EPTOn July 08 2015 13:43 ruXxar wrote:
Why?
Show nested quote +
On July 08 2015 13:42 ObiWanShinobi wrote:
This argument is bad.
On July 08 2015 13:41 ruXxar wrote:
This is the incorrect response as town.
A town person would want to project town by proving that their actions benefits town.
Since you are unwilling to do that, i can only assume that you can't prove that you had town motives behind your actions.
On July 08 2015 13:28 rsoultin wrote:
lol you're never lynching me off a faulty paraphrase, pup, and i don't feel the need to "correct" what is clearly visible just reading the posts
i asked you what other reads you had
an exercise! \o/ you treat me like you're reading me town and i'll treat you like i'm reading you town, even if i don't much believe it...this tunnel of yours is at best wrong and at worst scummy, so give me something else to read you off if you're actually town
On July 08 2015 13:22 ruXxar wrote:
If it's incorrect then you should correct it.
If you don't I'll assume its correct.
I went through all the posts and wrote down my interpretation of them.
I don't need to convince you that you're scum, I'm trying to convince everyone else.
What bias?
This is my interpretation of the events.
I encourage everyone that don't believe me to go read for themselves and make up their own mind.
On July 08 2015 09:57 rsoultin wrote:
just because you paraphrase it this way doesn't make it correct ^^
why don't you talk to me about your other reads instead of trying to convince me i'm scum? you're clearly not attempting to determine my alignment at all with the bias-laden wording in your posts
On July 08 2015 08:50 ruXxar wrote:
I read your interaction just fine.
Let me recap my view of it, just so you can correct me if I'm missing something.
1st interaction: Starts here
Recap:
HF: "Trfel you are playing like burnt out mafia"
RS: "I don't think he is, but I'll find out soon for sure"
HF: "I don't need your opinion RS"
RS: "Trfel is town, your reads are wrong!".
HF: "I don't need you go away".
Mod: Interrupts.
2nd interaction: Starts here
Recap:
HF: "I wanted to force Trfel to present his argument in a logical manner"
RS: "HF is misrepresenting me and being a dick, I don't mind if you question Trfel"
HF: (Posts quotes where you disrupted him from questioning)
RS: "You were trying to shit on me!"
HF: "I don't deny being a dick, but I was trying to pressure trfel to gain information"
RS: "Stop questioning him so early! Let's talk about something else"
(topic changed)
3rd interaction: Starts here
Recap:
HF: "Trfel there's an inconsistency in your read on LS, explain why".
RS: "HF, you can't read!"
RS: "I want to let trfel answer for himself, but you guys are too stupid!"
HF: "How is that not reading?"
RS: "Trfel already explained it!"
HF: "Explained it how?"
RS: "HTS saw the questioning, why don't you get it?"
HF: "How does that explain him changing his stance?"
RS: "You are stupid HF!"
(Shitfight ensues, questioning derailed)
It's all pretty obvious disruption from my point of view.
Once again you're derailing.
I'm not going away anytime soon.
On July 08 2015 07:52 rsoultin wrote:
do you even begin to realize how difficult it is for me to even bother finish reading this pile of shit when it's clear you didn't bother to actually READ our interaction?
go away, or actually fact check your own fucking claims
i've answered all your leading questions already
i've formed my judgment on truffle and until i actually see anything to indicate otherwise, you can bite me
i was right on gb. i was right on damdy. i was right on bugs. i was right on hf. i was right on you. and i was right on wave and oats. but instead of CONSIDERING after seeing my play last game and losing the game while ignoring my advice in your newbie, that i might actually have a good fucking toneread on truffle you try to paint it as me denying information?
lol ><
On July 08 2015 07:44 ruXxar wrote:
@rsoultin.
HF, was putting pressure on trfel. And well founded pressure too with the way trfel has been playing this game.
Putting pressure on people is a good thing, it's an excellent tool for extracting information.
Yet you seem to have a problem with people putting pressure on trfel, and you guard him like a watch dog.
The issue is not that you came with your opinion on trfel, that is completely fine and legit.
The problem is that you acted irrationally and actively tried to disrupt and deny us information out of Trfel.
When someone observes a contradiction or inconsistency in what people say and they question them about it, the most anti-town thing you can do is try to interject and derail the questioning, which is exactly what you did.
Tell me this, why are you defending Trfel when he is perfectly capable of defending himself?
Furthermore, he might be mafia, so why are you so adamant about defending someone without knowing their alignment?
Your goal as town should be to get as much information out of anyone as to form a basis of judgement on.
Blindly defending people as town is an incredibly bad way to play.
Combined with your other actions this game, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
@rsoultin.
HF, was putting pressure on trfel. And well founded pressure too with the way trfel has been playing this game.
Putting pressure on people is a good thing, it's an excellent tool for extracting information.
Yet you seem to have a problem with people putting pressure on trfel, and you guard him like a watch dog.
The issue is not that you came with your opinion on trfel, that is completely fine and legit.
The problem is that you acted irrationally and actively tried to disrupt and deny us information out of Trfel.
When someone observes a contradiction or inconsistency in what people say and they question them about it, the most anti-town thing you can do is try to interject and derail the questioning, which is exactly what you did.
Tell me this, why are you defending Trfel when he is perfectly capable of defending himself?
Furthermore, he might be mafia, so why are you so adamant about defending someone without knowing their alignment?
Your goal as town should be to get as much information out of anyone as to form a basis of judgement on.
Blindly defending people as town is an incredibly bad way to play.
Combined with your other actions this game, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
do you even begin to realize how difficult it is for me to even bother finish reading this pile of shit when it's clear you didn't bother to actually READ our interaction?
go away, or actually fact check your own fucking claims
i've answered all your leading questions already
i've formed my judgment on truffle and until i actually see anything to indicate otherwise, you can bite me
i was right on gb. i was right on damdy. i was right on bugs. i was right on hf. i was right on you. and i was right on wave and oats. but instead of CONSIDERING after seeing my play last game and losing the game while ignoring my advice in your newbie, that i might actually have a good fucking toneread on truffle you try to paint it as me denying information?
lol ><
I read your interaction just fine.
Let me recap my view of it, just so you can correct me if I'm missing something.
1st interaction: Starts here
Recap:
HF: "Trfel you are playing like burnt out mafia"
RS: "I don't think he is, but I'll find out soon for sure"
HF: "I don't need your opinion RS"
RS: "Trfel is town, your reads are wrong!".
HF: "I don't need you go away".
Mod: Interrupts.
2nd interaction: Starts here
Recap:
HF: "I wanted to force Trfel to present his argument in a logical manner"
RS: "HF is misrepresenting me and being a dick, I don't mind if you question Trfel"
HF: (Posts quotes where you disrupted him from questioning)
RS: "You were trying to shit on me!"
HF: "I don't deny being a dick, but I was trying to pressure trfel to gain information"
RS: "Stop questioning him so early! Let's talk about something else"
(topic changed)
3rd interaction: Starts here
Recap:
HF: "Trfel there's an inconsistency in your read on LS, explain why".
RS: "HF, you can't read!"
RS: "I want to let trfel answer for himself, but you guys are too stupid!"
HF: "How is that not reading?"
RS: "Trfel already explained it!"
HF: "Explained it how?"
RS: "HTS saw the questioning, why don't you get it?"
HF: "How does that explain him changing his stance?"
RS: "You are stupid HF!"
(Shitfight ensues, questioning derailed)
It's all pretty obvious disruption from my point of view.
Once again you're derailing.
I'm not going away anytime soon.
just because you paraphrase it this way doesn't make it correct ^^
why don't you talk to me about your other reads instead of trying to convince me i'm scum? you're clearly not attempting to determine my alignment at all with the bias-laden wording in your posts
If it's incorrect then you should correct it.
If you don't I'll assume its correct.
I went through all the posts and wrote down my interpretation of them.
I don't need to convince you that you're scum, I'm trying to convince everyone else.
What bias?
This is my interpretation of the events.
I encourage everyone that don't believe me to go read for themselves and make up their own mind.
lol you're never lynching me off a faulty paraphrase, pup, and i don't feel the need to "correct" what is clearly visible just reading the posts
i asked you what other reads you had
an exercise! \o/ you treat me like you're reading me town and i'll treat you like i'm reading you town, even if i don't much believe it...this tunnel of yours is at best wrong and at worst scummy, so give me something else to read you off if you're actually town
This is the incorrect response as town.
A town person would want to project town by proving that their actions benefits town.
Since you are unwilling to do that, i can only assume that you can't prove that you had town motives behind your actions.
This argument is bad.
Why?
I just explained it.
Summarize your case for me and I'll tell you why I don't like it. I know it's here somewhere but I lost in in all of the nonsense fights she started probably.
