Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jack A T]

I was going to do yet another massive response, but it all feels unnecessary after looking at this beautiful moment:

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.

...Did you read what I wrote?  Did you read what you wrote?  You tried to turn a discussion that I wasn't using as proof that you were scum into a discussion that I was using as proof that you were scum, through sheer bullshit.  Yes, the discussion was relevant, at least to your case.  That doesn't mean I tried to use said discussion as proof that you were scum, which is WHAT YOU SAID.

In short, everything past a certain point was not irrelevant, and it's disingenuous and scummy to suggest it is.

Which is exactly why I DIDN'T SAY THAT.  Is it not disingenuous and scummy to try to apply a statement made regarding everything before it to everything after it, without paying attention to what is actually said?

You're twisting my words again.  You're turning me saying that not everything falls within the boundaries of one statement into me saying that nothing falls within those boundaries.  There is a reason why I used the word "some" to describe the amount of things I said after the "glaringly obvious" statement that it didn't apply to.

Irony, hang already.

Sounds like something I said, really.  You didn't answer my question about the change from the second quote, by the way.

There was no change - I considered him town from the beginning of D3.

So why attack him for overreacting to your questions if you think there's no way he couldn't have been town?

[Jim Groovester]

So is there an abridged version of what the fuck you're getting at for those of us who have been very productively ignoring your argument with IronyOwl?

IronyOwl, let's hear your claim.

Toaster, suspects?

[Dariush]

So why attack him for overreacting to your questions if you think there's no way he couldn't have been town?

I didn't attack him, I wanted to get answers to some questions about his play and attempted to get him to stop being an idiot and do something with his confirmed-town status.

[Mephansteras]

The Counting Stones
IronyOwl: Jack AT, Jim Groovester
Toaster: Dariush


Day ends ~5pm Pacific Tuesday

[Toaster]

Dariush:  You're stretching the hell out of things by calling MBP confirmed town, especially since it appears you're the only person who thinks so.


Jim:  Well, I'm very interested in Irony's claim, but I think we can move some without it.


Dariush (despite my objections to his MBP claims) and Jack have been reading fairly town to me all game.  I haven't had any real reason to suspect you yet.  This leaves Irony, who must be the vote stealer by process of elimination (unless someone is lying.)

So I ask this to everyone:  Did you lose your vote last night?  I didn't.


I realize this lacks the usual analysis I give, but I'm really wanting an answer to my question.  [excuse]And I'm too mentally frazzled to put good effort into an analysis right now.[/excuse]  It will come.

[Jack A T]

So is there an abridged version of what the fuck you're getting at for those of us who have been very productively ignoring your argument with IronyOwl?

Basically, he twists words constantly.  His defense against accusations of twisting words quickly descended to twisting his attacker's words constantly.

So I ask this to everyone:  Did you lose your vote last night?  I didn't.

I didn't lose any of my votes.

Toaster: Please explain why you read Dariush and I as fairly town.

[Toaster]

Jack:  That was my general nonspecific read that I had of both of you, based chiefly on gut.


Reading back, I'm not sure why on Dariush.  Most of his votes are backed up with arrogance and bile instead of facts and reason.  Getting a full case out of him is like pulling teeth.  Problem is that is within his meta, from what I've seen.

You I think are town on the grounds that your arguments have been solid, consistent, and well reasoned, with good activity.



Dariush:  Do you have any other reasons to vote me besides MBP?  What happened to your case on Jim?



Irony:  Anything to contribute?  Still waiting on you.

[Dariush]

Do you have any other reasons to vote me besides MBP?

You admitted to killing the person who was literally the least likely to be scum (or rather couldn't, but let's assume for the sake of argument that Meph is insane and would give scum a LYLO-breaking power). Do I really need anything else?

What happened to your case on Jim?

It disappeared in a puff of logic.

And I didn't lose my vote tonight.

[Toaster]

Dariush: Why weren't you screaming at everyone voting MBP, then?  Sure, you attacked Jim, but he was hardly alone in that.  It doesn't help that you don't suspect him any more.

[Jim Groovester]

It should be obvious that I didn't lose my vote.

Also, I'm perfectly fine with lynching IronyOwl if he doesn't claim within the deadline.

[Mephansteras]

The Counting Stones
IronyOwl: Jack AT, Jim Groovester
Toaster: Dariush


Day ends ~5pm Pacific Tuesday

[IronyOwl]

Extend. Sorry about that, things happened. Most of them avoidable.

I am the Scorpion. At night I can disable a player's vote for the following day. The two claimed ones (Toaster N3, MBP N4) were the only times I did so.



Jack:

...Did you read what I wrote?  Did you read what you wrote?  You tried to turn a discussion that I wasn't using as proof that you were scum into a discussion that I was using as proof that you were scum, through sheer bullshit.  Yes, the discussion was relevant, at least to your case.  That doesn't mean I tried to use said discussion as proof that you were scum, which is WHAT YOU SAID.

This is exactly what I meant by not being able to just split parts of it off and declare them irrelevant.

The whole thing was about Nuke's plan, and how obvious certain parts of it were. There was no point where I said "Gee, that's great, but let's talk about it just for its own sake," so it stands to reason that if we were discussing it in the first place, it was relevant to something. That something being whether I was twisting his words or you had uncanny insight into his plan.

In short, everything past a certain point was not irrelevant, and it's disingenuous and scummy to suggest it is.

Which is exactly why I DIDN'T SAY THAT.  Is it not disingenuous and scummy to try to apply a statement made regarding everything before it to everything after it, without paying attention to what is actually said?

You never said you had stopped using only the glaringly obvious, nor had you given me any reason why you'd do so. I still don't see what reason you'd have to veer off into wild speculation, whether in order to prove I was twisting his words or that you didn't have some insight into them.

You're twisting my words again.  You're turning me saying that not everything falls within the boundaries of one statement into me saying that nothing falls within those boundaries.  There is a reason why I used the word "some" to describe the amount of things I said after the "glaringly obvious" statement that it didn't apply to.

I don't follow. Which part is this supposed to be referring to?



Toaster:

You I think are town on the grounds that your arguments have been solid, consistent, and well reasoned, with good activity.

Could you elaborate on this?

[Dariush]

Dariush: Why weren't you screaming at everyone voting MBP, then? 

MBP was in no danger of lynch, and my vocal protection wouldn't have done anything against an NK.

Sure, you attacked Jim, but he was hardly alone in that.  It doesn't help that you don't suspect him any more.

That's the second time you refer to my Jim case. Why are you so interested in it?

Irony, why didn't you... sting (feel free to suggest a more appropriate verb) Jack if you suspected him for the last several days? Why didn't you sting anyone last night? What were you reasons for stinging MBP?

[Toaster]

Irony:  Why me N3?  You hadn't expressed any suspicion of me before then, and (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong) you're only using your power on people you suspect, given that you didn't fire it three nights.

As for Jack, if you want more elaboration, it's that I read over all his posts again and haven't seen any reason to suspect him.  Do you want me to point out specific posts that I think demonstrate good scumhunting?  Here's one.



Dariush:  I'm wondering where it went.  I notice when people suddenly change their targets without adequate reasoning as to why.  "A puff of logic" isn't satisfactory reasoning.

[Toaster]

Extend.  Too little talking today.