Death Note Mafia [END]

[Epignosis]

Kinda sucks, really.

[Marmot]

Boo seems to have quite the army of defenders. Interesting that I get called evasive when my Avatar question still stands.

Can you give me recap? I am still befuddled by this whole topic.

[thellama73]

Kinda sucks, really.

At least you have zero votes. I've already got two (neither of which was explained with any kind of logic), and DP's going to place a third on me.

[Matahari]

I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you outing yourself here?

[S~V~S]

I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

Who asked you to do that?

[Epignosis]

Kinda sucks, really.

At least you have zero votes. I've already got two (neither of which was explained with any kind of logic), and DP's going to place a third on me.

Stop voting immediately. That may help with some of that.

[Marmot]

I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

Who else do you have the ability to out? (That's a rhetorical question)

[Epignosis]

I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you outing yourself here?

I refuse to out other players even if my refusal to do so leads to others voting for me.

Who asked you to do that?

I'm not saying anything.

[Epignosis]

I'm going to bed.

[S~V~S]

OK, Epi. You just go ahead and don't say anything about something no one asked you to talk about anyhow.

[thellama73]

Boo seems to have quite the army of defenders. Interesting that I get called evasive when my Avatar question still stands.

Can you give me recap? I am still befuddled by this whole topic.

Gladly.

Boo had a long tirade about how we should lynch non-participants. He said it's not fair that people who post get lynched while people who stay silent get a pass. I lartgely agree with him on this.

I voted for Snowman, not for being a non-participant, but based on things he said.

Snowman came into the thread and saw that I voted for him and people were talking about him. He made a jokey post and left.

Boo said it was not fair to vote for SNowman, because he had not had a chance to defend himself.

Epi and I pointed out that this seemed to contradict boo's earlier stance. Disagreement ensued.

I asked how long boo would consider an ample chance to respond. He said he wanted to wait until the last possible moment for a rsponse before voting, which I felt did not entirely answer my question.

I pointed out that Snowman did have a chance to respond, since he posted in the thread after I voted for him. I asked if boo still maintained that Snowman had no chance to respond.

Boo refused to answer me, and voted for me instead.

I hope others consider this a fair representation of events as they occurred.

[Marmot]

OK, Epi. You just go ahead and don't say anything about something no one asked you to talk about anyhow.

That was strange.

[thellama73]

Kinda sucks, really.

At least you have zero votes. I've already got two (neither of which was explained with any kind of logic), and DP's going to place a third on me.

Stop voting immediately. That may help with some of that.

I voted early for a very specific reason. I wanted to make a dramatic move that forced discussion about Snowman. I believed that if I waited until near the end of the day to vote, insufficient attention would be payed to him. I wanted this discussion to occur because I believe he is bad.

[Turnip Head]

Epi, who asked you to out someone?

[thellama73]

SVS also ignored my question about whether boo's claim that Snowman had no chance to defend himself was plainly false.

[Turnip Head]

I expected boo to come in here with a big case re: his revelations of Llama's baddieness. I am so far underwhelmed.

[Marmot]

Boo seems to have quite the army of defenders. Interesting that I get called evasive when my Avatar question still stands.

Can you give me recap? I am still befuddled by this whole topic.

Gladly.

Boo had a long tirade about how we should lynch non-participants. He said it's not fair that people who post get lynched while people who stay silent get a pass. I lartgely agree with him on this.

I voted for Snowman, not for being a non-participant, but based on things he said.

Snowman came into the thread and saw that I voted for him and people were talking about him. He made a jokey post and left.

Boo said it was not fair to vote for SNowman, because he had not had a chance to defend himself.

Epi and I pointed out that this seemed to contradict boo's earlier stance. Disagreement ensued.

I asked how long boo would consider an ample chance to respond. He said he wanted to wait until the last possible moment for a rsponse before voting, which I felt did not entirely answer my question.

I pointed out that Snowman did have a chance to respond, since he posted in the thread after I voted for him. I asked if boo still maintained that Snowman had no chance to respond.

Boo refused to answer me, and voted for me instead.

I hope others consider this a fair representation of events as they occurred.

I certainly recall the tirade (I was on the other end of that whole spiel).

I see that boo is being inconsistent, based on your representation.

I also see that boo answered your question, amply enough for me anyway. What sort of answer were you looking for?

[thellama73]

I also see that boo answered your question, amply enough for me anyway. What sort of answer were you looking for?

The answer I wanted was how long is long enough to give someone an adequate chance to respond. Is 24 hours long enough? 48? 72? Can you still say "he has had no chance to respond" if he has had nearly two days? I do not believe so.

[boo]

Boo seems to have quite the army of defenders. Interesting that I get called evasive when my Avatar question still stands.

Can you give me recap? I am still befuddled by this whole topic.

Gladly.

Boo had a long tirade about how we should lynch non-participants. He said it's not fair that people who post get lynched while people who stay silent get a pass. I lartgely agree with him on this.

I voted for Snowman, not for being a non-participant, but based on things he said.

Snowman came into the thread and saw that I voted for him and people were talking about him. He made a jokey post and left.

Boo said it was not fair to vote for SNowman, because he had not had a chance to defend himself.

Epi and I pointed out that this seemed to contradict boo's earlier stance. Disagreement ensued.

I asked how long boo would consider an ample chance to respond. He said he wanted to wait until the last possible moment for a rsponse before voting, which I felt did not entirely answer my question.

I pointed out that Snowman did have a chance to respond, since he posted in the thread after I voted for him. I asked if boo still maintained that Snowman had no chance to respond.

Boo refused to answer me, and voted for me instead.

I hope others consider this a fair representation of events as they occurred.

For me to have been inconsistent, Snowman would have had to have not posted.

You voted for Snowman because of something Snowman said.

Snowman is not a non-participant.

Your spinning is just plain sloppy now.

[Matahari]

Boo seems to have quite the army of defenders. Interesting that I get called evasive when my Avatar question still stands.

Can you give me recap? I am still befuddled by this whole topic.

Gladly.

Boo had a long tirade about how we should lynch non-participants. He said it's not fair that people who post get lynched while people who stay silent get a pass. I lartgely agree with him on this.

I voted for Snowman, not for being a non-participant, but based on things he said.

Snowman came into the thread and saw that I voted for him and people were talking about him. He made a jokey post and left.

Boo said it was not fair to vote for SNowman, because he had not had a chance to defend himself.

Epi and I pointed out that this seemed to contradict boo's earlier stance. Disagreement ensued.

I asked how long boo would consider an ample chance to respond. He said he wanted to wait until the last possible moment for a rsponse before voting, which I felt did not entirely answer my question.

I pointed out that Snowman did have a chance to respond, since he posted in the thread after I voted for him. I asked if boo still maintained that Snowman had no chance to respond.

Boo refused to answer me, and voted for me instead.

I hope others consider this a fair representation of events as they occurred.

I hope you'll reread the day for a fair representation of the events as they occurred. I'd like to hear more opinions on the actual posts.

[thellama73]

For me to have been inconsistent, Snowman would have had to have not posted.

You voted for Snowman because of something Snowman said.

Snowman is not a non-participant.

Your spinning is just plain sloppy now.

Boo, do you still say Snowman has not had a chance to respond?

[thellama73]

I hope you'll reread the day for a fair representation of the events as they occurred. I'd like to hear more opinions on the actual posts.

By all means, I encourage this as well.

[S~V~S]

SVS also ignored my question about whether boo's claim that Snowman had no chance to defend himself was plainly false.

I don't think it was plainly false, as it was not something quantifiable. You cannot quantify "a chance" and you are attempting to do so. Ther may not be a fancy schmancy logical fallacy name for it, but it is not something that can be set into a true/false black/white framework in my opinion.

And THAT, right there, has been the problem here from the get go. All you guys are trying to factually frame vague/undefinable suppositions into the language of logic, and it can't be done.

Linki, there you go, ignoring reality in the name of unquantifiable "absolutes". This is not an argument of absolutes.

[boo]

I expected boo to come in here with a big case re: his revelations of Llama's baddieness. I am so far underwhelmed.

It won't be a long case (well. all things considered at least). The actual conversation stands for itself, which based on the responses of people who have come in and read, seems to already be working better than I anticipated.

Once I go through llama's posts (I haven't even started, I've been working to recall specific things that will be a part of what I do want to say, and deciding how to frame those things once I say them), the post will be a summation (as best as I can do) of other things I find suspicious about llama, and why people should vote for him based on those things and the lies and spinning he has attempted, which is what got me to vote for him (that, and wanting to make my point about what he was arguing was absurd).

[Marmot]

I also see that boo answered your question, amply enough for me anyway. What sort of answer were you looking for?

The answer I wanted was how long is long enough to give someone an adequate chance to respond. Is 24 hours long enough? 48? 72? Can you still say "he has had no chance to respond" if he has had nearly two days? I do not believe so.

I read boo's answer, and it sounded fine to me. I don't understand why you call it madness to give someone until the end of the day period. I realize that is not a number, but you didn't ask for a number at the time.

[thellama73]

I also see that boo answered your question, amply enough for me anyway. What sort of answer were you looking for?

The answer I wanted was how long is long enough to give someone an adequate chance to respond. Is 24 hours long enough? 48? 72? Can you still say "he has had no chance to respond" if he has had nearly two days? I do not believe so.

I read boo's answer, and it sounded fine to me. I don't understand why you call it madness to give someone until the end of the day period. I realize that is not a number, but you didn't ask for a number at the time.

I didn't say it was madness to wait until the end of the day period. I said it was madness to claim that someone hasn't had a chance to respond to accusations against them ten seconds before the end of a 48 hour day, when those accusations were made at the beginning of the day. Boo's answer, as I understood it and continue to understand it, is that IF Snowman has not responded by then, THEN he will not have had a chance to respond. That is what I consider madness.

[Marmot]

I also see that boo answered your question, amply enough for me anyway. What sort of answer were you looking for?

The answer I wanted was how long is long enough to give someone an adequate chance to respond. Is 24 hours long enough? 48? 72? Can you still say "he has had no chance to respond" if he has had nearly two days? I do not believe so.

I read boo's answer, and it sounded fine to me. I don't understand why you call it madness to give someone until the end of the day period. I realize that is not a number, but you didn't ask for a number at the time.

I didn't say it was madness to wait until the end of the day period. I said it was madness to claim that someone hasn't had a chance to respond to accusations against them ten seconds before the end of a 48 hour day, when those accusations were made at the beginning of the day. Boo's answer, as I understood it and continue to understand it, is that IF Snowman has not responded by then, THEN he will not have had a chance to respond. That is what I consider madness.

And that sounds perfectly logical to me. I don't see where you're coming from. Surely the majority of the day period is ample time. Snowman still has to come online and vote.

[thellama73]

I also see that boo answered your question, amply enough for me anyway. What sort of answer were you looking for?

The answer I wanted was how long is long enough to give someone an adequate chance to respond. Is 24 hours long enough? 48? 72? Can you still say "he has had no chance to respond" if he has had nearly two days? I do not believe so.

I read boo's answer, and it sounded fine to me. I don't understand why you call it madness to give someone until the end of the day period. I realize that is not a number, but you didn't ask for a number at the time.

I didn't say it was madness to wait until the end of the day period. I said it was madness to claim that someone hasn't had a chance to respond to accusations against them ten seconds before the end of a 48 hour day, when those accusations were made at the beginning of the day. Boo's answer, as I understood it and continue to understand it, is that IF Snowman has not responded by then, THEN he will not have had a chance to respond. That is what I consider madness.

And that sounds perfectly logical to me. I don't see where you're coming from. Surely the majority of the day period is ample time. Snowman still has to come online and vote.

THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT! Boo holds that it is not ample time. Boo holds that if Snowman has not responded, then he has not had a chance to respond, regardless of the intervening time.

[Marmot]

I also see that boo answered your question, amply enough for me anyway. What sort of answer were you looking for?

The answer I wanted was how long is long enough to give someone an adequate chance to respond. Is 24 hours long enough? 48? 72? Can you still say "he has had no chance to respond" if he has had nearly two days? I do not believe so.

I read boo's answer, and it sounded fine to me. I don't understand why you call it madness to give someone until the end of the day period. I realize that is not a number, but you didn't ask for a number at the time.

I didn't say it was madness to wait until the end of the day period. I said it was madness to claim that someone hasn't had a chance to respond to accusations against them ten seconds before the end of a 48 hour day, when those accusations were made at the beginning of the day. Boo's answer, as I understood it and continue to understand it, is that IF Snowman has not responded by then, THEN he will not have had a chance to respond. That is what I consider madness.

And that sounds perfectly logical to me. I don't see where you're coming from. Surely the majority of the day period is ample time. Snowman still has to come online and vote.

THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT! Boo holds that it is not ample time. Boo holds that if Snowman has not responded, then he has not had a chance to respond, regardless of the intervening time.

I read "He will not have had a chance to respond" as "He lost his chance to respond" since boo will follow that opportunity up with a vote (if his vote was available that is). Is that wrong?

[Marmot]

And HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEE's Snowman!

[Turnip Head]

Snowman post incoming

[thellama73]

I read "He will not have had a chance to respond" as "He lost his chance to respond" since boo will follow that opportunity up with a vote (if his vote was available that is). Is that wrong?

That's not how I understand it. I understand it as "he has not had a chance to respond, despite having nearly two days to do so."

[Marmot]

Snowman post incoming

[DisgruntledPorcupine]

oh shit brace yourselves

[Turnip Head]

Snowman post incoming

[Marmot]

I read "He will not have had a chance to respond" as "He lost his chance to respond" since boo will follow that opportunity up with a vote (if his vote was available that is). Is that wrong?

That's not how I understand it. I understand it as "he has not had a chance to respond, despite having nearly two days to do so."

Maybe boo will address that discrepancy then.

[Turnip Head]

oh shit brace yourselves

[Marmot]

Snowman post incoming

[Turnip Head]

[Snowman]

Boo seems to have quite the army of defenders. Interesting that I get called evasive when my Avatar question still stands.

Can you give me recap? I am still befuddled by this whole topic.

Gladly.

Boo had a long tirade about how we should lynch non-participants. He said it's not fair that people who post get lynched while people who stay silent get a pass. I lartgely agree with him on this.

I voted for Snowman, not for being a non-participant, but based on things he said.

Snowman came into the thread and saw that I voted for him and people were talking about him. He made a jokey post and left.

Boo said it was not fair to vote for SNowman, because he had not had a chance to defend himself.

Epi and I pointed out that this seemed to contradict boo's earlier stance. Disagreement ensued.

I asked how long boo would consider an ample chance to respond. He said he wanted to wait until the last possible moment for a rsponse before voting, which I felt did not entirely answer my question.

I pointed out that Snowman did have a chance to respond, since he posted in the thread after I voted for him. I asked if boo still maintained that Snowman had no chance to respond.

Boo refused to answer me, and voted for me instead.

I hope others consider this a fair representation of events as they occurred.

I. Have. Arrived. I'm gonna respond like a sonuvagun.

What am I responding to? I hate to be pegged a "non-participant", but I've been away less than 24 hours, and there's 10 pages of unread comments. I want to be well-read like all the cool guys, but I don't have a BTSC to help me sound out the big words.

I'm just holding on for dear life. I've even started my own spreadsheet, FZ will be so proud! Now I just have to figure out what a Penber is.

FWIW, I am a civvie. How do I prove it, I'll do that.

[Snowman]

Lol, I like you guys.

[Marmot]

[Marmot]

This is a Penber.

Raye Penber – An FBI agent who begins investigating Light Yagami when L tells him to. Has BTSC with Naomi. (Secrets)

[Turnip Head]

Snowman sounds quite genuine to me. I'm glad I didn't vote for him before hearing his response.

[Marmot]

Snowman sounds quite genuine to me. I'm glad I didn't vote for him before hearing his response.

Well that's interesting since you never showed any interest in voting Snowman in the first place.

[Snowman]

This is a Penber.

Raye Penber – An FBI agent who begins investigating Light Yagami when L tells him to. Has BTSC with Naomi. (Secrets)

Whoah, slow down professor.

[Marmot]

This is a Penber.

Raye Penber – An FBI agent who begins investigating Light Yagami when L tells him to. Has BTSC with Naomi. (Secrets)

Whoah, slow down professor.

Heh?

I've been drinking moscato, but I'm not wrong on that one.

[Snowman]

Changing my vote to Moscato.

This game is awesome!

[Marmot]

Changing my vote to Moscato.

This game is awesome!

[thellama73]

Snowman is pretending to be new and dumb and overwhelmed. He is none of those things. Read the Donner thread if you don't believe me.