Mini 701 - That's a Wrap! (Game Over)

[Ectomancer]

I love vollkans post 606.

And ecto, the way you present it there you do two important things: first, you assume that my first attack on spring was a strong one, which it wasn't, I criticized a weak FoS from spring. Really not a stance I would like to stay long, luckily I didn't have to, because it was my first post, day 1. Second, you only name the scenario's where I am scum. Not surprising you end on the conclusion that I'm scum everytime.

And I certainly hope you are not the vig

I've been satisfied with your answer Mykonian. I'm just extremely irritated that real cases that could be discussed are being ignored because our mason thinks he is suddenly in charge (answer for you Spyrex?). Sorry, even proven town has to prove their logic if they want to convince the rest of the town.

[mykonian]

Personally, I'm more irritated with a mason that doesn't take the lead (Hello OP!). With orto we can at least listen to what he says, he is at least trying to tell us something. We can not agree, and we don't have to follow him, but at least he gives some input. You can tell he is trying his best to scumhunt, the only thing we need to do, is to give him some directions, no need to get irritated.

OP seems a bit to think that after he claimed mason, his job was done. Orto gains the advantage from his claimed-masonship, by saying everything he thinks (you are a bit tunnelvisioned orto, could you do something about that?), without constantly having to think what other people would think about him.

In stead of constraining orto, we should encourage him, give critics on his cases, so that he may get to something. I'm liking orto's play much better then OP's.

[SpyreX]

[quote"ort"]I "yawned" to express my thoughts that the train of discussion he's again trying to delve into is tedious and pointless. I didn't misread what he said.[/quote]

Train of discussion? No, simply: If you believe he is a mason, stop feeding the troll.

Since, really, at this point it should come as no surprise I am also not stoked by your play thus far.

this was after spyrex's first line of questioning as to why i quoted things the way i did. yet both volkan and spyrex have been hammering me as to why i quoted things the way i did. why? because my answer isn't the answer they wanted? just because spyrex writes in his post in italics that he is scumhunting, doesn't mean that i can't analyze said post differently. because he italicized it, its true? i saw spyrex as dodgy. ecto's post shows that he felt the same way after the same exchange i had read. no, that doesn't mean i'm right, but it validates my feelings on the subject.

What does the use of italics have to do with anything?

How does Ecto's post affirm your stance considering when questioned that you haven't still given me the answers to those questions?

spyrex: i honestly believe that you set your post up to prove that i am scum. therefore, you were working from a preconcieved prejudice. no matter how i answered, i felt you would have found a way to come to the same conclusion, so i decided to not play your game.

See it might have been different

had you actually said that

. You didn't. You half played the game - the bad half. So, no, thats not going to cut it.

post 108 is a distraction. i don't think your reasoning makes sense in it. you use a giant wall of quotes that don't seem to pertain to your case. when i read the quotes i actually understand how we get to the neutral tell, which seems to be what you are disputing. you are trying to prove that the vote on you is scummy. you don't even really say why the vote is scummy, just "bizarre" and "moderately scummy". volkans self vote scumminess was, is, and always will be a giant wifom. so to me it seems obvious why someone would find the "wedge" scummy. someone playing oppurtunistically into the middle of a town on town argument to push one side into a lynch is an extremely viable argument. i found post 108 stupid. i found it pointless. i found it to be a giant distraction to try and push the game forward while deflecting suspicion. i didn't buy it, bro. that's why i quoted the last line. because to me, the last line was the most important part. "don't call me scummy because of my actions, ask me a question..." the rest of the post became "irrelevant" to me, and still is.

How, when Ecto had asked me specifically why I thought she was strongly pressing the issue is my post explaining why I thought it was strong a distraction?

How do my quotes have nothing to do with the case versus showing the examples of my thought process?

How am I trying to prove the vote on me is scummy, versus talking about why I disagree with the rationale for the vote (double question: as of 108, was I voting for Ecto?)

Stupid and pointless! SWISH.

If my goal as scum was to push a lynch forward on one of those two why would I have asked for answers and clarifications instead of taking a harder stance? Why would I want to "push the game forward" if my goal was getting one of Ecto and Volk lynched?

If the last line of 108 is what made it so irrelevant - why are you not even remotely saying it and using a paraphrase that isn't anywhere near what you keep saying?

And, the best ones:

If this was such a huge component of your case against me - why didn't you bring it up like this until now?

Why did you, over and over, dodge the questions presented?

Still, what question have I dodged?

[don_johnson]

this was after spyrex's first line of questioning as to why i quoted things the way i did. yet both volkan and spyrex have been hammering me as to why i quoted things the way i did. why? because my answer isn't the answer they wanted? just because spyrex writes in his post in italics that he is scumhunting, doesn't mean that i can't analyze said post differently. because he italicized it, its true? i saw spyrex as dodgy. ecto's post shows that he felt the same way after the same exchange i had read. no, that doesn't mean i'm right, but it validates my feelings on the subject.

What does the use of italics have to do with anything?

are you kidding? you brought it up, asking why i left out the italicized parts. you said they represented your feelings. i am saying that to me, at that point in time, your feelings were irrelevant to what i was reading. really? you are asking me this question?

How does Ecto's post affirm your stance considering when questioned that you haven't still given me the answers to those questions?

i'm sorry, but i don't understand this question. what questions have i not answered now? ecto's post affirms that someone else thought you were avoiding issues. what don't you get? this is my point with you, i give you evidence and you simply dismiss it and then ask me a question.

spyrex: i honestly believe that you set your post up to prove that i am scum. therefore, you were working from a preconcieved prejudice. no matter how i answered, i felt you would have found a way to come to the same conclusion, so i decided to not play your game.

See it might have been different

had you actually said that

. You didn't. You half played the game - the bad half. So, no, thats not going to cut it.

again i am in a no win situation with you. i have been trying to cooperate. how is that bad? i am convinced now that i am right here, and that nothing is going to cut it.

post 108 is a distraction. i don't think your reasoning makes sense in it.

you use a giant wall of quotes that don't seem to pertain to your case. when i read the quotes i actually understand how we get to the neutral tell, which seems to be what you are disputing. you are trying to prove that the vote on you is scummy.

you don't even really say why the vote is scummy, just "bizarre" and "moderately scummy". volkans self vote scumminess was, is, and always will be a giant wifom. so to me it seems obvious why someone would find the "wedge" scummy. someone playing oppurtunistically into the middle of a town on town argument to push one side into a lynch is an extremely viable argument. i found post 108 stupid. i found it pointless. i found it to be a giant distraction to try and push the game forward while deflecting suspicion. i didn't buy it, bro. that's why i quoted the last line. because to me, the last line was the most important part. "don't call me scummy because of my actions, ask me a question..." the rest of the post became "irrelevant" to me, and still is.

How, when Ecto had asked me specifically why I thought she was strongly pressing the issue is my post explaining why I thought it was strong a distraction?

because i think it is. it looks like one to me. it is my opinion that your post is a distraction. i bolded where this question has been answered in the above post.

How do my quotes have nothing to do with the case versus showing the examples of my thought process?

you just don't like it when people disagree with you. the case itself is flawed. the quotes(as i said before) make sense to me. i understand how we get to the neutral tell which is what it appears you are disputing. maybe i'm reading it wrong, but when i look at that post i see the quote wall as a distraction. maybe i have worded my response wrong in that

you

think the quotes pertain to your case. to me they seem to undermine it. i don't draw the same conclusions that you do from the quotes. k? in my mind that translates into them not "pertaining" to

your

case.

How am I trying to prove the vote on me is scummy, versus talking about why I disagree with the rationale for the vote (double question: as of 108, was I voting for Ecto?)

you say the actions are "bizarre" and "moderately scummy". does anyone else see the circular logic employed here? you were voting ecto. how is that relevant?

If my goal as scum was to push a lynch forward on one of those two why would I have asked for answers and clarifications instead of taking a harder stance?

this is the start of a wifom. you are asking me to explain

your

actions. if you were identified as the "wedge" it would probably not be in your best interest to continue down that road(if you were scum). however, like i said, this is wifom.

Why would I want to "push the game forward" if my goal was getting one of Ecto and Volk lynched?

maybe to get suspicion off you and back on someone else. what are you not getting? you are doing now exactly what i saw you do then. at least you are consistent.

If the last line of 108 is what made it so irrelevant - why are you not even remotely saying it and using a paraphrase that isn't anywhere near what you keep saying?

the line didn't make it irrelevant. the content made it irrelevant. the line stood out to me as a summary of your desires at that point in the game.

And, the best ones:

If this was such a huge component of your case against me - why didn't you bring it up like this until now?

Why did you, over and over, dodge the questions presented?

Still, what question have I dodged?

are you referring to the case i said was weak? the one i dropped three pages ago? i have not dodged your questions. i am answering them to the best of my ability. i made all of these points long ago, just not in the format you could digest(apparently). i said your play was "dodgy". you are deflecting suspicion, not dodging questions. as i said, this is not inherently scummy. after reading the beginning of this thread you looked scummy to me. at this point the only reaon i have to call you scummy is your badgering of me, which is not necessarily scummy. which is why i have not voted.

[Ectomancer]

@Mykonian - Im through with berating Ortolan, that's why I broke my last posts to him into 2 sections. I agree that he is at least a better player than OP is being.

unvote

[SpyreX]

are you kidding? you brought it up, asking why i left out the italicized parts. you said they represented your feelings. i am saying that to me, at that point in time, your feelings were irrelevant to what i was reading. really? you are asking me this question?

The represented my feelings on the game up to that point. When you are saying I was avoiding issues, YES, those are relevant. Even if you dont agree.

However, when I read "SpyreX uses italics, therefore he is scumhunting" was the WTH why I asked what does the use of italics have to do with anything?

i'm sorry, but i don't understand this question. what questions have i not answered now? ecto's post affirms that someone else thought you were avoiding issues. what don't you get? this is my point with you, i give you evidence and you simply dismiss it and then ask me a question.

What in the name of everything have you given me as "evidence" for any of this aside from Ecto's quote? The latter half will get brought up later at the end of this little dance.

again i am in a no win situation with you. i have been trying to cooperate. how is that bad? i am convinced now that i am right here, and that nothing is going to cut it.

I laid out the myraid of ways that would have "cut it" - so, unless you think I'm lying to trap you... no, that doesn't cut it.

because i think it is. it looks like one to me. it is my opinion that your post is a distraction. i bolded where this question has been answered in the above post.

Thats fine, I can't argue directly with an opinion. However, I will refute it as being part of the larger "case" on me.

you just don't like it when people disagree with you. the case itself is flawed. the quotes(as i said before) make sense to me. i understand how we get to the neutral tell which is what it appears you are disputing. maybe i'm reading it wrong, but when i look at that post i see the quote wall as a distraction. maybe i have worded my response wrong in that you think the quotes pertain to your case. to me they seem to undermine it. i don't draw the same conclusions that you do from the quotes. k? in my mind that translates into them not "pertaining" to your case.

I dont care when people disagree with me if the reasons for disagrement make sense. Why is the case flawed? What did I miss in the "hard stance" to "neutral tell". See, explain this and, believe it or not, I may agree. Doesn't matter though - as you'll see later.

are you referring to the case i said was weak? the one i dropped three pages ago? i have not dodged your questions. i am answering them to the best of my ability. i made all of these points long ago, just not in the format you could digest(apparently).

i said your play was "dodgy". you are deflecting suspicion, not dodging questions.

as i said, this is not inherently scummy. after reading the beginning of this thread you looked scummy to me. at this point the only reaon i have to call you scummy is your badgering of me, which is not necessarily scummy. which is why i have not voted.

The one you dropped in favor of my being "hostile" as your new case (you said this).

Why did I bold what I did? Because, well, if that was the case I'd be retarded and strawmanning you to a great degree.

Lets go to the way, way back machine:

I haven't made a "case" on Ecto yet. he is building a case.

Why deny it?
Seems to still be dodging accusations and questions.

Now, you can toss those little jibes about me not being able to read or misconstrue what you were saying all you want.

The fact is you said I was dodging accusations

and

questions

.

Notice I never, ever, ever once implied that the basis of this (the dodging) was a problem? Because its not. Dodging questions and accusations IS scummy. Thats why I try really hard to not do it - especially not with big questions.

I've re-read our whole exchange, more than once. Just to make sure.

You have dodged me every time I asked you to present the examples of questions I had not answered.

Now, you're trying to alter the basis of this, because I, in fact, am not letting you dodge anymore.

I see absolutely no town reason for doing that. None. There is nothing wrong with a survival instinct - however it is a scum move to lie to try to live.

You are scum. I can not believe otherwise.

[Ectomancer]

You are scum. I can not believe otherwise.

Really?

[SpyreX]

The way it went from:

He's dodging questions

*dodge* *swish*

I'm answering all the questions.

*dodge* *parry*

I never said you were dodging questions!

... Yea. I'm not seeing a town reason for it at all. Is there?

[don_johnson]

what you missed in the hard stance to neutral tell is this: it is your opinion. mine is different. i followed the train of thought from hard stance to neutral tell. it is actually quite common in this game as many people take hard stances to gauge others reactions. reading through your quotes in that post, i did not come to the same conclusions as you. simple.

as i explained previously, my notes were based on my overview of the first five pages. i didn't look for evidence of you dodging questions, because to me it seemed as though you were. i can go back and double check if you like, but the whole reason i dropped the initial accusation was because i saw my own flaws(with your help, of course.)

how is trying to find the best lynch not a town move?


you wrote your feelings in italics and asked me why i didn't include them in my post. i cannot answer that any better for you than i already have. my belief is that just because you put it in italics doesn't make it true. had you not italicized it my statement would be," just becuase he writes it doesn't mean its true."

What in the name of everything have you given me as "evidence" for any of this aside from Ecto's quote? The latter half will get brought up later at the end of this little dance.

what evidence do you need to back up the claim,"someone else saw your play as evasive." i think a quote from "someone else who saw your play as evasive" should be sufficient. stupid me.

I laid out the myraid of ways that would have "cut it" - so, unless you think I'm lying to trap you... no, that doesn't cut it.

can't say you are lying, but you are certainly reaching for something, what is it again? oh yeah:

You are scum. I can not believe otherwise.

suit yourself.

You have dodged me every time I asked you to present the examples of questions I had not answered.

i disagree. i am still trying to answer all questions you have. i have pointed out previously, just because my answers are not "acceptable" to you, doesn't mean i haven't tried to give them to you.

Now, you're trying to alter the basis of this, because I, in fact, am not letting you dodge anymore.

i must have missed the part where you let me dodge anything. your questions have been incessant.

You are scum. I can not believe otherwise.

on day 1. arguing that i am scum because i presented a weak case based on less than one fifth of this thread. even after i have explicitly stated many times that my case was weak, that my thoughts had since changed after reading more of said thread, have not voted, and have had virtually no exchange with any players other than yourself. correct?

[SpyreX]

as i explained previously, my notes were based on my overview of the first five pages.

i didn't look for evidence of you dodging questions, because to me it seemed as though you were.

i can go back and double check if you like, but the whole reason i dropped the initial accusation was because i saw my own flaws(with your help, of course.)

Why not say that, versus:

What accusation and/or question have I dodged? Ever. many

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged. this is not a question. it is a request.

Again, as I have asked - what questions have I deflected versus asking for clarification? Give examples to support said hypothesis.
probably didn't answer this as it circles back around to my original point.

"This is simply my opinion, I have no factual backing." is much better than "I totally did this, over and over." When you haven't.

Also, why no mention of the "I never said you were dodging questions" versus your later statement?

on day 1. arguing that i am scum because i presented a weak case based on less than one fifth of this thread. even after i have explicitly stated many times that my case was weak, that my thoughts had since changed after reading more of said thread, have not voted, and have had virtually no exchange with any players other than yourself. correct?

Coming out with a weak case? No.
Holding on to it? Yes.
Doing yourself what your weak case was built around? Yes.
Lying about what had previously occurred? Yes.
Saying that your "case" changed to me being hostile now (letting you stay on me while still saying your case is weak)? Yes.
Playing the victim now? Yes.

Between holding onto it, lying about it, and doing the things you were quick to come out on me on. Yes.

I find them scummy and I can not for the life of me find a town reason for it. So, yes.

[don_johnson]

as i explained previously, my notes were based on my overview of the first five pages.

i didn't look for evidence of you dodging questions, because to me it seemed as though you were.

i can go back and double check if you like, but the whole reason i dropped the initial accusation was because i saw my own flaws(with your help, of course.)

Why not say that, versus:

What accusation and/or question have I dodged? Ever. many

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged. this is not a question. it is a request.

Again, as I have asked - what questions have I deflected versus asking for clarification? Give examples to support said hypothesis.
probably didn't answer this as it circles back around to my original point.

"This is simply my opinion, I have no factual backing." is much better than "I totally did this, over and over." When you haven't.

you are twisting my words out of context here. Why not say that versus what i've said? because when i originally read the thread it

SEEMED

to me that you were in fact dodging questions and i

THOUGHT

i had found evidence. your subsequent observations actually helped to clarify my case as "weak", thus leading me to look at my evidence

AGAIN

and decide why it had grabbed my attention. so oi found your play "dodgy"? so did Ecto at that point in the game.

Also, why no mention of the "I never said you were dodging questions" versus your later statement?

i don't understand this question. maybe the reason you are not getting the answers you seek is because of how you phrase your questions.

my opinion of you has changed considerably throughout our discussion. i have tried to explain that. twisting my words as you have above is why i called your earlier argument a "strawman". as i have said, i brought my suspicions to light and your reaction has considerably changed my view.

on day 1. arguing that i am scum because i presented a weak case based on less than one fifth of this thread. even after i have explicitly stated many times that my case was weak, that my thoughts had since changed after reading more of said thread, have not voted, and have had virtually no exchange with any players other than yourself. correct?

Coming out with a weak case? No.
Holding on to it? Yes.
Doing yourself what your weak case was built around? Yes.
Lying about what had previously occurred? Yes.
Saying that your "case" changed to me being hostile now (letting you stay on me while still saying your case is weak)? Yes.
Playing the victim now? Yes.

Between holding onto it, lying about it, and doing the things you were quick to come out on me on. Yes.

I find them scummy and I can not for the life of me find a town reason for it. So, yes.

who has held onto it? spyrex
doing yourself what your weak case was built around? debatable. twisting my words out of context is just as weak.
lying? being made to look as though i am lying is more like it.
Saying that your "case" changed to me being hostile now (letting you stay on me while still saying your case is weak)? i believe your hostility should be noted and yes, i am surprised that noone else has taken issue with it, especially a certain someone. staying on you? really?

i'm

staying on

you

?
Playing the victim now? i believe i am being victimized.

AGAIN: how is trying to find the best lynch not a town move?

[SpyreX]

you are twisting my words out of context here. Why not say that versus what i've said? because when i originally read the thread it SEEMED to me that you were in fact dodging questions and i THOUGHT i had found evidence. your subsequent observations actually helped to clarify my case as "weak", thus leading me to look at my evidence AGAIN and decide why it had grabbed my attention. so oi found your play "dodgy"? so did Ecto at that point in the game.

What words are twisted? Those are your answers to the questions I gave (I'm assuming you bolded what I said for a reason). If your new stance on this is "it seemed like you were dodging questions" and "I thought I found evidence to back this"... why, when directly asked, did you say you did, yet never produced the evidence.

Ecto has nothing to do with this. You were asked what you found dodgy, you never, ever gave that.

i don't understand this question. maybe the reason you are not getting the answers you seek is because of how you phrase your questions.

my opinion of you has changed considerably throughout our discussion. i have tried to explain that. twisting my words as you have above is why i called your earlier argument a "strawman". as i have said, i brought my suspicions to light and your reaction has considerably changed my view.

Ok, let me try again then.

In replying to my post, you omitted any reference to the fact I brought up about you explicitly initially said "He is dodging questions and assumptions" and your later "You are deflecting suspicion, not dodging questions".

Again, saying I'm twisting your words doesn't mean one whit if you do not show HOW I am twisting WHAT words. Those are all your quotes, copied and pasted.

How, specifically, has your view of me changed? If this changed earlier - show where you clearly stated this and what it changed to.

who has held onto it? spyrex
doing yourself what your weak case was built around? debatable. twisting my words out of context is just as weak.
lying? being made to look as though i am lying is more like it.
Saying that your "case" changed to me being hostile now (letting you stay on me while still saying your case is weak)? i believe your hostility should be noted and yes, i am surprised that noone else has taken issue with it, especially a certain someone. staying on you? really? i'm staying on you?
Playing the victim now? i believe i am being victimized.

...I held onto it? Not really, as my issues with you stem from your movement after your initial case - if, like I've said, you had done some form of "Ohh, I guess there isn't any questions you have dodged." or "This question X is what you dodged." we wouldn't be here.

Show it. Show me how above is twisted with the issue at hand.

Show me how there is not a flat lie in the 2 statements I have recently took umbrage to. Also, and please argue this - at the minimum you have a definitive lie due to not paying attention about me voting Ecto as of 108.

My hostility is in direct proportion to the evasion. If they choose to comment on it, whatever.

You can feel victimized, thats fine. If I was bashing on you without facts to back it I would be called on it. I'm not.

AGAIN: how is trying to find the best lynch not a town move?

How is putting forth a case that is weak and holding onto it when it is questioned finding the best lynch?

How is dodging questions put forth to you if you have nothing to hide helping push forward the best lynch?

Who do you think is the best lynch?

[don_johnson]

Also, and please argue this - at the minimum you have a definitive lie due to not paying attention about me voting Ecto as of 108.

my apologies on this, i am reading the vote count in post 100 improperly. it does not, however, change my issue with the post. what other statements have you taken umbrage with?

i am off to work but will respond in the morning. as far as you twisting my words, i am saying that because you are putting my quotes together out of context. to me that is twisting words. i don't know what other evidence you want in regards to what my opinion of your opinion is, so i cannot address that further without more direct questions. i will gladly answer your other questions.

[don_johnson]

How is putting forth a case that is weak and holding onto it when it is questioned finding the best lynch?

How is dodging questions put forth to you if you have nothing to hide helping push forward the best lynch?

Who do you think is the best lynch?

these are terribly loaded questions. putting forth a weak case and holding onto it is not trying to find the best lynch. saying its a weak case and trying to move is at least a step in the right direction.

we disagree on whether or not i am dodgin your questions. but you are correct that dodgin questions does not help find the best lynch. however, i am not dodging. i am trying to answer you as best as i can.

who do i think is the best lynch? i have no way of knowing that right now. it would be stupid of me to try and answer. however, i have other input:

maybe you thought i was deflecting you earlier when i mentioned it, but have you noticed what has been going on around you and i? spring lullaby has all but dissappeared, and mykonian and op are piggybacking on your case with no input. i have asked mykonian rather directly what discrepancies he is riding here and he has no response. op seems to be standing by the "his reasoning is just off." why am i being held to such a high standard of investigation principles when others around me are not?

[don_johnson]

ebwop: saying its a weak case and trying to move is at least a step in the right direction.

should say: saying its a weak case and trying to move on is at least a step in the right direction.

[mykonian]

if you are very lucky, I can post something about the last post tonight, if not, I'll be posting tomorrow.

[vollkan]

vollkan- why did you jump in before Ectomancer himself could rebut my points? There's pretty much consensus that that's scummy as all hell.

I jumped in because I smite bullshit where I see it. There's absolutely no consensus that intervening is scummy, but nice try to make appeal to majority opinion (even if your majority is fake)

Basically it comes down to my point about my earlier play. It was not simply "bad" per se, but "bad" additionally because it was able to be twisted as a scum-tell by a player with an agenda. I believe vollkan falls into this category, and gave examples of his opportunistic stances when attacking not just me but others.

I rebutted all your "examples". K thx bai.

And your play was scummy. It didn't require "twisting" or misrepresentation or anything to be found scummy - it WAS scummy. But, of course, if you admitted that then your case against me would be affected, and that would be unspeakably bad

Furthermore, this is why vollkan's misrepresentations get really tiresome. You've rebutted his/your own straw-man versions of the arguments rather than my actual arguments.

Strawmen? Where?

Your argument that "you must have genuinely played badly because there was clearly at least one town on your wagon" is wrong because:

- it rebuts something that was not claimed to begin with
- there is nothing guaranteeing not all of you are scum (although the prior probability of this is extremely, extremely low)
- you were not the only people to vote for me, and clearly my play came across as suspicious. That doesn't mean I can't attack clear opportunism in vollkan's manner of play.

- You didn't directly claim it, but you've been basing everything on the idea that I couldn't have reasonably suspected you as town.
- It would make the game impossibly broken for town.
- You can attack "clear opportunism" in my play. It's just a shame that, despite how many times you've repeated the word "opportunism", every example anybody has come up with has been absolute crap.

@Volk, Ecto:

At this point do you believe the mason claim?

I believe it, but I am finding myself constantly asking myself "How the f*** could town possibly act like this?!"

volkan: why do i have to explain my "strawman" comment, but ortolan does not?

*facepalm*

My last post was 613.

Orto accused me of strawmanning in 617.

Unless you are attributing me the ability to time-travel or something, I couldn't have possibly called out Orto to explain himself.

this was after spyrex's first line of questioning as to why i quoted things the way i did. yet both volkan and spyrex have been hammering me as to why i quoted things the way i did. why? because my answer isn't the answer they wanted? just because spyrex writes in his post in italics that he is scumhunting, doesn't mean that i can't analyze said post differently. because he italicized it, its true? i saw spyrex as dodgy. ecto's post shows that he felt the same way after the same exchange i had read. no, that doesn't mean i'm right, but it validates my feelings on the subject.

Ugh!!

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares. I do not agree with this
As an aside, I'd like to see the rest of the game become a bit more active. There's enough here that opinions on at least a few players could be made and huntin' can begin.

He isn’t hunting, just sitting back and pointing fingers after saying that it was an irrelevant argument so early in the game.

That's Star Control 2, thank you very much.

As for leading away from the tangent - well, its not like we've got a whole lot to go on. However, the interplay between the three main heads of this theory hydra (you, volk, ecto) is worth of reading.

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares.

What can I make of this? Only time will tell. As it sits I'm thinking that there's not elaborate Gambit here and that a scum wouldn't be silly enough to bite so hard on a self-vote. However, it will definitely be watched - like it or not, I think all three of you have decided to dance in the spotlight for a while.

As an aside, I'd like to see the rest of the game become a bit more active. There's enough here that opinions on at least a few players could be made and huntin' can begin.

Fine, we don't know whether what he italicised is true. That is not the point. You accused him of NOT scumhunting when he very clearly was. It's not a case of different "analysis". It's a case of you of completely bastardising a quote and strawmanning him.

spyrex: i honestly believe that you set your post up to prove that i am scum. therefore, you were working from a preconcieved prejudice. no matter how i answered, i felt you would have found a way to come to the same conclusion, so i decided to not play your game.

Wow...you've earned a *HEADDESK*. You were the one who misrepresnted

him

. There's no question of a "preconceived prejudice".

[Rage]

Vote Count - Day 1

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

don_johnson - 3 (mykonian, Spyrex, orangepenguin)

orangepenguin - 0 ()
ortolan - 0 ()
mykonian - 0 ()
springlullaby - 1 (vollkan)
Ectomancer - 0 ()

vollkan - 3 (mrfixij, ortolan, springlullaby)

SpyreX - 0 ()
mrfixij - 0 ()
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 3 (Ectomancer, TDC, don_johnson)

Vollkan

and

don_johnson

are at L-3, 3 votes away from a lynch.

Activity List:

(OMG! Another one of these!)

(player's name) (date and time of last post)
don_johnson

Spolium

(Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:29 am)

orangepenguin (Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:54 am)

ortolan (Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:37 am)
mykonian (Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:11 am)
springlullaby (Tue Dec 16, 2008 9:36 am)
Ectomancer (Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:07 pm)
vollkan (Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:27 pm)
SpyreX (Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:47 pm)

mrfixij (Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:18 pm)

TDC (Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:16 am)

Since Springlullaby is going to be on VLA soon, I'm going to start looking for a replacement and ask Springlullaby if I should keep the spot open for her to re-join when she gets back.

Prods will go out in 24 hours for the following players, if no posts have been made by them since then:

- orangepenguin
- mrfixij
- TDC

[SpyreX]

Just a note: I will be V/LA from tomorrow to the 27th. I will keep checking in.

Just a different note: <3 for someone. They know who.

[don_johnson]

volkan: why do i have to explain my "strawman" comment, but ortolan does not?

*facepalm*

My last post was 613.

Orto accused me of strawmanning in 617.

Unless you are attributing me the ability to time-travel or something, I couldn't have possibly called out Orto to explain himself.

true. i feel as though my comments are being jumped on, though. but of course, no one cares abouyt "feelings" here...

this was after spyrex's first line of questioning as to why i quoted things the way i did. yet both volkan and spyrex have been hammering me as to why i quoted things the way i did. why? because my answer isn't the answer they wanted? just because spyrex writes in his post in italics that he is scumhunting, doesn't mean that i can't analyze said post differently. because he italicized it, its true? i saw spyrex as dodgy. ecto's post shows that he felt the same way after the same exchange i had read. no, that doesn't mean i'm right, but it validates my feelings on the subject.

Ugh!!

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares. I do not agree with this
As an aside, I'd like to see the rest of the game become a bit more active. There's enough here that opinions on at least a few players could be made and huntin' can begin.

He isn’t hunting, just sitting back and pointing fingers after saying that it was an irrelevant argument so early in the game.

That's Star Control 2, thank you very much.

As for leading away from the tangent - well, its not like we've got a whole lot to go on. However, the interplay between the three main heads of this theory hydra (you, volk, ecto) is worth of reading.

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares.

What can I make of this? Only time will tell. As it sits I'm thinking that there's not elaborate Gambit here and that a scum wouldn't be silly enough to bite so hard on a self-vote. However, it will definitely be watched - like it or not, I think all three of you have decided to dance in the spotlight for a while.

As an aside, I'd like to see the rest of the game become a bit more active. There's enough here that opinions on at least a few players could be made and huntin' can begin.

Fine, we don't know whether what he italicised is true. That is not the point.

You accused him of NOT scumhunting when he very clearly was. It's not a case of different "analysis". It's a case of you of completely bastardising a quote and strawmanning him.

spyrex: i honestly believe that you set your post up to prove that i am scum. therefore, you were working from a preconcieved prejudice. no matter how i answered, i felt you would have found a way to come to the same conclusion, so i decided to not play your game.

Wow...you've earned a *HEADDESK*. You were the one who misrepresnted

him

. There's no question of a "preconceived prejudice".

not the point. interesting. i am pretty sure that that is exactly the point. spyrex's defense and ensuing question(which he repeated several times) was WHY I LEFT OUT THE ITALICIZED PART! how did i misrepresent him? by observing the SAME PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR THAT WAS ACTUALLY POINTED OUT BY AN ACTIVE PLAYER IN THE GAME AT THAT TIME? have i voted for spyrex? i pointed out an inconsistency that i found. i was not the only one who noticed it. yes, i presented it poorly. that has become apparent. that doesn't make me scum. saying i misrepresented someone when i did not is reaching.

so are you admitting that he has come at me with a "preconceived prejudice" or are you accusing me of said action? because that would be funny considering the facts you yourself just admitted to.

[don_johnson]

also, why are you allowed to use the phrase "strawman" but noone else is?

[vollkan]

true. i feel as though my comments are being jumped on, though. but of course, no one cares abouyt "feelings" here...

Diddums.

not the point. interesting. i am pretty sure that that is exactly the point. spyrex's defense and ensuing question(which he repeated several times) was WHY I LEFT OUT THE ITALICIZED PART! how did i misrepresent him? by observing the SAME PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR THAT WAS ACTUALLY POINTED OUT BY AN ACTIVE PLAYER IN THE GAME AT THAT TIME? have i voted for spyrex? i pointed out an inconsistency that i found. i was not the only one who noticed it. yes, i presented it poorly. that has become apparent. that doesn't make me scum. saying i misrepresented someone when i did not is reaching.

You said he wasn't sucmhunting. The italicised showed he was. What's so hard to understand about that?

so are you admitting that he has come at me with a "preconceived prejudice" or are you accusing me of said action? because that would be funny considering the facts you yourself just admitted to.

I'm saying that it's funny that you would say he is showing prejudice when there is no evidence of that and, moreover, you were the one who was pulling a BS attack on him.

also, why are you allowed to use the phrase "strawman" but noone else is?

Everybody is allowed to use the phrase "strawman", they just have to use it properly. (And you still havent explained your usage of it)

[orangepenguin]

I hate to put vollkan at L-2, but given the evidence presented by ort, I agree that he's a better choice than don.

UNvote. vote: vollkan

[vollkan]

Precisely what evidence persuaded you that I am voteworthy?

[don_johnson]

not the point. interesting. i am pretty sure that that is exactly the point. spyrex's defense and ensuing question(which he repeated several times) was WHY I LEFT OUT THE ITALICIZED PART! how did i misrepresent him? by observing the SAME PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR THAT WAS ACTUALLY POINTED OUT BY AN ACTIVE PLAYER IN THE GAME AT THAT TIME? have i voted for spyrex? i pointed out an inconsistency that i found. i was not the only one who noticed it. yes, i presented it poorly. that has become apparent. that doesn't make me scum. saying i misrepresented someone when i did not is reaching.

You said he wasn't sucmhunting. The italicised showed he was. What's so hard to understand about that?

its hard for you to understand what i have said, obviously.

just because he writes it in italics doesn't make it true.

are we to believe everything we read?

so are you admitting that he has come at me with a "preconceived prejudice" or are you accusing me of said action? because that would be funny considering the facts you yourself just admitted to.

I'm saying that it's funny that you would say he is showing prejudice when there is no evidence of that and, moreover, you were the one who was pulling a BS attack on him.

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place. yet here we are six pages later with several players completely off the map, me finding it extremely difficult to catch up in this thread while fending off these repeated attacks which seem to revolve around the fact that i am supposed to believe that spyrex was scumhunting because he

said

he was, and you saying there is no evidence of spyrex coming at me with a preconceived prejudice when i have presented said evidence and you simply choose not to accept it.

Everybody is allowed to use the phrase "strawman", they just have to use it properly. (And you still havent explained your usage of it)

actually i did.

if you read Spyrex's posts he has an interesting way of asking questions, many of which i pointed out sound rhetorical. i offered to answer any questions he has, yet instead of laying them out in a format for me to answer, he lays them out for me in a no win situation and calls me a liar.

where is your explanation? you and spyrex seem to be employing a similar strategy of not accepting my explanations and then asking me the same things again.