Mafiascum.net

like before you go and quote something that looks like i'm trying to purport what you're saying and go "gotcha", realize that i do understand how times works

In post 975, borkjerfkin wrote:like before you go and quote something that looks like i'm trying to purport what you're saying and go "gotcha", realize that i do understand how time works

ebwop

In post 972, Prism wrote:And do you, at the most basic level, disagree that you drastically overstated my point to discredit it in 239?

yes

In post 974, borkjerfkin wrote:how could i possibly fucking think this lol

you voted me obviously for something from 225, but you used 239 as post-hoc justification for this every time i tried to engage about 233

bork wrote:At that point I didn't have any reason to think you were voting me for misrepresenting what you were trying to say in 233

I dunno man, you tell me why I think this???

Half of this entire argument has been me saying that 249 was wrong to attribute my vote to the strawman.

Half my wall just now was about how my vote

I have made it repeatedly clear that I questioned how good your faith was in initially asking way back to the arbitrary trio question, as I just linked you, in conjunction with the "hint of a townread" comment, and it

I have literally tried to get the timeline straight for you on my read again and again. Virtually every line of mine has made clear

In post 977, borkjerfkin wrote:

In post 972, Prism wrote:And do you, at the most basic level, disagree that you drastically overstated my point to discredit it in 239?

yes

okay, scratch that, there is no reasoning with you whatsoever then if you're going to be this obtuse, just going to go back to reading the game

In post 979, Prism wrote:okay, scratch that, there is no reasoning with you whatsoever then if you're going to be this obtuse, just going to go back to reading the game

Yes this whole conversation has felt very much like trying to reason with me.

(Like, I'm trying not to be mean here, but you're basically saying at this point that the only way I can be town here is if I'm just being mentally inept in some way and I'm sorry but I take issue with that.)

Like, I will clearly state my interpretation of your viewpoint:

I provided a brief answer for the significance of the trio that you did not like. I voted you in the same post. You prodded further with a (totally not overblown) restatement to highlight the perceived weakness in 239. I did not like this. You think that I'm using 239 as an after-the-fact justification with my vote. Hopefully you also classify my other repeated explanations-about questioning your faith in prodding from the get-go, and about the hint of a townread on ffery-as again after the fact revisionism.

Is this accurate?

In post 980, borkjerfkin wrote:(Like, I'm trying not to be mean here, but you're basically saying at this point that the only way I can be town here is if I'm just being mentally inept in some way and I'm sorry but I take issue with that.)

I am challenging you to look at 239 from my perspective, by starting with the fact your framing was meant to undermine/discredit my point. If you cannot even admit it was to undermine my point-which unlike a strawman, is not inherently a bad thing-then talking about my reaction is completely worthless. It's a nonstarter.

In post 966, Prism wrote:Walk it through in your own words, Skitter. Let's hear it.

i feel like you're trying to force a read/push on bork that doens't feel natural
and i kinda *hate* your mod pizza take

Pretty lazy and doesn't make sense given it came after the timing of the bork post.

idk if 984 is addressed to me or not

In post 982, Prism wrote:

In post 980, borkjerfkin wrote:(Like, I'm trying not to be mean here, but you're basically saying at this point that the only way I can be town here is if I'm just being mentally inept in some way and I'm sorry but I take issue with that.)

I am challenging you to look at 239 from my perspective, by starting with the fact your framing was meant to undermine/discredit my point. If you cannot even admit it was to undermine my point-which unlike a strawman, is not inherently a bad thing-then talking about my reaction is completely worthless. It's a nonstarter.

This might be the wrong approach given your concern about me wanting to obscure the original vote reasoning for 233, it might be better to start from the beginning, but it is also very important that you understand why I reacted the way I did in 242 and on.

In post 985, skitter30 wrote:idk if 984 is addressed to me or not

It is, townread me out of the bork interactions before w/ no further work on that front, plausible you saw bork's post and figured it was as good a time as any but I'm skeptical.

In post 988, Prism wrote:

In post 985, skitter30 wrote:idk if 984 is addressed to me or not

It is, townread me out of the bork interactions before w/ no further work on that front, plausible you saw bork's post and figured it was as good a time as any but I'm skeptical.

no, the timing was after 957
(or at least, that's what prompted me to actually vote)

i also don't like 963, and how you're fine powertunneling bork after his ... pretty reasonable post?

and then i hate that you backed off like four posts later, but tbf that happened after my vote

In post 981, Prism wrote:You think that I'm using 239 as an after-the-fact justification with my vote.

Yes. I have it on record that "you didn't like any of my posts up to that point, starting with the ffery read post". (I didn't think the ffery post, the specific example you gave, was a good reason), but I acknowledge what I just quoted as a reason and I guess THE reason.

I don't see how this gets to the point where you claim I'm trying to say that I'm trying to argue something factually false - I'd expect your reaction there to be first "he or I obviously don't understand something about this conversation" but that's not what happened

In post 989, skitter30 wrote:i also don't like 963, and how you're fine powertunneling bork after his ... pretty reasonable post?

This feels like someone who has not read into the post but at this point I'm yelling at a cloud.

In post 989, skitter30 wrote:and then i hate that you backed off like four posts later, but tbf that happened after my vote

Don't blame anyone on that front.

In post 990, borkjerfkin wrote:Yes. I have it on record that "you didn't like any of my posts up to that point, starting with the ffery read post". (I didn't think the ffery post, the specific example you gave, was a good reason), but I acknowledge what I just quoted as a reason and I guess THE reason.

Actually, I take that back, because you voted me in 233 and I was trying to figure out why, and all stuff you mentioned later on was either 239+ or stuff that didn't happen in 225. I was trying to suss out what your deal w/ 225 was and I got this mess.

In post 991, Prism wrote:

In post 989, skitter30 wrote:i also don't like 963, and how you're fine powertunneling bork after his ... pretty reasonable post?

This feels like someone who has not read into the post but at this point I'm yelling at a cloud.

In post 989, skitter30 wrote:and then i hate that you backed off like four posts later, but tbf that happened after my vote

Don't blame anyone on that front.

i mean ok?
i did read bork's post. it was fine. ur response wasn't, and u switching your appraoch just afterwards was kinda gross

In post 990, borkjerfkin wrote:I don't see how this gets to the point where you claim I'm trying to say that I'm trying to argue something factually false - I'd expect your reaction there to be first "he or I obviously don't understand something about this conversation" but that's not what happened

Okay, we're getting somewhere.

I interpret this as primarily referring to 253. I took "and how was me not grokking it?" as very leading, which coming right off the heels of what I perceived as a strawman, I was not inclined to give you the benefit of doubt here.

Respectfully, a lot of my posts have been that I you would continue to argue something factually false. This is why I've tried clearing up the timeline repeatedly, which was the intent with my last post especially since I realized I did indeed miss a vote earlier.

It is probably worth considering whether my vote on you previously suggests that I find that post about ffery scummy, even if you do not agree with the reasoning I gave in 253.

Posts like 280 and 858 have a lot more goodwill than I think you're attributing. The intent of the latter was not to pull you back into an argument, even if this was the result.

In post 992, borkjerfkin wrote:Actually, I take that back, because you voted me in 233 and I was trying to figure out why, and all stuff you mentioned later on was either 239+ or stuff that didn't happen in 225. I was trying to suss out what your deal w/ 225 was and I got this mess.

The quoted reason was given in my reply to 239. It was structured such that I said I didn't like 239, and briefly explained [my vote] by stating that I did not like your previous posts starting with.

Whether this is revisionism gets decided with my flip, I'm restating to again make sure we are on the same page.

In post 993, skitter30 wrote:ur response wasn't, and u switching your appraoch just afterwards was kinda gross

guess i'll take it up with the mafia judging god in the sky later

good plan

I'm about to have to go to bed

re: 980, I called you scum for:

A) Hint of scumread post
B) Thinking that you were looking to defeat my point rather than sort my alignment, I found the arbitrary trio question bad but the first followup (not #239) worse
C) Strawmanning/asking leading questions
D) Refusing to acknowledge why I might legitimately dislike 239 (961 and 963)

A/B were the reasons I voted but not really explained until 242, and not explained completely until much later. C was the thing I really hated when you responded, D is my most recent posting.

There is no world in which you are stupid or mentally inept, regardless of your alignment.

There is a world where you are town and think are stubbornly refusing to see my point about 239, and more reasonably but subjectively shuffling the rest of my read as revisionism. There is a world in which you are scum and just wallvoted to have a place to be, or less likely but ~maybe~ even saw that I would essentially commit suicide sorting you.

I suspect there's one last missing link to explain but that's enough thread overload for now, at least until we get on the same page about what's already posted.

And I'm sorry to everyone for the garbage I'm making you sift through.