Scummy, with that last line.Jules wrote:You made this bit up aswell. I've never voted for anyone apart from you and Coron. Worrying how you claim to be townie and yet you use phrases like "if I remember correctly", when if this is the case, you obviously have the memory of a goldfish. Looks more like a contortion of facts however
You are basing you vote on perfect on two posts which, although suspicious, I see them coming from newbie town. Even if I considered perfect's posts newbie-scum, there's still only two of them, against 20 newbie-scum posts from Jules. Furthermore, there's more written in Jules' posts than in Perfect's, meaning more scumminess to extract from them.Zindaras wrote:Hey Stewie, don't you think the votes cast by perfect and luna are typical for new scum?
Yeah, he's overreacting a bit, but I'm not seeing it as typical of new scum...
Jules wrote:Randomvote: Nai
Jules wrote:Ha bad mistake coron, baaaaaaaad mistake
unvote nai, vote coron
Jules wrote:I'm back on the siteunvote Coron
FOS Nai- I can't remember the reasons for voting you before and I think it would be unfair to vote without any evidence, but I know you looked suspicious
Reading his posts in isolation also make me realize how little he has commented on. He's mostly been busy with Nai, and he hasn't voicedJules wrote:vote Nai
No, no, this would be an attack on the person: He has in the past based his arguements on things that didn't happen.Nai wrote: And, Coron, it doesn't matter if he gave reason for attacking me. The "what does a priest know about marriage?" bit is an ad hominem, but it's a logical question, since a priest probably never got married. However, it's an attack on the person, trying to remove the support from their argument by making the person seem unfit to give that argument. And that's what he was doing by 'memory of a goldfish', and THEN, when I said that it was posts lost in the crash, his tune changed.
I agree that the withdrawal in 292 seems off. If anything, Nai's posts made Nai look worse.Kelly Chen wrote:Scummy, with that last line.Jules wrote:You made this bit up aswell. I've never voted for anyone apart from you and Coron. Worrying how you claim to be townie and yet you use phrases like "if I remember correctly", when if this is the case, you obviously have the memory of a goldfish. Looks more like a contortion of facts however
The withdrawal in 292 seems off or premature to me.
Nice contribution to that exchange Coron.
Yes, it might have happened because HE DOESN'T REMEMBER.Nai wrote:That's fine. But the issue is not whether we'll take it in-game or not. The issue is that he actively denied, then said 'maybe'. It's being wishy-washy about it, in addition to trying to evade my statements about him. He's been trying to discredit the statements BEFORE responding to them.
If your argument isn't based on fact, there IS no argument - not an attack on a person but an attack on an argument. When you posted the original post and I attacked it, there was no mention of the crash. The crash never even passed my mind - I searched the thread with just my posts to see what my voting pattern had been and found that what you said was incorrect and made that statement. I was assuming, incorrectly, that you were basing what you were arguing on having read the thread "remembering" but not bothering to actually check. Only in your next post did you bring up that you were referring to the crash and what was lost, at which point I realised what you had been referring to and agreed that yes, I may have voted elsewhere but I honestly didn't knowNai wrote:It's not necessarily attacking the character of the person. It's just attacking the person to make their points seem invalid, instead of defending against the points themselves. "Why should we go to a marriage counseling with a priest; what does a priest know about marriage?" is not attacking the character of the priest, but his qualifications. That's how the ad hominem works. (I took an extended set of classes on fallacies.)Jules wrote:You made this bit up aswell. I've never voted for anyone apart from you and Coron. Worrying how you claim to be townie and yet you use phrases like "if I remember correctly", when if this is the case, you obviously have the memory of a goldfish. Looks more like a contortion of facts however
Jules was saying that, for instance, that since I can't pull up the missing posts, it must be my memory that's the problem. He also says that my arguments are just made up, for the same reason. As well, the "base your argument on fact" is not targeting the argument. It targets my ability as a debater and a player, saying that I don't base my arguments on fact.
See my explanation above. The last line and my withdrawal in 292 were based on the fact that my argument in 287 in which I was all but certain Nai was scum trying to pin things on me, was based on a misunderstandingKelly Chen wrote:Scummy, with that last line.Jules wrote:You made this bit up aswell. I've never voted for anyone apart from you and Coron. Worrying how you claim to be townie and yet you use phrases like "if I remember correctly", when if this is the case, you obviously have the memory of a goldfish. Looks more like a contortion of facts however
The withdrawal in 292 seems off or premature to me.
Nice contribution to that exchange Coron.
Posts 79 and 101. If I added anything to that I would be lyingStewie wrote:You are basing you vote on perfect on two posts which, although suspicious, I see them coming from newbie town. Even if I considered perfect's posts newbie-scum, there's still only two of them, against 20 newbie-scum posts from Jules. Furthermore, there's more written in Jules' posts than in Perfect's, meaning more scumminess to extract from them.Zindaras wrote:Hey Stewie, don't you think the votes cast by perfect and luna are typical for new scum?
Yeah, he's overreacting a bit, but I'm not seeing it as typical of new scum...
Likewise, most of luna's posts are one-liners, and only one of which I really find suspicious (the one voting for Coron). Could have been a newbie mistake and if it wasn't then once again we have much more of these suspicious posts from Jules than from luna.
Finally, what I think is the most important reason as to why we should lynch Jules and not luna or perfect, Jules is still here and can answer questions, while luna and perfect cannot. I still didn't get a satisfactory answer as to why he FOS'ed Nai and later changed that FOS to a vote without any new evidence or explanation.