Print

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

[Swowl]

Hey awaclus has anyone townslipped yet?

has anyone not town slipped yet?

[schadd]

lmfoaofo

[theorel]

I think I like to vote: witherweaver, need to get these wagons moving people...besides Awaclus has made a compelling argument as always.

[pingpongsam]

Vote: theorel

[Witherweaver]

Vote: mcmc

Or theorel

I don't really see McMc. Can you enlighten?

[Witherweaver]

who wanna vote witherweaver wit me

galz want your first vote to be a good vote

I could dig a WW vote. What is the reason again?

u can look at his posts

he often has a bit of sick callouty town content by now

This is kind of bad, because your original vote (made without explanation) came before this justification could possibly apply, so this is post facto reasoning.

[Witherweaver]

I think I like to vote: witherweaver, need to get these wagons moving people...besides Awaclus has made a compelling argument as always.

This might be strike two.

[EFHW]

Lo, it shall come upon the world that the prison of the Greatest One shall grow weak, like the limbs of those who crafted it.

Vote Count 1.1

SpaceAnemone: (1) Joseph2302
Joseph2302: (1) mcmcsalot
Witherweaver: (2) schadd, theorel
pingpongsam: (1) SpaceAnemone
mcmcsalot: (1) The_Wine_Merchant
theorel: (1) pingpongsam

Not voting (5): Awaclus, DatSwan, Galzria, Robz888, Witherweaver.

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch. Day ends Sunday, March 18th at 4:45 p.m. Forum time.

THREAD UNLOCKED

[schadd]

who wanna vote witherweaver wit me

galz want your first vote to be a good vote

I could dig a WW vote. What is the reason again?

u can look at his posts

he often has a bit of sick callouty town content by now

This is kind of bad, because your original vote (made without explanation) came before this justification could possibly apply, so this is post facto reasoning.

nah. it's current facto. swan asked why to vote ww, not why i had voted

n.b.

and i mean it's not like the reasoning was really different at the time. "consider yourself forced" seemed more trying to look busy than scumhunty. enough to be better than rvs vote

it's interesting that you would expect me to have a significant talking point for the naked vote i made on you at the 16th game post

[Witherweaver]

who wanna vote witherweaver wit me

galz want your first vote to be a good vote

I could dig a WW vote. What is the reason again?

u can look at his posts

he often has a bit of sick callouty town content by now

This is kind of bad, because your original vote (made without explanation) came before this justification could possibly apply, so this is post facto reasoning.

nah. it's current facto. swan asked why to vote ww, not why i had voted

n.b.

and i mean it's not like the reasoning was really different at the time. "consider yourself forced" seemed more trying to look busy than scumhunty. enough to be better than rvs vote

it's interesting that you would expect me to have a significant talking point for the naked vote i made on you at the 16th game post

That was a post I made within two minutes of opening the thread. Why would I need to look busy?

The latter part is a misrepresentation. What is questionable is that you made a vote and then came up with a weak reason to make it a "real vote" (or more real) later on.

[schadd]

who wanna vote witherweaver wit me

galz want your first vote to be a good vote

I could dig a WW vote. What is the reason again?

u can look at his posts

he often has a bit of sick callouty town content by now

This is kind of bad, because your original vote (made without explanation) came before this justification could possibly apply, so this is post facto reasoning.

nah. it's current facto. swan asked why to vote ww, not why i had voted

n.b.

and i mean it's not like the reasoning was really different at the time. "consider yourself forced" seemed more trying to look busy than scumhunty. enough to be better than rvs vote

it's interesting that you would expect me to have a significant talking point for the naked vote i made on you at the 16th game post

That was a post I made within two minutes of opening the thread. Why would I need to look busy?

The latter part is a misrepresentation. What is questionable is that you made a vote and then came up with a weak reason to make it a "real vote" (or more real) later on.

scum wants to be townread all the time. i don't see why you wouldn't want to look busy at the beginning of the game

in 58 you say pushing a massclaim is something scum does to appear active or productive, and that it is thus reasonable to push joseph, who did that on the third post


for the second thing, no, that's not what i did. i initially voted you because i thought you were marginally scummy. i later campaigned to vote you because i was more confident that you were scummy. i then gave a reason when prompted that encapsulated my thinking.


the claim that i "came up with a weak reason" after the fact is in fact a claim (and in fact false) but your sentence takes it as a sort of premise ("that you in fact did this thing is questionable")

[Witherweaver]

Because there's nothing about which to construct an artificial air of business.

I think I remember now why I stopped playing Mafia.

[Witherweaver]

It is a fact that I consider what you did to be questionable. There's no point to argue this.

[Galzria]

Vote: WW

[schadd]

Because there's nothing about which to construct an artificial air of business.

...as i said, you claimed it is reasonable to push joseph's massclaim as scummy because scum wants to look active and productive. i guess i am taking this to be the same as "looking busy" which may be unclear / not agreed with

you could construct an artificial air of business around, for example, the meta discussion of massclaiming, which is what i accused you of doing

I think I remember now why I stopped playing Mafia.

i am trying to make my points and thought process clear. sorry if i am not doing this sufficiently.

It is a fact that I consider what you did to be questionable. There's no point to argue this.

that isn't the thing i said was a claim. the claim you made was that i came up with a reason after the fact. i didn't. i had a reason to vote for you in my head when i voted you. you worded your sentence in a way that took that claim as a given, which seemed like arguing in bad faith.

[Witherweaver]

Because there's nothing about which to construct an artificial air of business.

...as i said, you claimed it is reasonable to push joseph's massclaim as scummy because scum wants to look active and productive. i guess i am taking this to be the same as "looking busy" which may be unclear / not agreed with

you could construct an artificial air of business around, for example, the meta discussion of massclaiming, which is what i accused you of doing

No, this was about the first vote:

who wanna vote witherweaver wit me

galz want your first vote to be a good vote

I could dig a WW vote. What is the reason again?

u can look at his posts

he often has a bit of sick callouty town content by now

This is kind of bad, because your original vote (made without explanation) came before this justification could possibly apply, so this is post facto reasoning.

nah. it's current facto. swan asked why to vote ww, not why i had voted

n.b.

and i mean it's not like the reasoning was really different at the time. "consider yourself forced" seemed more trying to look busy than scumhunty. enough to be better than rvs vote

it's interesting that you would expect me to have a significant talking point for the naked vote i made on you at the 16th game post

It was before I made the post about massclaiming.

I think I remember now why I stopped playing Mafia.

i am trying to make my points and thought process clear. sorry if i am not doing this sufficiently.

It is a fact that I consider what you did to be questionable. There's no point to argue this.

that isn't the thing i said was a claim. the claim you made was that i came up with a reason after the fact. i didn't. i had a reason to vote for you in my head when i voted you. you worded your sentence in a way that took that claim as a given, which seemed like arguing in bad faith.

The reasoning was presented after the fact. Whether you came up with it at the time or after is not knowable. 

[Witherweaver]

To be clear, this was how the beginning of the day went:

Hi guys, I'm not a one-shot PGO.

vote: joseph the people claiming massclaim recently have more often than not been scum.

Fake news? I can only think of iguana in Lost.

Robz in smash bro’s, I’ll get other examples if forced.

Consider yourself forced.

I agree with Mcmc, and I support his assertion without request for more evidence. He's correct. If you want more evidence, I suggest you look it up yourself.

vote: witherweaver

This was my first time opening the thread and those were my first posts. I couldn't be looking busy because there wasn't content with which to be busy about.  Hence:

and i mean it's not like the reasoning was really different at the time. "consider yourself forced" seemed more trying to look busy than scumhunty. enough to be better than rvs vote

That was a post I made within two minutes of opening the thread. Why would I need to look busy?

[schadd]

you could construct an artificial air of business around, for example, the meta discussion of massclaiming, which is what i accused you of doing

this was referring to 47.

The reasoning was presented after the fact. Whether you came up with it at the time or after is not knowable.

yup!

however, my argument was that you worded a sentence as though it was in fact knowable and that i did do the thing you said i did

[Witherweaver]

you could construct an artificial air of business around, for example, the meta discussion of massclaiming, which is what i accused you of doing

this was referring to 47.

The reasoning was presented after the fact. Whether you came up with it at the time or after is not knowable.

yup!

however, my argument was that you worded a sentence as though it was in fact knowable and that i did do the thing you said i did

I don't see an issue with that? That's the narrative I'm entertaining.

[schadd]

47 seemed to me at the time like it would more reasonably come from "how can i look engaged in this discussion" than "who is scum"

i'm like not even continuing to make the argument really it was just more compelling than an rvs vote

The reasoning was presented after the fact. Whether you came up with it at the time or after is not knowable.

yup!

however, my argument was that you worded a sentence as though it was in fact knowable and that i did do the thing you said i did

I don't see an issue with that? That's the narrative I'm entertaining.

ok. people can figure out whether they think your wording was manipulative i suppose

[Witherweaver]

you could construct an artificial air of business around, for example, the meta discussion of massclaiming, which is what i accused you of doing

this was referring to 47.

It sounds a lot more like you're talking about this post, which came after.

The post I made in response to McMc (47) was about McMc and not about the content about which he was talking.

[Witherweaver]

47 seemed to me at the time like it would more reasonably come from "how can i look engaged in this discussion" than "who is scum"

i'm like not even continuing to make the argument really it was just more compelling than an rvs vote

Which is fine. The issue is that later on, you double down on the vote. It is like a "it was a kind of weak vote then but now it's stronger" thing that I have found scum does.

[mcmcsalot]

hmmm this schad and ww back and forth does not feel overly town v. town as early squabbles like this often do.

[Witherweaver]

Vote: McMc

[schadd]

The post I made in response to McMc (47) was about McMc and not about the content about which he was talking.

ok i guess, it had struck me as just wanting examples

like did you expect mcmc in fact only have one example and if so would that be alignment indicative

etc

Which is fine. The issue is that later on, you double down on the vote. It is like a "it was a kind of weak vote then but now it's stronger" thing that I have found scum does.

i guess this is reasonable if you are town and have the premise "most stuff i do should generally make people think i'm town"

i thought you were scum and more content from you continued to fit the expectation i had of you as scum

Vote: McMc

reasonable

i guess i am interested in why you never voted me during this time