Feminazi Spy

Calling you out on your choice of words? You're really selling it short there. You've contradicted yourself in explaining when you actually did vote for Gretchen.



Yvette strikes me as the kind of player who logs every little bit of information, inconsequential or no, and stores it up to possibly use as evidence at some point. I'm surprised that she would not have a chat logged, and would like to see her explanation.

Kirsten: Didn't I just chat with you today and you were on the verge of defending Yvette? And now I see you defending her in this thread. In fact you said that it seemed like Spies were leading her Exile. In ADDITIONAL fact, in this very thread, you said you thought Spies were leading her Exile. This second quote suddenly seems like you're trying to switch your focus and try for a Yvette Exile.

Don't get me wrong, I was beginning to think that Yvette was becoming a bandwagon. Anything that's too easy is, well, frankly too easy. So there I was, beginning to get less suspicious of you for questioning the whole Yvette case.

But what gives? I talked with you about my feelings on Exiles that everyone's on board for: They stink. And now you're suddenly accusing Yvette for a silly "she didn't save her chats" reason?

Especially since you yourself said that Yvette wasn't around to defend herself. So what this sounds like to me is that you were up in arms to defend her, then found something little with which to incriminate her.

Again, you're trying to, well I call it deflection. You say deflection is casting suspicion on another person without addressing the suspicions that people have of you. I call deflection when you're feeling pressure and you do your best to cast suspicion on another person. And in this case it's the best kind of deflection for a possible Spy.

You defend Yvette and then later say "oh gee but there's this one thing she just did that makes her suspicious."

That "one thing" is not saving her chats. So all of your defense of her is suddenly moot because she can't put forth chats to defend herself? "I'd like to see her explanation," in Spies means "I'm friggin suspicious of her and I want to see her try to talk her way out of it." I've at least learned that much so far.

Also, the above FIRST quote is to point out that Kirsten has been at odds with Donald for EV er and I think that's a perfect "I'm gonna call you suspicious, fellow Spy" thing to do. Needless to say, I agree with Kirsten's case against Donald. It looks like he's lying about whom his vote was on at the time of his chat. I ALSO think they're Spies together and trying to make us think that the other is Cit if we Exile one of them.

(p.s. I'm sorry I don't quite know how to separate the above quote into two salient points, so bear with me)

Kirsten does bring up a strong defense of Yvette.
That, however, is not suspicious at all.
If a player disagrees with an argument then they should by all means speak up.
I think Kirsten's points of defense are valid,
and I will probably not vote Yvette without allowing her to defend herself.

Kirsten, Kirsten, Kirsten . . .

Let's do an analysis of Yvette's post compared to my post. Here is Yvette's post in the case against me:



Paragraph 1: Yvette uses vague generalities (Lack of leadership? Coddling up to people? Personal thoughts? Gut feelings?) to seem like she is adding information to the case. Notice how she gave no examples of what she was accusing me of, leaving me no grounds go defend myself. If she would have said "I believe you coddled up to *insert name here* and you showed a lack of leadership in *insert event here,* in addition to certain personal feelings brought up by *insert event here*. This leads me to agree with the case that Kirsten has presented.

But she didn't say that. She used generalized statements to appear as if she was adding new information to the case. That would be a good way for a Spy to bandwagon.

Paragraph 2: This paragraph, to argue it, would be all about WIFOM. Is she a cit trying to make up for her past mislynch of Callahan? Or is she a Spy trying to seem like a cit trying to make up for her past mislynch of Callahan? No point in arguing this paragraph.

Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 4: Absolute restatement. She tries to make it wound better than that by adding in a reference to a similar issue, but the rest is complete and utter restatement. Notice how she goes into great detail restating, to increase the length of the post. After all, a longer post has to have more evidence and arguments, right? Wrong.

Paragraph 5: Now whe is drawing conclusions from her so called "arguments." Drawing conclusions after you've made an argument is fine. But she hasn't made an argument.

That is why I believe Yvette's post to be scummy. Now lets take a look at my post and compare the two:




Paragraph 1: Alright, I said I agree with the Yvette case. Big whoop. But look at that! What could that be! It's not . . . a new argument? That couldn't be a new argument! But it is. Notice the lack of a new argument in Yvette's post. Difference #1, right there.

Paragraph 2: A counterpoint! Not only is there a new argument in the post, but a potential flaw with the case has been addressed! By presenting an argument from both angles of a case, I am trying to determine the validity of the case.

Paragraph 3: A conclusion! Like I said above, conclusions are fine if you're not making conclusions off of your restatement post you just made, then trying to pass it off as your own investigative post.

The two posts are clearly VERY different. You keep accusing me of bandwagoning. There is a clear and distinct difference between bandwagoning and contributing. I contributed to the Yvette case. Yvette bandwagoned on the case against me.

To me, Kirsten, this is coming across as you not liking the fact that someone else can present a logical, sound case against someone that you do not suspect. Just because there is another case alongside the two that you have started does not mean that we are ignoring them.

But you are ignoring it. So your point is? I have no problem with people presenting logical, sound cases. I encourage it. I dispute the idea that this is a logical, sound case.

Well, I was pointing out that most people gave the more likely citizen response by thinking that since Paris was not a citizen that we had caught two spies... and you happened to say "2 spies" in the chat which illustrated the point much better than I could have...



I agree, Kirsten, there might not be a spy in that group, but the probability of there being one is very high, and logically it makes total sense that there's at least one in that group given the circumstances.

And it's not like that's the only reason to vote Yvette out; there are plenty of reasons and they all add up to a better case than anybody else, at least to me anyways.




I'm not saying we have to, I'm just trying to put them all under pressure to see how they react, and the more heat we place on them the better chance we have at one of them slipping while trying to defend themselves. Is that so wrong?



Isn't that WIFOM?



I didn't find the cases on Alma, Jaya, or Paris to be 'conclusive' either, but they were good enough, and we caught Spies because of them. A cut and dry "I investigated this person and they're a spy" case is really rare; we have to make do with what we have.



Yeah I totally can't imagine Yvette not saving something, especially something like that.



Anyways, Yvette hasn't been on to defend herself and I won't vote for her without giving her a chance since she had to be away fro a few days, but I have problems with the Levi and Donald cases and I just don't think either one of them is a Spy right now, so I'm not sure what I'm going to do... And I don't have long to figure it out...

Kirsten, you accuse me of bandwagoning on this case. I would like for you to take a look at this.

I received penalty votes for mentioning that I was suspicious of Yvette at the Imprisonment chat. This case was not posted by Jason until yesterday. The Imprisonment chat was Saturday.

P.S. Sluticia, I'm sorry for hurting the JAY group, I hope you'll forgive me for my thoughtless behavior...

Yvette, right before exile:
spies6Yvette (3:38:33 PM): The more I talk to Jaya, the more I think she is a citizen.

Yvette, right after exile:
spies6Yvette (9:56:32 PM): Really, none of it was me. I had my suspicions of Jaya, but I was going to vote for Georgia.

Just some comments/questions as I read. If they've already been answered/addressed then ignore them.

Jason.
Why do you say that Yvette was the first wanting Alma to be saved? When Levi says it a few seconds before her? It is right there in the quote.

Good question on why each person outside of Yvette/Robert/Ariel was involved. I'd like to know as well.

If Ariel was the ringleader behind the Jaya lynch. Why wasn't she imprisoned? She is pretty much responsible for both Alama and Jaya spies going - so why would they keep her around?

Thor.
Roxy didn't vote for Jaya.

I also would like to see this Jaya-lynch chat.

Tiberius.
If I recall correctly. The impression that I got, from your word "tool" in reference to voting Jaya. Was that you were being used, solely for your vote. That you didn't feel comfortable voting for her, but you did - for some reason. Your sentence about it being sent home because of a chat with her, seems to contradict your sentiments during the Exile.

Rey.
Wow. Such flipping of opinion.

Also Georgia, that is a point we are TRYING to put across.
Ariel was not imprisoned perhaps because she trusts Yvette 100%.

Rey, I saw your original post. Why did you edit it?

There was a final line that said



What was?