Fuzzyman - 2 (corporate, Green Crayons)
Green Crayons - 1 (Empking)
Mizzy
Ether
q21
With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch!
Okay, this doesn't make any sense at all.Fuzzyman wrote:No, you're not scum because you believe in meta. In fact corporate's lack of such a belief is part of why he's scum. What I meant to get across is that you're trying to convince people of things that aren't there.
I suppose I can kind of, maybe, see where you are coming from. The best way to show that is to show/quote the post you think he was trying to manipulate and then show a post or 2 that show what the truth of the matter was. You can really only prove manipulation by showing an intent to alter truths.Fuzzyman wrote:
- 1. Emp stating that GC was strawmanning.
2. Emp stating that he had given reason to believe that Ether was not really town (Inferred).
3. Emp stating that I had stated that he had been on GC since his first post.
Arguing against the too townie fallacy, when nobody mentioned it, is strawmanning.Fuzzyman wrote:Once more, I never meant to speak about meta in the first place. To my knowledge, Empking hasn't said a thing about it either. I was trying to state that I believed him to be trying to manipulate others, using untrue ideas.
Instances during which I think he has done this are:
- 1. Emp stating that GC was strawmanning.
Believing with meta, isn't scummy.2. Emp stating that he had given reason to believe that Ether was not really town (Inferred).
He mistakenly believed you to be using it.Empking wrote: Arguing against the too townie fallacy, when nobody mentioned it, is strawmanning.
Your suspicion of Ether began with your first post. You did not mention meta in your first post.Believing with meta, isn't scummy.
Your post 725.When did I state that?
Any actual evidence of that? It looks to me that you're saying "GC is town. Therefore everything he does is either towny or a mistake."Fuzzyman wrote:He mistakenly believed you to be using it.Empking wrote: Arguing against the too townie fallacy, when nobody mentioned it, is strawmanning.
I don't look at meta till its presented for me. Is that scummy?Your suspicion of Ether began with your first post. You did not mention meta in your first post.Believing with meta, isn't scummy.
I dsaid that was the case, not that you said it.Your post 725.When did I state that?
True or False? GC spoke truthfully in post 339. I personally believe we have no reason to believe that he isn't, assuming that we're playing innocent until proven guilty.Empking wrote:Any actual evidence of that? It looks to me that you're saying "GC is town. Therefore everything he does is either towny or a mistake."Fuzzyman wrote:He mistakenly believed you to be using it.Empking wrote: Arguing against the too townie fallacy, when nobody mentioned it, is strawmanning.
(Note you never used those words.)
That is not scummy, but you diverge from the main point. When you said, "Believing with meta, isn't scummy," I interpreted it to mean that you had used meta in your original suspicions against Ether. If you meant something else, let us know.I don't look at meta till its presented for me. Is that scummy?Your suspicion of Ether began with your first post. You did not mention meta in your first post.Believing with meta, isn't scummy.
Yet you directed the question of whether or not you had mentioned GC in your first post atI dsaid that was the case, not that you said it.Your post 725.When did I state that?
I'm thinking false.Fuzzyman wrote:True or False? GC spoke truthfully in post 339. I personally believe we have no reason to believe that he isn't, assuming that we're playing innocent until proven guilty.Empking wrote:Any actual evidence of that? It looks to me that you're saying "GC is town. Therefore everything he does is either towny or a mistake."Fuzzyman wrote:He mistakenly believed you to be using it.Empking wrote: Arguing against the too townie fallacy, when nobody mentioned it, is strawmanning.
(Note you never used those words.)
I was saying that I changed my opinion due to meta. Sorry, if I was the cause of any confusion.That is not scummy, but you diverge from the main point. When you said, "Believing with meta, isn't scummy," I interpreted it to mean that you had used meta in your original suspicions against Ether. If you meant something else, let us know.
I don't look at meta till its presented for me. Is that scummy?Your suspicion of Ether began with your first post. You did not mention meta in your first post.Believing with meta, isn't scummy.
Two things.Yet you directed the question of whether or not you had mentioned GC in your first post atI dsaid that was the case, not that you said it.Your post 725.When did I state that?me.
Okay. I guess we're at an impasse for this one, atm. You're cool here.Empking wrote:I'm thinking false.Fuzzyman wrote:True or False? GC spoke truthfully in post 339. I personally believe we have no reason to believe that he isn't, assuming that we're playing innocent until proven guilty.Empking wrote:Any actual evidence of that? It looks to me that you're saying "GC is town. Therefore everything he does is either towny or a mistake."Fuzzyman wrote:He mistakenly believed you to be using it.Empking wrote: Arguing against the too townie fallacy, when nobody mentioned it, is strawmanning.
(Note you never used those words.)
I don't think the fact that we disagree with "assuming that we're playing innocent until proven guilty." theory is worthy of a vote from either of us.
I was saying that I changed my opinion due to meta. Sorry, if I was the cause of any confusion.[/quote]That is not scummy, but you diverge from the main point. When you said, "Believing with meta, isn't scummy," I interpreted it to mean that you had used meta in your original suspicions against Ether. If you meant something else, let us know.
I don't look at meta till its presented for me. Is that scummy?Your suspicion of Ether began with your first post. You did not mention meta in your first post.Believing with meta, isn't scummy.
[/quote]Two things.Yet you directed the question of whether or not you had mentioned GC in your first post atI dsaid that was the case, not that you said it.Your post 725.When did I state that?me.
1. I was under the impression that, that was everyody's case.
2. Even if it wasn't, you saying it was not true was more powerful than me saying it was false. So, I was hoping that CW would re-evaluate her vote.
Third Point.Ether wrote:vote: Simpor, yeah.
Crywolf, if you're still going back and forth on me I'm going to need those thoughts you promised.
Fuzzyman, which of Simpor's points did you actually like? I didnotrestate the same reasons over and over, and I do not believe Simpor has ever successfully countered a single one.
Empking's case against me is also absolutely beyond my understanding; rather than deconstruct it, let's apply a bit of meta. Filter my posts in Pick Your Poison 3. These two posts in particular should be good examples of my rampant egotism.
I would much rather have someone go, "Oh, damn, my case is crap. Sorry, I take it back." then have someone continue to argue a bad case. And I would also much rather have the other person go, "Oh, good, I'm glad you saw the light." then have a passive-aggressive OMGUS bonanza.Green Crayons wrote:I like how Fuzz goes from super hard-line against Emp (from the very moment Emp joined the game) and then when he realizes his stances are crap he does an aboutface, shifts his positions and becomes conciliatory.
Except that isn't what has happened here. Nor how I described this situation. Let me show you details:Mizzy wrote:I would much rather have someone go, "Oh, damn, my case is crap. Sorry, I take it back." then have someone continue to argue a bad case.
He "didn't mean" to talk about meta, but he did and it didn't play out well for him. Now he's backtracking and repositioning. There's a difference between doing this and saying "I was wrong." He's saying "I wasn't wrong because I didn't mean to do X."Fuzz wrote:Once more, I never meant to speak about meta in the first place.
This reads: "My position is X. X is right. Oh, unless if we're not going to assume Y, which is what I'm assuming, in which case I can see how X might be wrong." This epiphany comes so sudden and shockingly stilted it screams as scum looking to wiggle their way out of not only this single argument, but their larger position in the game. From the moment Emp stepped into the game Fuzz has been all over him like white on rice, repeatedly "coming to my defense" against whatever current issue Emp had with me (and in doing so breaking Fuzz' own stigma against players coming to others defenses and in doing so being a big fat hypocrite). And with this right here, he's suddenly undercutting the long and plentiful history of his blind, unhelpful and non-constructive attack against Emp because it's like he suddenly realizes that it just doesn't fly and he's got to abandon ship.Fuzz wrote:I personally believe we have no reason to believe that he isn't, assuming that we're playing innocent until proven guilty.
Emp wrote:1. Am I acting overly hostile? I just presumed that if somebody disagreed with CW's points, they'd have pointed it out.
2. If you're both town, its for your benefit to help me point out false argument.
These two points don't negate the rest of Emp's universe of failings - which was the reason for Fuzz's vote in the first place. It looks like Fuzz is looking for an excuse to unvote because he sees that even if other people think Emp is a certified nutball they don't automatically think he's also scum/needs to be lynched and so this wagon isn't going to be the successful town-lynch he was originally hoping for when he put his vote on Emp.Fuzz wrote:Agreed and Agreed. You've just earned an unvote.
So you would rather take people at their word than reading into what they're saying? Also, I threw this criticism against Emp in here to further underline his blind adherence to his flawed suspicions against me as juxtaposed against his sudden disregard of his legitimate suspicions against Fuzz.Mizzy wrote:And I would also much rather have the other person go, "Oh, good, I'm glad you saw the light." then have a passive-aggressive OMGUS bonanza.
Mizzy wrote:So let me ask this, GC: Why does your brain yell "scum abandoning a bad wagon" instead of "potential distancing" or "good, no more townie squabbles"? Scum aren't the only people who abandon bad wagons. Hell, if anyone abandons a bad wagon, is that anything but good?
Because it's annoying and wants to be listened to.Why does your brain yell
Because I have already explained why I think Fuzz is scum and the wagon against Emp is bad."scum abandoning a bad wagon"
Because I don't think Emp is scum. I do think Fuzz is scum. And what Fuzz is doing isn't distancing - he's doing the exact opposite in that he's negating a previous instances of his "distancing" from/attacking of Emp.instead of "potential distancing"
Because I think Fuzz is scum as previously mentioned, discussed and explained.or "good, no more townie squabbles"?
You're right, but I didn't extrapolate from these last two pages that Fuzz must be scum and Emp must be town. Those are alignments I already had in mind for these two players, and with those alignments in mind the interaction between these two accurately reflects my beliefs as to their alignments. This play helps confirm my already established notions of their respective roles.Scum aren't the only people who abandon bad wagons.
Anyone can join or abandon a good or bad wagon whenever they so desire. But just because someone hops off a bad wagon or joins a good wagon doesn't mean that their actions are exempt of criticism or suspicion. Why would you believe that this type of action would be exempt?Hell, if anyone abandons a bad wagon, is that anything but good?
Habit.Green Crayons wrote:Not quite sure why you're bolding. Nobody has shown an inability to address points made to them.
Ah, okay, I can see your point here.Green Crayons wrote:He "didn't mean" to talk about meta, but he did and it didn't play out well for him. Now he's backtracking and repositioning. There's a difference between doing this and saying "I was wrong." He's saying "I wasn't wrong because I didn't mean to do X."Fuzz wrote:Once more, I never meant to speak about meta in the first place.
It more screams to me, "I'm not paying attention and I have no idea what the fuck I'm saying." I suppose, to me, Fuzz hasn't played the smartest or the best (sorry Fuzz, no offense) and I'm having a hard time deciding if he is just town trying to fix a mistake or if he's what you see, i.e. scum trying to fix a mistake.Green Crayons wrote:This epiphany comes so sudden and shockingly stilted it screams as scum looking to wiggle their way out of not only this single argument, but their larger position in the game.
I can see that, too. I think, though, that watching what Fuzz does next will be even more telling than what he has done already.Green Crayons wrote:These two points don't negate the rest of Emp's universe of failings - which was the reason for Fuzz's vote in the first place. It looks like Fuzz is looking for an excuse to unvote because he sees that even if other people think Emp is a certified nutball they don't automatically think he's also scum/needs to be lynched and so this wagon isn't going to be the successful town-lynch he was originally hoping for when he put his vote on Emp.
No, what I want are people to realize when they have done something moronic than to stick with the moronic thing. It was a comment in general, not just about what's going on.Green Crayons wrote:So you would rather take people at their word than reading into what they're saying? Also, I threw this criticism against Emp in here to further underline his blind adherence to his flawed suspicions against me as juxtaposed against his sudden disregard of his legitimate suspicions against Fuzz.
I see (feel?) more of a Fuzz-wagon in general than I do an Emp-wagon.Green Crayons wrote:Because I have already explained why I think Fuzz is scum and the wagon against Emp is bad.
i dont need a replacement, just a bit of time to catch up.Fuzzyman wrote:Uhh... Welcome back, for now. You never told us where you were going, and charter is currently looking for a replacement.corporate wrote:back from vacation.