PKMN Chap 2: Day 6(5/18)

[ghostly447]

Well, after reading about 25 pages of bull shit, 5 pages of what seems to be town on town, and 2 pages of "DONT GIVE UP", I have come to the conclusion that:

Zimmah is a potential scum. I do not like how he handled the day 1 random pressure, and think his case could have waited for a little more evidence.

Strike Wolf is a top scum contender. Every time there is a strange post such as Nags "give me 3 reasons not to vote you", Strike wolf brings up jonty again, which by the way I do not feel is scum because I can understand people being quiet, especially if it is continued. I may persue jonty, but at this point it is neither worth time, or a strong case. FOS Strike Wolf

You say strike is a top scum conteneder and then only go on to FOS of him. And the case on me has nothing to do with inactivity. unvote vote ghostly

Forgot to say you were on the list. Well done Jonty, you seem to have missed my entire point that, in fact, Nag was top on my scum list. FOS jonty

Now to the really big fish to fry.

Kratos=blue
Me=red

Going through, Kranos mentioned somewhere (P.23 somewhere) saying "going against the grain was not good". Well, I feel that this is quite scummy personally. Because last I checked, Zimmah went against the grain. And he was released after getting a few votes on him, with no claim, and really no results.

Just out of curiosity did you actually read the case I presented or just skim through it? I didn't say that "Going against the grain was not good." That makes it sound like a general thing and that every time someone does it's a bad thing which certainly isn't true. My case, if you would read it, talked about how he was saying things that appeared like he was making it sound as if he was trying to seek out cases while still applying pressure to the case he wanted to make him look town. Yes there was also parts about him stagnating the game from continuing on with the zimmah case as well.

I did in fact read it. Sorry, 30 pages is quite a bit to read through and summarize in as little as I did. So wait, your case was about PMC saying things that made it appear that he was in fact looking for cases while still applying pressure to the first case? Well, that is the point of the game isnt it? Pursue the current case until a better one shows up. By continuing pressure, it allowed for another case to build, granted it backfired and almost led to him being the D1 lynch, but obviously he had town benefit in mind by seeking other cases. Thanks for giving me that point

What is really tricky is how Some7hingCLEVER continues to post a bunch of fluff to appear active but has no real substance to add anywhere...

True..But you know what is also really tricky? The fact that you were heading the case just 2 pages ago and now others are taking control and you are no longer really pushing on PMC. Funny how things like that work. You know, switching pressure everywhere by taking majority thought (everyone hates the pressure on Zimmah) and applying it to the person continuing to pressure.

What's even trickier than this though is how you're trying to twist things. Yes I was heading the case 2 pages ago but there weren't really any new developments for me to respond to and I was starting to get a much more null read on PMC at that point so there wasn't much to be said about that from me. And soon after he asked for time to create a solid defense for things which he did. Why would I continue to push that?

You didnt. I am just saying you directed pressure from zimmah onto PMC. You are in fact twisting my words, because here is my post:

Guys, Kranos is pushing this case hard. Such like a few pushed against Zimmah, and in the end, PMC was stuck as the next case just because he was finishing the case EVERYONE ELSE started.

Also, you must very much consider that my post against you was made before you backed off. Remember? I am a replacement.

Kratos - Seems to direct the flow but never finish out his cases.

First you say "cases" I've presented the one case on PMC and while I may have directed the flow on that why would I finish out a case that was then adequately defended and I now believe the player is town... I'm not going to continue to push for a lynch of someone who I don't believe to be scum that's just stupid. I know maybe if I had said somewhere that PMC's response was good enough for me and that I no longer wanted to vote for him. Then we wouldn't have this confusion I bet.

Alright. PMC, your response has satisfied me so my vote will be remaining off of you for now.

Oh wait I did say that. Hmm... Why are we having this confusion then? Either you've been really skimming or you're trying to attack the people who have been talking about clever as seeming scummy. aka SW and I

Oh, but wait. I could have sworn that my case was that you seemed to be directing the flow from switching the case from zimmah to PMC. oh, whats that? You have it quoted above? I will highlight in in green. Thank you for that.

Clever jumps all over the board with activity. Some games, he is inactive. Others, he is half active, half inactive. Most, he attempts to make the cases and figure out everything as he goes, and does relatively okay. In this case, I think he is trying to give little imput. Maybe either because he doesnt think the cases given are good ones, maybe because he is scum. He is not on the top of my list of potential scum.

This is just to further my point about you protecting clever. Here you're trying to sort of protect by saying he's not high on your list of potential scum/you don't think he's acting to scummy yet you also say that maybe he's acting the way he his because he is scum to kind of cover your tracks. I find this quite scummy in itself but unfortunately it is built around clever being scum so he would have to first be lynched to figure things out but if he does come up scum at some point you're my first target for a case.

Twisting my words again? Very much so. I did in fact say that he may or may not be scum. But I believe I also said that in some games he is hyper active, and in some inactive. Oh, I did. Here, I will highlight in cyan.

Anyway I must be going for now as I have to work. When I get off work tonight I'll work on putting together a case on S7C so we can get things rolling.

Where much enjoy work! You sure did work hard building that case against yourself!

Zimmah is a potential scum. I do not like how he handled the day 1 random pressure, and think his case could have waited for a little more evidence.

interesting timing for your 'case' on me.

That all you have to say zimmah?

If thats the case, then all I gots to say is..Indeed.

Not going to bother quoting loot. I will just respond.

When you flip mafia? I sit back and make sure I catch the rest of your scum buddies.
When you flip town? I sit there and prepare to defend myself from what will surely be a brigade of votes on me D2, so that I can explain myself.

Yeah I understand the policy of day one lynches. Day one lynches can yield so much information. The best I can do in this position is deflect to another player and be accused of deflecting to further dig my grave.
Most of my read-up was on my past-self, the cases I had built were destroyed by later posts. So I'm still sifting through to get some goodens.

I think Ghostly should agree to be lynched if I flip town... if you're so sure why don't you put your life on the line!
Yes yes I understand you don't 100 percent know. But lets make this interesting shall we.

Decided to quote because this is so interesting. Let me break it down point by point.
1. You understand the policy of day 1 lynches. This sentence will come back to haunt you shortly.
2. Deflecting would most certainly dig your grave further. But there was a second option you forgot to mention. Thats the option where you actually defend yourself and make it so that no townie is lynched, and no claims are given (if you can help it).
3. I should agree to be lynched if you flip town, putting my life on the line for the ultimate D1 lynch suspense drawer in the world. Why, if you were town, would you want someone leading a case (like a normal townie does when they are confident) to risk their own life to prove their point on day 1 which you clearly state you know I cannot be 100% sure about?

If I could vote you again, you better believe it would be there in a heart beat.

So, what have we learned today?

Zimmah can write some 1 liners in response to an entire case I built on 4-6 players.
Loot doesnt want to dig himself a deeper grave, though in my opinion he just did.
Kratos loves digging his own grave.
Strike Wolf is the only players I cannot go strongly against here until I get time to reread.
SG7 loves to joke around (go figure).
And Jonty can skim skim skim.

Questions, comments, concerns?

fasposted x5+

Okay guys, here is the entire quote. I will color code the important stuff. Point is, half of him seemed in town interest, half in mafia interest.

My 3 points show why I said what I said. Any further questions, please ask.

I could have sworn I posted something similar on page... 44?

Not going to bother quoting loot. I will just respond.

When you flip mafia? I sit back and make sure I catch the rest of your scum buddies.
When you flip town? I sit there and prepare to defend myself from what will surely be a brigade of votes on me D2, so that I can explain myself.

Yeah I understand the policy of day one lynches. Day one lynches can yield so much information. The best I can do in this position is deflect to another player and be accused of deflecting to further dig my grave.
Most of my read-up was on my past-self, the cases I had built were destroyed by later posts. So I'm still sifting through to get some goodens.

I think Ghostly should agree to be lynched if I flip town... if you're so sure why don't you put your life on the line!
Yes yes I understand you don't 100 percent know. But lets make this interesting shall we.

Decided to quote because this is so interesting. Let me break it down point by point.
1. You understand the policy of day 1 lynches. This sentence will come back to haunt you shortly.
2. Deflecting would most certainly dig your grave further. But there was a second option you forgot to mention. Thats the option where you actually defend yourself and make it so that no townie is lynched, and no claims are given (if you can help it).
3. I should agree to be lynched if you flip town, putting my life on the line for the ultimate D1 lynch suspense drawer in the world. Why, if you were town, would you want someone leading a case (like a normal townie does when they are confident) to risk their own life to prove their point on day 1 which you clearly state you know I cannot be 100% sure about?

If I could vote you again, you better believe it would be there in a heart beat.

So, what have we learned today?

Zimmah can write some 1 liners in response to an entire case I built on 4-6 players.
Loot doesnt want to dig himself a deeper grave, though in my opinion he just did.
Kratos loves digging his own grave.
Strike Wolf is the only players I cannot go strongly against here until I get time to reread.
SG7 loves to joke around (go figure).
And Jonty can skim skim skim.

Questions, comments, concerns?

fasposted x5+

Obviously I am the one that must be concerned. Lootenplunder, can you please read my 3 points again?

Regarding the lootenplunder stuff, re-read my 3 points. I also clearly stated that he was taking the literal dictionary definition of "Contradition" to analyze my post saying he contradicted himself. It was because half of himself seemed to want best for town, and half for mafia. Any other questions about this since I have only explained it 100 times?

Oh, I did. Sorry PCM, didnt know you skimmed over that.

Now...I was looking for PCM's Actual contradiction... Lets see...Got it!

Vote Ghostly Due to the early night I didn't have time to do this yesterday but the reasoning is quite simple. He was wrong about his cases on both me and Kratos. He never bothered addressing my counterargument and simply continued suggesting my probable guilt and when confronted by Kratos about the misinformation, instead of admitting he was wrong, he instead came up with some BS reasoning to try to make it fit.

This is pretty much exactly what I was going to say before the shit hit the fan yesterday. Ghostly isn't making arguments, he's just telling facts and it doesn't matter if they make any sense logically or not. That, I think, is why when Looten said he didn't see any contradictions, ghostly just pushed for him to look again rather than actually just pointing out the contradictions.

Vote Ghostly

You make no logical sense PCM.
1. Facts are what drive a case, thank you for the boost.
2. I was trying to prove he was just being a smart-ass using the dictionary definition instead of going back, looking, and seeing that I was accusing him of drawing scummy stuff from his previous post.

This isnt a case, this is a flat out bandwagon, and you guys are giving some pretty poor evidence considering I posted in the vacation thread explaining my absence and anyone who looked back at my case against him could have seen what I meant.

In Blue above, PCM says I am not making arguments, just telling facts.

Hey guys, I am going to attempt to go through this game tomorrow. Been busy (as posted in the vacation thread) so I am sorry that I came in, read 30 pages, dealt with looten, addressed 3-4 cases, got the game moving, and then didnt get time to address another case which would require me going back and rereading the 30 pages.

And to be fair, you are both now marked scummy (unless I havent read claims, or deaths, etc yet) because if you didnt notice, Strike wolf, I may have been wrong about looten, but you (as far as I have read) are not clear.

Wow. Seriously? You wonder why looten flipped out on you. You're acting like an asshole and screaming OMGUS instead of explaining your logic.

You make no logical sense PCM.
1. Facts are what drive a case, thank you for the boost.
2. I was trying to prove he was just being a smart-ass using the dictionary definition instead of going back, looking, and seeing that I was accusing him of drawing scummy stuff from his previous post.

This isnt a case, this is a flat out bandwagon, and you guys are giving some pretty poor evidence considering I posted in the vacation thread explaining my absence and anyone who looked back at my case against him could have seen what I meant.

EXACTLY. So why don't you have any?

And that's counterproductive. I'm pretty sure he knew he was being a smart ass. The question is were you actually trying to say something or are you just throwing out buzzwords and getting angry when they don't fit your case?

1. No it isn't bandwagoning. I was saying that yesterday/last night.
2. Your life has nothing to do with you backing up your claims.

Vote Ghostly Due to the early night I didn't have time to do this yesterday but the reasoning is quite simple. He was wrong about his cases on both me and Kratos. He never bothered addressing my counterargument and simply continued suggesting my probable guilt and when confronted by Kratos about the misinformation, instead of admitting he was wrong, he instead came up with some BS reasoning to try to make it fit.

really thats your case? thats probably the worst case i have ever heard.

bob- i think your scum
steve- nahh your wrong that means your scum

and you cant prove he is wrong he made a case on a few players and he got one wrong. is that a suprise?
ok well id like to see you do it. pick three players and if there all mafia then your point is valid. you cant prove that he was wrong and if you turn up mafia then i will go after kratos with a firey passion. and probably even if you dont turn up scum. but right now your at the top of my list vote strike wolf

Lemme ask you something: I know you and ghostly are friends and stuff, but are you actually forming your own opinion or are you just trying to keep your friend alive?

I only ask this because it seems like immediately after ghostly goes one way, you seem to follow soon after, and I'm wondering if you're not just doing that for the sake of following him and keeping him in the game.

Onto your logic: That makes no sense. Sure, he shouldn't be saying "he was wrong about us", and that he can't prove that ghostly's wrong. But can you prove he's right? Prove the validity of ghostly's statements.

But in Red Bold Underlined, He says I have no facts. So in 2 posts, you completely CONTRADICT yourself.

Unvote if needed Vote PCM

[freezie]

last time i checked his accusations were clear looten just didnt get it and flipped out.

Really? Because I didn't get it.

Open Question: Without actually naming the contradiction, can anyone in here say they knew what contradiction ghostly was talking about in regard to Looten?

I can definitly not see the said contradiction.

[zimmah]

well, people saying i'm very inactive, sure, i am, but there's not many posts of any value anyway and i have no idea how to contribute in any way. there's many pages to read but most of it contain little of value.

[ghostly447]

well, people saying i'm very inactive, sure, i am, but there's not many posts of any value anyway and i have no idea how to contribute in any way. there's many pages to read but most of it contain little of value.

Then answer these questions.

What do you think of the PCM case that is in the making against me and mine against him?
Who do you think would make a good next candidate?

And lets not single anyone out! I will make a random order list for a yoshi roll call (not role like your actual role, just sign in and give you input!) and I hope everyone will go ahead and answer this!

[pancakemix]

It's like drawing blood from a stone...

Poor word choice. If you can't tell, I'm getting heated over this. I'm not thinking straight. My point was your "listed facts" aren't true.

I'll be keeping a tally of responses to the question I posted above.

Open Question: Without actually naming the contradiction, can anyone in here say they knew what contradiction ghostly was talking about in regard to Looten?

Yes:
Clever

No:
PCM
Freezie

[ghostly447]

](*,) It's like drawing blood from a stone...

Poor word choice. If you can't tell, I'm getting heated over this. I'm not thinking straight. My point was your "listed facts" aren't true.

I'll be keeping a tally of responses to the question I posted above.

Open Question: Without actually naming the contradiction, can anyone in here say they knew what contradiction ghostly was talking about in regard to Looten?

Yes:
Clever

No:
PCM
Freezie

It doesnt matter who did or didnt see the contradiction. I even pointed out on several occasions that I wasnt using a dictionary definition of the word "Contradiction". Do not try to pursue that bull crap PCM. If you need me to, I will go back and quote the likely uncountable amount of times I said he was looking for a dictionary definition, and I did not use one.

Why are you still trying to pursue this one point which I clearly exlpained several times? I clearly explained it, and you are trying to nail me from every single angle to find a weak point. Either you are a towny trying to find me slip, or you are a mafia waiting for me to make a slip. Either way, you are clearly either skimming past all of the looten stuff, or you are trying to build a case off of something that has been explained a hundred times already.

Also, I can understand that wording was a mistake, you are dismissed of those 'charges' so to speak.

[pancakemix]

It's like drawing blood from a stone...

Poor word choice. If you can't tell, I'm getting heated over this. I'm not thinking straight. My point was your "listed facts" aren't true.

I'll be keeping a tally of responses to the question I posted above.

Open Question: Without actually naming the contradiction, can anyone in here say they knew what contradiction ghostly was talking about in regard to Looten?

Yes:
Clever

No:
PCM
Freezie

It doesnt matter who did or didnt see the contradiction. I even pointed out on several occasions that I wasnt using a dictionary definition of the word "Contradiction". Do not try to pursue that bull crap PCM. If you need me to, I will go back and quote the likely uncountable amount of times I said he was looking for a dictionary definition, and I did not use one.

Why are you still trying to pursue this one point which I clearly exlpained several times? I clearly explained it, and you are trying to nail me from every single angle to find a weak point. Either you are a towny trying to find me slip, or you are a mafia waiting for me to make a slip. Either way, you are clearly either skimming past all of the looten stuff, or you are trying to build a case off of something that has been explained a hundred times already.

If you didn't use "the dictionary definition" it wasn't a contradiction.

Picture this: You go to a restaurant and order soup. Your waiter brings you a salad. You tell the waiter "Excuse me, I didn't order this, I ordered soup." The waiter replies "We don't use the dictionary definition of soup here".

What I don't understand is why instead of choosing to clarify your statements you chose to get pissy and accuse someone of being a smart ass when you can't even be bothered to use the right word.

Because I strongly believe that you used false logic to try and push a case on Looten which had no grounds. I disagree that you explained yourself, if fact I believe you refused to explain yourself. You simply insisted on having Looten "look again". But obviously, there was no way he could have grasped what you were trying to say; you were using the wrong defenition of a word.

[ghostly447]

I can't accuse someone of being a smart ass? A dictionary definition of contradiction is:

Lucky you I am on my English class.

Involving or constituting a contradiction. Syn: opposite

So here let me explain in your waiter term compared to lootens post.

Waiter I would like the soup because I do not want meat. Actually I will have a steak with that. Actually take that steak away and add another soup.

His post supported (can't remember the order exactly) mafia then town then mafia. Does that explain it to you? An actual definition, a syn that actually supports me, and a revision of your example in which shows exactly my perspective.. yeah that's good enough for me.

Regarding actually pointing him back to it, can you now see why I wasn't willing to go back and point it out to him? Or even so so much as to get an exact definition of contradictory right? I guess I could have said opposite thinking but wouldn't that mean contradictory thinking? Absolutely. And the dictionary agrees with me now.

[pancakemix]

Well, a dictionary definition wouldn't use the actually word in the definition. So I'm pretty sure what you have is not a definition of "contradiction".

Secondly, I fail to see how your analogy even applies. When the waiter brings him the salad, he's still gonna be pissed. Not that your version even relates to mine in any way other than restaurant terms, but w/e.

Third, why didn't you just say he was making posts that seemed to suppor the mafia? Isn't that easier than using intentionally confusing language?

Finally, at this point the only reason I can see for you not wanting to go back and clarify your statements is an inherent attempt at misdirection.

[Eldario]

His post supported (can't remember the order exactly) mafia then town then mafia. Does that explain it to you? An actual definition, a syn that actually supports me, and a revision of your example in which shows exactly my perspective.. yeah that's good enough for me.

Regarding actually pointing him back to it, can you now see why I wasn't willing to go back and point it out to him? Or even so so much as to get an exact definition of contradictory right? I guess I could have said opposite thinking but wouldn't that mean contradictory thinking? Absolutely. And the dictionary agrees with me now.

if his post actually supported the Mafia would it not have been an idea to simply state this fact, instead of this contradiction stuff?

(i haven't read back on this one, but that is the way things look to me now)

[ghostly447]

Well, a dictionary definition wouldn't use the actually word in the definition. So I'm pretty sure what you have is not a definition of "contradiction".

Secondly, I fail to see how your analogy even applies. When the waiter brings him the salad, he's still gonna be pissed. Not that your version even relates to mine in any way other than restaurant terms, but w/e.

Third, why didn't you just say he was making posts that seemed to suppor the mafia? Isn't that easier than using intentionally confusing language?

Finally, at this point the only reason I can see for you not wanting to go back and clarify your statements is an inherent attempt at misdirection.

1. Websters dictionary in the back of my classroom did. Go look it up yourself, or allow me to get time to look it up on the internet, but it did.

2. Well that was the point I was trying to make dude. If you didnt realize, you were referring to someone in the waiters perspective instead of the post that was particularly outlined as the main source of this confusion...So..Yeah

3. I guess that could be easier.

I even said you didnt need a dictionary definition. I was meaning that you seemed to want best for town in some parts, then went to scum, then town, then scum. I figured you would realize that after reading it a couple of times instead of being a smart ass about it and trying to go with the dictionary definition.

If you dont skim over me actually doing it. So ummm....Yeah, mr skimmer, I did actually already say that. In case you are planning on skimming over again, I will highlight it in red.

4. Well actually I did go back and clarify. So the only reason I can see you not going back through and getting your facts straight before trying to lead a case against me is because you are the one trying to be misleading.


Anymore things everyone else should know about? Because last time I checked, you are trying to recklessly lead a case against me without even going back and getting any favorable quotes. You are ignoring the posts that exactly CONTRADICT what you are trying to prove, and with that I end my rant.

[pancakemix]

1. Websters dictionary in the back of my classroom did. Go look it up yourself, or allow me to get time to look it up on the internet, but it did.

2. Well that was the point I was trying to make dude. If you didnt realize, you were referring to someone in the waiters perspective instead of the post that was particularly outlined as the main source of this confusion...So..Yeah

3. I guess that could be easier.

I even said you didnt need a dictionary definition. I was meaning that you seemed to want best for town in some parts, then went to scum, then town, then scum. I figured you would realize that after reading it a couple of times instead of being a smart ass about it and trying to go with the dictionary definition.

If you dont skim over me actually doing it. So ummm....Yeah, mr skimmer, I did actually already say that. In case you are planning on skimming over again, I will highlight it in red.

4. Well actually I did go back and clarify. So the only reason I can see you not going back through and getting your facts straight before trying to lead a case against me is because you are the one trying to be misleading.


Anymore things everyone else should know about? Because last time I checked, you are trying to recklessly lead a case against me without even going back and getting any favorable quotes. You are ignoring the posts that exactly CONTRADICT what you are trying to prove, and with that I end my rant.

1. Five different Dictionary.com definitions say otherwise.

2. What? English please.

3. ...

That is exactly my point. I know you said that, I didn't skim. It has nothing to do with what I was saying. And it doesn't change the fact that you were using misleading wording in the first place. At least give our audience the benefit of some context... (that starts a ways up the page. The post ghostly quoted is a few more down. Keep reading after that, though, that's where it starts to get good).

4. You seem to be forgetting that the whole incident stemmed from you not being clear in the first place. Which you acknowledged in the post you just quoted.

I even said you didnt need a dictionary definition. I was meaning that you seemed to want best for town in some parts, then went to scum, then town, then scum. I figured you would realize that after reading it a couple of times instead of being a smart ass about it and trying to go with the dictionary definition.

Note to self: Using a dictionary makes you a smart ass.

I think I've made my point, but to reiterate: You refused to explain what you were talking about, then actually said what you were talking about (which wasn't actually a contradiction), and while doing so (are you ready for this?) CONTRADICTED YOURSELF. Which Looten rightfully called you out on. And instead of actually debating with him, you resorted to insults.

[ghostly447]

1. Websters dictionary in the back of my classroom did. Go look it up yourself, or allow me to get time to look it up on the internet, but it did.

2. Well that was the point I was trying to make dude. If you didnt realize, you were referring to someone in the waiters perspective instead of the post that was particularly outlined as the main source of this confusion...So..Yeah

3. I guess that could be easier.

I even said you didnt need a dictionary definition. I was meaning that you seemed to want best for town in some parts, then went to scum, then town, then scum. I figured you would realize that after reading it a couple of times instead of being a smart ass about it and trying to go with the dictionary definition.

If you dont skim over me actually doing it. So ummm....Yeah, mr skimmer, I did actually already say that. In case you are planning on skimming over again, I will highlight it in red.

4. Well actually I did go back and clarify. So the only reason I can see you not going back through and getting your facts straight before trying to lead a case against me is because you are the one trying to be misleading.


Anymore things everyone else should know about? Because last time I checked, you are trying to recklessly lead a case against me without even going back and getting any favorable quotes. You are ignoring the posts that exactly CONTRADICT what you are trying to prove, and with that I end my rant.

1. Five different Dictionary.com definitions say otherwise.

2. What? English please.

3. ...

That is exactly my point. I know you said that, I didn't skim. It has nothing to do with what I was saying. And it doesn't change the fact that you were using misleading wording in the first place. At least give our audience the benefit of some context... (that starts a ways up the page. The post ghostly quoted is a few more down. Keep reading after that, though, that's where it starts to get good).

4. You seem to be forgetting that the whole incident stemmed from you not being clear in the first place. Which you acknowledged in the post you just quoted.

I even said you didnt need a dictionary definition. I was meaning that you seemed to want best for town in some parts, then went to scum, then town, then scum. I figured you would realize that after reading it a couple of times instead of being a smart ass about it and trying to go with the dictionary definition.

Note to self: Using a dictionary makes you a smart ass.

I think I've made my point, but to reiterate: You refused to explain what you were talking about, then actually said what you were talking about (which wasn't actually a contradiction), and while doing so (are you ready for this?) CONTRADICTED YOURSELF. Which Looten rightfully called you out on. And instead of actually debating with him, you resorted to insults.

1. Oh, my bad, I forgot there was only 1 site you could look for definitions on.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contradictory

2. Dont worry, its about the analogy. There is enough other stuff to go on now.

3. I am glad you skipped over the part where I completely beat you by providing a quote, etc... Some context eh? Yeah, okay context is fine. But how does it help your point at all? Once more, I am seeming to get this crap "You didnt answer this" but clearly if you look at the past quote of yours...

Third, why didn't you just say he was making posts that seemed to suppor the mafia? Isn't that easier than using intentionally confusing language?

I did. I am getting tired of this.

4. I am sorry, I didnt quite realize that I wasnt clear enough. Let me reword it.
He had 3 points.

Yeah I understand the policy of day one lynches. Day one lynches can yield so much information. The best I can do in this position is deflect to another player and be accused of deflecting to further dig my grave.
Most of my read-up was on my past-self, the cases I had built were destroyed by later posts. So I'm still sifting through to get some goodens.

I think Ghostly should agree to be lynched if I flip town... if you're so sure why don't you put your life on the line!
Yes yes I understand you don't 100 percent know. But lets make this interesting shall we.

1. He understands day one lynches, and how random they are and how much info they give. That shows town in my eyes.
2. Thinks I should be lynched if he flips town. That shows Mafia in my eyes because why if he was town would he want another towny to risk that? He did flip town, therefore the blame is on me for you know..Leading a fucking case the second I got here. But it still would favor mafia if he flipped town then I did too.. Mafia.
3. He knows I dont 100% know but still wants me to put my life on the line. Mafia.

So lets see. You are using a definition in your favor without looking at others, or taking into consideration I have different sources (like, you know, my school dictionary). You are lingering on your analogy, which quite frankly no longer needs to be worried about because there is plenty else to go on now. You are pulling the same crap someone else did (you or someone else??) with saying I didnt answer what I was asked or some bull shit similar to it. And you took particular note of the last half of my post...Which was calling him a smart ass...But completely ignore the sentence before it which proves my case right...

You are dodging around far too much PCM. You didnt make any solid point, and for some reason believe that I am calling him a smart ass for using a dictionary. INCORRECT. I am calling him a smart ass for using it when my point was clear as to why I was pursuing him.

I think I've made my point, but to reiterate: You refused to explain what you were talking about, then actually said what you were talking about (which wasn't actually a contradiction), and while doing so (are you ready for this?) CONTRADICTED YOURSELF. Which Looten rightfully called you out on. And instead of actually debating with him, you resorted to insults.

I dont quite get what you mean by this. Could you make it a bit clearer? Because last time I checked, I clearly said this, in its order:
You dont need a dictionary definition.
You went town, scum, scum in favoring.
If you werent being a smart ass you would know what I meant.

I know, I know guys. I contradicted myself CLEARLY. Thats right, hop on the BW. Which one? I dont know! Probably me because I am being a SMART ASS right now!

[pancakemix]

1. See, you aren't even looking up the same word. If you're not even paying attention to the side arguments, why am I bothering?

2. Passing over this, as I doubt I'll get an explanation.

3. Yeah, you did, after beating him over the head with intentional obscurity of argument. What is so difficult to understand about this?

And believe me, you are not the only one getting tired of arguing in circles.

4. From that, it sounds like you snapped at him solely for suggesting he should be lynched. Your logic isn't even good. All that happened because of THAT?

So lets see. You are using a definition in your favor without looking at others, or taking into consideration I have different sources (like, you know, my school dictionary). You are lingering on your analogy, which quite frankly no longer needs to be worried about because there is plenty else to go on now. You are pulling the same crap someone else did (you or someone else??) with saying I didnt answer what I was asked or some bull shit similar to it. And you took particular note of the last half of my post...Which was calling him a smart ass...But completely ignore the sentence before it which proves my case right...

You are dodging around far too much PCM. You didnt make any solid point, and for some reason believe that I am calling him a smart ass for using a dictionary. INCORRECT. I am calling him a smart ass for using it when my point was clear as to why I was pursuing him.

Let's see, you looked up a definition to a different word (similar, I'll grant you, but the point stands), I'm not lingering on the analogy as you claim, you kinda wrote a bunch of nonsense about it and I asked you to clarify, you're misconstruing my arguments about you by saying they're not about not answering but abut beating around the bush, and YOU ignored the second half of YOUR post, where you complained that he was using the proper definition of the word.

You'd only see I was making a solid point if you'd but look. I don't understand why you think your point was clear when I'm telling you it wasn't. It just wasn't (And I am entitled to my facetious comments, thank you).

I dont quite get what you mean by this. Could you make it a bit clearer? Because last time I checked, I clearly said this, in its order:
You dont need a dictionary definition.
You went town, scum, scum in favoring.
If you werent being a smart ass you would know what I meant.

The problems with that are:

If the dictionary definition doesn't apply.
Your reasoning is paranoid
Being a smart ass implies knowing what is actually going on.

[pancakemix]

Anyone else have any thoughts?

Please. Someone save me.

[strike wolf]

At this point, I jsut think Ghostly will convince himself that whatever he thinks is a fact and nothing's going to change that. It's not a matter of acting like town. It's not a matter of acting like scum. It's an inability to comprehend when he's wrong.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Anyone else have any thoughts?

Please. Someone save me.

I'm having a hard time giving any fucks about anything going on in this game. Hope that helps.

-Tails

[zimmah]

At this point, I jsut think Ghostly will convince himself that whatever he thinks is a fact and nothing's going to change that. It's not a matter of acting like town. It's not a matter of acting like scum. It's an inability to comprehend when he's wrong.

right, i think so too, but all this kind of stuff is kinda filling up the treat with garbage discussions, making it easy for the mafia to hide.

they could in fact both be mafia just to prevent serious discussion.

[ghostly447]

1. See, you aren't even looking up the same word. If you're not even paying attention to the side arguments, why am I bothering?

Here is the definition of contradiction then if that helps you! Is that the one I was looking up? I cant remember which one because they were all sitting there so I picked a random one because I was in class.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contradiction

Look out guys, that first definition is scary!

2. Passing over this, as I doubt I'll get an explanation.

You are making me sound like the bad guy here. I just doubt that it is needed, as it is complete perspective.

3. Yeah, you did, after beating him over the head with intentional obscurity of argument. What is so difficult to understand about this?

And believe me, you are not the only one getting tired of arguing in circles.

Oh, I am sorry. I didnt realize that by stating points as to what I was arguing, as quoted half a dozen times, was obscuring the argument. Granted, at the time I had only posted it once. For God's sake, I almost forgot we couldnt obscure arguments here intentionally or not just because we get what we are saying, but others dont!

4. From that, it sounds like you snapped at him solely for suggesting he should be lynched. Your logic isn't even good. All that happened because of THAT?

I snapped at him because I began to become even more of a smart ass after I started getting aggravated. Please do not assume like that and then try to tell me my logic isnt good.

So lets see. You are using a definition in your favor without looking at others, or taking into consideration I have different sources (like, you know, my school dictionary). You are lingering on your analogy, which quite frankly no longer needs to be worried about because there is plenty else to go on now. You are pulling the same crap someone else did (you or someone else??) with saying I didnt answer what I was asked or some bull shit similar to it. And you took particular note of the last half of my post...Which was calling him a smart ass...But completely ignore the sentence before it which proves my case right...

You are dodging around far too much PCM. You didnt make any solid point, and for some reason believe that I am calling him a smart ass for using a dictionary. INCORRECT. I am calling him a smart ass for using it when my point was clear as to why I was pursuing him.

Let's see, you looked up a definition to a different word (similar, I'll grant you, but the point stands), I'm not lingering on the analogy as you claim, you kinda wrote a bunch of nonsense about it and I asked you to clarify, you're misconstruing my arguments about you by saying they're not about not answering but abut beating around the bush, and YOU ignored the second half of YOUR post, where you complained that he was using the proper definition of the word.

Got the real one (if im not mistaken). Okay, you are not lingering, all good. I said that you are beating around the bush with weak arguments. I ignored it? I could have sworn I said something along the lines of he was using the proper definition which means opposite, which he did do (town, mafia mafia favoring) which technically means contradiction. So if you want to keep hearing about my dictionary definition, then you may begin hearing about me saying that technically I am saying the definition, just through a synonym.

You'd only see I was making a solid point if you'd but look. I don't understand why you think your point was clear when I'm telling you it wasn't. It just wasn't (And I am entitled to my facetious comments, thank you).

I dont quite get what you mean by this. Could you make it a bit clearer? Because last time I checked, I clearly said this, in its order:
You dont need a dictionary definition.
You went town, scum, scum in favoring.
If you werent being a smart ass you would know what I meant.

The problems with that are:

If the dictionary definition doesn't apply.
Your reasoning is paranoid
Being a smart ass implies knowing what is actually going on.

You are confusing me with this point completely. Stop advancing with it and explain it. BEFORE I fall behind with it.

Fastposted x2.

Okay Tailgunner. No input again. I know you dont give a f*ck, but come on man.

Strike Wolf...How do you know I am wrong? He could be mafia and you are just going to allow him to run free because I am so clearly wrong. How do you know that I am wrong? The only way you know that is to be aligned with him which means your either masons, which still doesnt completely clear him of being scum while you are town, or you are scum buddies in which case you 'know Im wrong' but really I am right.

Zimmah, if you dont think the case(s) at hand are good, then find one, or lets just no lynch. Because if there is nothing more to come from today, then maybe a lynch, or maybe a no lynch and watching tonight will do the damn job.

[strike wolf]

Ghostly. I am not simply referring to Pancake. I'm talk about the big picture. The flawed arguments. Some of your other cases. The fact that you think you were being crystal clear about the contradiction when several people disagree. Are you wrong about everything? No. But you certainly aren't right about everything either and I have yet to see you yield in any game I've been in with you when you have been wrong.

[Some7hingCLEVER]

one thing. pmc your questioning that using the dictionary definition makes you a smart ass? well its not that that did IMO Its the fact of the way he said it he said it to act like a smart ass not that it made him ope (does that make sense) and trust me you can prove him wrong but you need hard hitting facts..its difficult trust me.

[Rodion]

Open Question: Without actually naming the contradiction, can anyone in here say they knew what contradiction ghostly was talking about in regard to Looten?

I "understood" after Ghostly explained it D2. When Looten made the challenge (lynch him and if he is town lynch Ghostly next) Ghostly spun this into a "how can you be town if you don't care who's lynched which is mafia behaviour" and thus considered this a contradiction, which he later acknowledged not to be a "textbook" contradiction. I personally only understood the explanations after Looten got "baited" into raging and got modkilled, but it is possible that Ghostly explained it before D1 ended somewhere around the biblical quotes and the major mutual raging I quite frankly did not bother to read.

And lets not single anyone out! I will make a random order list for a yoshi roll call (not role like your actual role, just sign in and give you input!)

This reminds me of a funny story. It involved Yoshi and Zimmah if I recall correctly.

1. He understands day one lynches, and how random they are and how much info they give. That shows town in my eyes.

That shows he possesses (or pretended to possess) general mafia knowledge. Period.

2. Thinks I should be lynched if he flips town. That shows Mafia in my eyes because why if he was town would he want another towny to risk that? He did flip town, therefore the blame is on me for you know..Leading a fucking case the second I got here. But it still would favor mafia if he flipped town then I did too.. Mafia.

Couldn't he truly believe you were mafia? This way, after being lynched D1 at least he would have helped town (from his perspective) in that he set up mafia (you, again from his perspective) for the D2 lynch.

Besides, if he flipped mafia as you suspected he would, all this would be moot, no?

3. He knows I dont 100% know but still wants me to put my life on the line. Mafia.

Why mafia? If he flipped mafia this would all be moot and you would not be lynched. If he flipped town, then he's proven town. This is to say I don't see the mafia motivation in saying "lynch me and if I flip town lynch player X".

[Some7hingCLEVER]

Open Question: Without actually naming the contradiction, can anyone in here say they knew what contradiction ghostly was talking about in regard to Looten?

I "understood" after Ghostly explained it D2. When Looten made the challenge (lynch him and if he is town lynch Ghostly next) Ghostly spun this into a "how can you be town if you don't care who's lynched which is mafia behaviour" and thus considered this a contradiction, which he later acknowledged not to be a "textbook" contradiction. I personally only understood the explanations after Looten got "baited" into raging and got modkilled, but it is possible that Ghostly explained it before D1 ended somewhere around the biblical quotes and the major mutual raging I quite frankly did not bother to read.

And lets not single anyone out! I will make a random order list for a yoshi roll call (not role like your actual role, just sign in and give you input!)

This reminds me of a funny story. It involved Yoshi and Zimmah if I recall correctly.

1. He understands day one lynches, and how random they are and how much info they give. That shows town in my eyes.

That shows he possesses (or pretended to possess) general mafia knowledge. Period.

2. Thinks I should be lynched if he flips town. That shows Mafia in my eyes because why if he was town would he want another towny to risk that? He did flip town, therefore the blame is on me for you know..Leading a fucking case the second I got here. But it still would favor mafia if he flipped town then I did too.. Mafia.

Couldn't he truly believe you were mafia? This way, after being lynched D1 at least he would have helped town (from his perspective) in that he set up mafia (you, again from his perspective) for the D2 lynch.

Besides, if he flipped mafia as you suspected he would, all this would be moot, no?

3. He knows I dont 100% know but still wants me to put my life on the line. Mafia.

Why mafia? If he flipped mafia this would all be moot and you would not be lynched. If he flipped town, then he's proven town. This is to say I don't see the mafia motivation in saying "lynch me and if I flip town lynch player X".

to the very last part. it a tactic by mafia in a last attempt to slow there lynch. i dont know why he did it as town its just wierd.

[Rodion]

to the very last part. it a tactic by mafia in a last attempt to slow there lynch. i dont know why he did it as town its just wierd.

It's pretty much equivalent to claiming town bomb and insisting on a specific player hammering you (you are giving up as long as you can pick the next victim - provided you spoke the truth). I did that against Strike in NBC Mafia. Yes, I was trying to slow my own lynch down. I was town.

[Some7hingCLEVER]

to the very last part. it a tactic by mafia in a last attempt to slow there lynch. i dont know why he did it as town its just wierd.

It's pretty much equivalent to claiming town bomb and insisting on a specific player hammering you (you are giving up as long as you can pick the next victim - provided you spoke the truth). I did that against Strike in NBC Mafia. Yes, I was trying to slow my own lynch down. I was town.

ok i see now. it makes sense.