In hopeful anticipation of not being replaced, I will VOTE: mallow for being the only one that I've played with before.
EBWOPreview: Sweet, a bandwagon
I think that your posts have been extreme, yes. However, they are now starting to become more reasonable -- especially the post that I just quoted. Not sure whether this redeems you or not, but there it is.podium123456 wrote:A. Do you think 'flipping out/extreme' is an accurate description of my responses in this thread? Or is that possibly an (dare i say it?) overreaction on his part?
B. Do you consider this post to be made by someone that is non-emotional/calm and collected?
How does that compare to this post, in your opinion? Similar, harsher, or weaker
I am back now, and the V/LA was the reason that I didn't respond to the prod that I received.gonnano wrote:Unfortunately I will be V/LA August 1-9, with the possibility of getting back the 8th or maybe even the 7th.
TJ wrote:I didn't place my vote on Podium because it would have lynched him. Something that, whileit sounded great, wassomething I needed to at least think about.
(emphasis mine)TJ wrote:ODDin,I very much would like to hammer,but before I do, I would like to wait for Sawyer and (I forget his name) to post
I am against lynching mallow on day 1 simply because he is extremely hard for me to read. In the (completed) game that I played with him, he acted very, very scummy and ended up flipping town. Feel free to take a look. I neglected to mention this earlier, but I don't think I'll even attempt a mallow read until I have more information.podium wrote:But how in the world can you vote Sawyer for 'not doing anything about his scum reads', when mallow is in the same boat? The difference is that sawyer is actually trying to scumhunt. I dont understand how you can vote him on such a weak case, especially when there is so much other information in the thread.
Why are you dinging sawyer, and not mallow?
How does this make any difference? I realize that sounding like and being a contradiction are different things, but Sawyer was definitely trying to say that itpodium wrote:That's kind of a weak post/vote, man. First of all... sawyer said itsoundedlike a contradiction... and i agree.
and makes this conclusion.TJ wrote:I didn't need to think about it due to others opinions. I wanted to wait, and thought that in the mean time, it would be great to hear from the rest of the players.
to recap, TJ said that he wanted to wait(to think about it), and as a bonus it would give others a chance to chime in. Then, Sawyer interprets TJ's statement as saying that he wanted to wait for others to speak, and as a bonus it would give him a chance to think.Sawyer wrote:you just wanted to hear other opinions, but that's not related to you needing to think about it.
What does podium's opinion have to do with your vote?Taz wrote:Maybe podium can clarify how he felt, but I felt it was an all too sudden attack on podium.
I'm not really concerned about whether it was actually a contradiction or not, even though personally I would say not. Mainly my point is that Sawyer tried to use it as an example of scumminess, and used a misrep to help his accusation. I quoted you because you did what Sawyer did not do, which was to acknowledge the fact that it is not a proven, 100% guaranteed contradiction.podium wrote:It does sound like a contradiction. But
I didn't reply because I asked for an example of a new argument from you and you provided one. I considered the matter resolved. It had nothing to do with my voting for you, which was done to open up more options for the town because I don't like the TJ lynch.ODDin wrote:You accused me of not bringing any new arguments to the table, I showed you it was wrong, yet you don't reply at all, and instead vote me. Yeah. Helpful and useful scumhunting.
You say that taz has two options. When he chooses one of them, you say this -ODDin wrote:taz again: voting sawyer won't help anyone, as I really don't think sawyer is going to be lynched today (I, for one, don't think he's scum). The candidates are myself and TJ. Make up your mind between us and go for it.
Why give him an option that you don't consider an acceptable choice?ODDin wrote:Taz, you're a complete fail. First you say you REFUSE to vote me. Now you think I'm more likely to be scum than TJ?
Maybe you should reread my post. I said that I asked for something and you were able to provide it, therefore my question was answered satisfactorily and I didn't pursue the matter any further. There was no accusation there.ODDin wrote:...Except that I did, in post 238. Do you want me to elaborate and provide more?
I felt like millar's vote was still an RVS-type vote (i.e. weak), which didn't seem especially scummy to me -- maybe counterproductive, but not necessarily scummy. I definitely didn't think that it warranted the response that podium gave it. So... weak, yes. Not well thought out, maybe. Incorrect, though, is an accusation that I don't think can be made of any vote until the recipient of the vote is dead and confirmed.Podium asked millar if his vote was serious and summed it up as "weak, incorrect, and generally not well thought out" for his reasons for voting. I feel that what he said was accurate, so do you disagree that millars vote was that of how Podium described it? If so, why?
What should I do with it? I haven't forgotten about it, and I definitely haven't ruled out mallow's slot as a mafia role. However, it's just not enough for me to lynch a player that I have personally known (as town) to quickhammer a D1 lynch (also town) while at the same time professing the lynchee's innocence.He says that about me, which is an accurate observation, but says nothing about mallow when he had been doing the same thing. He claims it's because he can't get a read on mallow, but that doesn't mean he should just ignore it like he does.
then this:TJ wrote:ODDin, I very much would like to hammer, but before I do, I would like to wait for Sawyer and (I forget his name) to post. I will give it a day, and see what happens.
At this point you say there is a contradiction, which there absolutely is not. Every statement made up to this point could be true at the same time as every other statement, which means that he has not contradicted himself. Podium's explanation in post 276 sounded to me like "He didn't specifically state every reason for waiting in his initial post, so when he added a reason later it was a contradiction", which I don't agree with.TJ wrote:I didn't place my vote on Podium because it would have lynched him. Something that, while it sounded great, was something I needed to at least think about.
Here it gets a little bit hairy, and I could understand why someone might think that it is a contradiction. However, this was 30 postsTJ wrote:I didn't need to think about it due to others opinions. I wanted to wait, and thought that in the mean time, it would be great to hear from the rest of the players.
IMO, this clarifies the previous quote. It's also consistent with all of the other statements that TJ made.TJ wrote:Your not listening. I wanted to hear from others input, not to decide the vote, but to see what they had to say. And yes, you are right, I didn't post anything about wanting to think about it. But I didn't think I would have to.
Not in the sense that I personally regard the vote as ridiculous (considering how little information was available at that point), but I can see how you might view it that way. Regardless, I was and am more interested in the intensity of your response, which I considered excessive.podium wrote:So, basically, you agree with my description of millars vote.
Uhh... a figurative contradiction then?podium wrote:The contradiction isnt about some literal contradiction
(bracketed items mine)TJ wrote:Although I [a] disagree with Sawyers final conclusion, Iunderstand his logic. I also [c] agree with your assessment on Gonnano.
Are the reasons for not hammering logically incompatible? No. That is why there is no contradiction.podium wrote:Is the reason for not hammering the same in both statements? No. That is the point, and the source of the contradiction.
Not at all. It's not the ONLY thing we should be doing, just what we should be doing instead of arguing about whether it is or isn't a contradiction. It's not a contradiction, and the sooner everyone gets past that and starts looking at believability, the better off we are.podium wrote:Why? Because you dont want people to talk about your case on sawyer?
Nice try, but rehashing another D1 argument isn't going to help matters.podium wrote:My response to millar? What is excessive about that?
Nope, you finally convinced me. Sorry for all of your time that I wasted.podium wrote:Let me guess... you're still going to deny it.
As evidenced by the fact that he specifically said that other peoples opinions weren't influencing his decision to hammer.
TJ did say that other people's opinions weren't influencing his decision to hammer. However, he also said that he wanted to hear from them anyway, which would be kind of hard to do if he had gone ahead and ended the day. So even though it's not changing his decision of whether or not he is going to hammer, it does influence"ODDin, I very much would like to hammer," (as TJ already admitted, what follows this portion of the quote is unrelated to his decision to hammer)
I don't really understand the question... are you saying that something doesn't prove anything or am I supposed to be saying that? What something are we talking about that doesn't prove anything?Sawyer wrote:Gonnano, you never respond to why this doesn't prove anything.
I stated my opinion, and your response was your defense. There's not much more for me to say.podium wrote:Hey, numbskull... why did i mention it?
1. Quite lurky, IMOTJ wrote:Will you please reiterate and expand why it is that you think Sawyer is scum.
It's fine to say that he's lying, but even in the alien example you can't accuse him of contradicting himself. Lying and contradiction are not the same thing. For example, if I told you that I have seven eyes I would be lying, but unless I had told you earlier that I didn't have seven eyes there would still be no contradiction. Even if you assumed that I had only two eyes, there is no contradiction unless I actually made two contradictory statements.podium wrote:we think you are lying' and you go 'oh but he never said they didn't land, so you can't accuse him of lying'.
If I went to Africa and only saw three elephants, does that mean there are only three elephants in Africa? Can I accuse Africa of contradicting itself if I later find out that it contains 500,000 elephants?podium wrote:It's not about stating each reason... there was only ONE reason, and he gave it.
Only objective statements can be refuted. In a subjective argument like whether or not you were excessive, both sides can be presented and then it is up to each person to draw their own conclusions.podium wrote:If there is no response to my rebuttal, i consider the point refuted.
As I said before, you can't include your assumptions in determining whether or not there was a contradiction. Implied meanings would fall under the category of trying to figure out if he is lying or not, not whether he contradicted himself or not.poduim wrote: His statement implied
Or maybe it's because I don't think that your response did any significant damage to my original case, so I am satisfied with leaving the arguments the way they are and letting everyone else decide.podium wrote:If you dont/cant respond to rebuttals, then your original case becomes flimsy.
Any early-game vote is going to be weak. That doesn't mean that they deserve a response as aggressive as the one that you gave millar.podium wrote:You agreed with nearly everything i said about millars actions... therefore it is hypocritical for you to criticize my reaction as excessive.
Agreed. (see my post # 330)podium wrote:Perhaps we should have the backup doctor claim? At least that would give us a clear and narrow our choices down for a better chance of making the right decision today. ...actually, isn't that our best move now? i think the backup is more useful to us as a clear today, than as a roll of the dice doc save tonight.
Says the meaning of the word contradiction. If you are trying to find somewhere that he has contradicted or "spoken against" himself, you can only deal with his actual statements, otherwise you only find places where his statements conflict with your original assumptions. This is not to say that your assumptions are unreasonable or baseless, only that they aren't statements coming from TJ.podium wrote:Says who? You? Why can't i compare/contrast someone's underlying attitude that they are conveying?
Well, instead of trying to figure out why millar thought it was enough of a reason to vote or trying to gain some information from him, you went straight to the offensive, basically saying that he must be an idiot to not realize that the first person the mod noticed quoting from an ongoing game wasn't actually the first one to do it. Then you imply that the only option other than what you did would have been to vote for yourself, a huge exaggeration that as far as I can tell was meant to belittle millar and helped the town not at all. Then, you top it all off with a vote that is based on two sentences from millar, a case that is at least as weak as the one that he made on you.podium wrote:Explain what was so aggressive about it. (note that you have never explained anything... all you have said is 'it was too aggressive'... which is vague)
gonnano wrote:it seems like someone who is trying to look for scum would have said something like "What is your opinion of the part that gonnano played in the situation that you voted me for?", whereas your post came off as "Nononono get your vote off me and put it on gonnano, he did it!"
It's fine to do that but you can't pretend that your inferences have the same status as a direct statement from the actual person in question.podium wrote:You're telling me that people cant compare/contrast someone's underlying attitude?
Straight to the offensive meaning in this case that as soon as you had verified that the vote wasn't an accident or a joke you went for millar's throat. It's a good thing that you did bother to check first, but that's not really an impressive attempt at trying to get information from the vote. There's still a whole lot of middle ground that you skipped over.podium wrote:As sawyer pointed out, i didn't go straight to the offensive... i asked him if he was serious before i reacted.
I must have misunderstood what you meant when you said that I had never explained anything.podium wrote:I saw this... but it is a misrepresentation of what actually happened.
Not quite. Attitudes are based on inferences, therefore they can't be treated as actual statements from the person who supposedly had that attitude, therefore they can't be used to prove a contradiction. It's fine to compare/contrast the attitudes that you infer, but no matter how believable it is it's still based on guesses and can't be used to establish something as solid as a flat-out contradiction.podium wrote:Attitudes are based on inferences, so that's irrelevant. Therefore the attitude he claimed to have at the end contradicts the attitude he gave when he made the statement.
Case closed.
You could have tried to find outpodium wrote:What more was there to get? He specifically told me what his reason was.
Considering that your vote was also weak (based on two sentences from millar), incorrect (he was town), and not well thought out (a judgment call, but I don't think that the approach you took with your response/vote was anywhere close to the best path), I don't consider your case and millar's case to really be all that different.podium wrote:If you agree that his vote was weak, incorrect, and not well thought out... then it is an ACCURATE description of his vote. That automatically makes his case much weaker than mine.
Sure. Fine. Whatever. If you want to make a guess about TJ's attitude at different points and then say that he has contradicted himself based on your guesses, go ahead. Ignore the fact that the things that heEverything you said is irrelevant. If you agree that i can compare/contrast attitudes, and i determine that the attitudes he presented are not the same, then by definition they contradict each other.
podium wrote:I'll ask again... since when are people required to interrogate others before they can place a vote? What is the required number i must do before i place a vote? Tell me. Also, why does me placing a vote on him magically prevent us from discussing the situation further?
I feel like my information was considerably more solid than "Millar's stupid vote millar".podium wrote:Or better yet, explain this. You did the SAME EXACT THING that you are criticizing me for doing. At least i hesitated some before i 'went for his throat'... YOU didn't at all.
podium wrote:Lemme guess... your going to try and weasel your way out of it with some crappy/false logic.
podium wrote:What was i supposed to do? Not try to get him to understand it? And allow his incorrect criticism to stand?
podium wrote:What should i have done?? Agreed with him??
Lol, that's sort of the point. But thanks for going through and showing how my "case" on you is crap, because it's essentially the same case you made against millar. I'm sorry that the "incorrect" part I used was more solid than the "incorrect" part that you used, but I couldn't find an exact match. Oh, btw, which vote is this that I'm justifying?podium wrote:You are trying to justify your vote on me because my case was weak, incorrect (fail logic), and not well thought out. WHICH IS THE SAME CRITERIA I USED TO VOTE MILLAR. DING DING DING HELLOOOOOOO ANYBODY HOME???
I tried to end it earlier, but Sawyer and podium didn't like that so I'm back in the saddle again. And I disagree about the argument not moving forward, because if you look you can see the points that they've dropped in response to my explanations. We're down to one last little piece about how podium's inferences are as good as a flat-out statement from the player that he's inferencing about, and as soon as that's gone I'll have proved my point.TJ wrote:Gonanno- Continues to argue with Podium about me contradicting myself. Honestly Gonanno, this argument isn't going anywhere. I am actually getting conserned that you are attempting to buddy with me. I can argue my own case if I find that I need to. Currently everything that is being said are only reiterations, you and Podium are talking past each other.
Oh, so you're saying that I'm tunneling, and in addition to tunneling I'm discussing other things. What did tunneling mean again? Cause I thought it was focusing exclusively on one thing.TJ wrote:The fact that you continue to tunnel Sawyer and at the same time
You're right. It's getting old and I won't further it any more.podium wrote:You're just as guilty of furthering this discussion as i am.
I tend to think about things in terms of roles, not alignment. Obviously you have only my word on this, though, so all I can say is that it makes more sense to me to consider possible night actions that a person might have when I am looking at their motivation for doing something.orochi wrote:Something I wanted to consider for a minute, post 330 where Gonnano comments about my entry into the game in mallow's place, he comments that he couldn't even begin to guess what my role is. Not my alignment, my role. Phrasing doesn't feel right there. Already know my alignment and trying to figure out if I'm the nurse?
Are you talking about when TJ was considering a hammer vote? That's a pretty different situation.jenniwren wrote:Throws suspicion on Sawyer for not voting for his suspects…but doesn’t mention that TEEJAY did the same thing with Podium? >.> Almost seventy-five posts…most of them walls…and no vote? And SAWYER’S suspicious?
podium was nowhere near L-1 at that point.jenniwren wrote:He accuses Podium in post #45. Doesn’t find him suspicious until he’s at L-1? REEEALLY?
read "for a second I thought I might have to bus my partner, but then I got this great excuse not to!"Sawyer wrote:I was feeling the same as Jen just about the entire time up until Gonnano made his 3 points regarding the claim and counterclaim. Since Orochi wasn't able to respond, nothing can be gained from it aside from speculation and top that off with Jens case on TJ, I'm going with my original vote.
but scum would want to blend in with the town as much as possible, not stake out new and dangerous territory by suspecting someone who really hasn't been looked at thoroughly yet. If you recognize that there were easier choices, why do you think that I would go after Sawyer if I were scum?podium wrote: i just dont see town going after sawyer when there were more appealing choices
What has he done that's townie? (by the way, if TJ shows up I would like for him to answer this question as well)Sawyer wrote:along with the fact that sawyer didn't really do anything scummy
Yeah, that's a good idea. Instead of voting one of the people who has a 50% chance of being scum, vote someone who has a 33% chance of being scum.jenniwren wrote:We could actually not vote either of us, and instead vote Gonnano.