For repeatedly spelling bazilisek wrong (sorry!) unvote Pazzer and vote SirPrimalform.

Yay, 5am! This is what I get for going for a nap when I got back from work and accidentally sleeping for 4 hours.

Actually, self voting is pazzer's job. Unvote SirPrimalform and vote ViolatorX because he looked at me funny.

What attacks, pray tell? All I did was throw out one half-joking accusation, and from that moment on only defended myself. It was xyem who reacted to the vote far more strongly than I would expect; don't ask me why, because I don't know.

That being said, I do like strong reactions in this game. They give you material to work with.

I didn't react to the vote, I just responded to your reasoning why in the same way I would respond to any reasoning I thought was flawed.

This is precisely why I said (in #7) people shouldn't just throw votes around. You are causing your own misinterpretation by putting it there. If you were running an experiment to see if A reacts to Y, you don't also add B into the mixture because that will mess up your results.

You could have also done it intentionally. You know my propensity to react strongly to flawed reasoning (from past topics or #7).. whack a vote next to it so you can go "Look guys, I voted for him and he reacted way out of proportion. Must be scum".

No, it's your reasoning that was flawed in taking me completely seriously at RVS. I'm guessing you did understand my vote before that one was a joke ("Vote muttly13 for being the only one with a number in his name. This is clearly a scumtell.")?

Besides, the reasoning behind that accusation, if we even want to call it that, is not flawed, but that's not something I want to talk about quite yet.

Yes, I understood that that was a joke because it is obvious it was a joke. You said yourself your accusation of me was only half-jokingly, which means you were also half-serious - which means me responding to it is a perfectly valid action.

You are being inconsistent.

Yes it is and I will tell everyone why right now. I don't like things being unfair. You want proof of that? Look at how I run my giveaway.

I wasn't talking about you being fair. Narcissist much?

Isn't public information the only way to find the mafia because its the only way the town can communicate? If town kept everything to themselves, surely they'd lose? Ah, but this has been far from pointless.
I've learned that you are inconsistent, ignore what I say, narcassistic and won't share your information with others. Personally, I've found it to be a very informative "duel".

Ah, so that's what you meant. I did not understand what you were talking about. Well, scratch that point, then. And by the way, calm down a bit, okay?
It's not nearly that simple.

I do not understand how you didn't understand. I've only called one thing unfair so far.. you know.. the thing that caused this whole discussion to start?

And now you are taking me too seriously :P

Because of this: "Yes it is and I will tell everyone why right now."

You can't know what my reasoning was, therefore you cannot tell everyone why it was faulty. It just doesn't follow. And as I have you pegged as someone whose thinking is more, shall we say, logically structured than that of others, I rejected this interpretation and looked for another one. My fault.

But seriously, end of discussion. The mafia love it when two townies lock horns like that.

I don't know about that... I've been throwing votes around a) because I'm a novice and b) because I want to see if there were any interesting reactions. So far I have determined that pazzer didn't react to the fact that I randomly voted for him after a superficial analysis of thread activity so far, which didn't involve him. (#67)

I have no idea what this could mean.

If you are just seeing what the reaction is, that's fine.

The issue comes when you start attributing the reaction to a single aspect of what you said. You can't both accuse and vote and the same time and then say "The reaction was to the vote" or "The reaction was to the accusation" because you simply don't know.

... but this doesn't make sense.

B: "the reasoning behind that accusation [...] is not flawed"
X: "Yes it is and I will tell everyone why right now. I don't like things being unfair."

So bazilisek's reasoning is flawed because Xyem doesn't like things being unfair.

... Wait, what? Clear that up for us?

It's fairly simple. The post of xyem's that started all this silliness contained "Isn't controlling the length of day, despite plenty of positive activity, really unfair on town?"

Xyem simply says that this sentence is not softclaiming town, which is what my accusation was, but only insisting on the game being fair, regardless of his own role in it. Which would mean the accusation was based on a wrong interpretation, and therefore faulty.

(Did that make sense?)

I keep wondering, though, if there is any meaningful difference between a reaction to a vote and a reaction to an accusation, and I can't think of any.