/Invitational 11: Pick your Poison 5 (Game Over)

[Kmd4390]

Ok, here is the post in question, broken down, but nothing added or removed:

Surely if zoraster is scum, he would be aware of the Kmd/Elmo situation (via quicktopic if nothing else).

Zoraster must be town in the above statement.

But on the other hand, surely if zoraster were town and thought the Elmo situation were worth discussing, and had been told

why

it wasn't being discussed, he would

go read the relevant portions of the thread

.

He should also be aware of it as town. Therefore, either alignment

should

know what is going on.

This is even more detached from reality than the pre-V/LA My Milked Eek post. Ignorance is probably about as (un)likely either way, but add the possibility that he's scum playing dumb and it's yet another point against him.

The fact that either alignment should know what is going on makes the ignorance null. But hey, he could be lying. This is a point against him. (That's the leap I don't get. I challenge ANYONE to tell me how this makes sense)

Nothing about that post reassures me about zoraster (still not much of a DGB case, nor a vote; the "I'm more active than MME!" comment; more "eh?" moments with Herodotus - what concern? - and "Rhinox/Seraphim"...).

"Oh, and here are some other reasons to call Zoraster scum. I think they sound good enough that I can vote now"

zoraster: Claim.

UNVOTE: DrippingGoofball
VOTE: zoraster (L-1)

Nuff said.

[AdumbroDeus]

Blatant prod dodge, busy with school and there's a lot of material here that I wanna take into account.

[mith]

"So if the Packers only have a 45% chance, would you be willing to bet against them based on that fact even though they have the best chance to win?" - It's not worth attempting to discuss logic with someone who can't understand that if the Packers have a 45% chance of winning and a 55% chance of not-winning, the correct bet is on them

not-winning

.

But it does explain why you lose all those avatar bets.[/ad hom]

Can someone who isn't me please explain where Kmd is getting this wrong? He is obviously having trouble comprehending my posts, and I'm at a loss for what to do about it.

[preview edit]I see iamausername is on it.[/edit]

[DrippingGoofball]

Quick note, I have to leave in 3 minutes, I agree with KMD. That's on account of my personal belief that lurkerscum is often similarly lurkerscum in the QT, and that ignorance of the game is often a scumtell (they don't NEED to scum hunt), regardless of scum day talk or not. My main objection to mith's argument is that he is not taking that possibility into consideration at all, and given his general calculated thoughtfulness, I'm perplexed as to why he doesn't.

I didn't have time to read the football argument and I skimmed the walls of post. Later. Except the football stuff. Not reading that.

[Kmd4390]

"So if the Packers only have a 45% chance, would you be willing to bet against them based on that fact even though they have the best chance to win?" - It's not worth attempting to discuss logic with someone who can't understand that if the Packers have a 45% chance of winning and a 55% chance of not-winning, the correct bet is on them

not-winning

.

Not really. Because I think the chances of the Lions/Bears winning are close enough to call it zero, just like the chance of zoraster playing dumb regarding my claim is close enough to zero.

But it does explain why you lose all those avatar bets.[/ad hom]

This made me lol.

Can someone who isn't me please explain where Kmd is getting this wrong? He is obviously having trouble comprehending my posts, and I'm at a loss for what to do about it.

This is not true. I understand your posts, just not how you actually believe your logic.

[iamausername]

Therefore, either alignment

should

know what is going on.

This is the key point. If either alignment would definitely know what is going on, but zoraster claims not to know, zoraster must be lying. And if zoraster is lying, he's scum.

Now, obviously, it's not totally definite. But nonetheless, while zoraster being scum pretending not to know is a fairly remote possibility,

so is zoraster being scum or town who genuinely doesn't know

. And given that zoraster claims not to know, one of these unlikely possibilities must be true. You can't just say that "zoraster lying is so unlikely that it should be dismissed". You have to say that "zoraster lying is so much less likely than zoraster somehow not noticing Kmd's claim that it should be dismissed". And I just don't see that that's so self-evident that mith can't possibly believe the opposite.

[mith]

Everyone: Go read DGB's 1180 ("your conclusion ought to be that zoraster's lack of attention is a NULL-TELL at best"), then her recent post ("that ignorance of the game is often a scumtell"). Then read Kmd's argument, and mine, and see that she keeps claiming she agrees with Kmd while the reasoning that follows shows she does nothing of the sort. Then vote her, because she's scum scum scum. Then, give me money. (Hey, worth a try, if you're with me this far...)

Kmd: Read DGB's posts where she is claiming to agree with you. Based on what she has said, is she actually agreeing with you, or no?

"Because I think the chances of the Lions/Bears winning are close enough to call it zero..." - If you think

15%

is really close enough to call zero (your choice of number, not mine)... hey, Kmd, can I have 15% of your financial earnings for the rest of your life?

"I understand your posts" - This obviously was not the case (see iamausername's post). 1275 is a better attempt at understanding - you follow the logic, you just dismiss the premise of "faking is a possibility". Where you fail there is in coming to the conclusion of "mith must be scum, because he couldn't

really

believe it's a possibility either", even though we have established that you and I do not think in the same way, scum-me would have had no motivation for sticking a flawed logical argument amongst other reasons for a vote, and scum-me would have had no motivation to switch to the inevitable town lynch in the first place.

[Kmd4390]

Iam, no. Tell me WHY he would lie. It just doesn't make sense at all.

You have to say that "zoraster lying is so much less likely than zoraster somehow not noticing Kmd's claim that it should be dismissed".

^This. Pretty much this.

----------

Mith, trying to turn me on to DGB is useless. I already think she is scum.

-----------

We are arguing in circles. I don't think there is any point continuing. I've laid out my case. You've defended. Let everyone else decide.

[mith]

Kmd: You seem to have the mistaken belief that I am arguing with you in an effort to persuade everyone else that your case is bad. I'm not - those who have actually expressed their views on it are largely on my side (the exceptions being DGB - who you apparently think is scum, and whose arguments don't actually fit with your case - and Seraphim).

The more pressing issue, of course, is that while you're not going to get enough votes on the basis of your flawed argument, you

might

get enough votes if you add in serial bandwagoners, players who decide to follow you just because you are innocent, those who suspect me for other reasons, scum who don't actually fall into any of those categories but pretend to, and, if all else fails, deadline voters. The fact remains that from the perspective of all the other innocents in the game, I

could

be scum, and my lynch is preferable to no lynch at all. If the confirmed innocent remains maddeningly tunnelled, even if the case is obviously terrible, I remain at risk of being mislynched. Thus, I'm trying to persuade

you

that your case is bad. As things stand, either I am going to be mislynched, or at the very least you are missing a golden opportunity to give a good hard look at other players - it's hard to analyse the other players with mith-is-scum blinders on.

[Kmd4390]

I feel that my case is clear enough for people to vote for a good reason.

Also, I've got enough of a feel for the other players to decide who is a better lynch if it gets to be near deadline and people still haven't realized how obvscum you are.

[mith]

Stepping outside the game for a moment...

Kmd, in all sincerity I hope that when my alignment is revealed as pro-town - whether that happens at the end of today, or on a later night or day, or at the end of the game - you resist the urge to brush this fiasco off as a "oops, guess I was wrong, my bad, teehee" moment and seize the opportunity to take a good hard introspective look at your play and your logical reasoning skills (or lack thereof).

We all make mistakes, in Mafia and elsewhere. Everyone gets bad reads. It happens (a lot), and it's ok. What's not ok is for you to get the tunnel fever like a newbie, despite multiple third parties telling you your case is rubbish; determination in the face of reasoning isn't a badge of honor, it's just stupidity. What's not ok is for you to decide that you've "got enough of a feel" and don't need to share your thoughts on the other players, or ask insightful questions, or otherwise contribute to the game beyond your pathetic tunnel and an acknowledgement that you might have to move your vote at deadline. That's not... [actually, I don't know what "good" thing you could think the position you've taken in 1284 represents, but whatever it is, stick it here], it's just bad play.[/patronising tone]

Now that I'm finished talking down to Kmd, can we get on with lynching DGB?

[Plumegranate]

Everyone: Go read DGB's 1180 ("your conclusion ought to be that zoraster's lack of attention is a NULL-TELL at best"), then her recent post ("that ignorance of the game is often a scumtell"). Then read Kmd's argument, and mine, and see that she keeps claiming she agrees with Kmd while the reasoning that follows shows she does nothing of the sort. Then vote her, because she's scum scum scum. Then, give me money. (Hey, worth a try, if you're with me this far...)

Plus her strong suspicions of Zoroaster Day 1-Day 2 capped by a jump on the mith wagon which was formed in response to mith getting

onto

the Zoro wagon ... it just stank of glee at the idea of a wagon on mith (who'd been on her to various degrees the whole game) completely disregarding any sincere feelings about either Zoro or mith.

IAUN is Town; when I have time I can try to respond more fully by looking into his case on Rhinox properly, but as he also came to the conclusion that DGB is very likely scum I think that while he may be right about Rhinox/DGB scumbuddies, the play today is definitely DGB. To the people who speculate on DGB/mith scumbuddies, mith has been anti-DGB enough, and consistently enough, that I find it very unlikely and verging on MOONBEAMS - I'll see if I can find time to dissect why later. In any case, anyone who finds them both scummy, especially Townies who find them both scummy (*cough* KMD *cough*) should hold any long drawn out wall-o-arguments against mith for now (argh, too late) and concentrate on

lynching DGB

. Most players find her very scummy, but too many are consolidating around distractions. Because that's what this is doing.

tl;dr give mith some moola. VOTE: DGB

V/LA through Monday, will try to find time to post but don't count too much on it.

[ooba]

I'm finding it hard to re-read everything - I'll do some voting analysis to see where it gets me ..

[Ellibereth]

Stepping outside the game for a moment...

Kmd, in all sincerity I hope that when my alignment is revealed as pro-town - whether that happens at the end of today, or on a later night or day, or at the end of the game - you resist the urge to brush this fiasco off as a "oops, guess I was wrong, my bad, teehee" moment and seize the opportunity to take a good hard introspective look at your play and your logical reasoning skills (or lack thereof).

We all make mistakes, in Mafia and elsewhere. Everyone gets bad reads. It happens (a lot), and it's ok. What's not ok is for you to get the tunnel fever like a newbie, despite multiple third parties telling you your case is rubbish; determination in the face of reasoning isn't a badge of honor, it's just stupidity. What's not ok is for you to decide that you've "got enough of a feel" and don't need to share your thoughts on the other players, or ask insightful questions, or otherwise contribute to the game beyond your pathetic tunnel and an acknowledgement that you might have to move your vote at deadline. That's not... [actually, I don't know what "good" thing you could think the position you've taken in 1284 represents, but whatever it is, stick it here], it's just bad play.[/patronising tone]

Now that I'm finished talking down to Kmd, can we get on with lynching DGB?

Mith is town.

[Ellibereth]

Ellibereth ended both days with no vote out there. This is Not Good.

D1 Hoops was an almost def lynch and I think I unvoted at L-1 or something to check something? Don't remember.

Ditto with d-2 but with zor.

[Ellibereth]

Vote: SpyreX

Die Spy Die!

Didn't check but did you call him scum before nao. >.>

[Ellibereth]

Oh nevermind you did.

[Ellibereth]

VasudeVa (2) -- ooba, AdumbroDeus
ooba (1) -- iamausername
DrippingGoofball (1) -- zoraster
Seraphim (1) -- My Milked Eek
zoraster (9) -- ekiM, Plumegranate, Rhinox, SpyreX, DrippingGoofball, Kmd4390, Elmo, mith, Herodotus
mith (1) -- VasudeVa

Not voting: Ellibereth, Seraphim
17 alive, 9 to lynch.

People OFF Zor: Me, Sera, Eek, Zor, iam, ooba, Adumbro.
Something's wrong since I have a town read on evenone in that list.

[Ellibereth]

Oh, I left off Vas.

[mith]

Now that I've eaten and let the annoyance at Kmd pass, thoughts on other players:

Innocent:

mith, Kmd4390.

No interest whatsoever in lynching today:

ekiM, iamausername, Plumegranate. Good things are coming from these players (though could do with more from ekiM), nothing pinging the scumdar.

Need to post more:

AdumbroDeus, My Milked Eek, ooba, VasudeVa. (VasudeVa: You've made it clear you want SpyreX dead. Make some effort and present a case beyond quoting him and calling him useless.)

Uncertain:

Ellibereth, SpyreX. I think these are my strongest disagreements with iamausername's catchup. I like SpyreX's most recent post quite a lot, but I've had my reservations about him throughout the game, and am not sold on him as town. On Ellibereth, I strongly agree with the comments on 752 and 1227 (guilty of coasting), but I'm meh on the rest (pretty speculative). Needs to post more, and would be interested in thoughts from anyone more familiar with his playstyle.

Suspect 3:

Seraphim. OMGUS (and seems reluctant to wade into an actual discussion of his reasons for voting me; until he does so, my feeling is he's playing follow-the-tracker to avoid responsibility for his vote). Has said very little about DGB, which could be a grouping-tell (somewhat mitigated by the fact that both of them jumped on me with Kmd yesterday - a bit bold if they're scum together).

Suspect 2:

Rhinox. "I didn't actually intend to act on what I was saying in that post" - That's supposed to make us feel

better

? (Apart from having them as my top 2, I don't feel strongly about a DGB-Rhinox pairing; don't see what iamausername sees here, I guess.)

Public Enemy Number 1:

DrippingGoofball. ISO me, read iamausername's post, read Plumegranate's recent post. Die scum die.

[Patrick]

Votecount

mith (3) -- Kmd4390, Seraphim, My Milked Eek
VasudeVa (1) -- SpyreX
SpyreX (1) -- VasudeVa
DrippinngGoofball (2) -- mith, Plumegranate
Rhinox (1) -- iamausername

Not voting: Everyone else
14 alive, 8 to lynch.

Deadline: 28th of September, 9:20 pm, GMT.

[DrippingGoofball]

Public Enemy Number 1:

DrippingGoofball.

It's no defense, and it's WIFOM anyway, but if I had the pleasure of being scum in this game, I would not have missed an opportunity to kill you.

[ekiM]

Reading...

[Seraphim]

Bleah, prodded...not feeling good, will try to post however.

[iamausername]

Alright, we can do it this way around.

VOTE: DrippingGoofball