Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[theorel]

@shraeye: I still feel like the summation of your arguments yesterday were entirely scummy.  It seemed like you were most interested in getting a lynch that wasn't you (or possibly a team-mate) rather than actually building a coherent argument.  So, I still find you the scummiest player in the game.  Munch I'm more ambivalent on.  I don't hold that there must be scum between the two of you, but I see where Robz is coming from.

[ashersky]

Nevermind, I mixed up scumteams...the jump was illogical (The argument I thought I was going to make was based on the idea that given Robz' propositions that Galzria's partner was off-wagon, then munch/shraeye would be required to be not Galzria's partner.  And this would imply that munch/shraeye had killed raerae.  But it implies the opposite (i.e. munch/shraeye had to kill Galzria)).


So, to fully clarify:
Robz said "I thought one of munch/shraeye/raerae are scum, it's not raerae clearly."
Ashersky said "I disagree with this, I don't think munch/shraeye would shoot raerae."
Munch said "this is an illogical jump".

It is an illogical jump.  It could be a scumslip, it could just be a mistake/misreading.

I thought this was going to be your argument, actually.  But Robz never made the "Galz's partner was off-wagon" argument.  So it doesn't work to say.  Appreciate the thought, though.

I do think Galz's partner was off-wagon, btw.

Okay, trying again...full clarification of what happened.
Robz says: "one of munch-shraeye-raerae is scum, not raerae."
He then says: "Galz' partner probably not on wagon" (He did in fact say this ashersky, you quoted it when you said the supposed scumslip)
Ashersky says: "I don't think munch-shraeye would kill raerae".
Munch says: "Why do you think that scum = killed raerae?  Is it because you killed Galzria? I see no other reason to make that assumption."
ashersky says: "Why are you accusing me of being partners with Galzria?"

So did I make a scumslip?  Or an illogical jump?

[TheMunch]

My claim is that the illogical jump (from "scum" to "killed raerae") is a scumslip because this is a mistake that someone on the not-galz scumteam is liable to make.

[ashersky]

My claim is that the illogical jump (from "scum" to "killed raerae") is a scumslip because this is a mistake that someone on the not-galz scumteam is liable to make.

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SAY SCUM =/= KILLED RAERAE?  I don't get it Munch.  Scum killed raerae, unless you have more info you aren't sharing.

[TheMunch]

My claim is that the illogical jump (from "scum" to "killed raerae") is a scumslip because this is a mistake that someone on the not-galz scumteam is liable to make.

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SAY SCUM =/= KILLED RAERAE?  I don't get it Munch.  Scum killed raerae, unless you have more info you aren't sharing.

Some scum killed raerae.  The other scum team killed galz.  Thus "scum" is not synonymous with "killed raerae".

[ashersky]

My claim is that the illogical jump (from "scum" to "killed raerae") is a scumslip because this is a mistake that someone on the not-galz scumteam is liable to make.

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SAY SCUM =/= KILLED RAERAE?  I don't get it Munch.  Scum killed raerae, unless you have more info you aren't sharing.

Some scum killed raerae.  The other scum team killed galz.  Thus "scum" is not synonymous with "killed raerae".

But "killed raerae" is synonymous with "scum."  This is the all oranges are fruit but not all fruit are oranges thing.

Anyway, like I said, lead the lynch, man.  Then you'll feel horrendous tomorrow.

[TheMunch]

My claim is that the illogical jump (from "scum" to "killed raerae") is a scumslip because this is a mistake that someone on the not-galz scumteam is liable to make.

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SAY SCUM =/= KILLED RAERAE?  I don't get it Munch.  Scum killed raerae, unless you have more info you aren't sharing.

Some scum killed raerae.  The other scum team killed galz.  Thus "scum" is not synonymous with "killed raerae".

But "killed raerae" is synonymous with "scum."  This is the all oranges are fruit but not all fruit are oranges thing.

Anyway, like I said, lead the lynch, man.  Then you'll feel horrendous tomorrow.

I'm not sure if you understand what the word synonymous means...

[theorel]

@ashersky:
You made an externally illogical jump (not internally illogical).  It is either a scum-slip or an error-presumably a misreading.  It could in fact be an error from misreading and you could still be scum.  I don't think arguments based on specific wordings are ever worth pursuing, because this is a casual game and people aren't that careful.

I'm still generally inclined to find you slightly scummy.  I think your over-reactive defense was silly, especially because defended yourself so strongly from being Galzria's partner when he accused you of the opposite.  OTOH, assuming that was a valid misinterpretation it lends further support to the idea that it was in fact just an error earlier.  And so, I think the scumslip argument holds no water.  Nonetheless, you're scummier for your reaction IMO.  But, I'd rather look back at things that happened yesterday to work towards a target for today.

Also, you are entirely wrong in your argument with theMunch.  He's arguing that we were talking about fruit and you assumed we were talking about oranges.  And you keep arguing back that oranges are fruit.  True but irrelevant.

[TheMunch]

Also, you are entirely wrong in your argument with theMunch.  He's arguing that we were talking about fruit and you assumed we were talking about oranges.  And you keep arguing back that oranges are fruit.  True but irrelevant.

This is a surprisingly accurate analogy.

[ashersky]

@ashersky:
You made an externally illogical jump (not internally illogical).  It is either a scum-slip or an error-presumably a misreading.  It could in fact be an error from misreading and you could still be scum.  I don't think arguments based on specific wordings are ever worth pursuing, because this is a casual game and people aren't that careful.

I'm still generally inclined to find you slightly scummy.  I think your over-reactive defense was silly, especially because defended yourself so strongly from being Galzria's partner when he accused you of the opposite.  OTOH, assuming that was a valid misinterpretation it lends further support to the idea that it was in fact just an error earlier.  And so, I think the scumslip argument holds no water.  Nonetheless, you're scummier for your reaction IMO.  But, I'd rather look back at things that happened yesterday to work towards a target for today.

Also, you are entirely wrong in your argument with theMunch.  He's arguing that we were talking about fruit and you assumed we were talking about oranges.  And you keep arguing back that oranges are fruit.  True but irrelevant.

Okay.  So can we lynch me now?  It's clear I've lost.

[liopoil]

It is certainly an illogical jump... could be a scumslip but i would guess that it isn't, it seems he missunderstood the post. oh an guys... can we please refer to them as "mirror-univers" and "not mirror-universe". we can abrevviate it MU. it just seems a lot less confusing to do it this way. so galz was on MU, MU killed raerae, and non-MU killed galz. we've been assuming that it wasn't a vig+roleblock/doctor save... which seems reasonable because the odds of a vig bieng confident enough night one AND a doctor saving successfully in one night seem miniscule.

[liopoil]

I think munch is saying that ash assumed that munch/shraeye did not kill galz, which he could only know if he killed galz. Is this correct?

[theorel]

I think munch is saying that ash assumed that munch/shraeye did not kill galz, which he could only know if he killed galz. Is this correct?

yes.

[TheMunch]

I think munch is saying that ash assumed that munch/shraeye did not kill galz, which he could only know if he killed galz. Is this correct?

This isn't precisely it, but its the gist, yes.

PPE: Ninja'd by theorel

[theorel]

@ashersky:
You made an externally illogical jump (not internally illogical).  It is either a scum-slip or an error-presumably a misreading.  It could in fact be an error from misreading and you could still be scum.  I don't think arguments based on specific wordings are ever worth pursuing, because this is a casual game and people aren't that careful.

I'm still generally inclined to find you slightly scummy.  I think your over-reactive defense was silly, especially because defended yourself so strongly from being Galzria's partner when he accused you of the opposite.  OTOH, assuming that was a valid misinterpretation it lends further support to the idea that it was in fact just an error earlier.  And so, I think the scumslip argument holds no water.  Nonetheless, you're scummier for your reaction IMO.  But, I'd rather look back at things that happened yesterday to work towards a target for today.

Also, you are entirely wrong in your argument with theMunch.  He's arguing that we were talking about fruit and you assumed we were talking about oranges.  And you keep arguing back that oranges are fruit.  True but irrelevant.

Okay.  So can we lynch me now?  It's clear I've lost.

The only reason you'll definitely lose by being lynched is if you are the only living player on your team.  If that's the case, then we should indeed lynch you.  If you just mean you lost the argument, well that tends to happen when you argue very loudly (loudly being many posts with exclamation points) about unrelated things.

[ashersky]

I think munch is saying that ash assumed that munch/shraeye did not kill galz, which he could only know if he killed galz. Is this correct?

yes.

When did I say or assume they didn't kill Galz?  I said/assumed they didn't kill raerae.

[theorel]

Have you even read any of my posts?

[ashersky]

@ashersky:
You made an externally illogical jump (not internally illogical).  It is either a scum-slip or an error-presumably a misreading.  It could in fact be an error from misreading and you could still be scum.  I don't think arguments based on specific wordings are ever worth pursuing, because this is a casual game and people aren't that careful.

I'm still generally inclined to find you slightly scummy.  I think your over-reactive defense was silly, especially because defended yourself so strongly from being Galzria's partner when he accused you of the opposite.  OTOH, assuming that was a valid misinterpretation it lends further support to the idea that it was in fact just an error earlier.  And so, I think the scumslip argument holds no water.  Nonetheless, you're scummier for your reaction IMO.  But, I'd rather look back at things that happened yesterday to work towards a target for today.

Also, you are entirely wrong in your argument with theMunch.  He's arguing that we were talking about fruit and you assumed we were talking about oranges.  And you keep arguing back that oranges are fruit.  True but irrelevant.

Okay.  So can we lynch me now?  It's clear I've lost.

The only reason you'll definitely lose by being lynched is if you are the only living player on your team.  If that's the case, then we should indeed lynch you.  If you just mean you lost the argument, well that tends to happen when you argue very loudly (loudly being many posts with exclamation points) about unrelated things.

I don't lose the game by being lynched.  I lose the argument. 

I do think town will put themselves in a much harder position to win if we lynch me.

[TheMunch]

I dont see my vote moving off Ashersky for the foreseeable future.

[theorel]

Additionally, I've said this before, but I can't believe there isn't scum somewhere in the Munschraerae trifecta. We know it's not raerae. Munch is another person I'm watching especially closely. It would surprise me if all three of those people, so in sync, were town.

This is what I was referring to.  I took it to mean he thought they'd kill raerae.  I guess it doesn't say that explicitly, though.

You did it before this, but here's your own clarification post on the assumption that they didn't kill Galz.

[ashersky]

Have you even read any of my posts?

I did.  And re-did.

[ashersky]

Additionally, I've said this before, but I can't believe there isn't scum somewhere in the Munschraerae trifecta. We know it's not raerae. Munch is another person I'm watching especially closely. It would surprise me if all three of those people, so in sync, were town.

This is what I was referring to.  I took it to mean he thought they'd kill raerae.  I guess it doesn't say that explicitly, though.

You did it before this, but here's your own clarification post on the assumption that they didn't kill Galz.

Okay, now I think you are twisting my words.

In that quote, I say I thought Robz thought they killed raerae.  I then said I thought they didn't (in later posts).  Right?

You are inferring that, because I thought they didn't kill raerae, they also didn't kill Galz?

[shraeye]

Ok guys!

This argument (between ashersky, Munch, shraeye, theorel) has gone on for 4 pages, and it makes very little sense to me still.

Let us put a cap on it and wait for other people to chime in.

We're inundating the thread with what are quickly becoming meaningless posts to me.

Ashersky, stop proclaiming loudly and sarcasticly (?) that we should just lynch you, or we will.  It's becoming frustrating.

[liopoil]

By saying that you don't think they would kill raerae (in that context), you implied that they COULDN'T have killed galz. this is because you were responding to robz simply saying one of them was scum. all scum killed either raerae or galz.

[theorel]

Additionally, I've said this before, but I can't believe there isn't scum somewhere in the Munschraerae trifecta. We know it's not raerae. Munch is another person I'm watching especially closely. It would surprise me if all three of those people, so in sync, were town.

This is what I was referring to.  I took it to mean he thought they'd kill raerae.  I guess it doesn't say that explicitly, though.

You did it before this, but here's your own clarification post on the assumption that they didn't kill Galz.

Okay, now I think you are twisting my words.

In that quote, I say I thought Robz thought they killed raerae.  I then said I thought they didn't (in later posts).  Right?

You are inferring that, because I thought they didn't kill raerae, they also didn't kill Galz?

NO, definitely not that.

Robz' original post: "munch-shraeye are scum".
You changed it to: "munch-shraeye killed raerae."  (then argued why this was NOT true).
The argument is, you changed "scum" to "killed raerae".  You've stated you did so through misreading.  Munch has argued you did so by eliminating the "killed Galzria" option.

This has nothing to do with what you said later, it's entirely contained in the misreading.

Last post, if you still don't understand just stare at those two statements until you do, or give up.  It really doesn't matter, The only person that thinks you're scum for it is munch.

(I think shraeye is right that this should stop, and I'm going to bed so I give up.)