Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 3, 2011 16:35:56 GMT -5
-quote-fail-while-explaining-quotes- ;D
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 3, 2011 16:43:15 GMT -5
You're right. Post 128, sinjin says this (in response to Bill's discussion of watchers, which Bob has approved of):
Bob immediately responds with this:
The second to last comment referred to is the part I quoted just above, about watchers.
Later, post 144, Bob says this:
So he liked Bill's comment on watchers. He then liked Sinjin's comment on watchers, which was criticizing Bill's comment (and by implication Bill, since she voted for him). But later he can't come to the same conclusion she does. Which is fine in itself, but then why does he earlier say he likes it, *without* mentioning these issues he's supposed to have? Is it because she's just criticized him, and he is, as Guiri says, snuggling?
My own crappy cases may yet be right, but I like this one more. unvote[/color] vote: Bob[/color]
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 3, 2011 16:43:44 GMT -5
(The "you're right" is directed at Guiri; took me a while to find the quotes.)
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 3, 2011 16:46:47 GMT -5
I don't have an answer. Bill says he's objected previously and seems to have stropped off. He implied that he'd answered earlier in the thread, but he hadn't. How is this not an answer? As I mentioned earlier I would consider the burden of proof to lie with you that he's lying since it's a meta game argument (if you want to continue the argument with him which IMO is not worth it). And romola, as I said previously, I have previously stated, and previously objected in games by other mods to having pm's generated on demand to get folks necks out the noose. (underlining mine)
|
|
Romola
Mome Rath
One of them saw two words of the joke and spent several weeks in hospital.
Posts: 107
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Romola on Feb 3, 2011 17:11:50 GMT -5
I don't want to continue the argument. Neither do I want to change the vote just yet.
|
|
|
Post by BobArrgh on Feb 3, 2011 17:39:42 GMT -5
I see now where the confusion has come in about my exchange with sinjin. I had to re-read all my posts 3 times before I saw what I had done. I know this is going to come across as scummy, but it is the truth.
Here is what I said to her in post #129: "I do like your second-to-last comment on Bill's posting."
What I meant to say is "I don't like your second-to-last comment on Bill's posting." This is what I was explaining in post #149.
This explains why I was bamfoozled by Natlaw's statements to me in his #231 and the tenor of my response in #234.
Anyway, that's how it is. Sorry for the confusion. The spreading of the WIFOM was completely unintentional. If I get lynched for it, well, then I will have learned an important lesson. I know people have been lynched for less.
[slightly_oog] For the record, I've been having a hard time adjusting to the edit mechanism on this board. I just now realized the difference between the "Quick Post Reply" and the "Full Reply". All of my editing to date has been in the "Quick Post Reply", which only gave me about 8-10 lines of text, which made it really difficult to proof. [/slightly_oog]
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 3, 2011 18:19:42 GMT -5
Meat space = Real life = No time to play online. Apparently, Natlaw's translator is working just fine. Are you familiar with the "anti-town is not the same as pro-scum" reasoning? The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Also, because I forgot to say this earlier: Scum would absolutely do that.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Feb 3, 2011 18:23:23 GMT -5
@ sinjin ... I wasn't really trying to "drive-by smudge" Romola. I was reacting more to the early vote rather than the vote itself. As far as I can see, there really isn't much to go on at this point, other than what appears to be a few null tells. I realize the voting needs to start somewhere. I do like your second-to-last comment on Bill's posting. And now we are to believe that should read "I don't like your.."? Hmmm..not sure I buy that. Seems a very strange thing to say: I don't like your comment. Period. No explanation of why I disagree with it or what I don't like about it. On the other hand, a statement of I like your comment does not really require an explanation. vote: bobarrgh
|
|
|
Post by harmless little bunny on Feb 3, 2011 18:25:55 GMT -5
this is where he unvotes bill and votes for maha. now he rightly chastises maha for voting for someone for reasons that have nothing to do with them being scum. so he votes for bill not because he thinks he is scum and then turns around and votes for someone who had voted for bill not because he thought he was scum. jeebus, pot calls kettle black. You quoted the right post, but you bolded the wrong one. There's the difference in our reasoning. It hurts town. It's an unnecessary distraction. I know you feel like I added nothing to the case, but there was a difference between our votes.
|
|
|
Post by special on Feb 3, 2011 18:45:09 GMT -5
Vote Count with approximately 3 days, 9 hours and 15 minutes until DayEnd
Player (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed]
bobarrgh (4)(4) Natlaw [213], guiri [238], Renata [241], texcat [247] BillMc (2)(4) Romola [113], sinjin [128], harmless little bunny [131 168], Mahaloth [139 160] Mahaloth (2)(3) Red Skeezix [153], Renata [156 241], harmless little bunny [168] harmless little bunny (2)(2) Renata [141 156], Romanic [164], Suburban Plankton [186] sinjin (1)(1) Paranoia [174] Hockey Monkey (0)(1) Renata [140,141] Invalid (1)(1) peekercpa [15]
Trying to vote but not succeeding (1)(1) KidVermicious [93]
Not voting (12) Mahaloth, Merestil Haye, BillMc, Sister Coyote, Captain Pinkies, Hockey Monkey, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, bobarrgh, timmy, naturallylazy, pedescribe
With these votes, bobarrgh will be lynched
|
|
|
Post by BobArrgh on Feb 3, 2011 19:08:47 GMT -5
@texcat: Pfft ... honest mistake and all that. In #144, answered guiri's #137 and talked about the stuff after the ellipses in sinjin's posting. Like I said, I couldn't figure out why people kept saying that I liked sinjin's comments, because I didn't.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Feb 3, 2011 19:14:29 GMT -5
-quote-fail-while-explaining-quotes- ;D What? No, I was trying to give Ms Nat another example of the syntax for a quote. Honest. It's not at all that I failed to put the backslash in the close-quote tag. Not at all.
|
|
timmy
Mome Rath
In the frozen land of Nador they were forced to eat Robin's minstrels. And there was much rejoicing
Posts: 189
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by timmy on Feb 3, 2011 19:49:18 GMT -5
Captain P doesn't tend to post at all on Day 1 (except for drinks recipes). He seems to have stepped up his participation somewhat this Game. It must be doing Peeker's head in... I've played in just one game with Captain, and he was voted for lack of participation on Day One (might have been the Halloween). You and maybe others seem familiar and--- dare I say--- approve--- of his non-participation in Day One. He's being active and responding but there's no substance behind his posts. I think he's laying low for a reason. vote Captain Pinkies
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Feb 3, 2011 20:12:39 GMT -5
All of this post may have been relevant about 12 hours ago when I was thinking about the game in my morning shower. This is the first chance I've had all damn day to actually string two sentences together.
I hope Bill does not quit this game.
I can see where a Town Bill would try a different tactic to try to avoid being night killed. He is scary good a catching scum. Pretty much everyone who plays here knows this now. A first point of order for any scum team should be "Kill Bill".
I can also see where a Scum Bill would try to shake things up, but less so than a Town Bill.
I feel like a Bill that is still not night killed after 3 nights is a prime candidate for lynching as scum would almost certainly have dispatched him by that if he's Town.
In short, lynching Bill today is a bad idea.
Sorry if all this is irrelevant by now, but I wanted to put my thoughts on the matter down anyway.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Feb 3, 2011 20:19:04 GMT -5
Also, I had no idea there was such an elaborate wiki page. Thanks to whoever added me! Maybe one day I'll get off my lazy ass and add all of my games and figure out my wins/losses.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 4, 2011 7:45:18 GMT -5
I've had a very busy 24 hours that is going to continue for a bit, but I will be making a vote. Not feeling the Bill lynch at this point, and though have reservations about keeping a silent Bill around long enough for the participation votes to add up enough to lynch him on their own, I do see the case for letting the mechanic do its thing.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 4, 2011 8:57:36 GMT -5
I keep going back and forth on Bob's explanation. The post itself is a little hard to parse as a mistake in context. I'd expect something along the lines of:
"You say X was a smudge but it really wasn't, etc. ALSO, I don't like blahblah, etc."
Because it's a continuation, you know? You object to the one thing, you also don't like this other thing. Whereas if it's intended as a contrast, the word "do" that is there is perfectly appropriate:
"You say X was a smudge but it really wasn't, etc. I DO like blahblah."
I'm having a little trouble with the idea that the typo that Bob says was made fits so perfectly in context, whereas the substitution he says he intended doesn't, quite.
However, all the posts that follow give the strong impression that Bob really doesn't understand the specific objection that sinjin and guiri are having. They say over and over again that they're having a problem with him saying he likes sinjin's comment, and he just never seems to really get that. Finally, in responding to Natlaw's post, he does, but then he flat-out denies ever having said he liked Sinjin's comment, which seems a really bizarre denial to make if he in fact had (believed he had) done so.
So I guess I'm coming down that I do believe it was a typo, if a bizarre one. I'm left with an uneasy feeling about what might have been in his head to make such a mistake, but it's not really a case at all. Back to Mahaloth.
unvote[/color] vote: mahaloth[/color]
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 4, 2011 9:49:43 GMT -5
So I guess I'm coming down that I do believe it was a typo, if a bizarre one. I'm left with an uneasy feeling about what might have been in his head to make such a mistake, but it's not really a case at all. Back to Mahaloth. I find the explanation hard to believe. It's semantics but if he said that he meant to write "I don't understand" rather than "I do like", I'd tend to agree with you but there's a difference between not understanding and not liking that I think he's trying to rewrite history: [...]I'm not sure I totally understand sinjin's comment[...] If you go back [...], I did not say I liked sinjin's comment. I said that I don't understand her comment. What I meant to say is "I do n't like your second-to-last comment on Bill's posting.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 4, 2011 10:26:29 GMT -5
I know. Any individual quote or pair of quotes looks bad for Bob, but I get the opposite impression (of any actual mistake) from the conversation as a whole. And he may be scum anyway even if it was; I just can't vote based on it given Mahaloth and crazypunker's bad votes being present as well.
I would like it if a few more people would put down some votes. Today is basically the last day before deadline I'll have any time and half the players have not voted.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Pinkies on Feb 4, 2011 10:34:29 GMT -5
... I've played in just one game with Captain, and he was voted for lack of participation on Day One (might have been the Halloween). You and maybe others seem familiar and--- dare I say--- approve--- of his non-participation in Day One. He's being active and responding but there's no substance behind his posts. I think he's laying low for a reason. vote Captain Pinkies This is day 1 there is nothing to go on, there is no history... So in honor of your vote... <== passes timmy a Villiage Idiot Ingredients 50ml gin 50ml vodka short dash lime cordial Fill the glass lemonade Directions: Fill a tall cocktail glass to the top, free pore the gin and vodka at the same time and a dash of lime cordial and top up with lemonade.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 4, 2011 11:05:06 GMT -5
I would like it if a few more people would put down some votes. Today is basically the last day before deadline I'll have any time and half the players have not voted. Well, let's see. I'm not thrilled with the cases on Bill or Bob. I'm baffled by Pinkies' behavior, but I don't think it's worth a vote. I'm not sold on your case against Mahaloth. However, this: There's the difference in our reasoning. It hurts town. It's an unnecessary distraction. I know you feel like I added nothing to the case, but there was a difference between our votes. I really kind of don't like. We've all been through the unprovoked early-Day reveals at least two or three times by now, and it's really a null tell and may or may not hurt Town; and it's only an unnecessary distraction if we make it one. If nothing else, it encourages Day 1 discussion, and discussion is what Town needs to catch Scum. Therefore: Vote: vote harmless little bunny/crazypunker
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 4, 2011 11:20:43 GMT -5
I'm not entirely sure I understood what Bob was saying in the first place, I kinda understood the arguments made against him, and I'm pretty certain that I didn't understand his most recent explanation.
It's obvious that what he said and what he says he meant are not exactly the same...guess I'll be doing some light reading today to see if I can make any sense of it for myself.
None of the existing cases is exactly airtight, but that's expected for this point in the game.
|
|
|
Post by special on Feb 4, 2011 11:32:45 GMT -5
Vote Count with approximately 2 days, 16 hours and 30 minutes until DayEnd
Player (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed]
bobarrgh (3)(4) Natlaw [231], guiri [238], Renata [241 256], texcat [247] Mahaloth (3)(3) Red Skeezix [153], Renata [156 241 256], harmless little bunny [168] harmless little bunny (3)(3) Renata [141 156], Romanic [164], Suburban Plankton [186], Sister Coyote [260] BillMc (2)(4) Romola [113], sinjin [128], harmless little bunny [131 168], Mahaloth [139 160] sinjin (1)(1) Paranoia [174] Captain Pinkies(1)(1) timmy [252] Hockey Monkey (0)(1) Renata [140,141] Invalid (1)(1) peekercpa [15]
Trying to vote but not succeeding (1) KidVermicious [93]
Not voting (9) Mahaloth, Merestil Haye, BillMc, Captain Pinkies, Hockey Monkey, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, bobarrgh, naturallylazy, pedescribe
With these votes, bobarrgh will be lynched
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 4, 2011 12:29:40 GMT -5
well i looked at him pretty closely and it does seem discongruent.
vote harmless bunny
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 4, 2011 13:06:30 GMT -5
well i looked at him pretty closely and it does seem discongruent. vote harmless bunny'him' being who, exactly? harmless bunny, who you are voting for in this post, or bob, who I was talking about in the last post?
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 4, 2011 14:48:01 GMT -5
well i looked at him pretty closely and it does seem discongruent. vote harmless bunnyThat's a very short explanation coming from you peeker. Can you be more specific on what you are referring to, and why you think harmless bunny is a worthy lynch?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 4, 2011 15:44:22 GMT -5
well i looked at him pretty closely and it does seem discongruent. vote harmless bunny'him' being who, exactly? harmless bunny, who you are voting for in this post, or bob, who I was talking about in the last post? punker. i am re reading the whole bob thing. but i have to work concessions tonight so it will probably be manana before i get through that.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 4, 2011 15:48:08 GMT -5
well i looked at him pretty closely and it does seem discongruent. vote harmless bunnyThat's a very short explanation coming from you peeker. Can you be more specific on what you are referring to, and why you think harmless bunny is a worthy lynch? read my 214. it just seems odd to vote for someone, not because you think he/she is scum, but because the person you are voting for voted for someone not because they thought the person they were voting for was scum.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Feb 4, 2011 16:07:03 GMT -5
Vote Countwith approximately 2 days, 11 hours and 50 minutes until DayEnd Player (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] harmless little bunny (4)(4) Renata [141 156], Romanic [164], Suburban Plankton [186], Sister Coyote [260], peekercpa [263] bobarrgh (3)(4) Natlaw [231], guiri [238], Renata [241 256], texcat [247] Mahaloth (3)(3) Red Skeezix [153], Renata [ 156 241 256], harmless little bunny [168] BillMc (2)(4) Romola [113], sinjin [128], harmless little bunny [131 168], Mahaloth [139 160]sinjin (1)(1) Paranoia [174] Captain Pinkies(1)(1) timmy [252] Hockey Monkey (0)(1) Renata [140,141]Trying to vote but not succeeding (1) KidVermicious [93] Not voting (9) Mahaloth, Merestil Haye, BillMc, Captain Pinkies, Hockey Monkey, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, bobarrgh, naturallylazy, pedescribe With these votes, harmless little bunny will be lynched
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Feb 4, 2011 16:40:58 GMT -5
Mahaloth appears to be lying low. Red Skeezix or Renata, could one of you recap the case against him? Not you, punkerbunny, you're biased.
|
|