Acosmist wrote:Executive summary: I have a remarkable proof that havingfitz is wrong which this margin is too small to contain.
Not trying to argue with the summary again (see comment below)...but what is the remarkable proof I am wrong...and what am I wrong about? The points I am making towards Cojin? If your remarkable proof is your comments quoted in the post below...I would say your proof is anything but remarkable.
And in honor of Acosmist (and Nacho)...a summary: Acosmist and I disagree in regards to Cojin’s scumminess.
Acosmist wrote:havingfitz wrote:I am not a fan is correct. How does your defense of Cojin exhibit reluctance?
There you go again, arguing with the summary.
I said why my defense is reluctant. There are non-scummy reasons for Cojin to be posting as he does. There are scummy reasons as well. I don't want to ride to his defense and posit all the non-scummy reasons, because he may not be innocent. Further, it's really a person's task to defend himself. Cojin should tell us what he meant by things and defuse the attacks on him himself. Even so, those attacks have not been argued well and I'm ready to dissect them. So, I see attacks on Cojin that are wrongheaded, so I defend him, but it'd be ideal for him to provide some explanatory notes and defenses himself, so my defense is reluctant.
I did not argue with the summary...I asked you to explain a comment you made within it. How is asking for clarification arguing?
Acosmist wrote:havingfitz wrote:I am in agreement with Cojin that Lawls is scummy.
Detente! Excellent.
Sort of...though I should have said Cojin is in agreement with me.
Acosmist wrote:havingfitz wrote:I’m the source of the meaning?
Yes, you are, because Cojin never exhibited the contradiction you seem to think he did. Panacea expressed an opinion about L-3 that was belied by her subsequent actions. Cojin called her on this anomaly. Cojin never took a stand on whether Panacea's opinion was good or bad; he took a stand against the contradiction between her statement and her action. What Cojin actually thought about L-3 or L-2 was not revealed
until he expressed shock that so many votes accumulated on Panacea
. Nothing he did before or has done since has contradicted that attitude.
I disagree.
Acosmist wrote:havingfitz wrote:WTF? Would you say a large part of this game is to interpret the actions and comments of other players? For me the answer is yes and that is what I am doing with Cojin. So yes I am the source of the meaning as it is my interpretation of Cojin’s words and actions.
Your interpretation depends on reading Cojin's mind.
How do you derive your interpretations...assuming you use interpretation in mafia to begin with.
Acosmist wrote:havingfitz wrote:He didn’t exclaim when people (Lawls and EF) were put at L-3 by Pan but did when she was put at L-3 (actually L-2) by Edprata.
As I said, he's not estopped from ever expressing shock at L-3 or L-2 situations just because he didn't before.
We disagree.
Acosmist wrote:havingfitz wrote:I see an inconsistency with the way he treated both situation. He called Pan out for her behavior and then basically did the same thing he called her out on.
No, he certainly did not. Panacea made a categorical statement about L-3, then acted in a way contrary to that statement. Here's what Cojin said (emphasis mine):
Cojin wrote:Wow have we seriously put
her
at l3 already?
Cojin did not express shock that we put anyone at L-3, but that we put Panacea at L-3.
That should warn you against leaping to the conclusion that Cojin thinks all L-3 situations at that point are bad. Maybe it was something about the Panacea case that shocked him. That'd be a pretty common opinion - more than one of us has pointed out that the case against her was garbage.
What? You say he did not express shock that we put anyone at L-3....but that we put Pan at L-3. What? Pan falls under the category of anyone for me. As do Lawls and EF whose placement at L-3 did not get the same response.
Acosmist wrote:Is my interpretation of Cojin correct? I don't know. But it's at least as plausible as yours. The doubt I retain in my mind is something I don't see in your case, although the attitudes you ascribe to him are just as doubtful.
At least as plausible? Fine.
Acosmist wrote:havingfitz wrote:Uh...I read Cojin’s posts fine. His ISO 2 and 3 posts were cr@p and he still hasn’t answered my questions.
Nope. You misread the grammar, which he corrected in the next post. You haven't been reading carefully. You accused him of not paying attention; well, tu quoque.
Fitz, “No he didn’t.” Acosmist, “Yes he did.” Fitz, “No he didn’t.” Acosmist, “Yes he did.” Fitz, “No he didn’t.” Acosmist, “Yes he did.”
Please stop -->
Acosmist wrote:havingfitz wrote:I’m not dismissing anything. If anything I am doing the opposite of dismiss in regards to Cojin’s gameplay so far. Are you dismissing his play?
You're dismissing his points when they aren't expressed in the more coherent way.
I decoded the gibberish;
now you can't ignore his points. Continuing to dismiss them because he's not the best writer is wrong.
Actually...your ‘decoding’ doesn’t really help his comment any and he has still avoided answering my questions from the post where he ‘explained’ (unsuccessfully IMO) his previous comments. But at least you agree it is gibberish that required an effort to decode.
Acosmist wrote:havingfitz wrote:Well...considering Cojin quotes me and paraphrases me in his assessment/vote of Lawls...no, I don’t disagree. I’m just not as impressed with his scumhunting efforts towards Lawls as you are.
I am not nominating him for the Scumhunting Navy Cross or anything.
High five.
Acosmist wrote:havingfitz wrote:So in summary...if Cojin does something positive he gets a point, but if he does something scummy like spread a misconception...just gloss over it?
Uh, no. If he does something positive, he gets a point. If he does something scummy, we don't put our fingers in our ears and pretend the positive thing never happened.
Don't misrepresent me. That's a massive, massive warning sign for me.
A massive, massive warning sign? That sounds ominous. I’ll explain again and hope it catches this time. You felt the need to give Cojin a point for making a good comment. OK. I pointed out in his next comment that he should have a point removed for making a bad comment. Totally unrelated to the good comment point you awarded. You gave him a point for good. I took a point away for bad.
Acosmist wrote:havingfitz wrote:I disagree...him responding to a question by reiterating minor accusations he took from someone else is not applying pressure. It’s weak participation.
Pretty sure Cojin had original thoughts about Lawls.
How would you know? His first mention of lawls is in the post he votes for Lawls...in which he derives his suspicions from comments I made...which he quotes within that same post. So once again...how would you know Cojin had original thoughts on Lawls? Your comment would require “reading Cojin's mind.”
Acosmist wrote:havingfitz wrote:Call away. My opinion is that if he isn’t making sense (and his ISO post is...once again...cr @p) he’s talking gibberish and not bringing anything to the game.
I translated what he said. It's time to stop hiding behind the gibberish canard.
There is nothing misleading about my opinion. Your translation made more sense than his comments but does not remove the fact that Cojin’s posting is often gibberish, IMO. I’m not a fan of reading what someone says and trying to piece together what they intend to say. I don’t seem to have the same issue with the other 7 players in the game.
Acosmist wrote:Elementary Fermion wrote:I think what Acosmist is saying is that getting something wrong (innocently) does not change the fact you got something right earlier.
[many words]
If Cojin leads us to a correct lynch, but only because it was his partner and not because of his analysis, then his point in retrospect was not deserved at all. This I believe to be the point Acosmist was making.
Yes. You get it! Perhaps havingfitz thought my explanation was gibberish, and thus of no relevance.
It’s enough we have to wade through multiple screens worth of your long winded, bombastic posts without you adding a dash of smartass.