Mini 859 - Cleansing of Falls Church - Over
-
-
DeathRowKitty sheFrogshe
- Frog
- Frog
- Posts: 6296
- Joined: June 7, 2009
- Pronoun: she
-
-
Kreriov Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: February 23, 2009
"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.Last edited by Kreriov on Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.Kreriov
-Most people are like slinkies. Not really good for anything but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down stairs.-
-
Kreriov Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: February 23, 2009
-
-
Idiotking Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: December 21, 2008
- Location: somewhere over the rainbow
-
-
DeathRowKitty sheFrogshe
- Frog
- Frog
- Posts: 6296
- Joined: June 7, 2009
- Pronoun: she
-
-
Shrinehme Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 324
- Joined: February 20, 2009
- Location: NJ/PA
I think that the argument is over a small detail that's pretty trivial in the first place.
Brothernature also fits that description, no? What makes EtherealCookie appeal to you more?Idiotking wrote:
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.Looker wrote: @BigBear & IdiotKing: Are you still happy with your current position on the Cookie wagon?
Vote: Brothernature-
-
DeathRowKitty sheFrogshe
- Frog
- Frog
- Posts: 6296
- Joined: June 7, 2009
- Pronoun: she
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.I think that the argument is over a small detail that's pretty trivial in the first place.
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 Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 324
- Joined: February 20, 2009
- Location: NJ/PA
I read it. I disagree. I wouldn't have been set off by Nook's post.ZazieR wrote:
It seemed unprovoked? Did you actually see Nook's comment to him? He was provoked.Shrinehme wrote: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.
[teach]These posts show how dangerous sarcasm can be if you don't like to be insulted[/teach]
BigBear's No Lynch vote and Shrinehme vote were fresh, relevant and discussable. Just the first person who came to mind.ZazieR wrote:
Still doesn't explain why you asked about Bear, instead of the player who you were voting.
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.ZazieR wrote:
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?
Wanted to hear more from EtherealCookie.ZazieR wrote:Post 115 – Why ask EC about Bear,Shrine?
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 doifthey'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.
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.ZazieR wrote: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 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.
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..ZazieR wrote:
When did this occur (The change of the tone)?
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.ZazieR wrote:What changed?
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 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1221
- Joined: July 15, 2009
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.DRK wrote: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.
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 sheFrogshe
- Frog
- Frog
- Posts: 6296
- Joined: June 7, 2009
- Pronoun: she
Weird. You only seem to say that when you're out of valid responses.I'm done talking about this
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:
, 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.You asked the question with the clear purpose of starting a discussion about a Jester.
Not long later, I post this statement:
to which he responds:I'm not seeing how the original point is valid at all...
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.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.
Next, we get this quote from CA:
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."Absolutely. You said yourself that's what you were implying, so it's natural to assume you would have followed up with your implications.
I quote this post in its entirety because it's just so full of crap I don't want to miss anything:
Let's analyze the three paragraphs seperately (and out of order):CA wrote:
I believe you intended to start a conversation about jesters because you said so yourself. Your ignorance of your own post is telling.DRK wrote: 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?
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.
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 Iintendedto 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:
[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?Implying a jester is starting a conversation by placing the thought into the thread.
Here's CA's next post:
Now suddenly, I started the conversation about jesters. Of course, realizing he's cornered, he tries to make the argument sound trivial.You started it . . . whats the point of arguing this point? There is very little difference between either argument.
Now, in his most recent post, we get this:
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).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.
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 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1221
- Joined: July 15, 2009
My, you really enjoy making a mountain out of a mole hill, don't you?
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.DRK wrote:, 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.
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.DRK wrote: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.
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.DRK wrote: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."
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.DRK wrote: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?
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.DRK wrote:[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?
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.DRK wrote: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).-
-
DeathRowKitty sheFrogshe
- Frog
- Frog
- Posts: 6296
- Joined: June 7, 2009
- Pronoun: she
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?CA wrote: 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.
If it was such a trivial point and you wanted to shelve the argument, then why were you still voting me?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.
Even though I just asked for a yes or no answer?By posting about a subject, you are attempting to start a conversation about that subject.
Oh really?I have never said that you said you inteneded to start a conversation about a jester.CA wrote:I believe you intended to start a conversation about jesters because you said so yourself.
It's still possible, but I'll concede this point.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.-
-
DeathRowKitty sheFrogshe
- Frog
- Frog
- Posts: 6296
- Joined: June 7, 2009
- Pronoun: she
Also, how does
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.CA wrote:
Absolutely. You said yourself that's what you were implying, so it's natural to assume you would have followed up with your implications.DRK wrote: Do you think a discussion about jesters would have started because of my post had nook not mentioned jesters?-
-
ConfidAnon Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1221
- Joined: July 15, 2009
His posts before now, I'm neutral about. But I would like for him to comment on this argument.DRK wrote: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?
Me not arguing about it does not mean that you weren't scummy.DRK wrote:If it was such a trivial point and you wanted to shelve the argument, then why were you still voting me?
Yes.DRK wrote:Even though I just asked for a yes or no answer?
Forgot about that post, but that boils down to implying = sparking discussion.DRK wrote:Oh really?
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 Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2191
- Joined: August 6, 2009
- Location: A crowded movie theater
ConfidAnon:
Could you state your case against DRK as you now understand it?Don't fake the funk on a nasty dunk.-
-
Looker theStenographerthe
- Stenographer
- Stenographer
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: February 20, 2009
- Pronoun: the
-
-
DeathRowKitty sheFrogshe
- Frog
- Frog
- Posts: 6296
- Joined: June 7, 2009
- Pronoun: she
Your inability to read your own posts is alarming. Your tendency to change your stance when your current stance looks bad is also alarming.I said yes, becauseeither 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.
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?Me not arguing about it does not mean that you weren't scummy.
Yes. Yes it does.It takes 7 to lynch. 7-
-
DeathRowKitty sheFrogshe
- Frog
- Frog
- Posts: 6296
- Joined: June 7, 2009
- Pronoun: she
-
-
Kreriov Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: February 23, 2009
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.Kreriov
-Most people are like slinkies. Not really good for anything but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down stairs.-
-
EtherealCookie Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 662
- Joined: August 23, 2009
-
-
DeathRowKitty sheFrogshe
- Frog
- Frog
- Posts: 6296
- Joined: June 7, 2009
- Pronoun: she
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 sheFrogshe
- Frog
- Frog
- Posts: 6296
- Joined: June 7, 2009
- Pronoun: she
-
-
Peabody Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1655
- Joined: July 17, 2009
I'm going to
unvote ZazieR; vote brothernature
I'm pretty sure he's scum.
I've also got anFOS DeathRowKittyfor 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 toFoS ConfidAnonbecause the inconsistencies which DRK pointed out are scary.-
-
BigBear Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 258
- Joined: July 6, 2009
- Location: The Forest
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.
-
Mostly to start discussion. I felt as if the RVS was carrying on for quite some time.ZazieR wrote:Post 83 – Why this vote,BigBear? You dodged it when Sanjay asked.
-
To give that Chainsaw Defense against me some merit? Mostly to bandwagon for some discussion.ZazieR wrote:Post 104 – Why,Bear?
-
Mostly from Mastin.ZazieR wrote:
Not buying this explanation. How did you get the idea to vote yourself?BigBear wrote:
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!Looker wrote:Who had the most votes when BigBear decided to go no lynch?
I also don’t like this defence:Bear wrote: 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?
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.
-
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).ZazieR wrote:
-The observing, while not discussing.Sanjay wrote:Zazie, could you expound a bit on why you voted for brothernature?
-Talking when being called out.
-Vote against Nook.
-Dodging my questions.
-The observations regarding EC
-And the general active lurking when posting.
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.
-
No, I am not at the moment.Looker wrote: @BigBear & IdiotKing: Are you still happy with your current position on the Cookie wagon?
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?
Wait... really... you started this argument against DRK with nothing solid. GG.ConfidAnon wrote:My, you really enjoy making a mountain out of a mole hill, don't you?
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 theStenographerthe
- Stenographer
- Stenographer
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: February 20, 2009
- Pronoun: the
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.