Page 100 of 175
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 11:35 am
by Infinity 324
In post 2454, The Bulge wrote: In post 1768, Infinity 324 wrote:Peta didn't want to point to examples because the townies were all transparently town and he didn't want to sow paranoia on a buddy.
my interpretation of this line is "peta didn't want to shake things up too much because the actual townies in the bloc were all transparently so, and he didn't want to risk blowing his partner's deep cover"
it doesn't make sense to say this at all if infinity doesn't think there is a partner in that bloc, regardless of any alternate theories she has given since then for why peta might have done that.
If me, bork, VFT, and notsci are all transparently town, it makes sense why peta didn't want to point to a specific scum in that group because...we're all transparently town.
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 11:35 am
by Kismet
the only scum motivation i can really see here in infinity presenting this contradiction as such is that infinity thought the inclusion of that clause would make the argument hold more water to get prism off her back
and i don't really feel like it does to me.
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 11:38 am
by Infinity 324
Originally I didn't include the part about the (possible) buddy in the townbloc, but I didn't want my argument to depend on the entire townbloc being town. I didn't check the part I added in I guess.
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 11:42 am
by Kismet
part of me feels like
2459 was an attempt to recover from a misstep made in
2458
if infinity is town, it really shouldn't at all imply that vft is scum due to anything related to
1768
just don't know if that was a defensive move or if it was just a clarification =/
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 11:48 am
by The Bulge
In post 2468, Infinity 324 wrote:
I don't believe that is what you meant. your wording in the original quoted post does not at all imply speculation. this is a good example of the backpedalling/stretching of ambiguous wording I talked about last night
Ok but what do you think I actually meant and why is that scummy
doesn't make a difference here what I think you meant. it's scummy to lie and give false reasoning.
In post 2470, Infinity 324 wrote: In post 1768, Infinity 324 wrote:Scum often don't know how confident to be, especially when they replace in, town generally have examples in mind when they're suspicious of a group. Peta didn't want to point to examples because the townies were all transparently town and he didn't want to sow paranoia on a
(possible)
buddy. If you want I can argue this point with you until I can convince you I believe it
Are you happy now? I should've added a word in the original post, that's literally all it was
this is just more of the same damage-control-type responses I've been so far unsatisfied with, so no.
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 11:51 am
by The Bulge
In post 2478, Kismet wrote:part of me feels like
2459 was an attempt to recover from a misstep made in
2458
if infinity is town, it really shouldn't at all imply that vft is scum due to anything related to
1768
just don't know if that was a defensive move or if it was just a clarification =/
fair take, and I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt. it was a clarification. after I posted "VFT if not", I wanted to convey more clearly "if there is indeed scum in the bloc, and not infinity, then I'd think VFT" so it wouldnt be interpreted as me saying there has to be scum in the bloc. like I said I have no holistic opinion of the townbloc or its dynamics, I don't think I've even read up to or around when it formed.
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 11:53 am
by Infinity 324
In post 2479, The Bulge wrote:doesn't make a difference here what I think you meant. it's scummy to lie and give false reasoning.
*deep breath*
What was the original problem you had with my post?
What was the scum motivation to lie about that post?
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 11:55 am
by The Bulge
In post 2473, Infinity 324 wrote: In post 2451, The Bulge wrote:I don't think you want your points and thought process to be fully laid out on display and explored and have all its holes exposed. the stretching and backpedalling and retroactive justification is spinning it all into a more convoluted web. if you were town being incorrectly pushed for a take you feel has been misinterpreted, I would expect some kind of summary, or alternate explanation, or a dumbed down version at least. instead I get stuff like you quoting the same post I have a problem with twice in a row as if that should be convincing me of anything new. you're looking for evidence that you didn't let your perspective slip instead of just explaining what you meant.
It's because I thought it was pretty clear what I meant to begin with, to be fair I didn't quite understand the problem you had with my posting and I thought the explanation was more obvious than it actually was. I still don't think a townie would make as big a deal out of this as you are, because my point still holds if there's no scum in the townbloc. My wording just wrongly implied that I believe such a scum exists.
See this just tells me you think we're at an "agree to disagree" impasse, so why haven't you shifted the discussion to that? I said I don't like how you worded your earlier posts and felt it betrayed your scum alignment. You said your words didn't accurately reflect your thoughts. I don't believe that and no amount of backpedalling will convince me to. so I'm taking your original statements at face value. yet you continue to try and justify them to me? you're flailing.
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 11:56 am
by Infinity 324
In post 2479, The Bulge wrote:this is just more of the same damage-control-type responses I've been so far unsatisfied with, so no.
To me the fact that the presence of a word could've solved your entire problem probably means you should've taken a more inquisitive approach rather than "wow look at this obvscum"
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 11:59 am
by Infinity 324
In post 2482, The Bulge wrote:See this just tells me you think we're at an "agree to disagree" impasse, so why haven't you shifted the discussion to that? I said I don't like how you worded your earlier posts and felt it betrayed your scum alignment. You said your words didn't accurately reflect your thoughts. I don't believe that and no amount of backpedalling will convince me to. so I'm taking your original statements at face value. yet you continue to try and justify them to me? you're flailing.
I have a very difficult time believing that you think a townie couldn't misword something as I did (putting aside the backpedaling stuff).
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 11:59 am
by The Bulge
In post 2481, Infinity 324 wrote: In post 2479, The Bulge wrote:doesn't make a difference here what I think you meant. it's scummy to lie and give false reasoning.
*deep breath*
What was the original problem you had with my post?
What was the scum motivation to lie about that post?
quite simply, it looks like tmi. is tmi that blatant something scum will slip up on? maybe not. on it's own it confuses me, but it's fishy. so I express that. it's not fishy enough on it's own to equate to a full scumread in a vacuum. what makes you definitively scum to me, though, is that I believe you lied to me in your explanation.
the scum motivation to lie about it is so they won't get caught doing tmi I suppose?
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 12:00 pm
by The Bulge
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 12:01 pm
by The Bulge
In post 2483, Infinity 324 wrote: In post 2479, The Bulge wrote:this is just more of the same damage-control-type responses I've been so far unsatisfied with, so no.
To me the fact that the presence of a word could've solved your entire problem probably means you should've taken a more inquisitive approach rather than "wow look at this obvscum"
do you think I'm confbiased somehow?
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 12:02 pm
by Infinity 324
In post 2485, The Bulge wrote:quite simply, it looks like tmi. is tmi that blatant something scum will slip up on? maybe not. on it's own it confuses me, but it's fishy. so I express that. it's not fishy enough on it's own to equate to a full scumread in a vacuum. what makes you definitively scum to me, though, is that I believe you lied to me in your explanation.
the scum motivation to lie about it is so they won't get caught doing tmi I suppose?
How can you interpret something as TMI if you don't understand what it means?
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 12:03 pm
by Infinity 324
In post 2487, The Bulge wrote: In post 2483, Infinity 324 wrote: In post 2479, The Bulge wrote:this is just more of the same damage-control-type responses I've been so far unsatisfied with, so no.
To me the fact that the presence of a word could've solved your entire problem probably means you should've taken a more inquisitive approach rather than "wow look at this obvscum"
do you think I'm confbiased somehow?
I think you're very confbiased if town yeah
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 12:04 pm
by The Bulge
In post 2475, Infinity 324 wrote: In post 2454, The Bulge wrote: In post 1768, Infinity 324 wrote:Peta didn't want to point to examples because the townies were all transparently town and he didn't want to sow paranoia on a buddy.
my interpretation of this line is "peta didn't want to shake things up too much because the actual townies in the bloc were all transparently so, and he didn't want to risk blowing his partner's deep cover"
it doesn't make sense to say this at all if infinity doesn't think there is a partner in that bloc, regardless of any alternate theories she has given since then for why peta might have done that.
If me, bork, VFT, and notsci are all transparently town, it makes sense why peta didn't want to point to a specific scum in that group because...we're all transparently town.
so vaguely shading the entire group of Extremely Obvious Townies without further developing that thought is the more town-looking move? please
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 12:04 pm
by Infinity 324
That's fine, I'm just saying that I don't necessarily have a problem with that reasoning because I can't judge it from an unbiased perspective.
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 12:08 pm
by Infinity 324
In post 2490, The Bulge wrote:so vaguely shading the entire group of Extremely Obvious Townies without further developing that thought is the more town-looking move? please
It's probably more effective at least (in a vacuum one of 4 players being scum is a lot more likely than any particular one), and I do think he'd have gotten a lot of pushback if he tried to argue a particular scumread in that group
Is there any way you think I should be approaching this differently as town?
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 12:15 pm
by Infinity 324
I guess part of what's frustrating me about this interaction is that I don't normally expect my reasoning to be 100% clear to people and often expect to have to be asked clarifying questions to sort things out. So when I do that and then am told that I'm lying it's like wtf do you want me to do? I also tend to be quite careful expressing opinions as scum, as I think most people are, so I don't really have a reason to lie about what I said because I already thought it through. If I'm trying to be unbiased, I think you have a decent chance of being town, especially if NM flips scum, but if you are town you're sorting me in totally the wrong way.
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 12:18 pm
by The Bulge
Infinity 324 wrote:Is there any way you think I should be approaching this differently as town?
I still feel very strongly that you're looking for reasons you can give that make me look wrong, instead of focusing on ensuring I properly understand your stance. it's reactive, not proactive. your words suggest I am missing something that you're saying, but your actions seem defensive, like I'm striking a nerve. town wouldn't feel so nervous here, because there's no other outside pressure from any other slot atm, and my word alone doesn't carry much weight in this game.
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 12:19 pm
by The Bulge
the only pressure is if I'm onto something and you don't want others to catch on as well and for your wagon to become viable. hence too your discrediting language against me.
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 12:21 pm
by Infinity 324
Ok, is there anything you still don't understand (even if you don't believe it?)
It's possible I'm approaching this unnecessarily defensively. The frustration I talked about above is probably why
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 12:23 pm
by Iverson
Well bork I've already sunk 17 hours into this game
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 12:26 pm
by Iverson
Might be time for me to retire as a mafia player and just play video games all day instead.
I feel like I understand what that sentence said from Infinity yet somehow struggle to make it through the explanation, and the lack of explanation would not have particularly bothered me to begin with, so I'm kind of just ?_?
Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 12:28 pm
by Infinity 324
Idk why scum sends bulge to solo push me, if there are more townread members of the scumteam then that would give the push a lot more legitimacy. Even just a quantity of people pushing on me would help to give it more legitimacy. Scum play is messier that I'm describing here but I think if scum!bulge wanted to push me he would probably not go all out?