890: Cults of Darkness and Shadow - Game over!

[semioldguy]

Also, statements retracted about your side and those agreeing with your side being wrong (at least up through post 420). Your points were right. We just weren't talking about the same thing. Which is probably why the communication for both sides was so frustrating.

[Chaco]

Semi, you just slipped up. You are preaching the wrong use of find now that I backed you into a corner. As I typed out my response I noticed the change.

But as of now I do not find dramonic to be scummy.

I did not find Datadanne scummy.

First, before I point out your errors, let us go over the forms of Find.

1. to come upon by chance; meet with:

He found a nickel in the street.

2. to locate, attain, or obtain by search or effort:

to find an apartment; to find happiness.

3. to locate or recover (something lost or misplaced):

I can't find my blue socks.

4. to discover or perceive after consideration:

to find something to be true.

5. to gain or regain the use of:

His anger finally helped him find his tongue.

6. to ascertain by study or calculation:

to find the sum of several numbers.

7. to feel or perceive:

He finds it so.

8. to become aware of, or discover (oneself), as being in a condition or location:

After a long illness, he found himself well again. She woke to find herself at home.

9. to discover:

Columbus found America in 1492.

10.

Law.

a. to determine after judicial inquiry: to find a person guilty.[/*]
b. to pronounce as an official act (an indictment, verdict, or judgment).
11. to provide or furnish:

Bring blankets and we'll find the rest of the equipment for the trip.

12. South Midland and Southern U.S. (of farm animals) to give birth to:

The brown cow found a calf yesterday.

Now, let's go through and rule out the ones that cannot be.

1. to come upon by chance; meet with:

He found a nickel in the street.

2. to locate, attain, or obtain by search or effort:

to find an apartment; to find happiness.

3. to locate or recover (something lost or misplaced):

I can't find my blue socks.

4. to discover or perceive after consideration:

to find something to be true.

5. to gain or regain the use of:

His anger finally helped him find his tongue.

6. to ascertain by study or calculation:

to find the sum of several numbers.

7. to feel or perceive:

He finds it so.

8. to become aware of, or discover (oneself), as being in a condition or location:

After a long illness, he found himself well again. She woke to find herself at home.

9. to discover:

Columbus found America in 1492.

10.

Law.

a. to determine after judicial inquiry: to find a person guilty.[/*]
b. to pronounce as an official act (an indictment, verdict, or judgment).

11. to provide or furnish:

Bring blankets and we'll find the rest of the equipment for the trip.

12. South Midland and Southern U.S. (of farm animals) to give birth to:

The brown cow found a calf yesterday.

Now, before moving on further, do you understand why these to are left?

The first one is what you are stating: You did not

meet

with Scumminess within Dramonic. Any other form would not support your "I did not find scumminess within Dramonic." The form I selected as the only factual one with your statement, which is to feel or perceive it. It is the ONLY one that will make sens with your wording. And let alone, the only one that would make sense period. Now, let us bring the two out and compare them.

1. to come upon by chance; meet with:

He found a nickel in the street.

2. to locate, attain, or obtain by search or effort:

to find an apartment; to find happiness.

3. to locate or recover (something lost or misplaced):

I can't find my blue socks.

4. to discover or perceive after consideration:

to find something to be true.

5. to gain or regain the use of:

His anger finally helped him find his tongue.

6. to ascertain by study or calculation:

to find the sum of several numbers.

7. to feel or perceive:

He finds it so.

8. to become aware of, or discover (oneself), as being in a condition or location:

After a long illness, he found himself well again. She woke to find herself at home.

9. to discover:

Columbus found America in 1492.

10.

Law.

a. to determine after judicial inquiry: to find a person guilty.[/*]
b. to pronounce as an official act (an indictment, verdict, or judgment).

11. to provide or furnish:

Bring blankets and we'll find the rest of the equipment for the trip.

12. South Midland and Southern U.S. (of farm animals) to give birth to:

The brown cow found a calf yesterday.

Now, comparing the two to your statement, I shall label the forms as you have used them using Red and Blue.

But as of now I do not find dramonic to be scummy.

I did not find Datadanne scummy.

I did not find there to be any scuminess in dramonic.

Understand now? What you are trying to pass it off as, is not so.

[Snow_Bunny]

That's a little weak, to be honest. One of the better scum tells I've found in multi-scum setups is selective scumhunting, so going after the group that is already weakened for no particular reason is not particularly the best.

Having said that, I am tryign to work out if I'd prefer to aim at Darkness and eliminate a kill, or aim for shadow and keep them trying to cross kill.

Funny thing, you're doing exactly the same scum tell you yourself are talking about.

The lack of night kill last night from Shadow means in all probability we have a confirmed town somewhere. If we managed to find and lynch the last Darkness member, we'd have 9 members going into night. That means, assuming no more protections, we'd have 8 members with which we'd have to find 2 scum. This isn't a slam dunk, but it's not a bad scenario, especially with one confirmed town in the mix not to mention potential blocks or defends from other power roles.

The first time I read this, I thought "what an interesting analysis." But then, I started to think. Why does the lack of Shadow night kill mean we have a confirmed town? Darkness can have a guardian. That means that there's no confirmed town somewhere. But if you believe that, it's because you know that Shadow didn't target Darkness on the night, but a pro-town player. And thus, not having killed him/her, you now believe the town has a guardian role. Also, using your own logic, your selective hunting makes you look scummier. The rest of your post just follow that same logic.

I believe you just slipped.

Incant: SerialClergyman

*is still catching up*

I got the whole afternoon thinking about this, and I think i got it wrong. Yes, you know there's a town confirmed pr because you know Darkness didn't protect anyone of their own. And thus, you assume the PR comes from town who fended off Shadow's kill. That's it.

[Chaco]

I got the whole afternoon thinking about this, and I think i got it wrong. Yes, you know there's a town confirmed pr because you know Darkness didn't protect anyone of their own. And thus, you assume the PR comes from town who fended off Shadow's kill. That's it.

Interesting, so that still has you labeling him as Darkness Cult?

[dramonic]

omg...

seriously Chaco, just stop. You're covering yourself with ridicule here. This redefines grasping for straws.

[Chaco]

omg...

seriously Chaco, just stop. You're covering yourself with ridicule here. This redefines grasping for straws.

It's not grasping. If it is wrong, show us where it is. Just whining about it will do no good.

Dramonic, you have now posted 12 one liners out of 15 posts out of a total 8 days in this game.

[dramonic]

Semioldguy says he finds me not scummy because he has no read on me.

There's no special, intricate explanation, there's no debate. This is crystal clear and you've been arguing it for 50 posts.

[semioldguy]

@Chaco
Um... you realize that feel/percieve fits just fine into all three sentences, not just the first two. Definition six is probably closest to actual meaning in all of the three.

But as of now I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy.

I did not perceive Datadanne scummy.

I did not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic.

The change you noticed is not the difference between meanings of the verb "to find," which is the same meaning in all, what you noticed as the difference between the third sentence and the first two is that scummy is an adjective and scuminess is a noun, which has no bearing on the meaning of the verb. Other differences are that the second sentence has an implied infinitive, the first opens with a prepositional phrase, it also is in present tense, while the third has a prepositional phrase with respect to the direct object. None of these things affect the verb "to find."

[Chaco]

@ Semi: I am going by your wording, Semi, the first two are Feel/Perceive in the way you worded them the last was coming across, pretty much. Yes, they all will fit because essentially they are all find. But, that's not the case. The point I'm making here is that the first two REQUIRED a read from the way they were worded, and the last did not. The change you are saying I noted, is meaningless. The change that in fact did note, makes this part. You do know quite a bit, I'll give you that. So, I do think you have the knowledge to make such a change and I really feel you did. Why is it so hard to admit you had a read on Dramonic? What you were saying was contradictory, and it seems other people are getting that feel too. Of course, other than Dramonic.

@Dramonic:
One post of mine or Semi's amounts to almost all of your posts combined.

[dramonic]

not really, considering your last 20 or so posts are a bunch of useless fluff.
So are his.

[Chaco]

And you've produced no content at all yet, so I wouldn't be one to critical over the game.

[dramonic]

I've given 5 reasons why I think you're scum all of which I deem valid. The defense you tried to provide against the points I've risen was weak in my opinion, therefore I am still very sure you are scum.

Additionally, your ridiculous semantic formulation debate with SOG wasn't actually fluff, I admit. More like you desperately trying to find something to say SOG is scum (and failing miserably might I add), but it DID increase your scumminess by an exponential amount.

The fact you purposely ignore the content I have posted is just another added bonus to your scumscore.

[DeathSauce]

This argument tires me.

Serial - explain how we can differentiate between the two scum groups.

[semioldguy]

It's hard to admit that I had a read on dramonic... probably because I didn't have a read on dramonic.

How do the first two

require

a read from their wording?

"But as of now I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy."
<sentence two snipped for irrelevance>
"I did not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic."

With the exception of the tense and preposition phrase "But as of now", sentences 1 and 3 are the same sentence.

**Incoming grammar lesson monologue. If you don't want to read about grammar, stop now. There is no game content found below. Though grammar is really interesting and if you do read on you'll probably learn something about grammar.

Let's first sync up the tenses and remove that prepositional phrase from contestsant number one for ease of comparison.

"I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy."
"I do not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic."

Now "I" is the subject/nominative of both sentences. Everything past "I" is part of the predicate.

"do" is the predicate or acting verb of both sentences coupled with the adverb of "not." The verb "to do" generally requires the partnership of an infinitive which is a helping verb, which here is not an exception, in this case that infinitive being "find/perceive," whichever you want to use at this point.

Next let's look at a couple direct object nouns. "Scuminess" and "dramonic" aren't the same nouns in a literal sense, but both sentences have a prediacte nominative as the direct objects, so the sentence structure between the two is still the same so far.

(A 'prediacte nominative' is the acting subject of the prediacte phase. More on this later.)

When looking at the next infinitive, "to be," we have an additional pronoun, "there," in the second sentence. However, this pronoun is not acting like a pronoun. When joined, generally with the verb "to be," the word "there" acts as an introduction to a clause in which the verb is coming before it's subject. For example "There is no spoon." The word "there" has no real translatable meaning to the sentence here since "Is no spoon" is not proper english grammar (there are many other languages in which this grammar would be fine).

Think of the word "there" as a reflexive pronoun in this case. When you say "there is no spoon" you are essentially saying "There exists no spoon," which has the same translation as "no spoon exists," eliminating the word "there" entirely since the subject "spoon" is now at its place before the verb. Let's look at the clauses within each sentence's predicate separately for a moment (this is the clause following our verb and helping verb)

"

I do not perceive

dramonic to be scummy."
"

I do not perceive

there to be any

scuminess

in dramonic."

We can get rid of the pronoun "there" by rearranging the word order in the second phrase to "

I do not perceive

any scumminess to be in dramonic" We then have the same exact verb in the prediacte, "to be." Nothing exciting there. So now we've whittled it down to:

"

dramonic

to be scummy."
"any

scumminess

to be in dramonic"

I underlined both prediacte nominatives. What we do with the word "any" that seems to be poking out the front is more or less ignore it. The word "any" is an adjective to the direct object that expresses emphasis when in a sentence with a negative. Basically it emphasizes that the person saying the sentence is sure that there is no scuminess. It does not change the meaning. It could even be cut out.

The prediacte infinitive "to be" has the same use in both clauses, linking the predicate nominative to it's compliment. So "to be" also passes the identical test between the two sentences.

"

dramonic

to be scummy."
"

scumminess

to be in dramonic"

"scummy" and "in dramonic" are both complements. A complement follows a verb to let us know the meaning of a phrase. In both clauses these are acting as predicate adjectives, they modify the prediacte nominative so we know what's going on. Their actual part of speech is not important when dealing with complements.

"scummy" let's us know more about "dramonic" and "in dramonic" lets us know more about "scuminess." The part of speech which a word is does not affect the kind of complement it is within the sentence, so it does not matter that one complement is an adjective and the other is a prepositional phrase. Complements can also be nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc.

"I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy."
"I do not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic."

So looking back at the whole picture, both sentences have their nominatives (I), a negative (not), a verb with helping verb (do perceive), a direct object (dramonic/scuminess), a complement to the direct object(scummy/in dramonic), which are combined by a linking verb (to be).

Structurally they are the same sentence. They have all the same parts.

[Chaco]

I've given 5 reasons why I think you're scum all of which I deem valid. The defense you tried to provide against the points I've risen was weak in my opinion, therefore I am still very sure you are scum.

Additionally, your ridiculous semantic formulation debate with SOG wasn't actually fluff, I admit. More like you desperately trying to find something to say SOG is scum (and failing miserably might I add), but it DID increase your scumminess by an exponential amount.

The fact you purposely ignore the content I have posted is just another added bonus to your scumscore.

And which pretty much everyone else has deemed weak?

I'm not desperately trying to find something on Semi, if I were I'd be tossing out a lot more than a debate over verb tenses. Which is what it has amounted to now.

Dramonic...4 posts out of like what....19 now? That doesn't make up anything. Your honestly full of shit.

It's hard to admit that I had a read on dramonic... probably because I didn't have a read on dramonic.

How do the first two

require

a read from their wording?

"But as of now I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy."
<sentence two snipped for irrelevance>
"I did not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic."

With the exception of the tense and preposition phrase "But as of now", sentences 1 and 3 are the same sentence.

**Incoming grammar lesson monologue. If you don't want to read about grammar, stop now. There is no game content found below. Though grammar is really interesting and if you do read on you'll probably learn something about grammar.

Let's first sync up the tenses and remove that prepositional phrase from contestsant number one for ease of comparison.

"I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy."
"I do not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic."

Now "I" is the subject/nominative of both sentences. Everything past "I" is part of the predicate.

"do" is the predicate or acting verb of both sentences coupled with the adverb of "not." The verb "to do" generally requires the partnership of an infinitive which is a helping verb, which here is not an exception, in this case that infinitive being "find/perceive," whichever you want to use at this point.

Next let's look at a couple direct object nouns. "Scuminess" and "dramonic" aren't the same nouns in a literal sense, but both sentences have a prediacte nominative as the direct objects, so the sentence structure between the two is still the same so far.

(A 'prediacte nominative' is the acting subject of the prediacte phase. More on this later.)

When looking at the next infinitive, "to be," we have an additional pronoun, "there," in the second sentence. However, this pronoun is not acting like a pronoun. When joined, generally with the verb "to be," the word "there" acts as an introduction to a clause in which the verb is coming before it's subject. For example "There is no spoon." The word "there" has no real translatable meaning to the sentence here since "Is no spoon" is not proper english grammar (there are many other languages in which this grammar would be fine).

Think of the word "there" as a reflexive pronoun in this case. When you say "there is no spoon" you are essentially saying "There exists no spoon," which has the same translation as "no spoon exists," eliminating the word "there" entirely since the subject "spoon" is now at its place before the verb. Let's look at the clauses within each sentence's predicate separately for a moment (this is the clause following our verb and helping verb)

"

I do not perceive

dramonic to be scummy."
"

I do not perceive

there to be any

scuminess

in dramonic."

We can get rid of the pronoun "there" by rearranging the word order in the second phrase to "

I do not perceive

any scumminess to be in dramonic" We then have the same exact verb in the prediacte, "to be." Nothing exciting there. So now we've whittled it down to:

"

dramonic

to be scummy."
"any

scumminess

to be in dramonic"

I underlined both prediacte nominatives. What we do with the word "any" that seems to be poking out the front is more or less ignore it. The word "any" is an adjective to the direct object that expresses emphasis when in a sentence with a negative. Basically it emphasizes that the person saying the sentence is sure that there is no scuminess. It does not change the meaning. It could even be cut out.

The prediacte infinitive "to be" has the same use in both clauses, linking the predicate nominative to it's compliment. So "to be" also passes the identical test between the two sentences.

"

dramonic

to be scummy."
"

scumminess

to be in dramonic"

"scummy" and "in dramonic" are both complements. A complement follows a verb to let us know the meaning of a phrase. In both clauses these are acting as predicate adjectives, they modify the prediacte nominative so we know what's going on. Their actual part of speech is not important when dealing with complements.

"scummy" let's us know more about "dramonic" and "in dramonic" lets us know more about "scuminess." The part of speech which a word is does not affect the kind of complement it is within the sentence, so it does not matter that one complement is an adjective and the other is a prepositional phrase. Complements can also be nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc.

"I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy."
"I do not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic."

So looking back at the whole picture, both sentences have their nominatives (I), a negative (not), a verb with helping verb (do perceive), a direct object (dramonic/scuminess), a complement to the direct object(scummy/in dramonic), which are combined by a linking verb (to be).

Structurally they are the same sentence. They have all the same parts.

Honestly, Semi, I can't say anything I haven't already on the matter. I think we're doomed to not see eye to eye on this matter. However, I do appreciate you replying back.

So, nothing more can come out of this at this point.

[Chaco]

How do the first two

require

a read from their wording?

I will answer this though. Because of the usage, to me, it was like you "felt" he was not scummy. Thus you must have had an establishing read that would set off this "not scumminess."

Do you have a read on Dramonic now? Or has he still posted far to little content?

[dramonic]

I've given 5 reasons why I think you're scum all of which I deem valid. The defense you tried to provide against the points I've risen was weak in my opinion, therefore I am still very sure you are scum.

Additionally, your ridiculous semantic formulation debate with SOG wasn't actually fluff, I admit. More like you desperately trying to find something to say SOG is scum (and failing miserably might I add), but it DID increase your scumminess by an exponential amount.

The fact you purposely ignore the content I have posted is just another added bonus to your scumscore.

And which pretty much everyone else has deemed weak?

I'm not desperately trying to find something on Semi, if I were I'd be tossing out a lot more than a debate over verb tenses. Which is what it has amounted to now.

Dramonic...4 posts out of like what....19 now? That doesn't make up anything. Your honestly full of shit.

since when did pretty much everyone = magua?
I deem more than 4 of my post have actual content.
WHy are you insulting me anyways?

[tracker]

A four point flares brightly, almost blindingly, before softly fading

Incantation Count

startransmission -3(Magua, Deathsauce, Snow_Bunny)

Chaco - 2(semioldguy, dramonic)
semioldguy -2(Chaco, startransmission)
Discord -1(SerialClergyman)
SerialClergyman 1(Faraday)

Not Incanting - 1(DisCode, )

The Ritual will only take 7 incantations to complete 6:00pm Saturday 19th of December (site time)

Replacing: Discord

Oops, I just noticed that I had the date wrong on my previous incantation count, it read the 19th which was the next deadline not this one, sorry if there is any inconvience.

8 to incantions are currently required to complete the ritual

[Faraday]

^ I think Snow_Bunny should be incanting Sc.

jesus christ @ this stupid fucking debate between semi and chaco.


clogging up the thread w/ shit is giving me a headache. I agreed with chaco initially but it just seems that Semi has a different way of saying things or w/e, now that he's explained it debating it to death won't change anything, he's not going to go 'oops i was lying all along'.

Snow you said you misread what SC posted, yet you're still incanting him, why?

[Chaco]

since when did pretty much everyone = magua?
I deem more than 4 of my post have actual content.
WHy are you insulting me anyways?

More have said it than Magua. Tells me you aren't really reading.

Well, I deem only 4 of them breaking the one to two liners.

Cause I was hoping you'd actually post.

[dramonic]

More have said it than Magua. Tells me you aren't really reading.

You're right. SC asked to have some more fleshing out for me. That's it since I replaced about my posting.

Try again?

[Snow_Bunny]

Snow you said you misread what SC posted, yet you're still incanting him, why?

What I got wrong was the conclusion of his statement. He assumes there's a town PR due to the lack of Shadow. Why would he assume this guardian is town aligned and not Darkness aligned? He must know then that Darkness has no guardian in their lines, and thus the protection from the Shadow's kill came from somewhere else, this is, from town.

In conclucion, I believe SC slipped and he's Darkness.

[SerialClergyman]

Hello, I've totally left this game in the dust because another game I'm in is going at 200%.

Will re-read and try to post tomorrow.

[SerialClergyman]

Had a quick read of Snow Bunny's criticism.

Darkness --> Seacore.
Shadow --> ??? Blocked.

If that person was blocked by a scum mate, then Darkness must have had 3 people on their team plus a power role. This seems to me almost impossible.

There's also no reason, if there was a Darkness guardian left by himself, for that guardian to protect anyone else. All he'd be doing is denying investigations on possible enemies and saving townies. Not exactly pro-scum behaviour.

So we know that the person who was saved was saved by a pro-town role.

What I was incorrect about, is that it is POSSIBLE that Shadow attacked the remaining Darkness member who was saved by a pro-town guardian. That's the ONLY way in which the protected person last night could be scum.

Now, when I first made those statements I hadn't considered it as thoroughly as I have now and I didn't think about the above scenario, but I think you'd agree it's unlikely, and so the person protected is very likely to be town.

So yes, I didn't think about it hard enough. I ruled out that the person protected was Darkness protected by a scum buddy, I didn't rule out that the person protected was Darkness protected by the town. If you think that's scummy I can't stop you but given the complex nature of the setup I can only say it was a minor error - I stand by the fact that that person is very unlikely to be scum.

I can't get through the walls, will try to post tomorrow.

[Snow_Bunny]

In conclusion, you slipped, scum.

Moar SC incants, please.