Jump to content


Day 2: Nasty emails


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
80 replies to this topic

#26 Josh

Josh

    Evil bird

  • Admin

Posted 01 March 2011 - 09:37 AM

See- that's what I mean. It's just too much response for the level of Trilby's supposed infraction.
George Alagiaaaaaaargh: I lost my pecker in the siege :(

#27 The Captain

The Captain

    Flunky

  • Members
  • Pip

Posted 01 March 2011 - 09:39 AM

View PostJosh, on Mar 1 2011, 09:09 AM, said:

The Captain's response to Trilby makes me uncomfortable.
*provides cocoa and blanket*

Better?

Quote

I only attempt sarcasm on the attack when I want to hide the fact that I have no argument,
So I guess I'm not you in disguise then.

Quote

and ole Cap seems to be cleaving to that.
Or I just enjoy sarcasm and his post and vote was so ridiculously bad I couldn't help myself.

Quote

Trilby's vote was awful but the Cap could've pointed that out and moved on; bad logic is not the same as wolf logic, after all. The fact that he threw a vote in after it, and did it in such an aggressive way, suggests that he was trying to roll Trilby over.
In fairness, he started it. It felt very much like Trilby was trying to push through a vote on me just because I'd gotten some yesterday and with the weakest reasoning possible. The fact that he's continuing a vote that he made as the second post in yesterday's thread makes me suspicious. What, he just happened to guess who he was going to become suspicious off later that day? It seems like an incredibly weak way of trying to hide his vote, to make a vote that people wouldn't jump on because well "he did that yesterday too".

And why was he so suspicious of me? Because I voted to not get myself killed.

Wow. That's an iron clad case right there old Trilby boy, no human would ever want to do that!

As I said before the entire post wreaks of someone trying to make a vote and find a reason to do it, rather than actually having real suspicions and so voting on them. Humans don't need to vote like that, especially not so early on.

#28 Bassoon

Bassoon

    @~#*&$%

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip

Posted 01 March 2011 - 09:41 AM

I feel my plan to appear like a confused human has gone off perfectly.

#29 The Captain

The Captain

    Flunky

  • Members
  • Pip

Posted 01 March 2011 - 09:42 AM

View PostJosh, on Mar 1 2011, 09:37 AM, said:

See- that's what I mean. It's just too much response for the level of Trilby's supposed infraction.
I am not doing this because he voted for me per se. Although I might be enjoying it more because of that. I am doing it because that post makes me think he's a wolf and it would have done whoever it was aimed at.

#30 Josh

Josh

    Evil bird

  • Admin

Posted 01 March 2011 - 09:42 AM

View PostThe Captain, on Mar 1 2011, 09:39 AM, said:

As I said before the entire post wreaks of someone trying to make a vote and find a reason to do it, rather than actually having real suspicions and so voting on them. Humans don't need to vote like that, especially not so early on.
That's exactly why I'm suspicious of you. It seems like you've found a flaw and are now pushing it with all your might to try and spin a lynch out of it.
George Alagiaaaaaaargh: I lost my pecker in the siege :(

#31 The Captain

The Captain

    Flunky

  • Members
  • Pip

Posted 01 March 2011 - 09:45 AM

And how exactly should I be playing the game? Wait until I get killed, find out the roles and go "I knew it!"?

A post was made accusing me, I made a post defending myself but also attacking someone who I thought was a wolf.

He made a counter-arguement to which I have now responded. Is that not the basis of the game?

It's not my fault his posts are easy to rip apart, maybe if his arguement had any merit they wouldn't be.

As an asside I'd point out that I'm not attacking you because you're voting for me in a way that seems very human, but I am still attempting to defend myself from the accusation.

#32 Bassoon

Bassoon

    @~#*&$%

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip

Posted 01 March 2011 - 09:47 AM

View PostThe Captain, on Mar 1 2011, 09:39 AM, said:

So I guess I'm not you in disguise then.


Or I just enjoy sarcasm and his post and vote was so ridiculously bad I couldn't help myself.


In fairness, he started it. It felt very much like Trilby was trying to push through a vote on me just because I'd gotten some yesterday and with the weakest reasoning possible. The fact that he's continuing a vote that he made as the second post in yesterday's thread makes me suspicious. What, he just happened to guess who he was going to become suspicious off later that day? It seems like an incredibly weak way of trying to hide his vote, to make a vote that people wouldn't jump on because well "he did that yesterday too".

And why was he so suspicious of me? Because I voted to not get myself killed.

Wow. That's an iron clad case right there old Trilby boy, no human would ever want to do that!

As I said before the entire post wreaks of someone trying to make a vote and find a reason to do it, rather than actually having real suspicions and so voting on them. Humans don't need to vote like that, especially not so early on.
Have to say I agree entirely with The Captain giving you a slap for trying to suggest that you and him act in the same way in similar situations Josh.

I also agree with the second part of this post about Trilby's vote. Alright you can argue that the bad vote has got the Captain out and talking, but it's still a very bad vote and everything he says here holds true. An elaborate response could just be trying to stay in the game and trying to refute it straight out before it gathers more votes. I think this is a red herring.

*EDIT* Though whether, as Josh says, it's worth voting Trilby off for, is debatable. I'm aware I'm just recycling everyone else's noise here, so come vote for me.

#33 Kramer

Kramer

    Chalk

  • Members

Posted 01 March 2011 - 10:00 AM

Just to clarify, I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times ... I never explain anything. :)

Posted Image


Fake-edit: Sorry, I just love doing that. In a nutshell, Sian Massey can be wolfed but she is immune to Andy Gray's special day-time kill via PM (where he sends a woman to sleep by explaining the offside rule to her). Karen Brady is immunse to wolfing and also gets a special day-time kill via PM (note: she is NOT immune to Gray's offside power - a clever wolf team could work out who she was and then deploy this). Karen Brady MAY NOT reveal herself in-thread or she will be instantly removed from the game. Wolf kills are demarked by Keys and Gray hacking into their victim's work PCs and sending nasty emails from their account. As such, there should be little ambiguity as to who has done what.

#34 Josh

Josh

    Evil bird

  • Admin

Posted 01 March 2011 - 10:01 AM

View PostThe Captain, on Mar 1 2011, 09:45 AM, said:

And how exactly should I be playing the game? Wait until I get killed, find out the roles and go "I knew it!"?
Eurgh, I'm not interested in how you "play the game" and that's not a useful or interesting way of trying to deal with the accusation. On the straight basis of the evidence presented in thread, there's little qualitative difference between Trilby's vote for you and your vote for him; they're both overreaches. I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself against him and I'm not concerned by that, what worries me is the effort you're putting in to the counter-vote, which is a) hypocritical and b) much more aggressive than Trilby's "meh, whatever" effort.

Plus the whole "Oh, I'm just defending myself not attacking you Josh because you seem so human" line is more than a bit corny.

On the other hand, I'm getting sucked into an adversarial point-counter-point, which does tend to override the critical faculties, so I think I'll observe the play for a few hours before deciding whether to stick with my vote.
George Alagiaaaaaaargh: I lost my pecker in the siege :(

#35 Bassoon

Bassoon

    @~#*&$%

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip

Posted 01 March 2011 - 10:11 AM

OK best I can come up with right now, and probably because he's posted the most, but it's Josh who has got my Political Correctness Gone Mad Radar flashing.

View PostJosh, on Mar 1 2011, 09:09 AM, said:

The Captain's response to Trilby makes me uncomfortable.  I only attempt sarcasm on the attack when I want to hide the fact that I have no argument, and ole Cap seems to be cleaving to that. Trilby's vote was awful but the Cap could've pointed that out and moved on; bad logic is not the same as wolf logic, after all. The fact that he threw a vote in after it, and did it in such an aggressive way, suggests that he was trying to roll Trilby over.
This post today, as has been mentioned, is shifty in the way he tries to link his behaviour (sarcasm when he has no argument) with the Captain's. I will admit that that is the main problem I have with the post, his point about the Captain voting for Trilby just because Trilby voted for him, effectively, (despite dressing it up with an argument) is a fair one.

On it's own this wouldn't be vote-worthy, but going back over yesterday's joys there are a series of posts, mostly one liners, which make me more suspicious of Josh. Amongst his longer discussions of the game, the merits of day 1 and so on, none of which provides useful content for voting one way or the other, but shows him to be active (he is, not saying this is a ploy either, since several people take part, including Zael, Clearasday and myself).

XYZIA posts a vote count because, I assume, he is worried he is going to be lynched. Josh responds with

View PostJosh, on Feb 28 2011, 02:30 PM, said:

I always suspect people who post vote counts in the middle of the day. Not sure why, it just seems too much like trying to be helpful.
Then when XYZIA replies, it's as if he's fallen into Josh's "trap" and revealed something more about himself, though Josh doesn't say what, just insinuates that it is something of note.

View PostJosh, on Feb 28 2011, 02:34 PM, said:

If it's a choice between helpful and passive-aggressive, I'll take helpful. It's more revealing.

He then summarises this into a longer post justifying the use of information from day 1, but says it's not an argument for XYZIA, while the fact is that it is an argument for lynching XYZIA. Josh, here you're encouraging the vote for XYZIA while being removed from it and covering your rear, just in case anyone pulls you up on it. Perhaps that's because you've played the game a lot, and you can always pre-empt what people will think, but the point still stands that you did put this argument forward, however hypothetical you said it was.

View PostJosh, on Feb 28 2011, 04:00 PM, said:

Well, XY got caught being helpful (see point #3 here) then got passive-aggressive when it was pointed out, which is classically considered to be an expression of restrained anger or competitiveness. Of course, it's also classically considered to be a common outcome-symptom of "being on the internet", and it's unusual for people to crack and let their wolfishness show in obvious behaviours without a day or three of solid sledging, so it may well be nothing. Also people do tend to talk for the sake of talking on day 1. But it's a start.

(Note that this is not an argument for lynching XYZIA, it's just an example of how a substantive point could be made if one were so inclined)

Later on you cast suspicion of Zael, again very vaguely like when you earlier highlighted XYZIA's actions in one line posts. You seem to suggest he's against the game entirely... another sort of evil which we cannot hope to deal with!

View PostJosh, on Feb 28 2011, 07:40 PM, said:

I don't like how Zael keeps going for meta-game explanations of his actions. Meta-game or perhaps anti-game.

In reply Zael says exactly what I'm thinking:

View PostZael, on Feb 28 2011, 07:42 PM, said:

What?

but gets no response.

And finally you get in some more pre-emptive strikes against anyone who says your day 1 vote was rubbish:

View PostJosh, on Feb 28 2011, 09:49 PM, said:

My vote for Captain isn't very good, but it's 9:50 and I don't want to do a crappy last-minute switch, so I'm afraid it stays.

It's just a bunch of small things which keep coming out during the day, but for now it's the best thing I have. Unfortunately it's because you've been posting more than other people but for now I'm going to put a vote on you Josh while you respond to these, and provide an alternative for the Captain and Trilby rubbish votes.

#36 Bassoon

Bassoon

    @~#*&$%

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip

Posted 01 March 2011 - 10:13 AM

View PostJosh, on Mar 1 2011, 10:01 AM, said:

so I think I'll observe the play for a few hours before deciding whether to stick with my vote.
Haha sorry man. I'm off to do some actual work so will give you a few hours :P

#37 The Captain

The Captain

    Flunky

  • Members
  • Pip

Posted 01 March 2011 - 10:30 AM

View PostJosh, on Mar 1 2011, 10:01 AM, said:

Eurgh, I'm not interested in how you "play the game" and that's not a useful or interesting way of trying to deal with the accusation.
I'm sorry because it seemed your accusation was entirely based around how I "play the game":

Quote

That's exactly why I'm suspicious of you. It seems like you've found a flaw and are now pushing it with all your might to try and spin a lynch out of it.
Still seems like it.

Quote

On the straight basis of the evidence presented in thread, there's little qualitative difference between Trilby's vote for you and your vote for him; they're both overreaches.
This is... interesting. What evidence? Because I haven't seen any evidence presented against me in the thread. I've argued how and why I've found Trilby's vote suspicious, its because of the way he made it and the reasons he gave. I feel a have a genuine case against Trilby. While the only things he said was that he was "sticking with" a vote he made before I'd said anything, that I'd voted for XYZIA (to save myself after XYZIA had done the same to me) and that XYZIA "didn't like where I was going" which means completely nothing.

Quote

I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself against him and I'm not concerned by that, what worries me is the effort you're putting in to the counter-vote, which is a) hypocritical and b) much more aggressive than Trilby's "meh, whatever" effort.
a) How is it hypocritical? I'm voting for him because he has invented suspicions to justify a vote. I've gotten suspicious and so made a vote.
b) I'm not allowed to have a different style or personality from the person I think is suspicious? I don't understand why our two attacks even need to relate at all. He made a rubbish vote for me, I defended myself. I can understand why you might say that should relate to his attack, I'd disgaree with you but I'd understand it. As I was writing my defence however I became suspicious of the motives behind his vote and so made an arguement and a vote to that affect. This was me now attacking him and I see no reason why it should be related in tone or style to his attack on me.

Quote

Plus the whole "Oh, I'm just defending myself not attacking you Josh because you seem so human" line is more than a bit corny.
Urg. You aren't "so human" and I never said that you were. You are attacking me in a way that seems human. Rather than trumped up. I was using it as a counter point, that I was defending myself from your accusation just as heavily but I'm not suggesting that you must be a wolf for attacking me. My defence of the vote Trilby put on me is not related to the attack I have on him. Sure, one caused the other, but as I said, if I'd noted that behaviour directed at anyone else, I'd be voting for them too.

#38 Josh

Josh

    Evil bird

  • Admin

Posted 01 March 2011 - 10:32 AM

View PostBassoon, on Mar 1 2011, 10:11 AM, said:

OK best I can come up with right now, and probably because he's posted the most, but it's Josh who has got my Political Correctness Gone Mad Radar flashing.
Oh no, political correctness gone mad? Perhaps I should call in the Geneva Convention Police :P

Quote

This post today, as has been mentioned, is shifty in the way he tries to link his behaviour (sarcasm when he has no argument) with the Captain's.

...

On it's own this wouldn't be vote-worthy
It was the weakest part of my argument, I accept, but I don't think that there's anything intrinsically wrong with a person using their own experience and their own psychology as a way of interpreting other peoples' behaviours. I could have couched it differently ("In my experience, whenever someone gets aggressive it's often a sign that they're hiding a lack of content, and often the person using aggression to bulk up a trivial argument is a wolf" would have been far stronger) but ultimately it's not the most important part of the vote.

Quote

Then when XYZIA replies, it's as if he's fallen into Josh's "trap" and revealed something more about himself, though Josh doesn't say what, just insinuates that it is something of note.
Hmm, making it sound like I was trying to "trap" XY is a bit insinuate-y. My inital response to XY was more vexed than calculating - XY's response to me was whiny so I was snarky back - it certainly wasn't intended to be part of the game, let alone imply that XY had in some way implicated himself to me or revealed his own deep inner truth. We did go through a phase where every other game had someone popping up to say "YOU HAVE FALLEN INTO MY CUNNING TARP" but this was actually me just being a bit of a douche.

Quote

He then summarises this into a longer post justifying the use of information from day 1, but says it's not an argument for XYZIA, while the fact is that it is an argument for lynching XYZIA. Josh, here you're encouraging the vote for XYZIA while being removed from it and covering your rear, just in case anyone pulls you up on it. Perhaps that's because you've played the game a lot, and you can always pre-empt what people will think, but the point still stands that you did put this argument forward, however hypothetical you said it was.
I knew this was going to happen, so I'll just say this: I held on to my vote for the Captain too late, but if I had changed earlier in the day then it probably would have been for XYZIA. I'm happy to be considered an overt part of the XY vote if it helps.

Quote

Later on you cast suspicion of Zael, again very vaguely like when you earlier highlighted XYZIA's actions in one line posts. You seem to suggest he's against the game entirely... another sort of evil which we cannot hope to deal with!

...

In reply Zael says exactly what I'm thinking:
Yeah, I should probably have explained that better at the time. I get annoyed (as per my post at Captain, above) when people try to go all meta in their defences. Zael's defence yesterday had two struts: 1)It's day one! Day one doesn't mean anything! and 2) you can interpret any action as being wolfish and any action as being human! Therefore analysing my actions is pointless! Both of those are bull; instead of defending against content, they're attacking the premise of the game. It was more annoyance than suspicion of wolfishness, though ^_^

Quote

And finally you get in some more pre-emptive strikes against anyone who says your day 1 vote was rubbish:
That was genuine cowardice I'm afraid. By changing my vote I thought I would inevitably be condemning someone to death and I didn't want to deal with the consequences of that. Again, had I been paying more attention I would have switched votes earlier in the day, but I was playing Solium Infernum instead, so tough.

Quote

It's just a bunch of small things which keep coming out during the day, but for now it's the best thing I have. Unfortunately it's because you've been posting more than other people but for now I'm going to put a vote on you Josh while you respond to these, and provide an alternative for the Captain and Trilby rubbish votes.
It's a fair case but it relies on actions that don't really make much sense as being wolfish.
George Alagiaaaaaaargh: I lost my pecker in the siege :(

#39 Josh

Josh

    Evil bird

  • Admin

Posted 01 March 2011 - 10:35 AM

View PostThe Captain, on Mar 1 2011, 10:30 AM, said:

This is... interesting. What evidence? Because I haven't seen any evidence presented against me in the thread. I've argued how and why I've found Trilby's vote suspicious, its because of the way he made it and the reasons he gave. I feel a have a genuine case against Trilby.
I haven't seen any real evidence against Trilby either. I don't feel that you have a case against Trilby and therein lies the rub.

Quote

a) How is it hypocritical? I'm voting for him because he has invented suspicions to justify a vote. I've gotten suspicious and so made a vote.
You say that, but from outside they look awfully similar.
George Alagiaaaaaaargh: I lost my pecker in the siege :(

#40 The Captain

The Captain

    Flunky

  • Members
  • Pip

Posted 01 March 2011 - 10:42 AM

But if they look awfully similar to you then why do you say Trilby's doesn't look suspicious and mine does? You can't think they're that similar.

#41 Josh

Josh

    Evil bird

  • Admin

Posted 01 March 2011 - 10:45 AM

It's a proportion thing. I understand giving a crap vote when you only dedicate two lines to it; giving a crap vote then spending a morning arguing for it smacks of trying too hard.
George Alagiaaaaaaargh: I lost my pecker in the siege :(

#42 Clearasday

Clearasday

    Bake 'em away toys.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip

Posted 01 March 2011 - 10:48 AM

Oh brother, Retracted from trilby.
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head."

#43 The Captain

The Captain

    Flunky

  • Members
  • Pip

Posted 01 March 2011 - 10:51 AM

View PostJosh, on Mar 1 2011, 10:45 AM, said:

It's a proportion thing. I understand giving a crap vote when you only dedicate two lines to it; giving a crap vote then spending a morning arguing for it smacks of trying too hard.
I've not spent my morning arguing for the vote, I've spent it arguing with you that it makes me suspicious.

And haven't you spent just as long arguing a vote with very similar reason to mine?

#44 Josh

Josh

    Evil bird

  • Admin

Posted 01 March 2011 - 10:57 AM

Yes, and I'm trying to stop, but still you persist :(
George Alagiaaaaaaargh: I lost my pecker in the siege :(

#45 The Captain

The Captain

    Flunky

  • Members
  • Pip

Posted 01 March 2011 - 11:05 AM

View PostJosh, on Mar 1 2011, 10:45 AM, said:

It's a proportion thing. I understand giving a crap vote when you only dedicate two lines to it; giving a crap vote then spending a morning arguing for it smacks of trying too hard.
Also this doesn't hold up when you voted for me straight away, not after a morning of arguing.

Your reason to vote for me is very similar to the reason I voted for Trilby. I think he invented a reason to justify a vote, you think a I found a reason and pushed it "too hard" to try and steamroll him.

We have both argued this point all morning.

So what makes my case different from yours? How is it I am pushing "too hard" to lynch someone if you are pushing the right amount?

#46 Josh

Josh

    Evil bird

  • Admin

Posted 01 March 2011 - 11:06 AM

View PostJosh, on Mar 1 2011, 10:57 AM, said:

Yes, and I'm trying to stop, but still you persist :(
We can keep repeating the same points over and over again in a circle, OR... and here's an idea... we could not do that, let some other people speak, and see what comes up, eh?
George Alagiaaaaaaargh: I lost my pecker in the siege :(

#47 The Captain

The Captain

    Flunky

  • Members
  • Pip

Posted 01 March 2011 - 11:22 AM

But I'm not repeating the same points over and over. This is new.

You're now completely trying to side step the massive hole I just found in your argument. If you aren't going to engage any more then fine, but you aren't going to sweep this under the table and skipping out now looks incredibly suspicious.

#48 Josh

Josh

    Evil bird

  • Admin

Posted 01 March 2011 - 11:28 AM

For God's sake Dave, it's not new and it's not a gaping hole. The issue I've had with you all morning is that you're riding a bad case too hard. The difference between you and me is that since this post an hour and a half ago I've been trying to move on and look at other thinks while you've been monomaniacally obsessed with dredging it up over and over and over again. I'm starting to suspect that you're not a wolf, just really, really boring.
George Alagiaaaaaaargh: I lost my pecker in the siege :(

#49 Clearasday

Clearasday

    Bake 'em away toys.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip

Posted 01 March 2011 - 11:39 AM

Josh complaining about someone else making mountains out of molehills? How marvellously hypocritical. But probably not wolflike. He seems more tired of the Captain than scared and irritated by him.
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head."

#50 Clearasday

Clearasday

    Bake 'em away toys.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip

Posted 01 March 2011 - 11:40 AM

Also, if you want other people to join in Josh, and the captain, you really should stop making every day about you two. More conciseness and people may actually read what you're saying! as opposed to coming in from work, seeing 3 unread pages, and buggering off to watch television because I really can't be bothered to read all of that bullshit.
"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head."