395: Big Lebowski -- game is dead :(

[big_kahunia]

I don't know where you're from, but calling someone an idiot is a personal attack. You said, "bk's ... idiocy." I don't appreciate this. Don't say that you're attacking the argument; because, your words clearly state what you mean. I stated my rationale for posting that argument.

[Fircoal]

I was thinking and I don't think this arguement proves any facts, the reason for me not posting is because it doesn't seem like the discussion is on the scum, as much as it is on the rules and personal attacks.

[Colonel Kurtz]

While, philosophically, I agree with you that personal attacks have no place in mafia, I think that I have yet to make one.

id·i·o·cy
Pronunciation[id-ee-uh-see]
–noun, plural -cies. 1. utterly senseless or foolish behavior; a stupid or foolish act, statement, etc.

As you can see, calling a statement idiocy is not calling the person who made it an idiot. For example, Bill Clinton's 'depends on what the definition of "is" is' speach was idiocy, but he was not an idiot because he said that. Saying that someone's action was idiocy is not the same as calling a person an idiot.

I don't know where you're from, but clearly not somewhere where they teach you how to read.

You see, THAT was a personal attack. Or if I were to say that your contribution so far this game has been shoddy and therefore your opinion doesn't matter, that would also be a personal attack. However, if ALL that I say is that an argument is not valid, I am NOT making a personal attack. Calling an argument invalid, or nonsensical or idiocy is all the same thing; you can't decide that one word out of four that describe the same thing is vulgar. Shit, feces, solid animal waste and poo all describe the same crap; ironic that I keep coming back to this theme, isn't it?

Calling it idiocy wasn't a Freudian slip or a way to insult big_kahunia without saying 'ohhh you're a stupid stupid little man', I simply was choosing another word that meant the same thing as "bad". The fact that you're trying to read *that* much into what I'm writing just shows me that you're trying to find a reason to say I'm scummy while the pot still has my buttprint in it. Why you're doing this, I don't know; you probably just don't like me. Frankly, I don't blame you, but I think you should find a way to try to make me look bad other than wagging your finger at me for using abrasive language.

Can we get on with the game, please?

[Colonel Kurtz]

I can't let this one slide either, sorry. Sorry about the double post, too.
Oh, and for the record, none of this is a personal insult

I don't know where you're from, but calling someone an idiot is a personal attack.

I don't know what the two parts of that sentence had to do with each other, but ok! I agree, calling someone an idiot is a personal attack, even if they are being an idiot. Name-calling has no place in a game of serious discussion, such as this.

You said, "bk's ... idiocy."

Yes and no. This is...yet again, a fallacious statement! Here's why:

The practice of "quoting out of context", sometimes referred to as "contextomy," is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Quoting out of context is often a means to set up "straw man" arguments. Straw man arguments are arguments against a position which is not held by an opponent, but which may bear superficial similarity to the views of the opponent.

Why is this quoting out of context? Because this is what I said:

the scummiest thing that's gone on so far is big_kahunia's 'he waited to confirm so he must be scum' idiocy, but at least it will be different crap.

You see, 'idiocy' is referring to '"he waited to confirm so he must be scum"', not "big_kahunia". Quotation marks are not the same as parenthesis, you actually have to apply what is inside of the quotation marks to the sentence. Try this sometime, like now, for instance.

I don't appreciate this.

Thanks for sharing.

Don't say that you're attacking the argument; because, your words clearly state what you mean.

Yes, this is why I choose them carefully. I think your argument is poorly thought-out and not logically sound in any way, which is why I described it as "idiocy". You see, grown-ups know that when you disagree with someone, it doesn't mean that you think they're a poopie-head, it only means that they disagree with you. The only adults I know who think that disagreeing with something they say means that you have insulted them are religious fundamentalists. Are you a religious fundamentalist? If not, please stop acting like one.

I stated my rationale for posting that argument.

And the mod stated why your argument was completely invalid. Just because you have a "rationale" does not mean that you are right. That pretty much applies to everything you've said in this game.

[PlaysWithSquirrels]

I apologize to all of the people in this game along with the moderator, but I am unable to continue with the game. I just don't have the free time right now that this game deserves to have paid to it. Between my studies, rush week for my fraternity, and preparing for a pro tour of magical cards, this game is a luxury I can't afford right now. I hope that the replacement process isn't too much of a burden on the moderator and the rest of the players. Again, I sincerely apologize to everyone involved and good luck to you guys.

[Atticus]

Yes! Power! Relevant posts coming after school!

[riktus]

While Colonel Kurtz may have a rather abrasive posting style, he has a point - and hasn't made any direct personal attacks. Don't think that little aside was of much use, as CK says, lets get on with the game. Just one question CK - when did the mod state that BKs argument was completely invalid?

Sucks that PlaysWith Squirrels is out - if nothing else because I was hoping we could get something from his stalling. Hurrah for the return of Atticus, I look forward to some new input there.

Lets try and get things moving. Fircoal - you have been unbelievably wishy washy so far. I know that you are new, and this is one of your first games, but even so you seem to have so far produced placeholder posts so people know you are there and don't ask you anything.
e.g.

I was thinking and I don't think this arguement proves any facts, the reason for me not posting is because it doesn't seem like the discussion is on the scum, as much as it is on the rules and personal attacks.

It's day one, we have approximately nothing to go on. I don't really see how we are supposed to be discussing 'the scum' - we are just trying to generate some discussion in order to have something to go on. Discussions on personal attacks and the rules are generally just a means to an end - and not contributing to the discussion does not help the town. What are your thoughts on what has happened so far - and why were you so quick to jump off your first vote on Masterchief?

[chaotic_diablo]

I've also been getting the wishywashy vibe from Fircoal, but it doesn't seem quite right to really call it wishywashy.
It's clear (or unclear) in his posts that he thinks some points are (ir)relevant, such as post 67, 89, and 101.

Colonel Kurtz brings up a goint point, it might not be a fault of a scummy trick, but because of forgetfullness, or laziness, or lack of internet connection

This game though, seems to more be about if one can talk in the pre-game.

I was thinking and I don't think this arguement proves any facts

From here, we can slightly see that he's not in favor of BK's argument, or that's what I think.

We still haven't heard from Lazarusmouth.

[Atticus]

Done.

So here's my thoughts on the game so far.

The huge opening of Big_kahunia's opening post has lasted a long time, when basically, it's just facts pieced luckily together, to prove to the lazy mind that two people are likely to be scum. I like it because it stirs up the people, makes us think, "hmm, what were they doing" but at the same time, I hate it. We are focused on the fact of whether or not this proves two people scum. I hate it because it is the only tree to stare at, because every post in this game is yet another branch, on the same one.

Fircoal's response to this is to say irrelevant things once in a while, to avoid the pressure of the game. I don't think him scummy for it, but I don't think him unscummy either.

Big_kahunia's been the leader of the conversation. Leads a large attack based on cofirmation time. Many currently follow it, looking for the conclusion, or hanging on for the ride. He's stirred up discussion: Townie. But stirred it up over offish points: Scummish.

Masterchief, Lazurusmoth, PlaysWithSquirrels, warpdragon, kirbyphreak (if you include me, this is half the people in the game) : The silent ones, I'll wait to judge them.

Colonel Kurtz has been defending himself adamantly with the subject of whatever excretions may come out your rear end, and some reasonable points. And I agree with those points, mainly. That big_kahunia's attack on them couldn't be proven and that he had good reason not to be confirming. But in almost every game I've played in as scum, we were allowed to talk before game, as b_k suggests is so in this game. So I'm curious as to why Colonel and willows would think it is only after each day, that one could talk.

Chaotic_diablo's avatar annoys me, but aside from that, he has defended himself from b_k and questions him, among others, on certain subjects which are reasonable to ask about. I see nothing much of note in him.

My first impression of riktus was that he would be a supporter of big_kahunia, but after looking back, I don't know why I thought that, other than the fact the he start at CK for posting a weird fact. And he appears to have stayed just there, on Colonel Kurtz.

Willows_weep comes off as a strong neutral in b_k's arguments. and that's pretty much it, I count 3 posts aside from pregame, 2 arguing that discussion should be made aside from b_ k's suspicions, and 1 as a response to chaotic_diablo. Hmmm.

Who's left!?!? Oh, ah, no one. Shame. Y'know, not a lot of voting seems to be occurring in this game, it's all heated discussion. So let's add an extra vote for some extra sizzle,

Vote: big_kahunia

because aside from the lurkers he occurs to me as the most scumy, mainly for his adamant pursuit of "They are scum because they waited to confirm"

[Fircoal]

Lets try and get things moving. Fircoal - you have been unbelievably wishy washy so far. I know that you are new, and this is one of your first games, but even so you seem to have so far produced placeholder posts so people know you are there and don't ask you anything.
e.g.

I was thinking and I don't think this arguement proves any facts, the reason for me not posting is because it doesn't seem like the discussion is on the scum, as much as it is on the rules and personal attacks.

It's day one, we have approximately nothing to go on. I don't really see how we are supposed to be discussing 'the scum' - we are just trying to generate some discussion in order to have something to go on. Discussions on personal attacks and the rules are generally just a means to an end - and not contributing to the discussion does not help the town. What are your thoughts on what has happened so far - and why were you so quick to jump off your first vote on Masterchief?

I think the arguement is irelevant, and I favor Colonel Kurtz's arguement more, but I think it's more irrelevant. I was really meaning a discussion more relevant. I was so quick to jump off my Mastercheif vote, because it was a random vote, and they shouldn't stay for long, and I didn't like the OMGUS vote. Even if it was only one.

[Colonel Kurtz]

But in almost every game I've played in as scum, we were allowed to talk before game, as b_k suggests is so in this game. So I'm curious as to why Colonel and willows would think it is only after each day, that one could talk.

Based on your join date, I would say it has to do with the fact that you started playing after Newbie games started. I haven't been mafia in a while, but in every game I've ever been in as mafia, the mafia *couldn't* talk pre-game. Checking the wiki, I noticed that it only says that mafia can talk at night, so I assumed this was still, for the most part, true. To me, only in an 8 or 9 player setup does it make sense for the mafia to be able to talk pre-game, so I think that being allowed to talk pre-game is a rule that new moderators have started using because they saw it in their newbie game and brought it over.

[Atticus]

Hmmm. I guess there's a thought. I wouldn't know obviously, but I'm willing to trust it.


*notices c_d's avatar change*

[willows_weep]

Heya,
I've been away having comp issues, and then proceeded to forget about the game.
Sorry about not notifying any of that.

Oh, the reason I did not think it a natural option (to have mafia talk before day 1 when game starts with day 1) is because I've never played like that. That's all.

Why haven't I posted too much other than saying 'meh' to b_k's argument, or that it would be great to see the thread talk about something other than wordage:
Because that's all that's been going on, even after me missing some days of convo, I see we're learning to take things in stride and in proper context.
Not necessarily that someone is scummy, or has odd vibes.

Now, purposeful lurking. I can take that as something to chat about.
Right now Fircoal just seems odd to me. Not scummy. Just odd.

[Sherlock]

I'm looking for another replacement right now. A vote count isn't neccessary since there have been next to no votes since the last one.

[big_kahunia]

CK, I see this is more your posting style as opposed to attacks. You hint this in post 58. That’s the way you play; I’ll get used to it. I understand that you didn’t make direct personal attacks at me; but rather, posted your logic in a way that I interpreted as a person attack.
As for me being a religious fundamentalist? I don’t know. Just look at my sig. .

I stated my rationale for posting that argument.

And the mod stated why your argument was completely invalid. Just because you have a "rationale" does not mean that you are right. That pretty much applies to everything you've said in this game.

The mod’s edit was for players to not talk about the game during pre-game, in addition to night. Rule 8 states that for some roles the earlier rules may not apply. The possibility remains that the mafia could talk during pre-game. Everyone has posted examples of mafia not being able to talk in PG and mafia being able to talk in PG. In the end, it depends on the mod, I ‘pose we won’t know for certain until after the game.

Vote: big_kahunia because aside from the lurkers he occurs to me as the most scumy, mainly for his adamant pursuit of "They are scum because they waited to confirm"

I was adamant in my pursuit to get the game going and provide discussion. I address this point in post 88. If you want me to go further, I will upon being asked.

[Atticus]

Vote: big_kahunia because aside from the lurkers he occurs to me as the most scumy, mainly for his adamant pursuit of "They are scum because they waited to confirm"

I was adamant in my pursuit to get the game going and provide discussion. I address this point in post 88. If you want me to go further, I will upon being asked.

If your pursuit was to provide discusiion only, why is your vote still on CK?

[big_kahunia]

heh. Atticus, you might want to read post 90 (or all my posts for that matter). For the record, I have never voted CK this game, only CD and Laz. I can see why ppl might think so because of our disargeements, but I have never voted him.

[willows_weep]

Wow, I had a dream that b_k was a mafia helper (one that the mafia doesn't know about). Atticus and someone with a name starting with a P was mafia.

It was an interesting dream.

[Sherlock]

I am now setting a deadline for February 1st 6:00 pm Eastern standard. Whoever has the most votes will be automatically lynched.

[Colonel Kurtz]

unvote big_kahunia

I've been reading over. And I'm not sure what Fircoal is trying to ...say. I'm really not sure. Is he scummy? Is he writing his posts in a different language and using Babelfish to translate it to English?
Dunno that it makes him scum, though.

I support a no lynch, because I really don't feel that we have anything to go on at this point. I think if we lynch big_kahunia, we'll find that he was an overzealous townie, and he has posted the most scum-esque stuff by far.

vote No Lynch

[riktus]

For everyone's information, this is what I think is the current vote count - Sherlock, could you confirm?

Vote Count

, powered by The Count-Counter 2000

Colonel Kurtz- 2 (lazarusmoth, warpdragon)
lazarusmoth- 2 (big_kahunia, chaotic_diablo)
big_kahunia- 1 (Atticus)
Fircoal- 1 (Masterchief)
No Lynch- 1 (Colonel Kurtz)

Not voting (5): kirbyphreak, PlaysWithSquirrels, riktus, Fircoal, willows_weep

7 to lynch.

Will post an actual response in a minute ...

[riktus]

Firstly, I'd like to request an extension on the deadline. Its a good idea to try and get things shifting, but when beyond confirming we still have only 3 posts about the game in total from kirbyphreak, lazarusmoth, PlaysWithSquirrels, masterchief and warpdragon (3 posts between 5 players, nearly half of the game) I think it just penalises the people who are actually playing. Let us know how the prods and replaces are going, and give us a couple of days to try and get things moving?

Failing that, I think I am going to have to follow CKs example and

vote: No Lynch

. Its horrible, effectively making it the same as if we started at night (how deliciously ironic), but with so little information I don't want to risk handing two town deaths to the mafia before we get any real discussion. Of the two possible lynchees at this time, I would choose lazarusmoth for his unexplained vote on CK - but he hasnt been anywhere for a fortnight so it is unsuprising he hasn't defended himself.

With only 24 or so hours to deadline, I would urge anyone else who gets on to vote No Lynch, as taking anyone out now is effectively picking a name out of the hat.

[Atticus]

Vote: No lynch

Sorry b_k, I didn't notice that it had been on c_d or had been moved.

I suppose No lynch really is the best option, it will give the mod some time to get some replacements at least.

[Sherlock]

Sorry, at this point the deadline is non negotiable. I have been looking for replacements for all people who ave stopped posting.

[Fircoal]

unvote big_kahunia

I've been reading over. And I'm not sure what Fircoal is trying to ...say. I'm really not sure. Is he scummy? Is he writing his posts in a different language and using Babelfish to translate it to English?
Dunno that it makes him scum, though.

I support a no lynch, because I really don't feel that we have anything to go on at this point. I think if we lynch big_kahunia, we'll find that he was an overzealous townie, and he has posted the most scum-esque stuff by far.

vote No Lynch

I argee with the no lynch part, but no I'm writing my posts in english, but sometimes my grammer is bad.

Vote: No Lynch

Though, I usually wouldn't do this, it's just it's better then giving off a random lynch.