Seemingly Normal Mafia (Over)

[magnus_orion]

obligatory

vote: kairyuu

for being scum because I'm not

Awaiting confirmations. Until then, with 20 alive, it takes 11 to lynch.

The phrasing here suggests that we can start right away. Assuming this to be the case, I will

Vote: Jack

. This is not a random vote.

It's you!!!!

Vote: Haschel Cedricson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjGlzBl60rY

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

um... kise, what are you talking about?


dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-1

Jack - 1

(Haschel Cedricson)

magnus_orion - 1

(Kairyuu)

Haschel Cedricson - 1

(Flareonage)

Flareonage - 1

(Kyle99)

Farside22 - 1

(bv310)

RichardGHP - 1

(TheLonging)

ElectricBadger - 1

(Farside22)

DeeJayCee - 1

(danakillsu)

Not Voting - 12

(Kise, DocPotter, Jack, magnus_orion, RichardGHP, ElectricBadger, Anon, Toonfighter, Primate, DeeJayCee, Nul, Seacore, bv310)

With 20 alive, it takes 11 to lynch.

Still to confirm:
Anon

---

@primate: would it be a safe assumption that you're joking, or should I unvote?

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

@primate: would it be safe to assume you're joking, or should I unvote?

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

@magnus: I will hunt you down and kill you if you do not cease that ridiculous attempt at being funny immediately. Do not forget,

I know where you live

(well, where the rest of your family lives and where you go back to during breaks from school anyway . . . MOVING ON).

A note: Today is going to be rather busy, and so is tomorrow, so don't expect anything out of me until Friday. V/LA until then.

Trust me when I say that I have no idea what you are talking about, however, I can say with absolute certainty that, other than posting the video, absolutely none of my actions in this game have been motivated by an attempt to be funny.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

It looks like he's making a ridiculous claim in every single post he makes....
Maybe there's a reason for this, outside trying to mess with the town?

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

unvote vote: electricBadger

You're just itching to accuse people, eh?
Do you have a theory why Primate's been doing what he's doing?

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

yep, electric badger is scum.

And for the record, I don't think primate is doing this entirely randomly

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

First things first. If I'm right, primate should know what I'm thinking already, so, primate, am I right?

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Also, you asked for my theory on Primate but refused to present one of your own when I asked, although you've mentioned repeatedly that it doesn't seem random. It seems like you're trying to get someone else to make your case for you. If his jokes aren't random, what purpose could they serve? Why are you sending comments into the void and not asking Primate about his reasons rather than me?

This is why you're scum.
You're immediately taking the situation, and turning it to try to corner me.
The reason that you're scum is that you suspected flareonage while not having a theory as to what was behind primate's actions. I'm not going to press this heavily though, since it isn't logical so much as gut.

The reason I say that its not random, but I don't say what it is, well, I have a good reason for it, even if I don't say my reason.

I still think you're scum. Your post didn't do anything to change my mind. Its your job to convince me I'm wrong now.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

I generally assume the opposite. I find I'm much more successful that way.

And... uh.... you won't hear much more about it... don't expect me to fully elaborate... This is something you'll just have to take my word for. It doesn't make that big a difference anyway

Its irrelevant whether post 40 was serious, I used it to provoke reaction, and then judged your reaction to be scummy.

Hi welcome to mafia scum, unless that's an alt, I was here before you were.

Vote:magnus_orion

Your job to convince me I'm wrong.

If your implicitly saying I'm scum, fine, I'll do my best to convince you otherwise.
If you want me to disprove that you voted me... well... you just did, I can't disprove that.
If you're just trying to prove a point, that's rather silly, we only have 18 days once jebus says the day has officially started, so I'd rather not fool around with that sort of thing. I'm used to longer day phases.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

You seem mostly interested in defending yourself against my accusations. So, do you have any suspects yet? Why aren't you interrogating them?

I'll tell you what I'm interested in. I'm interested in finding scum. Your reactions have been knee jerk, and lack the critical thought of someone really interested in finding scum. That, along with my gut, leads me to believe you're scum. Further, you continue to do nothing that could lead to you finding out who the scum are.

Why would I push a case against primate? I don't even suspect him. I asked you why you thought he did what he did. But you decided flareonage was scummy even though all flareonage ever did was ask if people were serious. Then you began trying to corner me when I called you scum for it. Now you're aggressively trying to fight off any suspicions on your person. Its scummy behavior, in my opinion.

[magnus_orion]

And I do find it a tad fishy that your reason is apparently too secret for any of us to know.

I agree. I think Jebus said somewhere that we only have something like 18 days, seems to me it'd be better not to fool around with this sort of thing.

nice. You still haven't told me whether you think I'm scum or not.

[magnus_orion]

I am. The only thing I'm ignoring at the moment is RVS...and telling me to go back to that seems like a strange move for someone apparently so concerned about the short day. If you think there are other good suspects I'd suggest you address them yourself.

Where did you get this? I never told you to go back to anything. I asked if you had any suspects, you said you are interrogating them, fine, perhaps you could be more clear with who they are. I've only been ambiguous about 1 thing, that doesn't justify everyone else being ambiguous about everything.

In other words, Yes, you thought 40 was serious. Or you're just reaching for reasons to justify your accusation (you've already mentioned I'm scummy regardless of my suspicions of flar).

40 was not serious, and did not reflect any serious suspicions of flar, which I thought would be obvious as everything about it was a joke and I hadn't stated any reasons for suspicion. My only real accusation was a bit of gullibility.

Does that resolve some issues for you?

No, I don't care about 40 anymore. I used it to justify an accusation, yes. Your response to my initial accusation at that time, I felt, independent of my feelings concerning 40, was scummy enough to vote you. Every single point I use against you doesn't have to be valid. My vote is largely based off of gut, as I stated previously... this shouldn't be impossible to understand. Its your general approach, intangible things, like your attitude, and how you react. (I've been generally successful in finding scum this way, so its rather amusing how much people often get upset over it)

I believe the reason you voted me was because I called someone scummy without suitable evidence. Since you're condemning Jack for not saying it to you, should I assume there is, in fact, suitable evidence

The only person I've called scum in this game is you. Please stop acting like I'm trying to accuse other people as well.

You're just itching to accuse people, eh?
Do you have a theory why Primate's been doing what he's doing?

On what do you base this? What accusations do you see other than his fake one against Flare?

yep, electric badger is scum.

And for the record, I don't think primate is doing this entirely randomly

What is this???? It looks to me like some BS confirmation of your vote, the confirmation and vote both being based on NOTHING!

There is no way I'm voting for anyone else right now, that's for sure.

unvote vote:magnus_orion

Jack, I doubt anyone does, but I know I don't enjoy your very brief commentary. You should give reasons for voting for someone, it's not just their job to prove you wrong (whether or not that is the way he treats voting). In other words, you are making yourself no less scummy than him by adopting his methods.

In order:
gut.

Um... well its not BS, just me affirming what I thought previously.

I'd like to see your rationale for why my actions are scummy (you've only stated what actions you think are scummy). Especially given that what I've been doing, in your view, is just an extension of the RVS (now, I don't think that that's true, but it's interesting that you think the RVS [or at least, the thought behind it] is scummy)

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Finally, there's this. It's a terrible sentence, but if I read it right, you are saying that you have a reason which you will not tell us for voting for EB. But what about this?

You read it wrong. I was talking about what I perceived primate to be doing. I'm apparently wrong, so it doesn't matter anymore.

Ok. You pretend like you have justification for voting for someone based on gut, which looks to me a lot more like you are basing it on something most of the rest of us don't know. This could only (at this point) mean that you are scum. You also confirmed your vote after making it based on a single post by Electric Badger that was a complete null tell.

As scum play, that seems like a rather poor way of convincing people you are pro-town... but whatever...


Farside's post doesn't show an attempt to continue a conversation with me in order to gain evidence to further gauge my alignment. Instead, its written with a purpose to convince other people to follow his ideas.

Town should be trying to ask me questions at this point, or at least trying to get me to talk more, scum will be trying to push town skepticism toward suspicion by making drawn out explanations, but not asking questions. (well, he does ask questions, but they serve rhetorical purpose, not inquisitive)

unvote vote: Farside22

I can point to games where this scumtell has been successful, if people want me to.

Sorry, EB, but RVS doesn't work the way it is supposed to (provoke proper reactions and, eventually, cases from everyone) unless you make the votes look serious. I'm rather satisfied with the result, though I imagine other's won't be upon finding this information out.


So, farside, what is your opinion of this?

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Yeah, I realize that he's going to give his opinion on it anyway, but I feel asking prevents a tired conversation of people accusing me being self-contradictory, when asking questions isn't really the point, its moving the conversation on. As to whether the questions are non-rhetorical, I feel the "what?" is more an accusation of ridiculousness than an actual question. The other questions were similar.

Tell me what part of my post is invalid?

People have to make invalid points to be scum? News to me.
I don't see anything really invalid in the post.

LAL is something I rather heavily disagree with, because there are plenty of pro-town reasons to lie, usually most involve lies that you reveal you were lying, as opposed to being found out.
OMGUS is similarly ridiculous. I gave a reason that was independent of you voting me. If I hadn't then, yes, it is a scum-tell, however, if that is not the case, then the OMGUS accusation shouldn't give you a shield from ever being attacked by someone you are voting.

[magnus_orion]

jack never told me whether he thought I was scum or not. I suspect that he is merely trying to prove a point while withholding judgement on my alignment, (or leans scummy on me). However, that's still irrelevant, since Jack did not make an attempt to try and convince others of his opinion, so there's no real scum motivation behind it, just not fulfilling the town motivation. I wasn't lying when I said I assume that people are town unless I think I have reason to suspect otherwise. So despite him not fulfilling what I consider to be the standard town motivation (not necessarily saying its a bad way of going about it), he's not trying to push other people to accept his positions, so I'm not going to accuse him of being scum.

On primate, his post was similarly constructed without the intent to convince others.

And before this becomes an issue, I should say I meant "game" not "games" for when I said I could provide examples of this scumtell working. The "s" was a typo.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Keep hitting that strawman. I didn't say nobody except scum make cases. That's like saying nobody except scum will lie. However, I think that scum would be more likely make cases this early in the game that do not have systems for attempting to continue conversation to gather more evidence. Its simply too early, there is simply too little information, for you not to want to try to gain more and make sure your right.

As to your other point, its not really relevant, because just because my point is scum like to try to convince town doesn't mean that scum don't also try to avoid making claims. Some scum behave differently than others. It would be silly to layout a single criteria and say that every scum you run into will behave exactly like this.

And yes, I'm used to the backpedaling attack (changing one's mind is not a scumtell, how could anyone think that is beyond me), but I fail to see how it applies to that quote... Maybe I missed something? That was literally what I thought when I read the post. And you specifically told me to address primate's post in your post. How is that backtracking without a reason?

dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Jack did not make an attempt to try and convince others of his opinion, so there's no real scum motivation behind it, just not fulfilling the town motivation. ...he's not trying to push other people to accept his positions, so I'm not going to accuse him of being scum.
...
On primate, his post was similarly constructed without the intent to convince others.

Could you explain what you mean by "convince others of his opinion"? How does that differ from giving a reasoned vote with evidence? If farside called explicitly for more votes I missed it; Richard on the other hand did exactly that without eliciting any comment.

PFFT it's garbage. I presented a case he can't defend so he is attacking me for that case. This way he doesn't have to respond to the case and sweep it under like it's nothing at all.
His attacks against EB senseless drivel.
Attacks against farside OMGUS, backtracking nonsense.

Richard isn't trying to convince people, he's just calling for more people...

At this stage, town want more information, so, weather they realize it or not, they'll be more likely to ask questions of their suspect than just post everything they've done and explain why its scummy.

As for not defending against your case, farside, your argument is easy to refute, if you really care that much
Your argument goes something like this, no?
1. Magnus made actions that are illogical or unusual (most of your post was spent illustrating this point)
2. All illogical or unusual actions are scummy (implicit)
3. Magnus made actions that are scummy.

I take issue with 2.
Since when does unusual imply scummy? Such a necessary premise in your argument is completely unfounded. There is no incentive for scum to behave in an unusual manner. In fact, one could argue that the entire motivation is for scum to attempt to act as normal as possible.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

I'm confused. Farside, do you believe that every single scum behaves the same exact way? In other words, do you believe that there is no scum tell that can apply to some behaviors of scum, and not others?

For example, its scummy to active lurk. Its also scummy to try and lynch a non-counter claimed cop (which involves posting content)

Do you think one of these actions isn't scummy, considering the fact that they are mutually exclusive?

Your going to need quotes for me to understand which one is 1, 2 or 3.
I didn't number it so I dont' know which point you consider illogical or unusual actions.

That was an application of proper argument and logic to your case. Generally an argument is premises that support a conclusion

Everything you posted was evidence for (1)
And then you reached the conclusion (3)
To get from (1) to (3) you need an implicit premise (2) which allows for the argument to work.
You never actually said (2). You threw up a bunch of stuff I did, and declared it to be scummy.
You never gave a reason why the actions I committed were scummy.
To put it in the simplest possible terms:

magnus is making absolutely no sense with his attack on EB. He's calling EB scum for either post 40 which I took as a joke or because of the primate theory which he's seems to think it's something more.
vote: Magnus

I'm questioning the premise that if you can prove "magnus is making no sense" then it follows "magnus is scum"

While even if I agree I was making little to no sense, I contend that that still doesn't make me scum.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

What? I showed quotes I commented in regards to those quotes. You saying your own words and the post your arguing in regards to EB isn't scummy?
You saying that you are not throwing crap up to see what sticks?
Which is exactly what I see you doing here. Everything is either well you did this. Then when I prove it wrong you come up with some new crap that wasn't part of your case. But please keep digging your own grave. Would you like to claim you scum buddies while we share all our thoughts?

Yes, they showed, in essence things that I said, and then you declared each in turn, ridiculous.
Did you, or did you not, explain a motivation for why scum (and not town) would commit those actions that you have pointed out as me doing.

Then when I prove it wrong you come up with some new crap that wasn't part of your case. But please keep digging your own grave. Would you like to claim you scum buddies while we share all our thoughts?

"Prove" is a very strong word. You've proven very little, if anything, in this game. To prove something is to show that, without any reasonable objection, something is absolutely true.

Being bombastic and disagreeing is not proving something wrong.

How am I throwing things and seeing what sticks? I've made one, and only one, accusation against you. The rest has all been responding to your positions.

farside shows proof of asking question
mag's next attempt to throw a crap case

Farside showed proof of asking a question, yes

Magnus had already said:

(well, he does ask questions, but they serve rhetorical purpose, not inquisitive)

Affirming that I realized you had asked questions, but they were more statements of ridiculousness, not actual questions you intended to be answered.
Back to "mag's next attempt to throw a crap case "

I gave a reason that was independent of you voting me. If I hadn't then, yes, it is a scum-tell, however, if that is not the case, then the OMGUS accusation shouldn't give you a shield from ever being attacked by someone you are voting.

Apparently that's it. I don't see a comment related to this afterwards.

farside shows others who didn't ask question or push conversation

If this is related to the OMGUS, then why didn't I vote them?
But I digress.

magnus rebutle comment:

However, that's still irrelevant, since Jack did not make an attempt to try and convince others of his opinion

Which takes us back to

Instead, its written with a purpose to convince other people to follow his ideas

From "magnus original vote and reason: "

Still seems to think I'm convincing others of their opinion but doesn't show how or why at all.

Then what is the exact next thing you posted?

However, I think that scum would be more likely make cases this early in the game that do not have systems for attempting to continue conversation to gather more evidence. Its simply too early, there is simply too little information, for you not to want to try to gain more and make sure your right.

Surely I needn't quote you in order to explain why or how? There's my explanation, right there.

Shows no evidence of this theory. Continues in the didn't engage comments but clearly we are engaging each other at this point.

Offered to, in the post from which "magnus original vote and reason: " came from. Nobody asked for me to further back it up. This is just a reiteration of my original point, if you didn't get that the first time you read it.

Richard isn't trying to convince people, he's just calling for more people...

Again uses this as his reason but doesn't explain how again

I apologize, I didn't know you were confused on this point, seeing how you never bothered to ask before accusing me with it. Next time you need me to explain something, instead of saying I'm unwilling to offer explanation, merely ask for one, and I will do my best to oblige.

Now then, since I assume you want to know, if I say,
"XYZ is scum, WAGON GO!" I'm not going to have people saying, "That makes perfect sense, I agree completely, 'WAGON GO!' totally convinces me that XYZ is scum, and I should vote for him"
Why? Because "WAGON GO!" offers nothing in the range of logic or reasoning, it is an emotional outburst that does not attempt to assert a defensible position. Does that make sense? If not, be sure to let me know, so I can further elaborate on this.

Basically magnas has lied. Backtrack his thoughts as far as what is scummy about me. Refusing to show any evidence of his reasons that my post is so called "convincing people". Then says my case isn't showing any evidence by throwing a bunch of stuff together and calling it scummy but his case is based on absolutely nothing because Godforbid his own words should be damning enough.
I'm sure he will say I'm convincing people with this post because I haven't seen him present one shred of evidence to contradict my points.
So far anything I have seen anyone present against mangus hasn't been good enough. He down plays the argument made against him as seen in the first quote and has swept the argument to a who can post more at this point.

Arguing that something is obvious by virtue of its existence is a pretty poor argument, so yes, my words aren't damning in and of themselves.

I haven't seen him present one shred of evidence to contradict my points.

*Looks up at post just written....*
Will this be sufficient?

So far anything I have seen anyone present against mangus hasn't been good enough. He down plays the argument made against him as seen in the first quote and has swept the argument to a who can post more at this point.

I apologize for being expedient in my answering your concerns, I see this has offended you, could you please suggest how long I should wait before responding to allegations against my person?

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

If this is related to the OMGUS, then why didn't I vote them?

Because you have one vote. Duh


The first question wasn't rhetorical and the last question wasn't rhetorical. The second question just me saying your not making sense and should explain.
Which you haven't

Why should I ask for you to show proof of something? Shouldn't you do that to prove someone is scum. Or is that just not your way?

I apologize for being expedient in my answering your concerns, I see this has offended you, could you please suggest how long I should wait before responding to allegations against my person?

There is responding to an allegation and telling people they are not providing enough proof of your scummies or saying why it's scummy then not doing either yourself.

And no the whole XYZ wagon makes no sense especially looking at my orginal case.

The rest is your opinion and so far I see no one agreeing with it.

I meant, why didn't I vote them first? I read they're posts and posted in between. If my motivation is omgus, why did I single you out?
But whatever.
I'm satisfied with leaving it at this for now. Yes, I would prefer that you ask me to explain or back something up, so that it doesn't leave me explaining things that are "obvious". You may have noticed I have none of that so-called "common sense", so I can't tell what should be obvious and what shouldn't.

Toon fighter's last post is scummy, especially the 2nd line.

unvote:DocPotter, vote:Toon Fighter

I agree.
@Toon fighter: could you explain what you're trying to accomplish by omgusing someone? Do you have any goal here or do you think your suspicions are legitimate?

my head offically hurts now.
Jester role perhaphs?
I dont' see people normally do something like Toon does without it being for anti-town reason's or something role related.

Jester speculation is normally a scum-tell...

unvote, vote: Toon Fighter

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Hey, I once used an argument just like that in US election mafia. I was scum.

So, anyway, since it changed, what's your theory now?

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Um... What personal meta reasons would those be, kairyuu? I thought you understood my meta...

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Jester speculation is normally a scum-tell...

If Farsides comment is such a scumtell, why did you unvote him?

Because it looked like my other suspect was a more likely lynch.

This is going bad on my side...

I admit it, my vote was somewhat a random vote, and had really not much of a reason behind it. I am still newbie (3rd game), and I hope I don't get lynched because of this -.- that would make 2nd game in a row lynched D1...

unvote

newbie excuse is also a scum-tell...
I'm going to assume you don't act out of pure impulse.
Why did you make the vote in the first place?

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

... and is the target of an opposing wagon to the one on you?

That seems like a rather opportunistic accusation (ironically). After all, any wagon that appeared would be a wagon opposing the one on me. Are you saying that it is suspicious of me to agree with a wagon?

Or should I just ignore or disagree with any opposing wagon, purely because of its status as an opposing wagon, and elect instead to vote for people who few to no players are voting for, just because few or no players voting for them?

I'll follow the crowd for now. Need to catch up with the game

A good reason not to vote for Toon.

Actually, that's just a bad reason to vote for Toon, not a good reason not to. It doesn't affect Toon's scumminess in the slightest.
Or at the very least, as far as I can tell, Nul's reasons for voting Toon don't affect whether or not Toon is actually scum.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Hey, toon fighter, could you point me to a game you played here before? You mentioned being lynched day 1 before, and I'd like to see your play at that game to compare to this one.

@EB: I'm a proponent of the "fast moving wagons are normally more likely to be on town", but I think toon fighter has become a special case. (I'd imagine a scum-buddy of his would be quite eager to bus at this point)
Still, I think it would also be premature to lynch him anytime soon.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

I wanted to put my vote on the second bandwagon while I read up on the game.

If there is any pro-town motivation in doing this, I missed it completely.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

@magnus_orion: You have yet to explain why you believe someone who BW votes looks town to you especially after I showed a few games in which scum just slide in bw votes with no imput.

I'm curious as to where I expressed this belief? While I don't think that merely the act of putting on votes to a band-wagon is a damning scum-tell, I certainly don't think its a town-tell either. I'd place it more as an action that leans toward being scummy, but is nearly a null tell. Its much scummier as a frequent offense.

@toon fighter: In other games you played, you valued your opinion over your survival. (although you still displayed a rather large lack of self-confidence) In this game the opposite is true. Why?

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

@EB: While I don't really care that you're voting me, I do want to point out something I found rather interesting.
At first I thought you were merely being cautious, but this recent vote calls that into question.

You see, you've been encouraging my lynch for a while now, saying things like "the magnus wagon is a good wagon" etc. etc.
Now this was highlighted to me, since you weren't voting me at the time.

Now then, recently, you've decided that my wagon was vote worthy. Around the same time you decided toon wasn't.

Now, what's changed between then (you weren't voting me) and now (you are)? Well considering that your entire post where you vote me is about toon, I'd say the thing that changed is toon's wagon.

What does that tell me? It tells me that the thing that made me vote-worthy was the wagon on toon. Which tells me you have some kind of vested interest in toon not being lynched. Since you seem to think that this is something scum are likely to do when they have a vested interest in someone not being lynched, it makes you more likely to be scum. With me so far?
Now tell me, can you identify a different reason for your change of opinion on my vote-worthiness besides toon? If so, let me know.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

You see, you've been encouraging my lynch for a while now, saying things like "the magnus wagon is a good wagon" etc. etc.
Now this was highlighted to me, since you weren't voting me at the time.

Now then, recently, you've decided that my wagon was vote worthy. Around the same time you decided toon wasn't.

Now, what's changed between then (you weren't voting me) and now (you are)? Well considering that your entire post where you vote me is about toon, I'd say the thing that changed is toon's wagon.

I've made no secret that what changed my mind was Toon's wagon - that it built too fast and with too little reason, most of it bad play instead of a pro-scum agenda. Obviously you can disagree that it's a tell, but it's worked for me in the past.

I've consistently found you the more likely scum. Manufacturing a false case is far worse than unreasoned votes and AtE. Initially I didn't vote you because someone would have cried OMGUS and side-tracked us into a silly argument about voting someone who happens to be voting for oneself - site meta is that a defensive case without a vote is seen as more acceptable, something I find quirky but abide by. As our conversation continued there just wasn't any reason to vote you. Your wagon was building with others so there was pressure, you were talking and didn't need more pressure to make you respond, I wasn't ready for a lynch yet anyhow, and I felt it would be better to keep my vote for a time when it could help the scumhunt pick up again, if that were needed - which IMO describes this moment perfectly.

I voted Toon initially, on the other hand, because - unlike you - he wasn't posting much. Still hasn't, but he's close enough to a lynch that if vote pressure were going to change his mind it'll do so fine without me.

Jack, I find it curious that after all your argument that scum wouldn't flip off of scum to town, especially if they had a townie-point early position on the wagon, you're now hopping on the idea that I'm doing exactly that. What's changed your mind?

So, once again, the only thing that's changed has nothing to do with me, personally, which means you have an ulterior motive for voting me now, regardless of what it may be. You seem to have agreed on this point.

You claim your ulterior motive was related to not voting, with the reasoning that you were afraid of "omgus". Well, I think omgus is a ridiculous accusation, said as much, so that fear should have been alleviated. Why didn't you vote me once I said that?
Oh, you go on to claim you had an additional ulterior motive, which was to "help the scumhunt pick up again", in other words, you felt it was better to save it for a time when you could use it to try to better manipulate public action/opinion, rather than actually use it just to express your own opinion. When the opportunity arose, as it were.


So, in summary, your self-admitted motivations were fear of being suspected and waiting until you could attempt to opportunistically manipulate public action/opinion. Do you feel I am misrepresenting you when I say that, and, if so, how?

The points on magnus almost earn my vote. Very odd behavior from you, sir. Definitely wouldn't mind joining this wagon. Hypocrite activity is worthy of a lynch.

I realize people have called me a hypocrite for a while now, but I fail to see an actual statement of mine where I condemn an action, and then another quote where I actually commit the action I condemn. Could someone do this for me? Or quote a post where someone does?

Considering the only game I've played with you, kise, has been where I was scum, my odd behavior shouldn't be condemning me. If you meant odd relative to standard townie play, I realize my playstyle is odd, but I also realize that its fallacious to assume that odd = scummy.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Yes, I know, could you quote a post where he does what I asked for? thanks.

(also, it was Lamont that killed you and he was a pro-town day-vig.)

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

far:
He's also very hypocritical as far as I can see. Talks down to any player making a case but doesn't post a clear case himself.

I realize people have called me a hypocrite for a while now, but I fail to see an actual statement of mine where I condemn an action, and then another quote where I actually commit the action I condemn. Could someone do this for me? Or quote a post where someone does?

Magnus case on EB at whole:

This is why you're scum.
You're immediately taking the situation, and turning it to try to corner me.
The reason that you're scum is that you suspected flareonage while not having a theory as to what was behind primate's actions. I'm not going to press this heavily though, since it isn't logical so much as gut.

The reason I say that its not random, but I don't say what it is, well, I have a good reason for it, even if I don't say my reason.

comment on farside case

Farside's post doesn't show an attempt to continue a conversation with me in order to gain evidence to further gauge my alignment. Instead, its written with a purpose to convince other people to follow his ideas.

hypocrite ^

I still think you're scum. Your post didn't do anything to change my mind. Its your job to convince me I'm wrong now.

Quote:
Vote:magnus_orion

If your implicitly saying I'm scum, fine, I'll do my best to convince you otherwise.
If you want me to disprove that you voted me... well... you just did, I can't disprove that.

If you're just trying to prove a point, that's rather silly, we only have 18 days once jebus says the day has officially started, so I'd rather not fool around with that sort of thing. I'm used to longer day phases.
Your job to convince me I'm wrong.

hypocrite

I'll tell you what I'm interested in. I'm interested in finding scum. Your reactions have been knee jerk, and lack the critical thought of someone really interested in finding scum.

This is just hypocritical on general principal of his game play thus far. He's had knee jerk reactions when interigated, lack of critical thought when discussing his "case" and mostly making accusations that don't make sense based on what he is saying.

And now I will show how the claimed hypocrisy isn't me being hypocritical, but rather a misunderstanding of what I am saying.

The first part, my "case" on EB, was designed with the express purpose of provoking reactions, which is why the action condemned in relation to farside does not apply. I don't think anyone can disagree that reactions did in fact result. Whether or not you feel the post was designed to provoke reactions is up to you, I can only evidence this by saying that it was.

How am I being a hypocrite in that second one exactly? As I take it, the first condition was the one that happened, namely, where I said I would do my best to convince him he's wrong. Is that not consistent with what I said?

The third one is mostly unsubstantiated opinions, however, I will indulge despite the liberties taken with my request (btw, its "interrogated").

I have thought critically, and have reached conclusions, spread all over the thread. Critical thinking is simply reading while considering motivation and action, as well as objections to the material being read. I don't think anyone can say I haven't been doing that.

My "knee jerk reactions" have been explained and elaborated in quite some detail, as I have carefully considered and explained what is wrong with them. Despite the fact that I have ended up voting people who were voting me, its not knee-jerk, but the careful wisdom of EXP that leads me to do what I do. As I have said numerous times, there was a game in which I used a similar tell to catch scum. Since I've reiterated this point a few times now, I shall elaborate on this evidence.

The game is a mini normal called cubic mafia, I accused one "Dougrim" of making a case with merely the intent to persuade, an accusation to which he made numerous increasingly aggressive attacks in response, including "hypocrisy", "lying", "backpedaling", and "fabrication of tells" (the last may be paraphrased). This Dougrim eventually replaced out, but, after I had been killed on night 1, his predecessor was, eventually, lynched, and was revealed to be scum.

For some reason, I've been drawing parallels from that game to this one, although, I can't imagine why. /sarcasm You're free to look it up, or I could link it if people want me to.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Looks like my quote tags got screwy too...

Mod: Could you please fix my quote tags as well? It would be greatly appreciated

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

So all your knee jerk reactions is based on one game in which you were aggressively attacked for saying a player that was persauding people that you were the lynch.
Did you ever actually say how my post and orginal comment was persuading players to vote on you.
You have yet to be clear on that little issue.

Well, I don't exactly know what you are referring to with "All your knee jerk reactions", but none of my reactions have been just an impulse response to what was said.

The first comment and corollation is hypocritical you can pretty up your words and say all the BS in the world but in fact it's hypocritical

Except, they're not. And no matter what words you use, or what you call it, you can't change that my express intent was to provoke reactions, and your intent was not.

I pointed to 3 games in which scum glide by and just BW vote so far you have 1 game in which a player did something of convincing and yes I would like a link provided for said game to see if it's close to the case I made you called out as "convincing others to vote"

Yes, but the tells aren't mutually exclusive. Both tells can indicate scum, since scum can play different ways. I'm not disagreeing with your "gliding" scum-tell.

Link: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10974
The case doesn't have to be similar, the intent does, but I digress.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

You can say my intent was to provoke reaction but yours wasn't till your blue but you have yet to say how.

It was a rather outrageous accusation with very little substance, thus it would produce reaction.

Anyone want to tell me where the intent in these two are even close to be the same point?

Both don't try to draw the conversation out to gather evidence. What I had said originally.

This just in magnus tried to call EB scum for this reaction.

?
Explain how everything from now has to a reaction from that, or for that matter, how I would plan what the reactions were?

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Ah, yes, thanks for reminding me, that too. Sorry, I didn't fully elaborate, that's a slip up on my part.

The entire wording:
"They don't try to draw out the conversation to gather evidence and, instead, they attempt to convince other players of a position."


Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

by just providing evidence toward a conclusion, and nothing else...

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

We've been over this, well, at least part of this.
I still don't think that you were asking those questions with any intent in mind to actually get answers in your original post.

If you want to separate "comments" from "evidence", that's fine. However, while he doesn't use quote tags, he does use quote marks, and those are quotes. Basically, just because he was more concise than you, it doesn't mean that his intent was any different.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Actually, I disagreed with magnus when he first questioned that post (he said something about it only asking rhetorical questions), but I agree with him now.

His basic case is: mafia are less likely to start in on someone and poke and prod and get them to reveal something about themself. They are more likely to look for something to vote on. One is scumhunting, the other is scumvoting.

Now, that's a fairly high standard. Lot's of times as townie I'm not really feeling it, and just vote instead of getting into someone. Lots of townies do that.

But it is a legitimate case and a legitimate comparison, if you are attuned to it your gut can make the judgment call.

Your post was similar to the dougrim guy in that the main thrust of it was "this is why magnus is suspicious".

No my post was in regards to the EB/magnus argument outline magnus faultiness with his case on EB and calling him scum for said argument.
It was based on substance in the game.

You think dourgrim wasn't voting based on substance in that game?

1) seriously are you a mind reader or you just making this crap up now?
2) not seeing it and I think your now officially just making crap up.

All I see this post is making things up that are not there. There is no similarities you got caught in a lie and you can't get out it's just that simple to me.
Second you keep saying things that are almost like back tracking your position without backtracking.
Well you asked question but I don't see they had intent. That makes no sense.
I point to 2 other people that didn't provoke anything as far as question or engaging you in talks and you pretty much poo, poo it with reason's that are faulty in comparison to your attack on me.
Now your using a past game saying well player X did this and that is what you remind me of and when showing the 2 quotes side by side you just dig further into this "convince players" with no substance.
You have lied twice now and misrepresented your position on a player twice.
Basically your action are just like watching a magician to me trying to pull a rabbit out of thin air. (there is other words I would like to use or analogies but it would be more rude)

Okay, okay, let's do it this way, explain why your post is fundamentally of different intent to that of dourgrim's, because I don't see that. I suspect we'll reach an impasse here, though.

(Your vote looks like omgus [though I'm not voting you atm] to me, but I suppose you'll make the case that it was motivated by my supposed "lying", despite that already being your position well before voting for me, so I won't bother pursuing that path, unless you want to.)

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

OMGUS is similarly ridiculous. I gave a reason that was independent of you voting me. If I hadn't then, yes, it is a scum-tell, however, if that is not the case, then the OMGUS accusation shouldn't give you a shield from ever being attacked by someone you are voting

hypocrite again

Read the second and third sentences. of the quote from me above.
Like I said, if no reason is given, omgus is still a scumtell. I suspect that nothing has changed, so your vote is omgus, but I suspect that you will argue that the reason you are trying to give is my supposed lying, in which case, it is not omgus, regardless of the truth matter of my supposed lying. I just don't think that your position about whether I was lying has shifted significantly, the only thing that has changed is my further elaboration of my case, thus, it

looks like

omgus to me.

dour

dour post the cast page 5 after 4 days into the game
He used " with very few words and not actual quotes that show his case
his suspicion is with no questions at all and 1 paragraph with 4 lines

farside

post the case on page 3 after 2 days into the game
Uses quote
asked questions
the post has 17 sentences with 1 paragraph

These do not relate to the intent of the post, they merely quantify the content

Aren't you supposed to prove it does in some way?

Nope, not anymore.
You see, I've established my position, and your response was "liar", which is a new counterpoint. Basically, you have declared that my position doesn't hold, for some unstated reason. Since you haven't explained what that reason is (in the post I indicated, anyway), burden of proof is now on you to explain what that reason is (which you have done to some extent in more recent posts).

Which I never used those words like Dour did and I showed reason's I found your logic and case faulty on EB.

Dour showed reasons, he found my backing off a person to be suspicious, as well as parts of my tone, which he indicated. Difference of specific words doesn't count for much when it comes to intent of writing

Ex.
"How can he go around hitting others?"
has the same intent as
"When he nuked that country, he was doing something morally reprehensible."
Both have the same intent, which is to express the opinion that an action was wrong, but the ways of going about it are different, as are the words used, and the issues they address. If you want to argue that difference of the words used matters, prove that the intent of the two above quotes are different.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Every time I have made a point against magnus orginal case he backed off of his comment a bit and tried rewording something he didn't say before in his case. Then tries from another angle and so forth and exectra.
There are all scum moves in my view. He wants to asked questions and belittle people there is no town movtive except to make a player look small and pretend they have no clue what they are talking about. That to me is scummy.

No. My original case is the same as now.
Just because you misunderstood doesn't mean it has changed.
If you want to argue this, please present evidence that my case has, in fact, explicitly changed over time. That is, find something I am saying now, that is not logically consistent with my original case.

Because frankly, I don't remember doing half of what you said above this
comment.

in relation to the jack-farside debate: I think what jack is trying to say is that it is possible to believe a townie would do those things, while accusing someone of being a jester is saying that they are doing things that it is impossible to believe a townie would ever do.

Moving away from that, on to EB:

Nicely loaded comment. Even if I'd started the day knowing for 100% sure you were scum I wouldn't have been ready to lynch you without exploring other players and bandwagons. So yes, there was an ulterior motive - to find scum. It shouldn't be a surprise that not everything I do is about you, magnus, and stating this stuff like some court drama revelation is a bit silly

Hmmm... okay, I can buy that. Just explain why you only explored one other wagon. (as for court drama... my previous avatar was Phoenix Wright, if that tells you anything.)

Stop looking up nefarious words in the thesaurus and make a case.

I'm not looking up words in a thesaurus, so I'll take this as a compliment about my vocabulary. I try to use words that I attach very specific meaning to as an effort to reduce misunderstanding and lessen the ability of others to exploit ambiguity.

If fact you expressed that you would wish Jack to be last vague in the same post, so you can probably see to some extent where I'm coming from with that.

Manipulate public opinion...my goodness, is everyone else here a mindless sheep, to be led by the nose? I held my vote for a time when it was better used to help shift the focus of investigation

Attempting to use your vote to shift the focus of the investigation, however, is manipulating public opinion. Just because it doesn't convince everybody to follow you blindly doesn't mean it isn't an attempt at manipulation. Your objective was to shift people's focus away from one issue and towards another, via a specific method. Thats manipulation.

At the same time you don't seem to have much interest in active lurkers, who are doing the same thing but without quantity. What's the difference?

I despise active lurkers. However, there is a limit to the number of people I'm willing to confront at one time. If I get into several debates at once, I might start becoming confused.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

EBWOP: ... you would wish Jack to be *less* vague ...

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

I'll try to address the main point before addressing some of the more minor points farside brings up in her huge post.

So, basically your argument is that I did this:

go from not asking question, not provoking a response to intent to have him lynched and back and forth among the 3 over and over again completely ignoring his own comments he makes about intent.

And this is where you say my argument has changed over time, in that it has changed between these three different iterations.

In response to this, I draw your attention to my original post.

Farside's post doesn't show an attempt to continue a conversation with me in order to gain evidence to further gauge my alignment. Instead, its written with a purpose to convince other people to follow his ideas.

This part which you conveniently cut out of your long post when you gave my original argument.
You see, its not all three, the "questions" bit has been played up since it is the most physical, but the least applicable of the three. The main point is the other two, which are BOTH my case. With respect to the questions, it isn't necessary that questions not be asked for my tell to be applied, just that those questions are just part of the overarching effort to show someone is suspicious.

I'll try to make this as clear as I can:
The essential part is this

Farside's post doesn't show an attempt to continue a conversation with me in order to gain evidence to further gauge my alignment. Instead, its written with a purpose to convince other people to follow his ideas.

After this part, a bit more fluffy dumbed down explanation followed involving "questions" to make the idea simpler to comprehend.


You said it yourself, your post

show's someone making a weak case off of a joke comment.

You were just trying to push a position. Your post's intent was to show someone making a weak case off a joke comment. You wanted to persuade people that this was true, as well as that the actions were scummy, hence the vote. The questions were part of that, hence they were for the purpose of rhetoric, (rhetoric is speaking with the intent to persuade). Or in other words, they were rhetorical questions. And since they were rhetorical, they may as well have been statements, as rhetorical questions serve the same purpose as statements.

so despite your case being valid, despite your case having questions, despite that it shows what you claim it shows about me, it still is written with the pure intent to push a position.
Which is why this applies:

Farside's post doesn't show an attempt to continue a conversation with me in order to gain evidence to further gauge my alignment. Instead, its written with a purpose to convince other people to follow his ideas.

Which is why my case has been consistent.

his game is turning into a marsh here, can we lynch ToonFighter?

Personally, I'd prefer he answer my question before he be lynched, and a few more people get to posting before the day were to end.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Game is too much jack-magnus-farside-EB at this point. I propose we lay off each other for the next 2 pages. Even if you are convinced of the scum to be found in here, you surely don't object to taking the time to look for other scum.

yes, this could be a problem, I agree to the proposition. I won't speak any more for a while.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

I did not like my role at all. It was possibly the most counterintuitive role I have ever played. And I don't think i played it well.

[magnus_orion]

I'd hate to say it, but i agree with javert on all points.