Mini #553: Over!

[ting =)]

Wait... you still think Imat/Guardian is scum, or you still think massive is scum? Which?

Both.

Actions speak louder than words.

You made a solid case on CoolBot early day one, then unvoted a few posts later, and never voted him again, instead leading a wagon on ejlicko, townie. If you are scum, you distanced with him while making cases on a townie, Coolbot//ejlicko.

You're accusing me of doing the same thing with massive//Qman, and we don't even know the alignment of either.

We DO know the alignment of both the player you made a secondary case on yesterday, and the player you ended up voting.

How are you not setting a double standard by saying your actions are not scummy, but mine are? Especially since we know the alignments of the players your actions involved but don't know mine...?

I made a long post explaining my vote switch from coolbot to eljcko. If you want me to, I can quote the bits where I justify my switch and explain. All that, along with the whole massive thing i mentioned and the fact that my vote was going nowhere prompted the switch. If you think I didn't justify the switch enough earlier on, I'd like to know why.

I agree it's a double standard. I can't help that it appears that way. But it being a double standard doesn't remove the possibility. And yes, it doesn't remove the possibility of your accusation either.

His looking further into coolbot was directly prompted by your own 141... Imat noticed you were strongly attacking coolbot and decided to look into him...

Imat was... you know... commenting on what other people's cases... playing the game... scum hunting...

So saying that he was unprompted in looking at Coolbot is false.

Not something you'd expect? Why not? More on this next post.

One post prompted a whole day's worth of defending? You don't just stick your neck out to defend people. Hence why hardly anyone bothered. Except for Imat. Also:

[quote="ting]Now, you could argue that Imat was just being a good townie defending people who's case on them he didn't agree with, but then - why hasn't he been bothered to look at khel, he was under way more pressure than coolbot throughout the whole day?[/quote]

Limited time and resources?

It doesn't change the question - Why defend coolbot? There are other people under more heat. Coolbot was not in the spotlight. If he had limited time and resources, why coolbot?

He's the

only

player Imat bothered to defend.

Imat was not simply being a good samaritan.

So those two are his buddies huh, the two that defended him? Very doubtful. Oh, were mafia that simple.

Yes, because mafia obviously don't care about their godfather very much. You're wifomming. You can't ignore a possibility because you think it sounds simple/insert occam's razor argument here.

Also note how Coolbot was under more pressure when Imat entered the game, and Imat was more active when he entered the game?

He was getting less and less involved and eventually replaced out at the time ejlicko was getting attacked. He made roughly the same [proportion of posts about ejlico/total posts by him in the time period] as he did [proportion of posts about Coolbot/total posts by him in the time period]. Why did you ignore this?

I wasn't looking at time stamps. Fair enough.

Still doesn't change though, that out of ALL the players who've been under attack at some point - Imat defends only coolbot. Why?

Timing of his replacement still doesn't account for that.

-----

breaking because this post is already quite long.

[ting =)]

I'd expect that kind of thing from masons. Or maybe a cop and a townie he investigated. NOT from a townie who's mentioned being unsure about the other person's alignment.

Again... why not?

Because you don't stick your neck out like that. Not when every action is looked at with suspicion and can be contrived as bussing/distancing/buddying/yadda yadda.

Using this game as an example, the only times people have been defended are when they're at the point of lynching. (khel, matt). I'm sure if you look through past games, a similar pattern will emerge. Sure, I'm not denying that there are exceptions. That's pretty obvious. Imat's was one of those. But -

You don't just simply defend someone to such a degree of:

CoolBot, you'd better not be Scum, cuz I just poured through your posts looking for any sign of scumminess and didn't find any. If you are scum, that'll look really bad for me.

Not unless you're certain. Or lying.

Even when he later 'suspects' coolbot, he does no attacking at all. He mentions minor transgressions, but he always frames them lightly.

Yeah, that makes sense considering he "convinced himself that Coolbot isn't scum"... You expect him to attack Coolbot with an all out assault after that, or what?

Fair enough. The rest, I still don't buy.

Okay, Guardian.

What I don't like is the way he sweeps all of Imat's scuminess as just poor judgement.

STRAWman to the rescue?

No. Imat playing badly is an integral part, if not the main part of your defense of Imat's actions. A number of things were brought up by the others, and you fall back on this when there are no other explations for the scummy things he's done. I can quote you.

So you say I attribute everything to poor judgment... and then quote a 3 paragraph post where I explain in detail how I am not just attributing everything to poor judgment...

My purpose in quoting that was to show I disagreed - because you are.

Some of his actions are explained in part as him being a bad player. His logic is bad, but none of the bad logic appears to have malice behind it. Bad players can sometimes be even more prone to showing they have malice; I don't think Imat had any tendencies in that direction.

The second paragraph is saying, 'yes, some of his scummy actions are because he was a bad player, BUT - the intent behind them was not malicious.' Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you, but it's basically saying the explanation for his scummy actions was poor judgement, but you justify it by saying he didn't mean to cause harm. I don't buy that.

Also, some of his actions just make sense, and I'm not sure why he was about to be put at lynch -1 for those actions.

I disagree with this too. Of course you'll think some of his actions make sense - because you'd have been L-1d otherwise.

In part, they do. Moreover, I go on to explain how judgment isn't important in figuring out who mafia are, it is MALICE. You completely ignore this.

I did mention that. Malice is subjective, and it's ultimately up to the rest of the players to decide whether the underlying motive behind an action is scuminess, or just bad judgement.

I'm inserting this here to find out how many people read posts that reach this length so i know where I should cut my posts. post diliyo if you read this.

A lot more of Imat's contributions made sense than you give credit for.

I assert that those contributions of Imat that may not be as logical don't have any malice, and no one has argued to the contrary.

This statement ignores posts by Imat which

don't

make sense from a town perspective. Which I've brought up. Just because he's done some things that aren't scummy doesn't excuse the things he's done which

are

scummy.

First: I just did.
Second, you aren't understanding my argument (or are intentionally straw manning) in making this post, so don't tell me I can't do something you don't understand.

Your argument was that he did not have malicious intent.

My argument is that blowing a nuke on a city because you accidentally touched the red button is just as bad as blowing a nuke on a city because you hate the people there.

Scummy play is scummy play. Intent is not possible to tangibly measure.

Whether it was prompted by a lack of logic or because he was scum and had malicious intent is something we decide.

Okay, now you understand. See how there is a distinction?

Now this is just intentionally ignoring what I've brought up before that. Or misrepresentation. Or ignoring me to misrepresent my argument. Would you like me to alternately quote the relevant bits between your posts and mine?

Meta provides an unreasonable burden of proof.

Unless you have a meta on Imat showing that he plays logically and makes good cases, his actions were just plain bad play. Not scummy.

See what I did there?

I think in analyzing his actions in THIS game indicates that his play was just bad play, not scummy. If you want to argue to the contrary, or meta to the contrary, be my guest.

This is my point. You

can't

analyze the intent behind his actions in this game simply because you don't know how he plays. Neither do I. Which is why the whole thing about 'no-malicious-intent-behind-it' isn't valid because you can't prove what his intents were. No one can.

I think his defense was totally justified. Re-read Coolbot's posts 0-8 in isolation, the posts Imat read before forming his analysis/defense of Coolbot. Coolbot does not look scummy in reading those posts in isolation. Ergo, saying you found him town-like makes sense.

I've posted on what I think of coolbot's posts. His defense being justified isn't the main point I'm bringing up. It's the fact that it's uncalled for.

-----
cutting.

[ting =)]

I disagree. I think my case on Sethaniel is stronger. I am beginning to lean that the arguments in general on massive, and the subsequent actions by massive, are suspicious, but my case on Qman is better than mine on massive.

Who is more scummy, me/Imat, or massive? Why?

Imat. I can think of an explanation for massive's defending coolbot. I can't think of one for Imat. Perhaps the reason is simplistic, but eh. Don't use a cannon to kill a fly.

To avoid accusations of tunnel vissioning, I'll read up qman/seth and post my thoughts. Besides qman's general lurking though, I don't see any reason to suspect him more than either of you or massive.

Why are you so sure Ting=) is a good guy?

Empking, I will give you cookies.

>.<

I "deflected" your attacks because the attacks weren't taking into consideration that there was the possibility of named-non-Fellowship town members, of which I was one.

I know. That's why I asked you if named-nonfellowship-town existed. I mentioned early day 2 that I'm not holding this against you. I suspect you for other reasons. I'm sorry if I keep bringing it up, but it was integral to my point on coolbot.

I think this is probably a mis-statement on your part. At best you can say I had the same "role classification." Saying I had the same role as CoolBot is saying I'm scum.

You claimed to have the same role classification. Fair enough, okay. It was a mis-statement.

[Sethaniel]

@Ting: Diliyo.

Total agreement with Ting, btw.

[Sethaniel]

EBWOP (it's too early in the morning. . .)

judgment isn't important in figuring out who mafia are, it is MALICE.

All the town can judge a player on is his actions. We can speculate as to the intent behind them, but that almost always leads to WIFOM.

No, this case sucks too. Imat made bad cases.

I think the distinction to take note of here is that he didn't push crap logic cases that he KNEW were bad, he just wasn't very good at figuring out who scum were, and made bad cases.

I don't think this "distinction" is proven at all.

While I think all of these involved bad logic on his part, I contend that NONE of them involved malice on his part, just bad judgment, and I don't think there have been any arguments to the contrary.

Um, everyone who thinks Imat is scum based on those scummy actions is essentially arguing to the contrary.

[massive]

The town may be unwilling to lynch Matt_S NOW for different reasons, but at the time of Matt_S's deleted post, he was clearly the lynch for the day. He had 4/7 votes and had just stated that he was a "vanilla townie in the Fellowship" as his original role. In my opinion, it was only his copypasta and deletion (and CoolBot saying "he's confirmed") that prevented it.

I think, BAB, that you and I are parsing it too much -- they go together.

(like bop shoo wadda wadda yippee de boom dee boom)

[Matt_S]

Diliyo.

Massive, what I'm reading from your posts is that you think CoolBot should have lied about my post or otherwise turned it against me if I were town. I think it's obvious why he wouldn't lie, and continuing to push my wagon would be a bad thing.

In my opinion, it was only his copypasta and deletion (and CoolBot saying "he's confirmed") that prevented it.

It's funny that you say that, because you unvoted before CoolBot said a thing.

[Guardian]

3 posts filled with lots of stuff I disagree with.

Look, you can repeat it all you want, but I patently disagree that we can't analyze Imat's actions and conclude that there wasn't malice behind them. This isn't impossible and doesn't lead to WIFOM. Analyzing whether there is malice behind someone's actions is crucial in mafia.... Saying we can't and saying we should lynch Imat because he had bad suspicions/defense of Coolbot is really really... well, bad.

His attacks clearly look like they made sense to him; he had what he thought were good reasons for them. He came to the wrong conclusions, but none of his attacks were scum pushing crap logic.

For example, what motivation did scum have to randomly attack Talitha? None. Read through that case -- do you think that it was unreasonable for Imat to think what he said he thought? I don't at all.

You say that his defense of CoolBot is unjustified. You can repeat that a townie wouldn't say "CoolBot, you'd better not be Scum, cuz I just poured through your posts looking for any sign of scumminess and didn't find any. If you are scum, that'll look really bad for me." all you want, but it doesn't make it true or logical.

Imat replaced in, was active, and the major case on the time was yours on CoolBot, ting=). You go on to strawman me and say that he was responding to EXCLUSIVELY that post. You had a STRING of posts on Coolbot, it makes a lot of sense that Imat responded to those first and tried to enter the game by making a decisive conclusion on Coolbot. Your rhetoric to the contrary is just false. Imat doesn't do nearly as much defending of anyone later on because he isn't nearly as active... and then replaces out. This doesn't lead to him being scum.

You, ting=), *may* just be misguided in saying this, or may just be pushing and pushing it because you think it is an easy lynch. I'm not sure what I think yet about that, leaning towards the former... which is really frustrating.

What REALLY bothers me, though, is that Empking, the second most confirmed townie in the game, jumps in and says that he finds you townie because you attacked Coolbot -- while at the same time you are saying I am scum because I am attacking HYPOTHETICAL massive scum.

Then, seeing momentum building, Sethaniel jumps on, suddenly saying that he agrees with you and your case on me. This adds even more to the reasons for thinking Qman/Sethaniel is suspicious.

I definitely support strongly a lynch of Sethaniel instead of massive today. massive's continuing to push on unpopular cases, and lack of jumping on the 'ting is right and his case on Imat is great' group leads me to really want to see Qman's alignment before massive's.

[Sethaniel]

I'm not jumping on the guardian wagon. I'm still voting massive.

Ting put a lot of work into making his case, and he deserved to hear my opinion. And everyone else's.

[ting =)]

while at the same time you are saying I am scum because I am attacking HYPOTHETICAL massive scum.

That was

never

the basis of my case.

Look, you can repeat it all you want, but I patently disagree that we can't

analyze Imat's actions and conclude that there wasn't malice behind them.

This isn't impossible and doesn't lead to WIFOM. Analyzing whether there is malice behind someone's actions is crucial in mafia.... Saying we can't and saying we should lynch Imat because he had bad suspicions/defense of Coolbot is really really... well, bad.

You're missing my point. You CAN'T know the intent behind's Imat's posts unless you know how he plays. Any 'intent' you assign to his actions will all be hypothetical.

Actions

are a more important gauge of scumminess than a guess of what the intent behind them might be. He did scummy things.

His attacks clearly look like they made sense to him; he had what he thought were good reasons for them. He came to the wrong conclusions, but none of his attacks were scum pushing crap logic.

Again, we don't know if he did what he did because he CAME TO THE WRONG CONCLUSION or because he WAS SCUM. Since you're him, it's 'obvious' to you that he came to the wrong conclusion, but the rest of us have nothing to guarantee that.

For example, what motivation did scum have to randomly attack Talitha? None. Read through that case -- do you think that it was unreasonable for Imat to think what he said he thought? I don't at all.

Wifom. If you want me to speculate though - He knew eljcko was town, and didn't want to appear like he was just hopping on the largest wagon. So he joined the attack on talitha - he was not the only one calling suspicion on talitha, you know - in order to not draw undue attention.

But all that's wifom too, see. That's why I don't like analyzing intent if there's other things to look at. It's not tangible. Not like actions.

You say that his defense of CoolBot is unjustified. You can repeat that a townie wouldn't say "CoolBot, you'd better not be Scum, cuz I just poured through your posts looking for any sign of scumminess and didn't find any. If you are scum, that'll look really bad for me." all you want, but it doesn't make it true or logical.

No. I'm saying that it was

unprompted.

I've repeated that quite a bit. He had no reason to defend coolbot so much. Like I already said, hardly any of the players bothered. But Imat did.

--- cut

[ting =)]

Imat replaced in, was active, and the major case on the time was yours on CoolBot, ting=). You go on to strawman me and say that he was responding to EXCLUSIVELY that post. You had a STRING of posts on Coolbot, it makes a lot of sense that Imat responded to those first and tried to enter the game by making a decisive conclusion on Coolbot. Your rhetoric to the contrary is just false. Imat doesn't do nearly as much defending of anyone later on because he isn't nearly as active... and then replaces out. This doesn't lead to him being scum.

Also no. Khel still had a wagon on him. Eljcko had a growing wagon on him. And then there was also Matt who Imat decided to use by comparing him to coolbot in a number of instances. All at times when Imat was active.

You, ting=), *may* just be misguided in saying this, or may just be pushing and pushing it because you think it is an easy lynch. I'm not sure what I think yet about that, leaning towards the former... which is really frustrating.

I apologize if you're frustrated. That wasn't my intent. I'm not pushing this because I'm hopping on an easy lynch - I already mentioned suspicions on Imat during day 1, before any night kills, and before there was a wagon on him.

That leaves misguided. I might be. I don't think so. Of course you'd think that though. [/not sarcasm.]

Sethaniel jumps on, suddenly saying that he agrees with you and your case on me. This adds even more to the reasons for thinking Qman/Sethaniel is suspicious.

You say it like as if agreement between players is a bad thing. If you're saying that he's hopping on the wagon on you though, I'd also disagree.

1. He's

not

voting for you. He's voting for massive.
2. The wagon on you is more or less gone.

I definitely support strongly a lynch of Sethaniel instead of massive today. massive's continuing to push on unpopular cases, and lack of jumping on the 'ting is right and his case on Imat is great' group leads me to really want to see Qman's alignment before massive's.

You also mentioned suspicions of massive. Would you be against his lynch today if it ever came to that?

[Guardian]

I'm happy I'm v/la in a week or so and will have to replace out, because ting=) is being almost as bad as Albert B Rampage. This is ridiculous, you've convinced yourself I am scum, and twist my words with everything you say, making arguments that I am scum premising them that I am scum.

Sethaniel should be today's lynch, I've made that clear why.

If it came down to massive or {me, Khelvaster, Matt_S, destructor}, I'd support lynching massive.

I'd rather lynch ting=), BoB, and very much Sethaniel than massive at this point though, massive's recent play is very townlike.

There are so many contradictions that ting=) repeats and repeats making ignoring what I say that I am done responding.

[Talitha]

Vote Count

massive (3)

- Matt_S, Sethaniel, Empking,

Guardian (1)

- ting =)

Sethaniel (1)

- Guardian

Matt_S (1)

- massive

Not voting:

destructor, BridgesAndBaloons,

5 votes needed to end the day.

Deadline soon

[ting =)]

making arguments that I am scum premising them that I am scum.

Where? The premise I started from was always based on coolbot being scum and then working out from there. I have never started an argument on you based on the premise that you're scum.

There are so many contradictions that ting=) repeats and repeats making ignoring what I say that I am done responding.

I don't see any contradictions. I feel that

you're

ignoring my points just like you're ignoring that the rest of us have no guarantee about what Imat's intent was.

I apologize for the long posts. Long posts depress me too. I'm also sorry if me hounding you has made this game unfun for you, but I do think you're scum. You can't expect me to back down without giving me a good reason.

[Empking]

Does that mean that we'll get a deadline soon or that this turn is almost over?

[destructor]

ting, why are you still pushing a Guardian lynch?

[Matt_S]

ting, why are you still pushing a Guardian lynch?

I think the answer to this question is pretty obvious.

[destructor]

I probably could have asked that questions better.
Why hasn't he voted massive yet? He's said that he thinks they're both scum but he's kept his vote on Guardian. Actually, I did ask him about this at one point and his reply was:

@destructor.
I don't mind a massive lynch but the shamrock wagon was building up faster, and since I find both suspicious, I figured to go for Shamrock first.

I had no problem with this at the time, but now the Guardian wagon is basically gone yet ting is apparently delaying his vote for massive, if he's even still okay with a massive lynch. That's what I really want clarified.

[Guardian]

It isn't the hounding it is the ignoring of my arguments.

destructor makes a really good point about that inconsistency -- why were you willing to settle early in the game, but aren't now?

destructor, who do you find suspicious? You were the first to vote massive and then unvoted once the bandwagon grew on him, and then lurked for a bit. What do you think now? Who is your primary suspect?

[destructor]

I'm not sure I'd call it an inconsistency just yet. That's why I want ting to clarify his stance.

After having read, I'm still in favour of a massive lynch. He's been inconsistent and his recent Matt_S vote screams "distract and confuse!" to me. I'm pretty sure at one point he even said himself that Matt was confirmed. I feel like he's been in the background, not just himself, but the scrutiny his actions warranted. This is what makes me cautious of the Guardian wagon, it feels like it could have been a red herring that gave massive some relief.

I want to wait for ting's response before I vote.

[ting =)]

It isn't the hounding it is the ignoring of my arguments.

Again, where? I've made it a point to meticulously respond to everything you've said. I'm fairly certain I can just quote myself to reply to any previous argument you choose to repeat. Also, I'm quite sure you just skim through my long posts without actually reading and can prove it.

--
@destructor.
I was gone from the game for a while and found that there were a lot of stuff from guardian to reply to, so I did.

vote:massive.

My reason for voting is:

I must be getting some of the

ring

rust off. =]

This is why I wasn't attacking him during day 1 despite the fact that he was on my suspicious list.

I just realized now that this crumb is inconsistent with his claim of named-nonfellowship townie.

I brought up in day 1 how I thought it was really wierd that we had

both

unnamed-FELLOWSHIP

and

named-NONFELLOWSHIP townie, something which massive assured me was the case.

With coolbot dead, I now fall back to thinking that that is not the case.

[ting =)]

add on: I still think guardian is scum.

Oh, I forgot to emphasize:

un

named-FELLOWSHIP and named-NONFELLOWSHIP

[BridgesAndBaloons]

I'm still busy, but I've had time to loosely follow whats going on.
I am very conflicted here. I had Massive as scummy in my notes, other people had cases against him, BUT... he came to a lot of the same conclusions that I did in my initial read of the game. I did not want to accept Massive as scum because of this. It would mean that a lot of my initial read of the game was misguided.

I'm going to look over Massive very carefully before (or maybe I won't) hammer. Before the day ends, I may or may not need to discuss the following things. These are reminders for me:

Read it
Tell them
Ask?

[Guardian]

It isn't the hounding it is the ignoring of my arguments.

Again, where?

You're not even trying to see my point of view, you are just arguing that I am scum with any possible evidence you can provide for it and trying to refute any evidence to the contrary. Your mind is closed to the subject. You are sure I am scum and aren't listening to me anymore, you are just trying to pick apart my arguments.

I've made it a point to meticulously respond to everything you've said. I'm fairly certain I can just quote myself to reply to any previous argument you choose to repeat.

Like I said about, this is exactly what you are doing -- you are meticulously responding with the pre-conceived notion that my arguments must be wrong because I am scum. You are not analyzing, or considering that just maybe I am town.

Also, I'm quite sure you just skim through my long posts without actually reading and can prove it.

Not in the beginning, but after two or three go rounds, you were just repeating yourself and continuing to not consider the possibility that I'm town, so I stopped reading in-depth.

For evidence of how your mind is made up:

Even when you just voted massive, and we haven't seen if he is scum or not yet, you say

add on: I still think guardian is scum.

Tell me with a straight face that your mind isn't made up and you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You're mind IS made up, and you are following your wrong instincts blindly.

Sigh. Massive seems by far to be the presumptive lynch for today, and I am very much sick of talking and talking and talking about hypotheticals in which he may be scum or may not be or whatever. If we lynch him and he is scum and I look tied to him that's fine, we lynched a scum. If he's not, we can give ting=) and Sethaniel very hard look overs tomorrow.

Massive, if you have some inspiring defense now is the time for it.

[massive]

I was Elrond in the unthemed game. I am a doctor who learns who targets their nightchoice. I protected Khelvaster night one. No one targeted him.

Matt_S

: If you don't think I could have inferred that you posted your role PM from a post that said, essentially, "mod deleted," then I clearly have work to do in regaining my reputation for logical thought. And you STILL have not answered the question -- somehow you manage to always turn it into an attack on me. Convenient.

That being said, I think you are a townie, just a bad one. I think if I went back and looked at games where you did not have the benefit of being mod-confirmed, that you would be lynched a lot early in the game.

ting=)

: I think your "finding" of a breadcrumb is rather ridiculous. I don't breadcrumb. "Ring rust" is a legitimate term, I think -- for boxers or wrestlers (or, in this case, Mafia players) who haven't legitimately fought real opponents in a long time. The fact that you needed to find additional justification for your vote makes me feel like it was only destructor calling you out that made you feel the urge to vote.

destructor

: Since Matt_S's "confirmation," he's continued to do scummy things. I'm sure you can find at least one post from me since then that says something like, "I really wish you'd stop doing scummy things now that you're mod-confirmed." He was easily the most suspicious person that didn't get lynched on Day One (mod confirmation aside) and was continuing Day Two. If he says he's NOT really mod-confirmed, why WOULDN'T I lynch him? I only had my inferrence and CoolBot's post about what the deleted information was.

I think

Guardian

is town. I think

Sethaniel

is scum. I am leaning towards

ting=)

being scum.

unvote, vote Sethaniel