I am unsure if you are capable of rational thought in this game. I don't think hiab was trying toDur-Galad wrote:My statement was true. He did the following (please note that I am attempting to be scientific to some extent, once the word evidence starts coming into play):Thesp wrote:You said he gave no evidence"other than the word "ssssscummy" that he used"(emphasis mine). You then said it's not evidence, it's only "data you used to form your hypothesis".
1) pointed out an unusual phenomenon - Macros said the word "ssssscummy"
2) offered a hypothesis - Macros is scum with a restriction to do something "snake-like" once a day.
3) concluded that he was "really suspicious" of Macros for this.
Hedid not dothe following:
- suggest alternate hypotheses to explain the phenomenon (I personally doubt he even considered any)
- offer any evidence that any alternative hypothesis is false
- offer any evidence that his own hypothesis is true
Effectively, I refuted his claim that I had not considered his evidence by stating that he did not in fact offer any evidence to consider. I do not believe the point has been argued, and I do not believe there can be any argument.
1) You could offer the following evidence:Thesp wrote:Now, suppose that someone does indeed have a post-restriction that makes them use a elongated "s" in one post per day. Quiz for Dur-Galad,
(1) What sort of evidence would you find for it?
(2) What sort of role is most likely to have such a post restriction?repeated"snake-like" actions; the existance of some sort of similar post restriction having occurred in the past; some explanation - and preferably evidence to support it - of the plausibility of Macros having two post restrictions, or somehow showing that it is plausible that he has only the "snake-like actions" restriction; suggestion and evidence against any other plausible reasons for the original phenomenon.
None of these were offered, and the burden of proof restssquarelyon hiab.
2) If the post restriction were to exist, I believe it is more likely possessed by a scum than otherwise. Your question is fallacious, however, in that my central point revolves around the plausibility of hiab's assertion of the "do a snake-like thing" restriction, NOT whether or not having such a post restriction is scummy. Furthermore, I would still be uncomfortable lynching Macros based simply on having a probably-scummy post restriction.
(Played by some guy (Played by help im a bug)) -Man in Aisle 23, Seat 2, Vanilla TownieAloha Fresno. You didn't even know there was a movie being made. You're just trying to get home to Fresno, where the people are friendly and the cows grow tall. But is that...Samuel L. Jackson over there?! (Hint: You are vanilla.) All scum must be dead for the Passengers to win.
And then you put him lynch -1 on the next post. There's no way you could have info on him. Not asking for a claim, but what did you mean by that post?*assumes fetal position and start rocking back and forth*
If hiab doesn't claim soon, against my better judgement, I will claim.
Smashy wrote:MOD:What was Glork's pre-cult status?
I debated on revealing this but perhaps it's for the best.(Played by some fat guy (Played by Glork)) -Man Eating Hot Dog, Vanilla Townie100% Kosher. You're obviously meant for more than this. Those years of trying to make a big break onto the scene finally got you in a movie alongside the great Samuel L. Jackson. Maybe not the guy that gets the girl, but you take small victories as they come. (Hint: You are vanilla.) The Passengers win when all scum are dead. Please confirm via PM.
Typo there. The second claim should have said vote.Smashy wrote:PBuG:
And then you put him lynch -1 on the next post. There's no way you could have info on him. Not asking for a claim, but what did you mean by that post?*assumes fetal position and start rocking back and forth*
If hiab doesn't claim soon, against my better judgement, I will claim.
