Mini 757 - South Park Mafia (Game Over)

[charter]

Vote Count

Debonair Danny DiPietro - 1 (Empking)

Not Voting (7)

Debonair Danny DiPietro
Wall-E
ZazieR
GhostWriter
caf19
Spolium
RestFermata


With 8 alive, it takes 5 to lynch!
Deadline is April 19th at midnight EST.

[caf19]

1) If I was right, then you'd have committed a minor slip, but I would be more likely to be scum than town for trying to nail you on a minor point.

Only true given knowledge of your alignment. Furthermore, I wasn't hounding you or voting for you based on this slip, just exploring a possible contradiction. So your characterization of my behavior is incorrect in the first place, but that's all irrelevant because there's no possibility I was right since the contradiction I saw was based on me having incomplete information. Let's move onto the relevant point then...

Hm, I don't much like this point of your defence. You're saying that this part of Emp's argument should be discarded because he was saying 'even if you were right...' and you weren't right. However, the assumption that we should only engage this argument if there is a chance of you being right is fallacious, because Emp's point (as I see it) was that your original argument was a very minor/pedantic one to bring up,

whether you were right or wrong

, not solely if you were right. The point does apply whether or not you made that mistake because your intent to pressure Emp was there regardless - so I don't see why you felt the need to add the disclaimer of 'that's all irrelevant' to your post.

Incidentally, Emp, I don't know why you didn't mention that part of your reasoning earlier.

Even if you were right then the thing I did was very minor and would more likely come from scum than town

This seems like a better reason to pursue DDD for his attack, not the fact that he made an error. I think in this instance your tendency to be laconic and not to explain your reasons fully has the potential to hurt the town, as your suspicion of DDD has spurred on a sizeable wagon against him despite you not having fully expounded said suspicion.

[Spolium]

TIMMAAAAAH

I was asked to analyze DDD, and, honestly, I'm getting more of a town vibe from him than I did before he and Emp started their back-and-forth. I just like how it's being handled.

Please be more specific. What is it specifically about his dialogue with Empking which you like, and (presumably) consider townish? What did you think of him beforehand, and why? How does your appreciation of DDD's approach make you feel about Empking?

HRRRNNNNNNNN Timmy TimmmeemmemeyyAHHH

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Incidentally, Emp, I don't know why you didn't mention that part of your reasoning earlier.

Even if you were right then the thing I did was very minor and would more likely come from scum than town

This seems like a better reason to pursue DDD for his attack, not the fact that he made an error.

Seriously? You think I'm scum (or at least that it's a good argument) because I was exploring what I thought was a possible contradiction/pressuring a fellow player? I could see that argument having some validity if I had pushed for Empking's lynch or tried to railroad him in the process, but that's simply not the case here.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

You're telling me you never try to understand someone's intent? That you never explore people's possible motivations for their actions?

I look at possible intents but you can't know the player's intent.

Sure, but in some cases one option makes far more or less sense than the others in which case it's easy and often correct to use that as an assumption or toss it out as unlikely.

Given my misread of RBT's claim, my intent was to pressure a fellow player engaging in what I had believed (based upon the given) to be a contradiction.

I'd love to hear what other possible intentions you believe I might have had and how compared to my stated intent it shows that I'm scum.

[caf19]

Incidentally, Emp, I don't know why you didn't mention that part of your reasoning earlier.

Even if you were right then the thing I did was very minor and would more likely come from scum than town

This seems like a better reason to pursue DDD for his attack, not the fact that he made an error.

Seriously? You think I'm scum (or at least that it's a good argument) because I was exploring what I thought was a possible contradiction/pressuring a fellow player? I could see that argument having some validity if I had pushed for Empking's lynch or tried to railroad him in the process, but that's simply not the case here.

Please don't exaggerate my arguments or reduce them to one point. I've outlined previously why I consider you a scum candidate - your eagerness to get on the RBT wagon with scant reasoning, and potential buddy behaviour with Eso, form the main points. The action of yours that we're arguing on here could be a continuation of the first of those two - looking to build pressure on Emp using something as small as a bit of semantic pedantry - but it's not a central part of what makes me 'think you are scum' (and by the way there's a big gap between thinking you're scum and thinking someone else makes a decent argument, it's odd that you put the two together like that). The part of my post that you quoted was an address to Empking about how I thought that part of his post was better than the other part and why he didn't mention it before. I would have addressed it to you if it was a major part of my case. You claim that people are exaggerating your minor suspicion into a tunneling/lynch attempt, but you're bordering on doing the same to me here.

I don't like DDD's defences much. At the same time, though, it's 5 days to deadline and there are still several very quiet people in the game. I don't see much changing in the next five days, so I'm not entirely happy with just plodding towards a DDD lynch in the current timeframe. The chance that we have lurkerscum who are simply staying quiet and waiting for a mislynch to occur is still significant.

Mod: Any chance we could get a deadline extension?

[Spolium]

Seconding deadline request.

[Empking]

Thirding

[charter]

Yes, I'll extend the deadline by a week. ZazieR has a few more hours.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Please don't exaggerate my arguments or reduce them to one point. I've outlined previously why I consider you a scum candidate - your eagerness to get on the RBT wagon with scant reasoning, and potential buddy behaviour with Eso, form the main points.

And I've already debated/refuted those arguments, if you want to go back to them feel free to bring them up, but I'm not going to bring them up when I'm arguing a completely seperate line of logic.

The action of yours that we're arguing on here could be a continuation of the first of those two - looking to build pressure on Emp using something as small as a bit of semantic pedantry - but it's not a central part of what makes me 'think you are scum' (and by the way there's a big gap between thinking you're scum and thinking someone else makes a decent argument, it's odd that you put the two together like that).

And it could be I was exploring a percieved contradiction that another player had made which would be perfectly reasonable behavior, but because you already lean towards me being scum you view it through those tinted glasses instead of examining the reality of the situation.

And yes, I linked the two, because at least when I say an argument is "good" or "decent" I mean it's convincing. And I'm not going to say an argument is convincing if I'm not convinced. Hence saying an argument is decent to me means that you agree with it's conclusion.

The part of my post that you quoted was an address to Empking about how I thought that part of his post was better than the other part and why he didn't mention it before. I would have addressed it to you if it was a major part of my case. You claim that people are exaggerating your minor suspicion into a tunneling/lynch attempt, but you're bordering on doing the same to me here.

I chose that quote because I believed it to be generally a decent summation of the larger post. That the point against me was not that I was wrong in my argument, but that I was pressuring Empking at all. I was not attempting to exaggerate your claims, merely distilling the point down to a few lines for ease of use.

I don't like DDD's defences much.

And I don't like your arguments so much.

At the same time, though, it's 5 days to deadline and there are still several very quiet people in the game. I don't see much changing in the next five days, so I'm not entirely happy with just plodding towards a DDD lynch in the current timeframe.

At least this is consistent with your stance on RBT.

~~~

Caf, my biggest objection to your case is that it's simply stringing together several "coulds".

Scum Danny could be pushing the easy lynch of RBT OR it could be Town Danny who believes that the RBT lynch was not a great lynch, but better than a no lynch.
Scum Danny could have been faking suspicion on Eso OR it could have been Town Danny actually scumhunting and finding scum.
Scum Danny could've been trying to railroad Empking OR it could've been Town Danny exploring a contradiction that he thought he saw.

I could put together the same style case on you.

Scum Caf could've been avoiding the RBT lynch to give a pro-town appearance OR it could've been Town Caf simply having the right read and not wanting to lynch a townie.
Scum Caf could be making many of the same arguments about Eso that I do in ISO 11 in attempt to seperate them in people's mind OR it could be Town Caf trying to find scum.***
Scum Caf could be attempting to bandwagon a pro-town player in me OR it could be Town Caf legimitately trying to find scum.

The point is that my actions aren't inherently scummy, it's that you've chosen to inerpret them as such, but if you look at most any player you can put together the same style case stringing together several possibilities.

***This is actually an interesting point that I just saw, I don't have time now, but I'll get back to this point later.

[ZazieR]

Ok, will start to catch up now

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Alright, time for the interesting note about Caf that I found. He claims my interaction with Eso as being significant in his case in finding me scummy. What specifically doesn't he like? He doesn't like that I leaned towards him being scum, but didn't follow up, suggesting that I was distancing.

HOWEVER, caf mentions Eso only three times in his posts while Eso is alive, the first time merely in a prod request. The second time in ISO #11 he calls Eso scummy using some of the same points that I do in my ISO post #12 that he objected to. But then Caf never follows up. Caf answers a toss-away comment from Eso on D2, but that's it before Eso is modkilled.

So Caf is engaging in some blatently hypocritical behavior here, having engaged in an identical activity that he's using to build a case against me. At a minimum, if Caf is pro-town then he's just demonstrated how this point is not a scum-tell, but I'm still suspicious and I'm going to give Caf's post an isolated read when I get time, soon.

[caf19]

DDD, as for my use of 'could' and speculation, isn't that what town play is all about? I don't

know

anything about your alignment - only the scum have such knowledge. What I can do is assess your likelihood of being scum through how closely your behaviour resembles a scum behavioural profile, and that's what I'm attempting to do. Just because I choose not to phrase my case in needlessly dichotomous "yes" and "no" terms doesn't make it useless.

As for my alleged hypocrisy, well you do have a point that I did a similar thing. It was crappy play from me I guess, although at the time I was being rushed by dej's claim and the impending deadline. I can't fully exonerate you, though, because that's not how the "you did it too" defence works.

There is the overarching fact, that I think I touched upon previously, that most people in the game interacted little or not at all with Eso - a fact that is in your favour in this case. That's why I'd like to explore avenues other than you before the day is out - but that's hard with only half the player base currently making regular posts.

I guess I could try to generate some discussion myself though...

@ GhostWriter, who do you think is most likely to be scum and why?

@ Spolium, you haven't weighed in on the DDD debate recently. How come? You previously had a stance on the issue and you haven't exactly been reluctant to put forth opinions so far in this game.

Mod

, prod Wall-E please?

[charter]

Wall-E has been prodded.

[Wall-E]

Wups, forgot this game. Reading up!

[Wall-E]

First, questions directe at me by Spolium.

Spolium doesn't seem like the type to make illogical arguments

Not that I'm not flattered, but what makes you say this?

You support your points with evidence from the thread. I appreciate that. It makes it easier to hunt for scum.

Dej's statement wasn't worth destroying the town's interest in the game as it wasn't a solid scumtell nor was it particularly damning.

Dej's statement didn't bother me as much as his reaction to questions about it. He was being evasive/dismissive about it, and that just screams scum to me.

I got no such read from him, sorry. With some quoting and commentary you can convince me, but no guarantees.

The problem with metaphors, Spolium, is that they are never accurate. Buttsecks hilarity aside, the entire metaphor needed to be thrown out, as the two situations were provably dissimilar enough to render your argument pointless

I was trying to relate how his statement was indirectly suggestive. I really don't see how the metaphor was particularly off-target.

Then allow me to enlighten you on why this particular metaphor is invalid:

Would there be any harm in saying which character you are? As far as I know, the effects of each aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like Officer Barbrady or maybe Satan if they're in it. Not that I'm suggesting claiming your character is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly giving a Timmy reference, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

The intent of this post is to discuss a potential flavor claim. It is on-subject and succinct. If you disagree, you're wrong, in my opinion. dejkha is unable to force anyone to make any kind of claim, and so he is not scummy: While he is indeed fishing for a flavor-claim's viability, he's approaching it from the departure point of argument and discussion rather than rhetoric or jumping straight into a claim.

Would there be any harm in all having butt sex? As far as I know, the effects of this aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like sphincter pain or maybe tearing if someone's too tight. Not that I'm suggesting us all having butt sex is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly offering butt sex, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

The departure-point of this metaphor for dej's post is one of mockery and is clearly biased. Your claim is that he wants to nameclaim because he's talking about it? Probably right. How is it scummy?

Note that repeatedly offering buttsex is unequal to the repeated use of your PR. The two do not equate, and so your example can't apply. Your point that it shows dej is interested in a nameclaim is like me saying water is wet.

The next damning thing is how Spolium asked someone who they felt was most town on dej's wagon. What. The. Flipping. Banana.

Nobody even batted an eye! Even the person being asked was like, "Well, I don't see the need, but OK!"

What's the problem with that question? You seem to be taking it for granted that the flaw is obvious, but I guess it escapes me.[/quote]

The scum have to pick someone to NK. If you go around telling them who you think is most town, they will eliminate those players and leave you with almost nothing to go on by the end of the game.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

DDD, as for my use of 'could' and speculation, isn't that what town play is all about? I don't

know

anything about your alignment - only the scum have such knowledge. What I can do is assess your likelihood of being scum through how closely your behaviour resembles a scum behavioural profile, and that's what I'm attempting to do. Just because I choose not to phrase my case in needlessly dichotomous "yes" and "no" terms doesn't make it useless.

My point is that any good player can spin basically any point, post, or argument so that it

could

be scummy. Thus the burden of proof is higher, identifying highly probably scum actions or finding actions that only make sense coming from scum. When you have a lynchpin like that, then the circumstantial "could" evidence helps build some depth to the case, but simply having several coulds is relatively meaningless.

As for my alleged hypocrisy, well you do have a point that I did a similar thing. It was crappy play from me I guess, although at the time I was being rushed by dej's claim and the impending deadline. I can't fully exonerate you, though, because that's not how the "you did it too" defence works.

Besides being mildly suspicious it was just to demonstrate again that could isn't really good enough. I mean if you're pro-town and do X, it's tough to turn around and suggest I'm scum for doing X because in this case it would be clearly demonstrated that such action could easily be the action of a pro-town player.

Or you could admit to showing us your logic as scum and save us a lot of work, I'm fine either way.

[Wall-E]

As for my alleged hypocrisy, well you do have a point that I did a similar thing. It was crappy play from me I guess, although at the time I was being rushed by dej's claim and the impending deadline.

Hm.

[Empking]

Then allow me to enlighten you on why this particular metaphor is invalid:

Would there be any harm in saying which character you are? As far as I know, the effects of each aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like Officer Barbrady or maybe Satan if they're in it. Not that I'm suggesting claiming your character is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly giving a Timmy reference, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

The intent of this post is to discuss a potential flavor claim. It is on-subject and succinct. If you disagree, you're wrong, in my opinion. dejkha is unable to force anyone to make any kind of claim, and so he is not scummy: While he is indeed fishing for a flavor-claim's viability, he's approaching it from the departure point of argument and discussion rather than rhetoric or jumping straight into a claim.

Would there be any harm in all having butt sex? As far as I know, the effects of this aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like sphincter pain or maybe tearing if someone's too tight. Not that I'm suggesting us all having butt sex is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly offering butt sex, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

The departure-point of this metaphor for dej's post is one of mockery and is clearly biased. Your claim is that he wants to nameclaim because he's talking about it? Probably right. How is it scummy?

Its structure is exactly the same,.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Vote: ZazieR

She has posts since her last post in here so it's not that she simply hasn't been around, it's that she's chosen to not involve herself further in the game. If we the town don't create a disincentive for this sort of behavior then we implicitly condone it.

[Spolium]

@ Spolium, you haven't weighed in on the DDD debate recently. How come? You previously had a stance on the issue and you haven't exactly been reluctant to put forth opinions so far in this game.

Having spent the first day barking up the wrong tree - twice - I considered it prudent to take a step back from the DDD case to see what transpired without my brutal wallposting. I also put this thread on the backburner briefly so I could focus more on other games, but I should be stepping up my activity now that one of them has finished.

I will be reassessing the DDD discussion over the next couple of days.

---

Dej's statement didn't bother me as much as his reaction to questions about it. He was being evasive/dismissive about it, and that just screams scum to me.

I got no such read from him, sorry. With some quoting and commentary you can convince me, but no guarantees.

I think that would be a redundant exercise at this point. I covered my reasons for finding him scummy at length and have no desire to touch upon it again unless it becomes relevant to the scumhunt.

I was trying to relate how his statement was indirectly suggestive. I really don't see how the metaphor was particularly off-target.

Then allow me to enlighten you on why this particular metaphor is invalid:

<dej's post>

The intent of this post is to discuss a potential flavor claim. It is on-subject and succinct. If you disagree, you're wrong, in my opinion. dejkha is unable to force anyone to make any kind of claim, and so he is not scummy: While he is indeed fishing for a flavor-claim's viability, he's approaching it from the departure point of argument and discussion rather than rhetoric or jumping straight into a claim.

The intent of this post is to discuss the potential for butt sex. It is on-subject and succinct. If you disagree, you're wrong, in my opinion. dejkha is unable to force anyone to agree to butt sex, and so he is not scummy: While he is indeed fishing for the viability of butt sex, he's approaching it from the departure point of argument and discussion rather than rhetoric or jumping straight into a claim.

The departure-point of this metaphor for dej's post is one of mockery and is clearly biased. Your claim is that he wants to nameclaim because he's talking about it? Probably right. How is it scummy?

I'll admit I got a kick out of the humourous side of it, but to call it biased is OTT. Structurally the two were the same, and as such it served to illustrate my point.

My concern was with the fact that he was suggesting EVERYONE nameclaimed. I was concerned that in the event of there being a correlation between character and role, scum would have an easier job in finding power roles.

What baffles me more than anything else is the fact that Dejkha had

evidence

of such a correlation, yet suggested the nameclaim anyway.

Note that repeatedly offering buttsex is unequal to the repeated use of your PR. The two do not equate, and so your example can't apply. Your point that it shows dej is interested in a nameclaim is like me saying water is wet.

Dej vehemently denied that he was suggesting or hinting at a nameclaim, and said that he was only asking a question about it. Why are you trying to make it seem like I pushed the case on him just because he was interested in a nameclaim?

Considering how my case on dej was the primary focus of your first content post, I'd have thought you'd be more familiar with the details.

What's the problem with that question? You seem to be taking it for granted that the flaw is obvious, but I guess it escapes me.

The scum have to pick someone to NK. If you go around telling them who you think is most town, they will eliminate those players and leave you with almost nothing to go on by the end of the game.

I could better appreciate your concern if I was trying to get a "most town" list from every player in the game. As it stands, however, (a) I don't see how that question warranted the reaction you gave it, (b) I don't see how a prospective answer could be any more useful to scum than someone casually identifying a player they considered town (or leaving a player off their list of suspects, which is essentially the same thing) and (c) I certainly don't see how this is "damning" for me.

[Spolium]

ARRRGH FRIGGING TIMMAH TIMMY TIMMY TIMMAHAYSGHAdbsfuhyu4t

[Spolium]

Timmmaaaah, raaah bluurgh TIMMAHhhahaha

Okay, on to DDD. Having re-examined the exchange between him, Caf and Empking, I have come to the following conclusions:

- I don't understand DDD's reaction to Caf's #382. Caf's observations were valid, and his conclusion (that DDD must be considered a possible Eso-buddy) is one which any sane townie could reach, irresepective of whether the same argument could be applied to other players who didn't have much of a stance on Eso.

- #395 strikes me as an attempt to spin what Empking said into something with which other players would most likely disagree. Needless to say, Empking clearly did not imply what DDD was suggesting in that post.

- DDD's #411 is the best point he's made in his defence, but it seems to be

too little, too late

, and in itself puts a dent in my view that he was not primarily concerned with getting himself out of trouble, as does this:

Vote: ZazieR

She has posts since her last post in here so it's not that she simply hasn't been around, it's that she's chosen to not involve herself further in the game.

If we the town don't create a disincentive for this sort of behavior then we implicitly condone it.

Are you serious? A POLICY LYNCH? If we mislynch today, we'll be in lylo tomorrow. Worse, if there are actually THREE scum (a definite possibility, since the town appears to be power role heavy), then we're in lylo

right now

.

This is too much like an attempt to justify a townie lynch without actually presenting a case, and I don't like the forced "we, the town" rhetoric.

vote: Debonair Danny DiPietro

Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-Tim-TIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMheh.

Zaz and Ghost: MORE INPUT PLEASE! Timmarh

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

- I don't understand DDD's reaction to Caf's #382. Caf's observations were valid, and his conclusion (that DDD must be considered a possible Eso-buddy) is one which any sane townie could reach, irresepective of whether the same argument could be applied to other players who didn't have much of a stance on Eso.

My point wasn't that it was an unreasonable argument because it was perfectly reasonable. My points were that is was incorrect and that it failed to meet a higher burden of proof than mere possibility.

- #395 strikes me as an attempt to spin what Empking said into something with which other players would most likely disagree. Needless to say, Empking clearly did not imply what DDD was suggesting in that post.

And I continue to get in trouble for asking questions. Empking said that you can't know other people's intents and thus all you have are actions, the logical follow-up is to learn if he considers intentions at all so I can better tailor any arguments presented to or about Empking.

- DDD's #411 is the best point he's made in his defence, but it seems to be

too little, too late

, and in itself puts a dent in my view that he was not primarily concerned with getting himself out of trouble, as does this:

Wait, what? I think I spent the last two pages or so solely talking about myself and defending myself, but I'm "not primarily concerned with getting himself out of trouble"?

Vote: ZazieR

She has posts since her last post in here so it's not that she simply hasn't been around, it's that she's chosen to not involve herself further in the game.

If we the town don't create a disincentive for this sort of behavior then we implicitly condone it.

Are you serious? A POLICY LYNCH? If we mislynch today, we'll be in lylo tomorrow. Worse, if there are actually THREE scum (a definite possibility, since the town appears to be power role heavy), then we're in lylo

right now

.

This is too much like an attempt to justify a townie lynch without actually presenting a case, and I don't like the forced "we, the town" rhetoric.

vote: Debonair Danny DiPietro

A) Has asking nicely gotten people to contribute, Spolium? Does the deadline on this game seem to compel people to action? No and no, what might compel them to participate? A demonstrated willingness to vote or even lynch them for that behavior.

Look at it from my perspective Spolium, if the day continues on as it has then I get inevitably lynched because I'm apparently the only serious candidate today, except I know I'm pro-town, so if I don't do something to get the game moving then all those bad things about being in LYLO, well they happen anyways.

B) Are you actually suggesting that the game started with four scum or did you just forget that Eso was scum when you suggested we were in LYLO now.

C) Congratulations, you're the 48,003 person who realizes that I have a stilted and often awkward tone. Run the meta, it’s not a tell.

[Wall-E]

The case you are pushing against DDD makes me wary, Spolium. I acknowledge your other points, and aside from your very dismissive tone I have nothing to comment on.