Meme Mafia - Town - (minus Mwil) wins

[SwAg]

4 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Touch is systematically point by point abusing SwAg’s claims and now watching his revisionist history is hysterical.

Ohio education system here.

[theuntouchable]

I get halfway (at least I think halfway) through his post and he resorts down to “cAn u sPeAk eNgLiSh” and then trying to say that what I was doing was specifically to mess with him.

even though it’s plainly obvious I was breaking it up into smaller portions.

[MWil23]

1 minute ago, SwAg said:

Ohio education system here.

Meh, I enjoy having a good time and messing around. If you want to make it personal then so be it. I’m proud of both Master Degrees that I’ve earned.

[SwAg]

1 hour ago, SwAg said:

Bold is facts and underlined is analysis.  There is some intermingling, but it's clear where I'm drawing my conclusions from even when it's intermingled.

This is my initial post.  It is clear.  The analysis includes the set of facts that I am analyzing and the logical steps that I am making to reach my determinations.  This is undeniable.  The words are there.  

E.g., Fact 1, Fact 2, Thus X.

This is Touch's response.

Point 1:  He immediately enters with a quip.  Prior to this, Touch has been pointing out that I am being a gimmick player, and others allude to me being useless.  So, I'm either supposed to play as a gimmick player and be criticized for that; or if I actually make any points, I am invalidated because I'm no longer in a gimmick.  That is ridiculous.  This is why I said it's you and others trying to formulate a narrative around me, and I bumped a lot of quotes about it.  

 

Point 2:  You're objectively and demonstrably wrong on the facts, and you're dismissing my analysis based on an erroneous contention of facts.  But, later, we somewhat resolve this later by you simply stating that The Old West game is irrelevant without explanation.  I know, you're going to try to reduce this down to an "opinion" bit, but this is not a matter of opinion, it is matter of analytical process.

It is an objectively analogous fact pattern.  It is relevant because (1) it informs how people are likely to react, which changes the risk calculus for the one using the ability; and (2) people may have inexplicably differing reactions in a substantially similar scenario, with a logical inference being: something is different about them between the two games.

 

Point 3:  I'm still talking about going back to The Old West Game to get this information on who is acting differently relative to the present scenario that is substantially similar.  As I already explained above, you can use this information to question people and apply pressure, and you interpreted that as re-reading this thread.  Alright, maybe you misread that, but it's definitely clear that I'm referring to the Old West Game because I am referring to people "acting differently in the situation beforehand," or in other words... last time it happened... in Old West.  Either way, the Old West comparison game remains relevant for the reasons I've outlined, and you deny that.

 

Point 4:  I have no idea what this even means.  Please explain if I'm misinterpreting.  You're saying people were drawn out of hiding because Llama is scum.  Okay, I acknowledge that is possible.  But, the issue with you acting like this is some sort of "gotcha" moment, is that I already addressed and explained why I find this unlikely in my initial post, and again in my secondary post.

 

Point 5: Your response to me asking how your actions are Pro-Town is because you're right.  That is not an answer to that question because (1) regardless of how confident you or anyone else is, you do not know that; (2) even if it is right, you're conflating a result with the process...

Under this logic, if Orca somehow killed me last game, then he is pro-Town because he was right that I lied about being The Cop.  That is why I'm clearly referencing the process or motivation for the action in my post.

 

Point 6:  I really didn't, though.  I gave you a few jabs about you being scummy, but nothing substantive at all.  I did not push the issue until I allowed the day to progress a bit and saw a pattern.  I waited til almost half of the remainder of D1 had elapsed, and I did it because it felt like there was more to the D1 move and there was a demonstrable pattern among a few posters related to me.

 

Point 7:  I never said anything about a concerted effort to save you.  The full text of my initial post is above.  The concerted effort I mentioned is the effort I described in the second paragraph from the bottom of my initial post.  I explained that the "concerted effort" is about a campaign against me, which is the substance of the quote thread I linked in Point 1.  No mention of an effort to save you.

So, it may be partially my fault that I allowed your erroneous reading to stand and develop, but I did respond in my secondary post that I doubt there is a concerted effort to bury you because "I'm the only person genuinely pushing you and I'm Town."  And this turned into the object of fixation.

So, what happened next?

This is Touch's response to my secondary post.  I've linked my secondary post already, but here it is again, and it's not reproduced because (1) space, (2) everything I've said so far is a restatement of things I've already said.

Point A:  No.  I already explained it in Point 1, above.  

You continued the "SwAg is just gimmicking this game" mantra that MWil and Counselor were brandishing, which was part of my case.  The practical effect of your position is: if I'm posting like Drunk Elsa, I am "impersonating Dome" as a gimmick, and likely useless or otherwise not truly playing.  Thus, a logical conclusion from that is that you should not listen to me because I'm meme playing.  Then, if I start actually playing, you simply say "Oh, look, he's scum, he's playing now!"

How is it different?  How is it not a narrative when I do it?  Well, as I said in the next post, I have actual evidence.  There was about 30 posts all from the same people throughout the day to characterize me as a joke, "gimmick," or "useless" -- and then even signaling that if I start playing for real then I am scum.  So, the effect of that is to neutralize me as a thread presence because (1) I was talking funny, and then (2) I stopped talking funny.  The thread facts match up to what I'm saying.  If you didn't have that body of evidence, then there are issues. 

Also, the effect of my point is simply allowing me to talk and analyze the game, while the effect of your point is to dismiss everything I say because I'm no longer posting like Drunk Elsa.

It's the difference between inclusivity and exclusivity in an outcome, and these things are not alike.

 

Point B:  Already addressed extensively above, and you're wrong.  See Points 2 and 3, above.  But, it's moot now since it has "no bearing whatsoever," which I already explained is nonsense above.

 

Point C:  Again, you misread my initial post, and this is now the second time you're making the same mischaracterization.  See Points 2 and 3, above. I was referencing the Old West Game that you think does not matter.  My initial accusation was: you had the opportunity to use your role for even more information with that comparison game, and you did not...  Thus, I think you're not actually interested in game solving. 

You say it does not matter, but I've provided two instances in which it does matter, and both have general applicability here.  I was saying that you didn't look back to see who might have had a different reaction that game relative to this game, when the facts are largely the same, as that is information about their prospective alignment.

Also, since you made this argument, I'll point out that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.  First, you said your actions are pro-Town because you got scum.  Then, you said an argument (that I never made) was weak because you didn't "reread what just happened not that long ago... there's been no flip yet and I remember what stance people took..."

So, it's Pro-Town because you're right, and Llama is scum, but you imply that a lack of a flip is preventing you from gaining much more.

 

Point D:  Again, I don't know what you're saying here.  It is unclear.  I don't know what logic you're referring to, and you're not really referencing anything that would give me context to figure it out.  You reference the artificial line that I said is unhelpful because people have a built-in excuse to vote for Llama, because it's you versus freaking Llama on Day 1.  That does not provide any clarification.  I did get a laugh out of the "allegedly" throw-in though, as if you didn't acknowledge that was true already.

So, what are we talking about here?  The only thing I can come up with is that you're saying I'm wrong to dismiss your answers about why you chose Llama?  Your explanation was "I was excited" and "I didn't like his ****/marry/kill response, he was trying to be inoffensive."  I don't know how anyone could accept those answers.  I didn't even reject the rationale for the ****/marry/kill one.  I just laughed at the nonsensical nature of your justification.

So, if this didn't answer it, ask me again differently, preferably clearly. 

 

Point E:  I already addressed the artificial line bit throughout this post.  I already pointed out the objectively true flaw in your argument: everyone could have sided with you, and most people would not have cared.  For telling me I have no substance, you can see from this post that you're basically repeating one paragraph of content from my post, but spending most of your time misreading my post and arguing about what you misread, arguing about secondary or tertiary issues, self-aggrandizing, etc.

So, most of this section was unrelated to your final sentence and question.  That is unclear and rambling.  You concluded that I'm being contradictory on Llama.  Well, there are two main issues here.  First, you're saying this based on the concept that I said MWil and Counselor are protecting you, and that is the substance of the narrative... which as I have already shown, never happened, and never maintained at any point.  So, I'm already dismissing it because the premise is wrong.  But, I even answered it to the best of my ability, which is that I'm not being contradictory because I openly acknowledged that I was defending Llama.  I don't know how anyone could come away with any other impression, and I said as much in my initial response.

You do not truly think or believe that defending someone somehow invalidates their position on other people being connected.  That is asinine Mafia 001 talk.  So, even if we presume what you say is true, it is a logical fallacy to think it invalidates anything I've said.

 

Point F:  Yeah, already explained this above too.  See Point 6.

 

Point G:  Again, I don't know where Slappy came into this interaction, but it's not really relevant to this post.

 

Point H:  Yeah, I explained why I thought I was the only one engaging in a genuine push.  I detailed an articulable and reasonable case that guided my thoughts, and included extraneous reads and information to inform and develop my case to get beyond the binary choice we had in the Duel.  And, I was primarily the one pushing, and likely to continue to push.  As I already said, and this is at this time (not hindsight): Squire said his piece almost a full-day earlier and left; Dome was meme posting about Touch being redirected, Llama 100% Town, etc.; and Orca was semi-present, but not actively pushing Touch.  If I recall, his primary case was about MWil at this time, and he was either not present or allowing others to talk... which is pretty much what I said then and since.

 

I don't know how you can say I'm the one lacking substance at this juncture.  All your posts are a disjointed mixture of "no you."

 

Here is my contemporaneous response, which largely mirrors what I'm telling you now, but I've added detail and clarity to make it absolutely clear.

 

And thennnnnn:

Keep in mind these are only some links, there are literally dozens that show the same ****.

We go into a loop of me telling Touch he didn't effectively respond to anything; he's making no sense; he's really not making sense; he misread my posts, and was unclear. 

He kept telling me that I'm wrong, saying I'm scum because I'm actually posting, denying everything that objectively occurred, telling us our positions are equal (even though I've now proven almost half of his are wrong or based on a misreading or mischaracterization), and refusing to engage in a non-disingenuous manner (Orca and squire pushed more than I did, really?).

Touch does another post that is largely him misreading my posts, and all my responses are basically contained above.

Touch tells me he has directly pinpointed his arguments... uh, where?  The issue is, even if he has, his immediate follow-up is question based on his misreading of my post.

I counted the amount of conclusory or declaratory statements that he made, and I stopped counting at 30 on page 82.  And that's just in the spew that followed the large posts.  Feel free to skim back through, Touch completely avoided engagement and was objectively wrong throughout.

Then we had a circuitous bit where he refused to point out what I failed to answer because he already did it; or, it was "clear" and "everything he said spoke for itself."

Throw in the occasional disingenuous talking point about how I "have nothing" and I'm wrongly and baselessly "dismissing everything," and even the occasional quoting me and saying I said something other than what I clearly said:

 

 

 

 

Oh, and Touch tried the semantic battle about me being "the only one genuinely pushing," which I explained like 10x, but he clung to it like it defended him somehow.  I was the only one to make an articulable and sustained case, but Touch says Dome locked his vote and squire asked questions the other day, so, lol.

And I didn't address it because his points because they're different opinions? What.

After he understood my argument, he said it just doesn't matter, lol.  And effectively conceded all of the arguments I made, since he misread most of them... and then just dismissed it because it's not this game.  And then continued to argue his misinterpretation of my clear position as the correct argument instead of re-reading like three sentences about that argument.

I asked for him to re-read because he clearly needed to do so, or he was being purposefully infuriating.  I called him retarded and whatnot like I am wont to do.

Finally, I asked him to make a list of questions for me that are numerical so there is no excuse for me to not do it.  He refused to even acknowledge it for the while on the basis that it's a trap. I mean, lol. I offered to do it, and since then he has not shut up about it.

 

No.  You didn't.  But now I have.

I am not responding to disjointed, incoherent nonsense and rhetorical talking points. 

 

You can speak clearly, as I have done throughout all of this, or talk to yourself.

 

 

These things are not equal.

 

 

Touch is scum. 

 

Regardless of what Llama flips.

I am not responding to what I deem to be already answered or otherwise erroneous or false.

I'm tired of my time being wasted.  The answer is likely in this post, and if it's not, feel free to ask me in a way that is coherent.

[SwAg]

Just now, MWil23 said:

Meh, I enjoy having a good time and messing around. If you want to make it personal then so be it. I’m proud of both Master Degrees that I’ve earned.

I wasn't trying to make it personal.  Just an Ohio joke, like the time I told you I was going to come beat you to death with a tire iron from Akron.

[Nazgul]

MWil = 2 Master Degrees
Naz = 2 Gold-Stars in Kindergarten

Smarter = Naz

Odd how life works out.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Nazgul

[Dome]

1 minute ago, theuntouchable said:

You should probably reread last night. 

No need. 
 

I saw it when it happened, seeing it again changes nothing 

[theuntouchable]

1 minute ago, SwAg said:

This is absolutely infuriating.  You maintained a few positions yesterday, ardently, and mischaracterized me accordingly.  I went through and showed that those representations were false or disingenuous.  You repeatedly told me that you were clear and explicit, and everything spoke for itself... Where is that stuff?  Because you've yet to show it to me.

So far this is what I got:

Coming back through for a second-go at the posts I made once I pointed out in complete explicit detail how wrong your interpretation was, and even now, your interpretation is contradicting what you said about it yesterday.

I didn't say it's possible that Llama is scum or that people are coming out to help Llama, but basically everything is possible and I spent a paragraph explaining why I thought the opposite is more plausible.

Apparently, the Old West Game mattered yesterday when you were making those posts, because your point was Forge shot you so there is risk, but then later you said "the Old West Game has no bearing whatsoever" on this game.  And it matters now because now you're clearly right because Town killed you in LyLo last time you were Duelist.

You are just churning through excuses as quickly as I can toss them aside while engaging in purposefully infuriating tactics. 

I cannot take this seriously and I'm not responding to anything I view as nonsense from this point forward.

Lol Again you attempt to push a narrative by completely ignoring the opposite argument. 
 

i mischaracterized you? Yet, what you did towards me isn’t mischaracterizing me because of what exactly? 
 

nothing I’ve said contradicted what I said yesterday. Did I admit to mis-reading one portion of your post? Yes, but nothing has contradicted it. I’m assuming you’re talking about domes game. 
 

the same game that you tried to push a narrative that I did it as scum because there was almost no risk. I attempted to explain to you that is not an accurate description of events as I was killed by town. You then told me I was wrong. You completely left off the part about it being town that killed me and grasped desperately at it being LYLO. 
 

I bring up the actual game and posts and you completely dismiss it because it was LYLO, as if there is any relevance there. Even though it completely proved my point that there was more risk than you attempted to claim. 
 

I am pointing out to you the giant pile of arguments/facts/analysis that you are completely dismissing with no credible bounds to do so. It’s what I’ve been doing since you started this whole schtick to begin with. 

[Scoundrel]

Just now, Nazgul said:

MWil = 2 Master Degrees
Naz = 2 Gold-Stars in Kindergarten

Smarter = Naz

Odd how life works out.

Naz is as smart as a Pez dispenser. He’s the least intelligent of us here. 

[SwAg]

Now I feel like I have to address that because nothing I say to anyone is mean spirited or intended to be taken as a serious attack or position. 

Except for maybe matts sometimes, but we're getting better with that.  We're working through it.  He still has his one-pass for me to not be mean, and he hasn't had to use it yet.

I like to weave in references to make my insults personalized, but not personal.  So, tie in innocuous but relevant details for everyone to laugh about.

[Nazgul]

1 minute ago, Counselor said:

Naz is as smart as a Pez dispenser. He’s the least intelligent of us here. 

For being a counselor, you sure do a terrible job at building people up.

[MWil23]

3 minutes ago, SwAg said:

I wasn't trying to make it personal.  Just an Ohio joke, like the time I told you I was going to come beat you to death with a tire iron from Akron.

I’m not offended, I’m amused at the insinuation and the need you felt to quote me immediately after you said you were no longer responding to nonsense, to which I clearly posted that bait/nonsense and it not only elicited a response, but a direct quote with a personal insult. 

[Scoundrel]

Just now, Nazgul said:

For being a counselor, you sure do a terrible job at building people up.

You’re voting for me. You crushed my self esteem already 

[SwAg]

3 minutes ago, theuntouchable said:

Lol Again you attempt to push a narrative by completely ignoring the opposite argument. 
 

i mischaracterized you? Yet, what you did towards me isn’t mischaracterizing me because of what exactly? 
 

nothing I’ve said contradicted what I said yesterday. Did I admit to mis-reading one portion of your post? Yes, but nothing has contradicted it. I’m assuming you’re talking about domes game. 
 

the same game that you tried to push a narrative that I did it as scum because there was almost no risk. I attempted to explain to you that is not an accurate description of events as I was killed by town. You then told me I was wrong. You completely left off the part about it being town that killed me and grasped desperately at it being LYLO. 
 

I bring up the actual game and posts and you completely dismiss it because it was LYLO, as if there is any relevance there. Even though it completely proved my point that there was more risk than you attempted to claim. 
 

I am pointing out to you the giant pile of arguments/facts/analysis that you are completely dismissing with no credible bounds to do so. It’s what I’ve been doing since you started this whole schtick to begin with. 

deadpan stare

refer to 4 posts above your post.

[Scoundrel]

Swag