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

[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 Also, how can you possibly try to characterise my withdrawn vote as "slinking away and hoping no-one notices"?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.

[Ectomancer]

The fact that every sheep is white (votes for other people) doesn't mean that any sheep painting itself black (self-voting) places an onus upon the black sheep to justify a deviation from the status quo. That's simply a sneaky way of shifting the onus of proof.

What I did was say "Hey, look at me. I am being non-conformist". That doesn't in anyway warrant inquiry in and of itself UNLESS there are reasonable grounds for considering that deviation alignment-relevant

Vollkan, simple question. Were you, or were you not intending to spur conversation when you made your self-vote?
You are stuck on this "onus of proof". What need of proof do I have to question you about the move you made to invoke questioning about the move?
Never going to agree with you over this.

P.S. - it looks like you are getting my point that you cannot prevent someone from using "gut" as their reasoning. The only thing you can control is how you react to it. Voting works wonders.

[vollkan]

I don't think what ortolan did was that scummy. He basically agreed with what you and vollkan said. Instead of introducing new things, which there weren't, he just went along with what you guys said.

Being a newbie is no excuse for "sheepishness". If a townie doesn't understand something, they shouldn't vote. Ortolan has the opportunity to explain himself, and we are right to demand answers.

According to Ecto, my summaries were off. Well, considering they were giant paragraphs, it's not going to be 100% on. But I think ecto's behavior in this game has shown scumminess. ort's show sheepiness.

There's a happy medium between doing a meaningless summary that gives no reasoning of your own, and going into pbp overkill. You fell well short of that medium.

vollk, I don't really believe in your clear delineation of objectivity and subjectivity

I'm not delineating objectivity and subjectivity in any philosophical sense.

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?

"Gut" cannot be rebutted - other than by pointing out the stupidity of relying on gut in this game from a policy perspective. Spring's style of reasoning can. I'll do it now:
@Spring: Why is it not just as plausible that town-Orto might have left the question dangling as an afterthought?

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.

Ha! Nice try.
Let's have a looksie over what you actually said post-vote:

...
I believe there is a mild case against him, but that this case is stronger than the one against SpyreX
...
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). ..

From the get-go, you are hedging your arguments.

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.

You are explicitly acknowledging here that your vote had a basis in their arguments.

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.

Again, you hedge things. The bolded is interesting though. I don't see why his position to Spyrex is at all meaningful. The question is whether he is scummy enough to justify a vote - and you seem to think that merely being scummier than Spyrex (relatively, not absolutely) somehow warrants, as you say, tipping him "into the more likely to be lynched category".

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.

Then, once everything about your vote has collapsed, you drop off.

What's my point - it's slinking away for the simple fact that you never justified yourself in the first place and from the start you were under-cutting yourself (if you don't appear convinced, you don't have to justify yourself? Right? ) It's like - you are going to vote and be unaccountable and then, once you get caught out, you simply dodge accountability by saying that you were all wrong from the start.

On the possibility that you are just a confused newbie - unfortunately, this is a real possibility. What runs against this is the fact that you have articulate and long posts. Your posts show you are clearly a reasonably clever guy, which makes it less likely you are just a dazed newbie. I am watching this closely, though, but you just don't seem to fit the newbie paradigm.

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

If you paid any attention to me, you would see I was addressing a post before you did so. It still responded to what you said and, thus, is still relevant. Not a strawman - so don't try and sling mud that way.

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.

It's not a subjective claim. This game has, if you compare it many others, a high level of proper arguments and so on. I don't mean that it all is pro-town - absent prior knowledge, that's impossible to tell.

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

Yeah, exactly. In all seriousness, it's a very effective scum strategy. Hence, why people should be made to give reasons. It stops scum doing to impressive posting ploy, and it also stops scum doing the "I agree with Jones. Vote: Mr X" move.

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.

Simple.

Scum win the game by killing off townies. Right? Ergo, they have no inherent need to pay attention - other than for the purpose of appearing to be paying attention if they think doing so will be needed to cover their arse. Town, in contrast, win by killing off the scum. Since town don't know who the baddies are, they need persuasion of scumminess. It therefore makes no sense for a townie to vote without understanding why.

Vollkan, simple question. Were you, or were you not intending to spur conversation when you made your self-vote?

Yes. The whole point was to spark debate.

You are stuck on this "onus of proof". What need of proof do I have to question you about the move you made to invoke questioning about the move?
Never going to agree with you over this.

Alright, conversation should ideally have run like this:

Antagonist:

Vollkan, why would you self-vote?

Vollkan:

My post 26 - which said "why do I need to justify it?" and thatmy purpose was "to stir the pot. People have a tendency to leap onto it with presumptions and prejudices "

Antagonist:

Self-voting requires justification because it causes <something> which is bad for the town because <reason>.

See, I even allow for a prejudiced Antagonist, but one that has some explanation for why self-voting is bad but whom also accepts that whatever reason they had doesn't work.

[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).

[springlullaby]

Ectomancer, please state what you think of ortolan now.

[ortolan]

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

[TDC]

I'll

vote: orangepenguin

You have

still

not presented your case on Ecto. Are you planning to just ignore my question until the day's over, or what?

And now you say that ortolan's wagon is wrong,

because

"Ecto has shown scumminess", but you'll still not tell us where that happened.

[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

[Ectomancer]

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.

[springlullaby]

I think I've been clear in the post I voted you on why each of your vote sucked but I'll go in further detail since you are asking.

First let me do something I've overlooked doing, commenting one of your prior post.

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.

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.

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?

I detect deriding in there. I'm not asking you to do anything, I'm stating why I find the question you asked at the end of your post scummy.

Plus, that question had no reason to be in the first place, it implies that I have not addressed the concern, but actually I did here. If you have qualm with my answer, please do point out why.[/b]

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.

Errr, this is the post in which you vote Ectomancer and for which I called you out:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 09#1349909

I do not read a clear explaination of why you are voting for Ecto in it.
I'm not saying that you are agreeing with OP or SpyreX, I'm asking if you are indeed agreeing with them because even that wasn't clear to me. In fact the entire passage in which you supposedly explain why you are voting Ecto is nonsensical to me, which is scummy in itself.

Plus, I don't like the picking of side/judging other people case attitude you display in your answer above, it's passive and easy.

And I think there is something pretty scummy in you casting a vote you don't seem to be sure about yourself, then making a big show of warning everyone else about it being L2. If you are unsure of a vote and fear a quick hammer, just don't cast it.

These two factors combined smells of 'don't blame me for my vote' to me.

Now looking back, I dislike your first vote on me even more:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 98#1343298

This post doesn't actually say anything does it? I had to actually guess what you find unsatisfactory about my post. Tell me, did you even know why you voted for me there?

I don't get you. In your last couple of post you are like all over the place acting as if you were pressured into voting Ectomancer and wondering why you are attacked because of it. But guess what, no one pressured you into anything.

[mykonian]

I have to agree with orto that the length of posts just blinds me from any tells. Some people don´t know what a small post is.

Here we go again.

mykonian wrote:
I have a hard time following this guys. Posts are just a little to big.

vollkan wrote:

The tone of the attacks is relevant because, if you missed it, it shows that Ecto was speaking from a prejudiced position.


I missed it, and it is more your perception of Ecto's play (let's call it "gut")


Look, the way that people keep trying to draw an equivalence between inferences and "gut" is incredibly frustrating.

Mykonian, when a person only justifies something by "gut" or "because I think it's scummy" they provide no objective explanation. When I say it shows prejudice I am drawing an inference based on, variously, the words he used, his subsequent remarks, etc etc. I am not saying "My gut tells me Ecto is doing this". I am giving reasons that the rest of you can follow.

Go right back to my policy list. I don't require scientific proof that a person is scum in order to justify an attack, but I do require objective reasons. Inferences are fine, provided bases are given. Simply saying "gut" or "feeling" lacks any objective explanation.

So end the equivalencing, okay?

I appoligise for annoying you. I'm afraid I knew that could happen. Still I don't agree with you. You simply explain Ecto's behaviour, without any points why. Just saying that I shouldn't have missed it. You avoid proof that way. More people go after Ecto because he is "too agressive". Also explaining the behaviour, without telling where, and if this is scummy.

And Ecto's point with the sheep is valid. It is not weird people would pick on you, because you made yourself special. The reactions from you that followed Ecto thought scummy (I really don't know if agree with them, seem weak), not the vote itself. Your defense assumes he votes for the selfvote.

Even if OP can't point the finger to it, and I can't too, I feel the orto wagon went too fast. Not right on this moment. It is on weak reasons, bad posts from orto.

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?

Conlusion: I wasn't too sure about Spyrex, and Orto looks scummy, yet I feel the wagon on orto is going to fast to be healthy. I keep my eye on you both.

unvote

[mrfixij]

I still think that SpyreX needs to address the contradiction I pointed out prior, how is ecto scummy for pursuing a lynch based on what Spyre deems no more than policy than I am for that same reasoning behind a vote? However, I also think Orto is digging himself a deep grave. At this point, it could very well be an elementary slipup is turning him into a lynchalicious, but a few things I'd like to know from him before I place a vote.

What exactly did you mean in your 7th post, quoted here?

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.

It seems that you're implying a pairing or antipairing between myself and ecto, and a pairing or antipairing between Spyre and Voll.

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.

Also, I feel this needs to be addressed.

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).

Could you elaborate on this a little bit? I find it interesting that you accuse him of jumping on Vollkan when he never voted for him. If anything, it seems more like playing devil's advocate than jumping on him.

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.

[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.

[Rage]

Activity List:

(player's name) (player they are replacing, if applicable) (date and time of last post)
Mana_Ku (

Juls

) (Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:21 pm)
orangepenguin (Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:24 pm)
ortolan (Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:49 pm)
mykonian (

RealityFan

) (Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:00 am)
springlullaby (Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:23 am)
Ectomancer (Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:17 am)
vollkan (Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:25 am)
SpyreX (Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:34 pm)
mrfixij (Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:26 pm)
TDC (Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:28 am)

Prodding nobody. Will check activity again tomorrow.

[orangepenguin]

I'll

vote: orangepenguin

You have

still

not presented your case on Ecto. Are you planning to just ignore my question until the day's over, or what?

And now you say that ortolan's wagon is wrong,

because

"Ecto has shown scumminess", but you'll still not tell us where that happened.

First off, I never said I was going to present a case. I was sarcastically responding to ecto's sarcastic response to my vote. vollkan and Spyrex have posted cases already. I agree with what they both said, hence the vote. I don't know what a third case would do, hence my comment, and instead, I posted a pbps (summary, not analysis). I don't recall your question. I'm sorry. Please quote it, and I'll answer it for you. I know for a fact that ortolan's wagon is wrong, which I am not going to elaborate on at this point, but just re-read Spyrex's and vollkan's cases. If you don't like their cases, then fine, disagree with it, but I do like their cases and I do agree with their thoughts. Maybe it's not in the best form to follow what others have presented, but isn't that the real point of cases? To sway the voters. I guess I was just swayed.

[Ectomancer]

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:

Are you really trying to pick out a single point in my argument against you? This statement is part of an analysis of your motivations after establishing that your every move was about not making waves or putting yourself in danger. (Except you misjudged that part.) It is a single piece of several that demonstrate a pattern of behavior.

I'll be expecting a response to the actual case when you aren't so busy.

[Ectomancer]

OrangePenguin, your pbps missed a ton of point by points, and it also got several of the points flat out wrong. You are welcome to talk about that if you are going to avoid putting a case for your vote into your own words anyhow.

[TDC]

I'll

vote: orangepenguin

You have

still

not presented your case on Ecto. Are you planning to just ignore my question until the day's over, or what?

And now you say that ortolan's wagon is wrong,

because

"Ecto has shown scumminess", but you'll still not tell us where that happened.

First off, I never said I was going to present a case. I was sarcastically responding to ecto's sarcastic response to my vote. vollkan and Spyrex have posted cases already. I agree with what they both said, hence the vote. I don't know what a third case would do, hence my comment, and instead, I posted a pbps (summary, not analysis).

It would already help if you pointed out, by quotes or in your own words, what it is that you like about vollkan's and Spyrex' cases.

I don't recall your question. I'm sorry. Please quote it, and I'll answer it for you.

It was: "Where is Ecto's crap logic?"

If you don't like their cases, then fine, disagree with it, but I do like their cases and I do agree with their thoughts. Maybe it's not in the best form to follow what others have presented, but isn't that the real point of cases? To sway the voters. I guess I was just swayed.

If it's just "their case" and not "also your case", then you're denying accountability.
You don't need your very own case, but if you jump on a wagon, more reasoning than "I agree with this case" helps understanding your vote.

---

ortolan: What's your read on orangepenguin?

[ortolan]

100% town

[TDC]

unvote.

That changes quite a lot.

[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.

[Ectomancer]

Your impulsiveness ratcheted up an existing live wagon. Are you saying your motivations were not to increase the pressure, nor to advance that bandwagon? It was simply any impulsive thing you did with no thought put to it?

[Rage]

Vote Count - Day 1 - As of Post 165

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

Mama_Ku

Juls

- 0 ()
orangepenguin - 0 ()

ortolan - 3 (vollkan, Spyrex, springlullaby)

mykonian

RealityFan

- 0 ()
springlullaby - 0 ()
Ectomancer - 2 (ortolan, orangepenguin)
vollkan - 0 ()
SpyreX - 2 (mrfixij, Ectomancer)
mrfixij - 0 ()
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 3 (TDC, mykonian, Mana_Ku

Juls

)

Ortolan is at L-3, 3 votes away from a lynch.