Yup, obviously only scum look at things in hindsight... But wait, if I were to take back my point after being first questioned like a townie would've done according to you, wouldn't that be "hindsight" as well? Good thing you're not contradicting yourself.iLord wrote:He said "In hindsight along with his latest comment" or something like that. "hindsight" is a key excuse for scum to back off.
Give me one tell that the "but maybe he's simply town and blah blah blah..." explanation can't be applied to.iLord wrote:First of all, it can't be applied to all scumtells - scumtells are by definition actions that are indictive of scum.
1. Being questioned and suspected about a case tends to lead to being voted for it. The two backing offs aren't inherently different, if I was inconfident scum with a made up case it makes a whole lot more sense for me to back up as soon as questioned (like you claim a good townie should do) rather than stick with it and wait for further attacks. After I chose to stick with it, one single vote is by no means a cause for enough panic to make me run away from my case as you suggest. The scum thought proccess you're trying draw here makes no sense whatsoever.iLord wrote:You're not looking at my points.
The two backing offs are different - backing off after your point is attacked and shown to be weak is good pro-town action. Not backing off after you realize that your point is weak, and then backing off after someone attacks you with a vote is scummy. It's what scum do when they are attacked for attacking another player for a weak reason.
The basis behind my attack is that the backing offs are different - you can't look at them alone, but you have to look at them in context.
That's because you're more concerned with making everything I say look bad than with actually reading it. (Your initial attack suggested I was voting sthar only for answering for others, which I never even said and yet you blamed me for pushing it multiple times).iLord wrote:I don't remember you saying this.
What other factors would this be?
1. I never did.iLord wrote:The original point was the folly of your suspicions, to which you have already conceded.
I don't want you to see my underlying basis of thought in this case, it would compromise my future read on you.Incog wrote:It's important because that type of question is usually the type of question a person asks when he or she is trying to draw connections between players. I'm generally leery of those types of questions in the cases where I can find no underlying basis for them, so I figured I'd ask you for your reasoning.
1. Scum are not the only ones that look at things in hindsight – townies do it all the time. But scum are the ones that most commonly use hindsight as an excuse to back off a point. Townies do not say: “I was wrong before and I should’ve changed before.” Townies say: “I am wrong now and I should change now.” Your filling the scum mold that I’ve predicted for you perfectly.RR wrote:Yup, obviously only scum look at things in hindsight... But wait, if I were to take back my point after being first questioned like a townie would've done according to you, wouldn't that be "hindsight" as well? Good thing you're not contradicting yourself.
2. To get on the extreme side, say a player claims scum. Occam’s Razor would justify that the simplest solution is that said player is scum, rather than gambiting townie, and such use of Occam’s Razor here is practical.RR wrote:Give me one tell that the "but maybe he's simply town and blah blah blah..." explanation can't be applied to.
6. Nice job attacking my case without bearing in the first sentence there. Easy scum move to try and weaken my case by attacking my motive. Please note that motive has very little matter in the making of a case, except for the other players to look more carefully at the points – lack of apparent pro-town motive does not weaken the points at all, as long as the points ring true.RR wrote:That's because you're more concerned with making everything I say look bad than with actually reading it. (Your initial attack suggested I was voting sthar8 only for answering for others, which I never even said and yet you blamed me for pushing it multiple times).
The other factor is his massclaim specualtion.
9. You asked for my original point, and I answered.RR wrote:1. I never did.
2. So your case revolves around not liking my original point, with no relation to what happened afterwards?
I don't see another sentiment that can be conveyed with the statement:Incog wrote:sthar8, where exactly did Crazy encourage anyone not to worry about boosting scum?
This suggests that we shouldn't be too worried about granting scum extra powers, even though the mod himself warned us against doing so. I don't know about you, but I don't want to give scumIt's not like a boost is an automatic win, right?
This accusation is ridiculous and baseless. At no point have I claimed certainty about anyone's alignment, and I don't see any reason that we can't speculate based on our opinions, especially when other support is provided. If you're waiting for hard evidence, you'd better hope we've got multiple sane cops, or you're in for a rough game. In addition, Crazy agreedIncog wrote:Also the only way you could definitively say that Crazy "buddies up" to eldarad is if you know with great certainty that eldarad is town.
I learned it as the horse laugh, but a more common term might be an "appeal to ridicule"Incog wrote:I'm not really familiar with the term "horse laugh"
Interesting notion, and not one I'd considered before. Very possibly correct, however. Slinging mud at three other players might have been intended to distract from the L-2 vote.Jahudo wrote:Do you think that attention was diverted from his L-2 vote reasoning because he also suspected those 3 other people in his post? In other words, does suspecting other people decrease the seriousness of what he did?
Not to beat a dead horse, since this issue appears to be resolved, but harming the town would not violate any moral contract as scum, since scum should be expected to do everything they can to win.RR wrote:In addition to what I already answered, turning it into a moral issue which sthar as a good townie felt he was compelled to apologize for takes the matter of him being scum out of the equation.
We've had other things to discuss in the meantime, and crazy hasn't shown up to give us any more support for his case. I've said my bit, and I'm trying to answer questions as best I can. Crazy has not given a real response to anything said against him, so continuing on the same points devolves to needless repetition. Tunnel vision from any of us is not good play.TDC wrote:The wagon was on four votes for a pretty long time, yet none of the voters seemed really interested to push it any further.
iLord, [url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1331760#1331760]in 138[/url], wrote:Late coming, but with a very logical post, with some unnecessary speculation. Good analysis on the skillit attack. Due to Incognito’s point, reading town. Thinks Incognito defended well.fuzzylightning:
I've asked you to comment on these at least twice now, and you've ducked out of commenting on them both times.iLord, [url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1338717#1338717]in his 203[/url], wrote:It's actually really simple - someone brought up the point (I think it was Eldarad) that scumElectra would have to make quite the leap of faith in terms of set-up speculation. What benefit could the scum recieve when boosted to justify what would be a very gutsy and risky scum gambit.
That's not what I'm trying to do at all.springlullaby wrote:Huh, I'm very tempted to respond flippantly but I'll be reasonable and simply note that what you are doing here is trying to reduce the entire case I have posted against you to one little puny point.
...but again you made no mention of this. I'm just trying to figure out why you're being so inconsistent.Crazy, [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1323423#1323423]in his 79[/url], wrote:Massive QFT to everything that eldarad has said so far.
I think genuineiLord, [url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1349489#1349489]in 262[/url], wrote:Incognito, what do you think about SL's being really pissed off during you guy's first discussion? If you discussed this already, I must've missed it, but what bearing, if any at all, do you think such emotion (or feigned emotion if you think so) has on SL's alignment?
iLord wrote:Continuing to push for it is sort of a gambit - if you can convince other players, then you can actually bring a good deal of suspicion on a player, especially if said player explodes or otherwise flails under pressure. One single vote is enough to say that “I think your point is indicative of scum”, something that no other player that questioned you said or indicated. You realized that I actually caught on to you, hence your attempt to back out of the spotlight. The scum process I am drawing makes perfect sense.
This is your original reason for voting me, the only two real point provided is not liking a misinterpertation of my case and "pushing" it many times (which was a result of people asking many times). Here is everything else you said about me until my unvote:iLord wrote:Votes sthar8 for his explanation that he didn’t notice what he was doing. Weak, reading like he’s trying to jump on an easy wagon. Reading scummy. Especially since scum would have no reason to answer for other people, unless RR thinks the people sthar08 answered for are scum. Raging Rabbit continues to construe answering other’s questions as a scum tell. Reading pretty scummy. Still pushes… And Still pushes. Probably top suspect right now. Still pushing. And still pushes. Definite don’t like this push. Reading very scummy.
@RR: Explain why answering for other people is indictive of scum alignment.
If you're talking about his reaction, then I ask you: Why would a scum player react differently than a town player to an action that is not indictive of alignment.
All of this was already answered before you even asked- my #9 post when viewed seperately:Guilt? Are you attacking him for guilt? What's wrong with feeling guilty if you do something antitown?
Nothing in these posts in new or convincing, and no one took you too seriously - nothing here implies you "catching on" to me in any way, the only meaningful thing you did was vote me and one vote simply doesn't make enough of a difference to completely change your read on my backing off. All this questioning about the guilt thing is also interesting because of my #7 post, in response to iLord:Raging Rabbit wrote:Town has less inclination bothh kick themselves for not looking pro town enough and make an active effort to not draw suspicion.Incognito wrote:I thought the fact that he admitted to doing something wrong was mildly pro-town. I feel like scum might have tried to concoct some response to try and explain away his or her actions.
You completly missinterperted my case despite already asking and getting an answer about the exact same point, which yet again proves you weren't and aren't concerned with actually reading my posts but with making them look bad.Raging Rabbit wrote:Maybe the right word is more guiltridden than panicky, it sounds to me like "damn, made a mistake. Guess I'll apologize it away". The way he appears to really kick himself for appearing suspicious stinks of guilt to me.iLord wrote:You didn't explain how you found that panicky - it didn't sound like a "OHMYGODI'MCAUGHT" post.RR wrote:Going out of your way to answer questions directed at others isn't a sign of not paying attention. I figure by turning it into a mistake and apologizing you where hoping to make it not appear as a scumtell anymore.
So now not unvoting right after your vote is ok, but after you asked a few more already answered questions I suddendly panicked from the "brunt of your attack" and jumped ship? This is beyond an extreme stretch, your case is completely contrived.iLord wrote:4. No, you didn't unvote as soon as I voted you. After I made it clear that I was confident that you were scum, you attempted to mitigate the brunt of my attack by backing off.
If it still isn't clear, I maintain that sthar's apology post reads scummy. I unvoted him because I believe his massclaim sepcualtion reads town.5. I must admit that I am still unclear on your standing about the sthar8 point.
What bearing do you currently feel it has on sthar8's alignment?
Eldarad's seems more solid, but mostly I'm just happy to see you gathering votes.12. What do you feel about Eldarad and Incognito’s suspicions of me?
I never even said I was wrong, no idea what you're trying to say here.1. Scum are not the only ones that look at things in hindsight – townies do it all the time. But scum are the ones that most commonly use hindsight as an excuse to back off a point. Townies do not say: “I was wrong before and I should’ve changed before.” Townies say: “I am wrong now and I should change now.” Your filling the scum mold that I’ve predicted for you perfectly.
Already answered.iLord wrote:...you have yet to explain how guilt makes sense as a scum tell over a town tell, instead resorting to attacking my theory rather than the actual point, of which you ignored.
8. If you can, elaborate on how his massclaim speculation is indicative of town.
10. What have I done that you feel is indicative of scum?
Motive has a bearing on you being scummy, cases presented by scum are somewhat less convincing...iLord wrote:6. Nice job attacking my case without bearing in the first sentence there. Easy scum move to try and weaken my case by attacking my motive. Please note that motive has very little matter in the making of a case, except for the other players to look more carefully at the points – lack of apparent pro-town motive does not weaken the points at all, as long as the points ring true.
Actually you were the one who blamed me for trying to divert attention from your original point. Do you think the "I don't like your case" point is in any way convincing and worthy diverting from? Why ask me a million different questions instead of concentrating on your original point if you don't want it distracted from?9. You asked for my original point, and I answered.
That's like the most loaded question ever. How would you ask that if you weren't scum, huh?!11. What do you feel a townie should've done in your position once they realized that the point they were pushing is weak?
Completely and utterly false. If this was true there'd be no such thing as a contradiction.On another side, I believe that the backing offs are fundamentally different – it matters not if you believe they are not. As long as I believe that they are different, there is no contradiction.
Because they're a sign of dishonesty and faked play.14. If not explained above, why do you feel that contradictions are indicative of scum?
You're kidding, right?springlullaby wrote:Incognito, if you think I am scum, why aren't you voting for me?
Ah, okay. Somehow that didn’t click until now.RR wrote:If it still isn't clear, I maintain that sthar's apology post reads scummy. I unvoted him because I believe his massclaim sepcualtion reads town.
See above.RR wrote:I never even said I was wrong, no idea what you're trying to say here.
Indicative of scum =/= what you believe to be antitown actions.Already answered.
It may be less convincing, but it wouldn’t weaken the magnitude of my points at all.RR wrote:Motive has a bearing on you being scummy, cases presented by scum are somewhat less convincing.
I don’t get what this has to do with what you quoted.RR wrote:Actually you were the one who blamed me for trying to divert attention from your original point. Do you think the "I don't like your case" point is in any way convincing and worthy diverting from? Why ask me a million different questions instead of concentrating on your original point if you don't want it distracted from?
You know what I mean – what would a townie have done if they realized that they were wrong?RR wrote:That's like the most loaded question ever. How would you ask that if you weren't scum, huh?!
Explain. According to the definition of a contradiction, I’d have to have to be stating conflicting ideas. My ideas are not conflicting. It matters not if you say that you can jump into my mind and say that I’m actually thinking that they are – by my definition and classification of the backing offs, they are different.RR wrote:Completely and utterly false. If this was true there'd be no such thing as a contradiction.
A few of iLord's questions and comments on RR look to me like he is drawing conclusions without looking carefully enough at the information. For now, just aiLord wrote:1. Scum are not the only ones that look at things in hindsight – townies do it all the time. But scum are the ones that most commonly use hindsight as an excuse to back off a point. Townies do not say: “I was wrong before and I should’ve changed before.” Townies say: “I am wrong now and I should change now.” Your filling the scum mold that I’ve predicted for you perfectly.Raging Rabbit wrote:I never even said I was wrong, no idea what you're trying to say here.
iLord wrote:I can’t seem to recall or find where you explained your reasoning behind the MC speculation. Could you repeat it?
I wrote:The massclaim speculation isn't a good move for scum because it draws attention to them and their roles, and makes any convincing fakeclaims they may have ready not as good since the town sees how insistent they were on claiming it. Also the way he chose to phrase his offer it feels very pro town in hindsight.
iLord wrote:I’m not diverting attention from my point – Contrary to what you believe, I’m actually trying to find out something from the questions I ask. More points against you would convince more people that you’re actually scum.
If you really thought I was trying to back away from your original point, you'd be pushing that more and the stuff I brought up to "distract from it" less. However, your original point isn't convincing at all and your case is dependant on moving discussion to other matters, which proves your above quote contrived as well.iLord wrote:I do admit it's not really "blowing up." It's more like how I would've expected you to act as pressured scum - attempting to set-up contradictions in my speech to defend against my attack, all the while backing off the point my original case was based upon.
This question is still loaded, as well as irrelevant. There's more than one possible reaction for "a townie", the best one being to say so and unvote.You know what I mean – what would a townie have done if they realized that they were wrong?
Contradiction in this game is a subjective term. I have strong doubts about your alignment, so taking everything you say at face value would be a severe mistake. Saying that everyone should the accept the "it's not a contradiction because I say so" statement is completely false.Explain. According to the definition of a contradiction, I’d have to have to be stating conflicting ideas. My ideas are not conflicting. It matters not if you say that you can jump into my mind and say that I’m actually thinking that they are – by my definition and classification of the backing offs, they are different.