Open 238: Trendy and Subversive Game Over

[podium123456]

When I say serious, I mean lynching serious, not out of RVS serious.

Contradicting yourself? In this post, you implied that something serious had occurred. Now you imply otherwise. Explain.

Besides that, when i said 'serious' i meant a non RVS vote/accusation. It was a serious accusation, and it occurred prior to my reaction. Your statement remains false, unless you can show otherwise.

Millar thinks that "'generally' only scum dispute something that much". What do I think of that? I wouldn't say that it's a scum tell, but that's just me.

Whether or not disputing something a lot is a scumtell, isn't really the point (although i doubt many people would agree that it is). The point is that I made ONE response to the accusation that gonnano made against me... and millar thought that i was excessively disputing it. Comment on this, please.

The fact that he voted because of it doesn't send any flags up due to the facts that a) that is the only vote against you, and b) It's early in the game.

What does timing and the number of votes on me have to do with whether or not something is a legitamate/BS reason?

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.

1/2. - i dont have a problem with people voting me if they have a legitimate reason. if i think those reasons are BS, then naturally i would point that out. if i feel those reasons are scummy, then i may place a vote. what's so scummy about that?

3. Yes, because my response to millar made you suspicious of me. if millars actions were scummy, then my reaction was justified. so if you better understand millars actions, you will better understand my reaction.

[mallowgeno]

Vote ODDin

[mallowgeno]

whoops sorry

unvote, vote TeeJay

I think podium made a great case. voting w/o reasons is scummy as well as contradicting yourself.

[TeeJay]

What does timing and the number of votes on me have to do with whether or not something is a legitamate/BS reason?

A lot, case in point, RVS.
Also, Podium, please quite telling me to comment on things, if I have something to say, I'll say it. I don't need you forcing me to give a word.

As to your response to my first point, your vote was still OMGUS.

Your response to the third... regardless, you were attempting to draw attention away from yourself.

To mallow, I haven't voted yet, I assume you mean someone else. Second, do you really think contradicting oneself is scummy enough to warrant a vote? If it was coupled with more info, maybe. The reality is, considering that most posts by a person are made at different times, those posts will naturally be made in a
different frame of mind, thus contradictions are bound to happen. the question is, what kind of contradiction is it. First off, the contradiction is about a definition of a word. Really? That is what you are concerned about?

I would also like to point out that I don't think the post was contradictory at all. I used the word serious in quotes, intending to imply that I still didn't think it was too serious. And just for the future, let me expand my definition of serious: Any vote that is not RVS or weighted by other votes.

Considering it was the first vote, woopdi-do. Considering the context, I still believe the vote was semi-RVS.

So let the arguments ensue.

[mallowgeno]

Hrm I misread that sorry.

unvote

[Sawyer]

Podiums defense seems awfully weak and seemed to try and force a contradiction that wasn't there.

Podium, TJ did say it was serious, but as he said in post 50, he was talking about a different extent of seriousness (which was even in the part you quoted, so you certainly didn't miss it)

Unvote Vote: Podium

[ODDin]

You still didn't say why you're not voting, though.

This to me just seems scummy fmpov. Either you're:
A. trying to divert attention
B. genuinely wanting an explanation

I'm leaning towards the former...

Diverting attention from what, exactly? In my very first post I said teejay didn't vote and said I didn't like it. Then teejay posted but didn't respond to it, so I pointed out he didn't respond. It's not like there was something to divert attention from.

* * *

I don't really like podium's behaviour prior to the lock. He talked as if there was no discussion and no thing to talk about and it was still RVS. However, there was a little exchange between teejay and myself, so if podium thought it's so bad there's no discussion and that we really need to generate some discussion, he could've at least express some opinion on that issue.

* * *

Policy lynch

Vote: podium123456

for almost killing the game

Don't like this. Policy lynches are generally not the greatest of ideas, and this one especially won't get us anywhere. It can't be a scum-tell since podium-scum didn't want the game to die any more than podium-town wanted it to.
So basically, this post serves to show "activity" without actually saying anything of value.

* * *

I don't like how teejay still doesn't vote. Looks like he's being a bit too cautious. Teejay, do you generally take your sweet time before you vote? If so, can you provide links to games where this happens? (Not ongoing ones, obviously)
Until this is explained, I'll keep my vote on him.

* * *

That being said, podium is being a little too defensive here. His reaction to millar was understandable, but his reaction to teejay is less so.

* * *

Mallow's play is... odd. He barely does anything, and when he does, it doesn't make any sense. Care to actually play the game?

[mallowgeno]

Diverting attention from what, exactly? In my very first post I said teejay didn't vote and said I didn't like it. Then teejay posted but didn't respond to it, so I pointed out he didn't respond. It's not like there was something to divert attention from.

Grr I need to read more carefully. I'm trying to contribute, but my scumhunting skills are very poor as you can tell.

[podium123456]

What does timing and the number of votes on me have to do with whether or not something is a legitamate/BS reason?

A lot, case in point, RVS.

Uhhh... well no crap... if it was a RVS vote. The whole point of this is that he specifically said it wasn't.

Also, Podium, please quite telling me to comment on things, if I have something to say, I'll say it. I don't need you forcing me to give a word.

I don't care whether you have something to say about it or not. I asked you a question/to comment, and would like an answer.

Your response to the third... regardless, you were attempting to draw attention away from yourself.

sigh... yes... like i said. i felt your assessment of me was incorrect... to show that, i have to discuss millars actions with you. so it's not like i just refused to discuss your allegations against me and tried to shift the subject. but since you fail to comprehend that, you keep making it a catch-22 situation for me. whatever.

Considering the context, I still believe the vote was semi-RVS.

Who cares about the context... he

said

it was a serious vote. Why are you fighting this so much?

I would also like to point out that I don't think the post was contradictory at all. I used the word serious in quotes, intending to imply that I still didn't think it was too serious. And just for the future, let me expand my definition of serious: Any vote that is not RVS or weighted by other votes.

Wait a minute... so if you are saying that you consider non-RVS votes to be serious, then you just contradicted your statement that 'nothing was 'serious' until i reacted'.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To those that are reading this, i feel our discussion may be clouding up the actual reason that we are having this discussion. I'll condense it (although i feel that there is good info to be gained from analyzing teejays discussions above).

1. Teejay found my defensiveness 'disturbing' (implying possibly scummy), because it was so early in the game.

2. I told him that i was defensive because someone had seriously accused me of being scum.

3. He replied that nothing serious had occurred.

That is FALSE, as millar

specifically

said that his accusation was serious. All of the conversation after that is me trying to get teejay to recognize that he was wrong. Once he realizes that a serious accusation had occurred, he can re-visit whether or not my defensiveness was 'disturbing'.

[podium123456]

That being said, podium is being a little too defensive here. His reaction to millar was understandable, but his reaction to teejay is less so.

*facepalm*

You tell me i was justified in my reaction to millar. Therefore, teejays criticism of it was wrong. But when i try to tell teejay that his criticism was wrong, you criticise me for doing so.

another catch-22 for me.

[gonnano]

a catch-22 would be a situation that presents the illusion of having multiple outcomes when in reality the outcome is already determined. The way to get a different outcome in your case, podium, would have been to answer millar the way you did, and then NOT overreact to teejay's posts.

[podium123456]

i dont really understand your definition, but i dont want to get off on a discussion about the proper use of the phrase catch-22... it can mean the same thing as a 'no win' or 'lose-lose' scenario. Link

replace 'catch-22' with 'lose-lose' if you want.

[gonnano]

Yeah, that's basically what my definition is saying, but what I mean by it is that it wasn't a lose-lose situation. The way for you to "win" would have been to not overreact to teejay. You seemed to be saying that there was nothing you could say that ODDin would not use against you, but that's not the case.

[podium123456]

Yeah, that's basically what my definition is saying, but what I mean by it is that it wasn't a lose-lose situation. The way for you to "win" would have been to not overreact to teejay. You seemed to be saying that there was nothing you could say that ODDin would not use against you, but that's not the case.

Ok.

But notice that i didn't overreact, when i first addressed it. Teejay failed to understand what i was saying, and i had to keep repeating myself. That gives the illusion of an overreaction, but it's because teejay isnt comprehending it... not because i am overreacting.

The lose-lose comes from the fact that if i dont try to get teejay to understand his criticism was wrong, it becomes a justified criticism to him (and possibly others). But if i do try to get him to understand it was wrong, i get criticized by oddin for overreacting.

[ODDin]

*facepalm*

You tell me i was justified in my reaction to millar. Therefore, teejays criticism of it was wrong. But when i try to tell teejay that his criticism was wrong, you criticise me for doing so.

another catch-22 for me.

It's behavioural. Yes, I agree with you on the basic notion that teejay was wrong. However, how you react to his accusation - even though I think it's a wrong accusation - seems too extreme to me. I get the feeling you're scared.

[podium123456]

It's behavioural. Yes, I agree with you on the basic notion that teejay was wrong. However, how you react to his accusation - even though I think it's a wrong accusation - seems too extreme to me. I get the feeling you're scared.

You believe that this is an extreme reaction?

[ODDin]

Taken together with posts 49 and 51, yes, it feels rather extreme.

[podium123456]

Taken together with posts 49 and 51, yes, it feels rather extreme.

Yes, but that's because of what i discussed here.

What was i supposed to do?

Not

try to get him to understand it? And allow his incorrect criticism to stand? ???

[jmj3000]

3rd Official Vote Count of Day 1

Players needed to lynch: 4

mallowgeno

- 1 - gonnano - (L-3)

millar13

- 1 - podium123456 - (L-3)

podium123456

- 2 - millar13, Sawyer - (L-2)

TeeJay

- 1 - ODDin - (L-3)

Players not voting: mallowgeno, TeeJay

Let me know if there are any errors.

[podium123456]

Oops i missed this post.

Podiums defense seems awfully weak

What are you referring to?

and seemed to try and force a contradiction that wasn't there.
Podium, TJ did say it was serious, but as he said in post 50, he was talking about a different extent of seriousness (which was even in the part you quoted, so you certainly didn't miss it)

Teejay now says that he considers a non-RVS vote to be 'serious'. Yet in this post, he implies that nothing serious had occurred...

after

millar's non-RVS vote.

Do you not see a contradiction there?

[TeeJay]

Let me put this in a different light podium.

I don't think the vote was serious enough to warrant the reaction you gave. You over reacted. Furthermore, I still believe that the vote against you was slightly RVS, after all, policy votes are hardly worth any weight. The post you continue to quote has a serious with quotes on it, like this: 'serious'. Recognize it?

Alright, I apologize for poking fun. My point is that the 'serious' mentioned in that sentence was meant as an iffy serious as in "not so serious - seriousness". Anyway, enough with semantics.

ODDin, I apologize for not answering your previous posts. I've been side-tracked by another conversation. It takes a lot to get me to vote, I am cautious, maybe even too cautious, but not cautiousness that stems from scummieness, but one that stems from not wanting to lynch the wrong guy. As to why I didn't RVS, sometimes I do, other times I don't, I really don't have a logical reason for the inconsistency.

As to my previous games, this is my first game under TeeJay. I used to be TylerJ, but I hadn't played in a year and forgot the password, and unfortunately, my email was also hacked into. So, here I am with a new account. I have asked the Administrators to delete my old account as I will no longer be using it. No I do not use two running accounts if that is what you are wondering.

[podium123456]

You're still saying two things. Do you consider millar's vote on me to be a non-RVS vote? (remember HE SAID IT WAS) If yes, then why did you imply that nothing serious had happened? If no, then are you saying that millar lied?

I don't think the vote was serious enough to warrant the reaction you gave. You over reacted. Furthermore, I still believe that the vote against you was slightly RVS, after all, policy votes are hardly worth any weight. The post you continue to quote has a serious with quotes on it, like this: 'serious'. Recognize it?

You are leaving out important details.

There were

two

aspects to millars vote... one was a policy vote (which was entirely incorrect), the other was an accusation of being scum based on my 'excessive dispute'.

Again, i ask you... how was my defense an overreaction? ?? What should i have done?? Agreed with him??

[ODDin]

TeeJay: I don't mind (or care) if you use two accounts. I just want meta of you being so cautious as town. Can you provide it? (I don't care if it's another user but still you) If not, I have no real reason to believe it's not cautious stemming from scuminess.

Podium: You're just making it worse. How you reacted to me showcases what I've said. You're so emotional and heated about this that it's amazing. Town tend to be handle their defense more calmly, because they know truth is on their side. You're just flipping out. Maybe you have meta that shows you reacting in a similar way when you were town?

[podium123456]

this is stupid. now it's how i reacted to

you

? am i in the twilight zone?

what did i say to you that was so outrageous? you gave me a lose-lose scenario, and i pointed that out. what is so heated/emotional/whatever about that? where did i 'flip-out' on you?

i ask you again... what should i have said to teejay when he made an incorrect observation? should i have tried to correct it, or should i have not disputed it? I'll assume that you would say i should have tried to correct it. Ok, i did.

He didn't understand what i was saying. Should i have continued to try and get him to understand, or should i have let the incorrect observation stand? Is it my fault i had to repeat myself? Because you are criticizing me for doing so. Is that a fair critique?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

you guys are blowing this waaaaaay out of proportion, and because i am having to fight 4 people saying the same thing about

different

situations, it looks like i am freaking out... when all i am trying to do is set the record straight. here are the facts:

I made ONE post to gonnano regarding his accusation, and millar said i excessively disputed it.

I made ONE post to millar regarding his accusation, and teejay said i overreacted.

I made ONE post to teejay regarding his accusation (which i had to repeat because he didn't understand) and oddin says i overreacted.

I made ONE post to oddin explaining that he gave me a lose-lose situation (which i had to repeat because he didnt understand) and oddin says i overreacted.

seriously guys... wtf.

[ODDin]

It's not only what you say, it's how you say it.
I will ask again, have you got meta of you reacting in a similar way when you were town?