Newbie 1024 -- Minimalist Mafia (Game Over)

[Mastin]

I do not understand what you're trying to say, Trendall. Mind clarifying?
(Oh, hey, a short post from me! Yay! )

[Neruz]

In a related note, your response to me, simply by adding empty lines between paragraphs, is about three times more readable than your prior posts.

[Trendall]

Mastin, yeah, your argument against me contains a burden of proficiency fallacy. My argument was 'Mastin's not making very good arguments. I'd expect him to know better. This is scummy'. You're refuting this argument by saying 'Trendall's not making very good arguments. I'd expect him to know better. This is scummy'.

[Trendall]

Rebutting*. Not refuting.

[Mastin]

Mastin, have you tried writing something, then going away for ten minutes to do something else, then coming back and rereading it and cutting it all down?

Despite me having a reputation in certain places for planning things out well ahead of time...
...I, uh, really tend to just wing it most of the time.

In other words, I don't think my posts through a lot. I can--and I think I was to some extent earlier in the game--but it's hard for me, especially when I'm on a schedule, and could potentially lose what I write forever. (Remember early on when I mentioned I was paranoid about a lot of silly stuff? Yeah, losing posts is among them. ) Though considering I do have time to spare, I might try it later today in my case against you. (Cases are a good place to practice a surprisingly great many skills.)

[Neruz]

As for me bringing up points multiple times, this has been explained already; I'm really bad with words, and yet, I want to get my message across as clearly as I can. The two end up making me fairly repetitive.

This is actually kind of important, because i'm getting the impression that you're committing an Argument Ad Nauseam, and i can't tell if it's deliberate or not.

[Mastin]

Really? Huh, I always thought it just made people skim through it more. Ah, well. You do learn things no matter what your previous experience is. (Like I learned to use the spoiler tag. Best tool evar. )

This is not the case, Trendall. I have explained

why

I think you're lying, why I think you should know, why I think that you're trying to hide your knowledge of it.

...You haven't explained to me why I should be a good scum hunter.

Your 'lack of knowledge' I find scummy, and I've explained why.
You thinking "Mastin hasn't found any scum yet; he must be scum" hasn't been explained, other than "It's not a logical fallacy". That's your 'opinion' on it, but you haven't given me any evidence which shows that I

should

be a good scum hunter. Can you give evidence proving I should be a scum hunter?

That's the difference.

---

On a side-note, I'm going to stop posting for a while; we've added a whole page in less than 12 hours--that's too much for my tastes. (Mostly my fault. )

[Neruz]

Paragraph seperation varies pretty significantly from person to person, but i've found putting an empty line between major but related paragraphs, and 2 or more empty lines between major but unrelated paragraphs

really

helps reading comprehension.

It does allow people to skim more easily, since they can check each paragraph faster, but the alternitive is worse.

[Trendall]

...You haven't explained to me why I should be a good scum hunter.

Your 'lack of knowledge' I find scummy, and I've explained why.
You thinking "Mastin hasn't found any scum yet; he must be scum" hasn't been explained, other than "It's not a logical fallacy". That's your 'opinion' on it, but you haven't given me any evidence which shows that I

should

be a good scum hunter. Can you give evidence proving I should be a scum hunter?

Naah. I've changed my mind. I overestimated you (lol, sorry, that sounds a bit harsh). I had your epicmafia profile, where you flat out said that you're a good scumhunter. I also categorically said that I wanted to hear the context of the quote before I decided how relevant it was. You say that it's not relevant because it's two years old and from a different site. Fine.

Now I'm more concerned with how you're tunnelling my balls off and making a lot of points against me that just seem to be making a big deal out of absolutely nothing. In one of your earlier posts, you went through a load of stuff that I'd made, and effectively said 'this wasn't scummy before, but now that I've decided that Trendall is mafia, this backs up my point'. From what I can tell, you're not interested in working out whether I'm mafia or town at all. You've already decided that I'm mafia, and that's not going to change, and now you're going through my posts, picking tiny little irrelevant details, and using them to back up your case. I'm fairly certain that you've ruled out the possibility of me being town completely. You think that I'm mafia, and are now looking for things that fit well with that. Irrespective of how good or bad a player you are, I find that odd. That's how a person would play it if they were mafia. It would be, 'right, I need to build up a case against this person, so I'm going to go back and find stuff that fits'. I can't think of a reason why a town-sided player would try to build an argument in that way.

I might as well bring this up too while we're here. This is the best example I can find of what I'm saying above, because I don't feel like I expressed it very clearly...

I think I enjoy being town and mafia equally as much as each other. Mafia gives you a strong sense of satisfaction when you win, as you have managed to lie through your teeth for the whole game and get away with it. As town, it's great when you catch scum, because you've managed to outsmart somebody who was lying through their teeth.

Wait, weren't you town in both your games on-site? (Hmm...)

For somebody who is using me not knowing stuff as a large part of your argument (I should have known about burden of proficiency, I should have known that you weren't a good scumhunter, etc.), it strikes me as odd that you simply neglect the fact that I play on epicmafia a lot in this point against me. From what I can tell, the point that you were trying to make was 'Trendall says that he enjoys playing as mafia, yet he's never played as mafia before. How would he know? He must be mafia in this game'. At the time you made this post, you knew that I played on epicmafia, because we discussed it during the RQS. Therefore, you knew from that that I must have played as scum before, and therefore you knew that this argument against me was totally irrelevant. Yet, you still made it. By simply omitting crucial information, you've manipulated something that I've said to make it fit into your case against me. These kinds of very selective, confirmation-bias filled arguments are what's not sitting right with me at the moment.

[Trendall]

Once again, could I get current fosses from everybody else in the game, please?

[Kayi]

I'm actually close to zero. It's quite frustrating. Mute had been my main suspect for Day 2, then he claimed, then the game died. To try to put myself back on track, I'm trying to do an ISO read on the two of you (Trendall and Mastin) because well, you're the main focus of attention now. I'm halfway down the Trendall ISO read and I'm having neutral feelings on what I'm seeing. Wish me luck for the Mastin one...

[Neruz]

Atm i'm about even on Trendall and Mastin. On the one hand i have serious concerns that Mastin may be trying to obfuscate poor arguments deliberately, on the other hand the speed at which Trendall picked up what looked like a possible Mastin wagon worries me.

Both are pretty light though, certainly i don't feel either is enough to justify a vote.

[Mastin]

I still find it kinda concerning that both Neruz and Kayi are agreeing. >_< (You two have virtually an identical stance.) Anyway... I assure you, Neruz that I am not. It's simply how I naturally talk. I would never do it deliberately, and am actively trying to phase out repetition from my playstyle.

Now I'm more concerned with how you're tunnelling my balls off and making a lot of points against me that just seem to be making a big deal out of absolutely nothing.

Your absolute nothing is not the same as mine, Trendall. I took offense at something which to you was absolutely nothing, for example. This holds no weight.

In one of your earlier posts, you went through a load of stuff that I'd made, and effectively said 'this wasn't scummy before, but now that I've decided that Trendall is mafia, this backs up my point'.

Oh? How so? Do explain. I see none of that in my post; elaboration required.

From what I can tell, you're not interested in working out whether I'm mafia or town at all. You've already decided that I'm mafia

This part is true. The part about me changing my mind is not. I changed my mind about Jay, didn't I? I liked Jay's responses to my inquiries. I did not like your responses to my case.

and now you're going through my posts, picking tiny little irrelevant details, and using them to back up your case.

Of course I use details in my arguments. I've already given the broad picture of why I think you're scum; the more specific reasons require evidence which the finer details give. In that way, they are not irrelevant. Not to me, anyway.

I'm fairly certain that you've ruled out the possibility of me being town completely.

Post something I think is town enough, make a case against someone (other than me, obviously) which I think is convincing enough, or rebut my case effectively, and I would at least drop you down to neutral. I haven't seen any of those, not to my satisfaction, anyway (though the fact that I haven't done enough reading might be contributing to this; I still haven't furthered my case against you, yet; too many distractions. >_<).

You think that I'm mafia, and are now looking for things that fit well with that.

I think you're mafia

because

of the things that fit well with it which I initially picked up at a quick glance. The case which brought more of these details to light was just the icing on your cake.

It would be, 'right, I need to build up a case against this person, so I'm going to go back and find stuff that fits'.

Or, y'know, "I am suspicious of this person, so I should go back and see if I'm right". Like a good scum hunter would do, following through with my reads.

it strikes me as odd that you simply neglect the fact that I play on epicmafia a lot in this point against me.

I had forgotten that particular point at the time I said that. It wasn't that large of a discussion thing. It's a minor detail which I happened to have forgotten at that particular time. When (I believe it was) Yenros pointed this out before, I said as much. People do make mistakes like that. Also, you'll note most of the Burden of Proficiency arguments come AFTER that post, meaning the spots where your EM experience come up weren't until later.

By simply omitting crucial information, you've manipulated something that I've said to make it fit into your case against me.

And yet, I admitted I had forgotten, that I had made a mistake by including it in the case against you, when Yenros pointed it out. No omission intended. There

was

one, but not an intentional one. Hence, no manipulation. Trust me; I know how to twist words like no other. It's one of the things some players best know me by, actually.
...And that was not me twisting your wording, manipulating your words to fit my case. Well, not intentionally, anyway.

---

Sorry, I have to leave, soon. (Stop distracting me! >_< I am very easily distracted, and if someone posts, I tend to answer.) So, no furthering of the Trendall case, unfortunately, today. :/

[Mastin]

...D'oh. Shoulda spoiler'd that. Didn't realize there were that many quotes in my post. >_<
Ah, well; too late now. :/

[Neruz]

That's not so bad. Like i said before, large posts are alright, it's just large posts + poor formatting which cripples legibility.

[Neruz]

I would put an empty line between each quote though, makes it easier to read again.

[Kayi]

Long, detailed (mostly) ISO Read on Trendall. I am doing some analysis and pointing out some things I found scummy/questionable at some point as well, but I'm not trying to make a case. I apologize if I'm walling. I'm trying to keep it short and useful.




This is the beginning of the game, nothing worthy of mention. He becomes more active in post #79, in which he keeps arguing with Beefster, questions Jay on his random vote, and addresses a few points Mastin mentioned.

On #110 he mentioned having computer issues, promising to deliver more content. On #145 he responds a few things addressed to him, promising again to deliver more content later. He does finally on #175, writing down Beefster's voting pattern and analyzing it. I remember this didn't sit well with me, because he does so after Beefster switched his vote to him. He said something about "Beefster switching his vote to the easiest target." But he mentions being reluctant to hammer, which starts some discussion with Mastin.

Post #203 is really, really interesting. He sort of FoS-es Mastin for "hiding opinion under SE tags" and extensively rants on this. He answered my concerns on the "easiest target" thing. It would've been fine, but then he mentions being put off by the idea of a Beefster lynch. His whole thought process was weird to me. Not so much that he wasn't sure about lynching him anymore, but that he states that "I originally thought that Beefster's vote on me was to try and get votes off of him and onto me, but I'm starting to realise now that that may not necessarily have been the case." It still strikes me as an overly defensive reaction that, when he was called out for it, he did what he could to tone it down.

Beefster immediately FoSed him based on post #203 (accusing him of OMGUS/fluffing) and he promptly responded that he never understood OMGUS. Nothing interesting until he hammers Beefster.

He V/LA's, but starts Day 2 agreeing with the No Lynch. But on #314 he seems angry that Mute claimed, and he quickly tries to figure out a good plan of action. The tone of the post seems heavily Townie to my gut.

On #348 he agrees with a case made against Mastin and gives his reasons. The case against Jay (that Mastin claims is an ISO read), the "random-voted the doctor" line, and what he had mentioned on Day 1. He furthers the case on #352, basically disbelieving Mastin's claim that his ISO/case on Jay was just an ISO read. Brings back the "random-voted the doctor" line on #360. Focuses on it. Accuses Mastin of being overly-defensive. He defends himself against Mastin's accusations. I definitely have to read Mastin before I can make an opinion on Trendall's case/defenses against him though.

He finally votes for Mastin on #375. Proceeds to point out apparent contradictions on Mastin's posts. I called both of them out on being repetitive, and Trendall said that he'd rest his case for the moment. Immediately, he asks for everyone's opinion on what's going on.

On #388 he actually analyzes the possible reactions his vote could've had. He keeps debating Mastin (and detailing this is hard if I haven't read the other side of the argument, which I actually haven't and I admit it.) On #408 he actually makes a good case against Mastin - or that will be determined, to me, by my impressions on Mastin's case. If I happen to agree with Trendall here, I'll vote for Mastin probably. I'm definitely eager for Mastin's response on this.






Overall impression on Trendall: Neutral, will probably depend on my ISO read on Mastin. He's done things that leave me wondering, but his overall attitude seems pro-town to me. Feel free to come up with your own analysis. I... will try to do an ISO read on Mastin tomorrow. Wish me luck.

[Jay]

Oh man, what did I miss?

Right now I've only really skimmed over all the recent posts because I don't have a lot of time right now and I'd like to post before I go.

So, yeah. As of now, I find Mastin more suspicious than Trendall. I felt that the fencesitting suspicion he brought up did not make much sense, and the example that Trendall cited above, in post 408, I think it was, he seems to have picked a random thing that Trendall has said and tried to make it appear scummy to fit his argument. The ISO of me, with the random-voting-the-doctor line, also seemed suspicious, but since it seems like Mastin has explained himself on this

a lot

, it'll just be a 'side note,' I guess.

Also I'm a little confused by all of these logical fallacies he is citing... so Burden of Proficiency (I think) was the one where someone finds another player scummy because they are supposed to be very good, and haven't been finding scum? And then, awhile back he said something about this thing called Hitler Built Autobahns, which I was never able to read about.

Next time I have time (hopefully tomorrow) I'll thoroughly read through page 17 and the last part of 16.

[Neruz]

"Hitler Built Autobahns. Hitler was evil. Therefore building Autobahns is evil." Is a subset of the Correlation Implies Causation fallacy, which basically goes as follows:

A did B.
A is bad.
Therefore doing B is bad.

Another example is:

A did X as scum in the last game.
A is doing X in this game.
Therefore A is scum.


The reason it is a fallacy is it does not look at the reasons behind the action, only the action itself. A may well have done X as scum, but that does not mean that X is a scumtell. To use a silly-extreme example; Scum post in threads in which they are scum. Therefore posting in threads is a scumtell.

The Correlation Implies Causation fallacy is one of the most common and insidious logical fallacies in the world because on the surface in a reasonable real-life situation away from clear and concise examples it can

seem

to be correct, even obviously so.

[Trendall]

In one of your earlier posts, you went through a load of stuff that I'd made, and effectively said 'this wasn't scummy before, but now that I've decided that Trendall is mafia, this backs up my point'.

Oh? How so? Do explain. I see none of that in my post; elaboration required.

Well, previous mafia experience is very relevant, because people's playstyles are obviously going to change depending on how much they have played the game.

Hmm...Keeping in mind what I was saying before, how does this sound to everyone? To me, quite poorly. It does not mix well with his view on me.

Surely every scumhunting technique is [inconclusive]?

This shows recognition that no matter how solid a case is, it's not going to be 100%. This is relevant for two reasons--1: It means Trendall shouldn't be as cautious as he has been. If every scum hunting technique is inconclusive, you might as well use what you have to the best of your ability and vote with what you have, because you'll never get to 100%. (He doesn't.)
2: It shows recognition that no matter how good a case is, it's not going to be 100%, so therefore, someone who is wrong will not necessarily be scum. This is a huge hint at previous experience with the Burden to Proficiency. If scumhunting techniques are always inconclusive as he says, then there's room for error, meaning people will not always be right, not even a veteran player. (Heck--quite honestly--veteran players seem to be less accurate than newbie players, for some reason. I don't know why; it just seems like on average, newbies have that beginner's luck which gets them right more often than veterans.)
He ignores this later on, expecting me to be correct with my case, when in fact, I have no way of knowing for sure I'm right.
In that same post, he says that a SE--what I am--isn't required to teach. To me, if I look behind the literal definition and at the intention of the words (I'm a writer; I am good with metaphorical meanings and picking up on Exact Words, Weasel Wording, etc.), it's him saying that just because he's more experienced doesn't mean more should be expected of him. It may seem like a stretch to you, but think about it for a solid moment. It fits so well in that context. Though maybe that's just me. My brain is wired in an unusual way, and to me, I see this as the deeper meaning.
And if true--Trendall will obviously deny it, of course--that would make Trendall a bit hypocritical, expecting too much of me, when really, I haven't played regularly in over a year and at my best would only be equal to a good newbie player. (In other words, I might be able to teach like an experienced player, but I can't play like one; I am no better a player than most newbies.)

I'm often being accused of being scumbuddies with someone else, when it turns out that me and that person are both just two town players who happen to be on the same wavelength.

Foreshadowing, anyone? Yeah, this seriously reads like an excuse, to later justify his buddying to Lat/Nacho.

All of the above is stuff that you never found scummy before but are now making out to be scummy, often at a huge stretch, now that you've decided that I'm mafia. I don't even see what point you're trying to make in the first one, so I'll skip over that. The second one is saying 'if Trendall's opinion is

this

, then he should be acting like

this

', which is a massive leap of logic and isn't anywhere near true. The third one just baffles me. Are you seriously saying that I thought to myself, 'Hmm, I might need to buddy Nacho in the future. I'll just post a thing now about how buddying with people is sometimes okay so that I can clear myself later'? That's just ludicrous.

--

and now you're going through my posts, picking tiny little irrelevant details, and using them to back up your case.

Of course I use details in my arguments.

I've already given the broad picture of why I think you're scum; the more specific reasons require evidence which the finer details give. In that way, they are not irrelevant. Not to me, anyway.

it strikes me as odd that you simply neglect the fact that I play on epicmafia a lot in this point against me.

I had forgotten that particular point at the time I said that. It wasn't that large of a discussion thing.

It's a minor detail which I happened to have forgotten at that particular time.

--

Again, when you make an argument about me, minor details are crucial. When I make an argument against you, you write it off as a 'minor detail'. When you use evidence against people, it can be from another website. When I use evidence against you, it's irrelevant because it's from another site. When you use evidence against people, it doesn't matter how old it is. When I used evidence against you, it's irrelevant because it's too old. When I say that you should have known better to act a certain way, you write it off as a fallacy. When I act a certain way, you say that I should have known better. When I make any other point, you say that it's a personal attack on your character and integrity, which makes me very uneasy in bringing up further points against you. I'm still undecided as to whether you're town or mafia, but your flimsy arguments against me and unsatisfactory defenses against my points really aren't helping at all.

[Neruz]

Plus,

everyone

is often accused of buddying when it turns out to just be 2 town who agree (or sometimes 1 town who agrees with 1 scum). It happens all the time, in fact i can't think of a game where hasn't happened.

Admittedly, this is largely because people frequently confuse "agreeing with someone else" for "buddying" (they are very different people, look them up.)

[Trendall]

Mastin, why's it even relevant if they are 'buddying' (they're not)? As far as I'm concerned, I'm mafia. They can't both be mafia as well.

[Trendall]

As far as YOU'RE* concerned. Lol.

[Trendall]

Post #63:

VOTE: Kayi for this blatant alignment fishing question.

I find this response interesting. It seems to be making a lot out of nothing. (What was that, Strawmanning? Or was that making a lot

into

nothing? Ahg, I'm so rusty.)

Post #412

Now I'm more concerned with how you're tunnelling my balls off and making a lot of points against me that just seem to be making a big deal out of absolutely nothing.

Your absolute nothing is not the same as mine, Trendall. I took offense at something which to you was absolutely nothing, for example. This holds no weight.

---

Mastin uses the argument, 'you seem to be making a lot out of nothing' against Beefster early on in the game. When I use the same argument against him later on, he says that it holds no weight.

[Yenros]

Wow, lots of new info. Only enough time for a skim, but after my last final tomorrow (early), I'll get a better read and better post. At a glance though, what trendall says in post 419, I'll have to look into it tomorrow, but it looks like you are using the relativist fallacy, Mastin.