|
Post by Mahaloth on Feb 11, 2011 12:47:34 GMT -5
and would that at all be surprising in a game where scum can get custom made cover pm's? seriously, if you are scum are you going to request a niller type role or something that looks uber good for town? that's why to a great extent we have to be careful with claims. if someone is acting scummy they get to stretch regardless of what they claim. and to some extent even if we lynch a town power then we just have to bite the bullet and move forward figuring that there is no way that we will have a set up with 5 invests and 4 docs kind of crap. Custom made pm's? I thought we were told that the mods have given fake ones to those who need it and that they will help with any fake claims. We were told later that(here I'll quote it): Am I wrong?
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 11, 2011 13:20:17 GMT -5
Custom made pm's? I thought we were told that the mods have given fake ones to those who need it and that they will help with any fake claims. We were told later that(here I'll quote it): Am I wrong? What point are you trying to make here? Why are you quoting Renata and not a mod?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 11, 2011 13:29:47 GMT -5
First of all, you should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. Yet you're not, apparently. Cookies - Day 1 #401: And yet your vote remained on Kid V. You did not vote for the scummiest person you found. So you don't think the fact that two Town power roles were involved has any bearing on that situation vs this one. Ok, I think it is quite a different situation. Actually it is quite a good argument. Being able to anticipate how you are likely to be perceived by the field of play is quite important, especially when claiming and trying to prevent your own mislynch. Exacerbated in this case by the people who didn't vote, KidV did not apparently anticipate a very reasonable interpretation of his role and that was a factor that led to his lynch. Doesn't address any of my original point. His role could be functionally protective. No amount of spinning and trying to stir up scummy motivations for my words changes that. Apples to oranges but cute attempt to reuse my snark. I'll be sure to watch for you and everyone else to use "this is an assumption" disclaimers on each individual sentence going forward. And it seems you do think I'm apparently stupid enough to say that I think this person I'm about to lynch is truly a Town Power role, so lets get to the lynching. Good to know. I think it is a bunch of non-substance dressed up as substance, and you're just seeing if something will stick. Unfortunately, both scum and town do that so I don't know what it says about you. Consider it the view of someone who watched another player lynch a claimed protective role on Day 1, when the lynchee was not the scummiest person that player had pointed out, and who IMHO indicated that she found that the lynchee was not the only protective role in the game.[/quote] Then it won't shock you to know that now that he's dead and confirmed that I don't think he is the only Town protective role in the game, which was the whole point of my post and finding his phrasing suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 11, 2011 13:51:26 GMT -5
Another passage of play that is giving me pause for thought is this one. Vote at the time HLB (4) Mahaloth (4) bobarrgh (4) #275: Cookies thoughts on Mahaloth, but is not ready to vote him yet wants to look at the leaders #276: SubPlank gives thoughts on bob, thinks texcat is wrong and bob made a faux pas #277: SubPlank gives thoughts on Pinkies - gives pass for the day #278: Subplank gives thoughts on mahaloth - is more bothered by his posts now than previously #279: Guiri gives thoughts on Bob - Part 1 #280: Guiri gives thoughts on Bob - Part 2 - That's a load of confusion, misunderstandings and backtracks. All on Day 1. #281: Cookies says that the Bob is a null tell for her and votes mahaloth #282: Guiri is also leaning a null tell with Bob, suspects OMGUS with HLB's vote but it has inconsistency, thinks Mahaloth's vote and play as scum motivation, unvotes HLB, votes Mahaloth New vote count Mahaloth (6) HLB (4) bobarrgh (3) What's strange between the three, SubPlank and Cookies don't mention HLB though despite being the vote leader, but guiri does. However, SubPlank already had a vote on HLB, so it's perhaps understandable that further analysis was not forthcoming, but Cookies she says she is going to look at the vote leaders and at that point she hasn't even voted. But nothing further on HLB. A Simple Question for Cookies: What were your thoughts on HLB and why didn't you voice them at all? I refer to Bunny many times in my conversations with KidV. Perhaps you don't remember the whole double standard aspect of the case against him. As I repeatedly said YesterDay, I find Bunny's claim more plausible than Mahaloth's.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Feb 11, 2011 14:24:47 GMT -5
What point are you trying to make here? Why are you quoting Renata and not a mod? 1. My point is that peeker is wrong about "custom pm's" 2. My bad. I mis-read that as a mod post. Disregard it.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 11, 2011 14:49:14 GMT -5
What point are you trying to make here? Why are you quoting Renata and not a mod? 1. My point is that peeker is wrong about "custom pm's" peeker is technically wrong by calling them "custom pm's", because that is not a completely accurate description of what the mods have offered, but his point is valid. Any person in this game can request and receive a "fake PMs" from the mods to be used as cover. His point, that "to a great extent we have to be careful with claims" moreso in this game than in most, is correct. Or do you disagree?
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 11, 2011 14:53:53 GMT -5
Lots of scum have difficulty dealing with cases made against them, and sometimes it expresses itself in the sort of "well, you're completely full of it, but hey you might be town or scum, so meh" sort of phrasing you used in the bit I quoted. I agree, and have you missed this one? Silly me, thinking that unvoting a claimed power role needed no comment. As to the rest of it -- again; if I'd had no commitment, I would have had no vote. Personally, with you harping on me despite explanations, clarifications, and finally having time to defend myself to the contrary, I'm thinking that you're either Scum using me as a convenient target, or you're engaging in Town-on-Town that's got to be thrilling the Scum to no end.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 11, 2011 14:58:46 GMT -5
Having finally gone back over the last Day and a half and reading for comprehension since there was some fail on my part regarding that yesterDay: Starting with this: The bold part looks like scum thinking out loud. If you are Town, you shouldn't worry about being the only one player voting for someone as long as you have a good reason to make that vote. Someone's gotta cast the first vote, and it should be you if you are the first to spot a scummy behavior. I couldn't agree more. Look to late in the Halloween Game for how strongly I believe in this. Random thing I noticed: Furthermore, i don't see the moderator giving fake claims on demand as being substantially different than having them pre written before the game starts, i mean when you're on the scum team you generally just take the claims and then tailor them to what you need when it's claim time anyways. At least that's what I do when I'm scum. Renata was jumped for making virtually the same point; why was Skeezix given a pass? Now, for an actual case (of sorts): We have three potential investigative roles (one dead, two claimed). Of the two living, I am leaning toward most suspicion of Mahaloth because his role feels a bit too powerful and I do find it interesting that -- if Bunny isn't lying -- the Scum decided to block the "weaker" of the two. Of course, Bunny could be lying. Scum would totally do that. And so forth. I'm more interested in BobArrgh, though not for the do/don't incident of yesterday (which I am inclined to believe him on). More because of the way he jumped on my comment about Romola's vote -- which I had misunderstood, so this is the incident of Reading Comprehension Fail on my part mentioned above. When questioned about that, he said: @ 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. And this was the post that started the "do vs. don't" back and forth, as well. Bob followed up with: Regarding my comment on Romola, I made that comment before she had clarified that she was talking about Bill's objection to the fake role PMs and not the vanilla claim. The comment that it was "a little strange this early in the game" referred to the fact that both Romola and Bill were both just in a game where there was a vanilla town claim right out of the gate (by someone else), and Romola didn't kick up about it. guiri notes: #117 Sister Coyote says she doesn't know what to think of Romola's vote as Bill's early claim is a null-tell (which was not part of Romola's vote reasoning) #118 Bob makes his comment on Romola's vote being strange #121/122 Romola and I refer Bob and Sister to Romola's actual vote reasoning - He seems to have missed all Romola's posts building up to her voting Bill, saw Sister Coyote's inaccurate comment and added that Romola's vote looked strange without saying why - a smudge - Later he gave an explanation for the smudge and then, even later, gave a completely different explanation I don't like guiri's implication that skimming is a scum tell, but in combination with how swift Bob was to jump on my own faulty reasoning...I don't know. It bothers me. A lot. A side note: @cookies & Sister: Where does the "I don't feel like playing this game if the mods help scum with cover roles" incident fit in your thinking? Does it seem something a scum KidVermicious would do? I don't know the guy, but it feels very much "unscummy" to me. Scum would Totally Do That. I can't repeat that enough. Back to Bob: Anyway, if I'm going to be lynched, then so be it. I've always felt that "... a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Thus, since several of you have made up your mind about me, there's not much I am going to be able to say to make you change your minds. I don't have anyone I can ask about what my next step should be. I've know there's a lot of discussion about whether or not a person should claim on Day 1, etc., etc. I feel that no matter what I do, it will be seen as a null-tell. I'm not sure I am supposed to reveal my role at the moment, so I am not going to, simply because I don't want to make the wrong move with respect to hurting the other Townies. There are a handful of things about this that bother me. The "I can't change anyone's mind" argument -- of course you can, and as Town it's kind of your job to go about hunting scum even if your neck is on the line. The statement "I don't have anyone I can ask about what my next step should be" really bothers me; it's not Scummy on its face, but...I don't know. I'm having trouble articulating what it is about this particular statement that's pinging me so damn hard. Finally -- am I the only one seeing a Magic Bag in that final statement? That he doesn't want to give away his role because it might hurt Town if he did -- that somehow coming out with a role claim would be worse than dying? Really? @ SisCoyote: In the rules, it says that we can fantasize about the other players. Your use of the "!=" in your post hints that you are a programmer or have knowledge of programming. *Sighhhhhhhhhh* I've done some java programming and have lived/worked with a number of C++ programmers. Things crawl into my vocabulary without my will, sometimes. And although this is sweet and all, it doesn't change my mind: Vote: BobArrgh
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 11, 2011 15:01:35 GMT -5
Lots of scum have difficulty dealing with cases made against them, and sometimes it expresses itself in the sort of "well, you're completely full of it, but hey you might be town or scum, so meh" sort of phrasing you used in the bit I quoted. I agree, and have you missed this one? Silly me, thinking that unvoting a claimed power role needed no comment. As to the rest of it -- again; if I'd had no commitment, I would have had no vote. Personally, with you harping on me despite explanations, clarifications, and finally having time to defend myself to the contrary, I'm thinking that you're either Scum using me as a convenient target, or you're engaging in Town-on-Town that's got to be thrilling the Scum to no end. The difference being -- you're not pinging me. Not really. Sure, you could be Scum, but I honestly think you and I are Town-on-Town.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 11, 2011 15:05:31 GMT -5
I don't know if that BobArrgh statement alone is indicative of a magic bag, especially considering how much time has been spent discussing opinions about when Vanilla Claims should or shouldn't take place, ideally speaking. People can (and should) be concerned about the consequences of their claims even if there is no magic bag involved.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 11, 2011 15:10:33 GMT -5
Sister C:
So the difference is only that you suspect me but you don't suspect Romanic?
Or do you mean the difference is that I suspect Cat, but you don't suspect Romanic? I have problems with both, but I want to understand what you mean.
With the he-said-she-said quoting, I just want to understand what is being compared to what.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 11, 2011 15:10:49 GMT -5
Only that's not really the meat of my comment there, is it? I'm far more concerned about the way he followed-up on my comment, particularly given my own misreading of romola's vote.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 11, 2011 15:12:33 GMT -5
Yeah, I think that's a step or three too far, myself.
@ Romanic -- I see it. SisC -- If as you say you basically think Romanic is town, why the 50-50 might be one/might be the other, but I can't choose implication of that comment he quoted?
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 11, 2011 15:13:40 GMT -5
That'll teach me to preview -- #102 was in response to #99 from Cookies.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 11, 2011 15:14:00 GMT -5
Sister C: So the difference is only that you suspect me but you don't suspect Romanic? Or do you mean the difference is that I suspect Cat, but you don't suspect Romanic? I have problems with both, but I want to understand what you mean. With the he-said-she-said quoting, I just want to understand what is being compared to what. I am, at this point, far more suspicious of your role being not-Town than I am of Romanic's role being not-Town. And yet I am even more suspicious of Bob than I am of you. Given that Romanic was voting me, however, and not you, even though you have engaged in many of the same behaviors I have, was why I said he could be said to be trying to throw attention off you. Do I think he actually is? No, I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 11, 2011 15:16:54 GMT -5
Yeah, I think that's a step or three too far, myself. @ Romanic -- I see it. SisC -- If as you say you basically think Romanic is town, why the 50-50 might be one/might be the other, but I can't choose implication of that comment he quoted? Because I never meant it in a 50/50 sort of way. Clearly, I have failed to communicate my thinking in that post; I put the possibility that the two of us were engaging in the sort of Town-on-Town behavior that Scum loves very much last in that comment because it was supposed to be the take-away. And my post after that, suggesting he might be trying to protect Cookies? That was the fact that at that point I hadn't had a full night's sleep in almost a week and the frustration talking.
|
|
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 11, 2011 15:31:18 GMT -5
I need to do some serious re-reading of toDay's posts, and a fresh look at yesterday's too. I have some time this weekend, so should have no trouble catching up.
I need to unvote Sinjin, because i don't honestly believe she is scum any more. I stand by my reasons for the vote, which were perfectly legitimate. However, the outburst in post #60 sounds far too 'outraged Townie' to be not genuine. I would hate this to become a regular 'Town Tell', but I genuinely don't think scum would do that and I can't leave the vote on with that belief.
Unvote Sinjin
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 11, 2011 15:40:32 GMT -5
@ SiSC -- OK.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 11, 2011 15:45:32 GMT -5
I think you're basically right, but also misapplying the principle. Yes, KidV and SisC had both voted bunny. But then bunny claimed watcher, and SisC (if she is honest) thought that an appropriate reason to unvote, the implication being that she then thought it quite possible her original vote was wrong. KidV refused to follow suit. So at the point when SisC put her vote on him, he was NOT agreeing with her. Actually bunny claimed before KidV voted for him, or it would be a different story. KidV didn't refused to follow suit, since he made it clear that the claim didn't matter as much as how bunny was acting (for not trying to find scums). Am I misapplying the principle? I don't think so. Again, Sister should have been suspicious of bunny despite his claim, because of the game setup (cover roles being available). Yet she voted against KidV for suspecting bunny, like her suspicions were all *snap* gone. LOL. Don't ask me. I'm curious what you think of Cat's argument against Cookies, though. I approve of CatIna's work, he's looking for scums, unlike many others. I like how he's pushing Cookies, who also happens to be one of my suspect so yeah, *bangs his cup in approval* Specifically I like the "overlapping doctor" argument, Cookies saying it was possible that 2 doctors were around, while at the same time acting in contradiction by keeping her vote on Kid. Cookies is saying that it doesn't make sense that she would write believing he was a doctor and still want to lynch him, but this could be a scum getting mixed up in her lies. It's a good find by Catina.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 11, 2011 15:54:02 GMT -5
It is not a good find.
Please go back and read my posts.
The problem started with KidV's wording, and I'm not alone in having my eye caught by that wording. I stand behind every word single word that I said, with no rephrasing. The problem is that people are unwilling to read my statement without it being influenced by confirmation bias, and you think that I'm stupid enough to trot something like that out as a scum slip, which is just rather insulting.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 11, 2011 17:26:06 GMT -5
I need to do some serious re-reading of toDay's posts, and a fresh look at yesterday's too. I have some time this weekend, so should have no trouble catching up. I need to unvote Sinjin, because i don't honestly believe she is scum any more. I stand by my reasons for the vote, which were perfectly legitimate. However, the outburst in post #60 sounds far too 'outraged Townie' to be not genuine. I would hate this to become a regular 'Town Tell', but I genuinely don't think scum would do that and I can't leave the vote on with that belief. Unvote Sinjinyou might want to re-color that unvote in red, romola.
|
|
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 11, 2011 18:23:23 GMT -5
I need to do some serious re-reading of toDay's posts, and a fresh look at yesterday's too. I have some time this weekend, so should have no trouble catching up. I need to unvote Sinjin, because i don't honestly believe she is scum any more. I stand by my reasons for the vote, which were perfectly legitimate. However, the outburst in post #60 sounds far too 'outraged Townie' to be not genuine. I would hate this to become a regular 'Town Tell', but I genuinely don't think scum would do that and I can't leave the vote on with that belief. Unvote Sinjinyou might want to re-color that unvote in red, romola. Ah bollocks, thanks! Unvote Sinjin
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 11, 2011 19:46:44 GMT -5
I went back to read Cookies' posts, and I am unconvinced by her defense. @cookies, You kept your vote on a claimed Archangel because he used a wording that you thought was suspicious, specifically he wrote "unless there's a Doc that wants to get my back". Your post following his claim: You mean another Doc, right? Are we to understand that you would have unvoted KidV if he used "another" instead of "a", in the above sentence? Is this what you refer as "The problem started with KidV's wording"? It's a very thin case, to suspect someone for apparently not assuming he was the only doctor around, and I don't believe it's worth the risk/reward, lynching a possible doc over a single word. You didn't seem to take this risk into account when you decided to keep your vote on KidV, at least it's not showing in the game thread. Considering his powerful claim, I feel you should have been prudent by removing your vote. Also, were you not giving any credit to KidV for being aware, as a Scum, that he should be the only doctor? How was it necessarily a slip? The problem is that people are unwilling to read my statement without it being influenced by confirmation bias, and you think that I'm stupid enough to trot something like that out as a scum slip, which is just rather insulting. "How stupid do you think I am?" isn't a good argument to defend what could possibly be a scum mistake. Mistakes happen, no matter how good or intelligent a player is. However I want to make it clear that I am not thinking you are stupid or anything close. I'll give you that on rereading, it appears that you could have been assuming in that post, but we can't be certain. Still, you have more going against you than just this.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 11, 2011 20:00:21 GMT -5
Again, Sister should have been suspicious of bunny despite his claim, because of the game setup (cover roles being available). Yet she voted against KidV for suspecting bunny, like her suspicions were all *snap* gone. See, you're mischaracterizing my unvote and vote here. My suspicions of bunny are not gone. My suspicions of Mahaloth are somewhat greater than my suspicions of bunny at this point, but at the time I found KidV's vote on bunny off-putting and something of a double-standard because Mahaloth's claim is, to put it in the words of our french friend, "outrageous." However, it is my personal play preference to give a claimed power role a Day's benefit of the doubt, which is what I was doing with Bunny. It is also what I would have done with KidV had I managed to get back in time to see his claim. Because that is how I play. And there are, of course, exceptions to this rule -- because there always are.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 11, 2011 20:59:26 GMT -5
I went back to read Cookies' posts, and I am unconvinced by her defense. @cookies, You kept your vote on a claimed Archangel because he used a wording that you thought was suspicious, specifically he wrote "unless there's a Doc that wants to get my back". Your post following his claim: You mean another Doc, right? Are we to understand that you would have unvoted KidV if he used "another" instead of "a", in the above sentence? Is this what you refer as "The problem started with KidV's wording"? It's a very thin case, to suspect someone for apparently not assuming he was the only doctor around, and I don't believe it's worth the risk/reward, lynching a possible doc over a single word. You didn't seem to take this risk into account when you decided to keep your vote on KidV, at least it's not showing in the game thread. Considering his powerful claim, I feel you should have been prudent by removing your vote. Also, were you not giving any credit to KidV for being aware, as a Scum, that he should be the only doctor? How was it necessarily a slip? The problem is that people are unwilling to read my statement without it being influenced by confirmation bias, and you think that I'm stupid enough to trot something like that out as a scum slip, which is just rather insulting. "How stupid do you think I am?" isn't a good argument to defend what could possibly be a scum mistake. Mistakes happen, no matter how good or intelligent a player is. However I want to make it clear that I am not thinking you are stupid or anything close. I'll give you that on rereading, it appears that you could have been assuming in that post, but we can't be certain. Still, you have more going against you than just this. My case against KidV was not tied solely to his apparent view that he wasn't a protective role, it contributed to it suspicion that began building when he voiced stronger suspicion of Bunny over Mahaloth, and reacted quite testily to early pressure. And I didn't necessarily think it was a slip, I thought it was a strange way to phrase his statement if he was indeed the role he said he was. It could be seen as scummily fishing for reactions from the actual Town power roles. It could be a slip that the protective aspect of the role wasn't top of mind for him because he didn't actually hold it. The alleged scum mistake that I'm being accused of is not subtle. It would be a blatant, ugly, and obvious mistake to type something like that without a assumptive qualifier. But since I included the assumptive qualifier in the proper and grammatically correct way, it is and should be moot. Yet we're still talking about it. The first line of my paragraph is clear..."assuming he's being truthful". I don't think very many people include the same assumption in every line of the paragraph. It is clear or at least reasonable that whole statement was made under that assumption. Occam's razor is that I'm making that assumption for the entire paragraph, not that I had perfect knowledge as to KidV's honesty or alignment and that I would post to nonsensically/accidentally expose that knowledge. Further, I'm one of 5 people who either had the wrong read on KidV or were scum trying to get him killed. And a significant amount of people didn't vote. I'm not going sit here and let anyone pin sole responsibility on KidV's mislynch on my one vote. I was wrong, I had my reasons for believing something that was wrong, they are not scummy reasons, they are not due to scummy perfect knowledge. A problem with 4 people not even bothering to vote when the voting is close is that a few townies being wrong becomes quite volatile. I'll take my licks for being on a mislynch, but many a townie has been in that position, just like now.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 11, 2011 21:03:26 GMT -5
Because that is how I play. And there are, of course, exceptions to this rule -- because there always are. <sniped> ok, so you play that way except when you don't. got it.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 11, 2011 21:16:32 GMT -5
Because that is how I play. And there are, of course, exceptions to this rule -- because there always are. <sniped> ok, so you play that way except when you don't. got it. Sorry, I was rushing to get that thought down before I left. Now I'm temporarily back. I play that way, unless there's a counter-claim between two players (and by that, I mean an exact "you can't be an alignment cop because I'm an alignment cop" counter-claim, not "this game can't have two investigators"). At that point, one of them is going to get my vote, and that's going to be based on play and other statements rather than the claimed role.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 11, 2011 21:41:52 GMT -5
The alleged scum mistake that I'm being accused of is not subtle. It would be a blatant, ugly, and obvious mistake to type something like that without a assumptive qualifier. But since I included the assumptive qualifier in the proper and grammatically correct way, it is and should be moot. Yet we're still talking about it. The first line of my paragraph is clear..."assuming he's being truthful". I don't think very many people include the same assumption in every line of the paragraph. It is clear or at least reasonable that whole statement was made under that assumption. Occam's razor is that I'm making that assumption for the entire paragraph, not that I had perfect knowledge as to KidV's honesty or alignment and that I would post to nonsensically/accidentally expose that knowledge. English is my 2nd language and sometimes I can struggle with verb tenses and language perks, so I might be wrong here but I would expect someone to use something else than the present tense when he's assuming, so if we look at your post: I think it is just semantics. He can function like a Doc, though he may not be titled that, assuming he is being truthful. I consider 'Doc' pretty much synonymous in the vernacular to 'protective role'. His role as describe has obvious protective applications. I actually think it would make it less likely that we have another full-blown Doc role with the ability to self-protect or choose a target for full protection each cycle. I don't think he is the only protective role we have, but I do consider him as overlapping with the protective features in the balancing. I think it would be clearer, for me at least, if you wrote: "I would think he's not the only protective role we have." instead of "I don't think he is the only protective role we have." The first sentence being clearly conditional, while the second makes me wonder if you are still assuming. Anyway, after reading your posts many times, I agree with you that it would be, like you said, a blatant mistake, so I have to concede that you were likely still assuming at the end of your post. And that this argument doesn't hold water much.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 11, 2011 22:01:17 GMT -5
Thanks, that's all I'm looking for. I'm not asking for anyone to suspect anyone who interpreted my posts in a manner other than I intended them (at least not yet ). I am looking for some benefit of the doubt that I actually said what I intended to say and not to be suspected for saying something that I didn't intend to say. I'm not impeccable in my communication and I am aware that we have players who are (enviously) multi-lingual. We usually muddle through together, but sometimes mis-communication can ensue. To flog the dead horse one more time, my use of "his role as describe[d]" also, I believe, implies and underscores the same sort of assumption that I started with. YMMV.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 11, 2011 23:25:33 GMT -5
I am inclined to put a little trust in CtCwhC, as well, as she is making an unusually good counter-argument.
|
|