had changed between that post and my current opinion. In fact, the text I provided you was almost a carbon copy of what I said in that earlier post, yet you did not bat an eye. So why didn't you accept me linking to that almost exact same explanation as valid? There is no logical reasoning here, you are arguing a completely nonsensical point. To prove my point, I will quote both sections, and you tell me where the difference is:
My stance, in the post I linked to wrote:In essence, I think Panzer has played in a scummy fashion. The logic adds up to him being scum: the inconsistencies, the inability to explain his behavior, etc.. My gut is saying no, though, which is part of the reason I have hesitated on the wagon. Despite his failings in explaining himself throughout the thread, I've felt some of his plays have seemed genuine. The logic suggests he is scum, but I hesitate on the gut aspect, and in addition I wasn't comfortable ending the day with a lot of open ends.
Compare that to:
The stance I gave when Zilla wouldn't accept my link wrote:Panzer has been scummy in terms of actions. He has had inconsistent reasoning in describing the reasons behind his vote on Mykonian, even to the point of using wishy-washy language to describe his own mindset. On the other hand, I do not think he "feels" like scum. A lot of his posts have seemed genuine. I get the feeling that he is genuinely suspicious of the people he has been voting as of late, not just making up suspicion to appear town. I could see him as scum (based on the inconsistencies) but I can also see him end up being town (based on how his posts feel).
Those are almost identical. You repeatedly stated I could not link to post 295 because it was not a current opinion. I gave my "current opinion" finally, and it was pretty much exactly the same as what I said in 295. When I gave that "new" opinion your response was "Finally, Goat answers the question." To me, this demonstrates how obvious it was that you didn't even bother to read 295 when I linked to it. You misreped me by arguing against 240, not 295 once, and then when I gave the same description later, you accepted it. I think if you had actually read 295, you would have noticed the glaring similarities and commented on it. You didn't do this. It stands to reason you were just throwing suspicion on me for no good reason. Scummy.
Zilla wrote:Opinions, however, are far quicker to go into expiry than arguments. Furthermore, I answered your BB question and ALSO provided a link. You're also generalizing between the birthday and panzer things, the irony I was going for, without heeding the specifics; namely, the post you linked to was basically you explaining post 240, from ages ago, and your vote had switched since then, so you'd obviously had a difference in opinion. Nothing of note had happened regarding birthday since my linked post, and my vote handn't changed, and the situation at large had remained mostly the same.
I will thoroughly enjoy ripping this to shreds. Let us begin:
Zilla wrote:namely, the post you linked to was basically you explaining post 240, from ages ago, and your vote had switched since then
I also gave a stance in that post on Panzer. The same stance that I "wrote out for you" later on. Furthermore, my vote had switched from MacavityLock to Beyond_Birthday. That does not affect my opinion on Panzer.
Zilla wrote:Nothing of note had happened regarding birthday since my linked post
Thank you so much for saying this. You just proved my earlier point. You know, the point where I say your opinion didn't change on Birthday, and you put him at 75%, so you should have been voting him, or at least attacking him in some fashion? You just proved me correct right here. Good game, scum.
I will state this again and make it clear. Zilla says nothing of note changed regarding Birthday. She listed Birthday at 75%. Since nothing of note changed, that means Birthday was also at 75% at the time she posted "Mykonian 50%, Panzer 40%, Goat 20%." She wasn't voting for her top scum suspect. She wasn't even mentioning him at all. Scum caught.
Zilla wrote:and my vote handn't changed, and the situation at large had remained mostly the same.
Your vote changed from Mykonian to me. And the situation at large had remained mostly the same is just more proof to my above point. Thanks for making my case easier.
Zilla wrote:On "hasty dismissal," again, your "case" was three one-off lines. I'll admit I'd hardly read anything at that point, but whenever somebody switches their vote from somebody who hadn't defended themselves for somebody else who hadn't posted in a while and their listed reasons are "lack of scumhunting, suspicious disengage from Panzer, and wishy-washy stances," of course I'm going to be critical. That is a weak case, no matter what. There's no way that those reasons are enough to lynch anybody, and there seemed to be no outstanding catalyst for a changed vote other than the MacavityLock wagon was stuck in a rut.
Critical, sure. However, if you are critical of a case, yet you don't understand the details behind it, what do you do? Do you dismiss the case as being weak without understanding it at all? Shenanigans. You seek to understand it.
You saying it's a weak case doesn't make it a weak case. Me using three one-liners doesn't mean my case is weak, and you know it. You called it out as a weak case likely because you knew Birthday was town, and wanted to smear me.
Zilla wrote:Also, you say you wanted to "test reactions," which is a common scum justification for just about anything they do to try to get a wagon moving, especially if what they did was scummy to begin with. Note; this has been done multiple times in this game, by many people.
Strawman. Your argument is that it's scummy for me to give three 1-line reasons for voting someone. Your original vote on me was a single 1-line reason. Hypocrisy. My vote on BB was not scummy. I gave my reasons, I did not fill in the blanks. There is a reason I did that. It's because I gave a chance for BB to fill in the blanks himself, which gives us a great indication of his mindset. I gave the chance for other townies to fill in the blanks, which gives an indication of their mindset. You certainly gave us a good reaction here. You dismissed the case without knowing what comprised it.
Zilla wrote:On "inability to read posts," the same could be said of you, except that you're actively contorting mine to fit your wild arguments. You argue that I pull quotes out of context; what would be more clear "in context"? There's nothing missing from them that would be further explained by not addressing the points as they come up. I'm trying to get to the root of the problem because so much of those "out of context" things are because I try to point out exactly where your inaccuracy causes your entire case to fall apart. If you were talking about plants and how they are horrible because they eat kittens, and you make a detailed post about how plants eat kittens and what happens to the kitten populations, I'm going to stop you as soon as you say plants eat kittens. There's nothing about that statement that needs to be "in context" to be fully understood, and it is wrong.
I gave an example of this above. The "I don't fully understand" point, where you spin it around to mean that I don't have a grasp on the situation, when my actual and obvious meaning was that I don't know which of two possibilities is correct, so I addressed both.
Using your plants with kittens example here is what I mean: I would say something like the following. "If plants could eat kittens, then the kitten population would be lower." You then say "Wow, Goat thinks plants can eat kittens. He must have knowledge of a kitten eating plant and so he's scum." Think I'm lying? Let's look at a real example:
In
Post 480 I discuss the concept of lynching for information. I say that lynching for information as a concept suggests that it is acceptable to lynch a town player because of the information generated. I then go on to ask, "what do we learn from lynching Panzer if he is town." I am entirely addressing the concept of lynching for information. I want to know why lynching for information is a good idea, and I'm using the example scenario of Panzer being town.
You make a response in
Post 482. In your response, you say that I am awfully adamant that Panzer is town. That is a misrepresentation and a strawman argument. You took my
example scenario
, ripped it out of context to suggest it was my actual opinion, and then argued against that opinion you ripped out. That is the definition of a strawman.
Zilla wrote:Also, "that's the definition of strawman"? Unlike you, I answer every single part of those posts. I've only cut standalone statements that are not part of any argument. When you engage in your side of a quote war against me, you constantly incorrectly paraphrase me to destroy that actual intent of the argument.
I've already shown this to not be true, based on my two above examples ("I don't fully understand", Panzer is town). You cut parts out of my posts and argue against them, creating a strawman and smearing me. That is scummy. Also, nice unsupported deflection there at the end. We're discussing your play here, not mine. So much of your defense in this post is an attempt to deflect back to me. And naturally so, because you don't have a defense for your scummy actions.
Zilla wrote:On your example: "lynching for information." You commit that exact fallacy. I debated at length about the logic of lynching for information, and I debated why it is logical if panzer is town. You then CONSTRUCT A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT by ignoring that, and instead attacking from the angle that panzer will be a mislynch while birthday will not
hahahaha. Funny, funny. I've gone through your posts and this is what I've found on the topic:
Zilla wrote:Guys, asking for what specific information a lynch will give beforehand is eating unripened fruit.
Zilla wrote:I think town-panzer might actually give us more information than scum-birthday. While, in retrospect, it's always better to lynch scum, we don't know their alignments
Zilla wrote:I personally think a town panzer doesn't clear anyone
Zilla wrote:Town Panzer would help us analyze whether his defenders were defending him because they thought he was town or because they knew he was town, rather than leaving it open to speculation on if his defenders are trying to defend a buddy. Revealing the specifics of who falls into which category is harmful and pointless at this point, and potentially destroys sources of information.
Debated at length? Your only reason given was my last quote there: "Town Panzer would help us..." That is a marginal and weak reason. That information can be determined right now, without Panzer actually being lynched. Basically, what you're saying is "who is defending Panzer without just cause?" We don't need a dead Panzer to analyze that.
I never said Panzer will be a mislynch and Birthday will not be. That is a direct lie based on your own strawmanning of my posts. I've shown already where you have done this. Point out exactly where I say Panzer is a mislynch, and Birthday is guaranteed scum, and I will show you the obvious strawman.
Zilla wrote:
On "justifying her position from a town standpoint," nice psycological construction, trying to associate suspecting you with scum. I'm voting for my top suspect. I know you've been making the rounds to see who will follow your BB bandwagon, though that only makes me critical of your attempts to protect panzer.
Holy deflection and misrepresentation batman! I never said or implied that you were scummy for suspecting me. I said you were scummy because according to the Zilla percentage based analysis of who is scum, I was lower on the Zilla-scale than Birthday, yet you were not voting or attacking him whatsoever. Instead you were on me. This is a point I proved earlier in this post, using the evidence you so graciously gave me in your post. I said that I doubted you could back up your stance from a town standpoint, because I don't know how townie can back up ignoring their top suspect to pursue someone else.
------------------------------
Unvote, Vote Zilla
I encourage everyone to read this post carefully. Examine the links I provided. Take the time to understand the points I am making. Go back and verify for yourself. I've finally been able to nail Zilla on the contradictions, strawmen, hypocrisy, and deflection that she has been using this game (admittedly, others have been here first). It has made this game a living hell trying to argue with her, and I wrongly brushed it off as playstyle differences or her simply being unable to comprehend my posts. At this point, it has become quite clear that this is a result of her being scum. She is a fully capable player, and has no problem understanding posts.