First, to GIEFF, part of the reason it looks like it does is because I was rereading the thread as I was continuing to post. You guys had already established characters with each other, but I didn't have that luxury, and I was only really getting anything valid from Goat, and it was provoking interest.
I think the link between extending a case being scummy is somewhat weak as well, especially when I'm replacing in and still catching up. I
replaced and hit the ground running in this game and actually managed to launch into the two mafiattes almost immediately. Even if Goat wasn't scum, the accusations ought to have generated some more information from players' reactions. It just happened that Goat's reaction was the scummiest.
Above, Goat tries to strengthen his case on this point as well, though I have to say the opposite is true. Town would extend their case with new information, scum wouldn't. It's far more likely that if scum hit a wall, they'll find someone else to push, rather than continue to attack the same person. If town are tuned in on somebody, and they continually drop scummy tells, of course they're going to add them to the case. It's also ironic how his entire case is a mirror of this tactic; he's "extended" his case in the same way I've extended mine.
She voted me because I was pissing her off by not providing a summary of the game.
I see
you haven't learned.
From
Post 292
Zilla wrote:Quite frankly, your reason for voting me is entirely what I've said a couple times in this post already: A frustration-based emotion-laden vote because I didn't give you what you wanted.
Half-right. It's initial cause is because you "didn't give me what I wanted," but it's not emotional, it's because you're uncooperative response seems incredibly scummy (read again, paranoia about creating inconsistencies, stemming possible inputs of information.
What she did, was stretch her case into "more" by also attacking my vote on MacavityLock (based on reasons she had not bothered to look into), by attacking my style of defending myself (a style she also utilizes), and by attacking my playstyle as scummy. Those three reasons add up to essentially nothing, and were not the reason Zilla voted me at all. So why does she add them to the case?
You put "more" in quotes? I'm attacking your lack of conviction on MacavityLock, not the vote itself, and you never did adequately explain it. It was a holdover from a long time ago in the SK debate. You then throw it away for an even weaker poke at Birthday that follows the general current at the time. This was never answered, just dismissed as "weak."
Then the style of defending yourself; you do exactly what scum do. You pretend accusations go away because you call them weak without answering them or showing why, you distort and misconstrue and spin things, and you act as though even looking into you is worthy of suspicion. In fact, the whole case on me for extending my arguments is an example of trying to equate suspecting Goat with being scummy.
As for it "somehow morphing into accountability," that was the entire issue to begin with, and STILL hasn't been answered.
As for accusing your playstyle of being scummy, that's something you brought up on your own. Here's what I had to say about it.
[quote="Zilla]Eh wot? I haven't changed my tune in the slightest. I'm still voting you because your "playstyle" is anti-town. You're pushing people on stupid non logic, you're pretending every possible case is valid until someone disproves you, and you're running a chalatanesque distraction show. In short, you're creating a ton of static, and on top of that, you're hypersensitive to any accusation against you. [/quote]
[quote="Zilla]
Goat wrote:
3. You don't like my playstyle
Where did this come from, unless by "my playstyle" you mean "my penchant to dodge questions like a well-versed politician, my method of 'scumhunting' being based on 'how people attack me,' my ability to misconstrue and warp those attacks, and my middle-management-esque ability to shirk accountability." If that's what you meant, then, yes, I don't like your playstyle, because it's scummy, and if you are town, you're jamming my radar. [/quote]
Goat wrote:b) Her vote on Mykonian. Her vote on him is mostly because he asked her to. Meh, ok. Why add in the point about him being the first to mention a SK, then? She had just finished going on and on about how we spent too much time stuck in the random phase and too much time discussing all the SK nonsense, then she turns around and includes it as a reason for voting Mykonian? Really? Willing to change your mind that quickly when you need another point against someone?
You missed many
points
here (yes, each word is a separate link).
2. Hypocrisy. I don't think hypocrisy by itself is a huge point, because townies can occasionally have a bit of hypocrisy. However, I do think hypocrisy points more to scum than town. Attacking someone over something you are equally as guilty of reflects insincerity. If you play a certain way, then there's no reason for you to consider that a scumtell in others.
The IRONY. Oh, the irony. Lord, you're killing me.
a) Post 297. In this post, we see Zilla vote for Mykonian essentially from 4 "off the cuff" 1 liners. Sound familiar? She has just finished attacking me for voting Birthday without going into detail on my reasons. And she does the exact same thing.
Huh,
, eh? On the request of one person, I clarify and solidify my case as necessary. Instead, there is a long distance between
your initial accusations
and
your clarification.
b) Attacking me as scum for aggressively defending myself, or responding in a hypersensitive manner to accusations against me. Zilla is guilty of exactly the same playstyle.
Very maybe perhaps, though I answer my accusations, you distort them and and answer different, unrelated accusations, or outright ignore them, or outright ignore my answers to your accusations. I don't have to rely on deception to come clean, and
I have admitted when I was wrong.
c) She asked me my current opinion on Panzer, despite me having given it to her recently, and I linked her to the post that outlined it. She harassed me 4 different times over providing a link rather than retyping it out (this matters, why??). Compare that with me asking her for her stance on Birthday. She first ignored it because she didn't think I was serious because it was in the thread, and then she responded by giving me a link to the post where she mentioned it. If Zilla had such a giant issue (she went crazy over this meaningless point) with me linking to my stance rather than simply retyping it out, and if she actually believed it to be a meaningful tell in any sense, then there is no way in hell she links to her stance rather than retypes it out.
Ummm... what? I did BOTH,
I linked it, AND
I typed it out (and also
here)
And I've already
answered that here:
On "linking instead of text," that was for your current opinion on panzer, nothing else. Opinions that are outdated are no good. Arguments that are still valid are perfectly acceptable linking material. Opinions, however, are far quicker to go into expiry than arguments. Furthermore, I answered your BB question and ALSO provided a link. You're also generalizing between the birthday and panzer things, the irony I was going for, without heeding the specifics; namely, the post you linked to was basically you explaining post 240, from ages ago, and your vote had switched since then, so you'd obviously had a difference in opinion. Nothing of note had happened regarding birthday since my linked post, and my vote handn't changed, and the situation at large had remained mostly the same.
Goat wrote:3. Strawmanning. Strawmanning is essentially pulling one aspect of a case or a point out, arguing against that specific aspect, and then expanding that to say that the entire case is flawed.
Because it's the truth. I've pulled out the rug from the rest of your case. Here's a case in point. I'm refuting the very root of your argument, and there's no real need to address the rest of the argument because it's not even applicable. This isn't strawmanning at all. Strawmanning is what you do when you construct a somewhat similar but unrelated case and attack THAT instead of the actual case at hand, and imply that victory on your special case implies victory to the case at large.
The funny thing is that you say I don't answer your arguments, when those arguments are strawmen to begin with, that's what I point out, and then you continue to assert they are valid arguments.
Goat wrote:Oftentimes scum will do that to avoid answering points they cannot answer, or to generate suspicion. For example, let's say I lay down a Martin Luther style 95 reasons to think someone is scum. You pick out reason 84, argue against it, and then go on to say my case is flawed. Maybe that specific reason is flawed, but it doesn't nullify the case in entirety.
Oh
Did you just use a strawman argument to prove your point? Yes. Yes you did.
I actually had to stifle laughter!
This is a strawman argument. This is a very solid example of a strawman argument. He creates the strawman (I am attacking one of his 95 reasons for thinking someone is scum) and says that because I disprove one of them, he still has 94 reasons someone is scum. This strawman argument is not related to our specific case. It works for his example, and he hopes to extend that logic to our specific case, where it does not work, instead of actually addressing a real point where I attack his case and it all falls apart because I've proven that it was a strawman argument to begin with.
goatrevolt wrote:Maybe I say something like "if Panzer is town, what would we gain from his lynch" as a challenge to people suggesting lynching for information is acceptable and you go on to extract "Panzer is town" and attribute it to my belief. At any rate, here are the examples I've given before:
a) Post 385. I mention that I don't understand which of two possible mindsets Birthday had. You cut it off and take my "I don't understand" out of context to imply that I don't understand the Birthday situation at large.
Yes, I'll admit my quote paraphrase takes it out of context in a bit of dirty fightin' to show you the irony in saying that you didn't understand where to fall on his case, and somehow trying to use that as fuel for suspicion. It was meant as an ironic jab, not a true slanderization, since I give town enough credit to understand where it came from. From my point of view, you didn't understand your own case on Birthday, and it was built on a misunderstanding.
Goat wrote:That's a strawman.
No, that's not a strawman at all. In fact, there's no actual logical weight in my argument. That little bit does not serve as any basis for further logic, it's a standalone one-shot. Furthermore, even if your definition of strawman was valid, I don't use that to refuse answering any other part of your case.
You then proceed to dismiss my reasoning, saying that Birthday's large post would clear it up, which suggests that YOU were the one who didn't understand, considering the section you had just quoted above is in direct contradiction to that.
Apparently, yes, I was the one who didn't understand, good show. Now you're not even attacking it as a strawman argument anymore, it's suddenly some other, non-connected case, that you're trying to turn into a strawman argument against me.
Also, that's not what I remember saying.
Your case here is based on a faulty premise and faulty conclusions, but really, just reading over
Birthday's HUGE vote post
should clear this all up.
This was in reference to his vote on Panzer, where he uses GIEFF's logic, which apparently I had misread, according to BB's simulpost.
goat wrote:b) Post 480 - Post 482. In the first post I attack the idea that lynching Panzer is acceptable even if he is town. In that second post Zilla attacks me on the basis that I'm defending against a Panzer lynch because he could be town. Strawman. She rips out my example scenario and attacks it as my belief.
You're missing the point; your entire example hinges on knowing that Panzer is town to begin with. In order for your example to even hold any weight, we have to know that Panzer is town already. That's faulty logic, as we most reasonably suspect him of being scum if we are going to lynch him. That's also why it indicates you are operating from a scum mindset. Since WE don't know panzer's alignment, we can't even use the example you outline, and the only reason to propose such an example is if you know Panzer's alignment ahead of time.
Reread this post for an example.
Goat wrote:I will admit that this is one of the weaker aspects of my case, not because I'm wrong about her strawmanning me, but because it's plausible that Zilla does this as town. However, at a certain point, the way she goes about doing it becomes scummy. I won't go into detail on that yet, I want to see how she responds to the above first.
It's weak because you don't understand what strawmanning really is, and you attempt to use it as a blanket term to describe my actions as scummy. However, when you go into specifics rather than sweeping generalizations, you can see where my points are entirely valid, and don't even qualify for your misused version of "strawman arguments."
Goat wrote:4. Backtracking.
a) Post 396. This post can basically be summed up as, "I didn't bother looking into the validity of Goat's arguments enough to realize that he was actually correct about Birthday." I find this scummy, because she went out of her way to defend Birthday, and clearly did so without a full grasp of the situation. Why as town, would you stretch yourself to defend a player without truly understanding the extent of the case against him? I argue that she was doing this entirely to discredit my case for the purpose of throwing suspicion on me.
What are you even talking about? Not only is this pure conjecture, it's based on manufactured evidence. I still don't agree with your reasoning on Birthday. If Birthday hadn't made his own post that basically said despite your faulty logic, you had the right idea, I'd still believe Birthday to be town. Removing his own post, my post is an entirely valid defense, and I'm quite surprised that Birthday, scum or town, didn't have a similar explanation. You're basically trying to say that because I was shown to be wrong, I must be scum.
Goat wrote:b) Post 459. I discussed this in Post 551. Her language use here is highly suspect. "I may have" or "perhaps it was just" or "this has aged well (what does that even mean?)." This doesn't express confidence or truthfulness at all. Either you did or you did not change your mind, there is no "may" about it. I think this is scummy. If she truly had a change of heart regarding the usefulness of the SK discussion, I doubt her post would read like an elaborate cover up. Again, I think she changed her mind because she needed more dirt on Mykonian, and here is where her slippery behavior caught up to her and she had to try to cover her butt.
"Has aged well" meaning that it has remained fairly clear in retrospect. Though we are entrenched in our own arguments here in the present, there's still valid information from that SK debate for later, particularly once we have more of an idea what roles are involved in this game. Even without that, I think there are some interesting things to note amongst the "stupid" comments. I think we can analyze
why
they are "stupid" and see some motives behind it. I still think that a lot of what was said was pointless at face value. However, I think it's something worth taking a deeper look into, looking at why people said the things they said, why Mykonian and Panzer pushed for an SK hunt and things of that sort.
Also, as I've explained, reading all of it in one go made the whole thing seem really trivial at the time, but my view on it has changed since the characters have grown more definite. When I first read it, I was still trying to figure out who was who. It's like going into a room full of people you don't know and someone tells you that a bunch of them have been fighting over an issue; you're in a unique perspective since you weren't a part of that original discussion, you have almost no actual investment in the issue they are debating, and you can't really tell one person from another right away. That's the problem I was having.
c) Post 471 she lists GIEFF as last on her suspect list with Dour. Now in Post 580 she states that GIEFF was originally one of her most pro-town players because she didn't want to distinguish his play from Dour? Apparently Zilla found Gieff to be one of her top two townies, and didn't even bother to look into his play to make that judgment.
It's not even that I didn't bother to distinguish him
from Dour
that they were both off in their own world, locked in struggle with each other, and hardly commenting on the rest of the game. They were perhaps the last people to come in with unique identities to me. You couldn't look at GIEFF without talking about his relationship with Dour, and vice versa. Since they didn't have any other outstanding stance on other players, nor were they seeking easy targets, they seemed most likely to be town in a
village full of people looking like scum.
You're preying on my replacement heuristics more than anything here.
Goat wrote:5. Inconsistencies/Scummy behavior.
a) Defending BB without an understanding of my case against him. I gave 3 "off the cuff 1 liners" as my vote reasoning. She instantly attributed my case against him as poor for that reason (note above where she employs the same vote style to Mykonian), but yet she didn't even understand the extent of my case. She didn't know what his "suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon" was, yet rejected my case despite being in the dark there. When I did go into detail regarding that, she argued it was a bad case despite having a very incomplete understanding of the situation.
You refused to elaborate on Birthday for a solid 2 pages, and you pretty much
flat out refused to build a case. While this wasn't my initial reason for voting you, that doesn't invalidate that argument. Yes, I didn't have all the facts and I was hitting the ground running on it, but, again, your stated reasons were weak. You're also trying to promote that I attacked them because they were 3 "off the cuff one-liners," when that was only
part of my attack. My other points include that "lack of scumhunting" isn't anything to guarantee scum, and the "suspicious disengage" needed clarification. Even the "lack of solid stances" isn't a very solid scumtell in all.
Yet, you're saying my only problem with your case is the manner in which you present it. That only comes into play when I say you need to give him more to answer for.
goat wrote:b) This has been brought up before, but she was not voting or pursuing Birthday despite him being her top suspect. At post 387, she listed Mykonian at 50%, Panzer at 40%, and myself at 20% in terms of suspicion. Later on, she notes that Birthday was at 75%, and that her suspicion level regarding Birthday had not changed from the time of that post.
I'm going to interrupt you here because this was
already answered. Twice.
Actually three times.
Goat wrote:Why then, was she not voting for, or pressuring Birthday whatsoever, despite him being her top suspect?
Again,
he wasn't my top suspect.
Instead, she was pressuring me (20%)
Answered already.
and her pressure was because I linked to a post detailing my suspicion of Panzer, rather than retype it. Zilla didn't even bother to check that link, because she proceeded to argue against 240, not 295, the post that I had linked.
Oh my god, did you not read
this post?
Zilla wrote:On "linking instead of text," that was for your current opinion on panzer, nothing else. Opinions that are outdated are no good. Arguments that are still valid are perfectly acceptable linking material. Opinions, however, are far quicker to go into expiry than arguments. Furthermore, I answered your BB question and ALSO provided a link. You're also generalizing between the birthday and panzer things, the irony I was going for, without heeding the specifics; namely,
the post you linked to was basically you explaining post 240, from ages ago, and your vote had switched since then, so you'd obviously had a difference in opinion.
Nothing of note had happened regarding birthday since my linked post, and my vote handn't changed, and the situation at large had remained mostly the same.
So rather than attack her top suspect, Birthday, she attacked me, over something entirely meaningless and a misrepresentation (post 240 rather than 295).
I believe this entire quote is completely refuted.
c) However, and I point this out very clearly in Post 554, Zilla then goes on to vote for BB, despite arguing that I was her top suspect over and over again with GIEFF, and despite the idea that BB is less likely to be scum if I am scum.
What, so now you know that you are my top suspect? Pick a side! Also,
this was already addressed.
Furthermore, in a couple of places, she responds in a "why are you attacking me for doing what you said to do" manner, which is suspicious because GIEFF and myself are two players she linked as scum. Why would she ever want to do what her scum team said to do? For reference: Post 575 and Post 592. The first post is a "why are you attacking me for doing what you said to do post" and the 2nd is a gross misrepresentation of the situation, and reflects her mindset of voting Birthday to avoid suspicion rather than because she legitimately believed him most likely to be scum. Again, why would she vote Birthday because the two people she paired as scum (myself, GIEFF) pressured her to do so? I will also note, that I told her to vote Birthday, but she appears to believe that is the case.
I've explained
my reasons for voting Birthday, you and
GIEFF egging me on notwithstanding.
goat wrote:d) Deflection. She loves to defend against a strawman of my arguments or turn it around and attack me "instead" of defending against the point I make. I give 3 examples of deflection in Post 551, although there are more places she does this.
Goat, 551 wrote:Zilla wrote:On the "vote stretching," you can call me a tunneller all you want, but that's how I roll. Check my meta. I don't drift around once I think I have a lead.
Deflection. I never called you a tunneler, nor did I imply that tunneling is scummy in any way. I said that you threw on additional meaningless reasons to suspect me to beef up your case and make it seem more than it actually was, which is scummy. Nice deflection, though.
That's not deflection at all, unless you can prove not only that your "vote stretching" isn't a form of tunnelling, but also that I thought there was a difference at the time I posted that, and that somehow my answer isn't valid when I say that's how I construct my cases, and urge you to check my meta.
Goat wrote:Zilla wrote:On "aggressive defense," you obviously don't know what my argument is, hence your misconstruction. It's the polar opposite between you and BB, and yet those extremes show scum behavior. BB's example, he tries to wholly own his scummy mistakes and therefore somehow nullify them. As if because he's the one pointing out his scummy behavior, hey, it's okay! You are the other kind of scum, that overreact to any suspicion thrown their way. See Charter in my Family Guy meta.
Deflection, again. I said that you were suspicious because of the hypocrisy. You have defended yourself exactly the same way I have, by "overreacting." Note my very first line of this post. You call me scummy for being hypersensitive and aggressive in my defense. You are guilty of the exact same thing. I called you out on the hypocrisy, and here we see you utilize deflection to try to avoid that point.
This isn't deflecting either. I'm saying you don't understand why I'm calling you aggressively defensive, and that I'm not in that category. Even if I were to concede that our defenses are the same, this still wouldn't be deflecting.
Goat wrote:Zilla wrote:On "justifying her position from a town standpoint," nice psycological construction, trying to associate suspecting you with scum. I'm voting for my top suspect. I know you've been making the rounds to see who will follow your BB bandwagon, though that only makes me critical of your attempts to protect panzer.
Holy deflection and misrepresentation batman! I never said or implied that you were scummy for suspecting me. I said you were scummy because according to the Zilla percentage based analysis of who is scum, I was lower on the Zilla-scale than Birthday, yet you were not voting or attacking him whatsoever. Instead you were on me. This is a point I proved earlier in this post, using the evidence you so graciously gave me in your post. I said that I doubted you could back up your stance from a town standpoint, because I don't know how townie can back up ignoring their top suspect to pursue someone else.
This still isn't deflection, and, again, you're trying to say you weren't my top suspect, because some out-of-context answers to unquoted questions can be contrived to say that I thought you had a 20% chance of being scum based on your relationship with Panzer while I later thought that Birthday had a mutually independent chance of 75% to be scum.
=============
Good thing there is a preview button, here's more answering.
Goatrevolt wrote:Zilla wrote:I should add that he doesn't ever actually "shoot down that other reasoning," among those things are his illogical stance on Panzer, who he appears to be covering for yet saying that he thinks is scummy, slipping in the town-mindset farce by thinking we have more information than we really do (see "lynching for information"), attacking Birthday on a weak case (even if Birthday says he "reaches the right conclusions, his initial case on Birthday was
Unvote, Vote Beyond_Birthday
Absence of scumhunting. Suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon. Lack of solid stances
And it should be noted that he accuses me of extending my case, when he does the same to Birthday)
I did shoot down that other reasoning. It looks like GIEFF just provided the links to prove it.
Over to GIEFF:
I don't believe he really does answer the accusation that he's not accountable in that post. He answers everything with *gasp* a deflection! (Go read the thread).
GIEFF wrote:subgenius shoots them down too. I agree with everything subgenius says in this post.
He makes some good points, but there's the whole debate on "reading without a summary" that I don't agree with; as if players providing a summary somehow control my perception of the thread; as if I have to believe anything anyone says to me.
I'd have thought that having a nice concise summary (much like has been asked of Goat) would make case building and evaluating much easier, and anyone who really believed they had any kind of case would be perfectly fine in making a summary. The only ones who would fear it are people who are voting either for dubious reasons or on intentionally mistaken logic. That's almost always the case, from my experience. This may be something we just don't agree on, but there's not a whole lot to be done about it.
GIEFF wrote:[*]In
Zilla's next post, she doesn't specifically address ANYTHING that either Goat or subgenius said. If Zilla really felt these reasons were valid, I feel she would have shown some disagreement, instead of just ignoring them. At the end of this post, she says:
Zilla wrote:That is also why I'm voting Goatrevolt, his reaction tells me that he does not own his case. In fact, from what I've seen so far, nobody owns their case, because they refuse to recapitulate it.
A new reason is presented, although the previous reasons were shown to be faulty (yet not addressed by Zilla). This is the "extending the case" accusation, in action. It is odd that you say NOBODY owns their case, yet present this as a reason for voting for Goat. Why not apply it to anybody else?
They didn't refuse so vehemently; he was the first and the loudest. I attributed part of the further sentiments as just echoing and an attempt not to stick out. I'm almost certain that if the first response was a posted summary, there wouldn't be anybody else reluctant to give one.
GIEFF wrote:[*]
mykonian says, again, that your vote of Goat makes no sense.
militant agrees that your initial reasons are bad, and calls your latest reason (the "case-extender") "laughable."
Beyond_Birthday also tells Zilla why he doesn't agree with her logic.
If I had 5 players telling me my reasons for voting somebody were ridiculous, I would either try to refute them, or drop the case. Zilla did neither.
[*]
In Zilla's next post, instead of explaining why she thinks her previous 4 reasons really are valid, and why the 5 people telling her they are NOT valid are all wrong, she comes up two more reasons (e. "aggressively defensive" and f. "he just switched is vote for poor reasons").
Zilla wrote:Goat's too aggressively defensive, and there have been a few people that might be buddies with him that are riding me for throwing my hat into the ring by voting him, trying to pressure me to take my vote off him because my reasons are bad, when I really see their votes as pretty laughable as well. (seriously, that "townie" slip thing is nothing, the SK argument seems rediculous, and a lot of the quote wars are picking at the stupidest things).
Noting the dynamic that has been created in response to my goat vote, and that he's flying under the radar, AND that he just switched his vote to someone for really poorly made reasons, I'm totally fine keeping my vote there.
Again, this is Zilla extending her case. She presented some reasons when she initially voted Goat. These were shot down. She didn't respond to the fact that they were shot down, and simply threw out a new reason. This new reason was also shot down, and instead of responding, she threw out TWO MORE reasons. Double-case extension.
You're skipping the parts where I defend asking for a summary:
Mainly, I've seen way too many arguments in this game based on pretty much nothing at all, and i have to agree with SpringLulliby that there's too much speculation and not enough actual aggressiveness. I don't like how this game is going.
We've got a mannequin in class. Before we ask the instructor anything about our code, we have to explain what our problem is to the mannequin. This is because in the middle of explaining it, we will often realize our own mistake, saving the instructor time.
I'm trying that approach here, because honestly, I haven't seen a case I've liked so far, and also honestly, I don't have a good feel on anybody. Most games, everybody is at least somewhat town. This game, it seems like everyone and their brother are scum.
or where I explain my position on the "he has no votes" bit.
Zilla wrote:
Oh, and to clear something up, not having votes, while it can be a scum tell in that they have successfully dodged town scrutiny, especially when little is known or discussed about them, wasn't used in that context in this case. I was merely saying that my vote isn't a very important vote because it's the only vote on him. If my vote would have put him at L -1, I wouldn't have done it and instead just handed out an FOS.
GIEFF wrote:[*]In
Goat's next post, he resonds to all of Zilla's accusations.
And in
Zilla's "long, boring post" is when the first accusations of misrepresentation start. Many of Zilla's responses to Goat in this post don't respond to what Goat is saying, but simply say "that is false and a misrepresentation" and ignore the point that was trying to be made.
Heh, when I looked back at Goat's post, I was about to answer it again with the same accusations, because they
are
inaccurate.
He claims I'm voting him for his bad vote on Macavity, when I'm voting him for refusing to re-justify it. His initial reasons for voting Macavity aren't too shabby, but he really hadn't been pursuing Macavity at all, and it seemed insincere. The logic is there, but the conviction is not. I guess I thought everybody else knew that and didn't buy his take on it.
I'm reading those posts, and I can't see where I give the impression of not answering his points aside from the misunderstanding about my reasons for voting him. I continued on to explain that I was voting him because he refused to be accountable, which was scummy.
GIEFF wrote:I didn't notice Zilla doing this until she did it to me, but reading back carefully now, it is as clear as day. And from that point forward, the back-and-forth between Goat and Zilla deteriorated into a he-said, she-said morass of quotes, misrepresentations, attacks, emotions, and unreadable wall-o-texts (which just means a big wall of text, i.e. a very long post).
Well, I hope I managed to suffice with my answer to Goat's case.
Back on Goat's point.
Goat wrote:My initial case on BB was not weak. You still have not suggested in any way how three one line statements makes a case weak (and if you do actually believe this, your case on Mykonian would be similarly "weak"). I also have not extended my Birthday case, at all. Where have I done so? You really love to make accusations without any underlying backup.
Initially, the case was because he had demonstrated "a lack of scumhunting, a suspicious disengage from the Panzer wagon, and a lack of solid stances." You refused to clarify the case for a while, then it grew to include parroting GIEFF's reasons for voting Panzer, not actually wanting to lynch Panzer despite saying you should only vote for someone you want to lynch, and, if you count count me including your manner of defense, Birthday's manner of defense.
Goat wrote:Zilla wrote:I also note that he's joining a growing bandwagon; it's possible he saw Birthday had screwed up and felt the need to create distance by voting him and just pulling any reasons he could think of out of the air.
I was joining a growing bandwagon on Birthday? Really? Mykonian was the only other vote. I championed the wagon entirely. Pulled reasons out of thin air? Damn, I must be a skilled magician, because Birthday agreed with my reasoning.
Ah, I just skimmed and saw Mykonian vote twice and thought it was two different people, and that there had been growing speculation on BB when I joined. As for the pulling reasons out of thin air, BB agreed with your much later justification of them, and I don't mean to imply they were totally baseless, but had a very marginal base to begin with. They seem like you didn't actually have a real case, and calling someone a wishy-washy non-scum-hunter with a "suspicious" disengage seems like something that doesn't take too much effort to build against somebody.
Goat wrote:You need to make the rest of your post clearer. I have no idea where you're pulling those quotes from, or what you're trying to even argue.
eh wot? you need to make your demand for clarification clearer, I have no idea which quotes you aren't sure about.
Goat wrote:Zilla wrote:I'm not sure if I've really left anything out or not, and I feel it says something about Goat that I had to dig up his own case for him.
First of all, I mentioned that I was busy. Second of all, you didn't address anything even close to resembling my case on you. You pulled out random posts with stuff you wanted me to address or stuff I didn't address. If you wanted to address my case on you as found within the thread, you would have answered post 551 and 554. What you did here is essentially strawmanning. You pulled random quotes from god knows where and said "Goat didn't back this up, or goat hasn't qualified this, or Goat didn't address my complaint of him" and then argued against those specific points, essentially concluding my entire case is flawed, despite the fact that you haven't addressed the meat of my case at all. Fancy footwork there.
I think I must have missed most of 551/554 somehow, that was during a really busy time when I was on between classes and had lots of projects due. If it's really necessary, I'll go back and answer that monster as well.
Aware of that. However, you are attacking him repeatedly. Assault and battery can lead to death if sustained over a period of time. ~ Cybele