Jack:Your argument has been, from the very start, that I've been heavily twisting Nuke's words. Not "misinterpreting," not "jumping to conclusions about," heavily twisting. This really seems to require that there be an obvious meaning to twist there, since the more literal "you've been interpreting his words" doesn't really have the same punch to it.
So, even specific examples aside, it's pretty clear that you think Nuke's plan was fairly obvious, including motivations and reasoning behind it.
Here's a hypothetical quote:
"Personthing is scummy, yes, but I don't think he's scum because happy elephants are fun hat nice good."
To summarize, it is possible to twist the words of a statement that is partially not understood. As long as there is something clear in the statement, that can be twisted.
Trying to say I somehow know NUKE's entire plan because I am arguing that you twisted his words is an utterly nonsensical accusation, which, of course, means that it's central to your argument against me.
This assumes the clear part is what's being twisted, though. You've made numerous assumptions about things Nuke never actually stated, like the mechanics behind his suggestion.
A better example might be:
"We should do planthing, plus notething, and alsothing, with monkey turnovers."
It might be clear that he thinks we should do planthing, notething, and alsothing, but anything beyond that is up to interpretation or assumption. If someone then starts defending the goals or intended mechanics of planthing, notething, and alsothing, it strongly implies that they're innately familiar with them for some reason. Arguing that someone's heavily twisting words by suggesting or asking about features of them most definitely counts.
If it wasn't, you really wouldn't have had cause to doubt my questioning him on it, much less cause to attack me over it, since even if a potential meaning, motivation, or reasoning could reasonably be assumed, there'd be no particular reason not to check. You've even explicitly stated that everything you've brought up has been glaringly obvious, which really seems to hammer that fact in.
First, I'm noticing you apply my "glaringly obvious" comment to statements made after said comment that it really doesn't apply to. This is either a stupid tense mistake or word twisting. Based on your other attempts to apply it to things it doesn't apply to (for example, some things written after it, and THINGS I NEVER FUCKING SAID), I'm going to assume the latter.
What, this?
Taking into account that he was calling for a completely random lynch in that post, and calling for lynching people regardless of their defenses, I think I can safely say that he wasn't talking about towntells.
So the purpose of his plan was to weed out boring roles. I mean, if you don't care at all whether someone's town or scum, but still won't lynch certain people based on their roles, I'm not sure what else you could conclude.
That's definitely more likely than anything to do with specific things being towntells, as far as I can tell. Not something I'd thought of on my first reading of his post, but it is an interpretation that makes sense (not as a good plan, but as a logical interpretation of NUKE's plan).
..."more likely?" I thought it was "glaringly obvious" what his plan was and why, and now it's "more likely" that is was an "interpretation" that was "not something you'd thought of."
You've claimed everything you'd said is glaringly obvious, and you've made statements about his intentions prior to that. This seems to indicate that his intentions were glaringly obvious, yet here we are.
Yet, everytime I want to know just where the hell Nuke said this or that, you get all defensive and explain some potential line of reasoning for why his plan would be/do X, despite him never explicitly saying anything of the sort.
...Explain. As far as I can tell, you mostly just asked me about why I said things I never said, tried to get me out of sticking to the glaringly obvious, and basically just screwed around.
Nuke making sense: His suggestion was extremely stupid, but can be understood.
Nuke being nonmalicious: Oh, hey, here's where you ignore the times I've said I find NUKE scummy, while trying to say I've said something I've never said! Yay! Essentially, I find he feels scummy, but you feel scummier. NUKE is hard for me to read, though, seeing how, as far as I can tell, he seems to consider being deliberately scummy D1 to be pro-town.
That's definitely more likely than anything to do with specific things being towntells, as far as I can tell. Not something I'd thought of on my first reading of his post, but it is an interpretation that makes sense (not as a good plan, but as a logical interpretation of NUKE's plan).
Doctor is a very valuable role. However, it loses a massive amount, if not all, of its value if it claims, due to being a high-priority target that generally can't save itself. If scum NKs it, the game is quite a bit easier for them. If scum doesn't NK the doctor, WIFOM has a somewhat high chance to ensue. Either way, the town gains almost nothing from the doctor claim.
In fact, you've even admitted that there was a more likely possibility to his plan than the one you'd originally considered.
BULLSHIT. BULL FUCKING SHIT. This is a complete and utter lie. I said that said possibility was more likely than anything involving towntells, something I had QUITE CLEARLY stated was clearly not a major factor in NUKE's plan. Or, to put it differently, I stated that it was more likely than something I said it couldn't be.
But you don't like actually writing accusations based on what people really say, do you, Irony?
You'd made numerous references, claiming they were "glaringly obvious," as to the why and how of Nuke's plan. Then you admitted there was a possibility you hadn't even considered. If you're claiming I'm "heavily twisting Nuke's words" by not assuming the obvious, there's really no room to later admit there's a possibility you hadn't thought of.
I know what I read, and I know the obvious context they were in (that is to say, what day they were on, and when during that day, and what was said around them). What Irony and I were starting to get in to was a somewhat deeper exploration of the plan. Now Irony's saying that the results we got in that deeper exploration, which had never been brought up before the "glaringly obvious" comment, are proof that I...was lying about knowing NUKE's entire plan or something?
When the results of deeper exploration both require deeper exploration and are proof that I was deliberately twisting his meaning earlier, yes, I'd say that's odd.
I find it shocking that the results of deeper exploration might, in fact, have required deeper exploration. I find this completely shocking.
Second, this is ridiculous. There's only one discussion that full comment of mine can possibly be seen to apply to. That is to say, only one discussion actually fits fully with the comment. That happens to be the "towntells" discussion, in which the results had pretty much no bearing on my argument. So, yeah.
You're trying to split this into two parts, which doesn't work.
Our deeper discussion stemmed directly from what was and wasn't obvious and apparent in Nuke's plan. It wasn't some unconnected side discussion, it was "Why are you twisting words/How do you know so much about the plan" continued.
In other words, the very fact that we had a deeper discussion proves my point, since if the plan was obvious enough for attacking/asking about it to be scummy, one of two things would have to be true:
1. The plan was not obvious and apparent, as it was physically possible to have a deeper discussion of it.
2. The deeper discussion was also obvious and apparent, as it was scummy to suggest/question things prior to having said discussion.
In short, everything past a certain point was not irrelevant, and it's disingenuous and scummy to suggest it is.
Non-Jack stuff in different post, again.
Author
Topic: Totem Mafia - A BYOR - Game Over (Read 138368 times)