Open 238: Trendy and Subversive Game Over

[jmj3000]

Equinox replaces Tazaro and Orochi replaces mallowgeno. Deadline for night actions does not change.

[jmj3000]

You all wake up and head out onto the deck. After a quick head count, you notice Equinox is missing. You search the boat high and low, and finally, you find her. Sadly, you don't find her in one piece. rather, you find one piece of her, her hand to be exact. It is still attached to the lower deck railing by a piece of long rope, where it looks like she was tied and dragged along the river bedfor the denizens of the river to munch upon. You all go to her room and search it, but nothing of interest comes up. Looks like she didn't have anything special about her.

Equinox, Vanilla townie, killed Night 1,

With 5 alive, it takes 3 to lynch. deadline is September 9th at 5:00 AM EST.

[gonnano]

I am still suspicious of Sawyer for the reasons that I stated Day 1, but out of caution I'm not going to lay down a vote just yet.

[TeeJay]

Alright. Just a heads up, Finals are this week, so the next few days will be spent writing essays. I will drop by from time to time and comment. Currently, I will give Orochi the better bit of a doubt, let him clean up the mess mallow made for him.

As an observation, I would like to note my speculation as to why scum would have voted Taz. At first, I thought it was odd. Reason being that he was so inconsistent and wishy-washy that he would have been an easy target for scum to lynch. On the other hand, he was also unpredictable, he shifted votes constantly much like mallow did. This makes me think that Scum was unnerved at this and thus killed him for his unpredictability.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. A re-read ought to be soon in coming.

[podium123456]

gonnano, as i pointed out yesterday, your sawyer case is pretty weak.

right now my list is

townish: sawyer
nullish: gonnano
scummish: orachi(mallow), teejay

[gonnano]

I need to hear from orachi before I can even guess about his role, I still haven't seen a case on TJ that makes sense to me, and I've got a sneaking suspicion and nothing more on podium. My "weak case" is the strongest read that I have. Another point that I'd like to bring up is that Sawyer has posted less than any other slot, including mallow's slot. Granted, the content of his posting was better than mallow's, but that's not saying much.

Now, as I see it these are the odds:
1 in 3 chance that the scum nightkill our new doctor (lynch scum today or lose)
1 in 6 chance that the doctor saves someone (the town can survive if we no lynch, but not if we mislynch)
1 in 2 chance that the scum nightkill someone other than the doc and he fails to protect that person (lynch scum today or lose)

Not a pretty setup for the town, so we really need to think about today's lynch carefully.

[Sawyer]

Alrighty. Here's my IR (in retrospect) post regarding what I've gathered up until now.

Gonnano

Gonnano on Podium

He's the first to ask Podium to claim and expresses willingness to hammer given what he claims. It's page 4 and he's willing to make a lynch when millar and myself hadn't posted much. He later says he'd prefer to wait until we did post, but only after ODDin suggested it first.

He says:

Your response to millar DID seem excessive to me (which is why I considered TeeJay's point a valid one) , because you became very defensive and tried to shift the blame to me. I'm not denying that I was at fault, but it seems like someone who is trying to look for scum would have said something like "What is your opinion of the part that gonnano played in the situation that you voted me for?", whereas your post came off as "Nononono get your vote off me and put it on gonnano, he did it!"

Podium asked millar if his vote was serious and summed it up as "weak, incorrect, and generally not well thought out" for his reasons for voting. I feel that what he said was accurate, so do you disagree that millars vote was that of how Podium described it? If so, why?

Tunneling Me

It looks like Gonnano has been tunneling me since the second half of day one, but with weak reason.

By "he has done nothing about his scum reads" I meant that he made accusations but no votes, which I don't like.

He says that about me, which is an accurate observation, but says nothing about mallow when he had been doing the same thing. He claims it's because he can't get a read on mallow, but that doesn't mean he should just ignore it like he does.

I feel I caught TJ in a contradiction regarding his willingness to hammer, but Gonnano continually tries to say it's not no matter which way I present it to him. Podium explained exactly what I was saying in post 276 and Gonnano didn't reply with how I was wrong, but still implies that I am at the start of Day 2. So, Gonnano, what are the flaws in our explanation of how TJ contradicted himself?

My "weak case" is the strongest read that I have.

That's too bad, since Podium has summed up exactly why your case is weak and you still haven't countered it. You better get some stronger reads. We have plenty to work with.

Mallow

Inconsistent Cautiousness

In this post he unvotes and FoS because he doesn't want to waste a lynch with a RVS vote. The problem with this thinking is that not only were we just coming out of the RVS at the top of the second page, but he was the only one voting ODDin. There was no reason to even think ODDin might be lynched, let alone so soon. Possibly scum trying to look like he's cautious with his vote.

For someone who seems cautious with his vote, he was sure quick to put Podium at L-1 on page 4. Both levels of cautiousness don't seem to match.

But in this post, Mallow puts aside all the discussion that has gone on and votes millar for lurking and being unhelpful (which is a little hypocritical of him).

Also, as TJ noted in 137, mallow's made an excessive amount of votes and unvotes yesterday.

Other Unusual Behavior

Here he addresses ODDins curiosity about why TJ didn't vote with his first post. Mallow suggests ODDin might be trying to divert attention (presumably from himself), but there is nothing to divert attention from. It also seems he's specifically trying to go after ODDin because just before this post, I asked TJ the same thing and mallow never said anything about it.

This entire post shows some major hypocrisy. And later on Podium correctly sums up his behavior over the course of the game as being "excessive (and illogical) AtE, hypocrisy, active lurking, putting me at L-1 without hardly commenting (what little he did comment was someone elses observation)"

When TJ was at L-1, mallow asked for TJ's claim "now", which a little seems unusual considering he wasn't even voting for TJ.

Podium

Most of the suspicion of Podium comes from his reaction to millars vote against him and his reactions to the pressure afterward. I've already said a few times that I think his initial reaction is justified. In post 47, TJ said how he felt and told Podium "Keep on going if you'd like, but you are digging your grave rather quickly." And that's exactly what Podium did. And it's from that reason why I think the way he blew up over peoples reactions seems unnecessary and why I don't think the level of his defensiveness is particularly natural.

Looking back, I'm getting more of a stubborn town read from Podium rather than a scum read. He held off claiming when asked to multiple times and I can almost guarantee scum was one the ones who asked him to claim. If he were scum, he probably would just claimed a PR right then and there rather than waiting and risking being lynched without gaining anything from it.

TeeJay

His Take on Podiums Reactions

TJ was tunneling Podium most of Day 1 and here's the post that started it:

Wow, defensive rather quickly. Considering that this is only the second page, I find it disturbing that you were so quick to become defensive.

While I agree with certain overreactions Podium had after this post, I very much disagree with this one. It's in response to Podium counter voting millar for saying he wanted to policy lynch Podium for a horrible reason. If I were Podium I would've done the same thing, but it seems as though TJ is making something out of nothing. Not to mention we were just coming out of the RVS, so with what little information we had, it was a reasonable vote against millar.

TJ sums up why Podium is scummy in his reactions:

1.) You have immediately gotten defensive after one vote was cast your way. At the very least that your antsy.
2.) On top of that, you had a text book example of an OMGUS vote toward millar.
3.) You attempt to draw attention away from yourself by asking my opinion of millar's actions.

I feel all of these are incorrect.

1) Millar made a "serious" vote for a horrible reason and Podium explain why it was.
2) It wasn't OMGUS because millars vote was one of the worst reasoned votes of the game (only second to Taz's votes) and a counter vote to that is perfectly understandable.
3) Why would he not? Millars vote was clearly poor and I'd be curious as to why you didn't seem to think so as well.

The Hammer and the Claim

Something I pointed out earlier:

I was willing to hammer. I had gotten done reading a heavily heated debate between Oddin and you and was caught up in the excitement of it all. After a few hours of removing myself, I found that it wasn't an intelligent idea because of the fact that you were the only one that had been really evaluated, and because it was only page 4. It was a pathetic action, of which I have no argument other than getting caught up in the action.

And that is hardly a good, if believable, reason to hammer. I'm not buying that you just got "caught up in the excitement".

Pertaining to getting you to claim, again, this was said in the context of a heated debate, ruled by emotion rather than logic. I had no intent on getting anything for Scum, I was fully intent in lynching on Sunday when I had posted.

Again, that's a bad excuse, but you say you were ruled by emotion rather than logic? The same the Podium's been being called scummy for? That seems awfully hypocritical of you. That's another reason why you shouldn't be let off the hook.

The Contradiction

As I argued with TJ about the issue, we gained more information on it to insure it was, in fact, a contradiction. Podium summed up all the information I gathered in that interaction and came to the same undeniable conclusion as I:

TJ said that he wanted to hammer, but wanted to let 2 people post before he did so. Later, he said he didn't hammer because he needed to think about it more.

In his initial comment, he didn't say he needed time to think before he hammered... he only said that he wanted to wait for others to post. This is why it sounded like a contradiction, and why i took issue with you saying it 'absolutely was not' a contradiction.

Now...

Later TJ clarifies that he wasn't waiting for other players opinions to influence his decision when he said 'i want them to post first (before i hammer)'. So if he wasn't going to use their input to influence his decision, his initial comment shows NO evidence of someone who is still unsure about his actions... in fact, it shows the opposite. It becomes more solid of a contradiction at this point.

TJ's only counter would be 'i wasn't sure and still needed to think about it, i just didnt say so'... but there's no way for us to know the truth... and based on the context it doesnt seem very plausible.

[Orochi]

Okay, first off, hey to everyone, glad to be here.

Secondly, I HAVE read through the thread, got myself caught up, noted a few things that caught my eye...

However, I have two problems right now. The first one is an admitted play weakness of mine that translates pretty badly to replacing into games. I tend not to have the best eye for things as an outside observer. The second is a splitting migraine that's making me want to get the hell away from the computer.

That said, having looked at my predecessor's work on day one, I'm not thrilled with what I've been left with, and I won't be too surprised to find myself under a lot of scrutiny throughout this day. I'm cool with that, so if you've got anything you want to throw at me, I'll respond to it as soon as my head stops hurting enough for me to bear sitting at a computer for more than a minute before going to lie down.

... which I'm off to do, right now.

[gonnano]

Podium asked millar if his vote was serious and summed it up as "weak, incorrect, and generally not well thought out" for his reasons for voting. I feel that what he said was accurate, so do you disagree that millars vote was that of how Podium described it? If so, why?

I felt like millar's vote was still an RVS-type vote (i.e. weak), which didn't seem especially scummy to me -- maybe counterproductive, but not necessarily scummy. I definitely didn't think that it warranted the response that podium gave it. So... weak, yes. Not well thought out, maybe. Incorrect, though, is an accusation that I don't think can be made of any vote until the recipient of the vote is dead and confirmed.

He says that about me, which is an accurate observation, but says nothing about mallow when he had been doing the same thing. He claims it's because he can't get a read on mallow, but that doesn't mean he should just ignore it like he does.

What should I do with it? I haven't forgotten about it, and I definitely haven't ruled out mallow's slot as a mafia role. However, it's just not enough for me to lynch a player that I have personally known (as town) to quickhammer a D1 lynch (also town) while at the same time professing the lynchee's innocence.

Regarding the contradiction, I didn't answer post 276 because the argument was turning into a "Yes it is" "No it isn't" "Yes it is" "No it isn't" type of thing. To make you happy, though, I'll attempt one more summary of the subject as I see it.

--------------------------------------------------------

First, TeeJay says this:

ODDin, I very much would like to hammer, but before I do, I would like to wait for Sawyer and (I forget his name) to post. I will give it a day, and see what happens.

then this:

I didn't place my vote on Podium because it would have lynched him. Something that, while it sounded great, was something I needed to at least think about.

At this point you say there is a contradiction, which there absolutely is not. Every statement made up to this point could be true at the same time as every other statement, which means that he has not contradicted himself. Podium's explanation in post 276 sounded to me like "He didn't specifically state every reason for waiting in his initial post, so when he added a reason later it was a contradiction", which I don't agree with.

In post 193, TJ says this:

I didn't need to think about it due to others opinions. I wanted to wait, and thought that in the mean time, it would be great to hear from the rest of the players.

Here it gets a little bit hairy, and I could understand why someone might think that it is a contradiction. However, this was 30 posts

after

you first said that there was a contradiction. Not to mention that this is still compatible with everything he's said so far, if you look at it carefully.

The last statement that I can find from TJ on this topic is this one:

Your not listening. I wanted to hear from others input, not to decide the vote, but to see what they had to say. And yes, you are right, I didn't post anything about wanting to think about it. But I didn't think I would have to.

IMO, this clarifies the previous quote. It's also consistent with all of the other statements that TJ made.

As evidence that there is no contradiction present here, I'll resolve all four quotes into one coherent story -- something that couldn't be done with contradictory statements.

TeeJay wanted to hammer, but decided to wait. The reason for this was that he wanted to think about it some more, but he didn't specifically say that this was the reason because he didn't think that he would have to. Another reason for waiting was to hear from other players, not because he thought they could influence his decision to vote, but because he wanted to know what they had to say (presumably to get reads, etc.) and if he voted the day would end.

If I have made a logical error here or if my combined interpretation of TeeJay's statements is incorrect, please tell me. If you're just going to say the things that you've already said, don't bother.

[Sawyer]

I felt like millar's vote was still an RVS-type vote (i.e. weak), which didn't seem especially scummy to me -- maybe counterproductive, but not necessarily scummy.

Though millar provided a weak reason, he said it was a serious vote. I'd imagine Podium asked to be sure before he reacted to it.

What should I do with it? I haven't forgotten about it, and I definitely haven't ruled out mallow's slot as a mafia role. However, it's just not enough for me to lynch a player that I have personally known (as town) to quickhammer a D1 lynch (also town) while at the same time professing the lynchee's innocence.

You could've commented on it like you did me to check his reaction. Things like that could always help when looking back through the game.

TeeJay wanted to hammer, but decided to wait. The reason for this was that he wanted to think about it some more, but

he didn't specifically say that this was the reason because he didn't think that he would have to

.

To quote Podium "So if he wasn't going to use their input to influence his decision, his initial comment shows NO evidence of someone who is still unsure about his actions..." TJ then claimed the bolded. See any problem with it? Initially TJ seemed sure of his decision and it wasn't until after the fact that he tried to cover his tracks by saying "he didn't think he would have to". That's what makes it a contradiction. He never said anything about wanting to think about it until much later and because that's the case, there's nothing to keep us from thinking he contradicted himself in the first place.

[TeeJay]

To quote Podium "So if he wasn't going to use their input to influence his decision, his initial comment shows NO evidence of someone who is still unsure about his actions..." TJ then claimed the bolded. See any problem with it? Initially TJ seemed sure of his decision and it wasn't until after the fact that he tried to cover his tracks by saying "he didn't think he would have to". That's what makes it a contradiction. He never said anything about wanting to think about it until much later and because that's the case, there's nothing to keep us from thinking he contradicted himself in the first place.

So your assumption that I contradicted myself is based off of a theory.

Like I said earlier, finals are here and I am touching up on my last essay. Will be posting content when I am available.

Off to finish an essay about surfing the net at work. Crazy statistics.

[Sawyer]

Almost everything in mafia is based on theory. My theory is supported with what you didn't say at the time.

[podium123456]

Podium asked millar if his vote was serious and summed it up as "weak, incorrect, and generally not well thought out" for his reasons for voting. I feel that what he said was accurate, so do you disagree that millars vote was that of how Podium described it? If so, why?

I felt like millar's vote was still an RVS-type vote (i.e. weak), which didn't seem especially scummy to me -- maybe counterproductive, but not necessarily scummy. I definitely didn't think that it warranted the response that podium gave it. So... weak, yes. Not well thought out, maybe. Incorrect, though, is an accusation that I don't think can be made of any vote until the recipient of the vote is dead and confirmed.

Incorrect was referring to his incorrect statement that i almost killed the game... not that he was incorrect in calling me scum.

So, basically, you agree with my description of millars vote.

[podium123456]

At this point you say there is a contradiction, which there absolutely is not. Every statement made up to this point could be true at the same time as every other statement, which means that he has not contradicted himself.

Are you telling me that:

"I would very much like to hammer, but i want to give these other guys time to post before i do"

and

"I dont want to place my vote on podium because it will hammer him, i still need to think about it"

leave you with the

exact

same impression of how prepared he was to hammer? Yes or no?

The contradiction isnt about some literal contradiction within his text... it's about how prepared he was to hammer when he made the first statement.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Also, i just realized that the full context of the discussion between teejay and oddin gives even more credence to the case that he is contradicting himself.

Also, teejay, you said you don't want to vote until you're sure.

Are you still not sure

? (Not trying to convince you either way, just asking.) Do you think we're ready to lynch?

Oddin

specifically

asked if he was still not sure if he should place a vote on me. In answering, teejay said NOTHING about not being sure... even though he was JUST ASKED. Instead he says he would very much like to hammer.

If someone asked you if you were still unsure about voting... and you were... would you say 'i still need time to think' or 'i very much would like to hammer'. Obviously, you would say 'i still need time to think'. Teejay didn't.

The only thing that keeps this from being a proven contradiction is teejays 'promise' that he was still unsure even though he didn't say so (and implied the opposite). The more this is broken down, the more laughable it is to say that it doesn't appear to be a contradiction, IMO.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

NOTE: I am not necessarily stating that what teejay did here

is

or

is not

indicative of him being scum. I am showing that i feel sawyer is justified and accurate in the case that he has made against teejay, and that i dont feel that gonnano is justified and accurate about the case he is making against sawyer.

[TeeJay]

NOTE: I am not necessarily stating that what teejay did here

is

or

is not

indicative of him being scum. I am showing that i feel sawyer is justified and accurate in the case that he has made against teejay, and that i dont feel that gonnano is justified and accurate about the case he is making against sawyer.

QFT. Although I disagree with Sawyers final conclusion, I understand his logic. I also agree with your assessment on Gonnano. I have more to say but want to make my final touches on my last essay. Will be back soon (at the latest, Monday).

[gonnano]

So, basically, you agree with my description of millars vote.

Not in the sense that I personally regard the vote as ridiculous (considering how little information was available at that point), but I can see how you might view it that way. Regardless, I was and am more interested in the intensity of your response, which I considered excessive.

The contradiction isnt about some literal contradiction

Uhh... a figurative contradiction then?
There can be no contradiction unless two statements are made which are logically incompatible with each other.

Both of the statements that were initially called contradictory say that podium was willing to hammer, but only after he waited a little bit. So yes, they give me the same impression of his willingness to hammer.

Although I [a] disagree with Sawyers final conclusion, I

understand his logic. I also [c] agree with your assessment on Gonnano.

(bracketed items mine)
So, you [a] think that there was no contradiction

can see how Sawyer might think that there was a contradiction, even though you don't think there was one
[c] think that I am neither accurate nor justified in saying that there was no contradiction.

Is this correct? If b is correct, would you care to point out parts of Sawyer's logic that are not correct? If c is correct, would you care to point out the inaccurate and/or unjustified statements that I have made?

I am not saying that TeeJay's statements are not suspicious or poorly worded, but I am saying that they all resolve to a single story. What we should be doing is deciding whether or not the (non-contradictory) story is believable.

[podium123456]

So, basically, you agree with my description of millars vote.

Not in the sense that I personally regard the vote as ridiculous (considering how little information was available at that point), but I can see how you might view it that way. Regardless, I was and am more interested in the intensity of your response, which I considered excessive.

My response to millar? What is excessive about that?

BTW, i regarded the vote as ridiculous as well... which is why i placed a vote on him. He used a ridiculous reason to place a serious vote.

Both of the statements that were initially called contradictory say that podium was willing to hammer, but only after he waited a little bit. So yes, they give me the same impression of his willingness to hammer.

Well, obviously... but that isn't the point. Is the reason for not hammering the same in both statements? No. That is the point, and the source of the contradiction.

Further shown by bringing in the context of Oddins initial question, as i did.

What we should be doing is deciding whether or not the (non-contradictory) story is believable.

Why? Because you dont want people to talk about your case on sawyer?

[gonnano]

Is the reason for not hammering the same in both statements? No. That is the point, and the source of the contradiction.

Are the reasons for not hammering logically incompatible? No. That is why there is no contradiction.

Why? Because you dont want people to talk about your case on sawyer?

Not at all. It's not the ONLY thing we should be doing, just what we should be doing instead of arguing about whether it is or isn't a contradiction. It's not a contradiction, and the sooner everyone gets past that and starts looking at believability, the better off we are.

My response to millar? What is excessive about that?

Nice try, but rehashing another D1 argument isn't going to help matters.

[podium123456]

Is the reason for not hammering the same in both statements? No. That is the point, and the source of the contradiction.

Are the reasons for not hammering logically incompatible? No.

Yes they are. As evidenced by the fact that he

specifically

said that other peoples opinions weren't influencing his decision to hammer. The revelation of that information is what i said made it look like a more solid contradiction -- even though it already sounded like a contradiction. This was explained a long time ago... now i re-explained it in detail by asking you questions which broke down your logic step by step.

Let me guess... you're still going to deny it.

Why? Because you dont want people to talk about your case on sawyer?

It's not a contradiction, and the sooner everyone gets past that and starts looking at believability, the better off we are.

Hah. The truth is actually the opposite. You're the only person that is saying it isn't, btw.

My response to millar? What is excessive about that?

Nice try, but rehashing another D1 argument isn't going to help matters.

Hey, numbskull... why did i mention it? Because you just said it was

still

something you were considering against me. Don't tell me that i am not allowed to defend myself... especially when you made no comment after i responded to the first time you made the accusation, here.

There was no over-reaction there... hell, you just AGREED with everything i listed in that post as a reason for my voting him.

[podium123456]

The first one is an admitted play weakness of mine that translates pretty badly to replacing into games. I tend not to have the best eye for things as an outside observer.

I think that's a pretty common thing. It's very tough to replace into a game and be as interested/connected to it as if you had been playing from the start. I run into the same thing every time i look up meta on someone... after like the first two pages i say 'man this is boring' and stop. haha. I feel like i should replace into games more, because it really is helpful to the site... but so far i haven't been able to do it for fear of not giving a damn about the game once i get in.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

@ everyone.

Id say right now my strongest scumpick is teejay... followed by orochi (mallow). i question gonnano's cases against myself and sawyer... but (right now) i just dont feel that mafia would be trying to build a case on sawyer when teejay is such low hanging fruit. could be wrong, of course... he might be doing it for just that reason... still, i dunno.

[TeeJay]

Gonanno, when I said I agreed with Podiums assessment, I was referring to his "note" about how he doesn't thing you are justified in your analysis on Sawyer, that's it. Will you please reiterate and expand why it is that you think Sawyer is scum.

Orochi, please check in and post.

I am done with my finals but am exhausted from sitting at the computer and thus Don't want to do a reread today.

[Sawyer]

TeeJay wanted to hammer, but decided to wait. The reason for this was that he wanted to think about it some more, but

he didn't specifically say that this was the reason because he didn't think that he would have to

.

To quote Podium "So if he wasn't going to use their input to influence his decision, his initial comment shows NO evidence of someone who is still unsure about his actions..." TJ then claimed the bolded. See any problem with it? Initially TJ seemed sure of his decision and it wasn't until after the fact that he tried to cover his tracks by saying "he didn't think he would have to". That's what makes it a contradiction. He never said anything about wanting to think about it until much later and because that's the case, there's nothing to keep us from thinking he contradicted himself in the first place.

Gonnano, you never respond to why this doesn't prove anything. But let me add the contradiction that is assumed because TJ never made mention of wanting to think about it. Please explain why the above doesn't prove that what is below is a contradiction.

"

ODDin, I very much would like to hammer

,"

(as TJ already admitted, what follows this portion of the quote is unrelated to his decision to hammer)

"

I didn't place my vote on Podium because it would have lynched him. Something that, while it sounded great, was something I needed to at least think about.

"

[gonnano]

Let me guess... you're still going to deny it.

Nope, you finally convinced me. Sorry for all of your time that I wasted.

Okay, not really, but I'll bet you weren't expecting to read

that

.

As evidenced by the fact that he specifically said that other peoples opinions weren't influencing his decision to hammer.

"ODDin, I very much would like to hammer," (as TJ already admitted, what follows this portion of the quote is unrelated to his decision to hammer)

TJ did say that other people's opinions weren't influencing his decision to hammer. However, he also said that he wanted to hear from them anyway, which would be kind of hard to do if he had gone ahead and ended the day. So even though it's not changing his decision of whether or not he is going to hammer, it does influence

when

he is willing to hammer. So it's still a reason for him to wait, even though it (supposedly) isn't affecting his final decision. So the entire quotes are relevant in this case, not just pieces of them. He gives this valid reason to wait, but unfortunately he forgets to specifically state each reason for waiting in that post, leading to accusations of a contradiction when he later says that there was another reason to wait.

Gonnano, you never respond to why this doesn't prove anything.

I don't really understand the question... are you saying that something doesn't prove anything or am I supposed to be saying that? What something are we talking about that doesn't prove anything?

Hey, numbskull... why did i mention it?

I stated my opinion, and your response was your defense. There's not much more for me to say.

Will you please reiterate and expand why it is that you think Sawyer is scum.

1. Quite lurky, IMO
2. Either is using podium's figurative meaning of the word "contradiction" or is pushing a case built on a straw man
3. Throughout the game he has stayed pretty much squarely on the fence, my guess is so he can quickly support any bandwagon while claiming to have been suspicious of that person the entire time.

@TeeJay:
So, you [a] think that there was no contradiction

can see how Sawyer might think that there was a contradiction, even though you don't think there was one

Is this correct? If b is correct, would you care to point out parts of Sawyer's logic that are not correct?

[podium123456]

So even though it's not changing his decision of whether or not he is going to hammer, it does influence

when

he is willing to hammer. So it's still a reason for him to wait, even though it (supposedly) isn't affecting his final decision.

Wow dude... of course it's a

reason

to wait... like i said earlier. That isn't the point.

The point is that the first time he says the only reason he isn't hammering is to give them time to post, then later he says he didn't hammer because he was also still unsure if he should or not.

Now, since neither you nor I can read his mind, we have to try and determine if he is lying or not. How do we do that? We examine the context/tone of his language when he made the statement. The context/tone of his language aren't indicative of someone who is unsure if he should vote... in fact, they are the OPPOSITE. Therefore, there is good reason to believe that he is lying.

For some reason you are disregarding all the evidence that shows he was acting/talking like someone who's mind was made up when he made the statement, and instead, you are saying 'oh well he never specifically said his mind was made up... so there is no proof of that and you cant form any other opinions no matter what the evidence shows'.

Your argument is along the same lines of if teejay said 'i didn't hammer him because aliens landed and unplugged my cable modem'... and we say 'thats funny, you didnt mention that before... we think you are lying' and you go 'oh but he never said they

didn't

land, so you can't accuse him of lying'.

He gives this valid reason to wait, but unfortunately he forgets to specifically state each reason for waiting in that post, leading to accusations of a contradiction when he later says that there was another reason to wait.

It's not about stating each reason... there was only ONE reason, and he gave it. In his first statement, his language clearly implies that he is going to hammer after he gives those people the courtesy of posting. He shows NO sign of doubt about hammering, even though he was JUST asked if he still has doubt. None. In fact, he shows the OPPOSITE... that he is ready.

His language is indicative of someone who's mind is made up... therefore when he later says he was still unsure, it appears to be a contradiction.

Hey, numbskull... why did i mention it?

I stated my opinion, and your response was your defense. There's not much more for me to say.[/quote]

If there is no response to my rebuttal, i consider the point refuted. It was not excessive.

[gonnano]

we think you are lying' and you go 'oh but he never said they didn't land, so you can't accuse him of lying'.

It's fine to say that he's lying, but even in the alien example you can't accuse him of contradicting himself. Lying and contradiction are not the same thing. For example, if I told you that I have seven eyes I would be lying, but unless I had told you earlier that I didn't have seven eyes there would still be no contradiction. Even if you assumed that I had only two eyes, there is no contradiction unless I actually made two contradictory statements.

It's not about stating each reason... there was only ONE reason, and he gave it.

If I went to Africa and only saw three elephants, does that mean there are only three elephants in Africa? Can I accuse Africa of contradicting itself if I later find out that it contains 500,000 elephants?

If there is no response to my rebuttal, i consider the point refuted.

Only objective statements can be refuted. In a subjective argument like whether or not you were excessive, both sides can be presented and then it is up to each person to draw their own conclusions.