Mini 757 - South Park Mafia (Game Over)

[ZazieR]

Regarding the quotes Caf brought up:
It's a game. I'm here to have fun. In order for me to have fun, I post random sillyness. This was one of them:

I'm in the mood for some circular logic here Here it comes:

As for the other two, I'm Dutch. I may not understand some words. Those other two quotes were posted to reflect this:

Vote: ZazieR

She has posts since her last post in here so it's not that she simply hasn't been around, it's that she's chosen to not involve herself further in the game. If we the town don't create a

disincentive

for this sort of behavior then we

implicitly condone

it.

I have no idea what the bolded words mean. That's why I said that DDD shouldn't use the difficult words on the Dutch girl.

The third quote was in response to this:

Is that a misrep or perhaps just a misunderstanding? A misrep carries some burden of proof of intent. What would be the benefit of someone trying to trick you (?) into believing you meant something you didn't?

I thought that misrep means to twist words in order to attack a different player. Apparently I was wrong.


The blonde part is added because a certain player made an alt, which made me pretty mad. So I'm using the 'blonde' stuff to remind him of it.

[ZazieR]

And you can check my games. So far I know, there are only two games I've been in without any big gaps in it.

[Spolium]

Zazier:

A "disincentive" (

hidernis

) is an action intended to prevent people from doing something. For example, DDD voted you for lurking in order to send the message that lurkers would be targeted.

To "implicitly condone" (

toegespeeld/vergeven

, I think) an action is to support it without saying it directly. For example, DDD is suggesting that if we don't threaten lurkers with a

disincentive

(such as a vote) then we are saying "it's okay to lurk".

[ZazieR]

uhm, thanks.
My dictionary could only tell me what 'condone' means.

[Spolium]

Timmmaaaarghhhh

You're welcome!

BLARRRGH whooooooo Timmyyy

[Empking]

I'll look later at your case against GW, Spolium.

I had to check another game for one of my ongoings, and in that finished game, I realised that Empking might actually be right. So I first want to explore this.

Can you clarify this, please?

[Wall-E]

I dislike ZazieR's plays. She seems to be looking for someone to excuse her to claim. Softclaiming your information was enough, ZazieR. Please don't fully claim unless you are forced to or it will ABSOLUTELY catch scum or some other very important reason I haven't thought of.

I'm willing to bet ZazieR's claim is a morally "good" character in the show, regardless of her alignment, and thus she's unafraid to claim.

[Wall-E]

@DDD (post 445)

If you actually believed that then why didn't you step in and either present another candidate for lynch or push the idea of a no lynch instead of just sitting back and letting it happen?

Misrep. Your reason for voting RBT was weak. I never said that the general case against RBT was weak.

Is that a misrep or perhaps just a misunderstanding? A misrep carries some burden of proof of intent. What would be the benefit of someone trying to trick you (?) into believing you meant something you didn't?[/quote]

I thought that misrep means to twist words in order to attack a different player. Apparently I was wrong.

I can see this view, considering your prior stated views on RBT.

DDD: Any response to this or did I miss one?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

DDD: Any response to this or did I miss one?

467 touches on it, basically I had agreed with Spolium's points (which covered most everything raised about RBT) and added two more of my own. Thus the reason for my vote included the general case that had been laid out, so if my case was weak then the town's case was weak in which case why didn't Zazier say anything. If she was talking about just my points I don't think they were that weak and that ignores a large portion of the arguments I was basing my vote off of.

I wasn't trying to misrepresent her position, just clarifying my own and pointing out therefore that her position wasn't strong because of it.

[charter]

Ok... It's been nearly ten days since RestFermata requested replacement. STILL haven't found one, Danny has been trying to help find one, but still nothing. I'll give it a few more days, but I might have to modkill her too. Sorry that this is getting out of hand, but short of keep the day going indefinately, there's not much else I can do.

[caf19]

Is our deadline still in effect?

[charter]

Is our deadline still in effect?

No, will extend it once the RestFermata issue is resolved.

[charter]

Mass proddage.
I will most likely be gone for the next few days, so I'm going to PRAY someone volunteers to replace.

New deadline for May 4th, Midnight EST.

[Spolium]

MOD: Any word from Ghostwriter?

@Zazier

- you had a whole lot to say a few days ago. You made a fuss about your role and taken a few pops at myself and DDD... you haven't posted here in 3 days, yet are still posting elsewhere. Why the sudden silence? Have you any follow-up to your previous posts? Who do you suspect right now? What do you think of my Ghostwriter case?

@Wall-E

- Do you suspect anyone other than myself yet?

@Empking

- What is your opinion on DDD right now? He's posted quite a bit since you placed your vote on him.

@caf19

- What do you think of Zazier's response to your concerns about her? Has she lessened these concerns?

@DDD

- What reason have we to believe you're town? Please summarise.

[Empking]

Spilum: My opinion of DDD hasn't changed, I don't think he's done anything pro-town to make my opinion change.

[caf19]

@caf19

- What do you think of Zazier's response to your concerns about her? Has she lessened these concerns?

I can understand putting fun stuff in a game, yeah. I'm not sure why you'd throw it in a long post, surrounded by a lot of serious points... maybe we just see things differently. It does also set the worrying precedent that Zazie can just retrospectively label anything as a joke if she starts getting suspected for it. We'll see if that becomes a problem. So I'd say I do still have some concerns, although they have been lessened a bit.

@Wall-E

- Do you suspect anyone other than myself yet?

This is a strange question

[Spolium]

@Wall-E

- Do you suspect anyone other than myself yet?

This is a strange question

What if you read it in the context of THIS POST?

[caf19]

@Wall-E

- Do you suspect anyone other than myself yet?

This is a strange question

What if you read it in the context of THIS POST?

Yes, I am familiar with the post... but I was reading it more in the context of Wall-E's later post where he lists suspicions of, then votes for, Zazie. It makes your question seem rather redundant, and I wonder about your motivations for asking it.

[Spolium]

I meant with regard to his declaration that if his opinion changed "

you'll know because I'll start talking about someone else obsessively

". He hasn't been particularly obsessive over Zaz, or anyone else for that matter. That's my concern.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

@DDD

- What reason have we to believe you're town? Please summarise.

Lame answer for a lame question: Because I'm looking for scum and addressing all questions and arguments tossed my way.

Correct answer: All the points raised against me require a presumption of guilt to prove I'm scum. (E.G. If I'm scum it makes sense to possibly mention a partner as scum and then follow-up on someone else.) These points rest upon an unsound foundation because they assume unknown (and in this case incorrect) information about my role. Since by presumption of guilt everyone can be found guilty, we must presume innocence and thus I'm innocent as no significant points have been raised that don't rest upon that faulty assumption.

Correct answer that will only annoy people: This question both doesn't really have a good answer and leans towards asking me to prove a negative which as we all know is impossible. Hence either you didn't really think about those facts when you wrote out the question or you did realize those points and thus trying to trap me into giving some sort of answer you could use for some purpose.

I'm tired and your question sucks, pick an answer from the above.

~

Empking, whatever happened to your theory about a mod not confirming a townie post restriction?

Spolium, your choices are Caf, Empking, and Wall-E. Who is most likely to be scum and who is least likely to be scum of the choices.

[Wall-E]

Woah, DDD. The scum are me and two others? That's interesting. Please expound to me upon why I am included in your shortlist?

[Wall-E]

I was with you until you started to WIFOM up your post with all this, "Correct Answer:" stuff and talking about yourself as if unaware of your own alignment (?). Buzz buzz, that's bad stuff to hear.

[Empking]

Empking, whatever happened to your theory about a mod not confirming a townie post restriction?

I forgot about it.

Mod: What is your policy of confirming post restrictions?

[ZazieR]

I'll look later at your case against GW, Spolium.

I had to check another game for one of my ongoings, and in that finished game, I realised that Empking might actually be right. So I first want to explore this.

Can you clarify this, please?

I'm talking about your statement about the mod confirming a PR.

[ZazieR]

DDD: Any response to this or did I miss one?

467 touches on it, basically I had agreed with Spolium's points (which covered most everything raised about RBT) and added two more of my own. Thus the reason for my vote included the general case that had been laid out, so if my case was weak then the town's case was weak in which case why didn't Zazier say anything. If she was talking about just my points I don't think they were that weak and that ignores a large portion of the arguments I was basing my vote off of.

I wasn't trying to misrepresent her position, just clarifying my own and pointing out therefore that her position wasn't strong because of it.

Disagreed.
Your reason for voting RBT:

As it stands however, I believe RBT is the best choice today; she’s provided next to no content other than agreeing when it’s easy and convenient to do so; making it obvious she’s still around but simply and willfully not participating. Also, if we assume her post restriction is authentic then her lynch would be helpful in at very least eliminating how the town is broken up between scum and town.

Your points were that she hasn't provided information and that it could help to see how the town is broken up. The second would go for every lynch, and there were players with less content.
So to me, your reasons were weak.