Mini 1397: War is Hell (Game Over)

[Albert B. Rampage]

Or, to be slightly tl;dr: Being scummy doesn't always mean bad logic?

First of all, thank you because I didn't read the post above. Second of all, scum =/ scummy.

And with that,

Unvote MattP, vote Kinetic

and

FOS quadz

[Zdenek]

And that post was not me representing you at all. What it was, was MY perception of our argument/issues. It was MY argument for what you're doing. You may not agree with it, but your disagreeing with what I am arguing doesn't mean I'm misrepresenting you. That is why your response was unnecessary. The post was also not targeted or addressed to you.

That is such bullshit. If you say that someone is doing something, and they say that they didn't, you can't claim that somehow that's irrelevant because it's YOUR perception or YOUR argument.

Kinetic got caught making false claims, and he's now trying to justify it with a crazy argument.

[Voidedmafia]

Or, to be slightly tl;dr: Being scummy doesn't always mean bad logic?

First of all, thank you because I didn't read the post above. Second of all, scum =/ scummy.

And with that,

Unvote MattP, vote Kinetic

and

FOS quadz

Scum, scummy, it's semantics here. Regardless of how scummy Kinetic viewed Zdenek, the simple condition of zde being scum to him does not immediately invalidate everything Zde says for the rest of the game.

Of course, whether or not Kinetic's views are even correct is a different matter entirely, but that's not the subject here.

Zde: Um, isn't what Kinetic said what people here usually do to other's arguments in the first place?

[Kinetic]

And that post was not me representing you at all. What it was, was MY perception of our argument/issues. It was MY argument for what you're doing. You may not agree with it, but your disagreeing with what I am arguing doesn't mean I'm misrepresenting you. That is why your response was unnecessary. The post was also not targeted or addressed to you.

That is such bullshit. If you say that someone is doing something, and they say that they didn't, you can't claim that somehow that's irrelevant because it's YOUR perception or YOUR argument.

Kinetic got caught making false claims, and he's now trying to justify it with a crazy argument.

I don't know how to respond to this without insulting your intelligence. So I'm just going to ask you... do you really think that? Because this goes beyond whether I think you're town or scum, I'm wondering if you have issues with basic comprehension. My entire post was not directed at you, or trying to paint you in any light, or insult you or anything. I don't understand how you arrived where you are right now.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic, you are clearly misrepresenting things that I've said. You saying that your post was not directed at me doesn't change that. Attacking my intelligence over this is pathetic.

Not voting Kinetic at this point is a scum tell.

Voided, I have no idea what you are asking me.

[Voidedmafia]

Kinetic is saying, "Zde did A, B, and C. I think this is scummy because X, Y, and Z." That's not misrepresenting you at all, but Kinetic positing what he believes to be the outcome of events. That's what we do on MS all the time.

If he was, it'd probably go like be like: You did A, B, and C. Kinetic says in response, "So you did D. I think this is scummy because X, Y, Z" Where "D" can be a conglomeration of more than one of the three points, or some kind of erroneous assumption about A, B, and/or C. That would be misintepreting you.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic is saying, "Zde did A, B, and C. I think this is scummy because X, Y, and Z." That's not misrepresenting you at all, but Kinetic positing what he believes to be the outcome of events. That's what we do on MS all the time.

If he was, it'd probably go like be like: You did A, B, and C. Kinetic says in response, "So you did D. I think this is scummy because X, Y, Z" Where "D" can be a conglomeration of more than one of the three points, or some kind of erroneous assumption about A, B, and/or C. That would be misintepreting you.

^This.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic, you are clearly misrepresenting things that I've said. You saying that your post was not directed at me doesn't change that. Attacking my intelligence over this is pathetic.

Not voting Kinetic at this point is a scum tell.

Voided, I have no idea what you are asking me.

And Zd, you keep using Misrepresenting incorrectly. Let's take a look at all the representations I made of you:

Bolded are representations; Italicized are my comments.

... That isn't what happened at all. What happened is,

Zd mentioned something that could be scummy because of a reason that had to do with a previous similar set up.

It is reasonable to believe at the very least this game is similar. That logic is sound.

This is the first representation I made of you. Did you not make that representation? This representation would be: Hurting at a specific time might be scummy, basically. (It is more nuanced, but that is the basic premise, is it not?)

[I then took that logic, and applied it to a case on someone else, because even if someone is scum, logic is logic. Scum can make logical cases too, or use logic just as well as town.

That logic produced a suspect (Xalxe).

The issue is that Zd is both agreeing and disagreeing with me now.

He agrees that, by his own logical argument, Xalxe is acting suspicious.

He is backing off his own logical argument though, and saying that while Xalxe is suspicious, and the logic is sound, he now believes that it is less an indicator of scum than he did previously.

This is another true statement. You disagree with the level of suspicion. I explain that in the next sentence as I believe you're backing off. You may believe that I am representing you thought it was worse before; however, that is only my interpretation of your previous position. You are free to disagree, but it isn't a misrepresentation to say that.

We aren't in agreement exactly, and it is frustrating me because

we should be

and that actually strengthens my scum read in him because something he

SAID was scummy, that I caught someone doing else, he is now backing off of that scummy tactic

. He gives lip service to the fact that what Xalxe did was scummy, but he then

attacks me for pursuing it with a vote

. I'd have been more inclined to think he was town if he didn't do that, but his attack on me going after Xalxe is frankly baseless, and it is at odds with his own previously mentioned, pre-PV views. To me, what Zd is doing is poisoning the well, a logical fallacy where no matter what the argument is, you disagree with it on principal based on who proposed it, even if you would have supported that same argument if someone else presented it. I, further feel, that is a position scum who have decided on a target to pursue to make them look town and look like they're scum hunting will take, when in fact it isn't scum hunting at all.

All three are facts, you disagree with the third one, but it is a valid interpretation of your play at the worst, not a misrepresentation of your position.

Second bold is also true. You attacked me for using the logic to vote Xalxe. That isn't a misrepresentation either.

Where did you see that Zd and I agreed there?

Additionally, I never thought that if Xalxe and Zd were scum they'd be in different groups, I'm saying that either they are buddies and that is actually the reason for Zd's change, or that Xalxe is town, but Zd is trying to discredit my attacks, that should I pursue them, would lead to me leading a mislynch on a townie and Zd looking like the one who saw it coming, which would be a win-win for scumZd. Thus, while I'm suspicious of Zd, his actions make him the more likely scum in this scenario.

And Zd, we've already been over this at least twice in the last 4 pages, you don't have to respond to this, I'm laying it out for Albert (and I suppose everyone else who is confused), because I want Albert to explain to me where he is coming from because I still don't see how he saw what he claims to have seen.

The rest are interpretations and arguments. There are no other facts that I can misrepresent. That is why I'm saying your charge of "misrepresentation" is frankly bullshit. I have not misrepresented one single fact. You may disagree with my analysis, arguments, interpretation or conclusions, but none of those is a misrepresentation of anything you did.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic is saying, "Zde did A, B, and C. I think this is scummy because X, Y, and Z." That's not misrepresenting you at all, but Kinetic positing what he believes to be the outcome of events. That's what we do on MS all the time.

If he was, it'd probably go like be like: You did A, B, and C. Kinetic says in response, "So you did D. I think this is scummy because X, Y, Z" Where "D" can be a conglomeration of more than one of the three points, or some kind of erroneous assumption about A, B, and/or C. That would be misintepreting you.

When he says, Zdenek did A, and I didn't do A, that's a misrepresentation.

For example, he says, Zdenek attacked my reasoning for why Xalxe is scum, when in fact I said that it has merit. So he's misrepresenting what I've said. Now, it couid have been a mistake the first time, but now it's getting ridiculous, and either Kinetic is scum or an idiot.

[Zdenek]

I'll respond to Kinetic's post when I get to a computer.

[Xalxe]

I am going to devote some time tomorrow afternoon to rereading Kinetic v. Zdenek because apparently Kinetic is scum instead now and I don't understand why.

Or we could compromise and beat the shit out of MattP. Just sayin'

[Kinetic]

Kinetic is saying, "Zde did A, B, and C. I think this is scummy because X, Y, and Z." That's not misrepresenting you at all, but Kinetic positing what he believes to be the outcome of events. That's what we do on MS all the time.

If he was, it'd probably go like be like: You did A, B, and C. Kinetic says in response, "So you did D. I think this is scummy because X, Y, Z" Where "D" can be a conglomeration of more than one of the three points, or some kind of erroneous assumption about A, B, and/or C. That would be misintepreting you.

When he says, Zdenek did A, and I didn't do A, that's a misrepresentation.

For example, he says,

Zdenek attacked my reasoning for why Xalxe is scum

, when in fact I said that it has merit. So he's misrepresenting what I've said. Now, it couid have been a mistake the first time, but now it's getting ridiculous, and either Kinetic is scum or an idiot.

Bolded is bullshit. What you said was:

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit,

but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe.

The bolded is an attack against my reasoning for voting Xalxe.

And I have repeatedly...

Whether you think it is a strong or weak reason is irrelevant, the point is you agree with the reasoning that it is scummy.

stated...

This, despite EVEN YOU claiming my reason for attacking HAD MERIT. You STILL found my attack scummy.

that you...

I know you talked about it, but just because I felt it was a stronger indication of scum than you did, doesn't mean you suddenly didn't think it was an indication of scum, you disagreed with the weight.

supported...

I attacked Xalxe for his suspicious play, based upon a reasoning you supported.

or that...

He agrees that, by his own logical argument, Xalxe is acting suspicious.

you agree or believe the argument has merit. Over and fucking over again. The issue with you saying that is a misrepresentation is because YOU HAVE DONE BOTH of the things in your example.

Zdenek attacked my reasoning for why Xalxe is scum, when in fact I said that it has merit.

You have both attacked my reasoning for voting Xalxe AND said it has merit. That is the issue. You can't say "attacking my reasoning for voting Xalxe" is misrepresenting your position because you are attacking me for voting Xalxe. Yes, you've also said my reasoning has merit, but you have said, basically, it is not enough merit to warrant a vote.

My issue is you saying that it is a:

it's a weak reason for a vote

Now, what I said was this:

He gives lip service to the fact that what Xalxe did was scummy, but he then attacks me for pursuing it with a vote.

I have said you've attacked me for the vote. Which you have done. That is not a misrepresentation. This IS getting ridiculous. I've gone out of my way to avoid calling you an idiot (despite you doing so to me just in your last post), and I've seriously tried to not insult your intelligence, but this is it. You are fucking wrong. Period.

[Mr. Flay]

Third Damage Tally of Epoch II:

• Xalxe
  is at default HP after giving another Heal.
  
• Kinetic
  ,
  kanyeknowsbest
  ,
  MattP
  ,
  quadz08
  ,
  Tierce
  ,
  Zdenek
  ,
  Yosarian2
  ,
  Voidedmafia
  ,
  Lady Lambdadelta
  ,
  scooby
  and
  Albert B. Rampage
  are all at 1 HP above normal.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic, we don't know the setup, so I don't see why you don't have reservations about the argument against Xalxe.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic, we don't know the setup, so I don't see why you don't have reservations about the argument against Xalxe.

I never said I didn't. I was the first person to vote Xalxe, and I was the first person to call him out on that move. He has yet to respond to it. I don't understand why you immediately attacked me for voting him when it was his first vote and was for a pretty damn good reason. I wanted to get more from him and pressure him. You jumped in and stopped that.

[quadz08]

Kinetic, we don't know the setup, so I don't see why you don't have reservations about the argument against Xalxe.

Good job at sidestepping the entire issue there well done sir

VOTE: Zdenek

[Zdenek]

Kinetic, we don't know the setup, so I don't see why you don't have reservations about the argument against Xalxe.

I never said I didn't. I was the first person to vote Xalxe, and I was the first person to call him out on that move. He has yet to respond to it. I don't understand why you immediately attacked me for voting him when it was his first vote and was for a pretty damn good reason. I wanted to get more from him and pressure him. You jumped in and stopped that.

If you have reservations about it, then why the fuck are you arguing with me?

I've been clear about my issues with your vote on Xalxe, and they weren't only to do with this argument.

Quadz, I'm pretty tired of repeating myself. What issue have I sidestepped?

[quadz08]

Just now.

Kinetic made a bigass post about why what he said was not a misrep. Instead of a) admitting to the mistake or b) continuing the argument or even c) say "we disagree but we aren't getting anywhere so here's a different topic," you just ignored it and jumped to "I don't understand why you like this other thing."

[Zdenek]

I'm not sidestepping that issue at all. I don't think that having reservations about the argument against Xalxe is attacking it. I think it's just common sense. Kinetic said that this is attacking the argument. If he also has reservations about it, then it makes no sense for him to be goddamned concerned with trying to paint me as scummy over this issue.

[quadz08]

Hrm.

I'll try to read your back-and-forth again when I can focus a little more brainpower on it, and I'll see if I'm still of the same mind as I am now.

[Zdenek]

Kinetic is saying, "Zde did A, B, and C. I think this is scummy because X, Y, and Z." That's not misrepresenting you at all, but Kinetic positing what he believes to be the outcome of events. That's what we do on MS all the time.

If he was, it'd probably go like be like: You did A, B, and C. Kinetic says in response, "So you did D. I think this is scummy because X, Y, Z" Where "D" can be a conglomeration of more than one of the three points, or some kind of erroneous assumption about A, B, and/or C. That would be misintepreting you.

When he says, Zdenek did A, and I didn't do A, that's a misrepresentation.

For example, he says,

Zdenek attacked my reasoning for why Xalxe is scum

, when in fact I said that it has merit. So he's misrepresenting what I've said. Now, it couid have been a mistake the first time, but now it's getting ridiculous, and either Kinetic is scum or an idiot.

Bolded is bullshit. What you said was:

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit,

but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe.

The bolded is an attack against my reasoning for voting Xalxe.

I don't think that pointing out an obvious problem with an argument is attacking it, but whatever, if you think it is, fine, but if you also have reservations about it, then the fact that you're arguing with me over it makes no sense.

And I have repeatedly...

Whether you think it is a strong or weak reason is irrelevant, the point is you agree with the reasoning that it is scummy.

I completely disagree with this stance. It's important to decide which reasons are weak and which are strong and the outcome of this decision is important. I really wish I knew what your point was.

stated...

This, despite EVEN YOU claiming my reason for attacking HAD MERIT. You STILL found my attack scummy.

I did not find your attack scummy because you used this argument. If thought it was strange in the context of your attack on me and in your previous comments about finding scum based on you being protected.

that you...

I know you talked about it, but just because I felt it was a stronger indication of scum than you did, doesn't mean you suddenly didn't think it was an indication of scum, you disagreed with the weight.

That seems like it might be true, but again, I'm not sure what your point is.

supported...

I attacked Xalxe for his suspicious play, based upon a reasoning you supported.

or that...

He agrees that, by his own logical argument, Xalxe is acting suspicious.

Yeah, and I said that the argument has merit, and it seems that we disagree on the strength of the argument, and again, I don't know what your point is. This just looks like unnecessary padding.

you agree or believe the argument has merit. Over and fucking over again. The issue with you saying that is a misrepresentation is because YOU HAVE DONE BOTH of the things in your example.

If you also have reservations about the argument, then what the fuck is your problem?

Zdenek attacked my reasoning for why Xalxe is scum, when in fact I said that it has merit.

You have both attacked my reasoning for voting Xalxe AND said it has merit. That is the issue. You can't say "attacking my reasoning for voting Xalxe" is misrepresenting your position because you are attacking me for voting Xalxe. Yes, you've also said my reasoning has merit, but you have said, basically, it is not enough merit to warrant a vote.

I did not attack you for voting Xalxe because of this argument. I think that had someone else said it or had you said it in a different context, that it could have been fine, but you did so after calling me scum, saying that you'd caught scum using the protections on you, and your vote on Xalxe made little sense at that moment.

My issue is you saying that it is a:

it's a weak reason for a vote

Now, what I said was this:

He gives lip service to the fact that what Xalxe did was scummy, but he then attacks me for pursuing it with a vote.

I have said you've attacked me for the vote. Which you have done. That is not a misrepresentation. This IS getting ridiculous. I've gone out of my way to avoid calling you an idiot (despite you doing so to me just in your last post), and I've seriously tried to not insult your intelligence, but this is it. You are fucking wrong. Period.

When you have had nothing else to say about Xalxe all game and you've been pushing a case on me consistently, it's a weak reason for a vote.

[Xalxe]

He has yet to respond to it.

Because I appear to be posting today for some reason:

I made that hurt during what I deemed to be the "second round" of hurts on PV. I wanted to see if the "group" that was hurting would, after getting them back, continue to do so or be willing to talk to PV first. I believed that hurting was the right answer, but wasn't about to go on a one-man destruction campaign; if I was, MattP would be below health right now.

I knew that it would look opportunistic, scummy, whatever, and I'd have to defend it regardless of the flip, but at that point I figured it was the right thing to be doing and committing to. I take a lot more issue with the people who said "yes, PV is a bad guy" and then didn't do shit about it. In this game it is my opinion that votes are not enough.

[Kinetic]

In post 739, Kinetic wrote:
In post 738, Zdenek wrote:
Kinetic, we don't know the setup, so I don't see why you don't have reservations about the argument against Xalxe.


I never said I didn't. I was the first person to vote Xalxe, and I was the first person to call him out on that move. He has yet to respond to it. I don't understand why you immediately attacked me for voting him when it was his first vote and was for a pretty damn good reason. I wanted to get more from him and pressure him. You jumped in and stopped that.

If you have reservations about it, then why the fuck are you arguing with me?

I've been clear about my issues with your vote on Xalxe, and they weren't only to do with this argument.

Quadz, I'm pretty tired of repeating myself. What issue have I sidestepped?

Remember this post:

Kinetic continues to use conflicting reasons for his suspicions. He's suspicious of me, LLD and MattP for not hurting Kinetic; compare this to:

Your scum colleagues are probably playing it smart right now and not going to out themselves to save you.

Also, he is suspicious of Xalxe for hurting Kinetic.

Now, I actually think that the argument about Xalxe could have some merit, but since we don't actually know the setup, it's a weak reason for a vote and is more of a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe. Moreover, his vote on Xalxe, seems incongruent with the things that he has had to say about me recently.

His attack on me for not re-voting and hurting Peregrine seems thoughtless considering that he should be well aware of my read on him. In past games, bussing has been punished substantially, since as scum died their total rage pool reduced making it harder on them to kill people off. If this game is anything like the previous ones, we should expect that scum would be hesitant to bus, so having my number one scum read pushing Peregrine made me reluctant to vote him.

To answer the question about why I initially voted Peregrine, I voted him because his comment about agreeing with Tierce's reads made no sense, but I didn't want to say anything at the time because he had yet to respond to her question about that. While the reason for my vote didn't evaporate, the wagon on Peregrine made me doubt my previous read on him, and I definitely thought that there were scummier people to target.

Remember how you attacked me and basically chainsawed me off of pursuing my Xalxe case and called me voting him scummy. You said in the same post, "a reason to pay more attention to Xalxe", but you didn't do that, you gave him room to breath. If you were town, maybe the right play would have been to back the fuck off and let me explore. I wasn't 100% on Xalxe, but you basically coming to his defense before he even made a RESPONSE to my vote (save a few weird posts, and lurking since) basically derailed any pressure before it started. Why wouldn't you take your own damn advice and WATCH what was going on instead of basically coming in, calling me scummy for the vote, and questioning the motivations

DESPITE AGREEING WITH THE LOGIC THAT XALXE ACTED SCUMMY

.

No? It's also because of things like this:

Now, I didn't push him again, but that's because I wanted you killed, for people to pay attention to you and on top of that you were one of main people pushing Peregrine.

Exactly. You just admitted to taking an anti-town move because you knew it benefited you. Nice scumslip.

You promoting an anti-town agenda.

That's why we're arguing. That's why I'm voting you. You have taken the position that everything I do is wrong and I cannot do any other scum hunting until apparently one of us is dead.

I felt you were acting scummy, but some people who I felt were town asked me to look for other people because they felt you were town. I backed off, you didn't. And then as soon as I start looking to make a case against someone else, you stepped in and blocked it. So, you got my attention again. Now you're not losing it. You're scum and I'm tired of you.

P-Edit: Zd, why am I not able to go after Xalxe? Because you won't fucking get out of my way. So while you keep obstructing me I will keep pointing out how scummy you're being. I'm already voting you, I've tried to follow other people's reads that you're town, I've tried to avoid you, but you keep stepping in my way.

[Kinetic]

He has yet to respond to it.

Because I appear to be posting today for some reason:

I made that hurt during what I deemed to be the "second round" of hurts on PV. I wanted to see if the "group" that was hurting would, after getting them back, continue to do so or be willing to talk to PV first. I believed that hurting was the right answer, but wasn't about to go on a one-man destruction campaign; if I was, MattP would be below health right now.

I knew that it would look opportunistic, scummy, whatever, and I'd have to defend it regardless of the flip, but at that point I figured it was the right thing to be doing and committing to. I take a lot more issue with the people who said "yes, PV is a bad guy" and then didn't do shit about it. In this game it is my opinion that votes are not enough.

Except... the "second round" of hurts began at 3:14 PM, December 1st. You hurt didn't come until... Around Noon December 2nd, nearly 24 hours AFTER the "second round" began. If you had sent the hurt the day before you'd have been in the second round. You hit a hurt RIGHT before the "third round" was to begin, AFTER PV made his second hurt. In face, the delay on PV's second hurt makes your late hurt even worse.

Were you waiting for PV to send out his second hurt before hurting him? Why didn't you hurt him on December 1st?

[Xalxe]

After checking my posting history, it would appear that my only posts that day were either a) early morning to update my newbie game or b) fuck-around posts. Therefore, I can only assume that I was not in a "seriousposting" mood at that time and wasn't about to read a game thread.