In post 95, Duchess wrote:Elements. You say you normally have an easy time getting early reads, and you seem set on sorting everyone one way or the other whenever possible even this early in the game, however you have all the players you say you are experienced with as some degree of null. Can you please elaborate on why you say you have an easier time reading familiar players, and maybe why that's different this game it would seem?
In post 103, Duchess wrote:I agree that the presentation of Elements's reads looks town on the surface, but I'm surprised more people aren't noticing the lack of commitment to a read on the players Elements should supposedly have a much easier time reading. Obviously it's early to be expecting "commitment", but they didn't have a problem slapping full town/scum labels on people with only 1 post.
Gotta frown at some of this stuff
They say that new Duchess don't sound hungry enough
You've called his posting strawmanning and loaded questions variously, which seems combative when you could just answer the questions.
You also seem to be telling RTP to bring it. Your overall demeanor seems aggressive. Just curious if that 'fight me' attitude is common to your town play.
YOUR AD HERE
Too busy with work to play mafia right now but I shall return some day!
In post 166, Duchess wrote:Green Crayons. You are characterizing my push on you as a response to your suspicion of me, which is a complete fabrication you seem to have pulled out of thin air for the sake of your argument. My trajectory is very clearly laid out. To call me defensive is nothing but more baseless projection.
Mischaracterization.
I said you were affirmatively defending VD and separately your attack on me when I questioned your defense of VD was suspicious. I have never said that you started pushing me solely in response to my suspicion of you, which is contradicted by my first engaging you based on your fence-sitting attack on my Q to VD. You first started pushing me to defend VD, and then started attacking me when I pressed you back.
I know that contradicts, which is why I called it baseless and said you were pulling this out of thin air. I do understand what you're saying here, though, but this is the last time I will say I was not ever defending Italiano as town. Sure, suspecting you for the reasons I initially did implies that I think Italiano is town (although my read of you now is far more based on our exchange since that time), but I already explained that I try to exclusively make individual reads at this stage of the game.
I still entirely disagree with your interpretation of VD's response. The last two sentences are not full-on non-sequiturs, but they're not a justification for the first. I see them as Italiano adding his own thoughts to RTP's previous post. I am not interested in discussing theory of conversation or hearing your analogies, and I'm troubled by your refusal to address the post in question directly.
Lies.
I haven’t refused to address any post.
To the extent you think I’ve missed some brilliant point, rather than shading me even further you could point it out rather than nebulously referring to it.
That's true, you haven't refused, and that's my bad for the ambiguous choice of words. I mean to say your insistence on using theory and presenting examples rather than showing me exactly what words in that post led you to interpret it the way you did. I'm not asking for you to do that now—like I've said, I have more relevant and less semantic reasons to suspect you—but I never meant to imply any active refusal on your part.
That said, these last two lines in tandem are funny to me. Nebulous references are exactly what was troubling me about your justification of that interpretation. This is the third or fourth time I have found you accusing me of doing something I have already mentioned about you, or something you are doing in the very same post. I'm not sure if I should believe that's a product of your alignment, or just your personality, but I'm keeping an eye out for it.
In post 172, Green Crayons wrote:
Also, love how slippery you’re being:
- Dutchess: “GC’s question is -clearly strawmanning-”
- GC: “no, here is what his response was and basic Q&A construction and the English language connects those ideas”
- Dutchess: “I don’t want to talk about that, which undermines my shading of your Q”
I am not sure what to call these kinds of posts other than a textbook strawman. I very explicitly disagree with your interpretations of the English language. Here you are once again using lazy schoolyard tactics to discredit my suspicions.
In post 172, Green Crayons wrote:
To cut through this back and forth about how I interpreted VD’s post differently than you: I specifically squarely asked VD a Q to clarify his response, which nullifies your entire supposed premise for why my interaction with VD is suspect. You (supposedly) have no idea what VD was going to say—for example, he could’ve said “yeah, I’m a bad scum bc I shouldn’t have let myself get quick eliminated.” Your premature jump to defend is just so suspect, and your attack-as-a-defense just underscores it.
Italiano's response doesn't matter to me. I think your question to him was scummy in a vacuum. I care less about it now because I think your pushback to my suspicion is scummier.
In post 167, Duchess wrote:I don't know exactly what kind of push I was expecting to see, but if I recall correctly there was some discussion just before that time of Italiano possibly being an easy early push, and what I saw pinged me, so I wanted to nip it in the bud.
This post is screaming TMI
I don't understand what this implies if it does not implicate you as my partner?
Gotta frown at some of this stuff
They say that new Duchess don't sound hungry enough
In post 201, Duchess wrote:Italiano. Please point to exactly where I have defended you.
Post 98 could be viewed as you trying to defend me fmpov or at the very least interfering with a player trying to sort a slot, which is just as bad. The same can be said for 138 since it piggybacked from 98. Then 141, then in 143 you said
“Italiano himself later explained there is no correlation in post 108
which to me read like you were defending me again, using my posts to help your argument. You mentioned me again in 166, again to help solidify your argument. Then again in 167 to justify your push onto Green. For someone not defending someone it sure seems like you are.
In post 201, Duchess wrote:I'm surprised that even from your point of view
you are clinging to GC's false characterization of my push as a defense.
Why would you be surprised at someone else’s point of view? The (bolded) here is just wrong and not at all what I’m doing.
In post 201, Duchess wrote:Your vantage point should make it abundantly clear that I have done absolutely nothing to defend your words or justify your actions.
See above.
In post 201, Duchess wrote:So I'm curious about precisely where you are getting the feeling that I am stepping up to bat for you rather than attacking a scumread.
See above.
In post 201, Duchess wrote:This early in the game, I know nothing. Nobody knows anything, except for scum.
I don’t know, you seemed pretty confident in your read, you even said so at the end of this post.
In post 201, Duchess wrote:So if X looks to be setting up a scumpush against Y, I don't think for a damn second about what my read of Y is, because I have no reason to be so sure of anything that I would let those first impressions and assumptions of Y dictate my assessment of situation X.
My question is if I was a FoS, why would you be against a scum push onto me. Green would have been bussing me from your perspective, so what would it matter? For me it seems like you would’ve only done what you did if I was a townlean, otherwise you would have called out the theatre, (which would’ve been weak), but at least it’d be consistent.
In post 169, ItalianoVD wrote:I gotta say I'm not at all comfortable being in the middle of this Duchess/Green Crayons thing, lol. Like yikes, I don't like what I say to be a basis to read someone else off when it wasn't my intention to do so. If this is theatre please choose something else to fight over and leave me out of it and if you're town then just drop it, it's not that serious.
Can you elaborate on how exactly it makes you uncomfortable and why?
Why is it either theatre or town vs town?
I’ve explained why it makes me feel uncomfortable both in 169 and this post. And the thought crossed my mind that it was theatre because I didn’t feel like it was a real argument and had no real footing, but then I thought that maybe the communication is just that bad between you too, either way I wanted both of you to stop talking about it. And since it involved me I had the audacity to say so.
This is a very strange question. I'm pushing a scumread, which is what you do in the game of mafia. I'll be either right or wrong in the end, but for now I'm quite confident.
Im asking under the mindset that you are defending me and I’m saying you’re push is not a good one because it’s being pushed under a false pretense.
I will straight up disregard all reason if you have a PR dream again. You can come back and be like, “I dreamt that Locke is a N2 Bulletproof Multitasking Cop and Self-Targeting Doctor,” and I will go, “Okay, Locke kill it is then.”
I will straight up disregard all reason if you have a PR dream again. You can come back and be like, “I dreamt that Locke is a N2 Bulletproof Multitasking Cop and Self-Targeting Doctor,” and I will go, “Okay, Locke kill it is then.”
IIRC, Datisi, didn’t you start the wagon on Duchess? Why are you jumping off the wagon now? There was no indication (at least from your interaction with them) that you were townleaning/null them or null/scumreading me?
Post 229 is top notch. At first with the concessions ("I do understand what you're saying here", "That's true, you haven't refused, and that's my bad for the ambiguous choice of words") I thought I was maybe off base. But considering her points, it's clear to me that that tone presents a face of reasonableness to mask the lies she puts forward about my play to justify her vote.
I'm a bit torn because nobody reads long posts, or really likes in-the-weeds back and forth. I do try to avoid them. But 229 is truly top tier BS.
(I would spoiler but some of the quotes I'm using are also using spoilers, which messes up the formatting, so APOLOGIES but your scroll finger isn't broken).
1.
In post 229, Duchess wrote:I know that contradicts, which is why I called it baseless and said you were pulling this out of thin air.
No, you don't get to just completely invent what I was saying to turn it around and say "of course it contradicts, that's why you're scummy." The "it" that contradicts is YOUR accusation, and it contradicts from reality. You said that I am "characterizing {Duchess's} push on {GC} as a response to {GC's} suspicion of {Duchess}" but I responded that that accusation is wrong and contradicts the fact that I first took issue with you attacking my Q to VD--which means your push on me was not a result of me suspecting you, but because you wanted to defend VD.
What I
have
said, repeatedly now, is that you acted suspiciously for two separate reasons: first because of your preemptive defense of VD, and second because of how you reacted to my pressing you on that defense. That's not baseless, not pulled out of thin air. It's based on your actions in this very thread.
2.
In post 229, Duchess wrote:I do understand what you're saying here, though, but this is the last time I will say I was not ever defending Italiano as town.
I cannot believe that Duchess has never even heard of the concept of defending someone by attacking their attacker. That is what my suspicions were of her attacking my Q to VD, which is facially obvious, but she turns it around to say I'm mischaracterizing her play because she never
directly
defended VD.
3.
In post 229, Duchess wrote:I mean to say your insistence on using theory and presenting examples rather than showing me exactly what words in that post led you to interpret it the way you did.
Just rewriting history here. I literally pointed to the exact words by quoting my, VD's, and RTP's posts and then explaining how I interpreted VD's response that led to my Q asking him to clarify:
I’d say so. That was actually a funny/fun game. Players don’t expect to get wagoned/hammered that quick within RVS and I actually lol’d when it happened.
Both RTP and VD correlated their answer about whether VD is bad at being scum with why he was quick-eliminated.
I asked about that because VD's post literally strings "I'm a bad scum player" with "I was quick-eliminated in RVS" in the span of three sentences.
That you first didn't understand this, but also didn't like it, and so felt the need to attack my question before it was even answered, but now think it was clearly strawmanning (?), and also a loaded question (?), looks like you're either actively defending VD or trying to find a reason to shade me or both.
4.
In post 229, Duchess wrote:That said, these last two lines in tandem are funny to me. Nebulous references are exactly what was troubling me about your justification of that interpretation. This is the third or fourth time I have found you accusing me of doing something I have already mentioned about you, or something you are doing in the very same post. I'm not sure if I should believe that's a product of your alignment, or just your personality, but I'm keeping an eye out for it.
This is backed up by nothing (or a falsehood, see point 3 above), and is a great rhetorical tactic for someone who is being disingenuous. "Oh ho! that thing you accused me of actually you are doing as I said before!"
In post 172, Green Crayons wrote:
Also, love how slippery you’re being:
- Dutchess: “GC’s question is -clearly strawmanning-”
- GC: “no, here is what his response was and basic Q&A construction and the English language connects those ideas”
- Dutchess: “I don’t want to talk about that, which undermines my shading of your Q”
I am not sure what to call these kinds of posts other than a textbook strawman. I very explicitly disagree with your interpretations of the English language. Here you are once again using lazy schoolyard tactics to discredit my suspicions.
First note discrediting jabs ("lazy schoolyard tactics"). Love it.
Second I was phone posting, so wasn't putting up direct quotes, but it's almost a word-for-word sequence of events that she's now characterizing as "strawman." Here's what I was pulling from:
In post 142, Green Crayons wrote:Both RTP and VD correlated their answer about whether VD is bad at being scum with why he was quick-eliminated.
I asked about that because
VD's post literally strings "I'm a bad scum player" with "I was quick-eliminated in RVS" in the span of three sentences
.
In post 144, Green Crayons wrote:That you are contorting basic Q&A logic by saying *I’m* stawmanning and asking loaded Qs when both RTP and VD’s entire response to my Q contained a y/n and then what clearly appeared an explanation for that y/n by referring to the quick-elim
(rather than assuming the reference to the quick elim was a non-sequitur, which is not how normal conversation operates
) is so incredibly disingenuous, that your vote-and-attack by being gently pushed on this seems AI defensive.
In post 166, Duchess wrote:Green Crayons. You are characterizing my push on you as a response to your suspicion of me, which is a complete fabrication you seem to have pulled out of thin air for the sake of your argument. My trajectory is very clearly laid out. To call me defensive is nothing but more baseless projection.
I still entirely disagree with your interpretation of VD's response. The last two sentences are not full-on non-sequiturs, but they're not a justification for the first. I see them as Italiano adding his own thoughts to RTP's previous post.
I am not interested in discussing theory of conversation or hearing your analogies
, and I'm troubled by your refusal to address the post in question directly.
To characterize my paraphrase of this very short interaction not just as inaccurate, but as some sort of disingenuous strawmanning, truly is something to see.
The only part of my paraphrasing that is not something Duchess said was ". . . which undermines my shading of your Q"--which, no shit, that was obviously me editorializing your reaction, which is facially obvious to anyone approaching this in good faith.
In post 172, Green Crayons wrote:
To cut through this back and forth about how I interpreted VD’s post differently than you: I specifically squarely asked VD a Q to clarify his response, which nullifies your entire supposed premise for why my interaction with VD is suspect. You (supposedly) have no idea what VD was going to say—for example, he could’ve said “yeah, I’m a bad scum bc I shouldn’t have let myself get quick eliminated.” Your premature jump to defend is just so suspect, and your attack-as-a-defense just underscores it.
Italiano's response doesn't matter to me.
I think your question to him was scummy in a vacuum.
I care less about it now because I think your pushback to my suspicion is scummier.
The bolded isn't town perspective.
7.
In post 229, Duchess wrote:I don't understand what this implies if it does not implicate you as my partner?
You know VD is town which is why you preemptively defended him against a threat level 1 question.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Andresvb: Did absolutely nothing, and therefore is a null read.
Daitsi: Did useful things. Seemed to flip on Duchess (scum -> town) which pings me a bit, but otherwise is mostly fine so town lean.
Duchess: I don't like how they call me out for aggressive language but use exactly the same tone. Their aggression in general is a bit eh to me. Neutral.
Dunnstral: Made exactly two substantial posts and six posts total. Null read.
Elements: Did very little, and all of their reads are "gut reads" with little explanation for what, exactly, pings their radar. Neutral.
Green Crayon: Does do things, and seems to be pretty good at the aforementioned doing things. Town read, and probably my strongest so far.
Harumi Ayasato: *waves*
Italiano: Still didn't do much useful, and seems to have a fixation on arguing with Duchess? Scum lean.
Lunar Martian: Made exactly one useful post (barring "Duchess is just Town, right?" with no explanation whatsoever). Null read.
Reformed Toxic Player: Did a bunch of no-explanation reads at the start which I don't like, but then stopped doing that and started doing more useful things unlike Italiano. Would like an explanation for that. Town lean for now though.
RLotus: Did very little and what he did do had little explanation. Neutral.
Testarossa: Didn't post a lot but made the most of what they did say. Town lean.
VP Baltar: 50% of Baltar's posts (well, roughly) are questions which might be an attempt to cover up more useful discussion, maybe. I also don't like him asking for peoples' opinions of someone voting him, which just screams "defend me!" to me. Neutral.
Defeating scum with the power of friendship!
Not Tarhalindur, though I do think he's a cool person. If Tarhalindur happens to see this, sorry for using your name everywhere else.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
In post 242, ItalianoVD wrote:IIRC, Datisi, didn’t you start the wagon on Duchess? Why are you jumping off the wagon now? There was no indication (at least from your interaction with them) that you were townleaning/null them or null/scumreading me?
i was the first vote on duchess, yes. i'm jumping off because i saw something else that i want to chase for now. i am not townreading them. and my scumping on you stems p much solely from your last wallpost.
mind telling me about that counterwagon comment? i see you're "not sure" on lotus. think i'm scum?
I will straight up disregard all reason if you have a PR dream again. You can come back and be like, “I dreamt that Locke is a N2 Bulletproof Multitasking Cop and Self-Targeting Doctor,” and I will go, “Okay, Locke kill it is then.”
In post 245, Harumi Ayasato wrote:Daitsi: Did useful things. Seemed to flip on Duchess (scum -> town) which pings me a bit, but otherwise is mostly fine so town lean.
just want to point out that me no longer voting duchess =/= me townreading duchess.
do you have any experience w italiano? i'm still curious why you decided to iso him a few days (?) ago.
I will straight up disregard all reason if you have a PR dream again. You can come back and be like, “I dreamt that Locke is a N2 Bulletproof Multitasking Cop and Self-Targeting Doctor,” and I will go, “Okay, Locke kill it is then.”
