JasonT1981 - 1 (ZengarZombolt)
TOGTFO - 1 (projectmatt)
projectmatt - 1 (TOGTFO)
Not voting: (runner, Space Pope, Mogri, Darkcoffeejazz)
With 9 alive it's 5 to lynch
Day 1 will end no later than 2:30PM CST on Saturday April 23rd.
If this is your response to my questions at 137 then I feel justified in my vote.Mogri wrote:Short answer: really crappy week at work. Sorry for blowing off steam in a way that affects the game.
I'll post more tomorrow.
At this point in the Day you shouldn’t have any reason not to be voting your ‘Number 1 suspect’, regardless if your read isn’t fully formed yet. Your use of that phrase indicates you have some feeling that Jason is scum.Mogri wrote:There are several players who aren't voting right now. Presumably, they all have suspicions as well. I don't see what the problem is here.
The reason I don't currently have a vote on you is that I'm trying to pin down a read. Your play thus far has been erratic finger-pointing based on flawed logic (examples earlier in this post!). I would either call that scummy or just plain bad play, and while I'd like to think that your experience is sufficient to rule out bad play, it's a leap I'm not comfortable making at this time. If you really want me to put a vote on you, though, I will
You unvoted that slot (Post 105) before Dark had made a single game post (his first was at 106). How could DCJ’s play have been more Townish before he even posted? This looks like an attempt to produce a retro-active explanation.Mogri wrote:As for Rocky/DCJ: Yes, the players have swapped and not the roles, but DCJ's play has been more townish than Rocky's had been IMO.
Please explain the game impact of this. Are you suggesting that you will not be able to read Mogri’s alignment based on his posts?Dark wrote:I don't think I'm ever going to figure you out, Mogri.
*sigh*
If you think my explaining that I feel RVS can contain information to Rocky is pressure, then yes. I thought it was fairly clear that the line of discussion was pure game theory and was part of my duties as IC.Zengar wrote:So you weren't voting him to pressure him but you were pressuring him with regular words instead? This is somewhat confusing... unsettling, actually.
So you have yet to vote me because you are trying to get a read... yet have me as your number one scum suspect. Surely that is a read in itself.Mogri wrote:
The reason I don't currently have a vote on you is that I'm trying to pin down a read. Your play thus far has been erratic finger-pointing based on flawed logic (examples earlier in this post!). I would either call that scummy or just plain bad play, and while I'd like to think that your experience is sufficient to rule out bad play, it's a leap I'm not comfortable making at this time. If you really want me to put a vote on you, though, I will
Yes but NONE of them have declared someone as their no1 scum suspect..Mogri wrote:There are several players who aren't voting right now. Presumably, they all have suspicions as well. I don't see what the problem is here.Jason wrote:Really, really? then why is your vote not on me.. if I am your number one suspect, your vote would have been on me long ago..
I thought that, once again, moderators\IC always started with whatever it was that we were doing, regardless of it was an RVS or asking random questions.This is the entirety of your response to me. Please quote the portion where you directly answer the question of why you didn’t begin your first post with Random Questions.
I'm actually not sure if I ever directly answered this, but the mistakes come in with the answer to the previous question. I thought that the mods were in this game and started out the stuff, basically.Also, you never answered my question about the bolded above - what mistakes did you make that were lynch worthy?
I'll actually slightly disagree with this. You've made slight mention of a majority of the players, but you have for the most part only roughly spoken with two specific people, and briefly mention the others.3. Interacting with only two people – This is completely incorrect. I’ve addressed every player in the game I believe. That you chose to make this a point of concern when it is clearly incorrect is scummy.
I was FOS'ing and putting pressure on him, for a common scumtell that happens in other mafia websites that I'm familar with. I found that they might not apply here.There is not animal such as a point being ‘slightly’ invalid. It is either invalid or not. Your attempt to distance yourself from your pressure on Jason now that it seems to be dissipating is suspect. Especially since you feel the need to couch it in modifiers.
I need an emoticon for pulling out your own hair.Project wrote:I thought that, once again, moderators\IC always started with whatever it was that we were doing, regardless of it was an RVS or asking random questions.
^That looks like a pretty clear answer to me, for the record. Sorry if it didn't catch your eye.
You believe those mistakes were worthy of you being lynched?Project wrote:I'm actually not sure if I ever directly answered this, but the mistakes come in with the answer to the previous question. I thought that the mods were in this game and started out the stuff, basically.
Again you are using what I like to call weasel-working … in this case using ‘might’ which leaves all possibilities open. Again either the tells don’t work here (and are invalid) or they still hold up regardless of source (in which case they are valid).Project wrote:I found that they might not apply here.
Because if I think of him as a townie, he's quite twisted. I was having trouble figuring him out, and every time I thought I had him figured out, he does something that not only irritates me, but makes me rethink all my previous reads on him. Sigh. However, that's if I think of him as a townie.Please explain the game impact of this. Are you suggesting that you will not be able to read Mogri’s alignment based on his posts?Dark wrote:I don't think I'm ever going to figure you out, Mogri.
*sigh*
Perhaps one of us are taking each other out of context. You are, in retrospect, asking me to tell you why I didn't open with random questions, since I believe that they are more useful, is this correct?I need an emoticon for pulling out your own hair.
My question, once again, had NOTHING to do with the Mods / ICs. You are neither. I’m going to ask you directly one more time.
Why didn’t you personally open your first post with Random Questions?
There was some slight sarcasm in my tone, but they were rather silly mistakes.You believe those mistakes were worthy of you being lynched?
But in this situation, I am unsure of which possibility is correct, and to say that I knew would just be ignorant.
.Again you are using what I like to call weasel-working … in this case using ‘might’ which leaves all possibilities open. Again either the tells don’t work here (and are invalid) or they still hold up regardless of source (in which case they are valid
You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.MoI wrote:In not voting you are showing signs of Cognitive Dissoanance, in this case your actions (not voting for a suspect) do not align with your words (Jason is your number 1 suspect).
Again, I question your logic here. It is impossible for everyone else who is doing it to be scum.MoI wrote:I’ve bolded the age old “Everybody else is doing it" tell.
Where did I say that DCJ was townish before he posted? Are you referring to my unvote? I did not unvote because DCJ looks townish.MoI wrote:How could DCJ’s play have been more Townish before he even posted? This looks like an attempt to produce a retro-active explanation.
In fact, that is not a contradiction at all.Jason wrote:he says scum are careful and precise in what they say... then says about how he is cautious..
Yea, scumslip!
1. Linking to what is effectively a dictionary definition of a term that ignores that Mafiascum has a specific usage of the term isn’t a valid defense.Mogri wrote:You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Moreover, suspecting Jason and not voting for him is not self-contradictory, in the same way that saying scum are cautious and saying I am cautious are not contradictory.I really can't tell if you guys are THIS bad at logic or if you're doing it on purpose.
No-one suggested everyone is scum. This is straw-manning, which for those who don’t know, is taking a non-esstential part of an argument, attempting to discredit it and then concluding the whole argument is invalid.Mogri wrote:Again, I question your logic here. It is impossible for everyone else who is doing it to be scum.
Let’s review your statement in full context–Mogri wrote:Where did I say that DCJ was townish before he posted? Are you referring to my unvote? I did not unvote because DCJ looks townish.
You unvoted simply because of the replacement. That is not in doubt. Had you unvoted after Dark had made posts that seemed Townish I could understand not having an active vote. But you unvoted before hand and have had an inactive vote since (until you finally voted for Jason due to pressure).Mogri wrote:As for Rocky/DCJ: Yes, the players have swapped and not the roles, but DCJ's play has been more townish than Rocky's had been IMO. A very insightful recap post plus conservative play versus Rocky's very aggressive playstyle. I'll be keeping my eye on DCJ because it's possible he's keeping a low profile to lose some of the residual suspicion from Rocky's play, but for now, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Incorrect. Project has stated repeatedly that Mafia are more likely to behave in a manner that is “careful and precise”. Ostensibly Project knows he is Town. Thus when he is behaving in a manner that is consistent with a scum tell in his book it shows that eitherMogri wrote:#57: MoI says that matt's "contradiction" is indicative of cognitive dissonance, which is not true even for MoI's definition of the term. Bad logic count: 3
Let’s see … you ignore every other interaction and question I make in the false attempt to portray my play as tunnelling. Do you know what tunnelling is?Mogri wrote:There's a pretty clear pattern here: Jason and MoI tunneling matt and me. Two IC-level players employing fallacies to tunnel other players as early as turn two
http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... ance&go=GoMoI wrote:Linking to what is effectively a dictionary definition of a term that ignores that Mafiascum has a specific usage of the term isn’t a valid defense.
This is a false dilemma fallacy. You are ignoring the possibility of not having a sufficient read on anyone to place a vote. The fact that Jason was my top suspect does not automatically make him suspect enough to vote.MoI wrote:It is absolutely contradictory. You are saying Jason is your number 1 suspect yet aren’t voting him because you need to solidify a read.
Because you said so? This is essentially an appeal to authority, where you are the authority.MoI wrote:Using insulting language as a means to support your statement isn’t Pro-Town at all.
This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent, one of the most well-known and basic logical fallacies.MoI wrote:Project has stated repeatedly that Mafia are more likely to behave in a manner that is “careful and precise”. Ostensibly Project knows he is Town. Thus when he is behaving in a manner that is consistent with a scum tell in his book it shows that either...
On the other hand, I see some strong consistency in your behavior. You jump on me when I place a vote, you jump on me when I don't place a vote.MoI wrote:Your suspicion of Rocky was “that he put someone at L-2” for what you believed were poor reasoning. You didn’t hesitate at all to vote. Yet it takes consistent pointing out that you refuse to vote Jason, your Number 1 suspect, for you to do so. Your long ‘list’ at 164 seems to indicate you had plenty of reason to do so. I don’t see any consistency in your behavior.
Not only are you deflecting, you are also dodging the question. But the easy answer is here:MoI wrote:Lastly regarding attacking my reads –
What are your reads on SpacePope, Runner, TOGTFO, and Zengar? I don’t see them.
Other than saying Dark is more Town than Rocky and attacking myself and Jason for having suspicion of you I don’t see anything significant from you on many players.
You are asking for my reads on the fourMogri wrote:Why haven't two of the most active players felt any need to interact?
Stating that something isn’t on the Wiki means it isn’t widely used on MafiaScum is your own personal use of the “Appeal to Authority”. The Wiki isn’t comprehensive and is freely editable so using it as the Gold standard of evidence is invalid.Mogri wrote:I have no evidence to suggest that your usage is not specific to you. This is possibly a false attribution fallacy.
No, it isn’t a false dichotomy. As I addressed you had sufficient reason to vote Rocky on a small non-tell earlier. Yet you didn’t have sufficent reasons to vote Jason, especially in light of your large post with ‘evidence’? That doesn’t compute.Mogri wrote:This is a false dilemma fallacy. You are ignoring the possibility of not having a sufficient read on anyone to place a vote. The fact that Jason was my top suspect does not automatically make him suspect enough to vote.
Use of rhetoric in place of facts is scum-motivated play. Trying to say I’m appealing to authority by explaining that isn’t correct.Mogri wrote:Because you said so? This is essentially an appeal to authority, where you are the authority.
Once again a Strawman. I’ve never argued that Matt is scum because he is playing cautiously. You are simply cherry picking fallacies in an attempt to undermine my acccusations against you.Mogri wrote:This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent, one of the most well-known and basic logical fallacies.
Argument: If a player is scum, he will play cautiously. Matt is playing cautiously, therefore he is scum.
Problem: Matt does not need to be scum in order to play cautiously.
Speaking of deflections … you don’t address the inconsistency in your behavior but attack me again. You can’t justify your behavior so you try to turn it on me. Don’t expect it to work.Mogri wrote:On the other hand, I see some strong consistency in your behavior. You jump on me when I place a vote, you jump on me when I don't place a vote.
Are you choosing not to read? You once again cherry picked the part of the quote that you thought might bolster your argument. Bravo. As is said ... before the end of the Day I will have a solid read on Jason.Mogri wrote:Not only are you deflecting, you are also dodging the question
Now you’ve just pulled a 180. In your previous posts you attack me for tunnelling you and Projectmatt. That by definition means I’m ignoring everyone else.Mogri wrote:This doesn't even begin to answer the question of why you and Jason have been talking to everyone except each other.