Open 480 - C9++ Game Over!

[Cheery Dog]

Asked and answered, 309.

Can you allow SD to do some of his own defending? I'm losing what Cub is actually getting at when people defend others with his mass of questioning.

[Cheery Dog]

Players I currently don't want to lynch today:

goodmorning
implosion
Zaicon
Apozzle
PPP
Cheery Dog

and preferably someone other than NS, too

Is the bottom sentence meaning you do want to lynch NS? I'm confused by the double negatives.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Reasons/thought process for unvoting Safety:

• - Apart from finding his #105 scummy and nonsensical his subsequent posts either haven't seemed scummy or been negligible
  - I don't want to jump the gun, but his aggressive defence has read more town than scum
  - The main thing that sticks in my craw is his stubbornness towards NS given there are much more interesting target and avenues to explore Day 1
  - I really didn't like implosion zealously coming in to defend Safety in #109 when he admits that he hasn't read Safety in #119, this of course generates a lot of potential speculation over why this happened at all, but for now that has to go in the backburner. As a consequence however, it leaves some uncertainties over Safety (along with implosion)
  - On the whole Safety is a null tell (and thus not good voting fodder), I disagree with his major actions (votes, target choice, reasoning etc.) but find him at the very least reasonably consistent. Breaking down other elements of his gameplay at this point are too speculative and I'm not comfortable making such guesses right now. He remains on my watch list.

VOTE: Apozzle

Reasons/thought process for voting Apozzle:

• - #162 making a forced town tell,
  "hey guys you should care that I've been away for so long, it's bad for town."
  and again in #178, while completely negating to do anything useful except argue this point across
  - #200 weak and easy vote on NS, my criticism is in line with ac1983fan's #208:
  

  " NS is an easy lynch so vote but I'll act like I don't agree with the reasons to distance myself from the wagon later"

  
  - #213 stubborn refusal of criticism,
  this
  is the important reaction from Apozzle regarding people calling him out NOT his chameleon-like turn around in #228 & #230. What this means is that he appears to want to cooperate with town and care about town, but when it comes down to it will put down a weak vote and then deny any wrongdoing before eventually being cajoled into responding with a bit more openness due to all the negative reactions. This openness is fake, if active lurking is enough for a vote on NS - #225 - then why pretend it isn't a policy lynch? If it was all a simple misunderstanding - #230 - then why the initial reaction in #213?
  - It is indeed troubling! (re:Cub's #239) That Apozzle can manipulate his stance in such a way that you find it comforting is plausible, but what can't be denied is all he's achieved is putting a weak vote on an active lurker. And what has he done since then you may ask? #288 active lurking and ignoring questions
  - From every way you choose to read Apozzle you will find yourself wondering what the truth
  really
  is. I don't trust him, he needs rope.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Wonderful, then.

I expect 3-4 new pages responding to my above posts by the next time i look at this game.

Pretty high opinion of yourself, huh?

By your logic both Safety and I would be town, given our

reactive

responses to each other carry a similar tone. The rest is a sham.

Secondly, your entire

reactive

and

proactive

spin, while hilarious, is also completely irrelevant. The only thing it actually means is that you didn't like my #107 as it was "overreacting". Take note of your one word there. You haven't changed or improved on your argument against me since. An argument that was catalysed by your blind assessment on the given situation.

I'll fill you in on the story, since you seem to still be lost in the land of the irrelevant.

1. I made an opening post, within it I FoS'd NS, but also stated I needed to catch up before voting.
2. Safety

reacted

to this - for whatever reason he considered it a scum-partner tell - and switches his vote off NS to me.
3. I

react

to Safety's vote, finding it scummy. Or perhaps I was

proactive

to consider it scummy. However I can't have

proactively reacted

because he wouldn't have fucking made a scummy post by that stage.
4. You

reacted

to my

reaction

considering it an

overreaction

, but since you're

reacting

to

reactions

aren't you doubly scummy by your logic?
5. And now you want 3-4 pages of accolades and discussion on your recent acts of genius, when it in reality it's a bunch of ham-fisted tripe.

Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to be

proactive

and pursue a relevant lynch for today. If you want to

retroactively

switch your vote to Apozzle that'd be great.

[goodmorning]

Vote: ppp

I mean, come on. 327 is Scum screaming "SHIT SHIT EASY WAY OUT MAYBE??????"

Still would love an NS lynch, but you can't always get what you want.

[pieceofpecanpie]

Did you have a specific critique of my points there?

[goodmorning]

They look desperate. In a low-key situation.

[Nobody Special]

unvote

Vote: ac1983fan

A whole lotta banging on the keyboard and almost no substance. Amazing, really.

[Cub Daigoro]

Players I currently don't want to lynch today:

goodmorning
implosion
Zaicon
Apozzle

PPP
Cheery Dog

and preferably someone other than NS, too

Scratch PPP and Cheery Dog from that list. I thought I saw something that made me want to see some night action results before putting them in the lynch pool, but I was mis-reading it.

Still not really seeing the case on PPP, but I might be persuadable.

The last sentence means I might be willing to lynch NS, but preferably as a last resort. It just seems too easy for scum to hop on a NS wagon as a compromise lynch if we can't build a more exciting wagon.

[Belisarius]

They look desperate. In a low-key situation.

What about it looks desperate and how?

You had to see this question coming.

[pieceofpecanpie]

They look desperate. In a low-key situation.

You mean to say I desperately thought out some points, rationalised them and put down a vote?

Did you have a specific critique of my points there?

[ac1983fan]

unvote

Vote: ac1983fan

A whole lotta banging on the keyboard and almost no substance. Amazing, really.

[goodmorning]

What about it looks desperate and how?

This question was going to get answered right now, but I'm about to fall asleep on my computer so it'll have to wait. BUT I WILL REMEMBER.

In the meantime:

You mean to say I desperately thought out some points, rationalised them and put down a vote?

No. Please stop attempting to misrep me.

Did you have a specific critique of my points there?

Asked and answered by 331. If you're looking for an in-depth critique of each point, go ask a debate team or an English teacher.

[implosion]

Pretty high opinion of yourself, huh?

Remember the part where i said i was a sarcastic person?

i would respond to the rest of post 328 if it even began to touch on points that i actually *made*, but thankfully you didn't actually talk about any of those ^_^. You seem to have a tendency to ignore points that people actually make, and instead take a few words from their posts, pretend they used those words in different context and then create elaborate responses to those other contextualized uses of those words.

More content should come tonight as i continue to read, potentially soon~

[Cub Daigoro]

Yeah, not getting "desperation" here at all, GM. This is a real clanger of a vote. I'm putting you back in the lynch pool.

P-edit: Actually, after 337 (and since the SafetyDance wagon fell apart for some reason):

UNVOTE

VOTE: goodmorning

[pieceofpecanpie]

i would respond to the rest of post 328 if it even began to touch on points that i actually *made*, but thankfully you didn't actually talk about any of those ^_^. You seem to have a tendency to ignore points that people actually make, and instead take a few words from their posts, pretend they used those words in different context and then create elaborate responses to those other contextualized uses of those words.

I'd call it reading between the lines.

I did address several of your points by the by, perhaps you could readdress your original argument through them?

What about it looks desperate and how?

This question was going to get answered right now, but I'm about to fall asleep on my computer so it'll have to wait. BUT I WILL REMEMBER.

I'll hit snooze on my brain too and hope to wake up to a rational point.

You mean to say I desperately thought out some points, rationalised them and put down a vote?

No. Please stop attempting to misrep me.

Then represent yourself. I asked first, then interpreted.

Did you have a specific critique of my points there?

Asked and answered by 331. If you're looking for an in-depth critique of each point, go ask a debate team or an English teacher.

*checks 331* Yeah, uh, no. I won't ask a debate team or an English teacher, they didn't accuse me and vote me, I'm asking

you

because

you did accuse and vote me

.

Am I committing a crime to ask for specificity instead of ludicrously broad generalisations? No. The onus is on you to put forward your points, or frankly my dear I don't give a damn.

Secondly, I do wish you hadn't done this right after I put in the time and effort to type out my case on Apozzle. Because I wanted to lynch Apozzle and you're making it so very very hard to motivate myself to push that through, since you're putting a really big cross on your head.

[SafetyDance]

So... What is he calling me scummy for in 264?

I'm making a "fuss" because I think it's scummy.

I can't even remember what I had for dinner let alone a post made a couple of days ago

Maybe it does need some clarification but she at least seemed to 'get' it. So going back a step,

@Cub: It's called changing your mind? I don't honestly know what you're seeing because it's just not there. If you expect a perfect case page 2, you're gonna have a bad time.

That's fine, but he appears to have returned to his page 2 case since I voted him.

See my point now?

Wrong.

All I am doing is defending a case made in #54 towards something I found scummy. You're applying it to make me look scummy for other reasons.

Do I find it still scummy? Yes
Do I find you scummy for it? Yes
Do I find you still scummy in general? Not necessarily.
Do I find this obsessive tunnelling, repetitive and circle logic scummy? Yes
Am I prepared to lynch you for it? Not today.

[SafetyDance]

Asked and answered, 309.

Can you allow SD to do some of his own defending? I'm losing what Cub is actually getting at when people defend others with his mass of questioning.

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!

I quite enjoy being white-knighted for once

....and this is about where I've read up to. Sure there's points to address further down but

going V/LA next 48 hours

because unsure when I'll get back on.

[implosion]

I'd call it reading between the lines.

I'd call it making shit up because that's what it is.

I did address several of your points by the by, perhaps you could readdress your original argument through them?

...through them.
you mean you want me to defend the warped version of my argument that you attacked? fuck no. I'm in a generous mood, so i'll even *explain* why your response to me bears absolutely no link to reality.

By your logic both Safety and I would be town, given our reactive responses to each other carry a similar tone. The rest is a sham.

This legitimately addresses the point I made, although it does not in any way refute it beyond you saying "lol, you're wrong." I'd argue that no, you two carried very, very different tones.

Secondly, your entire reactive and proactive spin, while hilarious, is also completely irrelevant. The only thing it actually means is that you didn't like my #107 as it was "overreacting".

Exhibit a: you taking two points i made that had absolutely nothing to do with each other and claiming they are one point.

Take note of your one word there. You haven't changed or improved on your argument against me since. An argument that was catalysed by your blind assessment on the given situation.

Exhibit b: you ignoring anything that I actually said by saying it "hasn't changed" when you're responding to points for the first time.

1. I made an opening post, within it I FoS'd NS, but also stated I needed to catch up before voting.
2. Safety reacted to this - for whatever reason he considered it a scum-partner tell - and switches his vote off NS to me.
3. I react to Safety's vote, finding it scummy. Or perhaps I was proactive to consider it scummy. However I can't have proactively reacted because he wouldn't have fucking made a scummy post by that stage.
4. You reacted to my reaction considering it an overreaction, but since you're reacting to reactions aren't you doubly scummy by your logic?
5. And now you want 3-4 pages of accolades and discussion on your recent acts of genius, when it in reality it's a bunch of ham-fisted tripe.

Exhibit c: you summarizing precisely the parts of the game that i did *NOT* talk about in my point that you're attempting to refute.

Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to be proactive and pursue a relevant lynch for today. If you want to retroactively switch your vote to Apozzle that'd be great.

Exhibit d: the end of the post. You'll note that the following did *NOT* appear at any point in the post:

-you responding to my arguments that you were copying safety's tone
-you mentioning any of the specific parts of the game that i used in my argument
-you quoting any part of my argument and responding to specific points of my argument
-you responding to anything that is actually *from* my argument.

Insofar as you respond to an argument against you by straight-up throwing up a strawman and attacking it, really, it's not just that you're scummy, i actually feel obligated to vote for you because you refuse to partake in discourse over things that have actually happened.

[implosion]

Like, really. People. The fact that ppp has to justify his counterargument by saying he's "reading between the lines" in and of itself should make it obvious that he's BSing.

[implosion]

Also I got bored of rereading so I'm just gonna tunnel ppp now~~~

[Cheery Dog]

Asked and answered, 309.

Can you allow SD to do some of his own defending? I'm losing what Cub is actually getting at when people defend others with his mass of questioning.

LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!

I quite enjoy being white-knighted for once

....and this is about where I've read up to. Sure there's points to address further down but

going V/LA next 48 hours

because unsure when I'll get back on.

You being whiteknighted doesn't help me get a read on you or your attackers though.
(it has given me a goodmorning town read, but that's besides the point)

[pieceofpecanpie]

Riiiigggghhhht...

[...]i'll even *explain* why your response to me bears absolutely no link to reality.

This legitimately addresses the point I made [...]

You'll note that the following did *NOT* appear at any point in the post:
[...] -you responding to anything that is actually *from* my argument.

This legitimately addresses the point I made [...]

Insofar as you respond to an argument against you by straight-up throwing up a strawman and attacking it

This legitimately addresses the point I made [...]

I believe this picture represents what this "discussion" with you feels like.



I refuse to take part in discourse?

If you would take a moment to step out of your tunnel you'd actually notice a whole heap of stuff going on. A whole lot of it would be completely relevant to your "scumhunting" quest. I mean I feel like a lucky guy to get all this attention, but it's horribly misdirected. Oh and you're not the only one who can use sarcasm, consider my previous responses (both serious with some sarcasm and irony thrown in for good measure) the best you're going to get out of me. Keep campaigning for me to your hearts content, but I find your points horribly unfounded and inaccurate.

[Cub Daigoro]

I find arguments about things like "tone" highly subjective, easy to misinterpret, and poorly representative of one's alignment.

[Cub Daigoro]

So... What is he calling me scummy for in 264?

I'm making a "fuss" because I think it's scummy.

I can't even remember what I had for dinner let alone a post made a couple of days ago

Maybe it does need some clarification but she at least seemed to 'get' it. So going back a step,

@Cub: It's called changing your mind? I don't honestly know what you're seeing because it's just not there. If you expect a perfect case page 2, you're gonna have a bad time.

That's fine, but he appears to have returned to his page 2 case since I voted him.

See my point now?

Wrong.

All I am doing is defending a case made in #54 towards something I found scummy. You're applying it to make me look scummy for other reasons.

Do I find it still scummy? Yes
Do I find you scummy for it? Yes
Do I find you still scummy in general? Not necessarily.
Do I find this obsessive tunnelling, repetitive and circle logic scummy? Yes
Am I prepared to lynch you for it? Not today.

That's "clarification"?

I can't understand how this wagon fell apart.