Let me remind you of something: town doesn't need to worry about being lynched, only in lynching scum. Scum want to stay alive to win.Workdawg wrote:Still on the WIFOM boat I see. In any case, you seemed pretty concerned about my appealing to people emotions... so what? Just because it's something scum will do to try and save themselves doesn't mean that it's a 100% scum tell. You already said that you went down and your only defense was to let yourself get lynched.Mute wrote:This post is filled with more appeal than Bill Clinton! He flatout appeals to emotion here:If that ain't appeal to emotion then I don't know what is. This is a sign he's finally caved under pressure. And immediately he uses a WIFOM argument to try and defend himself!Workdawg wrote:While I suppose it's a rather ridiculous request, if you were to analyze ISO 7 and 8 as if they had been posted in one post, at the time of the vote, would that make you feel any differently about the situation? I agree that it can easily look like I'm just trying to cover my tracks,but if you give me the benefit of the doubt and just chalk it up to a rookie mistake that I left off my reason due to my anxiousness, maybe it looks less scummy.I'd like to think that if I were newb-scum, I would have been more careful not to look too scummy, rather than to just jump in head first without concern for how it appears to everyone else. Didn't you say that it's typically the scum players who are concerned with how they appear? Though clearly I have much to learn about playing this game.Maybe you should have tried appealing to emotion. Why would anyone about to be lynched NOT try to stay in the game?If there is some sort of secret town move in which going and getting themselves lynched, then that's fine... but that's not the case here.
Did I do this? Your bet your ass I did. I admitted it in my response to you. But my question is, so what? As I pointed out before, there is NO reason at all to want to be lynched. To steal a move from Ty:Workdawg in ISO 39 wrote:While I suppose it's a rather ridiculous request, if you were to analyze ISO 7 and 8 as if they had been posted in one post, at the time of the vote, would that make you feel any differently about the situation? I agree that it can easily look like I'm just trying to cover my tracks, but if you give me the benefit of the doubt and just chalk it up to a rookie mistake that I left off my reason due to my anxiousness, maybe it looks less scummy.
I'm not sure you are even accurate in saying I did this. I think maybe you misinterpreted what this means. According to the wiki, "Appealing to Authority" is "relying too much on the experienced players." Did I even do this when I voted for Ty? No. I don't see anywhere in my post where I said "Nacho and Stels thought Ty was scum, so I voted for him." I see where I say that their comments led me to further investigate him and draw my own conclusions though.Workdawg in ISO 39 wrote: Once again, time really played no role in my vote against you other than that I was simply anxious to do something good for the team. The evidence against you I felt was strong enough. Considering both of the other experienced players also placed a vote against you for their own reasons, I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume that a newb town see's some things he doesn't like and then jumps on the band wagon as well; especially considering that the two experienced players are already on board.
It's my first game here, the two experienced players both make points against you which leads me to reread your posts and analyze them more carefully. I come to the conclusion that I also feel you are likely scum, and then I cast my vote. Maybe I was being "led by sheep", but they had made better arguments than you at that time.
Actually, I had no idea. I've been reading Tom Clancy lately and he often uses abbreviations for all the people, especially in Red Storm Rising. I'm planning to go to the Naval Academy if I can get in... Weird!Mute wrote:sorry double post.
After doing a google search, a few links came up with regards to the US Fleet and how it ties into the Navy. I am impressed/terrified you know that I'm going into the Navy plague, as I don't recall ever mentioning that on this site. Even more odd is that I'm not even going to be an officer, but an enlisted sailor when I go in for basic.
relevant link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... es_Command
With this, you can't claim a PR anymore, if there are any. Just saying.Workdawg wrote:@Stels: I haven't lied yet, and I don't intend to start now. Certainly not to claim to scum for no reason.
I've been proven wrong (yet again). I had searched "appeal to majority" and got nothing. Maybe I spelled it wrong without noticing. Thanks for the correction (yet again).Workdawg wrote:They all are. If you search the wiki for "appeal" there are four articles that come up. And from any of them, you can hit the 'Logical Fallacies' category and see them all there as well.
Don't forget also, even if you paint spots on a nice fluffy bunny, that does not make it a leopard.Workdawg wrote:As for the leopard comment... ahh crap. I had some sort of witty reply, but it seems to have slipped my mind. I dunno, maybe it'll come to me later.
I like how you don't have any confidence in that we won't find out anything new or someone scummier in the 1 week and 4 days that we have left. Setting up a premature lynch for Mute is also a bit scummy. We should deal with the deadline when we're actually close to the deadline and haven't lynched yet.theplague42 wrote:That's the main reason I would lynch Mute if it comes down to the deadline.
I may not have the authority to speak for veridis, but I think that his top suspects from #1 to #3 are in the specific order that he named his suspects, AKA Mute = #2. I may be wrong, but that's how I read his post at that time.Workdawg wrote:veridis
Not much to go on so far, only 4 posts. I like his initial analysis of "the top three wagons" so far (and not just because he pegged me as newb instead of scum, lol). However, I don't like his excuse for posting the top three wagons instead of his top suspects (from ISO #3). He says the three wagons include 2 of his top 3. He says he doesn't want to tip off his number 2 (implying that his #1 and #3 or either myself, Mute or Ty and that #2 is someone else). My issue with this is that I don't really seem the harm in "tipping off" your suspects. As we've discussed before, information is power to town and it can only help town to tell us who he thinks is scum. If nothing else, maybe it applies a little bit of pressure to that person.
Alright. I just don't see anyone making any huge blunders that would take attention from the Mute/Workdawg soap opera, which has pretty much been the entire game after the Ty-lynch fiasco.Stels wrote:I like how you don't have any confidence in that we won't find out anything new or someone scummier in the 1 week and 4 days that we have left. Setting up a premature lynch for Mute is also a bit scummy. We should deal with the deadline when we're actually close to the deadline and haven't lynched yet.theplague42 wrote:That's the main reason I would lynch Mute if it comes down to the deadline.
I have given you information, I've told you I'm looking at someone else. I could easily have made my 3 reads on the 3 wagons and pretended that they were the only people I was looking at. But I think I've spotted a small inconsistency in someones play and I let you guys know that. Were I to point it out now it would be a fairly weak argument. I'm hoping that it grows so I can make a proper case with it.Workdawg wrote:veridis
Not much to go on so far, only 4 posts. I like his initial analysis of "the top three wagons" so far (and not just because he pegged me as newb instead of scum, lol). However, I don't like his excuse for posting the top three wagons instead of his top suspects (from ISO #3). He says the three wagons include 2 of his top 3. He says he doesn't want to tip off his number 2 (implying that his #1 and #3 or either myself, Mute or Ty and that #2 is someone else). My issue with this is that I don't really seem the harm in "tipping off" your suspects. As we've discussed before, information is power to town and it can only help town to tell us who he thinks is scum. If nothing else, maybe it applies a little bit of pressure to that person.
I put them in chronological order (I think), by "top 3 wagons" I meant the three biggest/most prominent wagons of the day.Stels wrote:I may not have the authority to speak for veridis, but I think that his top suspects from #1 to #3 are in the specific order that he named his suspects, AKA Mute = #2. I may be wrong, but that's how I read his post at that time.
As you say people just forgot Ty, they didn't retract their earlier positions, they didn't acknowledge some good arguments for why Ty was town, they just forgot. I think many of the initial criticisms of Ty still stand and the wagon was spooked by the failhammer and the thread has been distracted by the dawg/Mute bickering since.Stels wrote:-Veridis: Null. You have to understand me, 4 posts, but he piqued my interest here. He took a curious position here, went after Ty who we have forgotten about with an sort of logical POV. Have to see more for a definite read.
-sits patiently awaiting post-Ty wrote:Hey all, bit busy tonight. I'll be posting tomorrow, don't worry.
If you're town, you're already making a mistake. Everytime a townie isn't voting, that's one less voice that COULD be fighting against the scum influence in the game.asano wrote:@Nacho I am not just looking at the leading wagons but the evidence given thus far seemed reasonable. I have not posted a vote as it is crucial that we dont make a mistake and lynch a townie and whilst i am sure that Mute and Workdawg are probably our scumteam. Part of me thinks that a reason they are the leading wagons at the moment is because they have both been the most active in the thread and the team have little to go on the others.
Hm. I like this response.veridis wrote:It let me discuss 2 of my top 3, let me talk about the table debate, gives me time to look closer at my number 2 without alerting them, and I didn't like Ty's little introductory threat to me so I wanted to purposefully not do as he asked.Nachomamma8 wrote:Why exactly would you do this?Veridis wrote:I've been asked for my top suspects but will instead give my impression of the top 3 wagons from today, Ty, Mute and Workdawg.
Nice analogy. It's definitely a different approach to how most people scumhunt, but I like what I hear so far.veridis wrote:I have given you information, I've told you I'm looking at someone else. I could easily have made my 3 reads on the 3 wagons and pretended that they were the only people I was looking at. But I think I've spotted a small inconsistency in someones play and I let you guys know that. Were I to point it out now it would be a fairly weak argument. I'm hoping that it grows so I can make a proper case with it.Workdawg wrote:veridis
Not much to go on so far, only 4 posts. I like his initial analysis of "the top three wagons" so far (and not just because he pegged me as newb instead of scum, lol). However, I don't like his excuse for posting the top three wagons instead of his top suspects (from ISO #3). He says the three wagons include 2 of his top 3. He says he doesn't want to tip off his number 2 (implying that his #1 and #3 or either myself, Mute or Ty and that #2 is someone else). My issue with this is that I don't really seem the harm in "tipping off" your suspects. As we've discussed before, information is power to town and it can only help town to tell us who he thinks is scum. If nothing else, maybe it applies a little bit of pressure to that person.
You don't arrest a guy for a broken tail-light if you think he might lead you to his hideout.
I definitely agree with the first and last points. Personally, the "initial criticisms" argument is a little wobbly for me. It seemed like one of the main arguments against Ty earlier was that he wasn't being specific enough in his posts. That has seemed to turn around, especially with his last wall. The other main criticism that I see was his general abrasiveness, specifically toward Nacho and Mute. I think that this abrasiveness is more arrogant-townie than arrogant-scum, but I don't think that its a true towntell. Also, Ty seems to be tunneling on Workdawg, just like Mute. Possible Ty/Mute team? A possibility as I'm looking at the last couple pages, ignoring the first few pages.veridis wrote:As you say people just forgot Ty, they didn't retract their earlier positions, they didn't acknowledge some good arguments for why Ty was town, they just forgot. I think many of the initial criticisms of Ty still stand and the wagon was spooked by the failhammer and the thread has been distracted by the dawg/Mute bickering since.Stels wrote:-Veridis: Null. You have to understand me, 4 posts, but he piqued my interest here. He took a curious position here, went after Ty who we have forgotten about with an sort of logical POV. Have to see more for a definite read.
this ^Nachomamma8 wrote:I'd love if Mute and Workdawg worked on developing cases on their #2 suspects though because these walls are going overboard and even if one of you is right about the other, there are scumbuddies.
I have.Neuky wrote:this ^Nachomamma8 wrote:I'd love if Mute and Workdawg worked on developing cases on their #2 suspects though because these walls are going overboard and even if one of you is right about the other, there are scumbuddies.
One of you guys may be right about the other - but consider the possibility that town is tunnelling town..
I've got some time on Sunday, so I'll post tomorrow, something a bit more substantive.
