Mini 701 - That's a Wrap! (Game Over)

[ortolan]

/Confirming role pm

[ortolan]

Vote: springlullaby

because it is spring currently (in Australia)

[ortolan]

Can someone explain to me why a random jokevote on oneself is any different to a random jokevote on somebody else? I'm curious.

[ortolan]

mrfixij I didn't think the idea of random voting was to try to "land on scum", more to see what reactions you get- i.e. scum may react defensively to your vote even though it wasn't serious etc., which then makes you wonder why they are so defensive.

Perhaps a random self-vote isn't that constructive when you're town, especially because it makes others suspicious of you, but I hardly think it can be considered a hanging offence by itself.

[ortolan]

Interesting theory discussion.

[ortolan]

I find it hard to read scumminess/towniness into any of Ectomancer, mrfixij or vollkan based on their discussion alone, it all seemed fairly well argued. I did read it all, also

I am of the opinion that while certain things such as self-voting are in and of themselves harmless, if there is a convention of suspecting people who do it even if it is during the random voting phase it may still be beneficial for discussion. As with some other "obviously scummy" actions, if someone tries their luck by doing it, either out of newnewss i.e. not knowing the attention it will attract or to deliberately engineer a controversy then the town can put pressure on them. As with all pressure, this may lead to them cracking and giving away mafia tells or it may help the town identify their overzealous prosecutors with too weak a case, who in that case would be the likely mafia.

[ortolan]

I'm changing my random vote on springlullaby to a real one;

For, as Mana_Ku pointed out, self-voting then saying the following:

Hi springlullaby,

Unvote, Vote: vollkan

Lol, at least you seem to be consistent with yourself.

IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum. Self-vote however is an entirely selfish act, which give nothing about yourself and who you are willing to vote. However I do think that given the present state of the meta, even though the 'you have no proof you can't lynch me' state of mind is IMO best left to scum, people who self vote are equally likely to be scum than town.

What is left is judging the self voter's character. I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.

Vote Vollkan

[ortolan]

It wouldn't be my choice of a case. I don't think it should be yours. That's all.

I think this whole discussion to be weird. It is mostly about theory (the self vote, what is "gut") and there are only a few people actively posting. Personally, as noob, I'm quite scared by the huge posts, but what I get from them, doesn't seem to be worth the effort, as it doesn't tell me a lot about the game itself. From that, people suddenly find scum. That is why I vote.

I have to agree with this to a large extent.

In this discussion it's hard to distinguish an argumentative nature from excessive aggression (and even excessive aggression isn't a guarantee of scuminness).

Thus far I've entertained many different hypotheses e.g. the self-vote and ensuing discussion was one big gambit by vollkan or he was simply trying to bait people into attacking him irrationally to show up scum. He is/isn't in league with SpyreX. mrfixij is/isn't in league with Ectomancer etc. I don't particularly favour any however I've got a leaning against Ectomancer, especially in light of how orangepenguin and SpyreX represent the progression of his argument.

So I'm going to

Vote: Ectomancer

which puts him at L-2. I wouldn't suggest anyone else votes for him without providing (very) strong justification at this point.

Also to springlullaby: your last post (114) still does not explain why you self-voted then voted for vollkan for doing the same.

[ortolan]

Vote: ortolan

Two non joke votes, two vote that sucks.

Just to clarify so I understand: by this you mean keeping my vote on you past the joke phase and then changing my vote to Ectomancer? If so why do both of these votes suck exactly? I don't follow.

1. I already answered on the 'contradiction' thing, though it was mistakenly addressed to spyrex. Don't like the way the question addressing me is dangling at the end of that post, looks like scum changing vote but putting something at the end to signify that they aren't dropping former suspicions entirely to appear consistent.]

I already had that question addressed to you at the end of my post, and in the process of writing it I decided to change from FoSing Ectomancer to voting for him. Just because I decided there was enough of a case against him to vote for him doesn't mean I should deliberately omit what I wanted to ask you from my post. Would you prefer if I'd made another post especially for you?

2. Don't understand your vote on Ectomancer, what are you saying exactly? That you agree with spyrex and OP? Do I detect shedding of responsibility in the formulation of that phrase? Don't care for the drama around L-2.

What's there not to understand about my vote against Ectomancer? I believe there is a mild case against him, but that this case is stronger than the one against SpyreX. And when you say I agree with SpyreX and OP, yes I think orangepenguin's summary shows Ectomancer's case against vollkan was relatively insubstantial but quite keenly pursued. Also the only reason I mentioned the L-2 was that I was effectively lynched in another game for putting someone on L-1. I feel if I draw attention to exactly how many votes are on someone (because sometimes the vote counts by the admin can be wrong) then this prevents people putting on the L-1 then lynching vote and being able to claim they were mistaken about the number of votes. It was as much for my own benefit as anyone else's, noting just how close to a lynch we were.

I'm confused to all hell as to WHAT exactly ort was saying in his vote post. You're basically saying that you have no read on Voll's affiliation with Spyre, have no read on my affiliation with Ecto, and have no opinion although you entertain the ideas of the starting discussion. While it's great to have you sitting on the sidelines as a spectator, I'd kindly like to ask you to step into the playing field and give a

BIT

more material than a bunch of non-reads.

Saying what I did about my varying hypotheses was meant to relate to what I said about the theory discussion being relatively unhelpful in actually turning up scum. To support, this I started that all it had given me were various hypotheses, none of which have particularly more support than any other (but obviously, I have a slight leaning towards Ectomancer). And you can hardly say my post was like that of a mere spectator, obviously it was at least substantive enough to draw a vote from springlullaby.

[ortolan]

Oops, sorry.

Unvote.

Vote: Ectomancer

mrfixij, as I have already said, my post was intended to express that I have ultimately, unfortunately, gleaned little from the extensive and verbose theory discussion about who is scum in this particular game. If my post expressed this (that I had gleaned little), then this was partly the point. It also hardly seems contentless to me- it contains a vote for Ectomancer based on orangepenguin/spyrex's arguments, and it asks springlullaby for an explanation.

And what does "policy" in this context mean anyhow? You mean you have a policy of voting for those who you feel makes contentless posts? I didn't say my post was objectively "good", however I believe it expressed what I wanted it to express.

[ortolan]

So it's not just enough for me to cite others arguments, I have to put it in my owns words as well? I'll try my best, sorry if I'm still not convincing.

I'll be honest. I did read through the theory discussion before. Now I've had to read some of it again in order to express why exactly I'm voting for Ectomancer. Can I firstly take a leaf out of his book and go with "whatever argument you make use of, it's still ultimately coming from your gut instinct". I cite springlullaby's last post (144) as an example of this- her 2 points against me are basically entirely subjective: one is putting an additional question at the end of my post after voting, and the second is deferring to others' reasoning- if no-one agreed with anyone else in this game I don't see it going very far.

I also acknowledge the case against Ectomancer isn't particularly strong. It's possible he is townie and just likes indulging in lengthy theory discussions mid-game. I also see it as quite viable, however, that, as mafia, he tried to jump on you for the self-vote (as can often be done successfully in other games) then realised after your rebuttal that no-one else would support it, was drawn into a deep discussion of why he had reacted against it, and whether that sort of thing is good or bad in general (a discussion which he tried to curtail in post 99). My other reason is simply I have a slight leaning towards him over SpyreX, again call it gut if you will. Thus I wanted to tip him into the more likely to be lynched category. It's ironic that, as a side effect of extremely lengthy theory discussions to get "reads" on people, I find the progression of argument too convoluted for it to serve this purpose, and am forced to regress, in a way, to gut instincts.

Also, originally, I posted orangepenguin's summary in post 136 as a reason for voting for Ectomancer. Please explain what was wrong with it and why it was not worthy of citing as a reason for voting Ectomancer.

[ortolan]

Unvote

Ok. I acknowledge the case isn't strong enough to keep a vote on him. Unfortunately this will probably just bring me under further suspicion as past experience has dictated. I blame your gambit, Vollk.

[ortolan]

The extremely convoluted debate means it is impossible to construct a good argument for someone being scummy in this particular game, as it is impossible to separate arguments purely about theory from posturing which has a particular purpose in the context of this game. Other people, being obliged to post something of content, are then drawn into trying to launch hard to justify cases in order to actually participate in the game, as there is simply little of use to go off in the discussion so far.

Thus I do not think the discussion has had much use for town. I'm not blaming Vollkan, but I am saying the debate he instigated has had little benefit for turning up scummy motives in this game.

[ortolan]

And you can look back over my posts if you'd like, they're all consistent with not being able to read much into the debate.

[ortolan]

vollk, I don't really believe in your clear delineation of objectivity and subjectivity. And I'm really not convinced by links to fallacies. When you've seen enough apparently archetypal "fallacies" you realise several of them contradict one another and can be read into almost anything. Another reason why one might, on principle. regress to gut.

WHY DID YOU VOTE ECTO?

This just looks like "I voted but have been called out and cannot justify myself so I will slink away and hope nobody notices

I have acknowledged there was insufficient justification for voting for him in the first place, I no longer see sufficient reasons for voting for him. Why, then, would I try to convince you of something I don't believe? That itself would be illogical and hardly town-ish. I had insufficient justification for voting for him in the first place, I have acknowledged this. Also, how can you possibly try to characterise my withdrawn vote as "slinking away and hoping no-one notices"? I openly drew attention to the fact that when I withdrew my vote it would likely simply lead to more suspicion placed on me, as it did in another game.

Either find reasons for them, or back down.

Well actually, I did already back down. Which in fact makes this whole point moot (straw man, etc.)

Everybody else seems to managing very well (this game is actually VERY good for content).

That seems a pretty subjective claim to me again. For example, do you mean pro-town content i.e. content that is more likely to help town and turn up scum, or just content. I don't see how we're going to find out whether this discussion was in fact helpful for town until at least the end of this day (when we'll find out whether the lynch that stemmed from this discussion was a townie or scum), and probably not until even later than that, so I'll hold my judgement until then.

Otherwise we run the risk of having strong, articulate scum being able to pull the wool over townie's eyes just by posting impressively.

You seem oblivious to the potential irony of this. You're exactly the sort of person who, as scum, would fill this category.

This post just shows you are paying no attention.

Please justify why you are equivocating "paying no attention" with "playing scummy" (implied by your vote on me). I see no reason why scum would pay any less attention than town.

[ortolan]

Saying that I "hedged" my arguments then attempted to "slink away" seems to be exactly the sort of thing that falls into the category of being unrebuttable. It's a particular spin you're putting on my actions. While it is certainly a feasible hypothesis that I am scum and tried to distance myself from the responsibility for my vote from the get-go, I can only claim what it was- a poor voting choice. And people I feel often forget on the first day that, chances are, you're not going to catch scum, you're going to lynch a townie. Thus in some sense I feel people read more into votes than there is. Technically if you feel you've come to odds better than what your prior probability would be (20% or 30% in this game depending on whether there are 2 or 3 scum) at any point then a vote's probably justified. Of course, what your publicly announced justification for your vote is is a different matter. As I said, I had, at the time, a slight preference for Ectomancer. I was then asked to justify it, so tried. I believe there's a psychological phenomenon whereby if people believe something, irrespective of whether it has any factual basis, they will attempt to rationalise it by coming up with supporting arguments. I'm also of the belief that some people often go on hunches or even more sophisticated reasoning than that they actually announce to the town- because there's certain accepted conventions in mafia that irrationally make some ways of argument more "accepted" than others. One example is putting a vote on an existing bandwagon without what is felt as acceptable reasoning by others, as I did. Then if you stay on it, you're asked to give better reasoning. If you unvote, you're portrayed as distancing yourself from your initial vote. So it can often almost directly lead to your own lynch, just as for example self-voting can in other games (sometimes even if done during the random phase).

[ortolan]

You could have another go too if you'd like springlullaby

[ortolan]

I really would like to hear some more from you on why I'm scummy

[ortolan]

(addressed to springlullaby)

[ortolan]

Also just an FYI: I believe Ma

n

m

a_Ku has not even posted once since replacing.

It's Mana_Ku, not Mama_Ku. My bad! - Rage

[ortolan]

Ok can I just say I'm going to be fairly busy so might be a bit erratic in replying for a while. Whatever you do however, do not lynch me without my further input following this post. Also forgive me if I don't reply to every point against me made by all 4-5 people.

Part of my defence:

I have to agree with orto that the length of posts just blinds me from any tells.

Yep.

Mine was a developing wagon. My opinion is that you may have been trying to reserve a 'safe' seat on the bus.

You can make an argument for someone being scum for joining a bandwagon at any stage. "You started the bandwagon against him, therefore you're scum", "you were the second vote in the bandwagon, if that isn't scummy I don't know what is", "you were the third vote on the bandwagon- you were trying to join an already established bandwagon and hope you could ride it to the end"..."you hammered, you're getting lynched next". I worry that most people's case against me relies on very specific interpretations of what my goals were, which are no more privileged than any other interpretation. This is really no different from what I said in post 143:

Thus far I've entertained many different hypotheses e.g. the self-vote and ensuing discussion was one big gambit by vollkan or he was simply trying to bait people into attacking him irrationally to show up scum. He is/isn't in league with SpyreX. mrfixij is/isn't in league with Ectomancer etc. I don't particularly favour any however I've got a leaning against Ectomancer, especially in light of how orangepenguin and SpyreX represent the progression of his argument.

It's speculation about my motives rather than any coherent and internally consistent case for me being mafia.

I could say for example "vollkan's gambit was intended purely so he would have a device for continually launching suspicion on different people- firstly he could launch suspicion on those who called him on his self-vote, then he could launch suspicion on those who called the caller on his self-vote etc., basically a mafia's dream". However this is just an interpretation. It is ironic however that the people who attack me either aren't aware of or deliberately ignore the fact that what I am being attacked for- making a subjective determination, is exactly what they're doing in attacking me, they're just better at pretending they're not being subjective.

This is also very relevant to springlullaby's case against me:

(The statement I quoted was "Two non joke votes, two vote that sucks." and asked for an explanation for it)

Are you deliberately isolating my statement from the rest of my post here? Here your quoting makes it appear as if I have voted you without reason, but the rest of that post you quoted states clearly why I think your votes sucked.

No. Your statement was unclear, and did not make sense in the context of what came after it. I made one joke vote against you, then stipulated it had become a real vote. Then I changed my vote to Ectomancer. You did not offer any explanation of why my original vote on you sucked (apart from simply the fact that it was on you, maybe). And I was only "deliberately isolating" your statement in the most obvious sense i.e. quoting it without quoting what came after it, as I was simply replying to it (and it was NOT supported by what came after it).

2. Don't understand your vote on Ectomancer, what are you saying exactly? That you agree with spyrex and OP?

Well, yes, I did say I agreed with them. I don't see this as being particularly revelatory however.

Do I detect shedding of responsibility in the formulation of that phrase? Don't care for the drama around L-2.

Firstly; you're the one that formulated that phrase. Secondly, you detected what you wanted into it. And finally I reiterate my point about citing other people's arguments. I understand if there is something wrong with it, if it shows that you haven't been following the argument etc. However you can't say both that it implies laziness and scumminess. Vollkan had the same problem with me citing other's arguments. If it straightforwardly means you're trying to diffuse responsibility then it would always seem to be a scumtell. In which case if I am scum I must be pretty dumb for using it (of course I am not suggesting I have not been dumb so far, but merely that it points no more to me being scum than townie). A far more effective scum strategy would seem to be lurking (*ahem*) and then just saying "hehe I don't find anyone scummy".

I don't agree with vollkan suggesting my arguments are qualitatively different from springlullaby's, either

What I am saying is that giving an inference with explanation is fundamentally different to saying "my gut says he is scum". Obviously, there is always subjectivity involved (eg. different people will weight things differently). The point is, though, that the reasons for suspicion should be objectively ascertainable, even if there is disagreement.

Going to spring's point as an example (BTW - I notice a typo in post 165. "Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is subjective" should read "Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is objective"). I don't agree with her reason - her subjective weighting of one interpretation is one I don't agree with, but I can see her reasoning process.

"Gut" or "feeling" are wholly subjective. They don't refer to any reasoning process that leads to a conclusion. By definition, I cannot attack somebody's "gut" reasons, because there are no reasons. In the case of spring, however, I can see her process of thinking and, even if I do have a theory disagreement, the important point is that there are reasons for me to disagree with .

I suppose the litmus test for "subjective" / "objective" in the sense I am using those terms would be this: Is the argument capable of being rebutted?

Sorry, what about her process of reasoning is objectively ascertainable? She is saying I could be scum for leaving a question dangling at the end of my post, then says she (again, subjectively) detects shedding of responsibility in my citing of others' arguments. These both seem to be about the most subjective justifications one could give. And furthermore I don't necessarily agree with your doctrine of arguments needing to be necessarily capable of being rebutted- it seems to amount to falsifiability, which while often paid lip service to in many sciences is hardly universally agreed on as a philosophical position, see for example Positivism or versions of Relativism to a scientific approach for contrast.

This is relevant to my interests because one: if you had your way with your vote, ecto would be on his way to getting lynched, and you meant in your post that there is SOME connection between me and him, which places me under suspicion tomorrow. Naturally, I don't want that, so I'd like you to explain yourself. Also, I don't like this because my vote is on Spyre, and if there were a pairing or antipairing between Spyre and Voll, I should find Voll suspicious, which at the moment I have no lean on him.

It was intended merely as a hypothetical and not to imply any necessary connection between the two. And why would drawing a faint possible connection between you and Ecto lead to you being likely to be lynched tomorrow unless, of course, he turned out to be scum? Your post actually implies he would flip scum on a lynch. Why is that?

Orto, post 178 is from the start just plain unreadeble. I don't know how to say it in English, but the form doesn't make it clear. First sentence is good, but are you advocating that the first day you shouldn't try your best to lynch scum?

No. I am not. How could you interpret that from my post? Furthermore why would I say something so obviously scummy if I were scum? Which part of my post didn't you understand?

Also, why is it that you seem to have a persistent nay-sayer vibe about you? It seems that the only opinion you're consistent with is that of scum-tells not being effective and the likeliness of lynching a towny. That seems scummy, and a future-justification of lynching a townie by accident.

You can call it a nay-sayer vibe, or you can call it the truth (which it is). Ironically if I were to be lynched it would be vindicated.

Sorry if my post is too long or insufficiently cohesive, the site kept crashing due to exceeding bandwidth quote when I was writing it. Again; please don't lynch without my right of reply.

[ortolan]

100% town

[ortolan]

While it is certainly a feasible hypothesis that I am scum and tried to distance myself from the responsibility for my vote from the get-go, I can only claim what it was- a poor voting choice.

Here's my problem. I dont get the impression that you unvoted because it was a poor voting choice. I get the impression that you are now saying it was a poor voting choice due to the flack you got over it from all sides. (something Im certain you didnt expect) Your case wasn't developed because you were trying to ride the coattails of others. Mine was a developing wagon. My opinion is that you may have been trying to reserve a 'safe' seat on the bus. You didn't start the wagon, thus avoiding too much attention, and you don't have to end it either, once again avoiding too much attention.

The telling event here is your referencing orangepenguin as a source for your case, when he said himself that it wasn't one. Additionally, you had to climb over the posts where I demonstrated where his analysis fell short, or was just wrong. You didn't even talk about those points at all, or really any other point from anyone else either.

I'm also not satisified with you answer concerning the justification of your original vote. Telling us that you no longer believe it, therefor why would you explain something you don't believe is hogwash. You know why you did it back then, and current belief holds no bearing on a belief you supposedly once held.

I can be impulsive sometimes (can't we all). That is my response to your case. Sorry if it wasn't what you were hoping for.

[ortolan]

I did want to advance the bandwagon, but in retrospect I didn't have good reason to.

[ortolan]

Impatience, the prospect of lynching scum etc.

It's like gambling.

[ortolan]

Fair enough vollkan, point taken.

[ortolan]

Yes, we are masons. In case you're wondering my role pm specifically guarantees both our alignments (town). And yes, I'm aware I played very badly as mason and your point is noted OP.

[ortolan]

I would have mentioned it earlier to avoid wasting everyone's time (seeing as I was otherwise probably going to just get lynched anyway) but I had the vague hope someone might put on an obviously dodgy vote for me (as I did on Ectomancer, lol) which could be called into question when me/OP claimed.

[ortolan]

Ok, it looks like I need to post something. I was a bit reluctant to contribute for two reasons: firstly my previous attempt to contribute, by voting Ecto, attracted attention for all the wrong reasons. Secondly now that the town "knows" that I am a mason, I am more wary about whom I place suspicion on because you "know" my comments are not scum-motivated.

I actually think vollkan would be a good lynch target. As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves. And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour. That and I do think the discussion stemming from his self-vote (which he strongly contributed to perpetuating) has effectively "muddied the waters" for the town, and accomplished little. Had I not been a mason, it probably would have led to me being lynched. Obviously I am partly to blame for this, but I don't think wholly. He suggested (as did others) that I was scummy for deferring my reasoning to others. I think an equally valid hypothesis is that such extensive and unreadable discussion will lead to someone tiring of the dead-end stalemate, and seeking a lynch to break it. After all, all it achieved up to that point was votes for vollkan and Ecto, and then votes for SpyreX for "buddying up". I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent player as vollkan wouldn't recognise that a discussion like that, verbose as it was, was ultimately leading nowhere.

And I thought Ecto suggesting that my questioning myself justified his questioning was bad! Now you are blaming my gambit for your absurdly vague play.

And I don't care that you unvoted - justify your initial vote.

WHY DID YOU VOTE ECTO?

This just looks like "I voted but have been called out and cannot justify myself so I will slink away and hope nobody notices"

Until you give an explanation (or somebody else really screws up),
Unvote, Vote: ortolan

By saying you would keep your vote on me "until somebody else really screws up" you were trying to hedge your argument in exactly the same way you criticised me for doing. You were implying you were only voting for me "because I had screwed up the most", rather than that I was actually scum. Also, assuming we are telling the truth about our mason claim, you were, in fact, asking for an explanation where one in the form you wanted didn't exist. I didn't have a good enough argument for voting Ectomancer, according to you, so this request was impossible to satisfy. This doesn't, however, entail that I am scum. There are many other possible explanations e.g. that a townie felt your convoluted discussion was not helping in the lynching of scum and decided to take a different approach to break the stalemate.

Vote: vollkan

Sorry if I sound like I am reiterating a lot of what mykonian has said, I independently considered a case against vollkan before his most recent posts, but was reluctant to state it due to the circumstances.

[ortolan]

But, see, what flows from this is that calm, logical posting is by no means a towntell at all - it's simply a particular sort of playstyle.

Then I simply have a different playstyle to you- one which may rely more on gut. Why did this ever merit a vote then? Furthermore, there's a problem with this. It may be that in fact your playstyle is more effective at catching scum. However, on average you're only town about 75% of the time. The rest you're scum. If you use a playstyle which is "better at catching scum" when you are scum it's not going to work out well for you. So what I can only assume you do in this case is find some way of subverting your playstyle so that it still appears to be pro-town and "logical" while trying to throw suspicion onto townies. I think this is the case this game, and will show why your apparently "logical" play has in fact been inconsistent.

As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves. And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour.

Unless you are trying to set a precedent for auto-lynches of me, there needs to be more than just this to justify any lynch of me.

There was more. This was an introduction to the case that I then launched against you. Did you just single out a statement to avoid relating it to it's context? I think we've "seen that before" this game...

Springlullaby wrote:

Are you deliberately isolating my statement from the rest of my post here? Here your quoting makes it appear as if I have voted you without reason, but the rest of that post you quoted states clearly why I think your votes sucked.

I didn't pick up on this. Good find.

Another example of your double standards:

As I have said repeatedly now, I don't take opposition to self-voting as a scumtell (that would be absurd). Ecto challenging my self-vote was not scummy in and of itself. What followed, and the reason I challenged his question requiring an explanation, was to see why he thought that self-voting needed justification. As I have said, it became apparent that his attack was all bark and no bite.

So here you say you don't take opposition to people opposing self-voting, but if they ask for *justification* for the act of self-voting, you do. You also repeatedly stress that you require people to give reasons for their opinions and votes. Thus, if someone did oppose self-voting, presumably you would require them to give reasons for this stance. If they gave these reasons, presumably they would be along the lines of mrfixij's response, that from a certain perspective self-voting can never help town as votes are intended to be used for pressure purposes and self-voting inherently voids this purpose. This amounts to "asking for justification for the act of self-voting", thus you'd now deem them scummy.

You essentially have three principles

1)If someone criticises self-voting this is not scummy
2)If someone asks for justification for not voting this is scummy (I find it ridiculous that you even try to draw some substantial distinction between these two positions in the first place)
3)Someone must give reasons for their argument

However if someone acts in accordance with principles 1 and 3 this implies 2, and thus it is impossible to both comply with rule 3 and criticise self-voting without appearing scummy.

Thus I feel your "principles of play", set up with much pomp are in reality a mere device- impossible to comply with, they allow you to springboard suspicions safe in the inherently-biased "groundwork" you have "laid out".

On that note, I would like you to define "scummy" in the sense you used it in your last post. It has multiple possible interpretations, including: being anti-town, acting in a way which benefits scum, acting in a way which implies you are scum. I would like you to clarify which meaning you're using it with exactly- are you still suggesting I am mafia this game despite being a claimed mason?

[ortolan]

Ugh, I just typed out a response and then closed the browser window.

But, see, what flows from this is that calm, logical posting is by no means a towntell at all - it's simply a particular sort of playstyle.

Then I simply have a different playstyle to you- one which may rely more on gut. Why did this ever merit a vote then? Furthermore, there's a problem with this. It may be that in fact your playstyle is more effective at catching scum. However, on average you're only town about 75% of the time. The rest you're scum. If you use a playstyle which is "better at catching scum" when you are scum it's not going to work out well for you. So what I can only assume you do in this case is find some way of subverting your playstyle so that it still appears to be pro-town and "logical" while trying to throw suspicion onto townies. I think this is the case this game, and will show why your apparently "logical" play has in fact been inconsistent.

You've (again) cherry-picked one bit of my post out of context to attack me. Nothing I said at all addressed whether or not gut is scummy. I was specifically addressing whether or not logical posting is a town-tell. That's a completely different matter.

Um no, the only reason I quoted only the second paragraph was to conserve space (which I will no longer worry about as it seems to merely leave me open to crummy attacks like this). I was responding to what you wrote in both the paragraphs jointly, and to suggest otherwise is outright deceptive (what I quoted doesn't even make sense without your previous remarks).

What you actually said was:

That's pretty much correct. What I would add, and I know that my saying this is loaded with WIFOM, is that I think the Achille's heel of logic-scum is in the assumptions as to reasonableness. As you say, all logic in this game depends on assumptions (see the last point I make to Orto below as a great example - my assumptions as to what is reasonable to expect are completely at odds with his). I guess this is the reason in part why I insist so much on reasons for suspicion - because I know firsthand that reducing things to the base assumption of "What makes the most reasonable hypothesis that this is a scummy action?" is probably a good way of breaking skilled scum. (Another reason I detest gut play - because it shirks explaining the basis for the assumptions)

But, see, what flows from this is that calm, logical posting is by no means a towntell at all - it's simply a particular sort of playstyle.

Now I *CLEARLY* responded to all of this- discussing the inconsistencies in your request for "reasons" etc. so the suggestion I somehow cherry-picked and misrepresented your argument is rubbish.

However, on average you're only town about 75% of the time. The rest you're scum. If you use a playstyle which is "better at catching scum" when you are scum it's not going to work out well for you. So what I can only assume you do in this case is find some way of subverting your playstyle so that it still appears to be pro-town and "logical" while trying to throw suspicion onto townies. I think this is the case this game, and will show why your apparently "logical" play has in fact been inconsistent.

*headdesk*

This is precisely what I HAVE BEEN SAYING. Logical play is not a town-tell. I don't know why the hell you are acting like you've stumbled upon some fantastic revelation - I said as much myself that logical play can come from town and scum.

No, actually, I am making an altogether different point. I am saying scum do not in fact play logically but rather benefit from maintaining a facade of doing so. If they in fact played logically, this would not benefit them as using arguments logically and consistently inherently benefits town. Instead there will be underlying inconsistencies in their logic and approach (in order to enable directing accusations where scum want them), they will merely attempt to conceal them.

Now, how about explaining to me why you "think" I have been exploiting my playstyle in this game? Because thus far, you've provided nothing but innuendo.

I gave two examples in my previous post... You claim to be a logical player but your "logic" has in fact not been consistently applied.

There was more. This was an introduction to the case that I then launched against you. Did you just single out a statement to avoid relating it to it's context? I think we've "seen that before" this game...

*double headdesk*
Yes, that was the introduction. But if you bothered paying ANY attention to my post you would see that I addressed each part of your argument.

Haha! Nice try. Let's have another look at what you actually said:

As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves. And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour.

Unless you are trying to set a precedent for auto-lynches of me, there needs to be more than just this to justify any lynch of me.

There was more than that to justify a lynch of you. You just cut it off, as though this point was being made somehow independently of the rest. Furthermore you seem to be misinterpreting what I was saying here. I was not saying "you play logically", I was saying you assume a "logical demeanour" which implies it is only an act and your approach is not, in reality, logical and internally consistent. Again, I gave two examples of this.

[ortolan]

Well, how was I meant to know that? Nothing you said made sense as a response to the first paragraph and the one sentence you quoted in isolation made it look like I had contradicted myself by drawing an equivalence in playstyles.

Err, what? Now you're just further muddying the waters. My post was a perfectly valid response to yours. Reread:

That's pretty much correct. What I would add, and I know that my saying this is loaded with WIFOM, is that I think the Achille's heel of logic-scum is in the assumptions as to reasonableness. As you say, all logic in this game depends on assumptions (see the last point I make to Orto below as a great example - my assumptions as to what is reasonable to expect are completely at odds with his). I guess this is the reason in part why I insist so much on reasons for suspicion - because I know firsthand that reducing things to the base assumption of "What makes the most reasonable hypothesis that this is a scummy action?" is probably a good way of breaking skilled scum. (Another reason I detest gut play - because it shirks explaining the basis for the assumptions)

But, see, what flows from this is that calm, logical posting is by no means a towntell at all - it's simply a particular sort of playstyle.

Then I simply have a different playstyle to you- one which may rely more on gut. Why did this ever merit a vote then? Furthermore, there's a problem with this. It may be that in fact your playstyle is more effective at catching scum. However, on average you're only town about 75% of the time. The rest you're scum. If you use a playstyle which is "better at catching scum" when you are scum it's not going to work out well for you. So what I can only assume you do in this case is find some way of subverting your playstyle so that it still appears to be pro-town and "logical" while trying to throw suspicion onto townies. I think this is the case this game, and will show why your apparently "logical" play has in fact been inconsistent.

I understand perfectly how this paragraph relates to yours. Have you been reading something else?

In case it is still unclear to you (you seem to keep misinterpreting my argument), I will try to express it more simply. You claim to have a very logical and skeptical playing style, with certain "principles" such as demanding people justify their reasoning and voting patterns, and giving your own (i.e. in opposition to gut play). I am saying as scum, you would have a vested interest in not doing this, as if you for example were forced to give your *real* reasons (that you want to get a townie lynched), then you would be discovered. Instead, you need to find ways to obfuscate your real intentions. One way you could do this is by still using these "principles", but applying them inconsistently and opportunistically. I gave two examples of where you had done this: you apparently dislike people "hedging their arguments" i.e. implying they are not confident in their vote and distancing themselves from the outcome of it (as you accused me of doing so). Yet you did the same while voting for me, by saying your vote would stand "until someone screws up more", which serves as a way of distancing yourself from your vote.

The second point is that you attacked me for "taking something out of context" when you did the same yourself. And stop saying you didn't:

Unless you are trying to set a precedent for auto-lynches of me, there needs to be more than just this to justify any lynch of me.

Saying "there needs to be more than just this to justify any lynch of me" IMPLIES that is all the evidence I gave in support of lynching you. In fact it was an introduction which flowed on to the valid points I then made.

[ortolan]

vollkan; a glimpse at your profile allows a weighing up of your play this game compared to your meta. In both games I compared your play to your posts are almost universally shorter and actually seemingly express quite concise ideas, which I can see despite not playing in those games. In contrast, even when arguing with you this game I barely understand your remarks in response to my arguments. I get the impression your main tactic is convoluting things to the point of confusion (how can one person have so much to say about self-voting?) For reference, the reason I didn't respond to your last post was that I just got tired of us circling over the same issues. Anyhow; here's some more examples of you trying to spin your way out of my arguments:

Yes, vollkan-scum would have a vested interest in bending the rules if he thought it would be to his advantage. Any scum player would do the same thing?

No, this was not my thesis. My thesis was that you would act ostensibly logically, while applying this logic inconsistently. It included examples. You still have not responded adequately, apart from various attempts to straw man it.

Yes, Orto, I am not blind. I know you had more material. Let me spell this out for you as clearly as possible:

The "vollkan is hard to catch as scum point" cannot, by your own admission, carry a lynch.

In one breath you acknowledge that point wasn't intended to be judged by itself, then in the next you imply it was intended to "carry" a lynch, as though it was the SOLE or OVERRIDING EVIDENCE for the lynch. You can't slip out of this inconsistency with weasel words.

Also the example you give is completely invalid. You hedged because you were presenting your suspicions as "slight leaning" and a "mild case", without actually giving any substance as to why.

In contrast, I voted for you "until someone screws up more". As I have already said, all that means is that I was saying that I would be voting you unless somebody scummier came along. That isn't hedging - I never once expressed self-doubt. In fact, it's perfectly ordinary play - voting for the scummiest person.

They are both qualitatively similar because they both express that there is a contingency in one's vote. Furthermore, if your remark "until someone screws up more" is perfectly ordinary play and merely entails voting for the scummiest person, why did you ever feel the need to make this remark, which you claim was already implied, explicit?

His arguments against me were, as I have submitted, very dodgy indeed. I'm not sure if this is just error on his part, or taking advantage of his claimed position for a bit of OMGUS-style revenge; I'd hope it's only the former.

Now what worries me here: You have strong reason to believe I am a confirmed mason at this point. Having attacked you, if you were town, I would think you would try very hard to see the merit in my arguments, as you would wonder what possible reason a townie could have for suspecting you. Instead, you've pretty much remained on the offensive. You're basically trying to discredit me by suggesting my case is motivated purely by revenge. As for the "error" comment, I'm feeling that's less likely with your every post.

And if more support is needed for my argument that vollkan's "principles" have been applied only opportunistically this game, take SpyreX's post 268:

I'm getting this bizarre sense of deja vu.

Orto, nice simple list: Why do you think Volkan is scum?

I see a lot of words again, however I see a severe absence of "X is scummy for Y" or even "X is scummy"

I actually think vollkan would be a good lynch target. As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves. And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour. That and I do think the discussion stemming from his self-vote (which he strongly contributed to perpetuating) has effectively "muddied the waters" for the town, and accomplished little. Had I not been a mason, it probably would have led to me being lynched. Obviously I am partly to blame for this, but I don't think wholly. He suggested (as did others) that I was scummy for deferring my reasoning to others. I think an equally valid hypothesis is that such extensive and unreadable discussion will lead to someone tiring of the dead-end stalemate, and seeking a lynch to break it. After all, all it achieved up to that point was votes for vollkan and Ecto, and then votes for SpyreX for "buddying up". I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent player as vollkan wouldn't recognise that a discussion like that, verbose as it was, was ultimately leading nowhere.

This alone, if you were not a claimed day-1 mason, would make me want to vote for you again.

Here SpyreX simply quotes a post of mine and says it would make him want to vote for me again. He doesn't explain why. I still don't know what problem he seems to have with it. vollkan has constantly told us how much he hates gut play i.e. attitudes given without reason. He also hates merely citing others' arguments, as he told us in Post 165:

And, obviousy, there is room for agreement in this game. The point is, though, every player should still be able to explain things themselves.

Yes. Because if you cannot articulate your reasons, you avoid accountability (because it means that you are protected by the other player's reasons).

At best, Ecto's post is the first case- expressing an attitude towards me without giving reasons. At worst, it is the second case- hoping by merely parroting vollkan's suspicion of the paragraph he will be vindicated by whatever vollkan makes of it.

Yet, vollkan hasn't even felt he should mention it. He's carried on as though nothing's happened, and benefited from SpyreX continuing to defend him. Clearly, vollkan has been highly opportunistic with his "principles" this game.

My final reason for voting for vollkan: town still has absolutely nothing to show for your thoroughly wordy play throughout this game. To me your posts have seemed motivated more by gaining authority for yourself as a "thoroughly logical player" (which then gives you leeway in spinning things, as you've done) than actually catching scum.

[ortolan]

Here SpyreX simply quotes a post of mine and says it would make him want to vote for me again. He doesn't explain why. I still don't know what problem he seems to have with it. vollkan has constantly told us how much he hates gut play i.e. attitudes given without reason. He also hates merely citing others' arguments, as he told us in Post 165:

I didn't think I had to if you reread it. However, I'll be more than happy to explain.

I actually think vollkan would be a good lynch target.

1.)

As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves.

2.)

And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour.

3.)

That and I do think the discussion stemming from his self-vote (which he strongly contributed to perpetuating) has effectively "muddied the waters" for the town, and accomplished little.

4.)

Had I not been a mason, it probably would have led to me being lynched. Obviously I am partly to blame for this, but I don't think wholly.

5.)

He suggested (as did others) that I was scummy for deferring my reasoning to others.

6.)

I think an equally valid hypothesis is that such extensive and unreadable discussion will lead to someone tiring of the dead-end stalemate, and seeking a lynch to break it. After all, all it achieved up to that point was votes for vollkan and Ecto, and then votes for SpyreX for "buddying up". I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent player as vollkan wouldn't recognise that a discussion like that, verbose as it was, was ultimately leading nowhere.

1.) You are saying you want to hang him because you cant meta read him as town or scum.
2.) You say that because he would play the same as scum... its an indictment of him being scum?
3.) How did this discussion "muddy the waters"? A statement like this needs backing.
4.) You are implying the attack wasn't valid (see how many people were voting for you because of your play)
5.) This is true. Period. Even if you know your mason is town its not a "dont try to play the game free" pass.
6.) Its equally valid that you did this just to break a stalemate and had no feelings on the issue?

So, yes, I would have voted you in a heartbeat had this not been a day 1 mason claim. Emphasis on the day 1.

1) You're just parroting vollkan's claim here, I already made about 3 posts arguing with him about this, but if you wanted to follow vollkan's "approach" you should come up with your own arguments.

2) Ditto.

3) We haven't gotten very far in 13 pages. vollkan's approach allows him to jump off suspicions on any number of players before we have anything at all concrete to go on. See him attacking Ecto, me, springlullaby (may have been another in between) also in a mainly opportunistic fashion. I was not the first to observe the "muddying of the waters" elicited by vollkan's "gambit".

4) Firstly; this commits the fallacy of argument from majority. I notice vollkan didn't pull you up on this either, another case of his double standards. And this point depends entirely on how you define "valid" anyhow. If you think lynching masons through bandwagons is a form of "valid attack" then obviously you're going to consider that one.

5) Yet it's exactly what you've just done, as I've shown- you're implicitly parasiting from vollkan's arguments.

6) You've totally misread this. I was not referring to the "validity" of my actions but rather the validity of possible hypotheses vollkan could have held about my behaviour.

Hold onto your hats boys and girls.. I think I've got me a case a brewin. Something new, something fantastic... something that has to wait until I'm awake.

To spark the fire though:

Unvote, Vote: Springlullaby

What purpose did this serve? Voting for someone without giving reasons and promising them in the future is no different to voting for someone without giving reasons simpliciter.

Now I see in post 296 vollkan has completely changed his mind about springlullaby. Good job SpreX, says he: a proper case! I was trying to bandwagon ortolan but he's a mason so let's revisit some aging posts and read scumminess into them that I failed to notice the first time round!

That said, she never did explain at all why the "dangling question" was a scumtell (Why is X scummy for Y?). Same goes for the second point; she draws an inference of shirking responsibility. That said, however, neither of these is a compelling argument at all; they both make large assumptions which, whilst objectively explained, aren't supported enough by evidence to carry a vote.

Um is this a joke? You specifically quoted her drawing attention to this as a "good find". If anything you drew as much attention or more to it as she did.

@ SpyreX: I think it's a bit rich for you to be complaining about lurkers- all your arguments find some way of agreeing with vollkan so when posting you're rarely obliged to respond to his massive attack posts. For others replying to vollkan the volume of text one has to deal with can be very off-putting.

On the whole, I am very unconvinced with the case on SL- a large part of mrfixij's case against her seems to be dredging up a seeming inconsistency in her self-vote which I already brought up much earlier. While I still don't really understand the point of it, it seems a minor point and I fail to see how you can properly read scuminess into it. I also don't like the way SpyreX, vollkan and mrfixij are all trying to re-interpret her posts to make her look scummy when no-one acknowledged this the first time round- seems highly suspect to me. I am increasingly happy with my vote on vollkan.

Finally; mrfixij:

So to get down to the nitty gritty, the good and bad of the spring case.

I didn't see much of the "good and bad", seemed more a direct attack on her.

But Spring's play has been deteriorating, and it was really only a matter of time before she was called out on it.

I don't agree in any way that her play "has been deteriorating". I was skeptical of her play earlier in the game and am actually less so now. This statement is much more subjective than you make it sound.

Yes, I think Spring is scummy and is our most likely scum target.

Whose most likely target? You certainly haven't convinced me of anything.

[ortolan]

Dare I say it, but I have a strange gut feeling about Ixfij. By no means am I saying he is suspicious or anything, but it is my intention to reread him more closely in the near future to work out why I am worried.

Conjecture - I have much disdain for this category. This includes things like "gut" (when used as a justification for suspicion/vote), a declaration that "something seems fishy/ungenuine/etc." The reason is simple: claims of this nature CANNOT be challenged or rendered unreasonable. They depend entirely upon what the individual making the claim thinks (or, in the case of scum, purports to think). I cannot prove I am not "ungenuine", for instance, or even prove that is not a reasonable explanation. Because it is one wholly subjective interpretation of my play.

This is your most shameless inconsistency yet.

And please don't say "I didn't actually say he was scummy, I said I'd read into him further". You made a very, very deliberate choice to say emphatically you get a strange "gut" reading from mrfixij, without backing it up. Why? We have little interest in hearing about your private introspection, and as you say anything announced without explanation amounts to conjecture, which you despise. Why did you say this rather than wait until you could actually dredge up the "reasons" underlying your gut suspicion of him?

[ortolan]

1) Nothing I have ever said is against the viability of gut as an indicator of "maybe you should read up on this person", which is precisely what I said. There is nothing wrong with me saying that I have a funny feeling, provided I don't use it to back up a declaration of suspicion or a vote. And, in fact, I specifically stressed that I don't consider Ixfij scummy simply because of the feeling.

You're still expressing a gut feeling, it just happens to be a neutral one, tinged with suspicion. Also; there is something wrong with it, it's an attempt to elicit an emotional and/or irrational response- which you earlier attacked me for. I ask you again why you would make the comment in the first place if you didn't intend it to carry some weight?

2) To see who would jump on this as an apparent contradiction. Would it surprise you if I said that you were my first guess?

Ah, yes, great trapping skills you've exhibited. Unfortunately, the fact remains your position is inconsistent. Also; you're saying you intended to trap me here: what did you hope to gain for town by this?

3) To make a point. Rather than saying "I think Ixfij seems odd, so he is therefore scummy", I have said "I think ixfij seems odd, so I need to reread him more closely". This is precisely the distinction between objective reasons and subjective feelings.

That's not a "point", especially within your own framework where opinions need to be "justified". It rather amounts to an announcement of an action you intend to undertake in the future. I ask you again- why did you feel the need to tell us about it?

[ortolan]

It's only an attempt to elicit a particular response if I use it as a conclusion, which I didn't. I didn't say I found him suspicious or anything; I simply said that I felt that something was odd and I would be reviewing him to find out why.

You are falsely framing things by suggesting that I HAVE to intend all my remarks to carry weight. In this case, I am just saying that I want to look at ixfij more closely; that's it. It's pretty clear I didn't intend for what I said to carry any weight.

If you didn't want to communicate something to us by it, you shouldn't have told us.

Also, you still haven't told me what you intended to gain by "trapping" me with such an intricate bait

come on, you know that this is not inconsistebt. He is just explaining his thouhtprocess. He doesn´t say he has reasons for a vote on mrfixij, only that he is going to look for reasons that could explain his feeling about mrfixij.

I think vollkan is very very very very very very scummy and would like him lynched. It's just a gut feeling, I'll come up with some reasons later. Oh damnit, he already pointed the finger at me for doing this to Ecto. Surely he then wouldn't be as hypocritical to do the same thing himself...

[ortolan]

Btw,

Also, you still haven't told me what you intended to gain by "trapping" me with such an intricate bait

may not make sense as you "appear" to have already responded:

What I "hoped to gain" was to show this or, alternatively, show that somebody else was using craplogic to attack me.

I still want to know how exactly it was craplogic?

[ortolan]

I will play.

vollkan, SpyreX, mrfixij

[ortolan]

I am still sensing hypocrisy from vollkan

The craplogic proceeds thus:
1) Vollkan thinks gut is scummy when used to justify votes/decs of suspicion
2) Vollkan said he had a gut feeling that something was weird with Ixfij
3) Combining 1 and 2, Vollkan is inconsistent and therefore scummy

Mafia is as much about what is not said (or rather, what is said implicitly), as what is said. You had no valid reason for announcing your gut suspicion beyond *wanting* to imply something in this way, yet deny it has any meaning. It's also amusing you think my response in some way demonstrates I am "prejudiced". You still haven't answered what you intended to achieve by "trapping" me either. If you simply meant you thought it somehow demonstrated I was prejudiced, I don't accept this at all, so you haven't achieved much. And in your use of "prejudiced", you earn +1 scumpoint for use of emotive language, +1 scumpoint for an entirely subjective judgement, +10 scumpoints for your hypocrisy in the following criticism of sl in your recent post:

And then we get to the "unclear perspective" point.

Your only "evidence" given for this was:

Well, I think you've been arguing a lot with lot of people and you seem to be pretty strong in your convictions when it comes to what you apparently think is good play, but I do not discern clear train of thought when the discussion is out of theorical grounds and when it comes to scumhunting.

Purely subjective twaddle about a "clear train of thought". This has no tying to anything I have done and is just an unfalsifiable claim - how can I possibly prove that I have a clear train of thought?

Furthermore you are being entirely disingenuous on this point anyhow, as you appear to be interpreting SL's argument as deductive (premises clearly follow from the conclusion) rather than inductive argument (premises support conclusion), which it clearly is. I happen to agree with her claim that your discussion is not at all helpful in regards to scumhunting in this game, and am equally skeptical of the inconsistencies and opportunism which you've demonstrated (and which I've continually attempted to draw attention to).

Furthermore the vast majority of your arguments (and indeed, everyone's) are inductive and so your criticism of the unclear perspective point on the basis they are not valid deductively is little more than opportunistic posturing.

Just because you say it is nonsense doesn't make it so. I don't get why you are referrencing that game here, I get that it is where the misplaced post was supposed to be destined to, but so what?

Well, it kind of shoots down any objective credibility to your argument.

Simple challenge: Prove to me that your explanation of my misplaced post is more reasonable than the explanation that I just made a mistake with my tabbed browser.

Funny, here sl has to "prove" her interpretation of your misplaced post was correct. Again you are deliberately equivocating obligations in deductive vs. inductive logic, but that's not the worst part.

Start with post 177 where you accuse me of hedging my arguments. I reply in post 189 that this amounted to:

speculation about my motives rather than any coherent and internally consistent case for me being mafia.

I could say for example "vollkan's gambit was intended purely so he would have a device for continually launching suspicion on different people- firstly he could launch suspicion on those who called him on his self-vote, then he could launch suspicion on those who called the caller on his self-vote etc., basically a mafia's dream". However this is just an interpretation.

In reply:

See my rant at the top of this post. Every attack has to rely on a specific interpretation because town doesn't have complete information. This is no defence and is simply a means of using a poor theory argument to justify any sort of behaviour.

...

Your logic here is absurd, because ANY action can be spun as something that either town or scum could so. If we didn't hold people culpable for any actions which might possibly be "poor voting choices", town wouldn't ever win. A scumbag quick-hammers: "Oopsie! Poor voting choice". Somebody fakeclaims cop: "Oopsie! Poor claiming choice". Etc. etc. This is a game of incomplete information for town and, as such, town HAS to rely upon drawing reasonable inferences as to the likely motivations of certain actions. By this logic, the only time it is ever possible to lynch somebody is if they are confirmed by the mod to be scum - which, needless to say, doesn't happen in mafia until after death.

So, when you're attacking me, it's alright to use a specific subjective interpretation of my actions which is no more likely than any other, but sl's interpretation of your actions has to be "proved" to be more valid than the alternative you provide. One standard for vollk, different standard for everyone else.

TDC, OP, Spolium it would nice to hear you each put a case against someone or multiple people, that way we may be able to break the essential stalemate we have currently. vollkan's recent posts have only made me think him more likely to be scum.

Spolium has asked and is currently in the process of being replaced - Rage

[ortolan]

Mafia is as much about what is not said (or rather, what is said implicitly), as what is said. You had no valid reason for announcing your gut suspicion beyond *wanting* to imply something in this way, yet deny it has any meaning.

I didn't *want* to imply anything; I've already been clear about that. I was just saying the way I felt. Maybe someone else felt similarly; maybe the day would end and it could serve as a note to myself or another; maybe it would set in motion a train of discussion about Ixfiij. I don't know. Enough with your bullshit conspiracies about my intentions. It's as though you won't be satisfied unless I specifically give some specific outcome that I sought. If it weren't damn obvious already, I didn't act seeking anything specific - just to voice my opinion and see what flowed.

What we reason to be scummy is a product of reason (what would scum be most likely to do?) and experience (what do scum typically do?). For some people, they may be able to make those judgments by "gut" (know something is scummy just when they see it). BUT they still have reasons and, if asked, they ought to be able to explain them. If a person cannot explain their suspicion, then it is essentially just emotional or subconcious and, since they have no way of distinguishing, basic pricniples of precuation say that they shouldn't proceed in their suspicion.

You have clearly stated you intended to voice an "opinion" on mrfixij, but have given no reasons for it. This means you are relying on gut- which you've given us an incredible song and dance routine over because of how much you supposedly detest it. Basically, you're being very, very hypocritical.

It's also amusing you think my response in some way demonstrates I am "prejudiced". You still haven't answered what you intended to achieve by "trapping" me either. If you simply meant you thought it somehow demonstrated I was prejudiced, I don't accept this at all, so you haven't achieved much. And in your use of "prejudiced", you earn +1 scumpoint for use of emotive language, +1 scumpoint for an entirely subjective judgement, +10 scumpoints for your hypocrisy in the following criticism of sl in your recent post:

Emotive language is only problematic if unjustified. "prejudiced" can be emotive, but in the context I am using it, it is justified. My judgment is not "subjective". I've already said that I wanted to see whether and how you would react to me saying something which I knew would provoke charges of hypocrisy from a careless or judgmental observer, into which category I predicted you would fall.

You may have proven to yourself I am "prejudiced" (your argument is terrible though- apparently because I pulled you up on something you wrongly claim is objective this proves I am "prejudiced"), but I'm afraid you'll need to convince other people also to have accomplished anything.

Furthermore you are being entirely disingenuous on this point anyhow, as you appear to be interpreting SL's argument as deductive (premises clearly follow from the conclusion) rather than inductive argument (premises support conclusion), which it clearly is.

Sorry? I have no clue what you are trying to get at here. Her arguments are conspiracy (premises pulled out arse to justify conclusions)

I entirely agree with her that your arguments show an "unclear perspective" i.e. the positions you adopt are inconsistent and opportunistic. Not only has she provided evidence of this but so have I. I fail to see how you can think this point is somehow derived from nothing.

I happen to agree with her claim that your discussion is not at all helpful in regards to scumhunting in this game, and am equally skeptical of the inconsistencies and opportunism which you've demonstrated (and which I've continually attempted to draw attention to).

I happen to think that I've done a damn good job of rebutting the attacks that SL and yourself have made against me.

I disagree completely. Your attempted rebuttals only make you look more scummy in my eyes. Unfortunately this only further supports the notion that we are at a stalemate and need input from a third party to progress.

Furthermore the vast majority of your arguments (and indeed, everyone's) are inductive and so your criticism of the unclear perspective point on the basis they are not valid deductively is little more than opportunistic posturing.
..Funny, here sl has to "prove" her interpretation of your misplaced post was correct. Again you are deliberately equivocating obligations in deductive vs. inductive logic, but that's not the worst part.

Okay, I think this whole inductive v deductive thing is irrelevant.

Explain to me, please, how from an inductive perspective SL's logic is valid.

Well there's your first mistake- inductive arguments don't need to be "valid". You asked her to prove her interpretation of your misplaced post was more valid. Firstly; this is unnecessary- inductive arguments are good just in case the premises give decent reason to believe the conclusion. Secondly, it flies in the face of what happened earlier when I questioned interpretations of my "dangling point" and "hedging my arguments". You argued that you and sl's interpretation of my actions was perfectly valid, and made no such mention of an obligation to prove your interpretations were more valid than mine. Again, you're being hypocritical.

So, when you're attacking me, it's alright to use a specific subjective interpretation of my actions which is no more likely than any other, but sl's interpretation of your actions has to be "proved" to be more valid than the alternative you provide. One standard for vollk, different standard for everyone else.

No. Because when requested I can and do justify my premises (the assumptions of why scumminess is most reasonable).

You've missed the point here, see above. And, again, you did not provide any reasons for your pointing of the finger at mrfixij so this is untrue anyhow.

[ortolan]

Unfortunately your replies to my arguments are mostly one-step-behind.

You have clearly stated you intended to voice an "opinion" on mrfixij, but have given no reasons for it. This means you are relying on gut- which you've given us an incredible song and dance routine over because of how much you supposedly detest it. Basically, you're being very, very hypocritical.

The paragraph I quote above by Orto is pure falderal for one simple reason: I didn't express an "opinion" on mrfixij, so it is absurd that he would suggest I need to give "reasons".

You did express an opinion on mrfixij. You even acknowledged such:

If it weren't damn obvious already, I didn't act seeking anything specific - just to voice my opinion and see what flowed.

There's no getting out of that I'm afraid.

In any event, this pretty much confirms you aren't a Freemason; they have a requirement that members be of sound mind.

ad hominem

You may have proven to yourself I am "prejudiced" (your argument is terrible though- apparently because I pulled you up on something you wrongly claim is objective this proves I am "prejudiced"), but I'm afraid you'll need to convince other people also to have accomplished anything.

You pulled me up on something where, if a person was taking a sobre and unbiased attitude to my actions, they wouldn't have leaped to the conclusion that I was being contradictory.

You assert this, and I disagree. Furthermore you offer no proof.

(I'd couple this with the fact that the rest of your attacks against me have all been "big swing, no ding"

I entirely agree with her that your arguments show an "unclear perspective" i.e. the positions you adopt are inconsistent and opportunistic. Not only has she provided evidence of this but so have I. I fail to see how you can think this point is somehow derived from nothing.

I think I have refuted every single example either you have brought up.

Perhaps in your own mind. If anything I've felt the gist of my attacks have been validated by your replies.

Well there's your first mistake- inductive arguments don't need to be "valid".

That's nice to know. Arguments that don't need to be valid are just super

As I already said, the vast majority of arguments are inductive. And yes, this entails them necessarily not being "deductively valid". You're vastly over-emphasising deductive validity.

Okay, I think this whole inductive v deductive thing is irrelevant.

Explain to me, please, how from an inductive perspective SL's logic is valid.

You asked her to prove her interpretation of your misplaced post was more valid. Firstly; this is unnecessary- inductive arguments are good just in case the premises give decent reason to believe the conclusion.

Yes, I know the difference between inductive and deductive logic.

But, what I was trying to get at is that I don't think that SL's logic even is valid inductively.

I mean, a classic inductive argument is something like:
1. Socrates was Greek. (premise)
2. Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)

Now, take the "misplaced post" example. The logic as advanced by SL is basically:
1. Vollkan posted from another game, and the post happened to show meta-consistency (premise)
2. Scum would benefit from showing meta-consistency (premise)
3. Vollkan's action was scummy (conclusion)

Both premises are sound. The trouble is that there is a competing inductive argument that I have advanced:
1. Vollkan posted from another game, and the post happened to show meta-consistency (premise)
2. Vollkan of any alignment could have made the post by mistake (premise)
3. Vollkan's action was a nulltell (conclusion)

Are we to shrug our shoulders and adopt an "anything goes" agnosticism? No. This game is all about lynching the people most likely to be scum. You can make inductive arguments to prove just about anything about any action in this game. It's NOT enough to simply show that something could be scummy; you also

need to show

that that is a reasonable conclusion relative to the other possibilities. I underline "need to show" for the simple reason that we shouldn't forget that the onus is on the person deeming something scummy or towny (the base presumption being all things are nulltells unless proven otherwise).

Returning to our friend Socrates for a moment, consider the following argument:
1. Socrates was a genius. (premise)
2. Most geniuses don't eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates did not eat fish. (conclusion)

If we are interested in the question of whether Socrates ate fish, it's not enough to simply say that he ate fish because he was a Greek. That inductive argument is necessarily impacted upon by the one I just made up. If we are to learn anything about Socrates's eating habits, we need to look at other factors which impact upon that question. SL's inductive logic is internally sound, therefore, but is completely invalid in terms of this game (which is the important thing).

Quantitative proof that, say, more mis-posts end up being by scum would be great - but it would be absurd to expect that. What is needed, though, is for it to be demonstrated that it would make less sense for a townie acting reasonably to do something than for scum to do it.

Secondly, it flies in the face of what happened earlier when I questioned interpretations of my "dangling point" and "hedging my arguments". You argued that you and sl's interpretation of my actions was perfectly valid, and made no such mention of an obligation to prove your interpretations were more valid than mine. Again, you're being hypocritical.

It was a fact that you had hedged your arguments - the question was what to make of it. The question is then whether it is more reasonable to think you did it for scummy reasons (a leave-pass to avoid accountability) than as a mistake. A reasonable townie wouldn't cast a vote based on admittedly weak reasons outside exceptional circumstances. Scum, on the other hand, has every reason to want to downplay the strength of their opinions. The prospect that a reasonable townie could have done it, of course, is not at all ridiculous, but that doesn't make it a nulltell - it just means that it isn't an auto-lynchable offence.

I dispute this because using the phrase "hedging your arguments" implies a deliberate act, especially in the context of a game of mafia where everyone is under suspicion. Thus in using the phrase "hedging your arguments" you precluded the explanation that my unclear and qualified opinions could be a "mistake", and implied I was scum. Thus it was still equivalent as a "biased interpretation" to sl's interpretation of your misplaced post, and thus the point stands.

[ortolan]

sorry, this:

(I'd couple this with the fact that the rest of your attacks against me have all been "big swing, no ding"

shouldn't be in there.

[ortolan]

As my last post shows, all I am emphasising is that inductive logic has to give due consideration to competing hypotheses. It's not enough for a person to spin one narrative and run with it.

And, as I have already said, this is inconsistent with the way you attacked me for "hedging my arguments"- you implicitly privileged your interpretation of my behaviour and refused to explain why it was superior to my alternative hypothesis that it was mistaken, impulsive behaviour.

Let the record show that tut of that entire piece I wrote repudiating Orto and SL's craplogic, Orto only addressed the bit about hedging.

That was all I needed to do to refute your argument, because your response hinged on your incorrect claim that it was an objective fact that I was "hedging my arguments". In fact it was still your interpretation, because it implies I tried deliberately to pre-empt accusations of my case being wrong by distancing myself from it. This is simply not an objective fact- I know that this wasn't my intention in writing the post. Thus you are still open to the drawing of an equivalence between your interpretation of my vote on Ecto and sl's interpretation of your misplaced post.

[ortolan]

The bolded is the important bit. I did consider the alternative hypothesis of it being a mistake. In fact, I even looked at you specifically, to accomodate for your relative inexperience (rather than simply on whether a reasonable townie simpliciter would do it). You didn't meet the standard signs of a dazed newbie, so I was entitled to treat you as I would anybody else, making your actions unreasonable.

Even when you first made this point it was only ever a false dichotomy- that either I must be a confused newbie or scum. By assuming this you then went on to argue that I was unlikely to fall into the former category due to your interpretation of my posts as intelligent. However this ignores that there was no evidence I had to be in one or the other of these categories to begin with. For the record; at the time I was: new to the game- yes, confused- somewhat, making intelligent posts- subjective. You didn't consider that I could make seemingly intelligent posts while being new to the game and somewhat confused. By reducing interpretations of my behaviour to a simple binary choice you were able to place me under suspicion.

First up, I'd like to draw an analogy with contract law. When a contractual dispute is being resolved - when the court tries to resolve the meaning of the contract - the lawyers and judges don't ask themselves "What did Party X want when she asked for this clause?". Instead, you determine the intention of the parties based on what is manifest in the contract. Because it is impossible to know what is in Party X's head, you judge subjective intention objectively.

Now, it is a clear fact that your post contained a number of phrases which indicated a lack of commitment to your own argument. That means your arguments were hedged - it doesn't matter what your intention was. I don't know what your intention was; only you do. Of course, your intention is very relevant in judging scumminess, and I have already explained why I think a scummy explanation is the most reasonable

As I have already said, phrases such as "a lack of commitment to your own argument" and "your arguments were hedged" are loaded phrases.

If I was to say "Ecto seems the most scummy, I'm not sure about him but enough to warrant a vote" is this "a lack of commitment to my own argument"? No, because my argument is only that he has acted the most scummy and thus warrants a vote, not that he definitively is scummy. You're importing your own prejudices about what a vote signifies by saying otherwise.

Again with the phrase "hedging your arguments"- this to me strongly implies a *deliberate* act, which I dispute it was- it may have had the effect of looking to others as though I was trying to justify why I may be voting for a townie- but this is just an interpretation based on the circumstances. So again, I deny that it is an objective fact that I "hedged my arguments".

[ortolan]

I personally think it is- by turning this into what is essentially a debating competition vollkan is distracting from the underlying task of actually finding scum.

[ortolan]

Ortolan was an early candidate for a VI. I can see why Vollkan might be inclined to not want to argue with him if he thinks he is a dim star on a cloudy night.

Sorry can you explain this sentence? Are you saying vollkan wouldn't want to argue with me because he thinks I am stupid, or something else?

[ortolan]

Sorry, I just find the notion that vollkan would "not want to argue" with *anyone * laughable

And just remember I was the first to express skepticism that the process of "argument" in this game was actually getting us anywhere.

[ortolan]

post 404. Personally I don't know what the whole discussion on deductive vs inductive logic is, and it seems a lot like theory discusion, so I don't care.
I think vollkan is right in the part where orto accuses him of double standarts. There is nothing wrong with a story that explains what happened, you only got to prove that story is the most likely.

The inductive/deductive thing was pointless. It was just a lot of noise from Orto that obfuscated the simple point about having to prove which story is correct.

It was not pointless, you've either not understood or deliberately pretended not to. I was going to again reply but this debate isn't leading anywhere, so I'm not even going to bother. At least two players are not keeping up in this game, quite possibly explained by the sheer verbosity explained by vollkan. So I'm happy to concede the best debater award to vollkan for a chance for the game not to stall entirely.

And the attacks aren't ad hominem fallacy. They just stem from my frustration at what is an unending torrent of silly arguments from Orto (and I am entitled to use the word 'silly', because thus far there hasn't been a single point that I haven't rebutted. He just keeps jumping from point to point.)

For the record I still disagree, but the effort of again deconstructing your arguments is not worth the reward it will bring. An argument from majority (which is all you'd have to resort to) wouldn't change my mind either. And again I repeat the point that your ability in debating/rhetoric is independent of the likelihood of you being scum, and trying to divert the game down that road seems scum-motivated. Everyone knows debating is skill-based and relies on people's skills in twisting neutral topics one way or the other. You seem to want to do this (and are willing to lynch people based on it) based on how you twist your perceptions of their skill at argument, rather than hunting them based on your determined probability that they're scum.

vollkan I have a bad feeling about, but I can't quantify where I actually got it, and the case on him is not particularly enforcing it. Still don't like how he kept his vote on the claimed mason for policy reasons instead of just asking them about it.

Uh...my policy reason was the reason I didn't ask. I thought it was premature for a claim, and claims should only occur explicitly.

This is not at all convincing. You've been so keen to analyse and deconstruct everything this game except the only occurence so far that is actually relevant to game content (a mason claim).

(brief glance over my meta will confirm this beyond a shred of doubt)

actually, as I already stated, your play this game is not consistent with what I've observed of your meta. Actually, wait, there was one other game where you played just as arrogantly (refused to claim at L-1 etc.). You were lynched and flipped scum.

Can we get some activie towards whether we're going to lynch sl or vollkan (or me, I'm happy to put my head out to prove how ridiculous and un-town-motivated vollkan's attempt to turn on a claimed mason is).

[ortolan]

I don't want to get modkilled so can someone give me a rough idea of what's generally considered "acceptable" paraphrasing

[ortolan]

don't worry I'm still going to reply to vollkan's latest and possibly previous post when I can muster the energy, but solely on the earlier meta point (which is probably more useful than merely responding to your latest crappy arguments), I didn't think we were allowed to reference ongoing games, so was loathe to refer to specific games (the one in which you were lynched and flipped scum was an exception as clearly your alignment was already revealed)

[ortolan]

I did already say btw that my pm specifically guarantees we are both town and have the same win conditions

That said I realise I don't feel that strongly about vollkan-scum to argue with him for another round so

Unvote

[ortolan]

I'm still happy to oblige sl's request, if for no other reason that it will prevent suspicion being wasted on two players who I know to be town- myself and him (I pmed Rage as vollkan suggested, am still waiting)

[ortolan]

EBWOP: the "him" refers to OP

[ortolan]

Meh, there's not much more I can say according to what Rage said really-I'm a mason with orangepenguin and the pm explicitly states we are both town (presumably in case I or OP speculated that the other was scum)

[ortolan]

vollkan, let it be known I still find your drawing of very loose analogies between how you're playing this game and how you've played similarly as town in other games entirely unconvincing.

An even more extreme example is Mini 486. This game had an unusual setup. Mod confirmed at the start that "There are 3x mafia, 3x masons that win with the town, and 1x day-vig that can be a mafia, mason or townie." I had the fortune of being a dayvig-mason. On D1, a very bad wagon occurred - a player named Nelly632 self-voted (just after random stage) and got put to L-1 for it. It wouldn't surprise any of you to learn that I didn't like the wagon at all. So, I took a big gambit. I prematurely claimed one-shot dayvig (Not vigmason, in the hope that it would save my life by making me an unattractive kill target), influenced largely by the fact that I feared being NKed. Anyway, I started toying with Oman (Oman again Razz) and proposed a BS dayvig shortlist (risky, given that the mod had confirmed the possibility of a scum-vig). He took the bait and got dayvigged. He was scum.
////////////////////////////////////////////

Here you're suggesting in one game you "trapped" another player due to you being a dayvig (btw I don't even understand what actually happened in the other game from the way you described it) and he took your bait and flipped scum. That's all well and good. Except you draw an analogy with this game, where you said you had a bad gut-reading on mrfixij and acknowledged it was an opinion with no basis, having previously said you loathe opinions given with no basis. You claim (wrongly, in my opinion) that giving voice to a gut suspicion is not voicing an opinion. You then further stretch your argument to saying that by pulling you up on this, this proves I am "prejudiced". Please explain how a game where you can prove you caught a claimed scum is analogous with a game where we have no knowledge of your alignment and in which you made a subjective, weak (and in my opinion downright wrong) argument for having "caught" me being "prejudiced".

Trapping doesn't at all go against my principles of logic. In the examples above, I work out what scum would likely do in response to certain conduct, and then proceed to test people. In this case, my test confirmed my suspicion of Orto's prejudice. At the very least, he wasn't looking at me in a detached manner. In both the examples I give above, my actions were such as to place myself at risk and, in that sense, were anti-town. But it all comes back to risk v reward - I expected good odds of a return for taking a risk so I was willing to gamble a bit.

You make use of traps in the game of mafia. That's fine, don't we all. This doesn't change the fact that your argument that you "trapped" me is entirely weak and subjective and I'm certainly not the slightest bit convinced by it. The fact you devoted so many words to describing two meta-cases which plainly aren't at all analogous with this game is suspect.

Orto's argument was that SL's logic was valid inductive reasoning, and that I was over-prioritising deductive reasoning. I thought this distinction was irrelevant because of the point I made about needing to disprove the validity of counter-hypotheses.

I asked Orto to explain himself to see how he could manage to argue for the validity of SL's reasoning despite her arguments being conspiracy. I was reasonable certain the distinction was irrelevant, but I needed to see his argument to make sure.

I will say this one more time for your benefit. "Validity" is not a concept in inductive logic. Thus you are not refuting inductive arguments by saying they are "invalid", in fact you are saying nothing at all. You have to argue why they are not reasonable or why the weight of evidence they summon is not adequate. I don't like you arrogantly assuming my point had no basis when in fact you're still entirely wrong about your usage of the term "validity" in the context of inductive logic.

And I agree entirely entirely about your usage of the word "conspiracy"- I haven't studied law (where I assume it comes from) and it's not a term used in philosophy, which I have studied/study so have no knowledge of what it really means (and I remember googling it a while ago and still not finding a satisfactory explanation). Firstly I am skeptical of you importing this term without an explanation and I am doubly skeptical that you would attempt to dismiss sl's arguments simply be describing them as "conspiracy", assuming that it's magically obvious to everyone else how they fit this archetype of being "conspiracy". I can only assume SpyreX has studied law and instantly understands your vague usage of obscure terminology, hence continuing to lap up your posts like nectar.

I did say I was going to get off your case, more for pragmatic reasons than anything else, so please try to do some actual scum-hunting in your next post.

[ortolan]

Thank you for again explaining the success of traps in your other game. Unfortunately it is not analogous to this game because your "trap" in this game is one only in the sense that it should be encased in inverted commas and dismissed as laughable. For something to be a "trap" you need to bait someone into doing something and then show them why it was wrong. You have not convinced me in the slightest that your expressing of a bad "gut" feeling on mrfixij was consistent with your earlier disavowing of gut play, and thus you haven't "trapped" me at all. In fact even if you had it would be a ridiculously minor point- "You 'trapped' me and proved I'm 'prejudiced' because I pulled you up on something that you are subjectively arguing isn't scummy". It doesn't wash, and it's not worthy of bringing up your entire playing history on this site to give support to.

And your point about conspiracy- concerning potentialities, and "what ifs", brings me back to the original argument concerning your hypocrisy in allowing sl's interpretation of my "dangling" point whereas not allowing sl's interpretation of your misplaced post, where the explanation for the former does not seem more plausible than the latter.

[ortolan]

2) The trap here is essentially the same as the Mini 495 trap - I say something, albeit genuinely here, for the purposes of eliciting reaction. You mightn't like my argument for you being prejudiced, but that's a completely separate consideration as to whether I laid a proper trap in the first place

No it isn't, you haven't been able to prove that your intention in making the comment about mrfixij was to "trap" me, you have merely made the post-hoc justification of "oh yes, haha, it was a trap!" It's exactly the same as if I said I had baited you into attacking me as a mason and then revealed myself as a mason to show you must be scummy. Actually that's not true, the latter case of a mason is actually verifiable (as was the case where you were a town-vig) whereas all we have to go on is your crappy smart-arse, after-the-event suggestion that your comment was a "trap". Furthermore even if you intended it as a "trap", it proved nothing. So I really suggest you stop going on about it, it only makes you look as though you're defending a baseless position for the sake of it

3) I repeat myself: "The assumption underpinning my argument is that a reasonable townie would not have found fault in what I said. If you want to deride me as weak and subjective, critique that assumption."

This argument is extremely crappy. There is much variety in mafia, I'm sure there are extremely well-respected players who rely on gut, make impulsive moves and often appear scummy as town even in the process of turning over countless scum (in my experience already the "best players" are a totally separate category from "least likely to be wrongly lynched". I'm sure there are much more skilled players than you, who, in some instances you would be capable of portraying as scum when they were in fact town. The whole notion of a "reasonable townie", especially in the way you've applied it, is really so loaded as to be useless.

@Spring: Why is it not just as plausible that town-Orto might have left the question dangling as an afterthought?

And I did later refer to this in justification of my vote for her:

Orto's rebuttal was wrong - her points here were not purely subjective. That said, she never did explain at all why the "dangling question" was a scumtell (Why is X scummy for Y?). Same goes for the second point; she draws an inference of shirking responsibility. That said, however, neither of these is a compelling argument at all; they both make large assumptions which, whilst objectively explained, aren't supported enough by evidence to carry a vote.

The reason I went back to this vote is that I think we can see a rather clear tendency here. Coming to my point about assumptions underpinning arguments. What we see is that even where SL's logic is impeccable (Objectively speaking, I could very well have quoted "the post" for the reasons she supposes), her assumptions are not (ie. mistake is a more reasonable explanation in the case of a mispost). Her arguments on "genuineness", however, fall into a different category, since they don't construct an argument stemming from anything specific in my play. They fail for being unfalsifiable gut assertions.

Unvote (if I am), Vote: SL

Apparently all this amounts to is us disagreeing over the interpretation of "subjective". I meant subjective in that she was privileging her interpretation of my dangling "point" over any alternative perspectives, without any justification (which would be a scumtell, contrary to what you say, because it implies I deliberately misrepresented her, which is rather scummy in and of itself). You have a semantic disagreement that her interpretation was "objective", but no more likely than any other. You implied her privileging this interpretation was justified, but not her privileging of her interpretation of your misplaced post, which you applied stunningly different criterion to- she suddenly had to prove that her interpretation of your misplaced post was more valid than any other. I don't see why this point is so hard for you to concede.

[ortolan]

I'm curious, though, what is the ramification of my inability to prove it was a trap? Does it make what I said scummy?

That means it's a crap trap, was pointless and it's suspicious you even brought up. See for example the comparison case of a mason who baits votes onto himself then _can_ prove his alignment to attempt to find scum who voted for him. Contrast this with a vanilla townie who can't spring the trap by claiming mason- they have to get lynched. Contrast this further with you who can never prove your trap worked regardless of whether you flip town or scum, because you can never prove what your intentions were in leaving that inconsistency (re: mrfixij) in your post.

Proof of intention is impossible. You're setting up an impossible onus upon me if that's what you seek.

Yes, proof of your intention is impossible, that's why it was stupid to ever claim it was a trap. Contrast with the above case of for example the mason or even the vanilla townie who ultimately does have something that can prove their intention.

I'm curious, though, what is the ramification of my inability to prove it was a trap? Does it make what I said scummy?

It goes to my argument of you clutching at straws and being opportunistic which makes you more likely to be scum in my eyes.

Just because there is diversity in playstyles doesn't make the concept useless. The lynch of townies is unavoidable because townie can, and do, act unreasonably - even the best. The notion of a "reasonable townie" shouldn't be understood as a concrete concept. It's content can and should be debated. My argument is that there was no contradiction in my post, and that a contradiction would most likely only have been found by somebody that was uncritically reading me and leaped on the mere fact that I mentioned my gut.

Well your initial arguments clearly did not take account of, or deliberately ignored, these subtleties. You stated that my crappy vote on Ecto *must* be due to either me being scum or me being new, and left no potential for me to lie in-between. You argued I was unlikely to be new because some of my posts seemed intelligent, and concluded from this that I was scum. Yet now you acknowledge that what a "reasonable townie" is and what "aberrant play" is are indeed extremely subjective, which leads me to wonder why you felt you had such a concrete basis for your vote on me in the first place.

[ortolan]

The trap would most likely catch orto because orto, in fact, is approaching said issue from a point of prejudice. Thats the point.

Oh yer Hehe I forgot I got caught in his trap. Noted that you buy the crap argument wholesale solely because it come from vollkan.

This is a whole mess of words upon words that really, aren't getting the job done.

Agreed

[ortolan]

in having read six pages of posts i have probably the most quotes and notes on volkan. almost every single one gives me a neutral read.

I agree, all these posts and we get little read of the motivation behind them. He could have contributed as much to scum-hunting this game had he merely been lurking.

[ortolan]

I've shown that Orto is attacking me prejudicially.

No.

Vote: vollkan

Congratulations, in your dogged persistence in arguing meritless cases you've ensured my vote isn't coming off you any time today. I fail to see how that's pro-town if you are townie, but well done nonetheless.

[ortolan]

LOL

I can't oppose this move

[ortolan]

orto got under some pressure, and he claimed early.

orto: bad move. i find it selfish to claim and expose another player. i would have rather accidentally lynched a mason than narrowed down the field for mafia to choose a night kill from. way to go.

OP claimed actually (well, soft-claimed which then elicited TDC attempting to verify the soft-claim with me). I would have been more than happy to see who else voted me, and what reasons they gave. vollkan latched onto me ridiculously hard while trying to still appear impartial, and I'm absolutely positive had I not been a mason he would have pushed all the way to get me lynched.

imo the vollkan wagon needs more passengers, you can fight further amongst yourselves when we see what he flips. Also I can't say I blame don_johnson for being reluctant to read through the whole game again.

[ortolan]

I'm absolutely positive had I not been a mason he would have pushed all the way to get me lynched.

I would have lynched you too.

are you conceding as scum?

[ortolan]

were it not for vollkan I wouldn't have to wade through so much text to post something without looking suspicious, so that's not true

it is the same phenomena we are observing with don_johnson now

[ortolan]

Well if 3 people say that to me, at least two of whom are of extremely questionable alignment, you'll understand if I don't take it to heart

[ortolan]

I am learning to be better at the game, and I no longer take actions which scum like vollkan can exploit as scumtells to place suspicion onto me

[ortolan]

Mod: can we have a votecount, and a deadline?

Not enough votes for vollkan atm

[ortolan]

I was hoping Ecto would reply to my last retort. I have found all of his last three posts wanting

ecto wants to lynch volkan for his verbosity, SL seems to agree.

Confession to thoughts of sin are not acting out on them. That paragraph was actually a super top classified ultra secret message to Vollkan.

Why ridicule the suggestion you are scum with vollkan? Seems much more of a viable match-up than other scumpairs or trios I can see.

Then Ecto offers:

I'm absolutely positive had I not been a mason he would have pushed all the way to get me lynched.

I would have lynched you too.

Implicit criticism of my play and attempt to undermine my opinions, implicit endorsement of vollkan. All dressed up in apparent apathy. No reasons given? Ectomancer, why would you want to give that impression?

Then plays the newbie card on me:

Well if 3 people say that to me, at least two of whom are of extremely questionable alignment, you'll understand if I don't take it to heart

You might if you ever intend to be any better at the game

I never denied being new, especially at the time I first came under suspicion this game (this day has dragged on so long I even now consider myself substantially older and wiser). Do you believe your one-line smartarse replies are assisting in scum-catching this game Ectomancer?

[ortolan]

EBWOP: When I say his last three posts, I mean his last four. Sorry about that.

[ortolan]

Ortolan is basing his vote on Vollkan at least partly on Vollkan's willingness to lynch Ortolan.

No I didn't. The arguments I presented for vollkan being scum were entirely independent of this (for example, they concerned the opportunistic way he argued for his votes, including on me- not the mere fact he voted for me).

Ortolan says that this means that Vollkan was willing to lynch someone who is town, therefore Vollkan is scum.

Nice straw man. Did vollkan give you a primer in his style of argumentation in the pre-game?

It is more than pertinent to this discussion to point out that Ortolan's play was hardly pro-town and therefore would have attracted a lynch from both town and scum as is evidenced to

me

by the fact that I am town.

You can't use this as an argument- not sensibly at least. One of the premises is you being town. This is not known by any means.

That makes Vollkan's willingness to lynch Ortolan a null tell, knocking out a major leg of his case.

You accuse me of not reading yet you clearly haven't been. The point about vollkan's willingness to lynch me wasn't made in the context of my arguments for why he is scum. It came separately, and after, and is independent of them.

This is an attack on a case, not ad hominem. It is an attack on the logic and the evidence. If it comes off as me protecting Vollkan so be it (though if anyone should be lynched for protecting Vollkan it would be Spyrex)

Why did you feel the need to point this out to us? Furthermore who is suggesting someone should be lynched merely for "defending" vollkan?

P.S. - Quit asking for deadlines. Next one who does gets my vote. Don't care if there is no other shred of evidence of being scum.

You already made this point in your last post. Why make it again, when no-one's asked for a deadline? You've simply added the provision that you may throw your vote on people for asking for a deadline, pre-emptively justifying any crap-voting that may take place on your part.

In terms of your case on mykonian, as mykonian asks, could you please refresh it in our minds. None of your more recent posts as I have read have referred to it (in fact I'm not quite sure what they refer to). Rather than me going and digging up sludge you threw at mykonian (who I've been reading as pro-town all game) perhaps you could make more of an effort to convince.

[ortolan]

First of all,

you are making arguments with the premise that YOU are town

. As you say, this is not known by any means. In addition, unless you are stating that myself, Vollkan, and Spyrex are 3 scum in a 10 player game,

there was at least 1 town member on your wagon and one of them was me

. Care to argue over whether there would be 3 scum in a 10 player game?

When did I say I think SpyreX is scum? (well admittedly he was one my suspects in the "post your three top suspects" game but that doesn't mean I think he is scum- it was more from a process of elimination, which is now redundant due to revised opinions anyhow). And haven't you again adopted the entirely-reducible-to-WIFOM attitude of "hehe I *know* I'm town, I don't *know* you are".

In response to your points about my lack of playing ability:

Firstly, it is independent of my alignment.
Secondly, it occurred in the past and I don't believe it applies presently.
Thirdly, I never disputed that I had played badly initially.
Fourthly, as mrfixij says, all you seem to be doing by referring to my acknowledged previous bad play is distracting attention from any actually relevant discussions.

Rather than me going and digging up sludge you threw at mykonian (who I've been reading as pro-town all game) perhaps you could make more of an effort to convince.

Give me a break. Don't give us this lameass excuse to throw off attention to the fact that you ARE tunnelvisioned on Vollkan to the exclusion of everything else.
Why the biased statement? How do you know if it is sludge if you dont even recall it??

Massive lol at this. If you haven't noticed who I've been attacking in my last two posts, it's not vollkan, it's you. Nice use of the chainsaw defence on someone who I'm not even targetting currently. For a good example of a "biased statement" read the sentence preceding your use of this phrase.

Here is the post and it isn't a case buried somewhere or pieced together over several posts. It was ALREADY summarized for you.

Ok, my current one is Mykonian. The simple gist of it is that he has had a remarkable 180 degree turnaround on SL with regards to his early attacks, followed by his recent vehement defense. Nothing in game seems to be the source of this new direction, therefore ulterior motives are suspected.

Who else's name do we toss in the hat and why?

Did you have any more specific ideas as to what ulterior motive might exist for such a change in position, or is the simple fact of a "broken pattern" as you called it?

I briefly touched on this topic in a response to TDC, but to put a fine point on it, there are 2 ways to interpret it with Mykonian as scum:

1: SL is scum. Mykonian came out with an early attack for distancing. Symptoms of this are that A: Mykonian has a good basis for his attack but B: Dropped it for no apparent reason.
*Argument against this is the hard defense by Myk for SL. I'm not certain a scum buddy would stick their neck out that far.

2: SL is town. Mykonian came out with an early attack with good basis, but didn't follow through because he didn't want to be seen pushing the wagon against a town member. Now defending SL to be seen as the voice of reason in the event of a townie SL lynch. Problem is, there is no evident reasoning for sudden vehement support.
*Argument against this is __________

Honestly, from a completely impartial perspective, I don't even see how this is a case. You've just given us two possible interpretations of mykonian's behaviour consistent with him being scum, but no reason to buy either of them.

P.S. - You can take this as you will, but I would vig you in a heartbeat.

I assume this is addressed to me? I "take it" as another useless remark on your part. But it is nice to know you would vig me, this knowledge does assist in scum-catching.

[ortolan]

vollkan- why did you jump in before Ectomancer himself could rebut my points? There's pretty much consensus that that's scummy as all hell.

Furthermore, this is why vollkan's misrepresentations get really tiresome. You've rebutted his/your own straw-man versions of the arguments rather than my actual arguments.

Basically it comes down to my point about my earlier play. It was not simply "bad" per se, but "bad" additionally because it was able to be twisted as a scum-tell by a player with an agenda. I believe vollkan falls into this category, and gave examples of his opportunistic stances when attacking not just me but others.

Your argument that "you must have genuinely played badly because there was clearly at least one town on your wagon" is wrong because:

- it rebuts something that was not claimed to begin with
- there is nothing guaranteeing not all of you are scum (although the prior probability of this is extremely, extremely low)
- you were not the only people to vote for me, and clearly my play came across as suspicious. That doesn't mean I can't attack clear opportunism in vollkan's manner of play.

You still had tunnel vision and my argument has not lost a whit of its validity.

What's this got to do with anything? My current stance is the only thing that is relevant, unless you are arguing I am scum for flip-flopping.

[ortolan]

*Yawn*

[ortolan]

(@ SpyreX)

[ortolan]

um???

I "yawned" to express my thoughts that the train of discussion he's again trying to delve into is tedious and pointless. I didn't misread what he said.

[ortolan]

Cheers OP.

Only two more votes needed for vollkan.

The way I see it; to me or OP, vollkan has a 25% or 37.5% prior probability of being scum (depending on there being 2 or 3 scum). To any townies his odds of being scum are 22%/33%. I would say my subjective posterior probability has probably risen to around 99.5% or so based on the way he's played, but you can make up your own mind.

However, I ask you- who seems a better lynch than vollkan? Having attempted to read the back-and-forth between SpyreX and don_johnson I find little evidence pointing to either being scummy- their attacks on each other mainly involve cherry-picking minor "inconsistencies" in each other's attitudes, which I think are a waste of time and furthermore no more likely to appear in the posts of scum than townies. It seems don_johnson is mainly being attacked for the same thing I was- it wasn't a good scumtell in my case and it shouldn't be in his. I believe it relates to the fact that this game tends to have a large number of posts and a small amount of useful content.

Basically we have nothing to go off- we have no night results, no power role claims beyond masons which has apparently had little effect in the eyes of some on our credibility. We are going to lynch someone at the end of the day, and I see no more viable an option than vollkan. He's ridden about five different bandwagons in the game- the back-and-forth between him and Ecto, him wagoning me, him wagoning SL, now he's trying to trample don_johnson in his horse-drawn-cart. Think of the information potential.

I also see that vollkan has become increasingly aggravated as the pressure builds on him- in the course of writing post 641 his head apparently impacted not only his palm but later his desk in frustration. I can't see any other explanation for this than scum crumbling under pressure.

don_johnson looks like the only other potential lynch. don: If you are town, then you know anyone other than yourself has a greater probability of being scum. Assuming a binary lynch choice I suggest you change your vote to vollkan. I don't see, even if he flips town this would make me more suspicious of you. So, as a townie, you really have nothing to lose by lynching him.

Now it remains simply to convince either mykonian or TDC.

vollkan obviously isn't going to vote himself and I have reason to believe Ecto won't either . I don't think SpyreX is scum but he has some sort of a "reverse-tunneling" attitude to vollkan this game where everything vollkan says is interpreted in the most favourable light possible.

Anyway, I do hope mykonian or TDC will consider a vollkan vote.

[ortolan]

...which is good if it's used for a good cause e.g. lynching vollkan

actually I think that statement's far from true anyway, from what I remember OP's been voting for different people to me for the vast majority of this game, I think like any good player he's just picked up on vollkan's scumminess.

[ortolan]

I was just going to make a post like the above, but I will add additional points.

When is it ever a good idea to test a mason claim with a lynch day one? Surely if you claim to be a decent player you would never suggest this as town.

vote OrangePenguin

Their claim needs to be tested and confirmed. I'm not going to fall for a VI scheme.

The surety with which you say that is worrying (especially when clearly the idea has no merit anyway). Looks to me like a chainsaw defence of vollkan.

I will also make the point that OP's play this game is entirely consistent with his town meta (not that I'm criticising it). I have played with him in one previous game and read a game he was in- in both he was town and he's acting in a similar way this game. If you want to lynch him you need a better reason than policy based on his general playstyle, especially in light of his mason claim.

I will take the opportunity to make a few more points against vollkan:

Apparently vollkan has a reputation for being good at this game. In light of this I find his dogged argumentation extremely perplexing. The points he argues with don_johnson are both extremely subjective and convoluted. They aren't good scumtells, they're just vollkan being blatantly nitpicky to a point which benefits no-one. It's not just don_johnson he's done it with this game either.

I do recall reading in mafia discussion a comment that mafia is, or should be more a psychological guessing game than one which worships "logic". I find vollkan's persistent adherence to a skewed conception of logic and an almost deliberate effort to tunnel in his arguments rather than think of alternative explanations for others' behaviour as something he would only do as scum.

TDC: who do you think we should lynch?

[ortolan]

I realize that people are saying that Vollkan has been stretching the conversation out, but I swear I see his recent antagonists constantly repeating the same thing in a different, and longer manner. Then he is attacked for answering repeatedly to the same thing?

It goes both ways. But vollkan's arguments with pretty much everyone this game have always seemed to devolve into being extremely nitpicky and subjective. I furthermore think he promotes this deliberately. Additionally, I don't see how he, being a good player, can think this method will help find scum.

For crying out loud, more than anybody else I have ranted and raved about the need to consider alternatives - and now you are telling me that I am not doing it. I've already mentioned the prospect of DJ being newb replacer.

Making a show about apparently doing so is not the same as doing so. Again, it's parallel t your attack on me. You "considered" the possibility I was new then found a reason to dismiss it. It's not hard to find ways of "dismissing" ideas like this, even if you pretend to countenance them to begin with.

Mafia is psychological, yes. But the only insight we have into a person's mind is their reasoning and their logic.

Do you seriously believe that? Scum can easily fake townieness by conforming to archetypes of "logic". That's incidentally, what I think you're doing this game.

[ortolan]

vollkan; for someone who has emphasised "logic" so much this game it is patently ridiculous that you ignore TDC's post 660, which features one of the most logical and objectively ascertainable points that has been made this game. Namely that even *speculating* as to whether OP and I are not masons is useless at this point; because if we're not, we have to be a scumpair. Thus even if you were to let us lynch whomever we want both today _AND_ tomorrow, if we were scum it is still a mere matter of convention to lynch us days 3 and 4 and take the game for town. Why, then, do you continue to even entertain speculation about us not being masons on day 1?

My dream scenario would be to have a suspicion lynch of somebody today (ie. not one of the masons) and for one of them to be vigged this evening, but that assumes a vig which is very optimistic. If there was no vigging, we'd be in the same basic dilemma again, but perhaps with some more information to go on.

This was also made after Post 660. Again, why would wasting a vig on me or OP be useful on night one? You love throwing around the word "logic" but blatantly contradict the only purely objective thing that has been said all game. You need to be lynched.

[ortolan]

the gambit is being employed by Ecto and vollkan, in trying to lynch masons, rather than OP and myself

Pretty sure vollkan knows he can con the town into not lynching him if he takes away his detractors

Ecto, vollkan, please re-read Post 660

vollkan- did you ignore post 670 deliberately or unintentionally?

[ortolan]

TDC keeps taking the words out of my mouth

it's possible there's 3 scum in the game, especially I'd say if there are other power roles in addition to the masons

I will give vollkan the benefit of the doubt on the whole mason thing, as he claims to have thought this was a 12-player game. It still doesn't explain Ecto's position though (who is clearly aware it's a 12-player game). And I still don't understand vollkan's

Otherwise, we have a tough decision to make.

What decision exactly are you referring to? Please clarify your position exactly in regards to how you think the masons should be tested in light of your new knowledge that this is a 10-player game. When do you think would be best to test mason claims in light of either a scum lynch or townie lynch day one, and a scum lynch or townie lynch day two (account for both scenarios). I get the impression in talking about testing our claim you've talked about generalities: "oh, well they could both still be alive day 3 in which case town is in a bit of a pickle" without considering what I consider a very strong likelihood that scum will have been lynched day 1 or 2, or even apart from that one of us will be night-killed or another town death will occur which will have the effect of verifying our claims, or a power role verifies our claims. Why did you not consider these obvious possibilities which will clearly bear on our likelihood of being confirmed by day 3? It seems as though you deliberately ignored these possibilities.

FYI, I've re-read the case on don_johnson and the arguments against him really do seem rather subjective. I think his case as he's acknowledged against SpyreX was weak, but the amount of suspicion it placed him under especially in light of being a replacee into a game this dense where no actions have been taken is surprising. I see criticism of his play but no coherent case for him being scum. I am fairly surprised mykonian was so quick to jump onto his wagon in light of the fact that he defended even me when I was being bandwagoned prior to the mason claim. It somewhat clouds my previous pro-town read on him.

I have considered I've been tunneling on vollkan so will

Unvote

for now. That said I believe that whole ridiculous "you're being prejudiced trap" argument was extremely stupid, and even if it was meant to demonstrate my tunneling on him only made me want to vote for him more.

I would very much like to see who TDC actually thinks is scummy. His mason argument was flawless but apart from that he could help to pick a good lynch target.

mykonian, SpyreX, vollkan (I know you didn't vote don_johnson but you have been attacking his arguments): do you think don_johnson is likely to be mafia in this game, or do you think he is merely playing badly or has been unfairly targetted due to the difficult circumstances of replacing in?

on balance I still would be quite content with a vollkan lynch at present: and to be sure, my argument against him is different to the one OP made in his last post. It is not just "vollkan might be scum so let's lynch just in case" but rather "apparently vollkan is good, but his play this game, while being verbose, has shown little evidence of actually being useful in catching scum. Furthermore I've seen him make some really bizarre arguments which couldn't possibly be useful for catching scum consistently".

[ortolan]

Ok guys I'm making a cherrypicking post here.

Firstly, vollkan re: Post 712, I don't like the way you use the term "scummy" in this:

Now, if Orto is mason, then, yes, he has been doing his job by scum-hunting. Make no mistake about that. BUT the arguments he has adopted are scummy.

I would prefer if you said "playing badly for town". Using "scummy" in such a general way is not helpful if you could express a more specific meaning (i.e. you are considering the possibility I am indeed a mason but even then you don't think my arguments are correct, or helping town).

I will say on the "subjective" point people keep throwing at you and you keep denying, as I was the first to bring it up: I believe I observed in your play a tendency to make arguments, and when people respond to them, repeatedly, deconstruct and re-interpret them, and transform them to fit the archetypes of logical fallacies etc. You have clearly shown an ability to do this ad nauseum. I know from experience that one can do this to any series of words perpetually, "right" or "wrong" as they appear to be. And I really don't feel your positions have been rooted in solid footing any game, or there is any evidence that they come from a townie perspecitve (don_johnson made this observation earlier). Indeed, the fact your posts are long but so far have given us no verifiable evidence either way of your alignment or propensity for catching scum this game, yet you continue to insist you are in the "right" in whatever arguments happen to be being made is somewhat scummy to me. You said yourself of the game in which you were scum that you were happy to rebut arguments against your predecessor because they were extremely poor. However this just strengthens my point that propensity in debating or even supposed use of "logic" makes you no more likely to be town. So what if the town caught scum using "bad logic", they still caught scum. If the town can catch scum consistently using "bad logic", then I would argue in fact it's not bad logic.

2) focus is reasons not results.

Why?

If anything I don't like your increasing use of pejorative, frustrated language (which I already commented on)- it's not useful and the fact you go out of your way to express it so much I almost consider a mild scum-tell. See

t would be more accurate to say that he continued throwing bullshit at me until some of it hardened.

Useless.

Ad hominem is where you say somebody's argument is crap because they are stupid. (or any other insult)
Ad hominem is NOT where you say somebody is stupid because their argument is crap.

People can be swayed by insults as they can be by arguments, even if you supposedly present the insults as independent of the arguments. They have no place though if you're genuinely trying to pose sound arguments.

I was pissed off by the slew of stupid arguments he was making and kept repeating and needed strong language to voice that in the hope that it would make you people notice.

Your interpretation of my actions is valid, but put yourself in my position: If you had had to repeatedly deal with the same arguments again and again, whilst having a load of new subjective claims thrown at you, wouldn't you begin to want to let people see that you were annoyed.

In essence, what you are saying is that my actions were intended to make people pay less attention to Orto. What I am saying is that my actions were intended to make people pay more attention to me - not to the exclusion of Orto, mind you, just so people might think "You know, vollkan is angry, so maybe he has a point and we should take another look".

I had exactly the same experience arguing with you- I found it extremely frustrating. You never concede anything and continually re-interpret/modify your position. Again you fit the whole device of "angriness" in- it has no meaning, really, why should people care if you are angry? I stopped arguing directly with you because it was going nowhere and clearly we were forever talking at cross-purposes. Either way, nothing was going to happen, SpyreX was still going to love your every word and sl was clearly still going to call for your lynch.

On the whole mason thing:

There was a lot of discussion between Ecto and vollkan about whether to believe the claims OP and I made. While going into great detail they, surprisingly, seem to have ignored the substantial circumstantial evidence supporting our claims. Contrary to what I believe Ecto suggested earlier, the _only_ explanation of our actions is that we are masons, or we are scum together. We can't simply be vanilla townies- verifying each other would be cheating. Likewise we can't be a team of SKs by definition. Remember that scum can't daytalk. Thus we would have had to have come up with the scheme to claim mason before the game. This patently contradicts the suggestion we "cooked up" the scheme to take the pressure off us in light of badly placed votes. If instead you think we spontaneously decided to claim masons, then you have to explain OP bread-crumbing the role, and me acting perfectly consistently with being a mason in response to TDC's question at the time. So really, I don't see how you can claim the odds of us lying are great enough to justify testing our claim, especially in light of the extreme likelihood our claim will be vindicated by whichever deaths occur.

In my eyes, the conduct of OP and yourself would be lynchworthy, but for your claims.

This is a silly thing to say because our conduct partly results from the fact we are masons to begin with. For the record, as I have already said, OP's minimal posting style is 100% consistent with his town-meta. You argued against "policy lynches" of yourself earlier, but this is exactly what you are advocating in OP's case. Furthermore, in my case, I was Newb at the time of my early play in this game (probably still am). This is evidenced by my registration date. Why does neither of this get factored into Ecto and your own decision theoretic calculation of whether our claim should be tested?

Also,

Apparently vollkan has a reputation for being good at this game. In light of this I find his dogged argumentation extremely perplexing. The points he argues with don_johnson are both extremely subjective and convoluted. They aren't good scumtells, they're just vollkan being blatantly nitpicky to a point which benefits no-one. It's not just don_johnson he's done it with this game either.

I do recall reading in mafia discussion a comment that mafia is, or should be more a psychological guessing game than one which worships "logic". I find vollkan's persistent adherence to a skewed conception of logic and an almost deliberate effort to tunnel in his arguments rather than think of alternative explanations for others' behaviour as something he would only do as scum.

Best argument you've made this game.

You've never commented on whether you agreed with it or not. And please explain what was with your gambit with voting OP etc. For the record I can understand Ecto's position on me and OP to some extent- after all he was the one we initially voted with crummy reasons.

This improves your pro-town ranking in my eyes. Or, more accurately, it seriously weakens one scum interpretation I had of your actions: the risk that you were exploiting your gambit to try and eliminate me.

This is one of the most arrogant things I've ever seen

vollkan; I also don't like how much effort you are going to prove how you're "always this argumentative". Does this mean you bring up your meta in every town game to prove this?

Orto unvoted which means I must have had some impact in all those pages of arguing.

No, as I said, the way you answered my arguments made me want to vote you more. However rather than descend into an infinite regress I decided to move my attention and focus elsewhere.

I don't like how vollkan got away from that lynch without claiming. I bring your attention to him refusing to claim on L-1 in the aforementioned game in which he was scum, again. Even if he is a power role I am almost inclined to think the benefits of actually being able to trust him in light of the claim outweigh the exposure to scum the claim would bring.

mykonian, you seem to have done a bit of an about-turn on vollkan since as recently as Post 619, in which you actually express affection for one of his posts. Recently you seem to have picked up my point about vollkan's style of argument, but before that I didn't see any evidence you agreed with me- I recall posts along the lines of "vollkan is very intelligent" etc. What changed your opinion of him?

[ortolan]

I want vollkan to claim also. I believe he's been tunneling on dj. Holding off on a vote cause I don't know what the count is.

[ortolan]

Why such aggressive play for a doc?

And why only breadcrumb your role after having been on L-1?

If anyone had a scum hypothesis on you I don't think this claim necessarily proves much to the contrary.

[ortolan]

My playstyle should change when I am a doc?

I've already said that, from what I've witnessed, that I think your playstyle is different this game. Being so amazingly ostentatious and getting into extremely complex arguments, if townie, is a pretty good way to get the mafia to night-kill you (unless by tunneling you were actually trying to mislynch a townie so that the mafia would love to keep you alive and let you stay about your night-time protecting unperturbed).

I didn't do it early game. When I realised that I was going to likely be in a position whereby I had to claim, it made sense for me to breadcrumb, so it at least looked less spur of the moment.

Wouldn't the reason be "so that hopefully people would pick up the breadcrumb", rather than "so it looked less spur of the moment"?

No, it doesn't. Having said that, it's not much more dubious than somebody else's claim.

I can't really argue this.

Why do I so far find your arguments re: your claim to be far less convincing than those you could make when you could fall back on the situation of no-one having any game relevant info?

[ortolan]

In terms of not drawing attention, one thing that springs to mind is for example...not self-voting.

[ortolan]

If you weren't willing to test a mason claim why are you willing to test a doctor claim?

Vote: mykonian

[ortolan]

Oh no, I agree and I'm highly skeptical of the breadcrumbing.

But you think it's worth risking a claimed doctor (especially as someone else already claimed a power role earlier, can't remember who)?

[ortolan]

2) See above. Town-vollkan has just as much reason to crumb as scum-vollkan.

This is a problem though, because the manner of your breadcrumbing made it _completely_ useless for confirming your role and if anything the fact you tried to slip it in at such a late stage seems kind of suspect to me.

[ortolan]

Let's see if he gets counter-claimed.

If not, I'm inclined to believe his claim especially considering the distribution of other power roles.

Either way we gain nothing from rushing into a lynch in light of this new information.

[ortolan]

To those on the myk wagon: What do scum gain by lynching a doc as opposed to lynching someone else (assuming that someone else is not one of them) and then nightkilling the doc? Put any other role in that spot and it makes more sense (because that role might be doc protected at night), but with the doc himself (how many gmaes have two of them? Not many), the only "risk" I can think of is a watcher. But that's kind of a moot point when everybody can see how you're pushing for the doc's lynch at day.
So I don't really understand what the myk-scum rationale for pushing the vollkan-doc lynch would be, it would be so much easier to move on the dj wagon and just wait for the night to kill vollkan..

I was thinking he might want to get vollk lynched then nk the other claimed power role (not the masons). Then he gets the two best power roles out of the way on day one and isn't even guaranteed to be lynched the next day. But while there may not be a clear and obvious scum motivation for his actions, I'm certainly having at least as much trouble finding a clear and obvious town motivation for his actions.

TDC, who do you suspect the most, it seems to me virtually all your posts are defending various people but you don't attack at all.

[ortolan]

I think he said something like "I know for a fact there's another power role, but I'm not elaborating now"

[ortolan]

Unvote

[ortolan]

Also, masons are pretty much confrimed now.

Why? Just cause of the two doc claims? Doesn't that just prove it's not mountainous?

I don't see why people assume myk's claim has no credibility.

mykonian did clearly alter his behaviour as soon as vollkan claimed, consistent with him being the doctor. It was in a way that, as TDC said, has no obvious scum explanation. mykonian could probably have ridden the dj wagon to a lynch then simply nk'ed vollkan. It's a big stretch for vollkan to say:

Textbook scum last-ditch counterclaim. Please lynch him now.

The fact myk didn't immediately counter-claim is a slight point against his case but I think his explanation is reasonably plausible- and once he'd already posted without counter-claiming he'd look suspicious doing so unprompted.

On the other hand, he breadcrumbed nicely

He even admitted his breadcrumb was completely useless. What credibility is there in waiting until one gets to L-1 then fitting in a crumb of any role to refer back to later?

Assuming no bastard modding, we've got a 1/2 chance of saving a day/night cycle by lynching right today. I'm going vollkan again.

Vote: vollkan

[ortolan]

Can I also say that vollkan has stated he's previously used a "claim the doctor" gambit in another game. The odds in any game of him being scum are greater than him being the doctor, so I think this points to him being fakeclaiming. The fact he deliberately cited another game seems more to me to be an assurance in case someone calls him up on his previous usage of this tactic.

[ortolan]

On breadcrumbing: If you can breadcrumb in a way that can only be seen in hindsight, then I don't see any problem with doing it, even if you're a doc.

Yes but isn't useful as evidence that he is not fakeclaiming, because it came at a time when he would have had equal motivation for putting it in as a fakeclaim as he would have for putting it in as a real claim.

[ortolan]

It's really unlikely that we have two doctors. So one of them must be scum.
You two are claimed masons and hence are either both town or both scum together.
So for you to be scum there would need to be three scum in total, which in a 10 player game is very unlikely. A 3 player mafia team I would rule out. If whoever of the two "docs" is scum turns out to be a SK that would leave a small chance of you being the mafia, but I doubt there actually is an SK in this.
Hence, you're "pretty much confirmed".

I would actually expect there to be 3 scum in such a power-role heavy setup. I read some setup thread where they said 2 scum is normal in a 7-9 player game, and 3 scum is normal in a 10-12 player game or somesuch.

It's not useful as evidence that he is fake claiming either.

That's true, but it makes me wonder why he even bothered as it doesn't help his claim one bit.

Again, all my crumbing does is show that I had some time commitment to the claim.

Not true actually, because while you did ultimately refer back to the claim, you could equally have simply not done so, and we would have been none the wiser. One could easily, as scum, just leave slight grammatical anomalies which one then has the discretion of referring back to to support a claim later in the game.

[ortolan]

I would actually expect there to be 3 scum in such a power-role heavy setup. I read some setup thread where they said 2 scum is normal in a 7-9 player game, and 3 scum is normal in a 10-12 player game or somesuch.

If you are scum, then the setup is not power-role heavy at all, for all we know so far.

That argument is self-contradictory. If we are scum, then the town is not power-role heavy. But you already said if the town is not power-role heavy then we are likely to only have 2 scum, which is impossible if we are both scum along with the two claimed doctors.

[ortolan]

@mykonian: Well, I am just saying I don't think, especially assuming you believe our mason claim, you should assume there are only 2 scum in the setup.

Also, mykonian, would you please respond to the question about your "we'll have a lot of fun if there's no doc" comment?

I've been clear that they don't prove anything other than a committment to a doc claim from the time of my posting them.

They don't even prove that, because nothing about your breadcrumb tied you to actually making a doctor claim later.

[ortolan]

Masons are confirmed town, but should still be taken critically.
Spyrex is very very likely town and every argument presented against him thus far is absolute crap. When I come up dead and am flipped (if I'm not lynched, I am almost certainly going to be NKed), know that I will be turning in my grave if anybody pursues Spyrex based on any of the garbage presented against him so far.
SL and DJ are scummy
TDC and Ixfij I am neutral on, but I worried because I don't have any clear read which suggests a lack of material
Ecto is neutral for me.

Can we have more on that? I'm particularly curious about why DJ is scummy and why Ecto, TDC and fixij are neutral.

[ortolan]

and who do you think is scummier out of DJ and SL?

[ortolan]

would you care to now? ~

it would be ever so helpful before your lynch/nightkill

[ortolan]

haven't fully read but very surprised/wary of fact mrfixij is still alive

seeing as you've blatantly drawn attention to the fact you've a power role so if they forgot to kill you last night they will this night, would you please claim now mrfixij (and tell us whatever you found out from your role last night, if you did find something out).

[ortolan]

As for why I'm alive, I don't know. I may have gotten lucky, but I'll explain that later.

And would what possibly make you think it would be a good idea to save claiming until another day as though the mafia were somehow not going to kill you *tonight* now?

It's funny, if myko had actually tried to defend himself he may have had a chance, however small, of convincing us there might be two doctors in the setup. But he didn't, and his last post in another game came after the new day dawned in this game.

But yeah, in light of the fact there's evidently no doctor left why have you not claimed yet mrfixij?

[ortolan]

nice bus

[ortolan]

and why did you delay claiming today (looks like you would have been perfectly happy for the game to go to night, had a few more votes gone through.

[ortolan]

and there's no kill or only 1 kill (which goes claimed publicly)

you mean a vigilante kill?

[ortolan]

and you intend to jail spring tonight?

[ortolan]

hey, actually, I reckon I have a *really*, *really* good idea about what you could do tonight. How about you jail me, and protect me

That way the confirmed townie gets saved, and if they kill you instead then we know you're townie too. I'm really liking this plan, what do you think?

[ortolan]

the jailkeeper entails being a doc

[ortolan]

ah, sorry, and yes, it is

[ortolan]

Either fix is lying (which I doubt because, well, with myk dead the other scum is in a bad position claiming a PR this early that is reallly hard to confirm) or the other scum performed the kill (much more likely, considering myk was a perfect target for any roles like jailkeeper, rb, etc).

I don't agree- remember mrfixij had committed himself to claiming a power role long before he actually claimed what it was. Having done that I see it as very, very possible as mafia he tried to come up with a plausible suggestion which wouldn't reveal too much to the town. For example if he'd claimed cop he'd have to explain why the hell he didn't die tonight especially when we know the doctor's dead now. Jailkeeper allows him to WIFOM around and claim he roleblocked the person who tried to kill him etc.

But he *needs* to protect me tonight, otherwise lynch him tomorrow please. The logic is scum have most to gain by killing confirmed innocents such as me because they aren't possible lynch targets. If scum instead kill non-confirmed people they narrow down the pool of people who could be scum, so it is in their interests to kill confirmed innocents. If mrfixij is telling the truth and is a town jailkeeper and protects me, then they will kill him. But he will be verified in the process. The other important thing is unless he does this, even if he is telling the truth (which I doubt at this stage) his ability is 100% useless to the town because firstly we have no reason to believe he is telling the truth, and secondly the scum can just WIFOM in return and submit a no-kill so that he then thinks the person he jailkept was the scum but in fact he is wrong. In this case we will lynch the person he claimed he jailkept, they fill flip innocent and we will want to lynch him the day after. And whenever there does happen to be a "no kill", we can't confirm if it's because he is town and jailkept the mafia player, if he is town and the mafia simply submitted a no kill, or if he is scum and deliberately submitted a nokill. But basically I'm 95% sure he's lying but on the offchance he's not, his only viable course of action as a townie is to jailkeep me tonight, in which case he will be killed but he will be verified.

[ortolan]

Vote: mykonian

[ortolan]

good game

I was reading also and I just thought it was a 3 man mafia faction with dj and later sl (after that fakeclaim, LOL) as the 3rd mafia member right until the end of the game (I assumed they somehow got an extra kill when their first player died, for some reason).

But yes, unless there were cross-kills if town even mislynched once they were pretty much screwed.

I obviously did tunnel on vollkan day one and for that I am sorry.

[ortolan]

it's quite funny also that people were concluding from the fact that there was an obvious doctor fakeclaimer that me and OP were telling the truth (because they were assuming there could be no more than two mafia players, LoL), and I insisted there were likely to be three.

I guess the masons were partly to blame for the lack of crosskills, having claimed we made obvious confirmed town targets which decreased the likelihood of them even contemplating targeting someone who would turn out to be from the other scum group.