667: Random C9 (Game Over!)

[afatchic]

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.

[JDodge]

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.

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]

true....

[Moospiker]

Yeah, you don't have to bandwagon to start up discussion.

[KrisReizer]

Vote: JDodge

He's being whiny.
*notices the bandwagon and crouches to jump off if it goes lynchy*

If you're worried about lynching someone, then why are you voting for them? A vote, being an action which is used

to lynch someone

, would probably

not

be your best avenue to pursue if you are not willing to lynch the person you are voting for. Again, deduction, logic, opposite, remedy.

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.

[KrisReizer]

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.

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.

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.

[KrisReizer]

Yeah, you don't have to bandwagon to start up discussion.

Mm. An agreement. What an impressive way to appear to be participating. I suggest you add more content in the future.

[Moospiker]

I have nothing to say currently. I'm a stupid noob who is awful at analysing comments.

[JDodge]

Vote: JDodge

He's being whiny.
*notices the bandwagon and crouches to jump off if it goes lynchy*

If you're worried about lynching someone, then why are you voting for them? A vote, being an action which is used

to lynch someone

, would probably

not

be your best avenue to pursue if you are not willing to lynch the person you are voting for. Again, deduction, logic, opposite, remedy.

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.

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 I

clearly state my point and then state my reasoning

, which you would notice if you actually read the post?

[Moospiker]

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.

[charter]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Can you put the number of the game in the title/first post please Sim?

[Simenon]

Vote Count

Moospiker (2)- Jdodge, starrie
Jdodge (2)- KaHuJo, KrisReizer
KaHuJo (1)- afatchic
afatchic (1)- charter
KrisReizer (1)- Moospiker

[KrisReizer]

Vote: JDodge

He's being whiny.
*notices the bandwagon and crouches to jump off if it goes lynchy*

If you're worried about lynching someone, then why are you voting for them? A vote, being an action which is used

to lynch someone

, would probably

not

be your best avenue to pursue if you are not willing to lynch the person you are voting for. Again, deduction, logic, opposite, remedy.

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.

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 I

clearly state my point and then state my reasoning

, which you would notice if you actually read the post?

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.

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.

That

is the sort of thing I meant you should avoid, because it will not fool me.

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.

That is most definitely not what he JD did.

First, we have:

If you're worried about lynching someone, then why are you voting for them? A vote, being an action which is used

to lynch someone

, would probably

not

be your best avenue to pursue if you are not willing to lynch the person you are voting for. Again, deduction, logic, opposite, remedy.

And then, on the next page:

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.

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.

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.

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.

[JDodge]

Vote: JDodge

He's being whiny.
*notices the bandwagon and crouches to jump off if it goes lynchy*

If you're worried about lynching someone, then why are you voting for them? A vote, being an action which is used

to lynch someone

, would probably

not

be your best avenue to pursue if you are not willing to lynch the person you are voting for. Again, deduction, logic, opposite, remedy.

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.

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 I

clearly state my point and then state my reasoning

, which you would notice if you actually read the post?

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.

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.

That

is the sort of thing I meant you should avoid, because it will not fool me.

Here is where I draw the line and call bullshit. You are the one who is attempting to demonize

me

through 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.

First, we have:

If you're worried about lynching someone, then why are you voting for them? A vote, being an action which is used

to lynch someone

, would probably

not

be your best avenue to pursue if you are not willing to lynch the person you are voting for. Again, deduction, logic, opposite, remedy.

And then, on the next page:

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.

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.

2. Townies have

plenty

to gain from lying in the current meta. Lynch all liars is completely outdated.

Also, I notice that Moo has, thus far, jumped to the aid of JD at my every attack. This is possibly scum-buddying.

I agree that Moo does seem a bit off at this juncture. Hence my vote.

[charter]

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.

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.

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.

[Moospiker]

So, you're saying that I'm not allowed to agree with people? What the hell, KR.

[afatchic]

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.

[Moospiker]

Exactly, there you go. He *agrees*. Are you going to try to lynch two of us KR?

[JDodge]

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.

Not true. You can very easily take a neutral and apathetic position - taking a side is

never

a requirement. Give me an argument with two clear sides, and I'll demonstrate.

[KrisReizer]

Here is where I draw the line and call bullshit. You are the one who is attempting to demonize

me

through 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.

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.

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.

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.

2. Townies have

plenty

to gain from lying in the current meta. Lynch all liars is completely outdated.

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.

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.

Evidence, please? Your statement is an opinion.

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.

So, you're saying that I'm not allowed to agree with people? What the hell, KR.

Not at all. I'm saying that agreeing without adding anything to the discussion is suspicious.

Exactly, there you go. He *agrees*. Are you going to try to lynch two of us KR?

The difference between the two of you is that afatchic actually made a point while you repeated JDodge's words.

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.

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.

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]

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.

[Moospiker]

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.

[JDodge]

Here is where I draw the line and call bullshit. You are the one who is attempting to demonize

me

through 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.

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.

Yet you don't have to give anything to support your claims?

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.

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.

Not the case.

2. Townies have

plenty

to gain from lying in the current meta. Lynch all liars is completely outdated.

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.

Of course! It's not

lying

, it's just

not being entirely truthful

. And did you just say you'd misdirect the town to make anyone you think scum appear scummy?

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.

Evidence, please? Your statement is an opinion.

Opinions are important.

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.

This is the bullshit I was talking about. I said that you have to "stir the soup", which you can do

just as easily without voting

, then you attribute it to voting. You're dense.

[Moospiker]

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.

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.

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.

You think this is backpedalling. Then I said this:

'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.

[KrisReizer]

Yet you don't have to give anything to support your claims?

I gave specific instances and an analysis. You've given sentences that disagree and do nothing else.

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.

Not the case.

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.

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.

Of course! It's not

lying

, it's just

not being entirely truthful

. And did you just say you'd misdirect the town to make anyone you think scum appear scummy?

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.

Evidence, please? Your statement is an opinion.

Opinions are important.

How? Opinions prove nothing; they are absolutely subjective. Evidence is what shows guilt.

This is the bullshit I was talking about. I said that you have to "stir the soup", which you can do

just as easily without voting

, then you attribute it to voting. You're dense.

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.

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.

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.

On that vein, we have yet to hear from Starrie and KaHuJo. nothing big here, just pointing out some lurking. Still alive, you two?

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.

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.

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.

You think this is backpedalling. Then I said this:

'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.

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.