Mini 578 - Mistery at Montescuro - Game Over!

[Near]

So you seem to think I made a slip here. Don't you think my saying this was too deliberate to be a slip?

Several people have already commented on this, but this is just so terrible it's worth bringing up again. It's like the opposite of the "too townie" fallacy: I'm so scummy I couldn't possibly be scum!

This was the point of my argument . That is, if I was deliberate and careful, this would be WIFOM which would nullify what Guardian said initially: "Had I cop'd dasquian, I'd have gotten a guilty result? Thanks for that tip ."

This seems to have been posted while I was writing the rest. So, you're claiming that you've made a WIFOM statement which somehow nullifies someone's argument now? Is there a reason this isn't a scummy crock of shit that I'm not seeing?

Honestly, at this point, I am wondering if you are actually thinking about what I am trying to say OR if you are just trying to make me look scummy in anyway possible.

-1. Guardian said: "I hate mafia, because I have to convince people of stuff I'm pretty sure about. Why can't you just trust my motives and judgment?"
0. I said: "I was like wow, guardian must be cop and he checked out dasquian N0. But then, this was a day start game. My first reaction was, wtf is guardian talking about."
1. Guardian said: "Had I cop'd dasquian, I'd have gotten a guilty result? Thanks for that tip "
2. He is implying that I am a scum, and Dasquian is my scum partner.
3. If 0 was deliberate and not a slip, then you cannot get 2 from 0 because it's wifom.

I'm simply denying that I am a scum, which goes without saying. What did you mean by "if you lie in answering this question we'll have to lynch you"? What are you saying! Did you think, if I were a scum, I would fall for this trap? Anyway, even if I were a scum and Dasquian was my scum partner, I might even say Dasquian was my partner to make it look like he's not. This is wifom and won't provide any information even if I were to turn scum when lynched.

Talking about how you could WIFOM this stuff is different from actually doing it how?

I was illustrating to Guardian why either answer to his question would lead to WIFOM.

My overall feeling from Macavenger's post: his main goal seems to be trying to make me look scummy no matter what I say. He doesn't seem to focus on what I am actually trying to say in my argument, instead he seems to be mainly concerned about how he can make my argument look scummy. It is true that a blind townie who absolutely convinced with himself that I am a scum can make this kind of arguments. But at this point, I am more inclined to think Macvaenger is a scum trying to lynch an easy target who has quite a bandwagon already.

[Macavenger]

Honestly, at this point, I am wondering if you are actually thinking about what I am trying to say OR if you are just trying to make me look scummy in anyway possible.

-1. Guardian said: "I hate mafia, because I have to convince people of stuff I'm pretty sure about. Why can't you just trust my motives and judgment?"
0. I said: "I was like wow, guardian must be cop and he checked out dasquian N0. But then, this was a day start game. My first reaction was, wtf is guardian talking about."
1. Guardian said: "Had I cop'd dasquian, I'd have gotten a guilty result? Thanks for that tip "
2. He is implying that I am a scum, and Dasquian is my scum partner.
3. If 0 was deliberate and not a slip, then you cannot get 2 from 0 because it's wifom.

The point you're missing here is that, from what you've said here, there are two possibilities:

1) You slipped and are scum with Dasquian.
2) You're admitting to deliberately WIFOMing, which from everything I've seen in my admittedly limited time here, is usually considered scummy.

Can you see how this doesn't look good for you? In either alternative, your statements come out as scummy.

Hm so uh, you are denying that, if Dasquian is scum you are his scum partner? Remember, if you lie in answering this question we'll have to lynch you.

I'm simply denying that I am a scum, which goes without saying. What did you mean by "if you lie in answering this question we'll have to lynch you"? What are you saying! Did you think, if I were a scum, I would fall for this trap? Anyway, even if I were a scum and Dasquian was my scum partner, I might even say Dasquian was my partner to make it look like he's not. This is wifom and won't provide any information even if I were to turn scum when lynched.

Talking about how you could WIFOM this stuff is different from actually doing it how?

I was illustrating to Guardian why either answer to his question would lead to WIFOM.

I added Guardian's inital question to the quote chain here to help illustrate. Guardian's question looks mostly rhetorical/joking to me. There was really no reason for you to reply beyond "I'm simply denying I'm scum" if you were going to reply to it at all - honestly I wouldn't bother with that kind of question. When you then go on from there about how you could fall for the "trap" and WIFOM about Dasquian being your partner, when there's no reason for you to say any of that in the first place... you're actually WIFOMing about being scum with Dasquian as your partner.

My overall feeling from Macavenger's post: his main goal seems to be trying to make me look scummy no matter what I say. He doesn't seem to focus on what I am actually trying to say in my argument, instead he seems to be mainly concerned about how he can make my argument look scummy. It is true that a blind townie who absolutely convinced with himself that I am a scum can make this kind of arguments. But at this point, I am more inclined to think Macvaenger is a scum trying to lynch an easy target who has quite a bandwagon already.

Actually, I wasn't convinced you were scum until a couple posts ago. In any case, you're doing a fine job making yourself look scummy.

[Guardian]

Near, I need you to give me a name: who is the most suspicious player, and why?

ps: I think it is cute how Dasquian just tried to draw a line between me and Near.

[Near]

Honestly, at this point, I am wondering if you are actually thinking about what I am trying to say OR if you are just trying to make me look scummy in anyway possible.

-1. Guardian said: "I hate mafia, because I have to convince people of stuff I'm pretty sure about. Why can't you just trust my motives and judgment?"
0. I said: "I was like wow, guardian must be cop and he checked out dasquian N0. But then, this was a day start game. My first reaction was, wtf is guardian talking about."
1. Guardian said: "Had I cop'd dasquian, I'd have gotten a guilty result? Thanks for that tip "
2. He is implying that I am a scum, and Dasquian is my scum partner.
3. If 0 was deliberate and not a slip, then you cannot get 2 from 0 because it's wifom.

The point you're missing here is that, from what you've said here, there are two possibilities:

1) You slipped and are scum with Dasquian.
2) You're admitting to deliberately WIFOMing, which from everything I've seen in my admittedly limited time here, is usually considered scummy.

Can you see how this doesn't look good for you? In either alternative, your statements come out as scummy.

1) Re-read my post and tell me if you think I made a slip.
2) No. I am not admitting to deliberately WIFOMing. I am arguing what Guardian said was WIFOM.

Hm so uh, you are denying that, if Dasquian is scum you are his scum partner? Remember, if you lie in answering this question we'll have to lynch you.

I'm simply denying that I am a scum, which goes without saying. What did you mean by "if you lie in answering this question we'll have to lynch you"? What are you saying! Did you think, if I were a scum, I would fall for this trap? Anyway, even if I were a scum and Dasquian was my scum partner, I might even say Dasquian was my partner to make it look like he's not. This is wifom and won't provide any information even if I were to turn scum when lynched.

Talking about how you could WIFOM this stuff is different from actually doing it how?

I was illustrating to Guardian why either answer to his question would lead to WIFOM.

I added Guardian's inital question to the quote chain here to help illustrate. Guardian's question looks mostly rhetorical/joking to me. There was really no reason for you to reply beyond "I'm simply denying I'm scum" if you were going to reply to it at all - honestly I wouldn't bother with that kind of question. When you then go on from there about how you could fall for the "trap" and WIFOM about Dasquian being your partner, when there's no reason for you to say any of that in the first place... you're actually WIFOMing about being scum with Dasquian as your partner.

Now you are saying that you think Guardian was being sarcastic. This isn't what you said eailer. I didn't find Guardian's post to be rhetorical, that's why I explained either answer to his question would lead to WIFOM

[Near]

Near, I need you to give me a name: who is the most suspicious player, and why?

ps: I think it is cute how Dasquian just tried to draw a line between me and Near.

JamesThePhox for reasons stated in my prior posts.
Macavenger for recent post where he forces unreasonable arguments to make me scummy.

[Macavenger]

1) Re-read my post and tell me if you think I made a slip.
2) No. I am not admitting to deliberately WIFOMing. I am arguing what Guardian said was WIFOM.

Ok, I see what you're saying here now. For the record, the it in "then you cannot get 2 from 0 because it's WIFOM" points to the 0, not the 2, in the way I naturally read sentences.

This does nothing to change the fact that your argument against it being a slip was an atrocious example of WIFOM.

Now you are saying that you think Guardian was being sarcastic. This isn't what you said eailer. I didn't find Guardian's post to be rhetorical, that's why I explained either answer to his question would lead to WIFOM

Please quote where I have ever said I thought that specific question from Guardian was entirely serious.

The point is, you pretty much recognize that you can only hurt yourself by answering the question in any detail. You then proceed to go ahead and talk about how you could WIFOM about the question if you're scum. There's really no reason for you to do that if you're town, and saying "I could say xxxxxxx" is very close to just saying xxxxxxx. This looks strongly like trying to get a WIFOM link to Dasquian out there for us to find if you're lynched and turn up scum, without having to take responsibility for putting that WIFOM out there now.

I also feel like you trying to turn my argument around on me here is just a desperate attempt to get your own neck out of the noose.

[Coron]

If it is not (x and y)
and everything is proportional, then as the probability and Y increases the probability of X decreases and vice versa, making strong attacks in two different directions rather weak, it's like tying 2 horses together and having them run opposite directions, it might strech the rope some, but only so far and in the end you're getting nowhere.

Honestly, the multiple attacks in multiple different directions is something I've seen from scum A LOT. It gives them the ability to switch to a different bandwagon without suspicion should it appear and if they say either (this or that), then I suppose then thing people will forget about (This other thing). I know I'm probably not making much sense but please try to understand, I have experience, I've seen these things before.

In response to the Near "slip" it wasn't a real slip, you guys jump at the slightest stupidest things.

[Dasquian]

ps: I think it is cute how Dasquian just tried to draw a line between me and Near.

Nonchalant dismissal noted.

[Joudas]

If it is not (x and y)
and everything is proportional, then as the probability and Y increases the probability of X decreases and vice versa, making strong attacks in two different directions rather weak, it's like tying 2 horses together and having them run opposite directions, it might strech the rope some, but only so far and in the end you're getting nowhere.

Except in this case, it can be X, Y and Z. Or it could be X and Y, or Y and Z, or X and Z, or just X, Y, or Z, or none of the above. None are mutually exclusive of the others.

Single mindedness leads to mislynches. I guess this is just a difference in play style - I don't like yours, you don't like mine. We'll both just have to get over it.

[Macavenger]

Just to clarify: I don't really think Near actually made a slip there. I do think his reaction to the accusation of having made a slip is horrible and damning.

[Guardian]

ps: I think it is cute how Dasquian just tried to draw a line between me and Near.

Nonchalant dismissal noted.

Curt response to nonchalant dismissal noted.

[Guardian]

Okay, I'm at the point where I'd hammah Near.

[Claus]

The Village of Montescuro suddenly becomes much cooler:

MikeBurnFire replaces Sensfan

, effective immediately.

JamesThePhox has asked not to be replaced, and promised to return to the game. However, until he fulfils his promise, I'm still looking for a Phox replacement.

[Evilgorrilaz]

I still think a JtP lynch would be better than a Near lynch.

[mikeburnfire]

Ah, my good scum friend Yosarian. How fare you? I recognize Guardian and Coron as well. I hope this game is treating you well.

It'll take me awhile to work my way into this game, but for now I propose we disband the two most populous wagons and lynch Guardian.

unvote, vote Guardian.

[Guardian]

mbf, that's such a bad plan. uncharacteristic of you.

what led you to believe in this folly?

[mikeburnfire]

Your foul attack on the duck, mostly.

[Guardian]

Your foul attack on the duck, mostly.

I see what you did there.

Why am I more likely to be scum because of my attack on our yellow feathered friend?

[mikeburnfire]

Because he is a very good player!

[Guardian]

You need to explain better than that and in more detail for me to understand.

Do you literally mean I am suspicious because I attacked a good player? If not, what do you mean?

[mikeburnfire]

I mean that you are suspicious for attacking him for insufficient reasons and for reasons that can apply to multiple players. Also for your indifference between killing duck and nair.

[Guardian]

I mean that you are suspicious for attacking him for insufficient reasons and for reasons

Justify this in detail; I don't see this as at all being true.

that can apply to multiple players.

They key here is in the details. Sure, some players have behavioral patterns that could be construed as similar, but I think his is definitely among the most exemplary of what I'm trying to attack him for. Again, feel free to build detailed examples to the contrary.

Also for your indifference between killing duck and nair.

Hold the fort, let's be clear: First I wanted to lynch Dasquian much more than Near. Then I was persuaded that maybe Dasquian could be town, or that if he was scum, it would make sense for him to be busing Near. Then I decided that Near and Dasquian had about equal probability of being scum, and that Near would be a much more informative lynch (not for ducky, but for other players). That's where I stand now.

Regardless of Near's alignment, I'll still find Dasquian suspicious. However, Dasquian's arguments against Near do have some merit, and a Near lynch has the advantage I mentioned.

None of that means I'm indifferent about who's lynched.

[Macavenger]

Welcome to the game, MBF.

I still think a JtP lynch would be better than a Near lynch.

Please explain why.

I'm interested in MBF's entry into the game here. I think the interplay between he and Guardian could be most instructive, and I intend to watch carefully.

I'm content with a Near lynch at this time.

[Dasquian]

Welcome, MBF. I appreciate the support, though the harsh reality is that my immediate reaction was "what, is he trying to buddy up to me?" Also I hate to break it to you and Guardian but I am not, in fact, actually a duck IRL. Bad times.

To business: I don't think I support a Guardian lynch today. I really didn't appreciate his attack on me and his style of "shut up and just listen to me, I'm really really insistent you know" was weak sauce. OTOH he's very active and gutsy and generally makes a poor D1 lynch for a number of reasons, not least that he could well be town.

JamesthePhox really needs to post something of substance before we do much else.

Near basically has given me no reason to back off. There's a niggling doubt that he is just a townie with an odd turn of phrase, but his sole line of defence appears to be to cite some textbook WIFOM, even when he should just be letting things slide (eg the N0 cop comment). I would like to hear a claim from him.

[Near]

Near basically has given me no reason to back off. There's a niggling doubt that he is just a townie with an odd turn of phrase, but his sole line of defence appears to be to cite some textbook WIFOM, even when he should just be letting things slide (eg the N0 cop comment). I would like to hear a claim from him.

What am I defending myself from? Guardian's accusation that I am trying to distance you? Buddy up with you? OR are we still talking about my suspicious random vote on page 3?

I don't think I have been acting scummy. I admitted to being inactive for awhile, but I am back. And citing the WIFOM post. I do hope people here read posts more carefully. I was not defending myself. I was responding to Guardian's post, pointing out his logical mistake. If you think I was defending myself, I was doing so by trying to post my thoughts.

IF for other reasons, you find scummy, I ask you to state your case clearly. I will respond, and try my best to defend myself. I am not going to get lynched without a fight.