How do you mean this?

Ow.
ow ow ow

What an useful bump that was...

Just a jab at Carradice who admonished me for not voting after I removed my vote on him (without placing it on anyone) to go do a reread.

Nice. But. I would like to hear the actual reasonment. So that I can put a finger on it and argue about it. I am not the only one to ask. Instead you go on with sophistry that sounds more like scholastic roundabouts in order to prove a pre-existing conclusion. Namely, you were voting for me really just because you did not like that I disagree with you about a rule (if you are town; if you are scum, it might be an excuse; or you might be BOTH scum AND grumpy) It is the same: no reasonment, only jesuitic replies both to Micro and to me. I can read logic statements, what I have not read are your resonments, what in your line goes as “=>”.

Do you know what my Calculus teacher said about the (fake) refutation of movement by Zenon, Achilles and the Turtle? that in a reasonment, the lie is in whatever is said more quickly.

And yes, I know you can make up an argument if really pressed that fits your pre-existing conclusion. I know Kolakowski’s Infinite Cornucopia: people can always can make an argument in pro of absolutely anything. Yet it there are two problems with that. If scum, you have to take the trouble, and you do not want to. If town, you just feel comfortable with your vote.

I know there is a halo effect, because it has been two games in a row not being straight Town, and this has begun so soon after the last one, and at that time you did not figure out that I was scum. But. This is another game!! You do not make things better by overcorrecting! Last game you overcorrected for your bias against some guy’s play and decided not to vote for him, despite he was playing in a way that was not beneficial at all, for anyone. It was a bad move, there you had a distraction. Now you want to overcorrect and “remove a distraction” that does not exist!! Where is my anti-town play that might be your excuse? I think that you do not want to care about thinking about things closely in case things look back at you and tell you that your bias is bull.




@Dedo: LOL, I was not replying to ZFR, but quoting and commenting. Haven’t you ever done that?

(you do not seem to like anything that I do in this game, alas... Yes, next time I will be more prudent before I reply to you and inadvertently bu... er, I mean, before doing anything too bold that drives team mates mad)

Also, do you really expect that if you were writing to the Dwayne he would admit to it? ;-)

The truth? I was half-awake and on mobile and a half of my brain was not communicating with the other half. For one minute I remembered that you had been very insistent about a fad I disagreed with, and that there was something that you had done that I did not like, and simultaneously I was forgetting that the thing I did not like was that you had been voting for me over a disagreement about a rule and when called for it giving void excuses for keeping doing so, without facing your real biases.

I apologized for this total failure (forgetting that you had actually been voting for me all the game, making you outraged and even more biased once again in the process). I do not know what else can be done about it.

Solid? For Day 1 perhaps but there is nobody I would be absolutely certain is mafia. I haven't asked for that, though. I have people I find more or less scummy for something and that's what I am working with. Some I am would rather not see lynched, some I am indifferent to and some I am quite open toward voting. I think I somewhat outlined who they are in previous posts.

Never asked you for something you are absolutely sure of. Barely anyone would have anyone like that right now. But it doesn't mean you can't see some people more suspect than others.
i would guess anyone not mentioned in your list is on the more suspect side of things but naming them with some explanation would go a mile.

I've already replied twice now. Most recently only 2 hours ago to Micro (#407)

I have given JoeSapphire permission to edit ONLY his next post. He can't post his next post for...whatever thing GOG has against it, so I'm letting him bypass it by creating an empty post, then editing it.

His post before editing it: https://imgur.com/1GfGkSG
After: https://imgur.com/E6d5y7I

The post I failed to send yesterday: I realise now I forgot Trent. boh.


- Vitek : gorgeous player, gorgeous brain. town.
- SirWho-Gives-A-Fuck, King of the Lurkers : town lean for his signature lurky and disinterested ways.
- gogtrial : only ever town, the wanker
- zfr : I had some reason for thinking him town. I don't think what it is right now and I hate it.
- dedo : something I just said before about him. Oh yeah the Lifthrasil-says-dedo-going-at-carradice-is-scum-signals alarmed him, then when zfr prodded his response was (interpolated) "oh yeah OBVIOUSLY if he's town then yeah it's all fine. BUT blahblahblah"
- supplementscene : fun. I stand by about that thing I said before about whatever
- who's left? Joe - just a sick bastard
- FlockeSchnee! Sorry to leave you to the end : back with a vengeance. Good questions, seems sensible and interested. hm. Town lean with trepidation.
- Carradice : turned up late and caused a scene. Yeah, I like the idea that his conflict with zfr came from a town-mindset offended-at-being-accused. BUT did that clash happen before carradice read his role? ARGH
- Yogsloth : fuck it. Lynch him.
that's got to be everybody surely.

SUCCESS! GO DIE

1 - Micro
2 - Lift
3 - Dedo

^ I instictively hate what I have just written but I'm going to bed so bye see you tomorrow

ARGH it is a messed up tag DAMN YOU ALL. No that's not fair DAMN EVERYBODY INCLUDING ME.

And woo. I've just seen I'm going on to a new page so WHO KNOWS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BYE FRIENDS IT WAS NICE KNOWING YOU

I wouldn't call it teasing myself, but yes, chiefly in that vein. And of course at the same time also a test to see how he'd react. Which he got, judging by his "How do I dare answer?" (#187)

Do you really not edit your posts at all while writing them, based on things you encounter later? (You definitely read beyond 271 for that post.)
I find this somewhat hard to believe.
But if so, I'm left wondering what was so significant about the questioning in #268 that you specifically felt the need to point out that you wanted to read the response to it, given that no other questions have elicited a similar remark from you (that I've seen).

No, just two of them, which to you feel very much his usual self. Something to help me calibrate my own read; trying to see Joe from a different angle.

The addition was intended for you to clarify if you meant his town self or not. Didn't phrase that very clearly, sorry - but it's been answered anyway, so it's served its purpose.
I did assume you meant his town self, since you continued by saying that you didn't have reason to keep voting him. But okay, you now read him pretty much null?

You might also have noticed that I asked this same question of both you, Vitek and trent. With three players reading Joe as "town", I found it extremely unlikely for it being scum directing the narrative, and so wanted to see what I was missing. However, it turns out to only be trent willing to call him town (based on him being less jokey); you and Vitek both seem to have his behaviour as NAI.

Was it really not clear that I had a different opinion? See for example my #310, where I say "I think that sums up my issue with him this game. I keep expecting things from him which don't appear."

So there's his own words (which I don't think you ever responded to?)
And him not having done a reads list from memory (of course, once the lack of one had been publicly observed, the continued lack of it has taken on a different meaning in its own right, and that's probably just him being contrary, which is very much NAI).

LAL? You might want to think back to your dear departed twin sister from Stanley Hotel. :)

I don't think I have ever referred to myself in third person. Or at least I don't remember.

That's not true. I admit that your style of playing doesn't mirror my own and I probably never will but that doesn't mean I dislike everything you do and/or say. Just some things and I call them out when I see them and I feel they need to be called out and aren't something that I personally don't like but at the same time isn't anti-Town (or anti-game) in itself. I realize we are different people and it's impossible for everyone to do things in the way everyone else would like them to.

And that bit about The Rock was mostly a joke anyway. Apparently not a very good one.

You did? I missed that. Can you point me to where that was?

And what are you contributing aside from your continuing jabs at me?
If you think I'm SCUM, why aren't you voting me? If you think I'm GRUMPY (Town). Do you think posts like "You are welcome. Can you at least provide a semblance of rationale over this vote?" or "ALLL WEEE AAAAAARE SAAAAYIIINNNNNNNG.... IS GIVE REAAAASONNNN AAAA CHANNNNNCEEEEEE....." are in any way helpful?

Look, just assume my posts are completely irrational. If that's the case, it's just one vote on you that won't matter. Surely there are more productive ways for you to pass the time that to reply to one person who's completely illogical and shows no signs of reason.

So it basically didn't work still. Gog had a problem with a section, so I shall recreate it here:

----

One - Microfish. This recent stuff to do with votes and more. I'd like to get a response from him, and have another look at it in the cold light of day

Two - Lifthrasil. The stuff before, and now trying to lure me in with promise of glory if I can ignore him. _ me I'm considering it too. Bastard.

Three - UHM.
_ I'm gonna have to make a list of everybody playing in the game this is REALLY IRRITATING FOR NO REASON I AM NOT HAPPY JOE AT ALL AHA I WAS TRICKING JOE INTO THINKING HE WAS HAPPY IT'S ME ANGRY JOE LOLOLOLOL

----


and then I made that list fuelled on rage and managed to forget that we are 13 players and that I was replying to Trent so he's probably in the game isn't he?

I'm at work so I don't have much time, I'll be about later