Dourgrim, you're going to hate this post, but Goat's at it again: Misrepresentations that I've already corrected are being asserted YET AGAIN. Defense by twisting the attacker's case is scummy, and he's done it every time I've built a case.
Goatrevolt wrote:I looked into the meta of BB and Zilla somewhat last night. I don't feel I learned a whole lot. BB's play in this game is different than his play in both town games he's had (except the common factor: Slicing of wrists), but without a scum game to compare to, I don't see it as all that conclusive. The only game I looked through of Zilla's was a game where she was scum. She was much more passive and less confrontational in that game than she has been here. I should also look through a town game of hers and see if I can get any kind of useful picture.
Most of my mafia history is
offsite, though I have two town games (three town incarnations due to replacing back into Family Guy after death) on this site.
I'm reneging on my earlier assessment of Zilla-town.
Big surprise, whenever my points on you are unsawerable, you put this back in your argument.
She's back in the 50/50 mix for me. While I think her aggressiveness suggests she is pro-town, her stances have been questionable. I'm hesitant to just give her a pass based on aggressiveness and the appearance of scumhunting alone. Case in point: She attacks me entirely because I opposed her "give me a summary" stance.
I didn't have a RVS, you know, I had to start somewhere.
While I disagree with that vote, it's not that scummy by itself. However, she tries to flower it up by providing other
weak reasoning.
First, be specific; what reasoning of mine is so weak? Your glittering generality seems to be a way to avoid letting your readers actually make up their mind about whether that reasoning actually was weak.
She was trying to stretch her vote into more than it actually was.
a vote?
When I shoot down that other reasoning, she merely moves on to other points,
Misconstruction: other points emerged on further analysis. If you're town, you shouldn't have problems answering accusations.
basically dismissing her poor reasoning and creating a deflection.
You didn't ever specify how I was "deflecting" or what I was "deflecting" from; I'm on the offensive, where am I going to deflect? Also, yet again, note the use of language; "poor reasoning" without citing any examples. Goat ignores my points where I tell him
his defense is inadequate.
She continues to employ that tactic. For example, she says I'm defending Panzer because I'm defending Mykonian who is defending Panzer.
MISCONSTRUCTION. I know you were trying to elicit that response from me in some of your posts, but this is blatantly a lie. You are defending panzer by claiming logic says he's scum but your gut says he's town, and instead pushing against his lynch.
I say that's a ridiculous argument. She calls me scummy for aggressively defending myself against that point, but doesn't actually address my argument again.
Because that argument never existed. Moreover, how many arguments of mine have you dropped?
DEAR READER: Quite a challenge here, but I implore you to read between my posts and Goat's posts, and note how many of my accusations are still outstanding. I'm reading over my own posts, and it's entirely too much work to point out them all
That's deflection. Rather than debate a point she knew was wrong, she merely threw suspicion on me for other reasons and dismissed it.
Here's the pot calling the China black; you always try to answer my arguments by contorting them bizzarely and answering different arguments that I didn't make.
I feel she has led a similar crusade against Mykonian (making her case seem more than it actually is, rather than give the honest reasons she's voting him).
Links plz?
Then there is her continued avoidance of giving a stance on BB.
I thought you were just being ironic. My stance on BB was pretty obvious, IMO.
And BB has a point. She was defending him prior to even knowing what my case on him was about. After he admitted my case was valid, she threw out a "I need to reassess BB because he agreed with Goat's case" post, but has played as though he is town from that point onward.
Links plz?
If you look through her recent posting, you will see her discuss anything and everything but BB. I called her out on not taking a stance, and her post last night ignored my question (which I asked in both posts).
Again, I thought you were being ironic, and my stance on birthday was pretty clear from
this post.
Frankly, I feel she has created a lot of confusion and has "muddied the waters" since joining the game. She has shown she's not stupid, yet she consistently misrepresents or doesn't grasp the simple concepts my posts are discussing.
Are you sure that's me, and not... you?
Case in point: Me saying we should lynch for scum not lynch for information, using the example of Panzer if he is town. "Zilla: Goat doesn't want information. Goat knows Panzer is town." Both are gross misrepresentations and I'm having a harder and harder time seeing her legitimately not understand those posts as opposed to deliberately misrepresenting them.
You fail to answer the accusation and instead try to deflect back on me. Hypocrisy++.
Then there is the hypocrisy inherent in "it's scummy when Goat is 'hypersensitive' or 'aggressively defensive'" yet Zilla responded in exactly the same fashion when I nailed her with her own logic.
Links plz?
I feel like I'm Christian Bale here, and Zilla is a Director of Photography checking the lights while I'm trying to do a scene. It's distracting.
Constantly forcing me to defend myself over misrepresentations of my stances is both annoying and distracting
, and it's certainly not helping us catch scum or decide on a lynch.
Bold: So you know how I feel then?
Aware of that. However, you are attacking him repeatedly. Assault and battery can lead to death if sustained over a period of time. ~ Cybele
.
for that, just to keep things fair.
