Long post in coming!!!
magnus orginal claim:
Town should be trying to ask me questions at this point, or at least trying to get me to talk more, scum will be trying to push town skepticism toward suspicion by making drawn out explanations, but not asking questions. (well, he does ask questions, but they serve rhetorical purpose, not inquisitive)
unvote vote: Farside22
I can point to games where this scumtell has been successful, if people want me to.
1) I asked questions and yes one was definately not retheorical. Claiming I'm not trying to get him to talk more.
However, that's still irrelevant, since Jack did not make an attempt to try and convince others of his opinion, so there's no real scum motivation behind it, just not fulfilling the town motivation. I wasn't lying when I said I assume that people are town unless I think I have reason to suspect otherwise.
Now we come more to this is trying to convince people that I'm saying scum lets lynch
However, I think that scum would be more likely make cases this early in the game that do not have systems for attempting to continue conversation to gather more evidence
Goes back to not trying to carry a converstaion even after I showed how my questions.
Tries to down play his own case here;
As to your other point, its not really relevant, because just because my point is scum like to try to convince town doesn't mean that scum don't also try to avoid making claims. Some scum behave differently than others. It would be silly to layout a single criteria and say that every scum you run into will behave exactly like this.
Richard isn't trying to convince people, he's just calling for more people...
Again not showing any evidence of this.
The meat of the argument;
Everything you posted was evidence for (1)
And then you reached the conclusion (3)
To get from (1) to (3) you need an implicit premise (2) which allows for the argument to work.
You never actually said (2). You threw up a bunch of stuff I did, and declared it to be scummy.
You never gave a reason why the actions I committed were scummy.
I note the same wording used when he is cornered by EB as well here:
I'd like to see your rationale for why my actions are scummy (you've only stated what actions you think are scummy). Especially given that what I've been doing, in your view, is just an extension of the RVS (now, I don't think that that's true, but it's interesting that you think the RVS [or at least, the thought behind it] is scummy)
belittle a case again:
I'm questioning the premise that if you can prove "magnus is making no sense" then it follows "magnus is scum"
While even if I agree I was making little to no sense, I contend that that still doesn't make me scum.
Yes, they showed, in essence things that I said, and then you declared each in turn, ridiculous.
Did you, or did you not, explain a motivation for why scum (and not town) would commit those actions that you have pointed out as me doing.
Now I have to show how town or why scum does these things
"Prove" is a very strong word. You've proven very little, if anything, in this game. To prove something is to show that, without any reasonable objection, something is absolutely true.
Being bombastic and disagreeing is not proving something wrong.
being a lawyer now
Affirming that I realized you had asked questions, but they were more statements of ridiculousness, not actual questions you intended to be answered.
back to this even though I showed a question that expected an answer
goes back to the old standby and seems to think he should not have to explain why
However, I think that scum would be more likely make cases this early in the game that do not have systems for attempting to continue conversation to gather more evidence. Its simply too early, there is simply too little information, for you not to want to try to gain more and make sure your right.
Surely I needn't quote you in order to explain why or how? There's my explanation, right there.
Shows no evidence of this theory. Continues in the didn't engage comments but clearly we are engaging each other at this point.
Offered to, in the post from which "magnus original vote and reason: " came from. Nobody asked for me to further back it up. This is just a reiteration of my original point, if you didn't get that the first time you read it.
Why would anyone have to ask for this. I don't know any town reason to hid or fluff a case from thin air
Here is how he is apperently reading the case I made and guessing how players react to the case:
"XYZ is scum, WAGON GO!" I'm not going to have people saying, "That makes perfect sense, I agree completely, 'WAGON GO!' totally convinces me that XYZ is scum, and I should vote for him"
Why? Because "WAGON GO!" offers nothing in the range of logic or reasoning, it is an emotional outburst that does not attempt to assert a defensible position. Does that make sense? If not, be sure to let me know, so I can further elaborate on this.
Oh and apparently he thinks his reasoning is obvious again which means if you don't get it apparently your dumb:
Yes, I would prefer that you ask me to explain or back something up, so that it doesn't leave me explaining things that are "obvious". You may have noticed I have none of that so-called "common sense", so I can't tell what should be obvious and what shouldn't.
Oh look now EB is being accused of the same thing here:
@EB: While I don't really care that you're voting me, I do want to point out something I found rather interesting.
At first I thought you were merely being cautious, but this recent vote calls that into question.
You see, you've been encouraging my lynch for a while now, saying things like "the magnus wagon is a good wagon" etc. etc.
more hypocrisy on OMGUS
You claim your ulterior motive was related to not voting, with the reasoning that you were afraid of "omgus". Well, I think omgus is a ridiculous accusation, said as much, so that fear should have been alleviated.
Tell me again is OMGUS scum or town modivated. Your calling it both leaves you ton's of wiggle room.
Except, they're not. And no matter what words you use, or what you call it, you can't change that my express intent was to provoke reactions, and your intent was not.
But he can say my intent was show he was scum and zomg lets lynch him with no evidence what's so ever.
Hey look here is the intent again
It was a rather outrageous accusation with very little substance, thus it would produce reaction.
LOL This is I said next to nothing to provoke a response but that's okay because it produced a reaction. Well guess what buddy my post may have been long but it certain produced a reaction from you.
Both, don't try to draw the conversation out to gather evidence. What I had said originally.
You want to point how my intent interwines with another player in another game I think that gives me a ton of rights to show you throwing crap up again.
They don't try to draw out the conversation to gather evidence and, instead, they attempt to convince other players of a position."
Oh look back to the old standby again I answered that I was drawing out conversation. Showed that I ased questions and so far nothing I can find in my post shows me convincing anyone of anything.
I still don't think that you were asking those questions with any intent in mind to actually get answers in your original post.
Tell me how this isn't scummy now?
Basically, just because he was more concise than you, it doesn't mean that his intent was any different.
Back to the intent of a player.
far wrote:Which I never used those words like Dour did and I showed reason's I found your logic and case faulty on EB.
Dour showed reasons, he found my backing off a person to be suspicious, as well as parts of my tone, which he indicated. Difference of specific words doesn't count for much when it comes to intent of writing
Again this doesn't seem right. he wants to down play the case I laid out by comparing it to what Dour did saying tone and intent doesnt' change anything.
So basically for the reading impaired:
Cases from mag on far: go from not asking question, not provoking a response to intent to have him lynched and back and forth among the 3 over and over again completely ignoring his own comments he makes about intent.
Ignores questions asked and saying their rhetorical. Saying his intent because of a small post is to push conversation but mine didn't even though my post clearly did do that
Now magnus as held most dear to the intent word like a shield which in fact of the defination and my own knowlegdge of what I was saying and why I said it which god knows do I need to say again why I showed the case in the first place? intent is simply a feeling based on a post that has no evidence (IE gut) and I'm sure I could say till I'm blue in the face that my case is valid it marked with questions, comments and show's someone making a weak case off of a joke comment.
Sarcasm is just a way of saying how stupid you think someone is but in a more polite way.
