Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[X]

Point 2: You ignore questions.

Evidence from thread:

From IK: "WHY HASN'T ANYTHING RELEVANT HAPPENED SINCE PAGE 4, WALL-E?!?!??" was ignored for a while.

Rhetoric. He set up a strawman, saying that I felt nobody else was scummy and then attacked that. Care to restate yourself?

But the case that you were arguing was a page 3 (IK's mistake) viewpoint. I was getting the impression that you were ignoring what had happened more recently, except post 311 (which also assumed that your case on IK was accurate).

Also posts 426 & 427 certainly warranted a response from you.

I disagree, but let's look them over, shall we?

I wouldn't be so dismissive if you'd actually come up with some semblance of a decent case against me.

Instead of refuting my supporting evidence he continues to dismiss the case.

Your supporting evidence boiled down to two things, neither of which are truly scumtells: flipping out and not liking RVS. I can't identify much of a case beyond that, and from what IK wrote, neither could he. Don't say I'm dismissing your case - dismissing it requires acknowledging that the argument existed in the first place.

But instead of that you've noticed "connections" between me, CUBAREY, X, yellowbunny, and Hero. Yes, we're ALL one big scum family, aren't we?

Rhetorical and irrelevant. I don't catch scum by looking at connections. I catch scum and then I look FOR connections.

Okay, that sort of makes sense, but it could have looked like you were trying to use very weak connections to catch scum. Now I see that you think you've caught IK this whole time.

This whole voting for each other thing must just be one hugely elaborate bussing scheme, eh?

I'm not a sneaky snake like you.

This is rhetoric, dismissive, and begging the question.

You don't seem to understand that every interaction someone has with another player doesn't mean there's a connection between them.

Strawman.

Agreed.

It could just be an interaction, nothing more, nothing less.

This is the only bit of actual refutation he gives, and it's WIFOM.

Then you could have said that it was WIFOM.

Oh, by the way, Wall-E, you're NOT voting for me at the moment.

Now I am

But right after this post, you backed off, and didn't even vote him. I couldn't tell whether you missed the comment or not.

Your response to 491 was mostly, "I'm not gonna respond to this."

No, it wasn't. I didn't say that at all.

You didn't say it, but you did say the following similar statements:

...
Already answered.
...
I don't see much to comment on here.
...
I see no question here.
...
I see no question here
...
I see no questions here.

So although you did answer a few of the questions, you didn't respond to the vast majority of the post.

You have not responded to 532.

All right. I'll do this. Fine.

Wall-E, you ask why the evidence you have presented is crappy.

I don't recall doubting my scumhunting, if that's what you're implicating.

I'm certain that that's not what he's implicating. He meant to say that "you ask why

we think/say/know

the evidence you have presented is crappy."

That's because the evidence is all quite old, and has been VERY much explained as of late.

Apparently not to my prior satisfaction. Information does not go out of style like pants.

Information does not go out of style, but there are small tells that can be easily explained away and should be forgotten, in order to focus on the more pressing matters.

Do you HONESTLY believe that I am scum merely because I hate RVS?

Strawman.

As I see it, you have that reason, and the circular reasoning (IK, therefore someone else, therefore IK), and the flipouts.

Is that REALLY the only reason you have?

No. Read my posts again please. Specifically the huge case I posted against you.

I might have missed something, but I think I covered the three main things, while he only covered one.

I think I like my vote where it is, thanks to this.

Rhetoric, unnecessary to respond to.

In my opinion you pretty much have to be scum.

More rhetoric.

Well, he's explaining his position, not his evidence. That does deserve mentioning now and then.

Failing that, you're probably the worst townie I've ever seen, other than me.

Appeal to emotion-y.

Huh? It doesn't match what I learned appeal to emotion as. Please elaborate (if for nothing else, for my own edification).

Attacking my ethics does not invalidate my case. Logical fallacies are largely considered a scumtell here. If you would like to address my case, I'm listening.

Ok... so where is the logical fallacy here? What exactly are you referring to?

The logical fallacy is attacking my ethics instead of addressing my case. The proper method of refutation is to make counter-points that can explain away facts presented by the other party. What you have done is instead told everyone, LOL, WALL-E SUCKS AT MAFIA SO I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER. This is called ad hominem.

I probably am reading this all wrong, because I think you're treating the word "ethics" in a way that I'm not thinking of it. Could you explain what you mean by "ethics?"

Post 51 may be Jase trying out the "do something silly and scummy at the beginning then go serious-as-scum" thing.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Then Idiot King distracts from the bit of attention the flip-out granted him by bringing up a RVS policy discussion and baiting people into joining it by taking the unpopular side (pooh on all of you who participated, scum helping their partner distract).

It's the same RVS discussion, in fact, that we've all groaned through in every game ever.

Vote: Idiotking

Don't automatically think I'm scum right from the start, as the wording of this post indicates.

That's not true, but it's also irrelevant.

You have YET to explain why post 53 is a mini-flipout.

Yes I have.

I don't believe you have. I just searched through your posts for "flipout" and "flip-out" and couldn't find an explanation. Please show me.

Has it EVER occurred to you that that's the kind of guy I am?

I don't know you and must predicate all my decisions in this game on a clean-slate basis.

Do meta work. Which reminds me, I need to do some meta work on you when I get the time.

Have the posts since then not convinced you of this?

Rhetoric in light of my lack of knowledge of your meta.

Still deserves a response of yes or no.

Another thing. About the RVS thing. Do you NOT acknowledge that it got conversation going?

This may be the only true defense I've seen from IK. It's part of the reason I doubted myself

I believe this is valid, but I don't think its his only defense (as I've been explaining).

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

I've already said that the problem with this logic is that the scum aren't guaranteed to mess up, and in the meantime other players will be voting you for scummy plays. It's anti-town and I think you're doing it because you're scum.

I think this was in reference to a gambit. I agree with you, Wall-E, that town players shouldn't pull gambits unless they're extremely well planned.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

I can't defend against a vague claim of scummyness.

Understandable.

Uhuh. Meta defense, dismissiveness and attempts to shift the burden of proof back to me after I neatly placed it in your court.

You didn't place crap in my court.

I have.

It's been all over you since the beginning.

The burden of proof in this context has been lost to IK's quotechoppery. I'd go back and find it, but I have a lot of other things to comment on.

Yes, this whole argument is lost without the details.

Meta defense. Ok. I don't even know what meta is to the extent you people on this site have taken it.

Meta is explained in the wiki.

You should have told him that, rather than expected him to figure it out.

I do what I do as experimentation.

Do you see the problem with this defense? It goes back to being anti-town. I'm not saying don't experiment, but what does experimentation have to do with the fact that you have dismissed my points against you by claiming that you, "Always do stuff like that." That's a meta-defense.

Agreed.

Didn't you want to know the reasoning for why I do things?

Always.

If you didn't, why did you even bother asking?

What?

Was it a rhetorical question?

I've lost you.

Or did you not quote the question?

Still lost.

Your quizzical answers to the remaining questions are because you answered "yes" when he was expecting "no," which was actually a rhetorical question.

No, you can't be proud of sparking discussion by becoming suspicious yourself. If it's done consciously, you are misleading and hurting town, and not actually spawning constructive discussion since you're drawing suspicion to the only player you know the alignment of.

This is still a good point.

This is the beauty of the thing. I know my alignment, I can defend myself. If I'm put under the microscope, it allows everyone to examine both me and the people holding said microscope. We can see flaws in logic, twisting of words, etc.

I'm with you up to here, because what you're talking about sounds fun and useful. Your words soothe me, and make me want to help you be random and destructive! That was heavily sarcastic.

Basically, making yourself a target so you can see who all jumps on you and why.

Like running in front of a shooting range to see who is a dirty cop. Obviously a clean cop would never shoot a moron.

If they don't have a good reason, or don't have a good idea of what they're doing, it'll show, and when it shows, you can react accordingly. SOMEBODY has to start discussion, somebody has to be the initial scapegoat, and I'd rather it be me than a better player.

I have been chastized for previously referring to my meta as being a poor player. By you.

Granted, I hadn't intended for that to happen from the outset, but I'm not going to complain now that it did.

This totally contradicts your prior assertion that you "like to experiment and set yourself up as a target to catch scum."

Here is the problem with what you are doing. (gosh I'm smart)

By setting yourself up as a target you are causing the town to hunt you instead of scum. You are predicating this behavior on the idea that the scum are guaranteed to slip up, but they aren't. (so smart)

My response here would be the exact same response as I had when I responded to this originally. You dismissed it (ironic, considering you called it dismissive).

Not true. You made a counter-argument and I let it lie for a while. Upon reviewing your counter-argument, I believe I've spotted all the holes.

But you didn't respond until practically forced to. If you were town and that was really your approach, you would say something along the lines of, "I think there's something wrong with your reasoning, but I can't put my finger on it. Give me a few days to digest it."

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

We've been over this in this post (again) already.

Back up this rhetoric with supporting evidence, please.

He still has not.

Yeah, I have. Recently. Look it up yourself. I've already done enough for you.

He still has not. He's being unhelpful merely because he is the target of my scumhunt, which is anti-town.

His uncooperative demeanor is noted. It is somewhat little anti-town, but not necessarily scummy.

---

That's about half. I don't know when I'll get to the other half, but I'll definitely aim for before deadline. Note also, so far, he hasn't combated the point that he ignores things, he just starts answering them. It's a start, but he still has been ignoring a lot when left to his own devices.

[Idiotking]

Your gut is telling you to wait?

Unvote: Vote: Idiotking

You know I'm town and you're hesitant to push the envelope too hard.

Tunnnnelllinnngg, but I'm used to it by now.

I've read through pretty much all of Wall-E's Wallposts of Death, but I don't have time to respond to it all at the moment. Besides, since X is already doing his own point-by-point rundown of the thing, it'd get confusing if I did one too; I'll wait until he's done unless you guys really want me to now.

I'd like to ask you something directly, Wall-E. Has it really occurred to you that your fixation on me could be horribly off base, that I could be town, and that you've wasted absolutely all your energies on someone who may well not be scum? This is from a purely hypothetical standpoint, I want to see you answer honestly and clearly and with no antagonism on any level. What would you do if it turned out that absolutely all of your scumhunting was directed at a townie? This is, of course, assuming you're a townie yourself. Basically it boils down to this: Most of us are suspicious of multiple people. You're rather fixated on me. You've openly stated that you think I'm scum, but have no idea who my scumpartners could be. If I am lynched, and turn up town, what will you do then?

[Looker]

@Looker: I am still continuing to wait for you to respond to my questions which I repeated in 786. What reason do you have to keep ignoring these?

They kept cumming at the wrong time, I guess...

@Looker: I think we all REALLY appreciate you replacing into our 28 page long day one...cannot say that enough. I think the things we are most curious to know are:

1.) Who are the people you find most scummy?
2.) Although we all know you cannot speak for Cubarey, what do you make of him going after X on such a flimsy case?
3.) Do you think that Cubarey's behavior was scummy compared to some of the other less active people? If so, why? If not, then what do you make of some people's fixation on this slot?

1. Paying attention mostly to Wall-E (still don't understand his post 788, Idiotking (don't like his post 826 because it makes me think he's scum with wall-e), & Looker (because, in his post 821, he referred to a post by yellowbunny and said it was sajin's. That and his general attitude of apathy as displayed in his post 823)

2. I don't see nothing wrong with his post 175 other than sucky tags but post 179 only shows that he was thinking too hard. Hey, that's what we're here for, play to win.

3. If you're talking about Jase, he was probably fixated on it because it was something to talk about that wasn't about him. Whatever happened to him after posts 735 and 736? If there's anybody else just tell me.

[Looker]

@ Idiotking, are you going to vote soon?

[X]

Are you kidding me?

1.) Who are the people you find most scummy?

1. Paying attention mostly to Wall-E (still don't understand his post 788, Idiotking (don't like his post 826 because it makes me think he's scum with wall-e), &

Looker (because, in his post 821, he referred to a post by yellowbunny and said it was sajin's. That and his general attitude of apathy as displayed in his post 823)

Okay, you haven't given us much information to go on, and you spend the same amount of time talking about how you're suspicious of yourself as of Wall-E and IK combined? There's a problem there.

[Wall-E]

Your gut is telling you to wait?

Unvote: Vote: Idiotking

You know I'm town and you're hesitant to push the envelope too hard.

Tunnnnelllinnngg, but I'm used to it by now.

It's only tunneling if I'm scum and you're town. Since the opposite is apparently (to me) the case, I'm made of rubber and you're made of glue.

I've read through pretty much all of Wall-E's Wallposts of Death, but I don't have time to respond to it all at the moment. Besides, since X is already doing his own point-by-point rundown of the thing, it'd get confusing if I did one too; I'll wait until he's done unless you guys really want me to now.

Why not just comment on what you find relevant? Instead of putting the ball soley in X's court, I mean. It can't hurt a game to make more posts (exception to every rule: zwetschenwasser).

I'd like to ask you something directly, Wall-E. Has it really occurred to you that your fixation

The word fixation implies irrationality. I do not think it's irrational of me to pursue you in light of the many, many uncompiled callouts I've made on you and your plays.

on me could be horribly off base, that I could be town, and that you've wasted absolutely all your energies on someone who may well not be scum?

I've already answered this.

This is from a purely hypothetical standpoint, I want to see you answer honestly and clearly and with no antagonism on any level.

Antagonization is my tool. I assure you that you should never take anything I say as an insult in any way. It's a side-effect of my condition and not actual anger.

What would you do if it turned out that absolutely all of your scumhunting was directed at a townie?

For the record, it's happened before. I don't play this game with ego (I'm told some people are shocked when I say this, but I really, honestly don't) so it's only a question of re-evaluating myself.

This is, of course, assuming you're a townie yourself.

Hmm.

Basically it boils down to this: Most of us are suspicious of multiple people. You're rather fixated on me. You've openly stated that you think I'm scum, but have no idea who my scumpartners could be. If I am lynched, and turn up town, what will you do then?

I would, in that unlikely scenario, apologize to the town and forge on. I'd like to think that's really obvious, but since I'm repeating myself just for you, you lucky scum, I'd like you to go ahead and keep on 'assuming' I'm town (you already know it). That works just fine for me.

The biggest reasons I've focused almost exclusively on IK are his repeated use of logical fallacies. X's posts seem to indicate that he was unaware of that fact, but I have said it before, so I'm making a note of it again here. My posts in isolation are almost all me telling IK what's wrong with his argument style from a standpoint of (necessarily) cold logic.

@X: Appeal to emotion: Saying, "I'm the worst player ever." It's an appeal to pity, and provably untrue besides.

[Wall-E]

Your supporting evidence boiled down to two things, neither of which are truly scumtells: flipping out and not liking RVS. I can't identify much of a case beyond that, and from what IK wrote, neither could he. Don't say I'm dismissing your case - dismissing it requires acknowledging that the argument existed in the first place.

Is this a request for clarification? That's the opposite of being dismissive.

High context is difficult for me to grapple with. I would normally have "ignored" this post (as in, read but not comment on).

Because I am highly alert to a problem in how I am presenting myself in this game, I'm telling you now that you need to be more literal with me. A lot more literal. Pretend you are speaking to a five year old with a very high IQ.

My case starts with the mini-flipout, which I have analyzed line-by-line previously. It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet. The most pro-town thing he's done was to question my condition, imho, and other than that he's mostly yelling about what I'm writing instead of refuting it properly.

So that's: Logical fallacies, flip-out, starting an RVS discussion to derail suspicion using a bombastic statement, prolific dismissiveness.

[qwints]

I'm just posting to say I've been trying to keep up, but studying for exams is eating up too much time to post in detail right now.

I don't like looker's last few posts - it feels like he's trying to get people to tell him who he can join a bandwagon against.

Wall-E's sudden helpfulness puts me in a bind. On one hand, it does negate what I had seen as the scummiest point against him. On the other, it seems like it takes extreme amounts of pressure to get him to post. I'd be reluctant to lynch him today, but if he stops participating tomorrow, he'll be right on the top of my radar.

Lastly, I'll be taking my Will + Estates Exam on Wednesday, so I won't be able to get to the computer all morning. Thus, my last chance to vote will be Tuesday late afternoon or early evening.

[qwints]

Whoops, mixed my games up. I see this games deadline is next Sunday. Access shouldn't be a problem.

[Looker]

@ qwints - that's not the case. words dont matter, votes do

[qwints]

Ok,

vote: Looker

[Idiotking]

Your gut is telling you to wait?

Unvote: Vote: Idiotking

You know I'm town and you're hesitant to push the envelope too hard.

Tunnnnelllinnngg, but I'm used to it by now.

It's only tunneling if I'm scum and you're town. Since the opposite is apparently (to me) the case, I'm made of rubber and you're made of glue.

That's funny, actually. I think it's the opposite, making your statement tunneling by your own words. Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about with rubber and glue. You lost me there.

Why not just comment on what you find relevant? Instead of putting the ball soley in X's court, I mean. It can't hurt a game to make more posts (exception to every rule: zwetschenwasser).

The vast majority of it I'd call dismissive again. Considering you're calling me dismissive, I'm calling you dismissive, etc. I don't think we'd really get anywhere. I could pick out little bits to respond to, yeah, but selecting what you're going to respond to and leaving the rest is suspicious. It's ignoring stuff that may actually be relevant, whether you think it is or not.

I'd like to ask you something directly, Wall-E. Has it really occurred to you that your fixation

The word fixation implies irrationality. I do not think it's irrational of me to pursue you in light of the many, many uncompiled callouts I've made on you and your plays.

Nitpick some more. I'm openly willing to say I've been fixating on you a little bit. It's actually possible to say the town as a whole has, and still is. We've all been a little irrational, that's kind of necessary on Day 1 when solid evidence is nonexistent. Without solid evidence, there's always a bit of a risk, always a little irrationality.

on me could be horribly off base, that I could be town, and that you've wasted absolutely all your energies on someone who may well not be scum?

I've already answered this.

Do it again, please. I think for all the times we've repeated ourselves for you, you can do it one more time for me.

This is from a purely hypothetical standpoint, I want to see you answer honestly and clearly and with no antagonism on any level.

Antagonization is my tool. I assure you that you should never take anything I say as an insult in any way. It's a side-effect of my condition and not actual anger.

Fair enough. If you really have that condition, it's forgivable, and if you don't, I've been a jackass today too, so fair's fair.

What would you do if it turned out that absolutely all of your scumhunting was directed at a townie?

For the record, it's happened before. I don't play this game with ego (I'm told some people are shocked when I say this, but I really, honestly don't) so it's only a question of re-evaluating myself.

Wasn't meaning your ego. I want to know what your actions on Day 2 would be. For strategy you have to plan ahead (or at least, keep future possibilities for courses of action in mind), to win at Mafia you have to have a strategy, no matter your alignment.

This is, of course, assuming you're a townie yourself.

Hmm.

Hypothetical situation, remember.

Basically it boils down to this: Most of us are suspicious of multiple people. You're rather fixated on me. You've openly stated that you think I'm scum, but have no idea who my scumpartners could be. If I am lynched, and turn up town, what will you do then?

I would, in that unlikely scenario, apologize to the town and forge on. I'd like to think that's really obvious, but since I'm repeating myself just for you, you lucky scum, I'd like you to go ahead and keep on 'assuming' I'm town (you already know it). That works just fine for me.

Don't be snide. Apologizing to the town wouldn't do you any good, it'd make you look worse. "Oh, I stuck to my convictions to the end, I'm sorry, I won't do it again." That'd earn an immediate vote from me. And how would you 'forge on?' I'm not asking for generalizations, I'm talking specifics. Who would you go after, given the evidence on Day 1, if I turned up town? What is your master plan? Even if you're town you have to have one, you can't just float through the game without any idea of what you're doing. What direction will you take? Will you be as aggressive on Day 2? Will you be able to defend yourself after being the most vocal opponent of the dead townie? You say defending yourself ranks pretty low, priority-wise. Do you agree that you'd have to seriously defend yourself in this situation?

The biggest reasons I've focused almost exclusively on IK are his repeated use of logical fallacies. X's posts seem to indicate that he was unaware of that fact, but I have said it before, so I'm making a note of it again here. My posts in isolation are almost all me telling IK what's wrong with his argument style from a standpoint of (necessarily) cold logic.

@X: Appeal to emotion: Saying, "I'm the worst player ever." It's an appeal to pity, and provably untrue besides.

So you admit you've focused almost exclusively on me, and yet you refuse to admit you've fixated. Obsessing over one person is ALWAYS irrational (and a little creepy). May I call that a logical fallacy (since irrationality always is)? How about your

logical fallacies

? Don't say you don't have them, they're there. They've been made abundantly clear. You're suspicious of things that aren't scumtells, that's at least 75% of your argument.

You will also probably not be surprised to find out that I'm not a purely logical player. From what I've seen, neither are you, no matter how you characterize yourself.

And for the record, no, that's not an appeal to emotion. Not any more than "Oh, I have AS!" was. If you'd actually look at my other game on this site, you'd know that doubting my skill is very much justified.

[Sajin]

@ qwints - that's not the case. words dont matter, votes do

Oh, so I have to move my vote so it doesn't take 5+ pages to get a response? We can play that way.

unvote; vote: Looker

[Idiotking]

I know this isn't aimed at me, but since it's about me, I'll respond to it anyway.

My case starts with the mini-flipout, which I have analyzed line-by-line previously.

Flip-outs are not scumtells. Hasn't. Anything. I've. Done. Since. Then. Proven. To. You. That. I. Act. That. Way. All. The. Time?

It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet.

X mostly seemed to agree on my choppy quoting skills and my rage. I've never been good with them, but then, I was basically doing YOUR damn homework and trying to compile all the arguments against you into one pile (thank you X for doing a much better job of it). Those "vague" references to your scummyness? YOU'VE BEEN DOING THAT TO ME THE ENTIRE TIME. How come you notice it when I do it, but not when YOU do it?

The most pro-town thing he's done was to question my condition, imho,

Which begs the question as to why you brought it up in the first place, considering it's one of the most flamboyant appeals to emotion possible.

and other than that he's mostly yelling about what I'm writing instead of refuting it properly.

Oh God, the hypocrisy here is suffocating me.

So that's: Logical fallacies,

It seems to me that a lot of the logical fallacies you refer to aren't actually times when I was using logic, rather than just epically pissed at your refusal to do your own shit and actually respond to me like a normal person would. As for my "experimentation," it didn't start out intentional. But once I noticed what was happening, I took it and ran with it, and now we have 34 pages of discussion. I'm not going to take credit for it, but I like to think it helped a little, at least. Oh, and btw. You say it was anti-town of me to put myself in the line of fire? The shooting range, as you put it? Look where you are now that you've been FIXATING on it for weeks.

flip-out,

Not a scumtell....

starting an RVS discussion to derail suspicion using a bombastic statement

Derail suspicion? Oh, that's rich. No, that was not to derail suspicion. I really hate RVS. Is that a scumtell? Do you really think it's a scumtell to start a RVS conversation TO GET THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION GOING? DO YOU DENY that it helped start up the discussion?

THIS IS NOT A SCUMTELL.

prolific dismissiveness.

Can't... breathe... pot... kettle... black!

[StrangerCoug]

I'm trying to decide whether the Looker wagon that seems to be starting is well-reasoned or opportunistic. I'm leaning well-reasoned at this point given the way Looker responded to qwints.

Unvote: Wall-E

[Wall-E]

I know this isn't aimed at me, but since it's about me, I'll respond to it anyway.

My case starts with the mini-flipout, which I have analyzed line-by-line previously.

Flip-outs are not scumtells. Hasn't. Anything. I've. Done. Since. Then. Proven. To. You. That. I. Act. That. Way. All. The. Time?

They aren't? Why, then, have I witnessed several wolves self-destruct when pressured? It may be an UNLIKELY scumtell (i cannot believe that you've driven me to refuting my own points... i feel like i'm shadow-boxing) but in my book, it IS a scumtell.

It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet.

X mostly seemed to agree on my choppy quoting skills and my rage. I've never been good with them, but then, I was basically doing YOUR damn homework and trying to compile all the arguments against you into one pile (thank you X for doing a much better job of it). Those "vague" references to your scummyness? YOU'VE BEEN DOING THAT TO ME THE ENTIRE TIME. How come you notice it when I do it, but not when YOU do it?

Appeal to authority (X) followed by more angry words. You're upset that I forced you to compile a case against me? Do you want me to just roll over and die instead of forcing people to compile their case? Those questions can be considered rhetoric, as I believe the only answer should be an unequivocal "No."

The most pro-town thing he's done was to question my condition, imho,

Which begs the question as to why you brought it up in the first place, considering it's one of the most flamboyant appeals to emotion possible.

I'm frankly fucking shocked nobody lynched me for it. I probably would have. But I've been wanting to 'come out' for a while now, to help me in my games.

and other than that he's mostly yelling about what I'm writing instead of refuting it properly.

Oh God, the hypocrisy here is suffocating me.

Posts like this are what keep me on your trail. Proper argument establishes a point or points out the flaws in another person's arguments. This is neither, it's just rhetoric.

So that's: Logical fallacies,

It seems to me that a lot of the logical fallacies you refer to aren't actually times when I was using logic, rather than just epically pissed at your refusal to do your own shit and actually respond to me like a normal person would. As for my "experimentation," it didn't start out intentional. But once I noticed what was happening, I took it and ran with it, and now we have 34 pages of discussion. I'm not going to take credit for it, but I like to think it helped a little, at least. Oh, and btw. You say it was anti-town of me to put myself in the line of fire? The shooting range, as you put it? Look where you are now that you've been FIXATING on it for weeks.

There is a huge difference between chasing a badguy and getting shot and running into a room where you know you'll be shot pointlessly.

flip-out,

Not a scumtell....

starting an RVS discussion to derail suspicion using a bombastic statement

Derail suspicion? Oh, that's rich. No, that was not to derail suspicion. I really hate RVS. Is that a scumtell? Do you really think it's a scumtell to start a RVS conversation TO GET THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION GOING? DO YOU DENY that it helped start up the discussion?

THIS IS NOT A SCUMTELL.

I can neither confirm nor deny the possibility that your RVS discussion was helpful. It's an unquantifiable and frankly pointless thing to discuss. I'm merely showing people what I think about your motives, which you have refuted with meta behavioral explainations that will not excuse you from these behaviors in my personal playbook.

prolific dismissiveness.

Can't... breathe... pot... kettle... black!

It's possible that you do not know what I mean by argument and refutation.

Start with a statement (or end with one) such as: The world is flat.

Now add supporting evidence:

Evidence 1: I look out at the horizon and it appears flat.
Evidence 2: A small ball of wet mud will sink into a flat surface given enough time.

An opponent of this view would then REFUTE the key points by making his OWN arguments or refutations.

The earth is round.

Evidence 1: Ships disappear over the horizon.
Evidence 2: The moon, sun and all other heavenly bodies appear to be round.

Refutation 1: Appearances can be decieving.
Refutation 2: The earth is not a ball of mud. It's harder and therefore retains its shape better.

I could go on to again refute the prior arguments.

The earth is flat.

Refutation 1: I have never seen a ship disappear over the horizon. Please provide evidence of this claim.
Refutation 2: Just because many things appear the some does not guarantee that all of them are the same.

And so forth.

Notice there's no name-calling, angry spluttering, flipping out or logical fallacies. Untrue things may be said, but that's different. In fact, both people sound rather smarter for avoiding those things, and the conversation is easily followed, unhindered by hurt feelings or rage.

[Wall-E]

I'm tired of pushing this case around and it's heavy and unpopular besides. I'll still defend myself, but IK is my choice for the day.

[yellowbunny]

@ qwints - that's not the case. words dont matter, votes do

@Looker:...um...seriously?? You're kidding, right? Oh, and Kreriov was the person I was discussing who initially raised the case against Cubarey. Please respond to his case (which I discuss below).

I'm trying to decide whether the Looker wagon that seems to be starting is well-reasoned or opportunistic. I'm leaning well-reasoned at this point given the way Looker responded to qwints.

Unvote: Wall-E

Personally, I think its a little bit from column A, a little bit from column B. I was looking back at Kreriov's inital case on Cubarey, it was founded on Cubarey not posting a lot, and Cubarey claiming X had a vote on him when he didn't. The first point was a common problem in this game, and the second isn't unique in this game. Wall-e had claimed I put a vote on someone who I did not -- and while it was an issue its hardly the central part of the case against Wall-e. (@Kreriov: if I missed a part of your case against Cubarey, please correct me.) So while these are interesting points, I feel that this case has been built up into something much bigger than the facts support. Personally, I think its just as likely (if not more likely) that Cubarey was a noobie player, made a mistake (mistakenly claimed X voted for him), and flipped.

Now, Looker's responses (or lack thereof) have been troubling so far. The votes on him might be to pressure him into being more serious - which would be a plus...but they also seem a bit opportunistic. In comparision to some of the other cases, the case against Cubarey/Looker seems pretty weak.

Who would you go after, given the evidence on Day 1, if I turned up town? What is your master plan? Even if you're town you have to have one, you can't just float through the game without any idea of what you're doing. What direction will you take? Will you be as aggressive on Day 2? Will you be able to defend yourself after being the most vocal opponent of the dead townie? You say defending yourself ranks pretty low, priority-wise. Do you agree that you'd have to seriously defend yourself in this situation?

I don't like this post at all. It seems rather threatening to Wall-e. As town, the top priority is supposed to be lynching scum. Wall-e claims he thinks you are scum. Why should he not go after you as hard as possible? And if you are the lynch, that means the majority of people agreed with him. Sorry, but this really rubs me the wrong way.

So you admit you've focused almost exclusively on me, and yet you refuse to admit you've fixated. Obsessing over one person is ALWAYS irrational (and a little creepy). May I call that a logical fallacy (since irrationality always is)? How about your logical fallacies? Don't say you don't have them, they're there. They've been made abundantly clear. You're suspicious of things that aren't scumtells, that's at least 75% of your argument.

Two issues:
1a) You've been pretty obsessed with Wall-e as well.
1b) It is arguable that fixating on one person if they are your only scum lead is irrational. And also the logical fallacy thing is an issue, since I'm not sure that Wall-e's fixation on you is as bad as you are painting it to be.
2) Aren't "scumtells" always arguable?? If there was ever anything which 100% of the people who did was scum, only idiots would do it. Scum tells are an issue of someone being more or less probable to be scum.

[Kreriov]

@YB & Looker - Here is the post with my initial case against Cubarey. I would have to look, but I am pretty sure Cubarey never posted after this post.

I therefore have unvoted him (actually did this when he explained that his reply to X my have been partially caused by paranoia) and Voted X who seemed overly eager to lead the bandwagon that had started to form around me .

Ok, two things here. First, so you voted for X because he was leading a bandwagon against you? That is pretty much the definition of OMGUS.

Second, X NEVER VOTED FOR YOU! In fact, he barely mentions you in any of his posts, asking a question or two and responding to things YOU have to say about HIM. Here is what he even says in his 'list of thoughts on people':

CUBAREY is not scummy, just confused, I think. He doesn’t get that the natural gut reaction to a loaded question is to think that your inquisitor is scum.

If anything, Jase would be leading your bandwagon and with only Jase and I voting for you, its more of a donkey cart. Talk about being paranoid!

All I can say is maybe X has you pegged dead on as confused. Personally, it looks like you are scrambling and contradicting yourself to me.

This does not include any of the case Jase was making.

[Idiotking]

I know this isn't aimed at me, but since it's about me, I'll respond to it anyway.

My case starts with the mini-flipout, which I have analyzed line-by-line previously.

Flip-outs are not scumtells. Hasn't. Anything. I've. Done. Since. Then. Proven. To. You. That. I. Act. That. Way. All. The. Time?

They aren't? Why, then, have I witnessed several wolves self-destruct when pressured? It may be an UNLIKELY scumtell (i cannot believe that you've driven me to refuting my own points... i feel like i'm shadow-boxing) but in my book, it IS a scumtell.

Did I self destruct? It's not impossible for townies to "flip out". You've also most likely seen that happen, as well.

It continues through several logical fallacies followed by the things X agreed with in his latest post, plus a few more that haven't been commented on by anyone yet.

X mostly seemed to agree on my choppy quoting skills and my rage. I've never been good with them, but then, I was basically doing YOUR damn homework and trying to compile all the arguments against you into one pile (thank you X for doing a much better job of it). Those "vague" references to your scummyness? YOU'VE BEEN DOING THAT TO ME THE ENTIRE TIME. How come you notice it when I do it, but not when YOU do it?

Appeal to authority (X) followed by more angry words. You're upset that I forced you to compile a case against me? Do you want me to just roll over and die instead of forcing people to compile their case? Those questions can be considered rhetoric, as I believe the only answer should be an unequivocal "No."

I'm not upset at all at the moment. I capitalize to stress things. Oh, and you DISMISSED the fact that I pointed out that you do the same things to me. Yeah, I didn't want to have to pile all that together.

I shouldn't have had to

. You should have been cooperative right from the beginning, making that compilation unnecessary. You weren't. That's one bloody huge scumtell to me.

The most pro-town thing he's done was to question my condition, imho,

Which begs the question as to why you brought it up in the first place, considering it's one of the most flamboyant appeals to emotion possible.

I'm frankly fucking shocked nobody lynched me for it. I probably would have. But I've been wanting to 'come out' for a while now, to help me in my games.

TO HELP YOU IN YOUR GAMES? So now you're freely admitting that you appealed to emotion for this purpose.

vote: Wall-E

and other than that he's mostly yelling about what I'm writing instead of refuting it properly.

Oh God, the hypocrisy here is suffocating me.

Posts like this are what keep me on your trail. Proper argument establishes a point or points out the flaws in another person's arguments. This is neither, it's just rhetoric.

This establishes a point and points out the flaws in your argument. You've been refusing to answer our questions for a LONG time now, and spewing your own "rhetoric", to use your own by-now-cliche word. I'm sorry if this is too subtle for you. And NO, I'm NOT going to copy and paste the HUNDREDS of times you've done this so far.

So that's: Logical fallacies,

It seems to me that a lot of the logical fallacies you refer to aren't actually times when I was using logic, rather than just epically pissed at your refusal to do your own shit and actually respond to me like a normal person would. As for my "experimentation," it didn't start out intentional. But once I noticed what was happening, I took it and ran with it, and now we have 34 pages of discussion. I'm not going to take credit for it, but I like to think it helped a little, at least. Oh, and btw. You say it was anti-town of me to put myself in the line of fire? The shooting range, as you put it? Look where you are now that you've been FIXATING on it for weeks.

There is a huge difference between chasing a badguy and getting shot and running into a room where you know you'll be shot pointlessly.

Yeah... "I'm a townie, so don't go after me" argument. Really... yeah.

flip-out,

Not a scumtell....

starting an RVS discussion to derail suspicion using a bombastic statement

Derail suspicion? Oh, that's rich. No, that was not to derail suspicion. I really hate RVS. Is that a scumtell? Do you really think it's a scumtell to start a RVS conversation TO GET THE ACTUAL DISCUSSION GOING? DO YOU DENY that it helped start up the discussion?

THIS IS NOT A SCUMTELL.

I can neither confirm nor deny the possibility that your RVS discussion was helpful. It's an unquantifiable and frankly pointless thing to discuss. I'm merely showing people what I think about your motives, which you have refuted with meta behavioral explainations that will not excuse you from these behaviors in my personal playbook.

If you can neither deny nor confirm the possibility that the RVS discussion was helpful, why do you automatically consider it a scumtell? And you want me to defend my MOTIVES? This is purely psychological, in which case, my meta DOES matter. The only defense I can possibly have from something that has no logical foundation (none whatsoever, because it's all based on predictions and possibility, not hard fact) and is focused on the way my brain works is a

meta defense

.

prolific dismissiveness.

Can't... breathe... pot... kettle... black!

It's possible that you do not know what I mean by argument and refutation.

Ok.

Start with a statement (or end with one) such as: The world is flat.

M'kay.

Now add supporting evidence:

With you so far.

Evidence 1: I look out at the horizon and it appears flat.
Evidence 2: A small ball of wet mud will sink into a flat surface given enough time.

Uh huh.

(a small ball of wet mud will not sink into a perfectly flat surface given ten billion years)

An opponent of this view would then REFUTE the key points by making his OWN arguments or refutations.

Have done so.

The earth is round.

Why yes, yes it is.

Evidence 1: Ships disappear over the horizon.
Evidence 2: The moon, sun and all other heavenly bodies appear to be round.

Refutation 1: Appearances can be decieving.
Refutation 2: The earth is not a ball of mud. It's harder and therefore retains its shape better.

I could go on to again refute the prior arguments.

Poor examples. There's no subtlety. This is Mafia, so either the "Evidence" guy or the "Refutation" guy is probably scum. If he's scum, he's actually trying to kill the other guy, and vice versa. You've dismissed my refutations of you anyway. I don't even know if you notice when you do.

Notice there's no name-calling, angry spluttering, flipping out or logical fallacies. Untrue things may be said, but that's different. In fact, both people sound rather smarter for avoiding those things, and the conversation is easily followed, unhindered by hurt feelings or rage.

You're going by pure logic (faulty, faulty logic). I AM NOT A PURE LOGIC PLAYER. And notice, your examples didn't outright dismiss each other. So you're not going by your own examples.

Who would you go after, given the evidence on Day 1, if I turned up town? What is your master plan? Even if you're town you have to have one, you can't just float through the game without any idea of what you're doing. What direction will you take? Will you be as aggressive on Day 2? Will you be able to defend yourself after being the most vocal opponent of the dead townie? You say defending yourself ranks pretty low, priority-wise. Do you agree that you'd have to seriously defend yourself in this situation?

I don't like this post at all. It seems rather threatening to Wall-e. As town, the top priority is supposed to be lynching scum. Wall-e claims he thinks you are scum. Why should he not go after you as hard as possible? And if you are the lynch, that means the majority of people agreed with him. Sorry, but this really rubs me the wrong way.

I'm not threatening him at all, this is a

hypothetical situation

. Yes, he is supposed to go after me if he thinks I'm scum.

Hypothetically, if he's wrong, WHAT WILL HE DO ON DAY 2?

He can go after me as hard as he pleases, yes, but I can't be a scumteam of one. I'd have to have scumbuddies, right? And if I'm the lynch and the majority of people agree with him,

why would he apologize to the town?

Two issues:
1a) You've been pretty obsessed with Wall-e as well.

I've already admitted that I was. The whole town has, to a lesser extent.

1b) It is arguable that fixating on one person if they are your only scum lead is irrational. And also the logical fallacy thing is an issue, since I'm not sure that Wall-e's fixation on you is as bad as you are painting it to be.

34 pages, a whole lot of scummy behavior, and I'm his only lead. That's IMPOSSIBLE. Yeah, that is exactly as bad as I paint it to be.

2) Aren't "scumtells" always arguable?? If there was ever anything which 100% of the people who did was scum, only idiots would do it. Scum tells are an issue of someone being more or less probable to be scum.

They are arguable. But the arguments also have to be believable.

[hambargarz]

VOTE COUNT

(2) Wall-E (X, Idiotking)

(4) Looker (Kreriov, Hero764, qwints, Sajin)

(1) Idiotking (Wall-E)

Not voting
Ojanen, Jase, yellowbunny, Looker, StrangerCoug

[StrangerCoug]

Start with a statement (or end with one) such as: The world is flat.

M'kay.

Now add supporting evidence:

With you so far.

Evidence 1: I look out at the horizon and it appears flat.
Evidence 2: A small ball of wet mud will sink into a flat surface given enough time.

Uh huh.

(a small ball of wet mud will not sink into a perfectly flat surface given ten billion years)

An opponent of this view would then REFUTE the key points by making his OWN arguments or refutations.

Have done so.

The earth is round.

Why yes, yes it is.

Evidence 1: Ships disappear over the horizon.
Evidence 2: The moon, sun and all other heavenly bodies appear to be round.

Refutation 1: Appearances can be decieving.
Refutation 2: The earth is not a ball of mud. It's harder and therefore retains its shape better.

I could go on to again refute the prior arguments.

Poor examples. There's no subtlety. This is Mafia, so either the "Evidence" guy or the "Refutation" guy is probably scum. If he's scum, he's actually trying to kill the other guy, and vice versa. You've dismissed my refutations of you anyway. I don't even know if you notice when you do.

I've looked at you talk about the world is round vs. flat, and it's a good theory to play with in Mafia in my opinion, but you have to remember not to allow it to become a distraction. I do agree that the examples he gave are poor. Examples (some refutations of "the world is flat" theory, admittedly):

• I look up at the sky and it appears to be a dome. I can walk until I'm tired, drive until I run out of gas, etc. and the dome will never appear to be off-center relative to me. Therefore, the earth is probably not flat.
  
• Ships that disappear over the horizon have reappeared back over it again. How do you think Christopher Columbus managed to get back to Europe?
  
• Unless there's code that I'm unaware of, then there's no way in heck "I think you are scum" means "You have been set on fire," for example, therefore the "appearances can be deceiving" argument is weak in that respect (and can turn into WIFOM).
  
• The earth may not be a ball of mud, but other substances that we don't know of may be supposedly helping keep its shape, whether it's round or flat.

[yellowbunny]

@Kreriov: Okay, so I think that the case you outlined is the same (just a bit more detailed) than my synposis of your case. Agreed?

@Looker: You need to address these issues. Your posts so far have not been very pro-town. If you are town, you need to think carefully about what you are doing. You are the lead for a lynch atm. If you are town, and you get mislynched, that is bad for town. Likewise, if you claim...you need to think about the numbers game that Sajin was discussing here. If you are a PR, you better pray we have a doctor. If you are not a PR, then think about how much easier it becomes for scum to figure out who might be a PR. The more scum know about the roles of the townies, the worse it is for town. Think about this and answer, please.

Of course, if you're scum, keep doing what you are doing.

[Wall-E]

Poor examples. There's no subtlety. This is Mafia, so either the "Evidence" guy or the "Refutation" guy is probably scum. If he's scum, he's actually trying to kill the other guy, and vice versa. You've dismissed my refutations of you anyway. I don't even know if you notice when you do.

I've spotted our problem right here. Just because a point is refuted does not invalidate it, it only adds evidence to the opposing viewpoint's position.

Can you prove to me that the earth is round? What I mean is, even if you picked me up and flew me into the sky and pointed down and said, "Look, it's a ball." I could REFUTE you by saying, "Maybe it's a coin."

If you then flew me around the earth, I could refute you by saying, "I'm clearly delusional and cannot trust my own judgement."

The refutation and the original argument remain intact because both are properly supported by evidence. It's up to the person LISTENING to the debate to decide who won.

[Wall-E]

An argument needs only to be supported by evidence to be validated. The argument does not automatically become TRUE in that case, but this method is the only logical way to debate scientifically.

I'm going to say now that I believe the earth is probably a cube with a lump on one corner, and Australians walk on their hands. I can't support that statement with any evidence, and so it's an invalid argument. It's just rhetoric.