At Urz, I’m seriously not going to defend myself against the same points over and over again. Finish reading please than take a look at your vote. I have admitted since; a.) I was tunneling Ort. b.) My vote on Ort was a pressure vote originally, I didn’t like how he reacted to it, and that I thought the pressure on the Ramus wagon was adequate even if he said it wasn’t. c.) I was definitely tunneling Ort. Looking over it, was some seriously horrible play on my part. I was the VI for a good portion of the game, but I don’t plan on continuing that bad streak.
I did finish reading. Your responses don't mean jack. First of all, while I am attacking the same things about you, I am attacking them in a different manner. I have presented psychological warrants for why these posts make you more likely a scum player than a town player. Please respond to those if you want to remove my vote from you. Tunneling on a player has nothing to do with how you psychologically approach their posts. Theoretically, even when you think a player is scum, you are interested in determining if that is true or not. You did not do that.
roflcopter wrote:and i'm glad the replacement cleared up the caboose issue so succinctly, urzas is obvtown
And why is that?
Second. Why is that?]
Urzassedatives wrote:Heyo, Mizzy.
Care to respond and/or comment on the COMPLETELY NEW perspective of the game I just gave, rather than taking a cop out and continuing your petty bickering with clockwork ruse.
Why are you arguing with him, anyway? He's pretty much obv scum.
And now we have another rofl, calling me obv scum before I even get a chance to respond?
And why does Mizzy have to respond to your “completely new” perspective to the game?
And I say “completely new” because I’ve seen most of it from rofl.
Please do not insult me. You didn't hear anything of what I said from ROFL. He's a pretty bad player. He may have been also attacking you, and he may have been attacking the same things you did. But he certainly did not provide REASONING for why the things you did are scummy. The psychological tell I raise is something which no one else this game has so much as THOUGHT about.
”Urzassedatives” wrote:
On the other hand, you have Clockwork, who has posted a shit ton, and you are not going to get a better read on, probably. You already have him pegged as scummy, and his posting is not going to give you any better opportunities to read him. He's not changing.
Well, if you exclude Ort. Shouldn’t you not be appealing to emotion to get my lynched, if your case is so strong and I am such obv scum?[/quote]
This is a pretty harsh misconstruction of my point. I am saying EVEN IF you don't buy the case, you want to lynch the player you have a more substantive read on, given two equally scummy reads. Note, I am not saying that our roles ARE equally scummy, but rather than IF HE DOES THINK THAT, he should lynch the player with more readable posts, because theoretically he will get a stronger read with more time with the other player. Please point out where I appeal to emotion?
I didn’t want to quote the entire post, but the more I read it…;
Urzassedatives wrote:Right, but you're missing my point about me. The main problems with caboose seem to be a) He's a pretty bad player, and b) he was basically inactive the whole game. Going off of that, you can't have a really strong read on him
(I mean, I don't think he strategically planned ANYTHING this game, he doesn't seem like a good schemer, of course I have the insight of knowing his role which makes me KNOW he's not a very strategic person, but I digress)
You're probably very annoyed at him, which might be clouding your judgment as to whether or not you think he's scum.
Look at the facts, there really isn't enough to base even a barebones read off of him. I posted more game relevant analysis in my first post in this game than he did the whole rest of day one.
The point is, keeping me around and reading what I do tomorrow will be a much better indicator of the alignment of this role than reading cabooses play today.
It's common sense, I give you more interactions with more players, as well as more posting frequency.
On the other hand, you have Clockwork, who has posted a shit ton, and you are not going to get a better read on, probably. You already have him pegged as scummy, and his posting is not going to give you any better opportunities to read him. He's not changing.
A simple calculation of accuracy[/u tells you that he's a way better lynch for today, even IF you disregard the post I made which lays out two pretty damn good d1 reasons as to why he's obv scum.
That's my argument.
You get a WAY more accurate read on my role by keeping me around, but the same isn't true on CR.
So even if you find him and Caboose equally scummy (which I find highly unlikely) He's the better lynch.
Your logic is that “Because you can get a better read on me with me around, and you can’t get one on Clock, lynch him and look at me later.”
The bolded will prove that.
No, again. Misconstruction of my argument. ROFL presented a false dichotomy, you or me. He said he found both of us scummy. That is the assumptions he is working with, they are flawed, but if we can't get him to change his flawed assumptions, then we have to reason with him using them (Something you completely neglected to notice because it doesn't help your attack on me is that I TOLD ROFL THAT HIS POST WAS A FALSE DICHOTOMY and I TOLD HIM TO LOOK AT TWO SEPERATE TARGETS BESIDES YOU AND ME who I thought merited attention. Such an inconvenient thing, facts. )
Working under those two assumptions that I just outlined that he had in his head (that we are equally scummy and that he has to vote for one of us), it is absolutely the correct play to lynch you rather than me. This is because he has more reason to believe that his read on you is accurate than he does to believe that his read on me is accurate. This is because my replacee dd not interact this game, and you have. The reason you will not "Change" per se, is that because your level of interaction with him in previous days will either remain the same or go down, whereas his interaction with this role will go up significantly, that means that his read on this role will be much more strengthened by reading me tomorrow then his read on you will be strengthened by reading you tommorow.
Remember, however, that this argument is only if you accept his premises, which I don't really, but if he has them, and wont change them, there's very little I can do to change that.
Caboose’s play should not just be thrown out because he’s “a poor player.” He had plenty of time to be a “poor player” in other games, so why did he ignore this one? It wasn’t like he wouldn’t have had anything to comment on, he was under scrutiny the last time he decided to disappear. Obviously, this is going into WIFOM. But it needs to be pointed out that we can’t just excuse his play as him being a “bad player.”
Actually what you cite there is a reason why we SHOULD not look to his poor play for indication of alignment. The fact that he has done the same thing in multiple games and of both alignments demonstrates that poor play is not something which is indicative of cabooses alignment, and is therefore not a valid reason to vote him insofar as he's no longer in the game and you don't want to policy lynch him
Look at the underlined, “A simple calculation of accuracy”, do you mind explain what you mean by that?
This is because he has more reason to believe that his read on you is accurate than he does to believe that his read on me is accurate. This is because my replacee dd not interact this game, and you have. The reason you will not "Change" per se, is that because your level of interaction with him in previous days will either remain the same or go down, whereas his interaction with this role will go up significantly, that means that his read on this role will be much more strengthened by reading me tomorrow then his read on you will be strengthened by reading you tommorow.
I post the same thing I just wrote. It answers both questions.
How do you call me backing off my tunneling not changing? Have I not made more reasonable cases lately? You are attacking me because I made bad play and I tunneled, both of which I’ve admitted to and kicked myself for. What would the benefits of attacking Ort like I did be for scum?
Because thats not the sense I'm using "change" in. I'm using it to refer to your level of interaction with him. It is not going to get significantly different from your actions so far in terms of quantity of play to read. Whereas this roles play increases dynamically.
Italics is basically WIFOM. Unless you can prove you have a reasonable meta to back that statement up.
Well first off, I was not making an argument there, as you can see, I didn't try to prove any point with that statement, was just musing. I concede that it's basically wifom, but would point out that you can make the same judgment I have. Do you really think Caboose was scheming, based on his play?
I’m starting to run out of font styles to use. D=
I'm sorry.
Anyways, you state;
You're probably very annoyed at him, which might be clouding your judgment as to whether or not you think he's scum.
Do you think that the town would be willing to lynch on mere annoyance alone? What do you take of my thoughts of him yesterday when I voted him?
Maybe not the town, but remember I was talking to an individual player there, and I have definitely seen individual players keep their votes on people just out of annoyance. Also, what do you think policy lynches for poor play are for? People lynch lurkers because lurking annoys them.
There is also a load of false dichotomy in here.
Like I just said above, I think you're the best lynch completely independently of that logic. But secondly, the context of my post was "If carncarn will not stop his false dichotomy. I pretty clearly told him NOT to limit himself to two choices, and pointed out Mizzy and ROFLcotor. The fact that you "missed" this is convenient. I don't really buy, considering the fact that you went over that last post of mine with a fine tooth comb. Theres no way in my mind that you could have missed that I told him to not limit himself to two choices, and then went on to say "BUT IF YOU DO" So
FOS: Clockwork here
I just realized that a lot of when I refer to ROFLCOPTOR here I actually meant to refer to carncarn, and I'm too lazy to go back and fix it. You'll figure it out "Carn carns assumptions" etc, not "roflcoptors assumptions.
