Newbie 1086 (GAME OVER)

[Zachrulez]

6th vote count of day 1:

Mogri - 2 (MagnaofIllusion, JasonT1981)
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.

[MagnaofIllusion]

Short answer: really crappy week at work. Sorry for blowing off steam in a way that affects the game.

I'll post more tomorrow.

If this is your response to my questions at 137 then I feel justified in my vote.

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

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.

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).

I’ve bolded the age old “Everybody else is doing it" tell.

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.

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.

--

I don't think I'm ever going to figure you out, Mogri.
*sigh*

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?

--

So you weren't voting him to pressure him but you were pressuring him with regular words instead? This is somewhat confusing... unsettling, actually.

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.

Please explain what unsettling means in context. Is it scummy?

--

@Runner and SpacePope

– Who do you think is scum? At this stage of the game I would expect you would have developed enough of a read to vote someone.

[jasonT1981]

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

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.

So, your not comfortable making a vote on your no1 suspect...

my view: FLUFF PLAY waiting to see if anyone else picks up on it and joins in so you can justify a vote as I said before

[jasonT1981]

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..

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.

Yes but NONE of them have declared someone as their no1 scum suspect..

your suspicion is null and the reason you have not voted is you are waiting to see if others can pile onto your suspicions so you can then have justification for your vote.

[jasonT1981]

haha had two windows open making quotes and pressed submit instead of copying the other over to one bigger post., those above two are in the wrong order.

[Zachrulez]

Projectmatt has been prodded.

[projectmatt]

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 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.

Also, you never answered my question about the bolded above - what mistakes did you make that were lynch worthy?

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.

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'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.

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 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.

[projectmatt]

Oh, and I was typing out that post as you had been prodding me. Wonderful timing.

[MagnaofIllusion]

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.

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?

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.

You believe those mistakes were worthy of you being lynched?

I found that they might not apply here.

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).

[Darkcoffeejazz]

I don't think I'm ever going to figure you out, Mogri.
*sigh*

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?

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.

If I think of him as mafia, however, his actions actually make sense:

-Unvoting before I'd made a single post, then commenting on my "town play", as if to buddy with the "new guy".

-Saying Jason is his number 1 suspect, yet not voting him one single time, despite the impression that his suspicion is rather strong. He also attempts to cover for this by saying he's "still trying to pin down a read". In my personal experience, when someone suspects someone as strongly as to state they are his "number 1", there is no reason that the player would not have already had a considerable read on the subject in question. Reads come before suspicion- it's the whole reason why the suspicion is there in the first place. I think someone called this a "cognitive dissonance". I agree.

-He also made "idle banter" about lynching someone based on their statistics, earlier. I get the feeling that had everyone agreed to the lynch suggestion, Mogri would have been voting along with them, with no hesitation. This is just a feeling, but one I feel is plausible. If it had been a joke in the first place, wouldn't he have stated so in the same post? At the very least he would have made it known very soon after that post that he was kidding. But he waited until several people reacted to it before covering it.


I have enough of a read now that I can't ignore this any longer.
As a townie, he's rather twisted.
As the mafia, everything fits.
VOTE: Vote: Mogri

[Darkcoffeejazz]

Also, I fail at tags.

[projectmatt]

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?

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?

The answer has to do with IC's and mods. Read closer. I very clearly had answered the question. If you want me to reshape the answer, it's because I believed that the moderators\IC'S would be the ones to start the game off with random questions

or

RVS'S. I had believed that regardless of what we did, the moderators would open up with it.

I didn't open with questions, because I didn't know I was enabled too.

You believe those mistakes were worthy of you being lynched?

There was some slight sarcasm in my tone, but they were rather silly mistakes.

.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

But in this situation, I am unsure of which possibility is correct, and to say that I knew would just be ignorant.


Also, Dark, I feel like the obvious mafia is never so very obvious. I think that he's been both towntelling and merely playing oddly. By this time, I'm probably expected to vote somebody or make a concrete FOS, but for now I'm floating and observing reactions and such.

[Darkcoffeejazz]

I never said he was obvious. Even so, unless a better case is presented and I agree with it, my vote isn't moving.

[Mogri]

If you're that dead set on being voted, then I'll VOTE: Jason for reasons previously stated.

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).

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.

I’ve bolded the age old “Everybody else is doing it" tell.

Again, I question your logic here. It is impossible for everyone else who is doing it to be scum.

How could DCJ’s play have been more Townish before he even posted? This looks like an attempt to produce a retro-active explanation.

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.

I appear to be on the block here, having attracted the attention of several voters.

If I do end up lynched, do yourselves a favor and take a good, hard look at Jason and MoI, who have spent this game using bad logic to tunnel other players. If they are indeed town, they seriously need to reassess the logic of their arguments.

Examples forthcoming.

[Mogri]

#17: In a single post, Jason votes, unvotes, then votes Rocky.

#19: MoI also votes Rocky.

#27: Jason votes projectmatt, claiming that matt's unvote "sounds like nervous mafia to me."

Bad logic count: 1

#36: Jason claims to not understand why it's relevant that he's IC and not a newbie.

#40: MoI suggests that it's irrelevant that Jason's IC and not a newbie.

#41: Jason jumps on matt for the following "contradiction":

he says scum are careful and precise in what they say... then says about how he is cautious..

Yea, scumslip!

In fact, that is not a contradiction at all.

Bad logic count: 2

#47: Jason asks why I'm still in RVS. His post quotes me as placing a non-RVS vote.

#48: Jason claims suspicion of Rocky, but greater suspicion of matt and me.

#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

#68: MoI insists that I think Jason attacking me is scummy, despite me saying otherwise. MoI votes for me, claiming "scum motivated play."

#88: MoI continues to insist that I think Jason's attack on me is scummy. I am not sure why I'd lie about this. MoI accuses me of dodging his loaded question. He says he'll explain his reasoning once I answer it.

#91: MoI's explanation for his vote is apparently that my reaction "isn't one I'd expect from town." Rock-solid reasoning.

#98: In response to a direct question, MoI claims a null read on Jason, stating that he should have a good read on him in the next week and that he has "Jason-specific tells." (This was five days ago.)

#107: Jason says that matt is "the most solid read" and that it's "easy to see why."

#112: Jason is still harping on the epicmafia confusion, even though it's been explained already.

#116: Jason says Rocky is 3rd on his list of suspicions. About me, he says, "town points for unvoting rocky when he left to give replacement time to catch up.. seems to have some bad logic IMO, have a shaky feeling about him."

#124: My stupid post.

#129: Jason votes for me.

#130: Jason claims that the epicmafia bit was never part of his case against projectmatt: "my main belief is that he has scum slipped."

#134: Jason again points to matt's non-contradiction (from #41) and his "nervous mafia" read (from #27). Jason asks me why I dodged MoI's loaded question while quoting my reason for dodgin MoI's loaded question.

Bad logic count: 3

#135: Jason jumps on me for not voting for him.

#146: Jason jumps on me for not voting for him.

#151: MoI feels justified in his vote. He jumps on me for not voting for Jason, calling it cognitive dissonance. MoI thinks changing my read on DCJ is a retroactive explanation for unvoting Rocky.

Bad logic count: 4

#152: Jason jumps on me for not voting for him.

#153: Jason jumps on me for not voting for him.

#158: MoI interrogates matt.

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.

Quick, someone tell me: what's Jason's read on MoI? Does he have one? Who knows? I sure don't, because Jason hasn't said a word to or about MoI. What's MoI's read on Jason? We don't know that, either, because even though I asked MoI directly, he didn't respond. He essentially said, "I'll tell you in a week or so." Why haven't two of the most active players felt any need to interact?

[Mogri]

EBWOP: I can't count

[Space Pope]

I'm waiting on zengar to actually answer a question I gave him, but he only gets on like every 2 days... I have 2 scum reads, but I want to see if I can get a connection between them established to strengthen it.

[jasonT1981]

[quote="Mogri"
Quick, someone tell me: what's Jason's read on MoI? Does he have one? Who knows? I sure don't, because Jason hasn't said a word to or about MoI. What's MoI's read on Jason? We don't know that, either, because even though I asked MoI directly, he didn't respond. He essentially said, "I'll tell you in a week or so." Why haven't two of the most active players felt any need to interact?[/quote]


Complete and utter lie, we have both addressed each other.

[Mogri]

Uh-huh... you know, an example would really give you more credibility here.

[MagnaofIllusion]

@SpacePope

– I see you are fleshing out reads. If you have two suspects the time to keep them close to the vest has long past. You can further develop your evidence but you need to have your suspicions and thoughts open in thread for everyone to consider and analyse.

--

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.

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.
2. 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.
3. The bolded is a classic example of rhetoric. Using insulting language as a means to support your statement isn’t Pro-Town at all.

Again, I question your logic here. It is impossible for everyone else who is doing it to be scum.

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.

Again your non-voting I find scummy. Your response, which was “Others aren’t voting either”, doesn’t address the differing reasons for the lack of votes.

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.

Let’s review your statement in full context–

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.

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).

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.

#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

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 either

1. The tell isn’t likely accurate.
2. He doesn’t actually believe the words he is writing.

Given the context of his posts I’m more inclined to fall to 2 over 1.

But once again … labelling things with negative language without explaining why they are such is rhetoric. And saying 'it's stupid / it's bad logic / it's makes no sense' isn't explaining.

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

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?

Tunnelling is focusing solely on one player and ignoring every other player. I’m clearly not doing that.

Should I not be allowed to question players based on their play simply because they are not IC / SE?

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.

I’ve stated I will have a good read on Jason based on observing his play and knowing his meta. You don’t have to like that but asserting that it is scummy is at best disingenuous. Especially since you are more or less pulling the "Poor little me being picked on by the big, mean bullies" card.

[Space Pope]

Obvious one is Zengar, but I'm waiting on him to actually post an answer to my question to which I have more. The other I don't want to say at this point yet.

[Mogri]

Okay, so you ARE bad at logic. Let's do a quick primer, then.

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.

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... ance&go=Go

I have no evidence to suggest that your usage is not specific to you. This is possibly a false attribution fallacy.

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.

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.

Using insulting language as a means to support your statement isn’t Pro-Town at all.

Because you said so? This is essentially an appeal to authority, where you are the authority.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not only are you deflecting, you are also dodging the question. But the easy answer is here:

Why haven't two of the most active players felt any need to interact?

You are asking for my reads on the four

least

active players. This doesn't even begin to answer the question of why you and Jason have been talking to everyone except each other.

For the record, though, I have no particular read on the four players you mention. They've been keeping a low profile relative to the other players.

[MagnaofIllusion]

I have no evidence to suggest that your usage is not specific to you. This is possibly a false attribution fallacy.

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.

Once again you are trying to discredit the use of a specific term as opposed to addressing the logical scum mentality shown in your play which for the record is your inconsitent standards for voting and Cognitive Dissonance you showed regarding Jason.

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.

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.

Because you said so? This is essentially an appeal to authority, where you are the authority.

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.

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.

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.

Matt may be scum not for playing cautiously but for stating that scum always play that way when he should, if Town, know that it isn’t a valid argument.

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.

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.

Not only are you deflecting, you are also dodging the question

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.

This doesn't even begin to answer the question of why you and Jason have been talking to everyone except each other.

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.

Yet suddenly I’m interacting with everyone but Jason.

Which behavior am I doing again? Feel free to decide so I can address it.

[Darkcoffeejazz]

Projectmatt, when you get on, I know you've tried to unvote several times now, but perhaps you should try it one more time.
This time using ALL CAPS and bolding the word "UNVOTE". Ok?

[Darkcoffeejazz]

EBWOP: Meant to add this in, sorry. As an addition to teh above post, I meant to say one thing:

Mogri, while we're on the subject of logical fallacies and using them against people, why don't you review your own Appeals to Ridicule?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... icule.html

Aka "So you ARE bad at logic", which is, technically, a way of trying to discredit the person you are arguing against.