Mini 859 - Cleansing of Falls Church - Over

[DeathRowKitty]

EBWOP EBWOP: Even brothernature's alt has posted since BN's last post here.

[Kreriov]

"

OMG ITS SUPER HOT CHICK ZAZIER! JUST LISTEN TO EVERYTHING SHE HAS TO SAY!

", gushes the paparazzi.

"

Whatever,

", shrugs ConfidAnon, "

Let's lynch DeathRowKitty for saying EC is a Jester

."
"

WHAT! Did not!"

"

Did too!

"
"

Did not

"
"

Did too!

"
"

DID NOT!

"
"

DID TOO!

"
"

DID NOT! YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!

"

"

Oh grow up. Your acting like a gang banger, we need to lynch you, CA!

", says Sanjay.

"

Aw man, Super Hot Chick is leaving us for awhile"

, cries the paparazzi.

Vote Count

brothernature (2) - ZazieR DeathRowKitt
ConfidAnon (1) - Sanjay
DeathRowKitty (1) - ConfidAnon
EtherealCookie (3) - BigBear nook Idiotking
ZazieR (1) - Peabody
nook (1) - brothernature
Shrinehme (1) - EtherealCookie

Not Voting: BigBear Looker Shrinehme

With 12 alive is takes 7 to lynch.

Prods going out shortly.

[Kreriov]

nook has been prodded.

brothernature will not have reached 72 hours of inactivity until 6:30 pm tonight, so I will not be officially prodding him until tomorrow morning.

[Idiotking]

@BigBear & IdiotKing: Are you still happy with your current position on the Cookie wagon?

Nothing's changed to make me reconsider my vote. I prefer getting rid of useless people first so they don't screw things up later when we're in more dire situations.

[DeathRowKitty]

@IK
What do you think of the argument between me and CA?

[Shrinehme]

I think that the argument is over a small detail that's pretty trivial in the first place.

@BigBear & IdiotKing: Are you still happy with your current position on the Cookie wagon?

Nothing's changed to make me reconsider my vote. I prefer getting rid of useless people first so they don't screw things up later when we're in more dire situations.

Brothernature also fits that description, no? What makes EtherealCookie appeal to you more?

Vote: Brothernature

[DeathRowKitty]

I think that the argument is over a small detail that's pretty trivial in the first place.

My point isn't the small detail we're fighting over; it's that he's clinging to an argument that's provably wrong and he's changed his position back and forth as I've shot down his argument. I'm just waiting on CA's response and then I'll make a more detailed post.

Speaking of making arguments that are blatantly wrong, I might have "accidentally" miscounted the votes on hiphop in Internal Struggle Mafia to make IK look bad . I'm kind of surprised no one noticed actually...

[Shrinehme]

Seemed unprovoked. I see little purpose for this tidbit thrown into his post: "Oh, by the way, you are a total idiot nook. And I never new you were gay." ... other than to start an argument with Nook, which could have strategic distancing value.

It seemed unprovoked? Did you actually see Nook's comment to him? He was provoked.
[teach]These posts show how dangerous sarcasm can be if you don't like to be insulted[/teach]

I read it. I disagree. I wouldn't have been set off by Nook's post.

Post 115 – Why ask EC about Bear,

Shrine

?

Wanted to hear more from EtherealCookie.

My reason for asking was more for the Bear part. Your vote was against Far_Cry at that moment. Yet, instead of asking EC what his opinion is of your top suspect (which was based upon you thinking he was distancing with Nook), you asked him about Bear. So why not one of your top suspicions?

It's unfair to say Far_Cry could be called a "top suspect" of mine at that point. I did not analyze everyone's behavior up until that point and think he was most suspicious. The vote was thrown his way casually based on a mere observation/possibility.

Still doesn't explain why you asked about Bear, instead of the player who you were voting.

BigBear's No Lynch vote and Shrinehme vote were fresh, relevant and discussable. Just the first person who came to mind.

You seem to be under the impression that I should be asking other people for the thoughts of who I'm voting. Which is what one should do

if

they're trying to push for someone's lynch, in order to try to sway people to see your line of thinking, or at the very least, gain information.

But given that, as I already told you, I wasn't actually pushing for Far_Cry's lynch; that my Far_Cry vote was really more of a casual or RVS-ish vote, why does it matter whether I'm getting EtherealCookie's opinion of BigBear or Far_Cry? As I said also, my goal wasn't really to get opinions of BigBear; rather just to get EtherealCookie to join in the discussion and talk more. Information is yielded either way.

You should have. Your impression was that Bear was trying to lure out scum by acting scummy. Yet, you later found out that this wasn't the case. I'm surprised that you didn't question his motives due to that.
Also, is self-voting scummy or not?

Elaboration: You gave an explanation why Bear could act like that, before Bear could explain, giving him an excuse if he needed it.

Self-voting varies. In the game a played with IdiotKing before I dropped out, for example, he began to martyr-ize himself ["just lynch me already and see I'm town", or something like that] when it began to look like he was going to be lynched. He consequently flipped town.

Self-voting doesn't benefit the Town, but it's not an alignment tell; a person can get frustrated and give up regardless of their alignment.

It seems silly to hold "giving him a way out" against me when a person who votes No Lynch as he did is either 1) a noob, 2) gambiting in some form, or 3) generating discussion. Since the former doesn't apply to BigBear, I doubted he would dig himself into a ditch without knowing already how he was going to get out of it.

It did cross my mind that I may have been giving my thoughts too soon, but I dismissed it.

What changed?

Tone of the game. My vote for him is nice for reaction-searching in RVS/early post-RVS. Not something to follow up with a lynch based off of.

When did this occur (The change of the tone)?

The game took a more serious turn around page 6. I did want to include a Vote: Brothernature in Post 173, but I didn't want to give up the Far_Cry vote at the time. Because 1) I didn't want it to seem as though I dismissed him, and 2) he'd fell off of the radar after some vote piled onto him..
The time you replaced in, I decided to take it off. Your post 242 [which I quoted] prompted me to look for a better vote.

[ConfidAnon]

My point is that you're being inconsistent. Unless you can reconcile your statements and show me a post where I either started a conversation about jesters or said I was trying to start a conversation about jesters (or whatever your view is supposed to be) IN YOUR NEXT POST, my vote will land on you IN MY NEXT POST.

Caps don't scare me. Your question implied a jester. You were the first person in the thread to do so. Therefore, you started the conversation about a jester. I'm done talking about this because, as Peabody pointed out, it's trivial.

I've kept it going in the past because I like to argue. But now we are to the point where we are talking in circles. I've already pointed out the post several times before.

[DeathRowKitty]

I'm done talking about this

Weird. You only seem to say that when you're out of valid responses.

---

The entire argument I've been having with CA has been over, as shrine called it, "a small detail." However, it's a big deal in the context of what happened before it.

CA's "case" on me started in this post. I think I've already said enough about the inaccuracy of the content of this post, so I won't go into detail on that in this post. Just notice that the entire case is based on the premise that I started the jester conversation. Without that premise, the entire case falls apart. That's where this argument comes in.

A few posts later, upon realizing that nook was the first one to specifically mention a jester, we get this quote buried in one of CA's posts:

You asked the question with the clear purpose of starting a discussion about a Jester.

, mixed of course with insistence that I started the conversation about jesters. This in and of itself is contradictory. Sure the quote doesn't explicitly say I didn't start the conversation, but saying I intended to start the conversation about jesters is a pretty big concession to make considering he's compromising on the foundation of his argument.

Not long later, I post this statement:

I'm not seeing how the original point is valid at all...

to which he responds:

Meh, I'm not gonna restate the case again. I believe that you were the one who sparked the jester discussion, you believe that you didn't and that nook did. We'll agree to disagree.

The person with a vote on me decides we should agree to disagree. Interesting. If his case has merit, why wouldn't he want to advertise it to the rest of the game? Notice also that he says he thinks I honestly believe that nook started the jester conversation. That's basically admitting I wasn't trying to start the jester conversation, which nullifies his entire case. Logically, his vote is still on me at this point. When questioned, he retracts that statement and changes it to the contents of this post. When questioned further, he says his theory is no longer as strong as it was, a happy medium between defending garbage and admitting he was wrong.

Next, we get this quote from CA:

Absolutely. You said yourself that's what you were implying, so it's natural to assume you would have followed up with your implications.

According to this, I no longer started the jester conversation. Suddenly, his stance has changed to the fact that I would have started the conversation given the opportunity, a huge assumption to be basing an entire case on. This quote comes after Zazie pointed out where I told IK I just wanted a yes or no answer, so I don't see any logical reason to assume I would have "followed up with [my] implications."

I quote this post in its entirety because it's just so full of crap I don't want to miss anything:

Given what Zazie quoted in post 425, why do you think I was intending to start a conversation about jesters? Also, how did your position change from me starting the conversation about jesters to me planning to start the conversation about jesters?

I believe you intended to start a conversation about jesters because you said so yourself. Your ignorance of your own post is telling.

Post 388 is where I quoted the post where you admitted that you were implying a jester.

My position has not changed, I don't know why you believe it has.

Let's analyze the three paragraphs seperately (and out of order):
1) I never once said I intended to start a conversation about jesters and when asked to find such a post, CA failed to produce one. Notice also that he once again says I

intended

to start a conversation about jesters, as opposed to his previous stance that I did start the conversationa about jesters.
3) His position didn't change? Really? Going from saying I started the conversation about jesters to saying I intended to, when that's the foundation of his case, isn't changing his position?
2) I admitted I was implying a jester=I admitted I wanted to start a conversation about a jester? I suppose I implied it instead of mentioning it outright to increase the odds of that conversation occurring?

Questioned once again, CA gives us another gem:

Implying a jester is starting a conversation by placing the thought into the thread.

[sarcasm]Nice way to cover your inconsistencies, CA.[/sarcasm] Suddenly, I never actually said I intended to start a conversation about a jester; now I said I was implying a jester. I guess, naturally, this amounts to a confession of intending to start a conversation about jesters?

Here's CA's next post:

You started it . . . whats the point of arguing this point? There is very little difference between either argument.

Now suddenly, I started the conversation about jesters. Of course, realizing he's cornered, he tries to make the argument sound trivial.

Now, in his most recent post, we get this:

Your question implied a jester. You were the first person in the thread to do so. Therefore, you started the conversation about a jester. I'm done talking about this because, as Peabody pointed out, it's trivial.

He's finally solidified his position. I started the conversation about a jester by being the first to imply a jester in one of my posts. In his nervousness, he even messed up the person who called the argument trivial (Peabody instead of shrine).

tl; dr
CA is scum. He's been changing his position to accomodate his points being shot down to defend a theory based on incorrect evidence.

Unvote, vote: ConfidAnon

[ConfidAnon]

My, you really enjoy making a mountain out of a mole hill, don't you?

, mixed of course with insistence that I started the conversation about jesters. This in and of itself is contradictory. Sure the quote doesn't explicitly say I didn't start the conversation, but saying I intended to start the conversation about jesters is a pretty big concession to make considering he's compromising on the foundation of his argument.

Alright, time to deconstruct some stuff. How would that be contradictory? You intending to start a conversation about jesters, and you starting a conversation about jesters, do not negate each other. Both points can be valid simultaneously, and you are treating it like they can't.

The person with a vote on me decides we should agree to disagree. Interesting. If his case has merit, why wouldn't he want to advertise it to the rest of the game? Notice also that he says he thinks I honestly believe that nook started the jester conversation. That's basically admitting I wasn't trying to start the jester conversation, which nullifies his entire case. Logically, his vote is still on me at this point. When questioned, he retracts that statement and changes it to the contents of this post. When questioned further, he says his theory is no longer as strong as it was, a happy medium between defending garbage and admitting he was wrong.

Sure, I admit that I worded the post about agreeing to disagreeing poorly. Take it how you will, it's scummy, my mistake. I did not mean to say that you believe that nook started the conversation, I meant that you would not back down from your viewpoint. I was willing to shelve the argument for now and said that it wasn't strong because it was at that time still a very trivial point.

According to this, I no longer started the jester conversation. Suddenly, his stance has changed to the fact that I would have started the conversation given the opportunity, a huge assumption to be basing an entire case on. This quote comes after Zazie pointed out where I told IK I just wanted a yes or no answer, so I don't see any logical reason to assume I would have "followed up with [my] implications."

Of course, you revert back to your faulty logic. You intending to start a conversation and you starting a conversation do not negate each other. Both points can (and in this case, do) validly exists at the same time.

Let's analyze the three paragraphs seperately (and out of order):
1) I never once said I intended to start a conversation about jesters and when asked to find such a post, CA failed to produce one. Notice also that he once again says I intended to start a conversation about jesters, as opposed to his previous stance that I did start the conversationa about jesters.
3) His position didn't change? Really? Going from saying I started the conversation about jesters to saying I intended to, when that's the foundation of his case, isn't changing his position?
2) I admitted I was implying a jester=I admitted I wanted to start a conversation about a jester? I suppose I implied it instead of mentioning it outright to increase the odds of that conversation occurring?

Not acknowleging a response to one of your arguments is scummy. I've supplied the post you ask for in point 1 several times. Please read the thread before you try to make a case. I've already deconstructed point 3. By posting about a subject, you are attempting to start a conversation about that subject. Simple logic will tell you that.

[sarcasm]Nice way to cover your inconsistencies, CA.[/sarcasm] Suddenly, I never actually said I intended to start a conversation about a jester; now I said I was implying a jester. I guess, naturally, this amounts to a confession of intending to start a conversation about jesters?

In this paragraph, you make no point. It's true you never actually said that, you admitting that would be stupid, and I have never said that you said you inteneded to start a conversation about a jester. You did say that you were implying a jester, which does mean that you attempted to start a discussion about that.

He's finally solidified his position. I started the conversation about a jester by being the first to imply a jester in one of my posts. In his nervousness, he even messed up the person who called the argument trivial (Peabody instead of shrine).

Knowingly using crap logic to strengthen a feeble case is scummy. I got a name wrong =/= nervous scum flailing around and getting sloppy. Getting a name wrong = getting a name wrong. Nothing to read into there. Finally solidified my position? That goes back to you arguing that the two points can not exist together, which is a false assumption.

[DeathRowKitty]

You intending to start a conversation about jesters, and you starting a conversation about jesters, do not negate each other. Both points can be valid simultaneously, and you are treating it like they can't.

I made my case under the assumption you aren't stupid. Changing your stance from I started the conversation to I intended to start the conversation would be a horrible mistake if you were honestly scumhunting. If you honestly believed I did start the jester conversation, there's no way you would have lessened your stance to me intending to start the conversation, especially since you consider starting the conversation to be such a big scumtell. Speaking of which, what's your opinion of nook?

I was willing to shelve the argument for now and said that it wasn't strong because it was at that time still a very trivial point.

If it was such a trivial point and you wanted to shelve the argument, then why were you still voting me?

By posting about a subject, you are attempting to start a conversation about that subject.

Even though I just asked for a yes or no answer?

I have never said that you said you inteneded to start a conversation about a jester.

Oh really?

I believe you intended to start a conversation about jesters because you said so yourself.

Knowingly using crap logic to strengthen a feeble case is scummy. I got a name wrong =/= nervous scum flailing around and getting sloppy. Getting a name wrong = getting a name wrong.

It's still possible, but I'll concede this point.

[DeathRowKitty]

Also, how does

Do you think a discussion about jesters would have started because of my post had nook not mentioned jesters?

Absolutely. You said yourself that's what you were implying, so it's natural to assume you would have followed up with your implications.

fit with your statement that I started the conversation? You were making a clear distinction between starting and intending to start a conversation that you're now claiming doesn't exist.

[ConfidAnon]

I made my case under the assumption you aren't stupid. Changing your stance from I started the conversation to I intended to start the conversation would be a horrible mistake if you were honestly scumhunting. If you honestly believed I did start the jester conversation, there's no way you would have lessened your stance to me intending to start the conversation, especially since you consider starting the conversation to be such a big scumtell. Speaking of which, what's your opinion of nook?

His posts before now, I'm neutral about. But I would like for him to comment on this argument.

If it was such a trivial point and you wanted to shelve the argument, then why were you still voting me?

Me not arguing about it does not mean that you weren't scummy.

Even though I just asked for a yes or no answer?

Yes.

Oh really?

Forgot about that post, but that boils down to implying = sparking discussion.

Post 462 - I was responding to your question which you quoted in this post. You asked me that had nook not posted, would it have still started. I said yes, because either A. Someone else would have brought it up after you put the thought into the thread, or B. You would have brought it up yourself.

@ Everyone Else -

feel free to give your thoughts on this argument as well.

[Sanjay]

ConfidAnon:

Could you state your case against DRK as you now understand it?

[Looker]

It takes 7 to lynch.

7

[DeathRowKitty]

I said yes, because

either A. Someone else would have brought it up after you put the thought into the thread, or B.

You would have brought it up yourself.

Your inability to read your own posts is alarming. Your tendency to change your stance when your current stance looks bad is also alarming.

Me not arguing about it does not mean that you weren't scummy.

So let's see if I have this right: You thought it was a trivial detail, yet you kept your vote on me for it because you thought I was scummy, and you had no intention of convincing anyone else by continuing your case?

It takes 7 to lynch. 7

Yes. Yes it does.

[DeathRowKitty]

BN is now lurker-scum who needs a prod.

[Kreriov]

brothernature has been prodded.

Looker fails in her attempt to lynch someone.

Vote Count

brothernature (2) - ZazieR Shrinehme
ConfidAnon (2) - Sanjay DeathRowKitty
DeathRowKitty (1) - ConfidAnon
EtherealCookie (3) - BigBear nook Idiotking
ZazieR (1) - Peabody
nook (1) - brothernature
Shrinehme (1) - EtherealCookie

Not Voting: BigBear Looker

With 12 alive is takes 7 to lynch.

[EtherealCookie]

So, people still voting for me. I'd like to actually hear questions from you, because I don't understand why you still have my votes on me if you have absolutely no questions for me, which would mean you aren't suspicious of me.

[DeathRowKitty]

Three more posts in our lurker scum's other game today. I think he's too happy with the current state of affairs.

Unvote, vote: brothernature

.

@CA
Don't think my vote will stay off of you forever.

[DeathRowKitty]

No one has anything to say about me, CA, or our resident lurker-scum?

[Peabody]

I'm going to

unvote ZazieR; vote brothernature

I'm pretty sure he's scum.

I've also got an

FOS DeathRowKitty

for his unvoting of CA. You seemed really adamant about voting Confid. Now to change your vote to a lurker is alarming.

Also, I'd like to

FoS ConfidAnon

because the inconsistencies which DRK pointed out are scary.

[BigBear]

Damn CTR+C!!!!!!!!!
I erased everything. Starting from scratch again depresses me. Therefore, I will only do generalizations, where as I won't be directly responding.

Well, I can't find what I had done at the beginning of this post, so if i'm missing anything, please let me know, and be patient.

@ Zazie,
-Every post of mine has been serious, aside from Iso #3.
-

Post 83 – Why this vote,

BigBear

? You dodged it when Sanjay asked.

Mostly to start discussion. I felt as if the RVS was carrying on for quite some time.
-

Post 104 – Why,

Bear

?

To give that Chainsaw Defense against me some merit? Mostly to bandwagon for some discussion.
-

Who had the most votes when BigBear decided to go no lynch?

I'm gonna shoot down that theory of... whose ever it was. I chose to vote no lynch, to generate discussion. Look it worked. I mostly wanted to get out of the RVS. Looks like we made it yay!

Not buying this explanation. How did you get the idea to vote yourself?
I also don’t like this defence:

So scummy that i can't be scum? This isn't Zwet-mafia. No, I'm not really implying Wifom. And i don't even understand psychology that much, what makes you think that I know how to perfect reverse psychology?

Mostly from Mastin.

As for the second explanation. I can't think off the top of my head for anything else, regarding that defense. I would probably have to go back to the surrounding posts regarding that quote, and even then my explanation would be tainted.
-

Zazie, could you expound a bit on why you voted for brothernature?

-The observing, while not discussing.
-Talking when being called out.
-Vote against Nook.
-Dodging my questions.
-The observations regarding EC
-And the general active lurking when posting.

But isn't Nook scummy? Even in your list back on page....14 was it? Nook came up with the Jester idea, which I think is a great reason to lynch nook. (other than that, your first dash and last ones are basically the same)(other than that, i would say your spot on).


Reading through, I don't like this post at all of Confids. How do you know he wasn't implying town?

-I think that DRK is just frustrated.
-

@BigBear & IdiotKing: Are you still happy with your current position on the Cookie wagon?

No, I am not at the moment.

Why I think you are wrong Confid.
1. Nook started the Jester discussion. Because he brought up the idea of a Jester. Easy as that.
2. I sure as hell, would have commented on that, and probably placed a vote on Nook specifically for the Jester comment (wonder why I haven't yet... )
3. Calling DRK out because he commented on it, is BS. Because someone was destined to comment on it as well.
4. If I had been the first one to comment on it, would you have called me out so quickly?

My, you really enjoy making a mountain out of a mole hill, don't you?

Wait... really... you started this argument against DRK with nothing solid. GG.


Unfortunately BN's play here remotely matches that Newbie game half of us were in. However, I remember him mentioning somewhere, that he likes active games. Maybe this isn't fast enough for him? Although I doubt that.

But, I'm on the fence between two people, BN, and Confid. Getting serious scum vibes from Confid, but BN's play is extremely sad.

I'm going to wait until a vote count, to vote.
@

Mod, can we please have a vote count

[Looker]

Yeah, I second the votecount, I'm lost.

Thanks alot, Peabody!