Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:39 am
You should have known.Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:MoS is significantly suckier than I thought he was.
vote: Cogito Ergo Sum
You should have known.Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:MoS is significantly suckier than I thought he was.
*shrug* The last couple months have been rather sub-par for me, for obvious reasons (the fact that RL and MS issues have caused me to begin a gradual exit from Mafiascum altogether: I haven't signed up for a new game in almost 2 months, with the exception of Newbie 567).Cogito Ergo Sum wrote:I should have known him to be significantly suckier than I thought he was? But if I knew, then I wouldn't have thought he was that sucky, I would've thought him to be as sucky as he is(ie. suckier). So that's an impossibility, my good sir.
And what's with the "should"? Either I did know and was making it up on account of me being scum or I didn't know(as town or otherwise). What Ishouldknow, is not relevant.
More importantly, why do you think I should've known? To my knowledge, MoS has never acted so suckily in any of the games I've been in and isn't it completely to natural to assume a certain level of intellectual maturity when it comes to a player as experienced as MoS?
Also, I will note that I went after Zindaras and Yosarian2 in Jungle Republic over the same type of situation and was right about both of them.
I also want to know what the point of voting CES was when his vote was already on CES.Elmo wrote:Beep: Why did you vote MoS in post 885?
I answered why I voted MoS. Why ask me the same question twice? You'll get the same answer.Rishi wrote:I also want to know what the point of voting CES was when his vote was already on CES.Elmo wrote:Beep: Why did you vote MoS in post 885?
Also, these Nibbler avatars are driving me crazy.
Twice in row? Yeah, I guess I did, I didn't realize.Rishi wrote:Yeah... that's correct. Look at your own posts, Beep. You voted CES twice.
So, simple inattentiveness or do you simply not care whether we lynch CES or MoS, as long as it's one of them?Beep! Beep! wrote:Twice in row? Yeah, I guess I did, I didn't realize.Rishi wrote:Yeah... that's correct. Look at your own posts, Beep. You voted CES twice.
How do you draw such the second conclusion from my voting the same player twice within a few posts?Rishi wrote:So, simple inattentiveness or do you simply not care whether we lynch CES or MoS, as long as it's one of them?Beep! Beep! wrote:Twice in row? Yeah, I guess I did, I didn't realize.Rishi wrote:Yeah... that's correct. Look at your own posts, Beep. You voted CES twice.
It's not so much what you did, but the way that you're responding to the questions. You're deflecting. You're not giving a straight answer and turning things back on me. I find that more telling than the double vote.Beep! Beep! wrote:How do you draw such the second conclusion from my voting the same player twice within a few posts?Rishi wrote:So, simple inattentiveness or do you simply not care whether we lynch CES or MoS, as long as it's one of them?Beep! Beep! wrote:Twice in row? Yeah, I guess I did, I didn't realize.Rishi wrote:Yeah... that's correct. Look at your own posts, Beep. You voted CES twice.
The reason that I came to that second conclusion is that I felt that you and CES are probably not scum together (the interaction between to seems more than distancing, IMHO). So, when Beep! voted for CES the second time, thinking her vote was still on you, it seemed odd. It seems to me that deciding that CES was scum instead of you was a fairly radical shift in viewpoint. And the fact that she forgot her vote was not on you? That means she sees both of you as interchangeable. I think scum would be more likely to have that viewpoint than town.Mastermind of Sin wrote:Ironically, Rishi, the think that struck me the most wasyourresponse to Beep! Beep!
First off, your second conclusion really only makes sense if Beep is scum, so why would she admit to it in the first place? I don't see the point in you asking that question except as what I like to call the "implication tactic". It seems more like you're implying that the second conclusion is the truth, so that it makes Beep look worse, but you're phrasing it as a question instead of an accusation so that it looks better on you. It's a great tactic, I like to use it a lot.
Secondly, how did you draw such a conclusion from her response in the first place?