Semi wrote:If you think extending the bet makes you look desperate, then why were you so desperate to be extending that bet when you only had two votes on you? Is L-5 something to be worried about?
Several others had expressed suspicion of me at the time. THOSE made it FAR more than L-5, and most likely are what made it L-2 or so. Expressing suspicions, and then later acting on them.
Just because you give an explanation as to why you are doing something, it doesn't mean that it is not a contradiction.
Yes, yes it does mean that it isn't a contradiction.
If I give proof, and evidence, as to why what I says doesn't contradict itself, and sometimes even AUGMENTS itself instead of a supposed contradiction...then there's no contradiction in there. I've been accused of contradicting myself when the arguments were meant to augment each other before. Was it 742? I think it came up once or twice in there, at least.
It's still a contradiction and explanations don't always make everything all better.
When explanations are backed up with proof, they're more likely to be true, no?
It should make things better, and prove why it's not a contradiction.
Inconsistency-->Scum tell.
Augmentation-->Town Tell.
You can point back to your meta and say that you did something as town, but how do we know that you don't do it as scum?
You can't for 100%. However, you CAN say that I have done it before, and that it isn't a scum tell from me. And if not a scum tell, then it'd be a null/town tell.
Simple reasoning.
If you do all sorts of different things as town it would be easy to find one of them where behavior overlaps.
Of course I've done all sorts of different things as town.
760--lots of information, not much analysis, not very good reasoning behind votes, vanilla.
141--tunneled heavily on the cop, fell behind, vanilla.
763--Aggressive, pushed cases, didn't give up, slight tunneling, vanilla.
That's the most I can think of off the top of my head that are completed games where I shared the same role and acted differently. As you can see, they don't have much in common.
So, no, not easy to find what overlaps.
Also using meta as a defense is bad
Yet I've ALWAYS done it.
In 688, I was ready to defend my viewpoint by quoting things I've said in legends and lore, amongst others.
In 735 and 742, I was wishing really badly that I could show them the other, ongoing game to prove how my meta was that of the cop.
In 762, I was prepared to defend my play as the doctor if I had been forced to claim by citing my reference on other sites as the doctor.
I've always used Meta in my defense. For it is a very powerful weapon, NOT to be ignored. It can show why an opinion of mine isn't scummy, but rather, my opinion from my experience, and it can be used to prove why I am pro-town. Why not use it in defense?
I've had no problems with it,
And don't think I ever will.
because it means you are aware that you are doing something that you did as town meaning you'd be aware of that fact if you were scum.
If this is an excuse to call me scum, I'm calling BS.
I'm aware of having done something as town in the past. So, what? It's history, it's experience. I'd be aware of the fact if I were scum, sure, but I'd also be well aware of this fact as a pro-town player, you know.
If you've done the exact same thing many times as town
I haven't really done something a huge amount as town. I constantly change. My free time (or lack there of), the number of games I'm in, pretty much everything, causes my view on two different games with identical roles to be completely different.
whats to stop you from doing it as scum as well?
Not much, other than the evidence I've laid forward that points to me not being scum.
You claim that different games have different circumstances
Show me two games where the circumstances are the same, please. I'd be interested to see it. Circumstances are always different. There's no "claim" in it.
so how can you use these different circumstances as defenses for each other and only as defenses for each other?
Because they help prove I am town. Do I need any more reason to use them than that?
You make it into a one-way
I'll run over/steamroll any who are traveling on the wrong way of the street, Semi.
Seriously, though. Metagaming me in attack won't work, for I can cite the reason for the change. In defense, it does, due to me being able to prove why I'm playing the way I am, as a pro-town player.
and that is the majority of your defense.
There's nothing wrong with using meta as a defense. Absolutely nothing. Let people check out games for themselves to prove the meta claim. And if the story checks up, they're not lying. If it DOES check up, however, (For example, 760 clearly has GLaDOS offering a bet to Albert, who accepted--they were both town. This successful move [both thought each other pro-town shortly after that] helped win the game, and was inspiration for me.) then they're far less likely to be scum.
If metagaming you doesn't work in finding you scum
Because I can cite the change in style between games, hence, nullifying the attack as the story will check out with research.
explain how it would work for finding you town.
Because it shows why I am doing things similarly to what I did previously as town, thereby making me more likely to be town, as the story would, again, check out to prove any claim that I were to make.
You are claiming that you aren't strawmanning
Off the top of my head, I can't think of an example where I've accused another of strawmanning when they haven't accused me of the same.
The reasoning:
Because I don't believe in it.
Strawmanning is a tell that never works. It's something I'd never do, and have never done.
So, yes, I will not strawman. There'd be no point in making my opponent's attacks/defenses weaker, when I already have enough knowledge of my role (pro-town player) to defend, and have found enough to attack them.
Why strawman when you can, even more easily, just provide a good, solid case?
I don't see an example coming to mind.
It's a stupid supposed tell.
even when it is pointed out to you that you are.
I. Don't. Strawman.
Let's make that perfectly clear.
I ask others how they think that I am strawmanning.
If they provide evidence to it, I shoot it down.
If they don't, they're more likely to be scum, for making an accusation and not being able to back it up.
Strawmanning, essentially, has the wiki definition of weakening opponents' attacks/defenses and/or strengthening your own. I've done none of those things. And if someone disagrees and points the supposed strawman out, then I can defend against said accusations with proof of why it is not the case.
You aren't giving an explanation as to why it isn't strawmanning,
Let's see...
-I haven't strawmanned in the past, nor accused others of it, nor believe in it.
-Strawmanning involves making an argument stronger/weaker. If people can't show me HOW I am doing this, then I can't explain why it isn't strawmannning except for the first option.
I can't defend against an imaginary attack.
Saying I'm strawmanning without showing why qualifies.
Also, just a question--
Wouldn't, in theory, saying that I am strawmanning my argument yet failing to show why...be a strawman itself, for basically shooting down my argument with little/no reasoning?
you're just saying that it isn't, which is ignoring the original argument further.
I'm addressing the points. And answering them. And asking questions of my own. And scum hunting. If people fail to give the reasoning, then I can't address the points, for the points just don't exist.
How is a refusal to bet scummy?
SEVERAL reasons.
1: Scum are cautious more often than not. Caution-->Scum tell. You should know this is my belief. Look at 742 (Jeff, goon, had the chance to hammer, but didn't.), or 763 (A GAME YOU WERE IN, where Tubby, M. Roleblocker, had the chance to hammer, but didn't) for evidence of this.
Not taking a bet is a form of this.
They're showing caution.
Refusing to take a true risk.
They'd KNOW they'd lose the bet.
So they wouldn't take it.
By not taking the bet, they're effectively saying that they're not even 90% sure that I'm scum. They're showing doubt.
Caution.
A scum tell.
Where as, a town player will be reckless more often than not, in my experience. I've never seen reckless scum. I've seen plenty of reckless town, however, and it's due to this that I came to the belief of Recklessness being a Town tell.
Taking a bet is gambling.
It's taking a gambit in the hopes of succeeding.
It's reckless.
And it's a town tell.
ownies don't KNOW the alignment of anyone other than themselves
But still are going to be more reckless.
so for them this bet can never be a sure thing.
Caution-->Scum tell. I should make a wiki article on that, or something. Giving proof as to why Caution is a scum's friend, Recklessness is a town's friend (up to a point).
It doesn't say as much about their alignment as it says what kind of gambler they are.
Oh, I disagree. It reveals rather some bit. Like who is a cautious player, who is more likely to be scum.
If replacing out is a scum tell to you, well... you replaced in for someone else. You can use that as a scum tell on yourself.
I've never applied it to myself.
I've always used it on others, though.
I did it in 735--Andrigan and Kieraen, I made the accusation that replacing out is a scum tell. Dourgrim also shared said belief. Guess what? I was right--both And and Kier were scum. Oh, and I replaced in as the cop. Didn't even think about it.
I did it in 742 with Kublai Khan. I was right then. Was I even remembering that I, myself, was a replacement? Do you think a scatterbrained guy like me who can only remember what games he's in via his Firefox Tabs will honestly remember this kind of thing?
I did it in 762. I used it mainly against Henrz, but Papa and Mitey were both replacements that game. I was as well, but hadn't even taken it into consideration.
I did it in 763. Chief/Sister/Tubby. I wasn't a replacement there, sure, but I did make the accusation. I should've made it against BM as well--both replacements in said game were scum.
You get the idea.
Yes, replacing is a scum tell, to me, but it doesn't apply to me.
If you know that you aren't scum and are going to treat yourself as vanilla otherwise
Well, what do you want me to treat myself as? A mason-vig-bodyguard-roleblocker-tracker-watcher-recruiter-double-voter?
Really...the only thing I can treat myself as until I know what the brown box does is vanilla. Because I don't know what it does, yet.
then why do you care so much what is in your box?
Because I want to know so badly, and I am definitely not the patient guy who wants to wait until the game is over to see it. Really. I don't know what I am. I could be any role that isn't scum. The lack of knowledge is frustrating. I can't claim anything other than my box because I don't know. It's a vanilla townie role, for all intensive purposes, until I have a chance to use my power. I also want to use my power to see what use I am to the rest of the town--if I'm a mason-recruiter or a vig or a bodyguard, or a... etc., then I definitely want to find out if that's the case. There's also the frustration of not being able to convince people, having an unlynched-as-town record so close to being broken...
Yea. Many, many, many things.
That doesn't sound like you're treating yourself as vanilla.
Face it:
I'm not a normal guy.
I treat roles unusually.
Your defenses aren't worth refuting, because the defense you make is either not relevant to absolving yourself from the accusation made toward you, or is simply a "nuh-uh" or "no you" response without any explanation as to why the case against you is wrong.
...Did...I...seriously...just...hear...what...I...think...I...heard...?!?
"Your defenses aren't worth addressing because your defense is invalid."
That seems like the EXACT same kind of TYPE of strawman that Semi is accusing ME of doing.
I'm calling blatant hypocrisy on that. He's saying that I'm supposedly strawmanning, by saying that the accusations against me are basically weaker than they are/invalid, yet can anyone explain to me how saying that my defenses are invalid is any different than that?
Ace wrote:452 gets a huge QFT from me.
Add buddying to the list of charges against Ace.
He should know better, from my views in 742.
I'll go check earlier on to see how much he's been agreeing with Semi, but it's DEFINITELY worth keeping an eye on, to say the least.
Mastin is playing very scummily.
Build your own darn case, and let me shoot it down with my defense.
I can't defend against an argument never stated.
Bets have no place in mafia
Oh, really?
They
-Reinforce my Caution/Recklessness tell,
-Help get a read on players,
-Have been used AT LEAST TWICE to help determine alignment,
-And to my knowledge, not ONCE have scum stuck through with a bet.
Now, let's give evidence, shall we?
GLaDOS made a bet, in order to preserve her unlynched-as-town record. Sound familiar?
It should; it inspired me.
Sly Sly accepted a bet Zach made, but Zach backed out. Sly was pro-town, Zach was anti-town. The town person stuck with it, the scum person backed down.
More evidence to show why bets are important.
Furthermore, mastin, you have not been refuting the arguments with ease.
Even a good defense can be torn apart if done right.
If you were, people would not keep coming back with counter-arguments.
Any good player can come up with a counter-argument to counter any argument. A defense can be solid, darn solid, and still counter-attacked.
This is a fraction of the intended post.
The full post will cover pages 19, 20, 21, 22, and then go into a PBPA on Ace and Semi, their reactions towards each other, and previous game experience of both players. (Not sure who I'd think to be the third member, at this moment.)
