667: Random C9 (Game Over!)
-
-
afatchic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2425
- Joined: August 4, 2008
Jdodge. votes can result in a lynch, but they have many more uses than just lynching people. you can use it to force pressure on people, get conversation started, which is what all this is doing right now.ShowNow taking sign ups:
The Fast and the Furious Mafia (Mini Theme)(11 spots left)
Upcoming Games:
The Bible Experience Mafia (Mini Theme)
Crazy Cops Mafia (Open Game)
Pre-In's are welcome for any of them.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
I am aware. Conversation doesn't just happen because someone places a vote - you have to stir the pot before the true flavour of the soup comes forth.afatchic wrote:Jdodge. votes can result in a lynch, but they have many more uses than just lynching people. you can use it to force pressure on people, get conversation started, which is what all this is doing right now.-
-
afatchic Mafia Scum
-
-
Moospiker Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 342
- Joined: August 3, 2008
- Location: England
-
-
KrisReizer Townie
- Townie
- Townie
- Posts: 50
- Joined: July 11, 2008
Ah, but you see the vote itself was half-jest, seeing how this is the random voting stage and all. Citing the fact that my logic is flawed is pointless, as there was no logic in my vote. I notice you dance around your point a lot. I hope you don't plan on using vocabulary to shield yourself from suspicion.JDodge wrote:
If you're worried about lynching someone, then why are you voting for them? A vote, being an action which is usedKrisReizer wrote:Vote: JDodgeHe's being whiny.
*notices the bandwagon and crouches to jump off if it goes lynchy*to lynch someone, would probablynotbe your best avenue to pursue if you are not willing to lynch the person you are voting for. Again, deduction, logic, opposite, remedy.Ah, life. I very much enjoy life. After all, it is a wonderful thing.-
-
KrisReizer Townie
- Townie
- Townie
- Posts: 50
- Joined: July 11, 2008
I see backpedaling here. You first attacked my random vote and now you agree with my defender. Mind you this is early in the game, but this is the scummiest action so far.JDodge wrote:
I am aware. Conversation doesn't just happen because someone places a vote - you have to stir the pot before the true flavour of the soup comes forth.afatchic wrote:Jdodge. votes can result in a lynch, but they have many more uses than just lynching people. you can use it to force pressure on people, get conversation started, which is what all this is doing right now.Ah, life. I very much enjoy life. After all, it is a wonderful thing.-
-
KrisReizer Townie
- Townie
- Townie
- Posts: 50
- Joined: July 11, 2008
-
-
Moospiker Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 342
- Joined: August 3, 2008
- Location: England
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Citing that your logic flawed was not pointless. And are you seriously trying to discredit me by saying that I'm "dancing around my point" when IKrisReizer wrote:
Ah, but you see the vote itself was half-jest, seeing how this is the random voting stage and all. Citing the fact that my logic is flawed is pointless, as there was no logic in my vote. I notice you dance around your point a lot. I hope you don't plan on using vocabulary to shield yourself from suspicion.JDodge wrote:
If you're worried about lynching someone, then why are you voting for them? A vote, being an action which is usedKrisReizer wrote:Vote: JDodgeHe's being whiny.
*notices the bandwagon and crouches to jump off if it goes lynchy*to lynch someone, would probablynotbe your best avenue to pursue if you are not willing to lynch the person you are voting for. Again, deduction, logic, opposite, remedy.clearly state my point and then state my reasoning, which you would notice if you actually read the post?-
-
Moospiker Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 342
- Joined: August 3, 2008
- Location: England
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
I don't think that's the scummiest action so far, I also don't like how you label it as such.KrisReizer wrote:
I see backpedaling here. You first attacked my random vote and now you agree with my defender. Mind you this is early in the game, but this is the scummiest action so far.JDodge wrote:
I am aware. Conversation doesn't just happen because someone places a vote - you have to stir the pot before the true flavour of the soup comes forth.afatchic wrote:Jdodge. votes can result in a lynch, but they have many more uses than just lynching people. you can use it to force pressure on people, get conversation started, which is what all this is doing right now.
Lastly, I don't like how you tell off Moo for not having content filled posts when other's have posted less content. I get the impression you're looking for an easy fish to fry.
Can you put the number of the game in the title/first post please Sim?-
-
Simenon Entitled
- Entitled
- Entitled
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: October 11, 2006
- Location: Chicago
-
-
KrisReizer Townie
- Townie
- Townie
- Posts: 50
- Joined: July 11, 2008
Yes, I am. You use a great deal more words than are necessary. This is not, in itself, a bad thing. However, I've seen it used as an attempt to appear to be saying something. I only meant that this will not work.JDodge wrote:
Citing that your logic flawed was not pointless. And are you seriously trying to discredit me by saying that I'm "dancing around my point" when IKrisReizer wrote:
Ah, but you see the vote itself was half-jest, seeing how this is the random voting stage and all. Citing the fact that my logic is flawed is pointless, as there was no logic in my vote. I notice you dance around your point a lot. I hope you don't plan on using vocabulary to shield yourself from suspicion.JDodge wrote:
If you're worried about lynching someone, then why are you voting for them? A vote, being an action which is usedKrisReizer wrote:Vote: JDodgeHe's being whiny.
*notices the bandwagon and crouches to jump off if it goes lynchy*to lynch someone, would probablynotbe your best avenue to pursue if you are not willing to lynch the person you are voting for. Again, deduction, logic, opposite, remedy.clearly state my point and then state my reasoning, which you would notice if you actually read the post?
However, you attempt to do exactly what I'm talking about when you make a bold claim, in this case that pointing out my flawed "logic" was not pointless, and then switch to an emotional appeal, as evidenced by your emphasis using italics, the emphatic 'seriously' and the overall offended tone. You're trying to defend yourself, but you don't have an argument to make, so you attempted to demonize me in the aforementioned ways.Thatis the sort of thing I meant you should avoid, because it will not fool me.
That is most definitely not what he JD did.Moospiker wrote:And also KR, I'm afraid JDodge is not backpedaling. He said that you don't have to place a vote to get discussion, thus diasagreeing with afatchic, who then agreed with JDodge. As did I.
First, we have:
And then, on the next page:JDodge wrote: If you're worried about lynching someone, then why are you voting for them? A vote, being an action which is usedto lynch someone, would probablynotbe your best avenue to pursue if you are not willing to lynch the person you are voting for. Again, deduction, logic, opposite, remedy.JDodge wrote: I am aware. Conversation doesn't just happen because someone places a vote - you have to stir the pot before the true flavour of the soup comes forth.
JD is contradicting him- or herself. Contradictions with no logic given for their existence more often than not mean that the person who spoke them is engaged in lying or some other unscrupulous act. Townies have nothing to gain from lying, as they have no knowledge about which to lie. Therefore, if a person is lying, then that person is almost certainly scum. And so, by proxy, is a person who is contradicting him- or herself.
If you'll notice, I'm frying everyone on whom I have a lead. As an explanation of my attack on Moo, I ask you to consider this. On whom can I make a better argument? Someone who has posted very little content? Or someone who has attempted to fake adding content? The reason I call Moo's post scummy is that it added nothing to the discussion, but attempted to look as though it did by containing an agreement with a statement already on the table.charter wrote: I don't think that's the scummiest action so far, I also don't like how you label it as such.
Lastly, I don't like how you tell off Moo for not having content filled posts when other's have posted less content. I get the impression you're looking for an easy fish to fry.
Also, I notice that Moo has, thus far, jumped to the aid of JD at my every attack. This is possibly scum-buddying.
These are not hammer justifications, just suspicious notes.Ah, life. I very much enjoy life. After all, it is a wonderful thing.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Here is where I draw the line and call bullshit. You are the one who is attempting to demonizeKrisReizer wrote:
Yes, I am. You use a great deal more words than are necessary. This is not, in itself, a bad thing. However, I've seen it used as an attempt to appear to be saying something. I only meant that this will not work.JDodge wrote:
Citing that your logic flawed was not pointless. And are you seriously trying to discredit me by saying that I'm "dancing around my point" when IKrisReizer wrote:
Ah, but you see the vote itself was half-jest, seeing how this is the random voting stage and all. Citing the fact that my logic is flawed is pointless, as there was no logic in my vote. I notice you dance around your point a lot. I hope you don't plan on using vocabulary to shield yourself from suspicion.JDodge wrote:
If you're worried about lynching someone, then why are you voting for them? A vote, being an action which is usedKrisReizer wrote:Vote: JDodgeHe's being whiny.
*notices the bandwagon and crouches to jump off if it goes lynchy*to lynch someone, would probablynotbe your best avenue to pursue if you are not willing to lynch the person you are voting for. Again, deduction, logic, opposite, remedy.clearly state my point and then state my reasoning, which you would notice if you actually read the post?
However, you attempt to do exactly what I'm talking about when you make a bold claim, in this case that pointing out my flawed "logic" was not pointless, and then switch to an emotional appeal, as evidenced by your emphasis using italics, the emphatic 'seriously' and the overall offended tone. You're trying to defend yourself, but you don't have an argument to make, so you attempted to demonize me in the aforementioned ways.Thatis the sort of thing I meant you should avoid, because it will not fool me.methrough the usage of twisting my words to suit your image, which in and of itself could be you defending yourself through an offense. Your own argument is in and of itself a complete and utter fabrication.
1. How is this a contradiction? I say that you shouldn't place a vote if you aren't willing to lynch someone, then I state that you can start conversation sans vote.KR wrote:First, we have:
And then, on the next page:JDodge wrote: If you're worried about lynching someone, then why are you voting for them? A vote, being an action which is usedto lynch someone, would probablynotbe your best avenue to pursue if you are not willing to lynch the person you are voting for. Again, deduction, logic, opposite, remedy.JDodge wrote: I am aware. Conversation doesn't just happen because someone places a vote - you have to stir the pot before the true flavour of the soup comes forth.
JD is contradicting him- or herself. Contradictions with no logic given for their existence more often than not mean that the person who spoke them is engaged in lying or some other unscrupulous act. Townies have nothing to gain from lying, as they have no knowledge about which to lie. Therefore, if a person is lying, then that person is almost certainly scum. And so, by proxy, is a person who is contradicting him- or herself.
2. Townies haveplentyto gain from lying in the current meta. Lynch all liars is completely outdated.
I agree that Moo does seem a bit off at this juncture. Hence my vote.KR wrote:Also, I notice that Moo has, thus far, jumped to the aid of JD at my every attack. This is possibly scum-buddying.-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
I don't see a contradiction there. I think it's bad how he had to come back later and add to his statement, but I don't see contradiction or backpedaling.
You don't necessarily have to have found all the scum by page two. I don't think agreeing is necessarily scummy, because some points need to be reiterated. I'll give you that this one didn't need reiterated. Twice.KR wrote:If you'll notice, I'm frying everyone on whom I have a lead. As an explanation of my attack on Moo, I ask you to consider this. On whom can I make a better argument? Someone who has posted very little content? Or someone who has attempted to fake adding content? The reason I call Moo's post scummy is that it added nothing to the discussion, but attempted to look as though it did by containing an agreement with a statement already on the table.-
-
Moospiker Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 342
- Joined: August 3, 2008
- Location: England
-
-
afatchic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2425
- Joined: August 4, 2008
i don't like the idea that agreeing or disagreeing are scum-tells. when someone makes an argument, you either have to agree with it or disagree with it. whether or not you express your opinion is up to you though.ShowNow taking sign ups:
The Fast and the Furious Mafia (Mini Theme)(11 spots left)
Upcoming Games:
The Bible Experience Mafia (Mini Theme)
Crazy Cops Mafia (Open Game)
Pre-In's are welcome for any of them.-
-
Moospiker Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 342
- Joined: August 3, 2008
- Location: England
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Not true. You can very easily take a neutral and apathetic position - taking a side isafatchic wrote:i don't like the idea that agreeing or disagreeing are scum-tells. when someone makes an argument, you either have to agree with it or disagree with it. whether or not you express your opinion is up to you though.nevera requirement. Give me an argument with two clear sides, and I'll demonstrate.-
-
KrisReizer Townie
- Townie
- Townie
- Posts: 50
- Joined: July 11, 2008
As I'm sure I'll say many times over the course of this game, where's your evidence? You made a point, but you gave nothing to support it.JDodge wrote: Here is where I draw the line and call bullshit. You are the one who is attempting to demonizemethrough the usage of twisting my words to suit your image, which in and of itself could be you defending yourself through an offense. Your own argument is in and of itself a complete and utter fabrication.
I may have misread your statement. By 'stir the pot', I assumed you meant that you agreed about the alternative uses of voting. If this was not the case, you may say so, and I'll happily drop this particular line.JDodge wrote:
1. How is this a contradiction? I say that you shouldn't place a vote if you aren't willing to lynch someone, then I state that you can start conversation sans vote.
Explain yourself. What could a townie lie about and benefit? Note, of course, that concealing a power role is not lying. It's keeping information secret. If the target of an attack is scum, than logic will support that conclusion. If the target is town, some amount of misdirection must be used to make the target appear scummy.JDodge wrote: 2. Townies haveplentyto gain from lying in the current meta. Lynch all liars is completely outdated.
Evidence, please? Your statement is an opinion.charter wrote:I don't see a contradiction there. I think it's bad how he had to come back later and add to his statement, but I don't see contradiction or backpedaling.
Furthermore, JD's first statement said that I shouldn't vote if I'm not trying to lynch. JD later "added" that you have to 'stir the soup' to get things going. That's a contradiction, cut and dry, assuming I have not made the mistake I mentioned above.
Not at all. I'm saying that agreeing without adding anything to the discussion is suspicious.Moospiker wrote:So, you're saying that I'm not allowed to agree with people? What the hell, KR.
The difference between the two of you is that afatchic actually made a point while you repeated JDodge's words.Moospiker wrote:Exactly, there you go. He *agrees*. Are you going to try to lynch two of us KR?
As an analysis of your posts thus far as a whole, I would like to point out that you, Moo, tend to use an offended position to make me appear unreasonable when, in fact, I am only using logic. If my logic has a flaw, point it out and I'll be happy to acknowledge it.
Yes. However, while this was not the point of your post, my suspicion was based on the fact that Moo did not make an argument. Moo only agreed with another argument. That kind of post is an attempt to appear contributory while not going out on a limb. It was a single suspicion against which Moo has done little to defend.afatchic wrote:i don't like the idea that agreeing or disagreeing are scum-tells. when someone makes an argument, you either have to agree with it or disagree with it. whether or not you express your opinion is up to you though.Ah, life. I very much enjoy life. After all, it is a wonderful thing.-
-
afatchic Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2425
- Joined: August 4, 2008
KR- i do agree with you on that though. if you want to agree with someone please add something or explain instead of just saying yeah i agree with them and nothing else.ShowNow taking sign ups:
The Fast and the Furious Mafia (Mini Theme)(11 spots left)
Upcoming Games:
The Bible Experience Mafia (Mini Theme)
Crazy Cops Mafia (Open Game)
Pre-In's are welcome for any of them.-
-
Moospiker Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 342
- Joined: August 3, 2008
- Location: England
Thing is, I don't like the way that you jumped on me for agreeing with JDodge. If I want to state my opinion, I'll agree, disagree, or take a totally different side. I wasn't trying to appear to be posting content. I was stating my opinion, which happened to be what JDodge said.Click.
Please, no double capitals.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Yet you don't have to give anything to support your claims?KrisReizer wrote:
As I'm sure I'll say many times over the course of this game, where's your evidence? You made a point, but you gave nothing to support it.JDodge wrote: Here is where I draw the line and call bullshit. You are the one who is attempting to demonizemethrough the usage of twisting my words to suit your image, which in and of itself could be you defending yourself through an offense. Your own argument is in and of itself a complete and utter fabrication.
Not the case.KrisReizer wrote:
I may have misread your statement. By 'stir the pot', I assumed you meant that you agreed about the alternative uses of voting. If this was not the case, you may say so, and I'll happily drop this particular line.JDodge wrote:
1. How is this a contradiction? I say that you shouldn't place a vote if you aren't willing to lynch someone, then I state that you can start conversation sans vote.
Of course! It's notKrisReizer wrote:
Explain yourself. What could a townie lie about and benefit? Note, of course, that concealing a power role is not lying. It's keeping information secret. If the target of an attack is scum, than logic will support that conclusion. If the target is town, some amount of misdirection must be used to make the target appear scummy.JDodge wrote: 2. Townies haveplentyto gain from lying in the current meta. Lynch all liars is completely outdated.lying, it's justnot being entirely truthful. And did you just say you'd misdirect the town to make anyone you think scum appear scummy?
Opinions are important.KrisReizer wrote:
Evidence, please? Your statement is an opinion.charter wrote:I don't see a contradiction there. I think it's bad how he had to come back later and add to his statement, but I don't see contradiction or backpedaling.
This is the bullshit I was talking about. I said that you have to "stir the soup", which you can doKrisReizer wrote:Furthermore, JD's first statement said that I shouldn't vote if I'm not trying to lynch. JD later "added" that you have to 'stir the soup' to get things going. That's a contradiction, cut and dry, assuming I have not made the mistake I mentioned above.just as easily without voting, then you attribute it to voting. You're dense.-
-
Moospiker Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 342
- Joined: August 3, 2008
- Location: England
You think this is backpedalling. Then I said this:KrisReizer wrote:
I see backpedaling here. You first attacked my random vote and now you agree with my defender. Mind you this is early in the game, but this is the scummiest action so far.JDodge wrote:
I am aware. Conversation doesn't just happen because someone places a vote - you have to stir the pot before the true flavour of the soup comes forth.afatchic wrote:Jdodge. votes can result in a lynch, but they have many more uses than just lynching people. you can use it to force pressure on people, get conversation started, which is what all this is doing right now.
'Yeah, you don't have to bandwagon to start up discussion.'
Then you said this:
'Mm. An agreement. What an impressive way to appear to be participating. I suggest you add more content in the future.'
What? I agreed with JDodge, who according to you, agreed with afatchic. But also according to you, we said totally different things!
You confuse me, and hence my vote. Here is an attempted diversion.Click.
Please, no double capitals.-
-
KrisReizer Townie
- Townie
- Townie
- Posts: 50
- Joined: July 11, 2008
I gave specific instances and an analysis. You've given sentences that disagree and do nothing else.JDodge wrote: Yet you don't have to give anything to support your claims?
All right, given that I was correct about your meaning, you have contradicted yourself. Why did you change your opinion so suddenly? And, in case you want to ask me for evidence, go ahead and look at my last post to refresh your memory.JDodge wrote:
Not the case.Kris Reizer wrote:
I may have misread your statement. By 'stir the pot', I assumed you meant that you agreed about the alternative uses of voting. If this was not the case, you may say so, and I'll happily drop this particular line.
Don't take me out of context. I said that misdirection must be used if a non-scum player is to be lynched because they are not scum and will behave as such. Therefore, only scum benefit from lying.KrisReizer wrote:
Of course! It's notJDodge wrote:
Explain yourself. What could a townie lie about and benefit? Note, of course, that concealing a power role is not lying. It's keeping information secret. If the target of an attack is scum, than logic will support that conclusion. If the target is town, some amount of misdirection must be used to make the target appear scummy.lying, it's justnot being entirely truthful. And did you just say you'd misdirect the town to make anyone you think scum appear scummy?
How? Opinions prove nothing; they are absolutely subjective. Evidence is what shows guilt.KrisReizer wrote:
Opinions are important.charter wrote: Evidence, please? Your statement is an opinion.
Don't blame me just because you can't explain yourself properly. It's a basic tactic to use a vote to put pressure on someone, just look at any game on this site. I'll agree that there are methods of pressure that don't involve a vote, but seeing how much you squirmed as soon as I made mine, I'm happy with my choice.JDodge wrote: This is the bullshit I was talking about. I said that you have to "stir the soup", which you can dojust as easily without voting, then you attribute it to voting. You're dense.
That's fine, but you didn't add anything to the discussion, which makes you appear scummy. Townies benefit from discussion, scum do not. That's why those who don't say much look like scum.Moospiker wrote:Thing is, I don't like the way that you jumped on me for agreeing with JDodge. If I want to state my opinion, I'll agree, disagree, or take a totally different side. I wasn't trying to appear to be posting content. I was stating my opinion, which happened to be what JDodge said.
On that vein, we have yet to hear from Starrie and KaHuJo. nothing big here, just pointing out some lurking. Still alive, you two?
Those quotes were not aimed at you. Nonetheless, in answer to your accusation, I'll explain once more that the difference between you and she is that afatchic added to the discussion by ecplaining why she thought the way she did.Moospiker wrote:
You think this is backpedalling. Then I said this:KrisReizer wrote:
I see backpedaling here. You first attacked my random vote and now you agree with my defender. Mind you this is early in the game, but this is the scummiest action so far.JDodge wrote:
I am aware. Conversation doesn't just happen because someone places a vote - you have to stir the pot before the true flavour of the soup comes forth.afatchic wrote:Jdodge. votes can result in a lynch, but they have many more uses than just lynching people. you can use it to force pressure on people, get conversation started, which is what all this is doing right now.
'Yeah, you don't have to bandwagon to start up discussion.'
Then you said this:
'Mm. An agreement. What an impressive way to appear to be participating. I suggest you add more content in the future.'
What? I agreed with JDodge, who according to you, agreed with afatchic. But also according to you, we said totally different things!
You confuse me, and hence my vote. Here is an attempted diversion.Ah, life. I very much enjoy life. After all, it is a wonderful thing.
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.