I feel, however, that I have not been entirely precise in that characterization.
"I am attacking but hedging my bets." = CAUTIOUS. lso, making other people fill in your arguments = scum:
"No particular statements because it's blatant and general" = I'm not supporting my arguments also I am attacking meta vs "Meta is not a traditional scumtell"
Then, most of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies he "seems to have found" are actually applications of different thinking to different situations, such as calling Dakarian out for a claim request just before vigging ExKirby. This may simply just be inflexible thinking, however, so I push this one somewhat less strongly and ask merely that he think harder before posting.
-more caution. Vector.
"It turns out that I was mistaken," followed by "Fifth, there still remain inconsistencies in his arguments, which he has brushed over."-hypocrisy- brushing over own mistakes, followed by accusing me of same.
" I apologize for the lack of quotations in the below; they are partially because the behaviors are rampant, and partially because it is nearly impossible to dig them out of his crunched blocks of text." vs. "I have carefully combed through the recent statements in an attempt to figure out what, precisely, was bothering me about his statements." apparent inconsistency.
a. "I feel I have not been precise in that characterization" == what I was writing was a general idea of what I meant, but not what I actually meant. I'm sick and tired of playing word games with you because you don't like how I put something. Is writing more precisely hedging your bets?
No. "Hedging bets" would involve writing in your style, so that there were so many interpretations to everything you write that we cannot help being wrong, over and over again. You are intentionally tripping people up with your explanatory system, and it ... well, I'm really tired of saying this, too, but it makes me angry.
Writing precisely means you're avoiding something.
Further, I have not seen any place in which I was allowing people to fill in my arguments. The most I've done is said "Find your own damn quotes--I'll reference events that are easily memorable, but I'm not going to go prying those suckers out." Lazy, maybe, but I'm not forcing others to fill anything in but your pain-in-the-ass quotations.
"Nothing! Nothing but one..."
Interesting how you'll attack me for my lack of quotations, but didn't attack Dakarian for following me on the behavior. That's inconsistency at its finest.
I can only attack so much before I miss something.
b. "No particular statements because it's blatant and general" != "I am attacking meta => hypocrisy." It means "Your scumtells are all over the place, so that even a braindead two-year-old could find them without a flashlight." Also, "if you happen to be a braindead one-year-old sans flashlight, I will be more than happy to direct you to the posts in question. I just don't have much time right now."
It's not so much about "how you're behaving differently from usual" as it is about "how you're behaving right now, in this game alone."
..note to self: fully reconstruct quote tags in future. Anyway, here...you're...asking people to fill in the details in your arguments! Hypocrisy, and directly adjacent to where you are saying you are not asking people to fill in any of your arguments!
c. "More caution"? More like "Vector sees a different interpretation for this behavior. Vector thinks inflexibly across situations, himself! It ends up looking just like this. Maybe I should bring up this point but mostly leave it alone, given that I cannot figure out which of the two interpretations it is. If I get more evidence for one than the other, then I will decide what to do."
Caution is for thinking, not for posting. Town-vector knows this. You, pparently, do not.
d. We seem to be using different definitions of "brushing off" and "addressing." You brush things off, i.e. people say "You did this wrong!" and you say nothing. I address my errors by issuing apologies for being incorrect--i.e., I admit my mistakes and don't continue to push my poorly-formed ideas after the fact. Not hypocritical, doodabuddy.
I already issued a correction.
e. "I looked carefully through the text. I am not, however, going to spend hours furnishing an internet forum with all the quotations coinciding to every behavior." How is this inconsistent?
If you were looking carefully, then it would be relatively quick (quote in new tab, cut, paste into building post is how I do it) to put in evidence.
I'm not perfect and one-dimensional. I know this. My suggestion is that you stop complaining at people for being human, given that it is PROFOUNDLY irritating.
Is this a nice game? No. We shake people 'til scumtells fall out. Being irritating helps do that.
..if half the town is acting scummy, then I can't base my arguments against them based on that scumminess? This makes no sense, Vector. Stop grasping at straws.
If half the town is acting scummy in precisely the same fashion, then you cannot base your arguments against a single person on that ground alone. Thus I don't think your complaints against Dakarian (where they are mostly talking about his "appeals to emotion") are valid, and I think you should know that already.
It increases their scumminess. When half the town is doing it, it makes that half scummier than the other half. One should lynch from the scummier half, no?
Further, as I've been saying: most of your stated "hypocrisy" is not hypocritical at all. You like throwing that word around like it's candy, whereas most of what I see is "CobaltKobold is trying to get everybody lynched on the mildest of offenses." Then, you also end up just going "HYPOCRISY! CONTRADICTION!" with very little explanation whatsoever. At the very least, it's severely anti-town. At the most, it's scummy.
Finding inconsistencies is serious stuff, because scum are far, FAR more likely to be inconsistent.
You aren't addressing what I'm actually saying at all. Finding inconsistencies: yes, that's serious stuff. Going through yelling "HYPOCRISY AND CONTRADICTION, AND NO I WON'T EXPLAIN MYSELF!" is also serious stuff, and it happens to be ridiculously scummy.
I have explained myself.
I mean... "I've pulled the bottom card out of a house of cards again! 
" with THIS stuff? Are you serious? You aren't even addressing my accusations, and in the above tab of scummy stuff you KEEP ON WRITING THE SAME WAY.
I am addressing your accusations.
The purpose of the above statements is to inform CobaltKobold that, if he is town, he would do well to reconsider his attacking style, as it is so full of holes that the only thing it will hold is viscous liquid. Such as scum.
The icing my be holy, but there is still a cake beneath it.
The cake is a lie.
A joke? Vector?
A popular culture reference.
... What, do I have a reputation for being humorless?
Not terribly, but jokes in lieu of scumhunting are generally considered scummy.
Second, though he addresses the WIFOM-spreading, he does not address his apparent cautiousness. Further, all that crap about staged fights is nothing but a vat of WIFOM, and it constitutes most of his arguments against Webadict and perhaps half of the WoT against dakarian.
*shrug* It's my interpretation. It's been...interesting that they've been into each other all game. Also, the nature of the fights is very odd, since each of them are throwing mostly-bad arguments against eachother. "I have a hole but I'm not telling you" for instance.
You have a duty not to WIFOM the town. The fact that you are doing so happily bothers me.
Happily? I retracted the statement, didn't I?
I don't see you retracting the statement. I see you explaining it and trying to reinforce it in the above quotation. Hence, yes. "CobaltKobold is happily WIFOMing the town."
Calling it a staged-fight is...let's see, how is that wifom. Comparing...
"These two are scum, it's a staged fight!" "But that's what they want me to think!"
"This person is scum!" "But that's what they want me to think!"
...not seeing it.
Third, his arguments continue to be horrifyingly flimsy. His statement was that he was pointing out "every scummy thing as it floated by, which doesn't look very town." This is not the issue I take with his statements. The problem is that he argues based on (extremely old) meta and, rather than searching for scumtells, seems to have confounded himself with "not-town-tells"--i.e., nulltells.
Null-tells would be either known self-used tells (which are going to be town-tells).
Uh.... no. Null-tells are things that players do when they are town or scum. We have three options: town-tells, null-tells, and scumtells. The fact that Dakarian is acting in a way that does not coincide with his town-tells does not mean that he is displaying his scumtells, or is even scum.
Null-tells are either known self-used tells, or... what? What I'm saying here is that you really aren't doing much by way of identifying scumtells. Mostly, you're sitting about digging up nulltells, and asking us to believe you're town.
I treat a bit more as meta than you do, I think. if someone is known for (town)strong arguments, and gives weak ones- that's both scummy(weak arguments) and metascummy(different to their town meta).
Ah-ha, kind of like you used to speak logically and coherently and suddenly you're spewing these messes. Now I understand.
You may have gone quote-happy in BMIV, but at least you tried to explain yourself.
I am speaking logically, and trying to explain myself. Apparently you're not listening.
Further, the "appeals to emotion" he has found do not constitute true appeals to emotion. Everyone in this thread (a generalization, as I am sure someone has been lurking too much to complain) has complained about its length/ridiculousness here or elsewhere. The "appeals to emotion" he found in me were nothing but apologies after having made grating statements.
There is quite a difference betweenA bigger part tells me that Wide Scanning 19 people will make me cry. *sigh*
and, something like "Yikes, 10 pages overnight"- for instance.
Yes. That difference is called "personality." Are we allowed to have those, or has King Kobold banned them, too?
No, that difference is the difference between commenting on something and hamming it up to get the town on your side for no good reason.
Also, Queen Kobold.
Maybe so. I will continue to posit that Dakarian is acting just the way he usually does, but will leave this point for now.
Also, King Hatshepsut.
Interesting, yes, that some cultures King is Ruler, and Queen is Ruler Consort, regardless of gender. But beside any points.
I pointed it out by virtue of throwing a mass of quotes at you. I suppose saying "Here we find three buddyings, including, suspiciously, webadict!" would be superior, but communication has been a problem for me, clearly.
Yes. I suggest you work on that.
I suppose I asked for that.
I feel like you're saying "Well, you're just too dumb to understand what I mean, then, what with my sesquipedalian diction," to which I answer "screw you." Being smart includes knowing how to communicate, not just dicking around with things that are so obvious to you and so unobvious to us, the idiots. This feeling increases when I remember the argument with Cheeetar, where you defined a "referent" as
referent: concept to which an indexical refers.
"An indexical?" Really? If you're going to bash us for spelling incorrectly (sware vs. swear), how about learning to use the correct form of a word?
I am using the correct form of the word. Indexical as noun: an indexical statement: a statement pointing at something else. "An index" does not contain this meaning.
1. Screw dictionary.com.
I used wiktionary. You start word-pedantry and don't bother to get a big thing like that right?
Have something much, MUCH better, anyway.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/indexicals/ - the paragraph starting "According to Stanley and Szabo" explains roughly what I was pointing out at the time, a hidden referent.
2. Amusing how Dakarian has also picked up on the insane amounts of hubris you're spewing everywhere. Not really an important point; I just think it's funny.
Hubris is
unwarranted pride.
3. This is a formal request (what, the third one?) that you start working harder on communicating with us. I don't care how awesome you think you are, you need to work on it. You may be the best scum-hunter who ever lived, but you're just going to keep getting lynched if you continue to argue like this.
Ooh, a policy-lynch threat!
I AM trying. One, I'm not using any of the three layers of misdirection as I'm wont to do in everyday speech.
Two, ask for clarification if I'm not clear.
Fifth, there still remain inconsistencies in his arguments, which he has brushed over. When we were still functioning under the assumption that he had indeed spoken about the doctor in BMIV, he stated that his inconsistency was reasonable given that he had started playing Mafia two weeks ago. When I brought up the fact that he had started perhaps a month and a half ago, he completely brushed it off.
What I see here is an individual who is bending fact and, when someone brings up the fact that he is incorrect, does not correct himself, apologize, or bring up further reasoning. He forgets the point as soon as it has been noticed, perhaps in an attempt to cause others to forget as well.
Grasping at straws, I see. You're arguing that my "If it was my first two weeks" comment is bad because it wasn't my first two weeks. However, the point that I'm making with it- that it is still incredibly early in my mafia tenure (or whatever you want to call it)- does not hinge on that fact. So yes, I don't see it as a problem to be found as mistaken or incorrect on a fact that does not impact the game. Like, for instance, if I got your gender wrong. It would not matter for the game unless it was integral to some argument. So, a pronoun inconsistency would not be grounds for "lynch all liars".
No. My point is not about that specific inconsistency. It is about the part where I made a remark about your being inconsistent, and you ignored it until I brought it up... again. In combination with Dakarian's noticing you ignoring his attacks so many times, it is scummy in the extreme.
Further, it did seem to influence the game at the time. As such, your failure to make any statement about it is suspect.
If it's so small, why not own up to it? Why not address it? Instead, you leave it out and later cover by saying "But that wasn't important!!"
I have made statements, I have addressed it.
...
Now you have, after a whole bunch of crap where I run around and try to get you to talk. That's just fabulous.
Isn't it just?
No, it's that other people were commenting -not that the person was scum- but that their behavior(meta) was off. The overblown is because I knocked down the rest of your attacks.
Fair enough.
And now again. The house of cards tumbles down...
Wishful thinking. You cannot bend iron bars with your desire to be free.
Clap your hands if you believe.
Useful tips for quotebrick junkies:
1. cut and paste something like [quote=Vector] and paste it when you make your breaks. saves typing.
2. Use preview. Save yourself agony of a missed tag.
3. Use another tab where you read the post you're working on to see easily what quote level the stuff you're addressing is on.
Author
Topic: uPick Mafia: Panda Edition Day6 - Mafia wins. Cheeetar calls Shenanigans. (Read 279502 times)