It’s a play style. I responded immaturely and didn’t think it through at the time properly. I view it now as kind of a “scorched earth” policy. Rattle everyone’s tree and see what falls down. I thought he was scum in PlayStation because of it, but I just wanted him to be. I think D_V is at best neutral this game. PlayStation D_V was abrasive and aggressive, but pursued things while doing so. Ghostbusters D_V seems like they’re just discrediting others without having a direction to take the game. Town D_V should be dragging us kicking and screaming somewhere? I don’t know.
I mean, he's certainly trying to drag us kicking and screaming somewhere. I think your description of what you expect his town meta to be matches pretty closely to his play, I just also happen to know the same thing lies well within his wheelhouse as a wolf. But how do you square your proposed meta reading of DV with your apparent light scum read?
@tubba
Having just read DV attacking etr for... uh... having consensus reads i guess?
Thinking about him attacking you in playstation for... i mean exactly the opposite
I dont know what my question is here maybe i just wanted to shade DV
Idk is it real?
Tom
UNVOTE ZTSTD YOU LEMMING I'VE NOW SHOWN THE REASON HR WAS PROTECTED IF YOU DON'T I SWEAR TO GOD
Given i was skimming by the end there but i just came away going "uh, so?" and "no thats not what he said at all"
The only compelling part is something dv didnt say, which is that he was "wrong" on scum day 1 and didnt make huge effort to reevaluate his worldview at large despite a reread. But that... idk man sometimes you read and ***** doesnt change that much
But there is some of that in the d2 catch up (i agree for example fuwa d1 looks a lot like an awkward ******* bus).
And ***** man not much has changed for me since the beginning of day 2 either its almost like we had a dumb no lynch
I come out of that case unchanged on etr and a little lower on DV.
Oh yeah and other than the mass claims that have come out since that post was made,
The mass amount of content, the death flip, the Terry.
Yeah you're right nothing has changed at all. In fact the game is literally in another state the same as if we were in a normal and had lynched Terry and then had Rhand NK'ed. Not to speak about the mass amount of content that has been produced this game at all.
Given i was skimming by the end there but i just came away going "uh, so?" and "no thats not what he said at all"
The only compelling part is something dv didnt say, which is that he was "wrong" on scum day 1 and didnt make huge effort to reevaluate his worldview at large despite a reread. But that... idk man sometimes you read and ***** doesnt change that much
But there is some of that in the d2 catch up (i agree for example fuwa d1 looks a lot like an awkward ******* bus).
And ***** man not much has changed for me since the beginning of day 2 either its almost like we had a dumb no lynch
I come out of that case unchanged on etr and a little lower on DV.
Oh yeah and other than the mass claims that have come out since that post was made,
The mass amount of content, the death flip, the Terry.
Yeah you're right nothing has changed at all. In fact the game is literally in another state the same as if we were in a normal and had lynched Terry and then had Rhand NK'ed. Not to speak about the mass amount of content that has been produced this game at all.
Like really dude just ******* what.
Additionally, it isn't that he didn't change his world view. Its that his world view was all god damn neutral reads, and incredibly weak at that.
Hey, DV. Keep your cool. People are absolutely going to ignore and/or lynch you if you keep flying off the handle.
tom is also doing his version of the “sit back and exist” thing.
His zdtsd push is half-hearted at best and he’s admitted as much; he shows no sign of pushing elsewhere,
nor has he doubled down on zdtsd.
I'm kind of forcing him to do so.
You and I agree with everything except Silver and IDK that might be from day one posting of Re(So lol at me for that when I call ETR out for it.)
Like yeah you're right.
But ETR is arguing in a cheap way.
I'd point to his attacks on me.
He first called me rude. Then when I pushed back and said it wasn't he responded(And it wasn't rude). Then he's called my posts incoherent twice and both times I have just restated the exact same thing I said before, and he's responded. So he's just lying.
Tom IDK could be town. Its hard for me to say, I've seen this ***** as scum, I've seen it as town. Tom just gets bad at mafia sometimes. Like actually bad. I don't disagree with you, I just don't know if its scummy. The reduction of my arguments to further his town read on ETR and not really clearly reading my own case against ETR is really just null to me. Like anyone else I'd scum read them for that, but Tom's pulled this ***** as town before so its hard for me to say.
The only thing I can say right now on Tom is that his reasoning seems to be fluid in a not so good way. For example he points to me not having any teams that make a lot of sense, but then right now for me casing ETR he says I look worse. I'm not sure how, and it isn't logic that really meshes with each other. That being said I've seen Tom do this before.
I really don't know with Tom. I want to Town read him because I've got some gut things going on there and some other behavioral weak reads that tell me he's town. But like ughhh, he doesn't make it easy.
Also, I'm going to say this once. I didn't call ETR incompetent IDK what the **** Vezok is talking about. If ETR wanted to call me that, I wouldn't be bothered by that. Calling me incoherent on the other hand is just ******* rude. People can overcome incompetence or poor play or what ever by getting better at the game.
You know this mirrors Playstation for me, where Kpaca called me something, I don't remember and I don't want to look it up. But, the gist was he said I wasn't playing the game, when I had just made that mega post, and that was so ******* insulting to me. This is something on a similar line to me, we have a player that has almost all neutral reads, and isn't playing the game. Is scum reading me for scum reading 5 players when he's scum reading 8 players. And finally he has some ******* dichotomy with Role reads that the snake can't explain. The hypocrisy is just so ******* blatant, that I have to assume you are scum, because any human being that is town is going to say "You're right I'm wrong". But he isn't.
Take me for example, I was heavily scum reading vaimes for what I saw as him not playing, he's finally started to play with that mega reread, and like he's ******* town. I was really wrong. There isn't anything more to say than I was wrong. And it just seems to me that ETR is just not willing to do that, so he has to be scum, or something else about him personally and that's all I say.
Bro, if you can't play without having an emotional breakdown, maybe this ain't the game for you.
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
Bro, if you can't play without having an emotional breakdown, maybe this ain't the game for you.
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
Bro, if you can't play without having an emotional breakdown, maybe this ain't the game for you.
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
what about it?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
Bro, if you can't play without having an emotional breakdown, maybe this ain't the game for you.
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
what about it?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
Bro, if you can't play without having an emotional breakdown, maybe this ain't the game for you.
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
what about it?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
What about it? You're just repeating my stance?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
IE
What are the claimed roles that can't exist together?
Why can't they exist together?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
What
asking for information specifying something.
about
4a : with regard to : CONCERNING
b : concerned with
c : fundamentally concerned with or directed toward
the
—used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is definite or has been previously specified by context or by circumstance
Example put the cat out
claimed
to assert in the face of possible contradiction
roles
: a character assigned or assumed
or
: a function or part performed especially in a particular operation or process
can't
can not
can
KNOW, UNDERSTAND
not
—used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word
exist
: to have real being whether material or spiritual
togethor
: in or into contact, connection, collision, or union
So put it all together.
I am asking, what(IE looking for an argument) about the claimed roles(ztstd's role and my own) makes them unable to be in the same game.
I am in no way restating your position. I am asking a question about it.
I see now why you think I'm incoherent because your grasp of the English language is tentative at best.
It doesn't make any sense in my mind to have those two on the same team. And since neither one of you (I assume) are using a fake claim (because the fake claims this far have been simple claims) I think that you are a non-aligned pair.
Because I went back and demonstrated that you had a full 50% of the players as scum within 200 posts. I’ve gone back and made cases on people I thought were scummy. Everything you’re attempting to put on me right now is what you’re doing. And the only reason I haven’t switched my vote to you is FUWA was scummier than Elijah so you can thank your preseason for that.
I'd also like to ask you why you made this post.
When you scum read 8 other players.
But since I think the first question was much more on a basic level and you didn't understand that, I don't really know how to communicate this much more complex question.
Can you tell me what your original language is so I can communicate my questions to you in that language so that you can understand me and not call me incoherent.
It doesn't make any sense in my mind to have those two on the same team. And since neither one of you (I assume) are using a fake claim (because the fake claims this far have been simple claims) I think that you are a non-aligned pair.
How?
I have claimed a Joat, he has claimed a doctor.
What about those claims are not able to be on the same team?
Let me help you understand the ways your sentence can be broken down:
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
That's three wildly different interpretations of your one sentence.
I don't believe that Gozer and the Marshmallow Man are going to exist on the same team. I already said that.
That is a flavor claim.
That isn't, what you claimed.
You said, and I quote
Flavor is the dichotomy between you and ZD. I don't believe that your claimed roles will be aligned on the same team.
Which in the English language, means that you not only think that there is a flavor problem, but also a claimed role problem.
Now to help you understand what you are doing wrong when someone makes an argument. They typically, make a claim and then support that claim with evidence. So, please argue for me, why a doctor and a Joat can not be on the same team.
Let me help you understand the ways your sentence can be broken down:
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
That's three wildly different interpretations of your one sentence.
Its literally all three.
Its the exact same outcome.
I'm asking What about the claimed roles can't exist together.
Punctuation doesn't change any of this. You really don't understand the language if you think it does. That is no ambiguity in any of the three interpretations. There is literally no other way to interpret this.
There is one subject and one modifier. I get that you're an ass and you think you're being clever, but you're not. If you want to go through those three examples you gave and explain how there is ambiguity and how each is a different question feel free to do so. But there isn't. And I'm giving that my drafting guarantee. There is nothing ambiguous about that question.
Furthermore there isn't any need for punctuation with that question. I'm sorry there just isn't. You're implying that if spoken the emphasis would be on different parts of the sentence you're right, but there isn't any ambiguity with doing so.
The actual first word in my quote is FLAVOR. Like, what are you even doing?
So, the only reason you think we can't exist is because of a flavor reason, not a claimed roles reason.
Flavor is the dichotomy between you and ZD. I don't believe that your claimed roles will be aligned on the same team.
Because what this says, is that you think flavor is a dichotomy(OK I understand that). But also that you think CLAIMED ROLES can't be aligned on the same team. This states that doctor and Joat can't be on the same team. Unless you are saying that the claimed roles are the flavor claims?
But you pointed here
It doesn't make any sense in my mind to have those two on the same team. And since neither one of you (I assume) are using a fake claim (because the fake claims this far have been simple claims) I think that you are a non-aligned pair.
That the roles don't make sense, not the flavor. Unless you are simply trying to argue that the flavor is legit, but the flavor can't exist together? Is that it?
@tubba
Having just read DV attacking etr for... uh... having consensus reads i guess?
Thinking about him attacking you in playstation for... i mean exactly the opposite
I dont know what my question is here maybe i just wanted to shade DV
Idk is it real?
It’s a play style. I responded immaturely and didn’t think it through at the time properly. I view it now as kind of a “scorched earth” policy. Rattle everyone’s tree and see what falls down. I thought he was scum in PlayStation because of it, but I just wanted him to be. I think D_V is at best neutral this game. PlayStation D_V was abrasive and aggressive, but pursued things while doing so. Ghostbusters D_V seems like they’re just discrediting others without having a direction to take the game. Town D_V should be dragging us kicking and screaming somewhere? I don’t know.
TBH I'm slightly lost this game.
PlayStation was me slightly being on fire.
But how the hell do you get off saying I'm discrediting people when ETR has constantly resorted to calling my posts "Incoherent"
I was asked about you, and provided my interpretation of the information I have. I have pointed out EtR’s willingness to keep himself open to move in any direction in a previous post.
@tubba
Having just read DV attacking etr for... uh... having consensus reads i guess?
Thinking about him attacking you in playstation for... i mean exactly the opposite
I dont know what my question is here maybe i just wanted to shade DV
Idk is it real?
It’s a play style. I responded immaturely and didn’t think it through at the time properly. I view it now as kind of a “scorched earth” policy. Rattle everyone’s tree and see what falls down. I thought he was scum in PlayStation because of it, but I just wanted him to be. I think D_V is at best neutral this game. PlayStation D_V was abrasive and aggressive, but pursued things while doing so. Ghostbusters D_V seems like they’re just discrediting others without having a direction to take the game. Town D_V should be dragging us kicking and screaming somewhere? I don’t know.
TBH I'm slightly lost this game.
PlayStation was me slightly being on fire.
But how the hell do you get off saying I'm discrediting people when ETR has constantly resorted to calling my posts "Incoherent"
I was asked about you, and provided my interpretation of the information I have. I have pointed out EtR’s willingness to keep himself open to move in any direction in a previous post.
@tubba
Having just read DV attacking etr for... uh... having consensus reads i guess?
Thinking about him attacking you in playstation for... i mean exactly the opposite
I dont know what my question is here maybe i just wanted to shade DV
Idk is it real?
It’s a play style. I responded immaturely and didn’t think it through at the time properly. I view it now as kind of a “scorched earth” policy. Rattle everyone’s tree and see what falls down. I thought he was scum in PlayStation because of it, but I just wanted him to be. I think D_V is at best neutral this game. PlayStation D_V was abrasive and aggressive, but pursued things while doing so. Ghostbusters D_V seems like they’re just discrediting others without having a direction to take the game. Town D_V should be dragging us kicking and screaming somewhere? I don’t know.
TBH I'm slightly lost this game.
PlayStation was me slightly being on fire.
But how the hell do you get off saying I'm discrediting people when ETR has constantly resorted to calling my posts "Incoherent"
I was asked about you, and provided my interpretation of the information I have. I have pointed out EtR’s willingness to keep himself open to move in any direction in a previous post.
I understand this, I was just trying to explain more. I don't think you're really wrong with your analysis.
I get HR, I think he is genuine and believes what he is saying. I think he's wrong and bad, but I see genuine belief.
I don't understand the fundamental reasons behind ETR's arguments. ETR is wanting to get into a myopic argument about grammar, I don't understand the purpose. Its just a dick measuring contest, now I have to reason if this is just a personal flaw or scum covering up these pushes. I don't understand how this makes me scum, someone should question him on this.
It’s a play style. I responded immaturely and didn’t think it through at the time properly. I view it now as kind of a “scorched earth” policy. Rattle everyone’s tree and see what falls down. I thought he was scum in PlayStation because of it, but I just wanted him to be. I think D_V is at best neutral this game. PlayStation D_V was abrasive and aggressive, but pursued things while doing so. Ghostbusters D_V seems like they’re just discrediting others without having a direction to take the game. Town D_V should be dragging us kicking and screaming somewhere? I don’t know.
I mean, he's certainly trying to drag us kicking and screaming somewhere. I think your description of what you expect his town meta to be matches pretty closely to his play, I just also happen to know the same thing lies well within his wheelhouse as a wolf. But how do you square your proposed meta reading of DV with your apparent light scum read?
That’s not how I see it. There’s no direction. It’s more like just muddying the waters, most notably with the EoD 2. That’s part of my neutral read. ScumD_V or townD_V should be trying to get us to kill someone. This D_V doesn’t seem to care one way or the other.
D_V's attack on ETR is unreasonable. "Role" is commonly used to include flavor.
And though I don't think it's super important, I can see what ETR is saying with the question being ambiguous.
D_V: you are asking: "What [is it] about the claimed roles [that would make it so that they] can't exist together?" In other words: "why don't you think those roles can exist together?"
ETR is pointing out that it can be filled in differently: "What about [the fact that] the claimed roles can't exist together?" In other words: "this is a reminder that the claimed roles can't exist together."
Tubba: Disagree on the neutral read with EOD2. Two reasons. One, Neutrals almost always have survival as an explicit or implicit win condition. EOD2 doesn't match with someone who needs to live. Yes, he got away with it this time, but barely. Two, neutrals rarely want to muddy the water. Neutrals often want to maintain mystery about themselves, but they don't want to arbitrarily generate confusion for the town; that just leads to a mafia win.
The only reason for a neutral to push specifically in that direction is if they're, like, an SK and are worried that the town is doing too well to the point of killing *all* the mafia, and even then the SK is often fine with it (since it means they don't have to worry about getting randomly NK'ed).
D_V's attack on ETR is unreasonable. "Role" is commonly used to include flavor.
And though I don't think it's super important, I can see what ETR is saying with the question being ambiguous.
D_V: you are asking: "What [is it] about the claimed roles [that would make it so that they] can't exist together?" In other words: "why don't you think those roles can exist together?"
ETR is pointing out that it can be filled in differently: "What about [the fact that] the claimed roles can't exist together?" In other words: "this is a reminder that the claimed roles can't exist together."
Tubba: Disagree on the neutral read with EOD2. Two reasons. One, Neutrals almost always have survival as an explicit or implicit win condition. EOD2 doesn't match with someone who needs to live. Yes, he got away with it this time, but barely. Two, neutrals rarely want to muddy the water. Neutrals often want to maintain mystery about themselves, but they don't want to arbitrarily generate confusion for the town; that just leads to a mafia win.
The only reason for a neutral to push specifically in that direction is if they're, like, an SK and are worried that the town is doing too well to the point of killing *all* the mafia, and even then the SK is often fine with it (since it means they don't have to worry about getting randomly NK'ed).
God damnit I said I was going to take a break but I don't want this to sit two days without responding to it.
I understand the argument about role. However, to me I would argue when you take the time to specify out the word flavor the first time, saying claimed role means that it is different. Any drafter of any legal document would approach it this way, you've given a definition then use another term in the next sentence to mean the same thing? Its just poor writing.
If that is the case then I'll rescind the argument, like I kind of came to the conclusion in 1882. But to me that just is really poor writing, and it doesn't make any sense. I agree with role being used synonymously I just feel like when you specify flavor then say claimed role that means doctor and JOAT.
With the sentence structure. No, you're just wrong. This one is going to drive me nuts.
There is nothing ambiguous about the wording. With your additive sure you are right. But this wasn't an additive sentence. I'm asking what ABOUT the claimed roles can't exist together. Its not what is it about its what about. These are entirely different sentence structures.
Additionally, I find this argument by you lacking. I'd point to the fact that I continually asked this question. He dodged the question multiple times. He then pretended like it wasn't a question. Look, I get that you hate me KA. I get you don't like my post style. But please don't take his side on this. You knew what I was asking and don't say you didn't, cause you are just lying to yourself.
And finally,
This was the original question by me.
As far as not answering your question - You're question has been answered multiple times. Flavor is the dichotomy between you and ZD. I don't believe that your claimed roles will be aligned on the same team.
Flavor?
What the ****? What flavor dichotomy? There isn't any flavor dichotomy between us. Explain.
Claimed roles can't be on the same team? Explain. What?
Claimed roles can't be on the same team? Explain. Clearly indicates what I was talking about. I just find your argument facetious, degrading to me and just stoking the flames. Please read the game in the entirety, you've taken this out of context, and written in a way I clearly never intended for it to be. And I truly think you've done so, because of your distaste for me.
What about being an idiom specifically annoys me about this argument.
What about is modifying the rest of the sentence.
For example webster gives the example
What about the meeting?
My usage was
What about the claimed roles can't exist together?
What about (Subject) (modifier to the question)?
I'm just a little lost for words. I really don't know if English isn't your first language. This is pretty typical talk for people and I can't imagine anyone on the street being confused by this statement. Yet, here we are. If I need to explain this to you fine, I can I will, I really don't mind if this is honest disagreement or misunderstanding or what ever. If you truthfully don't understand I can work with that.
But that does not appear to be the case to me. So, I'm sorry if it is and I will gladly work with you, but otherwise just stop.
@tubba
Having just read DV attacking etr for... uh... having consensus reads i guess?
Thinking about him attacking you in playstation for... i mean exactly the opposite
I dont know what my question is here maybe i just wanted to shade DV
Idk is it real?
It’s a play style. I responded immaturely and didn’t think it through at the time properly. I view it now as kind of a “scorched earth” policy. Rattle everyone’s tree and see what falls down. I thought he was scum in PlayStation because of it, but I just wanted him to be. I think D_V is at best neutral this game. PlayStation D_V was abrasive and aggressive, but pursued things while doing so. Ghostbusters D_V seems like they’re just discrediting others without having a direction to take the game. Town D_V should be dragging us kicking and screaming somewhere? I don’t know.
ok so theres definitely some kind of cognitive dissonance. And i think i agree towndv doesn't necessarily believe some of the things hes saying when he gets caught up in a push, kinda highroller-in-this-game-esque at times.
But man the discrediting ive seen dv get fed up and unpleasant before but never this dismissive. Its gotta be strategic regardless of his alignment
Sigh
Prolly still just town by associations
Also Tom that isn't my ******* case on him at all how dare you reduce my case to that.
Look at the way that he has dodged the same question 6 times now. He can't answer it.
Look at the way that he holds his neutral views and is incredibly wishy washy.
Look at the way that he attacks me for having scum reads on 5 players and yet has scum reads on 8 players.
Look at the way he actually calls all of my posts incoherent rambling and refuses to engage with me.
Like god damn. How dare you reduce my argument to simply the most obvious part.
that is the main point of your case afaict. At least you keep belaboring the point and asking him a question 10 times he already answered (ftr i dont agree that gozer and stay puft man are a flavor dichotomy, but hes definitely answered bro)
And youre saying hes wishy washy but his reads arent changing.
And youve decided to add his nullreads to his scumreads to make some kind of whataboutism-based point
And frankly any reductiveness or name calling youve brought on yourself
Given i was skimming by the end there but i just came away going "uh, so?" and "no thats not what he said at all"
The only compelling part is something dv didnt say, which is that he was "wrong" on scum day 1 and didnt make huge effort to reevaluate his worldview at large despite a reread. But that... idk man sometimes you read and ***** doesnt change that much
But there is some of that in the d2 catch up (i agree for example fuwa d1 looks a lot like an awkward ******* bus).
And ***** man not much has changed for me since the beginning of day 2 either its almost like we had a dumb no lynch
I come out of that case unchanged on etr and a little lower on DV.
Oh yeah and other than the mass claims that have come out since that post was made,
The mass amount of content, the death flip, the Terry.
Yeah you're right nothing has changed at all. In fact the game is literally in another state the same as if we were in a normal and had lynched Terry and then had Rhand NK'ed. Not to speak about the mass amount of content that has been produced this game at all.
Like really dude just ******* what.
again only part i agreed with you on is that reread of day 1 and no major shifts. Theres definitely a chunk he didnt really react to. It could come from scum needing to keep pushing his agenda, but can see it from town too and it doesnt really change my read much
Hey, DV. Keep your cool. People are absolutely going to ignore and/or lynch you if you keep flying off the handle.
tom is also doing his version of the “sit back and exist” thing.
His zdtsd push is half-hearted at best and he’s admitted as much; he shows no sign of pushing elsewhere,
nor has he doubled down on zdtsd.
i keep meaning to ignore him...
Zdt is my most likely scum. Its onky half hearted because claim, which if its true is probably our strongest role (that or kami, but thats stretching the definition of "our").
I just dont think its real.
Id also lynch silver or ruma. Those are the flips we need i think. Not interested in etr or dv today.
4th choice maybe kami tbh, but he can still be of some use
Hey, DV. Keep your cool. People are absolutely going to ignore and/or lynch you if you keep flying off the handle.
tom is also doing his version of the “sit back and exist” thing.
His zdtsd push is half-hearted at best and he’s admitted as much; he shows no sign of pushing elsewhere,
nor has he doubled down on zdtsd.
i keep meaning to ignore him...
Zdt is my most likely scum. Its onky half hearted because claim, which if its true is probably our strongest role (that or kami, but thats stretching the definition of "our").
I just dont think its real.
Id also lynch silver or ruma. Those are the flips we need i think. Not interested in etr or dv today.
4th choice maybe kami tbh, but he can still be of some use
I don't understand the part where the push is half-hearted but you also don't believe his claim.
I mean youre the one that said half hearted, which i take to mean "tom talks about things other than his biggest scumread and isnt just shouting people down for disagreeing" because otherwise... like i started the wagon and convinced people to join me
So sure, willing to wait to push it another day if his claim saves him again, which is what it seems is happening here. And as he keeps not saving anyone and not dying, youll all be like "we should have just listened to tom" and that sounds solidly as fun as lynching scum today.
Any drafter of any legal document would approach it this way
No one here is drafting a legal document.
Look, I get that you hate me KA.
This is incorrect.
I get you don't like my post style.
This is correct.
I just find your argument facetious, degrading to me and just stoking the flames.
Disagreement with you doesn't mean hating you. It doesn't mean degrading you. It doesn't mean insulting you.
Specifically a huge part of what I dislike about your posting style is that you rarely differentiate between the two - disagreement and insult. When you disagree with someone, you freely mix insults with disagreement and use insults as the means to convey your disagreement. Conversely, when you receive disagreement, you react in a way that appears as if you received an insult. But disagreement and insults don't need to be the same thing. When I disagree with you I am not insulting you. When others disagree with you they are, generally, not insulting you.
"Hey, your words could be interpreted in a way you didn't mean" is not degrading to you.
I perceive it that way for a certain reason. Let me try and explain.
Take for example this disagreement between ETR and myself. It seems that you are at least somewhat understanding. However, I feel as though you are purposefully coming down on the side against me. Now maybe this is because you think I'm scummy, IDK.
But I think his ambitiousness of how he worded his is a lot worse then mine. You have to jump through a lot of hoops to even get to mine being ambiguous. I know I'm right on the English part, but even ignoring that I feel like you almost have to be arguing in a strange way. I understand your argument, I disagree clearly for a variety of reasons, but fundamentally you make a jump that I just don't get and it feels prejudice. You make the claim that my argument against him for ambiguity is silly, yet side with him against me.
If you wanted to argue that they were both sort of silly I might even be hard pressed to argue with you. But its just if mine is unreasonable, and I've explained why I've come to that his is EXTREMELY unreasonable. His is ambiguity that he claims just doesn't make any sense contextually, how he is posting his responses, really in anyway. So it just seems two faced to me. It seems as though you're like **** DV, but this guy that is doing worse yeah he's cool.
It just seems prejudicial if that isn't the case I'm sorry for accusing you. If you want to tell me from your heart of hearts that this isn't the case I'll believe you and we can move on. It just seems like you are hellbent on saying anything I do is *****, and ignoring the same behavior from others.
Tom
UNVOTE ZTSTD YOU LEMMING I'VE NOW SHOWN THE REASON HR WAS PROTECTED IF YOU DON'T I SWEAR TO GOD
Look at the way that he has dodged the same question 6 times now. He can't answer it.
Look at the way that he holds his neutral views and is incredibly wishy washy.
Look at the way that he attacks me for having scum reads on 5 players and yet has scum reads on 8 players.
Look at the way he actually calls all of my posts incoherent rambling and refuses to engage with me.
Like god damn. How dare you reduce my argument to simply the most obvious part.
Oh yeah and other than the mass claims that have come out since that post was made,
The mass amount of content, the death flip, the Terry.
Yeah you're right nothing has changed at all. In fact the game is literally in another state the same as if we were in a normal and had lynched Terry and then had Rhand NK'ed. Not to speak about the mass amount of content that has been produced this game at all.
Like really dude just ******* what.
Additionally, it isn't that he didn't change his world view. Its that his world view was all god damn neutral reads, and incredibly weak at that.
Like what the **** are you talking about Tom.
ETR has never really vocalized anything at all.
He just kinda sits back and exists.
Tom's making me have to Iso him too now. So **** me on that one bois.
tom is also doing his version of the “sit back and exist” thing.
His zdtsd push is half-hearted at best and he’s admitted as much; he shows no sign of pushing elsewhere,
nor has he doubled down on zdtsd.
Though it’s hard to be confident when Silver and Riku aren’t giving me much to work with.
You and I agree with everything except Silver and IDK that might be from day one posting of Re(So lol at me for that when I call ETR out for it.)
Like yeah you're right.
But ETR is arguing in a cheap way.
I'd point to his attacks on me.
He first called me rude. Then when I pushed back and said it wasn't he responded(And it wasn't rude). Then he's called my posts incoherent twice and both times I have just restated the exact same thing I said before, and he's responded. So he's just lying.
Tom IDK could be town. Its hard for me to say, I've seen this ***** as scum, I've seen it as town. Tom just gets bad at mafia sometimes. Like actually bad. I don't disagree with you, I just don't know if its scummy. The reduction of my arguments to further his town read on ETR and not really clearly reading my own case against ETR is really just null to me. Like anyone else I'd scum read them for that, but Tom's pulled this ***** as town before so its hard for me to say.
The only thing I can say right now on Tom is that his reasoning seems to be fluid in a not so good way. For example he points to me not having any teams that make a lot of sense, but then right now for me casing ETR he says I look worse. I'm not sure how, and it isn't logic that really meshes with each other. That being said I've seen Tom do this before.
I really don't know with Tom. I want to Town read him because I've got some gut things going on there and some other behavioral weak reads that tell me he's town. But like ughhh, he doesn't make it easy.
Also, I'm going to say this once. I didn't call ETR incompetent IDK what the **** Vezok is talking about. If ETR wanted to call me that, I wouldn't be bothered by that. Calling me incoherent on the other hand is just ******* rude. People can overcome incompetence or poor play or what ever by getting better at the game.
You know this mirrors Playstation for me, where Kpaca called me something, I don't remember and I don't want to look it up. But, the gist was he said I wasn't playing the game, when I had just made that mega post, and that was so ******* insulting to me. This is something on a similar line to me, we have a player that has almost all neutral reads, and isn't playing the game. Is scum reading me for scum reading 5 players when he's scum reading 8 players. And finally he has some ******* dichotomy with Role reads that the snake can't explain. The hypocrisy is just so ******* blatant, that I have to assume you are scum, because any human being that is town is going to say "You're right I'm wrong". But he isn't.
Take me for example, I was heavily scum reading vaimes for what I saw as him not playing, he's finally started to play with that mega reread, and like he's ******* town. I was really wrong. There isn't anything more to say than I was wrong. And it just seems to me that ETR is just not willing to do that, so he has to be scum, or something else about him personally and that's all I say.
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
what about it?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
What about it? You're just repeating my stance?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
IE
What are the claimed roles that can't exist together?
Why can't they exist together?
What
asking for information specifying something.
about
4a : with regard to : CONCERNING
b : concerned with
c : fundamentally concerned with or directed toward
the
—used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is definite or has been previously specified by context or by circumstance
Example put the cat out
claimed
to assert in the face of possible contradiction
roles
: a character assigned or assumed
or
: a function or part performed especially in a particular operation or process
can't
can not
can
KNOW, UNDERSTAND
not
—used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word
exist
: to have real being whether material or spiritual
togethor
: in or into contact, connection, collision, or union
So put it all together.
I am asking, what(IE looking for an argument) about the claimed roles(ztstd's role and my own) makes them unable to be in the same game.
I am in no way restating your position. I am asking a question about it.
I see now why you think I'm incoherent because your grasp of the English language is tentative at best.
I'd also like to ask you why you made this post.
When you scum read 8 other players.
But since I think the first question was much more on a basic level and you didn't understand that, I don't really know how to communicate this much more complex question.
Can you tell me what your original language is so I can communicate my questions to you in that language so that you can understand me and not call me incoherent.
Thank you.
How?
I have claimed a Joat, he has claimed a doctor.
What about those claims are not able to be on the same team?
Oh please, just tell me your original language.
The isn't any way that you thought that wasn't a question.
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
WHAT ABOUT THE CLAIMED ROLES CAN'T EXIST TOGETHER?
That's three wildly different interpretations of your one sentence.
That is a flavor claim.
That isn't, what you claimed.
You said, and I quote
Which in the English language, means that you not only think that there is a flavor problem, but also a claimed role problem.
Now to help you understand what you are doing wrong when someone makes an argument. They typically, make a claim and then support that claim with evidence. So, please argue for me, why a doctor and a Joat can not be on the same team.
That should have been tenuous. God, you can't even insult me coherently.
Its literally all three.
Its the exact same outcome.
I'm asking What about the claimed roles can't exist together.
Punctuation doesn't change any of this. You really don't understand the language if you think it does. That is no ambiguity in any of the three interpretations. There is literally no other way to interpret this.
There is one subject and one modifier. I get that you're an ass and you think you're being clever, but you're not. If you want to go through those three examples you gave and explain how there is ambiguity and how each is a different question feel free to do so. But there isn't. And I'm giving that my drafting guarantee. There is nothing ambiguous about that question.
Furthermore there isn't any need for punctuation with that question. I'm sorry there just isn't. You're implying that if spoken the emphasis would be on different parts of the sentence you're right, but there isn't any ambiguity with doing so.
All of them are questions at the end of the day. So I know you are just doing this to be an ass.
not certain or fixed; provisional.
done without confidence; hesitant.
That's a perfectly acceptable word to use. I'm sorry you don't understand the English language.
So, the only reason you think we can't exist is because of a flavor reason, not a claimed roles reason.
Because what this says, is that you think flavor is a dichotomy(OK I understand that). But also that you think CLAIMED ROLES can't be aligned on the same team. This states that doctor and Joat can't be on the same team. Unless you are saying that the claimed roles are the flavor claims?
But you pointed here
That the roles don't make sense, not the flavor. Unless you are simply trying to argue that the flavor is legit, but the flavor can't exist together? Is that it?
I was asked about you, and provided my interpretation of the information I have. I have pointed out EtR’s willingness to keep himself open to move in any direction in a previous post.
I understand this, I was just trying to explain more. I don't think you're really wrong with your analysis.
I get HR, I think he is genuine and believes what he is saying. I think he's wrong and bad, but I see genuine belief.
I don't understand the fundamental reasons behind ETR's arguments. ETR is wanting to get into a myopic argument about grammar, I don't understand the purpose. Its just a dick measuring contest, now I have to reason if this is just a personal flaw or scum covering up these pushes. I don't understand how this makes me scum, someone should question him on this.
I'm taking a break cya in 2 days.
That’s not how I see it. There’s no direction. It’s more like just muddying the waters, most notably with the EoD 2. That’s part of my neutral read. ScumD_V or townD_V should be trying to get us to kill someone. This D_V doesn’t seem to care one way or the other.
And though I don't think it's super important, I can see what ETR is saying with the question being ambiguous.
D_V: you are asking: "What [is it] about the claimed roles [that would make it so that they] can't exist together?" In other words: "why don't you think those roles can exist together?"
ETR is pointing out that it can be filled in differently: "What about [the fact that] the claimed roles can't exist together?" In other words: "this is a reminder that the claimed roles can't exist together."
Tubba: Disagree on the neutral read with EOD2. Two reasons. One, Neutrals almost always have survival as an explicit or implicit win condition. EOD2 doesn't match with someone who needs to live. Yes, he got away with it this time, but barely. Two, neutrals rarely want to muddy the water. Neutrals often want to maintain mystery about themselves, but they don't want to arbitrarily generate confusion for the town; that just leads to a mafia win.
The only reason for a neutral to push specifically in that direction is if they're, like, an SK and are worried that the town is doing too well to the point of killing *all* the mafia, and even then the SK is often fine with it (since it means they don't have to worry about getting randomly NK'ed).
God damnit I said I was going to take a break but I don't want this to sit two days without responding to it.
I understand the argument about role. However, to me I would argue when you take the time to specify out the word flavor the first time, saying claimed role means that it is different. Any drafter of any legal document would approach it this way, you've given a definition then use another term in the next sentence to mean the same thing? Its just poor writing.
If that is the case then I'll rescind the argument, like I kind of came to the conclusion in 1882. But to me that just is really poor writing, and it doesn't make any sense. I agree with role being used synonymously I just feel like when you specify flavor then say claimed role that means doctor and JOAT.
With the sentence structure. No, you're just wrong. This one is going to drive me nuts.
There is nothing ambiguous about the wording. With your additive sure you are right. But this wasn't an additive sentence. I'm asking what ABOUT the claimed roles can't exist together. Its not what is it about its what about. These are entirely different sentence structures.
Additionally, I find this argument by you lacking. I'd point to the fact that I continually asked this question. He dodged the question multiple times. He then pretended like it wasn't a question. Look, I get that you hate me KA. I get you don't like my post style. But please don't take his side on this. You knew what I was asking and don't say you didn't, cause you are just lying to yourself.
And finally,
This was the original question by me.
Claimed roles can't be on the same team? Explain. Clearly indicates what I was talking about. I just find your argument facetious, degrading to me and just stoking the flames. Please read the game in the entirety, you've taken this out of context, and written in a way I clearly never intended for it to be. And I truly think you've done so, because of your distaste for me.
Specifically "What About" is an idiom.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/what about
There is just no contextual way to interpret what I've said with the secondary meaning. And to pretend otherwise is just facetious.
What about being an idiom specifically annoys me about this argument.
What about is modifying the rest of the sentence.
For example webster gives the example
What about the meeting?
My usage was
What about the claimed roles can't exist together?
What about (Subject) (modifier to the question)?
I'm just a little lost for words. I really don't know if English isn't your first language. This is pretty typical talk for people and I can't imagine anyone on the street being confused by this statement. Yet, here we are. If I need to explain this to you fine, I can I will, I really don't mind if this is honest disagreement or misunderstanding or what ever. If you truthfully don't understand I can work with that.
But that does not appear to be the case to me. So, I'm sorry if it is and I will gladly work with you, but otherwise just stop.
But man the discrediting ive seen dv get fed up and unpleasant before but never this dismissive. Its gotta be strategic regardless of his alignment
Sigh
Prolly still just town by associations
And youre saying hes wishy washy but his reads arent changing.
And youve decided to add his nullreads to his scumreads to make some kind of whataboutism-based point
And frankly any reductiveness or name calling youve brought on yourself
Zdt is my most likely scum. Its onky half hearted because claim, which if its true is probably our strongest role (that or kami, but thats stretching the definition of "our").
I just dont think its real.
Id also lynch silver or ruma. Those are the flips we need i think. Not interested in etr or dv today.
4th choice maybe kami tbh, but he can still be of some use
If it doesn't, pushing it is scummy.
So sure, willing to wait to push it another day if his claim saves him again, which is what it seems is happening here. And as he keeps not saving anyone and not dying, youll all be like "we should have just listened to tom" and that sounds solidly as fun as lynching scum today.
But also, you see me unvoting?
Specifically a huge part of what I dislike about your posting style is that you rarely differentiate between the two - disagreement and insult. When you disagree with someone, you freely mix insults with disagreement and use insults as the means to convey your disagreement. Conversely, when you receive disagreement, you react in a way that appears as if you received an insult. But disagreement and insults don't need to be the same thing. When I disagree with you I am not insulting you. When others disagree with you they are, generally, not insulting you.
"Hey, your words could be interpreted in a way you didn't mean" is not degrading to you.
I think what you are saying is fair.
I perceive it that way for a certain reason. Let me try and explain.
Take for example this disagreement between ETR and myself. It seems that you are at least somewhat understanding. However, I feel as though you are purposefully coming down on the side against me. Now maybe this is because you think I'm scummy, IDK.
But I think his ambitiousness of how he worded his is a lot worse then mine. You have to jump through a lot of hoops to even get to mine being ambiguous. I know I'm right on the English part, but even ignoring that I feel like you almost have to be arguing in a strange way. I understand your argument, I disagree clearly for a variety of reasons, but fundamentally you make a jump that I just don't get and it feels prejudice. You make the claim that my argument against him for ambiguity is silly, yet side with him against me.
If you wanted to argue that they were both sort of silly I might even be hard pressed to argue with you. But its just if mine is unreasonable, and I've explained why I've come to that his is EXTREMELY unreasonable. His is ambiguity that he claims just doesn't make any sense contextually, how he is posting his responses, really in anyway. So it just seems two faced to me. It seems as though you're like **** DV, but this guy that is doing worse yeah he's cool.
It just seems prejudicial if that isn't the case I'm sorry for accusing you. If you want to tell me from your heart of hearts that this isn't the case I'll believe you and we can move on. It just seems like you are hellbent on saying anything I do is *****, and ignoring the same behavior from others.